Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

walter sobchak

British suicide bomber in Syria

45 posts in this topic

Has the british and US governments learnt nothing from backing these maniacs in Afghanistan during the 80's? These are the same extremist fanatics that we are now backing in Syria and it won't be long until these hardened jihadist fighters are back on the streets of the uk, France and Saudi Arabia causing mayhem. If anything the "west" should be backing Assad and not the "rebels", after all isn't that the excuse the governments of the US and UK give for the backing and propping up of brutal Arab dictators in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt(under Mubarak) that they are fighting against the Islamists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, we're not really supporting either side.  I think if Assad hadn't been such a bloody idiot in using chemical weapons that we'd be far more likely to be listening to his requests for aid, not involving military action.  Same with Israel, if Assad had shown a bit of give towards Israel, and not done things that just wind them up, then they'd find they'd have access to some pretty top-end resources that have been hardened in dealing with the sort of threats that Assad has to face now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, we're not really supporting either side.  I think if Assad hadn't been such a bloody idiot in using chemical weapons that we'd be far more likely to be listening to his requests for aid, not involving military action.  Same with Israel, if Assad had shown a bit of give towards Israel, and not done things that just wind them up, then they'd find they'd have access to some pretty top-end resources that have been hardened in dealing with the sort of threats that Assad has to face now.

There was no evidence that it was Assad that used the chemical weapons and as for Assad showing "a bit of give" towards Israel Israel occupies part of their territory, the golan heights. Assad is a thug and war criminal but Israel, the "west" and Syria would be far worse off if al Qaeda and their affiliates take over Syria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One less dickhead anyway.

True but how many more is there in Syria and what happens when they return home?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True but how many more is there in Syria and what happens when they return home?

We ensure their rights are upheld.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We ensure their rights are upheld.

 

That's exactly what we do.

 

It's why Western civilisation is the dog's doodads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly what we do.

It's why Western civilisation is the dog's doodads.

It won't be the dogs doodas for very much longer then will it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't be the dogs doodas for very much longer then will it?

 

Why, are you out to destroy it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't even be arsed arguing about it, he's gone and that's great news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What "rights" do British  jihadist suicide bombers have...compared with , say, British non-jihadist non-suicide non- bombers?

 

 

Also, I'm not sure that its right to say  "To be fair, we're not really supporting either side"    as Hague seems to be putting his weight behind Assad stepping down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no evidence that it was Assad that used the chemical weapons and as for Assad showing "a bit of give" towards Israel Israel occupies part of their territory, the golan heights. Assad is a thug and war criminal but Israel, the "west" and Syria would be far worse off if al Qaeda and their affiliates take over Syria.

Of course there's evidence Assad did it, we had a whole thread about it and it's an established fact, except in the minds of the conspiracy theorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't even be arsed arguing about it, he's gone and that's great news.

Unless you were on the receiving end of his truck bomb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there's evidence Assad did it, we had a whole thread about it and it's an established fact, except in the minds of the conspiracy theorists.

Let's see this "evidence" then and what about Israel occupying the Golan heights and building illegal settlements on there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you were on the receiving end of his truck bomb.

Yes, I don't mean to trivialise the people involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What "rights" do British  jihadist suicide bombers have...compared with , say, British non-jihadist non-suicide non- bombers?

 

 

Also, I'm not sure that its right to say  "To be fair, we're not really supporting either side"    as Hague seems to be putting his weight behind Assad stepping down.

Exactly, so are the US government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Muslims on both sides, so it's perhaps more akin to the Spanish Civil War than a holy war.

 

Britons who volunteered to fight for the International Brigade in Spain are nowadays looked upon as heroes. If British Muslims are joining the rebels because they want to fight against an oppressor of fellow Muslims, fair enough. However, if they are joining to try and establish their Al Qaeeda credentials, it's not.

 

Either way, they are essentially mercenaries and have gone there willing to kill fellow Muslims. This is an important point because, at the time of both Gulf Wars, the Islamist stance was that no Muslim would be willing to shoot another Muslim, irrespective of separate nationalities being involved.

 

If the foreign fighters in Syria get captured by Assad's forces, Britain should not intercede to help them  in any subsequent court martial or trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Muslims on both sides, so it's perhaps more akin to the Spanish Civil War than a holy war.

 

Britons who volunteered to fight for the International Brigade in Spain are nowadays looked upon as heroes. If British Muslims are joining the rebels because they want to fight against an oppressor of fellow Muslims, fair enough. However, if they are joining to try and establish their Al Qaeeda credentials, it's not.

 

Either way, they are essentially mercenaries and have gone there willing to kill fellow Muslims. This is an important point because, at the time of both Gulf Wars, the Islamist stance was that no Muslim would be willing to shoot another Muslim, irrespective of separate nationalities being involved.

 

If the foreign fighters in Syria get captured by Assad's forces, Britain should not intercede to help them  in any subsequent court martial or trial.

The Brits and others who volunteered to fight in Spain were fighting against fascism while the foreign fighters in Syria are fighting to oust a dictator only to replace it with an even worse kind of tyranny, al Qaeda style Wahhabism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Muslims on both sides, so it's perhaps more akin to the Spanish Civil War than a holy war.

 

Britons who volunteered to fight for the International Brigade in Spain are nowadays looked upon as heroes. If British Muslims are joining the rebels because they want to fight against an oppressor of fellow Muslims, fair enough. However, if they are joining to try and establish their Al Qaeeda credentials, it's not.

 

Either way, they are essentially mercenaries and have gone there willing to kill fellow Muslims. This is an important point because, at the time of both Gulf Wars, the Islamist stance was that no Muslim would be willing to shoot another Muslim, irrespective of separate nationalities being involved.

 

If the foreign fighters in Syria get captured by Assad's forces, Britain should not intercede to help them  in any subsequent court martial or trial.

The Saudi army lot who fought with me in the first Gulf war would be a bit surprised to hear that.

 

Also, the second largest military contingent in the first Gulf war were the Saudis with just shy of 100,000 troops committed in combat and non-combat roles.  Other muslim combat forces involved in the first Gulf war included Syrians, Egyptians, Moroccans, Pakistanis, Omanis and so on, admittedly most were non-combat troops but it's very naive to think that the combat troops were all US and UK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Saudi army lot who fought with me in the first Gulf war would be a bit surprised to hear that.

 

Also, the second largest military contingent in the first Gulf war were the Saudis with just shy of 100,000 troops committed in combat and non-combat roles.  Other muslim combat forces involved in the first Gulf war included Syrians, Egyptians, Moroccans, Pakistanis, Omanis and so on, admittedly most were non-combat troops but it's very naive to think that the combat troops were all US and UK

 

Yes, I realise that Craig. I should have qualified it by saying it was the attitude of British Islamists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Saudi army lot who fought with me in the first Gulf war would be a bit surprised to hear that.

 

Also, the second largest military contingent in the first Gulf war were the Saudis with just shy of 100,000 troops committed in combat and non-combat roles.  Other muslim combat forces involved in the first Gulf war included Syrians, Egyptians, Moroccans, Pakistanis, Omanis and so on, admittedly most were non-combat troops but it's very naive to think that the combat troops were all US and UK

What were the Saudi Army lads like and what did they think of there own oppressed rules of woman and gays ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly what we do.

 

It's why Western civilisation is the dog's doodads.

No, it's not.

 

Western civilisation is generally rather foolish about turning a blind eye to those who wish us harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Muslims on both sides, so it's perhaps more akin to the Spanish Civil War than a holy war.

 

Britons who volunteered to fight for the International Brigade in Spain are nowadays looked upon as heroes. If British Muslims are joining the rebels because they want to fight against an oppressor of fellow Muslims, fair enough. However, if they are joining to try and establish their Al Qaeeda credentials, it's not.

 

Either way, they are essentially mercenaries and have gone there willing to kill fellow Muslims. This is an important point because, at the time of both Gulf Wars, the Islamist stance was that no Muslim would be willing to shoot another Muslim, irrespective of separate nationalities being involved.

 

If the foreign fighters in Syria get captured by Assad's forces, Britain should not intercede to help them  in any subsequent court martial or trial.

 

Britons who volunteered to fight for the International Brigade in Spain are nowadays looked upon as heroes

 

Are you quite sure about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also, I'm not sure that its right to say  "To be fair, we're not really supporting either side"    as Hague seems to be putting his weight behind Assad stepping down.

Diplomatic noise. Hague is doing no more than the minimum that he has to do. The reality is that, on the quiet, the UK / US / Israel would prefer that Assad stays in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see this "evidence" then and what about Israel occupying the Golan heights and building illegal settlements on there?

It's not surprising that they do. The Golan Heights was where Syria had its mortars and long-range guns set up, they were using it to attack Israel. They were also trying to divert the water supply away from Israel. Without any peace deal between Syria and Israel, there is no way that any sane government would return a strategic territory to a government that has vowed to destroy them.

 

And "illegal settlements" - I imagine that you are thinking about the West Bank. The Golan Heights are a military hot spot. You'd have to be insane to want to live there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.