The Wish They Were All Dead Tory Cunt Thread

[LDG]

If we've started bombing already, there must have been some intellegence that our fellow bombee's didn't have. Or that they simply didn't have the fire power to do it themselves. I mean, it was imperative we started straight away, otherwise IS would have hidden in a cupboard somewhere else down the road.

It's like public school all over again for Cameron.

"Go on Jenkins, bum him, bum him and bum him again! And when you're done, I'll bum him too"

Maybe he wanted to bum IS?

[Niall_Quinn]

I thought our 4 warplanes would have completed the task by now, surely?

It's the lack of principle that counts, not the quantity.

[Ollie the Optimist]

The decision taken in the House of Commons last night has clearly divided opinion with good arguments on both sides, but I thought I’d write a few words on why I think that it is the right decision, although i'm sure NQ will respond calling me a tory warmongering cunt.

ISIS are clearly a threat, not only to the people in Syria and Iraq, but too the western world. They despise everything that we stand for, while claiming the religion they have distorted to suit their barbaric agenda is right. There can be no negotiation with these terrorists. They want us dead; there is nothing that we can offer them in a negotiation to stop them. The only way ISIS will stop is when they run out of bullets or have a bullet put in them. Some have said that we have not learnt lessons from the past, with our war with Iraq in the last decade, I disagree. I think in this case with ISIS, their threat is not comparable with invasion of Iraq; it is comparable with the Nazi’s in 1939. We tried to negotiate with them and that failed as we all know. Although in that instance there was something to offer Hitler in terms of land, the negotiations were a delaying tactic that inevitably failed and we ended up at war. As ISIS recognises no man made borders, there is nothing to offer them, which leaves only option, military intervention. Similar to Nazis, the threat from ISIS is an ideological ones as well as a physical one. As in 1939, the only option left was to defeat this ideological threat by war and it was defeated. While there are still people who follow what the Nazis stood for, it is an incredibly small number who do. We have to take on this threat as the longer we leave it, the stronger ISIS will become. ISIS has a slick propaganda machine, again parallels can be drawn with the Nazis, and they will use every bomb dropped by Britain against us to attempt to justify their group and their fight. There is one way to combat this and that we can all take part in and that is not to victimise Muslims like a minority have following ISIS attacks. Donald Trump has called for Muslims in America to wear a “special badge”, it is acts like that that will further victimise Muslims and allow them to be susceptible to ISIS propaganda. When ISIS commit their atrocities, it is painted as all of Islam, yet when a white male in America commits a mass shooting, it is painted as a lone wolf. This further divides Muslims which is exactly what ISIS want. They will use our air strikes in their propaganda but if we treat them as the evil they are rather then link them with the majority of Muslims who follow Islam peacefully we can reduce the impact of their propaganda while also reducing the impact of ISIS through air strikes.

A lot has been said over the last few days that we have voted to kill innocent civilians. This is not the case, we have voted to eliminate terrorists. So far in Iraq we have carried out over 1000 air strikes which have helped regain 30% of ISIS held territory. It has also stopped them taking Baghdad which obviously would have been a disaster. The strikes have killed over 300 ISIS terrorists with no civilian casualties, going into Syria doesn’t mean the RAF will not continue to assess factors when launching strikes, they will continue to select their targets rather than just drop bombs and hope for the best. I have seen people saying that the civilians in Syria will spend all day looking out for planes and wondering if it is their turn to be bombed, while it is true that planes will be flying overheard, the civilians will not just be concerned with the threat of misdirected attacks but actually looking left to right, wondering where ISIS will strike next, whether they will be captured, beheaded, crucified, raped or sold as a sex slave. We cannot sit back and let that happen. While of course, any civilian casualty is a tragedy, there will be casualties with or without our air strikes. There would have been more casualties in my opinion if we had stayed out of it. It would have allowed ISIS to carry on with their murdering of innocent people. These air strikes won’t be like the air raids we saw in World War Two where we just dropped bombs over cities, these will be carefully selected targets. It is not a case of fire and hope for the best.

The other point people have made against the strikes is that they will make us a bigger target for ISIS attacks. This is wrong; we are already a target for their attacks. What happened in Paris could have happened here in London, but our security services have thwarted those attempts. The threat of an ISIS attack in London or elsewhere in Britain is the same whether we sent the RAF over Syria or not. Our allies have asked us to stand with them, and we must do that. Imagine if Paris had been in London and our allies were unsure whether to stand with us, we would be livid and rightly so. Back in 1939, Nazi Germany posed a global threat and we stood with our allies, we didn’t just say “well France are at war with them so what good will our bombs/soldiers do” like some have said in regards to international air strikes against Syria. We stood against the Nazis because it was the right thing to do, to stand and fight with our allies and it is the same now.

A diplomatic and peaceful solution would be the ideal one, but sadly that won’t happen. ISIS do not want peace, they want non believer’s to either convert or be killed. I actually favour putting boots on the ground, I think it will be a more effective strategy, and similar to Iraq/Afghanistan, we could use them to train up Syrian fighters after ISIS have been defeated. The Syrian war is incredibly complicated but I don’t believe it can be sorted until ISIS has been defeated. Once they have, we can focus our foreign policy on removing Assad, creating a stable transitional government and allowing the Syrian refugees to return to a safe home. While ISIS is there, Syria will not be safe.
One thing against the air strikes is that it will not stop ISIS getting their funding. The main funding seems to come from oil and just this week Russia says it has proof that Turkey has been helping fund ISIS by buying oil from them. If that is the case, sanctions need to be taken against Turkey and indeed anyone buying oil from ISIS. The air strikes will help reduce their access to oil by targeting the oil wells as British air strikes did last night according to the MOD. The sale of arms to ISIS as well needs to be stopped and sanctions taken against anyone who has been found doing that be it ally or enemy. Though just trying to stop the funding of ISIS without air strikes will not defeat ISIS. While we don’t know the extent of ISIS wealth, I think it is fair to assume that with money they will have made from selling oil that just stopping their funding will not slow them down from committing terrorist acts in the short term.

I think that these air strikes are legal, right and needed. It will help take the fight to ISIS, it will stop them advancing further into Syria. We have to stand with our allies and defeat this evil and barbaric group. As David Cameron said yesterday, we must also reclaim Islam from this group, and to do that we must take the fight to them but also back at home we must treat fellow Muslims as human beings, not blaming them for acts committed by these terrorists, by making sure Islamophobia is no longer a thing. It is a horrible thing to have to vote to go to war, but there is no other way. There can be no peaceful negotiations, this evil has to be defeated and that means that sadly, we have to go to war with our allies. We cannot stand by and watch this evil carry on killing innocent civilians and that is why I believe that the Government is right to extend our fight against ISIS from Iraq and begin air strikes in Syria.

[IBK]

It's the lack of principle that counts, not the quantity.

Don't worry - far as I'm concerned its the blind leading the blind on this.

[IBK]

The decision taken in the House of Commons last night has clearly divided opinion with good arguments on both sides, but I thought I’d write a few words on why I think that it is the right decision, although i'm sure NQ will respond calling me a tory warmongering cunt.

ISIS are clearly a threat, not only to the people in Syria and Iraq, but too the western world. They despise everything that we stand for, while claiming the religion they have distorted to suit their barbaric agenda is right. There can be no negotiation with these terrorists. They want us dead; there is nothing that we can offer them in a negotiation to stop them. The only way ISIS will stop is when they run out of bullets or have a bullet put in them. Some have said that we have not learnt lessons from the past, with our war with Iraq in the last decade, I disagree. I think in this case with ISIS, their threat is not comparable with invasion of Iraq; it is comparable with the Nazi’s in 1939. We tried to negotiate with them and that failed as we all know. Although in that instance there was something to offer Hitler in terms of land, the negotiations were a delaying tactic that inevitably failed and we ended up at war. As ISIS recognises no man made borders, there is nothing to offer them, which leaves only option, military intervention. Similar to Nazis, the threat from ISIS is an ideological ones as well as a physical one. As in 1939, the only option left was to defeat this ideological threat by war and it was defeated. While there are still people who follow what the Nazis stood for, it is an incredibly small number who do. We have to take on this threat as the longer we leave it, the stronger ISIS will become. ISIS has a slick propaganda machine, again parallels can be drawn with the Nazis, and they will use every bomb dropped by Britain against us to attempt to justify their group and their fight. There is one way to combat this and that we can all take part in and that is not to victimise Muslims like a minority have following ISIS attacks. Donald Trump has called for Muslims in America to wear a “special badge”, it is acts like that that will further victimise Muslims and allow them to be susceptible to ISIS propaganda. When ISIS commit their atrocities, it is painted as all of Islam, yet when a white male in America commits a mass shooting, it is painted as a lone wolf. This further divides Muslims which is exactly what ISIS want. They will use our air strikes in their propaganda but if we treat them as the evil they are rather then link them with the majority of Muslims who follow Islam peacefully we can reduce the impact of their propaganda while also reducing the impact of ISIS through air strikes.

A lot has been said over the last few days that we have voted to kill innocent civilians. This is not the case, we have voted to eliminate terrorists. So far in Iraq we have carried out over 1000 air strikes which have helped regain 30% of ISIS held territory. It has also stopped them taking Baghdad which obviously would have been a disaster. The strikes have killed over 300 ISIS terrorists with no civilian casualties, going into Syria doesn’t mean the RAF will not continue to assess factors when launching strikes, they will continue to select their targets rather than just drop bombs and hope for the best. I have seen people saying that the civilians in Syria will spend all day looking out for planes and wondering if it is their turn to be bombed, while it is true that planes will be flying overheard, the civilians will not just be concerned with the threat of misdirected attacks but actually looking left to right, wondering where ISIS will strike next, whether they will be captured, beheaded, crucified, raped or sold as a sex slave. We cannot sit back and let that happen. While of course, any civilian casualty is a tragedy, there will be casualties with or without our air strikes. There would have been more casualties in my opinion if we had stayed out of it. It would have allowed ISIS to carry on with their murdering of innocent people. These air strikes won’t be like the air raids we saw in World War Two where we just dropped bombs over cities, these will be carefully selected targets. It is not a case of fire and hope for the best.

The other point people have made against the strikes is that they will make us a bigger target for ISIS attacks. This is wrong; we are already a target for their attacks. What happened in Paris could have happened here in London, but our security services have thwarted those attempts. The threat of an ISIS attack in London or elsewhere in Britain is the same whether we sent the RAF over Syria or not. Our allies have asked us to stand with them, and we must do that. Imagine if Paris had been in London and our allies were unsure whether to stand with us, we would be livid and rightly so. Back in 1939, Nazi Germany posed a global threat and we stood with our allies, we didn’t just say “well France are at war with them so what good will our bombs/soldiers do” like some have said in regards to international air strikes against Syria. We stood against the Nazis because it was the right thing to do, to stand and fight with our allies and it is the same now.

A diplomatic and peaceful solution would be the ideal one, but sadly that won’t happen. ISIS do not want peace, they want non believer’s to either convert or be killed. I actually favour putting boots on the ground, I think it will be a more effective strategy, and similar to Iraq/Afghanistan, we could use them to train up Syrian fighters after ISIS have been defeated. The Syrian war is incredibly complicated but I don’t believe it can be sorted until ISIS has been defeated. Once they have, we can focus our foreign policy on removing Assad, creating a stable transitional government and allowing the Syrian refugees to return to a safe home. While ISIS is there, Syria will not be safe.
One thing against the air strikes is that it will not stop ISIS getting their funding. The main funding seems to come from oil and just this week Russia says it has proof that Turkey has been helping fund ISIS by buying oil from them. If that is the case, sanctions need to be taken against Turkey and indeed anyone buying oil from ISIS. The air strikes will help reduce their access to oil by targeting the oil wells as British air strikes did last night according to the MOD. The sale of arms to ISIS as well needs to be stopped and sanctions taken against anyone who has been found doing that be it ally or enemy. Though just trying to stop the funding of ISIS without air strikes will not defeat ISIS. While we don’t know the extent of ISIS wealth, I think it is fair to assume that with money they will have made from selling oil that just stopping their funding will not slow them down from committing terrorist acts in the short term.

I think that these air strikes are legal, right and needed. It will help take the fight to ISIS, it will stop them advancing further into Syria. We have to stand with our allies and defeat this evil and barbaric group. As David Cameron said yesterday, we must also reclaim Islam from this group, and to do that we must take the fight to them but also back at home we must treat fellow Muslims as human beings, not blaming them for acts committed by these terrorists, by making sure Islamophobia is no longer a thing. It is a horrible thing to have to vote to go to war, but there is no other way. There can be no peaceful negotiations, this evil has to be defeated and that means that sadly, we have to go to war with our allies. We cannot stand by and watch this evil carry on killing innocent civilians and that is why I believe that the Government is right to extend our fight against ISIS from Iraq and begin air strikes in Syria.

Good on you for thinking it through, Ollie. No correct answers to this mess, TBF. One thing is for certain though - its that for all the 'principled' arguments - human nature is essentially selfish, and this is why as well intentioned or otherwise as people may be, there is not, and will never be a effective strategy for dealing with the fallout of all this. There will be unintentional consequences and looking back we will wish things had happened differently. You cannot change the human condition.

[Ollie the Optimist]

Good on you for thinking it through, Ollie. No correct answers to this mess, TBF. One thing is for certain though - its that for all the 'principled' arguments - human nature is essentially selfish, and this is why as well intentioned or otherwise as people may be, there is not, and will never be a effective strategy for dealing with the fallout of all this. There will be unintentional consequences and looking back we will wish things had happened differently. You cannot change the human condition.

I agree with there are no correct answers, it is an incredibly tricky situation but as stated above, I laid out my case for thinking that the answer given by the government is the right one at the moment.

You say there will never be an effective strategy for dealing with the fallout, I think you have a point in that it is such a global threat, we will never be rid of it. However we defeated nazism before, and we can defeat this. Lessons can be learnt from how we handled the fall out from the end of world war two to help ensure a plan is successfully enacted. It is a horrible situation globally right now, just today ISIS released a video of children murdering innocent people by beheading and shooting them. We cannot sit by and let that happen. We have to take the fight to them. It is the only way they will be beaten in my opinion.

[Letters]

I've heard a load of people on FB saying this is the wrong thing to do.
Precisely none of them have suggested an alternative or said what they think we should be doing.
Doing nothing doesn't sound like a great strategy. And these people are hardly ready to sit down to a political process.

I've no idea what the 'right' thing to do to try and sort out this mess. Bombing the shizzle out of them hasn't been the best strategy in the past but it's far to easy to say this is the wrong thing. Ok, fine. But what's. the right thing? Just let them all get on with it?

[Niall_Quinn]

Tempting. But I'm not going to.

[Niall_Quinn]

Although this bit is entirely unrelated so I'll take that.

"...it is comparable with the Nazi’s in 1939. We tried to negotiate with them and that failed as we all know."

As we all "know", is probably true enough. A lie repeated often enough essentially becomes knowledge. But as usual the truth is the reverse. The Nazis were the ones who tried to negotiate but the British and French would have none of it, being already locked into to a counter-productive pact with a particularly nasty and belligerent Polish regime. If you want to understand the lead up to WWII then look at the Poles. Even after hostilities commenced the Nazis continued their attempts at negotiation, rebuffed every time. They should have expected it, the same happened during WWI.

It's a shock to the system and hard to accept, given an upbringing steeped in nationalism and propaganda, but the Americans and the British are the bad guys. History reveals this to us in horrific detail. For certain there have been times when the enemy has been just as outrageous in its disregard for humanitarian fundamentals, but always, always the British and Americans have been at the forefront of the worst excesses. Their own holocausts get little play but they litter history. It's hard to see the obvious from the inside but you can be sure those on the outside are under no illusions. The Americans will soon surpass the British as the worst warmongers in recorded history.

Titbits culled from the interwebs.

* Pick any year since 1776 and there is about a 91% chance that America was involved in some war during that calendar year.


* No U.S. president truly qualifies as a peacetime president. Instead, all U.S. presidents can technically be considered “war presidents.”


* The U.S. has never gone a decade without war.


* The only time the U.S. went five years without war (1935-40) was during the isolationist period of the Great Depression.

[Xhaka Can’t]

I've heard a load of people on FB saying this is the wrong thing to do.
Precisely none of them have suggested an alternative or said what they think we should be doing.
Doing nothing doesn't sound like a great strategy. And these people are hardly ready to sit down to a political process.

I've no idea what the 'right' thing to do to try and sort out this mess. Bombing the shizzle out of them hasn't been the best strategy in the past but it's far to easy to say this is the wrong thing. Ok, fine. But what's. the right thing? Just let them all get on with it?

I've heard quite a few alternative suggestions - perhaps you just couldn't be arsed to read them. There were also a few alternative suggestions during the ahem, parliamentary *debate*.

I have no problem with a military campaign accompanied with a strategy for governance once the campaign has been successfully waged. Bombing the shit out of Syria and hoping that an entirely fictional friendly 70k freedom fighters will use it to gain an advantage against the Syrian government forces isn't a realistic military campaign. Similar strategies have failed in the past.

At least if the Government came out with the truth and stated that they wanted to stand with their allies and gain vengeance for the Paris attacks, while I'd disagree with it, I'd understand where they are coming from. But they won't be honest, and even worse, they turned it all into a party political game as evidenced by Cameron's sickening 'terrorist sympathizer' jibe.

It genuinely sickens me to the core.