It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cameron announces vote on Syrian airstrikes for Wednesday , Here we go again

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Or not if Labour MPs listen to their leader.
Cameron has announced a one-day debate followed by a vote on taking military action in Syria , Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has given his MPs a free vote on the matter so they can vote with their heads , hearts or just pure bloodlust in the case of the remaining Blairites.

I'm against British involvement in Syria and believe the only reason for Cameron's desire to get involved is symbolism and that's never a good reason to drop bombs on people.

Speaking shortly after his return from the climate summit in Paris, Mr Cameron said: "I can announce that I will be recommending to Cabinet tomorrow that we hold a debate and a vote in the House of Commons to extend the air strikes that we have carried out against Isil in Iraq to Syria, that we answer the call from our allies and work with them because Isil is a threat to our country and this is the right thing to do."

Mr Cameron said he believed there was "growing support across Parliament for the compelling case there is to answer the call from our allies to act against Isil in Syria and Iraq".

Confining RAF action to Iraq "makes no sense" when IS itself does not recognise its border with Syria, he said.
www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk...






posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

I believe that we (the UK people) should make a single line and each of us gets to slap him once if this goes through.

The very idea of us doing it makes no sense. It's almost basically a "we didn't do it quick enough in Afghanistan so let's do it really quick this time so we look better" nonsense.

If it does happen can you imagine the problems in the skies and the ground with all the planes and troops?

At least it's getting put to a proper vote and discussion this time, but I can't really understand the need for us to do it.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I hate these people so much, it makes me lachrymose.

They have a bloodlust.
It's genetic.
Inbred.

They breed with each other and indoctrinate their blood lusting children into these giant sacrifices.


Scum.

The only people who support this are brainwashed.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I hate these people so much, it makes me lachrymose.

They have a bloodlust.
It's genetic.
Inbred.

They breed with each other and indoctrinate their blood lusting children into these giant sacrifices.


Scum.

The only people who support this are brainwashed.


No kidding,

Russia is there at the invitation of the Syrian Government. Assad might be a Jack Ass but he is Putin's Jackass. Let the Russians take care of the Syrian terrorists and the West can take care of Iraq (preferably by supporting Kurdistan).

We have seen how well Obama's arab spring went with power vacuums allowing the expansion of terrorist scum who are much more bloodthirsty than the dictator that was overthrown.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   
If the Russians are left to sort this out on their own, and they will do so, then everyone else looks rather silly having spent many months and £billions$ achieving nothing except lots of death!

By going to war, when its all over they can say "Look what WE did" and this is why we need to tax you some more!



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
Cameron's desire to get involved is symbolism and that's never a good reason to drop bombs on people.


Amongst other things, but very valid point.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex
I can see the saliva frothing from this mans lips already as the bombs reign down on whatever random stamp sized patch of Syria that has not already been turned into a parking lot.

This man disgusts me,he was jumping at the bit 2 years ago to get us to bomb Assad because of the shaky evidence on who exactly was responsible for the chemical attack in Syria.
He was then voted down in Parliament in which it was something like 250 years since British parliament had last voted against the head of state to say no to a war.
So forward to now and we are going to bomb Syria this time because of ISIS a terrorist organization that Cameron had his intelligence services arm and fund.

The man is an inbred spanked arse that better get his bommy wommys dropped or there will be a riot in his pram.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   
This - multiple 'nations' (supposedly) independently deciding to bomb the same country is an unprecedented development of the (almost) world government.

So the different countries (incl. Russia) have independently decided to bomb Syria? I don't buy it for a second. It is premeditated, and it is a coalition, and I would not be surprised if Russia was part of that coalition, while pretending to be at odds and conflicting with the other countries for who knows what reason (another pretend cold war).



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Who are our allies here? Are we prepared to work with Russia and Iran or will we be supporting our closest allies in the region Saudi Arabia and Qatar two nations who seem to be supportive of Isis ideology, hardly bastions of freedom and democracy. Turkey also seems to have a very suspect relationship going on here too with Isis, but I'm sure Cameron knows what's best and has the interests of our nation in whatever he plans do. Funny how this week he has been presiding over a party that is being accused of bullying, one of the youth members took his own life, yet the media want to focus on Jeremy Corbyn who has allowed his party a free vote. Bizarre how our media works

Will our Arab "allies" help us in any military campaign, they buy enough of our weapons, maybe they can use them to help? Will they take any refugees created from another bombing campaign in the region, seeing as they haven't taken one so far. I guess not. This is another war with so much potential for mission creep and if you don't support it you will be deemed a traitor and jihadist sympathiser. I've already read some of the war monger so stock comments on the daily mail. Hope we don't see them here. Warmongering bullies trying to close debate on the issue
edit on 1-12-2015 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

The only people who support this are brainwashed.


There has been a change in public opinion following the Paris atrocity. It is good that Parliament continues to mandate military use, or not.

Personally, I agree. I hope the vote in Parliament unleashes hell on ISIS. I hope that the debate evolves a strategy for the UK's involvement, and withdrawal once the job is done.

ISIS is an affront to humanity.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi if we wanted to unleash hell on Isis, it would need a massive deployment of boots on the ground. We would need to amass a coalition the size we did in 1991 for desert storm a few bombs from the uk is hardly going to make any difference. There also needs to be a plan of what comes after. The west and Russia want different things. If Russia want to keep Assad and continue defend him, how do we square that with the wests desire to remove him. Are we capable of coming to an agreement on that key issue. I doubt it. When the dominant religious sect in Syria is Sunni. Like Isis and al nusra front. So even if bombing a few Isis targets is successful if we want democracy for Syria, the majority are probably going to vote for a party that represents the Sunnis the most.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 04:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
if we wanted to unleash hell on Isis, it would need a massive deployment of boots on the ground.


Well, that is not going to happen. I suppose it hell comes in different forms and in the case of the UK it will be via the RAF.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

I take the opposite position to you on this Gortex, i fully support bombing in Syria - and i am by no means someone usually filled with bloodlust. At the end of the day, we already bomb Daesh targets in Iraq so why not Syria too? They definitely need targetting so do we simply stand back and let others do it for us? Or do we actually have the balls to get involved ourselves? I do not support random "bombing" though, too many civilian casualties for that. It would need to be based on support from the ground (ie, Special Forces guiding bombs).

However, it cannot simply be a matter of bombing. Long terms plans are needed for reconstruction (viable options rather than get rich schemes for Western firms) and for reconcilliation. Hopefully Iraq and Afghanistan will have taught TPTB some lessons - but i will not hold my breath.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I hate these people so much, it makes me lachrymose.

They have a bloodlust.
It's genetic.
Inbred.

They breed with each other and indoctrinate their blood lusting children into these giant sacrifices.


Scum.

The only people who support this are brainwashed.


If the intent is to target IS infrastructure I'm all for it, not sure why you wouldn't be.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Flavian




At the end of the day, we already bomb Daesh targets in Iraq so why not Syria too?

Because whether the west likes it or not Syria is in the midst of civil war and is still run by Bashar al-Assad , if we were invited by the elected Syrian government then things may be different but as it stands we will be sticking our noses in where it isn't needed.
Saying Daesh doesn't recognise borders so nor should we sets a dangerous precedent and is wrong.



They definitely need targetting so do we simply stand back and let others do it for us?

I agree they need to be dealt with but within the law , nobody is doing anything for us they're doing it for themselves.
Germany has just joined the coalition in a support role , no bombing , if we were smart we would follow their lead.



Or do we actually have the balls to get involved ourselves?

We had the "Balls" to get involved in Iraq and Libya and look at the success we made of those campaigns.
Cameron's plans are dependent on this mystery army 70,000 "moderate" Muslims giving ground support , even some Tory MPs have doubts about that and with good cause.

This plan isn't about protecting us it's about gaining political capital for Cameron both here and abroad , showing support for France and having another NATO member lined up against Russia in Syrian airspace.

When will we learn that we are not the world police and not everyone wants to live as we do.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 08:08 AM
link   
David Cameron has refused to appologise for calling those opposed to bombing in Syria "terrorist sympathisers" last night.

David Cameron has appealed to Conservative MPs to give him an overall parliamentary majority in favour of military action in Syria by warning them against voting alongside “Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers”.
www.theguardian.com...


Sad comment from the leader of our country but typical of the Eton bully boy , his comment also has echoes of Bush's "your either with us or you're with the enemy speech"



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex
I did say that would be the insult to those who don't believe the Cameron line or go against it. I thought this country was above such insults that has branded anyone who is not pro war a terrorist sympathiser and unpatriotic. It's kind of George bush tactics pre the invaision of Iraq in 2003. Cameron has proven he is a bully boy with no idea on how to handle this situation. He's talking about arming 70,000 moderate rebel forces. A very questionable tactic, when we don't even know 70,000 moderate Muslims exist. The USA tried this tactic and it failed miserably, with FSA soldiers defecting or selling on their weapons to Isis. Leaving only 4 capable fighters from the original thousands employed by the US. Looks like it will pass this evening as the Labour Party spineless MPs willsupport the action and go against their leader. The debate has been more of a consensus building exercise rather than a debate. I guess no one wants to be labelled a terrorist sympathiser, so have been muzzled by the Tory press. It's been a sham. No military strategy, no talk about support from Saudi or Qatar. Too difficult a subject for the pm to broach. I've been watching a bit this afternoon and it's been a pretty poor debate IMO. No outline for political solutions post bombing no exit strategy. Poor show.

Cameron is a warmonger and labour have become cheerleaders. All that's missing is the Pom poms

In fact the debate we had in this thread has been much more enlightening with better ideas being presented more articulately

edit on 2-12-2015 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2015 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
David Cameron has refused to appologise for calling those opposed to bombing in Syria "terrorist sympathisers" last night.

David Cameron has appealed to Conservative MPs to give him an overall parliamentary majority in favour of military action in Syria by warning them against voting alongside “Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers”.
www.theguardian.com...


Sad comment from the leader of our country but typical of the Eton bully boy , his comment also has echoes of Bush's "your either with us or you're with the enemy speech"


So are you denying that members of the shadow cabinet talked about the IRA in terms that could very easily be termed sympathetic? John McDonnell, terrorist sympathiser, take a bow...

www.bbc.co.uk...

I don't know the context in which the comment was made, but if was referring to the shadow cabinet, you would be pushing it to say he lied - but then perhaps that doesn't fit your own view on things.

If you believe that means he said everyone who was opposed was as much a terrorist sympathiser as McDonnell, that's your opinion.




top topics



 
6

log in

join