-
No mention of attacking only supply lines or infrastructure. In fact if this was the case it would be short sighted in my opinion.
No, we will be supporting our allies in attacking the heart of isil which, in effect, will be Raqqa and Mosul.
Wait - you're saying the RAF must be bad for killing innocents by bombing urban areas, but that it would be short-sighted to avoid bombing urban areas and focus on the supply lines?
Apart from the fact your argument contradicts itself, you clearly haven't read much military history. Going after supply lines is generally considered to be a quicker, less costly way of weakening your adversary than trying to exterminate a bunch of people. Less evil too.
h2o-
I think he/she just meant the reality is you do both.
-
Wait - you're saying the RAF must be bad for killing innocents by bombing urban areas, but that it would be short-sighted to avoid bombing urban areas and focus on the supply lines?
short sighted of the air marshals, not me, cus i didnt start the war, it's their cause etc.
as for military history... lol it's all the fucking same story from Alexander the great to Hitler.
and yes, it's always 'bad' when innnocents are killed
hugo7
sausagefingers
"The government motion specifically authorises air strikes "exclusively" against IS in Syria - but not deploying British troops on the ground."
No mention of attacking only supply lines or infrastructure. In fact if this was the case it would be short sighted in my opinion.
No, we will be supporting our allies in attacking the heart of isil which, in effect, will be Raqqa and Mosul.