The Syrian Civil War. Do you support a side?
- Thread starter Heafodban
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
That's wrong, Kobrag 
The bombing of civilians in inaccurate night attacks for the sake of terror was the express goal of the thing. Precision attacks had been possible since well before the start of the war, assuming one was willing to risk pilots' lives. Also escort fighters were an isse that couldn't be solved until late in the war. British bomber command simply chose safety of their own and dead civilians over the risk.
That policy was kept till well into the cold war by the way, while the US was frantically trying to find ways to take out specific targets to cripple the enemy, the British strategy was still one of "kill as many as possible" and screw the rest.
The US bombers flew during the day so they could actually hit their targets instead of civilians. Sure, during winter months they did it the British way, but cloud cover and winds didn't usually give them much choice in the matter.
What the British did was effectively a war crime on a grand scheme and had they lost, a lot of folks would've been executed for it.
The bombing of civilians in inaccurate night attacks for the sake of terror was the express goal of the thing. Precision attacks had been possible since well before the start of the war, assuming one was willing to risk pilots' lives. Also escort fighters were an isse that couldn't be solved until late in the war. British bomber command simply chose safety of their own and dead civilians over the risk.
That policy was kept till well into the cold war by the way, while the US was frantically trying to find ways to take out specific targets to cripple the enemy, the British strategy was still one of "kill as many as possible" and screw the rest.
The US bombers flew during the day so they could actually hit their targets instead of civilians. Sure, during winter months they did it the British way, but cloud cover and winds didn't usually give them much choice in the matter.
What the British did was effectively a war crime on a grand scheme and had they lost, a lot of folks would've been executed for it.
You got yourself un-posting-banned again?
An Irish Noob
Recruit
They're all as bad as each other. Send in a bunch of French Christians and reestablish the Principality of Antioch
+1An Irish Noob said:Send in a bunch of French Christians and reestablish the Principality of Antioch
I'd love to see France crusading in Syria.
''Sacre bleue, mort aux sarasin!''
Medieval looking knights armed with FAMAS.
An Irish Noob
Recruit
The Sixth Crusade sponsored by Coca-Cola. We already have a Kingdom of Jerusalem fighting the infidels, may as well join the party.
An Irish Noob
Recruit
I said the Sixth because that was the only one where it took a man playing around with diplomacy to do what thousands of swords failed to do :p
Flin Flon
Gotcha.Hekimoğlu said:
Leonidas300
Banned
Hekimoğlu said:
Your lands? I thought that those lands that you are talking about were Byzantine lands... well, ok ok your lands your lands :^)
Because having a nation run and founded on principles from the middle ages clearly is the better alternative to having "Western" soldiers fight some ass-backwards ****heads who want to kill everyone who doesn't agree.
Cool guy.
Cool guy.
Flin Flon
I actually agree that everyone should just buzz off when the middle east is involved. It's about the learning process that the middle-eastern countries need to go through. That theocracies don't work. If that process involves civil wars, countless reforms and generally a bad time, then so be it. If/when they get out of it, I'd imagine something more stable on the long-term.
But honestly, I don't see the middle-east being progressive anywhere in our lifetime, with the exception of a few countries.
But honestly, I don't see the middle-east being progressive anywhere in our lifetime, with the exception of a few countries.
Yea give the Byzantine their lands back!Leonidas300 said:
Oh true. But it should be glaringly obvious that the IS needs to go.
And if foreigners are willing to do the dying to get that done? And front the massive bill it will cause? Shouldn't that be something he should be glad about?
But nooooo, we can't have none of dem Yankees here.
And if foreigners are willing to do the dying to get that done? And front the massive bill it will cause? Shouldn't that be something he should be glad about?
But nooooo, we can't have none of dem Yankees here.
Flin Flon
Yea, but I don't think that foreign help comes free. Often the helping countries set certain expectations to the people they're helping. Foreign influence is pressuring, and it can result in a backlash.
IS should definitely go, though, yea. But I also understand the attitude of ''keep the west out''.
IS should definitely go, though, yea. But I also understand the attitude of ''keep the west out''.
Oh true, nothing good will come from Western soldiers taking part.
In other news, IS beheaded the first Brit they had in their custody.Who apparently worked 19 years as a humanitarian worker in the area. Misread that, he was in their loving care for 19 month, he was working for a humanitarian aid organisation though.
Good job!
In other news, IS beheaded the first Brit they had in their custody.
Good job!
