SANTAN Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 Oaft. That is some seriously desperate attention seeking. Why have you posted your thoughts on this forum? In the hope that Nobody sees them? Did you make this post with the intention of somebody seeing it and therefore opinionating on it, possibly agreeing with you? Attention seeker. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 Is it just me that thinks bombing and done attacks is the ultimate in cowardly act of the West. We want to go to war but aren't willing to risk any British lives? If you did think that ' wiping out isis ' was the answer (which of course it's not) then surely is worth doing properly. Toe to toe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SANTAN Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 Is it just me that thinks bombing and done attacks is the ultimate in cowardly act of the West. We want to go to war but aren't willing to risk any British lives? If you did think that ' wiping out isis ' was the answer (which of course it's not) then surely is worth doing properly. Toe to toe. So we should risk uneccesary lives so as to not be seen as cowardly? Do you think ground invasion is the "proper" way to do things? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 Cameron says the RAF have unique capabilities that are required. I presume this to be thier ability to bomb on a budget rather than any technical capabilities. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 So we should risk uneccesary lives so as to not be seen as cowardly? Do you think ground invasion is the "proper" way to do things? No. I don't think war against ISIS is the way forward. They thrive on that shit. My point is that drones and air campaigns basically give off the impression that we're not fully committed. Willing to rain death upon thousands but not willing to risk any British lives in the process. The extremist propaganda practically writes itself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 Cameron says the RAF have unique capabilities that are required. I presume this to be thier ability to bomb on a budget rather than any technical capabilities. Bombing using old planes? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 (edited) Looks like the SNP will be voting no to bombing isis in syria. No big deal or surprise as we all know the SNP have no spine to do what has to be done. http://www.itv.com/news/border/2015-11-26/peter-macmahons-politics-blog-on-basis-of-what-weve-heard-snp-will-vote-against-bombing-syria-salmond/ Edited November 26, 2015 by kevthedee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 I'm for bombing. Strongly disagree with the SNP (of which I'm a member) on this issue 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 I'm for bombing. Strongly disagree with the SNP (of which I'm a member) on this issue Why? Bombing has neither destroyed ISIS nor protected those engaged in it from terrorist atrocities (quite the opposite). France thought, "ISIS is a threat to us - we must bomb their breeding ground". Following their bombings, France was attacked by ISIS. By what logic should the UK now think, "ISIS is a threat to us - we must bomb their breeding ground"? We have demonstrable proof that bombing has not been effective and is a dangerous game to play. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 I see the option as either bombing them as part of 'allies' bombing or doing nothing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 I see the option as either bombing them as part of 'allies' bombing or doing nothing. Bombing has resulted in large-scale terrorist attacks; doing nothing hasn't. I actually do think something has to be done about these backwards, evil monsters. But a knee-jerk "let's just bomb 'em" when we have seen what has happened to a country doing exactly that is absolutely bizarre. When any government wants to rush immediately into a bombing campaign, that's a pretty good signal that we should put the brakes on, stop and think carefully about how things should be managed with an eye to the future, potential consequences, and alternative means of achieving our goals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 Wow. I fully agree with you here. You've changed. Changed what Lichtie !? Cameron is wrong on this, he won't win this vote 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 I was wondering who was sitting next to Osborne. It is Nicky Morgan and I think I know where she is hiding 2 of the missiles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 I was wondering who was sitting next to Osborne. It is Nicky Morgan and I think I know where she is hiding 2 of the missiles. Did Danny Alexander sneak back into parliament in comedy drag? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 Bombing has resulted in large-scale terrorist attacks; doing nothing hasn't. I actually do think something has to be done about these backwards, evil monsters. But a knee-jerk "let's just bomb 'em" when we have seen what has happened to a country doing exactly that is absolutely bizarre. When any government wants to rush immediately into a bombing campaign, that's a pretty good signal that we should put the brakes on, stop and think carefully about how things should be managed with an eye to the future, potential consequences, and alternative means of achieving our goals. I see our potential options as...... All western countries do nothing - ISIS spreads UK does nothing - get allies to do the dirty work for us. What if all allies took the same view? Join in the bombing - tens of thousands of civilians may die but potential to curtail/diminish ISIS ISIS terror attacks in Europe will carry on regardless of which of those 3 options are taken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Rider Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 Looks like the SNP will be voting no to bombing isis in syria. No big deal or surprise as we all know the SNP have no spine to do what has to be done.http://www.itv.com/news/border/2015-11-26/peter-macmahons-politics-blog-on-basis-of-what-weve-heard-snp-will-vote-against-bombing-syria-salmond/ What's the plan then Toryboy. What needs to be done? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 Did Danny Alexander sneak back into parliament in comedy drag?She's no oil painting, but you'd never be stuck for somewhere to hang your duffle coat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 "No sooner has one area been subdued than another breaks out in revolt and has to be dealt with by aeroplane…all these tribal disturbances have been dealt with from the air… thus the Army has been saved from marching many weary miles over bad country and sustaining casualties." Army spokesman in 1919. Sad we haven't moved on any from then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 (edited) Bombing has resulted in large-scale terrorist attacks; doing nothing hasn't. This is very revealing. Firstly when the Charlie Hebdo attacks happened in France they were not engaged in any bombing. So your second statement is wrong. Then there is the deeply odious logic you follow. We should not attack terrorists attacking civilians because we might become targets. Whether we should be involved in attacking ISIS or should be based on what is best for the Syrian people, what is best for the long term spread of secular democracy and what is most likely to bring down these child raping vermin. This is not the first time in our history when we have been asked to stick our hand up and accept the risks to our civilian population for a greater, long term good. My older aunts remember the bombers trying to hit the Clyde dock yards. We had the chance to duck that fight. They did not. Britnat, cybernat and all that did not exist then. People just felt it was time to stand up and fight. Whether people believe we should be involved, we should not be involved but support those who are or the who thing makes things worse: these decisions and discussions should be made on long term consequence for the region and for world security. Not on that it encourages scum like ISIS to target other countries rather than us. ISIS are not some misunderstood group of freedom fighters. These are the real bad guys. They are committing genocide as we speak. They captured Yazidi women, killed those too old to f*ck and distributed the rest as war spoils. Including female children. What ever choice we take: people die. Do we bomb ISIS oil convoys and kill the drivers or do we let them get through and the money pays for militia who kill people in the towns they take. There is no happy and easy solution here: we don't drop some bombs and they disappear while we ride of into the sunset with the end credits rolling. The reason to bomb or not is which bring about this scums end faster. Do not fear these animals and their terror bombing. We have faced of the Luftwaffe in the past. Chose to bomb or not based on what brings these swine to the gallows quicker. Edited November 26, 2015 by dorlomin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SANTAN Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 Why? Bombing has neither destroyed ISIS nor protected those engaged in it from terrorist atrocities (quite the opposite). France thought, "ISIS is a threat to us - we must bomb their breeding ground". Following their bombings, France was attacked by ISIS. By what logic should the UK now think, "ISIS is a threat to us - we must bomb their breeding ground"? We have demonstrable proof that bombing has not been effective and is a dangerous game to play. He's clearly just trolling.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.