Today's HOC Vote

Old Skier said:
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.
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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'. :eek: 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.
 
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....
 
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!
 
Hindsight is a wonderful thing😃
Will we all now be believing everything in The Telegraph?
Just wondering!
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top