Should we bomb Isis in Syria?

[Abertawe]

'put aside the assad .. issue'. putting aside the middle east's most brutal dictator. putting aside the man who started this. putting aside the fact that we'd be assisting him, what an utter betrayal of the people of syria. u can't sideline and team up with the man running the torture/death camps. this ain't ww2 where we had to team up with uncle joe, we have fucking options here. all this talk of death cults and y'all are advocating we team up with the michelangelo of warcrimes. a man who gassed his own people. any talk of any co-ordination with assad is disgusting, he needs to go

and a 'cogent exit strategy'. that's not up to us. u can't timetable an occupation, literally the worst thing for the middle east, up there with saudi arabia running out of oil, is what u suggested. my god it'd end terribly

Putting aside an issue to deal with a bigger issue is simple logic. Solve the problem that is causing you most annoyance. Once the fire has been put out we can resolve Assad diplomatically.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

Putting aside an issue to deal with a bigger issue is simple logic. Solve the problem that is causing you most annoyance. Once the fire has been put out we can resolve Assad diplomatically.

no, it's not. because a) the 'bigger issue' is impossible to be solved and b) the 'bigger issue', are equally as terrible bad guys as the smaller issue

we can't keep buddying up to the bad guys in pursuit of the badder guys. all that happens is the bad become worse and the badder leave and come back in a new, more horrific form and we lose all legitimacy as a force of good

plus there's the fact that, as a citizen of a nation involved in this clusterfuck, i'd quite like us to, when we have to get involved, be on the right side of history. ignoring one evil to eradicate another is unacceptable

 

[Abertawe]

no, it's not. because a) the 'bigger issue' is impossible to be solved and b) the 'bigger issue', are equally as terrible bad guys as the smaller issue

we can't keep buddying up to the bad guys in pursuit of the badder guys. all that happens is the bad become worse and the badder leave and come back in a new, more horrific form and we lose all legitimacy as a force of good

First paragraph incorrect.

Second, is truth. These aren't any old bad guys however. They're intense mofo's who have a potion that's flammable to the world. To resolve this issue you need to suck it up and side with Assad temporarily. Assad ain't a threat externally. IS represents Armageddon.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

what do you have fault with in the first para? and daesh, as said earlier, will pose as much a threat to us, externally, were they holding half of syria or none of it. u can't eradicate terrorism with force. that radicalises and makes things worse

 

[Abertawe]

I'm about a two pronged approach. Clean up the mess by force and seek to bring unity between the western & Islamic world. To do that we must eliminate the state of Israel.

I went there.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

if the syrian civil war has taught us anything it's that muslims love killing muslims as much as jews and christians

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

In terms of the fate of Syria it's kinda irrelevant whether we join in with the bombing isn't it? I mean it's not like there are important targets that will be ignored just because we weren't there with our token Tornado bombing sorties.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

yeah u are right of course. but this is our country innit? we'd like our country to do the right thing. same as with environmental policies. they ultimately mean nothing due to the actions of china and the u.s., but we as people and we as nations shouldn't just do 'good' just cause we get something back. we should seek to do the right thing cause that is just

 

[HertsWolf]

In terms of the fate of Syria it's kinda irrelevant whether we join in with the bombing isn't it? I mean it's not like there are important targets that will be ignored just because we weren't there with our token Tornado bombing sorties.

I agree. if we are to destroy ISIL/ISIS/DAESH strongholds, our aircraft should travel no further than Brussels.
(Credit to Private Eye)

 

[Alty]

I'd support a bombing campaign if I thought the goals were laudable and achievable. I'm not convinced that's true here though. I doubt we'll make much difference and if anything this combined action looks to be of most assistance to the (utterly vile) Assad regime.

 

[smat]

Corbyn should be absolutely ashamed of himself for bringing our nation to war. He, and he alone, should bear the brunt of our indignation. The hubris of the man!!!

 

[Stagat]

Prince of Hearts slumming it with two black kids though.

 

[smat]

Prince of Hearts slumming it with two black kids though.

Yep, he's out in Africa, civilising the savages. What a hero. That whole front page is a fucking abomination, tbh.

 

[Dave-Vale]

Corbyn should be absolutely ashamed of himself for bringing our nation to war. He, and he alone, should bear the brunt of our indignation. The hubris of the man!!!

Yet another ridiculous and mis-leading headline. DMG Media though so no surprise.

The media need to make their mind up. Is he a tree hugging pacifist or a cretinous war mongerer?

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

doesn't it all just seem a lil unnecessary? a contact in the pesh said that when they took shingal last month they were just fighting a few allied sunni tribesmen - daesh just abandoned the place. they are on the backfoot right now. the raqqa liberation force ain't ready yet so all bombing raqqa does now is kill civvies. the kurdish led fight back is doing fine on its own if we go in now we just muddy the waters and fuck up everything some more. save this debate for mosul cause if there's an impossible situation it's the liberation of that city

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I wonder what the Kurdish teenage girls that are battering ISIS think when they see strapping young Syrian men making a B-line for the moderately fast internet haven of Oberhausen and the like...

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

They probably think 'those poor men! in glorious rojava we have beautiful quasi socialism and American logistical and material support whereas they, the Arabs, are caught between islamists and incompetent western stooges'

 

[Dave-Vale]

So, dodgy Dave thinks anybody who doesn't want to bomb Syria is a 'terrorist sympathiser'. Fucking idiot.

Im interested to know which of his friends profits the most from this 'war'.

 

[Alty]

So, dodgy Dave thinks anybody who doesn't want to bomb Syria is a 'terrorist sympathiser'. Fucking idiot.

Im interested to know which of his friends profits the most from this 'war'.

Genuinely pathetic stuff from Cameron. I didn't think he'd stoop quite as low as using language like that. I can only assume he fears he'll lose a vote.

 

[Dave-Vale]

It is disgusting language to use. Something you'd expect to see on a Britain First mock up.

I think it will be close. A number of Tory MP's aren't backing it. Although, I see the Lib Dems are going to back it, well, all 8 of them. Hopefully enough Labour and SNP say no.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Yeah I just heard Cameron's comments on the news, pretty poor stuff from the PM. Shouldn't have to resort to language like that in an important debate like this, when logistics and morality should be the talking points, not divisive and inflammatory party political rhetoric.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Corbyn should be absolutely ashamed of himself for bringing our nation to war. He, and he alone, should bear the brunt of our indignation. The hubris of the man!!!

Not the only paper running on this sort of theme, alas - https://twitter.com/WritersofColour/status/671455685843034112 I would make some effort to DESPAIR if I still had the ENERGY

And yeah, fuck Cameron. What a DICK

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

I wonder what the Kurdish teenage girls that are battering ISIS think when they see strapping young Syrian men making a B-line for the moderately fast internet haven of Oberhausen and the like...

I think a lot of them are trying to avoid being conscripted into Assad's army. Or live in places where there isn't a lot of organised resistance to ISIS. Or aren't able to join the Kurdish groups because they fear sectarianism.

 

[Red]

One of my friends was killed in a hotel so forgive me if I don't find this particularly fucking funny.

Yeah, some of the food in hotels is really sub-standard.

 

[Gashead]

It is disgusting language to use. Something you'd expect to see on a Britain First mock up.

I think it will be close. A number of Tory MP's aren't backing it. Although, I see the Lib Dems are going to back it, well, all 8 of them. Hopefully enough Labour and SNP say no.

Good to see the Lib Dems have given up stopping bad Tory decisions and are just making bad decisions on their own now.

Unfortunately, as we've seen with Paris and Belgium (and 7/7 before that), domestic terrorists are just as much of a problem. I don't think UK intervention would do much to nullify ISIS in Syria given the US, Russia, France et al. have struggled for a while now, and our actions with a lack of plan will possibly influence potential terrorists in this country.

It's a personal thing though, weighing up the threat from Syria and the threat from here.

 

[Gashead]

And now the PM concedes that the 70,000 fighters he classes as 'moderates' are 'not all perfect partners'.

Not surprising, the whole situation seems like an utter clusterfuck to me. Cameron has already shown he doesn't know who the enemy is, I'm not convinced he knows who his enemies or his friends are. Worrying for me.

1:30 update: Seems the 70k ground troops have decreased dramatically in the last hour or so!!! Between 10-20k now alleged to be part of this 'moderates' group. If only Dave knew that his figures were grossly miscalculated BEFORE started his speech, poor man.

 

[Chris FGR]

I'd bet the vast amount of extremists trying to radicalise and recruit more western based muslims are keen to see air strikes happen. Lots of civvie casualties = great propaganda.

Needs to be a coalition including as many muslim allies as possible, with the focus being on ground forces rather then air strikes. Do it properly or not at all.

And be braver in policing the Israel/Palestine issue. Sanctions should be applied for war crimes committed by both parties.

 

[slaphead]

Reminds me of the quote at the end of We Were Soldiers....which I'll change a bit to make it even more relevant.

"Such a tragedy. They will think this was their victory. So this will become another British/American war. And the end will be the same, except for the numbers who will die before we get there."

 

[Dave-Vale]

I saw a meme that said something like:

If we want to stop terrorist attacks in Europe then the RAF jets need to go no further than Paris or Brussells.

Quite a few Labour are voting against. Hopefully Corbyn has rallied enough of them to stop this going through. If he has, then it is another blow to Cameron and another victory for team Corbyn.

 

[pontoonlew]

Originally i thought yes, now I'm not entirely sure.

I don't buy all this crap like 'we're as bad as them if we kill civilians' from a British perspective our record in Iraq is pretty good and with us having the Brimstones, we greatly minimise such a risk. The Brimstone is what separates us from all our other allies (apart from the Saudis I believe) it's accuracy is as good as you can possibly get and collateral damage is hugely reduced because of this. Not only that but comparing our actions to bring no better than Isis is frankly fucking ridiculous.

So I do believe we are needed, therefore I don't buy this 'leave the other lot to it'. I also question what our reaction would be if the Paris attacks had been London and the French refused to support us. I think we've done a decent job in Iraq, Bagdhad was very nearly taken before allied forces intervened but in Iraq they had some sort of security force to hold the positions afterwards, I don't believe Syria posses such a force,

However what concerns me, is us going on to bomb Syria greatly increases our risk of becoming a prime target, though you could say we already are. Also, you drive out ISIS from sections in Syria with bombs, you then need a ground assault to hold the very positions you've driven them out of. I really don't believe we can justify putting boots on the ground almost a year to the day we closed Kandahar. And we definitely cannot put the trust in Assads forces to do that job.

So whilst I don't believe we've got a solid strategy, I'd still say assisting with trying to start the motion of eradicating Isis from the air is probably something I'd vote yes on. But I do think we need to re-address the situation in a few months time to discuss just how we're going to come up with a long term strategy, because starting the mission from the air is all well and good, but it's not a long term solution.