Bombing in Syria

I'm against it, so I'm presumably a terrorist sympathiser according to our Prime Minister.

This has the potential to be a fairly volatile thread....



Fair enough, but on what grounds do you oppose?

Following Paris, I was all for it, but on reflection, I'm less than 100% sure.

I'm fairly sure that NOT bombing IS will not prevent them continuing to wage their "war" on the UK. However, I can easily see that taking action will encourage further terror attempts on British soil.

I guess the difficulty is that terrorists tend to entrench themselves adjacent to civilian targets, like schools and hospitals, which makes air attack difficult and will almost certainly lead to civilian casualties. Russia don't seem overly bothered though...

After all the publicly-stated desire from the UK government to un-seat Assad, he must be chuckling to himself that we're contemplating fighting his war for him...

This whole mess started (arguably) because of military intervention in the Middle East. I don't see how more military intervention will make the situation better.

Daesh (or whatever you want to call them) are being bombed daily by many other countries already. What difference does it make whether we add a few planes to that or not? It'll just make us more of a target, surely? It smacks to me of just wanting to join in for the sake of it.

And the same people who say we must share the burden of bombing Daesh are the same people who don't want us to share the burden of giving refuge to the people displaced as a result of the violence in Syria (a different debate, I accept).

I'm not completely against some sort of military action, but it needs to be carefully planned and to be part of a much wider approach to bringing peace to the region.

Dropping more bombs on them will not work long term.

Whose side are we on this week?

I think tackling Daesh is a horrifically complicated issue and whilst a united force of lots of western air forces plus Russia bombing targets in Iraq or syria or wherever will a) undoubtedly kill plenty of Daesh and b) present a pretty clear message that we are doing something, ultimately it isn't the answer. More importantly, the way Cameron has conducted this campaign to win the Commons vote has been shameful and may well come back to haunt him when the real questions about how to defeat the ideology that spawned Daesh are raised.

In my view the wrong question is being posed: if we are bombing in Iraq, then it really makes no difference if we bomb in Syria too. The question should be can we add anything to military action already taking place that will further the quest for a solution more than just spunking millions of pounds of additional high-tech weaponry at people who are brainwashed into believing that their death is a good thing anyway.
At some point, everyone is going to have to talk this out and it may be that a military campaign is required to dismantle Daesh's physical forces, but Britain joining the "coalition" using airstrikes against Syria is not going to destroy Daesh. It just isn't and this vote is just Cameron trying to look big in front of a home and international audience.

I don't think anyone has claimed it will destroy Daesh but it should be part of wider plans to interupt their infrastructure and we should definitely be looking at funding and those that financially support them.

What I have not heard from anyone is what how/when any sort of talks could/would happen and what they really think a suitable outcome will be. Lots of talk about military action not being the answer but very little suggested as an alternative. What would be the terms for talks to begin? What would we (Britain/the coalition/whoever) be able to offer/or be willing to offer to Daesh that would bring them to the table? What expectation should we place on Daesh. What would a successful outcome look like?

Convenient http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34982048

We need John rambo and the a team or we'll never win.

Fire arrows and melons I say!

I'm also against the proposal as it stands - too many potential risks. Civilian casualties, military casualties, potential retribution, 70,000 apparently suddenly-to-be-loyal-to-the-west personnel....??

Cameron I thought started the ball rolling a few days ago with a very compelling speech delivered (cunningly) in quiet authoritative tones as a sop to the new-style better-behaved discourse which has been a welcome change in the chamber.

From there things are unravelling as the public are appearing unsure - certainly all but one of the people I've spoken to over the past few days are against bombing - and the scantily-concealed bullying tactics of the PM couldn't resist surfacing in that astonishing faux pas of calling objectors "terrorist-sympathiser"

Also the seven or so stemmings of terrorist attacks on the UK have not been by IS, only "inspired by"...

I'm broadly in favour as much because I want to show solidarity with our friends. Even the Germans are looking to join in. I do also understand we have some capability that others don't have that will be useful in the fight.

Do I think it will fx it? No, I don't. But I also don't think it will make anything worse.

Also, to be fair, the bully tactics seems to be as much on Corbyn's side (if not more so) than Cameron's. It's a bit messy

Well if everyone joined in - Middle East, Russia, Germany et al, there would be a better chance of rooting out daesh presumably, and might also thin the chances of retaliation on just a few countries. In those circumstances, with (known) ground troops to control areas initially targeted by airstrikes, I might reconsider my opinion.

I'm On the whole, in favour for military intervention!
We need to wipe out daesh totally

We also need to take action on anybody in this country that publicly supports terrorism and protest which such hateful banners, that are clearly inciting trouble!

We must stand with our neighbours and allies!

We are bombing them in Iraq so I don't see that joining in the gang is going to change the fate of the U.K.

The problem and doubt start when you look at what's happening and has happened in the past! History has a habit of being right!

I'm just not convinced that bombing is the best way forward, as many civilians are being killed which just ends up being a recruitment Sargent! And we are destroying towns so the whole place needs rebuilding!
Then you have the matter of the rebels that the coalition are supporting, they will more than likely be our enemy next year, but with uk and us weapons! I could go on but I'm sure you know all this stuff

We have to do something but what? I don't know that answer! but I am 100% for wiping out daesh
So should we say yes to bombing or not?
It could be an oppertunity to change the coalitions tactics to a better approach!
Or just do nothing!? It won't make us immune to attacks daesh want to wipe out the western world we will at some point have to do something!

Perhaps the best course of action would of been to not kill off all the dictators? they seem to keep everybody in line! But what would the liberals be doing then? Wanting to bomb them to stop humanitarian atrocities!

Seems there is no right or wrong answer!

So perhaps we should support our neighbours and hope they will support us at our time of need!

I was initially for bombing but I no longer think that is the correct way! but we have to do something
Ooh that was a bit long winded sorry folks

They have been fighting each other before the west got involved . I am totally against it and in fact we should not be bombing Iraq either . Cameron needs a good hard kick in the b*lls and he may change his mind because hes hell bent on escalading this problem . Let any other country bomb ISIS if they want . Russia is now the superpower in the middle east . Foreign policy under the Obama admistraion is a joke no direction or plan .Obama is more worried about climate control ? When will the west ever learn to stay away from the middle east . Do none of these politicians ever read their history .

So is there a view that we should just leave them to it and do nothing?

It's not so much the bombing, it's what when and what happens when the bombing stops.
What is the criteria to stop and then what happens?

I can't help thinking that if the UK getting more involved that it will amount to nothing.
I also don't think that the more bombing will reduce or stop future attacks in Europe.

I think that the politicians in the UK need to do more about the terrorist grooming that is rife there. Something that really works would hopefully give some confidance to the British public.

As usual on all sides it's the innocent that are suffering.

When will man learn.

We've been led to believe that their financial backing and vital supply lines need to be halted. A concerted effort by an international and organised body of troops might then have an effect under support from the air.

How can you cut off the snake's head as Cameron puts it when it's a guerilla/internet-based organisation?

I just don't think we can do nothing. But also no-one wants to send in ground troops. It's a right mess and there's no clear answer.

Powerful speech by Hilary Benn in support of government just now - potential future leader methinks.

He's very good - he'd do a better job than the current guy

I think its the stupidest idea I have read this year. And one of the greatest military minds had this to say:

"The political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it, and the means can never be considered in isolation from their purposes." (Carl von Clausewitz)

We are committing our forces with no clear strategy or end game.

Air power has it's uses, BUT it cannot occupy land, only boots on the ground can do that, unless we commit ground forces, (and anyone familiar with the concept or history of "mission creep" will know that is a real danger. ) We are doomed to failure. And if we do, we will have to occupy Syria for some time.

Haven't we learned anything from our escapades in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya?
Does anyone believe we have improved security in anyone of those countries? Well possibly Afghanistan but we all know that the Mujahadeen appear to be in the ascendant.

And this is the government that pared our forces to the bone, (we have only 82,000 soldiers, which with our logistics "tail" probably means a best case scenario of less than 26, 000 infantry soldiers, a quick check shows we actually have 12,300 officers to 25,840 infantry)

We apparently have only 3 operational squadrons of Tornado GR4s, the Harriers (Which used to carry out the Close Air Support role), were mothballed and sold after 2010 defence review. Although the FGR4 (Typhoon) can be configured for air to ground.

Best case scenario, (assuming we have the pilots, spare parts and logistics) is we have the following:
131 Typhoon
98 Tornado

My personal feeling is anyone wanting us to bomb Syria, should be prepared to take the Queen's shilling if it all goes wrong, be happy to see their kids serve.
I have read (not on here, I might add), many comments by armchair generals, desperate for others to go to war for them.

YES .Enought countries bombing syria as is . What will happen when the bombing ends ? Even if they mangage to smash ISIS they wont hang around and they will move on and re -group . Too many other terrorists groups in the middle east and surrounding countries .Escalating the bombing wont solve the problem .

I suspect that to understand this we need to think in terms of political expectations. We are expected to join in.

It might even imply that they think (?know) some sort of attack is inevitable and that we may need to ask France for example to support us with aid/information/solidarity.

Clear majority maybe but I feel quite uncomfortable about it and what it may mean for younger generations.

Well I've watched a lot of the debate from today (not all of it, obviously) and I can't say I heard anyone make a convincing argument for bombing in Syria. Apparently 397 MPs heard something I did not.

To me, everyone just seemed to be banging the same drum; "ISIL are evil" "IS hate our democracy, we must act" "Daesh cannot be allowed to continue" etc. etc.

We know they are evil, we know they hate our way of life and we know they want to impose their stupid version of Islam on everyone. But I didn't hear anyone explain how us joining the bombing would help the situation in the long term.

Yes, Hilary Benn's speech was impassioned and he clearly is good in front of a crowd, but he didn't say anything new.

I was undecided on this issue until I heard Margaret Beckett and then Hilary Benn speak in the Commons last night. Following their 'speeches' I'm now in favour of airstrikes in Syria.

And on another point....



His tactless comments were however very relevant when it comes to the Leader of her Majesty's opposition as well as the Shadow Chancellor....

Countered by the "scantily-concealed bullying tactics of the leader of the opposition" when he stated that Labour MPs who voted in favour cannot hide?

Personally I'm not in favour, as it will be the usual mish-mash of operating "within the rules" against an opposition that isn't. You beat terrorists with terror, and there is no stomach for that, indeed the government falls over itself to hold to account young men put in harm's way who sometimes act in a manner not expected on the playing fields of Eton.

I'd be interested to see Cameron's reaction if a British pilot ends up doused in petrol in a cage. His first reaction will probably be "thank fk he's not one of mine" followed by "this won't help my re-election chances".

One potential positive outcome, the emergence of a credible future leader of the opposition.

There was some different sides to the story on 5 live last night after the vote! it was almost as if there was a news blackout until the vote was won!
There where Syrians saying that everybody forgets this is a civil war and we need the air support to help fight the civil war and daesh! its almost like the Yugoslavian war not a simple red side against the Blue side

That's fine but does that mean we will eventually be fighting Russia "pro Assad" as that is who the civil war is against!

is this the prelude to.. dare i say it, another cold war?

Yup, HIlary Benn made a fine speech but he should have aimed it at Assad first. As it is we're just helping the Russians in shoring up a dictator, and then, further down the line, how do we extricate ourselves from that one.

Controversial, but we've already sorted out 2 Middle east dictators, how did that work out?

And we let their African equivalents carry on regardless...

What is need is stability in the region and unfortunately removing Assad will not help that in any way.

The issue with removing dictators is there is nothing that can fill the vacuum quick enough so it results in infighting and old scores being settled which does nothing to move things along and opens the door to the likes of Daesh et al.

I don't understand all this crap thats going on at the moment. Some people think its political, other people think its religious, my God is better than your God and all that bollocks. Personally I am not a religious person. To me religion through the years has brought a lot of suffering to the world. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judaism, the Villa, Jedi etc... All of them appear to be a group, a club, a trend, some more successful than others.

History says that it will never change, people will always fight. Britain itself has a bad history which is the same with most countries if you go back far enough.

So what do we do then?

Bomb them? - Wow
Invite them to sit around a table and talk? - Never happen
Ignore them hoping they go away? - Laugh
Ban a certain religion? - Ha
Ask the Yanks - Oh dear

Or just leave to the politicians to sort out, after all, they always do what the country wants.

@RK,

True, but the first one was all the americans fault - taking out the Iraqi army was dumb. And the second failed for exactly the same reasons Cameron's got in mind for this one - an emotional response that soon becomes tiresome/expensive so is quietly stepped away from.

Regarding Africa, the mining corporations have everything exactly how they want it. God know what would happen should they get their shit together and start charging proper prices for all those precious metals.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised; I don't think bombing Syria, when we were already bombing Iraq, will make any difference - either to achieving our goals or to how much of a target we are. Although, of course, we will kill lots of people, some of whom will be bad guys.
If Roadking is right about the type of military campaign we would need to pursue to defeat an organisation like Daesh (and I suspect he is spot on), then it isn't going to happen.
That being the case, our options now appear to be: bombing, which is known to have a number of drawbacks (civilian casualties, limited strategic effectiveness, great recruiting tool for Daesh, etc.), or devoting the resources and commitment required to unite in isolating Daesh politically, financially and ideologically.
If they believe that they will triumph after a war in the Middle East between the Forces of Islam and a Rest of the World XI, why on Earth are we allowing them to draw us into what they want?

I wonder what the benefit of a year's hindsight will say on yesterday's decision.

Former Daesh hostage, Nicolas Henin makes some interesting points: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...e-paris-attacks

Don't know why this is being discussed. It's obvious to me that the people are powerless to stop any war such as this, and generally any war that they want anyway. I am sure that could be seen last night during the open discussion (I did not see) - you know, the one with the inevitable outcome, as with every war.

So long as powerful people have (I'd be surprised if they don't in one way or another) an interest in weapons (costs and profit) wars will always be welcomed

Thats my warped view anyway.

It's the new world order, confusion! So no one knows what the hell is happening. I work 4 hours above Iran, with muslim people in a 99.9% Muslim dominated country. Never had a problem in 5 years. It's all press generated and we know who controls the press.

Best way to escape the fear of terrorism, is to turn off the TV. Daesh (or whatever) is the new buzz Word, same as ISIS became a few years back - suddenly!

I'll shut up now!

So today's bombing was targeted on the oil wells to try and dry interrupt the funding.

So who is buying this oil in the first place?

Has a bombing campaign ever worked? It didn't in the 2nd world war, Vietnam, Afganistan or Iraq. Arguably nuclear drops worked in Japan so is that the next step?

Bombing will create more refugees, which the EU does not want to deal with, and possibly (if you believe the red tops) another way for terrorists to "flood" into Europe.

I do not know what the answer is, maybe a bit of retaliation is good for the soul but it does not fix the problem.


What I cannot bear is that fact that some the richest Arab countries are doing nothing to help, and in the case of Qatar (and others), probably funding the whole shitfest.

Still this mess has been going for over 1400 years so I don't hold much hope in my lifetime of it getting better. Dictators in the region did keep a lid on it though!

I think all the doom-and-gloom views miss the point that the rates of violent deaths in the world continues to decline. We are fighting less wars. We are, to some extent, learning lessons from the past. Nobody now believed that bombing alone will fix this issue and, on the whole, we are more realistic about the chances of fixing these issues. We seem to be making slow progress. We've still a long way to go.

I did hear a quote that the only way to permanently resolve the ME issue is to turn the desert into glass...

In the late 70's I was fortunate enough to get out of Nicaragua before the Sandinistas cornered President Somoza in his bunker, a short distance from where we lived. Before my exit I had a teaching practice including giving lessons to the children of the head of Quaker cereals in Central America. He was in fact Colombian but his considered view was that Latin American people, including himself presumably, tended to be over-feisty when it came to politics and living together peacefully so it worked a lot better when there was a strong dictator keeping control.

This apparent self-awareness surprised me at the time but was an education into alternative political opinions - Somoza was generally not liked, to put it mildly, due to his political repression (including blatant rigging of elections), lack of investment into education and maintaining sharp division between rich and poor. Not to mention that he was firmly supported by the US in this.

I had a very similar conversation with a Kuwaiti Colonel. When I asked him if he was relieved Saddam was gone, he said Arabs need a strong leader, or there is anarchy. This was just after Saddam was executed, I was somewhat surprised with his opinion, given GW1.

Subsequent events have proved him right.

Sadly, the only way through this is atheism.
If you're attached to a religion then you're obviously unstable and need to be locked up.

As for the idiotic extreme Muslims, cut their funding. Maybe a quiet word in the ear of a few sheikhs would work. There is a proper level of hierarchy and respect in the Muslim world, perhaps we should be finding the organ grinders and ignoring the monkeys?

"Ignoring the monkeys" is probably advice to be heeded, as those who express and support idiotic or extreme views may lack the intelligence or insight to realise this.