I'm not referring to just this thread, people are talking like this outside too. There's people spouting this shite in local pubs, workplaces etc... all over not just this country. It's ludicrous.
The governing principles of a caliphate are that it's a state that exists to be in a constant war with everyone else and every member is a soldier. Incomparable to anything else as far as human civilisation goes.
I'm not doubting there are plenty of moderate civilians in the towns and villages in the areas under ISIS control. They are not under any threat from British airstrikes. But in their strongholds and around their major bases? Nope. All cannon fodder.
I don't think IS recognise the value of human life enough to use civilians (non-IS members) as human shields. They'd rather just use them for target practice or as a bonfire.
Of course it's not a definitive statement but civilian casualties would be absolutely minimal in bombing an IS stronghold. Nothing like the risks of bombing in Iraq in 2003 or indeed in bombing in Iraq now like we are doing.
Sanctions on Turkey and Saudi Arabia until they stop helping extremists out. And a long term plan to rebuild Iraq, achieve Kurdish independence and help out the Assad regime to take out the rest of the country and rebuild it (on condition of Syria becoming a democratic country).
I'm not against military action in any circumstances. I just think we should be very careful before entering into military operations, and need to be going in with a long-term plan. We have previously been involved in the military interventions in the Middle East that have, in the end, been rather ineffective when you consider that the problem of terrorism remains. If we go in, we need to do so with a long-term set of aims, and with increased support from the public. As it stands, it continues to remain unclear as to whether the general public actually support this.
Do you honestly believe our military resources will have that big of an effect to the situation?True... If only there was more military resources and people willing to join the coalition air strikes... Oh hang on
Having a go at Turkey isn't going to achieve much when their current leader is an extremist himself.
I've not given up, but even I can see the flaws of the current plan.
Sanctions. He'll go bankrupt sooner rather than later.
And blowing him up has had an insignificant effect to the overall picture. They've still got the resources to cause havoc.
And I'm interested to hear how we're actually going to do what you're listing there when the Turkish Government and Saudi Arabia are complicit with the extremist.
And if anyone's going to carry out an Attack here it's going to be some lone lunatic already here. Not someone in Syria.
Sanctions. He'll go bankrupt sooner rather than later.
Your probably right... Let's just drop comrade corbyn in Raqa and he will negotiate a solution in no time...Do you honestly believe our military resources will have that big of an effect to the situation?
This was in reply to on your posts, I think you missed it:Not given up but offer no solution.
Sanctions on Turkey and Saudi Arabia until they stop helping extremists out. And a long term plan to rebuild Iraq, achieve Kurdish independence and help out the Assad regime to take out the rest of the country and rebuild it (on condition of Syria becoming a democratic country).
See above.You've not answered the question. You don't think we can achieve any of what I said? You really don't think we can destroy supply chains, revenue chains, weapons, soldiers on the ground because those regimes are complicit in your opinion?
We'll never be able to stop lone wolf attacks, but you're incredibly naive if you don't think impacting all of the above won't impact the ability of this organisation to strike at the UK.
Your plan please.....
It'll probably do more good than dropping bombs. He'll introduce them to environmentalism and promote mental health issues.Your probably right... Let's just drop comrade corbyn in Raqa and he will negotiate a solution in no time...
This was in reply to on your posts, I think you missed it:
See above.
I'd support doing bothIt'll probably do more good than dropping bombs.
So those that haven't been able to leave everything behind are now dispensable?But on the other hand Syria has a population of 22m and there are what, 7m refugees? I don't know how many people live in the densely populated regions controlled by Assad's regime but safe to say it's the majority of those remaining.
Sanctions have, historically, worked better than war. See Iran and Cuba.But free to murder at will in the mean time? I'm playing devil's advocate a little, but what you suggest doesn't really do anything to eliminate the bloodshed.
You're teaming up with a tyrant in the hope that he changes. It's bold.
I honestly don't think there are many that won't make things even worse.ok, let me reword it, a credible plan
You realise Raqqa is a city roughly the size of Coventry but more densely packed , whereas IS roughly number in the ten thousands. Now imagine the effects of bombing a city like Coventry while trying to target a small percentage of the population. It's not as if ISIS are all conveniently lined up and clustered together in isolation waiting for us to pick them off in a few clean surgical strikes.
Also if you have kids, consider yourself lucky that they're not amongst the 'cannon fodder' unlucky enough to be born in Raqqa and not allowed to escape.
I think you've answered your own question there.What use are 'human shields' in a bombing campaign anyway? If ISIS had innocent civilians to use as protection from bombing they would have to make public for it to have any effect on Western civilian opinion on the conflict.That would make them look weak and desperate. I don't think that is the look they are going for.
If we didn't bomb due to the hypothetical human shields, it is just as safe to assume that ISIS would torture and kill them eventually anyway as it safe to assume that those hostages even exist in the first place.
That's not true. They're trying to build a totalitarian nation, and even despots need people to rule over.Well, in a sense yes because IS will have already killed them.
This was in reply to on your posts, I think you missed it:
Aren't we a big target already?
We're more or less waiting for one small group of people to break through and kill 100+ people irrespective of Wednesday's vote. The only difference then is that our government will have to follow through with military action, most likely a lot more irrational than the current, supposed plans.
That is how you deal with ISIS. You need their allies to stop helping them before military action will be effective. If it weren't for Turkey and Saudi Arabia they wouldn't be able to control they land they do.I saw that but didn't feel it addressed the vital question of how to deal with IS now. Ideas?
ISIS have had the run of the place for a few years now, if they wanted to kill everyone they would done so by now.Well, in a sense yes because IS will have already killed them.
You do realise the coalition are not just bombing Raqqa don't you? I'm not sure Corbyn does as its all he talks about. There have been 2994 strikes on Syria with Raqqa being just one of many many targets.
That is how you deal with ISIS. You need their allies to stop helping them before military action will be effective. If it weren't for Turkey and Saudi Arabia they wouldn't be able to control they land they do.
ISIS have had the run of the place for a few years now, if they wanted to kill everyone they would done so by now.
Of course the people there are living under treacherous oppression but that doesn't give us carte blanche to wipe them out as some dispensable sacrifice.
Let me ask you this - if ISIS had occupied Coventry, would you consider the whole city dispensable to wipe them out?
I'm not opposed to military action. If I thought the plan we were presented with would in any help I'd be all for it. But I can't see it doing anything other than adding to the misery of the region and pushing ISIS sympathisers in the UK over the edge.I agree that those assisting IS must be discouraged from doing so but IMO that is not enough and military action against them is also needed.
hobbers has referred to the civilians there as "cannon fodder" and "target practice" in the last couple of pages.Nobody is saying wipe the whole of Raqqua out indiscriminately, I hope. Hit identified military targets is the aim. Unfortunately the reality of war is that some innocents will die in that process, as in any war.
Personally I don't see why we need to get involved just yet (although we already actually carrying out military missions there).
I would like to hear the credible alternative ideas on appropriate action, however.
The governing principles of a caliphate are that it's a state that exists to be in a constant war with everyone else and every member is a soldier. Incomparable to anything else as far as human civilisation goes.
I'm not doubting there are plenty of moderate civilians in the towns and villages in the areas under ISIS control. They are not under any threat from British airstrikes. But in their strongholds and around their major bases? Nope. All cannon fodder.
Nobody is saying wipe the whole of Raqqua out indiscriminately, I hope. Hit identified military targets is the aim. Unfortunately the reality of war is that some innocents will die in that process, as in any war.
Personally I don't see why we need to get involved just yet (although we already actually carrying out military missions there).
I would like to hear the credible alternative ideas on appropriate action, however.
Which is what? The buildings labelled "ISIS clubhouse , no civilians here"?No, just the areas that are key assets to them.
The RAF have only been bombing convoys and depots thus far all the way out in the desert and abandoned small villages, bombing a fully living and densely packed city is a different ball game altogether.The RAF don't seem to be struggling with coming up with targets. At least up till now.
You realise they're not keeping their shit in conveniently easy to bomb places, right? when the bombs come they'll be hiding in schools and hospitals.Well you've just done the job for me. Are there significant numbers of civilians in their strongholds and around their major bases (i.e. the buildings and camps targeted by air strikes)? Answer: Nope, there are no civilians there.
Ergo no, civilians are not cannon fodder. IS members are cannon fodder.
The RAF don't seem to be struggling with coming up with targets. At least up till now.
That's not what he nor I are suggesting at all. You mention bombing their supply chains and oil income - you're absolutely right but unfortunately that's not the plan at all (considering our Turkish allies are the ones buying their oil and letting them user their border, and Cameron isn't going to step on their toes). Instead, the plan seems to be queuing up to bomb dense cities like Raqqa where scores of civilians will die.
Similarly, I don't understand why you're calling an unwillingness to jump headfirst into doing what we always do 'sitting and twiddling your thumbs'. Its that hawkish, warmongering, attitude, that sees us sleep walk into these crisis. No one (not even Corbyn, although your so keen to say otherwise) advocates doing nothing, you're confusing calls for a sensible, managed, considered response, one which shows evidence of having learnt from our mistakes in the past, with a hand washing 'not our problem' response.
The plan which Silva, myself, the former British ambassador to Syria and various former heads of intelligence have proposed numerous times.What of any practical use does Corbyn advocate doing about Syria? He'll dabble about the fringes with talk about financing, but there's still a war going on and a nation in ruins. This is the former chair of the STWC we're talk about here, workable solutions to real world problems is not the basis upon which his ideas are formed.
Cameron's plan is has its flsws, yes, but the broader principle of intervention in this case (which dear Jeremy would never contemplate) is the right one.
The plan which Silva, myself, the former British ambassador to Syria and various former heads of intelligence have proposed numerous times.
Well, he's put Ken on it and we found out last week he's advocating a full on western invasion.Your beloved Corbyn has endorsed the sue of military force? I am shocked, shocked.
Well, he's put Ken on it and we found out last week he's advocating a full on western invasion.
