Should we bomb Isis in Syria?

[smat]

?

 

[KevinMcallister]

no, the real threat is Black Friday shoppers, they need bombing asap

 

[Stevencc]

I don't have a problem with us trying to DESTROY ISIS (this is fun, PP is onto something) but bombing seems like a pretty unreliable method when it comes to minimising the risk of civilian casualties.

 

[HertsWolf]

Spot the Difference contest.

1) ISIS attack and bomb civilians.

2) US/UK/French/Russian air forces attack and bomb civilians.

 

[Pliny Harris]

I don't think we should. Firstly because I don't ever recall this sort of military action ever working, secondly because I personally wouldn't fancy being the innocent civilian wiped out by an air missile. All in all it seems to be an offensively bad idea to me, especially considering just the other year Cameron held a failed vote to effectively do the same thing, but on ISIS's side...

 

[mowgli]

Needs boots on the ground for anything to work. Now i'm not saying we should go in leave it to Russia as they won't mess about. If the goals are achieved whoever is running the show must realize they will be there for years as they cannot consider an early exit as in Afghanistan and Iraq or the region will implode again so nothing will have changed for the loss of soldiers lives. Bombing worries me as too many civilians will be killed in mistakes which will turn the whole of the region on whoever dropped bombs on non military areas.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

Spot the Difference contest.

1) ISIS attack and bomb civilians.

2) US/UK/French/Russian air forces attack and bomb civilians.

difference clearly being the intention. daesh attack and bomb civilians without distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants. we attack daesh and attempt to minimise civilian casualties. big difference

i'd say 'no' though. i think our role is best played as the airforce for the new euphrates volcano + modertate + fsa + other kurds + assyrians (forgot the name for the new taskforce) eventual assault on raqqah. defending rojava is an easy remit, and limits the possibility of mission creep. when they eventually move on raqqah then we can bomb the place. right now it serves no-one. i don't think it even helps daesh too much, despite what the media are saying. those who are liable to be radicalised by american bombing already have, everyone else is suffering enough under daesh and are liable to be used as slave labour anyway. bombing right now is unnecessary

boots on the ground kills the immediate issue but creates a bigger, long-term issue. we need to think of the future here. boots on the ground solves the problems of today but creates a metric fuckton of ones tomorrow

edit: the sdf that's what i was thinking of

 

[Womble98]

Spot the Difference contest.

1) ISIS attack and bomb civilians.

2) US/UK/French/Russian air forces attack and bomb civilians.

IS blow civilians up shouting Allah Akbar and deliberately. They go into restaurants and gun down people in the streets. They blow up people outside football grounds. They blow up people at concerts, they execute people at concerts, they shoot people in wheelchairs at concerts. US/UK/French/Russian air forces target military locations and civilians casualties are not a deliberate consequence.

If you can't see the difference you should be in some form of assisted living. I'm not saying we get it right all the time, and I am massively against us going in unless we have a clear plan, with aims, and a strategy of what to do when its over. But we don't intentionally kill hundreds of civilians for our cause

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

Needs boots on the ground for anything to work. Now i'm not saying we should go in leave it to Russia as they won't mess about. If the goals are achieved whoever is running the show must realize they will be there for years as they cannot consider an early exit as in Afghanistan and Iraq or the region will implode again so nothing will have changed for the loss of soldiers lives. Bombing worries me as too many civilians will be killed in mistakes which will turn the whole of the region on whoever dropped bombs on non military areas.

ughhh i missed this. russia are hardly bombing daesh. it ain't in their interest

 

[JaredSUFC]

IS blow civilians up shouting Allah Akbar and deliberately. They go into restaurants and gun down people in the streets. They blow up people outside football grounds. They blow up people at concerts, they execute people at concerts, they shoot people in wheelchairs at concerts. US/UK/French/Russian air forces target military locations and civilians casualties are not a deliberate consequence.

If you can't see the difference you should be in some form of assisted living. I'm not saying we get it right all the time, and I am massively against us going in unless we have a clear plan, with aims, and a strategy of what to do when its over. But we don't intentionally kill hundreds of civilians for our cause

IS propaganda would say differently however. Not saying they're right, but that's how they'd portray it. How else do you think they delude people into fighting for them? They, like other Islamic fundamentalist groups before them, present themselves as the protectors of Muslims, against the evil west who want to bomb Muslim children.

And whilst civilian casualties aren't a deliberate consequence, they inevitably will be. And that's more martyrs that IS can use to recruit more future jihadist's with. More 'justification' in there eyes for attacking people they don't like.

The west bombing IS in Iraq and Syria may be driving IS out there, but that's not going to defeat them

 

[Techno Natch]

IS blow civilians up shouting Allah Akbar and deliberately. They go into restaurants and gun down people in the streets. They blow up people outside football grounds. They blow up people at concerts, they execute people at concerts, they shoot people in wheelchairs at concerts. US/UK/French/Russian air forces target military locations and civilians casualties are not a deliberate consequence.

If you can't see the difference you should be in some form of assisted living. I'm not saying we get it right all the time, and I am massively against us going in unless we have a clear plan, with aims, and a strategy of what to do when its over. But we don't intentionally kill hundreds of civilians for our cause

I'm sure its a consolation to the innocent people that have been bombed that it wasn't on purpose. You can't say that our involvement isn't for our own benefit either and there our time our forces have not always been as careful as they should.

You're pissed off about the attacks in Paris how do you think people feel about the bombing of the MSF hospital?

 

[Abertawe]

No. Without a combined effort from multiple nations (Russia included) backed by the UN it'd counter productive. We need to work logically based on a common goal. Put aside the Assad right to power issue for the moment and have all eyes focused fully on annihilating the Islamic Caliphate. Boots on the ground from all nations, I'm talking circa 150,000 pairs of boots backed by airstrikes and military weaponry. This isn't going to be resolved by haphazard airstrikes in an uncoordinated manner. Go hard or stay at home essentially.

 

[HertsWolf]

IS blow civilians up shouting Allah Akbar and deliberately. They go into restaurants and gun down people in the streets. They blow up people outside football grounds. They blow up people at concerts, they execute people at concerts, they shoot people in wheelchairs at concerts. US/UK/French/Russian air forces target military locations and civilians casualties are not a deliberate consequence.

If you can't see the difference you should be in some form of assisted living. I'm not saying we get it right all the time, and I am massively against us going in unless we have a clear plan, with aims, and a strategy of what to do when its over. But we don't intentionally kill hundreds of civilians for our cause

I don't have to be "living in assisted accommodation" if I can't see the difference. If you die as a result of someone else taking military action, you are dead regardless of the cause. Both are innocent civilians.

I am sure that the innocent people who die when their houses are bombed from a great height will give one massive 'thumbs up' to you because they are unintended consequences of bombing someone else. I know I would.

Fwiw I know that when fast moving jets bomb villages with strings of bombs as they pass by at 600mph, the bombs have "wheelchair avoidance" capabilities.

I believe that the murder of innocents is unacceptable as a direct retaliation for the murder of innocents. I also believe that bombing ISIS-held areas could well increase Arab support for them and increase a sense of David v Goliath among the diaspora. Defeating ISIS (and its inevitable successors) requires a great deal of strategy, intelligence and consideration of a wide range of social, economic and political factors. I believe you cannot beat organisations like ISIS and Al Qaeda by military means alone.

 

[General_disarray]

100% no.

A good friend of mine has a Serbian wife and child now and currently lives in a village called Somber north Serbia on the Hungarian boarder.

During the NATO bombing of Syria, this village got hit and innocent civilians were killed; they also used a radioactive chemical which as a result is leaving many Serbians developing earlier cancer symptoms.

If you want a conspiracy theory; a cigarette factory was bombed to pieces there; after the war an American cigarette company set up business there. I asked my tour guide about it to see if it was true as I was skeptical, she said she was too young to remember but definitely remembers her parents and aunt complaining about their being no cigarettes.

France, USA and Russia are already bombing, if we bomb, how is it going to help if 3 countries bombing doesn't end it?

Everything smells fishy about it; with the weapons industry in UK profiting from it; recent meetings and trade agreements with Saudi Arabia who have interests in the area.

Within a week we've gone to nothing to we must bomb Syria, if not we'll be murdered on the streets of London. I haven't seen any serious debate about this, just slurring of Corbyn who seems to be the only politician talking sense.

Is Hilary Benn really related to Tony Benn? His father would be turning in his grave.

 

[HertsWolf]

difference clearly being the intention. daesh attack and bomb civilians without distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants. we attack daesh and attempt to minimise civilian casualties. big difference

i'd say 'no' though. i think our role is best played as the airforce for the new euphrates volcano + modertate + fsa + other kurds + assyrians (forgot the name for the new taskforce) eventual assault on raqqah. defending rojava is an easy remit, and limits the possibility of mission creep. when they eventually move on raqqah then we can bomb the place. right now it serves no-one. i don't think it even helps daesh too much, despite what the media are saying. those who are liable to be radicalised by american bombing already have, everyone else is suffering enough under daesh and are liable to be used as slave labour anyway. bombing right now is unnecessary

boots on the ground kills the immediate issue but creates a bigger, long-term issue. we need to think of the future here. boots on the ground solves the problems of today but creates a metric fuckton of ones tomorrow

edit: the sdf that's what i was thinking of

I disagree with the first part: just because you are righteously bombing terrorists, my death as a consequence pisses me off in a big way. Well it would if I had survived.
Another part of me is thinking that not only do I have to put up with ISIS destroying my town and region, but now you guys are sending bombers in after they have gone.

I actually didn't say 'No'; I voted 'Don't Know' because I really don't. If I felt we had sufficient intelligence in the ground to be able to do real targeting of the terrorists then I would be supportive. But I don't believe we have that intelligence and as the bombing ramps up, I feel history suggests the military commanders do let the scope creep.

 

[spireite]

I think we should bomb Ian's keyboard, maybe his punctuation will improve.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

I disagree with the first part: just because you are righteously bombing terrorists, my death as a consequence pisses me off in a big way. Well it would if I had survived.
Another part of me is thinking that not only do I have to put up with ISIS destroying my town and region, but now you guys are sending bombers in after they have gone.

I actually didn't say 'No'; I voted 'Don't Know' because I really don't. If I felt we had sufficient intelligence in the ground to be able to do real targeting of the terrorists then I would be supportive. But I don't believe we have that intelligence and as the bombing ramps up, I feel history suggests the military commanders do let the scope creep.

of course. because u aren't objective, same reasoning victims of the crime aren't allowed to decide on the sentencing. civilians always die in every conflict. does that mean we should never intervene? even un troops have killed civillians by mistake. should we withdraw peacekeepers? should we not have intervened in the balkans? liberia? one of the hostages in the sydney terrorist attack was killed by a police bullet. does that mean a rescue attempt shouldn't have been attempted? people die, shit happens. it's tragic but c'est la vie it's unavoidable in the fight against evil

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

I think we should bomb Ian's keyboard, maybe his punctuation will improve.

maybe we could strafe yours whilst we're at it, see if we could produce something halfway decent once in a while

 

[This Charming Mike]

Bombing won't solve anything. Only an army on the ground can do that now.

Would I want any of my family in there? No. I'd imagine that dilemma is being played out up and down the country.

 

[HertsWolf]

of course. because u aren't objective, same reasoning victims of the crime aren't allowed to decide on the sentencing. civilians always die in every conflict. does that mean we should never intervene? even un troops have killed civillians by mistake. should we withdraw peacekeepers? should we not have intervened in the balkans? liberia? one of the hostages in the sydney terrorist attack was killed by a police bullet. does that mean a rescue attempt shouldn't have been attempted? people die, shit happens. it's tragic but c'est la vie it's unavoidable

Yes, innocent people die in conflicts but we are proposing to undertake military action that could lead to significant civilian deaths (no matter whether intended or not) which would possibly eclipse the numbers of civilians killed in Europe and elsewhere by terrorists.
Whether war is justified is possibly for another debate, but in this case I feel that bombing Syria is unlikely to achieve much, other than increasing the number and scale of terrorist atrocities around the world.
So I'm increasingly leaning towards "No".

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

Yes, innocent people die in conflicts but we are proposing to undertake military action that could lead to significant civilian deaths (no matter whether intended or not) which would possibly eclipse the numbers of civilians killed in Europe and elsewhere by terrorists.
Whether war is justified is possibly for another debate, but in this case I feel that bombing Syria is unlikely to achieve much, other than increasing the number and scale of terrorist atrocities around the world.
So I'm increasingly leaning towards "No".

the actions we've taken so far have been 'greater good' attacks. bombing daesh convoys that post an imminent risk to life. the u.s. spec ops intervention was an attack on a secret prison, after intel suggested all the prisoners were about to be executed. daesh have been perpetrating a genocide. during ww2, would u not have bombed a death camp, were the intel available? lots of innocents would die, but it'd be in order to prevent further loss of life

 

[Stagat]

Definitely bomb them. No question. A Middle Eastern regional power can't be left to get away with the atrocities they have been committing for much longer, really. Enough is enough and they have no place in this world. Bomb them. Bomb them back to the stone age. Bomb them all to hell. Fuck 'em. Get 'em out of there. Defo mate.

I know we said the same with Saddam and making him the Ace of Spades before aptly pulling him out of a hole in the ground then stringing him up didn't really leave the Babylon we'd been hoping for. But who could have been expected to foresee that, really? Guess we'll chalk that up to experience.

The whole Afghanistan thing an all. Taliban took a kicking. Won't be seeing them again! Bin Laden heroically killed and definitely already forgotten by all who ever might have looked up to him unless they've got Zero Dark Thirty on DVD or summat but that's a work of fiction anyway so no worries.

The Middle East was thus rendered safe!

Until these ISIS arseholes showed up out of absolutely nowhere.

Although some are saying they were borne of our previous gallant efforts of war in someone else's land. Call me a conspiracy theorist maybe but I could believe that. In fact, the more you think about it, the more it looks like this ISIS palaver is a situation caused or at least perennially exacerbated by a load of modern day Crusader types.

Bombs and boots on the ground and shit. In cycles. On and off. Go back to Afghanistan a sec - remember when it was all 'time to bring the boys home'? Seems people are becoming more accepting of the next on stage now.

But taken in isolation, yeah, I mean, logically, the best way to solve this current ISIS rigmarole that was caused by war is definitely by more war. Right? I mean, how could that possibly lead to anything other than peace?

And if it somehow doesn't, which is pretty unlikely I'm sure you'll agree, then I guess we'll just have to get ready to bomb the next bunch of c*** that show up shouting allahu akbar after, ad infinitum.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

[ron perlman voice] war, war never changes [/ron perlman voice]

 

[HertsWolf]

the actions we've taken so far have been 'greater good' attacks. bombing daesh convoys that post an imminent risk to life. the u.s. spec ops intervention was an attack on a secret prison, after intel suggested all the prisoners were about to be executed. daesh have been perpetrating a genocide. during ww2, would u not have bombed a death camp, were the intel available? lots of innocents would die, but it'd be in order to prevent further loss of life

ISIS are an evil, barbaric group of extremists. But I think we risk giving ISIS the martyrdom they crave in the eyes of a wider Middle Eastern/North African public. That could lead to more, wider, more disgusting atrocities and further genocide.
Recently, someone on a thread (I'm on a phone and diff to check) stuck up a table showing how the number of terrorist attacks has dramatically increased since the War on Terror started.
Will bombing Syria reduce the number of terrorist attacks?
Will bombing Syria contribute to a lasting peace in the Middle East?

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

Will bombing Syria reduce the number of terrorist attacks?
Will bombing Syria contribute to a lasting peace in the Middle East?

could go either way and nope def not

 

[Womble98]

IS propaganda would say differently however. Not saying they're right, but that's how they'd portray it. How else do you think they delude people into fighting for them? They, like other Islamic fundamentalist groups before them, present themselves as the protectors of Muslims, against the evil west who want to bomb Muslim children.

And whilst civilian casualties aren't a deliberate consequence, they inevitably will be. And that's more martyrs that IS can use to recruit more future jihadist's with. More 'justification' in there eyes for attacking people they don't like.

The west bombing IS in Iraq and Syria may be driving IS out there, but that's not going to defeat them

Do you really think they need any more illogical motive? These nutters have enough, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel. Civilians casualties are happening because we are not bombing IS. Christians are being massacred, Shia are being massacred, told to change their faith or die.

I'm sure its a consolation to the innocent people that have been bombed that it wasn't on purpose. You can't say that our involvement isn't for our own benefit either and there our time our forces have not always been as careful as they should.

You're pissed off about the attacks in Paris how do you think people feel about the bombing of the MSF hospital?

The bombing of the MSF hospital is a war crime and a disgrace, there is no evidence to suggest that there were Taliban fighters nearby and it needs investigating by the ICC.

I don't have to be "living in assisted accommodation" if I can't see the difference. If you die as a result of someone else taking military action, you are dead regardless of the cause. Both are innocent civilians.

I am sure that the innocent people who die when their houses are bombed from a great height will give one massive 'thumbs up' to you because they are unintended consequences of bombing someone else. I know I would.

Fwiw I know that when fast moving jets bomb villages with strings of bombs as they pass by at 600mph, the bombs have "wheelchair avoidance" capabilities.

I believe that the murder of innocents is unacceptable as a direct retaliation for the murder of innocents. I also believe that bombing ISIS-held areas could well increase Arab support for them and increase a sense of David v Goliath among the diaspora. Defeating ISIS (and its inevitable successors) requires a great deal of strategy, intelligence and consideration of a wide range of social, economic and political factors. I believe you cannot beat organisations like ISIS and Al Qaeda by military means alone.

I agree, that is why I said we need a plan for what we are doing post IS. There is a difference between deliberate deaths and accidental deaths, maybe not to the dead person but to any rational thinker who takes an action based off of those death.

 

[Techno Natch]

"US/UK/French/Russian air forces target military locations and civilians casualties are not a deliberate consequence."

Well that bit is rubbish then isn't it? It's not the only example either.

 

[Womble98]

"US/UK/French/Russian air forces target military locations and civilians casualties are not a deliberate consequence."

Well that bit is rubbish then isn't it? It's not the only example either.

It was a result of shitty intelligence as far as I can tell, not a case of "Go and bomb the hospital today and kill the civilians mate".

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

the captain of the costa concordia was convicted of manslaughter, in a perfect world we'd see similar for fuck ups like the MSF attack

 

[Techno Natch]

It was a result of shitty intelligence as far as I can tell, not a case of "Go and bomb the hospital today and kill the civilians mate".

They had little concern for the potential of civilian casualties though. Personally I doubt they gave a shit and that possibly makes it just bad as the Paris attacks.