Syria air strikes: MPs authorise UK action against Islamic State

[-SINAN-]

@cabatli_53 , we have a issue here.... ^^^^

 

[mike2000 is back]

@mike2000 is back

Dude your country will be extinct. All countries who are in posession of nuclear weapons will destroy each other in nuclear holocoust.

This is the certain punishment of god for your kind. The army of evil sinners.

LOL

True talk. Lol. All the P5 powers will soon destroy each other and the world with them.

 

[livingdead]

it will achieve nothing without ground forces. Only you will feel good that you 'did something' to avenge death in paris. Only USA and russia can sit together and do something about it.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

True talk. Lol. All the P5 powers will soon destroy each other and the world with them.

Dude, has the NHS given a point of view on ground forces?

 

[mike2000 is back]

it will achieve nothing without ground forces. Only you will feel good that you 'did something' to avenge death in paris. Only USA and russia can sit together and do something about it.

No power/country(for obvious reasons) is willing to commit ground troops for an invasion per se. Apart from sending special forces which the U.S ,U.K and Russia have already done.

 

[Vergennes]

No power/country(for obvious reasons) is willing to commit ground troops for an invasion per se. Apart from sending special forces which the U.S ,U.K and Russia have already done.

it will achieve nothing without ground forces. Only you will feel good that you 'did something' to avenge death in paris. Only USA and russia can sit together and do something about it.

Of course airstrikes will not destroy ISIS,but they will contain them. We cannot stay and watch them expending without doing something. And BTW,why should French,American,British etc. die for Syria,Iraq ?
It's time for the middle easterners to deal with ISIS,they should fight for their countries......... Send back these hordes of men coming to Europe to fight Daesh,fight for their families instead of fleeing like cowards and letting their wifes and children there........
-
@mike2000 is back Look,even if we for exemple send soldiers there,we will be labeled as "imperialists invaders",or "invaders of muslim lands",and then Jihad funboys would launch fatwas and whatever else against us....

 

[Rasengan]

I didn't even go through all your long post. However all I can say is that no matter the action we take Muslims like you will still criticize it, since you already have it in your mind that the west is evil and up to no good.

Unfortunately Mike mother nature did not bless you with the mental capacity to understand such complex issues, therefore please concentrate on continuously eating processed burgers from MacDonald's, while FrenchPilot encourages you with his cheer-leading antics. Instead of predicting the thought processes of other individuals like a typical wannabe oracle druid, criticize and provide counter-arguments on my viewpoints which have been written on this thread. Clearly I have mentioned in my previous messages which seems to skip your poor eye-sight, that the regional powers should be involved in attacking ISIS and the British Government has no business in policing the world. If the government was concerned with the threat of ISIS, then why was the police force budget cut by 20-25%. Obviously you have no answer to my question

If we didn't intervene then there will still be Muslims like you who will still be the first to say the West is allowing ISIS to expand because they support ISIS, now that we intervene you still criticize it. Thing is no matter what we do in this conflict there are people who will still criticize it, reason leaders all over the world carry out their foreign policy without following public opinion(which is often prone to changes depending on any latest updates). Just like we have seen with this situation. The public was against intervention, after the paris attacks they became more pro intervention. Reason leaders ALL OVER THE WORLD don't usually based their foreign policy on what the public things.

The western government's created ISIS in the first place due to its pathetic polices in the region. After the collapse of Saddam Hussein the Republican Guards were asked to formally surrender in which an agreement was signed. Within the context of this agreement, the Republican Guards were promised a fixed monthly pension income and to be reinstated into the new Iraqi Army. Obviously this never occurred because the coalition partners gave the entire state machinery of Iraq to the Shia community and in the process alienated the Sunni community. These disgruntled solders decided to start their own vigilante group and the result is in front of us, where the top 100 commanders of ISIS come from Saddam Hussein's old Republican Guards. Camp Bucca was another example, how the detention center allowed 30,000 normal criminals to intermingle with Jihadists fighters who were captured in Fallujah. If leaders don't follow public opinion then stop sprouting the cesspit nonsense how you believe in democracy and the western way of life, which is full of inconsistent flaws. The rest of your message was nonsense, however only time will tell who was right.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Unfortunately Mike mother nature did not bless you with the mental capacity to understand such complex issues, therefore please concentrate on continuously eating processed burgers from MacDonald's, while FrenchPilot encourages you with his cheer-leading antics. Instead of predicting the thought processes of other individuals like a typical wannabe oracle druid, criticize and provide counter-arguments on my viewpoints which have been written on this thread. Clearly I have mentioned in my previous messages which seems to skip your poor eye-sight, that the regional powers should be involved in attacking ISIS and the British Government has no business in policing the world. If the government was concerned with the threat of ISIS, then why was the police force budget cut by 20-25%. Obviously you have no answer to my question



The western government's created ISIS in the first place due to its pathetic polices in the region. After the collapse of Saddam Hussein the Republican Guards were asked to formally surrender in which an agreement was signed. Within the context of this agreement, the Republican Guards were promised a fixed monthly pension income and to be reinstated into the new Iraqi Army. Obviously this never occurred because the coalition partners gave the entire state machinery of Iraq to the Shia community and in the process alienated the Sunni community. These disgruntled solders decided to start their own vigilante group and the result is in front of us, where the top 100 commanders of ISIS come from Saddam Hussein's old Republican Guards. Camp Bucca was another example, how the detention center allowed 30,000 normal criminals to intermingle with Jihadists fighters who were captured in Fallujah. If leaders don't follow public opinion then stop sprouting the cesspit nonsense how you believe in democracy and the western way of life, which is full of inconsistent flaws. The rest of your message was nonsense, however only time will tell who was right.

I will say the exact same thing to you. Mother Nature didn't bless you at all with the mental capacity to understand such complex and even simple issues. Lol

You can claim how 'Muslim community' in U.K will be radicalised because of RAF attacking ISIS in it's heartland in Syria , but nobody really cares to be honest. Since we have heard that thousands of times from Islamic extremist who use such things as an excuse to justify their terrorist acts and recruit more naive Muslims to their cause.

Funny thing is there is almost no middle eastern country that is free from Islamic extremist and terrorists who have been destroying/wreaking havoc upon their own countries and killing their own 'Muslim brothers' by the hundreds of thousands, I'm sure they also use similar reasons to justify their radicalisation and actions.lol


Anyway,if you have any issue with our intervention , then it will be better to take it up to the INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY and the UN who have approved unanimously intervention in Syria against ISIS by all means necessary .So you will have to blame all countries who voted for intervention including members like China , you will also have to blame all powers who are already involve militarily in Syria like Iran,Russia , Hezbollah ,U.S,France, Australia ,Germany etc etc .

Not only the rest of your message was none sense, almost all of it was.lol

 

[Husnainshah]

And BTW,why should French,American,British etc. die for Syria,Iraq ?

You mean apart from bombing the shit out of Iraq and funding the chaos in Syria by arming 'Moderate Rebels'?

Muslims like you

I doubt he is the kind of Muslim you might be referring to. He makes a good case if ya think about it. What exactly are British Air Strikes aiming to get out of this aerial campaign when almost every major country is on it for over a year? Hell, even confronting Saudi and Turkey would be more useful than the air strikes. And if Britain really wants to deal with situation at hand, it must deploy boots on ground. There's just no way around that. Nothing's proved to be more futile than air strikes.

 

[mike2000 is back]

And if Britain really wants to deal with situation at hand, it must deploy boots on ground. There's just no way around that. Nothing's proved to be more futile than air strikes.

LOL Are you serious or you are being sarcastic?lol
Just like my french brother @FrenchPilot said, If we ever sent in our main ground troops in Syria and launched an invasion, you can bet all hell will break lose, these same muslims who are saying we should send in troops if we are serious will be the first to start shouting hateful slogans against the evil west and saying how infidels kafirs are invading holy Muslims lands'. We have seen that several times before. I'm not even talking about the thousands of Muslims around the world who will flock to join terrorists groups like ISIS and other extremists groups so they an wage their jihad against the infidels violating sacred Muslim lands. In short that is the last thing we should do, since it will only make things worse and lead to many more dumb naive Muslims around the world to join ISIS and other terror groups to fight for the good cause/jihad.

Its for this reason you don't see any non Muslim power be it Russia, U.S,U.S,France sending troops in Syria apart from special forces who are different from regular troops/invasion force since they are more focused on targeted attacks/special missions). They all know the implications of doing so. Plus you will also hear many more conspiracy theories coming from even non Muslim members here about the reasons these powers sent in ground troop/launched an invasion. In short, you are damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[Husnainshah]

Just like my french brother @FrenchPilot said, If we ever sent in our main ground troops in Syria and launched an invasion, you can bet all hell will break lose, these same muslims who are saying we should send in troops if we are serious will be the first to start shouting hateful slogans against the evil west and saying how infidels kafirs are invading holy Muslims lands'. We have seen that several times before. I'm not even talking about the thousands of Muslims around the world who will flock to join terrorists groups like ISIS and other extremists groups so they an wage their jihad against the infidels violating sacred Muslim lands. In short that is the last thing we should do, since it will only make things worse and lead to many more dumb naive Muslims around the world to join ISIS and other terror groups to fight for the good cause/jihad.

So as long as there's no mas invasion, these 'Muslims' are okay with Infidels/Kufaar bombing their 'Holy Muslim Lands', sending Special Ops and funding proxies? Well, that makes sense. And how was your fellow countryman wrong when he claimed Air Strikes would further radicalize Muslim youth in Britain when you're claiming the same?

Its for this reason you don't see any non Muslim power be it Russia, U.S,U.S,France sending troops in Syria apart from special forces who are different from regular troops/invasion force since they are more focused on targeted attacks/special missions). They all know the implications of doing so

Oh I doubt that. You might wanna read a little on U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here, let me help:
US & Allied Killed | Costs of War

Plus you will also hear many more conspiracy theories coming from even non Muslim members here about the reasons these powers sent in ground troop/launched an invasion. In short, you are damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Yup, countries decide on invading Foreign Lands based on members opinions on PDF. Makes even more sense.
And I still didn't get what exactly is Britain aiming to get out Air Strikes apart from appeasing it's 'Allies'?

 

[livingdead]

Of course airstrikes will not destroy ISIS,but they will contain them. We cannot stay and watch them expending without doing something. And BTW,why should French,American,British etc. die for Syria,Iraq ?
It's time for the middle easterners to deal with ISIS,they should fight for their countries......... Send back these hordes of men coming to Europe to fight Daesh,fight for their families instead of fleeing like cowards and letting their wifes and children there........
-
@mike2000 is back Look,even if we for exemple send soldiers there,we will be labeled as "imperialists invaders",or "invaders of muslim lands",and then Jihad funboys would launch fatwas and whatever else against us....

err what? The ISIS itself is indirect creation of coalition, its not like Europeans were having a party in spain completely oblivious to what is going on in ME.

1. Iraq war gave power to a sectarian president. Americans refused to stop Maliki, or shia murder sqards.
2. More recently both europeans and americans armed 'moderate' militia groups there against assad.

Are you acting innocent or simply don't know? Besides who knows which of the american ally is supporting ISIS, is it turkey, KSA, qatar?
Sure ground invasion will cause more resentment among muslims in UK/france. Only americans have smaller/less radical muslim population and they can actually do something to solve it along with russians.
In the meantime UK and france can lob a few bombs to be part of action. Their action is purely symbolic and inconsequential.