The War in Syria - ISIS et al

[P.K.]

 

Errr you don't suppose Cameron not being pissed on from a great height about this "70,000 strong force" has anything to do with the fact that the vast majority of the UK press are rabidly right-wing?

 

I guess something has to counterbalance the BBC being rabidly left wing. Their distaste when having to report anything that doesn't fit this agenda is palpable.

What, like having to report the facts about the "70,000 strong force" that actually only exists in the fevered imaginations of the tory pr machine?

 

So the next time the BBC are "palpably" left wing be sure to post it up. With facts of course. But try not to forget they have a duty to try and give different viewpoints for balance.

 

This should be a laugh....

[paul's got wright]

The bombing certainly isn't doing the uk any harm. Drones are the way forward too.

i think we have enough drones already x

[notwell]

 

Radicalised Muslims were causing issues to or in the uk long before the uk got involved in Syria.

 

that's not going to alter so the best solution is to take the fight to them.

So you don't think that there will be more issues from our involving ourselves militarily in Syria?

 

You think we will come out ahead by dropping bombs on people.

 

You don't know what the term cycle of violence means, do you?

Yes.

I think what you struggle to understand is that sitting the hugging trees and ignoring Islamic terrorism isn't going to suddenly make it go away.

 

We may be in a cycle of violence but it isn't going to be any other way. So given that, it's important we take that violence to them.

[rmanx]

 

 

Radicalised Muslims were causing issues to or in the uk long before the uk got involved in Syria.

 

that's not going to alter so the best solution is to take the fight to them.

So you don't think that there will be more issues from our involving ourselves militarily in Syria?

 

You think we will come out ahead by dropping bombs on people.

 

You don't know what the term cycle of violence means, do you?

Yes.

I think what you struggle to understand is that sitting the hugging trees and ignoring Islamic terrorism isn't going to suddenly make it go away.

 

We may be in a cycle of violence but it isn't going to be any other way. So given that, it's important we take that violence to them.

 

 

Ah the old "there are only two options: bombs and tree hugging"

 

With such a complex issue, it must be so much easier to only think in two directions.

 

By taking the violence to them (read that as killing innocents by way of "collateral" damage) we are only inviting violence upon ourselves.

 

But you'll be okay won't you Andy McNoclue?

[P.K.]

One thing about IS that is immediately apparent to anyone with a modicum of commonsense is that violence is the only thing these religious fanatics understand. Because it sort-of teaches them a VERY permanent lesson.

 

I agree with bombing Syria because eg as with the removal of Emwazi they need to know there is no hiding place.

 

Only a matter of time really. Sure I feel sorry for the innocents but in war they are the first to suffer - it was ever thus.

[rmanx]

One thing about IS that is immediately apparent to anyone with a modicum of commonsense is that violence is the only thing these religious fanatics understand. Because it sort-of teaches them a VERY permanent lesson.

 

I agree with bombing Syria because eg as with the removal of Emwazi they need to know there is no hiding place.

 

Only a matter of time really. Sure I feel sorry for the innocents but in war they are the first to suffer - it was ever thus.

 

Just as long as those innocents are out of sight and out of mind eh?

 

By rushing to bomb Syria aren't we just playing into Daesh hands? They are recruiting young men by telling them how evil the West is, and what do we do? Step our bombing campaigns in the Middle East.

 

We are doing the recruiting job for them.

[P.K.]

 

One thing about IS that is immediately apparent to anyone with a modicum of commonsense is that violence is the only thing these religious fanatics understand. Because it sort-of teaches them a VERY permanent lesson.

I agree with bombing Syria because eg as with the removal of Emwazi they need to know there is no hiding place.

Only a matter of time really. Sure I feel sorry for the innocents but in war they are the first to suffer - it was ever thus.

 

Just as long as those innocents are out of sight and out of mind eh?

 

By rushing to bomb Syria aren't we just playing into Daesh hands? They are recruiting young men by telling them how evil the West is, and what do we do? Step our bombing campaigns in the Middle East.

 

We are doing the recruiting job for them.

Anyone who has been in the forces will tell you that conflict is a nasty, dirty, miserable business. So no, very very wrong. The innocents are not out of sight and mind. Especially in today's media world. Just what planet are you on?

 

So we stop taking the fight to Daesh. WTF do you think will happen?

[Shake me up Judy]

Thousands of innocents have died and will die at the hands of these barbarians - whether we're involved or not. Rmanx is just playing the tired old 'Western guilt' cliché, which only ever holds one side to account when it comes to innocent casualties of war. He's not so bothered about the innocent men, women and kids tortured, mutilated, raped and murdered by Daesh; only by the 'collateral' victims of British and American involvement (The real ideological enemy). He's not too bothered about the Russians, French, and the other members of the UN either. They're not the story.

 

He's doing the same thing with the recruitment argument: Rationalising their sick propaganda and medieval beliefs as a legitimate response to an evil West. Let me remind him that the vast majority of Muslims the world over don't fall for this ideological sleight of hand either, and whether they be in Syria, Iraq, France, Britain or wherever; they wholly reject this death cult and their recruitment propaganda. It just doesn't stand up to any sort of real scrutiny outside of his worn out leftist narrative of cause and effect.

[rmanx]

 

 

One thing about IS that is immediately apparent to anyone with a modicum of commonsense is that violence is the only thing these religious fanatics understand. Because it sort-of teaches them a VERY permanent lesson.

I agree with bombing Syria because eg as with the removal of Emwazi they need to know there is no hiding place.

Only a matter of time really. Sure I feel sorry for the innocents but in war they are the first to suffer - it was ever thus.

Just as long as those innocents are out of sight and out of mind eh?

 

By rushing to bomb Syria aren't we just playing into Daesh hands? They are recruiting young men by telling them how evil the West is, and what do we do? Step our bombing campaigns in the Middle East.

 

We are doing the recruiting job for them.

Anyone who has been in the forces will tell you that conflict is a nasty, dirty, miserable business. So no, very very wrong. The innocents are not out of sight and mind. Especially in today's media world. Just what planet are you on?

 

So we stop taking the fight to Daesh. WTF do you think will happen?

 

 

It doesn't take Andy McNab to work out having the worlds super powers bombing your country every day is a bad thing.

 

And by out of sight out of mind I meant not here and now. If bombs were dropping on Ramsey and people were dying I imagine you would be a bit more engaged. Instead they are dropping around the clock thousands of miles away, killing innocents every day and creating more resentment towards the "Allies"

 

Maybe if we worked to cut off their supplies i.e. cut their funding and connections from Saudi Arabi, punished Turkey for buying oil from Daesh instead of giving them 3 billion Euro, etc we wouldn't have to drop billions in potential schools, nurses and roads on a country already decimated.

[rmanx]

Thousands of innocents have died and will die at the hands of these barbarians - whether we're involved or not. Rmanx is just playing the tired old 'Western guilt' cliché, which only ever holds one side to account when it comes to innocent casualties of war. He's not so bothered about the innocent men, women and kids tortured, mutilated, raped and murdered by Daesh; only by the 'collateral' victims of British and American involvement (The real ideological enemy). He's not too bothered about the Russians, French, and the other members of the UN either. They're not the story.

 

He's doing the same thing with the recruitment argument: Rationalising their sick propaganda and medieval beliefs as a legitimate response to an evil West. Let me remind him that the vast majority of Muslims the world over don't fall for this ideological sleight of hand either, and whether they be in Syria, Iraq, France, Britain or wherever; they wholly reject this death cult and their recruitment propaganda. It just doesn't stand up to any sort of real scrutiny outside of his worn out leftist narrative of cause and effect.

 

Ah the good old "paint the opponent as a friend of the enemy" routine.

 

Of course I am upset by any innocent death caused by external involvement in Syria. I just think us throwing our dog into the fight is going to cost a lot more lives than it will save.

 

I am not rationalising their propaganda. It is a cycle of violence that we are propagating.

 

We bomb them. They get angry. They bomb us. We get angry at them. We bomb them. etc, etc, etc.

 

We can only defeat Daesh by removing their ability to fight, i.e. removing their funding and support.

 

How long were other countries dropping billions in ordance on Syria before we added our meagre efforts? Is everything suddenly going to fix itself? No.

 

We are consigning the country to perpetual war in the Middle East, and by the sound of it, to the sound of gleeful idiots applauding this madness.

 

I await the pundits on the news asking "why do they hate us" or "why did this happen to us".

[Shake me up Judy]

You're doing exactly what I've said again. It's you that needs to break out of this dogmatic cycle of cause and effect, in which the West is the cause and Islamic jihadist fundamentalism the legitimate effect or response. Nothing we do can justify mutilation, rape, torture and murder of their own people. Get a grip and think what you're saying.

 

Your now familiar rant is littered with the word 'we' (Your shorthand for the aggressor); and 'external involvement'. These guys are perfectly capable of unilateral action; they don't need the West's interference as a justification for war. Indeed, the West is a useful bogeyman and propaganda tool to foment and legitimate medieval religious overthrow; and the liberal left is their useful Western idiot that does their work for them. You infantilise them with your post-imperial theory and explanation; as 'acted upon' rather than independent players and makers of their own history. Britain is a very small fish in this pond and I doubt we influence or frighten anyone anymore.

[rmanx]

Britain is a very small fish in this pond and I doubt we influence or frighten anyone anymore.

 

Yet they feel themselves a big enough influence to involve themselves in an internal matter in the Middle East...again.

 

Its okay SMUJ, I shall hold you in the same low regard as the other "bombs or bust" crowd. Brave behind the keyboard, yet to chicken shit to go out and risk your own life.

[rmanx]

useful Western idiot

 

Says the guy clapping like a good little war supporter when we started dropping bombs on yet another Middle Eastern country. What is the total number of Middle Eastern countries we are bombing/have bombed?

[paswt]

 

Thousands of innocents have died and will die at the hands of these barbarians - whether we're involved or not. Rmanx is just playing the tired old 'Western guilt' cliché, which only ever holds one side to account when it comes to innocent casualties of war. He's not so bothered about the innocent men, women and kids tortured, mutilated, raped and murdered by Daesh; only by the 'collateral' victims of British and American involvement (The real ideological enemy). He's not too bothered about the Russians, French, and the other members of the UN either. They're not the story.

 

He's doing the same thing with the recruitment argument: Rationalising their sick propaganda and medieval beliefs as a legitimate response to an evil West. Let me remind him that the vast majority of Muslims the world over don't fall for this ideological sleight of hand either, and whether they be in Syria, Iraq, France, Britain or wherever; they wholly reject this death cult and their recruitment propaganda. It just doesn't stand up to any sort of real scrutiny outside of his worn out leftist narrative of cause and effect.

 

I await the pundits on the news asking "why do they hate us" or "why did this happen to us".

 

"why do they hate us" perhaps the film "Lawrence of Arabia" could give a clue as to why "We" can not be trusted...

 

........ I don't trust " us "

[woolley]

 

 

Errr you don't suppose Cameron not being pissed on from a great height about this "70,000 strong force" has anything to do with the fact that the vast majority of the UK press are rabidly right-wing?

I guess something has to counterbalance the BBC being rabidly left wing. Their distaste when having to report anything that doesn't fit this agenda is palpable.

What, like having to report the facts about the "70,000 strong force" that actually only exists in the fevered imaginations of the tory pr machine?

 

So the next time the BBC are "palpably" left wing be sure to post it up. With facts of course. But try not to forget they have a duty to try and give different viewpoints for balance.

 

This should be a laugh....

 

You surely cannot be questioning the institutional left wing, liberal bias of the BBC? That is like questioning the wetness of water.