The Wish They Were All Dead Tory Cunt Thread

[Xhaka Can’t]

OK. So now I've seen 1 although that also advocates military action.
That doesn't change the general point about a million people wringing their hands on FB but saying nothing about what they think we should be doing instead.

EDIT: Oh, and I didn't delete it - that implies I removed it from your post. I just didn't quote that part because that's not the part I wanted to reply to.

Right...you didn't want to reply to the substantive part of the post. Have you considered you may be doing the same on FB and when watching the news. While there are indeed those that advocate doing nothing, there are many who feel something should be done, but not what is now happening.

Simply bombing without any tactical ground support and a plan for governance will fail and make the lives of innocent people (who survive it) immeasurably worse and for no tangible benefit. We will create a situation where more people have nothing left and have lost loved ones. With nothing left to lose and no hope, we risk further radicalisation amongst those that otherwise may not have been susceptible.

[Niall_Quinn]

OK. So now I've seen 1 although that also advocates military action.
That doesn't change the general point about a million people wringing their hands on FB but saying nothing about what they think we should be doing instead.

EDIT: Oh, and I didn't delete it - that implies I removed it from your post. I just didn't quote that part because that's not the part I wanted to reply to.

I'm struggling to find a point to your point. The lack of an alternative does not make an action valid by default. We're in a very strange place these days. A man who wants to make society more equitable and refuses to support a bombing campaign abroad is viewed as unelectable. A traitor standing in front of a leader with the largest mandate in living memory is the hero of the hour. Warmongers who have created the most obscene problems all across the Middle East are the peacemakers. Nations that overthrow foreign governments by illegal military intervention have leaders that speak of democracy and peace. It's a bit of a loony bin really yet it all gets fed into willing mouths which in turn repeat the same old lies and propaganda.

[Letters]

The lack of an alternative does not make an action valid by default.

No, of course not. And I don't disagree with the rest of your post.
But saying that a given course of action is wrong is all well and good, but that's the easy bit.
The situation is a complete mess over there, saying what the "right" thing to do is (as much as there is a "right" thing) is more tricky.
That's what I've not heard much of. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places.

[Xhaka Can’t]

No, of course not. And I don't disagree with the rest of your post.
But saying that a given course of action is wrong is all well and good, but that's the easy bit.
The situation is a complete mess over there, saying what the "right" thing to do is (as much as there is a "right" thing) is more tricky.
That's what I've not heard much of. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places.

Whether it's the lack of a strategy worth the name the absence of credible ground troops the missing diplomatic plan for a Syrian settlement the failure to address the impact on the terrorist threat or the refugee crisis and civilian casualties: it's become increasingly clear that the Prime Minister's proposal for military action simply doesn't stack up.

Last week the Prime Minister focused his case for bombing in Syria on the critical tests set by the respected cross-party Foreign Affairs select committee. Given the holes in the government's case, it's scarcely surprising that last night the committee reported that the Prime Minister had not "adequately addressed" their concerns. In other words, the committee judged that the Prime Minister's case for bombing has failed its tests.

Corbyn pretty much kicked off his Parliamentary statement with this quote. It seems consistent with what he was advocating on news programmes in the lead up to the *debate*.

What he is advocating requires a lot of careful preparation and effort. Not much use when you want to demonstrate to your allies that you too are a Billy Big Bollocks by taking the quick, thoughtless and proven to be futile measure of dropping "our magnificent missiles" all over yet another Middle Eastern country.

[LDG]

OK. So now I've seen 1 although that also advocates military action.
That doesn't change the general point about a million people wringing their hands on FB but saying nothing about what they think we should be doing instead.

But shouldn't the most peaceful course of action be the best way of dealing with anything? I think what most people are saying, is that military action should only be the very last resort. I'm dead against us going on another bombing run, without full and just cause for doing so. To my mind, there is no justification for doing it, save those in support of action telling me another Paris may happen here.

It may well do, but isn't it the shoot from the hip action we're taking, a gift to those we're actually trying to stop? They want us to retaliate. Do you really think they care for their own casualties, let alone the loss of innocent civilian lives? In fact, it only adds fuel to their agenda. It makes it easier for them to turn sympathisers into recruits.

If we're honest about wanting to take out IS, shouldn't we being a bit more subtle?

[Letters]

All you are saying is give peace a chance?
Of course the ideal way is the peaceful way but is that even possible in this situation?
I don't know if they want us to retaliate - in some ways it strengthens their cause - but I think they'd be pretty happy if we let them got on with it too.

[LDG]

All you are saying is give peace a chance?
Of course the ideal way is the peaceful way but is that even possible in this situation?
I don't know if they want us to retaliate - in some ways it strengthens their cause - but I think they'd be pretty happy if we let them got on with it too.

You know it's not as simplistic as that.

You're right in your earlier post that it's a complicated affair/mess. But our MP's have voted for the only option that doesn't require hard work (and I'm not saying that of our dedicate troops aren't putting in hard work, I mean the think tanks, the decision makers etc). Like Gary pointed out, and Corbyn highlighted, the select committee have major issues with the decision.

Shouldn't we be putting real thought and effort into tackling the real issues? Unfortunately, I suspect the agenda here is far more complex than ridding the world of IS. Which is why it makes it even more sickening that this vote was even tabled, let alone the "Yes" outcome that followed.

I'm obviously not versed in strategy, but it strikes me that the correct way to avoid civilian casualties by having troops on the ground who can infiltrate IS directly. It's not "peaceful" per say, but it means you can plan in order to keep innocent people out of harms way.

[IBK]

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.

Call me a pessimist, but I honestly don't think there would be the political will or consensus to defeat the Nazis today.

[Niall_Quinn]

Call me a pessimist, but I honestly don't think there would be the political will or consensus to defeat the Nazis today.

Oh yes there would be - no doubt about it. We are always delighted to fight the wrong enemy. All modern war is theatre, a pretty bloody theatre for the poor bastards who get the supporting roles, but a masquerade nonetheless. Our leaders NEVER go to war for humanitarian reasons or for justice, liberty or any of the other shop dressing they arrange for public consumption. Wars are fought for territory, resources and/ or profits. Smedley Butler said it best, and recently even the likes of Wesley Clark have been speaking rather freely. War is a racket, the big boy's "respectable" version of Mafioso. Turf and the proceeds of that turf. Sustaining the unsustainable just a little while longer.

In truth I don't see expanding the air campaign across a border as a huge problem. I see the air campaign itself, whether in Iraq or elsewhere, as the problem. It's hard to believe how lame that so-called debate in parliament was. They should be ashamed of being so ignorant and complacent. They spoke of evil. They are evil. Ignorance is evil and there's no excuse for it. The mistake was made in 2001 when the Saudis bombed the World Trade Center. The solution was to cut all ties to that shitty hive of terror but we couldn't do it because of the oil. Everything that has followed has compounded that mistake and that awful, awful cowardice. Why did we need the oil? Because for 100 years the most foul creatures ever to pass themselves off as human have ensured mankind remained on the insane fossil fuel trail. Think of all the investment that has been poured into oil production over that period. Think of all the wars, the human misery. Oil. Was it even mentioned in that "debate"?

Our friends are the terrorists and the terrorists we're targeting are funded by our friends. British airmen and support crew, soon to be followed by British troops (oh how coy Mr Hague is) will soon be dying at the hands of our friends while they busily kill pawns and bystanders. And our shitty little friends will endure until that evil goo under their desert runs dry.

[Power n Glory]

Good show and relevant. You think they all watched this before the vote and went for other option?

It seems like we have no strategy to deal with this. I see no point in just bombing and then waiting for the dust to settle. The reported 70k army of rebels are miles away from the bombing targets apparently and we have no idea who they are just another extremists group. Always seemed risky to arm the rebels fighting against Assad because they were fighting against a regime the West created and put in power. Isn't this how we have ISIS? ISIL or whatever they're called?