rondog1973
Well-Known Member
Anyone else?
Terrorist sympathiser here....... (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter rondog1973
- Start date
rondog1973
Well-Known Member
Our Prime Minister this evening more or less dubbed anyone opposed to air strikes by this country on Syria a 'Terrorist sympathiser'.
ConnorDevine
Well-Known Member
surely you're eluding to something deeper here? no one would admit to sympathising with murdering in the name of terror at 11pm, on a monday, on Sky Blues talk, surely????
However, in hope of rescuing some kind of discussion, I personally think bombing Syria would be terrorism, and that isn't the way to do it. (in the same way bombing Ireland when the IRA were active would have been terrorism)
I also think we need to recognise terrorism can be done by anyone, not just Muslims. The planned parenthood shootings in the USA were Christian Terrorist acts, pure and simple.
However, in hope of rescuing some kind of discussion, I personally think bombing Syria would be terrorism, and that isn't the way to do it. (in the same way bombing Ireland when the IRA were active would have been terrorism)
I also think we need to recognise terrorism can be done by anyone, not just Muslims. The planned parenthood shootings in the USA were Christian Terrorist acts, pure and simple.
rondog1973
Well-Known Member
See above post.
ConnorDevine
Well-Known Member
Ah, yeah caught up now, glad you agree. ISIS, like the IRA are a paramilitary embedded in a civilian population, for the most part bombing them would require bombing innocent people, which is just fighting terror with terror
rob9872
Well-Known Member
Great idea chaps, let's do nothing, because they're really getting the message, terrorism isn't escalating and innocent people aren't already being massacred. In fact let's ask really nicely and I'm sure they'll all stop plotting, accept that they are wrong and it will be a much happier place.
FFS!!!!!!
FFS!!!!!!
rondog1973
Well-Known Member
How many of the recent terrorist attacks have been carried out by Syrians Rob?
covmark
Well-Known Member
We're already bombing Iraq, where was the op and all the other anti war heroes when this started.
FWIW I really wish we weren't bombing anybody. Then again I wish 130 people weren't murdered in France and 30 people weren't murdered in Mali. It's a sad world in which we live.
FWIW I really wish we weren't bombing anybody. Then again I wish 130 people weren't murdered in France and 30 people weren't murdered in Mali. It's a sad world in which we live.
rondog1973
Well-Known Member
This actually started (The west involving itself in Middle Eastern regime change) way before SBT even existed, but thanks anyway.
covmark
Well-Known Member
And??
rob9872
Well-Known Member
Would that be the Syrian who went through Greece to be involved with Paris attacks (if the discovered passport was proven)?
Regardless, we are in a war situation that we did not choose, we must protect ourselves and in war there will be casualties, unfortunately some of them innocent, but we can't sit back and allow these training camps to continue or allow more people to travel and be brainwashed into thinking it's acceptable. This must be wiped out. I wonder if your view woukd be different if your family was killed by terror over here, but now of course you can take the high ground if it happens and say it's as a direct result of our airstrikes.
Regardless, we are in a war situation that we did not choose, we must protect ourselves and in war there will be casualties, unfortunately some of them innocent, but we can't sit back and allow these training camps to continue or allow more people to travel and be brainwashed into thinking it's acceptable. This must be wiped out. I wonder if your view woukd be different if your family was killed by terror over here, but now of course you can take the high ground if it happens and say it's as a direct result of our airstrikes.
rondog1973
Well-Known Member
The point of the OP is that it's reprehensible to suggest you are a terrorist sympathiser if you object to this country joining a confused coalition in bombing Syria.
That clear enough?
skybluejelly
Well-Known Member
We tried appeasement before and look where that got us...these people do not want to sit round a table and talk ..they do not like the western way off life and will do anything to disrupt it
rondog1973
Well-Known Member
Why do we need to join what the combined military might of the U.S, Russia and France are already doing?
This, unfortunately is a global guerilla campaign which recruits via slick online propaganda. Motives and agendas of those already bombing are not aligned. Us joining only serves to imperil us further.
rob9872
Well-Known Member
Not imo, we are simply demonstrating a united front with our allies and hope they would do the same for us.
If you heard racism shouted by a group of idiots at the ricoh, would you sit back simply because someone else pointed it out to them or would you voice your opinion too that it was wrong and show a united front against abhorrent views? I know I would help my fellow supporter and would be disappointed if I was to be hung out to dry and left to do it on my own. The principle remains the same.
If you heard racism shouted by a group of idiots at the ricoh, would you sit back simply because someone else pointed it out to them or would you voice your opinion too that it was wrong and show a united front against abhorrent views? I know I would help my fellow supporter and would be disappointed if I was to be hung out to dry and left to do it on my own. The principle remains the same.
Just for clarity rondog, what exactly did Cameron say?
A quote would be useful
It sounds like the typical style in politics today where the extreme point is accentuated to present black and white with no grey, so when you find yourself in the grey you're not with so have to be agen.
I think this has more to do with a lack of leadership a year or so back coupled with Obamas reluctance and the vacuum that has created bringing Russia to the fore.
That to me is what's driving this and it's a clusterfuck with no known outcome.
Edit -I've just seen it rondog and I agree that is an appalling remark.
That to me is what's driving this and it's a clusterfuck with no known outcome.
Edit -I've just seen it rondog and I agree that is an appalling remark.
Johnnythespider
Well-Known Member
Smacks of the old " enemy within" comments from Thatcher
mechaishida
Well-Known Member
I knew it was coming, it's a chain link in the fulfilment itinerary set out by Cameron's handlers. "Do as your told David, say what we tell you to, and the riches are yours. Never mind about bombing a country just for the hell of it, nobody will ever know we're behind everything; IS are a cog in the Elite's machine you silly billy. Now stop wibbling and get bombing."
May future generations look back pitiably on this time in human history. We were too weak and narrow-minded to see beyond the veil of deceit.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Well Cameron now is managing to emulate his political hero, the ghastly Tony Blair.
Frankly there is less justification here than Iraq. No apparent motive other than vain egotism by the absurd Cameron.
This however is what happens when there is no opposition, when the opposition leaders only allies are his former lover and, of course, a terrorist sympathiser.
A responsible opposition could stop this. With Corbyn the clown at the helm - it's an easy ride into the latest pointless folly.
Frankly there is less justification here than Iraq. No apparent motive other than vain egotism by the absurd Cameron.
This however is what happens when there is no opposition, when the opposition leaders only allies are his former lover and, of course, a terrorist sympathiser.
A responsible opposition could stop this. With Corbyn the clown at the helm - it's an easy ride into the latest pointless folly.
mechaishida
Well-Known Member
Agreed, however any opposition would be futile anyway - like you said, he's following the footsteps of Butcher Blair and nothing's likely to curtail this broad spectrum 'war on Islam'. Not with the backing and momentum he's got.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
We certainly don't want any terrorist sypathisers having a say in this :facepalm:
Interesting point. Can we assume all those in favour of bombing Syria, which will undoubtedly lead to civilian deaths, would have supported other countries bombing England when the IRA was active here?
And of course after years of saying we would never talk to those involved in the Ireland conflict how did things eventually get resolved?
What started all this? It was us getting involved in the 'war on terror'. Since then terrorist attacks have increased 6,500% so clearly the plan is working fantastically well. Lets just go and do the same thing that has failed miserably before in Syria and assume it will work.
Worth noting that it wasn't too long ago that Cameron wanted to bomb Syria to get Assad out. Who do you think would have taken his place and had control of Syria's armed forces? That would be ISIS. The same ISIS we are supplying arms to via Saudi Arabia. There are plenty of things that can be done before we resort to bombing Syria. Problem is a lot of them would mean Cameron's millionaire mates not making as much money as they do out of conflict.
We are playing into their hands. This is exactly what they want and will be a great recruitment tool for ISIS and no doubt lead to an increase in attacks against European countries, including ourselves.
Interesting point. Can we assume all those in favour of bombing Syria, which will undoubtedly lead to civilian deaths, would have supported other countries bombing England when the IRA was active here?
And of course after years of saying we would never talk to those involved in the Ireland conflict how did things eventually get resolved?
What started all this? It was us getting involved in the 'war on terror'. Since then terrorist attacks have increased 6,500% so clearly the plan is working fantastically well. Lets just go and do the same thing that has failed miserably before in Syria and assume it will work.
Worth noting that it wasn't too long ago that Cameron wanted to bomb Syria to get Assad out. Who do you think would have taken his place and had control of Syria's armed forces? That would be ISIS. The same ISIS we are supplying arms to via Saudi Arabia. There are plenty of things that can be done before we resort to bombing Syria. Problem is a lot of them would mean Cameron's millionaire mates not making as much money as they do out of conflict.
We are playing into their hands. This is exactly what they want and will be a great recruitment tool for ISIS and no doubt lead to an increase in attacks against European countries, including ourselves.
mechaishida
Well-Known Member
Here it is on RT News:
https://www.rt.com/uk/324231-syria-cameron-corbyn-airstrikes/
Haven't watched the video link to Peter Ford calling Cameron 'deceitful' over his Syria statement, yet.
https://www.rt.com/uk/324231-syria-cameron-corbyn-airstrikes/
Haven't watched the video link to Peter Ford calling Cameron 'deceitful' over his Syria statement, yet.
lifeskyblue
Well-Known Member
It is disgraceful to be considering bombing when other less aggressive options have not been tried. Why oh why are we still in bed with Saudi Arabia as they finance Isis? Why are our arms exporters rubbing their hands with glee? Why have many of the arms we as a nation have supplied to the region ended up in the hands of Isis?
If mr Cameron (and Blair before him) had the b*lls to take on vested business and foreign interest we probably wouldn't be where we are today. Stand up mr Cameron and own up....it is you and your policies (including the lack of them) that are the terrorists not those who question the validity, the moral purpose or the effectiveness of such actions taken in our name.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If mr Cameron (and Blair before him) had the b*lls to take on vested business and foreign interest we probably wouldn't be where we are today. Stand up mr Cameron and own up....it is you and your policies (including the lack of them) that are the terrorists not those who question the validity, the moral purpose or the effectiveness of such actions taken in our name.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Not watched the video yet as I can't have sound on in the office but Ford is also quoted on the BBC website:
Peter Ford said:
The chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has also come out against airstrikes:
Crispin Blunt said:
He also rubbished Cameron's claim that there are 70,000 moderate Syrian ground troops ready to assist:
Crispin Blunt said:
Joy Division
Well-Known Member
Can any pro-bombers here explain to me how this will eradicate ISIL and eradicate 'terror'? Whilst you are at it perhaps show me how the last 14 years of the war on terror have worked out?
I don't know what is sadder, Cameron so keen on bombing things or people actually believing his bullshit.
I don't know what is sadder, Cameron so keen on bombing things or people actually believing his bullshit.
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
Problem is a "responsible opposition" would require a couple hundred MPs who are not politically & ideologically aligned with Cameron & the tory leadership.....
the problem we've had in this country since the early 1990's is we have never had a credible or responsible opposition......2 sides of the same shitty coin...vast majority are self serving careerists....
....at least with Corbyn, we finally have an opposition leader whos primary focus is not lining the pockets of the corporate machine & banksters.....
I always thought that I could never hate a UK PM more than I hated Thatcher......but as the years roll on, both Blair & Cameron have managed to trump the old bitch.....
...Ah well, guess I'm just yet another terrorist sympathiser.....
eastwoodsdustman
Well-Known Member
Only way to stop it will be troops on the ground I fear. This would be another protracted and bloody conflict which I doubt anyone would want (maybe Blair I suppose:jerkit
.
The other option is to let the SAS loose on any jihadi's that come 'home' like Thatcher did on the IRA in the late 80's. That had a far bigger impact on 'home peace' than anything that went after.
. The other option is to let the SAS loose on any jihadi's that come 'home' like Thatcher did on the IRA in the late 80's. That had a far bigger impact on 'home peace' than anything that went after.
duffer
Well-Known Member
It's a ridiculous and offensive label, this 'terrorist sympathiser' thing - and it shows what a weak, pathetic man Cameron is for having to resort to it.
If you really want to take on ISIS, then the genuinely brave thing to do is to stand up against those funding and supporting them to suit their own political ends. From the analyses I've read this would include Turkey and Saudi-Arabia. We can't be doing business with those countries in the way that we are doing if we are genuinely against ISIS, but of course that would risk a real economic impact on this country - and those who run it are too cowardly to take that option.
So instead, we'll throw a few hundred more bombs at somewhere that already is targeted by the most powerful military force the world has ever seen, kill more innocents, radicalise more at home and abroad, and at the same time wash our hands of the refugee crisis that we're actively creating.
It hasn't worked before, and it's not going to work this time.
If you really want to take on ISIS, then the genuinely brave thing to do is to stand up against those funding and supporting them to suit their own political ends. From the analyses I've read this would include Turkey and Saudi-Arabia. We can't be doing business with those countries in the way that we are doing if we are genuinely against ISIS, but of course that would risk a real economic impact on this country - and those who run it are too cowardly to take that option.
So instead, we'll throw a few hundred more bombs at somewhere that already is targeted by the most powerful military force the world has ever seen, kill more innocents, radicalise more at home and abroad, and at the same time wash our hands of the refugee crisis that we're actively creating.
It hasn't worked before, and it's not going to work this time.
Where do the Saudi's fit into to this logic? They fund Isis, but encourage the bombing - allows them to maintain their position as "friend of the West", and most powerful oil rich nation in the region. Quite clever really (they have the West over a barrell, if you pardon the pun)
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The motion was defeated last time. Corbyn ultimately has views that would mean he would never support action. That makes him unfit for purpose.
The MP's who are going against him this time are I suspect thinking of their own political futures.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
It won't on it's own but what it will do is give the non radicals fighting them on the ground great assistance in driving IS out of the towns and cities and largely into the open so they can be dealt with. On it's own this strategy will never work, the only way you will eradicate IS is with dialogue and education.
