UK forces kill own citizens in Syria

DarkyHughes

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

If they are part of a war and on the enemies side then the fact they are British, Irish or Syrian doesnt matter.

They were killed in combat.

Yes, the fact they were killed by British forces is irrelevant to me.
The fact British forces are even in Syria at all is the bemusing part. When Russian forces entered Ukraine they were being compared to the Nazi's yet ironically most of the fighting they did was against right-wing fascist paramilitaries who advocated National Socialism.

Gatling

DarkyHughes wrote: »

When Russian forces entered Ukraine they were being compared to the Nazi's yet ironically most of the fighting they did was against right-wing fascist paramilitaries who advocated National Socialism.

Right wing paramilitaries made up of roughly 3/4 percent if even that of Ukrainian forces the majority of military deaths 3000+ were regular Ukrainian army
while most pepole will happily denounce the small right wing groups at the end of the day there Ukrainians defending there country from Russian aggression.
But that's a whole different thread covered politics and politics cafe ,and the MH17 thread.

The Corinthian

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It was exactly my point - made sarcastically (though that must not have been obvious enough)

When a poster has a history of outlandish and unsubstantiated claims it becomes difficult to ascertain whether what they post is sarcasm or meant seriously.

Speaking of outlandish and unsubstantiated claims, we're all still waiting for evidence of how "the Iraq war played a significant role in destabilizing Syria".

FTA69

The Corinthian wrote: »

When a poster has a history of outlandish and unsubstantiated claims it becomes difficult to ascertain whether what they post is sarcasm or meant seriously.

Speaking of outlandish and unsubstantiated claims, we're all still waiting for evidence of how "the Iraq war played a significant role in destabilizing Syria".

Well it led to the creation of ISIS for a start.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote: »

Well it led to the creation of ISIS for a start.

So you back up an unsubstantiated claim with another unsubstantiated claim?

Classic.

blatantrereg

The Corinthian wrote: »

So you back up an unsubstantiated claim with another unsubstantiated claim?

Classic.

ISIS developed in Iraq.
The iron fist of Saddam Hussein would not have allowed them to grow so powerful.
When he was taken out it left a power vacuum and destablized the country. This was the environment that ISIS emerged from.
Does anybody still think the Gulf Wars were anything but massive **** ups? Does anybody think that ISIS are preferable to Saddam Hussein?

The Corinthian

blatantrereg wrote: »

ISIS developed in Iraq.

No, it began to develop in Iraq. Indeed, it can trace some of it's roots to al-Qaeda too because ultimately the evolution of such groups is a a continuum that can be traced back to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or even Hassan al-Banna's founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928.

Where is really developed - set itself apart from the many jihadist groups in the region - was in Syria, not Iraq. This is why to portray that the Iraq war was a "significant" influence is at best misleading as IS would never have reached the level it has today were it not for the Syrian civil war; it would only have been yet another 'also ran' jihadist group.

Does anybody still think the Gulf Wars were anything but massive **** ups? Does anybody think that ISIS are preferable to Saddam Hussein?

No one is arguing that. The invasion of Iraq was an unmitigated disaster, but this need to argue that all the ills of the region are principally down to the Iraq war has become laughable. It's more complex than that.

Closed for review. Please bear with me.
Thanks.