Imagine living in Syria and hearing that your country will be bombed :(

Disgraceful there's plenty of other ways this could of been tackled without war.

.

It is and those against the action should not be made to feel they are wrong just as those in favour should not take the moral high ground either.

I cannot believe I am now going to say this but I will qualify it with I wish it had been all he said as to the vote in the Commons.
I am going to quote David Cameron and the 'right' thing he said yesterday, which was there is honour in both those voting for and against in the vote last night.

That is correct and those against the action should not be getting called out on being cowardly, unpatriotic and often even worse, just as those in favour should not be derided as warmongers either.

This was a hard decision to come to for anyone, MP or down to every single UK citizen.
For me as I Have said many times, the only 'wrong' thing in the whole issue whatever the result was to be, is that all MPs of all parties should have been able to vote as their heart and minds led them to, and not be forced either way.

And the plan to arm moderates worked when America did it...
What's that saying. the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome?

'The atom bombs are piling up in the factories, the police are prowling through the cities, the lies are streaming from the loudspeakers, but the earth is still going round the sun.'

With respect APWD - This is all yet more B.S propaganda and overspouted cliche.

"The more (innocent) people we kill in Syria, though, their ability to racialise and recruit people in the country and grow in strength increases, potentially at a faster rate than we can take out members of IS."

The only civilians who are in the same vicinity as these murdering turds are the unfortunate ones being held captive by force or fear, and these 'captives' along with those who have already fled the country, and all the relatives of those who have been beheaded, raped and sold into sex slavery, or buried in mass graves, DESPISE ISIS. Hardly suitable subjects for 'radicalisation' to the ISIS cause.

Was there a HUGE surge of eager applicants from ordinary Germans to enlist in the Nazi military after our destruction of Dresden?

NO.

Was there a huge surge from non-domiciled Germans living elsewhere?

NO.

Did we see the hatred felt by the French for their Nazi occupiers suddenly change to hatred for the allies when over 68,000 French civilians became the innocent casualities of our bombing raids?

NO.

Check out footage of the ecstatic, grateful French when they were finally liberated by the allies if you need corroboration.

Apart from a few scattered cretins in WESTERN Countries who ALREADY detest the West - despite availing themselves of all the many benefits we freely afford them - there is NO evidence that bombing, or any other type of retaliatory Military Action, breeds mass 'radicalisation' and enlistment.

"We are almost playing into their hands by creating martyrs"

More pure baloney.

Without googling, do you know any of the following?:

Ludmila of Bohemia
Thomas More
Margaret Clitherhoe

Is'haq Badran
Baha Alyan

or how about Bobby Sands?

NO - I didn't think so. The importance of so-called 'Martyrs' is vastly inflated, and no matter what 'cause' they died for, 'Martyrs' are soon forgotten by all but the most fanatical - if they are remembered at all.

A dead terrorist is NOT a 'Martyr' he is just a dead terrorist.

"do we really think IS members are afraid of dying for whatever twisted kind of Islam they believe in?"

No, we do not think that TRUE braindead IS believers are afraid to die for their 'cause', but a very sizeable number of those murdering bastards who are now fighting under the IS banner are NOT true believers.

They are CONSCRIPTS - from the peoples ISIS have conquered - reluctant 'soldiers of Allah' FORCED to join ISIS under threat of death and beheading, and they are MERCENARIES, bought and paid for from the proceeds of stolen oil fields, extortion monies, ransoms, sold sex slaves, and pillaging spoils, and this is EXACTLY how ISLAM originally spread under Muhammud over a thousand years ago.

And if you know your history, this 'dilution' of true believers is exactly what will contribute to the defeat of ISIS the more that we bomb and shoot the **** out of them.

True cretin believers WILL give their life, but the more that ISIS are subjected to heavier and heavier losses, the more that Mercenaries - who have had a relatively easy unchallenged ride until recently - will STOP joining, and the chances are that FORCED CONSCRIPTS will FLEE at the earliest opportunity, leaving an ever more depleted ISIS army and a weaker one.

Forced Barbarian 'Soldiers' and non-Roman Mercenaries were absorbed into the Roman Army as the Great Roman Empire expanded, and this 'dilution' was one of the causes for the fall of that empire. Not THE cause, but one of them.

As the Romans later suffered defeats and reverses because of the other causes, the mercenaries fled, unwilling to give their life for 'Rome' - a 'cause' they did NOT really believe in - and the Barbarians who had been FORCED to fight for Rome also fled, or actually vented all those years of seething but hidden resentment and hatred, and actually TURNED on the Romans.

The sack of Rome by the Visigoths was actually led by Alaric - a Roman trained ex-army FORCED soldier.

ISIS are suffering defeats. Their advance has not only been halted, but REVERSED, and THEY CAN AND WILL BE BEATEN.

Do not fall for the propaganda which - like MOST of the Politically Correct BullShot was originally planted as seeds by sinister parties with covert anti-Western agendas for the gullible to water and nurture.

Like what?

Ha ha - ask away Livia, I am STILL awaiting proper answers to the same question from others who made similar claims.

Morning Kirk.

I'm looking forward to someone coming up with a better, practical, more workable idea. No one's joyous to be going to war, are they? No one's punching the air... and yet the opposition seem to insinuate it's the boys going on a jolly. Which frankly couldn't be further from the truth.

Morning Liv.

You are correct. No one is pleased, but a lot of us KNOW when there is no alternative.

And you continue to goad...
Attack is not the best form of defence, it is an aggressive stance and puts a bigger target on our heads.
There was no request from NATO to intervene, we did not have to become involved at this time.

Look back in the thread, there were loads laughing, punching the air and practically celebrating last nights decision.
I saw nobody from the opposition insinuating it was a 'jolly' that would be an equally pathetic response to the whooping imo.

Lets be clear, we are bombing ISIS, the group that are torturing and beheading the ordinary Syrian people, we are not bombing civilians.

Maybe it's you who should be looking back through the thread.

People were applauding that we did the right thing. Not that we are going to war. Who, in their right mind, wants to go to war? But when there is no alternative, the bullet has to be bitten and we, along with 60 other countries, have decided this is the way to go. And I'm proud of that. That still doesn't mean I rejoice at the fact that some of our servicemen are probably going to return home covered with a flag.

Oh FFS I am not goading - What are you trying to do? Get MORE of my innocuous posts removed? Get me another infraction?

I am stating a fact. I named no one and stated the plural word 'OTHERS' not singular word 'OTHER'.

Please just ignore my posts if they bother you so much - especially when they are NOT addressed directly to you, or specificaly mention you.

I have done nothing wrong.

If we make claims on a Serious Debates forum as if they are absolutes, then expect to be asked for corroboration. I did not mock you or sneer at you, I merely asked you (and others) what your solution was then seeing how you repeatedly criticised the Government strategy.

You did not answer, but you were not the only one who didn't - in fact NO ONE has answered - so why do you now claim that I am specifically goading YOU?

And to the Mods - please do not remove this post or infract me. I am merely answering in a civil manner yet another wrongful accusation.

No they weren't because nobody knows if it's the right thing, that's why there were 10hrs of debates over it... it's not a black or white issue.
There could be 100 countries and until it was imperative I say no.

This is supposed to be a serious debate. The "againsts" on here do not reflect the "againsts" in society, which is fine. But no meaningful discussion can take place without the "againsts" making outrageous claims and turning it into a playground squabble. The discussion is not reflective and it is therefore pointless.

Yes, I know you're against.

You seem to labour under the illusion that anyone who is not against this hasn't thought it through. No one has thought about this more than those who are making the decisions and I trust them. It's not the first time this country has stood with its allies, and I hope it won't be the last.

What outrageous claims... That we haven't been attacked, that we will be seen as the aggressors?
Whoever and however society is represented anyone on the forum has a right to voice their view, you don't have to like it.

I don't like it. Doesn't mean I don't think you have a right to your opinion, however far off the mark they are.

We haven't been attacked? Do you think not backing our allies would make us safer? Really? How many times do you think our security services have foiled attacks? It's been said many times since the Paris bombing... terrorists need to get lucky once, the security services need to get lucky every single hour of every single day. And thank God, up till now they have.

And the outrageous claims are that this hasn't been thought through, that it's short-sighed and all about ego... you know the claims I'm talking about, don't make me do bullet points for you.

Those were Dezzys claims not mine.

Good I'm glad I have your blessing to have an opinion, logically and factually we have not been attacked by forces emitting from Syria.

'Do you think not backing our allies would make us safer? '
Yes, as I said earlier I feel attacking would make us a bigger target than defending.
If NATO requested it then yes it would be a responsibility to aid allies... but that hasn't happened and now it's irrelevant.

Maybe not on here but..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6758231.html

I don't think there is a right thing to do in this, it is sad the Middle East is again in the mess it is and part of that has to have blame laid at our interfering door,not all but a part of it.
There are people who think the diplomatic means and to this have not been exhausted,I am one of them,I still feel the Saudi's in particular and Turkey need looking at.
They are neither wrong or right in that view of diplomatic means being better, no one has the answer that at a stroke will sort this mess out.

The vote in the Commons last night for instance while overwhelming as to the result, still actually resulted in more elected Parties to Westminster 'not' actually supporting the action as opposed to the number that did, it is just the 2 bigger Parties provided the larger numbers for.

It is as Ammi said a difficult issue with feelings of helplessness from all sides of the argument.
Derision of one view against the other is rather petty,there is likely near an equal division among all UK citizens too for instance.

If those who supported the action are just going to put down those who were against and question those who would have liked to see another way tried,well none of us have the foresight as to the best way on this, if any of us think we have then we are deluding ourselves.

The poster who asked surely there was a better way, is not claiming to know a better way,they have the right to think that however without interrogation as to what they'd do.They are not a military person or govt with all info to hand.
Asking for a better way should not bring derision from those cock a hoop at the action being passed.

I would have probably voted for the action last night,only just,and with the heaviest of hearts however and fear I had not done the right or best thing.
What I will not do is be awkward towards those who wanted another way,or questioned why this was seen as the only way and also especially those who were still against it after the debate.
We are all not,and should not be either,possibly wonderful know alls who think only our way is the right and best way, and anyone with an alternative view or questions an issue is only worthy of derision and sarcasm.

Cheering the decision, more like. Nice twist though.

Still not very sensitive it's not them that have to risk their lives is it?....

Oh, they're not sensitive enough for you. I'm sure the people at the front will be gratified that you're upset on their behalf.