[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Hey i'm just going by what you've written in your posts.

How did you deduce what I've read on the subject then sherlock?