Is it right to bomb Syria?

bwfc1874 wrote:

Considering Miliband voted against air strikes I think you're talking shit.

But really you need to stop trying to boil this down to a level you can get your head round. Do you think Cameron's proposal had any long term strategy in it? Is killing more innocent people in the Middle East going slow down the rate people join these groups? Have any of our Middle East interventions been successful?

Paris changed everything.

There is no alternative to bombing. If we do nothing it won't change how the terrorists feel about us.

I thought of you the other day when I was watching TV. Some deluded hippy was saying we should get ISIS around a table and see what it is they actually want. He clearly thought you could ring them up and invite them to Downing Street for a cup of tea.

You're making yourself look a right tit, Norpig.

Natasha Whittam wrote:There is no alternative to bombing. If we do nothing it won't change how the terrorists feel about us.

Of course there are alternatives to indiscriminately dropping bombs on the country. No wonder these people join ISIS when we're hell bent on blowing up their homes. 

I'd have had more time for Cameron's proposal if he'd offered any sort of long term strategy, but he hasn't. For instance e's claimed 70,000 'allies' on the ground are ready to sweep in after our bombs hit. That's already been proved to be false, 70,000 is a rough estimate of all the anti-Assad groups some of whom are fighting each other, and if we were to start backing them what then? We'd be openly fighting Assad and Putin.

A symbolic gesture to support our allies is all well and good, but we're contributing to yet more innocent deaths and fuelling the next generation to sign up for ISIS - the exact same mistakes all over again.

I thought of you the other day when I was watching TV. Some deluded hippy was saying we should get ISIS around a table and see what it is they actually want. He clearly thought you could ring them up and invite them to Downing Street for a cup of tea.

No you didn't see that, and nobody's saying that. The fact you can't think of alternatives to Cameron's 'strategy' doesn't mean everyone else is so simple.

And let's not forget that we've had calls in the past to support and arm the anti-Assad mob.

You know....?

The ones who actually turned out to be IS......?

Boggersbelief wrote:You're making yourself look a right tit, Norpig.

 thats a nice thing to say to your campaign manager, i feel deflated now. Anyone would think you didn't want to be Bellend of the Year 

bwfc1874 wrote:

Of course there are alternatives to indiscriminately dropping bombs on the country. No wonder these people join ISIS when we're hell bent on blowing up their homes. 

I'd have had more time for Cameron's proposal if he'd offered any sort of long term strategy, but he hasn't. For instance e's claimed 70,000 'allies' on the ground are ready to sweep in after our bombs hit. That's already been proved to be false, 70,000 is a rough estimate of all the anti-Assad groups some of whom are fighting each other, and if we were to start backing them what then? We'd be openly fighting Assad and Putin.

A symbolic gesture to support our allies is all well and good, but we're contributing to yet more innocent deaths and fuelling the next generation to sign up for ISIS - the exact same mistakes all over again.

So if we just withdrew from everywhere and returned all troops to the UK would that stop us being a target for terrorists? Would it fuck.

If we stop bombing them and disrupting their lives they will grow stronger every day. There is no peaceful solution when dealing with these people, if you think otherwise you belong in a hippy commune singing Kumbaya fifty times a day.

Either you haven't read what iv written or you're genuinely as simple as I've been saying.

Isis believe with an all-consuming, frightening passion in the rightness of what they are doing, and seem able to recruit, replace and renew quite easily from all around the world.

Question for the MPs: can you bomb and rid the world of a belief, an idea? What will bombing actually achieve in practical terms into the distant future?

We'd be better off instituting sanctions against Saudi Arabia and Yemen in order to starve Daesh of funds to continue their terror.

bwfc1874 wrote:Either you haven't read what iv written or you're genuinely as simple as I've been saying.

You always resort to name calling when you lose an argument.

How dare you, I name call before, during and after arguments.

In this case though you are coming across a bit simple. Not for backing air strikes; thats understandable after Paris, but to ignore all of the arguments against and claim the only way to conduct air strikes is the narrow, short-term strategy Cameron's put forward.

bwfc1874 wrote:How dare you, I name call before, during and after arguments.

In this case though you are coming across a bit simple. Not for backing air strikes; thats understandable after Paris, but to ignore all of the arguments against and claim the only way to conduct air strikes is the narrow, short-term strategy Cameron's put forward.

I'm yet to hear a suitable alternative. Doing nothing simply isn't an option in my opinion.

Every time a Tornado takes off it costs the UK taxpayer £35,000. Every bomb costs the taxpayer £22,000.
Average mission cost around £100,000 per plane.

So over a million pissed away already and that's likely to ramp up as the Yanks are already spending £5.9 million a day on bombing Syrian society back to the 15th century.

If we spent a quarter of that money on anti-terrorist cyber technology, recruiting and maintaining specialist anti-terrorist Customs and Excise Officers and rigourous campaigning* in British Muslim schools and communities we would do far, far more to mitigate the threat of terrorism than this fiasco.

The money saved could go on improving hospitals, schools etc.


* By campaigning I refer to the piss poor awareness raising of IS attacks on Muslims - their main victims in terms of murder, rape and enslavement - in conjunction with the Government's failure to promote the freedoms that British Muslims currently enjoy that they wouldn't under IS rule.

This won't make a blind bit of difference.

the problem runs a lot deeper and it will never be dealt with, you can glean that from the utter tripe spouted by Cameron in Parliament yesterday.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:This won't make a blind bit of difference.

the problem runs a lot deeper and it will never be dealt with, you can glean that from the utter tripe spouted by Cameron in Parliament yesterday.

Why are you such a defeatist?

Because he's Scottish

Boggersbelief wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:This won't make a blind bit of difference.

the problem runs a lot deeper and it will never be dealt with, you can glean that from the utter tripe spouted by Cameron in Parliament yesterday.

Why are you such a defeatist?

I became aware of my own mortality, it was downhill since that.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:How dare you, I name call before, during and after arguments.

In this case though you are coming across a bit simple. Not for backing air strikes; thats understandable after Paris, but to ignore all of the arguments against and claim the only way to conduct air strikes is the narrow, short-term strategy Cameron's put forward.

I'm yet to hear a suitable alternative. Doing nothing simply isn't an option in my opinion.

Again nobody's suggesting doing nothing. An long term and exit strategy would be nice though as would an explanation over how the government expect our planes to make a difference when the US haven't in over a year.