UK launches first Syria air strikes

[user104658]

:facepalm: Why should BOTS divulge very personal details on a PUBLIC FORUM and potentially endanger himself and his family just to satisfy baiters? Because baiting is EXACTLY what you and others are now doing - you have been answered now by BOTS numerous times in detailed and civil responses but you continue to ask the same questions and continue to demand proof of what he is saying, which is nothing more than insult.
He doesn't have to divulge anything. I just said that. He can then expect his vague statements to be roundly disregarded. This is a perfectly reasonable stance Kirk, we could all claim to be anything at all and then say "I DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING TO YOU!" when questioned but it would all get a bit silly, wouldn't it?

[kirklancaster]

He doesn't have to divulge anything. I just said that. He can then expect his vague statements to be roundly disregarded. This is a perfectly reasonable stance Kirk, we could all claim to be anything at all and then say "I DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING TO YOU!" when questioned but it would all get a bit silly, wouldn't it?

I would be grateful if you would simply drop the antics and schoolboy rhetoric and waffle, and just discuss and debate for once, or go on Chat and games.

[user104658]

And mockery of a member who is known and appreciated for her moderate views, sincerity and inoffensiveness, is the default actions of the ignorant and arrogant.
I will conceed that that one was a low blow. Fair enough. I do like Ammi. Sorry, Ammi :(

[Ammi]

That's the default vocabulary of fence-sitting though, isn't it.

..or someone who doesn't know whether my opinion of there not being increased air strikes would be the right thing either because none of us do know, how could we possibly know that..so yes there are lots of maybes because there is no black or white/right or wrong with this as there isn't with many things and as you yourself have said many times...you can be as personal as you want with me or anyone else in your character assessments, but all that does is make you look very childish and silly indeed, which is quite a surprise for someone who seems to have a reasonable intelligences...so carry on because any debate (yet again..)..becomes impossible in this thread as it's all about some kind of point scoring...even above any thought of the people who have been killed by the bombs as was shown yesterday....

[user104658]

I would be grateful if you would simply drop the antics and schoolboy rhetoric and waffle, and just discuss and debate for once, or go on Chat and games.
It's not schoolboy rhetoric and waffle kirk, like I said it's a very clear and very reasonable stance when it comes to any debate. If someone isn't prepared to divulge the nature of their experience, then ignoring vaguely stated things like "Trust me, I have experience" is perfectly valid. In fact, I have no idea why anyone would take a statement like that at face value?

[Ammi]

I will conceed that that one was a low blow. Fair enough. I do like Ammi. Sorry, Ammi :(

....oooops, I didn't see that..(I'm a slow typist..)...anyways, the attention is lovely but I am doing a pub quiz atm and trying to fully focus on that so haven't got time really to reciprocate any further...

[Kizzy]

How many personal comments have been made about me in this thread now?

I stated that the military strategy I quoted is standard stuff, freely available in the public domain, which it is. If its being questioned, its easy enough to verify if one takes the time to do so.

To me this suggests that you just did a quick search for your info, no esoteric knowledge required :/

[bots]

Ah, I wondered how long it would take for someone to basically say 'you're a mod! if you don't agree with what I say then you're BULLYING ME' or whatever bull**** people come out with.


and right on cue, you play the .... everyone criticises me because I'm a Mod card

If it was an unusual occurrence, then you may have some justification, but its not, is it. I've seen loads pass similar comments. If that was me, I would be asking ... what is it in my posts that keep getting that response

[Kizzy]

..or someone who doesn't know whether my opinion of there not being increased air strikes would be the right thing either because none of us do know, how could we possibly know that..so yes there are lots of maybes because there is no black or white/right or wrong with this as there isn't with many things and as you yourself have said many times...you can be as personal as you want with me or anyone else in your character assessments, but all that does is make you look very childish and silly indeed, which is quite a surprise for someone who seems to have a reasonable intelligences...so carry on because any debate (yet again..)..becomes impossible in this thread as it's all about some kind of point scoring...even above any thought of the people who have been killed by the bombs as was shown yesterday....

So you're allowed to say we went to war on a maybe, and you're right and fair and fragrant... if I'd said that I would get an avalanche of posts that begin SO WOULD YOU RATHER WE WERE ALL KILLED IN OUR BEDS KIZZ? HMMMMM.. COZ THAT'S WORREL APPEN!!

[kirklancaster]

It's not schoolboy rhetoric and waffle kirk, like I said it's a very clear and very reasonable stance when it comes to any debate. If someone isn't prepared to divulge the nature of their experience, then ignoring vaguely stated things like "Trust me, I have experience" is perfectly valid. In fact, I have no idea why anyone would take a statement like that at face value?

T.S - Come off it, unlike some, you have NO excuses, because you are a highly intelligent man capable of sincere and very lucid posts. I have often applauded your posts even when your sentiments expressed in them did not exactly parallel my own stance BECAUSE they were intelligent and well expressed.

Some of your posts on here fall way, way below that standard and - in my opinion - are nothing but piss takes, mockery, or baiting.

[user104658]

and right on cue, you play the .... everyone criticises me because I'm a Mod card

If it was an unusual occurrence, then you may have some justification, but its not, is it. I've seen loads pass similar comments. If that was me, I would be asking ... what is it in my posts that keep getting that response
I honestly don't think this is fair, I've seen Dezzy have heated disagreements with a lot of people but I've literally not once seen him try to use infractions / post deletion or any other mod privilege for selfish reasons or any suggestion or intimation that he might. If it's literally just because he has opinions and his name is green, then that's purely an issue for the person who is making it an issue.

I personally couldn't give a toss if someone's name is green, blue, purple or a full rainbow spectrum. No offence intended mods and admins :joker:.

Edited to add: and this is not just because I happen to mostly agree in this thread, I think his stance on feminism is guff but never felt like he would abuse mod privileges in those threads either :shrug:

[Kizzy]

T.S - Come off it, unlike some, you have NO excuses, because you are a highly intelligent man capable of sincere and very lucid posts. I have often applauded your posts even when your sentiments expressed in them did not exactly paralell my own stance BECAUSE they were intelligent and well expressed.

Some of your posts on here fall way, way below that standard and - in my opinion - are nothing but piss takes, mockery, or baiting.

Let he who is without sin.... :)

[kirklancaster]

So you're allowed to say we went to war on a maybe, and you're right and fair and fragrant... if I'd said that I would get an avalanche of posts that begin SO WOULD YOU RATHER WE WERE ALL KILLED IN OUR BEDS KIZZ? HMMMMM.. COZ THAT'S WORREL APPEN!!

What has Ammi being 'fragrant' got to do with anything - more mockery.

[kirklancaster]

Let he who is without sin.... :)

Which part of the internet did that gem hail from?

[user104658]

T.S - Come off it, unlike some, you have NO excuses, because you are a highly intelligent man capable of sincere and very lucid posts. I have often applauded your posts even when your sentiments expressed in them did not exactly paralell my own stance BECAUSE they were intelligent and well expressed.

Some of your posts on here fall way, way below that standard and - in my opinion - are nothing but piss takes, mockery, or baiting.
This thread has gone bad like an old pear Kirk, let's not pretend any of us are smelling like roses. When words like "traitor" are being thrown around its time to either bow out gracefully or just accept that it's a mucky thread and have a roll around in the gutter... Right? If we ain't got that, then their ain't nuttin worth fightin fo.

[user104658]

What has Ammi being 'fragrant' got to do with anything.

Genuinely made me smile this one. I think Ammi probably smells like jasmine and cheerios. That's just the vibe I get.

[Kizzy]

Which part of the internet did that gem hail from?

The same part bots gets his military strategies from.

[Kizzy]

What has Ammi being 'fragrant' got to do with anything - more mockery.

fragrant
[frey-gruh nt]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
adjective
1.
having a pleasant scent or aroma; sweet-smelling; sweet-scented:
a fragrant rose.
2.
delightful; pleasant:
fragrant memories.

[kirklancaster]

fragrant
[frey-gruh nt]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
adjective
1.
having a pleasant scent or aroma; sweet-smelling; sweet-scented:
a fragrant rose.
2.
delightful; pleasant:
fragrant memories.

I know better than you what Fragrance means and did not ask for any definition - I queried why you used the word to describe Ammi when its use was so incongruous in the context of the post in which you had used it, but more so given your earlier inexcusable mocking post which was removed.

[Kizzy]

I know better than you what Fragrance means and did not ask for any definition - I queried why you used the word to describe Ammi when its use was so incongruous in the context of the post in which you had used it, but more so given your earlier inexcusable mocking post which was removed.

You know everything better than me so I'm not surprised...
Stick to the topic, if Ammi has an issue with anything she will query my post herself, you don't have to police the forum.

[kirklancaster]

[QUOTE=Merry Kizzmas;8338501]You know everything better than me so I'm not surprised...


TRUE.

"Stick to the topic, if Ammi has an issue with anything she will query my post herself, you don't have to police the forum."


:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: This is soooooo rich coming from you.:joker:

[Kizzy]

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: This is soooooo rich coming from you.:joker:

'Some of your posts on here fall way, way below that standard and - in my opinion - are nothing but piss takes, mockery, or baiting.'

[AnnieK]

Wow...this thread is so toxic. Wouldn't say it was a debate now just who can be as offensive as possible in a passive aggressive way whilst saying "I told you so" and "I'm right and you're wrong". I'm actually thinking of taking my chances and moving to Syria.

I change my mind almost daily on this subject. I don't honestly know enough about the subject to comment on the legality of the strikes or the possibility of what outcome this may or may not have but I can see pros and cons at the moment. I do think those who voted were in an no win situation, they sit and do nothing and a terrorist attack happens on UK soil and they should have done more, they go in and attacking and an attack happens here and it's because we intervened. I am personally so pleased not to have been expected to make a yes or no vote in this.

[Kizzy]

Wow...this thread is so toxic. Wouldn't say it was a debate now just who can be as offensive as possible in a passive aggressive way whilst saying "I told you so" and "I'm right and you're wrong". I'm actually thinking of taking my chances and moving to Syria.

I change my mind almost daily on this subject. I don't honestly know enough about the subject to comment on the legality of the strikes or the possibility of what outcome this may or may not have but I can see pros and cons at the moment. I do think those who voted were in an no win situation, they sit and do nothing and a terrorist attack happens on UK soil and they should have done more, they go in and attacking and an attack happens here and it's because we intervened. I am personally so pleased not to have been expected to make a yes or no vote in this.

That would be me #notsorry

I didn't think they were
I don't think they now
Do I feel justified saying that?
Yes.

[Ammi]

...you know what sickens me the most about this thread and what is effectively being said, which is why I was sickened by it yesterday and looks as though it will go on and on and on and on and on because last word is everything...of some who don't support the air strikes..(of which I am also a non supporter ..)...all of the I'm right and the gloating and the puffing of feathers etc and whichever whay you want to put it or spin it, is at the expense of those civilians who have been killed in the strikes, which was mentioned yesterday....no thought for them whatsoever, just a satisfaction at being right..(which no one is anyway, only a few days into a long extensive military action where any effectiveness or lack of/outcome isn't yet known..)...it's like someone, saying...'don't do that, it's dangerous/don't drive like that' or whatever and then something tragic and awful happening and saying I told you so/I told them so and having a satisfaction about it because they 'felt right' and very proud to say so...where is the pride in a loss of any life....people are dead and all some care about is who's right and who's wrong, it's staggering the coldness of it all and the absolute arrogance and self importance of an internet thread...there are no 'winners' in this, we know that in the UK and the whole world knows that because innocent people will die..../either way, innocent people will die and either way, have already...

[Kizzy]

...you know what sickens me the most about this thread and what is effectively being said, which is why I was sickened by it yesterday and looks as though it will go on and on and on and on and on because last word is everything...of some who don't support the air strikes..(of which I am also a non supporter ..)...all of the I'm right and the gloating and the puffing of feathers etc and whichever whay you want to put it or spin it, is at the expense of those civilians who have been killed in the strikes, which was mentioned yesterday....no thought for them whatsoever, just a satisfaction at being right..(which no one is anyway, only a few days into a long extensive military action where any effectiveness or lack of/outcome isn't yet known..)...it's like someone, saying...'don't do that, it's dangerous/don't drive like that' or whatever and then something tragic and awful happening and saying I told you so/I told them so and having a satisfaction about it because they 'felt right' and very proud to say so...where is the pride in a loss of any life....people are dead and all some care about is who's right and who's wrong, it's staggering the coldness of it all and the absolute arrogance and self importance of an internet thread...there are no 'winners' in this, we know that in the UK and the whole world knows that because innocent people will die..../either way, innocent people will die and either way, have already...

Wait a min.... what puffing of feathers?
I was against strikes and I still am, how does that make me gloating or puffed up about innocent people being at risk or killed?
Why do I get the impression I'm subtly being accused of something here.... don't skirt all around the houses Ammi please I would appreciate a bit of honesty as to who is getting the full on finger wag.
The airstrikes sicken me, the realisation by some that they could have made a bad situation 100 times worse sickens me, misinformation sickens me.
Of course there's no way this could be aimed at anyone in particular really, that said I think that those who were against initially are totally justified in criticising what was agreed that day and there should be no shame in admitting they feel it was the wrong decision based on the reports so far.

[Tom4784]

and right on cue, you play the .... everyone criticises me because I'm a Mod card

If it was an unusual occurrence, then you may have some justification, but its not, is it. I've seen loads pass similar comments. If that was me, I would be asking ... what is it in my posts that keep getting that response

.....Are you serious? You LITERALLY brought up the fact that I'm a mod.


I have never been a victim in my life, but I wont put up with BS tactics from moderator staff on a forum. With power comes responsibility you know, and while I can stand up for myself plenty. many on here cannot when faced with the same methods.

You tried to silence my opinions by using the fact that I'm a moderator and I'M IN THE WRONG?! You can say what you want about me being a mod but the second I say anything, I'm in the wrong?

If you're going to make up your argument as you go along then please remember what you've said in the immediate past because you've just shown yourself to be a complete hypocrite.

[Kizzy]

'In protest at yet another attack on a middle eastern country, veterans of the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya will discard their medals at Downing Street tomorrow.
One of the veterans, Daniel Lenham who served in the RAF from 2002 to 2014 said “In protest at the decision to bomb Syria, we will hand back medals given to us for participating in previous attacks on the Middle East.” He continued “These invasions, occupations and attacks have caused great destruction, killed hundreds of thousands of people and have led to the destruction of societies. Bombing is never a solution it is time to stop.”
David Smith who served in the Royal Green Jackets said “I want to express my utter disgust at the decision to unlawfully bomb Syria, god help all those who are likely to suffer as a result of this action. I renounce all forms of state sanctioned Warfare and Violence.”
Kirk Sollitt who served in the Gulf War said “By bombing in Syria we are killing innocent, vulnerable sentient beings, men, woman and children. You cannot sow bloodshed and reap peace. I no longer want these medals.”
Veterans For Peace is a voluntary ex-services organisation of men and women who have served in every war that Britain has fought since WW2. We exist to convince people that war is not the answer to the problems of the 21st century.'

http://veteransforpeace.org.uk/2015/war-veterans-to-discard-medals-at-downing-street/

[kirklancaster]

'In protest at yet another attack on a middle eastern country, veterans of the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya will discard their medals at Downing Street tomorrow.
One of the veterans, Daniel Lenham who served in the RAF from 2002 to 2014 said “In protest at the decision to bomb Syria, we will hand back medals given to us for participating in previous attacks on the Middle East.” He continued “These invasions, occupations and attacks have caused great destruction, killed hundreds of thousands of people and have led to the destruction of societies. Bombing is never a solution it is time to stop.”
David Smith who served in the Royal Green Jackets said “I want to express my utter disgust at the decision to unlawfully bomb Syria, god help all those who are likely to suffer as a result of this action. I renounce all forms of state sanctioned Warfare and Violence.”
Kirk Sollitt who served in the Gulf War said “By bombing in Syria we are killing innocent, vulnerable sentient beings, men, woman and children. You cannot sow bloodshed and reap peace. I no longer want these medals.”
Veterans For Peace is a voluntary ex-services organisation of men and women who have served in every war that Britain has fought since WW2. We exist to convince people that war is not the answer to the problems of the 21st century.'

http://veteransforpeace.org.uk/2015/war-veterans-to-discard-medals-at-downing-street/

That's good for these brave ex-squaddies - they have a right to their opinion just the same as anyone else - but there are also thousands of other ex-servicemen who -- to a man -- are in full support of the bombing.

We can all paste snippets in support of our stance, but as Ammi has so correctly said NO ONE ACTUALLY KNOWS WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG.

[bots]

.....Are you serious? You LITERALLY brought up the fact that I'm a mod.



You tried to silence my opinions by using the fact that I'm a moderator and I'M IN THE WRONG?! You can say what you want about me being a mod but the second I say anything, I'm in the wrong?

If you're going to make up your argument as you go along then please remember what you've said in the immediate past because you've just shown yourself to be a complete hypocrite.

I wouldn't accept your behaviour from any member, be they moderator or not. I was pointing out that in addition, it is an abuse of your moderator privilege.

I also thought it was pretty clear that I don't appreciate your bullying and intimidating tactics, which you seem to think is an accusation levelled at you because you are a mod, nothing could be further from the truth, it because you bully and intimidate.

Ok, i'm done responding to your baiting now.

[DemolitionRed]

Where DO you and others on here obtain the information from on which you base the misinformation in your posts?

On the 21st of NOVEMBER 2015 THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY FOR A RESOLUTION CALLING ON ALL MEMBER STATES TO TAKE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST ISIS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA.

Is BOTS wrong? EMPHATICALLY NO.

Are YOU wrong? EMPHATICALLY YES.

Here's Hilary Benn's own words to corroborate that BitOnTheSlide is correct in what he maintains:

"I welcome the United Nations Security Council's unanimous approval of this resolution that urges UN member states to take all necessary measures to combat ISIL/Daesh in Iraq and Syria because of the unprecedented threat it represents to international peace and security.


The UN draft clearly states that all military activities in Syria must coordinate with the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government. This is something Britain has so far chosen to ignore, which could well mean they are breaking the councils resolution.

[DemolitionRed]

Whereas that may be half true, there may have been a response from the UN for action that is on the world stage far from coordinated. We will not work with Assad as Russia is and therefor Red Dem is correct and we have no authority in Syrian airspace.

Oops sorry, I didn't see this before I quoted Kirks post

[Tom4784]

I wouldn't accept your behaviour from any member, be they moderator or not. I was pointing out that in addition, it is an abuse of your moderator privilege.

I also thought it was pretty clear that I don't appreciate your bullying and intimidating tactics, which you seem to think is an accusation levelled at you because you are a mod, nothing could be further from the truth, it because you bully and intimidate.

Ok, i'm done responding to your baiting now.

'and right on cue, you play the .... 'Bullying and intimidating tactics' card'

You've lost an argument and you can't handle it so you have to attempt to drag me through the mud to make yourself feel better.

[DemolitionRed]

'In protest at yet another attack on a middle eastern country, veterans of the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya will discard their medals at Downing Street tomorrow.
One of the veterans, Daniel Lenham who served in the RAF from 2002 to 2014 said “In protest at the decision to bomb Syria, we will hand back medals given to us for participating in previous attacks on the Middle East.” He continued “These invasions, occupations and attacks have caused great destruction, killed hundreds of thousands of people and have led to the destruction of societies. Bombing is never a solution it is time to stop.”
David Smith who served in the Royal Green Jackets said “I want to express my utter disgust at the decision to unlawfully bomb Syria, god help all those who are likely to suffer as a result of this action. I renounce all forms of state sanctioned Warfare and Violence.”
Kirk Sollitt who served in the Gulf War said “By bombing in Syria we are killing innocent, vulnerable sentient beings, men, woman and children. You cannot sow bloodshed and reap peace. I no longer want these medals.”
Veterans For Peace is a voluntary ex-services organisation of men and women who have served in every war that Britain has fought since WW2. We exist to convince people that war is not the answer to the problems of the 21st century.'

http://veteransforpeace.org.uk/2015/war-veterans-to-discard-medals-at-downing-street/

One of our clients at work is an ex war veteran that was left severely disabled whilst out in Afghanistan. He's made it perfectly clear about how he feels about bombing Syria and its very much in line with what these guys are saying here.

What these guys are doing is a pretty big statement.

[kirklancaster]

Oops sorry, I didn't see this before I quoted Kirks post

:laugh: B.S Red - you're just 'Tag Teaming'. :hehe:

[DemolitionRed]

:laugh: B.S Red - you're just 'Tag Teaming'. :hehe:

So spank me!

[kirklancaster]

So spank me!

:laugh:

[Tom4784]

'In protest at yet another attack on a middle eastern country, veterans of the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya will discard their medals at Downing Street tomorrow.
One of the veterans, Daniel Lenham who served in the RAF from 2002 to 2014 said “In protest at the decision to bomb Syria, we will hand back medals given to us for participating in previous attacks on the Middle East.” He continued “These invasions, occupations and attacks have caused great destruction, killed hundreds of thousands of people and have led to the destruction of societies. Bombing is never a solution it is time to stop.”
David Smith who served in the Royal Green Jackets said “I want to express my utter disgust at the decision to unlawfully bomb Syria, god help all those who are likely to suffer as a result of this action. I renounce all forms of state sanctioned Warfare and Violence.”
Kirk Sollitt who served in the Gulf War said “By bombing in Syria we are killing innocent, vulnerable sentient beings, men, woman and children. You cannot sow bloodshed and reap peace. I no longer want these medals.”
Veterans For Peace is a voluntary ex-services organisation of men and women who have served in every war that Britain has fought since WW2. We exist to convince people that war is not the answer to the problems of the 21st century.'

http://veteransforpeace.org.uk/2015/war-veterans-to-discard-medals-at-downing-street/

It's a powerful protest and one that I hope gets a lot of media attention.

[MTVN]

The UN draft clearly states that all military activities in Syria must coordinate with the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government. This is something Britain has so far chosen to ignore, which could well mean they are breaking the councils resolution.

The UN resolution doesn't say that though: http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2249.pdf

What it does do is note that 'the situation will continue to deteriorate further in the absence of a political solution to the Syria conflict and emphasizing the need to implement the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012 endorsed as Annex II of its resolution 2118 (2013), the Joint Statement on the outcome of the multilateral talks on Syria in Vienna of 30 October 2015 and the Statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November 2015'.

That statement of the ISSG that it talks about says: 'The ISSG acknowledged the close linkage between a ceasefire and a parallel political process pursuant to the 2012 Geneva Communique, and that both initiatives should move ahead expeditiously. They stated their commitment to ensure a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition based on the Geneva Communique in its entirety.

...

The ISSG members reaffirmed their support for the transition process contained in the 2012 Geneva Communique. In this respect they affirmed their support for a ceasefire as described above and for a Syrian-led process that will, within a target of six months, establish credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance, and set a schedule and process for drafting a new constitution. Free and fair elections would be held pursuant to the new constitution within 18 months. These elections must be administered under UN supervision to the satisfaction of the governance and to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability, with all Syrians, including the diaspora, eligible to participate.'

http://www.un.org/undpa/Speeches-statements/14112015/syria

So there is very little heed given to the Assad government as it is currently constituted

[DemolitionRed]

Immediately after parliament voted in favour of military intervention in Syria, the RAF began bombing the ISIS (Daesh) controlled al-Omar oil fields. The strikes were branded as “successful” by the defence secretary.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34992032 However, according to some reports, these very same oil fields have already been destroyed. On October 23rd The Express http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/614107/Airstrike-BLITZ-deals-huge-blow-to-ISIS-as-oil-field-and-supply-routes-are-OBLITERATED announced the al-Omar oil fields had been “obliterated”. This was backed up by statements from US operations officer Major Michael Filanowski, who said

"There were 26 targets and all 26 were struck."

http://www.thecanary.co/2015/12/04/syrian-oil-fields-targeted-uk-airstrikes-already-obliterated-russia/

[user104658]

...you know what sickens me the most about this thread and what is effectively being said, which is why I was sickened by it yesterday and looks as though it will go on and on and on and on and on because last word is everything...of some who don't support the air strikes..

Not that I want to stop you in your tracks when you're on one Ammi, it is refreshing to see, but I feel like I have to ask why there's a specific focus here on "some who don't support the air strikes"? I mean at the very least, by definition, if it's become about "having the last word" and will "go on and on and on" then it literally has to be at least one person from each opposing viewpoint that is guilty of the same thing. It's an irony that's always struck me; the phrase "you always have to have the last word, don't you?" is in itself an attempt to have the last word. :shrug:.

the I'm right and the gloating and the puffing of feathers etc and whichever whay you want to put it or spin it, is at the expense of those civilians who have been killed in the strikes, which was mentioned yesterday....

Expense? I think that surely has to be the wrong word. It's not at the expense of anyone in that situation; what we say here will make absolutely not one jot of difference to the fate of those tragic people. It seems that nothing said anywhere will, let's be honest - the global wheels are turning on rails, we're all just commenting passively. There is no stopping it nor changing the direction... commentary is benign no matter what form it takes, so it can't really be "at their expense".

no thought for them whatsoever, just a satisfaction at being right..(which no one is anyway, only a few days into a long extensive military action where any effectiveness or lack of/outcome isn't yet known..)...it's like someone, saying...'don't do that, it's dangerous/don't drive like that' or whatever and then something tragic and awful happening and saying I told you so/I told them so and having a satisfaction about it because they 'felt right' and very proud to say so...where is the pride in a loss of any life....people are dead and all some care about is who's right and who's wrong, it's staggering the coldness of it all and the absolute arrogance and self importance of an internet thread...there are no 'winners' in this, we know that in the UK and the whole world knows that because innocent people will die..../either way, innocent people will die and either way, have already...

I don't have a huge amount to say about this other than that I think you're wrong, and that I think it's very possible to do both similtaneously. At the very least, I know that I have my reasons - and usually quite specific ones - for what I say and how I say it, and none of them are about "coldness" or "not caring". I will accept arrogance and self-importance but I don't consider either of those to be insulting. You are of course 100% right about there being no winners in any of this but, in my eyes, the difference is that those who advocate bombing think (I would hope???) that there will be some form of victory in the long run whereas I am painfully aware that there will never be winners in this. We've already all lost. Years ago.

[joeysteele]

'In protest at yet another attack on a middle eastern country, veterans of the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya will discard their medals at Downing Street tomorrow.
One of the veterans, Daniel Lenham who served in the RAF from 2002 to 2014 said “In protest at the decision to bomb Syria, we will hand back medals given to us for participating in previous attacks on the Middle East.” He continued “These invasions, occupations and attacks have caused great destruction, killed hundreds of thousands of people and have led to the destruction of societies. Bombing is never a solution it is time to stop.”
David Smith who served in the Royal Green Jackets said “I want to express my utter disgust at the decision to unlawfully bomb Syria, god help all those who are likely to suffer as a result of this action. I renounce all forms of state sanctioned Warfare and Violence.”
Kirk Sollitt who served in the Gulf War said “By bombing in Syria we are killing innocent, vulnerable sentient beings, men, woman and children. You cannot sow bloodshed and reap peace. I no longer want these medals.”
Veterans For Peace is a voluntary ex-services organisation of men and women who have served in every war that Britain has fought since WW2. We exist to convince people that war is not the answer to the problems of the 21st century.'

http://veteransforpeace.org.uk/2015/war-veterans-to-discard-medals-at-downing-street/

Just want to say good article Kizzy and I don't think, at least I haven't seen any,that there are any figures as to how veterans actually do feel as to the new action in the Middle East.

So while I would not say the veterans are against it as a majority,what this shows is the strong feeling some have to feel they want to discard medals.

That actually says a great deal and should not be dismissed as irrelevant or that it isn't a majority decision when we do not know the views of all the veterans..

[Kizzy]

Yes I'd love cameron to try his terrorist sympathiser line on them! Won't be that puffed up prat risking his life will it?

Ooops...

David Cameron has been reported to police as a "war criminal" by a trio of Scottish independence campaigners for authorising air strikes in Syria.

Members of the Scottish Resistance group walked into Rutherglen police station, near Glasgow, and handed an official complaint to an officer claiming that he had breached an obscure international agreement signed after the First World War.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-reported-to-police-as-a-war-criminal-for-bombing-syria-a6763831.html

[DemolitionRed]

So there is very little heed given to the Assad government as it is currently constituted

That's a great link MTVN but without seeing the Geneva Communique in its entirety, we can't be sure what it means. What we can be sure of is, Russia is fully involved in this agreement and we all know that Russia is determined to keep Assad in power.

One snippet from that link:
Pursuant to the 2012 Geneva Communique, incorporated by reference in the Vienna statement of October 30, and in U.N. Security Council Resolution 2118, the ISSG agreed on the need to convene Syrian government and opposition representatives in formal negotiations under UN auspices, as soon as possible, with a target date of January 1. The group welcomed efforts, working with United Nations Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura and others, to bring together the broadest possible spectrum of the opposition, chosen by Syrians, who will decide their negotiating representatives and define their negotiating positions, so as to enable the political process to begin. All the parties to the political process should adhere to the guiding principles identified at the October 30 meeting, including a commitment to Syria’s unity, independence, territorial integrity, and non-sectarian character; to ensuring that State institutions remain intact; and to protecting the rights of all Syrians, regardless of ethnicity or religious denomination. ISSG members agreed that these principles are fundamental.

Its still Assad's government as it presently stands.

[bots]

'and right on cue, you play the .... 'Bullying and intimidating tactics' card'

You've lost an argument and you can't handle it so you have to attempt to drag me through the mud to make yourself feel better.

i was going to let this pass, but why should I. I haven't lost an argument. I put forward explanations that you rubbished without logical thought or joined up thinking, all you were capable of was bullying and intimidation. Like I said before, its not a first for you either is it? I've seen you attack many members here using the same tactic, so don't try playing the innocent butter wouldn't melt card, it doesn't wash.

I supported the vote in parliament, and it was passed, by an overwhelming majority, That's what's important to me, and I will always support a government that is willing to take action and protect my family over those who can't even provide a logical thought through response and stick their heads in the sand.

[Tom4784]

i was going to let this pass, but why should I. I haven't lost an argument. I put forward explanations that you rubbished without logical thought or joined up thinking, all you were capable of was bullying and intimidation. Like I said before, its not a first for you either is it? I've seen you attack many members here using the same tactic, so don't try playing the innocent butter wouldn't melt card, it doesn't wash.

I supported the vote in parliament, and it was passed, by an overwhelming majority, That's what's important to me, and I will always support a government that is willing to take action and protect my family over those who can't even provide a logical thought through response and stick their heads in the sand.

So you support the government without question and rubbish anyone's opinions who think otherwise without reading them? Because I can only assume that you aren't reading anyone's posts whose thoughts don't coincide with your own if you think anyone here wants to stick their heads in the sand.

I wouldn't talk about my logic when you've got nothing but blind faith in the government just 'cus.

[Kizzy]

Yes I'd love cameron to try his terrorist sympathiser line on them! Won't be that puffed up prat risking his life will it?

Ooops...

David Cameron has been reported to police as a "war criminal" by a trio of Scottish independence campaigners for authorising air strikes in Syria.

Members of the Scottish Resistance group walked into Rutherglen police station, near Glasgow, and handed an official complaint to an officer claiming that he had breached an obscure international agreement signed after the First World War.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-reported-to-police-as-a-war-criminal-for-bombing-syria-a6763831.html


Well well... seems Camerons own MPs are beginning to wake up to the fact he has added massively to the destabalisation in this area.
Might be the reason for his sloping off?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/libya-david-cameron-isis-islamic-state-ultimately-responsible-for-leading-to-collapse-and-rise-of-a7251331.html

[bots]

Well well... seems Camerons own MPs are beginning to wake up to the fact he has added massively to the destabalisation in this area.
Might be the reason for his sloping off?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/libya-david-cameron-isis-islamic-state-ultimately-responsible-for-leading-to-collapse-and-rise-of-a7251331.html

no, Cameron was right to attack Isis in Syria then, its still right now, and i would support him doing this same thing if we we had to do it all over again.

[Northern Monkey]

no, Cameron was right to attack Isis in Syria then, its still right now, and i would support him doing this same thing if we we had to do it all over again.I agree.We were already fighting ISIS in Iraq and doing well.We gained alot of ground there but as soon as they went over the Syrian border we had to let them go and regroup.Ridiculous.Their HQ is in Raqqa in Syria and needs to be destroyed.They have oil fields and supply lines in Syria which need to be destroyed also.
Syria is a mess run by a crazy dictator who bombs his own people but at the moment his enemy is also our enemy.

[Livia]

no, Cameron was right to attack Isis in Syria then, its still right now, and i would support him doing this same thing if we we had to do it all over again.

I agree too. You'd imagine by some of the posts on here that these things are taken lightly and bombing is indiscriminate... which is just ridiculous. Anyway, if anyone should be supplying answers about the Middle East, it's Labour's very own Tony Blair. Who went on to become a Middle East Peace Envoy! The sheer ****ing neck of the man.

[user104658]

Labour's very own Tony Blair. Who went on to become a Middle East Peace Envoy! The sheer ****ing neck of the man.

The only explanation I can think of, is that when he got bored of the whole "Academia Guest Speaker" circuit and found himself with a lot of free time, he just got really into satire :think:

[Livia]

The only explanation I can think of, is that when he got bored of the whole "Academia Guest Speaker" circuit and found himself with a lot of free time, he just got really into satire :think:

Frankly, that's the best explanation I've heard yet.

[Kizzy]

no, Cameron was right to attack Isis in Syria then, its still right now, and i would support him doing this same thing if we we had to do it all over again.

Who mentioned Syria?

[bots]

Who mentioned Syria?

Perhaps its the purpose of the thread ... air strikes in Syria Its been mentioned in every post bar yours :laugh:

[Kizzy]

I agree too. You'd imagine by some of the posts on here that these things are taken lightly and bombing is indiscriminate... which is just ridiculous. Anyway, if anyone should be supplying answers about the Middle East, it's Labour's very own Tony Blair. Who went on to become a Middle East Peace Envoy! The sheer ****ing neck of the man.

Hey don't shoot the messenger... I'm just passing on information here.
What, do you want another Chilcot? Ok but nothing will happen an the warmongers that duped a nation will squirm out of any accountability.

[Kizzy]

Perhaps its the purpose of the thread ... air strikes in Syria Its been mentioned in every post bar yours :laugh:

The 2011 strikes in Libya led to the strikes in Syria.

[Livia]

Hey don't shoot the messenger... I'm just passing on information here.
What, do you want another Chilcot? Ok but nothing will happen an the warmongers that duped a nation will squirm out of any accountability.

You write as though I was addressing you.

[Kizzy]

You write as though I was addressing you.

You quoted a post that quoted mine, however indirectly you were addressing the issue I raised here.

[Livia]

You quoted a post that quoted mine, however indirectly you were addressing the issue I raised here.

I could only be accused of "shooting the messenger" if I was talking to you. And I wasn't. I never am.

[MTVN]

The 2011 strikes in Libya led to the strikes in Syria.

How's that exactly?

[Kizzy]

I could only be accused of "shooting the messenger" if I was talking to you. And I wasn't. I never am.

You are now ... :/

[Kizzy]

How's that exactly?

Does anyone read the news?.... This stuff has been front page over the last couple of days.

[anne666]

Scapegoating ****e.

[MTVN]

Does anyone read the news?.... This stuff has been front page over the last couple of days.

While nice and patronising that is not much of a reply at all. Your strange claim has nothing to do with what has been in the news.

If it so obvious then please explain how intervening in Libya in 2011 led to our carrying out strikes in Syria. Bear in mind that Isis originated in Iraq and Syria independently of what happened in Libya. Their presence in Libya came long after they were established in Syria.

[arista]

Today Syrian
UN aid convoys halted after deadly attack near Aleppo

back to full war.

http://news.sky.com/story/syrian-aid-convoys-halted-after-deadly-attack-near-aleppo-10585655

[Kizzy]

While nice and patronising that is not much of a reply at all. Your strange claim has nothing to do with what has been in the news.

If it so obvious then please explain how intervening in Libya in 2011 led to our carrying out strikes in Syria. Bear in mind that Isis originated in Iraq and Syria independently of what happened in Libya. Their presence in Libya came long after they were established in Syria.

They follow the same format, whip up public support and have no long term plan for dealing with destabilisation and displacement.

[Northern Monkey]

I think Lybia was a very tough decision.Gadaffi had just threatened to hunt the citizens of his country down like rats and slaughter them.Imagine if we had'nt have intervened?Don't forget too that we did'nt take action in Syria against Assad and look what he's been doing to his people.Barrel bombs and chemical weapons etc.I think these are incredibly tough decisions which should be taken on a case by case basis.

[Kizzy]

Those people will be safe in their beds now eh?..