Brussels Airport Explosions

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

Brussels Airport Explosions

Page 3 of 12 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Hoof Hearted 22 Mar 16 10.04am
Originally posted by Kingvagabond To be honest, not invading the Middle East at all is more of a told you so and I did that 13 years ago. Twas my stance all along too. Already just on this thread's short life Jamie is outlining political reasons why not to commit to war rather than show a desire to absolutely eradicate this scum... baffles me?
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 22 Mar 16 10.04am

Originally posted by Kingvagabond

To be honest, not invading the Middle East at all is more of a told you so and I did that 13 years ago.

Twas my stance all along too.

Already just on this thread's short life Jamie is outlining political reasons why not to commit to war rather than show a desire to absolutely eradicate this scum... baffles me?

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Mar 16 10.06am
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted This sort of stuff will keep happening until ISIS and all other types of similar terrorist organisations are confronted and beaten hand to hand in combat. Bombing little pockets of their operations on an ad hoc basis with drones is like swatting a wasp with a rolled up newspaper - sooner or later you've got to deal with the nest and delaying it just see the wasps nest grow in size and the wasps get angrier and nastier. Good job we didn't agree to schengen - otherwise that might have been Heathrow, Gatwick etc. I don't like saying I told you so, but I did and will say it again.... the way the EU operates it's freedom of movement policy with no borders just makes it easier for terrorists, weapons and ammunition to be smuggled in and around Europe. Steve McClaren's Newcastle defence was harder to penetrate FFS. I think that's always going to be the case with Europe given the nature of land borders, that movement between nations is remarkably easy. For the UK, its different, as points of entry are restricted to ports and airports. I don't think it has anything to do with the EU's freedom of movement, and that's a convenience towards scoring political points. Europe has always been remarkably easy to move around in, simply because of the scale of borders and points of entry/exit aren't feasible to control. Those borders will always be porous. It's more akin to the UK trying to control the borders between counties. We shouldn't adopt the same policy, because we can logically restrict points of entry to a degree that allows control and monitoring (and even then we had trouble with the IRA coming and going). Often we find as well that recruits come from within the EU already, and within that nation. In terms of refugees, the longer the crisis continues, the less control we have over it. Sending them 'all back' won't work, and by failing to act in the first three or four years of the Syrian civil war and refugee crisis, has put us in a position where its impossible to control the problem or even regulate it. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Mar 16 10.06am

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

This sort of stuff will keep happening until ISIS and all other types of similar terrorist organisations are confronted and beaten hand to hand in combat.

Bombing little pockets of their operations on an ad hoc basis with drones is like swatting a wasp with a rolled up newspaper - sooner or later you've got to deal with the nest and delaying it just see the wasps nest grow in size and the wasps get angrier and nastier.

Good job we didn't agree to schengen - otherwise that might have been Heathrow, Gatwick etc.

I don't like saying I told you so, but I did and will say it again.... the way the EU operates it's freedom of movement policy with no borders just makes it easier for terrorists, weapons and ammunition to be smuggled in and around Europe.

Steve McClaren's Newcastle defence was harder to penetrate FFS.

I think that's always going to be the case with Europe given the nature of land borders, that movement between nations is remarkably easy. For the UK, its different, as points of entry are restricted to ports and airports.

I don't think it has anything to do with the EU's freedom of movement, and that's a convenience towards scoring political points. Europe has always been remarkably easy to move around in, simply because of the scale of borders and points of entry/exit aren't feasible to control.

Those borders will always be porous. It's more akin to the UK trying to control the borders between counties. We shouldn't adopt the same policy, because we can logically restrict points of entry to a degree that allows control and monitoring (and even then we had trouble with the IRA coming and going).

Often we find as well that recruits come from within the EU already, and within that nation.

In terms of refugees, the longer the crisis continues, the less control we have over it. Sending them 'all back' won't work, and by failing to act in the first three or four years of the Syrian civil war and refugee crisis, has put us in a position where its impossible to control the problem or even regulate it.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Mar 16 10.12am
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted Twas my stance all along too. Already just on this thread's short life Jamie is outlining political reasons why not to commit to war rather than show a desire to absolutely eradicate this scum... baffles me? Pragmatism. I want them to cease to exist, but that needs to occur. Iraq and Afghanistan are a best questionable successes, and one of those is directly responsible for the rise of IS from the Syrian civil war. Committing to a war, fine, I have no problem with that, but it has to be one we can actually win. So far I'm struggling to think of many terrorist organisations that have militarily been destroyed by the West - and those that have, generally have been supplanted by a worse alternative. The reality of war, is that they're unpopular, and an incursion into 'IS Syria' will result in a long drawn out Guerilla war, that could easily last as long as Afghanistan or Iraq, neither of which has really resulted in 'a win'. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Mar 16 10.12am

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

Twas my stance all along too.

Already just on this thread's short life Jamie is outlining political reasons why not to commit to war rather than show a desire to absolutely eradicate this scum... baffles me?

Pragmatism. I want them to cease to exist, but that needs to occur. Iraq and Afghanistan are a best questionable successes, and one of those is directly responsible for the rise of IS from the Syrian civil war.

Committing to a war, fine, I have no problem with that, but it has to be one we can actually win. So far I'm struggling to think of many terrorist organisations that have militarily been destroyed by the West - and those that have, generally have been supplanted by a worse alternative.

The reality of war, is that they're unpopular, and an incursion into 'IS Syria' will result in a long drawn out Guerilla war, that could easily last as long as Afghanistan or Iraq, neither of which has really resulted in 'a win'.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Mar 16 10.20am
Originally posted by Kingvagabond Surely if we are going to confront them we need to do it properly. Commit a mass group of ground troops and others world wide do the same, we agree to an acceptable loss of casualties and then wipe them out. This 'proportional response' bollocks is a waste of time and just sees us wait patiently until the next attack. Either take them out once and for all or stay out of the Middle East altogether. Happy with either. That would be as disaster. There is no way the UK would have the stomach for the kind of human cost, or the consequences this would have for the region. Occupation tends to breed support for the oppositional factions - as we saw in Iraq, where we toppled a corrupt murderous dictator. That soon grew into fighting against most of the factions in Iraq, including the Shia, who massively benefited from the fall of Saddam. I genuinely don't believe the UK public have the political willingness to commit to something on that scale, and the consequence will be 'to escalate' the situation. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Mar 16 10.20am

Originally posted by Kingvagabond

Surely if we are going to confront them we need to do it properly. Commit a mass group of ground troops and others world wide do the same, we agree to an acceptable loss of casualties and then wipe them out. This 'proportional response' bollocks is a waste of time and just sees us wait patiently until the next attack. Either take them out once and for all or stay out of the Middle East altogether. Happy with either.

That would be as disaster. There is no way the UK would have the stomach for the kind of human cost, or the consequences this would have for the region. Occupation tends to breed support for the oppositional factions - as we saw in Iraq, where we toppled a corrupt murderous dictator. That soon grew into fighting against most of the factions in Iraq, including the Shia, who massively benefited from the fall of Saddam.

I genuinely don't believe the UK public have the political willingness to commit to something on that scale, and the consequence will be 'to escalate' the situation.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 22 Mar 16 10.21am
Okay jamie..... I give up, you win. Let's just not bother to do anything about it and laugh it off, like in the blitz.... lets do the hokey cokey and turn around.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 22 Mar 16 10.21am

Okay jamie..... I give up, you win.

Let's just not bother to do anything about it and laugh it off, like in the blitz.... lets do the hokey cokey and turn around.

Alert a moderator to this post

-TUX- Alphabettispaghetti 22 Mar 16 10.21am
Originally posted by Kingvagabond Surely if we are going to confront them we need to do it properly. Commit a mass group of ground troops and others world wide do the same, we agree to an acceptable loss of casualties and then wipe them out. This 'proportional response' bollocks is a waste of time and just sees us wait patiently until the next attack. Either take them out once and for all or stay out of the Middle East altogether. Happy with either. This approach (although i agree) isn't in the interests of those who govern us, sadly. Time to move forward together.
Alert a moderator to this post

-TUX-

Alphabettispaghetti 22 Mar 16 10.21am

Originally posted by Kingvagabond

Surely if we are going to confront them we need to do it properly. Commit a mass group of ground troops and others world wide do the same, we agree to an acceptable loss of casualties and then wipe them out. This 'proportional response' bollocks is a waste of time and just sees us wait patiently until the next attack. Either take them out once and for all or stay out of the Middle East altogether. Happy with either.

This approach (although i agree) isn't in the interests of those who govern us, sadly.

Time to move forward together.

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 22 Mar 16 10.26am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Pragmatism. I want them to cease to exist, but that needs to occur. Iraq and Afghanistan are a best questionable successes, and one of those is directly responsible for the rise of IS from the Syrian civil war. Committing to a war, fine, I have no problem with that, but it has to be one we can actually win. So far I'm struggling to think of many terrorist organisations that have militarily been destroyed by the West - and those that have, generally have been supplanted by a worse alternative. The reality of war, is that they're unpopular, and an incursion into 'IS Syria' will result in a long drawn out Guerilla war, that could easily last as long as Afghanistan or Iraq, neither of which has really resulted in 'a win'. RIP the victims of Brussels. Typically leftie clap trap about the Iraq war directly causing ISIS. ISIS has been going in one form or another since 1999 and the first examples of Islamic terror were in the '90s and 9/11. Before the Iraq War. Stop blaming the West for this. Blair and Bush didn't strap explosive vests onto suicide bombers, they did it themselves. "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 22 Mar 16 10.26am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

RIP the victims of Brussels.

Typically leftie clap trap about the Iraq war directly causing ISIS. ISIS has been going in one form or another since 1999 and the first examples of Islamic terror were in the '90s and 9/11. Before the Iraq War.

Stop blaming the West for this. Blair and Bush didn't strap explosive vests onto suicide bombers, they did it themselves.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

davenotamonkey 22 Mar 16 10.30am
Originally posted by exitstageright As long as the EU clings to its fundamental principle of free movement for terrorists we will be all right. Was exitstageright red-carded for this? Why?
Alert a moderator to this post

davenotamonkey

22 Mar 16 10.30am

Send a Private Message to davenotamonkey

Originally posted by exitstageright

As long as the EU clings to its fundamental principle of free movement for terrorists we will be all right.

Was exitstageright red-carded for this? Why?

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Mar 16 10.35am
Originally posted by davenotamonkey Was exitstageright red-carded for this? Why? For being a poster who had been previously banned, on several occasions. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Mar 16 10.35am

Originally posted by davenotamonkey

Was exitstageright red-carded for this? Why?

For being a poster who had been previously banned, on several occasions.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 22 Mar 16 10.35am
Originally posted by davenotamonkey Was exitstageright red-carded for this? Why? I'm pretty sure he was a previously redcarded poster (like Green Giant) who has been sussed by the Mods. One of these two could have been "legged struggle" amongst many other 'redcardreturners' seen on here previously? Edited by Hoof Hearted (23 Mar 2016 9.36am)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 22 Mar 16 10.35am

Originally posted by davenotamonkey

Was exitstageright red-carded for this? Why?

I'm pretty sure he was a previously redcarded poster (like Green Giant) who has been sussed by the Mods.

One of these two could have been "legged struggle" amongst many other 'redcardreturners' seen on here previously?

Edited by Hoof Hearted (23 Mar 2016 9.36am)

Alert a moderator to this post

coulsdoneagle London 22 Mar 16 10.36am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Pragmatism. I want them to cease to exist, but that needs to occur. Iraq and Afghanistan are a best questionable successes, and one of those is directly responsible for the rise of IS from the Syrian civil war. Committing to a war, fine, I have no problem with that, but it has to be one we can actually win. So far I'm struggling to think of many terrorist organisations that have militarily been destroyed by the West - and those that have, generally have been supplanted by a worse alternative. The reality of war, is that they're unpopular, and an incursion into 'IS Syria' will result in a long drawn out Guerilla war, that could easily last as long as Afghanistan or Iraq, neither of which has really resulted in 'a win'. Questionable successes is extremely generous. I agree with you though Jamie, what actually would we do when over there. The losses we would suffer would be catastrophic and the only viable leadership of Syria is sadly from Assad's regime. No one else could maintain power without eventually it becoming ruled by religious extremists, it's sad because the FSA probably could have if we had supported them early doors, but Cameron lost the vote, and now they are in no position while IS and other such groups grow and grow. The solution has to be a diplomatic one and has to come from other countries in the Middle East. Now that Iran has had its sanctions lifted we need to start trying to solve things without sending in ground troops on another futile war which will exacerbate the situation, with absolutely no tangible success. People saying that Iraq and Afghanistan didn't impact the growth of terrorism are frankly morons. People happy to have young men fight and die so it looks like we are doing something, rather than thinking about the complexities of international relations. Yeah terrorism sucks, yeah part of its the fault of previous governments that it's the way it is. Realistically there is no way to eradicate them fully.
Alert a moderator to this post

coulsdoneagle

London 22 Mar 16 10.36am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Questionable successes is extremely generous.

I agree with you though Jamie, what actually would we do when over there. The losses we would suffer would be catastrophic and the only viable leadership of Syria is sadly from Assad's regime. No one else could maintain power without eventually it becoming ruled by religious extremists, it's sad because the FSA probably could have if we had supported them early doors, but Cameron lost the vote, and now they are in no position while IS and other such groups grow and grow.

The solution has to be a diplomatic one and has to come from other countries in the Middle East. Now that Iran has had its sanctions lifted we need to start trying to solve things without sending in ground troops on another futile war which will exacerbate the situation, with absolutely no tangible success.

People saying that Iraq and Afghanistan didn't impact the growth of terrorism are frankly morons. People happy to have young men fight and die so it looks like we are doing something, rather than thinking about the complexities of international relations. Yeah terrorism sucks, yeah part of its the fault of previous governments that it's the way it is. Realistically there is no way to eradicate them fully.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 22 Mar 16 10.41am
We've got too many Chamberlains and not enough Churchills.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 22 Mar 16 10.41am

We've got too many Chamberlains and not enough Churchills.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 3 of 12 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Brussels Airport Explosions

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors