Syria air strikes: MPs authorise UK action against Islamic State

[Vergennes]

Finally !

@mike2000 is back @Blue Marlin @waz @Atanz @Abingdonboy @Steve781 @Jaanbaz et all.

Syria air strikes: MPs authorise UK action against Islamic State - BBC News

 

[Steve781]

Not enthusiastic about this but now we're there I hope it goes well.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Not enthusiastic about this but now we're there I hope it goes well.

Nobody is ever enthusiastic about going to war. You think Russians/french are happy intervening in Syria? But they have to.

 

[Steve781]

Nobody is ever enthusiastic about going to war. You think Russians/french are happy intervening in Syria? But they have to.

We need to stop opposing Assad. As long as we do there's a chance Cameron, Hollande and Obama will turn their guns on him when they're finished.

 

[mike2000 is back]

We need to stop opposing Assad. As long as we do there's a chance Cameron, Hollande and Obama will turn their guns on him when they're finished.

Well, if you haven't noticed we haven't been focusing on him and his regime for a while. We have been more focused on bombing ISIS and other terrorists groups like Al Qaeda affiliates. So we are leaving Assad off for now, since ISIS poses more of a threat to our people and interests than Assad does FOR NOW.

You should not forget that the butcher Assad and his regime are no better than ISIS/other terrorists groups either, since he(and his father before him) have also committed atrocities against their own people which you can't even begin to imagine. You should not also forget that this same dictator called Assad was the main sponsor of Al Qaeda and other terrorists groups in Iraq as recently as 2009 and before the Syrian revolution/civil war started. His support for these terrorists groups(which he is now fighting against) caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians/people and dozens/hundred of British/American soldiers in Iraq. In short he is to blame for his current situation and the mess his country is now in. i have no pity/sympathy for this butcher. But as you said, We might need him to hold onto the power he loves so much FOR NOW.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Not enthusiastic about this but now we're there I hope it goes well.

My thoughts exactly. This is not going to achieve anything - Although like I said before it's not about results, more about standing by side of a ally, France.

As regards results this sort of menace (ISIL) requires multi-faceted policy, vigouresly employed over decades. Similar to how the war against Malaria is fought. You got to go after vector, the swamps that breed them and only with persistance can you hope to win.

Anyway now that it is on let's wish the best. Syria is not a place you want to bail out.

butcher Assad

I agree but he has no impact on Brighton, Bournmouth, Bexley by the Sea or Burton on Trent. He is not a Islamist. ISIL and his regime are like positive and negative poles of a magnetic. They will repel violently.

 

[Steve781]

Well, if you haven't noticed we haven't been focusing on him and his regime for a while. We have been more focused on bombing ISIS and other terrorists groups like Al Qaeda affiliates. So we are leaving Assad off for now, since ISIS poses more of a threat to our people and interests than Assad does FOR NOW.

You should not forget that the butcher Assad and his regime are no better than ISIS/other terrorists groups either, since he(and his father before him) have also committed atrocities against their own people which you can't even begin to imagine. You should not also forget that this same dictator called Assad was the main sponsor of Al Qaeda and other terrorists groups in Iraq as recently as 2009 and before the Syrian revolution/civil war started. His support for these terrorists groups(which he is now fighting against) caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians/people and dozens/hundred of British/American soldiers in Iraq. In short he is to blame for his current situation and the mess his country is now in. i have no pity/sympathy for this butcher. But as you said, We might need him to hold onto the power he loves so much FOR NOW.

Yes he is. He's no threat to us.

 

[Rasengan]

Yes he is. He's no threat to us.

Great Britain will suffer the consequences in authorizing airstrikes on Syria, because collateral damage and the death of innocent civilians is bound to occur. During the discourse of the parliamentary debate on this particular issue, not a single valid analysis was provided in how exactly ISIS would be defeated. Instead David Cameron was articulating a false propaganda piece, on how 70,000 moderate militants were available within the FSA to combat ISIS and bring a political solution to Syria. If he really cared about the security situation of his country, then under no circumstances should he have decreased funding of the police force by 20%. Obviously like a puddle Great Britain must follow its masters into battle, however make no mistake radicalization will increase in the UK as a result. They should have waited for the Vienna talks and pushed the regional players to resolve their differences, which include Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Turkey and Assad. They never learn from history and like Tony Blair, the current Prime Minister will be remembered for his misadventure into Syria.

 

[type93]

It would be more effective to have an economic blockage of turks by every country that hates Isis

 

[mike2000 is back]

Great Britain will suffer the consequences in authorizing airstrikes on Syria, because collateral damage and the death of innocent civilians is bound to occur. During the discourse of the parliamentary debate on this particular issue, not a single valid analysis was provided in how exactly ISIS would be defeated. Instead David Cameron was articulating a false propaganda piece, on how 70,000 moderate militants were available within the FSA to combat ISIS and bring a political solution to Syria. If he really cared about the security situation of his country, then under no circumstances should he have decreased funding of the police force by 20%. Obviously like a puddle Great Britain must follow its masters into battle, however make no mistake radicalization will increase in the UK as a result. They should have waited for the Vienna talks and pushed the regional players to resolve their differences, which include Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Turkey and Assad. They never learn from history and like Tony Blair, the current Prime Minister will be remembered for his misadventure into Syria.

Seriously, what are you even on about? Have you even followed the political battle between labour and the conservatives that have been going on now for months? Both sides made their case for intervention and against intervention . At the end of the day the YES won(not without a lot of drama/debate though). Yet you are blabbing on about
how we are doing this for others not ourselves? Are you even serious or you are just trolling? More like you seem to have a hidden agenda here for making such baseless allegations.
So according when our MPs didn't vote for intervention in Syria in 2013 even though all western powers were asking us to intervene, is it also because we were not doing France or U.S biding ?lol funny logic you got there. Maybe you have been hearing to many people saying silly stuffs and you just join in without even knowing the context of what you are on about.

Anyway, we do what is in our interests and what will protect our people/country and allies. The rest is secondary . We don't really care what others might think we are doing this for.lol.
Just like we joined AIIB despite it others
being against it. As long as we see it's in our interests to do so we will intervene , instead of waiting for others to do it for us.

You say the jihadists will target us if we intervene. Lool where have you been living all these years? You really think they haven't been trying day and night to harm us? Lol just because we have thwarted all their plans/attacks doesn't means you should believe they have not been trying hard to attack us. Lol you can even begin to imagine how many attacks have been thwarted so far.
It makes even less sense for us to have been targeting ISIS in Iraq now for almost 2years now(killing hundreds of their fighters with zero civilian casualties) and not targeting them in their main heartland in Syria. So what's the point of people being in favour of our forces targeting the body of the snake while being against targeting the head of the snake ? Makes no sense . Lol

Anyway the international community, plus even the P5 powers already voted for intervention in Syria by ALL MEANS NECESSARY TO TARGET ISIS. Reason Russia,U.S,France ,Germany , Australia and now U.K are now involved on Syria. I don't see why you think Britain intervening is some kind of evil plan or special . Lool if that was the case then all actors now involved in Syria will be facing chaos in their country due to ISIS, the U.S and Russia being the first victims . Lol

 

[Babu999]

People should think before doing anything

 

[Rasengan]

Seriously, what are you even on about? Have you even followed the political battle between labour and the conservatives that have been going on now for months? Both sides made their case for intervention and against intervention . At the end of the day the YES won(not without a lot of drama/debate though). Yet you are blabbing on about

If you have comprehension issues in understanding the context of my correspondence, then you are most welcome to make an appointment with a special school needs teacher On the contrary I have been meticulously following the political events of Great Britain and the ongoing debate between Labour with its coalition partners against the Conservatives on this particular topic. I never advocated the conjecture that political discourse never took place on this issue, therefore stop snorting second class material up your nostrils. The case for intervening in Syria was flimsy as the concocted figure of 70,000 moderate fighters was unearthed from David Cameron's rear end and no real evidence exists. Most of the MP's in the Conservative Party simply followed David Cameron's opinion rather than their constituents, because nearly every single poll has suggested the notion that the general public is divided on this issue, however miraculously the case for intervening gets a majority in parliament. Before retorting back to my messages, at least use the correct terminology when attempting to criticize someone. The definition of 'babbling' is a stage in child development and a state in language acquisition, during which an infant appears to be experimenting with uttering articulate sounds, but not yet producing any recognizable words. Clearly I am transcribing my opinions in written words and no verbal communication is occurring between us, therefore its impossible for me in babbling. Now like a good little child on your knees pray to Santa Clause to send you a dictionary as a Christmas gift.

how we are doing this for others not ourselves? Are you even serious or you are just trolling? More like you seem to have a hidden agenda here for making such baseless allegations.
So according when our MPs didn't vote for intervention in Syria in 2013 even though all western powers were asking us to intervene, is it also because we were not doing France or U.S biding ?lol funny logic you got there. Maybe you have been hearing to many people saying silly stuffs and you just join in without even knowing the context of what you are on about.

Instead of playing with your flashlight like a pubescent underling during the parliamentary debate, its imperative to concentrate fully on the case being made for Great Britain to intervene in Syria. David Cameron who has a face of a half cooked ham, droned on continuously in his speech how the United Kingdom has obligations and commitment's to its allies in helping them bomb Syria. He specifically mentioned how the GCC countries and his coalition partners in Europe have been urging him to intervene in Syria, therefore like a puddle Great Britain is following its masters into battle with no clear cut strategy. If the threat of terrorism from ISIS was extremely high and this action was taken to defend ourselves, then the Government would under no circumstances cut police spending by 20-25%. According to your analogy somebody has an hidden agenda, because they have a difference of opinion? Seriously I can consume a whole bowl of alphabet soup and excrete out a much better analysis. You must study in a proper school, because council estate education will hardly broaden your knowledge of the world. In 2013 the debate in parliament was revolved around how Assad used chemical weapons on his population and whether the question of intervening in Syria against him was politically correct. The American's never bombed Syria in 2013, because the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2118 was adopted and implemented successfully, where Syria was obliged to destroy its chemical weapons arsenal. America only started to officially bomb Syria in 2014, therefore before sprouting cesspit nonsense from the sphincters of a buffalo at least brush up on your pathetic knowledge. Prior to September 2014, the Americans were only interested in funding and training rebel groups against the Assad regime and we all know how that particular policy turned out.

Anyway, we do what is in our interests and what will protect our people/country and allies. The rest is secondary . We don't really care what others might think we are doing this for.lol.
Just like we joined AIIB despite it others
being against it. As long as we see it's in our interests to do so we will intervene , instead of waiting for others to do it for us.

You are full of contradictions and its bemusing to witness your circus tricks, because previously you have boldly proclaimed the proposition that Great Britain is intervening in Syria for its own security interests and not following the footsteps of its masters like a puddle. However in this particular paragraph, you have clearly written how the United Kingdom will protect its allies and obviously this has transpired since they have urged David Cameron to become involved in Syria. When things turn south then nobody is interested to hear your fake insincerity on how another political mistake has taken place. Nonetheless Great Britain's power projection as a world leader is shrinking rather rapidly and a single mistake in Syria against the Russian's will have dire consequences, where the island will cease to exists and will only be remembered in history text books. You did a fantastic job in protecting your allies in Afghanistan, however strangely enough the Taliban have become more powerful and are on the verge of taking of the country. Iraq was also a splendid rebuilding operation where the country has now been divided on sectarian and nationalistic lines.

You say the jihadists will target us if we intervene. Lool where have you been living all these years? You really think they haven't been trying day and night to harm us? Lol just because we have thwarted all their plans/attacks doesn't means you should believe they have not been trying hard to attack us. Lol you can even begin to imagine how many attacks have been thwarted so far.
It makes even less sense for us to have been targeting ISIS in Iraq now for almost 2years now(killing hundreds of their fighters with zero civilian casualties) and not targeting them in their main heartland in Syria. So what's the point of people being in favour of our forces targeting the body of the snake while being against targeting the head of the snake ? Makes no sense . Lol

Read my message carefully...seriously please go and visit specsavers before you continuously embarrass yourself like a typical mug. I never advocated the conjecture that the jihadists will only attack us if we decide to intervene in Syria, however the process of radicalization and recruitment of the youth from the Muslim community in the United Kingdom will undoubtedly increase in magnitude. When the police force spending is cut by 20-25% by the government then the likelihood of a successful attack is more prominent and this notion is logical. Since I am a Muslim who is residing in the UK, then it makes sense that my knowledge of the Muslim community will be far superior then your cesspit nonsense. Several attacks have been thwarted in the UK which is a good thing, however If you want to destroy ISIS then why are you not bombing Saudi Arabia who is financing these groups. Must be because they invest billions of dollars into the British economy especially in the real estate market and they purchase British weapons to fund our industries. Double standards and duplicity will only get you so far in life, because Frankenstein will always come back to haunt his master. Why have you not bombed Turkey who have been purchasing oil from ISIS in Iraq and Syria? Must be because some of the oil has been sold to European countries and big corporate banks have been involved. The allegation of bombing Iraq and killing hundreds of ISIS fighters without civilian causalities is ludicrous and you must be a naive simpleton fool who believes in such fairly tails. Why doesn't David Cameron have the balls to send in ground troops if he wants to defeat ISIS, or even better if he wants to kill the head of the snake then attack Saudi Arabia and the GCC countries.

 

[ultron]

Ground forces is needed to beat ISIS. That's why Russia provides air support to SAA. Without ground forces, bombing alone cannot beat ISIS.

 

[mike2000 is back]

If you have comprehension issues in understanding the context of my correspondence, then you are most welcome to make an appointment with a special school needs teacher On the contrary I have been meticulously following the political events of Great Britain and the ongoing debate between Labour with its coalition partners against the Conservatives on this particular topic. I never advocated the conjecture that political discourse never took place on this issue, therefore stop snorting second class material up your nostrils. The case for intervening in Syria was flimsy as the concocted figure of 70,000 moderate fighters was unearthed from David Cameron's rear end and no real evidence exists. Most of the MP's in the Conservative Party simply followed David Cameron's opinion rather than their constituents, because nearly every single poll has suggested the notion that the general public is divided on this issue, however miraculously the case for intervening gets a majority in parliament. Before retorting back to my messages, at least use the correct terminology when attempting to criticize someone. The definition of 'babbling' is a stage in child development and a state in language acquisition, during which an infant appears to be experimenting with uttering articulate sounds, but not yet producing any recognizable words. Clearly I am transcribing my opinions in written words and no verbal communication is occurring between us, therefore its impossible for me in babbling. Now like a good little child on your knees pray to Santa Clause to send you a dictionary as a Christmas gift.



Instead of playing with your flashlight like a pubescent underling during the parliamentary debate, its imperative to concentrate fully on the case being made for Great Britain to intervene in Syria. David Cameron who has a face of a half cooked ham, droned on continuously in his speech how the United Kingdom has obligations and commitment's to its allies in helping them bomb Syria. He specifically mentioned how the GCC countries and his coalition partners in Europe have been urging him to intervene in Syria, therefore like a puddle Great Britain is following its masters into battle with no clear cut strategy. If the threat of terrorism from ISIS was extremely high and this action was taken to defend ourselves, then the Government would under no circumstances cut police spending by 20-25%. According to your analogy somebody has an hidden agenda, because they have a difference of opinion? Seriously I can consume a whole bowl of alphabet soup and excrete out a much better analysis. You must study in a proper school, because council estate education will hardly broaden your knowledge of the world. In 2013 the debate in parliament was revolved around how Assad used chemical weapons on his population and whether the question of intervening in Syria against him was politically correct. The American's never bombed Syria in 2013, because the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2118 was adopted and implemented successfully, where Syria was obliged to destroy its chemical weapons arsenal. America only started to officially bomb Syria in 2014, therefore before sprouting cesspit nonsense from the sphincters of a buffalo at least brush up on your pathetic knowledge. Prior to September 2014, the Americans were only interested in funding and training rebel groups against the Assad regime and we all know how that particular policy turned out.



You are full of contradictions and its bemusing to witness your circus tricks, because previously you have boldly proclaimed the proposition that Great Britain is intervening in Syria for its own security interests and not following the footsteps of its masters like a puddle. However in this particular paragraph, you have clearly written how the United Kingdom will protect its allies and obviously this has transpired since they have urged David Cameron to become involved in Syria. When things turn south then nobody is interested to hear your fake insincerity on how another political mistake has taken place. Nonetheless Great Britain's power projection as a world leader is shrinking rather rapidly and a single mistake in Syria against the Russian's will have dire consequences, where the island will cease to exists and will only be remembered in history text books. You did a fantastic job in protecting your allies in Afghanistan, however strangely enough the Taliban have become more powerful and are on the verge of taking of the country. Iraq was also a splendid rebuilding operation where the country has now been divided on sectarian and nationalistic lines.



Read my message carefully...seriously please go and visit specsavers before you continuously embarrass yourself like a typical mug. I never advocated the conjecture that the jihadists will only attack us if we decide to intervene in Syria, however the process of radicalization and recruitment of the youth from the Muslim community in the United Kingdom will undoubtedly increase in magnitude. When the police force spending is cut by 20-25% by the government then the likelihood of a successful attack is more prominent and this notion is logical. Since I am a Muslim who is residing in the UK, then it makes sense that my knowledge of the Muslim community will be far superior then your cesspit nonsense. Several attacks have been thwarted in the UK which is a good thing, however If you want to destroy ISIS then why are you not bombing Saudi Arabia who is financing these groups. Must be because they invest billions of dollars into the British economy especially in the real estate
market and they purchase British weapons to fund our industries. Double standards and duplicity will only get you so far in life, because Frankenstein will always come back to haunt his master. Why have you not bombed Turkey who have been purchasing oil from ISIS in Iraq and Syria? Must be because some of the oil has been sold to European countries and big corporate banks have been involved. The allegation of bombing Iraq and killing hundreds of ISIS fighters without civilian causalities is ludicrous and you must be a naive simpleton fool who believes in such fairly tails. Why doesn't David Cameron have the balls to send in ground troops if he wants to defeat ISIS, or even better if he wants to kill the head of the snake then attack Saudi Arabia and the GCC countries.

I didn't even go through all your long post. However all I can say is that no matter the action we take Muslims like you will still criticize it, since you already have it in your mind that the west is evil and up to no good.

If we didn't intervene then there will still be Muslims like you who will still be the first to say the West is allowing ISIS to expand because they support ISIS, now that we intervene you still criticize it. Thing is no matter what we do in this conflict there are people who will still criticize it, reason leaders all over the world carry out their foreign policy without following public opinion(which is often prone to changes depending on any latest updates). Just like we have seen with this situation. The public was against intervention, after the paris attacks they became more pro intervention. Reason leaders ALL OVER THE WORLD don't usually based their foreign policy on what the public things.

As for Russia destroying Britain .lol good one , if the Soviet Union never did it , what makes you think Russia will do such a foolish thing? even if we made a mistake in Syria against them as you said, you think it will turn into a nuclear war? Man, seriously that is a point I thought only trolls on here will make . Lol so I won't even waste my time on this one.

The Muslim community in U.K which you claim to know very well since you are a Muslim, those of them who are or will be radicalised because of U.K bombing ISIS in Syria are just using more excuses to justify their radicalization and extremism(like they always do). They always look for reasons to justify their barbarian views(even in the Middle East itself). Just look at the number of Muslim extremists/radicals in Pakistan,Yemen, Syria,Iraq etc . There is no excuse for radicalisation/terrorism, since if we wanted to make excuses for such radicals then we might as well justify all the actions of Muslim extremists and terrorists who have carried out similar attacks against Russia, France, China, Pakistan, India, Bengladesh, Indonesia , Thailand etc etc.....the list is long. These terrorist like giving the same type of stupid reason you just gave to justify their radicalism/extremism as legitimate reasons for carrying out their attacks .lol

They should be dealt with accordingly and given no space for excuses just like the U.S and China do.

Anyway , all these useless debate we are having here won't change anything, since we are already involved in Syria just like Russia,France ,U.S, Germany , Australia , and many others are now involved . You should blame the international community and UN for voting in favour of intervention in Syria by 'all means necessary'.

 

[Kahraman99]

@mike2000 is back

Dude your country will be extinct. All countries who are in posession of nuclear weapons will destroy each other in nuclear holocoust.

This is the certain punishment of god for your kind. The army of evil sinners.

LOL