Magilla Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 About time this came out, these claims have been made for years and it takes a guy of his standing to unravel the edges enough. "His standing"? You're joking right! He makes the Daily Mail look sane! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazjea Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Friendly fire is just one of the risks they seek to minimise, but impossible to completely eliminate. They will have a system in place that has hopefully learned from errors in the past, its likely to be more sophisticated but humans are still involved. Heres an article on them testing the new system for the US and russia to aboid shooting each other. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/11/03/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-usa-idUKKCN0SS1XE20151103 There are no ground troops involved here for the UK, so you are talking about one incident. You may have read the recent report about the mistakes made by the MSF attack. Its happened in all wars. Its not a reason not to do something though. ps it was about weapons allegedly being supplied by the USA direct to ISIS as claimed in a tweet. I wasn't talking about the MSF incident, I was referring to the 8 incidents involving British personnel from 2003.I am well aware that British troops are not on ground as yet.I notice you have changed your stance from "There wouldn't be a problem with the US" PS Will post further Syria bombing subjects on (Syria megathread) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 And where do believe following 'the money' leads. As far as I can see the only people making money are the lical criminal gangs buying cheap oil from isis then flogging it on to whoever. Well let's put it this way, we are one if the biggest arms manufacturers, and arms are our biggest export. There's also going to be a lot of nice contracts going in the near future... I'm not saying anything but Theresa May's husband more or less owns G4S, then there's Tony Blair's peace keeping negotiations, and lots of infrastructure to be replaced and ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 I'm not saying anything but Theresa May's husband more or less owns G4S, then there's Tony Blair's peace keeping negotiations, and lots of infrastructure to be replaced and ..... Why are you not saying anything? Is it because Theresa May's husband doesn't more or less own G4S? It's an internet myth that he owns G4S and if you have any evidence that he does then post it here please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buck Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Better kick the yanks out of NATO then, the dirty rotten scoundrels.Yes please, then maybe we can get our roads and bridges fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now