Sergeant Wilson Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 How do you know this? Or is it just a guess?Depends on your sense of humour I suppose. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WILLIEA Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Yeah I seen that as well, it happened on another show as well I saw, and the guy repeatedly stated that defiantly no civilians had been killed...ma baws. Is this different from deferentially not killing them? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiG Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) Hard to get behind any justification put forward by Cameron for bombing ISIS when it wasn't that long ago he was desperate to team up and bomb Syria with, erm, ISIS. Edited December 1, 2015 by RiG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Have we suddenly got better at this. If not the a look to our previous efforts will provide all the evidence you need. As someone has previously mentioned, a medical charity MSF had a hospital bombed by the Americans, an accident by all accounts. That is until you find out that the Americans had been given the location details previously. The Western media then try to claim that it was harbouring terrorists to justify the f**k up. In my opinion this is murder plain and simple. I haven't seen any figures of how many terrorists are killed in each strike compared to civilians tbh. If you have, fair enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Hard to get behind any justification put forward by Cameron for bombing ISIS when it wasn't that long ago he was desperate to team up and bomb Syria with, erm, ISIS. That's not really true. There are three sides fighting in Syria. IS at that point was an Iraqi insurgency group. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 I haven't seen any figures of how many terrorists are killed in each strike compared to civilians tbh. If you have, fair enough. In the one instance I provided, there was the grand sum of ZERO "terrorists" killed and at least 30 civilians. Justify each of these death individually. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Have we started our pointless "we'll hit the wee guy to look good to the big guy" bawbaggery yet? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 How do you know this? Or is it just a guess? What a fanny comment BM... History shows this doesn't work.. innocents will be murdered 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 In my opinion this is murder plain and simple. Only if you're on the losing side. We're terrified in case a few nutters come and kill a few dozen of us, imagine being a Syrian in Rakka at the moment, the poor folk are waiting for Team GB to make it 11 a side. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTJohnboy Posted December 1, 2015 Author Share Posted December 1, 2015 What a stupid comment. He has a point, innocent guy goes to work.. goes home and sees his wife and kids murdered and his house is rubble... you got a martyr right there. Bombing is utter stupidity You've completely missed the point here. Wilkinson1998 was suggesting that if a man sees his wife and kids wiped out by a British bomb he is somehow more likely to join an organisation like Isis. I agree that a bombing campaign in Syria in these circumstances will be utterly futile and that Cameron has not even come close to making a case for it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 What a fanny comment BM... History shows this doesn't work.. innocents will be murdered That's a different statement. I'm not supporting the action, but there's no point in spouting things you don't even have any facts to back up. It's a problem on both sides of the argument where you get over the top statements to try and justify their stance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 In the one instance I provided, there was the grand sum of ZERO "terrorists" killed and at least 30 civilians. Justify each of these death individually.No. It is inevitable people will die whether you intervene or whether you don't. Sometimes it may be justifiable to do the least worst thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 You've completely missed the point here. Wilkinson1998 was suggesting that if a man sees his wife and kids wiped out by a British bomb he is somehow more likely to join an organisation like Isis. . Unfortunately he probably is 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 That's a different statement. I'm not supporting the action, but there's no point in spouting things you don't even have any facts to back up. It's a problem on both sides of the argument where you get over the top statements to try and justify their stance. BM. You're a decent poster, but cmon. Many more innocents will be slaughtered than terroists 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Hopefully, once the bombing campaign commences, someone loads "John Lambies Doos" onto a fighter jet and launches him straight into downtown Raqqa. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) No. It is inevitable people will die whether you intervene or whether you don't. Sometimes it may be justifiable to do the least worst thing. You have went from asking for proof regarding numbers to just ignoring the proof and the actual people that are dying. With comments like this, I can see why we continue to get away with using terms such as colleteral damage instead of murder. The UK authorised a drone attack to kill specific individuals without a court of law deeming they had acted illegally and with a background of a Prime Minister that sought and was refused permission by parliament to bomb. This is state sponsored murder whether you like it or not. there's no point in spouting things you don't even have any facts to back up. The least you could do in light of this post is provide proof that intervening is the least worst thing How many net lives will be saved by this intervention? Will there even be a net saving in lives or just a net saving in western lives? Edited December 1, 2015 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Hopefully, once the bombing campaign commences, someone loads "John Lambies Doos" onto a fighter jet and launches him straight into downtown Raqqa. ^ warmongering fanny 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 The least you could do in light of this post is provide proof that intervening is the least worst thing How many net lives will be saved by this intervention? Will there even be a net saving in lives or just a net saving in western lives?I don't have a strong opinion on this intervention as I'm not privy to all of the facts, or the overall plan. My gut instinct would be to say no from what I have read and heard. However, that doesn't mean I think military action is never justified. If say, ISIS are advancing towards a city where they aren't in control of at the moment and we have the opportunity to strike them and to halt their advance, then that to me is perfectly justified. You weigh up the chance of civilian casualties against the consequences of not intervening, like seeing rows of people lined up and shot into open graves for being of a different religion, ethnic group or because they're gay or whatever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 I don't have a strong opinion on this intervention as I'm not privy to all of the facts, or the overall plan. My gut instinct would be to say no from what I have read and heard. However, that doesn't mean I think military action is never justified. If say, ISIS are advancing towards a city where they aren't in control of at the moment and we have the opportunity to strike them and to halt their advance, then that to me is perfectly justified. You weigh up the chance of civilian casualties against the consequences of not intervening, like seeing rows of people lined up and shot into open graves for being of a different religion, ethnic group or because they're gay or whatever. If we, as a country, want to put right all the wrongs in the world then we would be better starting looking inward and at our allies across the world. Although we had better be quick as those deemed to be our allies next week will be entirely different. I have said this previously but I didn't see all these war-mongering politicians standing up and advocating the bombing of Russia after Ukraine or Israel after the last bombardment of Palestine (even after Israel troops admitted targeting civilians). Our country is full of fucking hypocrits that are happy to play Billy Big Baws in a manner that would be called bullying in any other theatre. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) That's not really true. There are three sides fighting in Syria. IS at that point was an Iraqi insurgency group. That hasn't always been the case. ISIS were allied with the FSA at one point during the conflict in much the same way Al Qaeda linked groups still are and that didn't and doesn't stop what remains of the FSA from receiving support from western countries. What has happened consistently throughout the conflict is that arms originally given to more "moderate" groups like that have soon wound up in the hands of the more radical ones. The reality is that Turkey in particular have been supporting ISIS through buying oil from them and that's even being stated openly by portions of the mainstream media now, so isn't some far out conspiracy theory: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/david-cameron-there-arent-70000-moderate-fighters-in-syria-and-whoever-heard-of-a-moderate-with-a-a6753576.html Maybe instead of dropping bombs when many long months of that by the US haven't put much of a dent in ISIS's operational capacities (strange that?), NATO should simply get its house in order and do what it takes to stop its members and allies from actively backing religious maniacs? Won't happen, because the petrodollar has to be maintained, so Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States can never be challenged over human rights as it's much easier to deal with corrupt dictatorships than functioning democracies in that regard. Claims that the west is doing anything positive in Syria are frankly vomit inducing once you grasp what is really going on, but as usual the plebs have to be led to believe that we are the good guys in all of this, so let's boamb ra loat of thum will be the order of the day and the level of analysis provided. There was a time when the Labour party might have done what the SNP will do and tell the truth and vote against it, but even with Corbyn there's no danger of that, because he was never going to be able to lead his party to the left in a unified way and maintain party discipline given the track record he had of ignoring the party whip. Edited December 1, 2015 by LongTimeLurker 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.