[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.