Syria air strikes

[londonblue]

That was certainly why we ****ed up in Iraq.We'll **** up in Syria because we ****ed up in Iraq.

Depends on your success criteria. We all know how you work: you won't decide your success criteria until after the event so you can always claim that we have failed.

 

[mrsblue]

Depends on your success criteria. We all know how you work: you won't decide your success criteria until after the event so you can always claim that we have failed.

We will fail !

IS militants are among the people so the bombs will have to kill everyone in order to kill a couple of IS.that ain't going to work in a million year's.

 

[rigsby]

We will fail !

IS militants are among the people so the bombs will have to kill everyone in order to kill a couple of IS.that ain't going to work in a million year's.

That's why drones are the best option. They can be operational for hours and when a group of rapists are driving off down the road to abduct some Kurdish 10 year old girls...bingo. Yes of course we will have to listen Compo and Dian Abbott demanding a report they can study for six months but hey who cares.

 

[MK Shrimper]

That's why drones are the best option. They can be operational for hours and when a group of rapists are driving off down the road to abduct some Kurdish 10 year old girls...bingo. Yes of course we will have to listen Compo and Dian Abbott demanding a report they can study for six months but hey who cares.

So simple in your black & white world isn't it?

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/21/turning_a_wedding_into_a_funeral

 

[Firestorm]

That's why drones are the best option. They can be operational for hours and when a group of rapists are driving off down the road to abduct some Kurdish 10 year old girls...bingo. Yes of course we will have to listen Compo and Dian Abbott demanding a report they can study for six months but hey who cares.

Thats impressive, drones that can predict what people are going to do and the precise age of those they are meeting...if these drones do the lottery numbers they could be self funding.

 

[rigsby]

Thats impressive, drones that can predict what people are going to do and the precise age of those they are meeting...if these drones do the lottery numbers they could be self funding.

You have been asked what exactly you would do on another thread. But you prefer to avoid the questions and pop up to criticize anyone who refuses to stick their head in the sand.

I haven't forgotten, So come on then how will you that's right you not chapter 7 help the Kurdish girls. What could we do to make the streets of London safer?

Your right the drones can't predict any thing. But of course the people operating them can. That's why Jihadi John is no more

 

[rigsby]

So simple in your black & white world isn't it?

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/21/turning_a_wedding_into_a_funeral

So far you have continually repeated that the its all because of western policy in the ME but of course your yet to come up with one solution. We cant change history and young Kurdish girls certainly can't they need help today so what do you suggest ?

 

[Firestorm]

You have been asked what exactly you would do on another thread. But you prefer to avoid the questions and pop up to criticize anyone who refuses to stick their head in the sand.

I haven't forgotten, So come on then how will you that's right you not chapter 7 help the Kurdish girls. What could we do to make the streets of London safer?

Your right the drones can't predict any thing. But of course the people operating them can. That's why Jihadi John is no more

I am sorry if you felt that my post was a criticism, I was of the belief that the post mentioned was factually incorrect and you, kindly, confirmed that it indeed was.
I apoligise if the tone may have been a tad facetious, but to be honest the original statement about predictive Drones was marginally incredulous.

 

[rigsby]

I am sorry if you felt that my post was a criticism, I was of the belief that the post mentioned was factually incorrect and you, kindly, confirmed that it indeed was.
I apoligise if the tone may have been a tad facetious, but to be honest the original statement about predictive Drones was marginally incredulous.

You must be right because look, your far more intelligent than me as you've just proved with a smart a*** condescending answer. So good, some people might not notice you have avoided answering any questions, if that's not a tad facetious. But to be honest to do that, you would have to grow a spine, which of course is a little incredulous.

 

[Firestorm]

You must be right because look, your far more intelligent than me as you've just proved with a smart a*** condescending answer. So good, some people might not notice you have avoided answering any questions, if that's not a tad facetious. But to be honest to do that, you would have to grow a spine, which of course is a little incredulous.

We obviously have differening opinions on things, although in this instance I am not too sure that they are poles apart.
You have a perfect right to voice yours but please allow others the right to dispute the facts contained within your posts without being insulted in return.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Depends on your success criteria. We all know how you work: you won't decide your success criteria until after the event so you can always claim that we have failed.

Let's face it, two years ago Cameron wanted Labour to support bombing in Syria to get rid of Assad.This time around it was to get rid of IS.

I'd say the Tories own war aims are rather confused.

Do they want to get rid of Assad or IS or both?

If the aim is to get rid of IS,how will bombing alone achieve that?

What are the Tory plans for a post-IS or post-Assad Syria?

 

[rigsby]

We obviously have differening opinions on things, although in this instance I am not too sure that they are poles apart.
You have a perfect right to voice yours but please allow others the right to dispute the facts contained within your posts without being insulted in return.

Then please allow me the right to dispute the facts on your post. Of course I can't because just like you did on the Leytonstone stabbing thread you wont post any.

a) So what do you think is best for Syria ? b) When should the police shoot to kill ?

If you can give a straight answer to those two questions I'll make a donation to the zone before Christmas. I'll even let you decide how much, as I know you won't come up with some silly amount. If you can't then maybe you should donate

Just to be clear answers such as its all the fault of western policy or they should only shoot as a last resort will not count.

Edit I'll even let your comrades help you out as I know your biggest fear about the war on terror is saying something that might be not PC.

 

[Bielzibubz]

Let's face it, two years ago Cameron wanted Labour to support bombing in Syria to get rid of Assad.This time around it was to get rid of IS.

I'd say the Tories own war aims are rather confused.

Do they want to get rid of Assad or IS or both?

If the aim is to get rid of IS,how will bombing alone achieve that?

What are the Tory plans for a post-IS or post-Assad Syria?

Seeing as your so fond of bold i'll use it myself. Both. I would have thought that's pretty obvious to anyone that's been keeping up with current events these last few months. Obviously not.

Of course the aim is to get rid of IS. To suggest otherwise is to suggest Cameron is in favor of their aims and methods of achieving it. Surely even by your left wing center right hating standards that's pushing it a tad wouldn't you say.

I would hazard a guess that no one has a concrete formalized plan for Syria post Assad and IS because lets not beat around the bush here. This is a war. A non conventional war. As such it's forever fluid and changing. Therefore long term plans change accordingly and are made as and when they have to be depending on the circumstances at the time.

Now. I'll ask again. With a Chapter 7 resolution highly unlikely what would you do to halt the march of IS and extremist Islam baring in mind this is a war we are involved in whether we like it or not and doing nothing isn't an option based if nothing else on a moral standpoint.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Seeing as your so fond of bold i'll use it myself. Both. I would have thought that's pretty obvious to anyone that's been keeping up with current events these last few months. Obviously not.

Of course the aim is to get rid of IS. To suggest otherwise is to suggest Cameron is in favor of their aims and methods of achieving it. Surely even by your left wing center right hating standards that's pushing it a tad wouldn't you say.

I would hazard a guess that no one has a concrete formalized plan for Syria post Assad and IS because lets not beat around the bush here. This is a war. A non conventional war. As such it's forever fluid and changing. Therefore long term plans change accordingly and are made as and when they have to be depending on the circumstances at the time.

Now. I'll ask again. With a Chapter 7 resolution highly unlikely what would you do to halt the march of IS and extremist Islam baring in mind this is a war we are involved in whether we like it or not and doing nothing isn't an option based if nothing else on a moral standpoint.

And as I've told you before, I don't do hypotheticals.

This in not "a war we're involved in whether we like it or not," since Cameron won a vote in the Commons to go to war.

What is in question are Cameron's war aims.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

And as I've told you before, I don't do hypotheticals.

This in not "a war we're involved in whether we like it or not," since Cameron won a vote in the Commons to go to war.

What is in question are Cameron's war aims.

I think we are involved with or without the Commons vote. More than enough British muslims have made the journey over to Syria to murder for IS (or whatever the media are calling them now) and lets not forget British aid workers being executed. Of course we are already bombing IS positions in Iraq.
You can drone on (get it?) about hypertheticals and Chapter 7 all you want - we've all heard it before from you tbh.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I think we are involved with or without the Commons vote. More than enough British muslims have made the journey over to Syria to murder for IS (or whatever the media are calling them now) and lets not forget British aid workers being executed. Of course we are already bombing IS positions in Iraq.
You can drone on (get it?) about hypertheticals and Chapter 7 all you want - we've all heard it before from you tbh.

What you describe as being "involved" does not,of course, amount to anything like being at war.

While you correclty state that we are already bombing IS in Iraq, you conveniently forget that we were actually invited to do so by the Iraqui government.No such invitation has been made by the Syrian government to bomb IS positions in Syria.

That is precisely what makes this war illegal until and unless it has full UN approval.

 

[rigsby]

And as I've told you before, I don't do hypotheticals.

This in not "a war we're involved in whether we like it or not," since Cameron won a vote in the Commons to go to war.

What is in question are Cameron's war aims.

Every time you tell one us how wrong we are that is a hypothetical. We will fail in Syria is hypothetical. Kill one jihadi and you create 2 more is totally hypothetical.

 

[rigsby]

What you describe as being "involved" does not,of course, amount to anything like being at war.

While you correclty state that we are already bombing IS in Iraq, you conveniently forget that we were actually invited to do so by the Iraqui government.So such invitation has been made by the Syrian government to bomb IS positions in Syria.

That is precisely what makes this war illegal until and unless it has full UN approval.

IS are not a sovereign state so we can bomb them legally without the approval of the UN or without complying with the Geneva convention

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Every time you tell one us how wrong we are that is a hypothetical. We will fail in Syria is hypothetical. Kill one jihadi and you create 2 more is totally hypothetical.

What is not hypothetical is that the recent UN security council resolution "does not provide a legal basis for military action," therefore the allied bombing campaign in Syria is almost certainly doomed to fail in its attempts to oust IS from Syria.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-measures-fight-ISIS-wake-Paris-attacks.html

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

IS are not a sovereign state so we can bomb them legally without the approval of the UN or without complying with the Geneva convention

You are quite right to point out that IS is "not a sovereign state." Syria however is.We've not been invited to fly in Syrian airspace by the Syrian government.That is precisely what makes our presence there illegal.