Thoughts for those that lost their lives in Paris

Thrugelmir

cells wrote: »

I hate conspiracy theories but the only logical reason for something like this happening is if they want France and the west to bring more fight to that part of the world. Or they are really really really stupid

The French are already actively involved in Syria conducting airstrikes against ISIS. There was already concern that French Nationals would return radicalised. Yesterdays action simply reinforces the view I suspect. This is war without rules. Dirty war.

WannaBLoaded

BobQ wrote: »

Your comment is a cheap and nasty as the post you were commenting on

Cheaper than one of corbyns slave labour suits?

I agree, i want Britain to bomb syria. We would be now if it wasn't for labour.

The labour party are out of touch with pretty much everything, they went to war illegally and then when a war comes along that pretty much the whole world condones as necessary to stop this evil, labour say no.

God help us if labour ever get re elected.

We need a strong leaders like david cameron and nigel farge looking out for Britain.

Mistermeaner

BobQ wrote: »

the west has to respond to it

Respond how, and against who?

If the answer is isis or 'extremists' where are they and how will they be dealt with.

Thrugelmir

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Respond how, and against who?

If the answer is isis or 'extremists' where are they and how will they be dealt with.

Selectively. Taking out command structures has a demoralising effect on the masses.

BobQ

WannaBLoaded wrote: »

Cheaper than one of corbyns slave labour suits?

Yes cheaper than even that.

I agree, i want Britain to bomb syria. We would be now if it wasn't for labour.

Rubbish! Cameron does not need Labour or indeed Parliament to support action against Syria. It is justified by self defence and he has the authority. Just chooses not to do it (great leadership!).

The world is a complicated business. Ironic you criticize what Labour did in Iraq (also based on self defence), while France failed to support (let alone take) military action at the time, despite the attack on the US WTC in 1993. Now you want the world to attack Syria on their behalf. Presumably you would argue this was self defence?

I support taking action but as others have said it needs to be selective and targeted at things that make a difference.

BobQ

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Respond how, and against who?

If the answer is isis or 'extremists' where are they and how will they be dealt with.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/isr/2015/07/19/uk-leaders-highlight-need-boost-istar/30273215/

WannaBLoaded

BobQ wrote: »

Yes cheaper than even that.



Rubbish! Cameron does not need Labour or indeed Parliament to support action against Syria. It is justified by self defence and he has the authority. Just chooses not to do it (great leadership!).

Sorry, are you forgetting Ed miliband telling cameron and obama that he did not want britain to kill terrorists in syria?

I'm not sure it is as cut and dry as you suggest, not having full parliamentary support seems to open a can of worms regarding law and financial claims against the government.

Yes cameron could probably go in if he wanted, but i actually prefer the idea of democratically seeking consensus after a thorough debate, of which has ran its course, as opposed to labours ill thought out and ill funded, border line illegal, wars. We've all seen the documentaries about what we and the americans got up to in iraq and afghanistan, we didn't have the resources to do the job properly so and even the americans thought we were crap, so what was the point?

This time it isn't just britain and america with irons in the fire, most of the middle east has come to the realisation that sitting around and watching the west spend money isn't going to solve their problems, why else do you think Iran, russia and gulf states are getting involved? Yes France was idle back in the day, but they have shown that they have changed their foreign policy, mali is a prime example of them looking to make a difference.

The west and eastern allies, even communist russia, could team up together in an orderly fashion with combined resources and sift through these countries taking out the majority of the filth with ease. America and the UK could not do it on their own.

Action needs to be taken, the world can no longer allow fundamental terrorists claiming to be acting on behalf of allah to continue blowing up people, whether in muslim countries or in the west. Enough is enough.

Maggie thatcher would have threw the kitchen sink at isis. She'd have never sent 10,000 british troops to defend an area the size of wales when 40,000 were needed, as blair continually did in afghanistan. What a waste of time.

Sapphire

Blacklight wrote: »

Poland already have.

"We'll accept (refugees only) if we have security guarantees. This is a key condition, and today a question mark has been put next to it all around Europe,"

Not sure what guarantee you can give?

Poland would not have accepted them anyway – the Polish people would refuse to do so. Poland and other Eastern European countries know what occupation by foreign powers is like. Their history is quite different from that of Western Europe. Poland, for instance, ceased to exist as a country in the 19th century, when she was divided up between Russia, Prussia and Austria-Hungary, regained her freedom in the First World War, only to lose it again to Germany, then Russia in the Second World War, which was followed by occupation by the Soviet Union, AKA Russia, for decades. Such events caused enormous loss of life and horrendous suffering to the population. This is something that people in the West (at least in Britain) have little knowledge about, but is deeply embedded in the Polish soul. In addition, under Sobieski in the 17th century, Poland stood as a bastion against the Ottoman empire and finally repelled it.

Small wonder that the Eastern European countries are strongly against yet another invasion. Additionally, they never colonised anyone, so had little contact with non-Europeans. Consequently, they do not have 'guilt feelings' about colonisation which are largely responsible for 'PC/liberal-leftie thinking' in Britain, where people of that bent think that everyone is like them and will generally think like them unless they have been 'traumatised' in some way, usually by something that the West is alleged to have done. They don't consider that some societies have always been tribal and sectarian. Despite giving rise to the world's greatest earliest, extraordinary civilisations long before Europeans had emerged from the mud, the people of the Near and Middle East have always (right back to the Bronze Age) needed strong rule in order to prevent chaos and massive sectarian conflict. Unfortunately, unless the West becomes more clued in very quickly, it is going to receive a very rude awakening…

Moby

Sapphire wrote: »

Please – don't compare them to any animals. They are filth and need to be eradicated from the face of the Earth. In the meantime, Europe needs to secure its borders and must not allow anyone else in from the Middle East and Africa, unless they are very securely vetted and have legitimate business in Europe. Some individual countries who have become used to invasions over the centuries have wisely done this already. I'm afraid PC and 'liberal values' are not something that these barbarians have, and they must be dealt with in a way that will match their own level of barbarity. If this doesn't happen, this situation will get even worse for Europe and will ultimately require much harsher measures. Enough is enough.

And come on Putin…

I love animals. They are my passion in life, especially my three dogs! Animals never ever behave the way those individuals did. The fact is there are people living amongst us who hate us. The killers of Lee Rigby were part of the same phenomenon. One thing I dont get, probably through naivety........But bombing ISIS in Syria has been going on for months and months using sophisticated drones etc. Why are they still there and able to still fight back. Why havent they been eliminated?

Generali

Moby wrote: »

I love animals. They are my passion in life, especially my three dogs! Animals never ever behave the way those individuals did. The fact is there are people living amongst us who hate us. The killers of Lee Rigby were part of the same phenomenon. One thing I dont get, probably through naivety........But bombing ISIS in Syria has been going on for months and months using sophisticated drones etc. Why are they still there and able to still fight back. Why havent they been eliminated?

Mostly, IMHO, because they have moved the battlefield.

An army as we like to think of it fights against other armies in the open. ISIS, Al Qaeda and others see all of us as their enemy not just our armies. All of us are fair game whether Muslim, Christian, agnostic if we are not them. The more people they can kill in the most graphic possible way the better they like it.

They don't wear a uniform because they don't want to fight, they just want to kill everyone that isn't them. It's an extension of the mentality that puts missiles in schools. The whole idea is to force the enemy away from moral decency and it works. By acting so disgustingly they force a response. NATO responds by, perhaps, bombing a leader ISIS and kills a couple of civilians at the same time or maybe accidentally attacks a hospital or a school leaving scores dead. ISIS can then point to a moral equivalence between themselves and the enemy, you and me.

Make no mistake, ISIS would be very happy to see you decapitated with a bread knife.