Bombing Syria

[Big Rider]

What would you suggest we do,leave them to train and plan attacks on the uk/france etc.

What targets will we go for that France, Russia and America aren't already targeting? Who leads this coalition?

Could they train in another country. Do we bomb that?

What is your plan B after bombing?

Who supplies the boots on the ground?

What is the 10 year plan?

Who replaces Assad in Syria or should he stay?

Who replaces Hussein in Iraq?

[dorlomin]

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.

ISIS is often little more than a foreign occupying force in these regions. Their money is foreign, their fighters are foreign and their view of religion is foreign. Sinjar was recently liberated by Kurds and Yazidi, they stated that US bombing played a key role in their retaking the town. Random bombing does no one no good. But aerial support for ground offensives is hugely helpful. But the only solution is a long term political solution. If we bomb alone without a political plan then all we do is force ISIS to retreat for a few months only to come back again.

People who say "bombing does nothing" seem to be dismissing the large oil revenues that flow into their coffers that can be cut off by destroying their transport networks, but bombing alone will not solve the problem. For me (and I am likely a lone voice in this) I see trading a support for bombing for a guarantee for large humanitarian effort to rebuild as a follow up.

[dorlomin]

Of course they are, it's all Saudi, the Wahabbism however is not foreign to the area it's pretty common.

Wahabbism? I always though Syria was largely Sufi.

Wahabbism is a relatively recent innovation closely tied to the house of Saud. So far as I understand its presence in Syria is a recent thing.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

What targets will we go for that France, Russia and America aren't already targeting? Who leads this coalition?

Could they train in another country. Do we bomb that?

What is your plan B after bombing?

Who supplies the boots on the ground?

What is the 10 year plan?

Who replaces Assad in Syria or should he stay?

Who replaces Hussein in Iraq?

So how do you propose ISIS should be dealt with?

[Big Rider]

So how do you propose ISIS should be dealt with?

Answer my questions first, then I'll answer yours.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Answer my questions first, then I'll answer yours.

You started it.

And it's the one question no one has really tried to answer on any side.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

How do you beat an ideology?

That's the point I was making.

I don't think either bombing (or not bombing) is dealing with the more fundamental issues. I think there is a military role but it has to go hand-in-hand with tackling the idealogues. That is not easy.

Edited November 27, 2015 by DeeTillEhDeh

[dorlomin]

Wahabbism is just the cleric who founded that branch of Sufism

Wahabbism and Sufism are completely different. Sufism is an esoteric and mystical branch of Islam religious that goes back to not long after the founding of Islam. Wahabbism is murderously opposed to Sufism. You can be killed for being Sufi in territory tafiri jihadis hold.

This is one sect of Sufi Islam.

vhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5goISKPSH8

A million miles from Wahabism and Islamic State.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

But when the reality is there isn't much of Isis left to fight instead we'd just be bombing small militias who pose no threat to us then what's the point, provide special forces support, properly engage the United Nations and make it a huge multilateral task force, that's what it's there for, f**k me it worked in Kosovo, however there wasn't oil in Kosovo for everyone to lay claim to so I suppose that's out the window.

I'd not disagree with a multilateral force but it still does not deal with fundamental issue of tackling the ideologues. Dealing with ISIS and their ilk is like tackling the hydra - cut off its head and another two pop up in its place.

[dorlomin]

Sufism is being exterminated by Islamic State in favour of a kind of comic book religion, one dimensional fanatical dullness. Many here will rage against Christianity and ignore its incredible input into western culture, Islam, especially through Sufism, had a great deal to offer the human experience. ISIS seek to murder that and replace it with a brutalist 1 dimensional alternative.

[Big Rider]

That's the point I was making.

I don't think either bombing (or not bombing) is dealing with the more fundamental issues. I think there is a military role but it has to go hand-in-hand with tackling the idealogues. That is not easy.

There is no consideration for a long term approach to this. Syria is an absolute clusterfuck now and for the foreseeable future. The Uk position seems to be to swagger in to boot Syria when it is on the deck after the big boys have already knocked f**k out of it. Will this destroy Isis? What on earth will this do to stop the ideologues and make us all safer?

[Zetterlund]

You can have a bunch of nutters with an ideology but they're not going to do much without money and weapons. The fact that the whole ISIS discussion is about to bomb or not to bomb, and not about identifying and dealing with it's state and individual sponsors is frankly an affront to our intelligence given the recent record of western interventions.

There was stability in Syria before thousands of extremists with foreign backing and weapons poured in . As well as the obvious culprits of Turkey and Saudi, the US has basically been arming extremists including Al Qaeda, at best recklessly and indirectly and at worst knowingly, for the greater goal of regime change. This is the group they told the American people were responsible for 9/11, and now they're 'moderate rebels'. This is why Syria became such a clusterf**k in the first place and allowed ISIS to stroll in and do what they like while the government fought on several fronts. The rise of ISIS was anticipated by intelligence services years ago and they were deemed to be advantageous to the Syrian opposition forces

Let's not forget that it was only in 2013 when Cameron was so determined to destroy Syria's government by 'humanitarian' bombing after the dubious (to say the least) chemical weapons episode. There were plans to get rid of Assad long before this too. The bottom line for me is, given the recent policy of doing away with disagreeable regimes I simply cannot believe that any military action in Syria does not have an ulterior motive, unless it's in cooperation with and at the request of the Syrian government. This really shouldn't be a problem at this moment in time if ISIS are indeed the main target for all involved.

[MassiveFanDan]

What is your plan B after bombing?

Who supplies the boots on the ground?

What is the 10 year plan?

Who replaces Assad in Syria or should he stay?

Who replaces Hussein in Iraq?

We must establish a Greater Kurdistan stretching from the Caspian Sea to the Golan Heights. It's the only way to be sure.

Only joking Erdogan, dinnae fash yersel.

Edited November 28, 2015 by MassiveFanDan

[Mr Bairn]

You can have a bunch of nutters with an ideology but they're not going to do much without money and weapons. The fact that the whole ISIS discussion is about to bomb or not to bomb, and not about identifying and dealing with it's state and individual sponsors is frankly an affront to our intelligence given the recent record of western interventions.

There was stability in Syria before thousands of extremists with foreign backing and weapons poured in . As well as the obvious culprits of Turkey and Saudi, the US has basically been arming extremists including Al Qaeda, at best recklessly and indirectly and at worst knowingly, for the greater goal of regime change. This is the group they told the American people were responsible for 9/11, and now they're 'moderate rebels'. This is why Syria became such a clusterf**k in the first place and allowed ISIS to stroll in and do what they like while the government fought on several fronts. The rise of ISIS was anticipated by intelligence services years ago and they were deemed to be advantageous to the Syrian opposition forces

Let's not forget that it was only in 2013 when Cameron was so determined to destroy Syria's government by 'humanitarian' bombing after the dubious (to say the least) chemical weapons episode. There were plans to get rid of Assad long before this too. The bottom line for me is, given the recent policy of doing away with disagreeable regimes I simply cannot believe that any military action in Syria does not have an ulterior motive, unless it's in cooperation with and at the request of the Syrian government. This really shouldn't be a problem at this moment in time if ISIS are indeed the main target for all involved.

The same Syrian government that we attempted to remove a couple of years ago?

No friends of old Davey bomb IMO

The issue is this for me, Syria seems to be torn between a horrifically authoritarian Assad regime that thinks nothing of massacring its own people, and ISIS. Quite frankly for the Syrian people it's like having to choose between shagging Susan Boyle and Anne Widdecombe.

ISIS aren't favoured for a whole multitude of reasons, the main two being that they have directly attacked the west and that they are a weird Islamic cult with a death fetish, but let's not pretend that Assad is some sort of Nelson ManGhandi esque leader of the people.

[Savage Henry]

There is no consideration for a long term approach to this. Syria is an absolute clusterfuck now and for the foreseeable future. The Uk position seems to be to swagger in to boot Syria when it is on the deck after the big boys have already knocked f**k out of it. Will this destroy Isis? What on earth will this do to stop the ideologues and make us all safer?

Not very much, but it will greatly enhance the chances of having a safe place for the Syrians to live.

Destroying the IS as a military presence is a relatively simple project - their best intelligence and strategists already have been killed. They were at the vanguard after all.

The problem is that IS ideology, which is Salafist (essentially the internationalist form of Wahhabism) is now a European phenomenon. The direct threat against the West are madrasah which generate splinter cells in European cities.

Bombing Syria should be seen as intervening on behalf of local people rather than directly protecting homeland security, as it were. It also prevents Russia from making even more of a mess of the region; Russia missiles are already flying all over the shop in Iraq.

[Big Rider]

Not very much, but it will greatly enhance the chances of having a safe place for the Syrians to live.

Destroying the IS as a military presence is a relatively simple project - their best intelligence and strategists already have been killed. They were at the vanguard after all.

The problem is that IS ideology, which is Salafist (essentially the internationalist form of Wahhabism) is now a European phenomenon. The direct threat against the West are madrasah which generate splinter cells in European cities.

Bombing Syria should be seen as intervening on behalf of local people rather than directly protecting homeland security, as it were. It also prevents Russia from making even more of a mess of the region; Russia missiles are already flying all over the shop in Iraq.

If we were to bomb on behalf of the local people we would need to know who they were, that we didn't kill any of them in a 'friendly' way, that they could form a new government, would they be tolerant of the disparate societies within Syria, that they would they be strong enough to maintain their borders and security etc, etc? This sounds like our meddling in Afghanistan when we left it to local Warlords to sort out the mess. We could spin it here the at we are intervening on behalf of the locals but how the bombing would be seen by Muslims elsewhere is that the western crusaders are still sticking their oar in. If only they had an Arabic Daily Mail to keep them on side....

I agree that the real threat is now within Europe so are we not going to bomb here too or do we keep that to dusty foreign lands only? There are no plans evident to tackle this issue. Surely we have to hit all our targets as part of the plan?

Are the Russians not our pals in this one anyway? I'm quite sure they didn't invade Iraq, nope that was us and the Yanks and I think we can all agree it was not our finest moment. Have we learnt anything from that intervention or will we continue to allow history to repeat itself?

[Zetterlund]

The same Syrian government that we attempted to remove a couple of years ago?

No friends of old Davey bomb IMO

The issue is this for me, Syria seems to be torn between a horrifically authoritarian Assad regime that thinks nothing of massacring its own people, and ISIS. Quite frankly for the Syrian people it's like having to choose between shagging Susan Boyle and Anne Widdecombe.

ISIS aren't favoured for a whole multitude of reasons, the main two being that they have directly attacked the west and that they are a weird Islamic cult with a death fetish, but let's not pretend that Assad is some sort of Nelson ManGhandi esque leader of the people.

I'm not suggesting he is, but much of what we read about the situation in Syria is nonsense. The regime is no more horrifically authoritarian than many others we consider allies and trade partners so this is no reason alone to get rid. When there were plans to overthrow Assad before any violence even kicked off then you naturally have to question what we continue to hear from the same dubious sources. In any case, it's up to the Syrian people - why are we insisting he can't run in a future election when surely he wont get voted in if he's as bad as we make out?

Dave will be determined to get stuck in for several reasons. He will want a seat at the table when the inevitable divvying up of the Syrian infrastructure and rebuilding contracts are being negotiated. He will also obviously be getting lobbied by the arms companies who will do very nicely from us dropping some bombs on empty desert and a few Toyota Hiluxes. And no doubt part of it is just so Britain can feel important playing war with the big boys.

One thing is for certain IMO - if we join in with the bombing it will not be to make Britain safer. If we (and France and everyone else) are serious about getting rid of ISIS we'd be publicly calling out our allies who are supporting them, putting severe political pressure on them and dragging certain individuals to The Hague.

[ICTJohnboy]

That's the point I was making.

I don't think either bombing (or not bombing) is dealing with the more fundamental issues. I think there is a military role but it has to go hand-in-hand with tackling the idealogues. That is not easy.

I'd not disagree with a multilateral force but it still does not deal with fundamental issue of tackling the ideologues. Dealing with ISIS and their ilk is like tackling the hydra - cut off its head and another two pop up in its place.

In his address to Parliament on Wednesday Cameron did nothing to address these fundamental issues.

Now Corbyn is under fire from all the old Blairites in his party for simply stating that the case for joining those currently engaged in bombing the shit out of Syria has not been made.

It will be a shame if he's hounded out of office over this issue. The only winners in that scenario will be the fucking media.

[LongTimeLurker]

You can have a bunch of nutters with an ideology but they're not going to do much without money and weapons. The fact that the whole ISIS discussion is about to bomb or not to bomb, and not about identifying and dealing with it's state and individual sponsors is frankly an affront to our intelligence given the recent record of western interventions.

We always get told that ISIS uses proceeds from captured oil fields to fund itself. Think it says something that nobody in the media asks the obvious question of who they could possibly be selling the oil to, given they are surrounded by what are all supposed to be enemy states, i.e. Iraq (Shiite run and allied with Iran, so that's not happening), de facto but yet to be internationally recognised Kurdistan (definitely not pals with ISIS as way too secular and borderline commie), Jordan (not likely to have forgiven and forgotten what happened to their pilot yet and appear to very much back the western backed rebels instead, and quite distant from firmly held ISIS area), what's left of Baathist Syria (way too much head chopping of captured prisoners going on for them to be trading in that sort of way to any significant extentand Iran is known to be sending the oil needed to keep the Assad war machine going), so who does that leave? By far the most likely candidate for some dodgy trading with ISIS is the neighbouring NATO member that is letting the US use one of its air bases to carry out its bombing campaign.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

We always get told that ISIS uses proceeds from captured oil fields to fund itself. Think it says something that nobody in the media asks the obvious question of who they could possibly be selling the oil to, given they are surrounded by what are all supposed to be enemy states, i.e. Iraq (Shiite run and allied with Iran, so that's not happening), de facto but yet to be internationally recognised Kurdistan (definitely not pals with ISIS as way too secular and borderline commie), Jordan (not likely to have forgiven and forgotten what happened to their pilot yet and appear to very much back the western backed rebels instead, and quite distant from firmly held ISIS area), what's left of Baathist Syria (way too much head chopping of captured prisoners going on for them to be trading in that sort of way to any significant extentand Iran is known to be sending the oil needed to keep the Assad war machine going), so who does that leave? By far the most likely candidate for some dodgy trading with ISIS is the neighbouring NATO member that is letting the US use one of its air bases to carry out its bombing campaign.

That's Capitalism for you.

Someone, somewhere, will be making a fast buck providing arms to one (or more) of the participants in this conflict.