In tears

[G1veMeStrength]

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

Op in tears here too. So scared of what's to come. People are going to be dying in Syria, innocent people and no doubt daesh are going to love this. Soldiers lives at risk as well. This is so so awful

Shock horror Kryptonite I have voiced an opinion... on a thread full of... opinions!

You're entitled to your opinion. I am just absolutely to the fact that there are some out there that think we should literally just leave them be in case they were made to do it.
Which you must do otherwise you wouldn't have come back with that remark.

Calling people terrorist sympathisers for having a different view is not a particularly mature way to conduct a discussion either viiolet, or do you go by different rules?

Yep, you died in a terrorist attack, but you only have yourself to blame

Oh for fuck's sake, no one has said this.

I'm sorry but the fact remains that we not in this mess because we are innocent victims of some psychotic regime - that psychotic regime was created by us and we need to start taking some responsibility for that.

That does not mean that anyone 'deserves' to die at the hands of terrorists, that would be a disgusting thing. It merely means that we need to be able to have an open discussion about why this situation is happening without hysterically accusing people of being terrorist sympathisers.

and by 'us' I mean western interference in the middle east.

I have seen a lot of insults coming from the anti-intervention on this thread. But they whine when somebody is a bit verbally forceful with them... On the other hand, some of them are very articulate and informed.
I guess no side has the monopoly of the high-ground and intelligence.

I was sorry to hear the vote had gone this way, though was expected.
DD(16) was upset about it this morning, very aware that innocent people in Syria will suffer.
I felt that at least voices were heard on the counter argument - Hashtag Don'tBombSyria etc. and Jeremy Corbyn always speaks wisely. Social media means more voices can be heard and shared, some of them speaking in a well informed and considered way for peace.
As a Quaker and a pacifist I feel bombing and war do not make the world a better place. They only escalate the problems that already exist.
I would like to see a similar level of resources put into diplomacy, negotiation and humanitarian aid. Yes, the issues are very challenging, but so also is the cost of bombing.
As the late Harry Patch, last surviving soldier of WW1 said, everyone has to sit down and talk at some point, so better to do that before war than afterwards. Simple words maybe, but born of experience.

Tbh Kryptonite I can't be bothered to try to justify to you what I have already reasonably put forward in response to another post.

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'.

I actually cannot believe I've just read that. Seriously - just seriously? Read that back to yourself. You are coming across as making excuses for terrorists.
We should leave them alone then in case they were made to do it?
Posts like this are absolutely insane

Glad I'm not the only one who disagreed with that point of view.

Calling people terrorist sympathisers for having a different view is not a particularly mature way to conduct a discussion either viiolet, or do you go by different rules?

Interesting to note that nowhere have I actually used the words 'terrorist sympathiser^ when referring directly to you.

You are the one that is taking that label and making it your own.
Strange.

Harry Patch, bless him, was a soldier in a war between nations, and non-fanatics governments.
How do you propose to sit down with Daesh? Seriously? What kind of filthy compromise would we even come to to get 'peace' in our own country? On the back of the Syrians, the Yazidis, the Iraqi?

Glad I'm not the only one who disagreed with that point of view.

Well done. Take a gold star, both of you.

Cheers we will.

"I would like to see a similar level of resources put into diplomacy, negotiation and humanitarian aid. Yes, the issues are very challenging, but so also is the cost of bombing. "

I couldn't agree more. I'd add that the language and metaphors we and especially those in power use need to change towards a language of intelligence, complexity, problem solving and benevolence. Why do we teach our dc in school to be kind and forbid them to hit back the bully if real life is full of hatred and prejudice?

I am not necessarily against an intervention in Syria but the primitive war cries of 'bomb 'em!' Do not convince me that our government has a clue how to deal with this and other problems.

I don't know what good bombing will do in the long term, it saddens me that there are many innocents being slaughtered mainly by IS and that bombing could cause further suffering to innocent people even though we are more precise when hitting targets than we have been before.

What is the right way forward? I have no clue.
But.
If we do nothing we are allowing IS to carry on with their barbaric ways which is far worse IMO

Terrorists going around killing peopleon purpose. And yet you feel sympathy for them?

I think this is quite clear that you believe me to be a terrorist sympathiser, viiolet. I would, however, like you to point me to the bit where I say I have sympathy for them. I merely point out that it is rather more complicated in warfare.

ofa nobody says we should is sit down with Isis, no need to be so simplistic. There are other ways to control this group, cutting off supply to money and resources, intelligence, negotiating with partners, and yes, maybe even thought out, effective military action.

I don't think this is going to make much difference to the threat of terrorist attacks in the UK - may marginally increase the risk and possibly aid recruitment. But I think it is more important to try and break ISIS's hold - to help free the civilians in Syria...the ones whose blood is already on our hands.
If we wanted to reduce the risk of terrorism on our soil and stop home grown recruitment one of the best things we could do is to put Blair on trial for war crimes...
(instead 'we' re-elected him in 2005 AND then make him a peace envoy ... it made me really angry - still does - anyone would have been better - god knows how I would feel if I was a disaffected Muslim youth)
And look at seriously sorting out Israel/Palestine...stop funding Israel whilst they continue with the settlements etc - get tough on both sides -and if that means falling out with the US so be it.

I know it's a challenging situation Ofa (and I realise that's an under-statement)
I don't have all the answers or a full understanding of the situation in Syria, but I heard that each bombing mission costs half a million pounds.
I think that more could be done through diplomacy and humanitarian aid for that kind of money, and I maintain my view that bombing will not be an effective strategy to take things forward in any positive way, and will cause suffering to innocent people in Syria.

OP and others who think Britain is just cheerfully bombing away without extensive intelligence (the services are already stretched to an alarming point over this, we have been told recently) and considered parallel plans are just sadly very naive.

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'.

To help mitigate the manpower losses, ISIS have turned to conscription in some areas. Iraqi expert Hisham al-Hashimi believes only 30% of the group's fighters are 'idealogues', with the remainder joining out of fear or coercion."

I object in the strongest terms possible being called a terrorist sympathiser btw

That is exactly what you ARE doing, though. Can't you see it? Sympathising with them.

LittleLion,
You are placing that label on yourself.

You accused me of misquoting.
Now you should try not to take words and turn them into other words.

I thought Hilary Benn's speech was typical political spiel to be honest. Don't really understand what was so great about it. The rhetoric was pretty similar to that which Blair used to try to convince everyone that war in Iraq was a brilliant idea

Really?

You can agree with him or not but I don't see that he showed the slightest sign of insincerity or bad faith.

If we wanted to reduce the risk of terrorism on our soil and stop home grown recruitment one of the best things we could do is to put Blair on trial for war crimes...
(instead 'we' re-elected him in 2005 AND then make him a peace envoy ... it made me really angry - still does - anyone would have been better - god knows how I would feel if I was a disaffected Muslim youth)

What contemptible, patronising rubbish. The self-loathing sneering presumption that 'Muslims' are a homogenous block, all thinking the same. I suspect a quasi-racism deep down, truth be told.

Blair was wrong about most things but he was right about going to war in 2003.

In light of what LittleLionMansMummy has said, I feel it's a good time to post this www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prisoners/
As a group these people are doing terrible, terrible things, however it's simplistic nonsense to just go "They're all terrorists! All evil!" without paying any attention to the complexities.