Should Cameron apologise?

[sgtkate]

Some interesting points.

 

1. innocent civilians. As per usual with the British they have onerous rules of engagement, so if they arent reasonably sure of a target they return home. They use smart weapons which minimise, but do not eliminate civilian casualties. Contrast this with the Russians who are much less restricted and use much cheaper dumb bombs. Unfortunately some collateral damage is inevitable, especially if you start siting yourself in civilian areas. You dont hear any criticism of Russia , just praise on these forums.

 

2. Dont underestimate the amount of civilian support ISIS has. Thats going to be a real problem for any peace.

 

3. The foreign affairs committee did not vote against, they just didnt endorse it.

 

4. How do you know thousands are going to die. As far as I unerstand it there arent additional planes, the vote is just to increase the area of potential air straikes o include Syria.

 

5. Ofc the UK and the Allieds dont wnat to send in ground troops to fight as thats politically unpopular and even more expensive.

 

6. Yes they need a plan, but that dosent mean airstrikes dont achieve anything.

 

7. Dont forget the UK has only 8 planes in the current force, so what it achieves is minimal and its mostly to show political support for the allieds.

 

 

I'm not going to answer all, as to be honest, I can't

 

I don't know thousands will die, of course not. Same as we don't know what will happen if we don't bomb Raqqa, but you can make logical conclusions. Raqqa is a city. What do you think would be the outcome if Sheffield was bombed, with however targeted bombs? Do you think there would be no civilian casualties? Equally, if we have special forces on the ground in Raqqa to identify targets, then why don't those special forces simply take them out themselves? Can't be beyond the skillset of those people to plant bombs or act as a sniper.

 

To me, bombing is a neither nor solution. It's basically appeasement of our allies. It will achieve nothing. As I've said, if we REALLY want to deal with ISIS then we MUST commit ground troops, but as that means some UK soldier will likely die suddenly we don't want to do that. Pathetic. So we'll happily kill Syrians but not commit our own soldiers whose job it is to keep the UK safe, which apparently will only be done if we take out ISIS?

 

---------- Post added 02-12-2015 at 10:08 ----------

 

I've insulted no one. I've made a statement but don't worry I discuss this problem plenty. In fact im having people round for dinner tonight and Syria is one of the topics we will be discussing. Also Britain's plans to wage war on Syria and the middle east. About 20 turned up last time and we had a good old night with nice food and stimulating chat. Im rather looking forward to it. You are free to come if you are serious about being educated? If you are contact me by pm as i wont be visiting this thread again. Ive just go much better things to do with my day

 

---------- Post added 02-12-2015 at 10:05 ----------

 

 

Unless you know my name, who i am and where i work then ill assume you are a liar.

 

 

 

Going on your general demeanour and attitude on here I can only hope you do nothing that involves the general public as a job...

 

---------- Post added 02-12-2015 at 10:09 ----------

 

I think you need to take this matter rather more seriously.

I doubt you have the background and expertise that your judgement in this matter is beyond question.

If you're not interested in convincing people with reason, or otherwise engaging usefully in debate; then why are you here?

 

---------- Post added 02-12-2015 at 09:40 ----------

 

 

 

I think it's more about weighing the people in Syria and Iraq who will suffer horribly and die if we fail to act against those who will die if we do act.

There's also the matter of what action to take, which complicates things.

 

So assuming that is actually on the minds of our government. We haven't we stepped into Saudi Arabia? Or Eritrea? Or Zimbabwe? Or any other number of countries were people are treated with contempt and are routinely executed and tortured by their own governments? Don't try to make this out to be one of caring about other people, because it isn't.

[Guest]

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.

 

My bold:

 

I have never swallowed the silly idea that some crazed Arabs have gone out of their way to pick a fight with the western world, even going so far as to organise flying two jumbo jets into the twin towers, because they don't like our way of life.

 

Western foreign policy has brought this all on.

[Eric Arthur]

Ok, I'll rephrase it...I 'know' you spend too much time reading tinpot conspiracy theories on the dark net.

 

That's not fair Pete. Not everybody could stand working in those Russian social media troll offices. Maybe Stoned just hasn't checked the whiteboard for today's "news".

[cressida]

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?

 

He wouldn't mean it if he did.

 

I've always thought he was tactless and now imo he has become bombastic:(

[Berberis]

Its easy. You say ISIS are making plans to attack us? I say thats rot and i find it funny people still believe this. I bet you believe Assad is the problem in Syria and he *snigger* gassed his own people.

 

Why? What basis do you have for this conclusion?

[max]

I'm not convinced by the arguments in favour of escalating the bombing but then neither is this man: Nato general Sir Richard Shirreff warns air strikes on Syria are useless

 

What I am certain of is that attacking posters on forums such as this for airing their opinions is not going to affect those opinions.

 

I wouldn't be amazed if further bombing increases the flow of refugees from Syria to the EU and I would hope, that should the vote go in favour of further action, that we increase the number of refugees we accept.

[spilldig]

I suppose it depends on who the people are. Innocent civilians or enemy ?

[Hesther]

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?

 

Really? I had you down as having more sense.

[Eric Arthur]

I wouldn't be amazed if further bombing increases the flow of refugees from Syria to the EU and I would hope, that should the vote go in favour of further action, that we increase the number of refugees we accept.

If you'd been keeping up with the news over the last few years you'd know that refugees are returning to their homes in Iraq where we've been bombing ISIL for years and, though you might find it amazing, winning the fight.

 

---------- Post added 02-12-2015 at 11:53 ----------

 

I'm not convinced by the arguments in favour of escalating the bombing but then neither is this man: Nato general Sir Richard Shirreff warns air strikes on Syria are useless

.

He didn't say that air strikes are useless. He specifically said that air strikes alone won't cut it. Ground troops will be needed and this fact is accepted by Cameron.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Eric Arthur

[betterman]

But is killing likely thousands of people who were just going about their daily lives until ISIS rolled in and effectively locked them up, a reasonable price to pay for our dubious increased safety? Lots of evidence showing that ISIS have blocked all exits out of Raqqa since they took it to ensure the civilians can't leave.

 

Noone has demonstrated that bombing Raqqa will make the UK safer, or do anything to stem ISIS. Even the Foreign Affairs Committee have said that and voted AGAINST air strikes. Syrian lives are worth as much as UK ones, and how we can condone the killing of thousands of innocent for a chance it might save a handful on UK lives is appalling. We want to take Raqqa? Full commitment then. Send in our troops. Lets stop taking the cowards option of dropping bombs.

 

Given the choice of living the remainder of your life in a country contoled by ISIS or dying now, which would you choose?

I would choose death now because life in Islamic state wouldn't be worth living.

If I was given the same choice but knew that the West wouldn't stop untill ISIS was destroyed, I would choose living in Islamic state because whilst there is a chance I might be killed by a western bomb there is also a chance I might one day be free from ISIS.