UK launches first Syria air strikes

[Josy]

Thought this should have it's own thread.

From the BBC

RAF Tornado jets have carried out their first air strikes against so-called Islamic State in Syria, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.

Four Tornados took off from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus shortly after MPs voted to approve bombing.

The strikes targeted the Omar oil fields in eastern Syria, which is under IS control, and were "successful", Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said.

He had personally approved the targets ahead of the Commons vote, he said.

On Wednesday, MPs voted by 397 votes to 223 for UK action against IS - also known as Daesh - in Syria after a 10-hour Commons debate.

Mr Fallon said the Ministry of Defence would be assessing the damage done by the bombing later, but the aim was to strike "a very real blow on the oil and revenue on which Daesh depends".


I think this was the wrong choice.

[Samm]

Trash, this will just increase the refugee crisis.

[Josy]

So the first targets were oil fields? and they bombed within an hour of the vote! this is bull**** tbh.

[reece(:]

Sounds like they were eager and must've knew the outcome.

[smudgie]

Rather them bombing the oilfields and taking the funding away from IS than bombing homes with the scumbags hiding like the sewer rats they are underneath.
No doubt this strategy will have been worked out over a period of time in the hope of winning the vote.

[lostalex]

take that ISIS! (and corbyn)

[Drew.]

There is no plan behind all of this, they are just desperate to get in on the act

[user104658]

There is no plan behind all of this, they are just desperate to get in on the act

Yup. Bloodthirsty and desperate to play with the big boys. That's been the UK since the Cold War.

[Vanessa]

Omg this is not good. D:

[Kizzy]

Agreed TS, weren't the Russians said to have targeted the oilfields?
I really hope this doesn't backfire.

[user104658]

Omg this is not good. D:

My despair has all but evaporated, I've resigned myself to sitting back, watching the ****storm unfold.

[Niamh.]

My mom and her husband are going to London for the weekend, I hope they don't retaliate anytime soon :worry:

[Livia]

There is no plan behind all of this, they are just desperate to get in on the act

I don't believe you actually think that, Drew. All the politicians who voted, all the military top brass putting our servicemen in harms way, the pilots themselves... only doing it because they are desperate to get in on the act? Bombing the oilfields so that funding to IS is cut off sounds like a plan to me.

We are just one of a coalition of nations. No one wants to go war, least of all those who will be fighting it on our behalf.

[Northern Monkey]

Sounds like it was successful.Hopefully a few terrorists were slaughtered along with their oil.

[Niamh.]

can you all stick to the topic please and not other forum members, be that specific Forum Members or Forum Members in general.

[arista]

There is no plan behind all of this, they are just desperate to get in on the act


Yes
Russia will decide all that

[Northern Monkey]

can you all stick to the topic please and not other forum members, be that specific Forum Members or Forum Members in general.
But my post was funny:hehe:

[Tom4784]

It's a stupid move. Bombing hasn't been working for other countries so why are we pissing away money on an ineffective strategy when it was only a few weeks ago that the Tories were trying to cut Tax credits because we apparently couldn't afford to help the Working Class? We can throw away money on grandstanding but we had to fight to keep benefits that people couldn't live without?

We are not needed at this point in time, our contribution changes nothing and we're only doing it as an empty gesture so that Cameron can convince the naive voters that he is a man of action and not the pig ****ing wish washy indecisive **** that he actually is.

It's dumb and shortsighted to get involved at this point and it only puts us at more risk than we already were. All because Cameron needed a ****ing ego boost.

[Northern Monkey]

That airstrike on the oil field has probably just stopped thousands of Dollars getting into the hands of ISIS and possibly killed a few terrorists.Now multiply that by hundreds or thousands of oil fields or strongholds and it has a massive effect.It is wrong to say that we are not contributing much to this campaign.

[arista]

But Dezzy
Labour back this as well

[kirklancaster]

ISIS have advanced as much as they have because of weak opposition, but primarily because the massive revenue from those captured oil fields has paid for highly trained mercenaries and ever more sophisticated weaponry.

Is some people's in the UK's contempt for our intelligence services and military so scathing and biased that they REALLY believe that we enter into this war lightly or with no carefully formulated plan?

We have already cut off two of the three main supply routes relied on by ISIS for supplies, and bombing these oilfields is a valid strategy to deprive ISIS of the funds by which they have progressed so far so quickly.

Maybe these 'detractors' expect a daily briefing from British Military Intelligence along with an application for approval for their plans before implementing them?

A joint operation by the USA and UK covertly pinpointed the whereabouts of the hateful Jihadi John amidst the chaos and confusion of Syria, and despite one masked Jihadist killer looking identical to every other, and they covertly tracked him, then took him out with 100% precision.

We were ALL ignorant of such brilliant 'behind-the-scenes work by us and the USA until it was TIME for us to know, and the reason for this is crystal clear to anyone with a brain.

The same applies to what our country is doing now - on OUR behalf - please let them do what they do best and instead of criticising get behind your own country, because WE DID NOT START this, but ALL our lives and the way of life which we take for granted, may depend on our military FINISHING it.

[Crimson Dynamo]

this is a continuation of the bombing, what has changed is that we have now moved into Syria

[Kizzy]

You know it smacks of some sort of Napoleon complex ironically...
There's Russia, the US, China, France and god knows who else ( who incidentally have just cause) there and we charge in as if we can save the day? :/

[Vicky.]

There is no plan behind all of this, they are just desperate to get in on the act

This is what worries me in it all tbh

[bots]

We hit ISIS capability to earn income. Please tell me how that was either inappropriate or unplanned.

It was exactly the type of resources that were highlighted that would be targeted.

[Livia]

You know it smacks of some sort of Napoleon complex ironically...
There's Russia, the US, China, France and god knows who else ( who incidentally have just cause) there and we charge in as if we can save the day? :/

You mean, we joined the coalition of allies. All 60 of them. A democratic vote was taken, I'm sure souls were searched. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean for a minute that the decision was taken lightly or cavalierly.

[Tom4784]

But Dezzy
Labour back this as well

They're morons for doing so.

Like Kizzy said, there are at least four other countries that are better equipped to deal with the situation already working on it. We can offer nothing new that can't be done by France, Russia, The US or China.

We're pissing money up the wall for no good reason. We are not needed at this point in time.

[Northern Monkey]

This strike will have been planned well before the vote happened.The RAF were just waiting for the politicians to get their act together so they could get in the fight and start kicking some terrorist asses.I'm sure our generals know exactly what their plans are.

[Livia]

They're morons for doing so.

Like Kizzy said, there are at least four other countries that are better equipped to deal with the situation already working on it. We can offer nothing new that can't be done by France, Russia, The US or China.

We're pissing money up the wall for no good reason. We are not needed at this point in time.

I think the security services, the Ministry of Defence, the government and all our allies beg to differ.

[Northern Monkey]

You think we are just going to send millions of pounds of fully armed fighter/bomber up there without any planning before hand??

Seriously?

[Crimson Dynamo]

a muckle great fighter jet flew down my valley at around 300 feet or so when I was out there, scared the bejeezuz out of me

[Tom4784]

I think the security services, the Ministry of Defence, the government and all our allies beg to differ.

What can we do that isn't already being done by the other countries that are already on it?

I see nobody has bothered with my point about budgets either, We only just barely saved tax credits, the NHS is in danger and public services are being slashed across the board. Why are we getting involved in a war that we aren't needed when we've had to fight to keep basic services and benefits alive?

It's all about ego and grandstanding and nothing more.

[bots]

They're morons for doing so.

Like Kizzy said, there are at least four other countries that are better equipped to deal with the situation already working on it. We can offer nothing new that can't be done by France, Russia, The US or China.

We're pissing money up the wall for no good reason. We are not needed at this point in time.

The UK has technology far superior in certain areas to other coalition partners. Each coalition partner offers different things. Thats why coalitions work.

So it is completely incorrect to suggest we are not needed and that money is being pissed away.

[Cherie]

I don't believe you actually think that, Drew. All the politicians who voted, all the military top brass putting our servicemen in harms way, the pilots themselves... only doing it because they are desperate to get in on the act? Bombing the oilfields so that funding to IS is cut off sounds like a plan to me.

We are just one of a coalition of nations. No one wants to go war, least of all those who will be fighting it on our behalf.

this is a continuation of the bombing, what has changed is that we have now moved into Syria

We hit ISIS capability to earn income. Please tell me how that was either inappropriate or unplanned.

It was exactly the type of resources that were highlighted that would be targeted.

Agree with all of this. UK has been on high terror alert for months this doesn't change anything, moving from bombing Iraq to Syria isn't such a huge step

[Vicky.]

I would love to know where the money is coming from too tbh, given how we are apparently broke and such. Not completely sure, but I would bet even one strike costs 500k or upwards, 6 last night wasnt it?

[Tom4784]

You think we are just going to send millions of pounds of fully armed fighter/bomber up there without any planning before hand??

Seriously?

No, there's plans in place but they aren't going to be any more effective than what's already being done.

Our involvement changes nothing and it only hurts us in the long run.

[Livia]

What can we do that isn't already being done by the other countries that are already on it?

I see nobody has bothered with my point about budgets either, We only just barely saved tax credits, the NHS is in danger and public services are being slashed across the board. Why are we getting involved in a war that we aren't needed when we've had to fight to keep basic services and benefits alive?

It's all about ego and grandstanding and nothing more.

I don't know what we can do that isn't already being done because I am not a strategist, and neither are you.

Whose ego are you talking about? Who is grandstanding? Sending young men to war has got to be one of the most serious, scary things ever. I see no grandstanding AT ALL.

We are never going to agree on this. I still adore you though x

[user104658]

What can we do that isn't already being done by the other countries that are already on it?

I see nobody has bothered with my point about budgets either, We only just barely saved tax credits, the NHS is in danger and public services are being slashed across the board. Why are we getting involved in a war that we aren't needed when we've had to fight to keep basic services and benefits alive?

It's all about ego and grandstanding and nothing more.
Don't be silly Dezzy, I know that several other countries including three superpowers are already tackling ISIS but, evidently, they aren't making any progress. It's time for the real muscle to step in and sort all of this out. The mother trucking UK goddamnit!

[user104658]

The UK has technology far superior in certain areas to other coalition partners. Each coalition partner offers different things. Thats why coalitions work.

So it is completely incorrect to suggest we are not needed and that money is being pissed away.
Exactly, we have all of the best toys, our uncle even got us some of the bestest ones that aren't even out in the shops yet coz he works at the factory! We are sooo cool and our dad could EASILY beat up ISIS's dad because our dad does karate and is actually a black belt actually so watch it.

[Tom4784]

I don't know what we can do that isn't already being done because I am not a strategist, and neither are you.

Whose ego are you talking about? Who is grandstanding? Sending young men to war has got to be one of the most serious, scary things ever. I see no grandstanding AT ALL.

We are never going to agree on this. I still adore you though x

All we can offer is more bombs and that's not going to bring an end to the conflict. We should have stayed out of it until we were in a better position to contribute in a more meaningful manner. I just don't see the benefits of getting involved at this point.

Cameron's and the people who voted with him, they want to be seen as some sort of conquering heroes when in reality they're pissing away money we don't have.

(:love:)

[Vicky.]

Also until this debate yesterday I didnt know we were still bombing Iraq?! Either that was kept quiet or I don't watch enough news :laugh:

[Kizzy]

I think the security services, the Ministry of Defence, the government and all our allies beg to differ.

So what's the plan... that was the big hold up initially that they had no argument for intervention, other than cameron striding about shouting 'terrorist sympathiser' at anyone who questioned his proposal.

[arista]

Also until this debate yesterday I didnt know we were still bombing Iraq?! Either that was kept quiet or I don't watch enough news :laugh:


Correct

[Kizzy]

What can we do that isn't already being done by the other countries that are already on it?

I see nobody has bothered with my point about budgets either, We only just barely saved tax credits, the NHS is in danger and public services are being slashed across the board. Why are we getting involved in a war that we aren't needed when we've had to fight to keep basic services and benefits alive?

It's all about ego and grandstanding and nothing more.

I agree, we've put a price on our heads and one attack could effectively cripple our existing wafer thin infrastructure.

[Cherie]

The UK has technology far superior in certain areas to other coalition partners. Each coalition partner offers different things. Thats why coalitions work.

So it is completely incorrect to suggest we are not needed and that money is being pissed away.

:clap1:

[Cherie]

I agree, we've put a price on our heads and one attack could effectively cripple our existing wafer thin infrastructure.

We already had a price on our heads 7/7, Lee Rigby and all the thwarted attempts? We have been on high alert for months nothing has changed

[Livia]

Don't be silly Dezzy, I know that several other countries including three superpowers are already tackling ISIS but, evidently, they aren't making any progress. It's time for the real muscle to step in and sort all of this out. The mother trucking UK goddamnit!

Exactly, we have all of the best toys, our uncle even got us some of the bestest ones that aren't even out in the shops yet coz he works at the factory! We are sooo cool and our dad could EASILY beat up ISIS's dad because our dad does karate and is actually a black belt actually so watch it.

Don't be ridiculous TS. The isn't Chat and Games.

[Livia]

All we can offer is more bombs and that's not going to bring an end to the conflict. We should have stayed out of it until we were in a better position to contribute in a more meaningful manner. I just don't see the benefits of getting involved at this point.

Cameron's and the people who voted with him, they want to be seen as some sort of conquering heroes when in reality they're pissing away money we don't have.

(:love:)

No one who sends other people to war can ever be considered heroes, even when we win.

x

[Livia]

So what's the plan... that was the big hold up initially that they had no argument for intervention, other than cameron striding about shouting 'terrorist sympathiser' at anyone who questioned his proposal.

I don't know the plan. And furthermore, even if I did I wouldn't be writing it on a Big Brother forum. We're not supposed to know the plan or what would be the point?

[user104658]

All we can offer is more bombs and that's not going to bring an end to the conflict. We should have stayed out of it until we were in a better position to contribute in a more meaningful manner. I just don't see the benefits of getting involved at this point.

The benefits are purely political; it's a show of solidarity, favours in the back pocket for later. That's literally all it can be and, because David Cameron is David Cameron... Or rather, let's face it, because politics is politics - that's definitely what this is.

There is no conceivable military or tactical benefit to dropping a couple of "me too" bombs. This is fairly evident from pretty much all of the coverage of this charade. It went through for two reasons; the first is a bit if good old fashioned vengeful fist pumping and ego (let's sort this rabble out lads! Pip Pip!) and the second is high level Tories guilting and shaming to rake in votes for the above mentioned political reasons.

[Kizzy]

We already had a price on our heads 7/7, Lee Rigby and all the thwarted attempts? We have been on high alert for months nothing has changed

That was way before the evolution into 'Daesh' I suspect a revenge attack from them would be worse than anything we have seen.

[user104658]

Don't be ridiculous TS. The isn't Chat and Games.
Isn't it Livia? It looks a lot like war-games to me.

And I don't say that lightly or flippantly. It's ****ing horrendous. I try my very best to laugh because otherwise... Well. Otherwise, is all.

[Kizzy]

I don't know the plan. And furthermore, even if I did I wouldn't be writing it on a Big Brother forum. We're not supposed to know the plan or what would be the point?

I know we aren't but is it so secret that only dave knows?

[kirklancaster]

That was way before the evolution into 'Daesh' I suspect a revenge attack from them would be worse than anything we have seen.

IS, ISIS, ISIL, or DAESH - they are still just the same turds. Why would a revenge attack by the same terrorists under a different stupid name be worse than anything we've seen?

Do you envisage Jihadists stepping into phone boxes and coming out dressed in a blue cape and Superman outfit then flying into the sky faster than a speeding bullet?

These scumbags are weaker and more desperate now, but our Intelligence Services are already well aware of the degree of vigilence they need to keep one step ahead of them.

Certain people are all too ready to attribute the lack of any ISIS Paris-style atrocities in the UK to the 'niceness' of our Corbyn-style 'friends' ISIS themselves, rather than give credit where it is due - to our Intelligence Services.

Don't fool yourselves - if it wasn't for our intelligence services we would all have witnessed more than one such attack.

[Cherie]

That was way before the evolution into 'Daesh' I suspect a revenge attack from them would be worse than anything we have seen.

I think it was on the cards whichever way the vote went, there was no right or wrong way for the vote to go as there were compelling arguments on both sides, I think if it were a no vote we were still likely to be attacked as they would want to show that whatever happened they would attack anyway, it's just a question of where and when now.

[kirklancaster]

I think it was on the cards whichever way the vote went, there was no right or wrong way for the vote to go as there were compelling arguments on both sides, I think if it were a no vote we were still likely to be attacked as they would want to show that whatever happened they would attack anyway, it's just a question of where and when now.

I could not agree more Cherie.

[Kizzy]

IS, ISIS, ISIL, or DAESH - they are still just the same turds. Why would a revenge attack by the same terrorists under a different stupid name be worse than anything we've seen?

Do you envisage Jihadists stepping into phone boxes and coming out dressed in a blue cape and Superman outfit then flying into the sky faster than a speeding bullet?

These scumbags are weaker and more desperate now, but our Intelligence Services are already well aware of the degree of vigilence they need to keep one step ahead of them.

Certain people are all too ready to attribute the lack of any ISIS Paris-style atrocities in the UK to the 'niceness' of our Corbyn-style 'friends' ISIS themselves, rather than give credit where it is due - to our Intelligence Services.

Don't fool yourselves - if it wasn't for our intelligence services we would all have witnessed more than one such attack.


You've been hanging round TS too long.. ( love you TS xxx)

Defence works, so now we have to double our efforts to attack and defend simultaneously... hope we are capable.

Who are these certain people who question the might of our intelligence services and consider ISIS 'nice' for not attempting to attack the UK?

[Kizzy]

I think it was on the cards whichever way the vote went, there was no right or wrong way for the vote to go as there were compelling arguments on both sides, I think if it were a no vote we were still likely to be attacked as they would want to show that whatever happened they would attack anyway, it's just a question of where and when now.

Perhaps, we will never know that now, as any attack from now on in will be in the name of revenge.

[bots]

I know we aren't but is it so secret that only dave knows?

Kizzy, there are set methods on how these things are planned,

To start with, they will identify a list of assets that ISIS have that provide them an advantage or protection. Those assets are then graded by their type, their value, their difficulty in being attacked, their location etc

Each day, the potential targets will be identified based on the latest intelligence gathered. This intelligence comes from a variety of sources including eye witnesses, drone flights, footage from missions, reconnaissance missions to name a few

Depending on the circumstances, the targets are then allocated and the alliance members given their role.

This set of procedures is repeated over and over

The detailed plans will never be published as to do so puts those involved in the missions at risk

[Kizzy]

Kizzy, there are set methods on how these things are planned,

To start with, they will identify a list of assets that ISIS have that provide them an advantage or protection. Those assets are then graded by their type, their value, their difficulty in being attacked, their location etc

Each day, the potential targets will be identified based on the latest intelligence gathered. This intelligence comes from a variety of sources including eye witnesses, drone flights, footage from missions, reconnaissance missions to name a few

Depending on the circumstances, the targets are then allocated and the alliance members given their role.

This set of procedures is repeated over and over

The detailed plans will never be published as to do so puts those involved in the missions at risk

Oh then what was all the confusion deliberation and debate about then?.... You make it sound so simple.

[Denver]

We are doing it right though as France are attacking IS strongholds and Russia are attacking anyone who disagrees with Putin's Puppet the best thing for the UK to do is hit it where it hurts and take away their valuable assets such as oil

[bots]

Oh then what was all the confusion deliberation and debate about then?.... You make it sound so simple.

These things are not just random, they are thoroughly planned. I had to provide some detail as its clear from this thread many just don't understand what goes on.

[Livia]

We are doing it right though as France are attacking IS strongholds and russian are attacking anyone who disagrees with Putin Puppet the best thing for the UK to do is hit it where it hurts and take away there valuable assets such as oil

I agree with you Adam.

[Kizzy]

These things are not just random, they are thoroughly planned. I had to provide some detail as its clear from this thread many just don't understand what goes on.

I thought only military strategists knew what was going on?.... unless...* taps nose*

[Livia]

I thought only military strategists knew what was going on?.... unless...* taps nose*

You don't have to know all the details to have an idea of how something works. It's not all or nothing.

[Josy]

Rather them bombing the oilfields and taking the funding away from IS than bombing homes with the scumbags hiding like the sewer rats they are underneath.
No doubt this strategy will have been worked out over a period of time in the hope of winning the vote.

Sounds like it was successful.Hopefully a few terrorists were slaughtered along with their oil.

That airstrike on the oil field has probably just stopped thousands of Dollars getting into the hands of ISIS and possibly killed a few terrorists.Now multiply that by hundreds or thousands of oil fields or strongholds and it has a massive effect.It is wrong to say that we are not contributing much to this campaign.



This still affects the innocent syrian people in a bad way, they need oil to heat their homes and run vehicles in their day to day lives, so imo it's a very bad idea, as well as further provoking ISIS to retaliate with a revenge attack it's going to cause more resentment towards us from syrian people escalating the chance of creating more extremists in the future.

[Josy]

Not sure what's going on with the quotes in my post

[Kizzy]

You don't have to know all the details to have an idea of how something works. It's not all or nothing.

So you're suggesting BOTS knows something then?
Even that is highly unlikely in this instance.

[Livia]

So you're suggesting BOTS knows something then?
Even that is highly unlikely in this instance.

Sorry you're coming in garbled.

[Livia]

This still affects the innocent syrian people in a bad way, they need oil to heat their homes and run vehicles in their day to day lives, so imo it's a very bad idea, as well as further provoking ISIS to retaliate with a revenge attack it's going to cause more resentment towards us from syrian people escalating the chance of creating more extremists in the future.


When the allies bombed Dresden in WW2, Jewish slaves cheered the allied bombers while knowing they could be killed at any moment. Military actions are much more precise now, but in any case I think Syrian people who are currently living with the threat of IS will welcome the fact that the world is trying to rid them of the scum that is Islamic State.

[bots]

So you're suggesting BOTS knows something then?
Even that is highly unlikely in this instance.

The procedures I detailed are common knowledge. No insider information required

[Northern Monkey]

This still affects the innocent syrian people in a bad way, they need oil to heat their homes and run vehicles in their day to day lives, so imo it's a very bad idea, as well as further provoking ISIS to retaliate with a revenge attack it's going to cause more resentment towards us from syrian people escalating the chance of creating more extremists in the future.

That is a very valid point but then i think one has to weigh up the options.Which is the worst option of the two.
Should we just do nothing and let IS continue making money from stolen oil and grow their Islamic State even more because the Syrian people will be affected?

Or stop the illegal trade and stop the money getting into terrorist hands and taking over even more land and using more sophosticated weaponary purchased with their loot.

I would argue that the Syrian people are already being affected by this.They are being tortured,beheaded,kidnapped etc and having their oil supply controlled by terrorists who are more than likely ripping them off.
I think doing nothing is the worst thing we can do.

We are already a target from IS now.Not joining the fight won't change that imo.

[Livia]

The procedures I detailed are common knowledge. No insider information required

Deliberate obtusity is a debating tool on here.

[Kizzy]

Sorry you're coming in garbled.

Let me explain... if if it's not all or nothing it must be something?

'These things are not just random, they are thoroughly planned. I had to provide some detail as its clear from this thread many just don't understand what goes on.'

What detail of military strategy is bots privvy to?...

[Kizzy]

Deliberate obtusity is a debating tool on here.

obfuscation is the biggest problem I'd say.

[Livia]

Let me explain... if if it's not all or nothing it must be something?

'These things are not just random, they are thoroughly planned. I had to provide some detail as its clear from this thread many just don't understand what goes on.'

What detail of military strategy is bots privvy to?...

Maybe take your blinkers off and read some stuff that isn't fundamentally left wing. You could have your eyes opened. Then once you have a more balanced view we can have a conversation that's about the actual subject and not about who on the forum knows what.

[Jamie89]

I'm normally a bit of a hippy pacifist with war and things (peace and love man) but I actually feel quite a strong sense of relief about the air strikes going ahead. One of my friends is a Syrian migrant who came over a few years ago on a student visa (his family are all still in Syria) and honestly, as terrifying as it is to think that innocent people might get caught in the crossfire of the air strikes, it's unimaginably worse to know that your loved ones are at constant risk of being kidnapped/tortured/beheaded etc with NO end in sight. And that's the point of the airstrikes, to try and stop ISIS for good. If anyone, ANYONE was able to come up with a better solution then I'd be the first one to say 'cancel the air strikes' but I just don't see it. At least, not anything that would actually help Syrian people NOW. It's all about how it makes us look bad, or we might become a target, or they're not being sensitive and respectful enough about it, but none of this changes the fact that ordinary people like us are living in hell with no way out, and if this has a chance of providing them with one then surely it's worth the risk?

[Kizzy]

Maybe take your blinkers off and read some stuff that isn't fundamentally left wing. You could have your eyes opened. Then once you have a more balanced view we can have a conversation that's about the actual subject and not about who on the forum knows what.

You can patronise me if you like but it does not detract from the point that bots has no 'fact' on any strategy used to determine whether the UK should commit to airstrikes in Syria.
Maybe you should take your own advice?

[Northern Monkey]

CNN saying that British Tornados set off from Cyprus soon after the vote was passed and hit 7 targets in an oil field which is quite close to the Iraqi border.
It is an important target which makes IS alot of money.
We have wanted to take this oil field out for a while but were never allowed to previously because we could'nt cross the Syrian border.
It is good that the RAF can now get on with the job in hand without the border restriction which was ridiculous.
The fact that we went straight for this oil field as soon as authorised shows just how important it was.

[bots]

You can patronise me if you like but it does not detract from the point that bots has no 'fact' on any strategy used to determine whether the UK should commit to airstrikes in Syria.
Maybe you should take your own advice?

All I did was outline standard military strategy for identifying and targeting enemy assets.

Given that many on this thread seem to be unaware that such a strategy exists, i felt it was useful information. If you would like to think I am the latest 007 feel free :laugh:

[Livia]

You can patronise me if you like but it does not detract from the point that bots has no 'fact' on any strategy used to determine whether the UK should commit to airstrikes in Syria.
Maybe you should take your own advice?

BOTS has no "facts" but is aware roughly what goes on, enough to form an valid opinion, like most people in the country. And you have no "facts" to counter him.

And yes, I would willingly take my own advice always, it's good advice after all.

[Livia]

All I did was outline standard military strategy for identifying and targeting enemy assets.

Given that many on this thread seem to be unaware that such a strategy exists, i felt it was useful information. If you would like to think I am the latest 007 feel free :laugh:

We've been expecting you Mr Bots....

http://prettycleverfilms.com/files/2013/05/4_blofelds_cat_many.jpg

[Tom4784]

This still affects the innocent syrian people in a bad way, they need oil to heat their homes and run vehicles in their day to day lives, so imo it's a very bad idea, as well as further provoking ISIS to retaliate with a revenge attack it's going to cause more resentment towards us from syrian people escalating the chance of creating more extremists in the future.

I agree, air strikes are a shortsighted solution. We might take out an asset or two but we give IS ammunition to recruit the disilusioned victims to their cause.

When the allies bombed Dresden in WW2, Jewish slaves cheered the allied bombers while knowing they could be killed at any moment. Military actions are much more precise now, but in any case I think Syrian people who are currently living with the threat of IS will welcome the fact that the world is trying to rid them of the scum that is Islamic State.

I think that's a very idealisitic thought process.

I imagine that for the average Syrian citizen it'll feel like being stuck inbetween a rock and a hard place. On one side you have the brutal regime of IS and on the other side you have a bunch of people who fancy themselves saviors bombing the hell out of you. I imagine they see the conflict between us and IS in a similar way that we look at the IS-Assad conflict, it's a battle of two evils of which no one will win, least of all the civilians.

Either way the Syrian citizens are going to be killed so I doubt they prefer one reaper any more than the other.

[Livia]

Well, if they've got it so bad they're leaving their homeland with nothing, I'd hazard a guess that they want something to be done... anything... that might give them a chance to get back to some kind of normality in the country they were born. No diplomatic plan was ever going to work, I think everyone's agreed on that; IS will not negotiate. I'm firmly for the bombing, I believe that it will help. But it still breaks my heart we have to do it and the sooner we can stop the better.

[Jamie89]

This still affects the innocent syrian people in a bad way, they need oil to heat their homes and run vehicles in their day to day lives, so imo it's a very bad idea, as well as further provoking ISIS to retaliate with a revenge attack it's going to cause more resentment towards us from syrian people escalating the chance of creating more extremists in the future.

I agree, air strikes are a shortsighted solution. We might take out an asset or two but we give IS ammunition to recruit the disilusioned victims to their cause.

But this sounds to me like your saying that we shouldn't go ahead with the bombings because Syrian civilians might, at some point join ISIS as a result. But whilst it may be true that some extremists do come out of situations like this, I think on the whole, they're normal people like us at the end of the day who want an end to the regime. And I don't see what the alternative is. A lot of the 'against' arguments seem to be based on what may happen in the future as a result of our involvement but doing nothing at all and leaving ISIS to run as they currently are will leave ordinary Syrian people without a future imo - and at the very least, will prolong their current suffering

[Tom4784]

But this sounds to me like your saying that we shouldn't go ahead with the bombings because Syrian civilians might, at some point join ISIS as a result. But whilst it may be true that some extremists do come out of situations like this, I think on the whole, they're normal people like us at the end of the day who want an end to the regime. And I don't see what the alternative is. A lot of the 'against' arguments seem to be based on what may happen in the future as a result of our involvement but doing nothing at all and leaving ISIS to run as they currently are will leave ordinary Syrian people without a future imo - and at the very least, will prolong their current suffering

I'm saying more than that. We shouldn't get involved just yet because we're apparently broke to the point that the tories are willing to completely destroy quality of life for the working class yet we can afford to go through with costly air strikes that won't achieve much? We shouldn't get involved yet because we're not needed, there's three currently superpowers on the IS issue at the moment. What can we honestly do that they can't do already?

Most of the arguments that are based on nothing but possbilities tend to come from the 'For' camp tbh.

The truth is, we aren't needed yet. We aren't going to change a single thing as the situation stands. I'm all for joining the conflict when we're needed and can contribute in a meaningful way but as it stands it just feels like we're pissing money up the wall so Cameron can pretend to be a hero.

[arista]

"The truth is, we aren't needed yet. We aren't going to change a single thing as the situation stands"

Fair Point Dezzy

But do you agree
that Labour MP's that voted for it
should get threats?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/03/10/2F047EFB00000578-3344070-Traitor_list_The_hard_Left_group_Left_Unity_today-m-18_1449139406208.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/03/12/2F05018600000578-3344070-image-a-5_1449145614238.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/03/10/2F04F69500000578-3344070-image-a-14_1449139233659.jpg

[Glenn.]

Twitter was ****ing ridiculous last night. So many idiots bleating ****

[Vicky.]

"The truth is, we aren't needed yet. We aren't going to change a single thing as the situation stands"

Fair Point Dezzy

But do you agree
that Labour MP's that voted for it
should get threats?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/03/10/2F047EFB00000578-3344070-Traitor_list_The_hard_Left_group_Left_Unity_today-m-18_1449139406208.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/03/12/2F05018600000578-3344070-image-a-5_1449145614238.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/03/10/2F04F69500000578-3344070-image-a-14_1449139233659.jpg

Kevan Jones :bored:

I have spoke to him before a few times too. I have now voted for him twice in the locals...never again.

[Kazanne]

"The truth is, we aren't needed yet. We aren't going to change a single thing as the situation stands"

Fair Point Dezzy

But do you agree
that Labour MP's that voted for it
should get threats?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/03/10/2F047EFB00000578-3344070-Traitor_list_The_hard_Left_group_Left_Unity_today-m-18_1449139406208.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/03/12/2F05018600000578-3344070-image-a-5_1449145614238.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/03/10/2F04F69500000578-3344070-image-a-14_1449139233659.jpg

Ridiculous comments by people who protest they are peaceful:laugh:

[Drew.]

I don't believe you actually think that, Drew. All the politicians who voted, all the military top brass putting our servicemen in harms way, the pilots themselves... only doing it because they are desperate to get in on the act? Bombing the oilfields so that funding to IS is cut off sounds like a plan to me.

We are just one of a coalition of nations. No one wants to go war, least of all those who will be fighting it on our behalf.

Politicians yes.. military/pilots etc no. The politicians have been eager for this to happen, even today's attacks show they've had a quick short plan written up before the outcome of whether they should or shouldn't attack Syria was even decided. You could call it being prepared but Cameron and his mates have wanted this. Cameron calling the opposition terrorist sympathizers sounds like an angry man that will go to extremes to get what he wants.

There doesn't seem to be any planning in the long run, its more than likely increased the risks of attacks on our country and when that does inevitably happen the whole country will come tumbling down on Cameron and this will come back to bite him on the bollocks.

[joeysteele]

I have not come across any Labour MPs under threat of de-selection,I am not in 232 constituencies however so cannot say it is not going on.
If it is then the leadership of the Party have to crush this completely and get to the bottom of it rapidly too.

There has been some abuse towards some MPs who were voting for the action,that is inevitable on such a highly charged issue,however threats and worse have no place in any democratic process.
Really bad if, and I stress 'IF' any Labour activists or supporters are doing any abuse and threats but that needs to be investigated and proven before condemning anyone.

However also, there are a number of MPs who are uptight as to if the boundary changes are brought in by the govt. This will mean some seats disappear just about or have one MP rather than 2 in the same area.
Inevitably that will mean one MP gets the selection and one will be de-selected obviously.
There is no way around that one.

[Johnnyuk123]

ISIS have advanced as much as they have because of weak opposition, but primarily because the massive revenue from those captured oil fields has paid for highly trained mercenaries and ever more sophisticated weaponry.

Is some people's in the UK's contempt for our intelligence services and military so scathing and biased that they REALLY believe that we enter into this war lightly or with no carefully formulated plan?

We have already cut off two of the three main supply routes relied on by ISIS for supplies, and bombing these oilfields is a valid strategy to deprive ISIS of the funds by which they have progressed so far so quickly.

Maybe these 'detractors' expect a daily briefing from British Military Intelligence along with an application for approval for their plans before implementing them?

A joint operation by the USA and UK covertly pinpointed the whereabouts of the hateful Jihadi John amidst the chaos and confusion of Syria, and despite one masked Jihadist killer looking identical to every other, and they covertly tracked him, then took him out with 100% precision.

We were ALL ignorant of such brilliant 'behind-the-scenes work by us and the USA until it was TIME for us to know, and the reason for this is crystal clear to anyone with a brain.

The same applies to what our country is doing now - on OUR behalf - please let them do what they do best and instead of criticising get behind your own country, because WE DID NOT START this, but ALL our lives and the way of life which we take for granted, may depend on our military FINISHING it.

Outstanding post Kirk! :worship::worship::worship:

[joeysteele]

This still affects the innocent syrian people in a bad way, they need oil to heat their homes and run vehicles in their day to day lives, so imo it's a very bad idea, as well as further provoking ISIS to retaliate with a revenge attack it's going to cause more resentment towards us from syrian people escalating the chance of creating more extremists in the future.

Indeed and a really good post again from you.

I do fear we could well be making things worse in the long run and also heading for the same errors we have made before too as to being in the Middle east.
Each action seems to raise more and more questions and no one has any certainty as to answers no matter what they may say on this issue.

We are now on a road we hope leads to a better place but one filled with uncertainties and problems,going in as if we have the idea whatever we do will in the end help things,could well see things develop into even more chaos,especially after we claim to be,if we ever can claim,to be finished there.

[GiRTh]

So we finally went for the tit for tat attack. I dont see how this will solve any of the problems at all. They will strike back and we will attack again...and on and on the cycle goes.

[MTVN]

Our planes were already in the region and carrying out reconnaissance work over Syria so its not a surprise that they were quick to act after the vote. Of course we are not going to make the difference but we can fill a niche in that our planes possess targeting capacities that French and American jets lack. More importantly this symbols our participation in the international coalition against ISIS and I am pleased that we are correcting the anomaly of only carrying out strikes in Iraq.

[DemolitionRed]

News directly out of Syria

Bombing the oil sources of ISIS is not giving its results
http://www.raqqa-sl.com/en/?p=1568

[Z]

I'm thoroughly disappointed with the decision to bomb Syria. We should have stayed out, withdrawn from bombing Iraq and then ****ed with the economy of whatever undesirable nation emerges from the ashes of Iraq and Syria like we do with every other country in the world we don't like. Dropping bombs kills and will cause terrorist attacks to happen here. People can bleat on about how doing nothing wouldn't help but doing this isn't going to help either, it's going to make it worse.

[Brother Leon]

I just find it ironic how quick our politicians were to criticise Russia when they were doing the same thing......

[Vicky.]

I just find it ironic how quick our politicians were to criticise Russia when they were doing the same thing......

Yes, only 2 months back Cameron was saying the Russians bombing them would lead to 'further radicalization and increased terrorism'.

What changed?

[MTVN]

Well the Cameron line is that the Russians were bombing these moderate forces who we should be helping and that will convert them to Islamists. I don't really agree with him but thats his logic I guess

[Kizzy]

BOTS has no "facts" but is aware roughly what goes on, enough to form an valid opinion, like most people in the country. And you have no "facts" to counter him.

And yes, I would willingly take my own advice always, it's good advice after all.

Right so effectively most in the country and you and bots can form a valid opinion without the need for facts... but I can't.
If I googled you some facts would you be willing to reevaluate?....

[bots]

Right so effectively most in the country and you and bots can form a valid opinion without the need for facts... but I can't.
If I googled you some facts would you be willing to reevaluate?....

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.

[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.

Well I was responding to you directly and then Livia involved herself... you might want to ask her why we are discussing your opinion.
If I googled 'military strategy' would I know as much as you? cool, I'm on it.

[DemolitionRed]

The least bad outcome would be that it solves nothing and kills lots of innocent people. The more likely outcome will be that it makes matters much worse and kills lots of innocent people.

The two are not separable. Killing lots of innocent people never solves anything and usually makes things much worse.

[user104658]

The least bad outcome would be that it solves nothing and kills lots of innocent people. The more likely outcome will be that it makes matters much worse and kills lots of innocent people.

The two are not separable. Killing lots of innocent people never solves anything and usually makes things much worse.

I think it's more or less irrelevant at this point DR... Without meaning to be an alarmist, it only takes a quick glance back at the last few days, then weeks, then years and a functional knowledge of politics and history to figure out the glaringly obvious. What we are discussing and witnessing here is not about Syria, ISIS or Terrorism. It's the starting pistol for WW3. Game over, kids.

[Northern Monkey]

I think it's more or less irrelevant at this point DR... Without meaning to be an alarmist, it only takes a quick glance back at the last few days, then weeks, then years and a functional knowledge of politics and history to figure out the glaringly obvious. What we are discussing and witnessing here is not about Syria, ISIS or Terrorism. It's the starting pistol for WW3. Game over, kids.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/syria/65094/russia-calls-for-tighter-clamp-down-on-islamic-state-oil-trade

[Ammi]

...in thinking about this, this morning.. I'm not sure that it was ever going to be any different an outcome, it was always just..'when'..not if or should we/shouldn't we...as always with an attack/threat, it's flee or fight...as nations, as public, we can't flee, that's been shown with every civilian attack, we wouldn't know where to flee to, we wouldn't know what a place of safety was....there's negotiation yeah, but not with extremists, not with IS, negotiation is not something they want...I think it was Livia that said..we don't have anything to negotiate, nothing they want, nothing they want to hear...so there's only fight and that fight, the bombings were always going to happen ..today, tomorrow, a month away, at some point because of the relentlessness of IS and the relentlessness of their attacks that would just keep coming and coming...it's not something that sits comfortably/the bombing of Syria, I don't think that it is with any of us but I think it was never going to be any other outcome ...

[Northern Monkey]

...in thinking about this, this morning.. I'm not sure that it was ever going to be any different an outcome, it was always just..'when'..not if or should we/shouldn't we...as always with an attack/threat, it's flee or fight...as nations, as public, we can't flee, that's been shown with every civilian attack, we wouldn't know where to flee to, we wouldn't know what a place of safety was....there's negotiation yeah, but not with extremists, not with IS, negotiation is not something they want...I think it was Livia that said..we don't have anything to negotiate, nothing they want, nothing they want to hear...so there's only fight and that fight, the bombings were always going to happen ..today, tomorrow, a month away, at some point because of the relentlessness of IS and the relentlessness of their attacks that would just keep coming and coming...it's not something that sits comfortably/the bombing of Syria, I don't think that it is with any of us but I think it was never going to be any other outcome ...Totally agree

[Niamh.]

...in thinking about this, this morning.. I'm not sure that it was ever going to be any different an outcome, it was always just..'when'..not if or should we/shouldn't we...as always with an attack/threat, it's flee or fight...as nations, as public, we can't flee, that's been shown with every civilian attack, we wouldn't know where to flee to, we wouldn't know what a place of safety was....there's negotiation yeah, but not with extremists, not with IS, negotiation is not something they want...I think it was Livia that said..we don't have anything to negotiate, nothing they want, nothing they want to hear...so there's only fight and that fight, the bombings were always going to happen ..today, tomorrow, a month away, at some point because of the relentlessness of IS and the relentlessness of their attacks that would just keep coming and coming...it's not something that sits comfortably/the bombing of Syria, I don't think that it is with any of us but I think it was never going to be any other outcome ...

mm that's a good point actually Ammi

[arista]

Its now looking
like a Terrorist Attack
due to his amount of weapon's he had stored.

The FBI
confirm Jihadist Material now found
at his weapons store.
Tactical Footprint

[bots]

wrong thread green man :laugh:

[Johnnyuk123]

IS, ISIS, ISIL, or DAESH - they are still just the same turds. Why would a revenge attack by the same terrorists under a different stupid name be worse than anything we've seen?

Do you envisage Jihadists stepping into phone boxes and coming out dressed in a blue cape and Superman outfit then flying into the sky faster than a speeding bullet?

These scumbags are weaker and more desperate now, but our Intelligence Services are already well aware of the degree of vigilence they need to keep one step ahead of them.

Certain people are all too ready to attribute the lack of any ISIS Paris-style atrocities in the UK to the 'niceness' of our Corbyn-style 'friends' ISIS themselves, rather than give credit where it is due - to our Intelligence Services.

Don't fool yourselves - if it wasn't for our intelligence services we would all have witnessed more than one such attack.

Amazing post Kirk. 1000% correct! :worship::worship::worship:

[joeysteele]

Just about all I am learning even now in the last 2 days since this vote,is making me think the wrong decision was made.
I agree with Demolition Red again above, this could end up being really catastrophic.

[arista]

Just about all I am learning even now in the last 2 days since this vote,is making me think the wrong decision was made.
I agree with Demolition Red again above, this could end up being really catastrophic.


We are due a Attack
in the UK.

we just do not know yet
what and the place

Even if we never started bombing Syria
we are still the on the hit list

[user104658]

I find it very interesting and telling how quickly the general public have stopped hooting and crowing about these airstrikes now that videos and pictures of the effects on normal civilians in Syria have started going semi-viral, and the politicians have started admitting that collateral damage is inevitable in the "messy business" of war. Turns out people only have a stomach for warmongering when they can pretend it's just Johnny Isis getting blown to bits, or people in full Muslim dress. When it's normal kids in baseball caps and pigtails it's a little harder to start puffing your chest about I guess. Gives me SOME hope for people I suppose. A little.

[Kizzy]

I find it very interesting and telling how quickly the general public have stopped hooting and crowing about these airstrikes now that videos and pictures of the effects on normal civilians in Syria have started going semi-viral, and the politicians have started admitting that collateral damage is inevitable in the "messy business" of war. Turns out people only have a stomach for warmongering when they can pretend it's just Johnny Isis getting blown to bits, or people in full Muslim dress. When it's normal kids in baseball caps and pigtails it's a little harder to start puffing your chest about I guess. Gives me SOME hope for people I suppose. A little.

:clap1: :clap1:

Exactly, the stark realisation that whoever got out by any means were lucky, as we fund razorwire, attack dogs and drone strikes it now dawns that all the innocents are now trapped and hope is all but gone.
Merry Christmas/Hanukkah/whatever.

[Ammi]

I find it very interesting and telling how quickly the general public have stopped hooting and crowing about these airstrikes now that videos and pictures of the effects on normal civilians in Syria have started going semi-viral, and the politicians have started admitting that collateral damage is inevitable in the "messy business" of war. Turns out people only have a stomach for warmongering when they can pretend it's just Johnny Isis getting blown to bits, or people in full Muslim dress. When it's normal kids in baseball caps and pigtails it's a little harder to start puffing your chest about I guess. Gives me SOME hope for people I suppose. A little.

..it's not 'telling' at all, it's not telling of anything or anyone...I personally never thought that the air strikes were the right thing to do..(although I thought that they were inevitable at some point..)...they're not telling because no one has been hooting or crowing, I've never heard any hooting or crowing from anyone at any point in time...neither in people around me in my life or on here...just an opinion that they were more in favour of the happening/of the action being taken...as also the majority of politicians were, which is why a yes was voted...so whether civilains were killed or not, why would there be any puffing of chests...there wasn't any before any news of civilian deaths so why would there be so now...oh yeah, children/mothers/brothers etc are dead/hoorah...I can't believe that was ever anticipated by anyone and from anyone at any point in time ...and am staggered if it was...

[user104658]

..it's not 'telling' at all, it's not telling of anything or anyone...I personally never thought that the air strikes were the right thing to do..(although I thought that they were inevitable at some point..)...they're not telling because no one has been hooting or crowing, I've never heard any hooting or crowing from anyone at any point in time...neither in people around me in my life or on here...just an opinion that they were more in favour of the happening/of the action being taken...as also the majority of politicians were, which is why a yes was voted...so whether civilains were killed or not, why would there be any puffing of chests...there wasn't any before any news of civilian deaths so why would there be so now...oh yeah, children/mothers/brothers etc are dead/hoorah...I can't believe that was ever anticipated by anyone and from anyone at any point in time ...and am staggered if it was...

There was plenty of hooting and crowing, but maybe we just have a different opinion of what that entails. Obviously not from everyone but ohhh it was there, and now it is gone, or at least, there's a lot less of it. People suddenly feeling less righteous. Which can only be a good thing because we have absolutely nothing to be proud of.

[Johnnyuk123]

I find it very interesting and telling how quickly the general public have stopped hooting and crowing about these airstrikes now that videos and pictures of the effects on normal civilians in Syria have started going semi-viral, and the politicians have started admitting that collateral damage is inevitable in the "messy business" of war. Turns out people only have a stomach for warmongering when they can pretend it's just Johnny Isis getting blown to bits, or people in full Muslim dress. When it's normal kids in baseball caps and pigtails it's a little harder to start puffing your chest about I guess. Gives me SOME hope for people I suppose. A little.

Please provide links showing the general public that you speak about who are no longer hooting and crowing to support the airstrikes?

[Northern Monkey]

Nobody savours the thought of civilians being killed.Everyone has probably imagined what it would be like if we were at war with another country like Russia and our families were being bombed here in the UK.It is a terrible thought and when you think of any collateral damage which may and probably will occur in Syria(especially from the Russians who have 'dumfire' weapons which are relitavely innacurrate) i'm sure most people feel great sympathy.
But we are at war,Yes a very unconventional war but it's still war.I don't think any of the MP's took their vote decision lightly.It is poosibly one of the hardest decisions they've ever had to make.
Whether it is the 'right' decision is debatable.I mean is there really a 'right' decision on an issue like this?Both vote outcomes have there pitfalls.
I personally believe that it was the 'better' decision to expand airstrike into Syria.I think leaving this Islamic State to keep growing and growing is the worst decision and we should help to 'nip it in the bud' before it gets past the point of no return.People are dying now in the most gruesome ways imaginable in Syria by the hand of IS.They need to be stopped and as Ammi said it is not a question of 'if' we do it but 'when' we do it.I would argue that sooner rather than later is the 'better' option.

[Ammi]

There was plenty of hooting and crowing, but maybe we just have a different opinion of what that entails. Obviously not from everyone but ohhh it was there, and now it is gone, or at least, there's a lot less of it. People suddenly feeling less righteous. Which can only be a good thing because we have absolutely nothing to be proud of.

...so you say, it was there so it must have been...a belief that it was the right thing to increase air strikes is all that I've seen and all that I believe was ever there...if you're trying to take some higher ground here over anyone who has been in favour of these strikes then I find your post far more offensive and sickening then anything else I've read in these threads...

[Kizzy]

...so you say, it was there so it must have been...a belief that it was the right thing to increase air strikes is all that I've seen and all that I believe was ever there...if you're trying to take some higher ground here over anyone who has been in favour of these strikes then I find your post far more offensive and sickening then anything else I've read in these threads...

Damn right I'm claiming the higher ground!
#NotInMyName

[Northern Monkey]

Damn right I'm claiming the higher ground!
#NotInMyName

A difference of opinion does'nt by default make something "higher ground".

[Kizzy]

A difference of opinion does'nt by default make something "higher ground".

Oh I disagree, I don't have my conscience to fight with so I feel I'm already on at least firmer ground. If that is a bitter pill I make no excuses for illuminating the gulf between the two options.

[JoshBB]

I find it very interesting and telling how quickly the general public have stopped hooting and crowing about these airstrikes now that videos and pictures of the effects on normal civilians in Syria have started going semi-viral, and the politicians have started admitting that collateral damage is inevitable in the "messy business" of war. Turns out people only have a stomach for warmongering when they can pretend it's just Johnny Isis getting blown to bits, or people in full Muslim dress. When it's normal kids in baseball caps and pigtails it's a little harder to start puffing your chest about I guess. Gives me SOME hope for people I suppose. A little.

Unfortunately it's racism deep-rooted in dehumanising these civilians - they're grouped together as usually '****ing muslims' or some other nasty remark of the sort. Then when a story comes along where a civilian is named, and their backstory is learned, people realise that actually they are all individual people with their own lives, only going on with their own business. By then, it's too late though.

[Northern Monkey]

Oh I disagree, I don't have my conscience to fight with so I feel I'm already on at least firmer ground. If that is a bitter pill I make no excuses for illuminating the gulf between the two options.

Only because you are not looking at both options thoroughly.You only see the negatives of bombing and not the negatives of letting IS carry on slaughtering people in the worst ways possible.I would say the latter option would make me fight with my conscience more.You see opinions don't equal 'higher ground'.We all have different opinions.

[Ammi]

..there is no high ground bcause there was never any to be taken in the first place, all there ever was and all there ever is, is a ...oh my opinion is better than your opinion/I'm right, you, you're wrong, I'm more informed than you are, catch yourself on, tat and tit and last word and look now are you happy there are civilians dead...while in fact, civilians are dead and no one is happy, why would they be, the very suggestion is absurd but still, the last words or the words continuing instead of showing some respect for those who are dead by ceasing these silly words ....you struggle to even be civil to each other or respectful/thoughtful of each other and yet you think that you have something to add in solutions of world conflicts...

[Kizzy]

Only because you are not looking at both options thoroughly.You only see the negatives of bombing and not the negatives of letting IS carry on slaughtering people in the worst ways possible.I would say the latter option would make me fight with my conscience more.You see opinions don't equal 'higher ground'.We all have different opinions.

You attempt to justify it any which way you like, don't presume I haven't thought about the issue thoroughly thankyou.
I could quite as easily reverse that and suggest that those who supported airstrikes didn't think of the ramifications in enough detail couldn't I?
All the lofty idealists that were shouting down it was the right thing to do do not appear to be shouting as loud and from as high.... therefore it is my opinion that the balance has shifted.

[Northern Monkey]

You attempt to justify it any which way you like, don't presume I haven't thought about the issue thoroughly thankyou.
I could quite as easily reverse that and suggest that those who supported airstrikes didn't think of the ramifications in enough detail couldn't I?
All the lofty idealists that were shouting down it was the right thing to do do not appear to be shouting as loud and from as high.... therefore it is my opinion that the balance has shifted.

But you apparently are'nt 'fighting with your conscience' over the issue.Something which the MP's who had to make this decision had to do.
The fact that you are not 'fighting with your conscience' suggests that you are only looking at it from one perspective.You only see 'bombing bad' when in actual fact both options have horrible consequences.It is not a black and white issue and has to be thought about a little more indepth than that.

[user104658]

But you apparently are'nt 'fighting with your conscience' over the issue.Something which the MP's who had to make this decision had to do.
The fact that you are not 'fighting with your conscience' suggests that you are only looking at it from one perspective.You only see 'bombing bad' when in actual fact both options have horrible consequences.It is not a black and white issue and has to be thought about a little more indepth than that.
Hmm. Bombing has thus far had observable and tragic horrible consequences and so far zero observable positive effects. Come back when these supposed benefits have actually materialised and we can talk about the moral grey areas. Thus far, these "positives to bombing" are pure hypothesis.

[Kizzy]

But you apparently are'nt 'fighting with your conscience' over the issue.Something which the MP's who had to make this decision had to do.
The fact that you are not 'fighting with your conscience' suggests that you are only looking at it from one perspective.You only see 'bombing bad' when in actual fact both options have horrible consequences.It is not a black and white issue and has to be thought about a little more indepth than that.

Again, don't presume I haven't thought about the issue thoroughly thankyou.

[Northern Monkey]

Hmm. Bombing has thus far had observable and tragic horrible consequences and so far zero observable positive effects. Come back when these supposed benefits have actually materialised and we can talk about the moral grey areas. Thus far, these "positives to bombing" are pure hypothesis.

If any of the terrorists in question have been killed and any of their income supplies have been stopped then i would say those are the positives thus far.

[Northern Monkey]

Again, don't presume I haven't thought about the issue thoroughly thankyou.

Hey i'm just going by what you've written in your posts.

[user104658]

If.

Yes. Like I said I'll be more willing to listen when it isn't an if, and when the benefits are tangible.

[bots]

I find it very interesting and telling how quickly the general public have stopped hooting and crowing about these airstrikes now that videos and pictures of the effects on normal civilians in Syria have started going semi-viral, and the politicians have started admitting that collateral damage is inevitable in the "messy business" of war. Turns out people only have a stomach for warmongering when they can pretend it's just Johnny Isis getting blown to bits, or people in full Muslim dress. When it's normal kids in baseball caps and pigtails it's a little harder to start puffing your chest about I guess. Gives me SOME hope for people I suppose. A little.

Can you please indicate to me the effects on Syrian people from British air strikes since the vote?

We didnt vote for any other countries involvement, only our own.

[Northern Monkey]

Yes. Like I said I'll be more willing to listen when it isn't an if, and when the benefits are tangible.

Well British Tornados have just destroyed an oil field which was a known source of income for IS.So that undoubtedly has a positive effect.

[user104658]

Well British Tornados have just destroyed an oil field which was a known source of income for IS.So that undoubtedly has a positive effect.
Not undoubtedly. WHEN the destruction of the oilfield can be shown to have had a meaningful impact on ISIS numbers or operations then it will be undoubted. As it stands there are plenty of analysts who don't think it has had the intended or hoped for effect.

[Northern Monkey]

Not undoubtedly. WHEN the destruction of the oilfield can be shown to have had a meaningful impact on ISIS numbers or operations then it will be undoubted. As it stands there are plenty of analysts who don't think it has had the intended or hoped for effect.

So you think an IS asset being destroyed could be a bad thing?

[joeysteele]

..there is no high ground bcause there was never any to be taken in the first place, all there ever was and all there ever is, is a ...oh my opinion is better than your opinion/I'm right, you, you're wrong, I'm more informed than you are, catch yourself on, tat and tit and last word and look now are you happy there are civilians dead...while in fact, civilians are dead and no one is happy, why would they be, the very suggestion is absurd but still, the last words or the words continuing instead of showing some respect for those who are dead by ceasing these silly words ....you struggle to even be civil to each other or respectful/thoughtful of each other and yet you think that you have something to add in solutions of world conflicts...

Higher ground has been taken by some Ammi, I have been made to feel less than comfortable often on here even by those who think it ridiculous as to being against the air strikes.
I wavered and still wavered and have had pacifist thrown at me, what would you do, when I don't know as if their way was the only way.

Even on here and off too, some took the line the PM did with his obscene comment as to voting against being terrorist sympathisers..The claps given to those defending that statement were telling.

I have always said, I was in a dilemma on this as I think most should be, however it has been the case of not perhaps crowing but more jubilation shown from those who supported the action,while ridiculing and interrogating those after the voter was passed as to what they would do, sit around the table with IS for instance not to mention the unsavoury digs to Corbyn on this.

So sorry to disagree that some have not jumped into taking the higher moral ground on this but I think you will find that has been the case.

I could answer with well wait until all the deaths that will come about and then blame the action for them if I wanted to take the moral high ground,however that is what would be really sickening to do.

Equally however I am not going to clap the action being taken either.
I agree there should be no moral high ground to take but equally there should be no condemnation, ridiculing and interrogation of those against or for the action either.
It is a dilemma,a real one and people I think are more likely to be undecided rather than for or against either position.

[user104658]

So you think an IS asset being destroyed could be a bad thing?

Depends on the consequences. Regardless, that has no bearing on whether or not it can be demonstrated to be "worth it". No matter how hard you try, you're not going to be able to do that right now I'm afraid. It's guesswork. That's my point, really. Thus far, there are horrendous consequences of bombing that can be seen, heard and observed. Any and ALL positives and benefits are ifs, buts, maybes, hypothesis and guesswork.

[Northern Monkey]

Depends on the consequences. Regardless, that has no bearing on whether or not it can be demonstrated to be "worth it". No matter how hard you try, you're not going to be able to do that right now I'm afraid. It's guesswork. That's my point, really. Thus far, there are horrendous consequences of bombing that can be seen, heard and observed. Any and ALL positives and benefits are ifs, buts, maybes, hypothesis and guesswork.

Well obviously we have only just started the airstrikes.We have'nt seen any footage positive or negative from them.We have seen plenty of footage of IS doing incredibly nasty things to the Syrian and Iraqi people and we do know that we've destroyed an IS asset.I still believe that on balance doing something is better than doing nothing and hopefully our airstrikes will be productive.No higher ground here btw.Just my personal opinion.

[arista]

[Dumb b**ch, hope you get bottled': Student's vile twitter Twitter abuse of war-supporting MPs]

[A Labour MP called in cops yesterday after
an online troll threatened to stab
him for backing bombing in Syria.
Neil Coyle was just one of the Opposition
members to suffer vicious abuse
after voting to support
PM David Cameron’s call to fight IS. ]



Photo of the Young black female who
who wants to bottle the Labour MP
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6783097/Vile-twitter-abuse-of-pro-war-MPs.html

[user104658]

Can you please indicate to me the effects on Syrian people from British air strikes since the vote?

We didnt vote for any other countries involvement, only our own.

Sorry I forgot we were only doing strikes with nerf foam missiles and water balloons. It now seems obvious to me that, while other countries will be doing the bad air strikes, we will only do awesome ones, because UK.

Except that there have been high up government figures today outright stating that collateral damage (That means dead children, to the layperson, though they steer clear of such terms) are "inevitable" because "war is messy business" - a phrase so detached from the brutal reality of its own meaning that it makes me sick to my stomach. Although I suspect that's exactly how most high level politicians see it. Messy business and numbers.

[bots]

Sorry I forgot we were only doing strikes with nerf foam missiles and water balloons. It now seems obvious to me that, while other countries will be doing the bad air strikes, we will only do awesome ones, because UK.

Except that there have been high up government figures today outright stating that collateral damage (That means dead children, to the layperson, though they steer clear of such terms) are "inevitable" because "war is messy business" - a phrase so detached from the brutal reality of its own meaning that it makes me sick to my stomach. Although I suspect that's exactly how most high level politicians see it. Messy business and numbers.

Doesn't mean it will be the norm, far from it. UK bombing of ISIS in Iraq, no civilian casualties so far. Its not the objective of the missions to kill civilians, you paint it like it is, which is both disgusting and wrong

I am fully in support of air strikes, and I will not be made to feel that is wrong by your conjecture.

There was a time in the UK when people supported our forces once a decision had been made to take action in a country. People who now don't accept the will of parliament and continue to undermine the decision are nothing short of traitors in my opinion.

[user104658]

Doesn't mean it will be the norm, far from it. UK bombing of ISIS in Iraq, no civilian casualties so far. Its not the objective of the missions to kill civilians, you paint it like it is, which is both disgusting and wrong

I am fully in support of air strikes, and I will not be made to feel that is wrong by your conjecture.

I have at no point made out that it's the objective? It isn't the objective of drunk drivers to kill people either. "Sorry ossifer I were just trying to get home from the pub!" "Oh that's OK then sir, on your way then, I'll mop up the pieces of this child". If you can quote me "wrongly and disgustingly" painting it out to be the objective then feel free to do so, you emotive little fellow.

Im also not trying to "make you feel that it's wrong" any more than you are trying to "make others feel that it's right". Unless you are? I don't know. I can tell you that you're just as unlikely to convince anyone as I am, if that helps at all, and I have no expectations of changing anyone's opinion. Ever. People are stubborn, and don't change, and supporters of war will remain supporters of war. I have no illusions about that. I'm not making empassioned speeches in hopes of changing the world, which I don't like, or people, who I like even less. I'm content musing and passing comment on the inevitable descent of civilisation, actually.

[bots]

I have at no point made out that it's the objective? It isn't the objective of drunk drivers to kill people either. "Sorry ossifer I were just trying to get home from the pub!" "Oh that's OK then sir, on your way then, I'll mop up the pieces of this child". If you can quote me "wrongly and disgustingly" painting it out to be the objective then feel free to do so, you emotive little fellow.

Im also not trying to "make you feel that it's wrong" any more than you are trying to "make others feel that it's right". Unless you are? I don't know. I can tell you that you're just as unlikely to convince anyone as I am, if that helps at all, and I have no expectations of changing anyone's opinion. Ever. People are stubborn, and don't change, and supporters of war will remain supporters of war. I have no illusions about that. I'm not making empassioned speeches in hopes of changing the world, which I don't like, or people, who I like even less. I'm content musing and passing comment on the inevitable descent of civilisation, actually.

I edited my above post, so just for clarity, i will repeat it here :

There was a time in the UK when people supported our forces once a decision had been made to take action in a country. People who now don't accept the will of parliament and continue to undermine the decision are nothing short of traitors in my opinion.

[user104658]

I edited my above post, so just for clarity, i will repeat it here :

There was a time in the UK when people supported our forces once a decision had been made to take action in a country. People who now don't accept the will of parliament and continue to undermine the decision are nothing short of traitors in my opinion.

And I will repeat that you are an exceptionally emotive little fellow, but also that your attempts at moral blackmail are even less likely to work than Mr Cameron's.

People don't support decisions to send the country to war any more because we know from experience - and better free flow of information - that they are often **** decisions with horrendous repercussions. I'll not apologise for being less ignorant than our sheep-like ancestors who lapped up anything daddy government fed them.

[user104658]

Ohhh also, just to add, I am pro-indy Scottish and I am represented by an SNP MP, all of whom voted against this action. So not actually a traitor by any description :shrug:. (Which is frankly a ludicrous statement to be making in the first place by the way, and pretty much loses you all credibility).

I just sadly live in an occupied country. Voluntarily occupied, at that. Because of people lapping up government scaremongering and ****. I'm starting to see a pattern emerging I think...

[Cherie]

I think it's a bit rich to accuse people of crowing TS when your own posts come across a little more than smug. We elect people to make these decisions for us, if it went to referendum it might not have been so clear cut as a lot of people can see pros and cons in both approaches, the vote was out of our hands so there is little point crying about what might have been, no one wants civilian casualties but no one wants the world we live in currently either where we can no longer visit certain countries, and don't want to take this kids to shopping centres or crowded places just in case", where we have to endure body and bag searches I don't know what the answer is but staying out of it won't do us any good any more than getting into it, it's catch 22 with no winners

[Tom4784]

I edited my above post, so just for clarity, i will repeat it here :

There was a time in the UK when people supported our forces once a decision had been made to take action in a country. People who now don't accept the will of parliament and continue to undermine the decision are nothing short of traitors in my opinion.

Change 'parliament' with 'Islam' and you'd sound a lot like an IS member there... Quite ironic, no?

[Kizzy]

Hey i'm just going by what you've written in your posts.

How did you deduce what I've read on the subject then sherlock?

[user104658]

I think it's a bit rich to accuse people of crowing TS when your own posts come across a little more than smug.

Comfortably a self-assured arsehole fanks for yrr concern :smug:. It's what happens when you're consistently always right forever, as you will see in a couple of years when I am inevitably also right about this and everyone in their dog is lining up to talk about Cameron's dodgy dossier and the disaster of the campaign in Syria a-la-Blair/Iraq. I will say I told you so, and I would be lying if I said I won't get any enjoyment out of doing so.

We elect people to make these decisions for us

I did not elect these people. I do not accept the will of the idiots who did.

if it went to referendum it might not have been so clear cut as a lot of people can see pros and cons in both approaches, the vote was out of our hands so there is little point crying about what might have been

If it went to referendum it would have gone the same way because, consistently, when the government runs a campaign leveraging people's fears (Scottish indy, 2015 General Election) people will vote accordingly. Those in power would have scared people into voting for action. See above re: idiots and me not accepting their will.

no one wants civilian casualties

Not about wanting them, there are plenty of people however who don't care very much about them (if they are not British, American, Australian, French, or other "folks like us"). People care more about 100 civilian casualties in Paris than they do about 5000 in the Middle East. This is painfully evident. No one "wants them" - they just fail to give it much actual thought.

but no one wants the world we live in currently either

Agreed, however

and don't want to take this kids to shopping centres or crowded places just in case"

I don't and never will live like this, because I have a rational understanding of risk and know that my children are more at risk every time they cross a road than they are in a shopping center. I will not be sucked in by fear propaganda as that is exactly "what the terrorists want" - just as they want us to start dropping bombs. It all helps them. It's a mind game and every time someone buys into it they further a problem that will never (ever) be solved with guns, bombs or bullets.

Finally - I don't know what the solution is either. I don't think there is one. See above, re: idiots. ISIS idiots, Western idiots, human idiots like dogs fighting over the meaningless bones of a long-broken world.

[Kizzy]

Doesn't mean it will be the norm, far from it. UK bombing of ISIS in Iraq, no civilian casualties so far. Its not the objective of the missions to kill civilians, you paint it like it is, which is both disgusting and wrong

I am fully in support of air strikes, and I will not be made to feel that is wrong by your conjecture.

There was a time in the UK when people supported our forces once a decision had been made to take action in a country. People who now don't accept the will of parliament and continue to undermine the decision are nothing short of traitors in my opinion.

What an odd thing to say, parliament make decisions on 100s of things throughout the year are you suggesting everyone fall in line with everything regardless of their own personal politics?.....

[T*]

i'm more shocked that people are shocked that we're doing this
it was obvious from the get go..

[user104658]

i'm more shocked that people are shocked that we're doing this
it was obvious from the get go..

Who is shocked?

[Cherie]

Comfortably a self-assured arsehole fanks for yrr concern :smug:. It's what happens when you're consistently always right forever, as you will see in a couple of years when I am inevitably also right about this and everyone in their dog is lining up to talk about Cameron's dodgy dossier and the disaster of the campaign in Syria a-la-Blair/Iraq. I will say I told you so, and I would be lying if I said I won't get any enjoyment out of doing so.



I did not elect these people. I do not accept the will of the idiots who did.



If it went to referendum it would have gone the same way because, consistently, when the government runs a campaign leveraging people's fears (Scottish indy, 2015 General Election) people will vote accordingly. Those in power would have scared people into voting for action. See above re: idiots and me not accepting their will.



Not about wanting them, there are plenty of people however who don't care very much about them (if they are not British, American, Australian, French, or other "folks like us"). People care more about 100 civilian casualties in Paris than they do about 5000 in the Middle East. This is painfully evident. No one "wants them" - they just fail to give it much actual thought.



Agreed, however



I don't and never will live like this, because I have a rational understanding of risk and know that my children are more at risk every time they cross a road than they are in a shopping center. I will not be sucked in by fear propaganda as that is exactly "what the terrorists want" - just as they want us to start dropping bombs. It all helps them. It's a mind game and every time someone buys into it they further a problem that will never (ever) be solved with guns, bombs or bullets.

Finally - I don't know what the solution is either. I don't think there is one. See above, re: idiots. ISIS idiots, Western idiots, human idiots like dogs fighting over the meaningless bones of a long-broken world.

I won't live like that either but I'm quite alarmed at the number of people who are beginning to live like it, insisting on armed police every where and cancelling trips to London etc

[DemolitionRed]

i'm more shocked that people are shocked that we're doing this
it was obvious from the get go..

Who is shocked? What was obvious ? and when was the get go?

[Kizzy]

Sorry mate but this whole paragraph is a 'pot kettle black' post.

I'd be real interested to know why you think bombing Syria will work Johnny? From where I'm sitting, there's a lot of winduppery going on whilst not saying very much at all, at least nothing that can be focussed on or debated with.

What's the long term plan of this bombing campaign against ISIS? How do we know when we've got them all and at what stage is it safe enough to pull out? Indeed, can we ever pull out or is this going to be another 10 year invasion?

Kizzy doesn't need defending but when I see you, the person who recently started a thread so that you could ask an unanswerable question with the full intention of mocking and patronizing any reasonable answers, trying to patronise and segregate a person who so often brings so much thought and debatable issues to a forum group; it takes every inch of me to hold back and not insult you.

Hey nay worries I never respond to posts like that, that's what the report button is for.

[user104658]

I won't live like that either but I'm quite alarmed at the number of people who are beginning to live like it, insisting on armed police every where and cancelling trips to London etc

I know a girl who is scared to walk past the local "asian owned shop", it's getting insane. I'm pretty sure the owners aren't even Muslim - not that it should be an issue even if they were.

[Jamie89]

..there is no high ground bcause there was never any to be taken in the first place, all there ever was and all there ever is, is a ...oh my opinion is better than your opinion/I'm right, you, you're wrong, I'm more informed than you are, catch yourself on, tat and tit and last word and look now are you happy there are civilians dead...while in fact, civilians are dead and no one is happy, why would they be, the very suggestion is absurd but still, the last words or the words continuing instead of showing some respect for those who are dead by ceasing these silly words ....you struggle to even be civil to each other or respectful/thoughtful of each other and yet you think that you have something to add in solutions of world conflicts...

:flutter:

[James]

Ohhh also, just to add, I am pro-indy Scottish and I am represented by an SNP MP, all of whom voted against this action. So not actually a traitor by any description :shrug:. (Which is frankly a ludicrous statement to be making in the first place by the way, and pretty much loses you all credibility).

I just sadly live in an occupied country. Voluntarily occupied, at that. Because of people lapping up government scaremongering and ****. I'm starting to see a pattern emerging I think...

In my opinion, the only thing the SNP really care about (in whatever political argument) is getting Scotland to eventually be an independent country. In 2013 Alex Salmond backed military action in Syria - http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/syria-action-backed-under-independence-salmond-1-3071423

Their position now is about domestic politics, and sowing more division between Scotland and the UK.

I don't think Scotland is an occupied country in any sense.

[DemolitionRed]

There was a time in the UK when people supported our forces once a decision had been made to take action in a country. People who now don't accept the will of parliament and continue to undermine the decision are nothing short of traitors in my opinion.

Wait, what?
We don't live in North Korea or Saudi Arabia, we live in a democratic country or did that one pass you by?

[user104658]

In my opinion, the only thing the SNP really care about (in whatever political argument) is getting Scotland to eventually be an independent country. In 2013 Alex Salmond backed military action in Syria - http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/syria-action-backed-under-independence-salmond-1-3071423

Their position now is about domestic politics, and sowing more division between Scotland and the UK.

I don't think Scotland is an occupied country in any sense.

That's not the point, I'm not an SNP fanboy and likely would not have voted for the SNP in an independent Scotland.

The only point was that I did not vote for those who voted for war, therefore, the argument that "we vote for people to represent us and should then follow their decisions" is invalid; the people who I voted for to represent me did not vote for war, and therefore, I do not have to accept the decisions of people who were voted into power by others. I don't believe in majority rule, I don't particularly believe in democracy. I think it's the best system we currently can realistically have, but that does not make it a "good system". But I am an individualist and, no, I don't believe that anyone has to accept anything at all just because "the folks that most people voted for are choosing it". What nonsense.

[Kizzy]

In my opinion, the only thing the SNP really care about (in whatever political argument) is getting Scotland to eventually be an independent country. In 2013 Alex Salmond backed military action in Syria - http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/syria-action-backed-under-independence-salmond-1-3071423

Their position now is about domestic politics, and sowing more division between Scotland and the UK.

I don't think Scotland is an occupied country in any sense.

'The First Minister said Scottish MPs at Westminster backed the possibility of action through the UN - if the use of chemical weapons had been proved by weapons inspectors.'

Slight difference there, and that was a while ago are people not allowed to amend their thinking based on evidence and information?

[kirklancaster]

..it's not 'telling' at all, it's not telling of anything or anyone...I personally never thought that the air strikes were the right thing to do..(although I thought that they were inevitable at some point..)...they're not telling because no one has been hooting or crowing, I've never heard any hooting or crowing from anyone at any point in time...neither in people around me in my life or on here...just an opinion that they were more in favour of the happening/of the action being taken...as also the majority of politicians were, which is why a yes was voted...so whether civilains were killed or not, why would there be any puffing of chests...there wasn't any before any news of civilian deaths so why would there be so now...oh yeah, children/mothers/brothers etc are dead/hoorah...I can't believe that was ever anticipated by anyone and from anyone at any point in time ...and am staggered if it was...

:worship::worship::worship: A quite simply brilliant appraisal Ammi and 100% the truth.

[kirklancaster]

There was plenty of hooting and crowing, but maybe we just have a different opinion of what that entails. Obviously not from everyone but ohhh it was there, and now it is gone, or at least, there's a lot less of it. People suddenly feeling less righteous. Which can only be a good thing because we have absolutely nothing to be proud of.

'WE' have a lot more to be 'PROUD OF' than the bestial, evil ISIS scum who repeatedly mutilate the genitals of screaming 3 year old children while they are still alive, behead terrified innocent civilians, massacre in cold blood hundreds of innocent civilians in their OWN countries whilst they are just going peacefully about their daily business, and who rape innocent young girls before selling them into slavery.

[kirklancaster]

In my opinion, the only thing the SNP really care about (in whatever political argument) is getting Scotland to eventually be an independent country. In 2013 Alex Salmond backed military action in Syria - http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/syria-action-backed-under-independence-salmond-1-3071423

Their position now is about domestic politics, and sowing more division between Scotland and the UK.

I don't think Scotland is an occupied country in any sense.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

[joeysteele]

Wait, what?
We don't live in North Korea or Saudi Arabia, we live in a democratic country or did that one pass you by?

You took the words right out of my mouth,thank you for that.

[Kizzy]

Wait, what?
We don't live in North Korea or Saudi Arabia, we live in a democratic country or did that one pass you by?

:clap1: :clap1: :clap1:

[kirklancaster]

I know a girl who is scared to walk past the local "asian owned shop", it's getting insane. I'm pretty sure the owners aren't even Muslim - not that it should be an issue even if they were.

I know hundreds of people who are NOT scared to walk past or even patronise 'Asian owned' businesses. I do not believe that the Great British Public are as stupid as your posts constantly and repeatedly make them out to be.

There is a vast difference between some people electing to exercise caution and not frequent possible terrorist targets in big cities - especially those with children - and the odd exceptionally timid person actually being 'frightened' of walking past an 'Asian owned shop' - which is ludicrous and xenophobic in the TRUE sense of the word.

[kirklancaster]

Only because you are not looking at both options thoroughly.You only see the negatives of bombing and not the negatives of letting IS carry on slaughtering people in the worst ways possible.I would say the latter option would make me fight with my conscience more.You see opinions don't equal 'higher ground'.We all have different opinions.

I could not agree more. Well said.

[user104658]

'WE' have a lot more to be 'PROUD OF' than the bestial, evil ISIS scum who repeatedly mutilate the genitals of screaming 3 year old children while they are still alive, behead terrified innocent civilians, massacre in cold blood hundreds of innocent civilians in their OWN countries whilst they are just going peacefully about their daily business, and who rape innocent young girls before selling them into slavery.


Again making the mistake of assuming that when I say we don't have anything to be proud of, I am intimating that ISIS does. I have clearly and repeatedly stated that I am well aware that ISIS are far worse, but that the existence of such evil does not necessarily make the opposition "good". Something that you seem unable to grasp - and yet it's me who is being "juvenile and simplistic"?

You've lost your ability to see the shades of grey Kirk, or, if you haven't, you're doing a damned good impression of someone who has. You have the world in your head neatly divided into Heroes and Monsters.

I guess it must be an easy moral stance to take but, unfortunately for me, it's just not one that I can delude myself into.

[bots]

Just a little point of note for those saying that bombing ISIS in Syria is such a bad thing.

ISIS are currently making Syria such a wonderful place to be and live that MILLIONS of Syrians have fled their country. Wow ISIS must be really wonderful to the people for that reaction eh?

[James]

I've deleted some posts. Stick to the topic instead of discussing each other.

[user104658]

Just a little point of note for those saying that bombing ISIS in Syria is such a bad thing.

ISIS are currently making Syria such a wonderful place to be and live that MILLIONS of Syrians have fled their country. Wow ISIS must be really wonderful to the people for that reaction eh?

I've already responded to this exact criticism in the post replying to kirk, directly above yours so... Yeah. Re-read if desired, use dictionary and thesaurus if struggling.

[Kizzy]

Just a little point of note for those saying that bombing ISIS in Syria is such a bad thing.

ISIS are currently making Syria such a wonderful place to be and live that MILLIONS of Syrians have fled their country. Wow ISIS must be really wonderful to the people for that reaction eh?

Wonderful...Who has ever intimated such a thing?

[user104658]

I've deleted some posts. Stick to the topic instead of discussing each other.

I can't see the situation improving to be honest. Think I'll opt out and let the thread return to back-slapping, fist pumping and the verbal fellating of the armed forces.

[kirklancaster]

Again making the mistake of assuming that when I say we don't have anything to be proud of, I am intimating that ISIS does. I have clearly and repeatedly stated that I am well aware that ISIS are far worse, but that the existence of such evil does not necessarily make the opposition "good". Something that you seem unable to grasp - and yet it's me who is being "juvenile and simplistic"?

You've lost your ability to see the shades of grey Kirk, or, if you haven't, you're doing a damned good impression of someone who has. You have the world in your head neatly divided into Heroes and Monsters.

I guess it must be an easy moral stance to take but, unfortunately for me, it's just not one that I can delude myself into.

Not so at all.

YOU may not be proud to be British, and - as you repeatedly post - may not believe in Democracy, and may think the British are of low intellect and stupid, but I DO NOT agree with you.

I have lost no ability to 'see shades of grey', but on the matters which we most commonly 'debate' on here, it actually comes down to 'Black' and 'White'.

Yes - you may say ISIS are bad or wrong etc, but I do not witness the same vehemence from you in your posts for ISIS and their evil deeds that I do when you are criticising the UK and its Government, and its people.

[user104658]

Not so at all.

YOU may not be proud to be British, and - as you repeatedly post - may not believe in Democracy, and may think the British are of low intellect and stupid, but I DO NOT agree with you.

If you have a point here, I'm afraid I'm missing it? I'm well aware that we disagree on these matters and always will, and... To be blunt... I just don't care?

I have lost no ability to 'see shades of grey', but on the matters which we most commonly 'debate' on here, it actually comes down to 'Black' and 'White'.

Ahh so you have only lost your non-binary perspective when it comes to certain issues. Duly noted. I personally believe (no... I know) that there is no such thing as black and white.

Yes - you may say ISIS are bad or wrong etc, but I do not witness the same vehemence from you in your posts for ISIS and their evil deeds that I do when you are criticising the UK and its Government, and its people.

Because the fact that an organisation like ISIS does not represent me or my beliefs in any way is self-evident. I don't NEED to shout from the rooftops that ISIS don't act in my name, that I don't agree with them.

The government of my own country? My own countrymen spouting their toxic crap and merrily cheering on warmongering bandits and thieves? Yes, I feel the need to tell anyone who will listen that I despise them and everything that they represent, and that they do NOT and likely NEVER WILL be acting in my name.

[the truth]

That must have been one of the lowest days ever in the british parliaments long and chequered history. The quality and narrowness of the debate was pitiful, it was barely students union level. Virtually every aspect of this multi faceted complex situation was overlooked or ignored. what is the masterplan? how long are we bombing? where who and why are we bombing? what are we doing about the boundaries, the borders around Syria, Iraq, turkey, Greece, france, Germany...what about the Schengen agreement that lets everyone into Europe without any paperwork? what about the kurds, the money for oil from turkey, the multi million arms and weapons being suppied to the rebels and getting into the hands of ISIS? what happens with the 100s of thousands of refugees, are we building bigger and better camps, are we and others sending in border patrols, peace keeping soldiers like the germans? what about terrorist websites etc etc ...the list is endless...all we got was Hilary benns pathetic overhyped amateur dramatics about these nasty isis...duh really Hilary? gee thanks for that awesome insight...but how do we make each other safer?

[joeysteele]

I can't see the situation improving to be honest. Think I'll opt out and let the thread return to back-slapping, fist pumping and the verbal fellating of the armed forces.

I've already done that,it just gets worse and more intolerant. Said all I had to anyway even if it did get shouted down by those who see those appearing against as terrorist sympathisers.
They even get claps for it.

[bots]

Wonderful...Who has ever intimated such a thing?

People who argue against bombing as it will have such a bad effect on the Syrian people, when millions have fled the terror in Syria

Hitlers Germany killed millions of Jews during the second world war and tried to take over Europe. ISIS are doing a very similar thing at the moment.

Should we have buried our head in the sand during WW2 too? After all, the innocent German people suffered from our bombing.

[Kizzy]

Don't be intimidated, I don't care if I'm accused of being anything terrorist sympathiser, traitor, water of a ducks back Joey.

[MTVN]

Has TiBB been infiltrated by Momentum? I fear that those of us members who supported action may shortly be up for deselection

[user104658]

Hitlers Germany killed millions of Jews during the second world war and tried to take over Europe. ISIS are doing a very similar thing at the moment.

Should we have buried our head in the sand during WW2 too?

Attempting to equate ISIS to WW2 era Nazi Germany is an absolute shambles of an argument and I can only imagine that you either know that deep down, or you know absolutely nothing about WW2. I think it's the former. I think you're making dubious comparisons for some sort of effect. Maybe understandable / inevitable given the way this thread has gone but... Come on. Please.

Bye Godwin.

[user104658]

I've already done that,it just gets worse and more intolerant. Said all I had to anyway even if it did get shouted down by those who see those appearing against as terrorist sympathisers.
They even get claps for it.
I know Joey - people attempting to slur anyone who doesn't agree with the official line on this as terrorist sympathisers and "traitors" really is on a whole other level. Even for this forum, which as we all know can get quite messy.

I don't think it would be happening if our own Prime Minister hadn't started that ball rolling though, which when you think about it is straight up terrifying. It's blatant, dangerous, undemocratic, authoritarian propaganda coming from the mouth of the most powerful man in the country and people are more than happy to repeat it.

[Kizzy]

People who argue against bombing as it will have such a bad effect on the Syrian people, when millions have fled the terror in Syria

Hitlers Germany killed millions of Jews during the second world war and tried to take over Europe. ISIS are doing a very similar thing at the moment.

Should we have buried our head in the sand during WW2 too? After all, the innocent German people suffered from our bombing.

Hang on weren't these people cockroaches a few weeks ago?...

You're going off on a tangent now, the two eras are not comparable.

[Kizzy]

Has TiBB been infiltrated by Momentum? I fear that those of us members who supported action may shortly be up for deselection

Leave your ban hammer by the door on your way out.... :idc:

[Tom4784]

People who argue against bombing as it will have such a bad effect on the Syrian people, when millions have fled the terror in Syria

Hitlers Germany killed millions of Jews during the second world war and tried to take over Europe. ISIS are doing a very similar thing at the moment.

Should we have buried our head in the sand during WW2 too? After all, the innocent German people suffered from our bombing.

Bit of a silly and reaching comparison there. Germany, at the time, were one of the leading powers in Europe which meant that it was one of the biggest powers in the world.

IS do not have the resources or the manpower to be anywhere near the same level threat as WW2 Germany. They have no allies and no influence beyond the area they control and there's no chance of them ever being able to launch an offensive attack or invasion on western soil beyond their rudimentary terror attacks. Everything else is grandstanding on their part which is why they take responsibility for every and any terror attack going, it makes them seem more threatening than they actually are.

I imagine that IS will fall quickly once the situation elevates beyond air strikes and into a full blown invasion of Syria.

[the truth]

Attempting to equate ISIS to WW2 era Nazi Germany is an absolute shambles of an argument and I can only imagine that you either know that deep down, or you know absolutely nothing about WW2. I think it's the former. I think you're making dubious comparisons for some sort of effect. Maybe understandable / inevitable given the way this thread has gone but... Come on. Please.

Bye Godwin.

totally agree...The only real similarity is their doctrine is pure evil

the Nazis were reposnible for at least 80 million deaths ......they had the most powerful most sophisticated most organized army the world has ever seen , with all the best weapons and the scientists behind it along with a leader who was the devil himself. They simply destroyed country after country, burning them and their people down to the ground...their hate was for pretty everyone other than the aryan race. Blighty alone was hammered by 1000 Luftwaffe bomber raids a night? This rabble are a bunch of circus travelling nomads compared to the Nazis. Thankfully they have infinitely less power, organization, ingenious minds and weapons, but in their own way they are just as evil.

[user104658]

Has TiBB been infiltrated by Momentum? I fear that those of us members who supported action may shortly be up for deselection
There are as many "for" as "against" by my count. If you feel that "those members who supported action" are at risk then that can only because their arguments are less compelling.

... Surely?

Otherwise the reverse could or should be just as true. I'm pretty sure infraction trigger fingers must be itching all round to be honest.

[bots]

Hang on weren't these people cockroaches a few weeks ago?...

You're going off on a tangent now, the two eras are not comparable.


Bit of a silly and reaching comparison there. Germany, at the time, were one of the leading powers in Europe which meant that it was one of the biggest powers in the world.

IS do not have the resources or the manpower to be anywhere near the same level threat as WW2 Germany. They have no allies and no influence beyond the area they control and there's no chance of them ever being able to launch an offensive attack or invasion on western soil beyond their rudimentary terror attacks. Everything else is grandstanding on their part which is why they take responsibility for every and any terror attack going, it makes them seem more threatening than they actually are.

I imagine that IS will fall quickly once the situation elevates beyond air strikes and into a full blown invasion of Syria.

I disagree, if ISIS are left to expand unchecked, and they will as that is their stated aim, it will be exactly the same as we faced with Germany. How many countries are ISIS allowed to invade before our Poland is reached?

As to resources. ISIS have huge resources, and the more they are allowed to expand, the greater their resources will become. Thats why they expand.

Their stated aim is to take over the world, do people believe its a little joke they are having or a serious threat?

I will use the term bury head in sand again, there seems to be a lot of it going on in this thread.

[the truth]

I disagree, if ISIS are left to expand unchecked, and they will as that is their stated aim, it will be exactly the same as we faced with Germany. How many countries are ISIS allowed to invade before our Poland is reached?

As to resources. ISIS have huge resources, and the more they are allowed to expand, the greater their resources will become. Thats why they expand.

Their stated aim is to take over the world, do people believe its a little joke they are having or a serious threat?

I will use the term bury head in sand again, there seems to be a lot of it going on in this thread.

exactly the same?

instead of bombing them we need to first close all borders, pull down their websites....then send in a massive army of foot soldiers and corner them in one area.

the open borders , such as the Schengen agreement are insane

[Tom4784]

I disagree, if ISIS are left to expand unchecked, and they will as that is their stated aim, it will be exactly the same as we faced with Germany. How many countries are ISIS allowed to invade before our Poland is reached?

As to resources. ISIS have huge resources, and the more they are allowed to expand, the greater their resources will become. Thats why they expand.

Their stated aim is to take over the world, do people believe its a little joke they are having or a serious threat?

I will use the term bury head in sand again, there seems to be a lot of it going on in this thread.

You're getting caught up in hysteria.

They aren't exactly being 'left to expand unchecked', they're in direct conflict with Iran, several countries are hitting them with air strikes and it's not long until those said countries begin a full blown invasion. IS are pretty much getting ****ed from every angle and it's only going to get worse for them. Nobody is burying their heads in the sand but you've certainly taken the IS propoganda to heart. They WANT you to think they're a major threat because they aren't and they need people to fear them because they don't have the resources to be a serious threat to our way of life.

We're more of a threat to ourselves if we give into fear and hysteria.

[MTVN]

There are as many "for" as "against" by my count. If you feel that "those members who supported action" are at risk then that can only because their arguments are less compelling.

... Surely?

Otherwise the reverse could or should be just as true. I'm pretty sure infraction trigger fingers must be itching all round to be honest.

Well I thought people would realise I was joking with that, I don't have much interest in taking the debate seriously when it gets like it has been the last few pages

[bots]

You're getting caught up in hysteria.

They aren't exactly being 'left to expand unchecked', they're in direct conflict with Iran, several countries are hitting them with air strikes and it's not long until those said countries begin a full blown invasion. IS are pretty much getting ****ed from every angle and it's only going to get worse for them. Nobody is burying their heads in the sand but you've certainly taken the IS propoganda to heart. They WANT you to think they're a major threat because they aren't and they need people to fear them because they don't have the resources to be a serious threat to our way of life.

We're more of a threat to ourselves if we give into fear and hysteria.

I'm not getting caught up with hysteria, I have significant experience in this area.

You didn't answer my question either. What country will they need to invade before you consider them a serious threat. Do you have a threshold of what you consider acceptable, or will you just say ... hey ho ... not our problem until they are on your door step.

[user104658]

I disagree, if ISIS are left to expand unchecked, and they will as that is their stated aim, it will be exactly the same as we faced with Germany. How many countries are ISIS allowed to invade before our Poland is reached?

As to resources. ISIS have huge resources, and the more they are allowed to expand, the greater their resources will become. Thats why they expand.

Their stated aim is to take over the world, do people believe its a little joke they are having or a serious threat?

I will use the term bury head in sand again, there seems to be a lot of it going on in this thread.
Nazi Germany and the allied forces went toe to toe with military tech, tanks, planes, battleships, submarines, modern (for the time) equipment for ground troops, the works. They were a very real, extremely well organised and maintained, and very credible military force with skilled tactician and generals, backed by a powerhouse war economy.

ISIS have 60-year-old AK's and home made bombs? Do they even have the equivalent of ONE WW2 era tank or bomber? Let alone sophisticated modern weaponry? drones??

This is why I can only assume you must be joking or at least deliberately exaggerating. Hugely. Talk to me when ISIS launch their first Aircraft Carrier and there might be some sort of vague comparison.

[Kizzy]

well well well...

' I believe that only one politician deserves to emerge with an enhanced reputation as a result of the week’s events. That figure is Jeremy Corbyn.
Whether or not you like Mr Corbyn (and I profoundly disagree with many of his policies), there is no denying that he emerged from the arguments over Syria as a man of moral courage, integrity and principle.
Indeed, how interesting that after months of denigrating Corbyn, the Blairite tendency — together with those excitable inhabitants of the Westminster bubble — have been made to look silly in their prediction that Labour would lose the Oldham by-election.
In the real world, it seems the voters have more time for the Labour leader than the metropolitan commentariat.
Faced with bitter hostility from his own side on Wednesday, Mr Corbyn stood his ground. Courteously, he set out his honest doubts about the wisdom of bombing raids on Syria.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3346949/PETER-OBORNE-one-winner-Syria-vote-wasn-t-Dave-Hilary-Benn.html

[user104658]

I'm not getting caught up with hysteria, I have significant experience in this area.

You didn't answer my question either. What country will they need to invade before you consider them a serious threat. Do you have a threshold of what you consider acceptable, or will you just say ... hey ho ... not our problem until they are on your door step.
You have significant experience with both WW2 Germany and ISIS? I'm at a loss as to what that could even possibly mean. You either need to elaborate (a lot...) or accept that statements like that are not going to be taken seriously.

[James]

The genocide that IS has carried out is comparable in its aim to what the Nazis did, although IS don't have the means to carry it out on a similar scale.

[Kizzy]

I'm not getting caught up with hysteria, I have significant experience in this area.

You didn't answer my question either. What country will they need to invade before you consider them a serious threat. Do you have a threshold of what you consider acceptable, or will you just say ... hey ho ... not our problem until they are on your door step.

Oh another expert, we are lucky on this little forum to have so many.
Dave just paid 3 billion to ensure they don't get past turkey, that might be just the refugees but with any luck it'll include ISIS.

[Kizzy]

The genocide that IS has carried out is comparable in its aim to what the Nazis did, although IS don't have the means to carry it out on a similar scale.

Could you expand on the similarities?

[Tom4784]

I'm not getting caught up with hysteria, I have significant experience in this area.

You didn't answer my question either. What country will they need to invade before you consider them a serious threat. Do you have a threshold of what you consider acceptable, or will you just say ... hey ho ... not our problem until they are on your door step.

I'm just going to disregard the first sentence, you're literally just saying that in an effort to validate your opinion without offering any context and saying you 'have significant experience in the area' can't be taken seriously when you seemed to forget that we live in a democracy and that disagreeing with the government was tantamount to being a 'traitor'

I'm not worrying about what ifs that will never happen. IS's power base will not expand beyond what it is now. There's at least five countries that are currently attacking them and IS have no allies or resources to help them out.

Nobody is burying their head in the sand, unlike you we aren't losing our heads over an (im)possibility.

[user104658]

well well well...

' I believe that only one politician deserves to emerge with an enhanced reputation as a result of the week’s events. That figure is Jeremy Corbyn.
Whether or not you like Mr Corbyn (and I profoundly disagree with many of his policies), there is no denying that he emerged from the arguments over Syria as a man of moral courage, integrity and principle.
Indeed, how interesting that after months of denigrating Corbyn, the Blairite tendency — together with those excitable inhabitants of the Westminster bubble — have been made to look silly in their prediction that Labour would lose the Oldham by-election.
In the real world, it seems the voters have more time for the Labour leader than the metropolitan commentariat.
Faced with bitter hostility from his own side on Wednesday, Mr Corbyn stood his ground. Courteously, he set out his honest doubts about the wisdom of bombing raids on Syria.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3346949/PETER-OBORNE-one-winner-Syria-vote-wasn-t-Dave-Hilary-Benn.html
None of the British adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya in recent years produced any gain for our country, to offset the sacrifices made during those conflicts by our soldiers and their families.

Quite the contrary — all three turned into disasters. Indeed, Islamic State came into being as a direct consequence of the Iraq invasion, as even Tony Blair grudgingly acknowledged recently.

This was on the mail online? The... The DAILY Mail? OK I'm done, my head has just imploded. It's making me want to post kirk's ****zy clapping emote thing. The mail??

[James]

Could you expand on the similarities?

If you look up what they did to a group of people called the Yazidis in Northern Iraq it goes into detail there. There is an article on Wikipedia.

There is a link here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Persecution+of+Yazidis&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=Search

[MTVN]

This was on the mail online? The... The DAILY Mail? OK I'm done, my head has just imploded. It's making me want to post kirk's ****zy clapping emote thing. The mail??

The Mail's published quite a lot of stuff against intervention in the last couple of weeks

[the truth]

labours response was way too weak. they failed to produce a counter narrative
they made it way too easy for warmonger dave

[user104658]

The genocide that IS has carried out is comparable in its aim to what the Nazis did, although IS don't have the means to carry it out on a similar scale.
Yes but the same could be said of any Ku Klux Klan group in any hick backwater, or a myriad of other people and groups with toxic ideologies. There are still ACTUAL Nazi groups with not similar or comparable ideologies to Hitler, but identical ones.

Would we really equate them though? Of course not. Obviously ISIS isn't small like those examples but, to be honest, they're closer to that than they are to the Axis forces that rampaged across continental Europe. I mean really... Let's have some perspective.

[user104658]

labours response was way too weak. they failed to produce a counter narrative
they made it way too easy for warmonger dave
The debate and vote was a charade, pure lip service as with Iraq. We were always going to drop the bombs. They just have to pretend to jump through the hoops and follow the process first.

Its like when I tell someone something and they then insist that I must phone a company bigwig because they won't accept what I'm saying, so I go into the back office and make a cup of coffee, come back through pretending to hang up the phone, and repeat exactly the same thing.

[Kizzy]

If you look up what they did to a group of people called the Yazidis in Northern Iraq it goes into detail there. There is an article on Wikipedia.

There is a link here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Persecution+of+Yazidis&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=Search

I'll have a read of that tomorrow, thanks :)

[user104658]

"Brrp Brrp... Brrp Brrp... Oh hello. Yes I want to go to war. Oh you want to go to war too? So I can go ahead and process that? OK thanks for the clarification, I'll process that now.

*click*

To war, lads!!"

[bots]

I'm just going to disregard the first sentence, you're literally just saying that in an effort to validate your opinion without offering any context and saying you 'have significant experience in the area' can't be taken seriously when you seemed to forget that we live in a democracy and that disagreeing with the government was tantamount to being a 'traitor'

I'm not worrying about what ifs that will never happen. IS's power base will not expand beyond what it is now. There's at least five countries that are currently attacking them and IS have no allies or resources to help them out.

Nobody is burying their head in the sand, unlike you we aren't losing our heads over an (im)possibility.

I knew you wouldn't answer the question because that requires responsibility to be taken and I don't say that to cause offence, I say it because it is a classic response from those that are pacifist in nature and not willing to commit or take a stand.

There is nothing wrong with advocating no action at this point in itself, but each and every one of us either has a threshold of acceptability, or they are not acknowledging the issue exists or prepared to act at any point which would be the action of a pacifist.

Even now, people are expecting those in the security services to protect them from serious harm as they go about their daily activities. That's not the expectation of pacifists, they want to be protected. If the security services had not taken action, many hundreds more would have died in Paris. Would that have been acceptable? People have to take a stand at some point or die in the face of such threats, so I repeat my question, where is your threshold

[arista]

The USA President is Live on all Media.

The Problem is USA Air Bombers killed over 20 Firemen in Syria
he never said a word on that

[Tom4784]

I knew you wouldn't answer the question because that requires responsibility to be taken and I don't say that to cause offence, I say it because it is a classic response from those that are pacifist in nature and not willing to commit or take a stand.

There is nothing wrong with advocating no action at this point in itself, but each and every one of us either has a threshold of acceptability, or they are not acknowledging the issue exists or prepared to act at any point which would be the action of a pacifist.

Even now, people are expecting those in the security services to protect them from serious harm as they go about their daily activities. That's not the expectation of pacifists, they want to be protected. If the security services had not taken action, many hundreds more would have died in Paris. Would that have been acceptable? People have to take a stand at some point or die in the face of such threats, so I repeat my question, where is your threshold

I see you actually haven't read my post at all. Have you actually read any posts in this thread? It would make sense if you haven't given your 'traitor' accusations and such.

There's five countries, two of which are super powers, currently bombing Syria and it's only a matter of time before there's soldiers on the ground. Do you honestly believe that IS, with it's few thousand soldiers and outdated gear, could stand a chance against at least five different countries' armed forces? I thought you said you were an expert...

Your question is pointless, IS will not expand any further than they already have and you are only obsessing over it because you falsely believe it's some sort of trump card when it's pointless. Like how you forgot that the UK is a democracy (and displayed some very IS traits in doing so), you've forgotten that I was never against action when it came to IS, I just believed we were getting involved too early when our presence wouldn't achieve anything.

If you want to have a discussion, you really need to read people's posts.

[joeysteele]

Don't be intimidated, I don't care if I'm accused of being anything terrorist sympathiser, traitor, water of a ducks back Joey.

It gets tedious after a while and some who are solidly in favour are sometimes not interested in much else than putting down those who are not.
I can be swayed either way and I think that is where most people are really as to this dilemma anyway,on here and off here.

I'm not intimidated just not interested in wasting my time any longer on the issue.
My position is well known by now without putting down,ridiculing and dismissing the opinions made in posts by anyone who is strongly against,or for that matter even for too.

[user104658]

I knew you wouldn't answer the question because that requires responsibility to be taken and I don't say that to cause offence, I say it because it is a classic response from those that are pacifist in nature and not willing to commit or take a stand.

There is nothing wrong with advocating no action at this point in itself, but each and every one of us either has a threshold of acceptability, or they are not acknowledging the issue exists or prepared to act at any point which would be the action of a pacifist.

Even now, people are expecting those in the security services to protect them from serious harm as they go about their daily activities. That's not the expectation of pacifists, they want to be protected. If the security services had not taken action, many hundreds more would have died in Paris. Would that have been acceptable? People have to take a stand at some point or die in the face of such threats, so I repeat my question, where is your threshold

Ahh so your entire argument is based on the (false) premise that everyone must fall into one of two categories.

Either you are a:

- War-crier who wants planes dropping bombs and has a secret boner for grandstanding displays of military capability,

Or;

- A pacifist by nature who simply hasn't accepted the situation yet but will eventually hit a threshold and "wake up" and realise that bombs are key.


Which is simply wrong. You are mistaken. I see very few pacifists here. I am against these retarded airstrikes because I know - just like good old Mr Blair - that the exponential rise of ISIS and other ISIS style is extremism and recruiting power is a direct result of "Shock and Awe" in Iraq. I accept and understand that ISIS want, and are quite clearly baiting, bombing action in Syria because it supplies them with a fresh stock of angry, broken, hopeless people who are primed for radicalisation and far more valuable to them than an oilfield.

I'm not a pacifist. I just know that you cut out a tumor with a scalpel after careful planning. You don't attempt to smash it to pieces with fists and boots and then wonder why you've done more damage than you've cured.

[user104658]

I would be fully supportive of bombing action in Syria if I thought for a second that it would help to end Islamic Extremism. But I - - - KNOW - - - that it won't. I know that it will simply make things worse. Because I have been paying attention. I don't need to convince anyone of this or prove my point, it will prove itself over the next couple of years, I just find it difficult to listen to people bleating nonsense and say nothing at all. I really should probably just steer clear until the aftermath when everyone will pretend that they also knew it was a bad idea all along. That's what happened with Iraq anyway.

[Ammi]

...no one knows is the whole point, not world leaders and governments and certainly not the general public, if they did then it would all be solved already ...will it lead to escalation an making worse, maybe but would it have led to that anyway without the yes decision, we'll never know that because that course wasn't taken so no one will ever know an outcome had it have been...we know there will be deaths in many countries, will there be less deaths, will there be more deaths, we don't know...will we look back on mistakes, probably...would we have done that if the bombings weren't happening, probably...they'll just be different mistakes is all and what balances to those mistakes of any positive outcomes as well...of it being a right decision or either having been a right decision...if we're against it, our focus will be on the negatives and if we're in favour, our focus will be on the positives because we have pre-disposed opinions, so that will always be..but no one knows, unless two paths were possible and both were known then no one knows, nor wil they in hindsight either, that only allows for scrutiny etc....

[bots]

I see you actually haven't read my post at all. Have you actually read any posts in this thread? It would make sense if you haven't given your 'traitor' accusations and such.

There's five countries, two of which are super powers, currently bombing Syria and it's only a matter of time before there's soldiers on the ground. Do you honestly believe that IS, with it's few thousand soldiers and outdated gear, could stand a chance against at least five different countries' armed forces? I thought you said you were an expert...

Your question is pointless, IS will not expand any further than they already have and you are only obsessing over it because you falsely believe it's some sort of trump card when it's pointless. Like how you forgot that the UK is a democracy (and displayed some very IS traits in doing so), you've forgotten that I was never against action when it came to IS, I just believed we were getting involved too early when our presence wouldn't achieve anything.

If you want to have a discussion, you really need to read people's posts.

I knew you wouldn't answer the question, even though I made it easy to. On, that basis, I'm not going to continue the debate with you. And just for the record, when the government goes to war, any action to undermine that, is considered to be the act of a traitor, in ANY democracy, so I stand by my words 100%. People on here think they can win debates by intimidation. It's not for me ... not the first time I had this from you either Dezzy ... This is not the place for me.

[DemolitionRed]

No, don't stay clear TS, your posts are needed in a place like this and some of your analogies are amusingly clever.

I would love to hear something a bit more in depth about why bombing will work.

To those who believe this bombing campaign is the answer, please could you write something a bit more in depth as to how it will work? and what is the predicted long term outcome?

I listened to that long parliamentary debate, which was shadowed a lot by Cameron's constant pontifications about the danger of ISIS but I heard no real strategy regarding the future of Syria and its relationship with ISIS. With so little substance to something that could end up being so hugely catastrophic, not only to Syria but to the rest of the middle east and the western world, I want to understand the long term plans from these architects of war.

Did I miss something? is there something you can give to this debate that will make things clearer?

[Kizzy]

I disagree, if ISIS are left to expand unchecked, and they will as that is their stated aim, it will be exactly the same as we faced with Germany. How many countries are ISIS allowed to invade before our Poland is reached?

As to resources. ISIS have huge resources, and the more they are allowed to expand, the greater their resources will become. Thats why they expand.

Their stated aim is to take over the world, do people believe its a little joke they are having or a serious threat?

I will use the term bury head in sand again, there seems to be a lot of it going on in this thread.

I've heard of napoleon syndrome but this is ridiculous, how can a country a few hundred miles from one end to the other succeed where 59 other countries have failed?
We have as I mentioned previously given 3 billion to Turkey to ensure they maintain their borders, so our role would be aiding those already bombing, building good relations with surrounding areas, defence, supplies and helping refugees.

[DemolitionRed]

I knew you wouldn't answer the question, even though I made it easy to. On, that basis, I'm not going to continue the debate with you. And just for the record, when the government goes to war, any action to undermine that, is considered to be the act of a traitor, in ANY democracy, so I stand by my words 100%. People on here think they can win debates by intimidation. It's not for me ... not the first time I had this from you either Dezzy ... This is not the place for me.

Let me ask you this...do you believe that whilst we are at it we should overthrow Assad? We know the West want to do this, so should this problem also be solved.

There is no intimidation going on here apart from your words. You can't bandy words like 'traitors' around without trying to intimidate your opposition. WTF???

[user104658]

...no one knows is the whole point, not world leaders and governments and certainly not the general public, if they did then it would all be solved already ...will it lead to escalation an making worse, maybe but would it have led to that anyway without the yes decision, we'll never know that because that course wasn't taken so no one will ever know an outcome had it have been...we know there will be deaths in many countries, will there be less deaths, will there be more deaths, we don't know...will we look back on mistakes, probably...would we have done that if the bombings weren't happening, probably...they'll just be different mistakes is all and what balances to those mistakes of any positive outcomes as well...of it being a right decision or either having been a right decision...if we're against it, our focus will be on the negatives and if we're in favour, our focus will be on the positives because we have pre-disposed opinions, so that will always be..but no one knows, unless two paths were possible and both were known then no one knows, nor wil they in hindsight either, that only allows for scrutiny etc....

I disagree Ammi, I think we will be able to look back in years' time and directly attribute further gains in ISIS recruitment to ham-fisted Western (and other) bombing and most likely, in time, ground campaigns in Syria. It's just that people will then say "Oh we couldn't possibly have known!", even though plenty of people are saying it blue in the face today.

[MTVN]

I would be fully supportive of bombing action in Syria if I thought for a second that it would help to end Islamic Extremism. But I - - - KNOW - - - that it won't. I know that it will simply make things worse. Because I have been paying attention. I don't need to convince anyone of this or prove my point, it will prove itself over the next couple of years, I just find it difficult to listen to people bleating nonsense and say nothing at all. I really should probably just steer clear until the aftermath when everyone will pretend that they also knew it was a bad idea all along. That's what happened with Iraq anyway.

This absolute certainty is nonsense in itself of course

[Ammi]

This absolute certainty is nonsense in itself of course

..of course, it can't be anything other than that because there is no absolute certainties, neither for any of us or any Governments...

[kirklancaster]

This absolute certainty is nonsense in itself of course

:laugh::laugh::laugh: Absolutely SPOT ON.

[MTVN]

I agree that predisposed opinions will colour future reaction as well. If we hear reports of civilian deaths or if there is a terror attack here in the UK there will be a lot of 'I told you so' from the anti-strikes people and if, a few years down the line, ISIS are defeated or even if there are governments in Syria and Iraq that have control over most of their countries then those who pushed for intervention will proclaim it a success even if it came at horrible cost.

[Tom4784]

I knew you wouldn't answer the question, even though I made it easy to. On, that basis, I'm not going to continue the debate with you. And just for the record, when the government goes to war, any action to undermine that, is considered to be the act of a traitor, in ANY democracy, so I stand by my words 100%. People on here think they can win debates by intimidation. It's not for me ... not the first time I had this from you either Dezzy ... This is not the place for me.

So you're taking the ball and going home, I'm not surprised. I see you still haven't actually read anything I've written either. I've answered your question twice now, the answer is that your question is pointless because IS can't expand beyond what they are now. You'd know that if you actually read my posts.

I don't think you understand what Democracy is....So much for being an expert on these things..

[DemolitionRed]

I also don't think Elf understands that our bombing campaign on Syria is an invasion and an illegal one at that. We can't change the fact that our intervention is an unlawful act because neither Assad or the UN gave us the green light to go in.

Why would we go in and bomb a terrorist group without permission to use Syrian air space by the Syrian government?

[bots]

So you're taking the ball and going home, I'm not surprised. I see you still haven't actually read anything I've written either. I've answered your question twice now, the answer is that your question is pointless because IS can't expand beyond what they are now. You'd know that if you actually read my posts.

I don't think you understand what Democracy is....So much for being an expert on these things..

I read your posts, the ones full of intimidation. I put forward arguments, asked questions and you refused twice to respond to the specific question, what is your threshold for taking action. You didn't answer - twice. Instead, you said they won't expand. No, they won't expand now thanks to the bombing that is being done. If we had allowed them free reign as you seem to think they deserve, then they would expand indefinitely. That is their aim and intention, so to suggest otherwise is plain wrong.

I don't need to justify or disclose my knowledge and experience to anyone, least of all someone not prepared to engage in debate without trying to intimidate.

People can say all they like that there is no intimidation on this forum, it doesn't matter one jot, because I do, and if I feel I am being intimidated on this forum I have a right to say it.

[kirklancaster]

It gets tedious after a while and some who are solidly in favour are sometimes not interested in much else than putting down those who are not.
I can be swayed either way and I think that is where most people are really as to this dilemma anyway,on here and off here.

I'm not intimidated just not interested in wasting my time any longer on the issue.
My position is well known by now without putting down,ridiculing and dismissing the opinions made in posts by anyone who is strongly against,or for that matter even for too.

Another fair post Joey, and though we are on opposite sides on this matter of 'Yes' or 'No' to bombing (though I did think you were originally in favour) I DO know what you mean by it getting 'tedious'.

I have emboldened the first paragraph because I would politely (out of respect to you) point out that though you do fairly write that "some who are in favour are sometimes not interested in much else than putting down those who are not" - such conduct is just as true of some on here who are against the bombing.

[Ammi]

I agree that predisposed opinions will colour future reaction as well. If we hear reports of civilian deaths or if there is a terror attack here in the UK there will be a lot of 'I told you so' from the anti-strikes people and if, a few years down the line, ISIS are defeated or even if there are governments in Syria and Iraq that have control over most of their countries then those who pushed for intervention will proclaim it a success even if it came at horrible cost.

...that's also why I think that many people aren't clear cut in their opinions as well...(it definitely is that way for me..)..because although I'm not supportive of the strikes, I can also see the perspectives of those who are as well and their reasoning, which also makes sense...there is no right or wrong in this and many different outcomes and would be the same, whatever the decision...

[Kizzy]

People are not clear cut in their opinions because there is nothing to be clear cut about.... Cameron just shouted TERRORIST!! a lot but there was no substance, plan, goal or prospective outcome given prior to the vote.
All there was was half truths and untruths, 70'000 'moderate' fighters? BALONEY.

[kirklancaster]

I also don't think Elf understands that our bombing campaign on Syria is an invasion and an illegal one at that. We can't change the fact that our intervention is an unlawful act because neither Assad or the UN gave us the green light to go in.

Why would we go in and bomb a terrorist group without permission to use Syrian air space by the Syrian government?

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.

[kirklancaster]

The debate and vote was a charade, pure lip service as with Iraq. We were always going to drop the bombs. They just have to pretend to jump through the hoops and follow the process first.

Its like when I tell someone something and they then insist that I must phone a company bigwig because they won't accept what I'm saying, so I go into the back office and make a cup of coffee, come back through pretending to hang up the phone, and repeat exactly the same thing.

This view is just purely ridiculous. There was a DEMOCRATIC vote. The 'No's' LOST - Get over it.

[kirklancaster]

...no one knows is the whole point, not world leaders and governments and certainly not the general public, if they did then it would all be solved already ...will it lead to escalation an making worse, maybe but would it have led to that anyway without the yes decision, we'll never know that because that course wasn't taken so no one will ever know an outcome had it have been...we know there will be deaths in many countries, will there be less deaths, will there be more deaths, we don't know...will we look back on mistakes, probably...would we have done that if the bombings weren't happening, probably...they'll just be different mistakes is all and what balances to those mistakes of any positive outcomes as well...of it being a right decision or either having been a right decision...if we're against it, our focus will be on the negatives and if we're in favour, our focus will be on the positives because we have pre-disposed opinions, so that will always be..but no one knows, unless two paths were possible and both were known then no one knows, nor wil they in hindsight either, that only allows for scrutiny etc....

:clap1::clap1::clap1: Balance, moderation and truth.

[Kizzy]

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.

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.

[user104658]

This view is just purely ridiculous. There was a DEMOCRATIC vote. The 'No's' LOST - Get over it.
I've already covered my reservations when it comes to the flaws with democracy. You don't agree and, as always, that isn't a surprise and... doesn't matter to me even a little. You seem to be struggling with that part.

"Get over it"? Are you a 16 year old American girl, Kirk?

[Tom4784]

I read your posts, the ones full of intimidation. I put forward arguments, asked questions and you refused twice to respond to the specific question, what is your threshold for taking action. You didn't answer - twice. Instead, you said they won't expand. No, they won't expand now thanks to the bombing that is being done. If we had allowed them free reign as you seem to think they deserve, then they would expand indefinitely. That is their aim and intention, so to suggest otherwise is plain wrong.

I don't need to justify or disclose my knowledge and experience to anyone, least of all someone not prepared to engage in debate without trying to intimidate.

People can say all they like that there is no intimidation on this forum, it doesn't matter one jot, because I do, and if I feel I am being intimidated on this forum I have a right to say it.

I've not refused anything, you've asked me twice and I've answered it twice. Anyone here can bear witness to that. Why are you obsessed with scenarios that no longer matter? There's no point talking about what would have happened if we didn't launch air strikes because we did. You should focus on the debate at hand instead of trying to score points.

I'm not intimidating anyone, You just want to act like a victim because you've gotten yourself into a debate which you cannot win, it's a boring and rather spineless tactic.

You brought your so called 'experience' into this debate as a crutch to help your argument without giving it context so I can question it all I like especially when you've shown that you struggle with such concepts as democracy.

[Kizzy]

...no one knows is the whole point, not world leaders and governments and certainly not the general public, if they did then it would all be solved already ...will it lead to escalation an making worse, maybe but would it have led to that anyway without the yes decision, we'll never know that because that course wasn't taken so no one will ever know an outcome had it have been...we know there will be deaths in many countries, will there be less deaths, will there be more deaths, we don't know...will we look back on mistakes, probably...would we have done that if the bombings weren't happening, probably...they'll just be different mistakes is all and what balances to those mistakes of any positive outcomes as well...of it being a right decision or either having been a right decision...if we're against it, our focus will be on the negatives and if we're in favour, our focus will be on the positives because we have pre-disposed opinions, so that will always be..but no one knows, unless two paths were possible and both were known then no one knows, nor will they in hindsight either, that only allows for scrutiny etc....

If, buts and maybes, that's all we have had to go on, so I wouldn't blame anyone for being very wary, having such little assurance for me makes the whole thing seem a gamble at best.

[user104658]

If, buts and maybes

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

[bots]

I've not refused anything, you've asked me twice and I've answered it twice. Anyone here can bear witness to that. Why are you obsessed with scenarios that no longer matter? There's no point talking about what would have happened if we didn't launch air strikes because we did. You should focus on the debate at hand instead of trying to score points.

I'm not intimidating anyone, You just want to act like a victim because you've gotten yourself into a debate which you cannot win, it's a boring and rather spineless tactic.

You brought your so called 'experience' into this debate as a crutch to help your argument without giving it context so I can question it all I like especially when you've shown that you struggle with such concepts as democracy.

You did not answer. I have yet to hear an answer to the question, what is your threshold for taking action. I went into great detail on thresholds and why they existed for those not of a purely pacifist nature.

Your response was that ISIS will not expand. Is that really an answer to the question - what is your threshold for taking action? I don't think so.

I mentioned my experience, because my thoughts and opinions are not coming from a place of stupidity, which you implied they were, rather forcefully and in an intimidatory manner I might add.

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.

[kirklancaster]

I've already covered my reservations when it comes to the flaws with democracy. You don't agree and, as always, that isn't a surprise and... doesn't matter to me even a little. You seem to be struggling with that part.

"Get over it"? Are you a 16 year old American girl, Kirk?

I am struggling with nothing mate - my powers of comprehension are not in question, and we can only make sense of the sensible.

Your 'covering of your reservations' do not make any sense at all. You live in a Democratic Country but claim not to hold with democracy, yet - quite evidently - your scathing condemnation of that democratic system on here is not reflective of your attitude in the real world because you obviously work, pay your taxes and accept the system for what it is.

If I felt as strongly as you claim to do on here, then I would be claiming benefits and working 'on the side' so that not one penny of my money contributed to all those bad decisions by this nasty government.

As for "Get over it"? Are you a 16 year old American girl, Kirk?" - No I'm not, only a very earnest member who can be forgiven that he sometimes thinks he is responding to a ludicrous post worthy of a '16 year old American girl'

I do believe however, that this is rich coming from someone so infamous for posting juvenile tosh - like the praying piss take retort to my applauding of Ammi's excellent post yesterday - a response that was not addressed to you, directed to you, nor mentioned you, and one which in no way justified your juvenile mockery.

[user104658]

I don't need to justify or disclose my knowledge and experience to anyone

No, you don't "need" to do anything but if you aren't prepared to elaborate on just what knowledge and experience it is that you have, then expect vague statements like "I have knowledge and experience" to be completely disregarded. They are meaningless.

People can say all they like that there is no intimidation on this forum, it doesn't matter one jot, because I do, and if I feel I am being intimidated on this forum I have a right to say it.

And others have the right to respond that this is utter nonsense. Again, it's a meaningless statement unless you are prepared to clarify exactly where and when you feel like someone has been intimidating you. You can't just make arbitrary, broad statements like "I know things about stuff" and "some people somewhere are being intimidating" and expect them to be effective arguments.

[kirklancaster]

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

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.

[kirklancaster]

No, you don't "need" to do anything but if you aren't prepared to elaborate on just what knowledge and experience it is that you have, then expect vague statements like "I have knowledge and experience" to be completely disregarded. They are meaningless.



And others have the right to respond that this is utter nonsense. Again, it's a meaningless statement unless you are prepared to clarify exactly where and when you feel like someone has been intimidating you. You can't just make arbitrary, broad statements like "I know things about stuff" and "some people somewhere are being intimidating" and expect them to be effective arguments.

: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.

[user104658]

I am struggling with nothing mate - my powers of comprehension are not in question, and we can only make sense of the sensible.

Your 'covering of your reservations' do not make any sense at all. You live in a Democratic Country but claim not to hold with democracy, yet - quite evidently - your scathing condemnation of that democratic system on here is not reflective of your attitude in the real world because you obviously work, pay your taxes and accept the system for what it is.

If I felt as strongly as you claim to do on here, then I would be claiming benefits and working 'on the side' so that not one penny of my money contributed to all those bad decisions by this nasty government.

As for "Get over it"? Are you a 16 year old American girl, Kirk?" - No I'm not, only a very earnest member who can be forgiven that he sometimes thinks he is responding to a ludicrous post worthy of a '16 year old American girl'

I do believe however, that this is rich coming from someone so infamous for posting juvenile tosh - like the praying piss take retort to my applauding of Ammi's excellent post yesterday - a response that was not addressed to you, directed to you, nor mentioned you, and one which in no way justified your juvenile mockery.
"Mate" :joker: someone's getting lairy...

Tut tut, kirk, you're responding to posts that you haven't read properly. I said that the system is the best we have. Go back and have a look. It's right there. I then went on to say; the best we have does not necessarily mean "good". There is no logical conflict there.

Your stance appears to be that in a democracy, once a party is elected, we should just quietly accept every decision and "get over it" if a decision is made that we don't like. Now, that would be fine if it was your genuine opinion, if it was how you lived... But it clearly isn't. You are quite comfortable disagreeing with government decisions and stating your opposition to them, you have done on many occasions in many threads. But now, suddenly, when it suits you, if someone disagrees with a government decision that you happen to agree with, the other person must "accept the elected government's decision and get over it"? No, kirk. Complete fail. That's the weak argument of someone who can't think of anything better to say.

[Kizzy]

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.

Thanks but I didn't say that... it was Ammi :hehe:

[Tom4784]

You did not answer. I have yet to hear an answer to the question, what is your threshold for taking action. I went into great detail on thresholds and why they existed for those not of a purely pacifist nature.

Your response was that ISIS will not expand. Is that really an answer to the question - what is your threshold for taking action? I don't think so.

I mentioned my experience, because my thoughts and opinions are not coming from a place of stupidity, which you implied they were, rather forcefully and in an intimidatory manner I might add.

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.

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.

You keep asking the same question in hopes I will give you an answer you'll like which is why you keep moving the goalposts. My answer remains the same. Your question is meaningless and you're obsessing over an impossibility that will no longer happen. I've answered the question three times now, move on.

You expect that by saying 'I know things but I don't understand the difference between democracy and dictatorships' that it will somehow make us believe everything you say as fact when it doesn't. Either go into details or disregard it. You brought your 'experience' to the table, no one else, so don't whine when it's being questioned.