Paris under attack

[Doon frae Troon]

Bombing and drones only adds fuel to the fire. It acts as a recruitment poster.

The 'must do something' brigade must also be prepared to get blood on their hands and lose many UK troops.
They will be sucked into a 'conventional' boots on the ground war against a fearless well equipped and trained army.

Choose your fights carefully, this is one I would be inclined to avoid.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Just not being convinced at all by Cameron's 'arguments' for joining in the bombing of Daesh targets in Syria - all I'm hearing is stentorious and portentous Churchillian exclamations from him that we must do something and 'Britain's got Balls' so we can do bombing just like the others. But the others might be wrong.

We are told that air strikes by themselves will not work - and that ground forces are required to defeat Daesh. And who will provide these ground forces - well Michael Fallon reckons that'll be 'moderate' Syrian government forces. So when are we going to have such a government and how the heck is it going to come about - Putin will need a bit of shifting on that - and it isn't going to happen tomorrow.

Meanwhile if we do go ahead and join in the fun - what outcome? What benefit? How would it reduce the threat of terrorist attack on UK soil. I just can't see that us joining in will. All it will say to those being bombed is that the UK is part of the enemy and has to be dealt with accordingly - and so brothers and sisters in the UK - do your stuff.

Really concerning to me that we seem to be heading into war (because that is where we'll be - at war) because of a 'something must be done' and 'we can do something' argument. Well we can. We can say No - We can say that we're not joining France, USA and Russia in their wargames - and if that upsets them well so be it.

A fellow yoghurt knitter after my own heart....

 

[Deleted member 15344]

So you want us to stand back and do nothing ?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

So you want us to stand back and do nothing ?

In respect of bombing Syria - yes. Haven't heard any rationale explanation of why our involvement adds anything when the parallel track of getting a 'moderate' Syrian government (i.e. Assad gone) is nowhere. So the bombing continues (with or without us) and there are no moderate Syrian government troops to to the groundwork - and things get nowhere and we need troops on the ground. As we are involved in the bombing our allies in the bombing campaign expect us to provide troops on the ground as we are part of that problem needing sorted.

So yes - on the bombing front we stand back and do nothing until a strategy is in place that gives the bombing a context; a set of objectives; and an outcome that is not just aspirational but realistic and achievable in the short to medium term and for which there is a plan - and that Putin has signed up to.

 

[Sweep]

Meanwhile if we do go ahead and join in the fun - what outcome? What benefit? How would it reduce the threat of terrorist attack on UK soil. I just can't see that us joining in will. All it will say to those being bombed is that the UK is part of the enemy and has to be dealt with accordingly - and so brothers and sisters in the UK - do your stuff.

Really concerning to me that we seem to be heading into war (because that is where we'll be - at war) because of a 'something must be done' and 'we can do something' argument. Well we can. We can say No - We can say that we're not joining France, USA and Russia in their wargames - and if that upsets them well so be it.

My goodness. All I can think is that it is a good job there are some people, the British amongst them thank God, that are prepared to get their hands dirty. Just imagine if everyone had this viewpoint. We would all either be nazi's, communist, living under sharia law, you name it. Anything but living the way WE want to live.
Have you ever stopped to think that this is not just about us? It's not just about whether London will be attacked. It's about any city being attacked. It has to be stopped, for the sake of EVERYONE. But as ever, the left will trip out the capitulation message. Let everyone else save our bacon.
Do you seriously think us not contributing to an attack on the evil that is IS will save the UK from a terrorist attack? Do you remember 7/7? 10 years later, isn't it about time you woke up and smelled the coffee?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

My goodness. All I can think is that it is a good job there are some people, the British amongst them thank God, that are prepared to get their hands dirty. Just imagine if everyone had this viewpoint. We would all either be nazi's, communist, living under sharia law, you name it. Anything but living the way WE want to live.
Have you ever stopped to think that this is not just about us? It's not just about whether London will be attacked. It's about any city being attacked. It has to be stopped, for the sake of EVERYONE. But as ever, the left will trip out the capitulation message. Let everyone else save our bacon.
Do you seriously think us not contributing to an attack on the evil that is IS will save the UK from a terrorist attack? Do you remember 7/7? 10 years later, isn't it about time you woke up and smelled the coffee?

Get your hands dirty - of course! But know the size of the hole you are digging! Of course they have to be stopped.

But we know nothing about what bombing is supposed to achieve other than to disrupt and destroy some Daesh operations in Syria, and as far as I can see all it would do would expose the UK to greater risk of the terrorist attack that you say this bombing is designed to prevent - How does it do that? How? Tell me!

All it seems to do is demonstrate that the UK has fancy war machines that can bomb with the best (or worst) of them and give Cameron some form of kudos in the eyes of USA, Russia and France?

I was supportive of bombing until I started thinking and listening about what it was supposed to achieve and how. And whenever I listen to it's proponents I hear it's justification being given in the context of a parallel and essential diplomatic track and ground forces. As Michael Fallon said - bombing by itself will not work - troops on the ground are essential - and he expects these troops to be of a moderate Syrian government. But that government does not exist and might never exist. So what point bombing unless those bombing are then willing to put their own troops into the fray on the ground. And following your argument why would the UK then expect an exemption.

 

[hovis]

It makes me wonder why people think there is an alternative to agressive action. Isis are not going to sit around a table and negotiate. They want the world to become a world of Islam.

If you think we shouldn't invade them and kill them all like animals what do you propose? And please dont spout this education crap!

 

[Deleted member 16999]

How come we must all share the burden of helping the poor Refugees, but pick and choose who takes the burden for doing something about those that created the refugee crisis.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Bombing and drones only adds fuel to the fire. It acts as a recruitment poster.

The 'must do something' brigade must also be prepared to get blood on their hands and lose many UK troops.
They will be sucked into a 'conventional' boots on the ground war against a fearless well equipped and trained army.

Choose your fights carefully, this is one I would be inclined to avoid.

And do what? Do you honestly think that we haven't already got troops on the ground, risking their lives for a safer Britain?

 

[Sweep]

Get your hands dirty - of course! But know the size of the hole you are digging! Of course they have to be stopped.

But we know nothing about what bombing is supposed to achieve other than to disrupt and destroy some Daesh operations in Syria, and as far as I can see all it would do would expose the UK to greater risk of the terrorist attack that you say this bombing is designed to prevent - How does it do that? How? Tell me!

All it seems to do is demonstrate that the UK has fancy war machines that can bomb with the best (or worst) of them and give Cameron some form of kudos in the eyes of USA, Russia and France?

I was supportive of bombing until I started thinking and listening about what it was supposed to achieve and how. And whenever I listen to it's proponents I hear it's justification being given in the context of a parallel and essential diplomatic track and ground forces. As Michael Fallon said - bombing by itself will not work - troops on the ground are essential - and he expects these troops to be of a moderate Syrian government. But that government does not exist and might never exist. So what point bombing unless those bombing are then willing to put their own troops into the fray on the ground. And following your argument why would the UK then expect an exemption.

Nobody said we should just bomb. There has to be a long term solution to the Syrian crisis as well, and others including Libya. If we have to put ground troops in, so be it. It's not me that is seeking a UK exemption. That was you.
You say they have to be stopped, but with no suggestion on how this can or should be done, other than to leave it to others. Diplomacy usually has a place in conflict resolution. Unfortunately and probably for the first time, there is no place for diplomacy with IS. Think about it. What do they want? They want their own state in an area that straddles Syria and Iraq. Fine. A bit ambitious and would probably not meet with the agreement of many of the locals but there you go. So, how did they go about obtaining their objective? Did they open negotiations? Have public meetings to discuss the issue? Did they even write a letter? No. They just started killing people. Anyone who MIGHT disagree with them, including and indeed mostly, fellow Muslims. They beheaded, crucified, raped, bombed, ethnically cleansed, anything but talk. Anything that would be considered evil by any decent person. And all without doing one single good deed. The ONLY way to deal with these people is to fight them. Cut off the top of the organisation and clear up the lower levels while hoping that the "cause" will wither on the vine. Most terrorist "causes" have done just that.
Lets be clear. They want to kill you and your family. They want to kill us all. They will unless and until we kill them. They hate you and everything you stand for. Your freedom, your religion (even if you don't have one, because they hate that too), the fact that you think women should be educated. Everything.
This has nothing to do with fancy war machines (I am not sure if we have any anymore) and I don't think Cameron would make the same colossal mistake as Blair in going to war to cosy up to the Americans. This is about protecting the citizens of civilised and free nations. All of them. And there is nothing wrong with fighting back against evil people who kill innocent people in cold blood. Sometimes you have to fight to win peace and this is one of those times. It's time to stand up and be counted.

 

[hovis]

https://youtu.be/6xRKezjOrVc

I'd like to buy this guy a pint

 

[PhilTheFragger]

https://youtu.be/6xRKezjOrVc

I'd like to buy this guy a pint

Ditto, but he will have the animal rights people on him with talk like that

 

[Val]

There is no negotiating to be done with ISIS, they want violence and only understand violence so lets give them it and give them it big. They are a curse on humanity as we know it or used to know it and need dealt with.

As for all you keyboard politicians, there is an old phrase I've heard recently - you either take a dump or get off the toilet, Britain needs to do this and stand with the rest of the powers of the world in confronting this cancer of society and let people sleep safe in their beds at night knowing those we pay taxes to look after us have our backs.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It makes me wonder why people think there is an alternative to agressive action. Isis are not going to sit around a table and negotiate. They want the world to become a world of Islam.

If you think we shouldn't invade them and kill them all like animals what do you propose? And please dont spout this education crap!

I am not saying that there should not be any military intervention and force to stop them. I'm talking about UK involvement in bombing air strikes as things stand today.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

How come we must all share the burden of helping the poor Refugees, but pick and choose who takes the burden for doing something about those that created the refugee crisis.

Many here in the UK would have Syrian refugees sent back to Syria to fight Daesh - where there would be a high risk of us killing them (by mistake) with our bombs - that's the absurdity of the situation and some folks thinking. Of course I forgot - they want to come here to fleece us by taking advantage of our welfare system.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

There is no negotiating to be done with ISIS, they want violence and only understand violence so lets give them it and give them it big. They are a curse on humanity as we know it or used to know it and need dealt with.

As for all you keyboard politicians, there is an old phrase I've heard recently - you either take a dump or get off the toilet, Britain needs to do this and stand with the rest of the powers of the world in confronting this cancer of society and let people sleep safe in their beds at night knowing those we pay taxes to look after us have our backs.

Where's the rest of the powers of the world then (are we really a power?). And I'm still not clear how bombing Syria will reduce the risk of terrorist attack on the UK and not simply anger and radicalise more here in the UK and increase the risk.

 

[User20205]

All those advocating a war have very short memories. A response is required, but it must be a targeted measured response, we tried invasion and regime change before. That didn't exactly pan out

Also bombing isn't targeted, it doesn't discriminate. What about the inevitable civilian casualties?

 

[hovis]

What response do you suggest?

 

[Val]

Where's the rest of the powers of the world then (are we really a power?). And I'm still not clear how bombing Syria will reduce the risk of terrorist attack on the UK and not simply anger and radicalise more here in the UK and increase the risk.

G20 are the powers in the World, we are a G20 nation therefore looked on as a power.

As for bombing Syria, in reality we aren't bombing Syria we are bombing key ISIS locations which just happen to be in Syria. There is a big difference.

Instead of giving saying you can't see what good it will do, why don't YOU offer your solution to curing the world of these radicalists.

 

[Val]

All those advocating a war have very short memories. A response is required, but it must be a targeted measured response, we tried invasion and regime change before. That didn't exactly pan out

Also bombing isn't targeted, it doesn't discriminate. What about the inevitable civilian casualties?

If they are in ISIS controlled strongholds then they are collateral damage.