[James]

The genocide that IS has carried out is comparable in its aim to what the Nazis did, although IS don't have the means to carry it out on a similar scale.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Elf On Strike

I'm not getting caught up with hysteria, I have significant experience in this area.

You didn't answer my question either. What country will they need to invade before you consider them a serious threat. Do you have a threshold of what you consider acceptable, or will you just say ... hey ho ... not our problem until they are on your door step.

Oh another expert, we are lucky on this little forum to have so many.
Dave just paid 3 billion to ensure they don't get past turkey, that might be just the refugees but with any luck it'll include ISIS.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by James

The genocide that IS has carried out is comparable in its aim to what the Nazis did, although IS don't have the means to carry it out on a similar scale.

Could you expand on the similarities?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Elf On Strike

I'm not getting caught up with hysteria, I have significant experience in this area.

You didn't answer my question either. What country will they need to invade before you consider them a serious threat. Do you have a threshold of what you consider acceptable, or will you just say ... hey ho ... not our problem until they are on your door step.

I'm just going to disregard the first sentence, you're literally just saying that in an effort to validate your opinion without offering any context and saying you 'have significant experience in the area' can't be taken seriously when you seemed to forget that we live in a democracy and that disagreeing with the government was tantamount to being a 'traitor'

I'm not worrying about what ifs that will never happen. IS's power base will not expand beyond what it is now. There's at least five countries that are currently attacking them and IS have no allies or resources to help them out.

Nobody is burying their head in the sand, unlike you we aren't losing our heads over an (im)possibility.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

well well well...

' I believe that only one politician deserves to emerge with an enhanced reputation as a result of the week’s events. That figure is Jeremy Corbyn.
Whether or not you like Mr Corbyn (and I profoundly disagree with many of his policies), there is no denying that he emerged from the arguments over Syria as a man of moral courage, integrity and principle.
Indeed, how interesting that after months of denigrating Corbyn, the Blairite tendency — together with those excitable inhabitants of the Westminster bubble — have been made to look silly in their prediction that Labour would lose the Oldham by-election.
In the real world, it seems the voters have more time for the Labour leader than the metropolitan commentariat.
Faced with bitter hostility from his own side on Wednesday, Mr Corbyn stood his ground. Courteously, he set out his honest doubts about the wisdom of bombing raids on Syria.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...lary-Benn.html

None of the British adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya in recent years produced any gain for our country, to offset the sacrifices made during those conflicts by our soldiers and their families.

Quite the contrary — all three turned into disasters. Indeed, Islamic State came into being as a direct consequence of the Iraq invasion, as even Tony Blair grudgingly acknowledged recently.

This was on the mail online? The... The DAILY Mail? OK I'm done, my head has just imploded. It's making me want to post kirk's ****zy clapping emote thing. The mail??

[James]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

Could you expand on the similarities?

If you look up what they did to a group of people called the Yazidis in Northern Iraq it goes into detail there. There is an article on Wikipedia.

There is a link here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...ulltext=Search

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

This was on the mail online? The... The DAILY Mail? OK I'm done, my head has just imploded. It's making me want to post kirk's ****zy clapping emote thing. The mail??

The Mail's published quite a lot of stuff against intervention in the last couple of weeks

[the truth]

labours response was way too weak. they failed to produce a counter narrative
they made it way too easy for warmonger dave

[user104658]

Originally Posted by James

The genocide that IS has carried out is comparable in its aim to what the Nazis did, although IS don't have the means to carry it out on a similar scale.

Yes but the same could be said of any Ku Klux Klan group in any hick backwater, or a myriad of other people and groups with toxic ideologies. There are still ACTUAL Nazi groups with not similar or comparable ideologies to Hitler, but identical ones.

Would we really equate them though? Of course not. Obviously ISIS isn't small like those examples but, to be honest, they're closer to that than they are to the Axis forces that rampaged across continental Europe. I mean really... Let's have some perspective.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by the truth

labours response was way too weak. they failed to produce a counter narrative
they made it way too easy for warmonger dave

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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by James

If you look up what they did to a group of people called the Yazidis in Northern Iraq it goes into detail there. There is an article on Wikipedia.

There is a link here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...ulltext=Search

I'll have a read of that tomorrow, thanks

[user104658]

"Brrp Brrp... Brrp Brrp... Oh hello. Yes I want to go to war. Oh you want to go to war too? So I can go ahead and process that? OK thanks for the clarification, I'll process that now.

*click*

To war, lads!!"

[bots]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I'm just going to disregard the first sentence, you're literally just saying that in an effort to validate your opinion without offering any context and saying you 'have significant experience in the area' can't be taken seriously when you seemed to forget that we live in a democracy and that disagreeing with the government was tantamount to being a 'traitor'

I'm not worrying about what ifs that will never happen. IS's power base will not expand beyond what it is now. There's at least five countries that are currently attacking them and IS have no allies or resources to help them out.

Nobody is burying their head in the sand, unlike you we aren't losing our heads over an (im)possibility.

I knew you wouldn't answer the question because that requires responsibility to be taken and I don't say that to cause offence, I say it because it is a classic response from those that are pacifist in nature and not willing to commit or take a stand.

There is nothing wrong with advocating no action at this point in itself, but each and every one of us either has a threshold of acceptability, or they are not acknowledging the issue exists or prepared to act at any point which would be the action of a pacifist.

Even now, people are expecting those in the security services to protect them from serious harm as they go about their daily activities. That's not the expectation of pacifists, they want to be protected. If the security services had not taken action, many hundreds more would have died in Paris. Would that have been acceptable? People have to take a stand at some point or die in the face of such threats, so I repeat my question, where is your threshold

[arista]

The USA President is Live on all Media.

The Problem is USA Air Bombers killed over 20 Firemen in Syria
he never said a word on that

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Elf On Strike

I knew you wouldn't answer the question because that requires responsibility to be taken and I don't say that to cause offence, I say it because it is a classic response from those that are pacifist in nature and not willing to commit or take a stand.

There is nothing wrong with advocating no action at this point in itself, but each and every one of us either has a threshold of acceptability, or they are not acknowledging the issue exists or prepared to act at any point which would be the action of a pacifist.

Even now, people are expecting those in the security services to protect them from serious harm as they go about their daily activities. That's not the expectation of pacifists, they want to be protected. If the security services had not taken action, many hundreds more would have died in Paris. Would that have been acceptable? People have to take a stand at some point or die in the face of such threats, so I repeat my question, where is your threshold

I see you actually haven't read my post at all. Have you actually read any posts in this thread? It would make sense if you haven't given your 'traitor' accusations and such.

There's five countries, two of which are super powers, currently bombing Syria and it's only a matter of time before there's soldiers on the ground. Do you honestly believe that IS, with it's few thousand soldiers and outdated gear, could stand a chance against at least five different countries' armed forces? I thought you said you were an expert...

Your question is pointless, IS will not expand any further than they already have and you are only obsessing over it because you falsely believe it's some sort of trump card when it's pointless. Like how you forgot that the UK is a democracy (and displayed some very IS traits in doing so), you've forgotten that I was never against action when it came to IS, I just believed we were getting involved too early when our presence wouldn't achieve anything.

If you want to have a discussion, you really need to read people's posts.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

Don't be intimidated, I don't care if I'm accused of being anything terrorist sympathiser, traitor, water of a ducks back Joey.

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Elf On Strike

I knew you wouldn't answer the question because that requires responsibility to be taken and I don't say that to cause offence, I say it because it is a classic response from those that are pacifist in nature and not willing to commit or take a stand.

There is nothing wrong with advocating no action at this point in itself, but each and every one of us either has a threshold of acceptability, or they are not acknowledging the issue exists or prepared to act at any point which would be the action of a pacifist.

Even now, people are expecting those in the security services to protect them from serious harm as they go about their daily activities. That's not the expectation of pacifists, they want to be protected. If the security services had not taken action, many hundreds more would have died in Paris. Would that have been acceptable? People have to take a stand at some point or die in the face of such threats, so I repeat my question, where is your threshold

Ahh so your entire argument is based on the (false) premise that everyone must fall into one of two categories.

Either you are a:

- War-crier who wants planes dropping bombs and has a secret boner for grandstanding displays of military capability,

Or;

- A pacifist by nature who simply hasn't accepted the situation yet but will eventually hit a threshold and "wake up" and realise that bombs are key.


Which is simply wrong. You are mistaken. I see very few pacifists here. I am against these retarded airstrikes because I know - just like good old Mr Blair - that the exponential rise of ISIS and other ISIS style is extremism and recruiting power is a direct result of "Shock and Awe" in Iraq. I accept and understand that ISIS want, and are quite clearly baiting, bombing action in Syria because it supplies them with a fresh stock of angry, broken, hopeless people who are primed for radicalisation and far more valuable to them than an oilfield.

I'm not a pacifist. I just know that you cut out a tumor with a scalpel after careful planning. You don't attempt to smash it to pieces with fists and boots and then wonder why you've done more damage than you've cured.

[user104658]

I would be fully supportive of bombing action in Syria if I thought for a second that it would help to end Islamic Extremism. But I - - - KNOW - - - that it won't. I know that it will simply make things worse. Because I have been paying attention. I don't need to convince anyone of this or prove my point, it will prove itself over the next couple of years, I just find it difficult to listen to people bleating nonsense and say nothing at all. I really should probably just steer clear until the aftermath when everyone will pretend that they also knew it was a bad idea all along. That's what happened with Iraq anyway.

[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....

[bots]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I see you actually haven't read my post at all. Have you actually read any posts in this thread? It would make sense if you haven't given your 'traitor' accusations and such.

There's five countries, two of which are super powers, currently bombing Syria and it's only a matter of time before there's soldiers on the ground. Do you honestly believe that IS, with it's few thousand soldiers and outdated gear, could stand a chance against at least five different countries' armed forces? I thought you said you were an expert...

Your question is pointless, IS will not expand any further than they already have and you are only obsessing over it because you falsely believe it's some sort of trump card when it's pointless. Like how you forgot that the UK is a democracy (and displayed some very IS traits in doing so), you've forgotten that I was never against action when it came to IS, I just believed we were getting involved too early when our presence wouldn't achieve anything.

If you want to have a discussion, you really need to read people's posts.

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.

[DemolitionRed]

No, don't stay clear TS, your posts are needed in a place like this and some of your analogies are amusingly clever.

I would love to hear something a bit more in depth about why bombing will work.

To those who believe this bombing campaign is the answer, please could you write something a bit more in depth as to how it will work? and what is the predicted long term outcome?

I listened to that long parliamentary debate, which was shadowed a lot by Cameron's constant pontifications about the danger of ISIS but I heard no real strategy regarding the future of Syria and its relationship with ISIS. With so little substance to something that could end up being so hugely catastrophic, not only to Syria but to the rest of the middle east and the western world, I want to understand the long term plans from these architects of war.

Did I miss something? is there something you can give to this debate that will make things clearer?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Elf On Strike

I disagree, if ISIS are left to expand unchecked, and they will as that is their stated aim, it will be exactly the same as we faced with Germany. How many countries are ISIS allowed to invade before our Poland is reached?

As to resources. ISIS have huge resources, and the more they are allowed to expand, the greater their resources will become. Thats why they expand.

Their stated aim is to take over the world, do people believe its a little joke they are having or a serious threat?

I will use the term bury head in sand again, there seems to be a lot of it going on in this thread.

I've heard of napoleon syndrome but this is ridiculous, how can a country a few hundred miles from one end to the other succeed where 59 other countries have failed?
We have as I mentioned previously given 3 billion to Turkey to ensure they maintain their borders, so our role would be aiding those already bombing, building good relations with surrounding areas, defence, supplies and helping refugees.

[DemolitionRed]

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.

Let me ask you this...do you believe that whilst we are at it we should overthrow Assad? We know the West want to do this, so should this problem also be solved.

There is no intimidation going on here apart from your words. You can't bandy words like 'traitors' around without trying to intimidate your opposition. WTF???

[user104658]

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....

I disagree Ammi, I think we will be able to look back in years' time and directly attribute further gains in ISIS recruitment to ham-fisted Western (and other) bombing and most likely, in time, ground campaigns in Syria. It's just that people will then say "Oh we couldn't possibly have known!", even though plenty of people are saying it blue in the face today.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

I would be fully supportive of bombing action in Syria if I thought for a second that it would help to end Islamic Extremism. But I - - - KNOW - - - that it won't. I know that it will simply make things worse. Because I have been paying attention. I don't need to convince anyone of this or prove my point, it will prove itself over the next couple of years, I just find it difficult to listen to people bleating nonsense and say nothing at all. I really should probably just steer clear until the aftermath when everyone will pretend that they also knew it was a bad idea all along. That's what happened with Iraq anyway.

This absolute certainty is nonsense in itself of course