Would you vote for bombing ISIS in Syria?

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

The western world is under attack from followers of extreme Islam, how can we stop this?

http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/new...hout-the-us-and-britain-bombing-iraq-or-syria

 

[The Spanish]

That comment is almost as crass as Cameron's. There's pros and cons for either side. Only in October the Kurds took Sinjar from ISIL after extremely successful US airstrikes. They can and do work, I have grave reservations about British involvement but I don't think we can sit by and do nothing and I don't believe we are at any greater risk of terrorist attacks by supporting the French and Germans and Yanks.

Re. the comments from Cameron - unnecessary, counter-productive and he's gone down a lot in my estimation. He ought to apologise.

its not pleasant, agreed, but imagine having corbyn suddenly opposite you and the potential for him to scupper serious decisions, it must seem like madness to have dave spart suddenly appear on the front bench and have real influence like some sort of bad dream where everyones gone mad.

 

[1066familyman]

This is a very interesting read about what ISIS apparently believes.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

 

[1066familyman]

...

I'm guessing your average ISIS scumbag would rather the siren voices calling for non military solutions would prevail rather than having to face being hit from the air at any moment by planes or drones.

I'm guessing you're wrong.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

This is a very interesting read about what ISIS apparently believes.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

They are an apocoliptic death cult and even if they loose the small areas of ground they defend they will pop up else where, especially in areas that are unstable or ungovernable. The funding needs to be traced and their views challenged and shown to be the medieval twaddle it is.

 

[wellquickwoody]

http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/new...hout-the-us-and-britain-bombing-iraq-or-syria

Talk to them? Diplomacy? Good luck with that then, you won't mind travelling to Raqqua to have a chat with them now will you?

 

[AlbionPics&SouthCoastTwit]

The only answer is to wipe out all the jihadists who believe they can defeat the UK and other western nations. If they want to join the others rotting in the ground than so be it. They will never stop.

This is truly the only answer to deliver to the jihadists.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

Talk to them? Diplomacy? Good luck with that then, you won't mind travelling to Raqqua to have a chat with them now will you?

No one is recommending talking to them, as 1066 is highlighting they want us to bomb them, it will need more complex stances to defeat them than just dropping bombs, that have been dropped now for over a year with little effect.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

Saw that the poll on the Argus is also similar to the poll here, i.e. around 60% are against air strikes where 5 days ago YouGov poles were showing 50 for, 30 against and 20 undecided. It would be interesting to see a poll done tomorrow morning.

Not that it will change much, foregone conclusion at this point, especially with the likes of Peter Kyle and his ilk tory lite Labour MPs voting with the Conservatives.

 

[LlcoolJ]

The Saudis fund ISIS. The Saudis control the oil price. We're mates with the Saudis (because we have to be). The Saudis are laughing. Chucking bombs isn't going to change anything.

 

[Big G]

Voted yes as I believe IS scum should be wiped from this earth.
However I think our boys have been at the forefront of the fight against this type of enemy for years whilst other countries played a very limited part. Time for other countries to step up.
I know it's about bombing at the moment and I love nothing better than tuning into Sky News and seeing an IS cvnt getting blown to bits, but a Brimstone missile cost about £100,000 a piece and a prolonged bombing campaign will cost millions. Rather see that money spent on improving the security to our borders or anti terror operations here!

 

[Lincoln Imp]

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.

I don't like to be picky but I think they needed to insert the word "OR" before each line of that poster - it clearly implies that you can buy all those people for £500k.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

The only answer is to wipe out all the jihadists who believe they can defeat the UK and other western nations. If they want to join the others rotting in the ground than so be it. They will never stop.
.

Interesting piece by John Pilger who witnessed first hands the horrors of the Khmer Rouge, I was thinking about how the Pol Pot regime was also a death cult and he has articulated the similarities and the problems/need to build some form of truce in the area to defeat the jihadists.

http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-pol-pot-to-isis-the-blood-never-dried

 

[wellquickwoody]

No one is recommending talking to them, as 1066 is highlighting they want us to bomb them, it will need more complex stances to defeat them than just dropping bombs, that have been dropped now for over a year with little effect.

As I asked NSC earlier, what should we actually DO about ISIS? Until someone comes up with a credible way to diffuse the current situation we should degrade their ability to organise further attacks, unless someone has a better idea.....

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

Saw that the poll on the Argus is also similar to the poll here, i.e. around 60% are against air strikes where 5 days ago YouGov poles were showing 50 for, 30 against and 20 undecided. It would be interesting to see a poll done tomorrow morning.

Not that it will change much, foregone conclusion at this point, especially with the likes of Peter Kyle and his ilk tory lite Labour MPs voting with the Conservatives.

You wonder if Cameron is having to rush this through as he may not win this vote in a weeks time.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

Saw that the poll on the Argus is also similar to the poll here, i.e. around 60% are against air strikes where 5 days ago YouGov poles were showing 50 for, 30 against and 20 undecided. It would be interesting to see a poll done tomorrow morning.

Not that it will change much, foregone conclusion at this point, especially with the likes of Peter Kyle and his ilk tory lite Labour MPs voting with the Conservatives.

You wonder if Cameron is having to rush this through as he may not win this vote in a weeks time.

 

[symyjym]

Saw that the poll on the Argus is also similar to the poll here, i.e. around 60% are against air strikes where 5 days ago YouGov poles were showing 50 for, 30 against and 20 undecided. It would be interesting to see a poll done tomorrow morning.

Not that it will change much, foregone conclusion at this point, especially with the likes of Peter Kyle and his ilk tory lite Labour MPs voting with the Conservatives.

At least he knows what side to bomb this time, but the plan to team up with moderate rebel groups such as Al-Nusra is a little concerning

Cameron should fly out there and call a Syrian rebel group meeting, make himself their Field Marshal and then direct the battle from Syria with his new unified moderate partners.

 

[nicko31]

Interesting piece by John Pilger who witnessed first hands the horrors of the Khmer Rouge, I was thinking about how the Pol Pot regime was also a death cult and he has articulated the similarities and the problems/need to build some form of truce in the area to defeat the jihadists.

http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-pol-pot-to-isis-the-blood-never-dried

If only politicians read more history they'd be wiser. The truth from Pilger I'm afraid..

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

As I asked NSC earlier, what should we actually DO about ISIS? Until someone comes up with a credible way to diffuse the current situation we should degrade their ability to organise further attacks, unless someone has a better idea.....

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.​

 

[Creaky]

Talk to them? Diplomacy? Good luck with that then, you won't mind travelling to Raqqua to have a chat with them now will you?

I don't see how 'talks' will at present achieve anything or is even possible with IS - that doesn't mean however that talks with others involved can't be productive - IS need to be isolated - their financial base needs to be destroyed, arms and other supplies cut off - none of that can be achieved without 'talking' to those buying oil and other goods from them and 'talking' with those supplying them with arms and other items.

Bombing achieves nothing if IS can simply replace their losses. It certainly doesn't make attacks in the West any less likely!