In the news

^the Russians are bombing cities though. Think RAF has mainly been going after oil stuff.

RAF has super geeky weapons.

Russia is a honey badger.

Should all headlines be written in context of other headlines? The flooding is destroying lives to some extent. It's also a quote form Roy Ashley. I see what you're getting at but these 2 examples are a bit of a stretch.

Don't the RAF claim that their precision missiles don't cause collateral damage and hit only what they are meant to hit?

Don't the Russians just carpet bomb the general vicinity where there might be anti Assad troops?

Aren't these totally different things that should not cause the two operations to never be lumped in together?

If you lived in Cumbria and lost your home and business to the floods, wouldn't you consider your life to have been destroyed?

Not really making fun of the flooding, but
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cum­bria-35166747 "flooding 'destroyed lives'" seems slightly absurd when the article above is
bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-e­ast-35162523
(Russian airstrikes kill 200 civilians)

[also it seems ridiculous that the Russians are killing civilians, but the RAF are amazing and not killing any civilians]

Totally agree with you mate. For the floods to 'destroy lives' people would have had to have drowned.

Syrian refugees would probably be happy to live in a flood plain in Cumbria if it meant they didnt get bombed

Im willing to bet that RAF actions have destroyed lives, innocent brown lives I mean not just the dangerous brown lives. And I knew that would be happening before Mr Benn had his 'astute politician' costume on for his speech in support of call me Dave.

Seriously, does anyone believe Raf bombs are smart enough to target only the 'guilty'