› ›

Bond against the Taliban/Al Qaeda/ISIS?

12346»

Comments

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    The only way ISIS could ever be made into a Bond film is through mentions and how they are financed by shadowy organizations like SPECTRE, and that is all. Bond fights shadowy powers that orchestrate world affairs without anyone knowing. ISIS is a subject of a direct combat that military departments handle, attack, take down and whatever. Those aforementioned terrorists are not subjects of espionage.

    You think so?

    https://www.mi5.gov.uk/terrorism

    https://www.sis.gov.uk/our-mission.html#current-threats
    And?
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    edited April 2017 Posts: 4,325
    Our security services are involved in gathering intelligence on ISIS - so espionage is involved. Epsionage is involved in all military situations - they're not called Military Intelligence 5 and Military Intelligence 6 without reason.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited April 2017 Posts: 15,423
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Our security services are involved in gathering intelligence on ISIS - so epsionage is involved.
    Alright, I'll rephrase. Espionage is involved by only to a degree where intelligence and information is gathered, and done in the most discreet and at minimum rate of detection. But, to fight and lock horns with the entirety of ISIS and the likes is a pure military and navy business. Special Forces as Dragonpol said in the previous page.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Our security services are involved in gathering intelligence on ISIS - so epsionage is involved.
    Alright, I'll rephrase. Espionage is involved by only to a degree where intelligence and information is gathered, and done in the most discreet and at minimum rate of detection. But, to fight and lock horns with the entirety of ISIS and the likes is a pure military and navy business. Special Forces as Dragonpol said in the last page.

    Incorrect.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Our security services are involved in gathering intelligence on ISIS - so epsionage is involved.
    Alright, I'll rephrase. Espionage is involved by only to a degree where intelligence and information is gathered, and done in the most discreet and at minimum rate of detection. But, to fight and lock horns with the entirety of ISIS and the likes is a pure military and navy business. Special Forces as Dragonpol said in the last page.

    Incorrect.
    Sure darling.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Our security services are involved in gathering intelligence on ISIS - so epsionage is involved.
    Alright, I'll rephrase. Espionage is involved by only to a degree where intelligence and information is gathered, and done in the most discreet and at minimum rate of detection. But, to fight and lock horns with the entirety of ISIS and the likes is a pure military and navy business. Special Forces as Dragonpol said in the last page.

    Incorrect.
    Sure darling.

    Absolutely honey pie.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,787
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Our security services are involved in gathering intelligence on ISIS - so epsionage is involved.
    Alright, I'll rephrase. Espionage is involved by only to a degree where intelligence and information is gathered, and done in the most discreet and at minimum rate of detection. But, to fight and lock horns with the entirety of ISIS and the likes is a pure military and navy business. Special Forces as Dragonpol said in the last page.

    Incorrect.

    Yes, but MI5 is not the Service that Bond belongs to of course, rendering your point invalid, surely.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    edited April 2017 Posts: 4,325
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Our security services are involved in gathering intelligence on ISIS - so epsionage is involved.
    Alright, I'll rephrase. Espionage is involved by only to a degree where intelligence and information is gathered, and done in the most discreet and at minimum rate of detection. But, to fight and lock horns with the entirety of ISIS and the likes is a pure military and navy business. Special Forces as Dragonpol said in the last page.

    Incorrect.

    Yes, but MI5 is not the Service that Bond belongs to of course, rendering your point invalid, surely.

    If you read it properly I mentioned both MI5 and MI6. It is interesting how agitated people get on internet forums when you disagree with them. Oh well ...
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,787
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Our security services are involved in gathering intelligence on ISIS - so epsionage is involved.
    Alright, I'll rephrase. Espionage is involved by only to a degree where intelligence and information is gathered, and done in the most discreet and at minimum rate of detection. But, to fight and lock horns with the entirety of ISIS and the likes is a pure military and navy business. Special Forces as Dragonpol said in the last page.

    Incorrect.

    Yes, but MI5 is not the Service that Bond belongs to of course, rendering your point invalid, surely.

    If you read it properly I mentioned both MI5 and MI6. It is interesting how agitated people get on internet forums when you disagree with them. Oh well ...

    I'm not agitated at all and I'm not sure where you get that impression from my posts. I'm just saying that the killing of such targets is left to the Special Forces of the US/UK Armed Forces and Navy, and not intelligence officers in the field like Bond.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Our security services are involved in gathering intelligence on ISIS - so epsionage is involved.
    Alright, I'll rephrase. Espionage is involved by only to a degree where intelligence and information is gathered, and done in the most discreet and at minimum rate of detection. But, to fight and lock horns with the entirety of ISIS and the likes is a pure military and navy business. Special Forces as Dragonpol said in the last page.

    Incorrect.

    Yes, but MI5 is not the Service that Bond belongs to of course, rendering your point invalid, surely.

    If you read it properly I mentioned both MI5 and MI6. It is interesting how agitated people get on internet forums when you disagree with them. Oh well ...

    I'm not agitated at all and I'm not sure where you get that impression from my posts. I'm just saying that the killing of such targets is left to the Special Forces of the US/UK Armed Forces and Navy, and not intelligence officers in the field like Bond.

    I didn't say you were and neither did I believe you to be so. The killing, absolutely, never contradicted that at all.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,787
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Dragonp[u][/u]ol wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Our security services are involved in gathering intelligence on ISIS - so epsionage is involved.
    Alright, I'll rephrase. Espionage is involved by only to a degree where intelligence and information is gathered, and done in the most discreet and at minimum rate of detection. But, to fight and lock horns with the entirety of ISIS and the likes is a pure military and navy business. Special Forces as Dragonpol said in the last page.

    Incorrect.

    Yes, but MI5 is not the Service that Bond belongs to of course, rendering your point invalid, surely.

    If you read it properly I mentioned both MI5 and MI6. It is interesting how agitated people get on internet forums when you disagree with them. Oh well ...

    I'm not agitated at all and I'm not sure where you get that impression from my posts. I'm just saying that the killing of such targets is left to the Special Forces of the US/UK Armed Forces and Navy, and not intelligence officers in the field like Bond.

    I didn't say you were and neither did I believe you to be so. The killing, absolutely, never contradicted that at all.

    Oh, I apologise, it just seemed that way to me from your reply to my post above.

    Of course in a fictional story like a Bond film Bond could fight ISIS or the Rump of the Taliban or Al-Qaeda (or Boko Haram for that matter) it just might not be the most realistic option for him to do so. The only way to do it realistically would be to have Bond seconded from MI6 to say the Royal Navy Special Forces, but I suppose Bond and intelligence services realism probably parted company many years ago so all of that may be academic.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Sadly if they did directly address them by name? It would glorify them! Also it would put the crew and cast of future movies at severe risk on location filming possibly? That is how twisted these people are!

    True. But publically destroying them on film isn't bad PR either.

    I think that President Trump will try his hand at that and he certainly seems more proactive than the previous US administration was, if the Syrian airbase bombardment is anything to go by.
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Sadly if they did directly address them by name? It would glorify them! Also it would put the crew and cast of future movies at severe risk on location filming possibly? That is how twisted these people are!

    True. But publically destroying them on film isn't bad PR either.

    I think that President Trump will try his hand at that and he certainly seems more proactive than the previous US administration was, if the Syrian airbase bombardment is anything to go by.

    Good for him.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Exactly..fair play.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Trump is a war criminal already.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    So are most world leaders nowadays.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Sadly true.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited April 2017 Posts: 17,787
    ...and those they kill are themselves war criminals...
Sign In or Register to comment.