Why are people banging on about killing civilians ? I think I'm right in saying that all this time we've been carrying out air strikes in Iraq, no innocent civilians have been killed.
It worked in iraq daesh have been pushed back from being nearly in bagdad
Innocent people are being killed by these bstds all over the middle east and in Europe to do nothing is not defending our citizens and doing nothing to assist an allied country is unacceptable
True, and now an alliance including UK fighters is going to kill innocent citizens, is that any better?
Doing nothing is not an option. And I am convinced that we have not been anywhere near close to doing nothing since 7/7. We have no idea how many terror plots have been foiled by the security forces, I would not be surprised if it runs to three figures. Killing innocent people isn't a solution either mate. It just breeds further resentment as nam11 says, and it helps the cause of daesh.
Targeting a specific force in a specific theatre and preventing them from reaching a specific target is not the same as this proposal NLA.
Still, a democratic decision has been made, so we go in.
There is the sort of propaganda you speak about, it's a nonsense Quote based on different circumstances
Although he may be talking about targeting non ISIS targets, the basic idea still stands that no matter who you are aiming at civilians will be killed when bombing a built up area such as Raqqa thus leading to "further radicalisation and increased terrorism".
I trust our government our ministry of defence to get correct targets and destroy them, yes there will be casualty of innocent nature but there are innocent people being slayed in many countries due to these filthy bstds, unfortunately its the way of the world and the results of war, we are right to strike, we are right to join 62 other nations in striking daesh in Syria and we need to hit them quickly and hard
The sovereign state that is supported by rissia and which poison gassed its own civilians. I won't cry for the end of IS, but we aren't going to solve a single thing. But is doing nothing better?
Very happy with the outcome of the vote, but just wish the reaction of the MPs had been a little more respectful. Cheering and Fist pumping isn't the way to behave after declaring a bombing campaign.
It worked in iraq daesh have been pushed back from being nearly in bagdad
Innocent people are being killed by these bstds all over the middle east and in Europe to do nothing is not defending our citizens and doing nothing to assist an allied country is unacceptable
True, and now an alliance including UK fighters is going to kill innocent citizens, is that any better?
Doing nothing is not an option. And I am convinced that we have not been anywhere near close to doing nothing since 7/7. We have no idea how many terror plots have been foiled by the security forces, I would not be surprised if it runs to three figures. Killing innocent people isn't a solution either mate. It just breeds further resentment as nam11 says, and it helps the cause of daesh.
Targeting a specific force in a specific theatre and preventing them from reaching a specific target is not the same as this proposal NLA.
Still, a democratic decision has been made, so we go in.
And your solution is ?
You want a former publican from Albufeira to solve the world's problems for fuck all, while supporting a party that gives itself a massive pay rise at the same time as telling everyone else there's no money SHG?
Luckily there's a bloke called Jeremy Corbyn who has already given you the answer to that, whilst being paid for it.
There is the sort of propaganda you speak about, it's a nonsense Quote based on different circumstances
Although he may be talking about targeting non ISIS targets, the basic idea still stands that no matter who you are aiming at civilians will be killed when bombing a built up area such as Raqqa thus leading to "further radicalisation and increased terrorism".
Civilians being killed like the man responsible for looking after and maintaining the historical and important syrian sites who's headless body was hung from a set of traffic lights
People die in war innocent poor people. But this is war bullets and bombs kill it's a cold fact of reality
But the same bullets struck us In Paris the same bombs struck our own citizens at 7-7
And more will strike us I dont doubt but we need to fight fire with bigger and more directed fire
Typed out something long, but my marginally pro-bombing opinion comes down to this reasoning (whether it's wrong or right...):
Will the threat to our national security change - probably not, but it shouldn't get any worse, might get a little better Will our bombing accelerate the 'defeat' or 'disbanding' of IS - A little, it certainly won't do any harm to it Will more innocents in Syria die due to bombing 'accidents' or IS remaining in control for longer - IS Will the IS replacement in the area be less horrendous - Yes. Surely?! And if not, I'd almost be fascinated to see how Is it worth the money - No idea, probably when you compare it to other things we've spent our military budget on
Why are people banging on about killing civilians ? I think I'm right in saying that all this time we've been carrying out air strikes in Iraq, no innocent civilians have been killed.
Why are people forgetting that Syria has a government and is a sovereign country, how can we conduct air strikes without the Syrian governments permission?
Typed out something long, but my marginally pro-bombing opinion comes down to this reasoning (whether it's wrong or right...):
Will the threat to our national security change - probably not, but it shouldn't get any worse, might get a little better - I THINK MAKING MORE PEOPLE HOSTILE TO US COULD MAKE IT WORSE. Will our bombing accelerate the 'defeat' or 'disbanding' of IS - A little, it certainly won't do any harm to it - I DONT THINK THAT IS CERTAIN AT ALL. IS THE MARGINALISING OF THE PEOPLE MENTIONED ABOVE WORTH THAT "LITTLE" DIFFERENCE? Will more innocents in Syria die due to bombing 'accidents' or IS remaining in control for longer - IS - IT VERY MUCH DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF THE BOMBING. I HOPE YOU ARE RIGHT, AND BOMBING WILL BE THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS. Will the IS replacement in the area be less horrendous - Yes. Surely?! And if not, I'd almost be fascinated to see how - ASSUMING IS CAN BE REPLACED AND MAINTAINED WITHOUT THE LOSS OF BRITISH MILITARY LIVES, CORRECT. Is it worth the money - No idea, probably when you compare it to other things we've spent our military buudget on
Excuse the capitals, writing on the iPad - hard to do it properly. On the last point - also hard on the iPad, you say you have no idea, and then suggest an idea anyway... Make your mind up
I don't think so, but then I think we shouldn't be doing it, so obviously I am going to say that. I think trident is a waste too.
The Labour Party cannot win with Corbyn, they could win with Hillary.
The situation in Syria is complex, the impact of air strikes alone will be minimal. There will be civilian casualties.
On the other hand Daesh are fascists of the most barbarous kind. If we can't act to extend air strikes which we have been deploying in Iraq, through a non-existent border into Syria against such a bestial foe, then I fear we may never deploy forces elsewhere again.
I despair at the likes of Corbyn, Abbott, Livingstone and co who will always set the bar for a decision to taking military action too high. There is no risk free, perfect scenario for so doing.
As proved time and again it doesn't work and ends up with millions of civilians being affected and will make us even more of a target internally.
But I'm sure at the end of the day some Politicians, their families and friends will make lots of money out of it whilst they sit in comfort and send others out to kill and be killed and the gullible public will just accept what they're told. That's the main thing.
Very happy with the outcome of the vote, but just wish the reaction of the MPs had been a little more respectful. Cheering and Fist pumping isn't the way to behave after declaring a bombing campaign.
Spot on, as much s I fail to even understand the logic of a lot of those against the bombing, reacting like that was awful, what was much, much worse was Cameron's terrorist comment, it was a disgusting thing to say and totally unnecessary.
Over the past week I've heard that USA, Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia and now Assad have all been funding ISIS. Maybe Assad is I don't know but it would be a risky move on his part considering ISIS are virulently anti-nationalist and have allegedly attacked his strongest ally, Russia. What happens if ISIS is destroyed? Do we leave and ignore Assad and Russia?
Over the past week I've heard that USA, Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia and now Assad have all been funding ISIS. Maybe Assad is I don't know but it would be a risky move on his part considering ISIS are virulently anti-nationalist and have allegedly attacked his strongest ally, Russia. What happens if ISIS is destroyed? Do we leave and ignore Assad and Russia?
Didn't Assad release tons of extremists in the hope they would join the rebels, meaning the west could no longer support the rebels?
So we are joining the US, France, Russia, Assad, Kurds, Turkey and some mysterious group of 70,000 moderates trying to wipe out ISIS. Except Assad and Russia are bombing the moderates, the Turks are bombing the Kurds while funding the extremists by buying their oil, all on the ground are trying to wipe out Turkmens and other minorities. We ourselves and US want to overthrow Asssad and were arming ISIL against him two years ago.
If ever there was an argument for rushing out the long awaited Chilcott report, this was it. Instead we get a car crash of foreign policy, supported by labour turncoats more interested in ousting Corbyn than displaying principles and sound judgement.
Over the past week I've heard that USA, Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia and now Assad have all been funding ISIS. Maybe Assad is I don't know but it would be a risky move on his part considering ISIS are virulently anti-nationalist and have allegedly attacked his strongest ally, Russia. What happens if ISIS is destroyed? Do we leave and ignore Assad and Russia?
I don't think it's the case of Assad donating money to the cause, more buying the oil from the oilfields they've captured.
Comments
The real question is how many will be killed tortured beheaded, raped if nothing is done?
It is a mess of a situation, largely started by the allies in the first place.
Ask those who have served in Iraq or those that are left sorting out the cluster f*** that's left of it think it was a good idea to get involved?
There's no easy solution, but this just smacks of nations doing something to make them feel better about themselves.
Luckily there's a bloke called Jeremy Corbyn who has already given you the answer to that, whilst being paid for it.
People die in war innocent poor people. But this is war bullets and bombs kill it's a cold fact of reality
But the same bullets struck us In Paris the same bombs struck our own citizens at 7-7
And more will strike us I dont doubt but we need to fight fire with bigger and more directed fire
Will the threat to our national security change - probably not, but it shouldn't get any worse, might get a little better
Will our bombing accelerate the 'defeat' or 'disbanding' of IS - A little, it certainly won't do any harm to it
Will more innocents in Syria die due to bombing 'accidents' or IS remaining in control for longer - IS
Will the IS replacement in the area be less horrendous - Yes. Surely?! And if not, I'd almost be fascinated to see how
Is it worth the money - No idea, probably when you compare it to other things we've spent our military budget on
Lots of Russian arms reaching ISIS via Bashar al-Assad. Assad is also helping to fund ISIS.
I don't think so, but then I think we shouldn't be doing it, so obviously I am going to say that. I think trident is a waste too.
The Labour Party cannot win with Corbyn, they could win with Hillary.
The situation in Syria is complex, the impact of air strikes alone will be minimal. There will be civilian casualties.
On the other hand Daesh are fascists of the most barbarous kind. If we can't act to extend air strikes which we have been deploying in Iraq, through a non-existent border into Syria against such a bestial foe, then I fear we may never deploy forces elsewhere again.
I despair at the likes of Corbyn, Abbott, Livingstone and co who will always set the bar for a decision to taking military action too high. There is no risk free, perfect scenario for so doing.
But I'm sure at the end of the day some Politicians, their families and friends will make lots of money out of it whilst they sit in comfort and send others out to kill and be killed and the gullible public will just accept what they're told. That's the main thing.
What happens if ISIS is destroyed? Do we leave and ignore Assad and Russia?
If ever there was an argument for rushing out the long awaited Chilcott report, this was it. Instead we get a car crash of foreign policy, supported by labour turncoats more interested in ousting Corbyn than displaying principles and sound judgement.
Don't bomb Syria did not mean ignore the Syrian civil war. I just think that dropping bombs can never, and will never, lead to peace.