Isis burn pilot alive..

Timberrrrrrrr

Wurzelbert wrote: »

collateral damage, sad as it would be...though i am aware that's bomber harris style talk...also wonder how many more will die by the hand of is if they are allowed to consolidate and extend their grip on the middle east and beyond...

So again i will ask. to stop the killing of a few innocent people you are willing to kill thousands of innocent people? And you don't see how stupid this stance is?

Tugboats

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So again i will ask. to stop the killing of a few innocent people you are willing to kill thousands of innocent people? And you don't see how stupid this stance is?

You said before you want Middle Eastern military forces to take of business. Whats your opinion of Jordan bombing Iraq and Syria, do you support this? Whats your opinion of the aggressive comments and war mongering coming out of Jordan?

Timberrrrrrrr

Tugboats wrote: »

You said before you want Middle Eastern military forces to take of business. Whats your opinion of Jordan bombing Iraq and Syria, do you support this? Whats your opinion of the aggressive comments and war mongering coming out of Jordan?

There is a HUGE difference between a well trained armed force moving in and fighting it out and dropping a ****ing nuke on a city. If you don't see how idiotic and hypocritical the "NUKE EM " stance is then you really need help.

ireland.man

Tugboats wrote: »

You said before you want Middle Eastern military forces to take of business. Whats your opinion of Jordan bombing Iraq and Syria, do you support this? Whats your opinion of the aggressive comments and war mongering coming out of Jordan?

What approach do you think Jordan should take on this matter?

And do you have an opinion regarding the recent exclusion of Kurdish groups from the anti-ISIS conference in London, a conference which had representatives from 21 nations attending.

Lastly, do you think Western countries actually have a role to play in combating ISIS in the ME?

Skylinehead

Wurzelbert wrote: »

think we have reached a point where the only argument left against going thermonuclear on rakka and the is in general is the risk of further escalation of the whole mess...

I'm sorry, this is insane. By all measurable counts, you'd kill FAR more people (innocent by the way) than ISIS has ever done. And this is fine in your eyes?

ireland.man

Wurzelbert wrote: »

think we have reached a point where the only argument left against going thermonuclear on rakka and the is in general is the risk of further escalation of the whole mess...

This sort of statement is down to an irresponsible media preying on the minds of naive, uncritical individuals.

Captain Chaos

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

There is a HUGE difference between a well trained armed force moving in and fighting it out and dropping a ****ing nuke on a city. If you don't see how idiotic and hypocritical the "NUKE EM " stance is then you really need help.

It made Japan surrender though. Saved a few hundred thousand American lives at the cost of killing the same amount of civilians even today from the effects.

Tugboats

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

There is a HUGE difference between a well trained armed force moving in and fighting it out and dropping a ****ing nuke on a city. If you don't see how idiotic and hypocritical the "NUKE EM " stance is then you really need help.

Do you accept that the well trained forces moving in will still result in some civilian casualties although obviously a lot less?

Any opinion on the aggressive comments coming from Jordan who would obviously be part of the forces that you recommend go in?

So do I have it right: You're in support of trained Middle Eastern forces INVADING Syria and accept that there would be limited civilian casualties?

ireland.man

Tugboats wrote: »

Do you accept that the well trained forces moving in will still result in some civilian casualties although obviously a lot less?

Any opinion on the aggressive comments coming from Jordan who would obviously be part of the forces that you recommend go in?

So do I have it right: You're in support of trained Middle Eastern forces invading Syria and and accept that there would be limited civilian casualties?

Answer the questions put to you by others on the thread.

Tugboats

ireland.man wrote: »

What approach do you think Jordan should take on this matter?

And do you have an opinion regarding the recent exclusion of Kurdish groups from the anti-ISIS conference in London, a conference which had representatives from 21 nations attending.

Lastly, do you think Western countries actually have a role to play in combating ISIS in the ME?

1. I have no problem with Jordan going hard in Syria or Iraq because I'm not anti war or too worried about civilian casualties. I'm just surprised that people on here don't seem to have a problem with their actions or aggressive comments yet claim to be against war. Why is this?

2. Id be more surprised if they were invited. I could be wrong but wasn't it a meeting of States?

3. A limited role with surgical airstrikes is what they seem to be currently doing. I don't think it will ever be more than that. Personally I have no problem with Western forces becoming heavy handed and launching a massive air and ground campaign. This wont happen so there is no need for people to worry about it

Timberrrrrrrr

Tugboats wrote: »

1. I have no problem with Jordan going hard in Syria or Iraq because I'm not anti war or too worried about civilian casualties. I'm just surprised that people on here don't seem to have a problem with their actions or aggressive comments yet claim to be against war. Why is this?

2. Id be more surprised if they were invited. I could be wrong but wasn't it a meeting of States?

3. A limited role with surgical airstrikes is what they seem to be currently doing. I don't think it will ever be more than that. Personally I have no problem with Western forces becoming heavy handed and launching a massive air and ground campaign. This wont happen so there is no need for people to worry about it

Would you have been ok with the British army/RAF dropping 1000lb bombs on Belfast and Derry after Brighton or Warrington attacks?

Tugboats

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Would you have been ok with the British army/RAF dropping 1000lb bombs on Belfast and Derry after Brighton or Warrington attacks?

doing everything to avoid clarifying your support of a Middle Eastern invasion of Syria that would result in limited civilian causalities:D:D

Timberrrrrrrr

Tugboats wrote: »

doing everything to avoid clarifying your support of a Middle Eastern invasion of Syria that would result in limited civilian causalities:D:D

Says the one with all the questions but never answers a single one :rolleyes:

Tugboats

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Says the one with all the questions but never answers a single one :rolleyes:

Ive answered plenty of questions. In plain English you still will not clarify your support of the invasion of Syria

Timberrrrrrrr

Tugboats wrote: »

Ive answered plenty of questions. In plain English you still will not clarify your support of the invasion of Syria

When you're ready

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Would you have been ok with the British army/RAF dropping 1000lb bombs on Belfast and Derry after Brighton or Warrington attacks?

Tugboats

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

When you're ready

yes

ireland.man

Tugboats wrote: »

Ive answered plenty of questions. In plain English you still will not clarify your support of the invasion of Syria

It's actually a good question, would you have supported the RAF launching airstrikes against Dublin, Derry and Belfast in order to combat the IRA which by the early 90's had carried out far more terrorist attacks than ISIS could ever dream of.

Timberrrrrrrr

Tugboats wrote: »

yes

Then you should probably seek professional help.

Tugboats

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Then you should probably seek professional help.

Still waiting for your answer

ireland.man

I've said it before, if you're trolling for hours every day on Boards, that's a big problem you have. If this isn't trolling and you believe in bombing Dublin to rout the IRA or you're entertained by civilian deaths, then that's much, much more serious.

Either way a lot of posters here thanked you for your comment about how you find ISIS entertaining and how you don't have any feelings for their victims. That's the most disturbing element.

Tugboats

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I can't answer your question

Why?

Timberrrrrrrr

Tugboats wrote: »

Why?

Because they wouldn't be invading Syria they would more than likely joining up with Assad's forces to fight ISIS.

Tugboats wrote: »

So do I have it right: You're in support of trained Middle Eastern forces INVADING Syria and accept that there would be limited civilian casualties?

Tugboats

ireland.man wrote: »

I've said it before, if you're trolling for hours every day on Boards, that's a big problem you have. If this isn't trolling and you believe in bombing Dublin to rout the IRA or you're entertained by civilian deaths, then that's much, much more serious.

Either way a lot of posters here thanked you for your comment about how you find ISIS entertaining and how you don't have any feelings for their victims. That's the most disturbing element.

Lets keep avoiding why its so hard for somebody to say that they support a foreign invasion of Syria that would result in limited civilian deaths

Tugboats

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Because they wouldn't be invading Syria they would more than likely joining up with Assad's forces to fight ISIS.

:rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr

Tugboats wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Do you have any proof that this wouldn't be the case or is your bloodlust just hoping it's not the case?

Tugboats

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Do you have any proof that this wouldn't be the case or is your bloodlust just hoping it's not the case?

Any war will result in blood and destruction. You're a supporter of war so dont talk to me about my bloodlust

ireland.man

Tugboats wrote: »

Any war will result in blood and destruction. You're a supporter of war so dont talk to me about my bloodlust

Did you say you enjoy the entertainment value of ISIS and the war against them?

Did you say you want to escalate the war against them?

Did you say you don't care about anyone's lives 'over there' in Syria and Iraq?

Timberrrrrrrr

Tugboats wrote: »

Any war will result in blood and destruction. You're a supporter of war so dont talk to me about my bloodlust

Supporter? I have taken part in a war, I have seen the destruction war causes, here's the thing....it's nothing like you imagine it is because if you really knew then there is no way you would be calling for bombing of cities full of innocent people. You have been called out by others for what you are and i agree with them, No more food for you kiddo.

Tugboats

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Supporter? I have taken part in a war, I have seen the destruction war causes, here's the thing....it's nothing like you imagine it is because if you really knew then there is no way you would be calling for bombing of cities full of innocent people. You have been called out by others for what you are and i agree with them, No more food for you kiddo.

Yes why the question mark?. You favour trained Middle eastern forces entering Syria and fighting Isis. Thats a war

Tugboats

ireland.man wrote: »

Did you say you enjoy the entertainment value of ISIS and the war against them?

Did you say you want to escalate the war against them?

Did you say you don't care about anyone's lives 'over there' in Syria and Iraq?

yes
yes
yes.

But Timberrrrrrrrrrr should not questioning my bloodlust when he is calling for war