http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-34961844

 

a few good points followed by a load of crap...

 

tough call, where do you stand?

Edited December 2, 201510 yr by HomerJay

We're going to kill innocent people.

We're going to kill innocent people.

 

 

innocent people always die in wars

 

theres innocent people dying daily in syria and iraq and paris

 

anybody happy innocents die is a cnut but allowing these fcukers to carry on in their murderous ways is not an option

We're going to kill innocent people.

how many innocent people are ISIS killing?

Aren't we only going to bomb targets that previously we'd get someone else to bomb, with our info? Which is clearly nonsense.

Thought we'd been asked to join in as we've got the bestest and most accurate planes.

aye, I don't have the answers, something needs doing, is this the correct course of action? Time will tell.

 

I don't see a bombing campaign being successful without boots on the ground.

 

It's scary times, I feel a lot more insecure about this.

how many innocent people are ISIS killing?

Loads.

These terrorists need sorting out and anyone who wants to have a crack can.

 

The French foreign legion are recruiting, allowing folk to have a do at these rag head terrorists.

They should use Dianne Abbott as a bouncing bomb the big fat pig.

Just found some figures on the number of coalition sorties flown in Iraq and Syria. This was announced in August by the Pentagon

 

Total number flown - 51,000

Total by the RAF - 1,000 - all in Iraq obviously.

 

We're a very minor player in the grand scheme of things. We seem to forget that sometimes. 

If we go in it ain't going to be much more than token show of force. Militarily we won't be adding much to what the Yanks, the Russians and every other fecker are doing already.

 

It's more that Cameron seems to think that we need to be seen to be standing alongside the others. He might well have a point. Fuck knows.

 

He was a proper cock with his 'terrorist sympathisers' line though.

 

 

How??? The evidence for Corbyn and McDonnell is irrefutable.

How??? The evidence for Corbyn and McDonnell is irrefutable.

 

He implied that EVERYONE who questioned the bombing of Syria was a "terrorist sympathiser", so that includes a few who have posted in this thread.

Edited December 3, 201510 yr by Cheese

He implied that EVERYONE who questioned the bombing of Syria was a "terrorist sympathiser".

 

 

You hear what you want to hear. My take was he was directing his comment at those two for their unswerving support of IRA scum.

 

Contrary cunts will no doubt take another view.

You hear what you want to hear. My take was he was directing his comment at those two for their unswerving support of IRA scum.

 

Contrary cunts will no doubt take another view.

 

Speak for yourself. I hear what is said. You've just admitted that it doesn't matter what anyone says, you will always come to the same pre-conceived conclusion.

Like when they didn't steam into Iraq with the rest of us?

 

They weren't asked to. No-one asked specifically for French help. 

 

Probably because they read the dodgy dossiers and thought we were taking the piss. 

 

 

The 45 minute claim aside, the information in the dossier reflected what everyone, not just the British, thought at the time. Including the French, who knew more about Saddam's arms than anyone due to supplying quite a lot of them. It was even Hans Blix's view that the WMD were there, he just asked for endless time to find them. It was impossible to conclude on the available evidence of the day that he did not have them. No-one argued before the war that he did not have them. And as we know Saddam did everything possible to convince the world he had them.

 

We're going to kill innocent people.

 

Why is that assumed when we haven't even injured, never mind killed, an innocent person in Iraq over the last fourteen months? On the other hand of course our activities in Iraq have helped save countless Kurds and possibly saved the Yazidis from extinction.

 

He implied that EVERYONE who questioned the bombing of Syria was a "terrorist sympathiser",

 

 

It was obvious he meant Corbyn and McDonnell and we all know he was right. And he would have said so in the house yesterday if he wasn't so keen to see them both keep their jobs for as long as possible. The dozen or so MPs who asked a question about their feelings being hurt rather than the debate itself should be ashamed.

Edited December 3, 201510 yr by Maggie Tate

 

They weren't asked to. No-one asked specifically for French help.

 

 

The 45 minute claim aside, the information in the dossier reflected what everyone, not just the British, thought at the time. Including the French, who knew more about Saddam's arms than anyone due to supplying quite a lot of them. It was even Hans Blix's view that the WMD were there, he just asked for endless time to find them. It was impossible to conclude on the available evidence of the day that he did not have them. No-one argued before the war that he did not have them. And as we know Saddam did everything possible to convince the world he had them.

 

 

 

Why is that assumed when we haven't even injured, never mind killed, an innocent person in Iraq over the last fourteen months? On the other hand of course our activities in Iraq have helped save countless Kurds and possibly saved the Yazidis from extinction.

 

 

It was obvious he meant Corbyn and McDonnell and we all know he was right. And he would have said so in the house yesterday if he wasn't so keen to see them both keep their jobs for as long as possible. The dozen or so MPs who asked a question about their feelings being hurt rather than the debate itself should be ashamed.

A blatant lie is slanderous.. the Labour Party have referred to it as contempt and not even denied it..

 

The truth is there throughout the years.

 

Corbyn is being pulled apart by his own party and I do feel sorry for him. He's never even had a ministerial post before this and clearly out of his depth. He's an mp as he seems a nice chap but his views aren't what a political party need or want. He's been voted in by the noisy majority, mostly the ones that within minutes of the bill being past have set up online petitions and believe that the only voice the UK has is that online.

 

I don't want military action and I doubt most of those that voted for last night do.. But something has to be done and talks are not going to do that.

First aircraft dispatched overnight to the Omar air field with the aim of helping cut off some of the revenue of ISIS

 

We'll never know but surely no women and children at an oil field?

 

The likes of Dianne Abbott have made out like we would be carpet bombing Raqqa like it was Vietnam / Dresden all over again

 

I just don't think it's like that at all

 

It will need ground troops though, I'm happy for us to be part of a coalition to go in and finish the job

They should use Dianne Abbott as a bouncing bomb the big fat pig.

Only a woman could get away with saying that (about another woman!)

It is assumed we will kill innocent people because we will.

 

Despite how accurate we are, in 14 months we havnt, that's a short period of time in which no innocents have been killed.

 

I am not suggesting we don't bomb, like you say the actions previously taken have helped a lot of people. If this helps to resolve / eliminate the threat of Isis then so be it. I'm all for it.

 

Still it's not an easy thing to accept the consequences of any conflict.

 

They weren't asked to. No-one asked specifically for French help. 

 

 

 

And if Bush had asked nicely they would have? Can't see it myself

 

Regarding inflicting civilian casualties in Iraq - it's true the Tornados haven't.

 

But half the missions have been flown by drones and the government haven't released the details of those operations, so nobody knows.

Edited December 3, 201510 yr by mickbrown

Just bombing, no.  If there was a plan to go in and uproot ISIS ,and then help get Syria back on track (whatever that would mean); then yes I'd see more sense in that course of action. 

 

Course, if that were to happen, who on earth would we have to be scared of then?

 

Wasn't Cameron criticising Russia for bombing them not a month or so ago?  

I want to know which mad bastards are buying Oil from Isis?

 

They should be held accountable too.

 

 

Regarding inflicting civilian casualties in Iraq - it's true the Tornados haven't.

 

But half the missions have been flown by drones and the government haven't released the details of those operations, so nobody knows.

 

 

 

Yes they do. Some media agency got the answer from the MoD last month. And Cameron said so in his speech to the Commons yesterday The answer was that is not one report of British inflicted civilian casualties in Iraq in fourteen months of activity. Which is obvious when you consider the level of precision a drone can achieve as opposed to the still-extremely-high-but-not-as-high-as-a-drone-precision a Tornado can achieve.  

I want to know which mad bastards are buying Oil from Isis?

 

They should be held accountable too.

 

Turkey certainly are