David Cameron's plan to bomb ISIS is based on "fantasy"

A veteran reporter of Syria says the case for going to war against ISIS is no more credible than Tony Blair's argument for invading Iraq

David Cameron's case for military intervention in Syria is like that old Groucho Marx joke: “We have to have a war. I've already paid a month's rent on the battlefield”.
Cameron wants us urgently to sign up to his war effort.
But on the basis of what?
He claimed this morning that he had "a credible military strategy" to defeat Islamic State.
The more he spoke, the more apparent it became that he has nothing of the kind.
Worse, he has learned nothing from the mistakes that led us into Iraq more than a decade ago.

Syria exists as a united entity only on the maps.
On the ground, it is fractured between competing interests.
Syria's Russia-backed secular dictator, Bashar Assad, controls a significantly shrunken territory.
The Kurds, who are bravely fighting Islamic State, dream of self-rule in the north.
Then there is ISIS itself, and an ensemble of overlapping opposition groupings whose ideological leanings are virtually impossible for us to determine.
Cameron wants to enter this mix.
He wants to bomb ISIS from the skies and hopes to use "moderate" rebels as ground forces.
Simultaneously, he wants to rid Syria of Assad and install a representative government that can finish off his fight against ISIS.
This is an ambitious plan. It is also fantastic.

First, Cameron's claim that there are 70,000 "moderate" rebels is extremely dubious.
The source of this claim is the joint intelligence committee - the same source which warned us that Saddam Hussein could bomb British bases in 45 minutes.
Western governments have been struggling to vet the identities of refugees who have been flooding Europe over the last several months.
Can we seriously believe that it is possible for us to vet the ideological complexion of 70,000 rebels in a war zone?
What was the methodology used to arrive at this number?
Did intelligence officials collate this figure from the estimates given to them by commanders of local rebel units?
If so, how reliable are those commanders and what was the criteria used to assess the fighters?
We could benefit from the experience of the United States, which spent more than half a million dollars training rebel forces – only to lose control of them later.
As General Lloyd Austin told a Congressional hearing earlier this year, out of the hundreds of rebels it trained, the US could track down only “four or five” fighters.
The rest either bolted or defected to other factions.

Cameron offends the intelligence of his colleagues, and the British public, when he bandies this figure: "70,000 moderate rebels" is the new 45 minutes .
Second, Cameron let loose his belief that "the best ground troops" against ISIS "should be the Syrian army".
This demonstrates a worrying ignorance of Syrian realities on Cameron's part.
For nearly half a decade, western experts have been predicting Assad's demise.
Yet he remains in power.
Tens of thousands of Syrian Arab Army troops have laid down their lives in his defence.

It is absurd for Cameron to believe that they will switch their loyalty to a Western-backed government once Assad is deposed from power.
When I reported from Syria in 2012, non-Western diplomats were openly scornful of what they saw as Western naivety - even after the experience of Iraq - about Syria.
As the ambassador of a major Asian country told me, "the French, British and Americans have no understanding of what's happening here".
Many decent people are justly appalled by Assad.
But outrage is not policy.
There exists no force in Syria capable of reconstituting the country if Assad goes.
And as we have seen in Libya, actions driven by good intentions can produce deadly results.
Cameron has no workable plan.
Instead, he is attempting what the French call on s'engage, puis on voit : first engage, then figure out.
But there is no reason to believe that Syria's miseries will be relieved - or Europe's security enhanced - if Britain started a bombing a country that's already being pounded daily by multiple powers.
It would inexcusable to enable Cameron to ignore history and plunge Britain head first into this homicidal cauldron.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-plan-bomb-isis-6907507#ICID=sharebar_twitter


Utter madness and will take us to hell.

sassy wrote:

A veteran reporter of Syria says the case for going to war against ISIS is no more credible than Tony Blair's argument for invading Iraq

David Cameron's case for military intervention in Syria is like that old Groucho Marx joke: “We have to have a war. I've already paid a month's rent on the battlefield”.
Cameron wants us urgently to sign up to his war effort.
But on the basis of what?
He claimed this morning that he had "a credible military strategy" to defeat Islamic State.
The more he spoke, the more apparent it became that he has nothing of the kind.
Worse, he has learned nothing from the mistakes that led us into Iraq more than a decade ago.

Syria exists as a united entity only on the maps.
On the ground, it is fractured between competing interests.
Syria's Russia-backed secular dictator, Bashar Assad, controls a significantly shrunken territory.
The Kurds, who are bravely fighting Islamic State, dream of self-rule in the north.
Then there is ISIS itself, and an ensemble of overlapping opposition groupings whose ideological leanings are virtually impossible for us to determine.
Cameron wants to enter this mix.
He wants to bomb ISIS from the skies and hopes to use "moderate" rebels as ground forces.
Simultaneously, he wants to rid Syria of Assad and install a representative government that can finish off his fight against ISIS.
This is an ambitious plan. It is also fantastic.

First, Cameron's claim that there are 70,000 "moderate" rebels is extremely dubious.
The source of this claim is the joint intelligence committee - the same source which warned us that Saddam Hussein could bomb British bases in 45 minutes.
Western governments have been struggling to vet the identities of refugees who have been flooding Europe over the last several months.
Can we seriously believe that it is possible for us to vet the ideological complexion of 70,000 rebels in a war zone?
What was the methodology used to arrive at this number?
Did intelligence officials collate this figure from the estimates given to them by commanders of local rebel units?
If so, how reliable are those commanders and what was the criteria used to assess the fighters?
We could benefit from the experience of the United States, which spent more than half a million dollars training rebel forces – only to lose control of them later.
As General Lloyd Austin told a Congressional hearing earlier this year, out of the hundreds of rebels it trained, the US could track down only “four or five” fighters.
The rest either bolted or defected to other factions.

Cameron offends the intelligence of his colleagues, and the British public, when he bandies this figure: "70,000 moderate rebels" is the new 45 minutes .
Second, Cameron let loose his belief that "the best ground troops" against ISIS "should be the Syrian army".
This demonstrates a worrying ignorance of Syrian realities on Cameron's part.
For nearly half a decade, western experts have been predicting Assad's demise.
Yet he remains in power.
Tens of thousands of Syrian Arab Army troops have laid down their lives in his defence.

It is absurd for Cameron to believe that they will switch their loyalty to a Western-backed government once Assad is deposed from power.
When I reported from Syria in 2012, non-Western diplomats were openly scornful of what they saw as Western naivety - even after the experience of Iraq - about Syria.
As the ambassador of a major Asian country told me, "the French, British and Americans have no understanding of what's happening here".
Many decent people are justly appalled by Assad.
But outrage is not policy.
There exists no force in Syria capable of reconstituting the country if Assad goes.
And as we have seen in Libya, actions driven by good intentions can produce deadly results.
Cameron has no workable plan.
Instead, he is attempting what the French call on s'engage, puis on voit : first engage, then figure out.
But there is no reason to believe that Syria's miseries will be relieved - or Europe's security enhanced - if Britain started a bombing a country that's already being pounded daily by multiple powers.
It would inexcusable to enable Cameron to ignore history and plunge Britain head first into this homicidal cauldron.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-plan-bomb-isis-6907507#ICID=sharebar_twitter


Utter madness and will take us to hell.

No just countless women and children enslaved and being abused, raped murdered, such idiots think they should just be left to suffer with nobody doing anyting.
Again such idiots have no comprehension of what ISIS is.

Oh do give with the macho bullshit, they are the ones who will be killed by the bombing.  This isn't a football punch up, it's something that could lead to WW!!! quite easily.  Find who is buying the oil that is making them £11 million a day and stop that for a start.  It's brains and a strategy by every country, not bullshit where the so called coalition are already fighting each other.

Well what is the alternative sassy, endless suffering or like with auschwitz nazi death camp, where the inmates had pleaded for the placed to be bombed to end their living nightmare. You see you have no comprehension of what those suffering may want and if some may die it will be sad, but if it means some could at least be set free, then its worth the risk.
Doing nothing is just going to continue their living hell.
Like I say trying reading and learning from history of those who suffered before, because if you did you would understand some would rather wish death than to suffer daily under such abuse.

So spare a bloody thought for those suffering something you could never even begin to imagine

I would suggest, didge that you looked again through history. There has never been an instance where a nation has bombed another nation into submission (apart from the use of nukes on japan...and we aint going there)

Lord Foul wrote:I would suggest, didge that you looked again through history. There has never been an instance where a nation has bombed another nation into submission (apart from the use of nukes on japan...and we aint going there)

Im not talking about submission where in fact Japan was very much on its knees as well, where two bopms did bring about a surrender
I am talking about those who were daily living hell, where some would have wished death or at least the chance to excape through bombing the facility putting the place out of action. If you bomb ISIS and its facilities and deny it the ability to further its ability to fight, then they have little left to do so.

Lord Foul wrote:I would suggest, didge that you looked again through history. There has never been an instance where a nation has bombed another nation into submission (apart from the use of nukes on japan...and we aint going there)

Quite, and the people on the ground are asking for a no fly zone so that no-one can bomb them, including Assad.

Clueless the pair of you which does nothing for those suffering daily rape and abuse, this goes on daily whilst the world deliberates.
Try placing yourself in the mindset of a child being passed around daily being raped. Then ask yourself what would you want or wish to happen?

They are making £11 million a day from selling oil, cut off that by finding out who is buying it and stop it.

And daily many continue to suffer a living nightmare.

Planet Syria:

Statement

"To those around the world who want peace and justice,
We are Syrian non-violent activists and we need your solidarity. The extremism that is growing in your cities is rooted in our conflict. We Syrians are its first victims.
This extremism breeds on injustice and violence. It grows from the rubble of our ravaged towns and cities, and will only continue to expand unless we act together. To stop the extremism we have to end the bloodshed in Syria.
Stopping the violence requires two steps which we cannot achieve alone: (1) an end to the Assad regime's barrel bombs and air strikes and (2) negotiations between all Syrian groups and their international backers.
We cannot achieve these alone because Syrians are not in full control. Our struggle that started four years ago as an attempt to establish democracy after four decades of authoritarian rule has now become the world’s war. It’s been turned by the Assad regime into a bloody conflict that has forced half of Syria's families from their homes and killed more than 200,000 of our people. There are now more than 87 countries involved in the killing on all sides. That is why we need friends around the world to stand with us to stop the violence and extremism that is spiralling out of control and spilling into cities around the world.
To do that we need the barrel bombs to stop - even if it takes a ‘no fly zone’ - and meaningful peace talks. They need to happen together.
A year ago the UN Security Council unanimously demanded that the regime stop dropping barrel bombs on the civilian population. These are often old oil barrels packed with rusty scrap metal and explosive and rolled out of helicopters and planes four kilometers up in the sky. They accelerate down on markets, hospitals and schools shattering communities who want no part in the violence. They do not hit military targets, they have no role in the balance of the fighting. They simply terrorise the civilian population.
Barrel bombs have increased since the Security Council demanded they stop. With every home they destroy, more people are radicalised, turning their backs on more moderate paths towards justice. Unless we stop these bombs, there will be no faith in the demands of the international community. We cannot expect an internationally-backed political process to work when founded on broken promises.
And negotiations is what we need. There is no military solution to the conflict nor to the radicalisation that is born from it. We need real peace talks to include all Syrian parties with the strong support of the international community.
No one side can unite Syria. It will require compromises from everyone involved and new leaders to build the future. Slowly, with the support of our real allies, we hope to reconnect with the tolerance and coexistence we have known for millennia and build a Syria better than before.
Stand with us to build peace in Syria. It is your peace too."

https://www.planetsyria.org/en

And we are back to spamming

How about the voices of those enslaved by ISIS and what they want?

How fucking dare you, you hypocritical little weasal.  That is the voice of the People of Syria who are there, living the hell, that is was they want.  You are truly a narcissistic runt who thinks your voice is more important than the voice of the People of Syria

sassy wrote:How fucking dare you, you hypocritical little weasal.  That is the voice of the People of Syria who are there, living the hell, that is was they want.  You are truly a narcissistic runt who thinks your voice is more important than the voice of the People of Syria

Again

 How about the voices of those enslaved by ISIS and what they want?

Haver you given them one second of thought you low life scum?

Today's "moderate" could become tomorrow's extremist if they smell power of any sort, and there are others in their way.

I think most of these people involved in Syria are rather short-sighted about the whole thing. Getting rid of Assad is completely the wrong thing to do at the moment.

It's not for Cameron or anyone else to decide who should govern Syria anyway.

They are the voices. 

ISIS is just a tiny part of their problem.

Well why is that Rags?
Many other nations have been freed from oppression and lost civillians through being freed by those allies and yet you did not see any such extremists after they were freed who committed violence continually for years after?
Why is it will only see with Muslim nations in the main?
Why is that?
Is it a narative of hate that is actually behind such views funded by Gulf nations and the likes of Iran.
There is no reason why people should turn to such hate when freed from oppression, it takes something comepletely different, called those of hate

sassy wrote:How fucking dare you, you hypocritical little weasal.  That is the voice of the People of Syria who are there, living the hell, that is was they want.  You are truly a narcissistic runt who thinks your voice is more important than the voice of the People of Syria

Is that the voice of the majority, sassy?

Didge wrote:Well why is that Rags?
Many other nations have been freed from oppression and lost civillians through being freed by those allies and yet you did not see any such extremists after they were freed who committed violence continually for years after?
Why is it will only see with Muslim nations in the main?
Why is that?
Is it a narative of hate that is actually behind such views funded by Gulf nations and the likes of Iran.
There is no reason why people should turn to such hate when freed from oppression, it takes something comepletely different, called those of hate

It's a tribal thing I guess. Those Middle Eastern countries seem to be prone to that kind of thing.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:Well why is that Rags?
Many other nations have been freed from oppression and lost civillians through being freed by those allies and yet you did not see any such extremists after they were freed who committed violence continually for years after?
Why is it will only see with Muslim nations in the main?
Why is that?
Is it a narative of hate that is actually behind such views funded by Gulf nations and the likes of Iran.
There is no reason why people should turn to such hate when freed from oppression, it takes something comepletely different, called those of hate

It's a tribal thing I guess. Those Middle Eastern countries seem to be prone to that kind of thing.

No its very much a narative played off the religion based on a grievance done to Muslims where also a view is faslely claimed of the west out to destroy Islam.
Its completely down to Islam a a view of brothers and sisters..
As where is all the freed christians from Iraq war committing suicide bombings from being liberated from Saddam Rags?

Anyway, Cameron needs to decide what the motive for getting involved in Syria is. We don't want another scenario where the motive keeps changing do we? We had all that with Iraq.

Is it to save the people from Assad? Is it to stop ISIS in their tracks on humanitarian grounds, or to prevent them growing in strength and becoming a threat to British people? Is it to support the French and get revenge for the Paris attack?

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:How fucking dare you, you hypocritical little weasal.  That is the voice of the People of Syria who are there, living the hell, that is was they want.  You are truly a narcissistic runt who thinks your voice is more important than the voice of the People of Syria

Is that the voice of the majority, sassy?

It's the voice of the people being bombed and trying desperately to get their country back together.  There is no 'majority' in Syria, they are too split into factions or turned into refugees, it's the voice of those living there.

Again you avoid the point Rags.
Why would people freed want to then after commit terror acts like Paris.
Do you see Christians doing this being freed?
No
Its fundemenatlly around the religion of Islam.
First ISIS need to be destroyed, and Russia has said Assad has to step down after the conflict for elections

Yes of course. I suppose I meant the voice of "the people"

eddie wrote:Yes of course. I suppose I meant the voice of "the people"

As much as it can be.

And yet no voice from those enslaved under ISIS as to what they want

sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:Yes of course. I suppose I meant the voice of "the people"

As much as it can be.

Sounds like they're rather being drowned out by the noise of everyone else.

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:

As much as it can be.

Sounds like they're rather being drowned out by the noise of everyone else.

Yep, they have gardered many groups round to world to spread what they want, but the drum beating maniacs are out shouting them.

Thise are some of their backers:

Read our call to the world here

• Ainmaa
  
• Aleppo Revolutionary Union
  
• Almada Cultural Center
  
• Alnabaa Press
  
• Amuda Youth Center
  
• Arta for Communication and Solidarity
  
• Ashti Center for Peace
  
• Ashti Organization for Monitoring and Documentation
  
• Aso Society for the Resistance of Violence Against Women in Syria
  
• Association of Jaladat Baderkhan
  
• Assyrian Youth Coordination Committees
  
• Azaz Media Center
  
• Azaz Youth Authority
  
• Badael
  
• Basmat Aml
  
• Be Free
  
• Bidayaat
  
• Blossom Center
  
• Build It Right
  
• Center of Women in Qamishli
  
• Chaouichka Association
  
• Daa Basmatak
  
• Damascus Centre for Human Rights Studies (DCHRS)
  
• Dawlaty
  
• Eridu Center for Civil Society and Democracy
  
• Etana Syria
  
• Evren Kurdish Women Organization
  
• Fatiri Shbab Association
  
• For you
  
• Free Kurdish Women's Organization
  
• Free Lawyers of Aleppo
  
• Free Revolutionary Women of Daraa
  
• Ghiras Project
  
• Helen Association for Children
  
• Insan Foundation
  
• Intellectuals to Build Syria
  
• Kurdish Intellectuals' Association
  
• Kurdish Organisation for Human Rights in Syria
  
• Kurdish Women's Union
  
• Kurdish Women's Union - Syria
  
• Lat Group for Art
  
• Local Coordination Committee - Atareb and surrounding areas
  
• Local Coordination Committee - Sheikh Hdid
  
• Magic Caravan
  
• Mandela House
  
• Mazaya Center for Women
  
• Mercy Association
  
• Movement for Peaceful Revolution
  
• Nabni
  
• Najda Now
  
• Nawroz Centre
  
• Observatory for Monitoring and Evaluating Syrian Development
  
• Office legal documentation in Hama
  
• Raqeeb Human Rights Committee
  
• RFS Media Office
  
• Ronak
  
• Sawa Youth Organization
  
• SCSHR (Syrian Centre for Studies and Human Rights)
  
• Sharmoula Group
  
• Shining Tomorrow Centre
  
• Slav Center for Civil Activities
  
• Sonbola
  
• Soryana Al Amal
  
• Sound and Picture
  
• SouriaLi
  
• Sout Raya Radio
  
• Spring Syrian Center for Development and Training and Qualification
  
• Steer Association
  
• Students and Youth Democratic Union of Kurdistan
  
• Suryana
  
• Syrian Civil Youth Organization
  
• Syrian Network for Human Rights
  
• Syrian Non-Violence Movement
  
• Syrian Women for a Citizen's State Organization
  
• Syrian Youth / COSV
  
• Tel Abyad Forum for Civil Society
  
• The Creative Memory
  
• The Day After
  
• Together for Amouda
  
• Union of Free Syrian Sutdent
  
• Violations Documentation Centre in Syria
  
• VISION (RO'YA for a Better Tomorrow)
  
• Women Now for Development
  
• Women's Democracy Network
  
• Youth Forum Organization
  
• Zelal Centre for Arts
  
• Anonymised for security reasons
  
• Anonymised for security reasons - Deir Ezzor
  
• Anonymised for security reasons - Deir Ezzor
  
• Anonymised for security reasons - Deir Ezzor
  
• Anonymised for security reasons - Idleb
  
• Anonymised for security reasons - Daraa
  

• Adopt a Revolution
  
• Aid 2 Syria - Pakistan
  
• ARCI Amari
  
• Avaaz
  
• Bridge of Peace Syria
  
• CANDLES Holocaust and Education Center
  
• Carl Wilkens Fellowship
  
• Citizen Diplomats for Syria e.V
  
• EF International Academy
  
• Freie Deutsch-Syrische Gesellschaft
  
• GAIA SCI Kosovo
  
• Globally United
  
• Hellas
  
• Hivos - Humanist Organisation for Cooperation with Developing Countries
  
• Human Rights & Democracy Media Center - SHAMS/Palestine
  
• I Know My Rights - IKMR
  
• IFGD
  
• International Alert
  
• International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)
  
• Irish Syria Solidarity Movement
  
• Jesus Leprosy People Service Centre
  
• Karam Foundation
  
• Kennesaw State Student Union for Peace & Human Rights
  
• Kudirat Initiative for Democracy (KIND)
  
• MADRE
  
• Merseyside Syria Solidarity Movement
  
• Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies
  
• Mosaic Inituitinve for Syria
  
• Nigerian Women Trust Fund
  
• North American Youth Section
  
• Nyein/Shalom Foundation
  
• Oxford for Syria
  
• PATRIR
  
• PAX
  
• Pax Christi Britain
  
• Pax Christi International
  
• Potohar Mental Health Association (PMHA)
  
• Rethink Rebuild Society
  
• Stop Genocide Now
  
• Students Organize for Syria
  
• Synergy-Takamol
  
• Syria Solidarity Movement UK
  
• Syrian American Council
  
• Syrian Christian For Peace
  
• SyriaUntold
  
• Syrien - was kann ich tun?
  
• The Syria Campaign
  
• Volunteers' Centre of Vojvodina SCI Serbia
  
• Wake Up Genève
  

Didge wrote:Again you avoid the point Rags.
Why would people freed want to then after commit terror acts like Paris.
Do you see Christians doing this being freed?
No
Its fundemenatlly around the religion of Islam.
First ISIS need to be destroyed, and Russia has said Assad has to step down after the conflict for elections

I'm not avoiding any point. ISIS don't want to be freed, they want power.

I'm quite bored with the anti-Islam stuff on this forum tbh. I'm more interested in the politics of what's going on. You're not going to be able to ban Islam, so forget it.

Has anyone actually asked Assad if he agrees to step down?

eddie wrote:Yes of course. I suppose I meant the voice of "the people"

Nobody seems to know who "the people" are though.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Yes of course. I suppose I meant the voice of "the people"

Nobody seems to know who "the people" are though.

Well yes, there's always that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:Again you avoid the point Rags.
Why would people freed want to then after commit terror acts like Paris.
Do you see Christians doing this being freed?
No
Its fundemenatlly around the religion of Islam.
First ISIS need to be destroyed, and Russia has said Assad has to step down after the conflict for elections

I'm not avoiding any point. ISIS don't want to be freed, they want power.

I'm quite bored with the anti-Islam stuff on this forum tbh. I'm more interested in the politics of what's going on. You're not going to be able to ban Islam, so forget it.

Has anyone actually asked Assad if he agrees to step down?

The people enslaved under ISIS want to be freed, try reading what is being stated to you, where many are suffering under their barbaric regeme.
You can avoid the points all you like, its not anti-islam, but explaing a fundemental fact as can you explain mjy points?
No, its a narative that has always been the problem plus a two islamic sects trying to gain supremacy over the lands.
He is not going to have a choice if Putin says he has to as he is only still in power on his say so.
Anyway, I see you cannot answer the points and instead use the daft claim of anti-Islam, when its pointing out facts.
Like I say you do not see other religious groups from being freed waging a global campaign of terror.

If you want to bury your head in the sand and never learn so be it.

Have a good evening

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not avoiding any point. ISIS don't want to be freed, they want power.

I'm quite bored with the anti-Islam stuff on this forum tbh. I'm more interested in the politics of what's going on. You're not going to be able to ban Islam, so forget it.

Has anyone actually asked Assad if he agrees to step down?

The people enslaved under ISIS want to be freed, try reading what is being stated to you, where many are suffering under their barbaric regeme.
You can avoid the points all you like, its not anti-islam, but explaing a fundemental fact as can you explain mjy points?
No, its a narative that has always been the problem plus a two islamic sects trying to gain supremacy over the lands.
He is not going to have a choice if Putin says he has to as he is only still in power on his say so.
Anyway, I see you cannot answer the points and instead use the daft claim of anti-Islam, when its pointing out facts.
Like I say you do not see other religious groups from being freed waging a global campaign of terror.

If you want to bury your head in the sand and never learn so be it.

Have a good evening

You said this:

Why would people freed want to then after commit terror acts like Paris.

Since it was ISIS who carried out the Paris attacks, it was reasonable to think that you were referring to ISIS being freed. If you did not, then I don't why you said it as it doesn't seem to address anything I said previously.

To me, the most interesting thing about the situation is the conflicting aims of all the participants. You are burying your head in the sand about that.

Saudi are as bad as ISIS to their own people and we grovel to them :

2persons the #Nimr family waiting #execution for protesting against the #Saudi regime #AliMohammedAlNimr #SheikhNimr

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


The people enslaved under ISIS want to be freed, try reading what is being stated to you, where many are suffering under their barbaric regeme.
You can avoid the points all you like, its not anti-islam, but explaing a fundemental fact as can you explain mjy points?
No, its a narative that has always been the problem plus a two islamic sects trying to gain supremacy over the lands.
He is not going to have a choice if Putin says he has to as he is only still in power on his say so.
Anyway, I see you cannot answer the points and instead use the daft claim of anti-Islam, when its pointing out facts.
Like I say you do not see other religious groups from being freed waging a global campaign of terror.

If you want to bury your head in the sand and never learn so be it.

Have a good evening

You said this:

Why would people freed want to then after commit terror acts like Paris.

Since it was ISIS who carried out the Paris attacks, it was reasonable to think that you were referring to ISIS being freed. If you did not, then I don't why you said it as it doesn't seem to address anything I said previously.

To me, the most interesting thing about the situation is the conflicting aims of all the participants. You are burying your head in the sand about that.

Wrong Rags it was Belgium and French nationals. Plus one syrian, who the later have not been freed from any conflict who carried out the Paris attacks. So how do you account why French nationals or belgium for that matter would plan to murder people in Paris.
The only connection again
Islam, through an aggrieved view on other Muslims.

I am stating why would people like after Iraq where they were freed then commit an unholy terror not only to the allied troops trying to rebuild their nations but gterror to many religious minorities and both sunni and shia Muslims?
Like I say did you see the other religious groups then commit to the same and then global terrorism?
No

So like I say you have no clue what you are talking about

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You said this:



Since it was ISIS who carried out the Paris attacks, it was reasonable to think that you were referring to ISIS being freed. If you did not, then I don't why you said it as it doesn't seem to address anything I said previously.

To me, the most interesting thing about the situation is the conflicting aims of all the participants. You are burying your head in the sand about that.

Wrong Rags it was Belgium and French nationals. Plus one syrian, who the later have not been freed from any conflict who carried out the Paris attacks. So how do you account why French nationals or belgium for that matter would plan to murder people in Paris.
The only connection again
Islam, through an aggrieved view on other Muslims.

I am stating why would people like after Iraq where they were freed then commit an unholy terror not only to the allied troops trying to rebuild their nations but gterror to many religious minorities and both sunni and shia Muslims?
Like I say did you see the other religious groups then commit to the same and then global terrorism?
No

So like I say you have no clue what you are talking about

Belgian and French people can join ISIS you know.

I think I'm talking about different things to you, and I do know what I'm talking about. You are on the rampage about Islam, so you've missed most of the political stuff.

Still, as I said, Cameron doesn't have the right to decide who should govern Syria, and neither does the leader of any other country. Whatever aims the rebels and ISIS have, they won't want a puppet Government ruling over them which is answerable to any other country.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Wrong Rags it was Belgium and French nationals. Plus one syrian, who the later have not been freed from any conflict who carried out the Paris attacks. So how do you account why French nationals or belgium for that matter would plan to murder people in Paris.
The only connection again
Islam, through an aggrieved view on other Muslims.

I am stating why would people like after Iraq where they were freed then commit an unholy terror not only to the allied troops trying to rebuild their nations but gterror to many religious minorities and both sunni and shia Muslims?
Like I say did you see the other religious groups then commit to the same and then global terrorism?
No

So like I say you have no clue what you are talking about

Belgian and French people can join ISIS you know.

I think I'm talking about different things to you, and I do know what I'm talking about. You are on the rampage about Islam, so you've missed most of the political stuff.

And what is it they already are?
Muslims
What narative is played on that they already have an unfounded view of that is endemic in the Muslim world?
That the US is the great Satan and the west is out to detroy Islam.
Then groups like ISIS play fiurther on this narative to those susceptible with promises of sex and slaves, murder playing off an islamic narative

You have not got a first clue what you are talking about on the whole issue I am sad to say

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belgian and French people can join ISIS you know.

I think I'm talking about different things to you, and I do know what I'm talking about. You are on the rampage about Islam, so you've missed most of the political stuff.

And what is it they already are?
Muslims
What narative is played on that they already have an unfounded view of that is endemic in the Muslim world?
That the US is the great Satan and the west is out to detroy Islam.
Then groups like ISIS play fiurther on this narative to those susceptible with promises of sex and slaves, murder playing off an islamic narative

You have not got a first clue what you are talking about on the whole issue I am sad to say

You stick to what interests you - ie, ranting on about Muslims - and I'll stick to what interests me - ie, the political and military situation.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:



And what is it they already are?
Muslims
What narative is played on that they already have an unfounded view of that is endemic in the Muslim world?
That the US is the great Satan and the west is out to detroy Islam.
Then groups like ISIS play fiurther on this narative to those susceptible with promises of sex and slaves, murder playing off an islamic narative

You have not got a first clue what you are talking about on the whole issue I am sad to say

You stick to what interests you - ie, ranting on about Muslims - and I'll stick to what interests me - ie, the political and military situation.

And we have the usual copout reply claiming nonsense whilst ignoring the facts.

Even on the politcal and military you have not got a clue.

Done this debate a million times

Right cannot be bothered when you get all silly as you are being now.

Except some things you just do not know as much as others on.

Laters

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You stick to what interests you - ie, ranting on about Muslims - and I'll stick to what interests me - ie, the political and military situation.

And we have the usual copout reply claiming nonsense whilst ignoring the facts.

Even on the politcal and military you have not got a clue.

Done this debate a million times

Right cannot be bothered when you get all silly as you are being now.

Except some things you just do not know as much as others on.

Laters

I'm very well up on the political and military situation, unlike you. You're just trying to start yet another fight because you're bored. You already have one going with Sassy, but it's clearly not enough for you.

Grow up.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


And we have the usual copout reply claiming nonsense whilst ignoring the facts.

Even on the politcal and military you have not got a clue.

Done this debate a million times

Right cannot be bothered when you get all silly as you are being now.

Except some things you just do not know as much as others on.

Laters

I'm very well up on the political and military situation, unlike you. You're just trying to start yet another fight because you're bored. You already have one going with Sassy, but it's clearly not enough for you.

Grow up.

First of all it takes two people to fight. Second, nobody is starting one, you are getting antsy over views you cannot respond to and thus deflect with these unfounded accusation. Third, what has happened between me and sassy is being dealt with. Fourth, again from reading your views military and political I see nothing that makes me believe you have much of a grasp on. Fifth, that is my opinion, which you either respect or you don;t. Either way I am not concerned

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm very well up on the political and military situation, unlike you. You're just trying to start yet another fight because you're bored. You already have one going with Sassy, but it's clearly not enough for you.

Grow up.

First of all it takes two people to fight. Second, nobody is starting one, you are getting antsy over views you cannot respond to and thus deflect with these unfounded accusation. Third, what has happened between me and sassy is being dealt with. Fourth, again from reading your views military and political I see nothing that makes me believe you have much of a grasp on. Fifth, that is my opinion, which you either respect or you don;t. Either way I am not concerned

I don't respect your opinion, and I'd be surprised if anyone does. I doubt you've even read my posts about the military and political situation because you're only posting about Muslims these days, or banging on about getting Sassy banned.

Now I have a Columbo to watch, which is much more interesting than reading your silly droning.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


First of all it takes two people to fight. Second, nobody is starting one, you are getting antsy over views you cannot respond to and thus deflect with these unfounded accusation. Third, what has happened between me and sassy is being dealt with. Fourth, again from reading your views military and political I see nothing that makes me believe you have much of a grasp on. Fifth, that is my opinion, which you either respect or you don;t. Either way I am not concerned

I don't respect your opinion, and I'd be surprised if anyone does. I doubt you've even read my posts about the military and political situation because you're only posting about Muslims these days, or banging on about getting Sassy banned.

Now I have a Columbo to watch, which is much more interesting than reading your silly droning.

I am not concerned whether you respect them, what is important in debate, is being able to respond and counter them
On that front here, you failed.
Again I understand much about history and military history, as well as the political aspect of such religious groups.
You have not said anything to make me believe you grasop much about this as stated.
You can however prove me wrong, but until then I will keep my opinion of what you have posted so far.
Best you learn to live with that

Oh and enjoy Columbo and that is my off for the night too, so once again have a good evening

Dave is itching to send our bombers in when Russis are bombing ISIS and the rebels who want to get shot of Assad. The turks are bombing the Kurds and they shot down a Russian jet that was attacking rebels that the Turks symathise with.

The Americans and the French are bombing ISIS and it's now pretty crowded around the skies over Syria.

Last time Dave wanted to bomb Assad and now there is no cordinated plan or any degree of unity on what the outcome will be for Syria if and when ISIS are destroyed.

Cut off the fuel. Cut off the Arms. Starve them of that and agree a plan of unity by all the nations before any decision is taken on who to bomb otherwise we won't make a blind bit of difference.

Stick to Iraq for the moment where we are doing our bit and so we should considering we helped blow the place apart in the first place.

Irn Bru wrote:Dave is itching to send our bombers in when Russis are bombing ISIS and the rebels who want to get shot of Assad. The turks are bombing the Kurds and they shot down a Russian jet that was attacking rebels that the Turks symathise with.

The Americans and the French are bombing ISIS and it's now pretty crowded around the skies over Syria.

Last time Dave wanted to bomb Assad  and now there is no cordinated plan or any degree of unity on what the outcome will be for Syria if and when ISIS are destroyed.

Cut off the fuel. Cut off the Arms. Starve them of that and agree a plan of unity by all the nations before any decision is taken on who to bomb otherwise we won't make a blind bit of difference.

Stick to Iraq for the moment where we are doing our bit and so we should considering we helped blow the place apart in the first place.

Who gives a fuck what some wet regressive clueless terrorist supporting low life scum thinks of a what needs to be done?

You are not fit to decide what needs to be done and are nothing more than a quisling

Again the most important thing above all is freeing many people from oppression.

Some times i think Didge tries to stop  fish drowning

veya_victaous wrote:Some times i think Didge tries to stop  fish drowning

good analogy