Bomb someone in Syria poll - will it work

[saaby93]

Do bombs usually solve wars or strengthen the people being bombed

[Hoofy]

I can't remember who was quoted as saying something along the lines of if he went into a village of 50-100, he might convince 1 or 2 to pick up arms against the US. A single US bomb killing a handful of villagers would convert the entire village to his cause.

[LimaDelta]

Hoofy said:

I can't remember who was quoted as saying something along the lines of if he went into a village of 50-100, he might convince 1 or 2 to pick up arms against the US. A single US bomb killing a handful of villagers would convert the entire village to his cause.

...and the more that convert to the cause, the more we can bomb! Win-win, everyone is happy!

[gruffalo]

We probably have a few bombs that are approaching their use by date so why not use them in a show of solidarity with what is rapidly becoming a world wide coalition if we can weaken the leadership of IS then maybe just maybe the rest of the Arab community will step up to the plate and provide a well armed, well supported and well trained disciplined peace keeping force.

But then again Arab army and well trained and well disciplined may be asking a bit much, probably end up with a bunch of blokes shooting their guns in the air cheering wildly because they just managed to take a dump and wipe their own arse. A bit of trouble turns up and I would not trust a local force to do anything other than run away.

So in summary I think we are all doomed.

Edited by gruffalo on Tuesday 1st December 15:40

[BOR]

Of course it won't work. Any clear targets will have been bombed already. What's left will be interwoven amongst innocent civillians.

A warm welcome to the return of our old friend, collateral damage.

[Timmy40]

gruffalo said:

We probably have a few bombs that are approaching their use by date so why not use them in a show of solidarity with what is rapidly becoming a world wide coalition if we ca weaken the leadership of IS then maybe just maybe the rest of the Arab community will step up to the plate.

If by Arab Community you mean the Saudi/Gulf States they're the ones quietly funding ISIL.

[remkingston]

Follow the money.

Who benefits from a war?

Lets take one example.
The Sun is pushing an agenda to go to war.
Rupert Murdoch behind The Sun also has a vested interested to ensure we go to war:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/27/rupert-murd...

So any media outlet linked to Murdoch has a vested interest to promote war to help its shareholders.


But the picture is a lot bigger than that.
Money is created from nothing. Only 3% of money in circulation is physical (so what? We all know we have more money in our bank accounts than in our wallets). Money created by a private bank is actually just credit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01IusDeSPE4


So money through the IMF is fake; based on debt.

What happens when nations realise this and decide to offer alternatives?

Check items 9 & 10:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-ten-things-abou...

The Western banking system needs to stay in control on its debt based system and gold backed currency would undermine it:
www.thenewamerican.com/economy/markets/item/4630-g...


We are human. You are human. You have parents. You may have siblings. Why is it ok to bomb some civilians and not treat complete strangers with the same care and attention that you would your own family?
Follow the money.

The world is changing at an accelerated rate. We are afraid our children are unattended when not very long ago we all remember growing up, riding bikes with our curfew being set by the sunset.
We are afraid that people we do not understand will harm us.
We are afraid to learn about cultures because the TV says anyone but us is out to do bad.

The TV isn't our friend. It's a chest beating machine powered by corporations with a motive they aren't necessarily aware of.
We've all had a manager take us to one side in our lives and tried to explain something we didn't understand that was for 'the greater good'.

Tin foil hats to one side, this is happening right now.
You wouldn't bottle someone in a bar for looking at another guys girlfriend would you? It's none of your business right?
Keep that in mind when deciding whether to chat pro bombing civilians.

In the mean time this passionate soul may have more food for thought than I can run off of a keyboard without sources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRCJ7lEk2Xo

[maxxy5]

Jebus, you just need to mention 9/11 and Alex Jones and we'd have a tinfoil hat full house.

This is one idea for how bombing may work - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/01/h...

[bitchstewie]

I think I'm turning into more of a lefty as I age tbh.

The angry part of me thinks fk 'em and bomb them into oblivion, but the sensible part of me realises that you can't draw a nice little box and guarantee that only the bad people will be in that box when the bombs drop.

I feel we should be doing "something" but whatever that "something" might be, I don't necessarily think this is it in as much as it won't make us any "safer" whatsoever, quite the opposite IMO.

[Eric Mc]

"Will it work?"

Work at what?

Will it kill lots of people? - Most definitely.
Will it kill lots of people we don't like? - Almost definitely
Will it kill people we shouldn't have killed - Most definitely
Will it make the UK a safer place - Definitely not.
Will it make the UK more popular with the French - Most definitely.
Will it use up the remaining airframe hours left on the eight Tornadoes based in Cyprus - Most definitely.

[richardxjr]

Seeing as bombing the fk out of them in Iraq has done such a good job so far in both defeating the growth of IS, minimising their threat to us, and bringing world peace one step closer, then of course we should extend our operations into Syria.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

If we bomb IS, innocent people will die. But IS have killed 250K innocent people in Syria, and so no doubt many of those innocents that we bomb would be killed anyway.

Nobody dying is not an option. People will die whether we bomb or not. Which course of action kills the minimum number of innocent people?

And more importantly, which course of action will result in minimising deaths of UK citizens, given IS want to wipe us from the face of the Earth and it's the governments first duty to protect its people (including British Muslims who also die in terror attacks).

(I don't know the answer by the way)

[Derek Smith]

bhstewie said:

I think I'm turning into more of a lefty as I age tbh.

The angry part of me thinks fk 'em and bomb them into oblivion, but the sensible part of me realises that you can't draw a nice little box and guarantee that only the bad people will be in that box when the bombs drop.

I feel we should be doing "something" but whatever that "something" might be, I don't necessarily think this is it in as much as it won't make us any "safer" whatsoever, quite the opposite IMO.

Why do you think those of the right feel it inappropriate to kill civilians?

My feeling is that after the Paris attacks there is a political imperative to kill someone, and to do it in a way that looks dramatic. Sieges are not half so much fun as a stick of bombs. The most cost effective method would be to blow up some empty town; raze it. It's what the RAF used to do in Afganistan between the wars. Didn't do anything other than look as if they were doing something.

There needs to be a sensible strategy though.

No one at the top will bother though. I remember some ivory poachers being caught with a few tons of tusks and the government burning it all in a great big dramatic bonfire. The commentator reckoned that it had probably doubled the value of any ivory in poachers' hands and made killing elephants so much more financially rewarding.

Without a strategy, one agreed and acceptable to allies, we are just inventing reasons for people to attack us.

[anonymous-user]

So what do we do if we don't bomb them? I see lots of people saying this is the wrong way to go, and in all honesty I can see the issues with it, but I haven't seen any credible alternative put forward by anyone.

[anonymous-user]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RycwYRcm3Lc&t=...

[richardxjr]

Leave 'em to it.

We never learn.

When it happens over here again, strengthen internal security again.

IS want us to bomb them, or more likely innocents who we think are them. Cheap fast recruitment.

[bitchstewie]

Derek Smith said:

There needs to be a sensible strategy though.

There is no strategy that I can see.

It seems to consist of a repeat loop of "support our allies" and "right thing to do".

Dropping bombs wouldn't be so easy if it was on our own doorstep - I'm convinced there's a massive slice of "out of sight out of mind" with this type of thing.

[Bluebarge]

You forgot the button for "Won't make a blind bit of difference but will allow Dave to stick his jaw out and look tough when standing next to even more risible tough guy Hollande". So I can't vote.

[don4l]

saaby93 said:

Do bombs usually solve wars or strengthen the people being bombed

The second world war was brought to a halt by the use of two bombs.

[Foliage]

The question for me isn't should we or shouldn't we bomb, but the nature of the intel and the type of bombing taking place.

When I don't know the answer to these questions the answer is 'don't bomb'