Bomb someone in Syria poll - will it work
Poll: Bomb someone in Syria poll - will it work
Total Members Polled: 353
Discussion
I was also surprised by the poll results.
There seems to be an attempt to equate all those who question a bombing campaign, as supporters of Corbyn, and therefore, as hard left terrorist sympathisers, and therefore, in the minority.
There appears however, to be growing opposition amongst CON MPs and talk of them backing Corbyn in a no vote.
There seems to be an attempt to equate all those who question a bombing campaign, as supporters of Corbyn, and therefore, as hard left terrorist sympathisers, and therefore, in the minority.
There appears however, to be growing opposition amongst CON MPs and talk of them backing Corbyn in a no vote.
saaby93 said:
If you poke a hornets nest all the bees come out and sting you
Isn't that whats happening currently - we do a bit of drone striking, it winds up followers and they come out and bomb an aircraft or a shopping mall
Did anyone tick hornets in favour of bombing?
What were the bees doing in the hornets' nest?Isn't that whats happening currently - we do a bit of drone striking, it winds up followers and they come out and bomb an aircraft or a shopping mall
Did anyone tick hornets in favour of bombing?
This whole Syria bombing thing is more about solidarity with the coalition partners and being seen to be doing something rather being able to achieve any specific aims of defeating so called ISIS. In that regard I back the government and the air strikes, but I'm not optimistic that it'll make much of a dent. This is just the start, it'll be a long drawn out engagement like all the others in the middle east, we'll have to send troups in ultimately..
LimaDelta said:
Maybe if one wishes to destroy the hornets, a good poke is enough to provoke them all into coming out to fight, rather than leave them hiding in the nest like the cowards they are.
Poke them, kill them, then burn the nest for good measure.
Unfortunately the nest we're planning to poke is about 3000 miles away from the hornets who are causing us problems.Poke them, kill them, then burn the nest for good measure.
I've got no reservations about fighting ISIS, I'd just like to see a coherent plan that has a reasonable prospect of success before getting involved. We should tackle supporters in Europe before getting involved in an expensive sand shifting exercise in Syria, imo.
Neonblau said:
I have to agree. I'm not sure we know which are the bees, the hornets, the wasps or anything else.
Bees are the suicide bombers of the insect world, they are willing to die for their sting. Wasps are more like the good old fashioned terrorist who just quietly slips a nail bomb in a carrier bag under a table in a pub and walks out.LimaDelta said:
Neonblau said:
I have to agree. I'm not sure we know which are the bees, the hornets, the wasps or anything else.
Bees are the suicide bombers of the insect world, they are willing to die for their sting. Wasps are more like the good old fashioned terrorist who just quietly slips a nail bomb in a carrier bag under a table in a pub and walks out.
August 2012 - The US were well aware of the problem they were allowing to happen in the Middle East with extremist forces filling the vacuum of power. Here is a recently leaked document from the Department of Defence showing so from 2012:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2...
The document explained:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1aDciHCejA
They don't need bombs. They need their funding and training cut off.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2...
The document explained:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1aDciHCejA
They don't need bombs. They need their funding and training cut off.
To be honest I don't really see what the fuss is all about we're already bombing in Iraq, it makes no sense to bomb targets one side of an imaginery line in the desert but not the other side. We're already bombing ISIL on a daily basis, we're already a target for ISIL.
As for poking a hornets nest, I'm all for it, even if the hornets nest turns out to be full of bees. Most of the arguments against bombing are chickens putting the cart before the horse IMO.
As for poking a hornets nest, I'm all for it, even if the hornets nest turns out to be full of bees. Most of the arguments against bombing are chickens putting the cart before the horse IMO.
s1962a said:
Where is the option that cuts off their money supply and funding sources?
Exactly.I don't know how much of their funding comes from the oil refineries they now control, but I simply cannot believe, that tankers entering the sea-terminal cannot be stopped and if necessary, destroyed, or stopped and the oil cargo confiscated. If they are using a physical oil pipeline, then that can be interdicted at some point.
This would at least be "doing something" and cutting off their oil money.
s1962a said:
Where is the option that cuts off their money supply and funding sources?
Hard to believe that the CIA are not already doing this, but must be extremely hard to police this unless you are actually on the ground. It's huge organised crime. Turkey could help, hence America telling them to close the border.Roger Boyes in The Times today:
"Here’s what happened after parliament stopped us going to war two years ago. Islamic State in Iraq, barely a blip on the jihadist radar, gained an “S” and became the most terrifying insurgent force on the planet. Assad grasped that his longevity depended not on a power-sharing deal with the opposition but on the munificence of his chief arms supplier, Vladimir Putin. And shock troops from Iran. And Israel-hating Hezbollah militias. Since 2013, a further 150,000 have died. The world has changed for the worse. The price of inaction has grown... Sustained bombing could have forced Assad to come to the negotiating table............ This is unlikely to be an attritionist war ...Instead strike the brain, and you paralyse and disorientate Isis, expose hidden weaknesses.
That’s an intelligence-led war. If you fetishise the “victory plan”, if you make the chief problem the question of how we govern ungovernable space, then you talk yourself into a position where the only option is to hide under a duvet until the Russians and their dubious allies have done the dirty work. And we already know that’s not a solution at all — they will create fresh fields of corpses to secure a Russian client dictator and a Shia ascendancy. Western passivity will swell a new Sunni jihad."
Bombing ISIS in Syria will degrade their operations, and the risk to civilians is better than leaving ISIS to dump them in mass graves. I don't think our bombing will be that intensive - look at iraq - because of a fear of collateral damage. But it's better than nothing. Otherwise we might as well shut up about the whole affair and leave it to Putin, because we have no 'skin in the game'.
BOR said:
I was also surprised by the poll results.
There seems to be an attempt to equate all those who question a bombing campaign, as supporters of Corbyn, and therefore, as hard left terrorist sympathisers, and therefore, in the minority.
There appears however, to be growing opposition amongst CON MPs and talk of them backing Corbyn in a no vote.
I don't often find myself agreeing with BOR......about anything.There seems to be an attempt to equate all those who question a bombing campaign, as supporters of Corbyn, and therefore, as hard left terrorist sympathisers, and therefore, in the minority.
There appears however, to be growing opposition amongst CON MPs and talk of them backing Corbyn in a no vote.
But in this situation I'm 100% in agreement.
It's not sympathetic to terrorists to ask "What's the intended outcome?" of bombing areas in which they (and let's not forget lots of people who are not 'they', but subjugated people used as shields) operate, including Iraq.
Neither is it sympathetic to terrorists to ask "How successful has bombing been in fighting ISIS? Have they grown or shrunk as a result, has it made a difference either way?"
Where BOR and I will probably disagree is that I do think military intervention would work - eventually. A coalition including the US and Russia with ground and air forces combined with the political will to properly confront fundamentalist Islam in non-Muslim countries would, in the end defeat ISIS. But none of the politicians, nor their electorates have the appetite for all-out war and the inevitable temporary increase in domestic terrorism that would follow.
Neonblau said:
What were the bees doing in the hornets' nest?
Good question. They were probably 'moderate' bees. A bees nest is probably a better analogy, given the propensity that these guys have for killing themselves whilst attacking people.
That and the fact that they seem to have lots of thick, gooey liquid that we'd like to get our hands on.
BOR said:
Exactly.
I don't know how much of their funding comes from the oil refineries they now control, but I simply cannot believe, that tankers entering the sea-terminal cannot be stopped and if necessary, destroyed, or stopped and the oil cargo confiscated. If they are using a physical oil pipeline, then that can be interdicted at some point.
This would at least be "doing something" and cutting off their oil money.
Russia have been bombing ISIS oil. As for Western bombing, everybody in the area, even those fighting ISIS, uses ISIS oil, even Assad. It's vital for the local population, so we've been wary about killing the supply. There have been efforts to stem the oil supply, but they just put down new small pipelines across the borders and there are still giant truck queues at the refineries (not ISIS trucks) and you can't stop all of them. Once it gets to a tanker you probably can't tell where it came from. There's an expose on ISIS oil on ft.com if you're interested. They use an established black market which has been going since the days of the sanctions against Saddam. I don't know how much of their funding comes from the oil refineries they now control, but I simply cannot believe, that tankers entering the sea-terminal cannot be stopped and if necessary, destroyed, or stopped and the oil cargo confiscated. If they are using a physical oil pipeline, then that can be interdicted at some point.
This would at least be "doing something" and cutting off their oil money.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff