[Closed] Forum House of Commons vote on air strikes in Syria - which way will you vote?

> better to stop the money flow but you don't do this with weapons.

This is essential too.

The US recently destroyed 160 (I believe) tanker trucks by bombing, which probably helps in a small way, but really the oil purchase has to be stopped at the economic/diplomatic level.

It's not just the oil. They have access to vast amounts of agricultural land that rakes in a lot of money. GOod luck banning the sale of that.

Time to break out some herbicides.

> Time to break out some herbicides.

Oh. That didn't work out too well in Vietnam either.

I've posted this on another thread but it's even more relevant here... [url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/16/isis-military-france-paris-attacks-nato-article-5 ]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/16/isis-military-france-paris-attacks-nato-article-5[/url]

"But the biggest challenge comes if you imagine what victory would look like. Isis-held territory being reoccupied by armies that, this time, can withstand the suicide bombings, truck bombs and kidnappings that a defeated Isis would unleash. Mosques and madrassas across the region stripped of their jihadi preachers. A massive programme of economic development focused on human capital – education, healthcare and institution building – as well as physical reconstruction. Nonsectarian, democratic states in Iraq and Syria and an independent Kurdistan state spanning parts of both countries. To achieve this you would need to unleash surveillance, policing and military action on a scale that could only be acceptable to western electorates if carried out with a restraint and accountability not shown in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The alternative is to disengage, contain Isis, deal with the refugees and try to ignore the beheading videos."

My expectation is the process will be very unpleasant and the outcome messy but it will probably be better than "doing nothing".

If that's the best case for military action we should not take military action.

But the biggest challenge comes if you imagine what victory would look like. Isis-held territory being reoccupied

More likely Sunni areas being reoccupied by Shias, who have already committed so many atrocities against Sunnis.

The only reason ISIS has any power at all is because Sunnis are far more frightened of Shia's than they are of ISIS.

I think you could make a case that leaving ISIS is place is less harmful than handing Sunni areas over to their enemies. ISIS have already done most of their revenge/ethnic cleansing. The Shias would be starting the new round of revenge/ethnic clensing, and you can bet they have countless grudges to settle.

no.

I am increasingly of the opinion that this won't get solved in the next 20 years or so.

I don't even know what "solved" means. Perhaps if that can be defined we can work out what needs to happen to get there?

Forget the place exists? Maybe they will forget we exist?

Hell yes! (just in case you miss reading my previous threads )

Bomb them until submission, if not bomb more or use mini-nuke (time to test some of them new toys).

Human population needs culling no ifs or buts.

They can keep their ideology as much/long as they like so long as this gives others the opportunity / reason to cull human population who are trying to become a disease.

Human population needs culling no ifs or buts.

Can I kill you then?

molgrips - Member

Human population needs culling no ifs or buts.

Can I kill you then?

Of course you can or if you wish to ...

How do you think I should response? Like a hypocrite?

I am a fair person and I treat everyone equally so my view is applicable to the entire human population on this planet.

Everyone is going to die sometime in the future and no one live forever. Fact! Even your scientific mind cannot dispute that.

I'm wondering how ISIS would react if we said "We are Rome. Please assemble all your warriors in Dabiq, allow everyone who wants out to leave. They we can get on with the phrophesised battle".

What would they say?

outofbreath - Member

I'm wondering how ISIS would react if we said "We are Rome. Please assemble all your warriors in Dabiq, allow everyone who wants out to leave. They we can get on with the phrophesised battle".

What would they say?

They would find/use the dirtiest underhand tactics/tricks they could master to wipe all your warriors out then enjoy your woman and children as the like in their paradise on earth.

Then they have their national day(s) to celebrate by laughing at bunch of idiots warriors who died trying to fight fair and stoopid.

For them the interpretation of dirties underhand tactics/tricks is the sign of intelligence ... that dominates over the honest idiotic ways.

They would find/use the dirtiest underhand tactics/tricks

Not really. They'd be lined up in some kind of Medieval Battle order and we'd just napalm them from the air.

I'm just wondering what kind of excuse they'd use to avoid it. They can hardly say "We'd rather not have a fight at Dabiq".

outofbreath - Member

They would find/use the dirtiest underhand tactics/tricks

Not really. They'd be lined up in some kind of Medieval Battle order and we'd just napalm them from the air.

You are learning fast!

We use dirty tricks on them then ... the question is what plane(s) to carry the napalm? I like a swan of B-52s.

I'm just wondering what kind of excuse they'd use to avoid it. They can hardly say "We'd rather not have a fight at Dabiq".

Very simple. They simply refuse to acknowledge your rules of engagement since your rules do not come from a supreme being.

[url= https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/europe/22495-french-air-force-kills-12-children-in-attack-on-iraqi-school ]Meanwhile the children die...[/url]

Is this what we really want?

epicyclo - Member
Meanwhile the children die...
Is this what we really want?

Meanwhile the propaganda continues and we want to feel more guilt ...

As far as I know the purpose of the machines on both sides is to eliminate all living things without consideration.

Meanwhile the children die...

Horrific but I suspect the casualties from the bombing are nothing compared to what will happen when the Sunni population of Mosul are "liberated" by Shias.

Interestingly ISIS took over Mosul in 2014. The local (Cameron would call them 'moderate') Sunnis (or perhaps it was the Kurds) ethnically cleansed the Christians out in 2008. Yet another example of how hard it's going to be to find moderates to lead this region once ISIS are kicked out.

But I see the civilians in Mosul, Raqqa etc as living under an army of occupation, something analogous to Europe under the Nazis, rather than them being fundamentally sympathetic to the occupiers.

ISIS's stunning and sweeping "victories" last year in Iraq could not have happened without some significant local backing - there is no evidence that ISIS are particularly impressive fighters, or greatly superior to Iraq's western armed and trained military.

There is no doubt that hatred of the corrupt Baghdad government played a part in ISIS's success.

Many people might not have welcomed ISIS with open arms but I'm sure that for many they were seen as preferable to a hostile and sectarian shiite administration.

In much the same same way that the support Assad enjoys in Syria is largely based of the perception that the alternatives are considerably worse.

I'm wondering how ISIS would react if we said "We are Rome. Please assemble all your warriors in Dabiq, allow everyone who wants out to leave. They we can get on with the phrophesised battle".
What would they say?

Can anyone think of a suitable person?

ISIS's stunning and sweeping "victories" last year in Iraq could not have happened without some significant local backing

Indeed, it isn't coincidence they've only been able to take over largely Sunni areas.

Many people might not have welcomed ISIS with open arms but I'm sure that for many they were seen as preferable to a hostile and sectarian shiite administration. In much the same same way that the support Assad enjoys in Syria is largely based of the perception that the alternatives are considerably worse.

This.

Indeed, it isn't coincidence they've only been able to take over largely Sunni areas.

And often with little or no fighting.

No
Bomb them and radicalise a load more closer to home.

No, no, no.

Maybe sanctions against Turkey as there was a report recently on them sympathising or letting known isis members through with very little resistance.

I think of ISIS as a set of twisted beliefs and ideals as much as any physical object, territory or possessions. Syria and Iraq just happen to be the staging post now.

If we drop bombs in Syria ISIS will just disappear into the shadows and reappear in another conflict probably with more radicalised Western citizens.

To me it would be like trying to drop bombs into clouds to eradicate the rain.

I also thought Jeremy Corbyn gave a very reasoned response as to why he is against it, but IMO he should allow a free vote.

I'm finding the most useful responses here are those that just say 'yes' or 'no'.

Its a no for me. IS recruit and grow from the west killing innocent people in air strikes and when youve got everyone throwing bombs at every faction of syria killing all and a sundry they can paint them selves as fighting for a just cause and recruit more. Take the spike in volunteers for the french armed forces after the attacks.

Westminster probably need a big bloody terrorist attack in the UK to sway public opinion.

Wonder when we'll get that?

Christmas probs... Extra bonus points for seasonal inappropiateness and they'll wanna get a wriggle on cos I imagine they already have signed contracts and whatnot to fulfil after the recent trade fairs

Westminster probably need a big bloody terrorist attack in the UK to sway public opinion.

late christmas we need to bring the public up to speed with we cannot have a nativity play due to muslims, carols banned in XXX due to Muslims and other stupid made up shit that the gullible buy without any evidence to support it

In a few years time this will weigh around Cameron's neck like it does to Blair now

I'm with Shirley bassey

[video]

I doubt it. Everyone is bombing Syria - Assad, the Russians, the US, the French, and a few others - not that it stops acts of terrorism of course. Britain claiming its right to join in and have a go at killing a few more people won't be as significant as Britain's role in launching an aggressive war against Iraq.

And again yes,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34954233

I think public opinion is more pro air strikes than you think.

48% back British air raids on the extremists, contrasted with 30% who want the RAF to stay out of the fight, and 21% who don’t know. But an overwhelming majority - 59% believe sending Tornado warplanes into action over Syria will increase the risk of terrorists inflicting carnage in the UK.

I think public opinion is more pro air strikes than you think.

Or doesn't feel *that* strongly against it.

I think it's a complete waste of time apart from showing the US we're a good ally.

However, I'm not desperately opposed to it because a) We're already doing recon there and that info is passed on to people who bomb b) Us bombing Syria will make no miltary difference at all. If two more RAF aircraft bomb Syria, two less will be bombing Iraq. c) There aren't enough targets anyway, so more planes doesn't equate to more bombing.

I suspect most people feel that way. Are against it, but don't really GAF if it happens because it will make no difference at all. (Apart from showing ISIS that we will always respond the way they want to their deliberate provocation.)

> 59% believe sending Tornado warplanes into action over Syria will increase the risk of terrorists inflicting carnage in the UK.

Would be interesting to know why they think that. As far as I can see attacks are coming regardless, and we're told several have been stopped already, so it makes no difference.

Would be interesting to know why they think that. As far as I can see attacks are coming regardless, and we're told several have been stopped already, so it makes no difference.

Yeah, we've 100pc pissed of the middle east already. The number of terrorist attacks is now related only to the quantity of disaffected yobs with some kind of tenuous Muslim background in Bradford or Crawley.

-

It's my view this is reflective of public opinion, French press reporting the anti demonstration today was just 5,000 vs 1m for Iraq invasion

Coming late to this...

Against - bombing would play into ISIL's hands and also cause much civilian collateral damage. When will Western countries learn that
even 'liberal' intervention causes problems not solves them.

I've just heard on the radio that demonstrations and rallies have been banned in Paris since the mass murders a couple of weeks ago.

@dekadanse, IS like most terrorist groups deliberately hide amongst civilians/non militants. The fact is civilians will be killed either way, want we are trying to do is put a stop to the civilian casualties IS are trying to inflict on their fellow Mislims and of course on us.

[i]I think public opinion is more pro air strikes than you think. The Commons vote (next week) will be a substantial majority with significant Laboir support and minimum Tory abstention/vote against. It's my view this is reflective of public opinion,[/i]

And it's my view that it reflects the opinion of politicians.

So whatever the vote results in, mine will be a true statement and yours will still be a guess.

No.

We haven't learnt from the past. Other options need exploring.

want [sic] we are trying to do is put a stop to the civilian casualties IS are trying to inflict on their fellow Mislims and of course on us.

1. 10883 civilians have been killed in Syria in 2015 alone (a further 45,000 in the entire conflict) according to the UN, although that figure isn't split up between the responsibility of pro or anti govt. forces.

2. 60 people in the UK have been killed in the last 10 years due to terrorism.

I think that lobbing more bombs into Syria is probably going have more of an effect on 1. than 2.

Interestingly, there have been reports of the USAF not attacking ISIS forces while they were being attacked by the Syrian Army as their actions may be interpreted as acting in Assad's interests.

@nick I think the death toll in Syria is close to 200,000 the vast majority civilians.

The Labour Party meeting is on Monday and the vote is rumoured to be on Wednesday. My guess is a majority of 75 in favour of air strikes.

@nick I think the death toll in Syria is close to 200,000 the vast majority civilians.

No, the majority have been pro govt forces (some 62,000), followed by civilians 55,000, followed by non govt forces, about another 49,000, then there are about another 45,000 who are unidentified.

The point is, I think we can put to bed the lie that the bombing of ISIS forces in Syria will somehow make a major impact of the already very low numbers of terrorist deaths in the UK. The vast majority of which were perpetrated by UK citizens.

We arrived in Afghanistan with the intent to build a nation, but left left when it started to cost too much.

We invaded iraq, and had no plan for what came after.

So we bombed Libya from a great height, and now it is a failed state.

So now we are heading to Syria...and are already back in Iraq.

Since the likes of Jambabollox are avoiding the what comes after question, I thought I'd post our oh so glorious triumphs in the middle east in the last few decades, just to give them a few pointers.

Cameron wants his war, it appears to be a badge of honour for Prime ministers these days.

Since the likes of Jambabollox are avoiding the what comes after question

Perhaps you're right, perhaps you're not (because the past is not the future http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/30/syria-iraq-labour-cameron-blair).

But the fact you choose to descend to personal insults removes any credibility from your contributions.