Syria air strikes

[rigsby]

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.

So now your going to back the word of Assad. He would rather the Russians bomb IS because they will of course drop more bombs on the free Syrian rebels who are more of a threat to his regime.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

So now your going to back the word of Assad. He would rather the Russians bomb IS because they will of course drop more bombs on the free Syrian rebels who are more of a threat to his regime.

I thought (according to Bielzibubz at least) that removing Assad was also one of Cameron's war aims?

Is he right in your opinion?

 

[Berrichonne shrimper]

I thought (according to Bielzibubz at least) that removing Assad was also one of Cameron's war aims?

He is right in your opinion?

Drop the HE and your last sentance makes a bit more sense teacher.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Drop the HE and your last sentance makes a bit more sense teacher.

Typo now corrected.Thanks.

 

[Beefy]

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.

Lol

Why are you so convinced that there's some easy answer in nice black & white?

 

[Firestorm]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/geneva_conventions

the Geneva Conventions are a series of treaties on the treatment of civilians, prisoners of war (POWs) and soldiers who are otherwise rendered hors de combat, or incapable of fighting.

not sure that this is applicable to the sanctioning of bombing Syria

 

[rigsby]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/geneva_conventions

the Geneva Conventions are a series of treaties on the treatment of civilians, prisoners of war (POWs) and soldiers who are otherwise rendered hors de combat, or incapable of fighting.

not sure that this is applicable to the sanctioning of bombing Syria

You still haven't answered.... £100 to shrimperzone if you can

I have stated I don't agree with the current form of air strikes in Syria but I haven't tried to hide behind the pointless institution that is the UN

 

[Firestorm]

You still haven't answered.... £100 to shrimperzone if you can

I have stated I don't agree with the current form of air strikes in Syria but I haven't tried to hide behind the pointless institution that is the UN

I can answer, so pay up.

whether I will is a seperate issue.

 

[londonblue]

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?

:off topic:

 

[londonblue]

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.

Well, not when someone else poses the question.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

:off topic:

You'll have noticed that the title of this thread is Syria air strikes.So how the **** can my post be off topic?

 

[londonblue]

You'll have noticed that the title of this thread is Syria air strikes.So how the **** can my post be off topic?

Because it doesn't answer the point I raised in the post you quoted. In fact it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[rigsby]

Lol

Why are you so convinced that there's some easy answer in nice black & white?

When have I said that. I know there's no one easy answers. Who on here knows any where near enough about Syria any way. I'm just asking for a few suggestions. If you have none about Syria, then fine but what about here in Britain.

Should people who have been on a Jihad to Syria be allowed come back and walk the streets. We don't need Un chapter 7 to have an opinion on that one.

The other question was for firestorm from the Leytonstone thread. Again quite simple would the police been within their rights in HIS opinion to shoot the knife man when he charged them.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Because it doesn't answer the point I raised in the post you quoted. In fact it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

On the contrary, the lack of clear cut criteria I outlined in my criticisms of Cameron's own confused war aims, indicate quite clearly my own criteria for "success".

 

[londonblue]

On the contrary, the lack of clear cut criteria I outlined in my criticisms of Cameron's own confused war aims, indicate quite clearly my own criteria for "success".

As I said you haven't addressed the point I raised.

:hijacked::off topic:

 

[callan]

As I said you haven't addressed the point I raised.

:hijacked::off topic:

That may well be, but that doesn't mean he's off topic.

Callan in sticking up for Barna blue shocker!

 

[londonblue]

That may well be, but that doesn't mean he's off topic.

Callan in sticking up for Barna blue shocker!

He quoted me and didn't address the point I raised. It was off topic, and an attempt to gloss over it, which IMO was also hijacking.

 

[callan]

He quoted me and didn't address the point I raised. It was off topic, and an attempt to gloss over it, which IMO was also hijacking.

Off topic to the thread?....or just to the point you wanted to discuss?

 

[rigsby]

I thought (according to Bielzibubz at least) that removing Assad was also one of Cameron's war aims?

Is he right in your opinion?

I agree with you, we should leave vicious despots in place in the ME. Only makes the place more unstable, far more locals die in the ensuing power struggle and it allows terrorism to thrive. As you rightly pointed out that's what happened in Iraq.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I agree with you, we should leave vicious despots in place in the ME. Only makes the place more unstable, far more locals die in the ensuing power struggle and it allows terrorism to thrive. As you rightly pointed out that's what happened in Iraq.

I've never suggested that Assad should be left "in place" in Syria.

The difficulty it that he has Russia's support (at least for the time being).

Clearly most Syrians (especially Syrian refugees)would be happier if Assad were deposed.

The question is, how might this desirable outcome be best achieved?