[user104658]

some people will believe anything.

Come on guys. I'm not saying it's a bad thing that terrorists have been killed, but... I have a 5 year old. I know a hasty excuse when I hear one!

"I know it wasn't allowed but we had to coz coz coz... And anyway! Anyway! Listen! Anyway! It was OK becoz coz coz.... "

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

some people will believe anything.

Come on guys. I'm not saying it's a bad thing that terrorists have been killed, but... I have a 5 year old. I know a hasty excuse when I hear one!

"I know it wasn't allowed but we had to coz coz coz... And anyway! Anyway! Listen! Anyway! It was OK becoz coz coz.... "

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

some people will believe anything.

Come on guys. I'm not saying it's a bad thing that terrorists have been killed, but... I have a 5 year old. I know a hasty excuse when I hear one!

"I know it wasn't allowed but we had to coz coz coz... And anyway! Anyway! Listen! Anyway! It was OK becoz coz coz.... "

With respect, TS... maybe you're more acquainted with a five year old's excuses but you're not really acquainted with this particular issue. You have your own opinion, I can accept that, but you're taking your depressive cynicism a step too far. I have no doubt that the intelligence was sound and the decision to carry out the bombing legal. If you want to disagree because it's the Tories, go right ahead. But they will have been advised by the security services and I trust them implicitly.

Have a think for a minute and try to remember... this is IS we're talking about here. IS. Not the Boy Scouts.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

With respect, TS... maybe you're more acquainted with a five year old's excuses but you're not really acquainted with this particular issue. You have your own opinion, I can accept that, but you're taking your depressive cynicism a step too far. I have no doubt that the intelligence was sound and the decision to carry out the bombing legal. If you want to disagree because it's the Tories, go right ahead. But they will have been advised by the security services and I trust them implicitly.

Have a think for a minute and try to remember... this is IS we're talking about here. IS. Not the Boy Scouts.

And you are I suppose?

Your optimism is equally as baffling as even as we speak there is wrangling over the legality over the admission of targeted strikes.
No one is disagreeing because it's the tories, it would be wrong whoever was in power naturally.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

And you are I suppose?

Your optimism is equally as baffling as even as we speak there is wrangling over the legality over the admission of targeted strikes.
No one is disagreeing because it's the tories, it would be wrong whoever was in power naturally.

As a matter of fact, yes.

There. I've replied to you. Happy?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

As a matter of fact, yes.

There. I've replied to you. Happy?

Not really, when even govt officials and experts are confused over this issue what makes you so confident?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Not really, when even govt officials and experts are confused over this issue what makes you so confident?

If I told you that I'd have to kill you.

[Ninastar]

Originally Posted by Livia

With respect, TS... maybe you're more acquainted with a five year old's excuses but you're not really acquainted with this particular issue. You have your own opinion, I can accept that, but you're taking your depressive cynicism a step too far. I have no doubt that the intelligence was sound and the decision to carry out the bombing legal. If you want to disagree because it's the Tories, go right ahead. But they will have been advised by the security services and I trust them implicitly.

Have a think for a minute and try to remember... this is IS we're talking about here. IS. Not the Boy Scouts.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by Livia

With respect, TS... maybe you're more acquainted with a five year old's excuses but you're not really acquainted with this particular issue. You have your own opinion, I can accept that, but you're taking your depressive cynicism a step too far. I have no doubt that the intelligence was sound and the decision to carry out the bombing legal. If you want to disagree because it's the Tories, go right ahead. But they will have been advised by the security services and I trust them implicitly.

Have a think for a minute and try to remember... this is IS we're talking about here. IS. Not the Boy Scouts.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

With respect, TS... maybe you're more acquainted with a five year old's excuses but you're not really acquainted with this particular issue. You have your own opinion, I can accept that, but you're taking your depressive cynicism a step too far. I have no doubt that the intelligence was sound and the decision to carry out the bombing legal. If you want to disagree because it's the Tories, go right ahead. But they will have been advised by the security services and I trust them implicitly.

Have a think for a minute and try to remember... this is IS we're talking about here. IS. Not the Boy Scouts.

Absolutely nothing to do with the Tories, Livia, in fact I seem to remember Labour being pretty good at "finding" reasons to make strikes and attacks not too long ago. Not sure what the security and intelligence services were doing then? Were they not the same services? Am I confused? Or did they drop the ball? I mean, you have been quite vocal about Mr Blair in the past... Maybe he had different, silly, Labour intelligence services who were not to be trusted quite so implicitly.

Alternatively, (all) military forces quite often decide which strikes they want or need to make, and then find justifications. In that order.

I'm not even saying there was no need for this strike or that it wasn't done for good reasons. I'm just saying, they needed the strike to be legal, so they found a way to make it so. It reeks of being an excuse, because it is one.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Absolutely nothing to do with the Tories, Livia, in fact I seem to remember Labour being pretty good at "finding" reasons to make strikes and attacks not too long ago. Not sure what the security and intelligence services were doing then? Were they not the same services? Am I confused? Or did they drop the ball? I mean, you have been quite vocal about Mr Blair in the past... Maybe he had different, silly, Labour intelligence services who were not to be trusted quite so implicitly.

Alternatively, (all) military forces quite often decide which strikes they want or need to make, and then find justifications. In that order.

I'm not even saying there was no need for this strike or that it wasn't done for good reasons. I'm just saying, they needed the strike to be legal, so they found a way to make it so. It reeks of being an excuse, because it is one.

The whole "going to war on a lie" following the "sexed up" dossier published by Blair's government, and which was followed by a suicide or a murder depending on your view point... bears no resemblance to this matter at all.

I think you'd be surprised how far the hands of the military are tied in matters like this.. unless you know something I don't, which I doubt.

I understand you're not saying you have a problem with this strike... but there's always something, isn't there, that doesn't sit right with you when it comes to Britain. I think you underestimate both the security services and their legal advisers. But that's your right because we live in a free country, in part thanks to the security services and the military.