He.s thick as **** and his bewer is at sunderland uni getting banged all ower by real men. Not cinammom tea on the morning.
Not sure what you're talking about? You asked if I was happy to send troops in without air support. I replied that we almost certainly already had sent in ground troops.
Do you think by sending front line troops in they're going to clear big battle field away from all innocents for a civilised battle? Isis will blend into the public, we'd be annihilated as will innocents, possible for years to come. You bomb infrastructure to weaken the enemy than send in the troops. It's war, the innocent suffer, there's no way of avoiding it. Bullet wounds kill too, so often a lot slower and a lot more painful than a blast.
We have literally only just started providing air support, our few ground troops have probably been in there for ages. Understand?
I know that and I have already stated I can see both sides of the coin. I daresay less civilians would die from bullet wounds than will because of these airstrikes but that's conjecture on my part. I just can't be comfortable with our nation directly killing civilians. Some like yourself are arguing that civilians will die either way and this is a necessary evil - fair. Others just don't care about non-Western life and woul dtake any amount of casualties to wipe out ISIS. Why do you think our evil government didn't decide on these airstrikes until there was mass Western casualties?
You really have no idea what you are talking about. Runts like you is why the uk is ****ed. Soft little daisy chain makers with no spine just a gob. Sad. Soft pampered little ****s. Wishing death on those who protect them. Just die. ****
OK then, let's all sit back & just allow the Islamic terror groups mass slaughter the little girls that you're so worried about.
You speak as if there is no military alternative to bombing the **** out of ISIS which is garbage in my opinion. There are more choices than just: -Bomb **** out of Syria -Do nothing
