People don't understand the reality of what an 'Air Strike' really is... as the UK joins in. ( conspiracy )

submitted by meat_for_the_beast

Seeing that the UK just joined in . I don't think we (anyone not from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria) have any clue of what it is like to experience an air strike.

Imagine trying to get to work or going to the store for groceries or waiting for treatment at a hospital... when all of a sudden shit is blowing up and people are dying around you. Why? because some foreign country believes that somewhere near by there are terrorists.

The reality is... the targets chosen as terrorist locations are just guesses or barely have any real confirmation that it is an actual threat. Then, once they drop the bombs from the sky they just hope that no one innocent gets hurt... think of how many people get injured or die for no good reason. It's continuing the blowback and the madness of the military industrial complex.

This air strike shit needs to stop! ...of course it needs to go further and we need to stop all of this War on Terror madness.

DJexs

In violation of international law. I love how nobody points this out. The only country legally allowed to be bombing in syria is russia. France, US, and UK are all in violation of UN law but that's ok apparently when your the axis of evil.

Chiefpacman

Ughhhhh. Not everything is about flowers and innocence.

stevesully23

Where do you get your information? Airstrikes are definitely serious and require a lot of consideration before being used I agree. Your statement that targets are largely chosen as "guesses" is a little ridiculous though. I guarantee there are satellite images, video constantly being monitored of the area (24/7) and many written reports on each target site chosen. Yeah the US has a bad rep for bombing places they shouldn't but that doesn't mean the UK will employ the same tactic. How else would you get to ISIS? Send in an army? I'd much rather see bombs going off on terrorists near my house than another country invading my land.

meat_for_the_beast

How about focused special ops teams to infiltrate and remove confirmed terrorists? This would greatly reduce innocent people getting killed... Otherwise, it should be about protecting ourselves on our own land and that's it... not going to foreign places and killing people on mostly suspicion.

You don't think the UK will employ the same tactic as the US? ... No one can confirm that once the bomb is dropped that it will only hurt terrorists. It's about seeing the bigger picture of what an air strike really does... it just creates more blowback,innocent death, and further destruction of land and infrastructure that had nothing to do with it.

stevesully23

Sure spec ops teams are good. They are used currently but only for high valued targets. Its too expensive to fully equipt a team, train them, have leaders over them, and collecting the required knowledge for a raid. This is just not an effective method for getting a vast majority of ISIS. This also raises the death toll of friendly soldiers that a air strike does not. Its much easier to explain a few dead foreigners than dead soldiers for a leader/politician. Protecting yourself on your own land is not always a viable strategy. You need to attack an enemy in their own area while they are building up sometimes. You can't just wait for them to attack you and then react. Air strikes are always about seeing the bigger picture. Collateral damage is a real thing and they have official ways of calculating whether or not to strike (differs by country). So no they can't confirm that the bomb won't hurt others.

meat_for_the_beast

The problem is... we now know that ISIS and most other terrorist groups are being supported by US, Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia (and I'm sure there are more). So the entire thing is all based on deception. Why are we dropping bombs on countries that 'harbour terrorists' which we (NATO countries) secretly build up and support?

The whole entire 14 year War on Terror has been completely fabricated to continue the military industrial complex, gain control over resources, and enforce the world banking system. The occupations, troops on the ground, air strikes, etc... all needs to stop.

Air strikes are just one of the worst actions of them all... it's just too random and deadly of a way to fight terrorism.

stevesully23

Yeah I definitely understand and agree what you are saying, its just such a complicated issue that its kinda easy to argue each side. I'm an American and a veteran as well so I'm really biased and speaking based on my experience with the US military. To be honest I would think the UK has a better reason to bring war to the middle east, they are much closer and easier to target. Air strikes definitely suck but they are better than doing nothing and sometimes they are the only way to get the enemy to surrender (like with the atom bombs).

FacelessOne

"Air strikes definitely suck but they are better than doing nothing and sometimes they are the only way to get the enemy to surrender (like with the atom bombs)."

Heres your logical fallicy,

There is no Physical Enemy we are trying to destroy or get to surrender, exactly like in 1984, in order for the government to get away with everything it wants to do and expand its power even more they have fabricated an "Enemy" and we are at constant war with said enemy, if the politicians dont push for attacking that enemy then the general population does not have anything better to focus their attentions on and we may start to focus on why we let our government continue to exist in its current iteration.

Anyone who does not want to attack the enemy is obviously a sympathizer and should be ignored and ostracized for not wanting to make our country which just happens to be on the other side of the planet more secure by blowing up our "Enemies" where they live.

Stop falling for the bullshit complete garbage lie that if we dont fight them where they live we will have to fight them here. I welcome a fight to actually defend our borders, its never happened nor will it.

Sending Bombs, troops, money to any foreign country is a complete waste.

If you can explain how the US or UK getting involved in another countries business some how makes our countries more secure please explain. Note, try not to parrot the same empty statements our government officials give us.

stevesully23

I'm not parroting anything, I don't even listen to our officials. I'm just giving my opinion on the matter and just because it is different from yours doesn't make it any less logical, intelligent, or original. I definitely agree that we shouldn't have gone to the middle east in the first place. I'm not advocating going to the middle east for a fake war to get us some oil. I'm just saying that as devil's advocate, you have to look at the fact that from a straight war tactics position, attacking the enemy first is a good idea. I think that Sun Tzu actually said that in the art of war (completely guessing). I'm not saying we HAVE to attack them to prevent us being attacked, but if there is a chance isn't it worth it? You would really rather have to defend our borders and fight for our land and family then to send a few bombs on drones?

FacelessOne

Is that all it takes to invade another sovereign nation? Well there's a chance so we better overcompensate and spend a trillion dollars because there is a chance its completely justified.

Juxtaposition the situation and we have created a self full-filling threat that justifies never-ending war.

It has to stop sometime why not now?

stevesully23

Because right now we're bigger so fuck them lol