In tears

[G1veMeStrength]

Fucking parliament. You utter bastards. You're going to kill people and it won't stop anything.

I can't begin that people think that showing emotion for a fellow human being is responded to with "grow up", "silly babies", and "get a grip".

I was close to tears last night and found myself shaking. I'm upset because innocent people will die. I'm upset because my voice and the voice of many others has been ignored. I'm upset because people on this thread think it's somehow immature to care about anything that doesn't directly affect them. I'm upset because if we can't show compassion for our fellow humans then what the fuck are we actually defending when we defend our society?

Don't tell me to get a grip, you can all beat yourselves with one until you learn to give a fuck.

It will be a deal breaker in the sense that I cant be okay with him. Its such an important thing to me.

Is disagree with this. Your opinion was debated yesterday. The vote went the other way. It wasn't ignored, the majority just didn't agree.

It's sentiments like this that make people think people are dramatic and over egging it.

It's the way to government works. It's debated and voted.

Ignoring it would be not having a debate or a vote.

Firstly can I just say that if the Op is crying about this then that's fine. It shows she has a heart. this is a very emotive issue and the OP was only trying to express her feelings about it. There really is no need for personal attacks.

secondly I grew up somewhere were the threat of terrorism was very real and I firmly believe we should never give in to terrorism at all. saying that I don't think bombing Syria is the best solution to the problem. Even though I know the RAF are trained well and will be as targeted as possible there is still the threat of civilian casualties and no guarantee that this will stop IS. IS are not just in Syria ( as the attacks in Paris and other places have shown). They are creeping through various countries and could be anywhere. A much more targeted and comprehensive strategy is needed.
I'm not saying I have an answer, I don't but there has to be a better one than this.

www.nydailynews.com/news/world/word-isis-doesn-article-1.2438861

The link is for you justgoandgetalife

to those who are against the bombing, what is your solution to defeating ISIS?

I have no idea, but this doesn't invalidate the argument that bombing Syria is not the correct solution, does it?

All bombing will do is recruit more terrorists to the cause. There is a reason why young people from the UK are going over there to join ISIS; it's not simply that they're all thick/evil. Yet you can't say anything like that, in much the same way you can't blame Tony Blair and Bush for the massive rise of Islamic fundamentalism as otherwise you get accused of 'making excuses for the terrorists'. Which I'm not. They're the lowest of the low. But I don't see our government dropping bombs and killing a load of civilians (which is going to happen, whatever way you try to justify it) is in any way better. They've just become terrorists in fancy suits. If you speak to many young british muslims they do see the government of Blair/Bush and now the current government in as bad a light as they do the terrorists. And there's no good waving your hands around and getting all irate about it, because that is the opinion of a great many people.

I do think we in the West have to take responsibility for the absolute mess we've caused in the middle east. It's reductionist to just shout about evil terrorists. It doesn't do anything to stop them. It doesn't do anything to stop them gaining more recruits.

I don't know what the solution is. I just know that further violence is going to make everything worse. At the moment I'm utterly ashamed of our government.

I think people are thinking we are talking about bombing somewhere like Bristol and innocent civilian casualties... I think if anything a lot of the anti bombers are guilty of 'othering' - a lack of empathy.

Do you think you would want to live under ISIS rule? Women (and other civilians) are basically prisoners anyway at the moment - they must be in fear of their lives on a daily basis - without any bombing, just trying to survive, feed themselves, get through the day, hoping someone doesn't decide they have a grudge against you and report you for some non-existent 'crime'....that is my idea of a living hell.
And if bombing is something we can do that will weaken ISIS (and it can) -we should do it.
It is fine about talking about changing political landscapes - these things take time, whilst civilians are continuing to suffer (imo) a fate worse than death.
Cutting off funding and supplies - again I agree - but then be aware that civilians whose lives are already hard are going to get harder (think the siege of Leningrad).
Like Afghanistan and the Taliban - which we supported when it suited us when they were fighting against USSR - our meddling has caused this. Our actions illegally invading Iraq without an exit plan (or even the formation of Iraq after WW2) has led to this. We need to do this FOR the people of Syria, the civilians. I think we owe it to them not to just leave them to their fate. I would be interested to know how Syrian refugees feel about it.

Think the link above probably does it, not clicked, but certainly muslims I know refer to them as da'esh rather than IS. My presumption is that "Islamic state" implies they are representative of Islam, which they are not.

We are being encouraged to call them da'esh which is from the arabic acronym for their full name. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly it undermines them. It also reflects the reality of what they are. They are not speaking for muslims in the name of Islam. They are speaking for/as terrorist fanatics who twist Islam to suit their purposes justifying rape, torture, beheadings etc in the name of destroying the infidel.

I was in tears watching the first wave of 'shock and awe' against Iraq many years ago.

I was in tears watching the first wave of 'shock and awe' against Iraq many years ago.

Yes, but this isn't then. It isn't that war or that situation.

I marched against the last war. This is completely different.

Do you think you would want to live under ISIS rule? Women (and other civilians) are basically prisoners anyway at the moment - they must be in fear of their lives on a daily basis - without any bombing, just trying to survive, feed themselves, get through the day, hoping someone doesn't decide they have a grudge against you and report you for some non-existent 'crime'....that is my idea of a living hell

Completely agree unlucky. I can't think of a comparable regime of terror, actually.

In my opinion some people (especially on here) will disagree with the government simply because it's a conservative one - even if it is trying to protect our very way of life. I'll save my anger for the monsters in suicide vests

Fair point.
There doesn't seem to be the same level of anger directed towards the filthy pig terrorists who go round killing innocent people, as there is towards the government taking action to protect us.

It's Bizarre.

I feel very hypocritical as I do not want the UK to be involved and yet I want the other countries to continue bombing as the Kurds need the protection. We are no more of a target as we are already bombing Isis, there are also home grown jahadis in European countries that are not involved in bombing but are still radicalised.

Crying over something that Hasn't even happened yet is pointless.

There isn't necessarily going to be any civilian casualties!

there is towards the government taking action to protect us

Total bollocks. It's not about protecting us at all. If anything it will make everything ten times worse. DC isn't going to worry about that though, with his bulletproof car windows and his million bodyguards

There isn't necessarily going to be any civilian casualties!

Of course there will. That's what you get when you bomb somewhere.

And I agree with you strawberry about this being completely different to Iraq -I am still angry (and ashamed) about that war.
(I am also angry about the broadcasts etc by the US president (Bush ...I think it was) who encouraged the Shia's and Kurd's to overthrow Saddam after the first gulf war... and then stood back and watched the massacres which led to even more hatred against the Sunni's - which led to their treatment after the Iraq war- which led to the formation of ISIS... )

I don't think fear of attacks on our soil should be a factor in trying to stop atrocities on Syrian soil.

Bombing is not a solution but might be part of the solution. They need money. Damaging the oil infrastructure would cut off an easy cash supply.

Cutting off supplies in a non military action will not help innocent victims living within the Caliphate. It will increase poverty and induce hunger and famine, quite possibly forcing those innocents to change allegiance for the sake of a meal for them and their families.

"I would have no issue with his stance if it wasn't for that. I am glad some of you were not in charge of the country during ww2 otherwise Hitler and the Nazis would have won."

This is exactly what people said in justification of invading Iraq in 2003. And look how well that turned out.

I've debated this endlessly (I'm against bombing btw) and keep hearing the precision bombing argument. Even if the bombing is that precise and does indeed limit 'civilian' casualties, it does not negate the fact that an estimated 30% of 'ISIS' fighters are in fact normal civilians who have been forced under threat of death, rape and torture to fight for them. It is not as clear cut as 'goodies v baddies'.

The only solution is boots on the ground, but no one is willing to do that. So we are stuck with this half way house of air strikes which may damage / limit ISIS (can't remember their new name) but won't eradicate them.
I agree with atticusclaw in that you can't negotiate with them, they are fanatics.
The current scenario is a direct consequence of the botched aftermath of the invasion of Iraq. Saddam was a monster, but ISIS probably wouldn't be here, or a lot smaller, if he was still in power.

I meant by bombing the oil pipelines! The Arseholes are selling the oil to fund themselves. Cutting their income and slowing their expansion (through targeted bombing) gives ground fighters more chance of defeating them and regaining territory.