Should we bomb De-ash/ISIS in Syria?

Ab. Again, it is God's choice who becomes a Christian. It is a narrow door.

JessM. If you are happy to discuss this on this thread, then that is all right by me.
I will be back later.

JessM, sadly it is an argument which has turned so many away from having a faith

I meant I was digressing pOGS
Soon those kind of arguments are the ones that leave us atheists, agnostics and humanists utterly and completely baffled.
Presume your argument also covers eccentric people with gun collections in the USA who slaughter innocent people near family planning clinics. God's will, so why bother trying to change the laws that allow unstable people to accumulate an armoury of weaponry.
Seem to remember Christ preached non-violence as opposed to the Old Testament "eye for an eye".

I have posted on the God and war thread.

Not with you soon, and you are so wrong, there is God and there are false Gods

There is only the one God Anniebach.

I think we have had this conversation before.
There is the God and war thread in the religion/philosophy topic if you want to discuss this further.

soon, you think bombs are going to swerve around children to avoid hurting them or you think the childrens behaviour is awful so we must kill them?

You think it was God's will the people in Paris were killed ? It was Gods choice they died?

The Haulicaust was Gods will and choice ?

We certaintly do not worship the same God

Absolutely. I think you would admit that they need a lot of prayer. Their behaviour may be awful, but we need to love them. Whether they live or die is God's choice. What happens to them is God's choice. God can save them from death if that is His will. I leave it up to God regarding their fate.

soon, you pray for people you want blown to pieces ?

I pray for all people whitewave. Those are included amongst them.

Looks as if the vote will go ahead, so Cameron must be reasonably sure of a result. Oh well, off we go again.

Those of a religious bent out there pray for those who have only a short time left of their life or without life changing injury.

If the Chilcot enquiry had been published before now, which it should have been, Corbyn would try to indict Blair for war crimes. That is not what Cameron wants at the moment, as he wants to take this country into another war.

18 different marches today to ask Cameron not to bomb Syria. Most of those on the marches will have replied to Corbyn.

Really, POGS? Do enlighten me and others on how the Chilcot Enquiry works. What is it you think I do not know that you obviously do?

Jess M

I do not post to digress!! I leave that to others.

My post of today that you seem to have a problem with was catching up with yesterdays posts. That is a perfectly normal thing to do in my book. So for your benefit and to ensure some continuity of my reason to post re Chilcot I will elucidate for you.

Durhamjen. Friday 16.32

' The report about the Iraq war should have been published by now.

Why hasn't it been?

Is there stuff in it that even the Tories do not want us to know?'
.......................

Anniebach Friday 16.35

'Most odd Jen surely the PM could get things moving'

So , no I was not digressing merely putting an answer to the questions raised by posters who appeared/gave the impression to not understand how the Chilcot Inquiry works.

'

POGS - not suggesting a link between Chilcott and current PM. He was just a lad when it happened. I think he would like it published. Bit of a digression.

Yes you can POGS, I do

Anniebach

Can I ask, do you hold any regard for the United Nations Security Council and it's resolution on IS?

In case you missed it I posted it's words at 12.38.

The Syrian government is Assad! He can like it or lump it tbh.

The Syrian government haven t asked us to go in, America has been trying to get rid of the government for several years ,

What I find interesting in all this debate, is that not many people seem to notice that we are already doing RAF bombing missions in next door Iraq,
And yet there is all this agonising about should we do it in Syria, what is the big difference? just the legality? the Iraq government invited us in.It seems the legality of it in Syria has already been answered anyway.Some here have said that we shouldn't risk our service personnel, well, leaving aside the fact that we keep the services for just this sort of thing , then they are just as much at risk in Iraq.Others say it will make us a target in the West, we are already a target.Others say we may kill civilians, we are far less likely to do so than the other powers who are bombing in Syria right now.ISIS is a terrible threat not only to anyone in those countries( no matter what faith) but to us here in Europe.I hope that we will decide next week, to to help our allies in further bombing missions.

Turkey is now looking unstable.

With regard to the Syrian issue, I presume that action = bombing and inaction = not bombing. What Paxton doesn't mention is an alternative model. I find this article is fine if one is intellectualising and debating, but not high on the clarity of specifics.

One can take action in many ways, as one can do with inaction. It's all in the detail.

#justburntthepizza

I have never heard anyone say we shouldn't do anything to try to stop them,

Interesting article on action and inaction and what those mean with regard to Syria. Where there have been other atrocities (I'm thinking of the kidnapping of schoolgirls in Nigeria by Boko Haram), some people complained because they felt we should have been doing something but we were not. There have been atrocities in Syria and a vast number of deaths but some people, possibly the same ones, are saying we shouldn't do anything to try and stop them. The article clarifies some of my thinking. It is by David Paxton and is published in the online magazine for free thought, Quillete.