Ye Olde War Vote - Poll added

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Zed, Dec 1, 2015.


Should the UK join in air strikes in Syria?

Poll closed Dec 3, 2015.
  1. Yes

    17 vote(s)
  2. No

    35 vote(s)
  1. is it any more unbiased than the pro war lobby's rhetoric? I'm not anti Jewish by any stretch of the imagination, but it is true to say that the private centralized banks with the capability to manipulate entire state economies are all owned and operated by pro Zionists. Their agenda is no less acceptable than that of muslim extremists in my opinion.
    If a government's foreign policy is dictated by such an agenda, the net effect is more misery for all concerned, aside from those who stand to gain.

    I know my views irritate many on here, and I'll freely admit they're easily dismissed as the paranoid ramblings of an armchair conspiracy theorist, but I guess it comes down to whether you trust 'our' leaders, 'our' media and 'our' historical narrative, or choose to question what we're being all sides

    If you can spare the time, this documentary is well worth watching:
    Merlin Cat likes this.
  2. Where there is evil it must be destroyed. But then you will go through the same scenario again. The world is full of despots and always will be. You must destroy them, if you appease them it will just get worse, do you want radical Muslims waging war on our streets? The real problem in this county is that the political correct way is to allow the minority to rule over the majority. You are not allowed to speak against Muslims or Gay people, but I am told that as a Christian the cross I wear is offensive. We have become the soft touch of the world. It has to stop. In the late 80s I employed two Muslim lads, they were taught that the USA had done evil things against Islam, one of them was that they had invaded Hawaii and murdered the Muslims! The first thing this government must do is to pardon SGT Alexander Blackman and drop all charges against the Paras involved in the Bloody Sunday riots.
    cunny44 and chad like this.
  3. Terrordales

    Terrordales Nightshift Admin

    vanorak likes this.
  4. Merlin Cat

    Merlin Cat Moderator

    I've replied to Jeremy corbyns request for opinions. Does that make me a terrorist sympathiser?! I feel that bombing won't help as it is too indiscriminate and innocent people will die. I have no other solution. Try to starve them of fuel, weapons and if it were possible food/water seems to me the way to go but is probably an impossible task. :(

    @Robert Parry I'm gay and I don't feel that being given equality means that I'm a minority ruling over a majority. I don't mind (I do a bit! :)) if a person speaks against me if they don't like me personally but not just due to my sexuality
    cunny44, Sick Boy, vanorak and 4 others like this.
  5. Terrordales

    Terrordales Nightshift Admin

    vanorak likes this.
  6. Baffle, not irritate.
    vanorak likes this.
  7. bernjb56

    bernjb56 Administrator

    He was right the first time :)
    Terrordales likes this.
  8. A balanced and logical posting which keeps to subject matter and clearly informs the reader on your standpoint. If only you actually knew what you were talking about and wasnt talking carp then it would have been great. You lost me when you used that religious word. Thats what all this is about. People who believe that their imaginary sky fairies are better than someone elses and are happy to kill everyone to prove their point. Think christianity was pretty effective at that at one time. You mention NI theres a fantastic example of sectarians from the same religion, perportedly peaceful, killing and maiming innocent people.
    72wilma, Sick Boy, Moons and 2 others like this.
  9. Very stupid...resorting to insults merely suggests the lack of an intellectual argument. Not that I can make up my own mind as to whether or not going to war will solve the problem.
    vanorak likes this.
  10. Terrordales

    Terrordales Nightshift Admin

    One of the best anti war speeches ever.
    72wilma, vanorak, holmsen and 2 others like this.
  11. [​IMG]

    Anybody who believes ANYTHING they read in the press or see on TV or here from anyone in a position of power, need their bloody head looking at tuesday_wildchild
    vanorak, Top Banana Racing and zed like this.
  12. Zed


    What's with the debate today?

    The result is already decided, we're going in.

    DC has been abundantly clear that he wouldn't be having the vote if there was a chance of him loosing.

    So we can have our own vote. Poll added.
  13. Zed


    I haven't added a "don't know" on purpose. You are on the spot should you choose to vote. Neither option looks good does it?
    Owen Snell likes this.
  14. Because the question is flawed, in the same way as the question that DC is asking is flawed. Answering no to DC's question does not mean that I would not support air strikes as part of a comprehensive plan with a political solution as well as a military solution, but it does mean no to thinking that bombing alone will somehow solve the problem.
    vanorak and Woodylubber like this.
  15. Zed


    Apols, I tried to ask same question. I'll change it to match the real one if you can tell me what it is.
    "Comprehensive plan" How sick I am of these weasel words prefacing any half baked idea whether it be the economy or defense.
    vanorak likes this.
  16. rickyrooo1

    rickyrooo1 Hanging round like a bad smell

    google it!
  17. I think you will see from my previous posts on the subject that I think it is very unlikely that there will be a "comprehensive plan" any time in the future because none of the participants have common ground about what a future Syria / Iraq look like. So, although I would be voting no at this point in time, that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote yes at a later date if the various parties involved (apart from IS, who have no future if there is an agreement anyway) manage to reach a consensus (or "comprehensive plan").
  18. Sorry , but I am well past caring ,men have been at war since the beginning of time ,nothing will change....:hattip:
    Top Banana Racing likes this.
  19. Terrordales

    Terrordales Nightshift Admin

    Just got this off Farcebook, I think it clears everything up.

    Incase you don't know what's happening in the middle east.

    President Assad ( who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels ( who are good ) started winning ( Hurrah!).
    But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.)

    So the Americans ( who are good ) started bombing Islamic State ( who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) so they could fight Assad ( who is still bad ) which was good.
    By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

    Getting back to Syria.
    So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad ( who is still bad ) by attacking IS ( who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing?

    But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans ( who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels ( who are also good).

    Now Iran ( who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad ( still bad ) as are the Russians ( bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

    So a Coalition of Assad ( still bad ) Putin ( extra bad ) and the Iranians ( good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS ( who are bad ) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) which is bad.

    Now the British ( obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans ( also good ) cannot attack Assad ( still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin ( bad ) and Iran ( good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS ( who are super bad).

    So Assad ( bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS ( but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America ( still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin ( now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran ( also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS ( still the only constantly bad group).

    To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims ( Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good ( Doh!.)

    Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal ( mmm.might have a point.) and hence we will be seen as Bad.

    So now we have America ( now bad ) and Britain ( also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels ( bad ) many of whom are looking to IS ( Good / bad ) for support against Assad ( now good ) who, along with Iran ( also Good) and Putin ( also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

    So, now you fully understand everything, all your questions are answered!!!!

Share This Page