Padhasapa Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Let's remember this all began with Turkey illegally shooting down a Russian plane headed to attack our common enemy, ISIS. I'd expect no less "bellicose" rhetoric from David Cameron had that been an RAF plane. Erdogan is trying to bring back Turkish power in surrounding areas previously under Ottoman control. We know they've been aiding ISIS and buying the oil from them. They want to become power players again. Shooting down a Russian plane was a cynical stunt to prop up Turkey's position in the region. They wouldn't be so confident if they didn't have NATO to hide behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted November 30, 2015 Author Share Posted November 30, 2015 Got any evidence to back all that up? Reuters have analysed Moscow's data: 80% of bombing sorties are on non-IS targets. http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKBN0TJ11W20151130?irpc=932 There is a lot of speculation that the Turks were wanting to protect non IS Turkmen fighters Russia was bombing out of existence. Turkey had complained repeatedly that this was unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padhasapa Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 ISIS is not the only terrorist group in the area we need to be bombing. There are also Al Qaeda who have a completely different agenda. Assuming Reuters' figures are accurate, which I don't assume, who are the other 80%? How was this figure arriverd at? What does "analysis" mean? Even if they're not ISIS, it doesn't mean they're not Al Qaeda or any of the other terrorist factions in the region. I would like to see some proof that Russia has been bombing innocent civilians, as this is what it sounds like you're saying. Also, can you let us know why Obama refuses to share intelligence on ISIS targets with Putin, even while the CIA director has called for more sharing of intelligence between the two countries? In case anyone's interested, an article on the differences between ISIS and Al Qaeda http://www.businessinsider.com/difference-between-isis-and-al-qaeda-2015-5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 It is "interesting" that Turkey received 3 Billion Euro a couple of days after shooting down that jet. Remember to buy those shares in BAE and Raytheon...I have a feeling they will be doing well in the next few weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Got any evidence to back all that up? Reuters have analysed Moscow's data: 80% of bombing sorties are on non-IS targets. http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKBN0TJ11W20151130?irpc=932 There is a lot of speculation that the Turks were wanting to protect non IS Turkmen fighters Russia was bombing out of existence. Turkey had complained repeatedly that this was unacceptable. Reuters?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Got any evidence to back all that up? Reuters have analysed Moscow's data: 80% of bombing sorties are on non-IS targets. http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKBN0TJ11W20151130?irpc=932 There is a lot of speculation that the Turks were wanting to protect non IS Turkmen fighters Russia was bombing out of existence. Turkey had complained repeatedly that this was unacceptable. Reuters?? Also lets not forget that Russia were invited by the Syrian Government to fight the insurgent rebel factions as well...or I as I like to call them...the American proxy forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 So the rebels who shot down a Russian plane were the 'moderate' rebels right? Good job they weren't fundamentalist rebels, who knows what they'd have done. You couldn't make all this shit up, but unfortunately someone did and now things are unravelling so fast no-one knows who's backing who anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 US/UK Government Forces sponsored by the Arms Industry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 It is "interesting" that Turkey received 3 Billion Euro a couple of days after shooting down that jet. Remember to buy those shares in BAE and Raytheon...I have a feeling they will be doing well in the next few weeks. It's froth on the top for BAE. They have plenty of orders in the pipeline and a decent business. It's hardly like there is no call for their product up until very recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 War huh what is it good for...an ever growing arms industry and bloated "security" sector...oh an absolutely nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 I don't suppose there were any wars before the international arms business then. All those hundreds of years ago they must have settled things with diplomacy. Unless the makers of cannonballs, musketry and grapeshot were behind it all. Most likely the case..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 I don't suppose there were any wars before the international arms business then. All those hundreds of years ago they must have settled things with diplomacy. Unless the makers of cannonballs, musketry and grapeshot were behind it all. Most likely the case..... Do you honestly think military spending is even remotely comparable to ye olde days? Warfare is worth trillions and perpetual war is very good for business...even better when you are arming both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/oct/10/military.jamesmeek Interesting article on the SA80, the standard British Infantry weapon (granted the article is from 2002). A good example of throwing good money after bad rope, and then more money and then more still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Very accurate but a stoppage almost guaranteed within 120 rounds. Not a nice feeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padhasapa Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 I don't suppose there were any wars before the international arms business then. All those hundreds of years ago they must have settled things with diplomacy. Unless the makers of cannonballs, musketry and grapeshot were behind it all. Most likely the case..... I'm guessing you're joking but, yes, hundreds of years ago there was a thriving international arms business. Another reason to go to war was over power and resources, same as today, and also to keep populations controlled. War has always been a good excuse to crackdown on peasant uprisings and get everyone marching behind the flag. All the king would have to do is send a messenger pigeon to his cousin the king of the other country (the royals were all related) and escalate things at the border. Oh, and let's not forget the role of banks and money lenders. It doesn't matter if you're sending in knights in armour or a nuclear missile, the activity of war has always been profitable otherwise it would have gone out of business long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.