Is David Cameron a moron from the outer reaches of the universe? (Part 2)

First topic message reminder :

boatlady wrote:The face I want to kick

 
Get into the queue boatlady, there are a few million others awaiting to do more than kick him in the face, some would want to hang up up by his B****CKS, myself I would rather like to force him to do a REAL hard days work like cleaning public toilets with a toothbrush  

It's a fair question - any organisation like Daesh has to be getting funding from somewhere and an effective counter-measure would be to trace the supply lines and try to interrupt them.
I believe that was one of the measures used to try and manage the IRA attacks and has been a classic response to any guerrilla organisation throughout history.
Without wanting to get into conspiracy theories, it's hard to ignore the fact that the existence of a large and expanding arms industry does tend to put more weapons into the market place where they can be acquired by Daesh and to look into the supply lines that may be involved. For some reason, you never hear Cameron talking about that - with him it's all about the bombs and the opportunity to strike rather ridiculous warlike poses.
If that makes me a terrorist sympathiser, so be it.
Oh, and bombing civilian populations isn't going to solve anything but will help Daesh recruit yet more hate crazed young men who will behead and destroy in the name of the strange version of Islam they pretend to espouse.

Who was it said - if you don't learn from history you are doomed to endlessly repeat it? (No apology for the split infinitive)

...

sickchip wrote:only an idiot would compare the situation with Syria and ISIS with the situation in Europe in 1939. Wouldn't you agree?

Ha, ha. Well, idiots certainly discuss the situation, sickchip, but you are wrong in thinking that it is silly to set up a comparison, for by that means one can have a discussion. The comparison may not be completely appropriate, but that is arguable. The similarity is this: we were and are faced with an implacable enemy; some advocated and advocate doing nothing; the enemy we faced and are facing murdered women and children in pursuit of an evil ideology. That's enough to be getting on with. Best regards!

Ivan - a picture can tell a thousand stories but unfortunately most of them may be fictions. Saudi Arabia has been courted by British politicians of all persuasions and still is. We had a brave statement by a Swedish Government minister in which she properly attributed blame to the Saudi regime but most folk allow them laissez-faire. Obviously the hostility between Shi'ite and Sunni is a large factor, which means the Saudis don't like Iran. But Saudi Arabia has every reason to fear and oppose ISIS - and does.
The point being made, about dealing with an enemy's friend or a friend's enemy, applied equally well in WW2 when we supplied help to Russia despite its incarceration of innocent Poles, who were very ably and courageously helping us. It is simplistic to extract some detail from a complicated situation to give it exaggerated importance. We have a veritable Middle East mess, caused by a host of things - not least by the inherent enmities involved in the region and by the dictates of an infernal religion.

As for the babble from Corbyn, he's a dangerous fool. There are huge questions around the bits and pieces his tongue is trying to get round. It would serve your argument better if you spoke for yourself without his silly assistance.

boatlady wrote:It's a fair question - any organisation like Daesh has to be getting funding from somewhere and an effective counter-measure would be to trace the supply lines and try to interrupt them.

I would guess, boatlady, that the powers that be have worked this out. ISIS have amassed a huge amount from the towns they took and have been well equipped by the retreating Iraqis. Gradually, of course, their supplies will go and one way of getting this happy outcome is to bomb them.

"For some reason, you never hear Cameron talking about that ....."
I would imagine there are billions of things we don't hear Cameron talking about. It is unwise to extrapolate from our ignorance. Our dislike should never interfere with our rationality. It is silly to propose that everything Cameron does or says or doesn't say is evil while everything the sainted Jeremy says (doing isn't his thing) is just short of divine.

As I disagree with the idea of Britain joining in on the bombing Syria. I suppose that, in the eyes of Cameron must be a terrorist sympathizer.........

Cameron has said that anyone who opposes bomb Daesh in Syria is a 'Terrorist sympathizer' what is now being described as a 'private' meeting with the Tory 1922 group............
They are not saying anything about similar comments he made during the Tory Party Conference,

The Met Police just happen to hold an exercise, which is well covered by the media, to try out their ability to deal with a Paris 'style attack' on London the day before a vote on bombing Syria........

Just over a week ago there was the mention of Daesh trying to obtain Nuclear Weapons but that seems to have been quickly dropped (Shades of Blair's Iraq War Dossier)..........

Cameron et.al. keep talking about 70,000 'Rebel' Syrian fighters waiting to take on Daesh but are a little coy about the possibility that many of these could be Jihadist who are a little less fanatical than Daesh.....Does that sound a little like Libya......

He was keen on bombing Libya, and we know how well that has turned out.......

The governments argument is that bombing Daesh will make Britain safe but the Paris attackers were in the most born in Europe.........

I can not see Daesh Leadership staying in Syria for much longer, they will move to a safer area, one not being targeted.........

astradt1 wrote:The Met Police just happen to hold an exercise, which is well covered by the media, to try out their ability to deal with a Paris 'style attack' on London the day before a vote on bombing Syria........

An excellent way of letting people know that danger exists. There are a few people trying to play it down. Take for instance:


"Just over a week ago there was the mention of Daesh trying to obtain Nuclear Weapons but that seems to have been quickly dropped (Shades of Blair's Iraq War Dossier).........."

This suggests that ISIS (or as the politically correct insist on calling them, Daesh) are no more a threat than was Saddam. In all probability they WANT chemical weapons and nuclear weapons. Is that too much to believe? All that matters is they ARE a huge danger so why would anyone play down the threat?

"Cameron et.al. keep talking about 70,000 'Rebel' Syrian fighters ....." I don't hear this repetitive chat. But yes, we were wrong to oppose Assad. The cannibals fighting him should never have been trusted far less supported.

"He was keen on bombing Libya, and we know how well that has turned out......." False logic. Different situations. He was wrong to go into Libya to give the hordes democracy.

"The government's argument is that bombing Daesh will make Britain safe": I've never heard this argument. It will eliminate some of the dangers facing us. In our large Muslim population we have lots of ISIS sympathisers and that poses a different kind of threat.

"I can not see Daesh Leadership staying in Syria for much longer" Well, if we kill them they won't.
Can you SEE where they will go? That info would be very helpful.

marcolucco wrote:Ha, ha. Well, idiots certainly discuss the situation, sickchip, but you are wrong in thinking that it is silly to set up a comparison, for by that means one can have a discussion. The comparison may not be completely appropriate, but that is arguable. The similarity is this: we were and are faced with an implacable enemy; some advocated and advocate doing nothing; the enemy we faced and are facing murdered women and children in pursuit of an evil ideology. That's enough to be getting on with. Best regards!

What about OUR BOMBS that will no doubt kill Inocent woman & children because if you think the Daesh fighters will stand about and wait for the bombs to drop you are DELUDED, I do agree that something needs to be done about Daesh.      Firstly we need to destroy there income which means stopping them from selling OIL, plus finding who else is giving them money also money in the millions is not carried around in sacks which bank are they using to stash there cash.    I know some of there weapons they have are from the free Syriia army but not all of them so who the hell is supplying Daesh with weapons of war.   But most of all to stop muslim men & women from joining Daesh even some from the UK and right across Europe.


Maybe then after we have weakened Daesh go in and knock seven bells ouit of them, and just maybe we will get peace in the middle east, a word of warning to those that vote for the bombing I hope that they are prepared to take the flack when the "SHYTE HITS THE FAN" because you know Daesh will not take this bombing lying down which worries me if you take a look at the Paris murdereing backstuds or the two dedluded prats the murdered Lee Rigby on the streets of London all of these are home grown MURDERES.

They will commit atrocities whatever we do. They don't need an excuse.

marcolucco wrote:They will commit atrocities whatever we do. They don't need an excuse.

I agree marcolucco, something does need to be done to wipe Daesh off the face of the world along with anyone that supports them, if you gave Jerny Corbyn a fair hearing he want to weaken Daesh by stopping there money supply and weapons I would take a good look at Suadi and the banks that are holding there ILL GOTTEN GAINS.

All JC want is a full plan of how we turn DEASH into dust weaken them then for our brave forces to go in and finish them off once and for all. What JC fear is of Mission creep just as it did in 2003 in Iraq Afghanistan.

Apparently there are ISIS / DEASH cells in the UK and across Europe. Maybe we should bomb them too?

That is what makes me laugh sickchip, the Tories LYING (which is not unusual for the Tories) that if we bomb in Syria it will make us safer from terrorists attack here in the UK,the attack in Paris was from French born terrorists and the attack on Lee Rigby was from UK residents.

Well said sickchip, the CHEEK of Davy boy calling people that are against air strikes on Syria as Terrorists Sympathizers.

How sad, when the real world is struggling with the complexities of whether we should extend our bombing, we are here exchanging silly jests and cartoons. Hilary Benn gave an impassioned speech, one that shows he has true Labour values at heart and one that indicates he is very well informed about the ISIS situation. In his excellent speech he says that it is with a heavy heart that he concludes bombing is correct, and he generously praises those who don't share his view. This is a man of stature, a leader that would make Labour electable. Here is a snippet of his speech:

Now Mr Speaker, no-one in this debate doubts the deadly serious threat we face from Daesh and what they do, although sometimes we find it hard to live with the reality. We know that in June four gay men were thrown off the fifth storey of a building in the Syrian city of Deir ez-Zor. We know that in August the 82-year-old guardian of the antiquities of Palmyra, Professor Khaled al-Assad, was beheaded, and his headless body was hung from a traffic light. And we know that in recent weeks there has been the discovery of mass graves in Sinjar, one said to contain the bodies of older Yazidi women murdered by Daesh because they were judged too old to be sold for sex.

We know they have killed 30 British tourists in Tunisia, 224 Russian holidaymakers on a plane, 178 people in suicide bombings in Beirut, Ankara and Suruc. 130 people in Paris including those young people in the Bataclan whom Daesh – in trying to justify their bloody slaughter – called ‘apostates engaged in prostitution and vice’. If it had happened here, they could have been our children. And we know that they are plotting more attacks.

So you think that going into another war in the middle east WITHOUT a proper strategy marcolucco should be celebrated, when the SHYTE hits the fan (and it will sooner rather than later).

I know something needs to be done about DAESH, but is it wrong to ask for a proper laid out plan, after all the mistakes that have been made by the UK gov'ts in the middle east. I just hope that that all that voted for boming Syria on both sides can take the flack when it turns back and bites them on the butt.

As for Davy boy when it goes haywire, his back benchers will get there long knifes out and do what they did to Thatcher & he will derserve it. The reason Davy boy wanted this war is to take our eyes off the ball, which is how much he will be taking off the low paid workers to cover what the EFFING bankers & hedge fund managers did in 2008

In 1571, the Pope's forces destroyed the Ottoman Fleet at Lepanto



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto

The Royal Air Force could have done it in half the time, but things have moved on since 1571 and the target is not some wooden galleys stuck up a creek in Greece, but about a thousand square miles of largely desert.

No, actually, the target is an ideology - never heard that bombing was much good against them

Nicely put, Bobby

Like the child who can not wait till Christmas morning to open its presents, Fallon went out and signed the order to bomb Syria moments after the vote giving him the go ahead had been made..............Well, he just wanted to play with his new Call of Duty game.......

boatlady wrote:No, actually, the target is an ideology - never heard that bombing was much good against them

Unassailable logic, boatlady, but I don't think you have ever suggested hand-wringing as the solution to a problem. Choosing to do nothing may sometimes be genuinely the right response, but in the whole of what we used to call Mesopotamia, bandits assail decent people, and need to be confronted. It may be argued that it is all the fault of Bush and Blair anyway, but the reality will bite us where it hurts unless we do something to combat the evident threat of a group which rejects all of us as unfit to be allowed to remain on God's earth.

It's pretty much a repeat of the 1939 Show, which perforce united our Nation.

unless we do something to combat the evident threat of a group which rejects all of us as unfit to be allowed to remain on God's earth.

Granted, it's important to resist this kind of tyranny - but I do wonder whether indiscriminate bombing is the way.

I suggest we know something about the supply lines involved - who sells them the weapons? who buys the oil they have commandeered? why are so many young people in our 'enlightened' Western societies so ready to follow this ideology?

Until we have answered and addressed the answers to these questions, I would suggest we are not ready for random bombing of innocent civilian populations.

marcolucco

re: Hilary Benn speech.

Some call it impassioned......the wise call it emotional blackmail.

"Some call it impassioned......the wise call it emotional blackmail."

The WISE, indeed. That would be you, sickchip, would it?

boatlady wrote:Granted, it's important to resist this kind of tyranny - but I do wonder whether indiscriminate bombing is the way.

I think the bombers quite certainly discriminate.
As for "you can't bomb an ideology" that's true and irrelevant. The people who hold the ideology can be bombed. Unfortunately we have stupidly allowed many to come into our own house, a fault of our silly multiculturalism, but we can attack those who have carried out beheadings in the places they base themselves.

"why are so many young people in our 'enlightened' Western societies so ready to follow this ideology? "

They are not "IN" our enlightenment; they live in religious ghettoes of their own or their parents' choosing. They are not impoverished victims of Tory cruelty; many are highly intelligent and well-off. Doctors carried out the Glasgow attack. They are prepared to follow their murderous ways because they believe the Koran is the word of God and people designated as Muslim "scholars" show them that one interpretation of Allah's message is that they should kill non-believers. This is a perfectly valid interpretation; thankfully it may not be accepted by most readers but there are verses in the Koran that lead to this conclusion. The "young people" (aka brutes) have been immersed in Koranic lore and it is a short crossing from alienation and hate to murderous intent. I hope this explains that particular worry.

I don’t see anything either “sad” or “silly” in using humour on occasions when discussing serious topics. When we were in grave danger of a Nazi invasion, people sang songs about “hanging out your washing on the Siegfried Line” and the alleged genital deficiencies of Hitler and Goebbels (while Himmler “had something similar”). Sometimes the humour includes some telling points, as in the ‘12 days’ listed above. The bombing of Syria will create more extremists and more refugees heading to Europe. And amongst those refugees could well be some ISIS infiltrators on their way to committing atrocities.

Jeremy Corbyn is against nuclear weapons, but he’s not a pacifist. He‘s not opposed to action in Syria under any circumstances, but he's not been convinced by Cameron, and who can blame him for that? Just look at Cameron’s track record: a serial liar with poor judgement, who has never grown into the job of PM and is not at all statesmanlike. He’s the same spiteful and arrogant bully that he’s been ever since he was at Eton.

One report on Twitter claimed that the oil field in the east of Syria which Michael Fallon said was bombed by the RAF on Wednesday night had actually been obliterated by the Americans on 23 October. I haven’t been able to substantiate the story, but because Cameron and others in his government have reputations for being compulsive liars, it’s understandable why some people are prepared to believe it. Truth has been the first casualty ever since Cameron took office.

Corbyn is against the bombing of Syria partly because there appears to be no plan as to what happens afterwards. He said: “There is no effective ground force to back us up...and we're going to be relying on groups in the Free Syrian Army apparently who are hundreds of miles away, whose main interest is fighting Assad anyway." The nub of Corbyn’s argument is that the strikes will not defeat ISIS and will make Britain a bigger target than it is already.

I didn't know that the jibes at Cameron were to be construed as having the importance of the morale-boosting songs of the war. I apologise for underestimating their global significance.
You don't need my inefficient rhetoric to provide you with arguments in favour of action; Hilary Benn has done that with commendable skill and you would learn a lot from studying his speech. When he replaces the unfortunate Corbyn, Labour will get well again.

David Cameron may possess a house or two but I don't think he enjoys a monopoly in the field of lying. All politicians lie to a greater or lesser degree; only a fool would think that Tories alone come out with the biggest lies. Perhaps if we look into St. Jeremy's past love triangle we will find the odd infelicity. One big problem with him is that if he ever has the good fortune to say something sensible, we will not believe him, out of habit, just as we ignore everything that Salmond says. I notice our Captain Kirk had the temerity to disparage Hilary Benn. When Salmond advocates X, you can safely say that X is a bad course.

One report on Twitter claimed that the oil field in the east of Syria which Michael Fallon said was bombed by the RAF on Wednesday night had actually been obliterated by the Americans on 23 October.

This article agrees that the oil field in question was destroyed on 23 October, but suggests it was the Russians who were responsible:-
http://www.thecanary.co/2015/12/04/syrian-oil-fields-targeted-uk-airstrikes-already-obliterated-russia/

The author, James Wright, says: "Cameron keeps talking about air strikes as part of a ‘wider strategy’ to tackle Daesh, but doesn’t tell us what role air strikes play in this ‘wider strategy’, or what the ‘strategy’ is, apart from loose claims about removing Assad."

So what's Cameron's game? Are these bombings just token gestures, so as to be seen to be doing something? Or is it, as one contributor below the article reckons, that Britain is showcasing our weapon systems and that Syria is a testing ground for the arms industry? It's hard not to suspect the worst motives with anything that Cameron does.

marcolucco wrote:"Some call it impassioned......the wise call it emotional blackmail."

The WISE, indeed. That would be you, sickchip, would it?

The only reason Davy boy wanted to bomb Syria is too make himself look big & important on the world stage marcolucco, when in reality it will make him look small & unimportant when this bombing WILL go wrong sooner rather later. We need to rid the world of Daesh but firsst we need to weaken them by stopping there money supply, arms and most importantly deluded souls joining them in Syria which will mean gov'ts right across the world dealing with the Ideology of Daesh. Then send in the bombs and with any luck ground troops ONLY from the middle east countries.

That's well put, Red - more or less my understanding of the situation, but expressed better than I managed - thanks

marco - Pardon me for asking, but I wonder if your many assertions correcting the apparently misguided opinions of others on here might seem more convincing and gain a more favourable reception if you could attempt to come over as slightly less of an arrogant know-all?

Just a thought...but , doubtless, a flawed one...  

Phil Hornby wrote:marco - Pardon me for asking, but I wonder if your many assertions correcting the apparently misguided opinions of others on here might seem more convincing and gain a more favourable reception if you could attempt to come over as slightly less of an arrogant know-all?

Just a thought...but , doubtless, a flawed one...  

Well said PH its about somebody told him the truth,I have thought marcolucco was on here to Radicalise us into voting Tory or maybe for DAESH ??

boatlady wrote:That's well put, Red - more or less my understanding of the situation, but expressed better than I managed - thanks

Thank you boatlady but will add when it gets too hot in Syria Daesh will remove to Lybia its in the right state now for them to flourish with there Ideology.

Phil wrote:Just a thought...but , doubtless, a flawed one...  

You have a commendable grasp of your own weaknesses, Phil; a handy resource in debates. Your "flawed" thought contains lots of truth. In discussing a moron we all naturally come over as arrogant, since we've put so much distance between ourselves and our subject, David. For my own part I arrogantly wanted to create some distance between my own "flawed" views and the "kick-him-in-the-face" school of thought.

But know-all!!!!   - yes, it must seem like that to you down there but I am blissfully ignorant of a world of things. Michael Curtiz, on the set of the Charge of the Light Brigade, protested: "You think I know F-nothing, but I know F-all."    So do I, in relative terms.

I can soften the arrogance a bit but I don't think I can achieve your degree of humility. Is that really needed when we are talking moronically?
Keep a sense of humour.

 

redflag wrote:  We need to rid the world of Daesh but firsst we need to weaken them by stopping there money supply, arms and most importantly deluded souls joining them in Syria which will mean gov'ts right across the world dealing with the Ideology of Daesh.     Then send in the bombs and with any luck ground troops ONLY from the middle east countries.

That's a very clever package, redflag. It is amazing nobody but you has thought of it. What you forgot to say is HOW do we stop savages from joining ISIS? What does it mean to "deal with an ideology"? Why would "governments right across the world" all deal with this ideology when some are in favour of it? Why would we send in the bombs when we've already dealt with the problem? You would just need a few bits of string to tie the hands of the impoverished, starving ISIS. And after all this you would TELL the Middle East countries to go in with troops. You must be remarkably convincing on a doorstep. Did you have anything to do with the upsurge of SNP voters perhaps? Just joking!

Thank you boatlady but will add when it gets too hot in Syria Daesh will remove to Lybia its in the right state now for them to flourish with there Ideology.

That's it - if we make it uncomfortable for the movement in one place it will just - as you say - move - that's the beauty of an ideology based guerrilla movement. And the more they move, the more populations they can infect with their death cult.

Still, it's all making money for the arms trade, I suppose

" Keep a sense of humour."

And I may have omitted to mention 'patronising'...   

The highland midge (scientific name: Culicoides impunctatus) (Scots: Midgie) (Gaelic: Meanbh-chuileag) is a species of small flying insect, found in upland and lowland areas (fens, bogs and marshes) especially in the north west of Scotland and northern Wales from late spring to late summer.

However, as we see, at least one seems to be still active in December.

Phil wrote:And I may have omitted to mention 'patronising'...

No "may" about it - you did. Don't read too much into it - it's just a rhetorical device such as Cameron might use - you know, the moron from outer space; the one we're supposed to be discussing.