The Wish They Were All Dead Tory Cunt Thread

[Niall_Quinn]

I've heard quite a few alternative suggestions - perhaps you just couldn't be arsed to read them. There were also a few alternative suggestions during the ahem, parliamentary *debate*.

I have no problem with a military campaign accompanied with a strategy for governance once the campaign has been successfully waged. Bombing the shit out of Syria and hoping that an entirely fictional friendly 70k freedom fighters will use it to gain an advantage against the Syrian government forces isn't a realistic military campaign. Similar strategies have failed in the past.

At least if the Government came out with the truth and stated that they wanted to stand with their allies and gain vengeance for the Paris attacks, while I'd disagree with it, I'd understand where they are coming from. But they won't be honest, and even worse, they turned it all into a party political game as evidenced by Cameron's sickening 'terrorist sympathizer' jibe.

It genuinely sickens me to the core.

It's all so twisted and obnoxious and drenched in politics that right wingers are sauntering about today congratulating Benn on "one of the best speeches in parliamentary history." Don't know if you endured it but it was, in fact, one of the worst speeches in any realm of history. A clichéd, fawning torrent of vomit on his father's grave. Nothing like a good leadership pitch at such a "solemn" moment. And this certainly wasn't anything like a good leadership pitch. The poor whore, I wonder how long he thinks the Tories will love him?

[McNamara That Ghost...]

The bloke on Question Time.

"Jeremy...I'm not going to pronounce his surname cos I might mispronounce it deliberately".

[Marc Overmars]

I think it's the right move but of course I mean that loosely because it's very sensitive. The loss of innocent lives is probably unavoidable and that is a concern but for want of a better phrase, what can you do? There's no point retaliating when these scumbags come to our doorstep, by then it will be too late. Prevention could lead to a cure, obviously it's a pretty fucking big cure that's needed but it's a start.

[Kano]

The decision taken in the House of Commons last night has clearly divided opinion with good arguments on both sides, but I thought I’d write a few words on why I think that it is the right decision, although i'm sure NQ will respond calling me a tory warmongering cunt.

ISIS are clearly a threat, not only to the people in Syria and Iraq, but too the western world. They despise everything that we stand for, while claiming the religion they have distorted to suit their barbaric agenda is right. There can be no negotiation with these terrorists. They want us dead; there is nothing that we can offer them in a negotiation to stop them. The only way ISIS will stop is when they run out of bullets or have a bullet put in them. Some have said that we have not learnt lessons from the past, with our war with Iraq in the last decade, I disagree. I think in this case with ISIS, their threat is not comparable with invasion of Iraq; it is comparable with the Nazi’s in 1939. We tried to negotiate with them and that failed as we all know. Although in that instance there was something to offer Hitler in terms of land, the negotiations were a delaying tactic that inevitably failed and we ended up at war. As ISIS recognises no man made borders, there is nothing to offer them, which leaves only option, military intervention. Similar to Nazis, the threat from ISIS is an ideological ones as well as a physical one. As in 1939, the only option left was to defeat this ideological threat by war and it was defeated. While there are still people who follow what the Nazis stood for, it is an incredibly small number who do. We have to take on this threat as the longer we leave it, the stronger ISIS will become. ISIS has a slick propaganda machine, again parallels can be drawn with the Nazis, and they will use every bomb dropped by Britain against us to attempt to justify their group and their fight. There is one way to combat this and that we can all take part in and that is not to victimise Muslims like a minority have following ISIS attacks. Donald Trump has called for Muslims in America to wear a “special badge”, it is acts like that that will further victimise Muslims and allow them to be susceptible to ISIS propaganda. When ISIS commit their atrocities, it is painted as all of Islam, yet when a white male in America commits a mass shooting, it is painted as a lone wolf. This further divides Muslims which is exactly what ISIS want. They will use our air strikes in their propaganda but if we treat them as the evil they are rather then link them with the majority of Muslims who follow Islam peacefully we can reduce the impact of their propaganda while also reducing the impact of ISIS through air strikes.

A lot has been said over the last few days that we have voted to kill innocent civilians. This is not the case, we have voted to eliminate terrorists. So far in Iraq we have carried out over 1000 air strikes which have helped regain 30% of ISIS held territory. It has also stopped them taking Baghdad which obviously would have been a disaster. The strikes have killed over 300 ISIS terrorists with no civilian casualties, going into Syria doesn’t mean the RAF will not continue to assess factors when launching strikes, they will continue to select their targets rather than just drop bombs and hope for the best. I have seen people saying that the civilians in Syria will spend all day looking out for planes and wondering if it is their turn to be bombed, while it is true that planes will be flying overheard, the civilians will not just be concerned with the threat of misdirected attacks but actually looking left to right, wondering where ISIS will strike next, whether they will be captured, beheaded, crucified, raped or sold as a sex slave. We cannot sit back and let that happen. While of course, any civilian casualty is a tragedy, there will be casualties with or without our air strikes. There would have been more casualties in my opinion if we had stayed out of it. It would have allowed ISIS to carry on with their murdering of innocent people. These air strikes won’t be like the air raids we saw in World War Two where we just dropped bombs over cities, these will be carefully selected targets. It is not a case of fire and hope for the best.

The other point people have made against the strikes is that they will make us a bigger target for ISIS attacks. This is wrong; we are already a target for their attacks. What happened in Paris could have happened here in London, but our security services have thwarted those attempts. The threat of an ISIS attack in London or elsewhere in Britain is the same whether we sent the RAF over Syria or not. Our allies have asked us to stand with them, and we must do that. Imagine if Paris had been in London and our allies were unsure whether to stand with us, we would be livid and rightly so. Back in 1939, Nazi Germany posed a global threat and we stood with our allies, we didn’t just say “well France are at war with them so what good will our bombs/soldiers do” like some have said in regards to international air strikes against Syria. We stood against the Nazis because it was the right thing to do, to stand and fight with our allies and it is the same now.

A diplomatic and peaceful solution would be the ideal one, but sadly that won’t happen. ISIS do not want peace, they want non believer’s to either convert or be killed. I actually favour putting boots on the ground, I think it will be a more effective strategy, and similar to Iraq/Afghanistan, we could use them to train up Syrian fighters after ISIS have been defeated. The Syrian war is incredibly complicated but I don’t believe it can be sorted until ISIS has been defeated. Once they have, we can focus our foreign policy on removing Assad, creating a stable transitional government and allowing the Syrian refugees to return to a safe home. While ISIS is there, Syria will not be safe.
One thing against the air strikes is that it will not stop ISIS getting their funding. The main funding seems to come from oil and just this week Russia says it has proof that Turkey has been helping fund ISIS by buying oil from them. If that is the case, sanctions need to be taken against Turkey and indeed anyone buying oil from ISIS. The air strikes will help reduce their access to oil by targeting the oil wells as British air strikes did last night according to the MOD. The sale of arms to ISIS as well needs to be stopped and sanctions taken against anyone who has been found doing that be it ally or enemy. Though just trying to stop the funding of ISIS without air strikes will not defeat ISIS. While we don’t know the extent of ISIS wealth, I think it is fair to assume that with money they will have made from selling oil that just stopping their funding will not slow them down from committing terrorist acts in the short term.

I think that these air strikes are legal, right and needed. It will help take the fight to ISIS, it will stop them advancing further into Syria. We have to stand with our allies and defeat this evil and barbaric group. As David Cameron said yesterday, we must also reclaim Islam from this group, and to do that we must take the fight to them but also back at home we must treat fellow Muslims as human beings, not blaming them for acts committed by these terrorists, by making sure Islamophobia is no longer a thing. It is a horrible thing to have to vote to go to war, but there is no other way. There can be no peaceful negotiations, this evil has to be defeated and that means that sadly, we have to go to war with our allies. We cannot stand by and watch this evil carry on killing innocent civilians and that is why I believe that the Government is right to extend our fight against ISIS from Iraq and begin air strikes in Syria.

As of November 24th 2014, the American military targeted 41 people through drone attacks. Over 1100 people were killed through these acts. Collateral damage doesn't cover this sort of disproportionate ratio.

In addition to that, how do you kill off a group who see death as an honour, a way to succeed themselves into the afterlife?

For Cameron to have the nerve to claim that he stands at the forefront of the reclamation of Islam from these sick fucks is as crooked and narratively disturbed as the men who claim to murder innocent people in the name of God.

[adzzzbatch]

Andrew Neil seems a little bit pissed off that Labour has held Oldham.

[Letters]

I've heard quite a few alternative suggestions - perhaps you just couldn't be arsed to read them. There were also a few alternative suggestions during the ahem, parliamentary *debate*.

No, I just haven't seen them. My FB feed has been full of people saying this is wrong. Precisely 0 of those people have said what they think we should do. I didn't really follow the debate in parliament closely - it was obvious from the start how the vote would go. I did see Tony Benn's speech about what it was like in WWII and that was powerful but even he didn't propose an alternatives course of action - not in the bit I saw.

[Xhaka Can’t]

I am as well to be honest.

The Labour party is an unelectable mess.

[Xhaka Can’t]

No, I just haven't seen them. My FB feed has been full of people saying this is wrong. Precisely 0 of those people have said what they think we should do. I didn't really follow the debate in parliament closely - it was obvious from the start how the vote would go. I did see Tony Benn's speech about what it was like in WWII and that was powerful but even he didn't propose an alternatives course of action - not in the bit I saw.

There was one alternative in my post which you just quoted.

Naturally, you deleted the part of the post that that referred to it.

[Ollie the Optimist]

Andrew Neil seems a little bit pissed off that Labour has held Oldham.

cant say im surprised, it would have been a good newstory whereas it was just a normal labour hold albeit with a reduced majority. I dont think anyone really expected anything different, the media were hyping it up but Meacher was on the left of labour when he was their MP so I couldnt see it swinging back to the right just because of Corbyn. If it had been a moderate labour seat, then I think it might have been a different story.

[Letters]

There was one alternative in my post which you just quoted.

Naturally, you deleted the part of the post that that referred to it.

OK. So now I've seen 1 although that also advocates military action.
That doesn't change the general point about a million people wringing their hands on FB but saying nothing about what they think we should be doing instead.

EDIT: Oh, and I didn't delete it - that implies I removed it from your post. I just didn't quote that part because that's not the part I wanted to reply to.