Should Cameron apologise?

[Halibut]

I hear that Mr Cameron yesterday characterised those who oppose killing people with bombs in Syria as 'terrorist sympathisers'.

This sounds exactly the sort of dim witted and offensive nonsense you might find on here and frankly, loathe Cameron as I do, I expect better of him.

 

 

Should he apologise?

[Gamston]

Why should he apologise ? He was addressing his own party and we do not know the full context the words were said . He may have been referring to those Labour MP's who have told colleagues that they will be “murdering women and babies” by backing military action.

[999tigger]

Weve had a thread about this already.

[I1L2T3]

No. If he does it gets him off the hook.

 

This needs to be remembered and rammed straight in his face the moment Britons die when Isis retaliates.

[999tigger]

No. If he does it gets him off the hook.

 

This needs to be remembered and rammed straight in his face the moment Britons die when Isis retaliates.

 

Except Britains are going to be attacked whether we bomb or not, its just a matter of time.

[unbeliever]

I think this entire debate needs to be toned down.

Asking Cameron to tone down unilaterally is not very reasonable.

 

This is a debate about the lesser of 2 evils. There are valid arguments on both sides. There's a strong case that military action against Daesh is justified both for our own protection and to a far greater extent for the protection of the people in the territory they occupy. There's also a strong case, that dropping things from planes onto where we think Daesh are is of limited use and is certain to cause innocent casualties.

 

Which is the lesser evil?

I'm not of the school of thought that we're only responsible for deaths we directly cause. We also bear responsibility for death we fail to prevent when we are able to do so. Do we bear less responsibility for the deaths we fail to prevent? Probably, but how much less?

 

Daesh need to be stopped. Every day we delay is a crime. But it would also be a crime to act without proper thought and kill more innocent people than we have to. The black and white arguments being put forward by some are extremely unhelpful. As is the extreme rhetoric in support of one position or the other.

 

It looks like there will be a cross-party free vote in parliament. Let's listen to the arguments put forward and see if the process is fair and reasoned. That way whether or not each of us agrees with the final decision, at least its been made in the proper way.

[I1L2T3]

Except Britains are going to be attacked whether we bomb or not, its just a matter of time.

 

Problem is that action could create a specific trigger for retaliation.

 

Want another Paris?

 

I'm not outright opposed to military action but a few extra bombs will change nothing on the ground in Syria. Nothing at all.

[unbeliever]

Problem is that action could create a specific trigger for retaliation.

 

Want another Paris?

 

I'm not outright opposed to military action but a few extra bombs will change nothing on the ground in Syria. Nothing at all.

 

I really don't think its a matter of retaliation. We're not the the aggressors when it comes to Daesh. I think "provocation" might be a better word.

Your suggestion amounts to appeasement. That's highly morally dubious and has a poor track record historically.

Don't forget that they hate us anyway, and always will. They'll keep trying to kill us whatever we do. Will they try harder if we fight back? Maybe, or maybe they'll be weakened and find it harder to kill us.

[999tigger]

I really don't think its a matter of retaliation. We're not the the aggressors when it comes to Daesh. I think "provocation" might be a better word.

Your suggestion amounts to appeasement. That's highly morally dubious and has a poor track record historically.

Don't forget that they hate us anyway, and always will. They'll keep trying to kill us whatever we do. Will they try harder if we fight back? Maybe, or maybe they'll be weakened and find it harder to kill us.

 

This 100%. They are already trying hard to plot and attack the UK, thats the whole point.

Appeasement doesnt work.

[Stoned]

I hear that Mr Cameron yesterday characterised those who oppose killing people with bombs in Syria as 'terrorist sympathisers'.

This sounds exactly the sort of dim witted and offensive nonsense you might find on here and frankly, loathe Cameron as I do, I expect better of him.

 

 

Should he apologise?

 

Yes he should he should also admit that the terrorist sympathisers are the same people who arm and train the isis lot namely America, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and good old Britain. He's also advocating bombing another country for no reason other than oil. Yes he lies and says he wants to tackle Isis but anyone with a brain knows that's a lie. Our government are a shower of ****

 

---------- Post added 02-12-2015 at 09:20 ----------

 

I really don't think its a matter of retaliation. We're not the the aggressors when it comes to Daesh.

 

Yes we are. Us America and the rest have made this happen. The west is 100% to blame for all of this.

Where as Russia do the hard work and actually bomb Isis, the best the west can do is come up with a new name that slightly irritates some isis members.

 

---------- Post added 02-12-2015 at 09:21 ----------

 

This 100%. They are already trying hard to plot and attack the UK,.

 

:hihi::hihi: That is sooooooooooo funny :hihi::hihi:

Edited December 2, 2015 by Stoned