Bomb someone in Syria poll - will it work
Poll: Bomb someone in Syria poll - will it work
Total Members Polled: 353
Discussion
I can't see what we can add to the bombing that other countries aren't already providing. I don't think there is really a coherent strategy to defeat IS (if it is even possible to defeat an ideology in a military sense) or restore a viable state in Syria.
I'm disappointed with Labour so called 'moderates' who have used this issue as a political football to try and oust Corbyn. I'm even more disappointed with Cameron for accusing those who stand against air strikes of being 'terrorist sympathizers'.
To me this just seems like we are repeating past mistakes of Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. I don't understand why our government / MPs are so keen on war all the f
king time.
I'm disappointed with Labour so called 'moderates' who have used this issue as a political football to try and oust Corbyn. I'm even more disappointed with Cameron for accusing those who stand against air strikes of being 'terrorist sympathizers'.
To me this just seems like we are repeating past mistakes of Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. I don't understand why our government / MPs are so keen on war all the f
king time. saaby93 said:
LimaDelta said:
saaby93 said:
Running at 12(bombISIS) +5(best) vs 43(Poke Hornets) +26 (worst)
17% for vs 69% against
Will our elected reps follow suit?
Why have you counted the hornets nest as a vote against?17% for vs 69% against
Will our elected reps follow suit?
Isn't that whats happening currently - we do a bit of drone striking, it winds up followers and they come out and bomb an aircraft or a shopping mall
Did anyone tick hornets in favour of bombing?
I ticked it because the question was:
'It will be like poking a hornets' nest.'
to which the answer is obvious, 'you don't'.
Unless, of course, you are stupid!
CMD knows this, so he retorts to those who oppose as 'terrorist sympathisers'. Idiot.
John Mann MP gave a rude but accurate twitter response (party politics aside)
'Cameron calls us terrorist sympathisers.
I call him a thick ignorant flashman.
How dare he.
(I don't imagine his own MPs will be happy either).'
VolvoT5 said:
I can't see what we can add to the bombing that other countries aren't already providing.
Brimfire missiles fired from Tornadoes able to identify and target small moving targets e.g. trucks, midflight. And the fact that it's ridiculous that if said targets drive over a pretend line in the desert the current rules of engagement forbid the target from being destroyed. Leroy902 said:
Jurgen todenhofer
The only person I've heard make any sense, and someone that knows what he's talking about is a German journalist called Jurgen Todenhofer.
He's a German journalist who spend 10 days with isis.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1ucAqS4Qodg
He's also been on BBC hardtalk.
https://youtu.be/YRCPRKgAaTg
Thanks for this, listened to both, very interesting insights in life within IS. Not many people know that much about IS, or why they have become such a force in the past 5 years. It all comes back to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, as he pointed out, Sunni people became marginalised and targeted by the new Shia government, giving fuel to the rise of IS, and why moderate Sunni's tolerate them.The only person I've heard make any sense, and someone that knows what he's talking about is a German journalist called Jurgen Todenhofer.
He's a German journalist who spend 10 days with isis.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1ucAqS4Qodg
He's also been on BBC hardtalk.
https://youtu.be/YRCPRKgAaTg
Edited by Leroy902 on Tuesday 1st December 17:40
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If we bomb IS, innocent people will die. But IS have killed 250K innocent people in Syria, and so no doubt many of those innocents that we bomb would be killed anyway.
Nobody dying is not an option. People will die whether we bomb or not. Which course of action kills the minimum number of innocent people?
And more importantly, which course of action will result in minimising deaths of UK citizens, given IS want to wipe us from the face of the Earth and it's the governments first duty to protect its people (including British Muslims who also die in terror attacks).
(I don't know the answer by the way)
They have killed anywhere near that many people. That's the figure that have died in the Syrian civil war, mostly from the actions of Assad. ISIS are an abhorrent bunch, but they aren't the most prolific killers in the area. Bombing ISIS and leaving Assad alone is a waste of time. Nobody dying is not an option. People will die whether we bomb or not. Which course of action kills the minimum number of innocent people?
And more importantly, which course of action will result in minimising deaths of UK citizens, given IS want to wipe us from the face of the Earth and it's the governments first duty to protect its people (including British Muslims who also die in terror attacks).
(I don't know the answer by the way)
They also don't want to wipe us out, they want a holy war. Terrorism over here is designed to whip up anger against them to fight against them in their holy war. It's working.
Edited by Frik on Wednesday 2nd December 11:42
"best idea yet" for me.
If I thought for one second that a 'no' vote would see an equivalent cash spend and expenditure of thought and effort on the problems we have here at home then I'd vote no.
However, a no vote in this case I think would just end in everyone going down the boozer until some bloke in a vest decided to send his head into the stars in a crowded shopping centre.
If I thought for one second that a 'no' vote would see an equivalent cash spend and expenditure of thought and effort on the problems we have here at home then I'd vote no.
However, a no vote in this case I think would just end in everyone going down the boozer until some bloke in a vest decided to send his head into the stars in a crowded shopping centre.
I think what most of the public don't get is that we are taking sides in an Islamic civil war, Dave was probably advised that trying to explain to the public that Islamic ground troops are there because the Shia millitias all hate the Sunni ISIL fighters wouldn't be the best idea, better to relabel the Shia 'moderates' and the Sunni 'extremeists'. Ironically bogey men like Hezbollah are now on 'our' side.
Blimey,I hadn't seen this !
The Guardian is reporting that the well known communist/terrorist group known as The Foreign Affairs Select Committee, has told Cameron to go home and re-do his homework.
David Cameron’s hopes of building a consensus behind military action against Islamic State in Syria has suffered a blow after parliament’s foreign affairs select committee said he had failed to justify airstrikes.
The plot thinnens..
The Guardian is reporting that the well known communist/terrorist group known as The Foreign Affairs Select Committee, has told Cameron to go home and re-do his homework.
David Cameron’s hopes of building a consensus behind military action against Islamic State in Syria has suffered a blow after parliament’s foreign affairs select committee said he had failed to justify airstrikes.
The plot thinnens..
It's the first time I really don't give a toss. We won't change the outcome either way.
More importantly there is no plan whatsoever (who are we fighting?) - it makes as much sense as the fight scene from Anchorman 2. Might as well let the French take the lead on this one - then if it goes wrong we can point at them.
More importantly there is no plan whatsoever (who are we fighting?) - it makes as much sense as the fight scene from Anchorman 2. Might as well let the French take the lead on this one - then if it goes wrong we can point at them.
XJ40 said:
Wasn't Putin grumbling about Turkey taking ISIS oil? Not sure what true there is in that..
Not grumbling, he has been naming people:http://www.mintpressnews.com/211624-2/211624/
Isreal has since been caught purchasing this stolen oil.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/arab-paper-claims-isr...
http://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/features/2015/11/...
Now if you zoom out further and take the dots that are the recent terrorist attacks in France into this context things start to make more sense:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/par...
False flag attacks are not bullsh*t however. They have been used as a "brilliant" tactic to bring nations to war since the dawn of man.
War is not the answer unless the question is "How do we make more money?"
Iraq should not be used as an excuse to continue. That was an illegal war planned a year before behind closed doors with Bush. Bush and Blair have been found guilty of war crimes as a result.
Follow the money and ultimately we end up realising that there are two situations unfolding simultaneously:
1. The people on the ground who are none the wiser of the geo-political strings being pulled who are fighting for their freedom (whether fighting for the freedom of their land, or with extremists out of fear that they will be killed, or because they have been genuinely turned by extremism and that is their cause)
2. Whilst the chaos on the ground unfolds it is becoming clearer that Western states are funding, and training extremists (moderate extremism is an oxymoron!) whom are fighting others whom are also being funding from external states.
It's a sham. A sham where real lives are being destroyed on a daily basis.
The West is the loud bully in the playground whom its peoples are realising that his reputation is catching up with him, that his strong words and well presented elected leaders are in fact the causers of more pain than promised and never delivered freedoms. But we, the West, keep shouting our truths as the countries we touch fall to ruin. "This next one will work, trust us..."
As they say, bombing for peace is like f*cking for virginity...
How to Solved the Syrian Refugee Crisis in 5 Steps
Patrick Bateman said:
Solve this crisis in 5 steps type articles always make it sound so easy.
Transcript for those not able to browse Youtube:StormCloudsGathering said:
1. Stop funding and arming rebel groups attempting to overthrow the Syrian government. It's well established that these weapons have been ending up in the hands of ISIS and its affiliates. This has caused nothing but chaos and destruction. Money being funneled into these shady operations should be immediately redirected to an intensive reconstruction effort.
2. Pressure Turkey and Jordan to cut off ISIS supply routes, and impose sanctions on any country facilitating the sale of oil from IS territory or allowing funds or materials to reach them. No army can function if their supply chain is broken. It's not an accident these routes start at the Turkish and Jordanian borders.
3. Support the Syrian government. An entire year of U.S. airstrikes in Syria have utterly failed to destroy or even significantly weaken ISIS. Of course this is because the real strategy isn't to bring ISIS down, but rather to contain them and allow them to weaken Assad gradually. If Washington really wanted to stop this group, they would take a hint from Russia and provide the Syrian government with weapons, training and logistical support to enable them to push ISIS back. This means Washington and its allies would have to officially abandon all plans for a forced regime change. They might not like Assad, but the majority of the citizens of Syria support him. In fact he has more support within his country than Obama or the U.S. congress have in America. And at various intervals he's had more support than Congress and Obama combined. Any government installed after a U.S. backed regime change will be viewed as a puppet government, and will therefore lack the legitimacy needed to stabilize the region. If you need evidence of this, just look at Afghanistan or Iraq.
4. Provide direct assistance to rebuild housing, infrastructure and businesses destroyed by the conflict. In the short term temporary refugee camps should be set up in areas outside of the conflict zone, and food and medical supplies shipped in on a regular basis. Yes this will cost money, but so has the five year regime change push that created the problem in the first place.
5.Return the refugees to these stabilized regions. It is in no one's interest to flood Europe with masses of unemployed refugees. Doing so will only lead to heightened tensions and will strengthen xenophobic movements. These people don't need to be transplanted into the ghettos of Europe, they need their homes back.
Links to sources available here:2. Pressure Turkey and Jordan to cut off ISIS supply routes, and impose sanctions on any country facilitating the sale of oil from IS territory or allowing funds or materials to reach them. No army can function if their supply chain is broken. It's not an accident these routes start at the Turkish and Jordanian borders.
3. Support the Syrian government. An entire year of U.S. airstrikes in Syria have utterly failed to destroy or even significantly weaken ISIS. Of course this is because the real strategy isn't to bring ISIS down, but rather to contain them and allow them to weaken Assad gradually. If Washington really wanted to stop this group, they would take a hint from Russia and provide the Syrian government with weapons, training and logistical support to enable them to push ISIS back. This means Washington and its allies would have to officially abandon all plans for a forced regime change. They might not like Assad, but the majority of the citizens of Syria support him. In fact he has more support within his country than Obama or the U.S. congress have in America. And at various intervals he's had more support than Congress and Obama combined. Any government installed after a U.S. backed regime change will be viewed as a puppet government, and will therefore lack the legitimacy needed to stabilize the region. If you need evidence of this, just look at Afghanistan or Iraq.
4. Provide direct assistance to rebuild housing, infrastructure and businesses destroyed by the conflict. In the short term temporary refugee camps should be set up in areas outside of the conflict zone, and food and medical supplies shipped in on a regular basis. Yes this will cost money, but so has the five year regime change push that created the problem in the first place.
5.Return the refugees to these stabilized regions. It is in no one's interest to flood Europe with masses of unemployed refugees. Doing so will only lead to heightened tensions and will strengthen xenophobic movements. These people don't need to be transplanted into the ghettos of Europe, they need their homes back.
http://stormcloudsgathering.com/how-to-solve-the-e...
Patrick Bateman said:
What's this crap about not calling it IS/ISIS/ISIL. What did we call the IRA?
Isnt it because true Islamic peoples enjoying their ways of life in various countries with an Islamic background dont want themselves associated with the so called Islamic State which sort of implies that everyone and every country that's Islamic should be part of itsaaby93 said:
Isnt it because true Islamic peoples enjoying their ways of life in various countries with an Islamic background dont want themselves associated with the so called Islamic State which sort of implies that everyone and every country that's Islamic should be part of it
It is what it is. There are more important things to discuss, especially when the arabic term they're using is also an acronym for the same thing.I don't support mass airstrikes on ISIS in Syria.
ISIS have become a convenient bogeyman so European nations can overlook home grown radicalism.
The danger of bombing them in Syria is that we then appear to support their nominal adversaries (who they don't actually spend much time fighting) in the Assad regime, who are mass murderers with the blood of tens of thousands of innocents on their hands.
By all means if you can identify individuals planning terror attacks in the west, or those responsible for such attacks, then take them out. But the dangers of how this can be portrayed as opposed to what little good it will do means that I don't support a general bombing campaign.
ISIS have become a convenient bogeyman so European nations can overlook home grown radicalism.
The danger of bombing them in Syria is that we then appear to support their nominal adversaries (who they don't actually spend much time fighting) in the Assad regime, who are mass murderers with the blood of tens of thousands of innocents on their hands.
By all means if you can identify individuals planning terror attacks in the west, or those responsible for such attacks, then take them out. But the dangers of how this can be portrayed as opposed to what little good it will do means that I don't support a general bombing campaign.
Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 2nd December 13:31
I have to say the quality of the debate in the HOC is pretty woeful. Cameron's speech was unconvincing and interrupted far too many times by those wishing to make cheap points about his 'terrorist sympathizer' remarks..... of course he was wrong to say that but it was obvious he wasn't going to apologize so they should have just moved on instead of wasting time.
Corbyn was then forced to stutter through his reply - having to shout over pathetic Conservative heckling.
Total lack of dignity from all sides of the HOC.
Corbyn was then forced to stutter through his reply - having to shout over pathetic Conservative heckling.
Total lack of dignity from all sides of the HOC.
Patrick Bateman said:
saaby93 said:
Isnt it because true Islamic peoples enjoying their ways of life in various countries with an Islamic background dont want themselves associated with the so called Islamic State which sort of implies that everyone and every country that's Islamic should be part of it
It is what it is. There are more important things to discuss, especially when the arabic term they're using is also an acronym for the same thing.Daesh however means:
Independent Article said:
Daesh, an adapted acronym of their Arabic name - Dawlat al-Islamiyah f'al-Iraq w Belaad al-Sham - is similar to another Arabic word - das - which means 'to trample down' or 'crush', which could therefore be the source of their dislike.
Source: http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/why-isis-wil...It's bull and spin to be honest. The extremists are not watching international coverage whilst they commit their crimes. They couldn't care less even if the image is put out that they will "cut out the tongues of those that use this slur" - They are already beheading and murdering for a lot less.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff