Bomb someone in Syria poll - will it work

[Patrick Bateman]

Edited by Patrick Bateman on Wednesday 2nd December 13:22

[Timmy40]

I do agree that whilst it's all well and good to be bombing ISIS in Iraq, and wanting to do the same in Syria there's little effort to tackle home grown extremeism, I drove through Oxford yesterday there are references to ISIS everywhere, they even have a magazine! It's pretty blatant, but no one is talking about air strikes on Oxford are they.

[BJG1]

ISIS need to be shown that they are hated by more than just the West. The imperialist baby-killers in the West bombing will entrench and reinforce the hatred ISIS have for them and foster the "them and us" attitude further in the Middle-East. Instead we should be putting pressure on Saudi and other middle-eastern Muslim countries to send in ground troops, but it should be for them to sort. Whilst we're at it we should make Saudi Arabia take in some refugees as well.

[richardxjr]

Interesting view from John Mann on why he's voting no.

http://www.mann4bassetlaw.com/vote_on_the_raf_taki...

[Mr_B]

Patrick Bateman said:

Edited by Patrick Bateman on Wednesday 2nd December 13:22

As said in the debate, putting pressure on the BBC to change the name just pleases a few fools who get all riled up on hearing 'Islamic'. Add in Cameron having to say "religion of peace" multiple times and we have a bunch of idiots more worried about the name they are called than any quality debate.

[remkingston]

BJG1 said:

ISIS need to be shown that they are hated by more than just the West. The imperialist baby-killers in the West bombing will entrench and reinforce the hatred ISIS have for them and foster the "them and us" attitude further in the Middle-East. Instead we should be putting pressure on Saudi and other middle-eastern Muslim countries to send in ground troops, but it should be for them to sort. Whilst we're at it we should make Saudi Arabia take in some refugees as well.

Considering our "ally" Saudi Arabia have beheaded more people than ISIS, if I was a refugee escaping from this region with Saudi Arabia as an option to flee to, I would go out of my way to ensure I didn't end up there.

[saaby93]

The popular peoples front of Judea had the same issue
or was it the Judaen peoples popular front

[BJG1]

remkingston said:

Considering our "ally" Saudi Arabia have beheaded more people than ISIS, if I was a refugee escaping from this region with Saudi Arabia as an option to flee to, I would go out of my way to ensure I didn't end up there.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/15/saudi-arabia-has-100000-air-conditioned-tents-sitt/

They could just let the West use that as a refugee camp. Wouldn't have to lift a finger

Edited for better link

Edited by BJG1 on Wednesday 2nd December 13:39

[Amateurish]

Timmy40 said:

I do agree that whilst it's all well and good to be bombing ISIS in Iraq, and wanting to do the same in Syria there's little effort to tackle home grown extremeism, I drove through Oxford yesterday there are references to ISIS everywhere, they even have a magazine! It's pretty blatant, but no one is talking about air strikes on Oxford are they.

Don't worry, I've also seen the ISIS removal vans. Obviously I'm glad that something is being done to cleanse Oxfordshire of ISIS, but I would have thought they would be more discrete about it.

[anonymous-user]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-he...

[Patrick Bateman]

Agree with Julian Lewis here-

We have a choice between very nasty authoritarians and Islamist totalitarians. There is no third way.

[timlongs]

"The short-term effect of British airstrikes will be marginal. But as we intervene more, we become more responsible for the events on the ground and lay ourselves open to the unintended consequences of the fog of war. Without a comprehensive strategy airstrikes will simply reinforce the West’s long-term failure in the region generally, at a time when there are already too many aircraft chasing too few targets.

And I suggest, just as in previous ill-advised Western interventions, a strong pattern emerges. Time and time again the executive makes a convincing case, often with the support of intelligence sources, and time and time again it turns out to be wrong ...

We have stood at this very point before. We should have no excuse for repeating our errors and setting out on the same tragic, misguided path once more."

Well said John Baron.

[Nom de ploom]

JagLover said:

I don't support mass airstrikes on ISIS in Syria.

ISIS have become a convenient bogeyman so European nations can overlook home grown radicalism.

The danger of bombing them in Syria is that we then appear to support their nominal adversaries (who they don't actually spend much time fighting) in the Assad regime, who are mass murderers with the blood of tens of thousands of innocents on their hands.

By all means if you can identify individuals planning terror attacks in the west, or those responsible for such attacks, then take them out. But the dangers of how this can be portrayed as opposed to what little good it will do means that I don't support a general bombing campaign.

Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 2nd December 13:31

completely agree - if you bomb ISIS in syria, do you de facto become a supporter of Assad and side with the russians?

do you then become a target for the non ISIS syrian rebels?

i might need to duck and cover here but is there a stated policy / Aim of ISIS? if they want an Islamic state, why not give them one? and police the borders and sanctions imports...

is that really within anyones' gift? can they be negotiated with? I think part of the problem for me is exactly that...can I support the bombing of a faceless group of people...or do I wait until someone I know is killed by terrorists?

I'd prefer diplomacy and democracy before dropping bombs on people from 30,000 feet.

and another thing, how do you measure the law of unintended consequences? Collateral damage? Have we learned NOTHING from Iraq?

For all the (deserved) reciprocal hate of Blair (some of it driven by Bush, lest we forget), for the WMD debate and the invasion of Iraq, we might easily read cameron "believe me we should bomb ISIS" in five years' time after yet another middle eastern stalemate....

if ISIS are not a recognised state then its not "war" in the nation state sense so does that even matter about legal / illegal, have we been attacked or is this pre-emptive and a show of solidarity to our allies...

I would prefer more debate and more intel before getting gung-ho...a yes in the house of commons might mean bombs dropped in 24 hours, i can't believe a majority of people want this...

[anonymous-user]

Amateurish said:

Timmy40 said:

I do agree that whilst it's all well and good to be bombing ISIS in Iraq, and wanting to do the same in Syria there's little effort to tackle home grown extremeism, I drove through Oxford yesterday there are references to ISIS everywhere, they even have a magazine! It's pretty blatant, but no one is talking about air strikes on Oxford are they.

Don't worry, I've also seen the ISIS removal vans. Obviously I'm glad that something is being done to cleanse Oxfordshire of ISIS, but I would have thought they would be more discrete about it.

What is even worse is that impressionable young students there have been immersing themselves in Isis for years. They even have annual competitions to see who gets to be be Head of Isis.

[AAGR]

I see that Charlotte Church (she is some sort of singer, I believe ....) is trying to tell the politicians how to do their job.

Does that mean that she will be happy for some of us to tell her how to run her singing career ?

[anonymous-user]

Thoughtful piece in the Speccy by an ex US soldier:-

http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/sorry-but-just-...

[Rogue86]

Lets say everything goes to plan, we commit a world-changing pair of Tornados that tip the balance in the coalitions favour and IS are dead by Christmas.

What next? What happens when Assad and Russia start eradicating all the anti-government troops we've been supplying?

[glazbagun]

Haven't seen all of the debate, but has Cameron said when we will stop bombing should we start?

Is there a defined exit strategy or are we jumping into another quagmire with the extra joy of being in the middle of a proxy war with Russia, Turkey and God knows who else.

[Frik]

remkingston said:

It's bull and spin to be honest. The extremists are not watching international coverage whilst they commit their crimes. They couldn't care less even if the image is put out that they will "cut out the tongues of those that use this slur" - They are already beheading and murdering for a lot less.

They literally are doing that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KovpPJULvgk

[allnighter]

Rogue86 said:

What next? What happens when Assad and Russia start eradicating all the anti-government troops we've been supplying?

We'll have a stable country ruled with an iron fisted dictator. That's good enough for me and a lot better than the st nest with all the DAESH flies in it and around it.

Edited by allnighter on Wednesday 2nd December 21:02