hypochondriac

It's one of many aims all of which they are utterly devoted to and they are prepared to die to achieve them.

I'd like to see him sign a contract with an agreement in place that we will let him leave for the national team job. That may suit both parties.

The ira aren't isis.

Bellend alert.

I don't really let it worry me. As you say it isn't going to change in our lifetime so let's just enjoy our own lives rather than worrying about something which in the scheme of things doesn't really matter.

I can believe that.

Maybe we should have an election to shut them up. She would win by a landslide and they couldn't whinge anymore.

You're just sore because you come up with a half baked idea with no substance and the someone calls you out on it. I'm perfectly chilled out thanks for asking but I'm going to say you're talking nonsense if that's what it is. Terrorist actions in the West will not be lessened by taking no or ineffective action but a coordinated response has a good chance of causing major disruption to isis and preventing them from terrorism both in Syria and over here (indeed, if what Cameron says is the truth, this recent action was taken to prevent such an atrocity over here.) taking action in Syria clearly has downsides, and there will be numerous negatives. My contention is that to do nothing or take ineffective action will have far more downsides in the short, medium and long term and it's a view shared by a majority of the British public IMO (and if recent polls are to be believed.)

I said I'd take the consequences of taking action which to my mind is much better than the consequences of inaction (which is effectively what you are advocating through your ineffective trade embargo idea.) silly hypothetical scenarios about my own family have no relevance here. You've been told more than once that no one expects them all to be taken out quickly and easily but I believe you are wilfully remaining ignorant of this. It's pretty simple, nobody wants to go to war or believes that it is some sort of easy or simple solution. War is hard, horrible and causes needless deaths. However it is the opinion I would suggest of the majority that it is the lesser of two evils in this case since other methods are clearly ineffective and action needs to be taken asap to stop some of these atrocities as well as lessening the threat to the west.

Did they decide on twenty because that was an agreed number or was it because it half rhymed with plenty is a good slogan?

The Charles letters to the pm did make me laugh. They built it up as some huge thing and then it was basically him looking after some badgers. You are right, they essentially have no influence.

It's not ridiculously hypothetical it's just hypothetical. It strikes me that you are quite jealous of Liz. Are you descended from a downtrodden serf who was persecuted in the distant past?

Would you like to be king mlg?

Surviving that long with the eyes of the world on you without going bat**** mental for one.

Pathetic reply from you as usual. I said it was my idea of hell abd personally I value my personal freedom and my privacy over any sort of money. It's by no means the worst life in the world but it's not one I would ever want for myself.

Well living in a guilded cage for that entire time. I have mixed feelings over the monarchy but I can't say it's a job I'd like to do. The intrusion etc sounds like my idea of hell. It's more than just living a long time for sure.

1. Undoubtedly it had an impact. Most of isis aren't doing this because of the US though, it's a warped and perverted interpretation of Islam. 2. It is just as likely that left unchecked, isis would look to attack the west. I feel safer knowing that we are trying to do something about this situation than allow them to grow bigger and stronger and getting to a point where they would pose a real danger to the west. I would rather attack isis and deal with the consequences than turn a blind eye and then have to deal with the fallout from that decision which would certainly be catastrophic. 3. Destroying isis in its current form will prevent them from doing what they are doing now in terms of forming a caliphate at committing all manner of atrocities on a daily basis) not to mention causing millions to flee their own land.) Of course there will be some who are radicalised by that action but that number would be a price worth paying to prevent this going on for too much longer. You are aware of what is happening right? 4. You're being hopelessly naive again. What possible reason would there be for isis to listen to us, considering that they don't fear death and the only thing they want to do is murder and force us into servitude? If I got into a gun fight with someone and I chose to use a pencil instead of a gun I'm going to lose. I haven't tried it but I know I'm going to lose before I start. The principle is the same here and it's bleedin' obvious to everyone but yourself it seems. 5. No doubt that is a factor but I fail to see how that has anything to do with the immediate problem which is how do we deal with this crisis. Nobody WANTS to go to war or use aggression but there is simply no choice anymore. Just as with Churchill, he realised when diplomacy was futile and he reluctantly went to war to crush the enemy. It's the same thing here.

I said viable. As colinjb said earlier, this isn't a solution:

Exactly. The answer is that there is no diplomatic solution against Isis. The only answer is force. It isn't ideal at all but it's the only option we have.

Can you name ANY viable non-violent tactics against people who want to destroy everything we stand for and murder the West? Just one would do.

He won't give you a solid answer because he knows that a non violent course of action simply isn't an option. I would support a peaceful process that could come to a solution but the problem is that it simply doesn't exist.

No one has denied that. You have seemingly ignored the bit where everyone has said that eradicating it completely is impossible but that there is much we can do to reduce the organisation through coordinated attacks.

Because international agreements, coordinated strikes and eradicating such a large enemy takes time.

So we FINALLY get there. You would support military action but only if it's done in partnership with other Arab nations and the likes of Russia. Good we agree although I would argue that in this specific case it was possibly due to an imminent threat to the UK and so they needed to be dealt with quickly. I don't know how true that is, I'm guessing based on the available information.

OK so you DO agree with 'stepping in' as long as it's a coalition and not just us on our own. So it's really not the aggression bit you are concerned with then just that it's us doing it? You aren't seriously trying to compare crimes that occur in the West with the situation that is currently going on in Syria are you? FFS you must have seen the pictures and heard the stories of sex slaves, beheadings, being burnt alive etc. The situation in the West is not remotely comparable.