Would you vote for bombing ISIS in Syria?

[AlbionPics&SouthCoastTwit]

its not very easy to promote an ideology when all those promoting it are dead and scattered into little bits

The only safe ISIS member is a dead ISIS member. That message must be delivered to all ISIS members. They either quit ISIS or they die. There is no moral high ground and we are in a state of war that reaches all walks of life. Nobody is safe until ISIS is wiped from the earth.

 

[ExmouthExile]

Are you all forgetting the women and children that these cowards are hiding amongst?

 

[LlcoolJ]

I have heard the terrorists claim this plenty of times,doesnt make it true though.

its not very easy to promote an ideology when all those promoting it are dead and scattered into little bits

Best bomb Saudi Arabia then. You've not thought this through.

 

[AlbionPics&SouthCoastTwit]

Best bomb Saudi Arabia then. You've not thought this through.

I can see bombing Saudi Arabia and stating that they are giving too much aid to ISIS. King Mother******, stop aiding the terrorist or die. That message must come through loud and clear. They must believe it and fear the western military might. That is the only way to fight a war with terrorists.

 

[W.C.]

9.) Because we f***** up in the past we shouldn't act now argument when does this excuse run out?

It's not a mistake in the past though is it? The mistake is happening right now as it has done for many years. Even Tony sodding Blair admits that there are 'elements of truth' in that Iraq lead to the rise of ISIS. So what do we do? Carry on as before.

 

[pastafarian]

Best bomb Saudi Arabia then. You've not thought this through.

As thoroughly nasty as Saudi Arabia are they are simply not comparable to Islamic State and the endless list of atrocities they have carried out or comparable as a threat to our security here,against our nationals abroad or even the security of our closest allies.

It may help you to muddy the waters and to try and link the two as equal giving a weird rationale that both must be bombed or neither but that is all you are doing,simply muddying the waters.

Funding from rich Saudi businessmen however who are sympathetic to these barbarians is definitely something that needs pressure placing on the Saudi Government to stamp down on,but that is a separate issue within a larger coordinated strategy,

How about sticking to the issue at hand eh,namely the issue of extending airstrikes into Syria

 

[AlbionPics&SouthCoastTwit]

As thoroughly nasty as Saudi Arabia are they are simply not comparable to Islamic State and the endless list of atrocities they have carried out or comparable as a threat to our security here,against our nationals abroad or even the security of our closest allies.

It may help you to muddy the waters and to try and link the two as equal giving a weird rationale that both must be bombed or neither but that is all you are doing,simply muddying the waters.

Funding from rich Saudi businessmen however who are sympathetic to these barbarians is definitely something that needs pressure placing on the Saudi Government to stamp down on,but that is a separate issue within a larger coordinated strategy,

How about sticking to the issue at hand eh,namely the issue of extending airstrikes into Syria

Supporting ISIS = death

Western nations including the UK should target Saudi businessmen who they know are supporting ISIS with precise drone strikes and emphatically state that helping ISIS is a death sentence.

 

[wellquickwoody]

I don't like posting loads of text but if you can't open a link and read it, then reply no one has come up with a credible way and people opposed want to negotiate with them, then I will post an alternative view than the idea of just bombing and putting both innocent civilians and our military at risk of dying. We already are killing individuals in Syria without mass bombing.


Why ISIS is so powerful

First,

ISIS has good weapons (mostly US and Saudi weapons that have flooded the region for more than 15 years). So we need to start thinking about the need for an arms embargo on all sides.

Second,

ISIS has good military leadership, some of it provided by Sunni Iraqi generals who were kicked out of their positions in the military when the US invaded and who are now providing training, strategy and military leadership to ISIS-allied militias and ISIS itself. These guys are a very secular bunch. They drink and smoke, and they will be unlikely to stick around ISIS if they believe they have any chance of recovering their lost jobs, prestige, and dignity. That could happen over time, but only if a really new government takes hold in Iraq, but it’s not going to be enough to simply choose a new prime minister and announce a new government made up of too many of the same old sectarian faces.

Third,

ISIS has support from Sunni tribal leaders – the very people President Obama says he wants to "persuade" to break with ISIS. But these are people who have suffered grievously – first during the US invasion, and especially in the years of the US-backed Shi’a-controlled sectarian government of Nuri al-Maliki. They were demonized, attacked, and dispossessed by the government in Baghdad, and many of them thus see ISIS at the moment as the only force they can ally with to challenge that government. And many of them control large and powerful militias now fighting alongside ISIS against the government in Baghdad.

Fourth,

ISIS has support from ordinary Iraqi Sunnis, who (also largely secular) may hate what ISIS stands for, its extremism and violence, but who have suffered terribly under Maliki's sectarian Shi’a-controlled government from arrests, torture, extra-judicial executions, and more. As a result they also are willing to ally with ISIS against Baghdad, at least for now.

So, weakening ISIS requires ending the support it relies on from tribal leaders, military figures, and ordinary Iraqi Sunnis. The key question is how do we do that?

Defeating ISIS without bombing Iraq or Syria

Step One:

Stop the airstrikes. Because what we in the US see as “hooray, we got the bad guys” is seen by many in Iraq, especially the very Sunnis the president wants to persuade to break with ISIS, as the US acting as the air force for the Kurds and the Shi’a against the Sunnis. Thus the airstrikes defeat the important goal of ending popular support for ISIS, and instead actually serve to strengthen the extremist organization.

Step Two:

Make real the commitment for “No boots on the ground.”

Step Three:

Organize a real diplomatic partnership to deal with ISIS. Even though the US is carrying out airstrikes and deploying new troops in Iraq, everyone agrees there is no military solution. So diplomacy must have center stage. That means serious engagement with Iran, among other players. Tehran has more influence in Baghdad than Washington does. If we are serious about wanting to encourage the Iraqi government to accept a truly more inclusive approach, joint pressure from the US and Iran holds the best chance. Even though Iran is predominantly Shi’a itself, the country’s leaders are very worried about the instability in their next-door neighbor resulting from the years of Shi’a sectarianism in Baghdad. The US-Iran nuclear talks appear to be moving very well; this is the moment to broaden those talks to include discussion of a real “grand bargain” between the US and Iran, to include all the regional crises.

Step Four:

Initiate a new search for broader diplomatic solutions in the United Nations. That means working to build a real coalition aimed at using diplomatic and financial pressures, not military strikes, at the international level in both Iraq and Syria. All the regional governments have their own concerns. Turkey, for instance, knows that joining a US-led military assault on Iraq could threaten the lives of its 49 diplomats and their families now held by ISIS. A real coalition is needed not for military strikes but for powerful diplomacy. That means pressuring US ally Saudi Arabia to stop arming and financing ISIS and other extremist fighters; pressuring US ally Turkey to stop allowing ISIS and other fighters to cross into Syria over the Turkish border; pressuring US allies Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and others to stop financing and arming everyone and anyone in Syria who says they're against Assad. We don't need another Coalition of the Killing (see Step One for why). Why not work to make it a Coalition of the Rebuilding?

Step Five:

Push the UN, despite Lakhdar Brahimi's resignation, to restart real negotiations on ending the civil war in Syria. That means everyone involved needs to be at the table: the Syrian regime; civil society inside Syria including non-violent activists, women, young people, refugees, etc.; the armed rebels; the external opposition; the regional and global players supporting all sides – the US, Russia, Iran, Saudi, the UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan, and beyond. This could provide a moment to work with Russia on Syria policy, thus building on the successful joint effort to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons and perhaps lessening tensions over Ukraine. An arms embargo on all side should be on the long-term agenda.

Step Six:

Massively increase US humanitarian contributions to UN agencies for the now millions of refugees and IDPs in and from both Syria and Iraq. The US has pledged significant funds, but much of it has not actually been made available to the agencies, and more should be pledged and given.​

I did open and read the link and dismissed it as nearly worthless. So, in short,

1 Stop bombing

2 Promise no forces on ground

3 Talk

4 Talk

5 Talk

They, ISIS, have no desire to talk, good luck everybody.

 

[pastafarian]

Supporting ISIS = death

Western nations including the UK should target Saudi businessmen who they know are supporting ISIS with precise drone strikes and emphatically state that helping ISIS is a death sentence.

you are quite scary

 

[pastafarian]

David the NSC public have spoken. 62% say no.

its interesting,but only until you realise the sample vote so far is 185 amongst a board that on polling had the greens nearly winning the general election

 

[wellquickwoody]

But the article, if you read it, is about a targeted bombing that destroyed a hospital, by mistake, bombing is bombing and kills people good and bad. The US said it wouldn't happen again. The US military initially conceded only that their airstrike might have caused “collateral damage” to the hospital. The top commander in Afghanistan, John F Campbell, later admitted – in the fourth attempt at explaining the devastating attack – that the hospital was “mistakenly struck”. 22 dead including weston volunteer doctors.

We are at war with ISIS whether you like it or not. Read it again, WAR. No one wants to see casualties of any kind if the world was a perfect place where we could all resolve our differences by talking. Well it ain't like that right now, we are at war. Unfortunately that will involve casualties on both sides, military and civilian, at least the civilian victims of the Allied action will be minimised as far as is possible, the civilian victims of ISIS will be maximised as far as possible. Welcome to the reality.

 

[pastafarian]

Rough estimates of one sortie and not including the possible death of injury of inocent civilians, our military and the stress to all their families. I will be the first to say I was wrong if we someone win this deluded war but it doesn't bode well and is being rushed into by the PM and parliament.

Why on earth do people feel the need at times like this to equate matters of defence spending with spending on the general public sector

These are two entirely different budgets

If you really want to go down this costing route and push this idea by posting this picture perhaps you will also share some further costings and equate them fully into your budget.

what price do you put on a prepubescent Yazidi girl sold into sex slavery
what price do you put on the gay man thrown to his death from a tall building
what price to you put on simply being executed because you don’t agree
what price do you put on being executed for being an apostate
what price do you put on being burnt alive
what price do you put on being gang raped then killed for being a whore
what price do you put on mass graves
what price to you put on being publicly crucified
what price do you put on each civilian killed by those who take the deathcult message abroad
what price do you put on the stress of all the families whose members have been butchered

how does your budget look now?

 

[GingerBeerMan]

Why on earth do people feel the need at times like this to equate matters of defence spending with spending on the general public sector

These are two entirely different budgets

If you really want to go down this costing route and push this idea by posting this picture perhaps you will also share some further costings and equate them fully into your budget.

what price do you put on a prepubescent Yazidi girl sold into sex slavery
what price do you put on the gay man thrown to his death from a tall building
what price to you put on simply being executed because you don’t agree
what price do you put on being executed for being an apostate
what price do you put on being burnt alive
what price do you put on being gang raped then killed for being a whore
what price do you put on mass graves
what price to you put on being publicly crucified
what price do you put on each civilian killed by those who take the deathcult message abroad
what price do you put on the stress of all the families whose members have been butchered

how does your budget look now?

I think the point is there is more than one way to destroy ISIS. Bombing isn't the answer, as has been proven many times in the past. ISIS are being funded by someone and get their recruits from somewhere. Stop these two things and we won't need bombs. But it's a hell of a lot easier for Cameron to rush this through parliament than it is for him to cut off his buddies in Saudi Arabia.

 

[gregbrighton]

Why on earth do people feel the need at times like this to equate matters of defence spending with spending on the general public sector

These are two entirely different budgets

If you really want to go down this costing route and push this idea by posting this picture perhaps you will also share some further costings and equate them fully into your budget.

what price do you put on a prepubescent Yazidi girl sold into sex slavery
what price do you put on the gay man thrown to his death from a tall building
what price to you put on simply being executed because you don’t agree
what price do you put on being executed for being an apostate
what price do you put on being burnt alive
what price do you put on being gang raped then killed for being a whore
what price do you put on mass graves
what price to you put on being publicly crucified
what price do you put on each civilian killed by those who take the deathcult message abroad
what price do you put on the stress of all the families whose members have been butchered

how does your budget look now?

How can you equate the two things? That's pathetic, pastafarian. If we talking about human rights why is David Cameron aligning himself with Saudi Arabia and China, the nations with the worst human rights records on the planet?

And our own human rights abuses blowing up innocent civilians, babies, schools and hospitals in the Middle East; Bombing Syria will only add to our catalogue of abuses over the decades. You are an utter hypocrite and a Cameron warmongering lapdog.

 

[pastafarian]

We are at war with ISIS whether you like it or not. Read it again, WAR. No one wants to see casualties of any kind if the world was a perfect place where we could all resolve our differences by talking. Well it ain't like that right now, we are at war. Unfortunately that will involve casualties on both sides, military and civilian, at least the civilian victims of the Allied action will be minimised as far as is possible, the civilian victims of ISIS will be maximised as far as possible. Welcome to the reality.

This is crucial to my personal support of the airstrikes being taken into Syria
Everything i have read says strikes by the RAF in Iraq undergo strict process both militarily and legally before the mission gets a green light,so far no civilians have been killed.Its my understanding this same process will be employed in Syria,hopefully the success rate will continue and no civilians will be harmed
I am not that naive to think something could not go horribly wrong and civilians would be harmed though
But the message however coming from some of those opposed to strikes is that the RAF are incapable of continuing this record and there will be indiscriminate bombing of women and children in their homes according to Corbyn..........i find this narrative unfounded and a lie,i have yet to hear of anyone that knows the RAF will change their strategy from targeted bombing to indiscriminate bombing.
I therefore fully support dropping bombs on islamic nutters heads

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

The desire to do something, and be seen to be doing something should not cloud our judgement. This is a time for cool heads. It will cost a lot of money to combat ISIS, potentially including losing our relationship with places like Saudi Arabia, and we need to improve and invest in intelligence. It is a war of minds as much as anything so let's use ours.

Just because we have a big hammer and leaders like to use it does not mean we should always use it. We know these people are complete murderous nut cases but doing what they want us to do may not be the smartest move.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Someone needs to explain the end game. We bomb Syria then what? Until a case is made we should hold off.

 

[nicko31]

Echoes of 2001 and Bush's "with us or against us"

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...accuses-corbyn-of-being-terrorist-sympathiser

George I hope there's another tax windfall round the corner deficit elimination is disappearing into the sunset

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The desire to do something, and be seen to be doing something should not cloud our judgement. This is a time for cool heads. It will cost a lot of money to combat ISIS, potentially including losing our relationship with places like Saudi Arabia, and we need to improve and invest in intelligence. It is a war of minds as much as anything so let's use ours.

Just because we have a big hammer and leaders like to use it does not mean we should always use it. We know these people are complete murderous nut cases but doing what they want us to do may not be the smartest move.

This, especially the last sentence.

 

[pastafarian]

How can you equate the two things? That's pathetic, pastafarian. If we talking about human rights why is David Cameron aligning himself with Saudi Arabia and China, the nations with the worst human rights records on the planet?

And our own human rights abuses blowing up innocent civilians, babies, schools and hospitals in the Middle East; Bombing Syria will only add to our catalogue of abuses over the decades. You are an utter hypocrite and a Cameron warmongering lapdog.

lets stick on the current subject shall we
Its about RAF missions against Islamic State and the extension of their missions from Iraq into Syria

can you give a list of blowing up of innocent civilians, babies, schools and hospitals in the Middle East that the RAF are guilty of in the past year