UKC

Remember. This is what Andy said originally. Let's go!
Andy Say - on 20:43 Mon
So. RAF personnel have killed British citizens in a country with which we are not at war. Because they were a threat to us; according to David Cameron.

WTF do we think we are doing?

In reply to MikeTS:
Maybe the first thread was archived because it wasn't getting anywhere?

In reply to MikeTS:

Never mind, Corbyn says he WON'T bomb jihadists. Be interesting to hear how he would deal with them(if, presumably, he was PM. God willing he won't be so we won't find out)

In reply to FesteringSore:

Easy for him to say for one who is probably surrounded 24 hours a day by security personnel.

In reply to Lusk:


Indeed

In reply to FesteringSore:


Cornyn believes in a more diplomatic solution and has - it's true - stated that he wouldn't have authorised the recent drone strikes under the prevailing circumstances - and it's becoming pretty clear that the UN aren't sold on the article 51 justification either, which is why the government cobbled together a rather sketchy alternative defence this week: that targeting terrorists in Syria keeps Iraq safe. Early signs are that that isn't going down well with the UN either.

Corbyn's a pacifist, but has acknowledged that democracy may dictate an armed intervention - he's already speaking in terms of only entering conflict with UN approval. Force isn't working, so having somebody coming up with alternatives should be welcomed: they may turn out to be ludicrous, but we need to listen.

Interestingly, this week he praised the government for its recent dialogue with Iran - Iran do hold the potential to clean up Syria - but Cameron behaved like the spoon-faced buffoon he is and made a bunch of snide comments in return. Which will probably p*ss the Iranians off in the middle of some complex and delicate discussions. I've got a lower opinion of Cameron for being more interested in schoolboy banter than in foreign relations, than (as yet) of Corbyn.

I'm not sure about Corbyn, in that being in government requires a dirty pragmatism and compromise and it's unclear as yet which of these he's capable of. But with a government in clear (if slim) majority and united at least on military action, I think we'll see Corbyn's mettle soon.

In the meantime, if you want to know what he's been saying, look it up. It's in the news fairly constantly.

In reply to MikeTS:

Because IS are well known for being a reasonable bunch, and will respond well to diplomacy. Why hasn't anyone actually tried speaking to them and asking them nicely to stop?

Or not.

So two British citizens leave to join Isis. People who have used Britain, it's tax funded education, health care and whatever else.
These guys have decided to join a force of ignorant extremist 'Muslims' because the west that have done nothing but support them, should suffer.
Their plans for life were to destroy innocent lives.

So wait, I'm gonna actually stop myself there. Why the hell is anyone thinking that the drone attack was wrong?!
Explaining why it was right is frustrating me, because it shouldn't need explaining.

Good job uk, show the buggers what we're made of!

In reply to Martin not maisie:

And what "diplomatic solution" do you think would really be acceptable to UK/US/Europe AND a group of lawless murderers and rapists who regard it as acceptable to murder THEIR opponents in such atrocious ways.

In reply to MikeTS:
If my memory is correct in 2015 there have been two terrorist bombings and one terrorist murder in the UK.

IS played no role.

UK terrorism is at a historical low, possibly the lowest it has been in my lifetime.

In reply to MikeTS:

IS should be grateful Maggie wasn't in charge, I'm sure the drone attacks are tame in comparison to what she would have done

In reply to elsewhere:




Cameron deserves a pat on the back then

In reply to Martin not maisie:




This I do not get. Iran wants to maintain Assad, who has no problem barrel bombing his own citizens. And Iran uses Syria to transport weapons to Hezbullah, a terrorist organisation, which is taking over Lebanon and wants to destroy Israel. In what sense are the words 'clean up' used here?

In reply to FesteringSore:


Who the hell knows? I'm not Jeremy Corbyn and I'm not promoting his views, just pointing out that if you want to know what he's saying, you don't have to muse on here: you can go and read about it. I doubt if he can take a dump right now without it being national news.

I think the reason the last thread got archived was because it just polarised without much real thought: the bombastic shouting at the bomb-tastic and vice versa. There's some fertile ground in there for debate, but it's being largely ignored.

In reply to MikeTS:


Basically Iran holds, if not the key then at least part of the solution, for exactly the reasons you state. Let's be clear, it's not a nation full of jolly be-turbaned japesters out for a bit of a laugh with the gullible west: these are people with some deeply flawed ideologies and real hunger for power, who oversee a country full of normal human beings, held in check by propaganda, religious brainwashing and overt oppression. We don't like them (the Iranian government); there's very little to like.

But Iran also want a seat at the big table and are pretty p*ssed off with IS much of the time. Many of their goals coincide with ours and they have the potential to influence Syria and, importantly, strangle the ability of IS to operate. Some of that ability might be down to bolstering Assad, a terrible thought - but worse than what's going on now? To paraphrase Grouch Marx, Iran have a bunch of principles - and if the more powerful nations don't like them, they may have others.

Syria cannot stabilise through violent means. It just can't - it's in a terrible stalemate and the attrition seems to be influencing all sides more or less equally. More violence from us is highly unlikely to help. It might, but it probably won't. And to be clear, I'm not referring to the drone strikes, but to large scale military intervention, particularly from 30,000 feet.

And just for the further avoidance of doubt, this week I've lost precisely no sleep over the assassinations of a couple of terrorists. None. But that doesn't mean that I'm onside with the drone attacks, nor that the government's hands are clean on this one; and conversely, neither does it mean that I'd never condone military action or that I think IS are in any way a reasonable bunch of loveable rogues. It's a complicated situation, so why would my views be simple?

In reply to MikeTS:
The RAF, under orders from the chain of Command, killed Daesh fighters - who knew fully the risks they were taking by leaving the UK to join a banned organisation.

I'm pretty glad it happened. Hopefully it'll convince others being radicalised that heading over there to join in isn't such a great idea.

In reply to FesteringSore:


Who are you talking about here, the ISIS or the British Government?

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:


Ah, the moral blindness, bankruptcy, equivalency and hypocrisy of the left in all its tawdry glory

In reply to Postmanpat:


I was about to say much the same.

In reply to elsewhere:




I bet you're against the killing of the two Brits by the drone? Ironic??

Bog

In reply to Bogwalloper:
Martin not maisie summed it up very well at 20:32 Sat.

In reply to Martin not maisie:

so clean up means stabilise Syria as a theocratric oppressive state that is a client of Iran? I see what you mean, but I don't particularly see that it is any improvement for its inhabitants - the few that are left!
PS would Assad be gone under your scenario?

In reply to MikeTS:
Must remember, Iran and the Shias are the good guys on our side.

Except in Yemen.

In reply to elsewhere:

Good luck with that sentiment, half the idiots on here think Iran = brown people = muslims = ISIS.

Nice to see the reason for murdering the 2 guys has gone from 'defense of the uk' to 'defense of Iraq'. Perhaps we can start bombing some other countries to defend them as well! USA style! http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/61135734.jpg

In reply to Postmanpat:

Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission, ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite

In reply to FesteringSore:
It's a bit 'shutting the stable door' now but if we'd done a better job rebuilding Iraq IS probably wouldn't exist, at least in there current form. If we just bomb them, without fixing the problems they exploit to get support, something else will just appear

In reply to radddogg:


Yes I know my enemies, they're the teachers that taught me to fight me...

In reply to MikeTS:


Quite honestly, under my scenario, Assad would drown in a vat of John McCririck's arse sweat. But that's unlikely to happen and we're belatedly starting to realise that with Putin's support, he may well be the person in charge during any resolution process. Is that better than what's happening now? B*ggered if I can work it out, but for the people of Syria it wouldn't, in the short term at least, be any worse.

Very little of this is likely to end in a way which suits our western sensibilities, whether for the liberal, non-interventionist hand-wringers, or for the interventionists who seem to just like seeing terrorists get theirs, without having to think about consequences and who believe ideologies can be destroyed like buildings and landscapes.

Sh*tty situations often need sh*tty, real-world solutions: there was an excellent piece on R4 this morning, with a couple of pragmatic individuals from respective sides of the Northern Ireland divide. Their agreement was largely on the fact that the peace process has been a tokenistic endeavour and that religious apartheid is alive and well; this is evidenced by the fragility of the Assembly and how it can be disassembled by a suspicion.

In reply to MikeTS:

F*ck religion

In reply to Martin not maisie:

In the meantime, if you want to know what he's been saying, look it up. It's in the news fairly constantly.

Num Num reckons that Corbyn hasn't said much at all.
Unless pictures of a bearded lefty pushing a shopping bike speak louder than words.
Diplomacy with IS?
<smirk>

In reply to radddogg:

big oversimplification, try bellicose and greedy
Religions not helping, give you that

In reply to google:

Is it though? Remove all recent religious based conflicts and what are you left with? The Falklands, Putin in Ukraine, what else? I'm ignorant here I know but help me out.

In reply to radddogg:


I think you might be quicker listing wars over the last century and a half that really were about religion. Life is more complex than RATM lyrics although I suspect they knew that as well. But anyway; fight the War, f*** the norm, bro'.

In reply to TobyA:

The RATM lyrics were not meant to be taken as a real input into the debate. Postman Pat reeled off blindness, bankruptcy, equivalency and hypocrisy, which reminded me of the song so I quoted it as a bit of fun to see who noticed.

And I never said wars, I said conflicts. I should really have said conflict.

In reply to radddogg:


Maybe. But the biggest murderers of the 20th century were Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedung, and Pol Pot. None of them killed in the name of a religion. (Except perhaps by being tautologous and defining their political beliefs as a religion)

In reply to Martin not maisie:



If stability is the pragmatic goal, then you could have it implemented by any party. And most parties are better than Iran for Syria, Iran is Shiite, Syria is primarily Sunni. Iran is mainly Persian and speaks Farsi, Syria is mainly Arab plus Kurdish, speaking Arabic. Syria is a Mediterranean country, Iran a Gulf country.

In reply to radddogg:


OK Religion gets in there, but what has more greed than that, religion? Ecclesiastical you have have a new chapter, one that has bellicose tribes at its core.

In reply to google:

I just can't help wondering what a better world it would be if people realised there is no god and all that rules and judges man is man.

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace, you

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

In reply to radddogg:

No god - but Hitler etc etc!!!!!!

In reply to birdie num num:



Why are you suggesting that I'd promote diplomacy with IS? They're mad as a box of frogs and, importantly, as far into power as they're ever going to get. For the leaders, there is no alternative scenario which gives them the kind of power (and thus trappings) that they have now. If we were, theoretically, to sit them down, what exactly *could* we offer them anyway? 'Well, Aziz, you currently have a direct line to Allah and 20,000 men ready to die at your command. You hold absolute power over the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and most of the world's leaders fear your next move. Tell you what, old son, if you agree to stop believing in all this Allah stuff, we'll give you a semi in Croydon and a job on the railways. We'll even throw in a Skoda Octavia'.

This is what I'm talking about when I say the debate has just polarised now, without much real thought. It's just easier to make these assumptions about opposing arguments than to put some effort in. And given that the government has just declared its future plan for intervening in the middle east, a bit of thought is what's needed right now: once the sabre-rattling jingoism over the assassination of a couple of deserving little sh*ts has died down, where exactly are we now?

I actually used the term 'strangle', as in 'they [Iran] have the potential to influence Syria and, importantly, strangle the ability of IS to operate'. Strangling and having a chat over a cup of tea and some hob nobs are two fairly different approaches - although both would be more likely to actually achieve results than dropping bombs on Syria. Iran and IS are both run by fundamentalist bigots, but Iran's leaders are willing to negotiate their zealotry against power. They're pretty dreadful, but we long ago saw any chance of a perfect solution ride off into the sunset (as in, sometime in the 19th century. We may have been partly responsible).

So, again. If I put forward the argument that there were some major problems with the planning, execution and justification of and for the drone killings, it doesn't mean that I've any sympathy with the terrorists; nor does it mean that I'm non-interventionist. If I think that stability in the region is more likely to be achieved through diplomatic solutions with recognised governments, it certainly doesn't mean that I think we should be having a chat with IS. I suspect that Iran's way of dealing with IS - who stand in their way much of the time - would be a lot dirtier and more ruthless than ours. And way more effective. That we don't currently like Iran very much may be of secondary importance: we didn't like the IRA much, but we sat them around a table, nurtured their ascendancy to (very limited) power and are now finding that the process is falling apart, for much the same reasons as outlined at the start - a bunch of people who held real-life power twenty years ago are struggling to come to terms with the limited nature of regulated, democratic power.

We simply cannot keep trying to bomb our way to success, or to continue a tit-for-tat strategy where we focus only on what our enemies did last, rather than what we did to elicit their response in the first place. Unfortunately, as most of our domestic, two party politics seem to revolve around the latter principle, it's a bit ingrained in us.

In reply to MikeTS:


Quite: if you're suggesting reasons why Iran isn't ideally placed to intervene, I agree with you completely. So here's a question: who would be morally AND practically in a better position to bring influence?

In reply to Martin not maisie:

A coalition of NATO lead by Turkey, and Jordan with the Gulf states, would be my answer I think. You start with a no fly zone: NATO can do that tomorrow. Then you push out carefully and steadily from the Turkish border to create a safe zone in the North. You recognise and support Kurdistan. This means putting the hard word on Turkey about WTF they are doing in NATO.

And in the South you do the same from Jordan, using Saudi and Jordanian armed forces. Plus Gulf money: they have lots to throw at football stadiums. They would do better to finance a huge safe zone in the South across from the Jordan border if the alternative was Syrian refugees in their states, an option they obviously do not want.

Israel would be good to have for military and intelligence reasons: they have every square metre mapped and monitored. But they would not want to step foot in Syria, nor would they be wanted. They could keep the peace on the Golan if given the nod: the Israeli Druse are lobbying for help for their relatives across the border in Syria. And they already have a close working relationship with Jordan

Or, of course, if we'd not deposed Iraq's government by force then dismantled its administration in the first place.

Two British terrorists killed? Good.


That remark is almost as stupid as it is offensive.

In reply to MikeTS:

I disagree. The 'Coalition of the Willing' thing hasn't exactly been successful in that region. The merest hint that the Great Satan, Great Satan's Little Helper (the UK) or God forbid Israel have the tiniest hand in the endeavour will have every bearded fruitloop from Aberdeen to Azerbaijan shouting about Alan's Snackbar and beheading those who don't support the religion of peace.

As Martin not Maisie said, you don't have to be best mates with the Ayatollah to see that Iran are pragmatic enough to see the threat posed by IS, and have the capability to deal with them, (maybe helped unofficially with NATO int and air power). Iran aren't going to be indulging in hand wringing about a poxy little drone strike. Also if Hezbollah or the Revolutionary Guard come into contact with young Mohammed from Bradford I don't think we'll have to worry about him rocking up back in the UK, telling his war stories down the mosque and engaging Phil Shiner to claim a hefty compensation package for the trauma he suffered at the hands of NATO.

Sound like win-win to me.

In reply to MikeTS:
If we were starting with a clean slate and/or a full set of chess pieces, then that all sounds logical, up to and including the promotion of gulf state forces as regional, home turf enforcers.

But we're not in that situation any more: Putin's weighing in, with a rough alliance with Iran and a mix of financial, cultural and obstinacy ties to Assad. NATO action is hamstrung. Iran and Syria have longstanding bonds which have been forged and strengthened through some pretty tough times - so whilst we may not want Iran involving itself in Syria, what we want is of little significance (and whilst Syria is Sunni, the leadership is Shiite).

Any influence of NATO in the region is unlikely to be trusted - why would they, we have a dodgy track record - but I absolutely agree that Kurdish independence is paramount: there's little doubt that Erdogan is conflating the Kurdish threat as part of a strategy to regain his majority and push on to authoritarianism (the current party elections and his shenanigans behind the scenes amply demonstrate this). And in the Kurd rebel leaders, he's found an enemy equally willing to use inflammatory rhetoric.

So NATO - or more importantly the big businesses within NATO countries - are getting a bit shy of Turkey and wondering how much help it's going to be, given that Erdogan is more concerned about his own powerbase than about stability.

Your plan sounds perfectly reasonable, but we've gone way past reasonable now.

Edit: sorry, bit of overlap as you'd added some on. Agreed re safe zone and enormous amounts of gulf money; disagreed re Israel doing anything unilaterally, what with them being at least as much problem as solution.

In reply to Martin not maisie:
Yes, had I tried to edit in without success a bit about Russia, to the effect that a no fly zone should have started yesterday.

The bonds with Iran I think are just self defence for Assad, like his calling upon Shiite Hezbullah: they are not inherent friends of Syria.

Israel should not act unilaterally, in fact I suggest not at all except to help relatives of its own citizens in the Golan. Whereas Israel has questions to answer regarding Palestinians, its hands are pretty clean regarding the mess in Syria I think. (Remember it destroyed a Syrian nuclear weapons facility a few years ago in what is now ISIS controlled area, and I think the kind of action that should be acknowledged as beneficial to stability)

It is close to midnight for NATO to get involved, but not quite. Erdogan has a lot to answer for to NATO and should be obliged to.

In reply to MikeTS:

Syria's bonds with Iran are much more longstanding - I doubt whether Iran has much time for Assad personally: he's essentially a weak man who resorts to force because he's naturally afraid of the people and of his own military. But they are bound by some shared goals and they've strengthened their bonds under fire. Iran is a country that wants power on a global scale, rather than just shoring up its own backyard, and this is the opportunity for them to trade to get it. At the moment, only Putin is giving both public and private support, so the Russians are making inroads; unfortunately, Putin's as interested in playing mindless, childish games at the expense of the west as he is in promoting stability in the middle east. I doubt the Russians and the Iranians trust each other one bit, and both sides probably believe that in the endgame (which will likely never be achieved) that they'll be able to screw the other side over and come out on top.

This is why crowing about a couple of dead terrorists is missing the point. Less terrorists is a good thing, but how we make them dead - or even whether we make them dead - is critical to long term success.

In reply to Martin not maisie:

I think we agree, in that Assad needs, for his survival, Iran and Russia. The problem is that is will probably last for the medium term and then collapse. More agony for Syrians. So Europe will see a lot more Syrian refugees.

In reply to MikeTS:

I think right now medium term is as good as we're going to get, to give some breathing space. Unfortunately, whenever we get some breathing space, the problem becomes invisible again - just like in Northern Ireland - and we stop trying to fix it properly.

We're all doooooomed, dooooomed I say!

(And on that note, R4 are putting on a documentary about Arthur Lowe, called 'Do Tell Him, Pike', presented by Ian Lavender. Sometimes I think Dad's Army was actually a documentary itself)

In reply to radddogg:
was that Him or Her?
and why would any one dislike?

It good to follow the views on this, and good to see that some hope for a settlement others just see a outcome
I don't see it as rights and wrongs, just a mess, and that's life.
I wonder if William Hill would give odds on any of the scenarios out lined in the synopses given?



love the lines ;


Unfortunately, whenever we get some breathing space, the problem becomes invisible again


We're all doooooomed, dooooomed I say!


This is why crowing about a couple of dead terrorists is missing the point.

This means putting the hard word on Turkey about WTF they are doing in NATO.
And in the South you do the same from Jordan, using Saudi and Jordanian armed forces.

semi in Croydon and a job on the railways.

In reply to MikeTS:

Its not a new technique. Unlikely to be novel even to the British Intelligence Services/ RAF, what's new is the choice to make public the action.

Most likely it makes it look like we are doing something about ISIS recruitment from the U.K., the swathes of migrants and refugees washing up on the shores of Europe, and an attempt to head off the public starting to ponder difficult questions re U.K. foreign policy off the back of the Corbyn election and an interesting time at PMQ's.

Unlikely to be legal either, but since when has the legality of an action been the the central tenet of secret foreign or domestic policy? Because the attorney general says it is and its been stamped as good by the head of the F.C.O. doesn't make it 'legal'; I wouldn't hesitate to squish a few ISIS with a hellfire given the opportunity.

D