Should Cameron apologise?

[Quik]

Tragic, but their deaths won't be at our hands. Bombing Syria now will result in a greater toll of death and suffering in the long run - and if you think it'll do anything other than make a Paris style attack on London any less likely then you're wrong.

 

Surely using that logic Overlord (indeed any attacks on nazi occuied Europe) would not have been acceptable for fear of killing innocent french cives and the continent would still be under nazi rule.

[scania]

Tragic, but their deaths won't be at our hands. Bombing Syria now will result in a greater toll of death and suffering in the long run - and if you think it'll do anything other than make a Paris style attack on London any less likely then you're wrong.

 

No wrong at all. There is no other option as these scum are non negotiable. Unless you can think of a way in between?

[Eric Arthur]

Tragic, but their deaths won't be at our hands. Bombing Syria now will result in a greater toll of death and suffering in the long run - and if you think it'll do anything other than make a Paris style attack on London any less likely then you're wrong.

 

 

 

Interestingly I've just been reading that the RAF's bombing in Iraq has resulted in a ISIL losing a third of their territory without civilian casualties. Would a repeat of that over the border in Syria meet with your approval?

[999tigger]

Tragic, but their deaths won't be at our hands. Bombing Syria now will result in a greater toll of death and suffering in the long run - and if you think it'll do anything other than make a Paris style attack on London any less likely then you're wrong.

 

How do you know what will hapen in the long run. You simply do not. If ISIS wins or establish itself then its expansion and aggression will continue unchecked. Many more people will die.

[WiseOwl182]

Tragic, but their deaths won't be at our hands. Bombing Syria now will result in a greater toll of death and suffering in the long run - and if you think it'll do anything other than make a Paris style attack on London any less likely then you're wrong.

 

Hypothetical question for you: which of the following scenarios would you consider preferable:

 

A) 500 civilian deaths as collateral damage from bombing and eventually destroying ISIS.

B) 10,000 civilian deaths but at the hands of an unchecked ISIS.

[betterman]

No **** Sherlock!

 

I know its hard to believe but some people didn't know, hence the reason I posted it.

 

---------- Post added 02-12-2015 at 20:22 ----------

 

I don't expect ISIS to suddenly become human at all. I just think that bombing them will create more members of ISIS than we will kill. They are getting guns from somewhere. They are getting money from somewhere. Remove their guns and remove their funding and suddenly they aren't a massive threat anymore. There may be pockets of 'homegrown' supporters that will be unaffected but the bombs wouldn't have touched them anyway. Honestly, I think everyone on this thread and in the entire country (bar the crazy ISIS supporters) wants them gone and NOW, but some of us think removing their ability to hurt us is better than simply bombing them, and I've not read much to change my mind today even though I have tried (probably failed) to keep an open mind. As I've put on here before, I'd support full military intervention more than I will bombs.

 

How do we stop them getting guns and money, bomb their suppliers? or give them a firm telling off. killing them is the best and only way to stop them hurting us.

Edited December 2, 2015 by betterman

[A.B.Yaffle]

Cameron calls those who are opposed to joining in the ongoing bombing campaign in Syria "terrorism sympathisers". If we just rely on dropping bombs from planes, which has already been going on over Syria for a long time, many families in Syria who have their innocent family members killed will be calling Cameron a terrorist.

 

If ISIS are to be defeated I believe there are only 2 possible options. 1: Peace negotiations. Not with ISIS, but between Assad and the opposition rebels. This would enable Syrian people to quickly wipe out ISIS.

 

2: Invade Syria using ground troops as well as planes and install an American puppet president to replace Assad.

 

I don't believe Cameron's claims that our airpower is better than the USA's and France's and Russia's combined. So why do we need to get involved in an already crowded group already eager to drop bombs on Syria?

 

Lots of Tory MPs apparently are sceptical of Cameron's claim that Syrian rebels will be enough to defeat ISIS when we start dropping bombs on Syrians. Will this claim end up being his equivalent of Blair's WMD claim?

[betterman]

Tragic, but their deaths won't be at our hands. Bombing Syria now will result in a greater toll of death and suffering in the long run - and if you think it'll do anything other than make a Paris style attack on London any less likely then you're wrong.

Your abilities to see into the future is astounding.

[ghost rider]

Oh god yes. Putin has surely called it hasn't he? Or is it another bluff...this is why I'm certain we should stay well out of it for purely selfish reasons...we could end up on the wrong side of a massive war against Russia if things keep playing out how they are currently.

 

Love him or loathe him,he always puts the Russian people first and seems a patriotic man.To be honest I think I would feel safer in Russia at the moment than in Britain.86% of Russians believe they can defend themselves but less than half of us Brits feel the same.To be honest I am surprised that we have got anything left to attack ISIS with.

[milquetoast1]

Cameron calls those who are opposed to joining in the ongoing bombing campaign in Syria "terrorism sympathisers".

 

Another failure of Boolean algebra.