rondog1973
Well-Known Member
Anyone else?
Our Prime Minister this evening more or less dubbed anyone opposed to air strikes by this country on Syria a 'Terrorist sympathiser'.What??????
See above post.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.
How many of the recent terrorist attacks have been carried out by Syrians Rob?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!!!!!!
This actually started (The west involving itself in Middle Eastern regime change) way before SBT even existed, but thanks anyway.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.
And??This actually started (The west involving itself in Middle Eastern regime change) way before SBT even existed, but thanks anyway.
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.And??
Why do we need to join what the combined military might of the U.S, Russia and France are already doing?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.
Just for clarity rondog, what exactly did Cameron say?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.
Our Prime Minister this evening more or less dubbed anyone opposed to air strikes by this country on Syria a 'Terrorist sympathiser'.
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.
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)
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.
Haven't watched the video link to Peter Ford calling Cameron 'deceitful' over his Syria statement, yet.
Peter Ford said:"The added value of UK air strikes in Syria will be piddling - IS leaders have mostly moved to Mosul or are hiding among the civilian population - and because British people will die and be maimed as a direct result.
Labour MPs planning to vote for bombing should pause to consider the effect on their careers of exposing themselves to recrimination from the families of the soon-to-be bereaved after we see carnage on our streets.
The government are being economical with the truth about already being targeted by IS: they don't say the seven thwarted attacks were actually "by" IS but "linked to" or "inspired by". Weasel words.
If the government was sure of its legal case, why is it unwilling to seek an unambiguous UN Security Council resolution? Because it knows it would not pass.
Bombing in Syria - where a complex multi-sided conflict is going on - is different from bombing in Iraq, where we are supporting an elected government. Also because actions have consequences and the inevitable blowback on our streets will be severe."
Crispin Blunt said:“Though the government has precipitated another rush into military action, it has not yet constructed a realistic long-term strategy to destroy Daesh/Isis. On a recent visit to Middle Eastern capitals with the foreign affairs select committee, the officials we met were concerned we risk making the same mistakes as we made in our previous military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan (post-2006) and Libya.”
Crispin Blunt said:“The government has forgotten the lessons of Libya, where the anti-Gaddafi forces splintered into a thousand militias the moment the common enemy was defeated. A fresh civil war has been a result. Syria would be similar, but on a grand scale.”
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.
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.....
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?