[Ammi]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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]

Originally Posted by MTVN

This absolute certainty is nonsense in itself of course

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]

Originally Posted by Elf On Strike

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

...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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

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]

Originally Posted by 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....

Balance, moderation and truth.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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]

Originally Posted by Elf On Strike

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]

Originally Posted by 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 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]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

If, buts and maybes

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

[bots]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

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]

Originally Posted by Elf On Strike

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

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.

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]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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" 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]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Elf On Strike

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.