To think the PM should apologise

[Loopylala7]

He was completely out of order to call opposers terrorist sympathisers. It's plain that they are far from this and he should publicly apologise. It was nothing more than bully boy language. I'm disgusted at his arrogance.

Disappointed one, I love your post btw

dione

They can't talk right now, because ISIS do not want to talk. There is no negotiating with them.

They want to reduce ISIS as much as possible then tackle ASSAD because talking to him and Russia is the key here.

A lot of people seem to think precision bombing doesn't kill innocent civilians. Not sure why. It's not so precise it doesn't cause "collateral damage." Just imagine precision bombing a tower block in London. You don't just kill the terrorists living in it, you kill everyone else living in there, too. You are never going to find a terrorist stupid enough to locate himself somewhere where he is the only one likely to get killed by your bombs. Besides which, we have plenty of evidence of precision bombs accidentally being targeted at entirely the wrong place. Bombing people from the air will never be that clinical and precise. It also hasn't solved anything anywhere else we've tried it, it's just created more hatred and bitterness and more chaos for evil people to move in on and exploit.

Still, helping destroy all infrastructure in Syria and to kill yet more people will accelerate the creation of a country whose people have no capacity to live anything other than a Medieval lifestyle. It won't stop terrorism, or refugees, though, imo.

Roundaboutthetown I couldn't agree more!

Also disgusting was the laughter at Natalie Bennett's speech yesterday.

The Tories sound like a group of bullying boys' school pupils.

How do you know that ISIS don't want to talk Elf? I hate the "no negotiating with them" bullshit that politicians use to justify slaughter for political, not peaceful ends.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11749043/Andrew-Gilligan-Jeremy-Corbyn-friend-to-Hamas-Iran-and-extremists.html

Jeremy Corbyn was helping Sayyed Hassan al-Sadr celebrate “the all-encompassing revolution,” the 35th anniversary of the ayatollahs’ takeover in Iran. In his talk, entitled “The Case for Iran,” he called for the immediate scrapping of sanctions on the country, which had not then promised to restrict its nuclear programme, attacked its colonial exploitation by British business and called for an end to its “demonisation” by the West.

because of their beliefs, how can we negotiate on the Apocalypse what are you ideas?

OP, here

They'll make it ALL go away!

meanwhile back in the real world

People saying bombing is 'shitty', surely a long term future under Isis is shittier?

Exactly.
Save the hate for the pigs in suicide vests who are setting out to kill innocent people on purpose, not for the government who, at the end of the day are only trying to protect us.

What good will negotiations do?

Shame Mo Mowlem isn't still about as I'm sure she'd have a strong view on this.

Oh and Mo was negotiating with who exactly?

What do you think ISIS want?

Of course. But the question is, what will replace ISIS? Maybe nothing could be much worse but if it is nothing better then why bomb?

because they want to get a fully representative democratic government into Syria which surely is the best result?

Well, since we know that terrorists who attacked in the UK came from places like Luton, maybe we should start by bombing here to get rid of those terrorists first. After all, we know it's precision bombing, yes? So, as there's no talking to these people, and as bombing clearly works, let's go for it.
Any known cells in Birmingham? Manchester? London? Let's just bomb them.

And obviously, since Russian bombs, and French bombs, and American bombs, and even the bombs from Assad, haven't worked, what we need is British bombs. That'll definitely work.

Terrorist sympathiser? Hell no. But wanting more innocent people to die because bombing happens somewhere else, kills 'others' not us, and simply satisfies a need to be seen to be doing something even if that something creates a situation like the refugee crisis? Hell no, even more emphatically.

If you want to bomb, then you are also willing to fund the cost of supporting refugees, and rebuilding their lives, yes? Since it's about the most amoral thing you could do, to say 'we don't like people who happen to live near you, so we will obliterate your home, possibly kill your family, wipe out your infrastructure, but then you're on your own.'

Why would he apologise?

He didn't say this by mistake, it was strategic.

That's what they wanted in Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya too. Didn't work out so well, did it?

Save the hate for the pigs in suicide vests who are setting out to kill innocent people on purpose, not for the government who, at the end of the day are only trying to protect us.

^This. Well said.

baby

We dont need to bomb them, because we can track them and hopefully arrest them before they attack us.

This is what are security forces have done, 7 big plots this year have been stopped.

We may end up putting boots on the ground, in Syria/Iraq and so on, but the west does not want too because of Iraq.

But ISIS targets need to be put under pressure, so how?

I think the government have many other agendas aside from trying to protect us.

Besides which I don't suppose it made Russian citizens much safer when they joined in, vis the A321 over the Sinai. How exactly is it proposed that this will make us safer? Is it not obvious that it will crystallise the hatred already among us and we will see a rise in the domestic terrorist threat?

Elf yes, we definitely need democracy.
But we've done this in both Afghanistan and Iraq and it hasn't gone on to create stable, peaceful regimes, has it? Why do we think it will be different this time? In fact, history shows us that the bombing in Iraq may have got rid of Saddam, but may well have contributed massively to the popularity of Isis there. What happens if, while some members of Isis are killed, but many other people join because they are fed up of having their lives ripped apart by westerners attacking them in their own country? using a logic identical to the one we are currently using in fact? We don't want killing happening here, so let's go and kill them first in their own country???

I think the government have many other agendas aside from trying to protect us.

Besides which I don't suppose it made Russian citizens much safer when they joined in, vis the A321 over the Sinai. How exactly is it proposed that this will make us safer? Is it not obvious that it will crystallise the hatred already among us and we will see a rise in the domestic terrorist threat?

No because they made a mistake of not having a representative government in iraq. Many top commanders in ISIS were from Saddams army.

Didn't work with the London bombs though, did it? Or with the Paris bombs? Not knocking the work the security services do because it's outstanding but attacks do still happen. So maybe just to be on the safe side we should go with bombing?

Or is it not ok to kill civilians only as long as they are English? Syrian civilians, children, are acceptable collateral damage because we don't need to look at them.

baby the main killers in syria are their own leader, followed by isis.