This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
|
Apologies if this has been posted before funny how certain bombing appears acceptable
|
|
| jamiemartin721 |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 02 Dec 2015 11.16am
Quote DanH at 02 Dec 2015 11.01am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 02 Dec 2015 10.39am
Quote DanH at 02 Dec 2015 10.17am
This obsession with him is mental. Our own actual Prime Minister has literally called anyone who doesn't back the strikes a f*cking terrorist sympathiser for God's sake and Corbyn is the one getting vilified. Bat s*** mental.
The pig-f*cker stuff has just died down now they're stoking the fires with this latest faux pas.... and Farage can't even go to Oldham to support the UKIP candidate without the left activists causing mayhem for him (and this is supposed to be a democratic country? ). I think Corbyn gets off light... certainly compared to Farage.
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.
I don't think ISIS (Da'esh whatever) are the types to sit down and negotiate. More likely they will strap on a bomb vest sadly. I think there are probably cells in London waiting their time for action anyway whatever we decide to do. Our bombing Syria (if decision is yes) will have little effect on a crazed muslim fundamentalist and his or her desire to commit more terrorist outrages. Better then that we hasten the demise of ISIS etc and join in with those already committed to action. It will also require hand to hand combat at some stage but I doubt that our country will be involved. Validating their campaign? Bit late for that, it's already happened mate. I'd like world peace, but it aint happening with all this religious guff. Edited by Hoof Hearted (02 Dec 2015 11.16am) The assumption is that bombing will hasten the demise of IS. The significance of the bombing of the last year or so, has been fairly minimal in establishing any evidence of its demise. Unlike Al-Qaeda IS hasn't made the mistakes of establishing training camps out in the open, and has moved most of its capacity and command into civilian areas. They learned their lessons via the Sunni Insurgency in Iraq and Al-Qaeda's mistakes of assuming 'safe areas of operation'. In fact, bombing an area, usually results in the population becoming more resistant and defiant, rather than cowed. 'The Spirit of the Blitz' and all that.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| jamiemartin721 |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote We are goin up! at 02 Dec 2015 11.51am
Quote DanH at 02 Dec 2015 11.44am
Quote We are goin up! at 02 Dec 2015 11.39am
Quote DanH at 02 Dec 2015 11.01am
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.
Head in the sand stuff.
It's a f*cking rubbish decision to have to make, I don't believe that any government would actually want to go to war unless it felt it had to (it's expensive and extraordinarily risky politically after Iraq), but just because something is difficult doesn't mean it isn't right. We're not actually defending ourselves though are we. We're just killing people with no real objective or planned outcome to appease public 'demand' to do something. At best it will inconvenience IS, at worst it'll bolster them and their support as we inevitably kill people around them. We could, maybe, instead go after their money and income, which objectively, we could quite seriously degrade and the consequnences of targeting people involved in the oil smuggling and 'laundering' are people who aren't going to be 'fanatics'. Its astonishing how IS can manage to actually make 2-3m a day from oil smuggling, despite the US and our allies, striking at IS assets in Syria and Iraq....
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| jamiemartin721 |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 11.50am
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) 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" |
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.