[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

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]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

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]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

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]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

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]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

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]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

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]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

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]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

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]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

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...o-war-MPs.html

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Elf On Strike

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

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]

Originally Posted by Elf On Strike

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

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]

Originally Posted by Elf On Strike

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 . (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