Thetownend.com

So ignoring party politics what do we all thinks fellow TEFers.

I have my opinion but I have no idea whether or not Im totally out of step with the rest of the public or not.

So as we are such a widespread bunch ranging from total fucking lunatics, to utterly sane and rational, Id be interested to see where the opinion of such a group lies.

Lets face it our politicians are going to do whatever they like anyway.

I haven't backed any of the wars in my lifetime (I'm 33, born just after the Falklands). We have no place policing the middle east. It's a no from me.

No

Bomb the bastards! Obliterate them, vaporise them.

Syria is in Oxford isn't it?

Are we contemplating joining the bombing of targets in Syria because we are in imminenent danger of attack ourselves or because we don't want to miss out on any say as to Syrias future once or if ISIS is defeated? I suspect it's the latter and for that reason I would vote no

Kind of on topic but I watched a good documentary called bitter lake on iplayer last night. It's quite interesting on how the east v west faction came about after the Second World War.

Of course, it was the yanks fault so the ending wasn't a massive surprise.

Daesh has

beheaded peaceful brits out there
killed or injured 500 in Paris
wreaked atrocities on muslims out there (inc. women)
slaughtered non muslims out there in pursuing its land grabbing policy
downed a Russian tourist airplane flying from a resort popular with Brits
had attempts foiled here in the UK

the UN Security Council (inc Russia and China)

has given the "all necessary means" green light

but I don't think we should react except perhaps a diplomatic protest - unless bombing was part of a plan to sort out the whole of the Middle East problems once and for all.

Really?

dammed if we do, dammed if we don't.

it's s bit late to play world police and guardians of morality. we already stirred up a hornets nest with Iraq then Afghanistan . it's a mess with no easy fix.

as far as I can see bombing will slow them down but it's not likely to solve much long term.

but what do I know.

Everything you say is right, Batch, except in this case is it not pretty much the whole world against Daesh except the Sunnis and Islamist terrorist Groups - I think there is a role to be part of world policing with support out there of course

Cameron said we should bomb the heartland of the people who committed the terrible crimes in Paris, I know some Tories hate the EU but bombing Brussels seems a little extreme.

There is no state to bomb, and I dare say as many innocent victims will be blown up as were killed in Paris.

It's a shit situation but dropping bombs is not going to solve it.

No ifs no buts, just do it.

A few things to consider.

None of us have had a security services or millitary intelligence briefing
Jaw, jaw not war, war. However i am not sure you can negotiate with these people
Would you think differently if paris had been London or Swindon?
If we do, mission creep is my worry, though in this case v Iraq we may be more justifed

I'd be more interested in Muslim/Arab opinion on whether we should get involved.
Islamists have been around a lot longer than IS, so the threat was there before. Perhaps it needs quelling or it will keep growing.

If we knew exactly where to bomb, it would already have happened.
The chances are we will bomb areas based on crap intelligence & kill more innocent people than IS fighters. That will probably create more IS sympathiesers than those we kill.

Troops on the ground is the only way to fight them, but will result in large numbers of casualties of ours so is not really what the politicians want

I kind of see why we have to deal with the situation, and I think we do need to be part of that.  However, my worry is that we keep insisting on trying to "fix" other countries which we seem intent on doing here with Syria as well.

We want to enforce our sense of morals onto other regions and countries as if we are bastions of doing good in the world.  It's not too many generations ago we saw it as perfectly acceptable to marginalise women, enslave people, send children down mines, up chimneys and into broken machinery.  As much as I personally may find the state interpretation of living by the virtues of Islam in some countries abhorrent, it's not really for me to enforce my views on different people.  At best I can try and convince people of my point of view.

It's also a reason I'm completely and utterly unpatriotic.  "Nations" should be more like clubs or companies, something you can join when you agree with it more so than others.  It'll never change though, our history is littered with this same story just with different characters and locations.

Sounds like it would be no more than a futile gesture.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/26/syria-airstrikes-cameron-case-highly-contentious (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/26/syria-airstrikes-cameron-case-highly-contentious)

Agree 100% with your first point. Regarding troops on the ground; if we want to avoid yet more religious based extremism, these troops need to resourced from Muslim countries as well as The West. If we are ever going to defeat IS we need a global intervention and that include Pakistan and Iran.

Too Late to bomb them out there now. Should have happened 18 months ago.

Bombing won't solve anything.  Only an army on the ground can do that now.

Would I want any of my family in there?  No.  I'd imagine that dilemma is being played out up & down the country.

No, it's not just Muslim troops, but Sunni troops. One of the massive things the West has completely failed to notice, and one of the reasons why IS gained so much traction in the region in the first place, is that there is a Sunni-Shia sectarian civil war in the region, stoked by extremists on both sides. We imposed a corrupt Shia-led government in Iraq and it tried and failed to impose it's will backed by Shia miltias. Which went into Sunni areas and killed, burned and stole. Faced with a choice between brutal Shia militias and the brutal Sunni extremists of IS, many ordinary Sunnis reasoned that at least IS were on their side of the divide and so tolerated if not joined them. Because the experience of many ordinary Sunnis of having their home towns and villages "liberated" by Shia militias is that it leaves their homes in rubble and their families and friends in shrouds. While we in the West may see these small victories as setbacks for IS achieved by local militias and therefore encouraging as part of the way forward they serve merely to strengthen a divide that IS have already skilfully exploited. The Sunnis in the area must believe there is an alternative to IS that will keep them safe.

And of course, this all plays into a larger regional conflict where actually the Sunni-Shia conflict is largely stoked by Iran and Saudi Arabia fighting out a proxy war for dominance in the region. Which is why many of our so-called "allies" in the region, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc have done so much to fund, arm and encourage IS.

We should not get involved. These kind of people will always find a reason to fight.

There's probably half a million illegal immigrants who arrived in Europe this summer, who appear to be men of fighting age.

They should be armed, trained and sent back to fight for their freedom.

I assume you're already on your way there?

This is turning into a quagmire, a lot, lot worse than the former Yugoslavia. Feel sorry for the people caught in the crossfire.

But that is what we train for it is what we join for. 
Boots on the ground and destroy them. The bombing will knock the fight out of a lot of them that are just on the edge of extremism. When the chips are down they will run and hide......... Again

So, are you saying we should just sit back and allow them to:
A continue to persecute innocent civilians.
B threaten the west and ensure we live in fear as to when and where they will strike again on our shores.

That is all the propaganda they need, it's deliberating over should we shouldn't we, while they continue to murder.
The longer it goes on the more refugees will want to move over here. Soon they will all be here and then what?

You've confused condemnation of bombings as condoning ISIS.. That's really not what it means.

We all accept that their actions are appalling and need to be stopped. It's just how we propose to achieve this that people are disagreeing over.

Won't do anything to eliminate a terrorist threat here. Imo just a matter of time before it happens again. More than likely from people already living here.
Too far down the line now. Shit is here for the foreseeable future regardless of any action taken by us in Syria.

Interesting comments...

Experience has shown me that to find a cause of an issue... it' makes sense to find out where the money is coming from to finance the situation and eventually who is going to gain from it.

Perhaps we could / should consider an organisation such as ISIL would need truck loads of cash for day to day running of expenses.

A money source now reported coming from crude oil sold to Western countries including Turkey.

Turkey is a current member of NATO and a supporting member of the Western Alliance / NATO.

The West via America is also actively supplying arms to the "good" rebels who are currently gunning for the leader of the Sovereign state in Syria.

Only when Russia has with success to finally put her mark on the situation..

Suddenly others are taking serious notice especially in light of the horrid crimes we all witnessed in Paris...

France President, Hollande is wanting to forge a NATO alliance with Russia.

Surely we must consider the only Country that could / would finance and gain the most from the unstable situation in the Middle East is our friends in the good "auld" U.S of A.

That said, they have not suffered with suicide bombers or the disruption of the hundred of thousand of poor homeless refugees needing help and support.

God knows the issues the World will face after the election in the States next year..

Trump or Clinton as the most powerful person in the World.

Fuck a duck.... and we are worried about possible relegation  :doh: !!!!

COYMR's



   



   

 

   

And for the record,

I am confident to recognise these are not Holly wars or necessarily a Civil wars 

Simply Big brother steering the natives into a dirty great big hole of destruction   !!! 

 >:( 

Ok. What role has France taken in the Middle East? Why were it's citizens targeted by these idiots?

France is already bombing Syria and Iraq.

You voted "Don't know" didn't you.

Before the Paris attacks?

So, it makes no difference then if we do try and take IS out. The threat from Islamists has always been there - and most have nothing to do with western involvement in the region (which a lot of people use as a reason/cause of the problem) , it's the fact that they don't like western values/culture /way of life. Just take a look around the world,  Nigeria,  far east etc, areas that the west aren't involved in conflict. IS have taken advantage of the situation in Syria and use propaganda to fuel it and take their cause to the wider world.

What an unsolvable mess in the Middle East - bombing isn`t going to make any difference but it sort of shows that we are doing our bit against the enemy. The West think that just because we supposedly live in a democracy so should the Middle East - this is impossible if you want to follow sharia law - we are in the middle of a religious war that isn`t spoken about enough imo - time for everyone to acknowledge this fact as it is the fundamental problem.

Yes.

I dont think they can be taken out. Look at the other campaigns we've got involved in. Successful and worth it? I don't think so but I'm sure that's debatable.
Action here will inevitably take innocent lives and those of our forces too.

A lot of the current bombing by US and other forces is guided from the ground forces fighting IS. Positions are softened ahead of ground forces advancing. If this helps cut the supply routes between major towns under IS control then it has to be the way to go. Bombing the towns would bring the greater risk of killing civilians, bomb the supply routes and cut them off and the ground forces can deal with the towns.

5 mins ago you didn't know the French were doing anything

Your point?

Your pole is shit!

https://twitter.com/British_First/status/670587532199989248

Why "British First" on Twitter? "Brian First" is so much better.....

 So Isis won its vote in the Commons. Not sure Labour can hold together after this betrayal of the British working classes by 60 odd MP's.

 Previously, at least there was the excuse of ignorance, now we know exactly what we'll get....more home grown terrorists, more refugees and economic migrants, more slaughter of innocents and British servicemen and women......and all to worsen the situation in the Middle East.

What's this got to do with working classes?

Completely agree Reg. This is what you get when you have evil corrupt lying sociopaths in control. It doesn't matter which party they are, they're all cunts. Hope they all get taken out with a fucking big bomb themselves.

Careful.  Comments like that may come back to haunt you.

"But it worked on the Nazi's"

That's the best justification I've heard so far. And by best I mean the most retarded.

GET INTO 'EM! FUCK 'EM UP!

Hope you're all well.

Cameron calling people who were against a bombing campaign "terrorist sympathisers" and winning this vote is very worrying indeed. Using a blatant lie to try to convince people. Disgraceful.

This won't be a bombing campaign alone. Our lads will die out there and this won't do anything to eliminate a terrorist threat. 
The potential terrorists are in the UK already.

I wish I was as certain on this one as most of the internet seems to be. It must be nice to have such absolute black and white clarity on everything in life. If you vote for, you're a bomb-loving baby killer, if you vote no, you're a terrorist sympathizer. Heaven forbid there be anyone in between.

Provide a military plan, costings, territorial objectives, timescales and, above all, an exit strategy...and I'd very possibly support military action.  But none of these were on the table yesterday.

It scares me that so many MPs felt able to vote for airstrikes when - quite clearly - none can have really known what they were voting for.  It was a vote to 'do something'.  Anything.

There should now be a massive political effort to coordinate an international opposition to Daesh on the ground in Syria.  Taking speculative pot shots from the sky will achieve nothing.

Couldn't agree more with that. Bombing might be a reasonable step as part of a much wider plan, but nobody seems to be putting that forward. Perhaps because asking where the support and money for Daesh may be coming from might ask a few difficult questions of our 'key allies' in the region?

Interesting to see that all the snp votes were against. I wonder if they have voted with the government on anything?  :sherlock:

even the selling of the Iraq conflict was based on what you could call a false claim of WMD.

definitely not originally to protect oil interests, then  a bit late a hard wired thirst for revenge to sept 11

can't see ground troops being deployed, maybe special forces. more likely to train up the most palatable of opposition forces and let them get on with it

https://www.facebook.com/xmnewsmedia/videos/1021574914551189/

The scariest thing is people trying to act all political and pretend they know what is going on. The irony isn't lost on me that most of the people moaning about the decision probably didn't vote at the election in the first place.

A lot of people are missing the point though, we are already carrying out air strikes in Iraq, this vote was purely to allow them to carry on into Syria rather than stopping at the border. We're not actually entering into a new war or conflict.....

This.

Plus their ability to see into the future and seemingly know for a fact how this will end up.  I must have missed all the classified intelligence and security briefs that ended up in the public domain

I'm happy to be in the fuzzy middle ground.

Absolutely. Especially this last bit

Well, last time the government made that kind of information public it was Blair's dodgy dossier, which turned out to be a complete crock. So not sure how that would help you. You don't need classified intelligence and security briefs to be concerned that entering into a conflict in that region without a solid end game will turn out exactly how it has done for the past 3 times we've done it. You just need to look at the last 3 times we've done it - Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya - and see how they turned out. Where we are now, basically.

I don't like the fact that whatever's left of Syria is still legally under Assad, so are we technically starting a new war? We are not invited to help Syria, unlike the Russians.  We only know a small part of the picture of course, but I am uneasy about all the attack aircraft now flying in a small zone with the risk of 'accidents'.

Nah, it'll be fine. It's not like the Russians under Putin have a track record of being a bit over-sensitive and going boots-in or the Americans being gung-ho and a little slapdash in their targetting, so no chance of an accident getting out of control or anything

Well it's pretty inevitable now, isn't it? Another Paris in London probably. Human beings getting killed in Europe and the Middle East. I mean really, what the fuck? People's families and lives. On the whim of fucking nutters.


Exactly. History is supposed to educate to not repeat the mistakes of the past. Yep, keep poking that hornet's nest. Brilliant...

Are you and Horlock considering rescinding your LibDem membership? They were particularly spineless on this issue.

It's seems ISIL have started revenge already, and taken Office 365 out of action. Well via the web browser anyway.

I am touched you remembered...

What like putting questions to Cameron in writing prior to the debate and then providing a detailed and argued justification to their members for their position via email yesterday, I suppose alternatively they could have just waved their cocks around in parliament yesterday trying to score political points rather than debating the issue (the wasting of huge amounts of time by repeated questions to Cameron to apologise and his rhetoric avoiding thus - Corbyn selectively quoting form the 'Syrian Family' in his constituency to support his point rather than accurately stating what they actually said). I could go on, but sadly the whole issue got lost in party politics.

I (like Tim Farron in fact) admit I am not sure what the answer is but it isn't just an excuse for the usual suspects to score points! I do find it a little rich Labour banging on about evidence after Iraq (hell this looks like a smoking gun compared to Blair's little adventure).

You wait it will be Candy Crush Saga next!

I'll probably let the membership lapse at the end of the year, to tell the truth.  As Horlock07 says, there's not much to object to with Farron's approach.  It was all well explained (even if I didn't agree with the conclusion).  I'm just not that impressed with the party generally at the moment.

There's no right or wrong here, as others have said.  There can't be.  We don't have the hard facts needed to make such a judgement.  All each of us does have is an instinct - and that is what we're going with in the main.

Did you vote for Farron out of interest? I put my vote in for Lamb, who voted against the bombing yesterday. Interesting that a party with 8 MPs managed to get a split (Lamb and Mark Williams voted against, the other six for)

Not sure if I'll renew my membership yet. I went to one local party event and it was very much full of people who were very sure that their party was perfect and the others universally terrible. Might give it another go, but I'm not sure I'm as certain as all that.

Seems to have hit Sharepoint too, or at least we're having trouble anyway.

 I thought Farron's thing about a migrant washing up in Greece and saying "daddy are ISIS here?" as his justification for a difficult decision was pathetic. Far better to have thought of some kid in Syria saying...."daddy are the RAF here?" as bombs rain down.

Azure went down for reasons unknown at 9.20 this morning, back up now, but was worldwide.

it will be  the TEF next

I did, yes (vote for Farron).

Nothing wrong with a split, even with just 8 MPs.  If anything, I'm slightly suspicious of the SNP who - according to Stewart Hosie - managed to achieve complete unanimity among their 50+ MPs without even needing to resort to the whip.  That either demonstrates an extraordinary degree of unity in the party, or a complete absence of internal political debate.

They will never take the TEF.

Or their MP's are sensible.

Your very much suggesting that a terrorist attack in this country will be because of the decision to bomb in Syria. This vote will not make one bit of difference. It's a positive that everyone in europe is united in trying to wipe these bastards out, its a shame there is no easy way to do it. I don't think bombing in Syria will destroy them but I am not sure what difference not doing it would either. Its an impossible war based on religious hatred

Britain will be on ISIL's radar. Always will be, even before the bombing decision was made.

It's a matter of when, not if unfortunately.

If it's not going to make any difference then what's the point in doing it? The financial cost, not to mention the 'collateral damage' which will no doubt be significant, for what? An empty and futile gesture?

It could make a difference though. People that maybe are not against Europe may see innocent civilians getting blown up and may then join the cause.
Only takes a few to bring utter chaos as we have already seen.

The armaments industries are quite keen, as are their shareholders and salesmen, none of whom are to be found in Parliament  ;)

Saudi Arabia, has just about run out of munitions after pounding Yemen...so has recently placed some fat orders for a re-stock.

What about the innocent civilians Isis have murdered? People need to get their heads out of their arse if they think this is going to go away by doing nothing. Isis won't stop unless they are forced to do so. If that means wiping them out entirely, so be it. Collateral damage is unavoidable. Tough.

Very few are advocating 'doing nothing' though.  Most (but not all) opponents of airstrikes have opposed them because it's a half-arsed solution that is extremely unlikely to achieve its objective.  If you're going to do a job, do it properly.  That means troops on the ground - sadly.

It's not hitting ISIS that people are objecting to, but the method that is being chosen. Bombs alone won't do the job.

No one has said do nothing. Bombing doesn't work, we've seen that countless times.

And it's easy to dismiss collateral damage when you're not living in the areas being bombed, doubt you'd be quite so blasé about it if you or your family lived there.

Not being flippant about it but what' the alternative?

It's not like the IRA where there was the possibility of a political solution/compromise. These fuckers don't want anything we've got - they just want to kill us all.

A truly international ground force, using shared intelligence? Sanctions against those countries that sponsor IS? I don't have the answers, but I can't see how bombing will eradicate the threat.

Of course they are, that's what the industrial-military complex is all about. The idiots who keep these politicians lubricated. It's a win-win for them.

Get the feeling the 'recreational' bombing is just a prelude to ground troops going in.

The Russkies have a big part to play in all this

Its not got so bad that we have to get Tommy Walsh and Charlie Dimmock involved!

We'll need a lot then....probably need to reintroduce conscription. During WW 2, men aged 18-41, were reckoned about the right age  :bye:

Not having a pop btw. If I had a vote anywhere, it would have gone to the LibDems at the last election. But I thought the case for bombing was as full of holes as an Afghan hospital, and history provides such tediously repetitive lessons about these revenge wars that I thought we could have counted on the LDs to do their duty as a party of opposition and throw out the shabby plan. I was very disappointed to see them wave this dismal government through - they deserve a much harder ride than any party other than the SNP is giving them atm.

Wouldn't just be us, though. It is in every country's  interest to wipe them out

You have to laugh when you read through this thread. The simple minded posts from the usual suspects betray their stupidity and weakness.

The commons vote yesterday was not a vote to 'bomb Syria', it was vote to extend RAF operations into Syria. The target hasn't changed, just the area of operations.

IS needs to be destroyed which is something I think both those against and in favour of this extension can agree on. Targeting the infrastructure is one perfectly legitimate action, amongst others that is required in order to achieve that.

They've got 8 MPs, they'd struggle to throw out their own backs with that number.

Spot on and pretty much what I said in an earlier post. About 99% of people voicing an opinion on the vote appear to be oblivious to this. We aren't entering a new conflict, it is essentially just an extension into Syria of Operation Shader by the RAF.  Unfortunately Corbyn has used the whole thing to try and make it all about him and a lot of the facts have got lost as a result.

The 'special ones' on here aren't known for taking facts into consideration.

There's just the small matter that Syria is de facto still a sovereign state. As a result, their head of state has invited in the Russians to provide military support....he's not inviting us in.

He's not exactly in a position to stop us and the Russians have been around the table and aren't stopping the French or the Amercans though are they?

The die is cast. You seem to think HMG and their apologists on the Labour benches know what they are doing, I would suggest a majority of the UK population disagree. Let's see...

The argument that it is just an extension of the attacks on Iraq is, at best, a very simplistic take on a very complex matter.

At the highest level, Iraq invited us, Syria have not. A whole world of difference.

I seem to think the apologists on the opposition benches are those who voted against this extension of the RAF remit.

Your party is led by people who only appear to support bombing 'enemies' when they're bombing British.

As much as I hate the smarmy two faced weasel, that cunt Cameron was right.

Who would invite us in? They are currently embroiled in a civil war and are being invaded by militant extremists, there isn't really a true ruling government in power. In any case a UN resolution is in place for this and it would be pretty poor form if we didn't stand side by side with our allies on this, it's not like we are going alone!
At the end of the day we were a target before this decision and will be a target after this. Strategic bombing of their supply lines and infrastructure will disrupt them and I would imagine this is just the first act of a bigger play.

Well that's true, but if this forum's representatives are anything to go by, their lack of spine appears to be losing them a good number of the new members they signed up after the last election.

Don't you think the whole debate on here and in the Chamber yesterday was about which "facts" each side chooses to believe?

This isn't going to fit well with your worldview, but you don't have a monopoly on correctness.

Wrong.

The purity of the peaceniks arguments and their moral superiority, eh?

So sensitive that some accidental collateral damage might produce a reaction.

Insensitive however that targeted, non accidental and non collateral  murder might cause anything more than a desire for frank debate? 

Is it reasonable to hope for more than impeccable principles from friends or allies when being murdered with claims that we deserved it for our moral laxness in going to a rock concert?

This isn't about oil or money, its about defending (but not imposing, colonial-style) values, even at a cost to ourselves or innocents and we shouldn't apologise for our response in doing that with a UN mandate.

Aid workers are entitled not to be decapitated, tourists to go on holiday, city dwellers to a night out and peaceniks to their views

I wouldn't class myself as a 'peacenik', whatever that is, I served in the British Army and my son now serves. I'm against bombing Syria because I don't think it'll work. Just like our bombing of Iraq isn't working.
IS needs to be eradicated, that much is obvious. The disagreement is in the how.

Seriously, that was not what the debate was about and it's ridiculous to suggest it was.

The debate was about the extension of the RAF operations. Nothing more, nothing less.

Talk about gullible idiocy...

Yeah, what sort of gullible idiot would think we can rely on 70,000 moderate rebels providing the on-the-ground support for the air raids? Is that the sort of "fact" you were thinking of, o righteous one?

We've been bombing Iraq on and off for 25 years and what has that achieved? Nothing. Doing the same in Syria would be reckless and ill-conceived. Many innocent lives are lost and the pressing and prevalent issues are not addressed when the bombing comes to an end. The solution is simple, we need to offer more financial and military support to the Iraqi Army, the Kurds, and the Syrian rebels, under the premise that they commit to some sort of coalition/alliance.

Condition 1: No combat between the three factions.
Condition 2: They coordinate their attacks on ISIS, with Western sign off/approval needed on all offensives.
Condition 3: (in the case of Syria), The Kurds and Syrian Free forces must primarily focus their resources on ISIS for the time being, Assad will be dealt with later.
Condition 4: Transparency with the West, we have a reasonable modicum of control.

Getting the Syrian rebels and Iraqis to work together is feasible but getting the Kurds on board is difficult for obvious reasons.. The end game is that the Iraqis reclaim their territory, no problems there (the Kurds already have autonomy in Iraq and that will have to do for now). But in Syria you are left with a power vacuum through the heart of the country. This Kurdish-Free Syrian alliance would now be able to coordinate joint attacks on Assad, he would eventually be defeated by this coordinated effort. All the smaller factions would ultimately have to pick a side. A new Syrian nation is created but then you have a perilous situation between the Kurds and the free Syrians, the Kurds would want independence, the Syrians would be set against it. Kurdish autonomy is an option but there is definitely potential there for a new conflict.

The conclusion here is that there is no stand out solution to the ISIS/Syria question, the post-conflict reality in Iraq is manageable but Syria is a clusterfuck of the highest proportions. The scenario I've outlined above would at least be us trying to do the right thing, we'd be doing enough to put our minds at ease but not actively killing hundreds, if not thousands of innocent people with air strikes.

I need a topic "ignore" button now methinks

We're just little people who have no influence on any of this and will unfortunately get blown to bits if we're in the wrong place at the wrong time thanks to the mad cunts in "power".

It doesn't matter if you're in the Middle East or in the UK. Roll the dice

That doesn't contradict nor negate the validity of the argument in favour of extending the RAF scope of operations.

No, but it does nothing to reassure anyone who looks beyond your extremely narrow definition of what the debate was about.

Blair has been in the US pontificating on the "debate"; if he was eligible he'd prob win the presidency.  

His position is that ISIS with their doctrine of Armagidion time have millions of sympathisers in the Islamic world, so it's no use just killing the crocodile, but we'll have to drain the swamp.....namely fighting on the ground, in the Middle East, North and sub Saharan Africa, the Far East, Central Asia and in the ghettos of Europe.

Blair, is of course, relatively recent to Catholicism so probably genuinely believes this view of an apocalyptic future in the same way that Richard, Coeur de Lion and the Crusaders did.

Blair became RC years after Iraq and Afghanistan

I see a terrorist sympathiser has been stabbing people on the tube. Scumbag.

The only winners in this nightmare are the arms companies and their shareholders. I wonder who they might be.

Pretty much anybody with a pension.

In case you don't understand...

"In case you don't know what's happening in the middle east.

President Assad ( who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels ( who are good ) started winning ( Hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.)

So the Americans ( who are questionably good ) started bombing Islamic State ( who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) so they could fight Assad ( who is still bad ) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria.
So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad ( who is still bad ) by attacking IS ( who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans ( who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels ( who are also good).

Now Iran ( who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad ( still bad ) as are the Russians ( bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad ( still bad ) Putin ( extra bad ) and the Iranians ( good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS ( who are bad ) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) which is bad.

Now the British ( obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans ( also good ) cannot attack Assad ( still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin ( bad ) and Iran ( good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS ( who are super bad).

So Assad ( bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS ( but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America ( still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin ( now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran ( also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS ( still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims ( Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good ( Doh!.)

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal ( mmm.might have a point.) and hence we will be seen as Bad.

So now we have America ( now bad ) and Britain ( also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels ( bad ) many of whom are looking to IS ( Good / bad ) for support against Assad ( now good ) who, along with Iran ( also Good) and Putin ( also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

So, now that you fully understand everything, all your questions are answered." - author unknown.

 No mention of the Saudis and Qataris....who the US see as good, therefore HMG see as good, but many see as bad.

Can't see much wrong with that. All pretty simple really. So what's the answer?

More bombing. Doesn't really matter who as long as the respective voters know we are 'doing something'.

Hence why the US have bombed the Syrian Army - by mistake, obviously, but it at least keeps up the bombing quotient to keep voters happy

A majority of people who's "friends" exist only on a football fan's website are against bombing

"turn it round flight lieutenant, we're going home"