SANTAN Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 No. I don't think war against ISIS is the way forward. They thrive on that shit. My point is that drones and air campaigns basically give off the impression that we're not fully committed. Willing to rain death upon thousands but not willing to risk any British lives in the process. The extremist propaganda practically writes itself. The propaganda is what is it, propoganda. I don't think us "giving them" the opportunity is of much importance, it would always manifest itself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Every time the US, Russia or France kills a civilian with their 'smart bombs' they do a better job of recruiting for Isis than any of the social media stuff. It's no secret these organisations put strategically important buildings/ apparatus near population centres and things such as schools/hospitals. What one of the militias are we going to choose to back because they're all fighting each other, what about the Kurds, do we leave them out now because it will annoy Turkey? In my opinion the battle in Syria is now too complicated for bombing campaigns to be successful. If they want to put a serious dent in Isis funds and capability then I could suggest a method completely blood free, stop buying Saudi oil. Want to stop Isis recruiting as effectively? Stop the Saudi royal family setting up Wahhabism(sic) training schools. All these people baying for blood, I'll ask you this, did bombing Iraq solve anything? Is the continued strikes there seeing any success? Has military action stopped the Taliban? Has it fcuk, they've just changed clothes and returned to power in most places. Military action as some coalition of the willing in Syria is not the answer, if there is to be action it should be UN led and only with an exit strategy in place. An outstanding post. I understand the point made by dorlomin about 'it's time stand up'. But our bombing strategies is half arsed and ineffective. And the idea of a all out attack of ISIS would have to be Un led and the local complexities mean that's not happening. They can be weakened in other ways and the place to start is following the money trail. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Maybe we should wait for the Chilcot enquiry from the last oh so successful foray into the middle east before we start bombing syria 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 What's the plan then Toryboy. What needs to be done? Defo not a toryboy,i just support action against isis in syria. What needs done is to target the isis training camps,this is the breeding grounds for its fighters to train and plan attacks before getting sent off to europe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Defo not a toryboy,i just support action against isis in syria. What needs done is to target the isis training camps,this is the breeding grounds for its fighters to train and plan attacks before getting sent off to europe. Even though that feeds further hatred against the west? We've just about got rid of Al qaeda and they were replaced. The same will happen unless we break the sequence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Defo not a toryboy,i just support action against isis in syria. What needs done is to target the isis training camps,this is the breeding grounds for its fighters to train and plan attacks before getting sent off to europe. Sheer genius. If only the French and American governments had had you as a strategist. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Rider Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Defo not a toryboy,i just support action against isis in syria. What needs done is to target the isis training camps,this is the breeding grounds for its fighters to train and plan attacks before getting sent off to europe. What do we do after that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 (edited) We do what we always do. We walk away and wait for the next problem. It's what we have done for 99 years Edited November 27, 2015 by Antiochas III 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Defo not a toryboy,i just support action against isis in syria. What needs done is to target the isis training camps,this is the breeding grounds for its fighters to train and plan attacks before getting sent off to europe. Brilliant. So what we might call the George W. Plan for Afghanistan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTJohnboy Posted November 27, 2015 Author Share Posted November 27, 2015 Maybe we should wait for the Chilcot enquiry from the last oh so successful foray into the middle east before we start bombing syria A very fair point. At the very least I would expect that enquiry to demonstrate just what an act of sheer folly Blair's foray into Iraq was, and which was of course based on a pack of lies, mis-information, trumped up intelligence, etc, etc. Are we really going to go down that road again? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTJohnboy Posted November 27, 2015 Author Share Posted November 27, 2015 Brilliant. So what we might call the George W. Plan for Afghanistan. Yeah, what we need is to get Dubya involved to smoke these b*****ds out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Even though that feeds further hatred against the west? We've just about got rid of Al qaeda and they were replaced. The same will happen unless we break the sequence. Is this last year the uk has foiled 7 attacks all conected to isis,bombing isis in syria is hardly going to make us a bigger target than we already are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Brilliant. So what we might call the George W. Plan for Afghanistan. What would you suggest we do,leave them to train and plan attacks on the uk/france etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 (edited) Why? Bombing has neither destroyed ISIS nor protected those engaged in it from terrorist atrocities (quite the opposite). France thought, "ISIS is a threat to us - we must bomb their breeding ground". Following their bombings, France was attacked by ISIS. By what logic should the UK now think, "ISIS is a threat to us - we must bomb their breeding ground"? We have demonstrable proof that bombing has not been effective and is a dangerous game to play. IS as a military army is all but destroyed in Iraq. Bombing the crap out of them there has definitely protected people in Iraq. Edited, FWIW, I'm a member of the SNP and I disagree with the party line on this too. Edited November 27, 2015 by Savage Henry 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTJohnboy Posted November 27, 2015 Author Share Posted November 27, 2015 IS as a military army is all but destroyed in Iraq. Bombing the crap out of them there has definitely protected people in Iraq. Edited, FWIW, I'm a member of the SNP and I disagree with the party line on this too. Is it? Why did Cameron not mention that yesterday? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Every time the US, Russia or France kills a civilian with their 'smart bombs' they do a better job of recruiting for Isis than any of the social media stuff. It's no secret these organisations put strategically important buildings/ apparatus near population centres and things such as schools/hospitals. What one of the militias are we going to choose to back because they're all fighting each other, what about the Kurds, do we leave them out now because it will annoy Turkey? In my opinion the battle in Syria is now too complicated for bombing campaigns to be successful. If they want to put a serious dent in Isis funds and capability then I could suggest a method completely blood free, stop buying Saudi oil. Want to stop Isis recruiting as effectively? Stop the Saudi royal family setting up Wahhabism(sic) training schools. All these people baying for blood, I'll ask you this, did bombing Iraq solve anything? Is the continued strikes there seeing any success? Has military action stopped the Taliban? Has it fcuk, they've just changed clothes and returned to power in most places. Military action as some coalition of the willing in Syria is not the answer, if there is to be action it should be UN led and only with an exit strategy in place. Spot on. Maybe we should wait for the Chilcot enquiry from the last oh so successful foray into the middle east before we start bombing syriaSorry but that's just too sensible.The knee jerk reaction to the massacre of innocent civilians in Paris is to intensify bombing that will undoubtedly add to the many past deaths of innocent civilians in Syria. Yeah that makes sense, so long as you think a Syrian civilian life is less precious than a French one. BTW I know not all the casualties in Paris were French. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Is it? Why did Cameron not mention that yesterday? Because stating it directly would lessen the impetus, I suspect. Also, note that he isn't calling for ground troops. That's more than just political expediency. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Spot on. Sorry but that's just too sensible. The knee jerk reaction to the massacre of innocent civilians in Paris is to intensify bombing that will undoubtedly add to the many past deaths of innocent civilians in Syria. Yeah that makes sense, so long as you think a Syrian civilian life is less precious than a French one. BTW I know not all the casualties in Paris were French. That is the likely view of the UK government given that France is a strategically important ally 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Because stating it directly would lessen the impetus, I suspect. Also, note that he isn't calling for ground troops. That's more than just political expediency.It will be someone else's boots on the ground. Can you imagine the outcry in this country if one of 'our boys ' was captured and beheaded on film. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podlie Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.