Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Air Strikes On Syria
Comments
-
Just imagining a load of blood thirsty jihadists on the back of a pickup, pull into a petrol station and the automated pump saying their cards been reject, so they walk off down the frog. Or popping into the local gunshop to buy some bullets and the geezer behind the jump saying 'sorry guys insufficient funds in your account' and them all piling out the shop.
Coz that's how it happens apparently .....1 -
Because of Hawala this will not happen. A sale of oil to Turkey can lead to purchase of guns from Russia, China or ourselves without any bank or money transfer from the beneficiary being involved. All based on trust and fear.i_b_b_o_r_g said:Just imagining a load of blood thirsty jihadists on the back of a pickup, pull into a petrol station and the automated pump saying their cards been reject, so they walk off down the frog. Or popping into the local gunshop to buy some bullets and the geezer behind the jump saying 'sorry guys insufficient funds in your account' and them all piling out the shop.
Coz that's how it happens apparently .....
A friend also told me, 30 years ago, that every Muslim (according to their wealth) donates a portion of their earnings to the "cause" without any knowledge or control on how the money is spent. This no doubt is how elaborate mosques can spring up in poor areas and unemployed terrorists can travel to training camps and buy bomb making materials. Our politicians have no idea of the nuances of their opponents.
The answer as all fiction tells you is follow the money. The Saudis and other oil nations are feeding this attack on the West and we have to stop selling them arms and buying their oil.2 -
The end game Russia is working to contradicts our aspirations, so that is potentially an even more serious issue to come. The sensible approach would be to find some common ground - i.e. defeating IS and accepting Assad remains in power. But with human rights conditions. Then we have to look at our 'friends' in the region. Saudi Arabia and others have to be given ultimatums - you are 100% with us or 100% against us. That will stop funds. They should also have some token involvement in operations so it is clear this is not just a western assault. Turkey needs sorting out - Oil is getting through there and they are supposed to be our allies and part of the EU FFS. The action needs to come under the banner of the UN. Get China on board too - some minor invovement from every UN country would be ideal.
Then the air strikes need to be stepped up, as a prelude to an invasion. The liberation force needs to be multi national. I would prefer IRAN and Russia playing a big part as their rules as to what they do with the bas***ds may be less regulated than ours. The aim should be to have a few prisoners as possible.
Use the delusions of IS to help defeat them. They believe prophesies that their final victory will come in the city of dabiq. Why not offer them out in the ultimate battle for that? Challenge them, talk to them in their warped language, saying we believe their beliefs are crazy and offer them a final showdown there to prove it. Then wipe them off the planet!
That would be the basis of my plan. No matter how unpleasant it is, Assad is the key to the stabilty that will be needed immediately after the conflict. We need to understand and mitigate.
There are risks, but it is a strategy to solve the problem in a global way that may mean we are less likely to have to solve another problem in 10 years time.3 -
It is against Saudi interests to have Iran a power player in there, a big role for them would exacerbate the proxy war between the two.
But I agree a multinational, Muslim fronted, UN force would be the ideal way forward. If not Muslim fronted, then as @MuttleyCAFC says, as many nations as possible. This is a time when the UN can potentially unite, probably one of the only times Russia and China won't veto.
I would say that's a lon way off yet though and we need to degrade their capabilities by bombing, as it's the most effective short term option we have.0 -
A caliphate is not souly about land.ShootersHillGuru said:
They can't "hide". It's a Caliphate. Without land the whole purpose is negated.thenewbie said:
One works, the other makes good press but bad strategy. They're fanatics and extremists, drop your bombs and blow them up but the radical clerics will swiftly send over the next wave. Cut their access to money and weapons and send a properly trained and equipped army to fight them on the ground and they will be beaten for good. Bombs will just convince them to hide betteri_b_b_o_r_g said:
I seriously think that taking the war to them and blowing as many of the fuckers up as possible is a lot quicker than 'starving' them of funds.Exiled_Addick said:
Do you seriously think there is a "quick fix" to regional tensions that are decades if not centuries old?i_b_b_o_r_g said:
None of that is exactly a quick fix though is itvff said:
If there was a decent stategy that is not one that has been shared by anyone proposing air strikes so far. It is good to not go blundering forward if you don't know what you doing.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
How do you know there ain't a decent strategy and while we're at it, all those who've got a better idea on dealing with this problem, please share..vff said:Without a decent strategy, dropping bombs on Syria is at best a massive waste of money, and at worst will cause civilian casualities and have lots of unintended consequences. IMO.
Starve Daesh of funds by blocking the sale of oil for a start. Help to close the border blocking the flow of arms and support from Turkey.
It's as much ,if not more so,a battle for hearts and minds.0 -
For clarity, I am not saying that we shouldn't bomb them. Simply that airstrikes alone won't defeat Daesh. If Cameron is serious about actually defeating I.S. and not seeing this as some grandstanding PR exercise he's got to commit fully - that means troops on the ground as well as a political and financial attack.Stu_of_Kunming said:
How do we stop the movement of oil, weapons and people without dropping bombs?thenewbie said:
One works, the other makes good press but bad strategy. They're fanatics and extremists, drop your bombs and blow them up but the radical clerics will swiftly send over the next wave. Cut their access to money and weapons and send a properly trained and equipped army to fight them on the ground and they will be beaten for good. Bombs will just convince them to hide betteri_b_b_o_r_g said:
I seriously think that taking the war to them and blowing as many of the fuckers up as possible is a lot quicker than 'starving' them of funds.Exiled_Addick said:
Do you seriously think there is a "quick fix" to regional tensions that are decades if not centuries old?i_b_b_o_r_g said:
None of that is exactly a quick fix though is itvff said:
If there was a decent stategy that is not one that has been shared by anyone proposing air strikes so far. It is good to not go blundering forward if you don't know what you doing.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
How do you know there ain't a decent strategy and while we're at it, all those who've got a better idea on dealing with this problem, please share..vff said:Without a decent strategy, dropping bombs on Syria is at best a massive waste of money, and at worst will cause civilian casualities and have lots of unintended consequences. IMO.
Starve Daesh of funds by blocking the sale of oil for a start. Help to close the border blocking the flow of arms and support from Turkey.3 -
And souls?carly burn said:
A caliphate is not souly about land.ShootersHillGuru said:
They can't "hide". It's a Caliphate. Without land the whole purpose is negated.thenewbie said:
One works, the other makes good press but bad strategy. They're fanatics and extremists, drop your bombs and blow them up but the radical clerics will swiftly send over the next wave. Cut their access to money and weapons and send a properly trained and equipped army to fight them on the ground and they will be beaten for good. Bombs will just convince them to hide betteri_b_b_o_r_g said:
I seriously think that taking the war to them and blowing as many of the fuckers up as possible is a lot quicker than 'starving' them of funds.Exiled_Addick said:
Do you seriously think there is a "quick fix" to regional tensions that are decades if not centuries old?i_b_b_o_r_g said:
None of that is exactly a quick fix though is itvff said:
If there was a decent stategy that is not one that has been shared by anyone proposing air strikes so far. It is good to not go blundering forward if you don't know what you doing.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
How do you know there ain't a decent strategy and while we're at it, all those who've got a better idea on dealing with this problem, please share..vff said:Without a decent strategy, dropping bombs on Syria is at best a massive waste of money, and at worst will cause civilian casualities and have lots of unintended consequences. IMO.
Starve Daesh of funds by blocking the sale of oil for a start. Help to close the border blocking the flow of arms and support from Turkey.
It's as much ,if not more so,a battle for hearts and minds.0 -
http://www.rorystewart.co.uk/rory-stewart-mp-on-syria/
This is quite a balanced piece by someone who really knows the area. I still don't support the air strikes, but at least I understand them a bit better. For me though, there are still too many ifs in the positive scenario.2 -
I think the real clue is the now non term "Islamic STATE"carly burn said:
A caliphate is not souly about land.ShootersHillGuru said:
They can't "hide". It's a Caliphate. Without land the whole purpose is negated.thenewbie said:
One works, the other makes good press but bad strategy. They're fanatics and extremists, drop your bombs and blow them up but the radical clerics will swiftly send over the next wave. Cut their access to money and weapons and send a properly trained and equipped army to fight them on the ground and they will be beaten for good. Bombs will just convince them to hide betteri_b_b_o_r_g said:
I seriously think that taking the war to them and blowing as many of the fuckers up as possible is a lot quicker than 'starving' them of funds.Exiled_Addick said:
Do you seriously think there is a "quick fix" to regional tensions that are decades if not centuries old?i_b_b_o_r_g said:
None of that is exactly a quick fix though is itvff said:
If there was a decent stategy that is not one that has been shared by anyone proposing air strikes so far. It is good to not go blundering forward if you don't know what you doing.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
How do you know there ain't a decent strategy and while we're at it, all those who've got a better idea on dealing with this problem, please share..vff said:Without a decent strategy, dropping bombs on Syria is at best a massive waste of money, and at worst will cause civilian casualities and have lots of unintended consequences. IMO.
Starve Daesh of funds by blocking the sale of oil for a start. Help to close the border blocking the flow of arms and support from Turkey.
It's as much ,if not more so,a battle for hearts and minds.
No land = No Caliphate. It's absolutely fundamental to the ideal and aspiration of Daesh.
0 -
I disagree.ShootersHillGuru said:
I think the real clue is the now non term "Islamic STATE"carly burn said:
A caliphate is not souly about land.ShootersHillGuru said:
They can't "hide". It's a Caliphate. Without land the whole purpose is negated.thenewbie said:
One works, the other makes good press but bad strategy. They're fanatics and extremists, drop your bombs and blow them up but the radical clerics will swiftly send over the next wave. Cut their access to money and weapons and send a properly trained and equipped army to fight them on the ground and they will be beaten for good. Bombs will just convince them to hide betteri_b_b_o_r_g said:
I seriously think that taking the war to them and blowing as many of the fuckers up as possible is a lot quicker than 'starving' them of funds.Exiled_Addick said:
Do you seriously think there is a "quick fix" to regional tensions that are decades if not centuries old?i_b_b_o_r_g said:
None of that is exactly a quick fix though is itvff said:
If there was a decent stategy that is not one that has been shared by anyone proposing air strikes so far. It is good to not go blundering forward if you don't know what you doing.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
How do you know there ain't a decent strategy and while we're at it, all those who've got a better idea on dealing with this problem, please share..vff said:Without a decent strategy, dropping bombs on Syria is at best a massive waste of money, and at worst will cause civilian casualities and have lots of unintended consequences. IMO.
Starve Daesh of funds by blocking the sale of oil for a start. Help to close the border blocking the flow of arms and support from Turkey.
It's as much ,if not more so,a battle for hearts and minds.
No land = No Caliphate. It's absolutely fundamental to the ideal and aspiration of Daesh.
Ultimately land ownership is their goal. But they need to poison many more minds first.
Allies bombing the innocent,and it will happen, is a big plus in their recruitment campaign.
We need to be very careful to offer the undecided a better chance at a peaceful and more prosperous future than the animals in IS can offer.
In my mind the only way to defeat them is from the inside out.
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
And stopping Western governments arming regimes like Saudis and Isil when we wanted Assad out. The key to the conflict is the wealthy oil nations who are financing instability. Why is No 10 welcoming leaders of regimes who stone to death female rape victims for adultery? Executing tribal rivals on trumped up charges. Amazed that we allow Sharia courts to operate in this country. There are a lot of issues to be addressed before we drop £100k bombs on an people with an idealology our politicians do not understand. What is our end game?thenewbie said:
For clarity, I am not saying that we shouldn't bomb them. Simply that airstrikes alone won't defeat Daesh. If Cameron is serious about actually defeating I.S. and not seeing this as some grandstanding PR exercise he's got to commit fully - that means troops on the ground as well as a political and financial attack.Stu_of_Kunming said:
How do we stop the movement of oil, weapons and people without dropping bombs?thenewbie said:
One works, the other makes good press but bad strategy. They're fanatics and extremists, drop your bombs and blow them up but the radical clerics will swiftly send over the next wave. Cut their access to money and weapons and send a properly trained and equipped army to fight them on the ground and they will be beaten for good. Bombs will just convince them to hide betteri_b_b_o_r_g said:
I seriously think that taking the war to them and blowing as many of the fuckers up as possible is a lot quicker than 'starving' them of funds.Exiled_Addick said:
Do you seriously think there is a "quick fix" to regional tensions that are decades if not centuries old?i_b_b_o_r_g said:
None of that is exactly a quick fix though is itvff said:
If there was a decent stategy that is not one that has been shared by anyone proposing air strikes so far. It is good to not go blundering forward if you don't know what you doing.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
How do you know there ain't a decent strategy and while we're at it, all those who've got a better idea on dealing with this problem, please share..vff said:Without a decent strategy, dropping bombs on Syria is at best a massive waste of money, and at worst will cause civilian casualities and have lots of unintended consequences. IMO.
Starve Daesh of funds by blocking the sale of oil for a start. Help to close the border blocking the flow of arms and support from Turkey.2 -
Same old same old, and the same idiots who call for bombing "them" without even knowing who "them" are -
Incredible.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
How do you now it's more likely then?Wheresmeticket? said:
We should not make it more likely. Take an unstable country in state of civil war, having encouraged the instability, bomb the side you think are most disgusting. Repeat until we all die.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Attempted attacks in the UK are going to happen anyway, at what point do you think we should do something?Wheresmeticket? said:More civilians will die. They will be Syrian though. Until the successful reprisal killings in the UK. Then they will be Syrian and British.
1 -
Wind your neck in eh, it's all down to opinions. I bow to your superior knowledge on everything, but incase you ain't noticed it ain't just me who agrees with what's happening.Wheresmeticket? said:Same old same old, and the same idiots who call for bombing "them" without even knowing who "them" are -
Incredible.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
How do you now it's more likely then?Wheresmeticket? said:
We should not make it more likely. Take an unstable country in state of civil war, having encouraged the instability, bomb the side you think are most disgusting. Repeat until we all die.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Attempted attacks in the UK are going to happen anyway, at what point do you think we should do something?Wheresmeticket? said:More civilians will die. They will be Syrian though. Until the successful reprisal killings in the UK. Then they will be Syrian and British.
0 -
This is correct and us why ISIS differ fundamentally from other groups of sexually frustrated goat fuckers like Al Qaeda.ShootersHillGuru said:
I think the real clue is the now non term "Islamic STATE"carly burn said:
A caliphate is not souly about land.ShootersHillGuru said:
They can't "hide". It's a Caliphate. Without land the whole purpose is negated.thenewbie said:
One works, the other makes good press but bad strategy. They're fanatics and extremists, drop your bombs and blow them up but the radical clerics will swiftly send over the next wave. Cut their access to money and weapons and send a properly trained and equipped army to fight them on the ground and they will be beaten for good. Bombs will just convince them to hide betteri_b_b_o_r_g said:
I seriously think that taking the war to them and blowing as many of the fuckers up as possible is a lot quicker than 'starving' them of funds.Exiled_Addick said:
Do you seriously think there is a "quick fix" to regional tensions that are decades if not centuries old?i_b_b_o_r_g said:
None of that is exactly a quick fix though is itvff said:
If there was a decent stategy that is not one that has been shared by anyone proposing air strikes so far. It is good to not go blundering forward if you don't know what you doing.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
How do you know there ain't a decent strategy and while we're at it, all those who've got a better idea on dealing with this problem, please share..vff said:Without a decent strategy, dropping bombs on Syria is at best a massive waste of money, and at worst will cause civilian casualities and have lots of unintended consequences. IMO.
Starve Daesh of funds by blocking the sale of oil for a start. Help to close the border blocking the flow of arms and support from Turkey.
It's as much ,if not more so,a battle for hearts and minds.
No land = No Caliphate. It's absolutely fundamental to the ideal and aspiration of Daesh.
ISIS want and need to hold and occupy physical territory to form an actual "country" to which their like minded individuals can migrate.
You can't do this if the only territory you hold is your childhood bedroom and a 1,000 back copies of "Hot 'n Horny - Sexy Goats of the Arabian Peninsula."3 -
Fair enough but they just don't want land but those particular sites which to them hold a significance for their beliefs. Perhaps if the West and those occupying the territories they covert withdrew, we could see an end to millenia of conflict. All needs to be parleyed of course and compromises made (with "terrorists") like in Ireland.Ormiston Addick said:
This is correct and us why ISIS differ fundamentally from other groups of sexually frustrated goat fuckers like Al Qaeda.ShootersHillGuru said:
I think the real clue is the now non term "Islamic STATE"carly burn said:
A caliphate is not souly about land.ShootersHillGuru said:
They can't "hide". It's a Caliphate. Without land the whole purpose is negated.thenewbie said:
One works, the other makes good press but bad strategy. They're fanatics and extremists, drop your bombs and blow them up but the radical clerics will swiftly send over the next wave. Cut their access to money and weapons and send a properly trained and equipped army to fight them on the ground and they will be beaten for good. Bombs will just convince them to hide betteri_b_b_o_r_g said:
I seriously think that taking the war to them and blowing as many of the fuckers up as possible is a lot quicker than 'starving' them of funds.Exiled_Addick said:
Do you seriously think there is a "quick fix" to regional tensions that are decades if not centuries old?i_b_b_o_r_g said:
None of that is exactly a quick fix though is itvff said:
If there was a decent stategy that is not one that has been shared by anyone proposing air strikes so far. It is good to not go blundering forward if you don't know what you doing.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
How do you know there ain't a decent strategy and while we're at it, all those who've got a better idea on dealing with this problem, please share..vff said:Without a decent strategy, dropping bombs on Syria is at best a massive waste of money, and at worst will cause civilian casualities and have lots of unintended consequences. IMO.
Starve Daesh of funds by blocking the sale of oil for a start. Help to close the border blocking the flow of arms and support from Turkey.
It's as much ,if not more so,a battle for hearts and minds.
No land = No Caliphate. It's absolutely fundamental to the ideal and aspiration of Daesh.
ISIS want and need to hold and occupy physical territory to form an actual "country" to which their like minded individuals can migrate.
You can't do this if the only territory you hold is your childhood bedroom and a 1,000 back copies of "Hot 'n Horny - Sexy Goats of the Arabian Peninsula."0 -
harveys gardener said:
A caliphate could exist anywhere on earth, its in Syria and Iraq because that's where they've got control and the religious significance of the area just gives them added fervour.Ormiston Addick said:
Fair enough but they just don't want land but those particular sites which to them hold a significance for their beliefs. Perhaps if the West and those occupying the territories they covert withdrew, we could see an end to millenia of conflict. All needs to be parleyed of course and compromises made (with "terrorists") like in Ireland.ShootersHillGuru said:carly burn said:ShootersHillGuru said:thenewbie said:i_b_b_o_r_g said:Exiled_Addick said:i_b_b_o_r_g said:vff said:i_b_b_o_r_g said:vff said:
The objective is to create a state in which absolute sharia law can operate without any interference of man made laws. As there can be only one caliphate it must have world wide coverage to accommodate the world's muslims, so any idea IS will call halt at any arbitrary border is wishful thinking. That's why the bombing is necessary, in order to make mass movement of their army across open country virtually impossible.4 -
At last-1
-
See this earlier. Was going to post, but the videos were graphic and didn't know the site policy0
-
This.harveys gardener said:
Because of Hawala this will not happen. A sale of oil to Turkey can lead to purchase of guns from Russia, China or ourselves without any bank or money transfer from the beneficiary being involved. All based on trust and fear.i_b_b_o_r_g said:Just imagining a load of blood thirsty jihadists on the back of a pickup, pull into a petrol station and the automated pump saying their cards been reject, so they walk off down the frog. Or popping into the local gunshop to buy some bullets and the geezer behind the jump saying 'sorry guys insufficient funds in your account' and them all piling out the shop.
Coz that's how it happens apparently .....
A friend also told me, 30 years ago, that every Muslim (according to their wealth) donates a portion of their earnings to the "cause" without any knowledge or control on how the money is spent. This no doubt is how elaborate mosques can spring up in poor areas and unemployed terrorists can travel to training camps and buy bomb making materials. Our politicians have no idea of the nuances of their opponents.
The answer as all fiction tells you is follow the money. The Saudis and other oil nations are feeding this attack on the West and we have to stop selling them arms and buying their oil.
We needed the mandate to bomb the terrorists Oil fields and any in open transit in Syria. if we bomb buildings they will put innocent children there.
This problem will never go away now, and some British people are so naive in their understanding of this problem.
I was told 30 odd years ago that Muslim extremists would make the IRA look like
Amateurs in London because they would be prepared to die as Martyrs.
I thought the person who told me this was just anti Muslim.
We have so few armed police, that compared to Paris we are sitting ducks.
There are so many Thousands here already that hate the west and want us destroyed.
Why are so many people who are against the bombing,
so violent in there actions ?
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
I don't disagree with anything you've posted, apart from the bit in bold. Is that hyperbole, or verifiable statistics?soapboxsam said:
This.harveys gardener said:
Because of Hawala this will not happen. A sale of oil to Turkey can lead to purchase of guns from Russia, China or ourselves without any bank or money transfer from the beneficiary being involved. All based on trust and fear.i_b_b_o_r_g said:Just imagining a load of blood thirsty jihadists on the back of a pickup, pull into a petrol station and the automated pump saying their cards been reject, so they walk off down the frog. Or popping into the local gunshop to buy some bullets and the geezer behind the jump saying 'sorry guys insufficient funds in your account' and them all piling out the shop.
Coz that's how it happens apparently .....
A friend also told me, 30 years ago, that every Muslim (according to their wealth) donates a portion of their earnings to the "cause" without any knowledge or control on how the money is spent. This no doubt is how elaborate mosques can spring up in poor areas and unemployed terrorists can travel to training camps and buy bomb making materials. Our politicians have no idea of the nuances of their opponents.
The answer as all fiction tells you is follow the money. The Saudis and other oil nations are feeding this attack on the West and we have to stop selling them arms and buying their oil.
We needed the mandate to bomb the terrorists Oil fields and any in open transit in Syria. if we bomb buildings they will put innocent children there.
This problem will never go away now, and some British people are so naive in their understanding of this problem.
I was told 30 odd years ago that Muslim extremists would make the IRA look like
Amateurs in London because they would be prepared to die as Martyrs.
I thought the person who told me this was just anti Muslim.
We have so few armed police, that compared to Paris we are sitting ducks.
There are so many Thousands here already that hate the west and want us destroyed.
Why are so many people who are against the bombing,
so violent in there actions ?0 -
What on earth was this flagged for ?ShootersHillGuru said:At last
0 -
"At last" in immediate response to a terrorist attack in London?ShootersHillGuru said:0 -
No. I was commenting on the post prior to that regarding the Caliphate. Do you really think I would post that about a stabbing ?Chizz said:
"At last" in immediate response to a terrorist attack in London?ShootersHillGuru said:
0 -
If it means he can get that flagging hard-on going, I imagine Chizz can think pretty much anything.ShootersHillGuru said:
No. I was commenting on the post prior to that regarding the Caliphate. Do you really think I would post that about a stabbing ?Chizz said:
"At last" in immediate response to a terrorist attack in London?ShootersHillGuru said:9 -
That's what it looked like. But as it was therefore just a mistake, I've removed it.ShootersHillGuru said:
No. I was commenting on the post prior to that regarding the Caliphate. Do you really think I would post that about a stabbing ?Chizz said:
"At last" in immediate response to a terrorist attack in London?ShootersHillGuru said:0 -
Pmsl You've got to be on a wind-upChizz said:
That's what it looked like. But as it was therefore just a mistake, I've removed it.ShootersHillGuru said:
No. I was commenting on the post prior to that regarding the Caliphate. Do you really think I would post that about a stabbing ?Chizz said:
"At last" in immediate response to a terrorist attack in London?ShootersHillGuru said:0 -
Yeah, I can't believe our politicians with all their advisors, experts on the region on tap, plus all of our gathered intelligence don't understand the nuances of the region.
Luckily they can read this thread for some pointers7 -
Well that guy who slashed a Londoners throat last night yelling "this is for Syria" safe to verify the stat for him.Chizz said:
I don't disagree with anything you've posted, apart from the bit in bold. Is that hyperbole, or verifiable statistics?soapboxsam said:
This.harveys gardener said:
Because of Hawala this will not happen. A sale of oil to Turkey can lead to purchase of guns from Russia, China or ourselves without any bank or money transfer from the beneficiary being involved. All based on trust and fear.i_b_b_o_r_g said:Just imagining a load of blood thirsty jihadists on the back of a pickup, pull into a petrol station and the automated pump saying their cards been reject, so they walk off down the frog. Or popping into the local gunshop to buy some bullets and the geezer behind the jump saying 'sorry guys insufficient funds in your account' and them all piling out the shop.
Coz that's how it happens apparently .....
A friend also told me, 30 years ago, that every Muslim (according to their wealth) donates a portion of their earnings to the "cause" without any knowledge or control on how the money is spent. This no doubt is how elaborate mosques can spring up in poor areas and unemployed terrorists can travel to training camps and buy bomb making materials. Our politicians have no idea of the nuances of their opponents.
The answer as all fiction tells you is follow the money. The Saudis and other oil nations are feeding this attack on the West and we have to stop selling them arms and buying their oil.
We needed the mandate to bomb the terrorists Oil fields and any in open transit in Syria. if we bomb buildings they will put innocent children there.
This problem will never go away now, and some British people are so naive in their understanding of this problem.
I was told 30 odd years ago that Muslim extremists would make the IRA look like
Amateurs in London because they would be prepared to die as Martyrs.
I thought the person who told me this was just anti Muslim.
We have so few armed police, that compared to Paris we are sitting ducks.
There are so many Thousands here already that hate the west and want us destroyed.
Why are so many people who are against the bombing,
so violent in there actions ?0 -
Hahaha class.Stu_of_Kunming said:
If it means he can get that flagging hard-on going, I imagine Chizz can think pretty much anything.ShootersHillGuru said:
No. I was commenting on the post prior to that regarding the Caliphate. Do you really think I would post that about a stabbing ?Chizz said:
"At last" in immediate response to a terrorist attack in London?ShootersHillGuru said:0
