Should we be fighting in Syria?

Natasha Whittam wrote:Are you saying ISIS aren't a threat? Are you suggesting if we do nothing they will just ignore us?

You're right.

Is are a threat.

If you're a Shia Muslim living in Syria or Iraq.

Or if you're a non-Muslim who's daft enough to go over there and start spouting off about nuking the place.

Drunk drivers will kill more British people than IS over the next ten years.

Breadman wrote:

Drunk drivers will kill more British people than IS over the next ten years.

Wow, how clueless are you? I suggest you watch Good Morning Britain from this morning.

Do you honestly think ISIS are going to be content beheading a few foreigners?

They will be on the streets of Chorley, Adlington and Whittle-le-Woods inside 10 years.

Who did they have on?

Amy Schumer and Snoop Dogg.

Hahahaha

Natasha Whittam wrote:Amy Schumer and Snoop Dogg.

Are they out of Glee?

Breadman wrote:

Are they out of Glee?

No, they are serious political commentators. Haven't you heard 'Doggystyle'?

I was always more "East Coast" in my taste, back in da day.

That lot from California always just looked like they were just playing at it to me.

Not like serious rappers such as Doug E Fresh and Will Smith.

Preston Rap.
http://www.lep.co.uk/what-s-on/music/lancashire-dad-brings-flat-cap-rap-to-preston-1-6901531

Bump!

Back in the news again today.

Anybody changed their mind on this issue since this thread started?



It's back - the prospect of the government sending British planes to drop bombs in Syria.

Ministers have for months believed it illogical to strike so-called IS in Iraq, but not over the border in Syria where their HQ is.

But the Paris attacks have led the PM to conclude "we have to ask if we are doing everything that we can do, and should do" to take extremists on alongside our allies.

For him, that means making the case for increasing intervention once again.

It will come in the form of an unusual personal response from the prime minister to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which set out broad concerns about strikes.

But David Cameron is pushing this right back up the agenda after months where the Parliamentary arithmetic was not certain enough for him to risk a humiliating defeat.

It still is not.

The anti-action position of the Labour leadership makes another vote far from a forgone conclusion.

There is deep concern about taking action unless it's part of wider efforts to bring peace to Syria.

That's why the prime minister has not committed to holding a vote asking for backing for air strikes yet, but instead is committing to remake the case more firmly and more comprehensively to try once more to persuade MPs.

As things stand a vote on strikes might probably sneak through, as many as 50 Labour MPs are interested in supporting action, and some Tory rebels have shifted position.

But a "maybe" won't be enough for Number 10 to ask the Commons formally again.

Today's statement by Mr Cameron is a big step, but only one along the road to a vote, and planes being sent into action in Syrian skies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34844724

I can't see any difference between bombing IS in Iraq and bombing them in Syria.

The problem Cameron ran into before was that he was trying to bomb Assad as well. This makes no sense as Assad is the main opponent of IS in Syria. Attempts to pretend that there is a viable non-IS opposition to Assad were exposed when the Americans wasted millions supplying weapons to so-called moderates who promptly changed sides and handed over their weapons to IS.

I don't see any option but to fight. They aren't going to stop attacking us just because we aren't bombing them in Syria.

I can't understand anyone thinking NOT fighting is the way forward.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

I can't understand anyone thinking NOT fighting is the way forward.

At some point we'll realise our continued bombing of the Middle East is making things worse. Be nice if the government actually took real action by coming down hard on IS support and funding.

bwfc1874 wrote:

At some point we'll realise our continued bombing of the Middle East is making things worse. Be nice if the government actually took real action by coming down hard on IS support and funding.

It may well be making things worse, but not bombing them won't make things better. They hate us, that is a fact.

The only chance our children and grandchildren have is to rid the world of these terrorists. We won't do that by hacking their Excel spreadsheets.

Should we bomb Leeds and the Home Counties whilst we're at it? That's where the London bombers were born, grew up and came from.

I can understand us trying to protect innocent Muslims in Syria on humanitarian grounds - IS/ISIL's victims are 99% Muslim themselves, but bombing Syria will do absolutely nothing to reduce the threat in the UK. If anything it will increase the threat by giving mentally disturbed British youths a cause to fight for.

IS: Murdering, Raping and Enslaving Muslims in the name of Islam

wanderlust wrote:but bombing Syria will do absolutely nothing to reduce the threat in the UK. If anything it will increase the threat by giving mentally disturbed British youths a cause to fight for.

Utter rubbish.

If IS is bombed to shit and all its soldiers are dead, there will be nowhere for the British sympathisers to go.

If you have an overdue Blockbuster video there's nowhere to return it no matter how hard you try.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:but bombing Syria will do absolutely nothing to reduce the threat in the UK. If anything it will increase the threat by giving mentally disturbed British youths a cause to fight for.

Utter rubbish.

If IS is bombed to shit and all its soldiers are dead, there will be nowhere for the British sympathisers to go.

If you have an overdue Blockbuster video there's nowhere to return it no matter how hard you try.

You cock.

None of these dickheads who are going round shooting people in Parisian concert halls or Australian cafes have ever even been to Syria, have they?

They're all "self-recruited" and have now got a cause and a flag to fight for.

Half of 'em are from fucking Belgium - should we blow that up too?

Breadman wrote:


You cock.

None of these dickheads who are going round shooting people in Parisian concert halls or Australian cafes have ever even been to Syria, have they?

They're all "self-recruited" and have now got a cause and a flag to fight for.

Half of 'em are from fucking Belgium - should we blow that up too?

Right, so IS have their headquarters in Belgium? You bellend.

If the leaders are dead IS is fucked. No army can survive without leadership.

Remove the head of the snake and it becomes a worm.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:but bombing Syria will do absolutely nothing to reduce the threat in the UK. If anything it will increase the threat by giving mentally disturbed British youths a cause to fight for.

Utter rubbish.

If IS is bombed to shit and all its soldiers are dead, there will be nowhere for the British sympathisers to go.

No they'll stay in Preston until we bomb the shithole to pieces.

You don't seem to be able to understand that the war to create a Muslim State in the Middle East is over there whilst the threat to Britain is over here.

Do you think the Paris bombers flew in from Damascus? 

Fed up hearing that tired old nonsensical argument about the threat to Britain. The threat of ISIL is to the West's oil interests so if we send in the troops it's to protect Shell, BP and the oil-driven capitalist economy not shoppers in Deansgate. 

Make no mistake - our brave lads will not be dying to protect British citizens or the homeland and it is disgusting to suggest so.

wanderlust wrote:

Make no mistake - our brave lads will not be dying to protect British citizens or the homeland and it is disgusting to suggest so.

What a load of shit. They are defending our freedom.

If we don't bomb them to shit we'll all be wearing burkas and sandals in 20 years.