Should we bomb Isis in Syria?

Should we?

  • Yes

  • No

  • idk


Results are only viewable after voting.
D

Dr Mantis Toboggan

Guest
f there was a clear allied plan to go in, eliminate saddam's forces 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.
military intervention creates a problem. how do we solve it? more military intervention!
mass gun ownership leads to mass school shootings. how do we solve it? everyone gets guns!
no market control leads to economic crash and loss of livelihoods. how do we solve it? remove all market control!

like, when there's a problem, u don't add to it. i mean i don't mean to be radical here but it seems like common sense to me
 

blade1889

sir
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
3,568
Reaction score
1,225
Points
113
Supports
Sheffield United
Twitter
@blade1889
Military intervention creates a problem if you have no coherent exit plan to leave the place in better hands. Ala Iraq.

Hence I would only support it if there were.

We also don't solve problems by just ignoring them and we ain't gonna solve a problem like ISIS by confiscating their guns. Sorry if that sounds radical.
 
D

Dr Mantis Toboggan

Guest
oh of course 'this time will be different', that's a new one. we had a coherent exit plan in place for iraq. we just didn't count on the fact that people, generally speaking, don't appreciate foreign occupation, and that it has a habit of riling up the citizenry. we are solving the problem of daesh, for like the fifth time they are losing already. raqqah will fall in not too long. i say we are solving, but we aren't. they are solving it, the kurds and the moderate, arab and assyrian opposition. as it should be. we don't need to play policeman every fucking chance we get, and we certainly don't need to swagger our way into someone else's fight when we have effective proxies. not just effective proxies, but genuine good guys in the middle east. that's the first in i don't know how fucking long. so, for the sixth time, with daesh losing, why are we required to do anything other than assist the SDF when they move on raqqah? all u are calling for is the death of civilians, and, if u were serious about ground troops (i really hope u weren't), we're just giving people a legitimate reason to bomb us. do u remember iraq? it was monstrous for the people of mesopotamia, hell, if i was there and i had my father, mother or sibling killed by the coalition and i saw western forces roll through my village (a village that would have been liberated by arab forces in due time) then i'd def feel justified in grabbing a gun

question: would us defeating daesh, taking their territory and shit, would that prevent attacks in the west?

answer: no of course not

question: are we needed to defeat daesh?

answer: no, the local opposition will take the capital in the near future

considering those two questions and answers why do we need to do anything? it's your short-sighted thinking that will lead us into greater difficulty, wars can be won with brute force. insurgency and terrorism need a nuanced and intelligent touch. it's more about economics and demographics. the reason to why people fight. and we are about to give them a hell of a reason to
 
Last edited by a moderator:

HertsWolf

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
3,557
Reaction score
2,132
Points
113
Location
Hampshire and Ethiopia
Supports
Wolves
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.

Fairly similar view here. There was someone on Radio Solent this morning who has spent the last week in Syria as part of an international delegation. He suggested there is little support for bombing among ordinary Syrians themselves. He talked about local Christian and Muslim leaders working together to create peace. Will these local initiatives survive the bombing?

Although few Tory MPs voted against the bombing, it is significant that one of them was the Chair of the Defence Select Committee, Julian Lewis MP. He had earlier described the government's plan for combatting DAESH as "incoherent", with no cohesive, integrated strategy. He suggested we have no idea what to do next. This alliance is actually bombing both sides.

We can't exactly bomb them back to the Stone Age, because - in some respects - they are there already.

DAESH will melt into the night and vanish. To a mall, stadium, station possibly a lot closer to you.

If there was a strategy and planning satisfactory to the Conservative Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, together with clear, decisive action agreed as to the part that GCC countries need to play to stop financially supporting DAESH and other terrorists, then I would support bombing.

Until that time, I gravitate towards No.

Just as a reminder: the score table so far for the War on Terror.

CTyHD0iUEAAqJZ7.png:large

(Thanks to Smat for posting this table a few weeks back)
 

HertsWolf

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
3,557
Reaction score
2,132
Points
113
Location
Hampshire and Ethiopia
Supports
Wolves
One topic that has actually been supported by both the pro- and anti-bombing "campaigners" here has been the role of the GCC countries...Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc...in this and other conflicts in the region.

There is a widely held view - probably equally by those on the left and the right - that many people and, to some degree the governments, of these countries are actively contributing to the problems of the region...through financing, media coverage, moral support, views of religious leaders.

Thoughts on what we can practically do to stem the flow of support from the GCC for the extremists?
 

blade1889

sir
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
3,568
Reaction score
1,225
Points
113
Supports
Sheffield United
Twitter
@blade1889
oh of course 'this time will be different', that's a new one. we had a coherent exit plan in place for iraq. we just didn't count on the fact that people, generally speaking, don't appreciate foreign occupation, and that it has a habit of riling up the citizenry. we are solving the problem of daesh, for like the fifth time they are losing already. raqqah will fall in not too long. i say we are solving, but we aren't. they are solving it, the kurds and the moderate, arab and assyrian opposition. as it should be. we don't need to play policeman every fucking chance we get, and we certainly don't need to swagger our way into someone else's fight when we have effective proxies. not just effective proxies, but genuine good guys in the middle east. that's the first in i don't know how fucking long. so, for the sixth time, with daesh losing, why are we required to do anything other than assist the SDF when they move on raqqah? all u are calling for is the death of civilians, and, if u were serious about ground troops (i really hope u weren't), we're just giving people a legitimate reason to bomb us. do u remember iraq? it was monstrous for the people of mesopotamia, hell, if i was there and i had my father, mother or sibling killed by the coalition and i saw western forces roll through my village (a village that would have been liberated by arab forces in due time) then i'd def feel justified in grabbing a gun

question: would us defeating daesh, taking their territory and shit, would that prevent attacks in the west?

answer: no of course not

question: are we needed to defeat daesh?

answer: no, the local opposition will take the capital in the near future

considering those two questions and answers why do we need to do anything? it's your short-sighted thinking that will lead us into greater difficulty, wars can be won with brute force. insurgency and terrorism need a nuanced and intelligent touch. it's more about economics and demographics. the reason to why people fight. and we are about to give them a hell of a reason to

You're doing very well at ignoring the parts where I say I'd only support military action if we had a clear plan of not effectively leaving a vacuum for another bunch of radicals to take over. We had a 'plan' in Iraq. It was clearly a stupid plan and it clearly failed. Hence we need a better plan this time. The fact we messed up once and are messing up now doesn't mean we should have no plan or not intervene.

I find your six, seven or whatever posts about Daesh loosing strange. I mean is there no problem now? Those refugee camps are free of Syrians? We don't ned to help them cos they're winning...right?

Would us defeating daesh eliminate attacks? No. There will always be radicals. Just less of them and by proxy less attacks. Does the fact that there will always be radical groups mean we shouldn't go after the current biggest one? No.

Are we needed to defeat daesh? Well they haven't been defeated so far. And those local rebels...how successful would they have been without the foreign intervention there already is? I suggest not a lot.
 
Last edited:

BigDaveCUFC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
3,470
Reaction score
662
Points
113
Supports
Curzon Ashton....and Carlisle
disagree with air strikes as I do not think it'll do anything really.

I do think we should have had ground troops in a long long time ago, the biggest problem in coming years will be the amount of kids-youths who have been mind-warped by ISIS propaganda in those areas during the last year.
 
D

Dr Mantis Toboggan

Guest
You're doing very well at ignoring the parts where I say I'd only support military action if we had a clear plan of not effectively leaving a vacuum for another bunch of radicals to take over. We had a 'plan' in Iraq. It was clearly a shit plan and it clearly failed. Hence we need a better plan this time. The fact we fucked up once and are fucking up now doesn't mean we should have no plan or not intervene.

I find your six, seven or whatever posts about Daesh loosing strange. I mean is there no problem now? Those refugee camps are free of Syrians? We don't ned to help them cos they're winning...right?

Would us defeating daesh eliminate attacks? No. There will always be radicals. Just less of them and by proxy less attacks. Does the fact that there will always be radical groups mean we shouldn't go after the current biggest one? No.

Are we needed to defeat daesh? Well they haven't been defeated so far. And those local rebels...how successful would they have been without the foreign intervention there already is? I suggest not a lot.

'clear plans' are just plans, i feel you're missing the point here. u can plan this shit out of something but you can't predict human behaviour, once u commit to an intervention you're committed. i suspect any plan will look good on paper, but any intervention will create a vacuum 'clear plan' or no. the only plan that won't radicalise is a plan in which the SDF lead the assault, whilst we just offer air support. do u not see the insanity in following intervention with more intervention with more intervention? it doesn't work, i'm not sure how many times we'll have to go through this

why do u find it strange? u keep missing the point in that it has to be an indigenous led attempt to defeat daesh. once they defeat them they can decide what replaces them. we can't keep creating situations in which someone worse takes over, then bulldozering our way back in and resetting the clock. we have to break this cycle of 'oh this time will be different'. it won't be. history is my evidence here, i have seen nothing from you

i'd say us defeating daesh would actually lead to more attacks on the west. at the moment the islamic state is a draw for the global jihad. once that's gone they will look outward in big numbers. what happens when u hit a wasp nest?

the kurds are strong because of our support, i've never argued that. there's a difference between close air support between kurdish units on the ground and the USAF, and us directly attacking the islamic state. we can minimise civilian casualties with the former, the degree of co-ordination between the coalition and the kurds is brilliant, and there has been a real attempt to minimise collateral damage. without the kurds and the SDF we don't have the local knowledge, we aren't striking in support of any troop movements and, most crucially, it's us that are doing the killing rather than middle easterners.

bombs won't defeat daesh. troops will. those troops NEED to be local ones. so, the bombing of raqqa and the state, without local troop movements, serves no purpose at all
 

BlueBee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
1,183
Reaction score
282
Points
83
Supports
Making goonerz cry
Air strikes will only do so much....but they have to be done. We can't sit back and watch what those evil bastards are doing to innocent people and say "it's alright other countries are bombing them". That's the wrong attitude.

Eventually troops will be needed on the ground....it should have happened a long time ago.

I'm also not buying the broken record about innocent people losing their lives because of our bombs.....there's innocent people already losing their lives and in, all likelihood, are desperate for the West to get involved to at least stop the progress of the mob.

Hilary Benn is ace btw.
 

blade1889

sir
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
3,568
Reaction score
1,225
Points
113
Supports
Sheffield United
Twitter
@blade1889
'clear plans' are just plans, i feel you're missing the point here. u can plan this shit out of something but you can't predict human behaviour, once u commit to an intervention you're committed. i suspect any plan will look good on paper, but any intervention will create a vacuum 'clear plan' or no. the only plan that won't radicalise is a plan in which the SDF lead the assault, whilst we just offer air support. do u not see the insanity in following intervention with more intervention with more intervention? it doesn't work, i'm not sure how many times we'll have to go through this

why do u find it strange? u keep missing the point in that it has to be an indigenous led attempt to defeat daesh. once they defeat them they can decide what replaces them. we can't keep creating situations in which someone worse takes over, then bulldozering our way back in and resetting the clock. we have to break this cycle of 'oh this time will be different'. it won't be. history is my evidence here, i have seen nothing from you

i'd say us defeating daesh would actually lead to more attacks on the west. at the moment the islamic state is a draw for the global jihad. once that's gone they will look outward in big numbers. what happens when u hit a wasp nest?

the kurds are strong because of our support, i've never argued that. there's a difference between close air support between kurdish units on the ground and the USAF, and us directly attacking the islamic state. we can minimise civilian casualties with the former, the degree of co-ordination between the coalition and the kurds is brilliant, and there has been a real attempt to minimise collateral damage. without the kurds and the SDF we don't have the local knowledge, we aren't striking in support of any troop movements and, most crucially, it's us that are doing the killing rather than middle easterners.

bombs won't defeat daesh. troops will. those troops NEED to be local ones. so, the bombing of raqqa and the state, without local troop movements, serves no purpose at all

What do you mean by air support btw? To me air support means bombing, even if it is bombing to support the rebels?

I would not disagree that supporting the rebels is a good idea. In fact that would have to be center of any clear plan. Work with them, ground or air, support them and following the defeat of daesh stay in and work with them till the completion of the plan which has to be the creation of a sound and stable democracy.

Unlike in Iraq where we hastily exited because of pressure from back home.

As for plans looking good on paper...our current one seems to have been scribbled together on the back of a beano.

What happens when you hit a wasp nest? You weaken it. They come at you all guns blazing but without that nest they are ultimately weakened. They come at you in a completely disorganised fashion. They need to act and fast. As soon as humans act fast we get sloppy and make mistakes. But yes I do take your point that the immediate security risk is increased.

And yes I do find that point strange as there's still a massive refugee crisis thanks to daesh. Something we cant ignore. And whilst I've never argued against taking refugees, economic or otherwise, I have always argued we'd be best served creating a better place for them to stay in their own homeland.
 
D

Dr Mantis Toboggan

Guest
What do you mean by air support btw? To me air support means bombing, even if it is bombing to support the rebels?

I would not disagree that supporting the rebels is a good idea. In fact that would have to be center of any clear plan. Work with them, ground or air, support them and following the defeat of daesh stay in and work with them till the completion of the plan which has to be the creation of a sound and stable democracy.

Unlike in Iraq where we hastily exited because of pressure from back home.

As for plans looking good on paper...our current one seems to have been scribbled together on the back of a beano.

What happens when you hit a wasp nest? You weaken it. They come at you all guns blazing but without that nest they are ultimately weakened. They come at you in a completely disorganised fashion. They need to act and fast. As soon as humans act fast we get sloppy and make mistakes. But yes I do take your point that the immediate security risk is increased.

And yes I do find that point strange as there's still a massive refugee crisis thanks to daesh. Something we cant ignore. And whilst I've never argued against taking refugees, economic or otherwise, I have always argued we'd be best served creating a better place for them to stay in their own homeland.
there's a difference, as i explained second to last paragraph of my last post, between bombing raqqa and the islamic state on our own and bombing alongside and at the behest of the SDF

daesh were created due to a set of very specific circumstances that arose due to western occupation. western occupation no matter how good the intentions can't stop the fact that it is a western occupation. troops on the ground will exacerbate things.

and u think it will be different now? a few british troops dying is all it will take for people to change their minds on this. it took just one terrorist attack to convert half the populace to an anti-refugee position lest us forget.

and yeah, this will totally solve the refugee crisis. are we creating a state here? a state safe enough to repatriate refugees to? a state minus aleppo, the coast and kurdistan? how's that going to work with assad still operating in latakia? what about the other minorities, the assyrians? do they deserve a state too? who is going to run this state? arabs? islamists? will it be a democratic state? al qaeda are growing in popularity in syria, if they are elected do we go back in and say 'naaaah try again'? u are pulling us into an unimaginably horrific quagmire. if u think it's strange to claim that local people should solve local issues. if u think it's strange to suggest that we leave other conflicts alone, then u are a neo-imperialist

u don't need a country to execute terrorist attacks overseas. there are enough muslims with extremist sympathies to comit terrorism in the west, at the moment the islamic state has acted as a magnet for all manner of twats from across the world. pulling in possible terrorists from the west, the maghreb and the gulf. when that magnet is gone, when they don't have a caliphate to fight for, will they go home and say to themselves 'oh well back to the daily grind?'. like fuck they will. they will go home radicalised. they will go home to increasingly antagonistic communities. they will go back to a western world that keeps attacking them, that invaded the middle east twice for pointless reasons

u keep pointing out that i'm being 'weird' for saying daesh are losing. i still don't get why that's odd or irrelevant. u change tactics when u are losing. we lost in iraq, so ditching our current, smart method of defeating an insurgency and saying 'oh yes lets adopt the iraq war method that worked well' is absolute lunacy
 

The Southbank

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
952
Reaction score
329
Points
63
Location
Portsmouth
Supports
Reading
What an absolute waste of money this will be. We're constantly told that we - as a country - need to live within our means, yet we can find the money to drop bombs and the only people who win are those manufacturing these missles. David Cameron will sleep easy because the pressure from lobbying groups will ease up a bit for the meanwhile; fuck what the public think, aye.
 

Ian_Wrexham

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
567
Reaction score
736
Points
93
Supports
Comrade Lineker's Revolutionary Junta
I'm also not buying the broken record about innocent people losing their lives because of our bombs.....there's innocent people already losing their lives and in, all likelihood, are desperate for the West to get involved to at least stop the progress of the mob.

If only they had some communication with the outside world.
https://twitter.com/Raqqa_SL

(I don't know much about Raqqa SL or how much they represent opinion on the ground in Raqqa, but they are an anti-Da'esh group and are opposed to airstrikes)
 

blade1889

sir
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
3,568
Reaction score
1,225
Points
113
Supports
Sheffield United
Twitter
@blade1889
there's a difference, as i explained second to last paragraph of my last post, between bombing raqqa and the islamic state on our own and bombing alongside and at the behest of the SDF

daesh were created due to a set of very specific circumstances that arose due to western occupation. western occupation no matter how good the intentions can't stop the fact that it is a western occupation. troops on the ground will exacerbate things.

and u think it will be different now? a few british troops dying is all it will take for people to change their minds on this. it took just one terrorist attack to convert half the populace to an anti-refugee position lest us forget.

and yeah, this will totally solve the refugee crisis. are we creating a state here? a state safe enough to repatriate refugees to? a state minus aleppo, the coast and kurdistan? how's that going to work with assad still operating in latakia? what about the other minorities, the assyrians? do they deserve a state too? who is going to run this state? arabs? islamists? will it be a democratic state? al qaeda are growing in popularity in syria, if they are elected do we go back in and say 'naaaah try again'? u are pulling us into an unimaginably horrific quagmire. if u think it's strange to claim that local people should solve local issues. if u think it's strange to suggest that we leave other conflicts alone, then u are a neo-imperialist

u don't need a country to execute terrorist attacks overseas. there are enough muslims with extremist sympathies to comit terrorism in the west, at the moment the islamic state has acted as a magnet for all manner of twats from across the world. pulling in possible terrorists from the west, the maghreb and the gulf. when that magnet is gone, when they don't have a caliphate to fight for, will they go home and say to themselves 'oh well back to the daily grind?'. like fuck they will. they will go home radicalised. they will go home to increasingly antagonistic communities. they will go back to a western world that keeps attacking them, that invaded the middle east twice for pointless reasons

u keep pointing out that i'm being 'weird' for saying daesh are losing. i still don't get why that's odd or irrelevant. u change tactics when u are losing. we lost in iraq, so ditching our current, smart method of defeating an insurgency and saying 'oh yes lets adopt the iraq war method that worked well' is absolute lunacy

And as I said in my first post I am against us bombing Syria in what seems to be an aimless fashion. As I think many in this thread are....we aren't disagreeing with you!!!

I ave no idea on how daesh were created. It is hardly unimaginable that they filled the vacuum we created. Again I am not disputing that. Hence why we need to do things differently. We need a better plan and yes we need to work with the locals and for a sustained time. No one. No one at all is suggesting we do an Iraq.

One would hope this government would explain the necessity to remain in there and point to the errors of leaving Iraq early and show some bottle to stay in there and sort things out by supporting the locals. Again this is all down to having a plan and strategy and sticking to it. If we don't then as per my first comment I am not in support of it. And btw where did you get the 50% figure from cos that seems randomly plucked out of thin air to support a point ala Britain First or The Sun.

And again no one is suggesting local people shouldn't solve local issues. Just that they cant on their own and they need support. I do not doubt it wont completely solve the refugee crisis but it will certainly help if we defeat the people they are fleeing from. And yes it is tricky, the ideal aim I guess would be to create a separate state. That is a very idealistic view though and one of the ways in which this is already different to Iraq...we are not fighting the countries ruler but a separate group of people.

Again, no one is suggesting we recreate a carbon copy of Iraq.
 
  • Like
Reactions: .V.

Ian_Wrexham

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
567
Reaction score
736
Points
93
Supports
Comrade Lineker's Revolutionary Junta
And as I said in my first post I am against us bombing Syria in what seems to be an aimless fashion. As I think many in this thread are....we aren't disagreeing with you!!!

I ave no idea on how daesh were created. It is hardly unimaginable that they filled the vacuum we created. Again I am not disputing that. Hence why we need to do things differently. We need a better plan and yes we need to work with the locals and for a sustained time. No one. No one at all is suggesting we do an Iraq.

One would hope this government would explain the necessity to remain in there and point to the errors of leaving Iraq early and show some bottle to stay in there and sort things out by supporting the locals. Again this is all down to having a plan and strategy and sticking to it. If we don't then as per my first comment I am not in support of it. And btw where did you get the 50% figure from cos that seems randomly plucked out of thin air to support a point ala Britain First or The Sun.

And again no one is suggesting local people shouldn't solve local issues. Just that they cant on their own and they need support. I do not doubt it wont completely solve the refugee crisis but it will certainly help if we defeat the people they are fleeing from. And yes it is tricky, the ideal aim I guess would be to create a separate state. That is a very idealistic view though and one of the ways in which this is already different to Iraq...we are not fighting the countries ruler but a separate group of people.

Again, no one is suggesting we recreate a carbon copy of Iraq.

Probably worth watching this

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes.../enemy-enemies-rise-isil-151017151127849.html

Key part, for me, is how ISIS have been defeated once already by the US, militarily. They came back because the US made no change to the conditions that allowed them to form in the first place; a corrupt, sectarian state in Iraq. It's not just about defeating ISIS; it's about ensuring that they can't take root again in Iraq and Syria. That's got to involve power-sharing; anti-sectarianism and the protection of Iraqi and Syrian interests from regional influencers.
 

blade1889

sir
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
3,568
Reaction score
1,225
Points
113
Supports
Sheffield United
Twitter
@blade1889
Probably worth watching this

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes.../enemy-enemies-rise-isil-151017151127849.html

Key part, for me, is how ISIS have been defeated once already by the US, militarily. They came back because the US made no change to the conditions that allowed them to form in the first place; a corrupt, sectarian state in Iraq. It's not just about defeating ISIS; it's about ensuring that they can't take root again in Iraq and Syria. That's got to involve power-sharing; anti-sectarianism and the protection of Iraqi and Syrian interests from regional influencers.

Will watch the video later.

And I cant disagree with that! I know I sound like a broken record so apologies for that but that has to be so key in any play. Personally I dont disagree with going in to Iraq (although it was for the wrong reasons) but I do disagree with how we left Iraq.
 

Nath

Active Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
592
Reaction score
114
Points
43
Supports
José
The wrong decision was taken. But I'm not surprised as they've been taking the wrong decisions for years. Syria has been getting bombarded already by other nations. I haven't seen any major progress from these actions. The IS idea seems to be stronger more than ever. I don't see how more bombs will solve anything. Innocent people will be blown to bits, and extremism will only grow I imagine.
 
D

Dr Mantis Toboggan

Guest
The wrong decision was taken. But I'm not surprised as they've been taking the wrong decisions for years. Syria has been getting bombarded already by other nations. I haven't seen any major progress from these actions. The IS idea seems to be stronger more than ever. I don't see how more bombs will solve anything. Innocent people will be blown to bits, and extremism will only grow I imagine.

KobaneCantonAnimated.gif


aaaand

the fact is that the kurds, thanks in large part to co-ordination with the coalition (the u.s. and co acting almost as the kurds airforce), have almost completely cut daesh off from turkey, and their supplies. cutting daesh off from the turkish border is essentiall in cutting their supplies and ending the war. unfortunately when the kurds moved to cross the euphrates and push daesh out of their last stroghold on the border, jarabulus, they were bombed by turkey. with friends like that, huh

edit: a whole big vid for the kobane fight back. the city would have been lost, were it not for american support
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dave-Vale

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
1,612
Reaction score
497
Points
83
Supports
Port Vale
Just read a gravely upsetting article about a 5 year old girl killed during a Russian air strike. Horrifying. Even more so when I have a child that age.

My main issue is that bombing ISIS in Syria isn't going to stop European/British/American Islamic extremists committing terrorist attacks.
 

sl1k

the one
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
1,182
Reaction score
648
Points
113
Location
.
Supports
.
I don't agree with everything maajid nawaz says, but he made a few great points on which i don't think we focus enough, particularly due to the left right war peace paradigms we get fixated on.

Lately there's been alot of talk about the apparent consequences of 'action' and 'inaction'. Problem is most of the conversation is conducted in the context of - and thus emphasis placed on - military intervention. It's giving the public a false perception on the actual multi layered natured enemy we face, and even who that enemy should be at times.

What we actually are fighting, is an ideology that came to be from a very specific set of circumstances as ian has mentioned. You can kill those preaching and spreading it, but unless you have a plan in which to deal with the conditions that allow it to happen, unless you directly show the people a direct contradiction to the rationale behind their narrative all that will change is the face of the boogeyman.

In a politically stable, inclusive and united society this would be a hell of alot more easier to tackle. The reality is that the environment we are fighting in, is the complete opposite. They're playing at home and we're away, so to speak and i obviously don't mean that geographically.
 

Stevencc

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
13,242
Reaction score
7,221
Points
113
Location
°
Supports
°
If we get a score draw do we win by away goals?
 

Gladders

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
3,713
Reaction score
1,381
Points
113
Location
Marlow
Supports
Grimsby Town
Twitter
@Gladders1980
Well I think the correct answer was yes but it's got a lot busier out here the last few days.
 

pontoonlew

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
2,254
Reaction score
653
Points
113
Supports
Grimsby
The wrong decision was taken. But I'm not surprised as they've been taking the wrong decisions for years. Syria has been getting bombarded already by other nations. I haven't seen any major progress from these actions. The IS idea seems to be stronger more than ever. I don't see how more bombs will solve anything. Innocent people will be blown to bits, and extremism will only grow I imagine.

RAF air strikes in Iraq have resulted in no civilian casualties so far....
 

Forum statistics

Threads
16,471
Messages
1,200,339
Members
8,421
Latest member
scotox
Stronger Security, Faster Connections with VPN at IPVanish.com!

SITE SPONSORS

W88 W88 trang chu KUBET Thailand
Fun88 12Bet Get top UK casino bonuses for British players in casinos not on GamStop
The best ₤1 minimum deposit casinos UK not on GamStop Find the best new no deposit casino get bonus and play legendary slots Best UK online casinos list 2022
No-Verification.Casino Casinos that accept PayPal Top online casinos
sure.bet
Need help with your academic papers? Customwritings offers high-quality professionals to write essays that deserve an A!
4K UK IPTV
Top