Agree that the obsession with Farage was mental too.

I'm just struggling to comprehend how the government and media have managed to spin it so that it's the guys who *don't* want to kill people that are the villains of the piece.

FYI - I'm against bombing as all it does it validates their campaign against us and makes us a legitimate target for Paris style attack. Working in central London I find that fairly scary.

If that makes me a terrorist sympathiser then lube me up and shove a kalishnikov in me.

They already do want to get at us! We need to do something to eliminate them so that they can't act on their plans, surely?

Head in the sand stuff.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Terrorist stuff will happen here whether we engage them or not. Might be this year might be in five or ten. But let's try and kill those fvckers who have taken over towns in Syria first before they and their ilk kill innocent folk (from all creeds) here.

They aren't the IRA.

Doing nothing is a daft option. Open peace talks at least to try to marginalise them - they won't take part - if no ground troops. The airstrikes will, of course, be disastrous and kill far more civilians than IS nutters.

Edited by Kermit8 (02 Dec 2015 11.51am)

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

I agree, that's a fairly poor rational for opposing. London proved through the blitz and the mainland campaigns from our friends across the Irish Sea that it can take it.

A better argument is that the bad guys have moved underground - generally under the homes of people who are not them. So, where to bomb?

And given the collateral casualties [aka murder of innocents] will be a huge boon to their cause and no doubt result in them turning away volunteers [as we experienced following the Easter Rising reprisal hangings and Bloody Sunday] will we actually be hurting them through a bombing campaign?

An integrated and intelligent SF campaign on the ground seems a better solution with bombing limited to token isolated targets and ones properly painted by ground-based observers. I suspect this is what is happening now anyway and will increase. The US have admitted it; the Russians and French must surely be doing it; and the British will have probably done it on a small scale which will increase over time.

I am thus in favour if the sorties are few to support SF on the ground, if only because this strengthens the cause of the alliance. If only we could persuade a pan-Arab infantry force to enter the fray..?

I have recently posted links to the Independent and Guardian stories on Corbyn. There are some worryin developments in the Labour Party. Corbyn trying to enforce a line when substantial numbers of the PLP disagree with him. MP's saying they are scared of being deselected if they oppose Corbyn. The shady 'Momentum' organisation, which is basically Militant Tendency repackaged for this decade, being a Party within in a Party and with the aim of Corbynising the Party. Democracy within the Party being eroded with the use of entryism.

These are all typical Trot tactics.

Before dismissing what I am saying, suggest that you read a variety of articles, as I have done, on Corbyn and his tactics.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Easily said, but you and I, and our children, aren't the people who are going to be killed, maimed, crippled for life etc. A lot of people favour sending in 'the troops', but don't really realise that there is a very real human consequence.

A result of the response to 9/11, has essentially been loss of a far greater number of US servicemen and women as a result of Afghanistan and Iraq. When you consider those maimed, permanently disabled, wounded and traumatised, the response to the attacks of 9/11 to 'get those responsible' has ultimately caused far more suffering and harm to the US, than Al-Qaeda could ever have inflicted.

And in doing so, there has been a massive rise in the idea of the Islamist world wide Jyhad that simply didn't exist prior to 9/11, drawing in more and more countries.

456 British Service personnel have died in Afghanistan. Islamic Terrorism in the UK has killed 57, or 87 if you count those killed in the Tunisa attack.

Arguably our 'sending in the troops' could be argued to have resulted in far higher casualties - So far our capacity to intercept, foil and prevent terrorist attacks and conspiracies in the UK has been very effective.

So do we really need to send British civilians to be easier targets for Islamist terrorists.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]