Maajid Nawaz, an ex Islamist spoke well on Question Time last night. Yes, bombing does damage ISIL and help those fighting them, but it will requires additional measure to defeat them. A no brainer really.
I would suggest anyone who has doubts about bombing ISIL in Syria to read this Rory Stewart MP on Syria - Rory Stewart
i didn't see anything new in there. more of the same. we know it's happening, we know how its happening. we know who supports or at least turns a blind eye to their activities. nobody says do nothing. for some reason the usual tools haven't been used. sanctions have been passed over? i like many have become highly suspicious of this parliament and other administrations motives and fear an escalation. i haven't been convinced this government and some of it's allies will be able to avoid an escalation. save the bombs. i fear we might need em for another conflict.
Fear/avoid escalation? There's no way on this earth things aren't going to ramp up. It's been slowly ramping since 9/11. Hold on to your hats boys and girls.
the way i see it, until this is dealt with we shouldn't be getting militarily involved in that. i know its RT but its john pilger. John Pilger Destroys David Cameron, Obama, Hollande and Reveals How They Created ISIS
Yeah, very good. So what's the alternative to military action? Dialogue won't work with these bloodthirsty backward savages. Or do we just fill Europe with mosques and have sharia law? Oh, and America too.
You also need to stop reading articles that start off factually incorrect. The current operations by the West in Iraq and now Syria are not "illegal", whatever else you might call them. By leading off with a completely inaccurate, misleading statement, the writer immediately falsifies his position, no matter what merits his writing may have held further on.
read it again, still no more confident that the currant uk government can help avoid an escalation. so is john bilger another jurno i shouldn't be taking any heed off. ffs what next?
There is effectively a UN mandate to pursue IS in Iraq and Syria. The current action that MPs voted recently is entirely legal. The morality of it may be argued over, of course.
ok so we have a mandate but was the content bull? it's all very well that an MP from the serving government is saying lets have sanctions. just words. wheres the action? has there been but it aint getting reported?. have i missed something?
The content was bull. It was written from the point of view that the current action is illegal. Nothing useful can be gleaned from it, only propaganda.
Why would I do that? From the link you supplied: John Pilger Destroys David Cameron, Obama, Hollande and Reveals How They Created ISIS DECEMBER 4, 2015 BY 21WIRE 4 COMMENTS 21st Century Wire says… On Wednesday night, the British Parliament went ahead to rubber stamp another illegal, undeclared war of aggression masquerading as “Anti-ISIS Operation”, bolstered by an all-out western-sponsored propaganda war, and the importance of faux liberal newspapers like The Guardian in censoring commentary and promoting the drive of war. If you are going to expose the truth, you're going to have to speak the truth. I've no need to go any further into the supplied info because it is being supplied by a liar. I've enough misinformation with the mainstream media, why would I read further guff provided by an obvious liar? Look, these kind of strident mouthpieces do more harm than good. By falsifying their positions, they render any information they provide, both good and bad, useless. They effectively provide propaganda FOR Cameron and Co by providing shoddy, unbelievable and, frankly, flaky criticism AGAINST them. By calling Cameron a "war criminal" on false premises, Cameron gets a pass on all the wrongdoing he is actually doing. Blair was a war criminal, that can be proved. He joined in on an illegal war. By falsely accusing Cameron of the same, Cameron, who has UN backing for what he is doing, is lent legitimacy for the things that he should be accused of. Do you see? Another thing, fin, and this has little to do with the above ^. You seem to confuse having "opposing views" with having "balance". For example, I get the impression that if enough people condemn Daesh, you would have to resist the temptation to provide an opposing view in the mistaken believe that you are supplying "balance". Sometimes, the balance point of an issue is right over there, off to one side. Just because you can argue an opposing opinion, it doesn't mean to say that it has any legitimacy - sometimes, doing so is merely being contrary.
To address the issue of Pilger accusing Cameron of creating "ISIS": I don't need to see the video. I already know that Western interference over the decades has lead us to the situation we have now, and thus, to the existence of Daesh. All that of course doesn't really touch on Rory Stewart's article, which is a case of, "What should we do as of now?". That was what I was talking about.
isnt that what people do? they have a view based on there background and information in front of them? you dont give me enough credit if your suggesting i cant have opinions that are reversible. dude you are commenting on an interview you haven't watched. dumb ass. :smileys:. i am not necessarily saying lets not get in to war, i am saying lets fight the right enemy and its causes. yip. very naive of me. i will leave it to the big boys.
