Britain Should Bomb Syria!

For all other chat which isn't directly related to lucid dreaming and the world of sleep and dreams.

Is David Cameron right in bombing Syria?

Yes
2
67%
No
1
33%
 
Total votes: 3

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4344
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Britain Should Bomb Syria!

Postby Summerlander » 27 Nov 2015 13:23

Is it me or history seems to be repeating itself? Just look at the parallels which show that mankind learns very little, politically speaking--if anything at all--throughout the ages ...

Over half a century ago, British, European, American and Russian forces convened to shoot down the Fuhrer's Jew-hating crowd. Today, we face another zealous, Jew-hating--as well as infidel-hating--gang that picked Mesopotamia as its starting point for the establishment of a new theocracy.

Again, America are conveniently slow in dealing with the threat and Europeans (France in particular) are forced to turn to a moustacheless Stalin, so to speak. And David Cameron's attitude and demeanour echoes that of the Iron Lady in the early '80s when she publicly condemned Videla's junta's invasion of the Falklands. To paraphrase Thatcher:

'These are a bunch of fascist thugs and murderers and torturers and they've tried to take a bit of British territory in south Atlantic. We have to fight this. You can't be pushed around by a gang of rapists and torturers.'

And the Left at the time completely missed the point behind fighting and defeating the Argentines in the Falklands. And they had completely ignored--as I know from reading the journalistic Hitch-22 memoir--that most people in Argentina in the late '70s had a family member missing, taken against their will--or killed--by president Videla's henchmen. (This historical dictator, a friend of America's Henry Kissinger, by the way, now rots in jail for selling babies of the rape and torture victims produced in his own private prison in Buenos Aires.)

American strategy had failed in the eyes of the world and the British dealt with scum (even if the attitude was a little jingoistic at home) in the only way that it could have been dealt with at the time. Now, there are many aspects of Thatcherism that I abhor, but the Iron Lady couldn't have been more right regarding that conflict.

In a similar vein, despite the fact that I voted for Ed Miliband's Labour against the Tories, I have enough candour to state that Cameron is absolutely right when it comes to bombing the 'heart' of the Islamic State in Syria. (And Corbyn is the one whose argument is incoherent and a disgrace--I met a group of Corbyn-adulating Marxists about a month ago who bought into the disgusting and nonsensical 'Islamophobia' meme and it wouldn't surprise me if it turned out that the man himself has secretly been working for Islamic fascists.)

For Mr Corbyn's information, these fanatics have already spilt the blood of British soldiers on British soil and abroad. They have already committed atrocities that killed innocent civillians in London. They clearly have no respect for our own way of life as we are all 'infidels'. The enemy has already declared war! (Just after the attacks in Paris, British Intelligence foiled a terrorist attack in London.) So it's either we sit idly by, like cowards, pretending that nothing is going on while they plan their next move to take us down, or, we do something about it while they try to hit us regardless. (I'm glad the Prime Minister sees sense in the latter.)

It can work from the air and we can also support anti-Islamic rebels and the Peshmerga on the ground. Experts who criticised Cameron's strategy based on America's fiasco are simply being unfair. Let's not forget that Obama's administration and J-SOC didn't just sell weapons to the rebels. They have also, via the CIA, clandestinely fed and trained ISIS members in Jordan just like they did with Bin Laden's Base. (The White House's goal is to prolong the problem in the Middle East for profit: they don't want the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shiites to get on--it would be bad for business.)

I don't just watch the news. I read, listen to debates, and have seen enough C-Span to get an idea of what's going on. Hillary Clinton's plans of stabilising Syria with a secular army during its civil war were scrapped by the White House years ago. The Pentagon and the powers that be could do lucratively better! Feed al-Qaeda against president Bashar al-Assad (Russia's ally who stands in the way of American economic progress from Qatar/Saudi Arabia to Europe). Putin knows he can't protect Assad forever from the rebels, the Islamic insurgents and the United States. (The latter are planning the Syrian dictator's future assassination right now.) So what does the Russian president do? Just to the north of Syria, he provokes a country called Turkey, where something 'unacceptable' perpetrated by its government will not go unpunished. (You guessed it, another Ukraine-styled coup-move which will pave the way for a Turkey rampart, as it were, designed to bilk America's monopolising moves.)

So while the two main superpowers coldly bicker--as they have always done because they are afraid of each other--and while both try to have the United Nations and NATO in their pockets, and while both have Dr Strangelove dreams of bombing each other (I'm sure Russia has the equivalent of America's General Jack Ripper), Great Britain might just put a stop to this madness just like it did with Argentina over 30 years ago.

David Cameron is doing the right thing here by bombing the Islamic enemy and by defying the protocol of consulting the United Nations first. He is not Hollande who runs to an autocratic Putin and his Stalin-worshipping oligarchy in the Kremlin. He is not a Tony Blair who kisses White House derrières. He might just be making his mark in history by really helping to clean up this mess or die trying--something for the British to be proud of!

Vote and voice your opinion! 8-)

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4344
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Britain Should Bomb Syria!

Postby Summerlander » 02 Dec 2015 23:55

Well, the majority voted to bomb Syria. ISIS, here we come! 8-)

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

Enra Traz
Posts: 314
Joined: 28 Nov 2014 10:55

Re: Britain Should Bomb Syria!

Postby Enra Traz » 03 Dec 2015 21:05

It's not going to work, Summerlander. The Caliphate will spread throughout the world. In the future, where I'm from, Islam is the number one religion. :-)

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4344
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Britain Should Bomb Syria!

Postby Summerlander » 06 Dec 2015 17:38

Well, I think the same reply is warranted here:

'I am sick and tired of people equating the British government with ISIS. Unlike our Islamic fascist enemy, we do not deliberately kill innocent civillians--we target the enemy with the possibility of "collateral damage" (which is unfortunate and I apologise for the euphemism).

'On this point, the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs caused far more damage--an untold number of men, women and children (including babies)--were killed. (And we still celebrated our victory then!) Innocent humans beings will perish during a war. That is what happens in wars! And we were not the ones who started it! The enemy provoked it and continues to threaten our way of life.

'But here's the crux of the matter. We do not stand on the same immoral ground as said terrorist organisation. If the British government had a super accurate weapon that could guarantee the annihilation of villains only--thus no collateral damage whatsoever--they would only use it on ISIS and exuberate at this precision ...

'Can we say the same for the Islamic State? I don't think so. We can all imagine what they would do with such weapon: they would programme it to decimate infidels, to kill all of us save for those who convert to a literal interpretation of Islam.

'I'm also tired of people blaming the British government for every atrocity committed by the enemy on our soil. They will strike whether or not we strike them. On this note, how would we feel if we were the ones who suffered multiple shootings like France, and the French refused to help? Americans experienced this kind of cold shoulder from Jaques Chirac's France post 9/11--and we, America's allies, expressed our disgust at the time. (Chirac, the traitor, clandestinely sold weapons to Saddam Hussein during his tenure--unbeknownst to the French public, I should add.)

'I've said it before and I'll say it again. Islam declared war on 'infidels' since it was founded. When the United States was an infant nation, President Thomas Jefferson found this out to his surprise during the Barbary wars. The Ottoman Empire, who pillaged European ships and enslaved and killed many of us, suddenly began to attack American trade ships, too. "Why do they strike us," said Jefferson, "when we never took part in the Crusades?" So he and John Adams travelled to England to find out from the ambassador of Tripoli to London ...

'The Muslim diplomat clearly revealed it wasn't about revenge, as he said, and I paraphrase: "The answer is in the Qur'an. You are all infidels and we as Muslims have authority over your nations according to Allah. We have the right to enslave and kill you; furthermore, every Muslim who dies in battle goes to heaven ..."

'I hope I have made my point once and for all ...'
:mrgreen:

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
SunTzu
Posts: 49
Joined: 08 Sep 2015 07:19

Re: Britain Should Bomb Syria!

Postby SunTzu » 13 Dec 2015 01:45

British bombing in Syria would be illegal.... they would need Syria to approve or ask for their help. Maybe Britain should just get over the idea that it is still an imperial power.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4344
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Britain Should Bomb Syria!

Postby Summerlander » 13 Dec 2015 10:49

President Assad wants ISIS to go to hell and doesn't care how many people get killed in the fight against them. He probably hopes that the British really target them instead of playing cunctations like the Americans.

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava


Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests