Should Cameron apologise?

[Quik]

 

Apples and pears. Another time, another war, completely not comparable.

 

The principle is the same. Civilians occupied by a vile regime. We knew we would kill French civies during Overlord, we will with a degree of certainty kill civilians attacking ISIS. If you reject doing one on the basis you did above then surely you must reject doing the other.

[*_ash_*]

Bit of a late response Hesther, but I went to work. I've got back before the vote though

 

So you are aware that it's going to go 'tits up' then.

 

It will probably go tits up either way.

 

I reckon that the vote will probably be yes (though I've not heard any news since earlier, I got sick of it). If the decision is just for air attacks, then my personal opinion is the same as before, and that I think this will play right into their hands. These people aren't in one place, they're potentially anywhere where there is an internet connection.

 

I can't see what it will accomplish, however I should add that we [the public] perhaps, and I sincerely hope so, are not privy to all the information available.

 

I think most people are. Except Cameron.

 

I thought Corbyn handled Cameron's despicable ccomments very well. He was very calm and collected and did not milk it at all. He didn't demand an apology. He invited Cameron to apologise.

 

What he did was keep asking the same thing, as he always does. It's a political tactic, used by politicians no less His 'calmness' is his way of trying to bring in this new type of politics. He's still avoiding things like many politicians do. It's far easier to be on his side of the fence (opposition).

 

Cameron was stupid not to apologise.

 

I think he would be stupid to apologise.

 

I think Corbyn made some very good points. Especially about establishing which banks are supporting Daesh and making attempts to cut off their funding sources.

 

Someone has to make decisions, and my point (I'm not sure if you missed or just concentrated on the bold you quoted me) is that he isn't offering alternatives, and people want something to happen. If he is a leader of the opposition he should have some plans.

 

Halting funding will already being tried.

 

-

 

It's a win win for him:

 

Bombing goes wrong - he can blame Cameron for being warmongering.

Bombing goes right (see above, it's a hope that we don't know the full story) - he can blame Cameron when he gets an email from someone who loses a child in Syria.

[I1L2T3]

Nobody has suggested they pose a military threat to the UK, they pose a terrorist threat to the UK (and pretty much everywhere else)

 

Does that threat diminish by bombing them?

 

I think you know it doesn't.

 

---------- Post added 02-12-2015 at 21:40 ----------

 

Bit of a late response Hesther, but I went to work. I've got back before the vote though

 

 

 

It will probably go tits up either way.

 

I reckon that the vote will probably be yes (though I've not heard any news since earlier, I got sick of it). If the decision is just for air attacks, then my personal opinion is the same as before, and that I think this will play right into their hands. These people aren't in one place, they're potentially anywhere where there is an internet connection.

 

I can't see what it will accomplish, however I should add that we [the public] perhaps, and I sincerely hope so, are not privy to all the information available.

 

 

 

What he did was keep asking the same thing, as he always does. It's a political tactic, used by politicians no less His 'calmness' is his way of trying to bring in this new type of politics. He's still avoiding things like many politicians do. It's far easier to be on his side of the fence (opposition).

 

 

 

I think he would be stupid to apologise.

 

 

 

Someone has to make decisions, and my point (I'm not sure if you missed or just concentrated on the bold you quoted me) is that he isn't offering alternatives, and people want something to happen. If he is a leader of the opposition he should have some plans.

 

Halting funding will already being tried.

 

-

 

It's a win win for him:

 

Bombing goes wrong - he can blame Cameron for being warmongering.

Bombing goes right (see above, it's a hope that we don't know the full story) - he can blame Cameron when he gets an email from someone who loses a child in Syria.

 

Halting funding hasd not been tried. 13 months of bombing and virtually the whole IS oil tanker fleet left in tact. Delivering them £3m a day.

 

The USA need IS and they made sure it didn't die.

[unbeliever]

Does that threat diminish by bombing them?

 

I think you know it doesn't.

 

 

It does when you hit them.

It's hard to organise a terrorist attack when you're dead.

[Quik]

Does that threat diminish by bombing them?

 

I think you know it doesn't.

 

I think it will have a minimal effect either way on the terrorist threat here. The way it would help is if those 'british' IS members can be targeted so they don't return but I do not know how good our intel is in them and if that is practical or not.

[sgtkate]

It does when you hit them.

It's hard to organise a terrorist attack when you're dead.

 

But the ones organising the terror attacks in the UK surely aren't based in Raqqa are they? So if they see us dropping bombs on their 'brothers' isn't it more likely they will do revenge attacks on us? Some ISIS supporters do live in the UK even if some people try to deny this...

[ghost rider]

Just watched a brilliant speech by Hilary Benn, got an ovation from both sides of the Commons.His leader sat in silence behind him,that man should be the Labour leader instead.

[Halibut]

I think it will have a minimal effect either way on the terrorist threat here. The way it would help is if those 'british' IS members can be targeted so they don't return but I do not know how good our intel is in them and if that is practical or not.

 

I think you're wrong; I think it will significantly raise the likelihood of Paris style attacks. How could it not?

 

To return to your (absurd) Overlord analogy briefly - completely different enemy,completely different in military terms, completely different global political climate, completely different economic situation etc, etc. Apart from that, it's perfect.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Halibut

[I1L2T3]

They have about 100,000 fighters. If they are left to their own devices then they will continue to expand. they will gain greater power and with no real opposition they cna consolidate and build their capability. The first targets will be to yake over the rest of Syria and Iraq.

 

If they are left alone to win in Iraq and Syria then they will have the ability to destabilise the region further.

 

To hurt the Uk or Europe they only need to train and supply weapons to people sympathetic to their aims, then attack civilian targets in the same way Paris was. Only a few of these attacks is enough to cause widespead disruption in the UK. Ome or two Paris like attacks would be enough to hurt this country.

 

---------- Post added 02-12-2015 at 21:16 ----------

 

 

How isnt bombing them containing them on the ground? You are restricting their expansion and ability to move freely about their territory.

 

I believe these air strikes will guarantee atrocities in the UK within weeks

 

The strength of their forces in IS is debatable.

 

As for containing them, why let them drive convoys of oil tankers around for over a year, raking in millions a day? What is going to change?

[999tigger]

But the ones organising the terror attacks in the UK surely aren't based in Raqqa are they? So if they see us dropping bombs on their 'brothers' isn't it more likely they will do revenge attacks on us? Some ISIS supporters do live in the UK even if some people try to deny this...

 

What you are trying to do is degrade their military that includes vehichles and troops. A less powerful ISIS will mean they cant hold their territory as well and more chance for their opposition to move in. It will also mean they have fewer resouces to train plan and finance.

 

They are going to attack anyway.

 

I cnat see what all the fuss is about its only 8 planes now attacking targets in a wider area.