# Today's HOC Vote



## Crazyface (Dec 2, 2015)

Should we go in and join everyone else bombing in Syria? 

Usually I'd say yes. This time though, I'd much rather have the money spent on boosting our internal security forces. Police, Secret or otherwise, anyone rooted out by these people immediately removed with immediate effect to where they came from, and a serious tightening of our boarders with a big increase in immigration officials and facilities.


----------



## Slime (Dec 2, 2015)

Crazyface said:



			Should we go in and join everyone else bombing in Syria? 

Usually I'd say yes. This time though, I'd much rather have the money spent on boosting our internal security forces. Police, Secret or otherwise, anyone rooted out by these people immediately *removed with immediate effect to where they came* from, and a serious tightening of our boarders with a big increase in immigration officials and facilities.
		
Click to expand...

The problem with that is the fact that the buggers would probably find a way to come back!

*Slime*.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 2, 2015)

Crazyface said:



			Should we go in and join everyone else bombing in Syria? 

Usually I'd say yes. This time though, I'd much rather have the money spent on boosting our internal security forces. Police, Secret or otherwise, anyone rooted out by these people immediately removed with immediate effect to where they came from, and a serious tightening of our boarders with a big increase in immigration officials and facilities.
		
Click to expand...

We need loads of welcomed and well-treated Syrians on the ground in the UK to help us identify and root out radicals and fundamentalists who might do us harm. Ah - but we don't really want any Syrians here - in fact we want Syrians to stay in Syria or we send back to Syria those trying to come here - to be at risk of becoming collateral damage of our bombing  Bit of a paradox.


----------



## Rooter (Dec 2, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Ah - but we don't really want any Syrians here - in fact we want Syrians to stay in Syria or we send back to Syria those trying to come here - to be at risk of becoming collateral damage of our bombing  Bit of a paradox.
		
Click to expand...

Do we?


----------



## Piece (Dec 2, 2015)

Crazyface said:



			Should we go in and join everyone else bombing in Syria? 

Usually I'd say yes. This time though, I'd much rather have the money spent on boosting our internal security forces. Police, Secret or otherwise, anyone rooted out by these people immediately removed with immediate effect to where they came from, and a serious tightening of our boarders with a big increase in immigration officials and facilities.
		
Click to expand...

Normally, I'd say yes. Not now. The landscape has changed and history shows that bombing really hasn't had the desired effect. On the flip side, how do we stop the establishment and spread of ISIS? Can't see it being done by peaceful means. A Syrian activist on the TV this morning was advocating the use of mass ground forces to overthrow President Asaad and then ISIS....


----------



## Beezerk (Dec 2, 2015)

A big yes for me, however I guess there will be an attack on these shores in the next few weeks if bombing goes ahead!


----------



## IanG (Dec 2, 2015)

It's a no from me. 

Will bombing IS in Syria make us safer in the short or long term? - in my opinion no.
Will bombing IS in Syria make the lives of innocent bystanders in Syria better/safer in the short or long term? - in my opinion no.

Will bombing IS in Syria accidentally kill innocents and thereby alienate the local population further from the west? - in my opinion yes  

Can the West solve the problems in the region militarily? - in my opinion no. 
Is there collective political will in the region to find a political solution? - in my opinion no.

Given the above, while the temptation to join in and 'do something' in the light of the dreadful acts of terror is strong, ultimately we'd be better off keeping our boys and girls safe, ensuring security at home and trying where possible to support anyone striving for a sensible political solution. 

I know this sounds like a lily-livered weak response but without a strategic objective/plan bombs only kill people, they don't solve problems, and they often make things worse.

Having said all that I'm relieved it is not my responsibility to actually make these decisions, the whole thing is a tragic mess.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 2, 2015)

We either stand back and continue to watch innocent people die or we join our allies and help innocent people stay alive 

It's a yes from me - in fact it's a no brainier 

We have an evil organisation killing people and it's our duty to stand up to them


----------



## MegaSteve (Dec 2, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			We have an evil organisation killing people and it's our duty to stand up to them
		
Click to expand...


Unfortunately recent history indicates 'we' are often left standing alone...

Too often 'only' putting a toe in the water, to see the lie of the land, has seen 'us' truly up to our necks in it...

Believe the great British public are a little more reticent to be 'gung ho' these days...


----------



## louise_a (Dec 2, 2015)

I really can't see what is to be gained by joining in the bombing, aren't they enough doing it already?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 2, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Unfortunately recent history indicates 'we' are often left standing alone...

Too often 'only' putting a toe in the water, to see the lie of the land, has seen 'us' truly up to our necks in it...

Believe the great British public are a little more reticent to be 'gung ho' these days...
		
Click to expand...

It's not about being "gung Ho"

And just dropping wherever - it's proper strategic planned precision bombing to help attempt to nullify their effect of IS 

IMO it will be a dark day the day we stand back and do nothing to help innocent people


----------



## brendy (Dec 2, 2015)

We send over hundreds of bombs, the support crews and pilots. Spend millions upon millions and kill maybe a handful of actual Isis freaks. 
Look what happened in Paris not that long ago, that didn't cost much, only a few Isis freaks and look at the damage they did. 
Unless bombing guarantees 100% results, this is not going to end cleanly nor any decade soon.


----------



## ger147 (Dec 2, 2015)

I wish I could be as certain as some on here.

I've been listening to the debate and to be honest, I don't envy the MP's their vote one little bit.  I really don't know which division lobby I would be passing through tonight if I was an MP...


----------



## Fyldewhite (Dec 2, 2015)

As I said on the other thread....not convinced, so I guess a no from me still at the moment.

I know there have been barbaric attacks in the west and don't in any way want to trivialise them but there have been upwards of two hundred thousand killed in Syria. thousands of them children and approx 5 million made homeless. THIS is the problem in the region, this is the situation ISIL are exploiting and this is the problem that must be addressed if we want to get anywhere. It's an Arab problem and will, sooner or later need an Arab solution. I'm yet to be convinced that bombing Arabs, even targeting bad ones but taking out innocent ones at the same time will accelerate that solution. I also don't think it will make our streets any safer. I'm not advocating "doing nothing" but surely there are better things we can do to get other Arab nations on board?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 2, 2015)

Tory MP's behaviour in the HoC is disgraceful. They are just bunch of loudmouth bully boy yobs.

Cameron set the benchmark by not apologising for calling fellow MP's 'terrorist supporters'.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 2, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Tory MP's behaviour in the HoC is disgraceful. They are just bunch of loudmouth bully boy yobs.

Cameron set the benchmark by not apologising for calling fellow MP's 'terrorist supporters'.
		
Click to expand...

Can certainly all the non Tory MP's being just as loud and rude 

Maybe all the MP's should apologies for things they have said in the past - SNP and Labour included


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 2, 2015)

It's a NO from me at the moment. I really haven't yet been persuaded that military action will do anything more than kill a minority, but radicalise a majority. I'd much prefer to attempt an attack on the funding and equipment pipelines. Strangle them where it really hurts. Remove the base and the tree will fall. 

I am open to changing my mind if a coherent plan is put forward though.


----------



## Kellfire (Dec 2, 2015)

We, the general public, won't get to know all the information that will help MPs decide whether to bomb Syria or where they will bomb - as is right, we shouldn't get to know.

Do we trust those in charge to make the right decision? Hmmmm.

I'm undecided personally, I can see both sides but Iraq/Afghanistan stay long in the mind.


----------



## MarkE (Dec 2, 2015)

Whether we join the bombing or not will have little impact.  It's more about being seen to be supporting our allies in the region. So it's a yes from me.


----------



## Spear-Chucker (Dec 2, 2015)

Even 'strategic' bombing (sic) will not eradicate IS but will serve as an excellent recruiter for some disaffected folks otherwise undecided as to whether to join in - "oh look, we're being bombed again, why should I stand for that?"

The intelligent option is to solve the problem at source (why do people join) and remove this attraction. This way however is hard (bringing together diametrically opposed groups), time consuming and costly due to being anathema to governments selling weapons.

We'll bomb, create more bad feeling, set off reprisals, kill innocent folks, sells arms, rinse and repeat.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 2, 2015)

ger147 said:



			I wish I could be as certain as some on here.

I've been listening to the debate and to be honest, I don't envy the MP's their vote one little bit.  I really don't know which division lobby I would be passing through tonight if I was an MP...
		
Click to expand...

Alan Duncan's speech done it for me.


----------



## USER1999 (Dec 2, 2015)

It's a no vote from me.

As an aside, if the Syrian refugees all went to the nearest safe Arab country for sanctuary, then maybe said safe Arab country might want to get more involved in Syria. And I'm not talking big refugee camps here, but taking people in, and assimilating them into the population, as people expect the west to do.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 2, 2015)

Did anyone expect Margaret Beckett to come out with that speech.


----------



## ger147 (Dec 2, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Did anyone expect Margaret Beckett to come out with that speech.
		
Click to expand...

Best contribution so far IMO.


----------



## Rooter (Dec 2, 2015)

What happens if the vote is tied? does it go to deadlock and then the public vote?


----------



## freddielong (Dec 2, 2015)

Slime said:



			The problem with that is the fact that the buggers would probably find a way to come back!

*Slime*.
		
Click to expand...

And this is now where they come from


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 2, 2015)

Rooter said:



			What happens if the vote is tied? does it go to deadlock and then the public vote?
		
Click to expand...

Public already voted. They get paid to make the nasty decisions.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Dec 2, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Public already voted. They get paid to make the nasty decisions.
		
Click to expand...

Don't worry Rooter, I got it!


----------



## Rooter (Dec 2, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Don't worry Rooter, I got it!
		
Click to expand...

Phew!


----------



## Scoobiesnax (Dec 2, 2015)

The real problem is if parliament were to vote yes, would it lead to boots on the ground - I think it will.

Now we get to the situation where boots on the ground becomes a reality, we are now sending our lads/ladies into a fight with an enemy with absolutely no regard to/for life - that is a seriously scary thought.
Can you imagine one of our captured soldiers being beheaded or burned or skinned alive for the whole world to see on social media.

I would usually say yes, as I think something has to be done, however, maybe the money should be spent on Internal Defence and shoring up things at home.

It's also very complicate over there, especially with Russia being involved!

Only time will tell how things pan out.


----------



## chippa1909 (Dec 2, 2015)

No. It won't help a jot, and will probably make things worse.


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 2, 2015)

Old Skier said:



*Public already voted.* They get paid to make the nasty decisions.
		
Click to expand...

Er....I don't recall this actually happening!

This specific topic wasn't part of any manifesto!

Though I appreciate what you are indicating, and I agree that this is part of what they in Parliament to do, then unless they hold their own survey pr were elected on the basis that they will use their conscience in such matters, then you cannot link the 2 actions!

There's actually some pretty good speeches being made - for both arguments - and it's times like these where some of the positive qualities of politicians are really demonstrated.


----------



## sev112 (Dec 2, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			Er....I don't recall this actually happening!

This specific topic wasn't part of any manifesto!

Though I appreciate what you are indicating, and I agree that this is part of what they in Parliament to do, then unless they hold their own survey pr were elected on the basis that they will use their conscience in such matters, then you cannot link the 2 actions!

There's actually some pretty good speeches being made - for both arguments - and it's times like these where some of the positive qualities of politicians are really demonstrated.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, and why Cameron (who has been a pretty good PM - this being spoken by an anarchist communist pacifist here) was VERY wrong to call people what he did yesterday - those sort of statements bring proper debate of important issues down.  He should have apologised, said it was about how importan this is to him, but that he went too far.  Now I don't think I can trust him if he has got to the point where his hubristic nature has influenced his decision making.  If he doesn't take it back, personally I think it is unbecoming of an international leading PM and he should offer to resign.  He should carefully look at what he and his party have said about their predecessors and watch he doesn't do exactly the same.  Very disappointing


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 2, 2015)

.......and here are the results from the Scottish MP's.
57 against bombing, 2 for. 

The journalists will probably call that a close result.:lol:


----------



## Andy808 (Dec 2, 2015)

To be honest with the amount of countries already involved our input isn't going to make much difference other than highlighting the UK as a target. Does that mean I'm against us joining in?
No, that decision is up to those in power from ALL parties not just the tories. 
The only way to stop this is to have troops on the ground which has to be sanctioned by the UN. I don't think that decision will be made by the UN either as I can see Russia doing it by themselves with Putin in charge and the bringing down of the Russian airliner. 
As for the refugees from Syria it has become far too obvious that it gives the extremists a route into Europe with little resistance from the authorities. This, for me, is a bigger problem than the propaganda being banded around on social media by IS.

Personally I would rather see the country go into lockdown for the time being and ensure the safety of these shores on these shores.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 2, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			.......and here are the results from the Scottish MP's.
57 against bombing, 2 for. 

The journalists will probably call that a close result.:lol:
		
Click to expand...

Thought the vote was at ten - not being presumptuous are you ?


----------



## NWJocko (Dec 2, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Thought the vote was at ten - not being presumptuous are you ?
		
Click to expand...

Probably will be about right given the SNP and that joker Salmond's stance.

Not sure why DfT would expect anything different, I'm sure WoS has been full of Salmond's chat.

Not sure which way I would vote, whilst past failures shouldn't necessarily stop us being "active" they should inform the decision in so far as well defined strategies (including exit strategies) that I'm not sure are there....

Fully expect the vote to be for us to get involved though.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 2, 2015)

No... they have all stated how they will vote.

Just the present and former Scottish ministers in favour.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 2, 2015)

NWJocko said:



			Probably will be about right given the SNP and that joker Salmond's stance.

Not sure why DfT would expect anything different, I'm sure WoS has been full of Salmond's chat.

Not sure which way I would vote, whilst past failures shouldn't necessarily stop us being "active" they should inform the decision in so far as well defined strategies (including exit strategies) that I'm not sure are there....

Fully expect the vote to be for us to get involved though.
		
Click to expand...

Yes it is expected - I would expect it's more about them wanting to be seen and heard to going against the government.

Guys on the radio saying they expect it to go through


----------



## Dellboy (Dec 2, 2015)

Yes from me, should of been doing this months ago.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Dec 2, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			No... they have all stated how they will vote.

Just the present and former Scottish ministers in favour.
		
Click to expand...

Have the SNP ministers been told how to vote or have they been given a free vote? Genuine question, not trying to have a pop at anyone.


----------



## ger147 (Dec 2, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Have the SNP ministers been told how to vote or have they been given a free vote? Genuine question, not trying to have a pop at anyone.
		
Click to expand...

I think they're being whipped (just my opinion based on following it closely over the past few days before anyone asks why or demands proof/hyperlinks!!) altho not entirely sure it's that big a deal as IMO pretty much all of them would have opposed it anyway given a free vote.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 2, 2015)

ger147 said:



			I think they're being whipped (just my opinion based on following it closely over the past few days before anyone asks why or demands proof/hyperlinks!!) altho not entirely sure it's that big a deal as IMO pretty much all of them would have opposed it anyway given a free vote.
		
Click to expand...

I think that is correct.
Wee Angus keeps them on a tight rein at Westminster but most of the time they seem share the same thoughts.  
Good to see the group growing in confidence at Westminster, their respect and manners have been a breath of fresh air to that place.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 2, 2015)

Still not convinced that yes is the way to go and airstrikes alone will not solve the crisis and so inevitably troops going in will follow. This is where I start to have issues


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 2, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Still not convinced that yes is the way to go and airstrikes alone will not solve the crisis and so inevitably troops going in will follow. This is where I start to have issues
		
Click to expand...

Lets bin the UN then as the appear to want everyone involved:

5.   _Calls upon_ Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Daâ€™esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Daâ€™esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security Council, pursuant to the statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria;


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 2, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Lets bin the UN then as the appear to want everyone involved:

5.   _Calls upon_ Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Daâ€™esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Daâ€™esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security Council, pursuant to the statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria;

Click to expand...

Sorry but it's my opinion. Look at Afghanistan and the issues every nation has had including the military might of Russia when they had a force there, and especially the US and UK forces. It's long hard and attritional and there will be many, many casualties. Do we actually know how we'd target and eradicate forces moving around familiar surroundings and being helped by sympathisers. It's just a recipe for a grand mess


----------



## evahakool (Dec 2, 2015)

H



IanG said:



			It's a no from me. 

Will bombing IS in Syria make us safer in the short or long term? - in my opinion no.
Will bombing IS in Syria make the lives of innocent bystanders in Syria better/safer in the short or long term? - in my opinion no.

Will bombing IS in Syria accidentally kill innocents and thereby alienate the local population further from the west? - in my opinion yes  

Can the West solve the problems in the region militarily? - in my opinion no. 
Is there collective political will in the region to find a political solution? - in my opinion no.

Given the above, while the temptation to join in and 'do something' in the light of the dreadful acts of terror is strong, ultimately we'd be better off keeping our boys and girls safe, ensuring security at home and trying where possible to support anyone striving for a sensible political solution. 

I know this sounds like a lily-livered weak response but without a strategic objective/plan bombs only kill people, they don't solve problems, and they often make things worse.

Having said all that I'm relieved it is not my responsibility to actually make these decisions, the whole thing is a tragic mess.
		
Click to expand...


No it's not a lily-livered weak response, well said ,I agree with every word you wrote.


----------



## lobthewedge (Dec 2, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			.......and here are the results from the Scottish MP's.
57 against bombing, 2 for. 

The journalists will probably call that a close result.:lol:
		
Click to expand...

Do you believe this to be an accurate representation of public opinion in Scotland?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 2, 2015)

lobthewedge said:



			Do you believe this to be an accurate representation of public opinion in Scotland?
		
Click to expand...

No of course not.... that would be a staggeringly high number.
At a very rough guess I would say it is around two thirds against.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Dec 2, 2015)

So 397 v 223 in favour of airstrikes against IS in Syria. 

David Cameron must really be hoping that MI5 and MI6 are at the top of their game for the next couple of months because I can only imagine the "I told you so's" from the no side of things if there is an attack on the UK mainland in the next few months.


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 2, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			So 397 v 223 in favour of airstrikes against IS in Syria. 

David Cameron must really be hoping that MI5 and MI6 are at the top of their game for the next couple of months because I can only imagine the "I told you so's" from the no side of things if there is an attack on the UK mainland in the next few months.
		
Click to expand...

I suspect that an attack on home soil will worry him a lot less than a misplaced bomb that destroys s hospital or a school.


----------



## lobthewedge (Dec 2, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			No of course not.... that would be a staggeringly high number.
At a very rough guess I would say it is around two thirds against.
		
Click to expand...

So what was your point caller?

Edit - actually, don't bother answering, I couldn't give a monkeys!

For or against, right or wrong, the decision has been made. Good luck to all our British boys and girls, here's hoping you vapourize some bad guys and get back to us safe.


----------



## Val (Dec 2, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			No of course not.... that would be a staggeringly high number.
At a very rough guess I would say it is around two thirds against.
		
Click to expand...

Based on what?


----------



## Oxfordcomma (Dec 2, 2015)

Unsurprising, because Cameron said all along he wouldn't hold a vote unless he knew he would win. Personally, I would have liked the same test applied to this military action. Unless you know how you think it will end, don't do it! And I really don't think that anyone has a firm plan on how this ends. Should we do nothing? No, absolutely not. Should we do this? No, absolutely not, or at least not immediately, rushing in. Just because we believe that we must do something doesn't mean that anything will do.

Lots of very good speeches from both sides, and not on party political lines as well which is when Parliament is generally at its best. Some good quotes:

"Everybody feels a bond with the French, but an emotional reflex is not enough. Military action might be effective at some point, but military action without a political strategy is folly."

"... our French allies have asked us for such support, and I invite the house to consider how we would feel, and what we would say, if what took place in Paris had happened in London, if we had explicitly asked France for support and France had refused."

Find it very difficult to argue with either of those. This one is probably closest to how I feel though:

"The issue today is about what practical action can result in some way in damaging Daesh, in stopping their atrocities. If what the government were proposing today would in any way, not even get rid of Daesh but weaken them in a significant way ... I wouldnâ€™t have any difficulty in voting for this motion."


----------



## chippa1909 (Dec 2, 2015)

Val said:



			Based on what?
		
Click to expand...

Poll published today in Herald and Scotsman newspapers.

http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14117707.Poll__72__of_Scots_oppose_extending_air_strikes_in_Syria/


----------



## FairwayDodger (Dec 2, 2015)

Very tough decision today but, on balance, the wrong one for me. Not that we shouldn't be taking action but this seems ill thought out with no real plan beyond dropping bombs. Cameron's lies about the supposed 70,000 "moderates" ready to fight ISIS on the ground should have been better exposed. Plus Putin is bombing those 70,000 so what are we going to do to defend those "allies"?

What a mess.


----------



## Birchy (Dec 2, 2015)

For me we had to get involved. One of our Allies has suffered a devastating attack by ISIS and part of being an alliance is backing each other. 

I'm not sure if it's what will be best but I feel we had no choice.

People thinking this action will mean they will try and attack us in the UK are deluded. They already are if reports are to believed.


----------



## chippa1909 (Dec 2, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Very tough decision today but, on balance, the wrong one for me. Not that we shouldn't be taking action but this seems ill thought out with no real plan beyond dropping bombs. Cameron's lies about the supposed 70,000 "moderates" ready to fight ISIS on the ground should have been better exposed. Plus Putin is bombing those 70,000 so what are we going to do to defend those "allies"?

What a mess. 

Click to expand...

History will view Cameron's 70,000 moderates as it does Tony Blair's WMD's.


----------



## freddielong (Dec 3, 2015)

I don't think it's about what difference our British planes will make but it's about us standing side by side with the coalition in whatever action is taken.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 3, 2015)

Val said:



			Based on what?
		
Click to expand...

......erm.......a very rough guess


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 3, 2015)

lobthewedge said:



			So what was your point caller?

Edit - actually, don't bother answering, I couldn't give a monkeys!

For or against, right or wrong, the decision has been made. Good luck to all our British boys and girls, here's hoping you vapourize some bad guys and get back to us safe.
		
Click to expand...

I would have thought my point was blindingly obvious, Scotland are once again being dragged into a war that it's citizens do not want.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 3, 2015)

Crazyface said:



			Should we go in and join everyone else bombing in Syria? 

Usually I'd say yes. This time though, I'd much rather have the money spent on boosting our internal security forces. Police, Secret or otherwise, anyone rooted out by these people immediately removed with immediate effect to where they came from, and a serious tightening of our boarders with a big increase in immigration officials and facilities.
		
Click to expand...

At one time I would have yes, send the RAF in but now I'm more inclined with agree with the above. I would even go as far as deporting the so called 'British' citizens that support the extremists and send them to the region of their choice as they are clearly not British or have the best interests of Britain at heart. To hell with their so called human rights, I have a right to live peacefully and harmoniously in my own country.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I would have thought my point was blindingly obvious, Scotland are once again being dragged into a war that it's citizens do not want.
		
Click to expand...

Did I miss the formation of Scotland's armed forces ? Or another vote for independence 

There was me thinking we were all as one


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 3, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Did I miss the formation of Scotland's armed forces ? Or another vote for independence 

There was me thinking we were all as one
		
Click to expand...

We obviously did not vote all as one.:lol:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			We obviously did not vote all as one.:lol:
		
Click to expand...

"We" all voted as one 

What "we" wanted will always be different because you will never get 100% backing

But once the result have been sorted "we" are still one nation


----------



## Imurg (Dec 3, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I would have thought my point was blindingly obvious, Scotland are once again being dragged into a war that it's citizens do not want.
		
Click to expand...

Had a vote on that have you..?


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 3, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I would have thought my point was blindingly obvious, Scotland are once again being dragged into a war that it's citizens do not want.
		
Click to expand...

It seems some in Scotland appear to be only to happy to have the jobs associated with war but are against the outcomes that those jobs were designed for.


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 3, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			We obviously did not vote all as one.:lol:
		
Click to expand...

Attempting to score Independance Political points off the back of a vote to go to war is low.. Even for someone as blinkered to reality as you appear to be at times.. I may not support the decision in the slightest, but I will "move forward as one".


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 3, 2015)

Imurg said:



			Had a vote on that have you..?
		
Click to expand...

Yes 57 of Scotland's 59 MP voted against the war.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Dec 3, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Yes 57 of Scotland's 59 MP voted against the war.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed. Whipped to ignore the wishes of their constituents.


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 3, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			History will view Cameron's 70,000 moderates as it does Tony Blair's WMD's.
		
Click to expand...

I'm certain it won't!

The suposed WMDs were the entire basis for Blair's justification for going in. It's a totally different reason (and little to do with the moderates) for which justification is being sought this time!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Yes 57 of Scotland's 59 MP voted against the war.
		
Click to expand...

Why do you turn every political debate into a Scotland vs the rest ?!

Every MP had a vote and the majority of UK MP's voted in favour 

What 57 out of 59 voted is irrelevant 

The U.K. Government voted as one


----------



## Crazyface (Dec 3, 2015)

No worries, Scotland. When the Syrians refugues come over we'll send them all up to you and you can look after them all if you're so concerned for their well being. Oh....you're not are you. You just want everything and give nothing back. Well it doesn't work like that. We (Britain) are a democratic country and we are all in this together, so suck it up and get involved in supporting the Union that you voted for.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 3, 2015)

Wings on one of his weekly wind ups I see.


----------



## Val (Dec 3, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			Poll published today in Herald and Scotsman newspapers.

http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14117707.Poll__72__of_Scots_oppose_extending_air_strikes_in_Syria/

Click to expand...

These pills need taken with a pinch of salt as I don't believe they offer a fair cross section of what public opinion is. It's interestin that I've never been asked to participate in these pills and I really don't know anyone who has.

There are 12 people in my office and no-one objects to bombing them. Does that mean 100% agreement of Scots?


----------



## Val (Dec 3, 2015)

Crazyface said:



			No worries, Scotland. When the Syrians refugues come over we'll send them all up to you and you can look after them all if you're so concerned for their well being. Oh....you're not are you. You just want everything and give nothing back. Well it doesn't work like that. We (Britain) are a democratic country and we are all in this together, so suck it up and get involved in supporting the Union that you voted for.
		
Click to expand...

We've already taken 2 plane loads in


----------



## Val (Dec 3, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I would have thought my point was blindingly obvious, Scotland are once again being dragged into a war that it's citizens do not want.
		
Click to expand...

No one wants war, but it's a necessary evil sometimes. I and many others believe now is one of those times, oh that can't be right can it as we are all Scottish citizens too.

You need to stop generalising and assume that Scottish MP's are speaking for the majority, they are speaking for their parties wishes not necessarily the people they are supposed to represent.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Dec 3, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			Poll published today in Herald and Scotsman newspapers.

http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14117707.Poll__72__of_Scots_oppose_extending_air_strikes_in_Syria/

Click to expand...

As I understand it that poll was self-selecting.


----------



## garyinderry (Dec 3, 2015)

Disappointed at so many politicians seemingly toeing the party line on this and not using their own free will and judgement. 

As difficult a decision as this was for them, this is what they were elected to do.  Not hide behind political allegiances.


----------



## freddielong (Dec 3, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Yes 57 of Scotland's 59 MP voted against the war.
		
Click to expand...

Wouldn't they be UK MPs as far as I am aware Scotland voted against independence.


----------



## Jimaroid (Dec 3, 2015)

It's pointless bickering about who voted what or why. The decision has been made and we're on this path now. Terrorists seek to exploit political, philosophical and national divisions and the more we internally divide ourselves along those lines the more powerful they will become. We can only beat terrorism through action as a united opposition stood together.

I don't agree with how we got into this position but now that we are in it we have to fight to the very best of our capability and give all our support to those doing it.


----------



## Snelly (Dec 3, 2015)

drive4show said:



			At one time I would have yes, send the RAF in but now I'm more inclined with agree with the above. I would even go as far as deporting the so called 'British' citizens that support the extremists and send them to the region of their choice as they are clearly not British or have the best interests of Britain at heart. To hell with their so called human rights, I have a right to live peacefully and harmoniously in my own country.
		
Click to expand...


I agree with this.  

Not in favour of the decision to bomb Syria in a general sense although given that we sent a couple of Tornadoes last night to bomb several oil wells, it doesn't seem such a big deal really. 

However, I would support sending special forces and suspect that they are already there anyway.   The reason being that I am hugely in favour of executing child raping, history defacing, mutilating, decapitating, body skinning, murderous, jihadist monsters with extreme prejudice.  Be they in Syria, IS, Africa or anywhere else.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 3, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			It seems some in Scotland appear to be only to happy to have the jobs associated with war but are against the outcomes that those jobs were designed for.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely brilliant response! Very well said that man.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 3, 2015)

I feel that Hilary Benn encapsulated our responsibilities far better than anyone on here or in Parliament yesterday.

Yes, I am in favour of bombing, but that doesn't mean the result of the vote didn't leave me with a very heavy heart. And I would like to think that now David Cameron has the green light for bombing, he will also be pushing for cohesive plans to support the Syrian people that will suffer from the collateral damage it will undoubtedly cause.

For me it is the lesser of two evils, not right but very wrong not to.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2015)

Hilary Benn was superb - very impressive speech

First time in a long time that a MP has impressed me. Why didn't he go for Labour leadership - think Labour would be a extremely credible opposition to the Tories


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2015)

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8706630?1449140985


----------



## One Planer (Dec 3, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8706630?1449140985



Click to expand...

So much for a "Free" vote!


----------



## chippa1909 (Dec 3, 2015)

Val said:



			These pills need taken with a pinch of salt as I don't believe they offer a fair cross section of what public opinion is. It's interestin that I've never been asked to participate in these pills and I really don't know anyone who has.

There are 12 people in my office and no-one objects to bombing them. Does that mean 100% agreement of Scots?
		
Click to expand...

Try taking them with a glass of water instead. They'll go down easier!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 3, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Hilary Benn was superb - very impressive speech

First time in a long time that a MP has impressed me. Why didn't he go for Labour leadership - think Labour would be a extremely credible opposition to the Tories
		
Click to expand...

Goodness I totally agree with you.:lol:

Thought Sir Edward Leigh spoke very well to.


----------



## MegaSteve (Dec 3, 2015)

"Britain is now a safer place"

Is one soundbite too many for me...

How the flip anybody can say that with any certainty is beyond me...


----------



## sev112 (Dec 3, 2015)

Interesting parallel

In 1990 I was dragged along to a speech by Tony Benn at Imperial College to heckle him when the first Gulf War was starting.  He was talking anti-war.  He completely changed my politics that day.  He was an impressive, logical and sensible speaker.  He took a lot of heckling that day, treated all the hecklers respectfully and put forward a compelling argument for anti-war.

Interesting to see his son doing the polar opposite last night.

As I say, just an interesting parallel.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 3, 2015)

And so off we go - to join a risky military expedition against an enemy we don't really know; at the behest of allies who don't want to be in it by themselves; with objectives we can't really state; with an exit strategy if it goes wrong that no-one knows - but let us be clear - that is essential for the defence of the UK - and as the primary role of a UK government is the safety of the UK people.  So off we go.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And so off we go - to join a risky military expedition against an enemy we don't really know; at the behest of allies who don't want to be in it by themselves; with objectives we can't really state; with an exit strategy if it goes wrong that no-one knows - but let us be clear - that is essential for the defence of the UK - and as the primary role of a UK government is the safety of the UK people.  So off we go.
		
Click to expand...

And you would prefer us to do what exactly instead ? Stand by and do nothing ?


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 3, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And you would prefer us to do what exactly instead ? Stand by and do nothing ?
		
Click to expand...

It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that not wanting to start bombing is the same as not wanting to do anything. Everyone wants to stop Isis. Everyone agrees that they're an evil organisation. We just disagree on the exact course of action put forward by the government.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 3, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And you would prefer us to do what exactly instead ? Stand by and do nothing ?
		
Click to expand...

Not nothing - but not this.  I do not see what is being undertaken will have any noticeable affect whatsoever on destroying or degrading Daesh. Even if UK bombing does not kill any civilians all that happens is that the UK becomes guilty by association for any civilian deaths brought about by bombimg by our allies.  The colleagues, countrymen, friends and family will neither know nor care who among the allies perpetrated the deaths of innocents.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Dec 3, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that not wanting to start bombing is the same as not wanting to do anything. Everyone wants to stop Isis. Everyone agrees that they're an evil organisation. *We just disagree on the exact course of action* put forward by the government.
		
Click to expand...

I've got no problem with those that disagree with bombing but I am yet to hear a coherent alternative from any of them. I think it was Ethan that said we needed to get Saudi and Jordan involved (apologies if it wasn't him) but what are we supposed to do up to that point? Do we just wait and hope that our security services don't miss something? I can't see how bombing IS targets in Syria will make us more of a target than we already are with our current missions attacking them in Iraq. I'm sure IS would love to launch a Paris style attack on the UK mainland and it only takes MI5 or MI6 to get it wrong once and we could easily be counting the bodies in London.

So in response to the bit in bold what exact course of action would you suggest?


----------



## ColchesterFC (Dec 3, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Not nothing - *but not this*.  I do not see what is being undertaken will have any noticeable affect whatsoever on destroying or degrading Daesh. Even if UK bombing does not kill any civilians all that happens is that the UK becomes guilty by association for any civilian deaths brought about by bombimg by our allies.  The colleagues, countrymen, friends and family will neither know nor care who among the allies perpetrated the deaths of innocents.
		
Click to expand...

Same question to you as to bluewolf then. If not this then what action are you suggesting?


----------



## Oxfordcomma (Dec 3, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And you would prefer us to do what exactly instead ? Stand by and do nothing ?
		
Click to expand...

Oh come on Phil, no-one is saying that we should do nothing and stick our heads in the sand. It's a valid statement to say that this course of action (bombing without any coherent plan) is dumb, while still believing that we should take some form of action. Even Cameron said in yesterday's debate, "I respect the fact that weâ€™re all discussing how to fight terrorism, not whether to fight terrorism."


----------



## Oxfordcomma (Dec 3, 2015)

And to those saying "well what would you do then?" - I don't know. I don't have an answer. Syria in general is an incredibly complex situation which has umpteen protagonists and roots deep in history, and this particular set of murdering extremists has both taken advantage of it and grown because of it.

But not having an answer of my own doesn't mean that I don't have the right to look at someone else's proposed answer, and say out loud that I think it won't work.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 3, 2015)

Oxfordcomma said:



			And to those saying "well what would you do then?" - I don't know. I don't have an answer. Syria in general is an incredibly complex situation which has umpteen protagonists and roots deep in history, and this particular set of murdering extremists has both taken advantage of it and grown because of it.

But not having an answer of my own doesn't mean that I don't have the right to look at someone else's proposed answer, and say out loud that I think it won't work.
		
Click to expand...

Quite.   I can be lost and a friend might offer to show me the way - but I don't follow him if I suspect his way leads over a cliff.  What I do is advise the friend that, even though I don't know the way, his way may not be the right way and certainly not a way I wish to walk with him if he persists.


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 4, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			I've got no problem with those that disagree with bombing but I am yet to hear a coherent alternative from any of them. I think it was Ethan that said we needed to get Saudi and Jordan involved (apologies if it wasn't him) but what are we supposed to do up to that point? Do we just wait and hope that our security services don't miss something? I can't see how bombing IS targets in Syria will make us more of a target than we already are with our current missions attacking them in Iraq. I'm sure IS would love to launch a Paris style attack on the UK mainland and it only takes MI5 or MI6 to get it wrong once and we could easily be counting the bodies in London.

So in response to the bit in bold what exact course of action would you suggest?
		
Click to expand...

I've detailed my preferred course of action in a previous post. It may seem a long term view, but I'm not sure that what we're doing now is going to make any difference in the short term. In fact, our chosen course of action could actually make things worse in the short to medium term. 
As an aside, I've seen alternative actions detailed several times in this thread, yet I still see the same question pop up repeatedly. "If not bombing, then what?"  I've said more than once that I'm open to being persuaded. I hope that Pro bombers have the same mind set.


----------



## Sweep (Dec 4, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			I've detailed my preferred course of action in a previous post. It may seem a long term view, but I'm not sure that what we're doing now is going to make any difference in the short term. In fact, our chosen course of action could actually make things worse in the short to medium term. 
As an aside, I've seen alternative actions detailed several times in this thread, yet I still see the same question pop up repeatedly. "If not bombing, then what?"  I've said more than once that I'm open to being persuaded. I hope that Pro bombers have the same mind set.
		
Click to expand...

If you are referring to your wish to attacking their funding and equipment pipelines, then of course you do that. In tandem with attacking them wherever they are. In fact you could argue that bombing the oil field they control within hours of the vote was doing exactly that.
Again, nobody said that bombing alone will solve this crisis, but to not go after them is to allow them to rise and become a bigger and bigger danger, as if they are not dangerous enough already.
Other than that I have heard no alternative whatsoever from those who are against this.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 4, 2015)

Oxfordcomma said:



			Oh come on Phil, no-one is saying that we should do nothing and stick our heads in the sand. It's a valid statement to say that this course of action (bombing without any coherent plan) is dumb, while still believing that we should take some form of action. Even Cameron said in yesterday's debate, "I respect the fact that weâ€™re all discussing how to fight terrorism, not whether to fight terrorism."
		
Click to expand...

Then what do you want to do ? 

Some like Bluewolf and Ethan have at least come up with alternative courses of actions

If no other action has been offered then the assumption is to do nothing 

For the last 18 months we have been bombing strategic targets against ISIS in Iraq - all we have done now is moved across the border and now bombing strategic targets against ISIS in Syria . First target an oil refinery controlled by ISIS and used to help them fund their terrorist activities - a specific target part of a coherent plan 

This article is pretty good 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ority-in-opposing-this-campaign-a6758621.html


----------



## Lanark_Golfer (Dec 4, 2015)

Forgive me if I'm wrong but America have been bombing Syria for around a year already. What exactly are we going to achieve that they haven't/can't. And I don't buy the line, our aircraft have better equipment (guided bombs etc) than the USA.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 4, 2015)

Lanark_Golfer said:



			Forgive me if I'm wrong but America have been bombing Syria for around a year already. What exactly are we going to achieve that they haven't/can't. And I don't buy the line, our aircraft have better equipment (guided bombs etc) than the USA.
		
Click to expand...

"Buy the line" ?

It's factually correct.


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 4, 2015)

Sweep said:



			If you are referring to your wish to attacking their funding and equipment pipelines, then of course you do that. In tandem with attacking them wherever they are. In fact you could argue that bombing the oil field they control within hours of the vote was doing exactly that.
Again, nobody said that bombing alone will solve this crisis, but to not go after them is to allow them to rise and become a bigger and bigger danger, as if they are not dangerous enough already.
Other than that I have heard no alternative whatsoever from those who are against this.
		
Click to expand...

And yet "bombing alone" is what the vote was about. If there is a long term strategy that evolves from the dropping of bombs then it needs to be detailed. 

Isis are making up to $100m per day selling oil. Who to? They are heavily armed. Who by? Someone, somewhere is making a hell of a lot of money from this conflict. I'd like to know where this money is going. I'd like transparency. I'd like to know if "Western" companies are profiting, and if so I'd like them to be stopped.

I hate everything that Isis stand for, but I hate that someone is profiting from it even more.


----------



## USER1999 (Dec 4, 2015)

So, we bombed an oil refinery. The Americans have been bombing for six months, and even with their next to useless kit, they couldn't have bombed this particular target if it was important? I think they could have, quite easily.


----------



## Sweep (Dec 4, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			And yet "bombing alone" is what the vote was about. If there is a long term strategy that evolves from the dropping of bombs then it needs to be detailed. 

Isis are making up to $100m per day selling oil. Who to? They are heavily armed. Who by? Someone, somewhere is making a hell of a lot of money from this conflict. I'd like to know where this money is going. I'd like transparency. I'd like to know if "Western" companies are profiting, and if so I'd like them to be stopped.

I hate everything that Isis stand for, but I hate that someone is profiting from it even more.
		
Click to expand...

Bombing alone is not what this debate is all about. Defeating the terrorists is what it's about. Bombing is just part of it. We had to debate bombing in Syria because we always have to tie one arm behind our back when we go into any conflict. We actually had to debate flying over the fictitious Syrian border to continue what we have been doing successfully in Iraq, even though we have been asked by the UN and by our allies. We were actually debating while our friends were still burying their dead.


----------



## Sweep (Dec 4, 2015)

murphthemog said:



			So, we bombed an oil refinery. The Americans have been bombing for six months, and even with their next to useless kit, they couldn't have bombed this particular target if it was important? I think they could have, quite easily.
		
Click to expand...

You are right. It wasn't important at all. They only make a billion pounds per month from oil. So let's just leave it to the Americans. Maybe when they come to London to kill us we can complain to Obama he didn't do enough.


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 4, 2015)

murphthemog said:



			So, we bombed an oil refinery. The Americans have been bombing for six months, and even with their next to useless kit, they couldn't have bombed this particular target if it was important? I think they could have, quite easily.
		
Click to expand...

they could also very easily have bombed the oil trucks that are transporting the oil to Turkey (allegedly). In fact, the Americans could have destroyed the ability of Isis to fund itself via oil sales, but they haven't. Someone, somewhere is not telling us the whole truth.


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 4, 2015)

Sweep said:



			Bombing alone is not what this debate is all about. Defeating the terrorists is what it's about. Bombing is just part of it. We had to debate bombing in Syria because we always have to tie one arm behind our back when we go into any conflict. We actually had to debate flying over the fictitious Syrian border to continue what we have been doing successfully in Iraq, even though we have been asked by the UN and by our allies. We were actually debating while our friends were still burying their dead.
		
Click to expand...

Are you advocating that the decision to go to War should be made without a vote?


----------



## USER1999 (Dec 4, 2015)

The Americans and others have been bombing for six months odd. There shouldn't be any obvious infastucture targets left by now, or what the heck have they been doing?


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 4, 2015)

A scenario; a column of truck with ISIS "troops" crosses from Iraq, where we were bombing, into Syria, where we weren't. Our pilot decides not to bomb the column because it fails to meet the rules of engagement, i.e. its crossed into Syria. A day later that column arrives at a village/town and starts the ritual of beheadings, crucifixtions and rape let alone displacing so many more refugees.... but don't worry, we've cut off their funding and their propaganda.

Today, because of the vote to extend bombing, that column might not reach the village/town because the rules of engagement have changed. I wonder what the Syrians would prefer?

Yes, but we've made Britain less safe by bombing ISIS in Syria. We're already bombing ISIS in Iraq...do you think that by doing what we're already doing makes us less safe?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 4, 2015)

murphthemog said:



			So, we bombed an oil refinery. The Americans have been bombing for six months, and even with their next to useless kit, they couldn't have bombed this particular target if it was important? I think they could have, quite easily.
		
Click to expand...

We could have let the Americans bomb it - we could have let all those other nations carry on without us and stood back.


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 4, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			A scenario; a column of truck with ISIS "troops" crosses from Iraq, where we were bombing, into Syria, where we weren't. Our pilot decides not to bomb the column because it fails to meet the rules of engagement, i.e. its crossed into Syria. A day later that column arrives at a village/town and starts the ritual of beheadings, crucifixtions and rape let alone displacing so many more refugees.... but don't worry, we've cut off their funding and their propaganda.

Today, because of the vote to extend bombing, that column might not reach the village/town because the rules of engagement have changed. I wonder what the Syrians would prefer?

Yes, but we've made Britain less safe by bombing ISIS in Syria. We're already bombing ISIS in Iraq...do you think that by doing what we're already doing makes us less safe?
		
Click to expand...

The Americans and French are already bombing in Syria. Are we thinking that the Americans and French aren't good enough without us Brits? Obviously they are. Your scenario is overly emotive and not really logical. 
Also, I don't think the decision has made any difference to our domestic safety. We were already targets.


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 4, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			We could have let the Americans bomb it - we could have let all those other nations carry on without us and stood back.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think that's the point he's making Phil.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 4, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			A scenario; a column of truck with ISIS "troops" crosses from Iraq, where we were bombing, into Syria, where we weren't. Our pilot decides not to bomb the column because it fails to meet the rules of engagement, i.e. its crossed into Syria. A day later that column arrives at a village/town and starts the ritual of beheadings, crucifixtions and rape let alone displacing so many more refugees.... but don't worry, we've cut off their funding and their propaganda.

Today, because of the vote to extend bombing, that column might not reach the village/town because the rules of engagement have changed. I wonder what the Syrians would prefer?

Yes, but we've made Britain less safe by bombing ISIS in Syria. We're already bombing ISIS in Iraq...do you think that by doing what we're already doing makes us less safe?
		
Click to expand...

A scenario, a bomb from the RAF misses its target and kills 25 innocent children.  One of the fathers of the children is so incensed he vows to take revenge on the west.  A few years later he sets off a dirty bomb in the underground in London killing 100s of commuters and tourists. 

Anyone can come up with hypothetical and fanciful situations that you can make as far fetched as you want to to try and justify an argument.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 4, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			A scenario; a column of truck with ISIS "troops" crosses from Iraq, where we were bombing, into Syria, where we weren't. Our pilot decides not to bomb the column because it fails to meet the rules of engagement, i.e. its crossed into Syria. A day later that column arrives at a village/town and starts the ritual of beheadings, crucifixtions and rape let alone displacing so many more refugees.... but don't worry, we've cut off their funding and their propaganda.

Today, because of the vote to extend bombing, that column might not reach the village/town because the rules of engagement have changed. I wonder what the Syrians would prefer?

Yes, but we've made Britain less safe by bombing ISIS in Syria. We're already bombing ISIS in Iraq...do you think that by doing what we're already doing makes us less safe?
		
Click to expand...




bluewolf said:



			The Americans and French are already bombing in Syria. Are we thinking that the Americans and French aren't good enough without us Brits? Obviously they are. Your scenario is overly emotive and not really logical. 
Also, I don't think the decision has made any difference to our domestic safety. We were already targets.
		
Click to expand...

But what happens if our pilot spots the column and has to ring the French our Americans on his iphone because they just don't to be patrolling that bit of sky? How many towns do you think the ISIS troops have turned up at with bunches of flowers? The genocide is well documented - I don't think that makes it overly emotive. If we save one Syrian from beheading, or half a village, its worthwhile... alternatively we can attack their laptops and shutdown their propaganda.


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 4, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			But what happens if our pilot spots the column and has to ring the French our Americans on his iphone because they just don't to be patrolling that bit of sky? How many towns do you think the ISIS troops have turned up at with bunches of flowers? The genocide is well documented - I don't think that makes it overly emotive. If we save one Syrian from beheading, or half a village, its worthwhile... alternatively we can attack their laptops and shutdown their propaganda.
		
Click to expand...

And if we kill 5 Syrians in the process, and get no nearer to destroying Isis? 

I genuinely wish that I was as certain as yourself Brian. I wish that I could say that what we are doing is the best option, but I genuinely don't think it is.. I suspect that it could turn out to be about the worst option.. Turn off the money. Turn off the supply of fighters.. Inhibit the viability of their allies, be they states or companies.. Starve them of publicity. And most importantly, stop giving them exactly what they want..


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Dec 4, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			This article is pretty good 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ority-in-opposing-this-campaign-a6758621.html

Click to expand...

Interesting article! I was gonna post that actualy, as well as one from the opposite side 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-says-how-they-can-be-defeated-a6757336.html


----------



## Crazyface (Dec 4, 2015)

Val said:



			We've already taken 2 plane loads in
		
Click to expand...

Excellent!!!! (I know) There's more, MUCH MUCH more to come. You've plenty of room up there too.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 4, 2015)

We have been bombing in Iraq against ISIS targets so why haven't the scenarios people mention happened already ?


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 4, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			We have been bombing in Iraq against ISIS targets so why haven't the scenarios people mention happened already ?
		
Click to expand...

With all due respect, Iraq and Syria are 2 very different prospects.. In Iraq we have a semi sympathetic government (although they are now seemingly pointing the finger at the US for supporting ISIS). Syria is a total patchwork of factions and opposition groups, embedded into civilian areas. The ISIS training compounds are in inner cities, near schools and hospitals..


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 4, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			they could also very easily have bombed the oil trucks that are transporting the oil to Turkey (allegedly). In fact, the Americans could have destroyed the ability of Isis to fund itself via oil sales, but they haven't. Someone, somewhere is not telling us the whole truth.
		
Click to expand...

Oil sales is a minor part of the funding that IS is getting according to the analysis given on the BBC last night.  The majority of the money is gained via illegal acts, extorting local taxes and their support base.  The same way as the funding that Sein Fein/IRA operate under.  They are relatively small but we have never been successful in pulling the plug there.


----------



## chippa1909 (Dec 4, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			they could also very easily have bombed the oil trucks that are transporting the oil to Turkey (allegedly). In fact, the Americans could have destroyed the ability of Isis to fund itself via oil sales, but they haven't. Someone, somewhere is not telling us the whole truth.
		
Click to expand...

Someone, somewhere is making a hell of a lot of money out of the situation!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 4, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			A scenario, a bomb from the RAF misses its target and kills 25 innocent children.  One of the fathers of the children is so incensed he vows to take revenge on the west.  A few years later he sets off a dirty bomb in the underground in London killing 100s of commuters and tourists. 

Anyone can come up with hypothetical and fanciful situations that you can make as far fetched as you want to to try and justify an argument.
		
Click to expand...

Have to remember that we only have a limited number of highly accurate Brimstone guided missiles - to be launched from the Typhoons.  Rest of the time UK will be dropping Paveway bombs - that the US have - and these are essentially 'bunker busters'.  Not sure what UK does when the stock of Brimstone missiles is depleted - hang around waiting for manufacturer to deliver more I suppose. We could drop our bunker busting Paveways but not sure the HoC gave OK to go ahead for anything other than use of Brimstones as providing accuracy that other allies did not possess was core to the argument.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 4, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			With all due respect, Iraq and Syria are 2 very different prospects.. In Iraq we have a semi sympathetic government (although they are now seemingly pointing the finger at the US for supporting ISIS). Syria is a total patchwork of factions and opposition groups, embedded into civilian areas. The ISIS training compounds are in inner cities, near schools and hospitals..
		
Click to expand...

One of the arguments put forward against bombing Isis in Syria was that it would increase the chances of an attack against us - but we have already been bombing isis , so we are going to continue to bomb ISIS just over the border. 

In Iraq they have taken over towns and hid amongst the local population as well but yes the dangers of collateral damage has increased but that's where we need to trust the guys to do their job


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 4, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			One of the arguments put forward against bombing Isis in Syria was that it would increase the chances of an attack against us - but we have already been bombing isis , so we are going to continue to bomb ISIS just over the border. 

In Iraq they have taken over towns and hid amongst the local population as well but yes the dangers of collateral damage has increased but that's where we need to trust the guys to do their job
		
Click to expand...

I don't believe that the decision has put us in more danger. We were already in danger before. I think that what we have done is exactly what they wanted us to do. We've provided the propaganda to produce thousands more ISIS soldiers. For every one we kill, we'll create 10 more. We've become ISIS best weapon.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Dec 4, 2015)

The now famous Brimstone missiles cost around Â£100-Â£105k each. Where on earth do we find this money from or are we just borrowing more? I know it is not just about cost but for many, me included, this move is about posturing and this posturing is costing us an awful lot of money that we keep being told we do not have.


----------



## woody69 (Dec 4, 2015)

A lot of people on this thread seem to be saying that bombing does nothing? Well that simply isn't true. ISIL has shrunk by almost a third since air strikes in Iraq started. In the 14 months we have been providing air support in Iraq we have seriously hampered ISILs advance (can people not remember the reports of them being only 40kms from Baghdad)? Without the air strikes the Kurdish fighters would not have been able to liberate Kobane, Sinjar and the Mosul Dam. When IS took Mosul they had the ability to move large forces across Syria and Iraq, they've lost that ability and now, as a result, IS forces in a city like Ramadi are completely cut off from reinforcements.

RAF Tornado's are responsible for around 60% of the tactical intelligence gathered over Iraq and they are equipped with Brimstone missiles. Brimstones are more sophisticated than the weapons currently being used by the US, Russia and Assad. The USA is using Hellfire's, which generate a large field of shrapnel when they explode, Russia is simply dropping bombs on targets without any guidance and Assad's barrel bombing everything and everyone. Brimstone's are designed to destroy its target with a contained explosion that generates relatively little debris. The RAF would most likely be tasked with attacking IS's upper tier leadership and command posts, most of which will be in Raqqa. The RAF is the best and least risky option for hurting IS's ability to command without inflicting massive civilian casualties.

 No-one pretends that this is a total solution. Isis will not be defeated from the air but they can be damaged and restrained. No-one believes that a lasting solution can occur without co-operation between the regional powers as envisaged by the Vienna talks. No-one thinks that peace will not be sustainable without prolonged humanitarian and political support for some time.

IS needs territory, they want to build a viable state right now - not only to keep alive the idea of a caliphate but also because that's where most of their wealth comes from. That's being undermined, especially after they lost control of Iraq's largest oil refinery. If Western ground troops were taking back towns, cities and refineries then IS could spin it as Christian crusaders occupying Muslim lands but it's their fellow Muslims that are on the ground taking back IS occupied territory.

Some will join IS because of our intervention but given how brutal IS have been to the people they've occupied I'd imagine many times more of the local population will be happy to see the fight being taken to IS and will greet the Peshmerga/Syrian Kurds/FSA/Iraqi army with open arms when they come to kick IS out, similarly to how many Europeans greeted the Allies when they started to push back the German army in the mid-1940s.

We have no idea how long the diplomatic effort to end the Syrian civil war will take, the Vienna talks have barely got off the ground and peace talks have been on and off since 2011. Cutting funding and arms to IS will only have a limited effect as IS draws an income from taxing the people it occupies and has thousands of pieces of equipment they captured from the Iraqi army when they took Mosul. Airstrikes aren't a perfect solution, but the alternative appears to be to leave the Kurds, Syrians and Iraqis to duke it out with IS with neither side having an advantage. Military action to push back and contain IS while the politicians attempt to broker an end to the civil war is surely the only way to go.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 4, 2015)

The French guy who was held captive by ISIS said that the only thing that upsets/bothers ISIS is watching the millions of countrymen/women/children trying to get to the west. ISIS are so entrenched in their beliefs that they simply cannot understand why they wish to leave.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 4, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			With all due respect, Iraq and Syria are 2 very different prospects.. In Iraq we have a semi sympathetic government (although they are now seemingly pointing the finger at the US for supporting ISIS). Syria is a total patchwork of factions and opposition groups, embedded into civilian areas. The ISIS training compounds are in inner cities, near schools and hospitals..
		
Click to expand...

Not wishing to sound too flippant but if you know where these compounds are please give the Air Vice-Marshal a call.


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 4, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Not wishing to sound too flippant but if you know where these compounds are please give the Air Vice-Marshal a call.
		
Click to expand...

You failed. 

Knowing that ISIS are using inner city compounds is not the same as knowing the exact coordinates. But you know that.


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 4, 2015)

I hope no one minds but I'm going to bow out of this discussion now    There's nothing else I can add and I suspect we're gonna start going round in circles soon. It's been very informative, especially regarding the capabilities of Brimstone missiles. Thanks for keeping it civil. :thup:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 4, 2015)

woody69 said:



			A lot of people on this thread seem to be saying that bombing does nothing? Well that simply isn't true. ISIL has shrunk by almost a third since air strikes in Iraq started. In the 14 months we have been providing air support in Iraq we have seriously hampered ISILs advance (can people not remember the reports of them being only 40kms from Baghdad)? Without the air strikes the Kurdish fighters would not have been able to liberate Kobane, Sinjar and the Mosul Dam. When IS took Mosul they had the ability to move large forces across Syria and Iraq, they've lost that ability and now, as a result, IS forces in a city like Ramadi are completely cut off from reinforcements.

RAF Tornado's are responsible for around 60% of the tactical intelligence gathered over Iraq and they are equipped with Brimstone missiles. Brimstones are more sophisticated than the weapons currently being used by the US, Russia and Assad. The USA is using Hellfire's, which generate a large field of shrapnel when they explode, Russia is simply dropping bombs on targets without any guidance and Assad's barrel bombing everything and everyone. Brimstone's are designed to destroy its target with a contained explosion that generates relatively little debris. The RAF would most likely be tasked with attacking IS's upper tier leadership and command posts, most of which will be in Raqqa. The RAF is the best and least risky option for hurting IS's ability to command without inflicting massive civilian casualties.

 No-one pretends that this is a total solution. Isis will not be defeated from the air but they can be damaged and restrained. No-one believes that a lasting solution can occur without co-operation between the regional powers as envisaged by the Vienna talks. No-one thinks that peace will not be sustainable without prolonged humanitarian and political support for some time.

IS needs territory, they want to build a viable state right now - not only to keep alive the idea of a caliphate but also because that's where most of their wealth comes from. That's being undermined, especially after they lost control of Iraq's largest oil refinery. If Western ground troops were taking back towns, cities and refineries then IS could spin it as Christian crusaders occupying Muslim lands but it's their fellow Muslims that are on the ground taking back IS occupied territory.

Some will join IS because of our intervention but given how brutal IS have been to the people they've occupied I'd imagine many times more of the local population will be happy to see the fight being taken to IS and will greet the Peshmerga/Syrian Kurds/FSA/Iraqi army with open arms when they come to kick IS out, similarly to how many Europeans greeted the Allies when they started to push back the German army in the mid-1940s.

We have no idea how long the diplomatic effort to end the Syrian civil war will take, the Vienna talks have barely got off the ground and peace talks have been on and off since 2011. Cutting funding and arms to IS will only have a limited effect as IS draws an income from taxing the people it occupies and has thousands of pieces of equipment they captured from the Iraqi army when they took Mosul. Airstrikes aren't a perfect solution, but the alternative appears to be to leave the Kurds, Syrians and Iraqis to duke it out with IS with neither side having an advantage. Military action to push back and contain IS while the politicians attempt to broker an end to the civil war is surely the only way to go.
		
Click to expand...

Very good post :thup:


----------



## PieMan (Dec 4, 2015)

The whole 'to bomb or not to bomb' debate was very good IMO and I think showed the UK parliament at it's emotive, passionate best.

Not wishing to go over old ground if it's been highlighted previously, but to me the moment it was made public that a significant number of terrorist atrocities planned in the UK - which would have no doubt killed hundreds of innocent people - had been foiled by our security services over the last few months meant we were perfectly justified to react.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Dec 4, 2015)

PieMan said:



			Not wishing to go over old ground if it's been highlighted previously, but to me the moment it was made public that a significant number of terrorist atrocities planned in the UK - which would have no doubt killed hundreds of innocent people - had been foiled by our security services over the last few months meant we were perfectly justified to react.
		
Click to expand...

I am not as willing to believe every statement put out by the govt and security services of this type. They clearly can not show the evidence of these, sources etc, so we only have their word on it. It is in their vested interest for people to believe this, govt gets its way, services get more money ploughed into it. Do I believe some of what they say, yes. Do I believe all of it, no. We must always question.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 4, 2015)

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/

Statements like the 70,000 FSA 'troops'.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Dec 4, 2015)

Yep, just like that one.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 4, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/

Statements like the 70,000 FSA 'troops'.
		
Click to expand...

I thought I heard on the Daily Politics today, which the editor of the Times was on the figure was substituted by a reliable source, the problem being is where they are and who they might prefer to fight.


----------



## garyinderry (Dec 4, 2015)

Has their been many trials from these foiled plots?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 4, 2015)

Very interesting piece http://news.sky.com/story/1599287/main-risk-of-uk-bombs-is-catastrophic-success

Seems whatever we do it's going to be wrong and someone will benefit


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 4, 2015)

Lord Tyrion said:



			I am not as willing to believe every statement put out by the govt and security services of this type. They clearly can not show the evidence of these, sources etc, so we only have their word on it. It is in their vested interest for people to believe this, govt gets its way, services get more money ploughed into it. Do I believe some of what they say, yes. Do I believe all of it, no. We must always question.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, I've seen Spectre and look what happened there!!!!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 4, 2015)

Lord Tyrion said:



			I am not as willing to believe every statement put out by the govt and security services of this type. They clearly can not show the evidence of these, sources etc, so we only have their word on it. It is in their vested interest for people to believe this, govt gets its way, services get more money ploughed into it. Do I believe some of what they say, yes. Do I believe all of it, no. We must always question.
		
Click to expand...

It will all depend on how much trust you have or how paranoid you are 

Services won't get extra funding based on stories given out to the press - behind the closed doors all the details will be known 

We don't always have to question if you trust our security forces to do a good job - and have to separate the government from the guys doing the job.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 4, 2015)

A pretty good article about how effective the RAF have been in the past 18 months 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/her...B&utm_medium=FacebookPage&utm_campaign=social


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Dec 4, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			I agree, I've seen Spectre and look what happened there!!!!

Click to expand...

 
That was my primary source :thup:


----------



## chippa1909 (Dec 4, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It will all depend on how much trust you have or how paranoid you are 

Services won't get extra funding based on stories given out to the press - behind the closed doors all the details will be known 

We don't always have to question if you trust our security forces to do a good job - and have to separate the government from the guys doing the job.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think it's paranoia, I think it's experience.

"The first victim of war is truth"


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 4, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			I don't think it's paranoia, I think it's experience.

"The first victim of war is truth"
		
Click to expand...

War ? Are we at War then ?


----------



## chippa1909 (Dec 4, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			War ? Are we at War then ?
		
Click to expand...

At ease chap, it's only a quotation.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Dec 4, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			War ? Are we at War then ?
		
Click to expand...

Yes.

Did you miss this whole thing? What else do you call it when you democratically vote to go and blow up another country?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 4, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Yes.

Did you miss this whole thing? What else do you call it when you democratically vote to go and blow up another country?
		
Click to expand...

Air Strikes at the moment at strategic targets as opposed "blowing up another country"

All semantics as such but the terminology maybe over stating right now - is the UK at war against another country - technically no we aren't


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Dec 4, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Air Strikes at the moment at strategic targets as opposed "blowing up another country"

All semantics as such but the terminology maybe over stating right now - is the UK at war against another country - technically no we aren't
		
Click to expand...

It may be semantics, but given it's the "war on terror", and we're going into other countries and blowing things up, then yes we are at war.

You can't say "ISIL aren't a country", as imo, that doesn't count any more. The world has moved on. That's like saying Vietnam wasn't a war....


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 4, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			It may be semantics, but given it's the "war on terror", and we're going into other countries and blowing things up, then yes we are at war.

You can't say "ISIL aren't a country", as imo, that doesn't count any more. The world has moved on. That's like saying Vietnam wasn't a war....
		
Click to expand...

As I said - semantics 

Right now I wouldn't count the UK at war but it's all words and how people want to interpret things - some would say we have been at War since the 80's in some way or another 

Germany have added a few more things to the coalition effort now 

http://forces.tv/96045403


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 4, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Right now I wouldn't count the UK at war
		
Click to expand...

OK, we'll just put this one down as 'RAF exercises with live ammo'


----------



## FairwayDodger (Dec 4, 2015)

drive4show said:



			OK, we'll just put this one down as 'RAF exercises with live ammo'
		
Click to expand...

In a foreign country, who didn't invite us.

Not like a war at all.....


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 4, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			I don't think it's paranoia, I think it's experience.

"The first victim of war is truth"
		
Click to expand...

Nope, the first victim of war is the plan.

No plan survives 1st contact with the enemy.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 4, 2015)

drive4show said:



			OK, we'll just put this one down as 'RAF exercises with live ammo'
		
Click to expand...

Good God, pray the RAF Regt are not involved.


----------



## Sweep (Dec 4, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Are you advocating that the decision to go to War should be made without a vote?
		
Click to expand...

No.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 4, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Good God, pray the RAF Regt are not involved.
		
Click to expand...

Don't be nasty 

They march well


----------



## Sweep (Dec 4, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			A scenario, a bomb from the RAF misses its target and kills 25 innocent children.  One of the fathers of the children is so incensed he vows to take revenge on the west.  A few years later he sets off a dirty bomb in the underground in London killing 100s of commuters and tourists. 

Anyone can come up with hypothetical and fanciful situations that you can make as far fetched as you want to to try and justify an argument.
		
Click to expand...

The difference is that we don't target innocent children. We target Daesh who do target innocent children.


----------



## Sweep (Dec 4, 2015)

woody69 said:



			A lot of people on this thread seem to be saying that bombing does nothing? Well that simply isn't true. ISIL has shrunk by almost a third since air strikes in Iraq started. In the 14 months we have been providing air support in Iraq we have seriously hampered ISILs advance (can people not remember the reports of them being only 40kms from Baghdad)? Without the air strikes the Kurdish fighters would not have been able to liberate Kobane, Sinjar and the Mosul Dam. When IS took Mosul they had the ability to move large forces across Syria and Iraq, they've lost that ability and now, as a result, IS forces in a city like Ramadi are completely cut off from reinforcements.

RAF Tornado's are responsible for around 60% of the tactical intelligence gathered over Iraq and they are equipped with Brimstone missiles. Brimstones are more sophisticated than the weapons currently being used by the US, Russia and Assad. The USA is using Hellfire's, which generate a large field of shrapnel when they explode, Russia is simply dropping bombs on targets without any guidance and Assad's barrel bombing everything and everyone. Brimstone's are designed to destroy its target with a contained explosion that generates relatively little debris. The RAF would most likely be tasked with attacking IS's upper tier leadership and command posts, most of which will be in Raqqa. The RAF is the best and least risky option for hurting IS's ability to command without inflicting massive civilian casualties.

 No-one pretends that this is a total solution. Isis will not be defeated from the air but they can be damaged and restrained. No-one believes that a lasting solution can occur without co-operation between the regional powers as envisaged by the Vienna talks. No-one thinks that peace will not be sustainable without prolonged humanitarian and political support for some time.

IS needs territory, they want to build a viable state right now - not only to keep alive the idea of a caliphate but also because that's where most of their wealth comes from. That's being undermined, especially after they lost control of Iraq's largest oil refinery. If Western ground troops were taking back towns, cities and refineries then IS could spin it as Christian crusaders occupying Muslim lands but it's their fellow Muslims that are on the ground taking back IS occupied territory.

Some will join IS because of our intervention but given how brutal IS have been to the people they've occupied I'd imagine many times more of the local population will be happy to see the fight being taken to IS and will greet the Peshmerga/Syrian Kurds/FSA/Iraqi army with open arms when they come to kick IS out, similarly to how many Europeans greeted the Allies when they started to push back the German army in the mid-1940s.

We have no idea how long the diplomatic effort to end the Syrian civil war will take, the Vienna talks have barely got off the ground and peace talks have been on and off since 2011. Cutting funding and arms to IS will only have a limited effect as IS draws an income from taxing the people it occupies and has thousands of pieces of equipment they captured from the Iraqi army when they took Mosul. Airstrikes aren't a perfect solution, but the alternative appears to be to leave the Kurds, Syrians and Iraqis to duke it out with IS with neither side having an advantage. Military action to push back and contain IS while the politicians attempt to broker an end to the civil war is surely the only way to go.
		
Click to expand...

Finally a concise and well put together post that actually talks sense!


----------



## Sweep (Dec 4, 2015)

A question to all the "don't bomb" people.
Under what circumstances would you advocate bombing or fighting Daesh?
How bad would it have to get? What would they have to do before enough was enough?
Or put simply, if they were marching up the Mall would you simply put your hands up and ask how we can serve them best?
Serious question, because I think everyone has their tipping point. They have already passed mine. What's yours?


----------



## Ethan (Dec 4, 2015)

Sweep said:



			A question to all the "don't bomb" people.
Under what circumstances would you advocate bombing or fighting Daesh?
How bad would it have to get? What would they have to do before enough was enough?
Or put simply, if they were marching up the Mall would you simply put your hands up and ask how we can serve them best?
Serious question, because I think everyone has their tipping point. They have already passed mine. What's yours?
		
Click to expand...

You are asking the wrong question. The right question is what is the plan? 

If it was as simple as punching the co-ordinates of IS HQ into a computer and a clever set of missiles heading their way, that would be fine. But it isn't, and the risk is that a ham-fisted engagement will only recruit loads more radicals, some already living in the UK and other western countries, and convince them that this is a crusade against Islam. And you can bomb IS all day long, and more funding from Saudi will still keep them going. 

It is a mistake to think that things couldn't be worse than the current bad situation. Things can get a great deal worse and this bombing campaign may be the trigger.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 4, 2015)

Ethan said:



			You are asking the wrong question. The right question is what is the plan? 

If it was as simple as punching the co-ordinates of IS HQ into a computer and a clever set of missiles heading their way, that would be fine. But it isn't, and the risk is that a ham-fisted engagement will only recruit loads more radicals, some already living in the UK and other western countries, and convince them that this is a crusade against Islam. And you can bomb IS all day long, and more funding from Saudi will still keep them going. 

It is a mistake to think that things couldn't be worse than the current bad situation. Things can get a great deal worse and this bombing campaign may be the trigger.
		
Click to expand...

I agree. Off to London this weekend and can't help feeling a tad nervous following this weeks events. Can't let it dictate what you do but it's a tiny nagging worry given Paris. I do think the bombings will trigger a response and not just one off attacks but something more consolidated and sustained.


----------



## chippa1909 (Dec 4, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Nope, the first victim of war is the plan.

No plan survives 1st contact with the enemy.
		
Click to expand...

That's assuming that the plan is the truth. :mmm:


----------



## Sweep (Dec 4, 2015)

Ethan said:



			You are asking the wrong question. The right question is what is the plan? 

If it was as simple as punching the co-ordinates of IS HQ into a computer and a clever set of missiles heading their way, that would be fine. But it isn't, and the risk is that a ham-fisted engagement will only recruit loads more radicals, some already living in the UK and other western countries, and convince them that this is a crusade against Islam. And you can bomb IS all day long, and more funding from Saudi will still keep them going. 

It is a mistake to think that things couldn't be worse than the current bad situation. Things can get a great deal worse and this bombing campaign may be the trigger.
		
Click to expand...

No, I am asking my question. It's a perfectly valid question. If you want to ask a different question, that is up to you. If you choose not to answer my question, that's fine. Though I suspect that may be because you might not be too comfortable with your answer.


----------



## Sweep (Dec 4, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			I agree. Off to London this weekend and can't help feeling a tad nervous following this weeks events. Can't let it dictate what you do but it's a tiny nagging worry given Paris. I do think the bombings will trigger a response and not just one off attacks but something more consolidated and sustained.
		
Click to expand...

And to me that is a good reason to do everything possible to take the terrorists out as quickly as possible. Why should we live in fear?
Bombing in Syria won't make any difference to the chances of us being attacked. They have tried before and they will try again. Being scared is no reason not to go after them. They will try to attack and the stronger we let them become the easier it will be for them to attack. If they think we won't retaliate then its a no brainer for them.


----------



## Wabinez (Dec 4, 2015)

This got shared on FB earlier by someone I do not know. To me, it makes perfect sense, and I do believe air strikes are required. We can't just sit around and do nothing.



			So, I'm laying in bed having my early morning scroll through Facebook, looking at the various reactions to the commons vote last night and the general consensus seems to be that it's a very bad thing that we are going to conduct air strikes in Syria.

To an extent, I agree. War is bad. But further intervention in Syria is vital in the on going efforts to wipe out those nutters who call themselves ISIS.

I've seen a lot of comments about children and families waking up in terror because there is now war in Syria. I found myself face palming at this. Syria and Iraq are pretty much hell on earth on at the moment (along with Libya and swathes of sub-Saharan Africa. Pretty much anywhere where fanatics fighting under the guise of religion to extend their own power. Anyway I digress). And if anyone thinks that our bombing efforts will change the day to day lives of the people of Syria in the short term you really are misinformed.

The civil war there has been raging for years. Hundreds of thousands dead. Millions displaced. Anyone remember the picture of the little boy on the beach? Well his family didn't try and escape Syria because it was a nice peaceful place to be. They fled because they face horror on a daily basis and they'd rather risk their lives escaping than staying in that hell hole. The way people have been talking tonight it's as if we are starting a conflict against an unknowing population. We are not. We are fighting against the evil scum who have somehow managed to get a foot hold in their country.

Will there be innocents caught up in the bombing? Undoubtedly yes. But on a very small scale - one innocent victim is one too many but it will happen. We are not carpet bombing their already obliterated cities. These will be precision strikes. We have been bombing against the same enemy in Iraq for over a year and I can't recall many reports of collateral damage from British bombing. And I pay attention to the subject all year round and not when it's just topical.  

Air strikes can be good. Look at the genocide which was avoided last year. The Yazidis were about to become a foot note in history. Air strikes saved them. And it was air strikes which allowed the Kurds to retake the Yazidis homes from IS just last month. Which again reminds me, I don't remember the same outrage at the vote to commence air strikes in Iraq last year.

So this is why I'm in favour of the air strikes. As a start to the solution. Fundamentally the only way to prevent further wars in the future is to invest in education. IS show what is achievable when you have a medieval mind set but access to modern technology - terror. 

Anyone unconvinced just do a quick google image search of Raqqa. I'd recommend you don't because the images will haunt you. But that's is what we are fighting against.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 4, 2015)

Ethan said:



			You are asking the wrong question. The right question is what is the plan? 

If it was as simple as punching the co-ordinates of IS HQ into a computer and a clever set of missiles heading their way, that would be fine. But it isn't, and the risk is that a ham-fisted engagement will only recruit loads more radicals, some already living in the UK and other western countries, and convince them that this is a crusade against Islam. And you can bomb IS all day long, and more funding from Saudi will still keep them going. 

It is a mistake to think that things couldn't be worse than the current bad situation. Things can get a great deal worse and this bombing campaign may be the trigger.
		
Click to expand...

Things can also get a whole lot better, we are not standing alone, we are in no more danger than before the we started bombing Syria, do you think IS have turned a blind eye to us bombing them in Iraq. We are a target, we'll remain a target, so best we destroy those doing the targetting. 
Homer, they are already here and planning, whether you choose to go to London or not will have no impact on them, just be aware of your surroundings and if you see anything suspicious report it.


----------



## Ethan (Dec 5, 2015)

Sweep said:



			No, I am asking my question. It's a perfectly valid question. If you want to ask a different question, that is up to you. If you choose not to answer my question, that's fine. Though I suspect that may be because you might not be too comfortable with your answer.
		
Click to expand...

Wel, your question was a rather incoherent one. What is the tipping point before bombing IS?

That presupposes a couple of things, none of which are reasonable. It assumes that bombing IS is likely to result in anything beyond some Old Testament vengeance, that there is a coherent plan for what to do, and that everyone has some personal trigger number , tipping point, as you put it, for the number of deaths that will make them say OK, lets bomb. That would be a moronic approach, so I don't play that game because nobody with an ounce of sense could or would answer it.

Therefore I offered an alternative question, but you were unable/unwilling to answer it. 

What is the exchange rate for deaths these days? How many IS are needed to be bombed per Paris death? What is the permissible death rate in collateral terms and in numbers of UK military? If you can't answer those questions, then your question just becomes even more absurd, because when bodies of RAF, and soon, ground troops, start arriving back in the UK, you will have to say they were a price worth paying, until, of course, you reach another tipping point.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 5, 2015)

Sweep said:



			A question to all the "don't bomb" people.
Under what circumstances would you advocate bombing or fighting Daesh?
How bad would it have to get? What would they have to do before enough was enough?
Or put simply, if they were marching up the Mall would you simply put your hands up and ask how we can serve them best?
Serious question, because I think everyone has their tipping point. They have already passed mine. What's yours?
		
Click to expand...

Interesting questions.

To your first one, two answers. When it isn't civil war, and becomes genocide. And when it impacts on us and our allies. As Dame Margaret Beckett said, if it was us we'd ask France for help. I don't subscribe to the "I'm all right Jack, pull up the ladder."

To answer your next two questions, see above.

As to them marching up the Mall. Metaphorically speaking, they already have. Ask Homer about his fears of going into London. They are no doubt already here, and armed, they just haven't done anything horrendously spectacular yet.

As to a tipping point. Some may actually need to have a bomb go off in their own dining room, whilst others are already doing something about the situation.


----------



## Ethan (Dec 5, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			As to a tipping point. Some may actually need to have a bomb go off in their own dining room, whilst others are already doing something about the situation.
		
Click to expand...

What an ignorant remark. That is like Cameron accusing anyone against bombing of being terrorist sympathisers. That was also a disgraceful remark.
You are sitting on your sofa here in the UK justifying bombs falling on Syria and in doing so, accept a certain amount of collateral damage and when ground forces go in, as they surely will, you also accept some casualities. How brave and patriotic of you. 

Every time the UK has gone into someplace in the Middle East in a so-called limited and focussed campaign, it has always become less limited and totally unfocussed, and each disastrous adventure causes a bigger problem than the one before. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria. 

You would have to be a fool or a blind optimist to think this will be any different. It is easy to make a stupid remark about bombs going off in living rooms, but the exact opposite argument to yours is that this bombing will cause precisely that.


----------



## delc (Dec 5, 2015)

If Islamic State was just trying to establish a territory without terrorist attacks on Westerners and genocide of local Christians and other 'non-believers', then I for one wouldn't have a problem with them. However they are are doing all these things in the name of  twisted and evil religious philosophy, so really we have no choice in confronting them!


----------



## ColchesterFC (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Wel, your question was a rather incoherent one. What is the tipping point before bombing IS?

That presupposes a couple of things, none of which are reasonable. It assumes that bombing IS is likely to result in anything beyond some Old Testament vengeance, that there is a coherent plan for what to do, and that everyone has some personal trigger number , tipping point, as you put it, for the number of deaths that will make them say OK, lets bomb. That would be a moronic approach, so I don't play that game because nobody with an ounce of sense could or would answer it.

Therefore I offered an alternative question, but you were unable/unwilling to answer it. 

What is the exchange rate for deaths these days? How many IS are needed to be bombed per Paris death? What is the permissible death rate in collateral terms and in numbers of UK military? If you can't answer those questions, then your question just becomes even more absurd, because when bodies of RAF, and soon, ground troops, start arriving back in the UK, you will have to say they were a price worth paying, until, of course, you reach another tipping point.
		
Click to expand...

It seems a bit hypocritical to refuse to answer a question from someone and then have a pop at them for being "unable/unwilling" to answer the question you asked in return.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			What an ignorant remark. That is like Cameron accusing anyone against bombing of being terrorist sympathisers. That was also a disgraceful remark.
You are sitting on your sofa here in the UK justifying bombs falling on Syria and in doing so, accept a certain amount of collateral damage and when ground forces go in, as they surely will, you also accept some casualities. How brave and patriotic of you. 

Every time the UK has gone into someplace in the Middle East in a so-called limited and focussed campaign, it has always become less limited and totally unfocussed, and each disastrous adventure causes a bigger problem than the one before. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria. 

You would have to be a fool or a blind optimist to think this will be any different. It is easy to make a stupid remark about bombs going off in living rooms, but the exact opposite argument to yours is that this bombing will cause precisely that.
		
Click to expand...

So now you have a crystal ball to see the future, 
What are you suggesting? The west pulls out stops interfering and allows the Countries to decide their own fate, and if that involves lunatic dictators wipeing out miliions of innocent people or the people turning on each other like Rwanda, then that's ok because it's nothing to do with us and they won't bother us.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			What an ignorant remark. That is like Cameron accusing anyone against bombing of being terrorist sympathisers. That was also a disgraceful remark.
You are sitting on your sofa here in the UK justifying bombs falling on Syria and in doing so, accept a certain amount of collateral damage and when ground forces go in, as they surely will, you also accept some casualities. How brave and patriotic of you. 

Every time the UK has gone into someplace in the Middle East in a so-called limited and focussed campaign, it has always become less limited and totally unfocussed, and each disastrous adventure causes a bigger problem than the one before. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria. 

You would have to be a fool or a blind optimist to think this will be any different. It is easy to make a stupid remark about bombs going off in living rooms, but the exact opposite argument to yours is that this bombing will cause precisely that.
		
Click to expand...

You have so obviously missed my point... but hey um, not in the least bit shocked by your ignorance either... they're called metaphors... that's M...E...T...P...H...O...R....S... look it up


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			What an ignorant remark. That is like Cameron accusing anyone against bombing of being terrorist sympathisers. That was also a disgraceful remark.
You are sitting on your sofa here in the UK justifying bombs falling on Syria and in doing so, accept a certain amount of collateral damage and when ground forces go in, as they surely will, you also accept some casualities. How brave and patriotic of you. 

Every time the UK has gone into someplace in the Middle East in a so-called limited and focussed campaign, it has always become less limited and totally unfocussed, and each disastrous adventure causes a bigger problem than the one before. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria. 

You would have to be a fool or a blind optimist to think this will be any different. It is easy to make a stupid remark about bombs going off in living rooms, but the exact opposite argument to yours is that this bombing will cause precisely that.
		
Click to expand...

Was Cameron wrong with his remark, which I understood was that he accused SOME of those voting against the bombing being terrorist sympathisers, yes, but only because he wound some of the wrong people up and it's not the sort of thing that a PM should say but he wasn't all wrong.

Bombs in the living room, I think anyone with half a brain knew exactly what the poster was meaning.


----------



## Ethan (Dec 5, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			You have so obviously missed my point... but hey um, not in the least bit shocked by your ignorance either... they're called metaphors... that's M...E...T...P...H...O...R....S... look it up
		
Click to expand...

Hilarious. Spells out a word and gets it wrong. And it is also not the right word. It would have been a metaphor if you had said 'when IS is raining down hellfire on the UK'. What you used was hyperbole. 

I understood the basic point you were clumsily making, though, and it was that I disagree with. Your contention is that bombing IS makes us safer, my contention is that it does the opposite. 

All the pro-bombing collective have piled in, although none address any of the big issues. I didn't answer a stupid question about what a hypothetical tipping point would be, because that is impossible to answer. In contrast, the question of what the plan is after the bombing is not only possible to answer, it is absolutely necessary, because the bombing has started, and something is going to happen after. That something will include civilian and possibly UK military casualties, and the pro-bombing collective have accepted those as a price worth paying.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Hilarious. Spells out a word and gets it wrong. And it is also not the right word. It would have been a metaphor if you had said 'when IS is raining down hellfire on the UK'. What you used was hyperbole. 

I understood the basic point you were clumsily making, though, and it was that I disagree with. *Your contention is that bombing IS makes us safer, my contention is that it does the opposite. *

All the pro-bombing collective have piled in, although none address any of the big issues. I didn't answer a stupid question about what a hypothetical tipping point would be, because that is impossible to answer. In contrast, the question of what the plan is after the bombing is not only possible to answer, it is absolutely necessary, because the bombing has started, and something is going to happen after. That something will include civilian and possibly UK military casualties, and the pro-bombing collective have accepted those as a price worth paying.
		
Click to expand...

We have been bombing ISIS for 18 months - has that made us "less safe". Would they still target us if we did nothing - yes they would 

What happens after the presicion strategic targeted bombing ( thinks it's essential to understand the exact type of bombing is happening ) is undetermined at the moment. Because of the accuracy and quality of the targeted bombing in Iraq the ground troops ( Iraq army ) have been able to take back lots of cities that were under the control of ISIS. Targeted bombing have proved to be a very crucial part of those efforts. 

Now in Syria with increased precision bombing starting it will effect the ability of ISIS - from cutting of the oil that they use to sell to fund their operation , to destroying training camps and ammo dumps. As those targets get destroyed it then will allow the Syria Army to take back areas under control of ISIS. 

Innocent people are already dying , we need to stop that happening- that can only happen with force against ISIS.

Does it need troops from the Middle East countries - yes , will bombing alone be the answer - no , will talking to them stop them killing innocent people all over the world - no


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			my contention is that it does the opposite.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can explain why you think this. Are you under the impression that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone.


----------



## User20205 (Dec 5, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Perhaps you can explain why you think this. Are you under the impression that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone.
		
Click to expand...

Whilst I think we are right to act, I can admit to not being 100% sure what that course of action should be. I do know however that bombing alone, targeted or otherwise is not the answer. A more extensive military and diplomatic solution is required than simply blowing stuff up. There are no ground forces, the 70k don't exist in the form required to consolidate the gains made by bombing. The west doesn't have the stomach for this and I'm not sure if the ruskies would let it happen anyway. 

Bombing will make us more at risk. Not from some fella in a tent in the desert, but from some idealistic teenager in a bedroom in Bradford. It will radicalise more. As soon as pictures of a bombed hospital are shown it will act as the best recruiting poster Isis could have. 

They won't march up the mall, they can already walk up it unimpeded. This war isn't won with bombs, it's won with ideas, opportunity and education.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 5, 2015)

therod said:



			Whilst I think we are right to act, I can admit to not being 100% sure what that course of action should be. I do know however that bombing alone, targeted or otherwise is not the answer. A more extensive military and diplomatic solution is required than simply blowing stuff up. There are no ground forces, the 70k don't exist in the form required to consolidate the gains made by bombing. The west doesn't have the stomach for this and I'm not sure if the ruskies would let it happen anyway. 

Bombing will make us more at risk. Not from some fella in a tent in the desert, but from some idealistic teenager in a bedroom in Bradford. It will radicalise more. As soon as pictures of a bombed hospital are shown it will act as the best recruiting poster Isis could have. 

They won't march up the mall, they can already walk up it unimpeded. This war isn't won with bombs, it's won with ideas, opportunity and education.
		
Click to expand...

Do you really think ISIS are open to " ideas , opportunity and education " ?

They have one idea and only one and it's not about education - it's about power and terror and ruling and making people suffer. It's punishment towards the western world.

A hospital may act as a recruitment poster - a training camp destroyed may act as a deterrent. ISIS themselves have destroyed all signs of civilianisation in the areas they control. They rule by force and terror.

We have been bombing already for 18 months against ISIS


----------



## User20205 (Dec 5, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Do you really think ISIS are open to " ideas , opportunity and education " ?

They have one idea and only one and it's not about education - it's about power and terror and ruling and making people suffer. It's punishment towards the western world.

A hospital may act as a recruitment poster - a training camp destroyed may act as a deterrent. ISIS themselves have destroyed all signs of civilianisation in the areas they control. They rule by force and terror.

We have been bombing already for 18 months against ISIS
		
Click to expand...

Education & opportunity relate to the home front. All these kids want is a job and a girlfriend. Fundamentalism fills a vacuum. 
No you can't negotiate with nutters, which they are...but you can starve them of new recruits by not glamorising their cause, not making martyrs of them and not doing what they want. They want us to bomb them, it legitimises their cause. If there's a room full of Isis generals (if there is such a thing) bomb them, but they won't make it that easy, they don't wear name badges. 

I would take military action where appropriate but what's more important is winning the propaganda war, and the 2 seem in conflict to me. 

I read somewhere that Isis are a construct of Assad, who is mates with the Russians. We may get into a situation that no one wants.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 5, 2015)

therod said:



			Education & opportunity relate to the home front. All these kids want is a job and a girlfriend. Fundamentalism fills a vacuum. 
No you can't negotiate with nutters, which they are...but you can starve them of new recruits by not glamorising their cause, not making martyrs of them and not doing what they want. They want us to bomb them, it legitimises their cause. If there's a room full of Isis generals (if there is such a thing) bomb them, but they won't make it that easy, they don't wear name badges. 

I would take military action where appropriate but what's more important is winning the propaganda war, and the 2 seem in conflict to me. 

I read somewhere that Isis are a construct of Assad, who is mates with the Russians. We may get into a situation that no one wants.
		
Click to expand...

We have been bombing them for over 18 months 


If we can't negotiate with them and they want us to bomb them ( I'm not so sure about that ) 

Then what do we do ? 

This is more than radicals in the UK - much more than that. This is a global issue 

A job and a girlfriend ?!? Sorry Nick but I would really like to understand that theory because the opportunities for anyone in the country are there


----------



## Ethan (Dec 5, 2015)

therod said:



			Education & opportunity relate to the home front. All these kids want is a job and a girlfriend. Fundamentalism fills a vacuum. 
No you can't negotiate with nutters, which they are...but you can starve them of new recruits by not glamorising their cause, not making martyrs of them and not doing what they want. They want us to bomb them, it legitimises their cause. If there's a room full of Isis generals (if there is such a thing) bomb them, but they won't make it that easy, they don't wear name badges. 

I would take military action where appropriate but what's more important is winning the propaganda war, and the 2 seem in conflict to me. 

I read somewhere that Isis are a construct of Assad, who is mates with the Russians. We may get into a situation that no one wants.
		
Click to expand...

Wot he said.

And Saudi is the elephant in the room, and ultimately the people who must sort this out. They are Sunni, provide much of the money and have the most to lose if the whole region implodes. 

As for Cameron decrying terrorist sympathisers, it seems he is cool with despots and tyrants, seeing how he sucks up to China and Saudi.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Wot he said.

And Saudi is the elephant in the room, and ultimately the people who must sort this out. They are Sunni, provide much of the money and have the most to lose if the whole region implodes. 

As for Cameron decrying terrorist sympathisers, it seems he is cool with despots and tyrants, seeing how he sucks up to China and Saudi.
		
Click to expand...

So the answer for the uk is what ? Don't bomb them and do what exactly ? 

Right now what exactly should the UK do ?

Sorry should say "stop bombing" as it's an action we have been a part of for over 18 months


----------



## User20205 (Dec 5, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			We have been bombing them for over 18 months 


If we can't negotiate with them and they want us to bomb them ( I'm not so sure about that ) 

Then what do we do ? 

This is more than radicals in the UK - much more than that. This is a global issue 

A job and a girlfriend ?!? Sorry Nick but I would really like to understand that theory because the opportunities for anyone in the country are there
		
Click to expand...

My point is bombing isn't a solution, it's one of a raft of measures, I don't see the other measures being utilised. Bombing will not work, it may disable their infrastructure but it won't kill ideas. 

Their recruits don't come from leafy suburbia in Belgium or Paris or London. They are disenfranchised inner city kids from sink estates. In the absence of other opportunities they are seduced by something that gives them an identity. Ie fundamentalism. No one is born a religious nutter, they are radicalised. Bombing reinforces radicalisation not diminishes it IMO. 

Hearts & minds, not shock and awe.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 5, 2015)

therod said:



			My point is bombing isn't a solution, it's one of a raft of measures, I don't see the other measures being utilised. Bombing will not work, it may disable their infrastructure but it won't kill ideas. 

Their recruits don't come from leafy suburbia in Belgium or Paris or London. They are disenfranchised inner city kids from sink estates. In the absence of other opportunities they are seduced by something that gives them an identity. Ie fundamentalism. No one is born a religious nutter, they are radicalised. Bombing reinforces radicalisation not diminishes it IMO. 

Hearts & minds, not shock and awe.
		
Click to expand...

You are talking about 1% of ISIS that get radicalised away from the Middle East - cuddling the guys in this country doesn't stop ISIS killing innocents - in fact it wouldn't change a thing because they have hundreds and thousands of recruits already in the Middle East. 

Whilst it is an area that needs tackling for the UK - the worldwide issue of ISIS is a much bigger problem. Not one single person who backs the air strikes has suggested it's a solution - no one. It's part of measures that will be used to nulify the ability of ISIS to train and launch terror campaigns. Hearts and minds ?!?! These guys are killing innocent civilians not because they are bored , not because of a lack of opportunity or lack of girlfriend - they are killing to rule buy force and terror. 

So what do the UK do right now.


----------



## Ethan (Dec 5, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So the answer for the uk is what ? Don't bomb them and do what exactly ? 

Right now what exactly should the UK do ?

Sorry should say "stop bombing" as it's an action we have been a part of for over 18 months
		
Click to expand...

OK, once again, the UK, EU and US needs to put diplomatic and political pressure and offer support to on local players to lead action against IS, including starving them of resources and weapons, and blocking their sale of oil. 

The UK and EU can provide advice but so long as IS can paint this as a western Christian crusade against Islam, it will never end and it will only drive resentment and terrorism against the west. And after Syria, where next? The disastrous foreign policy domino effect which began with using 9/11 as political cover to go after Saddam has led to a catalogue of disaster, hundreds of thousands of deaths and destabilised the entire region. There is no sign of this stopping and this new bombing campaign makes matters worse. 

You will no doubt say that something had to be done. I would agree so long as we could know that something wouldn't make matters worse.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 5, 2015)

therod said:



			My point is bombing isn't a solution, it's one of a raft of measures, I don't see the other measures being utilised. Bombing will not work, it may disable their infrastructure but it won't kill ideas. 

Their recruits don't come from leafy suburbia in Belgium or Paris or London. They are disenfranchised inner city kids from sink estates. In the absence of other opportunities they are seduced by something that gives them an identity. Ie fundamentalism. No one is born a religious nutter, they are radicalised. Bombing reinforces radicalisation not diminishes it IMO. 

Hearts & minds, not shock and awe.
		
Click to expand...

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the theory, unfortunately many of our home grown terrorists appear to have first started along the petty criminal route (common amongst those that become terrorists) and then seem to want to move on to a more dominating form of thuggery which seem to result in them going off for a spot of glory in the promised land.

I have always wondered, with the several hundreds who went off to fight with ISIS, how many are still involved, how many have tried to bail out but havnt been able to/have been killed off or held captive. The other number that would be interesting but for obviouse reasons would not be given out is how many are being monitored by the security services.

Without the numbers we will never know how many are really being recruited as a result of our actions.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			The disastrous foreign policy domino effect which began with using 9/11 as political cover to go after Saddam.
		
Click to expand...

It was a disastrous policy but it had nothing to do with 9/11.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			OK, once again, the UK, EU and US needs to put diplomatic and political pressure and offer support to on local players to lead action against IS, including starving them of resources and weapons, and blocking their sale of oil. 

The UK and EU can provide advice but so long as IS can paint this as a western Christian crusade against Islam, it will never end and it will only drive resentment and terrorism against the west. And after Syria, where next? The disastrous foreign policy domino effect which began with using 9/11 as political cover to go after Saddam has led to a catalogue of disaster, hundreds of thousands of deaths and destabilised the entire region. There is no sign of this stopping and this new bombing campaign makes matters worse. 

You will no doubt say that something had to be done. I would agree so long as we could know that something wouldn't make matters worse.
		
Click to expand...

My issue with this, is, how long do we try this for?, I would absolutely 100% agree this would be a better way forward. Let's say for arguments sake we give it 12/24 months, what if it doesn't work and them knowing they are free from bombing, what's to stop them getting stronger!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			OK, once again, the UK, EU and US needs to put diplomatic and political pressure and offer support to on local players to lead action against IS, including starving them of resources and weapons, and blocking their sale of oil.
		
Click to expand...

They already have the funds and weapons - local players aren't going to "lead" - talking to them right now doesn't stop innocent people getting killed - that doesn't stop Paris being bombed. It's not going to happen. They can talk and talk and talk but that doesn't stop ISIS continuing to kill innocent people




			The UK and EU can provide advice but so long as IS can paint this as a western Christian crusade against Islam, it will never end and it will only drive resentment and terrorism against the west. And after Syria, where next? The disastrous foreign policy domino effect which began with using 9/11 as political cover to go after Saddam has led to a catalogue of disaster, hundreds of thousands of deaths and destabilised the entire region. There is no sign of this stopping and this new bombing campaign makes matters worse. 

You will no doubt say that something had to be done. I would agree so long as we could know that something wouldn't make matters worse.
		
Click to expand...

Do you really think ISIS are going to stop killing innocent people whilst the Western countries chat and negotiate ? 

9/11 to go after Saddam ? Really ? 

Why are you talking about "After Syria" - is there any hint that an air strikes will move somewhere else after ?

How can you say "it will make matters worse"

In Iraq it has made matters better by helping to defeat ISIS and take back areas they used to control. 

Yes something had to be done - talking can happen all the time but talking doesn't stop ISIS killing people


----------



## Ethan (Dec 5, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			It was a disastrous policy but it had nothing to do with 9/11.
		
Click to expand...

It had everything to do with 9/11. Cheney proposed going after Saddam on 9/12.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			It had everything to do with 9/11. Cheney proposed going after Saddam on 9/12.
		
Click to expand...

Instead of spending all your time on a belittling campaign and mocking others English you might like to try brushing up on your history.


----------



## Ethan (Dec 5, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			They already have the funds and weapons - local players aren't going to "lead" - talking to them right now doesn't stop innocent people getting killed - that doesn't stop Paris being bombed. It's not going to happen. They can talk and talk and talk but that doesn't stop ISIS continuing to kill innocent people



Do you really think ISIS are going to stop killing innocent people whilst the Western countries chat and negotiate ? 

9/11 to go after Saddam ? Really ? 

*Why are you talking about "After Syria" - is there any hint that an air strikes will move somewhere else after ?*

How can you say "it will make matters worse"

In Iraq it has made matters better by helping to defeat ISIS and take back areas they used to control. 

Yes something had to be done - talking can happen all the time but talking doesn't stop ISIS killing people
		
Click to expand...

No, but there is every possibility that the domino effect of destabilisation that has moved around the region as the balance of power shifts will continue. 

Iraq2 was conceived after 9/11. This was based on alleged links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. In reality Saddam was strongly opposed to them. Cheney was the main driver of this, aided by Rumsfeld. Bush did what he was told.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			It had everything to do with 9/11. Cheney proposed going after Saddam on 9/12.
		
Click to expand...

Did he ? 

There was me thinking getting to Saddam was about WmD and go to Afghan was about 9/11 and Al Qaeda


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			No, but there is every possibility that the domino effect of destabilisation that has moved around the region as the balance of power shifts will continue. 

Iraq2 was conceived after 9/11. This was based on alleged links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. In reality Saddam was strongly opposed to them. Cheney was the main driver of this, aided by Rumsfeld. Bush did what he was told.
		
Click to expand...

What about the rest of the post ? 

There is also a possibility that reducing th effect of ISIS could decimate them that much they just wither away and disappear. 

I'm guessing the last paragraph is more about opinion as opposed to facts ?


----------



## Ethan (Dec 5, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Did he ? 

There was me thinking getting to Saddam was about WmD and go to Afghan was about 9/11 and Al Qaeda
		
Click to expand...

As you know well, the CIA knew there were no WMD and the politicians had to concoct the false evidence to that effect.

They also knew that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda but Cheney wasn't having any of it.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			As you know well, the CIA knew there were no WMD and the politicians had to concoct the false evidence to that effect.

They also knew that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda but Cheney wasn't having any of it.
		
Click to expand...

Well these are startling relevations.


Is this all proven factual information ?


----------



## User20205 (Dec 5, 2015)

Bombing suits Cameron's agenda. It may even work in reducing the Isis capacity to hold territory (something they're not geared up to do anyway) the idea of the caliphate is metaphorical not literal & it won't be destroyed by bombing. 

Ethan got shouted down for stating we don't learn from history, he's 100% correct. Iraq was a mistake, afganistan had no end game and this intervention has similarities. 

I do think we're responsible for the situation in Syria. Namely through Iraq, encouragement of the Arab Spring & our inability to remove Assad. Were obliged to act, but that action shouldn't be to blindly stumble into a conflict with Russia and every hormonal Islamic teenager in the world.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			As you know well, the CIA knew there were no WMD
		
Click to expand...

LP has contacts in the CIA, I thought he was just a crab. Impressed.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 5, 2015)

therod said:



			Ethan got shouted down for stating we don't learn from history.
		
Click to expand...

No, he was just questioned on his knowledge of history.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 5, 2015)

therod said:



			Bombing suits Cameron's agenda. It may even work in reducing the Isis capacity to hold territory (something they're not geared up to do anyway) the idea of the caliphate is metaphorical not literal & it won't be destroyed by bombing. 

Ethan got shouted down for stating we don't learn from history, he's 100% correct. Iraq was a mistake, afganistan had no end game and this intervention has similarities. 

I do think we're responsible for the situation in Syria. Namely through Iraq, encouragement of the Arab Spring & our inability to remove Assad. Were obliged to act, but that action shouldn't be to blindly stumble into a conflict with Russia and every hormonal Islamic teenager in the world.
		
Click to expand...

It's ok saying he's a 100% correct historically, that's easy, I've also said I agree 100% with the way forward he suggested, what he keeps avoiding or won't answer is, how long do we try these diplomatic efforts and risk allowing IS to carry on with their agenda?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 5, 2015)

therod said:



			Bombing suits Cameron's agenda. It may even work in reducing the Isis capacity to hold territory (something they're not geared up to do anyway) the idea of the caliphate is metaphorical not literal & it won't be destroyed by bombing. 

Ethan got shouted down for stating we don't learn from history, he's 100% correct. Iraq was a mistake, afganistan had no end game and this intervention has similarities. 

I do think we're responsible for the situation in Syria. Namely through Iraq, encouragement of the Arab Spring & our inability to remove Assad. Were obliged to act, but that action shouldn't be to blindly stumble into a conflict with Russia and every hormonal Islamic teenager in the world.
		
Click to expand...

So Nick - what do the UK do ? 

Because mistakes have been made in the past - again the situation in Iraq for a good deal amount of people is better as it also is in Afghan so maybe they aren't the failures everyone paints - do we sit back and do nothing in fear of mistakes ?


----------



## User20205 (Dec 5, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So Nick - what do the UK do ? 

Because mistakes have been made in the past - again the situation in Iraq for a good deal amount of people is better as it also is in Afghan so maybe they aren't the failures everyone paints - do we sit back and do nothing in fear of mistakes ?
		
Click to expand...

The U.K. must act. 100% agree with that. Isis are a side show. It's Assad that needs to be removed, but we can't do that as Russia won't have it. 

Without Assad Isis don't exist. Is it a coincidence that they came to prominence when it looked like he was losing? He created a bigger bogeyman to take the heat off himself. 

Bombing serves a political purpose, it makes us look decisive. A braver course of action would be, not get sucked into a regional conflict that could explode. Spend resources on combating radicalisation at home. Stop those who've been to Syria returning.

The biggest threat to us is a uk national with a backpack full of Semtex. Stop radicalisation and you reduce the threat, IMO of course. 

But the above doesn't make Cameron look like a hardman capable of standing up to Putin, who is a threat that dwarfs isil.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 5, 2015)

therod said:



			The U.K. must act. 100% agree with that. Isis are a side show. It's Assad that needs to be removed, but we can't do that as Russia won't have it. 

Without Assad Isis don't exist. Is it a coincidence that they came to prominence when it looked like he was losing? He created a bigger bogeyman to take the heat off himself. 

Bombing serves a political purpose, it makes us look decisive. A braver course of action would be, not get sucked into a regional conflict that could explode. Spend resources on combating radicalisation at home. Stop those who've been to Syria returning.

The biggest threat to us is a uk national with a backpack full of Semtex. Stop radicalisation and you reduce the threat, IMO of course. 

But the above doesn't make Cameron look like a hardman capable of standing up to Putin, who is a threat that dwarfs isil.
		
Click to expand...

So the UK must act - by doing what exactly ? 

Combating radicalisation in this country doesn't stop ISIS - that doesn't stop thousands of innocent people getting killed - that just focuses on the smallest issue possible and only effects us. 

If someone wants to leave the country and join a fight then no amount of money spent trying to stop that will work. 

We as a country are already tackling issues within our own borders - they just won't be published in the public domain - security forces will be working behind the scenes.

Bombing IMO isn't just a political purpose - it's also a humanity purpose by trying make steps towards innocent people being killed


----------



## Ethan (Dec 5, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			It's ok saying he's a 100% correct historically, that's easy, I've also said I agree 100% with the way forward he suggested, what he keeps avoiding or won't answer is, how long do we try these diplomatic efforts and risk allowing IS to carry on with their agenda?
		
Click to expand...

Well, usually you start these efforts and see how they do rather than set a hard stop and a date to fuel the planes up.


----------



## User20205 (Dec 5, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So the UK must act - by doing what exactly ? 

Combating radicalisation in this country doesn't stop ISIS - that doesn't stop thousands of innocent people getting killed - that just focuses on the smallest issue possible and only effects us. 

If someone wants to leave the country and join a fight then no amount of money spent trying to stop that will work. 

We as a country are already tackling issues within our own borders - they just won't be published in the public domain - security forces will be working behind the scenes.

Bombing IMO isn't just a political purpose - it's also a humanity purpose by trying make steps towards innocent people being killed
		
Click to expand...

Mate it's a mess, if I had the answers I'd be boutros boutros ghali, but you can't really make the argument that bombing is humanitarian.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Well, usually you start these efforts and see how they do rather than set a hard stop and a date to fuel the planes up.
		
Click to expand...

I agree Ethan, that's why I quoted 1-2 years, might take less probably take longer, IS worry me more than the plan, especially in the short term while we go down that route. 
Either route is going to cost innocent lives.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 5, 2015)

therod said:



			Mate it's a mess, if I had the answers I'd be boutros boutros ghali, but you can't really make the argument that bombing is humanitarian.
		
Click to expand...

You can if it helps save innocent people's lives


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Well, usually you start these efforts and see how they do rather than set a hard stop and a date to fuel the planes up.
		
Click to expand...

Do you have this evidence to hand in regards your post about the CIA and Cheney etc


----------



## Ethan (Dec 5, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			LP has contacts in the CIA, I thought he was just a crab. Impressed.
		
Click to expand...

It has been well publicised over the years. 

Cheney and Rumsfeld had been supporters of Saddam in the 80s, including supporting him going to war with Iran in 1990 and supplied much of the weaponry he used to kill many Iraqi civilians. The US didn't care about those people at the time. After relations soured, and 9/11, Cheney started to build a case for action to remove Iran, including getting Bush to call Blair on Sep 14th to get his support, although Blair was against it. Cheney made allegations in public about links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, as well as Saddam and Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers. Cheney even worked around the CIA who told him there were no such links, and leaked to selected media outlets. This was all building a premise for war.


----------



## User20205 (Dec 5, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			You can if it helps save innocent people's lives
		
Click to expand...

Bombing to save lives is a paradox that really can't be reconciled. 

(May be a bit sweary) 
https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?img...d=0ahUKEwjp1sCNqsXJAhWFbRQKHZMfDGcQMwglKAgwCA


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			It has been well publicised over the years. 

Cheney and Rumsfeld had been supporters of Saddam in the 80s, including supporting him going to war with Iran in 1990 and supplied much of the weaponry he used to kill many Iraqi civilians. The US didn't care about those people at the time. After relations soured, and 9/11, Cheney started to build a case for action to remove Iran, including getting Bush to call Blair on Sep 14th to get his support, although Blair was against it. Cheney made allegations in public about links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, as well as Saddam and Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers. Cheney even worked around the CIA who told him there were no such links, and leaked to selected media outlets. This was all building a premise for war.
		
Click to expand...

There has been loads of "speculation" over the years 

But that's what it has been - speculation as opposed to proven factual evidence 

Hence why if you link anything for people to read it's from websites full of conjecture and speculation - especially more so since 9/11


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 5, 2015)

I see that The Times reported today that Isis had invaded Afghanistan. Looks like the bombing campaign is going well then....


----------



## Ethan (Dec 5, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			There has been loads of "speculation" over the years 

But that's what it has been - speculation as opposed to proven factual evidence 

Hence why if you link anything for people to read it's from websites full of conjecture and speculation - especially more so since 9/11
		
Click to expand...

It is not a matter of conjecture that Cheney appeared on US political TV shows and made allegations, all couched in qualifiers, and that the recollection of others confirm his obsession with Saddam and a link to Al Qaeda. His opinion was based on something rather less than even speculation, but it had an effect on political policy. I guess you already knew Cheney was a canny and machiavellian politician. 

The facts, since you prefer hard facts (except the evidence that this bombing campaign will succeed), is that there were no WMDs in Iraq. that a bloody war which turned into a quagmire was fought, and that it destabilised the delicate balance between Iraq and Iran, and drove the development of radical Islam in the area, leading, in part, to IS today. 

Don't tell me you disagree with that basic sequence?


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 5, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			I see that The Times reported today that Isis had invaded Afghanistan. Looks like the bombing campaign is going well then....
		
Click to expand...

If they've not cleared this with the Taiban their doomed.


----------



## Sweep (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			As you know well, the CIA knew there were no WMD and the politicians had to concoct the false evidence to that effect.

They also knew that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda but Cheney wasn't having any of it.
		
Click to expand...

Shame you didn't tell Mr. Blair that at the time. I don't know why, but I get the strong impression you voted for him


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			It is not a matter of conjecture that Cheney appeared on US political TV shows and made allegations, all couched in qualifiers, and that the recollection of others confirm his obsession with Saddam and a link to Al Qaeda. His opinion was based on something rather less than even speculation, but it had an effect on political policy. I guess you already knew Cheney was a canny and machiavellian politician.
		
Click to expand...

Key words - allegations and opinion but that still doesn't mean his personal opinion confirms all the speculation 





			The facts, since you prefer hard facts (except the evidence that this bombing campaign will succeed), is that there were no WMDs in Iraq. that a bloody war which turned into a quagmire was fought, and that it destabilised the delicate balance between Iraq and Iran, and drove the development of radical Islam in the area, leading, in part, to IS today. 

Don't tell me you disagree with that basic sequence?
		
Click to expand...

There were no WMD when they got to the sites 

That doesn't mean when the intelligence was gathered they weren't there - could and maybe we're moved or destroyed. 

You suggested or stated that the CIA knew there were none - proven fact or speculation ? 

ISIS did take advantage of a situation in Iraq -

But then there is no way to suggest that they could have happened anyway even if we didn't go in

Again all speculation


----------



## Val (Dec 5, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			I see that The Times reported today that Isis had invaded Afghanistan. Looks like the bombing campaign is going well then....
		
Click to expand...

Let's see how they get on with the Taliban


----------



## Ethan (Dec 5, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			You can if it helps save innocent people's lives
		
Click to expand...

And what if costs more innocent lives than it saves?


----------



## ColchesterFC (Dec 5, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			If they've not cleared this with the Taiban their doomed.
		
Click to expand...

One report was stating that IS had executed the leader of the Taliban when they invaded.


----------



## Ethan (Dec 5, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Key words - allegations and opinion but that still doesn't mean his personal opinion confirms all the speculation 




There were no WMD when they got to the sites 

That doesn't mean when the intelligence was gathered they weren't there - could and maybe we're moved or destroyed. 

You suggested or stated that the CIA knew there were none - proven fact or speculation ? 

ISIS did take advantage of a situation in Iraq -

But then there is no way to suggest that they could have happened anyway even if we didn't go in

Again all speculation
		
Click to expand...

The CIA have stated publicly that there weren't links and the Senate Intelligence committee agreed. The CIA said this to Cheney, so he bypassed them.  That is not speculation either. 

So you are a big fan of facts and evidence. Good.

What is the evidence that this bombing campaign can work, and that it will save lives?


----------



## User20205 (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			What is the evidence that this bombing campaign can work, and that it will save lives?
		
Click to expand...

And that is the crux.

It feels good to avenge Paris, but are we laying the foundations for more attacks in future. Treat the cause, not obliterate the symptom.


----------



## Sweep (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Wel, your question was a rather incoherent one. What is the tipping point before bombing IS?

That presupposes a couple of things, none of which are reasonable. It assumes that bombing IS is likely to result in anything beyond some Old Testament vengeance, that there is a coherent plan for what to do, and that everyone has some personal trigger number , tipping point, as you put it, for the number of deaths that will make them say OK, lets bomb. That would be a moronic approach, so I don't play that game because nobody with an ounce of sense could or would answer it.

Therefore I offered an alternative question, but you were unable/unwilling to answer it. 

What is the exchange rate for deaths these days? How many IS are needed to be bombed per Paris death? What is the permissible death rate in collateral terms and in numbers of UK military? If you can't answer those questions, then your question just becomes even more absurd, because when bodies of RAF, and soon, ground troops, start arriving back in the UK, you will have to say they were a price worth paying, until, of course, you reach another tipping point.
		
Click to expand...

Well, everyone else seemed to understand it. Neither do I think its a "stupid" question as you said in a following post. The question was clear. When would you take action? It isn't a trap or a trick question. Just a polite enquiry.
For example. Before WW2 the UK government tolerated Nazi Germany, had talks, received assurances and their tipping point came when Germany, despite assurances to the contrary, invaded Poland.
If your answer is that you would not take action under any circumstances, that is fine. I was only asking. If you similarly said, if they murdered all the Christians in Raqqa ( probably already have) that's fine too. Again, I was only asking.
If you read the question again, you will see that I said "bomb or fight" not just bomb.
You see, for me I think they need to be wiped out now, just like the Nazis. Hillary Benn quite cleverly referred to them as Fascists. Others, including you, clearly haven't reached that point yet. So when would you, if at all? Would you let them create a state? Would you let them build an Arsenal, an army, an Air Force? Are you OK with them beheading, crucifying, murdering, raping, destroying their way to power in Iraq and Syria? Would it be OK if they did the same in Europe?What about Paris? maybe only if it was London? 
Do you think we should stand shoulder to shoulder with France on this? A separate question, would you like us to play a strong role in Europe? How can we remain in the EU if we don't stand as one with our EU partners against such evil?
As I say, not comfortable questions to answer, but if you don't want our nation to take on this evil, answer them you must.


----------



## Sweep (Dec 5, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			I see that The Times reported today that Isis had invaded Afghanistan. Looks like the bombing campaign is going well then....
		
Click to expand...

Or... Maybe they are strong enough to invade because we didn't bomb them soon enough?
Maybe you and your fellow lefties would like us to hold off and see if they invade another country before we start taking out this evil in ernest?


----------



## Ethan (Dec 5, 2015)

Sweep said:



			Well, everyone else seemed to understand it. Neither do I think its a "stupid" question as you said in a following post. The question was clear. When would you take action? It isn't a trap or a trick question. Just a polite enquiry.
For example. Before WW2 the UK government tolerated Nazi Germany, had talks, received assurances and their tipping point came when Germany, despite assurances to the contrary, invaded Poland.
If your answer is that you would not take action under any circumstances, that is fine. I was only asking. If you similarly said, if they murdered all the Christians in Raqqa ( probably already have) that's fine too. Again, I was only asking.
If you read the question again, you will see that I said "bomb or fight" not just bomb.
You see, for me I think they need to be wiped out now, just like the Nazis. Hillary Benn quite cleverly referred to them as Fascists. Others, including you, clearly haven't reached that point yet. So when would you, if at all? Would you let them create a state? Would you let them build an Arsenal, an army, an Air Force? Are you OK with them beheading, crucifying, murdering, raping, destroying their way to power in Iraq and Syria? Would it be OK if they did the same in Europe?What about Paris? maybe only if it was London? 
Do you think we should stand shoulder to shoulder with France on this? A separate question, would you like us to play a strong role in Europe? How can we remain in the EU if we don't stand as one with our EU partners against such evil?
As I say, not comfortable questions to answer, but if you don't want our nation to take on this evil, answer them you must.
		
Click to expand...

"Answer them you must". Who do you think you are - Winston Churchill?

Comparisons with Nazi Germany are fodder for the popular media but are pretty uninformative. Whether IS is a fascist movement or theist autocracy doesn't really matter. Fascists tend not to be ideologically religious. The Nazis said they wouldn't invade Poland but they did. What exactly did IS say they wouldn't do but did? Nazi Germany was a discrete entity. IS isn't. 

Setting conditions for intervention don't depend only on what triggers there are. They also depend on what the objectives and plans are. With Nazi Germany, and a uniformed army to fight, that was a bit more defined. We didn't have a situation where the enemy was located across two countries, one of whose leaders we were also in dispute with, and who in turn had a bunch of other enemy forces against him, some of which we agreed with, some we didn't and some we don't know. 

Others, like me, as you put it, agree that IS should be dealt with. The difference is that you have a blithe or naive belief that it is possible to achieve that and avoid what has happened with every Middle East adventure in the last 20 years, and possibly going back to 1954 when the CIA engineered a coup in Iran, and kicked off the modern domino effect, and that is to cause a bunch of other effects that were worse than the problem you were trying to fix in the first place. We others don't think it will run as smooth as that. Now that it has started, we hope it works, but we fear it won't.

On Europe, I will vote yes to stay in Europe and think it would be unthinkable and crazy to come out. But the UK has a detached relationship with Europe, the most obvious example of which is the Euro. Funny enough, Europe paints a good example of the political class in the UK. Cameron has promised all sorts (of unnecessary gesture politics) but everyone knows he would not possibly suggest coming out. The UK engagement in this is not to placate EU partners.


----------



## Sweep (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			"Answer them you must". Who do you think you are - Winston Churchill?

Comparisons with Nazi Germany are fodder for the popular media but are pretty uninformative. Whether IS is a fascist movement or theist autocracy doesn't really matter. Fascists tend not to be ideologically religious. The Nazis said they wouldn't invade Poland but they did. What exactly did IS say they wouldn't do but did? Nazi Germany was a discrete entity. IS isn't. 

Setting conditions for intervention don't depend only on what triggers there are. They also depend on what the objectives and plans are. With Nazi Germany, and a uniformed army to fight, that was a bit more defined. We didn't have a situation where the enemy was located across two countries, one of whose leaders we were also in dispute with, and who in turn had a bunch of other enemy forces against him, some of which we agreed with, some we didn't and some we don't know. 

Others, like me, as you put it, agree that IS should be dealt with. The difference is that you have a blithe or naive belief that it is possible to achieve that and avoid what has happened with every Middle East adventure in the last 20 years, and possibly going back to 1954 when the CIA engineered a coup in Iran, and kicked off the modern domino effect, and that is to cause a bunch of other effects that were worse than the problem you were trying to fix in the first place. We others don't think it will run as smooth as that. Now that it has started, we hope it works, but we fear it won't.
		
Click to expand...

If you don't want to answer the question, don't answer it. And no, I don't think I am Winston Churchill, thanks for your rude comment. Usually when people start being pig ignorant, it tends to mean they have lost the argument.
The simple point is, do nothing. Watch them rise. Watch more people suffer and die and live with your conscience. Quite obviously, the sooner we stop them, the less people will suffer, collateral damage from bombing or not.
As they say, evil only prospers when good men do nothing. I actually think you are probably a good man. Ignorant and rude, but a good man nevertheless. And you are for doing nothing. Are you getting the picture?


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			On Europe, I will vote yes to stay in Europe and think it would be unthinkable and crazy to come out. But the UK has a detached relationship with Europe, the most obvious example of which is the Euro. Funny enough, Europe paints a good example of the political class in the UK. Cameron has promised all sorts (of unnecessary gesture politics) but everyone knows he would not possibly suggest coming out. The UK engagement in this is not to placate EU partners.
		
Click to expand...

Nice to see you want to be part of Europe. I wonder how many European nations are involved militarily in Syria? So you want to be part of Europe but...


----------



## Ethan (Dec 5, 2015)

Sweep said:



			If you don't want to answer the question, don't answer it. And no, I don't think I am Winston Churchill, thanks for your rude comment. Usually when people start being pig ignorant, it tends to mean they have lost the argument.
The simple point is, do nothing. Watch them rise. Watch more people suffer and die and live with your conscience. Quite obviously, the sooner we stop them, the less people will suffer, collateral damage from bombing or not.
As they say, evil only prospers when good men do nothing. I actually think you are probably a good man. Ignorant and rude, but a good man nevertheless. And you are for doing nothing. Are you getting the picture?
		
Click to expand...

What an arrogant and offensive post. 

How dare you accuse me of wanting more people to suffer by not joining the sofa brigade calling for bombing of a distant land and people, blithely disregarding the civilian casualties and misplaced bombs, and the knock on effect on recruitment. You may get the chance to regret those words. I hope not, but I fear you will.


----------



## Sweep (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			What an arrogant and offensive post. 

How dare you accuse me of wanting more people to suffer by not joining the sofa brigade calling for bombing of a distant land and people, blithely disregarding the civilian casualties and misplaced bombs, and the knock on effect on recruitment. You may get the chance to regret those words. I hope not, but I fear you will.
		
Click to expand...

Where on earth did I say that? And please don't lecture me on offensive posts.
i was simply pointing out that the consequence of doing nothing will see Daesh rise. Everywhere they go, they murder, rape, ethnically cleanse, destroy, torture on a daily basis. I didn't accuse you of anything other than being unnecessarily rude. And I won't regret our air strikes, because at least we are trying to do something to confront this evil. Nobody is blithely disregarding anything.


----------



## Ethan (Dec 5, 2015)

Sweep said:



			Where on earth did I say that? And please don't lecture me on offensive posts.
i was simply pointing out that the consequence of doing nothing will see Daesh rise. Everywhere they go, they murder, rape, ethnically cleanse, destroy, torture on a daily basis. I didn't accuse you of anything other than being unnecessarily rude. And I won't regret our air strikes, because at least we are trying to do something to confront this evil. Nobody is blithely disregarding anything.
		
Click to expand...

I will be blithely disregarding you from now on.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			The CIA have stated publicly that there weren't links and the Senate Intelligence committee agreed. The CIA said this to Cheney, so he bypassed them.  That is not speculation either. 

So you are a big fan of facts and evidence. Good.

What is the evidence that this bombing campaign can work, and that it will save lives?
		
Click to expand...

You said the CIA knew that there were no WMD ? Is that a proven fact ? 

In Iraq the strategic bombing on IS targets has allowed Iraq army to retake control cities that ISIS controlled

Remember no one - not one single person has said that bombing alone will work - not one single person


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			And what if costs more innocent lives than it saves?
		
Click to expand...

You can come up with every single situation possible - and there will always be risks 

Your answer to the current situation is to talk to people - is talking to other Middle East states going to stop ISIS killing innocent people - it's a question asked a number of times but not answered by yourself.

Will innocent lives be put at risk by air strikes - yes there always is that risk.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			What an arrogant and offensive post. 

How dare you accuse me of wanting more people to suffer by not joining the sofa brigade calling for bombing of a distant land and people, blithely disregarding the civilian casualties and misplaced bombs, and the knock on effect on recruitment. You may get the chance to regret those words. I hope not, but I fear you will.
		
Click to expand...

How much collateral damage has been caused by the RAF strategic bombing of IS targets in Iraq ? Or even any misplaced bombs ? 

You seem to believe that this bombing will be carried out with no thought to innocent lives and just a carpet bomb across areas - you couldn't be further from the truth


----------



## Sweep (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			I will be blithely disregarding you from now on.
		
Click to expand...

Aww, and after I said I thought you were a good man.
Is it because you have lost the argument on here, or in the Commons or both? 
No need to answer. I know you don't like answering questions.... And of course you are blithely disregarding me.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			I will be blithely disregarding you from now on.
		
Click to expand...

Taking a wee step back. You probably posted up the most erudite and thoughful opinion in the run up to the vote, it wouldn't have been out of place in the floor of the House, and I genuinely appreciated and respected it for the passion and intelligence it contained. Much of it I genuinely couldn't disagree with. It is those of similar opinion that are most desparately needed if only to act as a brake to those who would, probably, resort to the fire and forget weaponary available.

But why oh why do you treat so many people with the opposite view so disdainfully? When the debate becomes a personal argument, with insults like "ignorant" etc, it stops been one of persuasion and just becomes two cats spitting across the fence at each other.

Why not try a reasoned discussion rather than resorting to being so insulting? Your intelligence is so obvious, yet so much diluted by the langauge you resort to. We need your reasoned argument, and that of like minded people, but you do the argument a disservice by taking it into the gutter.


----------



## Ethan (Dec 5, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			How much collateral damage has been caused by the RAF strategic bombing of IS targets in Iraq ? Or even any misplaced bombs ? 

You seem to believe that this bombing will be carried out with no thought to innocent lives and just a carpet bomb across areas - you couldn't be further from the truth
		
Click to expand...

So how many lives have been saved so far? Verifiable facts, as you demand, please.


----------



## Imurg (Dec 5, 2015)

Where are IS getting their funds from?
Oil sales? I've heard/read as much.
Who's buying it? Why are they being allowed to?
How are they paying for it? Does IS have a huge cave stuffed with millions of dollars(or whatever currency)?
I doubt it, so they must have bank accounts.
Can these be frozen? If not, why not? If they can, why haven't they been..?

Cut the funds - it has to be the starting point doesn't it?
The International Community needs to , collectively, starve IS of funds.
Now.


----------



## Ethan (Dec 5, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Taking a wee step back. You probably posted up the most erudite and thoughful opinion in the run up to the vote, it wouldn't have been out of place in the floor of the House, and I genuinely appreciated and respected it for the passion and intelligence it contained. Much of it I genuinely couldn't disagree with. It is those of similar opinion that are most desparately needed if only to act as a brake to those who would, probably, resort to the fire and forget weaponary available.

But why oh why do you treat so many people with the opposite view so disdainfully? When the debate becomes a personal argument, with insults like "ignorant" etc, it stops been one of persuasion and just becomes two cats spitting across the fence at each other.

Why not try a reasoned discussion rather than resorting to being so insulting? Your intelligence is so obvious, yet so much diluted by the langauge you resort to. We need your reasoned argument, and that of like minded people, but you do the argument a disservice by taking it into the gutter.
		
Click to expand...

Hobbit, a lot of people here use emotion and cliche rather than rational argument. It is very hard to balance the two, and then some people switch to ad hominem attacks and insults, like the last guy (now on ignore) and I will repay them in kind. 

It is a pity that some of the pro-bombing side can't see that those against bombing are not just sitting around relaxed about the possibility of increased terror attacks in the UK and Europe or cool with IS doing their thing. Quite the contrary, it is critical not to replace a bad thing with a worse one. 

The debate should be about how to put a durable strategy in place to deal with IS and many think the bombing will just inflame it and not get at the root cause at all. You are entitled to disagree with that, but accusations that we will only wake up when bombs go off nearby do not help. I have already lived in a place where bombs went off near me so I don't need lectures about that.


----------



## Ethan (Dec 5, 2015)

Imurg said:



			Where are IS getting their funds from?
Oil sales? I've heard/read as much.
Who's buying it? Why are they being allowed to?
How are they paying for it? Does IS have a huge cave stuffed with millions of dollars(or whatever currency)?
I doubt it, so they must have bank accounts.
Can these be frozen? If not, why not? If they can, why haven't they been..?

Cut the funds - it has to be the starting point doesn't it?
The International Community needs to , collectively, starve IS of funds.
Now.
		
Click to expand...

In short, Saudi. That is why their meaningful involvement is critical and without it, other strategies will fail.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			So how many lives have been saved so far? Verifiable facts, as you demand, please.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know specifically how many lives have been saved


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 5, 2015)

Imurg said:



			Where are IS getting their funds from?
Oil sales? I've heard/read as much.
Who's buying it? Why are they being allowed to?
How are they paying for it? Does IS have a huge cave stuffed with millions of dollars(or whatever currency)?
I doubt it, so they must have bank accounts.
Can these be frozen? If not, why not? If they can, why haven't they been..?

Cut the funds - it has to be the starting point doesn't it?
The International Community needs to , collectively, starve IS of funds.
Now.
		
Click to expand...

Turkey are supposedly buying the oil that helps fund them


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 5, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Hobbit, a lot of people here use emotion and cliche rather than rational argument. It is very hard to balance the two, and then some people switch to ad hominem attacks and insults, like the last guy (now on ignore) and I will repay them in kind. 

It is a pity that some of the pro-bombing side can't see that those against bombing are not just sitting around relaxed about the possibility of increased terror attacks in the UK and Europe or cool with IS doing their thing. Quite the contrary, it is critical not to replace a bad thing with a worse one. 

The debate should be about how to put a durable strategy in place to deal with IS and many think the bombing will just inflame it and not get at the root cause at all. You are entitled to disagree with that, but accusations that we will only wake up when bombs go off nearby do not help. I have already lived in a place where bombs went off near me so I don't need lectures about that.
		
Click to expand...

Don't and can't disagree with the above. Personally, I think we need a bit of everything. A limited bombing campaign with very carefully chosen targets, e.g. an oil refinery is highly unlikely to be situated between a school and a hospital, and is more than likely well out of a town. And an assault on their propaganda and funding. A propaganda campaign of our own to educate those that might turn to IS, both over there and here.

I agree with many of your posts that clearly state what else are we doing, and what is the exit strategy?

But I still support the need to physically attack IS from the air and, ultimately, from the ground. The alternative is to do... what? Do I sleep well thinking of what is being done in my name, or that our armed services are being put in harm's way? Absolutely not. But the thought of some of the things that IS have done and will continue to do if they carry on unhindered.

Bombing isn't right, but sadly it isn't wrong either.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 5, 2015)

That sums it up very well Brian

It's not about revenge for Paris , it's not about being bloodthirsty and killing for the sake of it - it's what I think is needed right now - alongside other measures to help combat ISIS

Not one single person wants to drop bombs onto people but right now I think it's necessary


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 5, 2015)

Imurg said:



			Where are IS getting their funds from?
Oil sales? I've heard/read as much.
Who's buying it? Why are they being allowed to?
How are they paying for it? Does IS have a huge cave stuffed with millions of dollars(or whatever currency)?
I doubt it, so they must have bank accounts.
Can these be frozen? If not, why not? If they can, why haven't they been..?

Cut the funds - it has to be the starting point doesn't it?
The International Community needs to , collectively, starve IS of funds.
Now.
		
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly Ian. As you say, surely in this day and age the money supply can be cut off unless they do have lorry loads of cash which I somehow doubt.


----------



## Jimaroid (Dec 5, 2015)

They literally do have lorry loads of cash. They stole ~ $500m in cash and gold bullion from banks in Mosul last year. And that's just one incident amongst many.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 5, 2015)

Jimaroid said:



			They literally do have lorry loads of cash. They stole ~ $500m in cash and gold bullion from banks in Mosul last year. And that's just one incident amongst many.
		
Click to expand...

Plus millions of pounds worth of precious jewels - diamonds especially


----------



## Lanark_Golfer (Dec 5, 2015)

Just saw this on Facebook, hopefully there won't be more of the same 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/leytonstone-stabbing-man-screams-syria-6961900


----------



## Fish (Dec 6, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Hobbit, a lot of people here use emotion and cliche rather than rational argument. It is very hard to balance the two, and then some people switch to ad hominem attacks and insults, like the last guy (now on ignore) and I will repay them in kind. 

*It is a pity that some of the pro-bombing side can't see that those against bombing are not just sitting around relaxed about the possibility of increased terror attacks in the UK and Europe* or cool with IS doing their thing. Quite the contrary, it is critical not to replace a bad thing with a worse one. 

The debate should be about how to put a durable strategy in place to deal with IS and many think the bombing will just inflame it and not get at the root cause at all. You are entitled to disagree with that, but accusations that we will only wake up when bombs go off nearby do not help. *I have already lived in a place where bombs went off near me so I don't need lectures about that.*

Click to expand...

Hmm, Corbyn really showed in his true colours in the past, did'nt he, has he changed that much ?


----------



## Ethan (Dec 6, 2015)

Fish said:



			Hmm, Corbyn really showed in his true colours in the past, did'nt he, has he changed that much ?

View attachment 17812

Click to expand...

As you know, at the exact same time as Corbyn and Livingstone were talking to Sinn Fein, Thatcher's officials were doing the exact same thing. Except they were doing it in secret. Is there a moral difference?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 6, 2015)

Fish said:



			Hmm, Corbyn really showed in his true colours in the past, did'nt he, has he changed that much ?

View attachment 17812

Click to expand...

An alternative 'headline' could be .

Man attempts to bring a peaceful solution to Irish bombings.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Dec 6, 2015)

Ethan said:



			As you know, at the exact same time as Corbyn and Livingstone were talking to Sinn Fein, Thatcher's officials were doing the exact same thing. Except they were doing it in secret. Is there a moral difference?
		
Click to expand...

Not a great deal of difference I agree. However, unlike Corbyn, there are no reports of Thatcher's officials observing a minutes silence for members of the IRA killed by British forces.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 6, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Not a great deal of difference I agree. However, unlike Corbyn, there are no reports of Thatcher's officials observing a minutes silence for members of the IRA killed by British forces.
		
Click to expand...

Probably not a great deal of difference from Cameron paying respect to former Indian and South African terrorist leaders.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 6, 2015)

The thread has been very good in regards informative debate - let's please not start the tit for tat about each leader - the Corbyn thread is already full of that


----------



## ColchesterFC (Dec 6, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Probably not a great deal of difference from Cameron paying respect to former Indian and South African terrorist leaders.
		
Click to expand...

Are you really going to try to defend Corbyn's links to the IRA?


----------



## Ethan (Dec 6, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Are you really going to try to defend Corbyn's links to the IRA?
		
Click to expand...

Corbin has no more links to the IRA than most recent Governments. He wanted to help the peace process and wanted to get the confidence of Sinn Fein i order to bring influence to bear. As DFT has pointed out, this sort of thing is part of the process. 

Corbyn has got into trouble about his pacifist views, nukes, Syria etc. It should be obvious that did not support the IRA and you may or may not like his methods for trying to help, but you can't seriously question the intent. He has a much better track record in supporting peace and negotiation than any recent Prime Minister.


----------



## chippa1909 (Dec 6, 2015)

I do hope that the Government, now they have the go ahead for air strikes, are also now challenging Turkey and Saudi Arabia over their role in this.
 Or will Mr. Cameron find that more unsettling than a military campaign?


----------



## ColchesterFC (Dec 6, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Corbin has no more links to the IRA than most recent Governments. He wanted to help the peace process and wanted to get the confidence of Sinn Fein i order to bring influence to bear. As DFT has pointed out, this sort of thing is part of the process. 

Corbyn has got into trouble about his pacifist views, nukes, Syria etc. It should be obvious that did not support the IRA and you may or may not like his methods for trying to help, but you can't seriously question the intent. He has a much better track record in supporting peace and negotiation than any recent Prime Minister.
		
Click to expand...

If he has no more links than most recent governments perhaps you can tell me which recent governments have attended IRA fund raising events and stood in silence to remember dead IRA terrorists then?

And why do you get to decide what I can or can't question about him? I will question whatever I want to whether you like it or not. In my view Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser along with Ken Livingstone.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 6, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Corbin has no more links to the IRA than most recent Governments. He wanted to help the peace process and wanted to get the confidence of Sinn Fein i order to bring influence to bear. As DFT has pointed out, this sort of thing is part of the process.
		
Click to expand...

You know this how. His take on this given his open actions was one of support for  a terrorist organization. His actions were open to misinterpretation if this was the case, but he never in the past suggested otherwise.

You keep going on about the secret government talks that were going on (for reasons any person could work out, yet you advocate talking rather than bombing with the major players involved in supporting IS. For all we know this could be already happening, and for very obvious reason would be carried out in secret until some kind of agreement can be made.

This is the way most major conflicts have been ended in the past so your continued reference to the secret talks held by "Mr Thatchers Government " is nothing more than a red herring and it was "HM Government " by the way.


----------



## Slime (Dec 6, 2015)

I just made the mistake of Googling Raqqi and then going to images!
Truly horrific ........................... you have been warned!
These 'people' must be stopped.

*Slime*.

P.S. I cannot over stress how disgusting some of the images are.


----------



## Ethan (Dec 6, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			You know this how. His take on this was given his open actions that were all to well published tell a story that could well lead to misinterpretation.

You keep going on about the secret government talks that were going on (for reasons any person could work out, yet you advocate talking rather than bombing with the major players involved in supporting IS. For all we know this could be already happening, and for very obvious reason would be carried out in secret until some kind of agreement can be made.

This is the way most major conflicts have been ended in the past so your continued reference to the secret talks held by "Mr Thatchers Government " is nothing more than a red herring and it was "HM Government " by the way.
		
Click to expand...

Well, just to point out one important difference - Sinn Fein wanted talks with the U.K. Govt. Many here have pointed out that IS do not want to talk.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 6, 2015)

Sinn Fein etc also talked with their actions


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 6, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Well, just to point out one important difference - Sinn Fein wanted talks with the U.K. Govt. Many here have pointed out that IS do not want to talk.
		
Click to expand...

Who mention d talking to IS, I thought you were on about having talks, I presumed you wanted talks with those who might be involved in supporting IS, if not who do you suggest these talks are with.


----------



## Ethan (Dec 6, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			If he has no more links than most recent governments perhaps you can tell me which recent governments have attended IRA fund raising events and stood in silence to remember dead IRA terrorists then?

And why do you get to decide what I can or can't question about him? I will question whatever I want to whether you like it or not. In my view Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser along with Ken Livingstone.
		
Click to expand...

You are indeed full of questions. Not so many answers, sadly.


----------



## Ethan (Dec 6, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Who mention d talking to IS, I thought you were on about having talks, I presumed you wanted talks with those who might be involved in supporting IS, if not who do you suggest these talks are with.
		
Click to expand...

Read the previous gazillion posts from both sides and all will be revealed.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 6, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Well, just to point out one important difference - Sinn Fein wanted talks with the U.K. Govt. Many here have pointed out that IS do not want to talk.
		
Click to expand...

Sinn Fein also started to make noises that they had distanced themselves from the IRA and then up popped Adams & McGuinness, to men it appears who were responsible for hundreds of civilian dead, as leading members of Sinn Fein.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 6, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Read the previous gazillion posts from both sides and all will be revealed.
		
Click to expand...

As yours seem to be rather confusing and have never been clear as to how things should progress feel free to repeat.


----------



## Ethan (Dec 6, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Sinn Fein also started to make noises that they had distanced themselves from the IRA and then up popped Adams & McGuinness, to men it appears who were responsible for hundreds of civilian dead, as leading members of Sinn Fein.
		
Click to expand...

You are using 'it appears' as code for 'totally speculating'. Oh dear, you know how much Liverpoolphil hates speculation. In the interests of avoiding hypocrisy, I expect he will be along shortly to correct you.


----------



## Ethan (Dec 6, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			As yours seem to be rather confusing and have never been clear as to how things should progress feel free to repeat.
		
Click to expand...

Some of us prefer not to repeat ourselves as much as you. 

Some of us prefer not to repeat ourselves as much as you. 

Damn.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 6, 2015)

Ethan said:



			You are using 'it appears' as code for 'totally speculating'. Oh dear, you know how much Liverpoolphil hates speculation. In the interests of avoiding hypocrisy, I expect he will be along shortly to correct you.
		
Click to expand...

Let's not start to get snidey Ethan 

All I of was ask for some clarification on some of your statements - like "The CIA knew there were no WMD in Iraq"


----------



## Ethan (Dec 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Let's not start to get snidey Ethan 

All I of was ask for some clarification on some of your statements - like "The CIA knew there were no WMD in Iraq"
		
Click to expand...

You say snidey. I say consistent. 

I can bring more evidence that the CIA knew there were no WMD that he can that Adams and McGuinness are responsible for hundreds of deaths.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 6, 2015)

Ethan said:



			You are using 'it appears' as code for 'totally speculating'. Oh dear, you know how much Liverpoolphil hates speculation. In the interests of avoiding hypocrisy, I expect he will be along shortly to correct you.
		
Click to expand...

More to do with it being someone else's site and as such would be open to legal issues. Anyone with half a brain knows what really went on with those two.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 6, 2015)

Ethan said:



			You say snidey. I say consistent
		
Click to expand...

Snidey in the way it's presented on the forum 

Yes people can speculate and form opinions etc - happened regualry in the debate 

It's when that speculation has been presented as proven factual information - just like the statement in regards the CIA - 

If that was true then I'm not sure why people haven't arrested etc - hence why i asked for the factual evidence ( still hasn't appeared )


----------



## Ethan (Dec 6, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			More to do with it being someone else's site and as such would be open to legal issues. Anyone with half a brain knows what really went on with those two.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed. But a whole brain makes it a more complicated picture.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 6, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Some of us prefer not to repeat ourselves as much as you. 

Some of us prefer not to repeat ourselves as much as you. 

Damn.
		
Click to expand...

Your the one who now appears to be flip flopping from one decision to the next. Are you in favour of:


bombing
talking
doing nothing
hiding under the the duvet until the boggy man comes


----------



## Ethan (Dec 6, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Your the one who now appears to be flip flopping from one decision to the next. Are you in favour of:


bombing
talking
doing nothing
hiding under the the duvet until the boggy man comes
		
Click to expand...

Not yet
Talking to regional powers
Well I am having a quiet Sunday
What is a boggy man?


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 6, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Not yet
Talking to regional powers
Well I am having a quiet Sunday
What is a boggy man?
		
Click to expand...

so not out of the question, what's your time scale
talking - for all we know happening in SECRET (more than likely)
its about time we went for a 24 hr NHS 
youll find out if the fluffy brigade have their way


----------



## ColchesterFC (Dec 6, 2015)

Ethan said:



			You are indeed full of questions. Not so many answers, sadly.
		
Click to expand...

I apologise. I should have used your tactic and refused to answer because the question was hypothetical or presupposes something. Unlike yourself I've tried to answer any question put to me rather than hiding behind a refusal to answer or insulting the person asking the question as you like to do when you don't like the question.


----------



## Ethan (Dec 6, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			so not out of the question, what's your time scale
talking - for all we know happening in SECRET (more than likely)
its about time we went for a 24 hr NHS 
youll find out if the fluffy brigade have their way
		
Click to expand...

Around the time a coherent exit plan appears
Maybe
We have one already
??


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 6, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Around the time a coherent exit plan appears
Maybe
We have one already
??
		
Click to expand...

There appears to be a plan but not one you approve with.
We will never know
thats good to know
you don't want to know because he might put your head on a stick


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 6, 2015)

I see the man of principles is dropping one of them and has withdraw from his guest appearance at the Stop the War Coalition meeting.


----------



## Val (Dec 6, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			I see the man of principles is dropping one of them and has withdraw from his guest appearance at the Stop the War Coalition meeting.
		
Click to expand...

Who?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 6, 2015)

Val said:



			Who?
		
Click to expand...

Not sure if he has actually distanced himself but been recommended too 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35019862


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 6, 2015)

Val said:



			Who?
		
Click to expand...

Corbyn


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Not sure if he has actually distanced himself but been recommended too 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35019862

Click to expand...

Late item on the BBC news


----------



## Val (Dec 6, 2015)

Slime said:



			I just made the mistake of Googling Raqqi and then going to images!
Truly horrific ........................... you have been warned!
These 'people' must be stopped.

*Slime*.

P.S. I cannot over stress how disgusting some of the images are.
		
Click to expand...

Raqqa you mean but yes very disturbing indeed. Beatings, crucifixions, beheadings and mass shootings into pre-prepared open graves.

These people need stopped, they are murdering more innocents than carpet bombing strategic targets ever could.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 6, 2015)

Ethan said:



			You say snidey. I say consistent. 

I can bring more evidence that the CIA knew there were no WMD that he can that Adams and McGuinness are responsible for hundreds of deaths.
		
Click to expand...

But you can't deny that Martin McGuinness was 2nd in command of the IRA in Derry in the late 60's and early 70's. And its hard to believe that someone can reach that position by making tea and discussing knitting patterns. There's more than enough evidence of what McGuinness has been involved in, and its understandable, though unpalatable, why he's not been persued in the courts.

Gerry Adams is harder to pin down, as he was heavily involved with Sinn Fein from very early on. However, many people have spoken of his direct involvement with the IRA's army council and the decision by that council to kidnap and kill the 16 "disappeared."

Whichever way its coloured, I'll always believe they were full on members of the IRA, and there's more than enough evidence to support that. But in terms of the peace process over there, their arrest and conviction would only kick things off again.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 6, 2015)

Val said:



			than carpet bombing strategic targets ever could.
		
Click to expand...

???????? Are you on about  Syrian/Russion alliance using barrel bombs which could at a stretch be described  as a form of carpet bombing or the Yank coalition alliance who are using precision individually fired weapon systems.


----------



## delc (Dec 6, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			???????? Are you on about  Syrian/Russion alliance using barrel bombs which could at a stretch be described  as a form of carpet bombing or the Yank coalition alliance who are using precision individually fired weapon systems.
		
Click to expand...

Do the targets for these precision bombs have signs like "ISIS Command and Control Centre" written on their roofs?  I suspect that IS will hide their operations centres among the civilian population to ensure that they get good publicity from collateral damage!  :mmm:


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 6, 2015)

delc said:



			Do the targets for these precision bombs have signs like "ISIS Command and Control Centre" written on their roofs?  I suspect that IS will hide their operations centres among the civilian population to ensure that they get good publicity from collateral damage!  :mmm:
		
Click to expand...

The statement was about carpet bombing, I presume you understand the concept. What has your post to do with carpet bombing.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 6, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			???????? Are you on about  Syrian/Russion alliance using barrel bombs which could at a stretch be described  as a form of carpet bombing or the Yank coalition alliance who are using precision individually fired weapon systems.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think Val was suggesting carpet bombing is being used


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 6, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Sinn Fein also started to make noises that they had distanced themselves from the IRA and then up popped Adams & McGuinness, to men it appears who were responsible for hundreds of civilian dead, as leading members of Sinn Fein.
		
Click to expand...

Right or wrong there were lots of dead on both sides of that divide.
I think you should now let this go and be grateful that folk like Corbyn and Mowlem brokered a means of peace.
You sound like a man who wishes the 'troubles' to continue.


----------



## delc (Dec 6, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			The statement was about carpet bombing, I presume you understand the concept. What has your post to do with carpet bombing.
		
Click to expand...

I was referring to these so called precision bombs!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 6, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Right or wrong there were lots of dead on both sides of that divide.
I think you should now let this go and be grateful that folk like Corbyn and Mowlem brokered a means of peace.
You sound like a man who wishes the 'troubles' to continue.
		
Click to expand...

Was Corbyn the one who actually "brokered" the peace deal ? 

His name certainly didn't stick out during the Peace Process


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 6, 2015)

delc said:



			I was referring to these so called precision bombs! 

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "so called precision" ?


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Dec 6, 2015)

I think that although relevant, we should leave The Irish Troubles out of this discussion,
Tis a topic that is still raw with many and has kicked off in the past on here.

Lets keep it current

Thanks


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Was Corbyn the one who actually "brokered" the peace deal ? 

His name certainly didn't stick out during the Peace Process
		
Click to expand...

Strewth.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 6, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Strewth.
		
Click to expand...

That will be no then 

And on that note back to ISIS and Syria


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 6, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			You sound like a man who wishes the 'troubles' to continue.
		
Click to expand...

And you sound like a man on the  Domestos, wings your statements get more bizarre by the day.


----------



## delc (Dec 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			What do you mean by "so called precision" ?
		
Click to expand...

Guided weapons that can hit a precise target. Problem is that you may not know exactly who or what is in that target!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 6, 2015)

delc said:



			Guided weapons that can hit a precise target. Problem is that you may not know exactly who or what is in that target!
		
Click to expand...

That doesn't stop the weapon itself being precise does it ? 

As for who is in the target that's where you rely on the recon and intelligence


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 6, 2015)

delc said:



			Guided weapons that can hit a precise target. Problem is that you may not know exactly who or what is in that target!
		
Click to expand...

Exactly. I asked LP days ago how he could be so certain as claimed on here that no innocents were killed. The answer was.............

There will always be innocents killed and it's a fact of these types of operations especially when IS and those before hide in communities and use innocents as shields. 

On a different note, how refreshing is this http://news.sky.com/story/1600842/youaintnomuslimbruv-twitter-reacts-to-stabbing


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 6, 2015)

Not quite getting where our aircraft bombing oil facilities fits with use of our more accurate guided missiles (which aint bombs) being used to hit specific small high value targets such as vehicles containing important Daesh personal.  Did the HoC not give approval to the use of highly accurate guided missiles - that being the 'added value' UK can bring.  Not seeing how bombing oil facilities fits with that - and that the US or France couldn't do that just as well as us.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 6, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Not quite getting where our aircraft bombing oil facilities fits with use of our more accurate guided missiles (which aint bombs) being used to hit specific small high value targets such as vehicles containing important Daesh personal.  Did the HoC not give approval to the use of highly accurate guided missiles - that being the 'added value' UK can bring.  Not seeing how bombing oil facilities fits with that - and that the US or France couldn't do that just as well as us.
		
Click to expand...

The HoC gave approval for UK to join in with coalition effort by joining in with the air strikers and targeting strategic targets designed to reduce the capability of ISIS 

Which is exactly what they are doing 

The vote wasn't about whether they are allowed to use specific weaponary for goodness sake


----------



## Val (Dec 6, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			???????? Are you on about  Syrian/Russion alliance using barrel bombs which could at a stretch be described  as a form of carpet bombing or the Yank coalition alliance who are using precision individually fired weapon systems.
		
Click to expand...

It's an inaccurate generalisation I used. I should have been more specific.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 6, 2015)

Germany fires the first political shot at Saudi - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter


----------



## User20205 (Dec 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Germany fires the first political shot at Saudi - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter

Click to expand...

Maybe we should bomb them as well? 

After all Saudi have links to Islamic terrorism. They also like cutting off people's heads? Bomb or not bomb ??


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 6, 2015)

therod said:



			Maybe we should bomb them as well? 

After all Saudi have links to Islamic terrorism. They also like cutting off people's heads? Bomb or not bomb ??
		
Click to expand...

I'll vote not bomb :thup:


----------



## FairwayDodger (Dec 6, 2015)

therod said:



			Maybe we should bomb them as well? 

After all Saudi have links to Islamic terrorism. They also like cutting off people's heads? Bomb or not bomb ??
		
Click to expand...

They also enslave half their population but our leaders don't appear to care much about that.


----------



## chippa1909 (Dec 6, 2015)

therod said:



			Maybe we should bomb them as well? 

After all Saudi have links to Islamic terrorism. They also like cutting off people's heads? Bomb or not bomb ??
		
Click to expand...

They're trading partners. Can't bomb them no matter how barbaric the regime is.


----------



## User20205 (Dec 6, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			They're trading partners. Can't bomb them no matter how barbaric the regime is.
		
Click to expand...

So the actions of the regime are ok if we can flog em stuff?

Let's sell Islamic state some rolls royces, the bombing debate would be academic then?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 6, 2015)

therod said:



			So the actions of the regime are ok if we can flog em stuff?

Let's sell Islamic state some rolls royces, the bombing debate would be academic then?
		
Click to expand...

Really Nick ? 

Is that the levels it's reached too now ? 

Yes Saudi has its own internal issues that are shocking as does the US and Russia etc etc etc etc etc even the UK 

But to compare them all to ISIS

Just look at the images of what they are carrying out in Raqqa


----------



## JustOne (Dec 6, 2015)

therod said:



			The U.K. must act. 100% agree with that. Isis are a side show. It's Assad that needs to be removed, but we can't do that as Russia won't have it. 

*Without Assad Isis don't exist*......... <post continues>
		
Click to expand...

Eh? How so? (part in bold)


----------



## User20205 (Dec 6, 2015)

JustOne said:



			Eh? How so? (part in bold)
		
Click to expand...

There is a school of thought (please don't ask me for proof) that Assad encouraged,  nurtured Isis to create a bigger 'baddie' and take the heat off him. He certainly buys their oil on the black market.


----------



## User20205 (Dec 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Really Nick ? 

Is that the levels it's reached too now ? 

Yes Saudi has its own internal issues that are shocking as does the US and Russia etc etc etc etc etc even the UK 

But to compare them all to ISIS

Just look at the images of what they are carrying out in Raqqa
		
Click to expand...

Why are we bombing? The threat of terrorism or isis's internal treatment of its subjects? I'm sure we've been here before!!! 

 You're so adamant we should blow stuff up, but you don't know why.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 6, 2015)

therod said:



			Why are we bombing? The threat of terrorism or isis's internal treatment of its subjects? I'm sure we've been here before!!! 

 You're so adamant we should blow stuff up, but you don't know why.
		
Click to expand...

Have said many times why we are bombing - to help reduce the ability of ISIS to mount serious terrorist attacks.


----------



## User20205 (Dec 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Have said many times why we are bombing - to help reduce the ability of ISIS to mount serious terrorist attacks.
		
Click to expand...

Remove Assad and bomb Saudi...job done :thup:


----------



## chippa1909 (Dec 6, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			They're trading partners. Can't bomb them no matter how barbaric the regime is.
		
Click to expand...

That was sarcasm. Sometimes I'm just far too subtle!


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Have said many times why we are bombing - to help reduce the ability of ISIS to mount serious terrorist attacks.
		
Click to expand...

We may be reducing the threat, although I'd argue the effect that's having without troops in the long term. As the lone idiot at Leytonstone showed though you'll never get rid of those intent on harm irrespective of what banner they go under.


----------



## User20205 (Dec 6, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			That was sarcasm. Sometimes I'm just far too subtle!
		
Click to expand...

Sorry mate. Too subtle by half. :thup:


----------



## User20205 (Dec 6, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			We may be reducing the threat, although I'd argue the effect that's having without troops in the long term. As the lone idiot at Leytonstone showed though you'll never get rid of those intent on harm irrespective of what banner they go under.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe we should bomb Leytonstone ?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 6, 2015)

therod said:



			Maybe we should bomb Leytonstone ?
		
Click to expand...

It could only improve it


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Dec 6, 2015)

therod said:



			Maybe we should bomb Leytonstone ?
		
Click to expand...

Went there once, it was closed


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 6, 2015)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Went there once, it was closed 

Click to expand...

Lucky escape.


----------



## JustOne (Dec 6, 2015)

therod said:



			There is a school of thought (please don't ask me for proof) that Assad encouraged,  nurtured Isis to create a bigger 'baddie' and take the heat off him. He certainly buys their oil on the black market.
		
Click to expand...

I don't see how without Assad they don't exist, I'm sure if he was assasinated tomorrow they'd still be there.... so I'm not sure what your comment is supposed to mean. No offence.


----------



## User20205 (Dec 6, 2015)

JustOne said:



			I don't see how without Assad they don't exist, I'm sure if he was assasinated tomorrow they'd still be there.... so I'm not sure what your comment is supposed to mean. No offence.
		
Click to expand...

oh James. You can't retrospectively abort them no.

Don't exist as in the sense of if my dad hadn't met my mum, I wouldn't exist.

They are like his illegitimate teenage child, full of religion, hormones and hate. Remove him, unfortunately they are still around, but a large slice of their oil income goes.


----------



## User20205 (Dec 6, 2015)

From Twitter-made me chuckle (is that wrong?'

'Yesterday I was asked if I could name a famous Syrian. 

I said McKellen.'


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 6, 2015)

therod said:



			There is a school of thought (please don't ask me for proof) that Assad encouraged,  nurtured Isis to create a bigger 'baddie' and take the heat off him. He certainly buys their oil on the black market.
		
Click to expand...

Didn't ISIS start in Iraq ?


----------



## MegaSteve (Dec 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Didn't ISIS start in Iraq ?
		
Click to expand...

There's a whole plethora of theories out there...
Pick anyone to suit your argument I suppose...

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria...


----------



## User20205 (Dec 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Didn't ISIS start in Iraq ?
		
Click to expand...

Not my theory, they filled a vacuum in both countries. Filled it & were encouraged to?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 6, 2015)

therod said:



			From Twitter-made me chuckle (is that wrong?'

'Yesterday I was asked if I could name a famous Syrian. 

I said McKellen.'
		
Click to expand...

Saint Andrew.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 6, 2015)

therod said:



			Not my theory, they filled a vacuum in both countries. Filled it & were encouraged to?
		
Click to expand...

Started in 99 as a militant group ( Jamal Hiwad etc ) - 2003 they grew into IS 

So yes I believe ISIS would still be as active without Assad being around


----------



## User20205 (Dec 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Started in 99 as a militant group ( Jamal Hiwad etc ) - 2003 they grew into IS 

So yes I believe ISIS would still be as active without Assad being around
		
Click to expand...

I reckon wiki should be referenced  

They flowered in the Syrian civil war, coincidence ?


----------



## User20205 (Dec 6, 2015)

Sweep said:



			Does Corbyn have a better track record on supporting peace and negotiation than Blair, Really?
		
Click to expand...

 mmmm really indeed ?


----------



## Sweep (Dec 6, 2015)

therod said:



			mmmm really indeed ?
		
Click to expand...

Ah now, you very nicely edited my comments there, you naughty chap.
i was referring to Major and Blair and their efforts in the peace process. I have since attempted to delete my post because I have just read the Moderators instruction on leaving the Ireland troubles out of it, so apologies for posting this in the first place.


----------



## User20205 (Dec 6, 2015)

Sweep said:



			Ah now, you very nicely edited my comments there, you naughty chap.
i was referring to Major and Blair and their efforts in the peace process. I have since attempted to delete my post because I have just read the Moderators instruction on leaving the Ireland troubles out of it, so apologies for posting this in the first place.
		
Click to expand...

You gotta love a bit of selective editing .


----------



## ColchesterFC (Dec 6, 2015)

therod said:



			You love a bit, you slag.
		
Click to expand...

I can't believe you (didn't) said that!


----------



## User20205 (Dec 6, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			I can't believe you (didn't) said that!
		
Click to expand...

Yep, sounds like a direct quote to me :thup:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 6, 2015)

therod said:



			I reckon wiki should be referenced  

They flowered in the Syrian civil war, coincidence ?
		
Click to expand...

Not Wiki but these two sites

http://www.crethiplethi.com/the-his...lamic-countries/syria-islamic-countries/2015/


http://chosenpeople.com/main/index.php/ministry-news/926-a-brief-history-of-isis


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The HoC gave approval for UK to join in with coalition effort by joining in with the air strikers and targeting strategic targets designed to reduce the capability of ISIS 

Which is exactly what they are doing 

The vote wasn't about whether they are allowed to use specific weaponary for goodness sake
		
Click to expand...

Well there was a lot of justification for the UK joining the action going on around the fact that we could do more precise stuff that others couldn't do, and as a result UK action was less likely to be the cause of deaths of civilians.  When from what you say all the stuff around Brimstone was actually rather irrelevant as we're going to be bombing using our less accurate Paveway bombs - that US has. OK - understood.  So let's I think just be clear and not pretend otherwise - that UK action will result in innocent civilian deaths - especially when bombing 'facilities' and other 'strategic/tactical' targets - which we are going to be doing.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Dec 6, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Well there was a lot of justification for the UK joining the action going on around the fact that we could do more precise stuff that others couldn't do, and as a result UK action was less likely to be the cause of deaths of civilians.  When from what you say all the stuff around Brimstone was actually rather irrelevant as we're going to be bombing using our less accurate Paveway bombs - that US has. OK - understood.  So let's I think just be clear and not pretend otherwise - that UK action will result in innocent civilian deaths - especially when bombing 'facilities' and other 'strategic/tactical' targets - which we are going to be doing.
		
Click to expand...

Aren't we going to be using Paveway against targets such as oilfields and tanker convoys where there are not likely to be civilians in the vicinity that could be harmed. We will then be using Brimstone to take out individual vehicles and selected targets in more populated areas. And if that isn't the case then why not as that would make sense to me. No point using a precision missile that can be posted up the exhaust pipe of a car if you can use a standard missile on an oilfield in the middle of nowhere.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 6, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Aren't we going to be using Paveway against targets such as oilfields and tanker convoys where there are not likely to be civilians in the vicinity that could be harmed. We will then be using Brimstone to take out individual vehicles and selected targets in more populated areas. And if that isn't the case then why not as that would make sense to me. No point using a precision missile that can be posted up the exhaust pipe of a car if you can use a standard missile on an oilfield in the middle of nowhere.
		
Click to expand...

The logic is fine - though I can't imagine there are that many targets not already bombed by US or France that require UK involvement -- and those that are left or new ones don't require UK involvement.  Anyway - we are going to be guilty of the killing of innocent civilians - actually or by association.  

BTW - Anyone know how many Brimstone missiles we have in stock and how long it takes to manufacture one?  As we don't know what defines a successful 'war' and completion of objectives - we could be there for quite some time - and I'm thinking we are going to run short sooner rather than later.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 7, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			The logic is fine - though I can't imagine there are that many targets not already bombed by US or France that require UK involvement -- and those that are left or new ones don't require UK involvement.  *Anyway - we are going to be guilty of the killing of innocent civilians - actually or by association.  *

BTW - Anyone know how many Brimstone missiles we have in stock and how long it takes to manufacture one?  As we don't know what defines a successful 'war' and completion of objectives - we could be there for quite some time - and I'm thinking we are going to run short sooner rather than later.
		
Click to expand...

Ref the highlighted part. Sadly, yes we will be. But we could do nothing and be guilty of allowing ISIS to kill them and more.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 7, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			The logic is fine - though I can't imagine there are that many targets not already bombed by US or France that require UK involvement -- and those that are left or new ones don't require UK involvement.  Anyway - we are going to be guilty of the killing of innocent civilians - actually or by association.  

BTW - Anyone know how many Brimstone missiles we have in stock and how long it takes to manufacture one?  As we don't know what defines a successful 'war' and completion of objectives - we could be there for quite some time - and I'm thinking we are going to run short sooner rather than later.
		
Click to expand...

1. We will be guilty of association if innocent people die - we could also sit back and then be guilty of letting innocent people die 

2. For someone who has worked in laser guidance as you earlier suggested I'm really amazed you don't seem to understand using the right weapon for the right job - paveway will be used for specific targets , brimstone will be used for specific targets - that's just common sense. Paveway was used in the strike on the oil refinery- understand zero innocent casualties , Brimstone will be used on more precise targets where there could be a risk of collateral damage if paveway is used - I really did think that was self explanatory - especially to someone who has worked in guidance.

3. Yep we could have sat back and let the French and US continue to bomb targets - or we could have rolled up out sleeves and helped in the fight to protect innocent people all over the world. The air strikes will be co ordinated and each military will be assigned specific targets to take out 

4. How many do we have ? Well I'm pretty sure official figures won't be released but each jet carries 12 brimstones with a good supply in Cyprus and plenty more back in the UK as well as a good Â£10billion worth in order ( within the agreed defence budget )


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 7, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			1. We will be guilty of association if innocent people die - we could also sit back and then be guilty of letting innocent people die 

2. For someone who has worked in laser guidance as you earlier suggested I'm really amazed you don't seem to understand using the right weapon for the right job - paveway will be used for specific targets , brimstone will be used for specific targets - that's just common sense. Paveway was used in the strike on the oil refinery- understand zero innocent casualties , Brimstone will be used on more precise targets where there could be a risk of collateral damage if paveway is used - I really did think that was self explanatory - especially to someone who has worked in guidance.

3. Yep we could have sat back and let the French and US continue to bomb targets - or we could have rolled up out sleeves and helped in the fight to protect innocent people all over the world. The air strikes will be co ordinated and each military will be assigned specific targets to take out 

4. How many do we have ? Well I'm pretty sure official figures won't be released but each jet carries 12 brimstones with a good supply in Cyprus and plenty more back in the UK as well as a good Â£10billion worth in order ( within the agreed defence budget )
		
Click to expand...

No worried on the supplies side - apparently back in 2013 MBDA (the manufacturers - and I used to work for them) had 3000 in stock.  So lots for firing. 

And yes I know very clearly the difference between a bomb and a guided missile.  Though note that Brimstone requires independent target laser designation - which is done by drone - or ground based forces!  Just not sure that we add anything militarily by bombing - though certainly our use of GMs may provide a tactical benefit in degrading Daesh in Syria.  Not sure it'll make any difference in Leytonstone though.


----------



## MegaSteve (Dec 7, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Not sure it'll make any difference in Leytonstone though.
		
Click to expand...


Fairly certain what happened in Leytonstone has got nothing to do with anything other than the fella being not quite right between the ears...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 7, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Fairly certain what happened in Leytonstone has got nothing to do with anything other than the fella being not quite right between the ears...
		
Click to expand...

Most probably right - but such 'dafties' don't need much excuse for perpetrating a bit of madness - and something you could say for all of Daesh


----------



## Piece (Dec 7, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Most probably right - but such 'dafties' don't need much excuse for perpetrating a bit of madness - *and something you could say for all of Daesh*

Click to expand...

Speaking of this 'organisation', coming out of the football ground on Sat, I saw a black Range Rover with the registration plate 'D2ESH'.  It was noticed by lots of people, and the car was driven by Mr White-Middle-England!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 7, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			No worried on the supplies side - apparently back in 2013 MBDA (the manufacturers - and I used to work for them) had 3000 in stock.  So lots for firing. 

And yes I know very clearly the difference between a bomb and a guided missile.  Though note that Brimstone requires independent target laser designation - which is done by drone - or ground based forces!  Just not sure that we add anything militarily by bombing - though certainly our use of GMs may provide a tactical benefit in degrading Daesh in Syria.  Not sure it'll make any difference in Leytonstone though.
		
Click to expand...

So in your opinion what should the UK be doing instead of joining in with the coalition


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 7, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So in your opinion what should the UK be doing instead of joining in with the coalition
		
Click to expand...

I don't have to have an view on an alternative if I don't think what is being done is appropriate, beneficial or thought through.  Alternatives are for those who understand the geo-political and military options rather better than I.  

If I have to walk from A to B in the fog I don't follow the direct route if I know that that might well take me over a cliff - I find an alternative way to get there.  And if I don't know of one and I don't have a map and a compass I head off to get them or find someone who does know a safe route.  And failing all of that I wait until the fog clears, and while I wait I ask myself whether I need to get to B in any case.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 7, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I don't have to have an view on an alternative if I don't think what is being done is appropriate, beneficial or thought through.  Alternatives are for those who understand the geo-political and military options rather better than I.  

If I have to walk from A to B in the fog I don't follow the direct route if I know that that might well take me over a cliff - I find an alternative way to get there.  And if I don't know of one and I don't have a map and a compass I head off to get them or find someone who does know a safe route.  And failing all of that I wait until the fog clears, and while I wait I ask myself whether I need to get to B in any case.
		
Click to expand...

So you don't want the UK to be involved in the coalition effort to tackle ISIS but have no alternative to what we should do ?

So do nothing then and watch ISIS continue to kill innocents ?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 7, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So you don't want the UK to be involved in the coalition effort to tackle ISIS but have no alternative to what we should do ?

So do nothing then and watch ISIS continue to kill innocents ?
		
Click to expand...

You know fine well that I did not say we should do nothing.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 7, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			You know fine well that I did not say we should do nothing.
		
Click to expand...

Well what should we do then ? 

You say that people better qualified than you can understand alternatives - yet qualified enough to say Air strikes aren't the way to go ? 

We are either part of the coalition or come up with another way to combat ISIS because this is real now - people are dying because of ISIS and we need to act


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 7, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I don't have to have an view on an alternative if I don't think what is being done is appropriate, beneficial or thought through.  Alternatives are for those who understand the geo-political and military options rather better than I.  

If I have to walk from A to B in the fog I don't follow the direct route if I know that that might well take me over a cliff - I find an alternative way to get there.  And if I don't know of one and I don't have a map and a compass I head off to get them or find someone who does know a safe route.  And failing all of that I wait until the fog clears, and while I wait I ask myself whether I need to get to B in any case.
		
Click to expand...

There are times when the fog takes a long time to clear and you have to make a decision as to whether stay and die or move on and hope that you miss the cliff edge.

Life is about making decisions, some of those decisions may end up wrong but doing nothing is never an option as history shows all to well.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 7, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			There are times when the fog takes a long time to clear and you have to make a decision as to whether stay and die or move on and hope that you miss the cliff edge.

*Life is about making decisions, some of those decisions may end up wrong but doing nothing is never an option* as history shows all to well.
		
Click to expand...

Doing nothing is always an option in any decision. The act of dong nothing is a decision. If you are saying that every decision has to result in an specific action where something happens then I'd like to take you on at pontoon.  

You may feel that doing nothing is not an option in this particular circumstance, and fair enough.  But plenty of decisions in all walks of life are to do nothing at the current time.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 7, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			Doing nothing is always an option in any decision. The act of dong nothing is a decision. If you are saying that every decision has to result in an specific action where something happens then I'd like to take you on at pontoon.  

You may feel that doing nothing is not an option in this particular circumstance, and fair enough.  But plenty of decisions in all walks of life are to do nothing at the current time.
		
Click to expand...

Is doing nothing an option you feel can be done in this situation ?


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 7, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			Doing nothing is always an option in any decision. The act of dong nothing is a decision. If you are saying that every decision has to result in an specific action where something happens then I'd like to take you on at pontoon.  

You may feel that doing nothing is not an option in this particular circumstance, and fair enough.  But plenty of decisions in all walks of life are to do nothing at the current time.
		
Click to expand...

I see where your coming from but in SLH sitting down and doing nothing would lead to him starving to death.

Doing nothing in respect of IS means they are left free to do as they want in the context given by SLH.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Dec 7, 2015)

round in circles again, people have different views, accept that, agree to disagree. move on

NEXT


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 7, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			I see where your coming from but i*n SLH sitting down and doing nothin*g would lead to him starving to death.

Doing nothing in respect of IS means they are left free to do as they want in the context given by SLH.
		
Click to expand...

In my scenario there was not a 'do nothing' option.  There was a 'take a different less dangerous route option'; a 'wait until the fog lifts and the way ahead is clear' option; a 'go away and get a plan that defines different routes (a map)' option;  a 'strategy that takes you that route and gives you exit options - map/compass'; and a 'define a different destination' option.  But no 'do nothing' option.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 7, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And failing all of that I wait until the fog clears,
		
Click to expand...


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 7, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Well what should we do then ? 

You say that people better qualified than you can understand alternatives - yet qualified enough to say Air strikes aren't the way to go ? 

We are either part of the coalition or come up with another way to combat ISIS because this is real now - people are dying because of ISIS and we need to act
		
Click to expand...

Yet again someone has a different opinion and you start the arguing as it doesn't meet your own view. Personally I'm not convinced what we're doing is a) totally right and b) will make a significant long term issue and c) will only find a decisive conclusion with land forces in a long and expensive (in termss of weapons and lives) conflict. Even that will need far more co-operation around the negotiating table than we have now and especially once troops are in the area


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 7, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Is doing nothing an option you feel can be done in this situation ?
		
Click to expand...

No, but then again I am not sure anyone who is not totally happy with the bombing is in favour of doing absolutely nothing.  People just have different opinions on how to achieve the objectives.  If indeed there is one that people agree on.

Just because you are not in favour of bombing does not mean you are in favour of doing nothing.  That is just playground logic, assuming someone is in favour of completely the opposite thing if someone does not totally agree with it.  

And before you ask what I would do then go read several posts by people on here such as Ethan and Homer who have come up with suggestions on what to do, I'm not going to repeat them all as it is just going over the same old ground yet again.  And again.  And again. There are some good arguments on both sides in this thread if you can be bothered to read them and take them on board.


----------



## Sweep (Dec 8, 2015)

Piece said:



			Speaking of this 'organisation', coming out of the football ground on Sat, I saw a black Range Rover with the registration plate 'D2ESH'.  It was noticed by lots of people, and the car was driven by Mr White-Middle-England!
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I read of an Australian little girl called Isis ( she was named after Cleopatra's sister) and a chocolate spread company refused to allow her to take part in a promotion that lets you have your name printed on the label. I know of at least a couple of companies called Isis for the same reason. Not sure what they are doing /have done.


----------



## chippa1909 (Jan 3, 2016)

Doing our bit..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...mb-raids-in-Syria-dismissed-as-non-event.html


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jan 3, 2016)

Excellent, so we've increased the chances of us being a target for terrorism and not actually done anything that will have any effect in Syria.  Well done everybody....


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 3, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			Excellent, so we've increased the chances of us being a target for terrorism and not actually done anything that will have any effect in Syria.  Well done everybody....
		
Click to expand...

And at a cost of 10s of millions!!

Ridiculous! Or s this Cameron's 'austerity' version of doing something!


----------



## Old Skier (Jan 3, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			Excellent, so we've increased the chances of us being a target for terrorism and not actually done anything that will have any effect in Syria.  Well done everybody....
		
Click to expand...

We would have been a target anyway.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jan 3, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			We would have been a target anyway.
		
Click to expand...

I know, that's why I used the word increased. At in there is now more chance of it happening.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jan 3, 2016)

Hindsight is a wonderful thing&#128515; 
Will we all now be believing everything in The Telegraph?
Just wondering!


----------



## Old Skier (Jan 3, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			I know, that's why I used the word increased. At in there is now more chance of it happening.
		
Click to expand...

Do you believe it has increased the chance of a terrorist incident.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 3, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			Do you believe it has increased the chance of a terrorist incident.
		
Click to expand...

The likelihood of such an attack has been rising all over Europe. The decision to participate (well sort of) in the bombing campaign would, imo, have elevated the UK as a target for terrorist acts by IS groups. 

So that's a 'Yes' for me! Whether the heightened awareness converts to an actual incident depends very much on how well organised the Security Services are compared with the Jihadists!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jan 3, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			The likelihood of such an attack has been rising all over Europe. The decision to participate (well sort of) in the bombing campaign would, imo, have elevated the UK as a target for terrorist acts by IS groups. 

So that's a 'Yes' for me! Whether the heightened awareness converts to an actual incident depends very much on how well organised the Security Services are compared with the Jihadists!
		
Click to expand...

The only thing I see different to yourself is that us bombing Syria made no difference to us as an IS target, were I do believe it will make a difference is that imo it would of increased IS recruitment in the UK.
So Agree with the Yes, but for a different reason.


----------



## Old Skier (Jan 3, 2016)

We were fighting IS long before any vote so I'm not sure why some people think that a vote heightened their intent.

We have been subject to terrorist attacks in the UK since the early 1900,s so IS is just one of the problems.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 3, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			...

We have been subject to terrorist attacks in the UK since the early 1900,s so IS is just one of the problems.
		
Click to expand...

Why only go back to 1900?

There have been attacks that, in modern terms, would be described as terrorist ones for centuries!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jan 3, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			We were fighting IS long before any vote so I'm not sure why some people think that a vote heightened their intent.

We have been subject to terrorist attacks in the UK since the early 1900,s so IS is just one of the problems.
		
Click to expand...

If it's increased their following then the chance of a lone-wolf taking a chance, even like the one on the Underground the other week then it has to be bad, would we still of been at risk with a No vote, Yes, obviously.


----------



## Old Skier (Jan 3, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			If it's increased their following then the chance of a lone-wolf taking a chance, even like the one on the Underground the other week then it has to be bad, would we still of been at risk with a No vote, Yes, obviously.
		
Click to expand...

And IMHO the lone wolf would do it in some other factions name if IS wasn't about.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 3, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Hindsight is a wonderful thing&#128515; 
Will we all now be believing everything in The Telegraph?
Just wondering!
		
Click to expand...

I would not believe anything written in their news/politics sections.
They make up stories and repeat/defend them even when they know they are untrue.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jan 3, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			And IMHO the lone wolf would do it in some other factions name if IS wasn't about.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe, but that's a different discussion, the possibility is, is that due to the vote he did it for IS.


----------



## Sweep (Jan 4, 2016)

TBH I don't think the terrorists, lone wolfs included, will stop attacking us if we don't fight them. In this regard the vote made no difference. We are an enemy of Daesh and they want us dead.
 The numbers of air strikes reported in the Telegraph article does not tally with those reported by Sky. Of course we have no way of knowing how the coalition decide on which Air Force is used for each attack and how such targets are selected. What the vote did do was allow the government to order the RAF to take part in those strikes as and when needed, regardless of whether the target was in Syria or Iraq.


----------

