Should we bomb Isis in Syria?

[spireite]

The worst thing about any big political news stories is how many Fucking retarded ill informed status' there are on Facebook.

I saw one woman say if we closedb the boarders we wouldn't have to bomb Isis because they'd be easier to catch....

Facebook is just fucking grotty

 

[Magic]

Shit's gonna hit the fan if/when they retaliate on the streets of Britain.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Shit's gonna hit the fan if/when they retaliate on the streets of Britain.

How do you mean?

 

[Magic]

How do you mean?

This decision will come under much greater scrutiny I would have thought.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

This decision will come under much greater scrutiny I would have thought.

I doubt very much that any politician will take the position that we shouldn't attack ISIS in case they attack us back.

 

[Magic]

I doubt very much that any politician will take the position that we shouldn't attack ISIS in case they attack us back.

Part of the decision is based on the question whether bombing Syria makes us safer or less safe. All I'm saying is, the public at least will surely point to this campaign being a questionable decision if scores are killed on our own turf in the not too distant future? And I'm not saying it will be logical but I would expect many wondering if it wouldn't have happened had we not bombed Syria (given the number of foiled attempts it would suggest otherwise)

For what it's worth, I'm struggling to come to a decision on what I believe on this to be honest.

 

[Freakyteeth]

top kek

 

[Dave-Vale]

Bombing has already started.

 

[Bobbin']

We're not any more of a target than we already were.

We weren't bombing Syria in June yet British tourists were slaughtered in Tunisia.

People seem to be forgetting we've been bombing ISIS for over a year already.

 

[pontoonlew]

I can't get my head around how the same people who didn't give a shite about refugees drowning in boats now suddenly give a shite the moment some of them may be killed in air strikes.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

I can't get my head around how the same people who didn't give a shite about refugees drowning in boats now suddenly give a shite the moment some of them may be killed in air strikes.

I guess it's passive versus active responsibility for them. There's a sense of fatalism about migrant drownings - the idea that it's a bad thing we can't change. Whereas bombs dropped by Britain are actively killing people.

I agree there's a contradiction there. Britain is as responsible for migrant deaths as it is for collateral deaths in airstrikes - it has a duty (now more than ever) to provide safe routes to Europe and to ensure refugees are properly settled.

But I sort of get why people may (incorrectly) view one as a hopeless inevitability, while viewing airstrike deaths as avoidable slaughter.

 

[NiallQuinnDiscoPants]

my take on this is that just like the Paris attacks gained sympathizers from all over the world (rightly so), any attack on Syria that causes innocent people to die will see sympathizers. and Daish will target those sympathizers with their agenda of hate against the Western World. Causing more terrorists long term and being counter-productive short term.

and plus, unlike other wars where the enemy has been easy to target and sectioned into mainly one area, this Daish threat is everywhere. There's pockets in France, there's pockets in the Middle East, there's pockets in the UK. By destroying and rebuilding Syria, yes that means Syria is clean. But then it will grow again in another country under another name. Just like a cancer, you can kill the main section which is infected, but if it's spread you won't kill the disease. Unfortunately the decisions that have been made in the past are now coming back to haunt us in the present.

And with our heavy artillery all being deported to Syria to clean up that country, that leaves our country open to attacks from within.

 

[Bobbin']

What's the alternative then?

I've seen a lot of condemnation from
people but no suggestions as to what we should be doing instead.

Yes there are extremists across the globe, but currently Syria is the heartbeat of this ideology. Recruitment, propaganda, training is all coming out of Syria, ISIS' stage if you like. Like anything if you hit it in the heart, the rest won't function as well.

There are suggestions that we should try to target their funding channels, last night we bombed an oil field, which is doing just that?

I don't know if dropping bombs is the right answer but I can certainly see reasons why it's happening.

 

[Dave-Vale]

I assume we aren't bombing the oil field that Jacob Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch have a vested interest in..

 

[Womble98]

Loads of the Syrian people have been wanting us to intervene since day 1.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Loads of the Syrian people have been wanting us to intervene since day 1.

Anti-ISIS activists in Raqqa are criticising airstrikes here:
https://twitter.com/Raqqa_SL

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

What's the alternative then?

I've seen a lot of condemnation from
people but no suggestions as to what we should be doing instead.

Yes there are extremists across the globe, but currently Syria is the heartbeat of this ideology. Recruitment, propaganda, training is all coming out of Syria, ISIS' stage if you like. Like anything if you hit it in the heart, the rest won't function as well.

There are suggestions that we should try to target their funding channels, last night we bombed an oil field, which is doing just that?

I don't know if dropping bombs is the right answer but I can certainly see reasons why it's happening.

If ISIS are selling oil, who are they selling it to?

One answer is Turkey. Turkey is in NATO. Turkey is funding ISIS. Erdogan is personally linked to arms shipments to ISIS; the Turkish deep state have facilitated IS attacks on Kurds (Turkey also bombs IS-opposed Kurdish groups).

Another answer is Saudi Arabia. Millions of pounds of funding comes from Saudi Arabia to IS. The Saudi government makes no effort to stop this because they view this as a proxy war against Iran.

Bombing IS won't weaken those funding streams. Both Saudi Arabia and Turkey are UK allies - it should be possible to put diplomatic pressure on them to strangle IS of funding and weapons. Not only would this be more effective than another futile bombing campaign (and any suggestion that the bombing campaign isn't futile ignores the fact that other countries have been bombing IS in Syria for months).

 

[Bobbin']

If ISIS are selling oil, who are they selling it to?

One answer is Turkey. Turkey is in NATO. Turkey is funding ISIS. Erdogan is personally linked to arms shipments to ISIS; the Turkish deep state have facilitated IS attacks on Kurds (Turkey also bombs IS-opposed Kurdish groups).

Another answer is Saudi Arabia. Millions of pounds of funding comes from Saudi Arabia to IS. The Saudi government makes no effort to stop this because they view this as a proxy war against Iran.

Bombing IS won't weaken those funding streams. Both Saudi Arabia and Turkey are UK allies - it should be possible to put diplomatic pressure on them to strangle IS of funding and weapons. Not only would this be more effective than another futile bombing campaign (and any suggestion that the bombing campaign isn't futile ignores the fact that other countries have been bombing IS in Syria for months).

It will if they don't have the means to sell the oil.

I agree that we should be putting diplomatic pressure on these countries, but don't see why it needs to be one or the other. Cosy little chats alone will achieve nothing just the same as bombing alone won't.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

It will if they don't have the means to sell the oil.

I agree that we should be putting diplomatic pressure on these countries, but don't see why it needs to be one or the other. Cosy little chats alone will achieve nothing just the same as bombing alone won't.

The US have been bombing IS for one year, two months, one week and four days. Britain joining in isn't really going to change anything.

The problem with bombing is you can say "something is being done" even if that something has no meaningful effect.

There's a range of options that sit between "cosy little chats" and war. Diplomatic sanctions, trade embargos, suspension of diplomatic rights, withdrawl of military support/aid. The reason IS exist is because we don't challenge the expansionist regional policies of our "allies". Saudi Arabia can bomb Yemen with impunity. Turkey can support IS.

At the moment, the US' position is that Turkey is not assisting/supplying IS despite knowing that to be the case. Expecting anything to change while maintaining fictions that allow IS to resupply and re-arm is beyond stupid.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

What's the alternative then?

don't bomb them?

 

[Alty]

Doing my best to set aside my own view, I'm struggling to pin down exactly why so many politicians are in favour of this. Most experts seem to agree this course of action will be of only very limited assistance to the fight against ISIS. We don't know what'll follow if and when ISIS are defeated/severely weakened (remember Dave and William urging us to arm the rebels, i.e. all anti Assad forces including ISIS, only a couple of years back??). And this isn't a cheap option either.

Is this all about solidarity with France and co? Or the rather nebulous concept of Britain's "standing in the world"? I don't believe for one second this makes us here in the UK any safer.

It's a little bit conspiracy theoryish, but sometimes I wonder whether we actively look for conflicts in a bid to keep our armed forces on the ball and amongst the best and most battle ready in the world. A weird form of insurance in case we ever really have to fight for our survival as a nation again.

 

[Womble98]

It is far more likely that the arms industry lobby's MP's to go to war so they have to spend millions of pounds on bombs.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I can't get my head around how the same people who didn't give a shite about refugees drowning in boats now suddenly give a shite the moment some of them may be killed in air strikes.

Some homeless people will probably die this winter that might have survived had you opened your home to them, just as some pedestrians might die if you're driving down the street recklessly. The difference is obvious. Your moral responsibility to do no harm to someone is not the same as your moral responsibility to solve their problems for them. For someone to argue that borders are violence that cause death, for example, is akin to someone arguing that your locked front door does likewise.

 

[Dave-Vale]

The people who want us to 'bomb the fuck out of Syria' but then 'don't want the fucking scrounging Syrian immigrants coming here'.

 

[HertsWolf]

Bombing has already started.

The RAF were off the ground before the chortling and applause had quietened down in Westminster.

 

[HertsWolf]

Some homeless people will probably die this winter that might have survived had you opened your home to them, just as some pedestrians might die if you're driving down the street recklessly. The difference is obvious. Your moral responsibility to do no harm to someone is not the same as your moral responsibility to solve their problems for them. For someone to argue that borders are violence that cause death, for example, is akin to someone arguing that your locked front door does likewise.

Facile. You are seriously likening opening and closing a front door to dropping bombs on populated places? Really?

Yeh. The difference is obvious.

 

[HertsWolf]

I find it interesting that 24% of those who responded to the original poll are/were registered as "Don't Know". It doesn't seem possible to change your vote, but I do wonder if it was, how those 24% would vote now.

 

[blade1889]

I find it interesting that 24% of those who responded to the original poll are/were registered as "Don't Know". It doesn't seem possible to change your vote, but I do wonder if it was, how those 24% would vote now.

I would probably vote no.

Similar to others I'm not against military action. If it has a clear aim and way to get there. Targeted bombings are not a good or effective way to eliminate ISIS/daesh so there is no point in risking the lives of our army, innocent Syrians or wasting money that could be better spent elsewhere. If there was a clear allied plan to go in, eliminate daesh and put in place a stable regime to prevent another radical group taking over that we also don't like then I'd support it.

 

[HertsWolf]

When did the air war against the Republic of Ireland start and finish? I assume that we bombed them to save lives in Northern Ireland and London.

 

[blade1889]

Is that aimed at me? Cos its gone over my head if it is.