We are not being dragged into another war! We have been in the same war for over a year. All this is is an extension of the area of operation from Iraq, over a border that Daesh doesn't recognise, into the Daesh controlled areas of Syria.

Polls have shown a clear majority of our people approve airstrikes than disapprove, although the majority may have reduced in recent days it remains a clear majority. Of those polled only Labour voters changed from a majority for action to a majority against action in recent days but we should remember that it was theses Labour voters who lost the election in May by a big majority.

Parliament had a long debate with all sides having chance to express opinions and good speeches from both sides too. In the end a clear and decisive majority voted to back the government action. Misinformation and failure to accept democracy when it doesn't go your way makes me a bit sick too.

We've been in the same war (with a brief interlude during WWII) for the past hundred years. Only the proxies change.

As for this idea for democracy - I could point to any number of anti-democratic decisions taken by successive governments but the truth is the very idea of a representative democracy is throwback to the days when it took a week for the local MP to ride down to London and back again. The notion that a single guy can represent the interests of me, you, the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, BAE Systems and any number of other interests within a geographical location is patently absurd.

We live in an interconnected Information Age - people are perfectly capable of representing themselves. If not - don't bother calling it democracy.

Quote Juan Cornetto="Juan Cornetto"We are not being dragged into another war! We have been in the same war for over a year. All this is is an extension of the area of operation from Iraq, over a border that Daesh doesn't recognise, into the Daesh controlled areas of Syria. Polls have shown a clear majority of our people approve airstrikes than disapprove, although the majority may have reduced in recent days it remains a clear majority. Of those polled only Labour voters changed from a majority for action to a majority against action in recent days but we should remember that it was theses Labour voters who lost the election in May by a big majority. Parliament had a long debate with all sides having chance to express opinions and good speeches from both sides too. In the end a clear and decisive majority voted to back the government action. Misinformation and failure to accept democracy when it doesn't go your way makes me a bit sick too.'" What polls would these be, Jaun? https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/02/an ... kes-syria/ Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria to add to the never ending success story of Western military intervention in the Middle East. What was Einstein's definition of insanity? Instead of killing 100s of innocent people, why aren't the UK, and the West doing more to cut off IS's revenue streams? Could that be because that would mean taking Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, in particular to task on their support for IS, and refusal to take any Syrian migrants? It would, but obviously we can't go poking the Saudi's with a stick, that would be bad for business. I mean, it's not as if the Saudi's have beheaded 150 people already this year, and impose the same brutal interpretation of Wahhabism as the IS, ISIS, ISIL, Deash, or whatever other name the media is going to come up with to keep the drums of war beating. I wouldn't find this whole think quite so repugnant if it were, indeed intended to rid the world of religious fascism, but it isn't, it's to remove a regime that won't play ball with Western energy companies.

Quote Juan Cornetto="Juan Cornetto"We are not being dragged into another war! We have been in the same war for over a year. All this is is an extension of the area of operation from Iraq, over a border that Daesh doesn't recognise, into the Daesh controlled areas of Syria. Polls have shown a clear majority of our people approve airstrikes than disapprove, although the majority may have reduced in recent days it remains a clear majority. Of those polled only Labour voters changed from a majority for action to a majority against action in recent days but we should remember that it was theses Labour voters who lost the election in May by a big majority. Parliament had a long debate with all sides having chance to express opinions and good speeches from both sides too. In the end a clear and decisive majority voted to back the government action. Misinformation and failure to accept democracy when it doesn't go your way makes me a bit sick too.'" What polls would these be, Jaun? https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/02/an ... kes-syria/ Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria to add to the never ending success story of Western military intervention in the Middle East. What was Einstein's definition of insanity? Instead of killing 100s of innocent people, why aren't the UK, and the West doing more to cut off IS's revenue streams? Could that be because that would mean taking Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, in particular to task on their support for IS, and refusal to take any Syrian migrants? It would, but obviously we can't go poking the Saudi's with a stick, that would be bad for business. I mean, it's not as if the Saudi's have beheaded 150 people already this year, and impose the same brutal interpretation of Wahhabism as the IS, ISIS, ISIL, Deash, or whatever other name the media is going to come up with to keep the drums of war beating. I wouldn't find this whole think quite so repugnant if it were, indeed intended to rid the world of religious fascism, but it isn't, it's to remove a regime that won't play ball with Western energy companies.

Great post Charlie, here's an interesting statistic for you.

In the year 2000 - 7 countries without a Rothshild owned central bank:Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, N.Korea, Iran. Syria

In 2003 - 6 countries without a Rothshild Central Bank: Sudan, Libya, Syria, Cuba, N. Korea, Iran.

In 2011 - 4. countries left:Cuba, N. Korea, Iran. Syria

In 2015 - Syria is the next to go leaving, Cuba, N. Korea, Iran.

I think it's a no brainer who's next after Syria.

Yeah, I Think I've decided. You are the strangest man on here, not on a wind up. The way you see hoax in everything is comical.

You do realise, that these Trial runs take place all over the country on a daily basis right?

The way you disrespect those who have died in events like this, by stating it never happened is a disgrace. But then for an already banned once Homophobe like yourself, I guess you have no issues in how low you stoop.

If my post's disturb you i suggest you press the FOE button. But no you love stalking me.

How much of that is definite? I'm not saying it's not possible but we, as a culture, like to assume that things like this are driven by one point of source. My feeling would be that it's very possible a connection with the banks, the lumping of this all onto the Rothschilds seems too convenient, almost anti-semetic. I'm certainly not discounting the involvement of their banks but I'd expect it to involve other big financial interests as well.

It's the easiest thing in the world to cut off ISIS revenue streams. Stop paying them.

Technically speaking the enemy here is Russia and/or China (depending on which day of the week it is). We've been fighting the Big Red Bear and the threat of Russian expansion into our geopolitical sphere of influence since the Crimean campaign and before. The "Great Game" never ended and we'd be fighting Putin's armies right now if it weren't for the darned inconvenience of nuclear weapons which immediately ended war.

I'll say that again just in case people mistake the above for a typo.

[uNuclear weapons ended war. [/u

So what are we doing right now in Syria you ask?

Genocide. Plain and simple.

Wars are fought between the standing armies of states which target each other until the resources of the state in question are exhausted. But ever since the introduction of atomic weapons "war" has increasingly become a process whereby standing armies target civilians. Take a look at the civilian casualty rates since WWI. At the turn of last century less than 10% of casualties in war were civilian. During WWII this percentage climbed into double figures (mainly through the area bombing campaigns of the Allies and Axis powers). Then in Korea & Vietnam the proportion of civilian deaths jumped dramatically to nearly fifty percent with the emergence of "Counter-Insurgency Warfare". Counter-insurgency warfare is a war against civilians.

Why target civilians you ask? [iBecause we daren't target other states for fear of total annhilation just as we daren't STOP fighting because the profits derived from killing are the lifeblood of the global economy. [/iSomehow we've locked ourselves into a death-spiral which WILL lead to the extinction of our species.

What's taking place right now in the Middle East is a sick and twisted parody of war whereby the superpowers (all of which are fully cognizent of this fantasy and yet enthusiastically play along anyway) are literally shoving millions of people into the meatgrinder - for profit. And if you have any doubt about the validity of this argument - the civilian casualty rate has now climbed over the 90% mark. The US military now makes no attempt whatsoever to count the number of civilians killed because of this reason.

I have some very real criticisms of Jeremy Scahill and his crowd but he did the world a service with his documentary film, "Dirty Wars" where the startling admission is made that the US ran "literally thousands" of special forces counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan which can only be described as death squads. I mean, you'd think by now people would begin to wonder how it can it be possible for so many innocent people to be wiped out at weddings and other functions by a Predator missile without wondering how "mistaken" the targetting really is ...

Just look at both the Vietnam & Korean wars. During both you saw generals on both sides PLEADING with US & Soviet leaders to deploy atomic weapons which would have ended both conflicts toot sweet. Thankfully sanity prevailed - but ONLY AT THE EXPENSE OF MILLIONS of people who were needlessly slaughtered because these campaigns were allowed to drag on FOR YEARS specifically to allow the war profiteers to earn their blood money.

It's strange how you have no response to any comments I make. Just use you and your Alter Ego Mugwumps tragic stalker angle.

Oh so we're playing the race card now are we, you're stooping that low trying to silence my views and opinions, Let me make this absolutely clear from the very start, to disable the reflexes of the permanently morally outraged and the political correctness police - I do not hate Jews. Any Jew that is a good person and doesn't have a problem with me in general I have no quarrel with, and I am not encouraging hatred towards Jews. I'm addressing the word anti-Semitism and how it is deceitfully used with a political motive, rather than a genuine desire to do good.

Let's start with a little anthropology shall we. The words "Semite" and "Semitic" refer to one of the 3 sub-races of the Caucasoid race, the Semites, and their languages. Semitic peoples include Arabs, Syriacs, Assyrians, Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews, and more. Now, many Jews have of course mixed with White Europeans and other races over the centuries. But ethnic Jews are mainly Semitic. The word "anti-Semitism" means to be against the Semitic people and their culture (NOT Jews). I often hear Zionists accusing every high-profile Arab who stands up to them of being "anti-Semitic", but how on Earth can an Arab be anti-Semitic Arabs ARE Semites. He would have to hate his own people. It is absurd, it is like a German accusing an Englishman of being anti-European. It's devoid of logic.

The reason some people are so willing to throw around the anti-Semitic label, is simple, it's a very effective silencer. It's the same as how the word "racism" has been used wrongly so much and so often, it's now meaningless because some people don't know the meaning of the word, and misapply the word either through genuine ignorance, or through malevolence and to achieve political goals. People are terrified of being labelled racist, so they shut up and walk away from the debate, which is exactly what those who utilise this disgusting tactic so often want. Anti-Semitism is used in the same way, and I'd argue it's even more extreme than the word racism because the people who brand others as anti-Semitic imply similarities to Hitler and the Nazis. If you criticise Israeli slaughter of Palestinians, you must be anti-Semitic like Hitler and want to kill 5 million Jews. For some people with a lack of courage or conviction, or those who perhaps just desire an easy life, this is obviously daunting and they will surrender rather than be labelled as an anti-Semite. It's very fruitful, and usually works. It is used all the time to smother legitimate investigation and criticism of Zionism, or perhaps the genuinely racist and psychopathic words of the Talmud. Why should Jews be exempt from the criticisms and analysis other peoples face ?

I do not believe there is a Jewish question for sensible people., Zionism is the enemy. Not all trees in the forest are diseased
Not all Jews are Zionists, Its entirely relevant to any discussion of Zionism and Judaism, as not all Zionists are Jews.


I conclude that the word is a total sham, and it is used by those with malicious intent, and those who just want to be seen to be politically correct. It is a weapon of the intellectual weakling, and a deplorable method of suffocating debate.

Quote Charlie Sheen="Charlie Sheen"What polls would these be, Jaun? https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/02/an ... kes-syria/ Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria to add to the never ending success story of Western military intervention in the Middle East. What was Einstein's definition of insanity? Instead of killing 100s of innocent people, why aren't the UK, and the West doing more to cut off IS's revenue streams? Could that be because that would mean taking Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, in particular to task on their support for IS, and refusal to take any Syrian migrants? It would, but obviously we can't go poking the Saudi's with a stick, that would be bad for business. I mean, it's not as if the Saudi's have beheaded 150 people already this year, and impose the same brutal interpretation of Wahhabism as the IS, ISIS, ISIL, Deash, or whatever other name the media is going to come up with to keep the drums of war beating. I wouldn't find this whole think quite so repugnant if it were, indeed intended to rid the world of religious fascism, but it isn't, it's to remove a regime that won't play ball with Western energy companies.'" Yes the same You Gov poll on Nov 17 showed 59% approval for action and 20% disapproval. This fell on Dec 1st to 48% approval and 31% disapproval a fall but a clear majority as I said. It should be noted that this same You Gov got it horribly wrong at the general election. So still no evidence that the majority of the public were against us taking action in Syria as you stated. To lump Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya together and regard this as a bad precedent fails to see that this is an entirely different conflict. Mistakes of the past should not mean you just lay down and refuse to fight or take our share of responsibility with our allies that have requested help. The RAF has been flying missions against Daesh for over a year and so far there have been no recorded civilian casualties. Testament to our tight rules of engagement, unique Brimstone missiles and the very high levels of skill demonstrated by our brave aircrews. Having said that you cannot guarantee this can continue against an enemy that uses civilians as human shields. I note you do not choose to regard as important the large numbers of innocent civilians that have been murdered by Daesh including 1000s of innocent Syrians in extremely cruel and barbaric ways. Nobody has said that bombing is a solution in its self. There are several other coordinated attempts at both political and financial strategies going on at the same time in what is a very complex mess. However to do nothing is not a sensible or moral option in my opinion as we face a clear and present danger. History should have taught us that when faced with real evil to look the other way and hope it goes away does not work. With regard to cutting off the revenue streams...well the first mission flown by the RAF last night was aimed at doing just that as they attacked one of the oil fields controlled by Daesh that funds so much of their revenue streams. I do not follow your statement about us trying to get rid of Daesh because they are not playing ball with western energy companies... whats that all about? And are you suggesting that we should poke the Saudi's with a stick? and in any case what has this to do with our limited and specific action against Daesh

Quote Charlie Sheen="Charlie Sheen"What polls would these be, Jaun? https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/02/an ... kes-syria/ Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria to add to the never ending success story of Western military intervention in the Middle East. What was Einstein's definition of insanity? Instead of killing 100s of innocent people, why aren't the UK, and the West doing more to cut off IS's revenue streams? Could that be because that would mean taking Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, in particular to task on their support for IS, and refusal to take any Syrian migrants? It would, but obviously we can't go poking the Saudi's with a stick, that would be bad for business. I mean, it's not as if the Saudi's have beheaded 150 people already this year, and impose the same brutal interpretation of Wahhabism as the IS, ISIS, ISIL, Deash, or whatever other name the media is going to come up with to keep the drums of war beating. I wouldn't find this whole think quite so repugnant if it were, indeed intended to rid the world of religious fascism, but it isn't, it's to remove a regime that won't play ball with Western energy companies.'" Yes the same You Gov poll on Nov 17 showed 59% approval for action and 20% disapproval. This fell on Dec 1st to 48% approval and 31% disapproval a fall but a clear majority as I said. It should be noted that this same You Gov got it horribly wrong at the general election. So still no evidence that the majority of the public were against us taking action in Syria as you stated. To lump Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya together and regard this as a bad precedent fails to see that this is an entirely different conflict. Mistakes of the past should not mean you just lay down and refuse to fight or take our share of responsibility with our allies that have requested help. The RAF has been flying missions against Daesh for over a year and so far there have been no recorded civilian casualties. Testament to our tight rules of engagement, unique Brimstone missiles and the very high levels of skill demonstrated by our brave aircrews. Having said that you cannot guarantee this can continue against an enemy that uses civilians as human shields. I note you do not choose to regard as important the large numbers of innocent civilians that have been murdered by Daesh including 1000s of innocent Syrians in extremely cruel and barbaric ways. Nobody has said that bombing is a solution in its self. There are several other coordinated attempts at both political and financial strategies going on at the same time in what is a very complex mess. However to do nothing is not a sensible or moral option in my opinion as we face a clear and present danger. History should have taught us that when faced with real evil to look the other way and hope it goes away does not work. With regard to cutting off the revenue streams...well the first mission flown by the RAF last night was aimed at doing just that as they attacked one of the oil fields controlled by Daesh that funds so much of their revenue streams. I do not follow your statement about us trying to get rid of Daesh because they are not playing ball with western energy companies... whats that all about? And are you suggesting that we should poke the Saudi's with a stick? and in any case what has this to do with our limited and specific action against Daesh

You cant kill an ideology. Especially by trying to bomb it

Regards

King james