Forum menu
if we vote no to bombing in Syria according to the waste of skin that is Cameron. Every time he opens his mouth I despise him more and more, absolute c0ckwomble of the highest order 👿
IMO he has not given sufficient proof that bombing in Syria is either justified or will be effective and just doing some hand waving at the big boogy man that is isis is not enough. Will you hit only genuine targets? how will you prevent civilian casualties what happens afterwards? After all the stuff we went through in Iraq we should know better by now.
As above, if he came out and said the forces working in Iraq would like the freedom to follow targets into Syria when required I could see some logic in that argument.
But he seems to be saying, we should join the others (who already don't have anything to target) just to be in the gang.
I would like to hear what the plan is, what's Saudi doing, what's Iran doing, what's Turkey doing and what are we doing about he threats that come Dewsbury not Syria.
If after all that we do need to go to war in Syria, let's do it properly with troops, not dropping bombs and risking innocent lives.
Will's third question is the clincher. The other two are answered by the thought that no British pilot would set out to hit non combatants and minimise civilian casualties. Although I guarantee that if you drop a feather deash will be straight on al Jazeera shown the devastation to the civilian population.
During the Defence Committee hearing General messenger was asked repeatedly how many fighters ISIS had. He absolutely wouldn't give an answer. Or any sort of estimate. Now I understand that to do so might have had many possible repercussions, but when you're putting across a case for bombing people it might be an idea to know roughly how many people you intend to bomb.
Even when asked if he could guess as to the number of Taliban the british army had encountered in Afghanistan he refused to speculate or give any kind of estimate. Surely the number of enemy killed would give a number to start from. The whole thing was very unconvincing.
It's the kind of thing a fascist leader would say. 'Support me or you're a terrorist'.
Apparently also, according to guidance for teachers, if a young person is angry about the UK's foreign policies and mistrustful of conventional media then they are at risk of being radicalised.
I'm not a young person any more, but that's me.
It's McCarthyite - don't try to win the argument, paint everyone who disagrees with you as hating their country and supporting the enemy.
Also, offering aid to terrorists is a criminal offence. Is Cameron suggesting that voting against bombing Syria is a criminal matter?
it might be an idea to know roughly how many people you intend to bomb.
2 Toyota Hi-Luxs will be destroyed every day until victory is assured.
We never learn from the past do we.
Warmongering- willy-waving-curry favouring clueless $£%&tard.
He is as short-sighted as the terrorists.
BigDummy2 Toyota Hi-Luxs will be destroyed every day until victory is assured.
This breaks my heart as I know my first Hilux was exported.
Was that a Vulcan bomber that just flew overhead, or is the deafening whining noise just lefties that [i]still[/i] don't understand that democracy means you don't always get your own way?
Meh, we are are already attacking ISIS in Iraq, the Americans, French and Russians are already attacking them in Syria. We are by that definition already at war with ISIS and already in a coalition that is attacking them in Syria; and have indeed already participated in some strikes over the Syrian border.
Whether we join wider attacks in Syria or not is more of a symbolic thing. I just don't get the fuss - if the blue jelly baby wants to put British troops into Syria I'd understand it a bit more.
OP. It would seem the words used were "terrorist sympathizers". At no point did he mention ISIS/ISIL, he could therefore be including those MP's that were IRA apologists or those middle class "Shining Path" supporters. Therefore I feel his comments are much more inclusive and very unlike a proper Tory.
If he is so keen to go to war why doesnt he just bugger off over there with his supporting chums and do us all a favour. We would be better off without him and his dictatorial views on this!
If ever there was a metaphor for this futility....
2 Toyota Hi-Luxs will be destroyed every day until victory is assured
AHEM .....
[img]
its certain that the MP we voted for will have a vote. But that isn't enough for some and their righteousness and how easy to stoop to personal invectives
[quote=ninfan spake unto the masses, saying]Was that a Vulcan bomber that just flew overhead, or is the deafening whining noise just lefties that still don't understand that democracy means you don't always get your own way?
Uff. You could have saved that Vulcan thing for a point when it actually made sense.
grum - Member
It's the kind of thing a fascist leader would say. 'Support me or you're a terrorist'.
This quote has been doing the rounds recently...
[I]"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." - Hermann Goering[/I]
DrJ - Memberninfan spake unto the masses, saying » Was that a Vulcan bomber that just flew overhead, or is the deafening whining noise just lefties that still don't understand that democracy means you don't always get your own way?
[s]Uff. You could have saved that Vulcan thing for a point when it actually made sense.[/s] It's Zulu 11,a man who changed his user name to try and bury his racist,bigoted posting history. FTFY
deafening whining noise just lefties that still don't understand that democracy means you don't always get your own way?
There is nothing remotely democratic about saying agree with me or you are a "terrorist sympathiser".
It's right up there with "if you are against state censorship then you must be a paedo".
Deeply sinister and very much the opposite of an honest open debate.
I'm against military action because I've not been convinced it'll do good. However, I'm open to suggestions and an example being a lady on Radio this morning making a good case for action AND talking. Whilst I'm not ready to agree, she spoke logically.
Cameron howver , for me, has lost moral ground with playground style comments and I do not trust his judgements to be in the interests of others. He's playing an egotistical power game IMO.....
That's like saying "If you don't have sex with me, your a gay"
The UK will bomb them regardless. Every PM wants to have there name added to a war. Blooming Churchill effect
Cameron howver , for me, has lost moral ground with playground style comments and I do not trust his judgements to be in the interests of others. He's playing an egotistical power game IMO.....
This. Every time Cameron gets the chance to be a smooth political operator, he screws it up. He has somehow found a way to make the public look more sympathetically at Jeremy Corbyn.
What Cameron said is that if you walk through the division lobby with Corbyn (ie vote no) you will be dong so with terrorist sympathisers.
So OP unless you are an MP voting no he hasn't said anything about you.
It's my firm view and I stated it many months ago when Corbyn stood for leader that his links with terrorists including the IRA, Hezbollah and Hamas would be a major problem for him and the Labour Party. It's also my firm view that both Corbyn and McDonald are terrorist sympathisers. Corbyn in particular has legitimised terrorists, expressed support and sympathy for them and their causes and done so on numerous occasions. The Stop the War movement is riddled with terrorist sympathisers not least at its very highest organisational levels.
The Labour position is even more incoherent than the Tory one, as air strikes against ISIS are happening in Iraq right now and have worked, even Corbyn admits that.
And lets be honest the whole debate is a farce even if we don't bomb Syria, the UK is still providing the targeting information.
Even Cameron isn't as 'away with the fairies' as much as Corbyn who believes that dialogue and political compromise will solve the problem that is ISIL.
The shadow cabinet has a couple of terrorist sympathisers. So it's an accurate statement. Plenty here too.
Bomb the **** out of an ideology.
It ain't gonna end well.
It ain't gonna end well.
No but it'll end very well for the tory party's rich cronies and donors, Theresa May's husband will likely do very well out of it too, even now his company just won a £100million contract in Iraq. War provides these people a huge income for years and years.
G4S.COM jambalaya - MemberWhat Cameron said is that if you walk through the division lobby with Corbyn (ie vote no) you will be dong so with terrorist sympathisers.
So OP unless you are an MP voting no he hasn't said anything about you.
It's my firm view and I stated it many months ago when Corbyn stood for leader that his links with terrorists including the IRA, Hezbollah and Hamas would be a major problem for him and the Labour Party. It's also my firm view that both Corbyn and McDonald are terrorist sympathisers. Corbyn in particular has legitimised terrorists, expressed support and sympathy for them and their causes and done so on numerous occasions. The Stop the War movement is riddled with terrorist sympathisers not least at its very highest organisational levels.
Maybe, just maybe these "terrorist sympathisers" like Corbyn understand that if (taking Ireland for example) you strip a country of it's natural assets, you enslave it's population, slaughter them in their millions, destroy their culture and enforce your own it will bite you in the ass and you'll get trouble for generations to come.
Thank the lord for all those red blooded patriots in the 'start the war movement'. Stout fellows.
This got a mention on the Today program this morning, pretty good I thought...
[img]
ninfan - Member
Was that a Vulcan bomber that just flew overhead, or is the deafening whining noise just lefties that still don't understand that democracy means you don't always get your own way?
i'm a lefty, voted green, got tory, i'm absolutely fine with that. no whining at all.
it's the subtle accusation that i'm a 'terrorist sympathiser' simply because i think we should have a plan* before going to war, that annoys me.
(*'let's go looking for something to bomb' isn't a plan.)
it really is Christmas for ISIS. we'll blow up some trucks, and a few sheds, and they'll milk it for volunteers and donations.
in this 'plan', they can't lose, and we can't win.
it's the accusation that i'm a 'terrorist sympathiser' simply because i think we should have a plan before going to war, that annoys me.
Absolutely. Like most right minded people, ISIS disgust me. But cammeron's comments make me sick - How dare he call me a terrorist sympathiser just because I'm wary of repeating the obvious mistakes of the past and see no logic in his agruement for a bombing campaign.
total ****tery (and I voted tory)
How can you bomb an ideology? The idea of it is absurd. It's like bombing the sea. All you will do is move it into areas it wasn't previously.
There's instances of American interviews with Vietcong fighters who, when asked why they were fighting, replied that they couldn't care less about the VC's aims, but they wanted revenge for an act that caused personal pain. These were usually relatives being hurt or killed, often by particularly nasty US weapons, or raped by US troops. I'll see if I can find the links.
However, my point is that there's a very real chance of this happening in the middle east, if it's not happening already.
It's McCarthyite - don't try to win the argument, paint everyone who disagrees with you as hating their country and supporting the enemy.
Patriot Act?
Was that a Vulcan bomber that just flew overhead, or is the deafening whining noise just lefties that still don't understand that democracy means you don't always get your own way?
*Yawn*
Seems daft to me bombing in Iraq and not in Syria. Seems daft not to support our ally France after they have been attacked. Bombing Syria won't make us any more of a target than we are already.
But Cameron's comments were totally inappropriate and he should apologise.
And then he can tell us what his plan is to eradicate IS on the ground and leave Syria safe and stable, as bombing won't do either of those things.
Seems daft to me bombing in Iraq and not in Syria.
This is a good point. Was anyone else aware that there was bombing happening in Iraq before yesterday / today?
And I do wonder whether it's been deemed effective.
Seems daft not to support our ally France after they have been attacked.
They were attacked by a bunch of Belgians. We should bomb Belgium. They've had it coming for a while, in my opinion.
Was that a Vulcan bomber that just flew overhead, or is the deafening whining noise just lefties that still don't understand that democracy means you don't always get your own way?
What Cameron said is that if you walk through the division lobby with Corbyn (ie vote no) you will be dong so with terrorist sympathisers.
Even Cameron isn't as 'away with the fairies' as much as Corbyn who believes that dialogue and political compromise will solve the problem that is ISIL.
The shadow cabinet has a couple of terrorist sympathisers. So it's an accurate statement. Plenty here too.
Ah, the classic signs of "system justification". The belief that their way is right and you are the enemy. With us or against us. Only spouted by those who lack the intelligence to think outside that box.
And I do wonder whether it's been deemed effective.
Seemed to do the trick with Jihadi John and those two other British fellas.
When bombing Syria hasn't worked, where next? Blackburn, Bradford, Slough? Global whack-an-ISIS mole.
David doesn't give a flying ****. Just as long as his puppet masters make some money and we're all kept in our place by fear of the boggy man.
They were attacked by a bunch of Belgians.
Trained in Syria. Go read this [url=
Syria[/url]
I'd guess you'll still be in the No camp after reading it, but at least you'll be better informed.
When bombing Syria hasn't worked, where next? Blackburn, Bradford, Slough?
Now you're talking.
Trained in Syria.
I know. So wouldn't it be better to look at how and why a bunch of Belgians decided to go to Syria to train for this?
The pro-bombing people like binary, black and white choices. Either you bomb, or you do nothing. Either you're on our side, or you're on the side of the terrorists. They don't do nuance, they don't like complex situations.
The reality is very few of the no-bombing side are suggesting we do nothing, they're suggesting we do something better.