General Discussion: random news stories


Show original post
C-Stylez
C-Stylez avatar

5244 posts since 4/7/12

26 Nov 2015 14:23

Definitely needs more bombing
collizhun
collizhun avatar

3880 posts since 19/10/06

26 Nov 2015 14:31
Chris Nineham, vice-chair of the Stop the War coalition points;

“I think it’s a very, very weak statement and I think Cameron has failed utterly to put a coherent case or to outline a coherent strategy. He has not been able to answer the question: why would a relatively minor increase in the level of bombing change the current situation, which is that America and its allies have been bombing Isis in Syria for 13 months and Isis has grown?"

“We always get this argument when we are asked to back another war, that our weapons don’t kill civilians, that they are precision-guided, that they cause minimal ‘collateral damage’. And yet all the facts argue the opposite: one impact of extra bombing raids will be more civilians killed. Why on earth would Britain want to increase the death rate?"

“Leaving aside the purely humanitarian question, doing that would entrench the bitterness towards the west. Does anyone really believe that Britain joining the war in Syria would make a terror attack on Britain less likely?"

“The kind of action Cameron is outlining is going to increase the level of suffering and destruction in Syria, it’s liable to entrench the civil war [and] to strengthen rather than degrade the position of Isis."

Agree that there seems to be no mention of a strategy other than more bombing.
BENi
BENi avatar

219 posts since 10/5/09

26 Nov 2015 15:28
Cameron said this morning there will be no safe zones for civilians as this would involve using ground troops.

He basically batted the question away as "it's just one of those things, we can't guarantee the safety of innocent people".
adidaskev
adidaskev avatar

1001 posts since 30/11/11

26 Nov 2015 16:54
collizhun wrote: Chris Nineham, vice-chair of the Stop the War coalition points;

“I think it’s a very, very weak statement and I think Cameron has failed utterly to put a coherent case or to outline a coherent strategy. He has not been able to answer the question: why would a relatively minor increase in the level of bombing change the current situation, which is that America and its allies have been bombing Isis in Syria for 13 months and Isis has grown?"

“We always get this argument when we are asked to back another war, that our weapons don’t kill civilians, that they are precision-guided, that they cause minimal ‘collateral damage’. And yet all the facts argue the opposite: one impact of extra bombing raids will be more civilians killed. Why on earth would Britain want to increase the death rate?"

“Leaving aside the purely humanitarian question, doing that would entrench the bitterness towards the west. Does anyone really believe that Britain joining the war in Syria would make a terror attack on Britain less likely?"

“The kind of action Cameron is outlining is going to increase the level of suffering and destruction in Syria, it’s liable to entrench the civil war [and] to strengthen rather than degrade the position of Isis."

Agree that there seems to be no mention of a strategy other than more bombing.

Very well said. Cameron is just onboard because the US is telling him to.
ShaneB
ShaneB avatar

908 posts since 28/11/10

26 Nov 2015 18:12
It's an absolute mess.

Haven't seen any polls as of late, but I reckon there isn't much appetite for this intervention?

The geopolitics are complicated - Gulf State proxies / Iranian Proxies / the vast bulk of rebels are Isalamists of varying degrees / Turkish proxies / US backing of 'moderates' around Aleppo / Russia & Iranian backing of the legitimate government - Assad.

And the consequence? 10 million displaced Syrians and a thriving economy with a pluralistic society left to ruin. Absolute disgrace.
jorel
jorel avatar

34 posts since 28/10/15

posted 27 Nov 2015 14:25, edited 27 Nov 2015 14:25
https://youtu.be/2WuAGjBQX0A?t=3m43s

Drive you round the twist dealing with all these ….(possible FUKer at 3.43 Camel coat cropped pants and beanie - looks like Jordan)
jorel
jorel avatar

34 posts since 28/10/15

27 Nov 2015 14:27
…..oh and the friendly Dutch leave gifts for the migrants….Happy Festivus!!!!!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=294_1448467758
bill
bill avatar

4931 posts since 5/8/09

27 Nov 2015 17:51
I haven't been watching the news, just get the odd sound bite and headline. Last one I read was Cameron saying "Bombing Syria will make UK safer"….

depressing as fuck.
C-Stylez
C-Stylez avatar

5244 posts since 4/7/12

27 Nov 2015 18:02
Indeed.

I seem to be missing something. Terror attacks committed by French and Belgian extremists.
Bombing Syria is the answer.

How?
Crackajack
Crackajack avatar

8155 posts since 21/4/05

27 Nov 2015 18:13
Whenever there is an incident like Paris the UK armed forces get inundated with applications.

Bombing Syria, in part to answer domestic critics, is the best recruitment tool ISIS could wish for, and seems horrendously ineffective even if there is a view that some military action is justified.

burny
burny avatar

6128 posts since 25/5/06

27 Nov 2015 22:34
So you guys propose doing what? Nothing??
-DiscoTits-
-DiscoTits- avatar

999 posts since 26/11/07

27 Nov 2015 23:14
^^ I propose we stop trying to destabilise a legitimate (albeit corrupt) government in Assad. Leave the middle east to their own devices. Bombing Syria won't help the cause.
bill
bill avatar

4931 posts since 5/8/09

27 Nov 2015 23:21
Yes, simply because it's a war you'll never win.

If making the UK safer is the priority, I'd feel safer if my government withdraw from all these shit hole countries altogether and let them get on with it.

burny
burny avatar

6128 posts since 25/5/06

28 Nov 2015 07:50
How about in 1939? You'd have disagreed with that as well?

I'm not hellbent on war, but that fact is they won't stop. I've spent time - this alone - in Beirut, Istanbul, Tunisia and I'm spending Christmas in Morocco (I'm probably on a list). I love the Middle East and I love their way of life. But, ISIS aren't going to stop. It's not about our country. It's about coming together and defeating a common enemy. Blairs war was against Sadaam and it was clearly a mistake. This war is not against Assad, it's against a movement of people hellbent on causing destruction.

We've got the intelligence in this country to stop any radicals already here, we've proved that. Will it cause a whole new uprising of Isis support? Doubtful in my opinion.

Innocent people died in 1939, it doesn't mean it was a mistake.
shame
shame avatar

1733 posts since 17/7/12

posted 28 Nov 2015 09:10, edited 28 Nov 2015 09:10
If muslim majority countries would lead a coalition and send ground forces i truly believe that you could defeat isis in syria….but at the moment it's mostly russia, france, uk and us (mostly air strikes, no ground forces x except russia) and the fact that western countries are leading the attacks will lead to more hate & prejudices against the 'infidel', more isis recruiters from western countries, more immigrants & more attacks in western capitols.

the main problem of the uk, germany, sweden & france is not in syria. it's already in their communities and i simply don't understand how it's possible that there is a big number of people, many of whom our intelligence agency considers very dangerous, known 'ex isis fighters' or even 'isis friendly', that aren't looked up in the shittiest jail of the country.
Or that there are many mosques with known extremist islamist preachers which are open 24/7…this is a disgrace to any muslim who want to practice his/her religion peacefully or despises ideologies like sharia law, or simply want to live a life in peace.
I'm in favour of diversity, people should live their lives however they want to and there should be laws to help them to do whatever fucked up thing they want to do….but on the other hand there must be the most strictest laws to defend these values. to put it straight:
At the moment we (as a western world) except and tollerate intollerance & hate to a point where it gets ridiculous. This happens under the pretext to defend liberal values to a minority of fuckers who hate everything we stand for and this has to stop.
bill
bill avatar

4931 posts since 5/8/09

28 Nov 2015 10:34
burny wrote: How about in 1939? You'd have disagreed with that as well? .

the two aren't in the least bit comparable and I think you kinda know that already.

I'd be all for war if it would do any good. Is this world a safer place since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are you safer? What good is this gonna do? For every fanatic you kill, you just create a hundred more. It's endless, doesn't matter what they call themselves..

Bombing Syria just makes us a bigger target, not just to terrorists overseas but to home grown terrorists.

"Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world.

And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters."

How do you defeat that with bombs and missiles? :-/

I'm just looking at it from a selfish(but also rational) point of view. We're obsessed with the middle east. If the argument is one of compassion 'how can we sit back and watch innocent people die'….etc etc

well, we've done it before many times over. We've don't seem to give two fucks about conflicts in Africa.
MasterBlaster
MasterBlaster avatar

884 posts since 7/4/12

28 Nov 2015 11:45
Who are they proposing to bomb? Assad's forces? The 'moderate' rebels? IS? If it was specifically targeted strikes against IS (convoys, weapons stocks etc) then I'd kind of see the point even thought the US and France should be able to do that without Britain anyway.
RickRude
RickRude avatar

4138 posts since 13/1/12

28 Nov 2015 14:03
The U.K. is fucked whatever - too many liberal champagne socialist pricks who seem to just spurt utter bollocks about every issue. The Paris thing was a tragedy but at the same time all the fucking bullshit afterwards (French national anthems etc) made my blood boil. Do you think France would play our National anthem at every fucking sporting event - even fucking non league teams wearing France kits ffs it's laughable. False Flag in full effect
ShaneB
ShaneB avatar

908 posts since 28/11/10

posted 28 Nov 2015 14:50, edited 28 Nov 2015 14:50
burny wrote: How about in 1939? You'd have disagreed with that as well?

I'm not hellbent on war, but that fact is they won't stop. I've spent time - this alone - in Beirut, Istanbul, Tunisia and I'm spending Christmas in Morocco (I'm probably on a list). I love the Middle East and I love their way of life. But, ISIS aren't going to stop. It's not about our country. It's about coming together and defeating a common enemy. Blairs war was against Sadaam and it was clearly a mistake. This war is not against Assad, it's against a movement of people hellbent on causing destruction.

We've got the intelligence in this country to stop any radicals already here, we've proved that. Will it cause a whole new uprising of Isis support? Doubtful in my opinion.

Innocent people died in 1939, it doesn't mean it was a mistake.

That's well said, and very admirable, but I'm not, and the country as a whole is not, interested in a moral crusade where the geopolitics are byzantine and the aims a complete fudge. Don't underestimate the war weariness this country is suffering from; enough is enough.

RickRude wrote: The U.K. is fucked whatever - too many liberal champagne socialist pricks who seem to just spurt utter bollocks about every issue. The Paris thing was a tragedy but at the same time all the fucking bullshit afterwards (French national anthems etc) made my blood boil. Do you think France would play our National anthem at every fucking sporting event - even fucking non league teams wearing France kits ffs it's laughable. False Flag in full effect

Toffs at the top? Plebs at the bottom? Britain: the most unproductive, most unequal society in western Europe; lowest household income; lower GDP per capita than even a decade ago; a shyte economy; but don't worry, our Chancellor has a degree in PPE and has worthwhile experience as a clerk at a hospital.
Rez
Rez avatar

8941 posts since 5/4/09

28 Nov 2015 16:41
Degree in history and it's towel folding isn't it, that plus whatever dirt he's got on Cameron.