In The News

[PVTDukeMorrison]

Pretty sure I read the US has their special forces on the ground in the region already.

They have been for a while, lots of countries are using SOF in the region. I wouldn't be surprised if JTF2 was there, they usually just go when they want to, the PM doesn't even know when they're deployed.

[Hubbs]

Who voted for IS strikes in your area?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34987921

It doesn't matter who voted which way, why are they telling us this? isn't it private just like when we vote 

As far as I'm concerned, if you aren't for the strikes, then I will quote my Prime Minister...'terrorist sympathisers'.

[Corporal Hicks]

And I already had a low opinion of you. 

Nothing is that black and white.  Sure you're a terrorist sympathiser if you care about innocent lives  Or about the money being spent on the war when cuts are made at home.  Sure. Because it's that simple.

And to be perfectly honest, it's that kind of attitude that bothers me more than anything when it comes to these kind of discussions. "If you don't agree with me you're a super doodoo head" is what that amounts to.

[whiterabbit]

Well all the way down here in Hawaii-ne our biggest problem is a couple of neighborhoods didn't get their rubbish picked up for a couple of days. Damn I don't know how they survived. Any who does anyone remember G.W. Bush's "you're either with me or you're my enemy"... no wait, that was Anakin Skywalker; Episode 3... hmm oh right, it was "you're either with us, or against us". Yea, that kind of rhetoric is for 6 year old's.

As for that shooting, work place violence under the guise of terrorism, perhaps? Well either way, just evil humans with easy as f**k access to bang bangs.

[Corporal Hicks]

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Operations/Estrack/ESA_station_tracks_Earth_flyby_mission

[Whiskeybrewer]

The sad passing of former Stone Temple Pilots and Velvet Revolver singer Scott Weiland

[Hubbs]

And I already had a low opinion of you. 

Nothing is that black and white.  Sure you're a terrorist sympathiser if you care about innocent lives  Or about the money being spent on the war when cuts are made at home.  Sure. Because it's that simple.

And to be perfectly honest, it's that kind of attitude that bothers me more than anything when it comes to these kind of discussions. "If you don't agree with me you're a super doodoo head" is what that amounts to.

Its because it seems to come down to two things, these people don't wanna strike ISIS, and they want to allow in all the migrants, regardless of risks we know of. They all seem quite happy to risk more terrorist attacks on their own people instead of closing borders, its almost as if they are encouraging it, its a flippin' dream scenario for ISIS.

I doubt Cameron would say something like this lightly, so even he sees the reasons behind saying it.

[Corporal Hicks]

Its because it seems to come down to two things, these people don't wanna strike ISIS, and they want to allow in all the migrants, regardless of risks we know of. They all seem quite happy to risk more terrorist attacks on their own people instead of closing borders, its almost as if they are encouraging it, its a flippin' dream scenario for ISIS.

It does not in the slightest. The world isn't as simple as that. There are no 2 options where only one is right. Contributing to bombings could increase the outflow of the refugees you so abhor. And could also increase the anti-West attitudes that that region may have.

Something needs to be done about ISIS. There is absolutely no denying that but straight up bombing could only contribute to the issue. Granted, I don't know their war plan. If they have an actual one and it is effective, than yay in the long run.

But that in no way makes something who doesn't blindly agree to bombing a terrorist sympathiser. Don't be so short-sighted or obstinate. 

I doubt Cameron would say something like this lightly, so even he sees the reasons behind saying it.

Politicians don't lie or twist words to their own agendas? That's never happened.

[THE CITY HUNTER]

Its because it seems to come down to two things, these people don't wanna strike ISIS, and they want to allow in all the migrants, regardless of risks we know of. They all seem quite happy to risk more terrorist attacks on their own people instead of closing borders, its almost as if they are encouraging it, its a flippin' dream scenario for ISIS.

It does not in the slightest. The world isn't as simple as that. There are no 2 options where only one is right. Contributing to bombings could increase the outflow of the refugees you so abhor. And could also increase the anti-West attitudes that that region may have.

Something needs to be done about ISIS. There is absolutely no denying that but straight up bombing could only contribute to the issue. Granted, I don't know their war plan. If they have an actual one and it is effective, than yay in the long run.

But that in no way makes something who doesn't blindly agree to bombing a terrorist sympathiser. Don't be so short-sighted or obstinate. 

I doubt Cameron would say something like this lightly, so even he sees the reasons behind saying it.

Politicians don't lie or twist words to their own agendas? That's never happened.

Agree with you holeheartly(i think everyone has)dont people learn from history Iraq,Libya:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-34991344
Watch: Benn and Benn on war (both watched by Jeremy Corbyn)
Tony Benn's speech opposing bombing in Iraq in 1998, and his son Hilary Benn's speech last night

[DoomRulz]

And to be perfectly honest, it's that kind of attitude that bothers me more than anything when it comes to these kind of discussions. "If you don't agree with me you're a super doodoo head" is what that amounts to.

I check in to the forums for what feels like the first time in over a month and the first thing in this thread I see is that

[Hubbs]

Its because it seems to come down to two things, these people don't wanna strike ISIS, and they want to allow in all the migrants, regardless of risks we know of. They all seem quite happy to risk more terrorist attacks on their own people instead of closing borders, its almost as if they are encouraging it, its a flippin' dream scenario for ISIS.

It does not in the slightest. The world isn't as simple as that. There are no 2 options where only one is right. Contributing to bombings could increase the outflow of the refugees you so abhor. And could also increase the anti-West attitudes that that region may have.

Something needs to be done about ISIS. There is absolutely no denying that but straight up bombing could only contribute to the issue. Granted, I don't know their war plan. If they have an actual one and it is effective, than yay in the long run.

But that in no way makes something who doesn't blindly agree to bombing a terrorist sympathiser. Don't be so short-sighted or obstinate. 

I doubt Cameron would say something like this lightly, so even he sees the reasons behind saying it.

Politicians don't lie or twist words to their own agendas? That's never happened.

Agree with you holeheartly(i think everyone has)dont people learn from history Iraq,Libya:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-34991344
Watch: Benn and Benn on war (both watched by Jeremy Corbyn)
Tony Benn's speech opposing bombing in Iraq in 1998, and his son Hilary Benn's speech last night

Hilary Benn's speech was for the strikes.

Many places I'm reading comments from people asking what would have happened in WWII with today's PC society. Hitler probably would have swept to victory whilst all the SJW's sat around protesting about air strikes 

[Corporal Hicks]

Because it's exactly the same situation.  Hubb's world - so black and white.

I check in to the forums for what feels like the first time in over a month and the first thing in this thread I see is that

I'd rather I not have to come in here at all.

[Whiskeybrewer]

We're living in the future where none of this has happened yet lol

[Hubbs]

Because it's exactly the same situation.  Hubb's world - so black and white.

I check in to the forums for what feels like the first time in over a month and the first thing in this thread I see is that

I'd rather I not have to come in here at all.

The situation is very clear, the situation has UN backing with a multitude of countries all fighting together, America, UK, Russia, France, Germany, possibly Holland and Australia. Our Euro allies called for our help!

It was said in the House of Commons before the vote, there were 14 planned attacks on the UK last year in 2014. This year there has been 150 planned attacks on the UK so far. That is one reason why the vote got a majority, because we are standing up for ourselves, we cannot allow the enemy to carry on killing innocent people in our own countries and just sit on our asses doing nothing.

I'm afraid protests, candles and praying won't fix anything so the SJW's need a new formula, clearly they are happy to risk and chance more and more attacks on home soil than do anything, well they are in the minority I'm afraid. Its shocking the attitude from some in this day and age, in this country, makes you wonder.

Another problem we have in Europe is the schengen agreement, freedom of movement between all EU countries. This needs to be stopped asap to stop possible terrorists being able to move around freely, being able to pick n choose targets. The EU is virtually giving free reign to terrorists having no border controls.

[Corporal Hicks]

As I said before, if they have an actual plan that proves to be effective than good. I heard on the radio that they'd been bombing some oil reserves that IS was using to generate income.

What I'm disputing is the notion that those who aren't all for the bomings are "terrorist sympathises" because that's just a load of bollocks.