Football matches an easy target?

[ZLF 276]

and is it a good metric? at face value 330 for a years aerial attacks does not seem like its effective at disrupting and destroying the isis threat.

how about breaking the infrastructure, removing weapons capability and removing funds and access to funds that fuels their barbarity?

if only anonymous would hack into their financial stores...

[Crabbycanary3 994]

Morty - I know how it works these days.

My post was in response to TCCanary''s about numbers. I don''t care who it is who lets the bombs go, as long as they do their job. I couldn''t see the significance in TCC mentioning those numbers either

[Van wink 2,994]

Three mosques closed in Paris on grounds of Radicalisation.

[ellis206 0]

7 houses raided in Luton today on grounds of plotting a terrorist attack in this country. What bigots those police are.......

[A Load of Squit 5,224]

[quote user="ellis206"]7 houses raided in Luton today on grounds of plotting a terrorist attack in this country. What bigots those police are.......[/quote]

More than a co-incidence that this happened on the same day as the debate on bombing ISIS/ISIL/Daesh?

[Katie Borkins 1]

And the simulated terror attack in London. What a coincidence indeed.

[morty 0]

OMG, so the moon landings were faked too?

[T 190]

If you follow the logic of some on here because some Norfolk people have backward xenophobic views then all people from Norfolk are backward xenophobes.

[Van wink 2,994]

Cibohponex would be a the term T

[T 190]

That took me a moment

[Katie Borkins 1]

"OMG, so the moon landings were faked too?"

No idea. Hilary Benn was good though.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Bor"]"OMG, so the moon landings were faked too?"

No idea. Hilary Benn was good though.[/quote]Aye, so I hear, didn''t get to see it unfortunately.Am glad they could come to the majority, correct decision.

[mrs miggins 0]

Hilary Benn seemed to think he was in a Steven Spielberg movie for his speech. People seemed to like it, especially when he sat on Corbyn''s lap afterwards.

We''ll see if it''s the correct decision in a few years time. Not even David Camoron knows if it is or not, the same goes for Corbyn. No-one can get on their high horse on this.

This vote isn''t: ''do we do airstrikes or do we do nothing?'' although some political commentators and MP''s have stated this, it''s b0ll0cks along with Camoron''s stance that the MP''s who oppose airstrikes in Syria are ''terrorist sympathisers.''

[morty 0]

[quote user="mrs miggins"]Hilary Benn seemed to think he was in a Steven Spielberg movie for his speech. People seemed to like it, especially when he sat on Corbyn''s lap afterwards.

We''ll see if it''s the correct decision in a few years time. Not even David Camoron knows if it is or not, the same goes for Corbyn. No-one can get on their high horse on this.

This vote isn''t: ''do we do airstrikes or do we do nothing?'' although some political commentators and MP''s have stated this, it''s b0ll0cks along with Camoron''s stance that the MP''s who oppose airstrikes in Syria are ''terrorist sympathisers.''[/quote]What would you do then Miggins?Send ISIS a strongly worded letter?

[mrs miggins 0]

Is the question if I was an MP?

If that is the question I think I would vote in favour of airstrikes.

The airstrikes themselves are quite insignificant, the reason why I would vote for them is more to do with the ideology of west v caliphate; I think we need to stand with the likes of France and the U.S. on this issue because we need to be in the loop as it were.

David Camoron was defeated when he last tried to get military action in Syria; he would look rather stupid on the international stage had he lost the vote today.

What I''d also say is, that like Mr Camoron, the people who would not vote for airstrikes are said to be ''soft'' - Morty has perhaps just expressed this himself by suggesting that I''d (or someone against the strikes would) send ISIS a letter. However, what we saw today in the debate is many MP''s deciding not to vote for the airstrikes because there needs to be a greater push for immediate military action as well as a much clearer exit strategy, unfortunately I feel some people, even MP''s don''t seem to actually think about the other side of the argument.

There are good arguments on both sides and although, as I say I''d vote yes in the debate, the MP''s and people who''d vote ''no'' should not be ridiculed in the way that the PM did yesterday.

[morty 0]

[quote user="mrs miggins"]Is the question if I was an MP?

If that is the question I think I would vote in favour of airstrikes.

The airstrikes themselves are quite insignificant, the reason why I would vote for them is more to do with the ideology of west v caliphate; I think we need to stand with the likes of France and the U.S. on this issue because we need to be in the loop as it were.

David Camoron was defeated when he last tried to get military action in Syria; he would look rather stupid on the international stage had he lost the vote today.

What I''d also say is, that like Mr Camoron, the people who would not vote for airstrikes are said to be ''soft'' - Morty has perhaps just expressed this himself by suggesting that I''d (or someone against the strikes would) send ISIS a letter. However, what we saw today in the debate is many MP''s deciding not to vote for the airstrikes because there needs to be a greater push for immediate military action as well as a much clearer exit strategy, unfortunately I feel some people, even MP''s don''t seem to actually think about the other side of the argument.

There are good arguments on both sides and although, as I say I''d vote yes in the debate, the MP''s and people who''d vote ''no'' should not be ridiculed in the way that the PM did yesterday.[/quote]I would like to hear from those MP''s, and what exactly their plan would be as an alternative to airstrikes.There is no need for an exit plan, as there are no boots on the ground. Yet. Its simply about degrading the military and financial capability to carry out terrorist atrocities like we saw in Paris.There is no negotiating with ISIS, and they aren''t going away, so frankly I can''t see what other course of action could be taken.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

There is no perfect solution here, there will be innocent people killed, whichever way you look at this, but something has to be done

Nobody, from Corbyn down, has come up with an alternative, so it is bloody easy to criticise those that have to consider these decisions.

Yes, we have to cut off ISIS supply lines (arms/fuel/money etc) but in the meantime if that was all we did, then there WILL be a tremendous amount of ISIS attacks, on the Western World. There is already ISIS attacks on the Western World, anyway (as proven recently), so in the meantime, I certainly am in favour of bombings to keep ISIS occupied/thinking/weak. We just cannot stand our ground, we have to be proactive. There will be a case for troops on the ground in mass numbers, but not yet.

Like Morty said , there is no negotiation with them, that is just a romantic view point, expecting ISIS to sit down, shrug their shoulders, and turn round and say they will retreat back into their holes, and stay schtum? Nah, it will NEVER happen.

[Van wink 2,994]

The alliance have been bombing ISIS targets in Syria for a long time now and it hasn''t prevented all the foiled and succesfull terror attacks so I don''t really see how our few planes and drones joining in is all of a sudden go to make our streets safe.

The whole premis of the debate was wrong, if it was about showing solidarity with France then that''s one thing, to say it''s making us safer really is taking us all for fools.

Perhaps we should spend time looking a bit more closely at whose buying and supplying their oil and financing their operations, surely drying up their money supply would significantly reduce their strength. Perhaps that investigation might require turning over a few stones which could embarrass some of our "allies"

[Crabbycanary3 994]

I''m certainly not saying it''s making our streets safe. There is a long battle here, innocents will die.

Yes, have a look at the likes of Turkey''s dealings with the Oil etc, but at the moment, I would rather my main focus remains on terrorists, rather than MPs etc, who have trousered a few quid, and got their back scratched. Their time will come.

[ron obvious 1,517]

On the question of terrorist sympathisers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

[morty 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"]On the question of terrorist sympathisers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html[/quote]Indeed Ron, the main reason I really don''t like the man.

[mrs miggins 0]

Indeed, however I can''t see him stooping to get the King Abdul Aziz medal anytime soon unlike our very own PM.

On the subject of wanting to hear the MP''s strategy who didn''t vote for the airstrikes, I don''t know if it is on BBC iplayer or not. If not, it may be on youtube within a few days hopefully.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

What did they say Mrs M?

[mrs miggins 0]

Some of the MP''s who didn''t vote for the airstrikes did it not because they didn''t want military action, but because the governments case was not strong enough, (in that the strategy was not detailed and solid enough of a case), and wanted more to be done in terms of military action. In other words, they wanted a fuller picture of what was being proposed because they thought they government was not being specific enough.

[morty 0]

Yeah would appreciate the gist of their plan, I can''t access iplayer or youtube just now.

[morty 0]

Ah right, cross posted there.

War isn''t an exact science, nor does it ever go to plan, thats what military commanders are there for, to achieve the objective within the constraints of rules of engagement, and within military law, civil law and the Geneva convention.

So it is utterly impractical, and probably a security risk to give MP''s an exact, blow by blow plan of what is going to happen.

[mrs miggins 0]

Indeed, however they were not suggesting a blow by blow plan, but I do recall some were just asking for a little more detail as to the general strategy the government have and how and where airstrikes fit into it, especially as Camoron''s (much like Corbyn''s) speech was not very well done. However, this was just a few cases (MP''s views) that I saw, obviously there were many other reasons where I dipped in and out of the debate covering I think 157 MP''s views.

[morty 0]

I should imagine it went something like :-

"We aim to neutralise ISIS''s ability to strike at our country. We shall target key personnel within the organisation, its command and control structures, its weapons, and its ability to finance itself. We shall do this in line with international law and the Geneva convention. We shall make every effort to minimise civilian injury, death and material loss, whilst continuing to support and protect refugees and asylum seekers".

Thats pretty much all they need to know.

Tornadoes, start your engines.....

[mrs miggins 0]

Yes I agree, Camoron should''ve said that.

(although I say ''should''ve,'' he did win a big majority so he can''t of done that badly, he''ll certainly be a very relieved man)

[mrs miggins 0]

and also just to add, it would''ve been good if he also didn''t just tell what seems to be a bare faced lie that every MP could see through in his speech as well regarding the 70,000 syrian moderates that he''s plucked out from thin air as well.