Bombing Syria

[williemillersmoustache]

“You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers,” the prime minister reportedly told the committee.

In a shock development, turns out Supras is David Cameron.

[Mr Rational]

[Mr Bairn]

I think on balance, I'll be mildly relieved if the house approves air strikes tomorrow.

Does it make us more of a target to IS? Probably, although I'd argue that we're a target anyway and our intelligence has done a fantastic job snuffing out Islamist attacks in the past, compared to their French counterparts who really need to be taking a long hard look at themselves.

One of our nearest and dearest allies came under attack three weeks ago. You can almost turn a blind eye to the Charlie Hebdo attack as a direct attack on a business and the train attack as a lone wolf, but this was a direct attack by IS on France. We're duty bound to help defend France as a member of NATO and it's very clear to me that somebody has to pay the price for that attack and for me that should be IS strongholds within Syria.

Will strikes achieve a brilliant result? Probably not, but I'd still argue that it's a better alternative to doing nothing and sending the message out to young extremists who are thinking of joining IS that these attacks are acceptable and will be tolerated.

It's probably not going to have a major effect on my life either way but I'll be fairly pleased if Cameron wins tomorrow's vote and the air strikes go ahead.

[Mr Rational]

I won't.

Don't get me wrong, if there was a coherent plan put in place, a proper exit strategy and a rebuilding programme then I would be in favour, but this is a dick waving, attention seeking clusterfuck of an idea from Dave.

It's going to end up worse than Iraq.

[Alan Stubbs]

Bit harsh on the French security forces, imo. We're an island and we weren't chucking North Africans in the river 50 years ago. Britain's got a slightly easier job defending itself.

[Enigma]

I won't.

Don't get me wrong, if there was a coherent plan put in place, a proper exit strategy and a rebuilding programme then I would be in favour, but this is a dick waving, attention seeking clusterfuck of an idea from Dave.

It's going to end up worse than Iraq.

I think it could play out like Libya. We had no strategy there and none here. The end result will likely be a fucking mess with lots of young men, armed to the teeth shooting each other. Who will everybody fight when The territory is taken back by Assad, FSA, Kurds etc. they'll fight each other and the Russians will be backing a different horse to us. It's going to be very messy.

We need round the table talks, compromise if necessary, carve up Syria if we must, give Assad an Allowhite state if needs be. The everybody will know what they're fighting for and know that they're fighting for peace.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Enigma

[NotThePars]

Once again Mr Bairn is fine with people dying, as long as they're from the Middle East.

[Fide]

Neil Findlay, one of the few Labour MSPs who used to be alright, took an absolute pounding on Twitter last night for this piece of swivel eyed lunacy:

[Savage Henry]

"Across the UK families &workplaces, are divided on what to do on Syria and ISIL yet not a single SNP MP or MSP has a different view from NS?"

Neil Findlay, what a c**t.

It's a completely valid comment. Having a three line whip on this is repugnant.

[Savage Henry]

I think it could play out like Libya. We had no strategy there and none here. The end result will likely be a fucking mess with lots of young men, armed to the teeth shooting each other. Who will everybody fight when The territory is taken back by Assad, FSA, Kurds etc. they'll fight each other and the Russians will be backing a different horse to us. It's going to be very messy.

We need round the table talks, compromise if necessary, carve up Syria if we must, give Assad an Allowhite state if needs be. The everybody will know what they're fighting for and know that they're fighting for peace.

That's de facto US policy.

[BerwickMad]

Neil Findlay, one of the few Labour MSPs who used to be alright, took an absolute pounding on Twitter last night for this piece of swivel eyed lunacy:

The reactions to his tweet are utterly embarrassing. It's a perfectly valid point of view.

[Antiochas III]

No it isn't. The man himself against the bombing but because the SNP have agreed overwhelmingly against Bombing of Syria he's angry cause a) his party is an absolute shambles, top to bottom and b) SNP bad.

[doulikefish]

I think on balance, I'll be mildly relieved if the house approves air strikes tomorrow.

Does it make us more of a target to IS? Probably, although I'd argue that we're a target anyway and our intelligence has done a fantastic job snuffing out Islamist attacks in the past, compared to their French counterparts who really need to be taking a long hard look at themselves.

One of our nearest and dearest allies came under attack three weeks ago. You can almost turn a blind eye to the Charlie Hebdo attack as a direct attack on a business and the train attack as a lone wolf, but this was a direct attack by IS on France. We're duty bound to help defend France as a member of NATO and it's very clear to me that somebody has to pay the price for that attack and for me that should be IS strongholds within Syria.

Will strikes achieve a brilliant result? Probably not, but I'd still argue that it's a better alternative to doing nothing and sending the message out to young extremists who are thinking of joining IS that these attacks are acceptable and will be tolerated.

It's probably not going to have a major effect on my life either way but I'll be fairly pleased if Cameron wins tomorrow's vote and the air strikes go ahead.

Your a fucking idiot,the yanks have bombed the shit out of the place for a year,but hey ho a couple of typhoon jets dropping bombs and its going to put everybody off

[pandarilla]

No it isn't. The man himself against the bombing but because the SNP have agreed overwhelmingly against Bombing of Syria he's angry cause a) his party is an absolute shambles, top to bottom and b) SNP bad.

The opinion itself is a valid.

It's the fact that he's using yet another issue to have a pop at the snp. If they were divided he'd criticise so it's snp baaad no matter what. It's tedious.

Have the snp been openly slagging labour for the state they're in over this? I hope not. Moral high ground and all that.

[Antiochas III]

It really isn't though. For example I very much doubt, that many work places up and down the UK are in heavy discussion about us possibly bombing Syria.

[Poet of the Macabre]

If they have any sense at all they'll avoid discussing it at work so you don't have to realise how racist your co-workers actually are.

[renton]

I think on balance, I'll be mildly relieved if the house approves air strikes tomorrow.

Does it make us more of a target to IS? Probably, although I'd argue that we're a target anyway and our intelligence has done a fantastic job snuffing out Islamist attacks in the past, compared to their French counterparts who really need to be taking a long hard look at themselves.

One of our nearest and dearest allies came under attack three weeks ago. You can almost turn a blind eye to the Charlie Hebdo attack as a direct attack on a business and the train attack as a lone wolf, but this was a direct attack by IS on France. We're duty bound to help defend France as a member of NATO and it's very clear to me that somebody has to pay the price for that attack and for me that should be IS strongholds within Syria.

Will strikes achieve a brilliant result? Probably not, but I'd still argue that it's a better alternative to doing nothing and sending the message out to young extremists who are thinking of joining IS that these attacks are acceptable and will be tolerated.

It's probably not going to have a major effect on my life either way but I'll be fairly pleased if Cameron wins tomorrow's vote and the air strikes go ahead.

There is no plan here: Something most military professionals believe is a prequisite to the succesful prosecution of an armed action.

The 70,000 Free Syrian Army is a joke, the most effective component of which is the Kurds who are unlikely to push themselves beyond their own geographical boundaries, the rest are a hodgepodge of groups, some moderate, some as bad as Assad and ISIL.

If the strategy is to 'degrade' IS command and control so that this Free Syrian Army can retake ground, it's a bad joke, because they themselves are probably incapable of sustained, co-ordinated action anyway. Air strikes may degrade IS C&C, but it's not an absolute degradation that matters, only their organisation relative to their opponents on the ground, if the Free Syrian Army is a mess, it doesn't matter that NATO have made IS a mess as well, so long as they retain any kind of organisational edge over their opponents, then they'll hold their ground.

If the strategy is one of retribution, to make people think twice about joining extremist cells, 'cos here comes the dambusters - well, I'd love to see any kind of quantitative or qualitative data that suggests that is in any way effective, if you are motivated enough to even considering joining IS, the fear induced from an airstrike is likely more than countered by the bile and rage of seeing the bombs dropped in the first place.

So as far as I can see, there is no plan, no strategy, no preconditions for victory, no framework for a political settlement, no exit strategy... only the impulse that Something Must Be Done.

Edited December 2, 2015 by renton

[Fide]

It's a completely valid comment. Having a three line whip on this is repugnant.

The reactions to his tweet are utterly embarrassing. It's a perfectly valid point of view.

There is f**k all valid about it. Have a word with yourselves.

And the only person embarrassed about the reactions is you, BM.

[EdgarusQPFC]

I think on balance, I'll be mildly relieved if the house approves air strikes tomorrow.

Does it make us more of a target to IS? Probably, although I'd argue that we're a target anyway and our intelligence has done a fantastic job snuffing out Islamist attacks in the past, compared to their French counterparts who really need to be taking a long hard look at themselves.

One of our nearest and dearest allies came under attack three weeks ago. You can almost turn a blind eye to the Charlie Hebdo attack as a direct attack on a business and the train attack as a lone wolf, but this was a direct attack by IS on France. We're duty bound to help defend France as a member of NATO and it's very clear to me that somebody has to pay the price for that attack and for me that should be IS strongholds within Syria.

Will strikes achieve a brilliant result? Probably not, but I'd still argue that it's a better alternative to doing nothing and sending the message out to young extremists who are thinking of joining IS that these attacks are acceptable and will be tolerated.

It's probably not going to have a major effect on my life either way but I'll be fairly pleased if Cameron wins tomorrow's vote and the air strikes go ahead.

This,

I hate the idea of getting involved in Syria again but ISIS need to know that they can't get away with these kind of cowardly attacks Scott free. I think that regardless of what choice was made it would encourage attacks.

[BerwickMad]

There is f**k all valid about it. Have a word with yourselves.

And the only person embarrassed about the reactions is you, BM.

Believing there should be a free vote rather than parties whipping their MPs is an entirely valid opinion.

And the reaction in some of the tweets I saw was embarrassing. Pictures of crying kids and the like. Because there all picking flowers and playing on roundabouts at the moment of course.

It's not an easy decision, but some of the idiots who seem to imply that we would be deliberately targeting 'bairns' is as bad one way as Cameron's terrorist sympathiser bollocks is the other way.