War plane shot down over Turkey

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

War plane shot down over Turkey

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 14 of 16 < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

Hoof Hearted 01 Dec 15 10.18am
Quote nickgusset at 30 Nov 2015 9.16pm I see Corbyn is allowing Labour mp's a free vote in the Let's bomb Syria debate. Wonder if Dave will do the same. Edited by nickgusset (30 Nov 2015 9.17pm) Apparently there are about a dozen or so rogue MP's that are anti- bombing amongst the Tory elected.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 01 Dec 15 10.18am

Quote nickgusset at 30 Nov 2015 9.16pm

I see Corbyn is allowing Labour mp's a free vote in the Let's bomb Syria debate.
Wonder if Dave will do the same.

Edited by nickgusset (30 Nov 2015 9.17pm)

Apparently there are about a dozen or so rogue MP's that are anti- bombing amongst the Tory elected.

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 01 Dec 15 10.27am
Quote nickgusset at 30 Nov 2015 9.16pm I see Corbyn is allowing Labour mp's a free vote in the Let's bomb Syria debate. Wonder if Dave will do the same. Edited by nickgusset (30 Nov 2015 9.17pm) Did he really have any choice? For a former back-bencher who prided himself on defying the whip on numerous occasions, how much notice did he actually think the PLP would have taken of the whip if they disagreed with it? For what it's worth, I'm not a pacifist, but I still have no idea what they are planning to bomb, what they plan to achieve, and what the end game is. I think that's more important than whether a whip is issued.
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 01 Dec 15 10.27am

Quote nickgusset at 30 Nov 2015 9.16pm

I see Corbyn is allowing Labour mp's a free vote in the Let's bomb Syria debate.
Wonder if Dave will do the same.

Edited by nickgusset (30 Nov 2015 9.17pm)

Did he really have any choice? For a former back-bencher who prided himself on defying the whip on numerous occasions, how much notice did he actually think the PLP would have taken of the whip if they disagreed with it?

For what it's worth, I'm not a pacifist, but I still have no idea what they are planning to bomb, what they plan to achieve, and what the end game is. I think that's more important than whether a whip is issued.

Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 01 Dec 15 11.46am
Bombing on its own won't work. It should be opposed simply on the grounds of military pointlessness. Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham
Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 01 Dec 15 11.46am

Bombing on its own won't work. It should be opposed simply on the grounds of military pointlessness.

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Alert a moderator to this post

chris123 hove actually 01 Dec 15 11.51am
Quote Cucking Funt at 01 Dec 2015 11.46am Bombing on its own won't work. It should be opposed simply on the grounds of military pointlessness. What about Brimstone?
Alert a moderator to this post

chris123

hove actually 01 Dec 15 11.51am

Quote Cucking Funt at 01 Dec 2015 11.46am

Bombing on its own won't work. It should be opposed simply on the grounds of military pointlessness.

What about Brimstone?

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 01 Dec 15 11.52am
Quote Cucking Funt at 01 Dec 2015 11.46am Bombing on its own won't work. It should be opposed simply on the grounds of military pointlessness. Precisely. If it would actually achieve anything, I'd be happy (ish) to say "bomb the sh*t out of them", but I have no idea what they are going to be bombing, and why, and what happens once we've blown it up
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 01 Dec 15 11.52am

Quote Cucking Funt at 01 Dec 2015 11.46am

Bombing on its own won't work. It should be opposed simply on the grounds of military pointlessness.

Precisely.
If it would actually achieve anything, I'd be happy (ish) to say "bomb the sh*t out of them", but I have no idea what they are going to be bombing, and why, and what happens once we've blown it up

Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 01 Dec 15 11.56am
Quote chris123 at 01 Dec 2015 11.51am Quote Cucking Funt at 01 Dec 2015 11.46am Bombing on its own won't work. It should be opposed simply on the grounds of military pointlessness. What about Brimstone? Suitably biblical. Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham
Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 01 Dec 15 11.56am

Quote chris123 at 01 Dec 2015 11.51am

Quote Cucking Funt at 01 Dec 2015 11.46am

Bombing on its own won't work. It should be opposed simply on the grounds of military pointlessness.

What about Brimstone?

Suitably biblical.

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Alert a moderator to this post

chris123 hove actually 01 Dec 15 12.07pm
Quote Cucking Funt at 01 Dec 2015 11.56am Quote chris123 at 01 Dec 2015 11.51am Quote Cucking Funt at 01 Dec 2015 11.46am Bombing on its own won't work. It should be opposed simply on the grounds of military pointlessness. What about Brimstone? Suitably biblical. Smarter than your average missile.
Alert a moderator to this post

chris123

hove actually 01 Dec 15 12.07pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 01 Dec 2015 11.56am

Quote chris123 at 01 Dec 2015 11.51am

Quote Cucking Funt at 01 Dec 2015 11.46am

Bombing on its own won't work. It should be opposed simply on the grounds of military pointlessness.

What about Brimstone?

Suitably biblical.

Smarter than your average missile.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Dec 15 12.22pm
Quote Cucking Funt at 01 Dec 2015 11.46am Bombing on its own won't work. It should be opposed simply on the grounds of military pointlessness. Quite. I see no beneficiaries of this other than the companies that provide the ordinance dropped. They should maybe go after the oil smuggling operation, take out the captured oil fields, target those who are brokering the sale of IS oil, those that are laundering it and reselling it. Target the banks that are transferring the funds, and those who are managing their funds. Ultimately, that could cost IS 2-3m per day, plus for the most part, its all 'outside' Syria, and doesn't revolve around blowing people up. Of course it could expose a number of European Companies, Shipping Firms and Allies that are directly profiting from the money made from the black market oil provided by IS. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 01 Dec 15 12.22pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 01 Dec 2015 11.46am

Bombing on its own won't work. It should be opposed simply on the grounds of military pointlessness.

Quite. I see no beneficiaries of this other than the companies that provide the ordinance dropped.

They should maybe go after the oil smuggling operation, take out the captured oil fields, target those who are brokering the sale of IS oil, those that are laundering it and reselling it. Target the banks that are transferring the funds, and those who are managing their funds.

Ultimately, that could cost IS 2-3m per day, plus for the most part, its all 'outside' Syria, and doesn't revolve around blowing people up.

Of course it could expose a number of European Companies, Shipping Firms and Allies that are directly profiting from the money made from the black market oil provided by IS.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Dec 15 12.24pm
Quote npn at 01 Dec 2015 11.52am Quote Cucking Funt at 01 Dec 2015 11.46am Bombing on its own won't work. It should be opposed simply on the grounds of military pointlessness. Precisely. If it would actually achieve anything, I'd be happy (ish) to say "bomb the sht out of them", but I have no idea what they are going to be bombing, and why, and what happens once we've blown it up Especially given that the US and others, have spent the last year or so bombing the f*k out of targets in Syria. It'll make no difference to UK safety or IS, especially given we've been bombing targets in Syria under US command for over a year anyhow. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 01 Dec 15 12.24pm

Quote npn at 01 Dec 2015 11.52am

Quote Cucking Funt at 01 Dec 2015 11.46am

Bombing on its own won't work. It should be opposed simply on the grounds of military pointlessness.

Especially given that the US and others, have spent the last year or so bombing the f**k out of targets in Syria.

It'll make no difference to UK safety or IS, especially given we've been bombing targets in Syria under US command for over a year anyhow.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

The Sash Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 02 Dec 15 9.03am
Quote Cucking Funt at 01 Dec 2015 11.46am Bombing on its own won't work. It should be opposed simply on the grounds of military pointlessness. Indeed - The US, Turks, French, Russians et al have more than enough capability to leave the entire country as a smoking hole in the ground so I am not sure what us dropping a few more to make the whole wider will achieve. I presume the money to pay for it will come from all those old folks homes that Gideon has forced local authorities to shut down. If we wanted to choke the f*** out of ISIS we should be bombing the Saudis As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014
Alert a moderator to this post

The Sash

Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 02 Dec 15 9.03am

Quote Cucking Funt at 01 Dec 2015 11.46am

Bombing on its own won't work. It should be opposed simply on the grounds of military pointlessness.

Indeed - The US, Turks, French, Russians et al have more than enough capability to leave the entire country as a smoking hole in the ground so I am not sure what us dropping a few more to make the whole wider will achieve.

I presume the money to pay for it will come from all those old folks homes that Gideon has forced local authorities to shut down.

If we wanted to choke the f*** out of ISIS we should be bombing the Saudis

As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 02 Dec 15 9.13am
The military might of Nato ground troops v 30,000 of them. They'd all be seeing Allah a little bit quicker than they hoped. Won't happen, of course, but would make things a bit tidier in that part of Syria. The country is going to have to be partitioned sooner or later anyway. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 02 Dec 15 9.13am

The military might of Nato ground troops v 30,000 of them.

They'd all be seeing Allah a little bit quicker than they hoped.

Won't happen, of course, but would make things a bit tidier in that part of Syria. The country is going to have to be partitioned sooner or later anyway.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Dec 15 10.57am
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 9.13am The military might of Nato ground troops v 30,000 of them. They'd all be seeing Allah a little bit quicker than they hoped. Won't happen, of course, but would make things a bit tidier in that part of Syria. The country is going to have to be partitioned sooner or later anyway. Optimistic, its astonishing what 30,000 fighters, in a guerrilla conflict, can actually establish. Plus the estimate varies for 30,000 to 70,000 fighters. You have to remember that behind that figure will sit a lot of logistical, command and support individuals as well. 30,000 people actually doing the fighting is a pretty large figure. I think for NATO for each person actually fighting, there are at least five to eight people ensuring that capacity. So if IS has 30,000 in the field it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine it has up to 150,000 active members. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 02 Dec 15 10.57am

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 9.13am

The military might of Nato ground troops v 30,000 of them.

They'd all be seeing Allah a little bit quicker than they hoped.

Won't happen, of course, but would make things a bit tidier in that part of Syria. The country is going to have to be partitioned sooner or later anyway.

Optimistic, its astonishing what 30,000 fighters, in a guerrilla conflict, can actually establish. Plus the estimate varies for 30,000 to 70,000 fighters. You have to remember that behind that figure will sit a lot of logistical, command and support individuals as well.

30,000 people actually doing the fighting is a pretty large figure. I think for NATO for each person actually fighting, there are at least five to eight people ensuring that capacity. So if IS has 30,000 in the field it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine it has up to 150,000 active members.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 14 of 16 < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

War plane shot down over Turkey

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors