Can missiles stop and ask their target ”Are you a terrorist?”? No. Because even in 2015, we do not yet have that kind of technology. Cameron gives a green light to missiles is just proof that one man’s defence mechanism is another man’s terrorism.
Why did those who voted for bombing Syria last night believe that in the wake of an attack caused by a select few extremists imposed on a neighbouring country, believe it therefore makes it an acceptable reaction to follow through with counter terrorism.
Because that is all it is; An eye for an eye. The UK and France are condoning terrorist action if they enter warfare with Syria. Simple as.
Cameron’s sickening accusation to those who are against bombing Syria as terrorist sympathisers worries me greatly. This man who is in control of our country cannot even respect the right of speech against inhumane violence. We are speaking out against his stupidity and he does not like it.
As Britons, I am sickened to think that this is now in our name. As our taxes goes on the military, our government is effectively demonstrating the inherently fake democracy we live in. I thought we didn’t even have enough money to pay the young doctors and nurses going into work for our health service? That was just another lie was it?
Proving true what we feared last year when the votes came in on the Conservative win in the election with a first past the post system, the poor Syrians who now have no hope in someone coming to save them.
They now not only lack a government who exonerates violence as a tactic but now face further influx of violence as a tactic from the UK. Living under the existing brutality of ISIS, they now have to dodge Russian, American and UK led airstrikes.
But hold up…the UK being a country funnelling aid to refugee camps on the ground to help stabilise the migration crisis. Is this not just a massive oxymoron? Emphasis on the moron.
How can David Cameron possibly sleep at night in his country mansion and truly say that he has a method to his madness. He doesn’t. It’s bomb now think later. His tactic is fighting fire with fire. Where is the logic and where is the evidence that says this time it’s going to work?
What they are about to do it absolutely no different to the attacks that the extremists carried out in Paris last month. All that is different is that they have a warped and insane vision that it will in some way prevent further attacks from happening. But they are wrong, and laughably so. What it will undoubtedly do is encourage the radicalisation of more people both in Syria and in Europe and incentivise people that identify with Syria to mobilise and join the rebel forces.
Bombing an idea won’t work. A religion cannot be defeated with an explosion. We are not entering into a battle with a sophisticated army on each side of the field, we are dealing with something far more complex. So a knee jerk reaction from those who should be displaying acts of responsible authority is absurdly wrong.
David Cameron should illustrate what a true democracy is in a time where Syrian people do not have one. The UK Government should endeavour to protect their own people by showing that they have the intelligence to do the harder thing. Bombing shows an unwillingness to do the heavy lifting. We saw from the counter arguments that the SNP and the Labour Party were putting forward that there are alternative methods to bringing down ISIS. These include the eradication of communication systems in the country which would not only save money but but have avoided the murder of thousands of innocent civilians.
In more than 8,000 airstrikes altogether, the U.S-led coalition has killed at least 1000 civilians since its campaign started in August 2014. 1000 more than was necessary, as we know from the 150 that died in Paris just last month.
Last July alone, the Syrian regime conducted nearly 7,000 air raids on Syrian soil, 3,600 and in less than one month, Russian airstrikes hit over 500 targets, at least ten of which were medical facilities. They killed at least 500 civilians.
It does not matter who these airstrikes are targeting or whose side you are on.
Imagine if your own town had an extremist living in it and they had gone to Syria to fight with the daesh. There are others dotted around your country who plan their attacks via communication networks and weapons. The majority of your town people are innocent civilians who wish no harm to anyone. But the Syrian government believes that by bombing your town it will eradicate future threat. So you, your family, and your friends will die because of the actions of a minority.
Democratic? No. Well thought out? No.
So what they should do?
They should seek to bring down those networks where the organisation of further attacks allows them to still go ahead even after bombing. They should seek to filter out the trade of the weapons that allows these heartless people to carry out their attacks in the first place.
But oh no, that is not the answer supported by MPs because warfare is a profitable business for politicians. I forgot. The arms trade is flourishing in time of terrorism because it gives armies a chance to make use of the billions of UK taxpayers’ money that is supposedly needed in case we enter a war and need to defend ourselves.
But wait, defend ourselves? We are we under threat? No, but our neighbour was/is and that’s enough of an excuse.
Also those that died in Paris deserve not to die in vain, according to one Tory party MP. In bombing Syrian people it is a symbol of respect to them.
I don’t know about you but if the war was put in my name I would turn in my grave. I think it’s absolutely wrong that someone can stand there and use the names of those that died in Paris to vanquish the actions of the British government.