Based on that we need to bomb them to get rid of their ideas, does that mean that during the NI Troubles we should’ve just taken the same approach?

Based on that we need to bomb them to get rid of their ideas, does that mean that during the NI Troubles we should’ve just taken the same approach?

Imagine how quickly the troubles would have been over if the IRA had pick up trucks we could bomb from the air.

Ok, so this will probably get me flamed (and maybe rightly so)… but I can’t help winding this back a bit.

Why exactly is there NOW an imperative to take action? When there wasn’t, say 6 months ago?

Is it because ‘They’ have become more evil? (I don’t think they have). Is it because ‘They’ are on the cusp of suddenly acquiring massively greater killing power (the cynic in me can’t help thinking that someone in the “Bomb them” camp might have mentioned it)? Or is it because They have recently butchered a lot of Westerners in what everyone agrees was a most appalling and utterly incomprehensible atrocity?

Clearly it’s not about the killings of humans per se, as otherwise we’d be going after arms dealers and those with appalling human rights records. Anyone care to Google the number of people killed for socio-political reasons in China, Saudi, etc. vs those killed by ISIS?

So ok, lets assume it’s because ‘They’ have killed a lot of ‘Our people’ just lately, and are looking to kill a lot more. So how do we save the most people we possibly can? (Sorry, this is beginning to sound like Philosophy 101). And remember the UK is pretty much broke as a country. So given a set amount of money, do we:

A. Bomb the crap out of those targets we’ve identified, wherever there may be a training camp, or an unimportant but high media profile sicko like Jihadi John;
B. Target the recruitment of disaffected British youth by the power hungry sickos who are grooming a conveyor belt of young, manipulate-able 2nd gen British Muslims to die for their faith;
Or C. Spend the money on recruiting more doctors and nurses for the NHS so fewer people are dying on stretchers in hospital corridors? Or I don’t know, targeting drunk drivers, domestic abusers, or another other group that are killing more of ‘Us’ than ‘They’ are?

For me, A is not the answer. For every legitimate ‘target’ you kill, you’ll probably drive at least one more to take their place. Surely this is basic human nature?

Abhorrent though it sounds, I think maybe people ought to try to put themselves in the shoes of the kind of person who could potentially be manipulated into becoming a future suicide bomber/shooter. Just think about their view of the west, and what might drive them to do this….

Sorry, this is fairly incoherent. It’s late, I’m tired (and the vote has probably happened in the time that it’s taken me to type this anyway).

Just needed to put this out there… If you look back through history, “more bombs” is rarely the answer, whatever the question.

Or is it because They have recently butchered a lot of Westerners in what everyone agrees was a most appalling and utterly incomprehensible atrocity?

You sound surprised that a Westerner’s life should be regarded more important than the life of someone living in a godforsaken arab country.

What are you…….some kind of tree-hugging liberal?

If you look back through history, “more bombs” is rarely the answer, whatever the question.

I’m glad you’ve looked back through history and come to that conclusion, for the right wing nut jobs here, they don’t look back at all and bombing is their only answer.

quite.

ETA: Aimed at Ernie… but equally applicable

Why are we using conventional methods to fight an unconventional war?

We have to think outside the box to beat these guys. What do you need to fight a war? Money!!! Money is like water to a plant, take the water away and the plant dies, take the money away and the ability for these guys to fight is gone.

Go after the money men, who is buying the oil, who is doing the banking? Get all Mossad on these people, take them out. Immoral and illegal but when has a government ever shied away from that. That would send one hell of a message.

What we do about Saudi Arabia I haven’t a clue, as has been said to many rich powerful people making way to much money out of this conflict.

We have to think outside the box to beat these guys. What do you need to fight a war? Money!!! Money is like water to a plant, take the water away and the plant dies, take the money away and the ability for these guys to fight is gone.

I think you’re right and I think they are:
US destroys lots of IS oil trucks
RAF target oil well heads

Why exactly is there NOW an imperative to take action? When there wasn’t, say 6 months ago?

Because our neighbour was hit by them and has asked for help (is the best argument so far).
How would Brits feel if London had been hit like Paris and the French refused to help – is about the most valid argument I’ve heard.

DaRC_L – Member
Because our neighbour was hit by them and has asked for help (is the best argument so far).

Technically that alone triggers our duty as a member of NATO. Though just means we are obliged to defend other NATO members.

How would Brits feel if London had been hit like Paris and the French refused to help – is about the most valid argument I’ve heard.

But we are not talking about “helping”, we’re talking about perceived revenge.

We are not providing medical assistance or help with reconstruction.

A few days after the Paris attacks the French airforce carried out air strikes at what was widely accepted to be empty unpopulated former ISIS compounds, No one was killed and nothing was achieved beyond creating the appearance that “something was being done”.

Pointless empty gesture politics designed purely for domestic consumption which has absolutely nothing to do with defeating ISIS.

In fact it probably makes ISIS stronger by creating the impression that they are taking on the West.

A few days after the Paris attacks the French airforce carried out air strikes at what was widely accepted to be empty unpopulated former ISIS compounds,

Just like the Balkans then, endless raids to bomb the same targets long after they’d been deserted, just to be seen to be doing something.

A better question is…if the UK was ravaged by a complex civil war.. Where many fighters were among the general population..no obvious front line etc
.how would you feel if a country a long way away took a vote on bombing us..and they they decided to bomb us…how would you feel? Would you be happy to die for the sake of the rest of the country? Or would you think they were causing more problems?

That’s a totally emotive and pointless ‘what if’ and you risk coming across as an apologist/sympathiser. A death cult who despise civilization, who are intent on either converting or murdering you and your entire family sunnydaze310 would be more accurate.

You avoided answering the question …how would you feel?

A better question is…if the UK was ravaged by a complex civil war.. Where many fighters were among the general population..no obvious front line etc
.how would you feel if a country a long way away took a vote on bombing us..and they they decided to bomb us

Like the Spanish Civil War?

I’m starting to wonder how much of what we are being told is factually accurate..

I’m starting to wonder what things look like from a different perspective..

Our government was clearly keen to get involved, and from the WMD in Iraq debacle we know that they’ve concocted stuff before to dupe us..
You look at some Syrian footage and can’t help but wonder if ISIL aren’t just some savage and ferocious heroic types that are fiercely trying to protect their countrymen from the western crusade..

They certainly don’t look unpopular, and it’s coalition air strikes that seem to be most distressing to the civilians on the ground..

I don’t know what to believe any more, I don’t know if that makes me a terrorist sympathiser, but I do know that we’re governed by very greedy powerful men with an appalling track record for savagery abroad.. People for which lies, propaganda and media manipulation are just tools of the industry

It’s all too confusing, I doubt our speculations will have any bearing on the decisions taken and resulting action so I’m just gonna sit back and watch the show..

poor bastards

We’re not getting involved in the Civil War. It’s the Russians who are indiscriminantly bombing civilian positions. We’re bombing IS positions, equipment and infrastructure. It’s not militarily decicive, at best just impeding IS. But that is the nature of war – it’s more about attrition than decisive single battles. The dambusters raid was ultimately of very little value and within a very small amount of time (days) German industry was back up and running at full capacity as if it never happened, but doing that constantly over a long period of time across multiple targets – that has an affect, it diverts their focus and resources. Apparently IS are already starting to dig tunnels to escape the bombing, which will ultimately hampers their effectivness compared to being able to have a safe space they they can wander around with impunity. It’s about trying to degrate IS’s capability until such time the Assad problem can be addressed and the proper war on IS can start.

@yunki -this is my point. People are really quick to say ‘send in the bombs’ but what do we really know? History has told us things aren’t always as we’re told..and the issue is innocent people, like us but in another country, are having decisions made about their lives….how can we truly say we believe it’s right? I think we’d be naïve think only ISIl will die and on that basis I cannot say send in the bombs…and if one wants to call me a terrorist sympathiser doesn’t bother me….

A better question is…if the UK was ravaged by a complex civil war.. Where many fighters were among the general population..no obvious front line etc
.how would you feel if a country a long way away took a vote on bombing us..and they they decided to bomb us…how would you feel? Would you be happy to die for the sake of the rest of the country? Or would you think they were causing more problems?

I think if you look from that perspective – you could say the issue is a foreign power choosing to only drop bombs. You could look at that action and think that its a bit cowardly and squeamish. “boots on the ground” seems to have fallen out of fashion, but it does require people to actually look at what they are doing, make judgements, identify and attack the bad guys, identify and protect the good guys, provide shelter and bandages for the inoccents that are caught up in all this.

Just dropping expensive ordinance and not engaging in any other way is cowardice masquerading as bravado.

You look at some Syrian footage and can’t help but wonder if ISIL aren’t just some savage and ferocious heroic types that are fiercely trying to protect their countrymen from the western crusade..

I think this, if you replace “western crusade” with “Shia crusade”, is fact.

ISIL nutters are protecting Sunnis from Shia nutters. The Sunnis are far more scared of Shia nutters than they are of Sunni nutters so they’re willing to have Sunni nutters protecting them.

ISIS only hold Sunni areas.

Seems to me that there’s a case to be made that Sunnis and Shias have now segregated themselves and done all their ethnic cleansing and could be left alone, whereas destabilizing that will result in Shia reprisals against Sunnis as Sunni areas fall to Shias.

Certainly we should be a bit uneasy about helping Shias taking over Sunni areas which seems to be what we’ve done and what we plan to do.