UKC

Looks like Cameron can tick this one off in his big book of Prime Minister eye spy.

But what will the outcome be?

In reply to The Lemming:

So what you're asking is: war. What is it good for?

T.

In reply to The Lemming:

Hopefully a safer world. If we ever work out who we are fighting. That's the biggest problem in my opinion.

In reply to The Lemming:

History tells us : not a good one.

In reply to The Lemming:

Is it just me, or has this stuff interfered with the scheduling of Question of Sport tonight?... Very tiresome.

In reply to The Lemming:

Wasting money on useless bombs which be much better off being spent on increasing my benefit payments.

In reply to Lusk:

I think if they don't spend all the military budget by financial year-end they get less next year.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Ah, I see. I was never any good at economics.
Cheers!

In reply to The Lemming:

So DC has called this "the right decision to keep the country safe".

Can anyone describe any way that this will pan out that will "keep the country safe"? I'm genuinely struggling here...

In reply to Ramblin dave:

The Iraqi government take back control of Iraq and the Kurds carry on being happy as part of Iraq with autonomy (perhaps long term separate). The rebel groups we like fight, and destroy, IS, gaining territory in the process and so forcing Assad to the table. He accepts losing control and a united, democratic, government runs Syria, possibly with the Kurds getting a similar arrangement in Syria to Iraq. Syria's safe, Iraq's safe. The Iraq and Syrian governments police their countries and prevent terrorists being able to plan attacks abroad. Both are grateful to both us and Russia(!) for saving them. World harmony is one step closer.

Easy (not that I'm saying it's likely!).

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Think of it in terms of taking a second hand car for a drive. We have to prove that Typhoons toting Brimstones can take out Toyotas, in order to safeguard exports... The rest of our manufacturing industry is f*cked, after all, and hedge funds don't seem to be in too much demand in Aleppo?

In reply to The Lemming:

I forgot it's the season of peace on earth and good will to all men.

In reply to Onion magnet:

Only for the Infidel

In reply to Orgsm:

We shall have to hang fire for the history but how long ??
David Kelly's history will not be in my life time ----------------- sealed for 70 years to protect the Kelly family
stand by for white wash,

sitting on the fence we may be doing the right thing ?

In reply to Clauso:
but it IS sport

''Is it just me, or has this stuff interfered with the scheduling of Question of Sport tonight?... Very tiresome.''

In reply to thomasadixon:

Alternatively, by bombing IS we are weakening the opposition to Assad, therefore lengthening the war.

In reply to The Lemming:

Being the moral and upstanding person that he is, I'm sure he will now be announcing that we will welcome loads more Syrian refugees, since we are making more people homeless?
I won't hold my breath for this announcement!

In reply to The Lemming:



You may have missed it, but we've been at war for the past year. Presumably the outcome will be much the same as his has been for the past year.

In reply to The Lemming:
What is the difference between us bombing Syrians and them bombing us, innocents will die in both instances!

In reply to Removed User:

Sorry, did I miss the bit where they bombed us?

In reply to The Lemming:

They haven't yet!

In reply to girlymonkey:


Are we? I think assumptions like that are a bit simplistic. First I don't think the RAF will target anyone's house, so it will be at worse mistakes that result in people being homeless. Second, one of the first things ISIS do when they take places is over is throw the inhabitants they don't like (anyone not of their religion) out of their homes. So restricting ISIS's range will likely reduce the numbers made homeless.

In reply to MG:

If another country starts bombing in the vicinity of your house, are you going to hang around to see if they 'miss their target' or not? I'm not, I'm out of there! One bomb in the area is going to make a lot more people flee in one go than ISIS are. I am not for one minute saying that ISIS are not a problem, but just that we are making the problem worse for the average Joe just trying to keep their heads down and get on with life if they possibly can

In reply to girlymonkey:

One bomb in the area is going to make a lot more people flee in one go than ISIS are.

I think that's doubtful. Flows of refugees seem to result directly from ISIS taking somewhere over, not from bombs aimed at military and oil targets. E.g.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27789229

In reply to The Lemming:
If you brought IS to the negotiating table they would nail your head to it.

Selective, air only campaign, even if used to back Kurdish forces on the ground, is going to be questionable in its efficacy and who is on the receiving end.

I wish I could sit in the purple fug of my own moral superiority and certainty like certain elements of the left and the right.

What we don't have is any robust, deliverable alternative strategy. The right playing crusader is not going to work, and the left shouting boo hiss Hilary Benn is Tory scum is hardly a constructive rebuttal of yesterday's decision.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

Yep. Don't know how I would have voted but pretending it is easy and clear cut in either direction is clearly wrong. In fact Larry, one of your relations, has put it well

https://twitter.com/Number10cat?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctw...
"The reason this feels so horrible isn't because the wrong decision was made, it's because there was no right decision"

In reply to MG:

They appear to mainly be fleeing Assad, not Isis. I'm not sure the bombing wil help.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/8-graphs-that-challenge-what...

In reply to MG:

Surely the answer is, "don't start bombing until we have a clear strategy of which bombing is a part of", not just, "we have to be seen to do something so let's start bombing despite evidence to say it will be pretty ineffectual on the grand scheme of things".

In reply to MG:

Also worth pointing out that the majority of Syrian refugees coming to Europe are not fleeing from ISIS...

There was a interview on R4 with a resident of Raqqa this morning who was generally supportive of the (US lead) coalition bombing and who welcomed the UK vote. I'm sure there a multitude of opinions within the town, but it does at least show that the targeting strategy used by the US-lead air strikes does not instil universal fear for the inhabitants of the areas being targeted.

In reply to The Lemming:

I don't see that much has changed. We were bombing Daesh in Iraq, now we're also bombing them in Syria.
They don't recognise the borders anyway.

PS. Did Hilary change any UKCer's mind?

In reply to Fredt:



Totally agree, this is a minor change in military rules of engagement, with stupid amounts of hot air attached



My opinion of Hilary Benn increased dramatically, an effective speech, and one of the best delivered I've heard for some time. Now higher on my radar as potential next labour leader and possible PM.

In reply to MG:


How about bombing and ISIS 'both' make people flee an area (in numbers which may differ and can be argued about on the internet)?

In reply to Fredt:

Hillary tackled a classic strawman:

"So the question for each of us – and for our national security – is this: given that we know what they are doing, can we really stand aside and refuse to act fully in our self-defence against those who are planning these attacks? Can we really leave to others the responsibility for defending our national security when it is our responsibility? And if we do not act, what message would that send about our solidarity with those countries that have suffered so much – including Iraq and our ally, France."

The decision to NOT bomb Syria does not constitute a decision to "stand aside and refuse to act fully in our self-defence against those who are planning these attacks". We need to target ideological support for ISIS coming from Saudi Arabia, oil trading largely through Turkey, and weapon supplies.

We also need to win the propaganda war by supporting counter narratives to ISIS' interpretation of Islam. We can also undermine them by assisting refugees.

Lee Rigby's killers only needed motivation and a knife. Bombing Syria feeds in to the narrative of the former.

By the way, I've checked Osbourne's summer budget speech. Plenty of talk about living within our means and the consequence of this for the NHS, our schools and local services, but no provision for the cost of war. Are we warring within our means?

In reply to Fredt:


No, not at all.

It's was a tremendously well-delivered speech, but for me, completely lacking in any substance. He spends a fair bit of time going on about how nasty ISIS are, well yeah thanks. He bangs on about the UN resolution, again nothing we're not already full of aware of. His main argument is the bogus 'defence' argument which completely ignores the fact that the more you drop bombs on ISIS, the more they encourage people *in the UK* etc to blow themselves up in crowded places. He rattles through the most of the objections: what the f*ck to about Assad, the lack of ground troops, the civilian casualties, the fact that ISIS can quite easily cope with being bombed ever so slightly more...and he doesn't actually answer any of them.

Good comment from McDonnell (believe it or not) on the radio: "the greatest oratory can lead to the greatest mistakes" - referring of course to Blair's speech on Iraq.

Now if you want to see an argument that is stunning, compelling, intellectually rich and logically inescapable, get a load of this (you have to click on Hammond's face down the bottom left, I can't get the url).

http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/

In reply to Shani:


Would love to hear some more on this. After looking down the back of the sofa, are we now in luck taking up the floorboards, or what? Where is the money coming from. Borrowing's bad right? Really bad, economic collapse, future generations mired in debt. So either these Tornados are really cheap, or suddenly the deficit has declined in importance? Or am I missing something? What has been budgeted for in terms of fighting wars for what 5, 10 years?

In reply to MG:

Some views from Syrians on the subject:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34992616?SThisFB

In reply to The Lemming:

Just asked if this can be moved to off belay, if it's going to be the main war thread.

I think the style and quality of the debate on here is excellent - loads of different viewpoints, people say what they think rather than just attempting to point-score, so it'll be worth keeping when we want to look back on the inevitable tragedy in 5 years time and see what we were saying back then.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



Here you go:

http://bit.ly/1IqPwTx

In reply to girlymonkey:

A complete mix of views, hence the difficulty in deciding whether getting involved is wise or likely to be effective. As above, I simply don't know and can see both sides. I would probably incline towards this being a mistake, not least because we don't really understand the situation or what we want to achieve,. However, I don't thing the attacks that are planned will result in significant increases in homeless Syrians. The "bombing is bad, it kills people" line of Stop the War and similar is far too simplistic. Doing nothing is bad and kills people too.

In reply to Shani:

I've already watched it twice, my jaw descending further towards the ground as that sensation of 'christ, it's real, this is the world' crept up from guts, up my throat, paralysing my brain... Do you think the foreign sec intended that effect?

Thanks for the url, I trust it's right, but I won't be clicking on it again!

On the plus side though, Jon Snow! I thought the coverage last night was fantastic, especially getting Brian Eno's view!

In reply to MG:


I don't think I've heard much from the 'do nothing' side. Everyone opposing bombing that I've heard from is in favour of working as hard as possible on other solutions (mainly pressuring the likes of Turkey and Saudi). Not saying that these are real solutions, but no less so than the bombing.

In reply to MG:


It does! This is why no politician I have heard in the media has proposed a 'do nothing' policy. The arguments have been about what is the most effective strategy particularly in the long term.

In reply to Shani:

Well, all right, a not-bombing policy of whatever kind also kills people.

In reply to MG:

But at least our bombs won't be doing the killing. There are already bombs and already the death of innocents. We could try a more diplomatic strategy. Much of the ISIS billions are electronically stored in the banking system....

As much as arms dealers appreciate the laboratory that is Syria and the shop-front that bombing provides, progress in the region will be dependent on people at desks and computer terminals providing intervention to de-escalate tensions in the region and remove the means to war.

*BTW it is not me Disliking you above! Hate that button.

In reply to Shani:


Yes. Or both.


Thanks! Me too!

In reply to MG:

The question not answered - and presumably why you remain agnostic - is whether more people will die with UK bombing or without. I think UK muslims blowing themselves up here is more likely, one of many reasons I'm against.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I think the MPs opposed to bombing missed an opportunity to have an amendment added to the resolution for the inclusion of diplomatic and financial sanctions. It looked pretty obvious that the pro-bombs argument was going to win, but many of the more reluctant pro-bombs MPs would surely have signed up to some sort of amendment that meant we weren't still left with dropping bombs as the only solution on the table.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

What that video clip tells me is that there is so much more going on that we are not privy to (and fair enough) What exactly IS going on is anyones guess but make no mistake...the lives of innocent Syrians and cafe/gig/shopping going Europeans will probably be well down the list of priorities.

Most plausible to me is the disputed gaspipe line from Qatar to Europe as being the back drop to this Game of Thrones as I am struggling to see what else it could be given the dogs dinner everyone seems happy to jump into.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



Totally agree. If you want to know why people do things that cost billions, it's usually because there's billions at stake. It doesn't play well with the public, though.

Given this backdrop, of those voting yes, are their motives mainly genuine, or was the whole debate phony?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

" I think UK muslims blowing themselves up here is more likely, one of many reasons I'm against."

Not doing something because you're afraid THAT will be the result is a really frightening glimpse through the window of a random (clearly not right wing) persons view of what is hiding in our Muslim population and what it's capable of.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Not viewed that , but Margaret Beckett's comments were for me better than HB's.

In reply to thomasadixon:


But in the interim we're going to have pictures of British Typhoons and maimed bodies and crying wives and mothers added to ISIS' recruitment material and beamed directly into the bedrooms of disaffected Muslim youth in the UK.

And even if all of the above stuff comes off and we quickly arrive at stable anti-jihadi governments in Iraq and Syria (which I have to admit seems like wishful thinking), are the terrorists going to stop, or are they going to (for instance) leg it to East Africa to join up with Boko Haram, armed with further evidence that The West Is At War With Islam and that The West Must Pay For The Suffering It Has Caused?

It's like when there was Al Quaida and terrorism and we had to do something about it so we invaded Afghanistan and took out the Al Quaida strongholds and now there's no more terrorism any more. And now we're basically proposing to do the same thing again but with a shakier plan. I don't feel more secure - I feel terrified.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

That's a bit confusing. Which part is frightening?

Yes, there are much bigger issues at stake in terms of numbers of deaths and long-term global impact, but

1) the debate was framed around an argument of defence - once that crucial argument is unravelled, there is no case left

2) I think that the UK govt has a greater degree of responsibility for keeping the UK safe than "doing good" overseas

So the profile of terrorist attacks in the UK is high in the debate, even if it pales into insignificance in a more objective view of the big picture.

In reply to MG:

Reading girlymonkey's link the consensus appears to be in favour of more action against IS, though bemoaning a lack of support from the UK against Assad.

Back in the UK it is interesting to see that many of those self-flagellating about our actions - extending our involvement against IS in Iraq by now allowing fighters to cross a non-existent border - are notable in their silence about the bombing by Putin in support of the Assad regime, particularly as the majority of civilian deaths during this are at Assad's hands.
Given the bluster by Putin to (largely successfully) prevent Western involvement in Syria when Assad was bombing his own civilians with chemical weapons, the hypocrisy is impressive.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Yep!

And don't forget that Assad really was considered a VERY BAD guy both before and during the Arab Spring (and still is). Google some of the media reports on the Arab Spring cica 2012 (http://usat.ly/1LQU1Sq)

"Syria's conflict is the most violent to emerge from last year's Arab Spring. The protests started peacefully but prompted a brutal crackdown by President Bashar Assad's government. The fighting has escalated into a civil war that has killed at least 23,000 people over the last year-and-half, according to activists.

...

Syria's close alliance with Iran is important. The Assad regime has facilitated Iran's assistance to militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah, destabilizing Lebanon while threatening Israel's security and American interests in the Middle East. The U.S. accuses Iran of managing Syria's repression to prop up its faltering ally. With Washington and Tehran battling for influence in the Arab world, the change toward a more U.S.-friendly government in Syria would be a major strategic victory. Up to now, the only governments ousted in the Arab Spring were either U.S. allies or counterterrorism partners."

But now Assad is 'our' guy against ISIS (along with Al Quaeda). But once ISIS have gone (!), we still need to tackle Assad and Al Quaeda and whatever else manifests in the power vacuum left behind.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Frightening because I believe you to be an intelligent person of independent thought who questions what he is fed by the media (and clearly from many of your posts...not largely right leaning), yet (and not unreasonably in my view) you can see a likely causation between UK taking action in Syria and some UK muslims deciding to blow themselves up (presumably on UK soil to cause maximum damage and loss of life)... to the point of not wanting the UK to take action in Syria (amongst other reasons). That is a sorry state that we find ourselves in.

In reply to Shani:


Really? From what I could tell from the debate yesterday, this distinction is very clear to the government and they recognise that the sequence of events needs to be the other way round. They were categorical that the departure of Assad was a pre-condition for any sort of coalition involving the SAA.

There were a few statements in the commons yesterday to the effect that the government had reversed its position from last year and was now going after the 'other side'. That struck me as either wilful misunderstanding, or reflective of a very shallow understanding of the conflict.

In reply to Shani:

I thought it was pretty clear that Assad wasn't "our" guy.
One advantage of entering into a coalition, however loose, with Putin - who does see Assad as "his" guy - is that we may be in a position to prevent some of his, ahem, "misdirected" strikes - though I see more dangers than positives in this alliance.

As an aside I wonder if Russian boots on the ground are included in the estimate of 70,000, particularly since he has just indicated 150,0000 might be coming.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I certainly can see a likely causation between UK action in Syria and UK muslims blowing themselves up over here. The more we act as the global policemen, using our military might to determine the fate of muslims on their soil, the more we will be despised. Wherever we go to "liberate the innocent people from tyranny" we end up being hated more -because our motives are not genuine, they are hypocritical and venal.

If I thought we had a chance of actually demonstrating that we can do some good over there, then this rationale would not apply.

In reply to Ramblin dave:
"I don't feel more secure - I feel terrified."

Really? You're living in fear? I don't think this vote has changed much for us at all; we've been bombing Isis already so we're already a target, this doesn't make us more accessible to terrorists, it doesn't give terrorists any more opportunity to attack us, we're not bringing conscription in just yet. So it doesn't make me any more concerned.
It also doesn't make me think extending the bombing is a particularly good idea.

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

In reply to The Lemming:

It's all pretty confused in terms of rationale narrative, with a couple of big bogeymen to focus on to make us feel moral about killing people and ignoring slaughter. We, I.e. the u.k.are up to our necks in it and have been from the beginning along with our gulf partners and American cousins. Mainly it's about strategic alliances, geopolitics and energy supplies, so power and money for the global cabals. It's going to take years to reach the yet unstated outcome - probably a balkanised Syria, with a comcomitant reduced Iranian and Russian footprint in the region. Presumably the slow build up enabled a lengthy propaganda campaign to a war weary western public, training and arming irregular proxy forces and a significant degradation of the Assad regime.


D

In reply to Sir Chasm:
Okay, terrified is a knee-jerk overreaction. I'm suffering from the "50% more likely to get a super-obscure form of cancer" fallacy - "increased risk of terrorism" doesn't mean "definitely going to get blown up".

However, I do think that it will make us more of a target and that it will make it easier for terrorists to recruit on our soil. And hence that anyone talking about it in terms of "self defence" or "security" is talking bollocks.

In reply to off-duty:


Bit confused? What is that you want those against the bombing to say about Putin?

In reply to Parrys_apprentice:

This seems to be getting trotted out a lot lately, but is it really true?

Did Blair succeed in winning the support of the UK public for the Iraq war (for example)? Or could it be that Goring didn't actually have much experience of public debate in the presence of a free press? Certainly seems like an odd authority to turn to.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


What it does is, given the level of coverage (out of proportion to the change in what's going on), tell a lot of young Muslims that we like nothing more than bombing Muslim countries. Any subtleties about who we're bombing and who we're doing our best not to bomb will be lost in any translation by those acting as recruiters for terror campaigns.

The "the already hate us, so it doesn't matter how many more we kill" argument does not wash. The different policy options may either reinforce our image as blundering oil-hungry war mongers with no regards for the lives of muslims in the ME, or demonstrate that in fact we are something different, something better.

In reply to MarkJH:

You're not wrong, read it about 8 times on different threads in UKC in the last 24 hours...probably been doing the rounds on facebook?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


If it's a battle of ideas, countering it with different ideas could seem like a healthier way of keeping us safe than bombing people, when it's the killing of innocent people which is part of what's been used to radicalise people in the first place.

In reply to MarkJH:

Fair points.

It was the terrorist sympathiser bit that reminded me of this quote.

In reply to Parrys_apprentice:


Not his finest hour, that's for sure!

In reply to Jon Stewart:


But "we", as in the West, are already bombing them, I don't think there's a shortage of footage or coverage of Muslims being blown up for the recruiters to use.


I'm not sure that a bit of positive press coverage is going to change an Isis recruiter's opinion on the inherent evilness of the western infidel, as above there are plenty of examples already of "us" killing "them". Radicalised Muslims in the UK will try for UK targets, French for French etc. I don't get the impression that it has to be a specific country, hitting the enemy is the aim.
As above, I'm not saying the extension of bombing is a good idea, I just don't think it's going to materially increase our risk of attack.

In reply to off-duty:


No, Cameron is has shifted his position from demanding the immediate departure of Assad to accepting he could be allowed to stay on as part of a transitional government.

Russia also want Assad to stay.

If Assad's enemies are crushed under Western and Russian military might, I don't see how or why he would then decide to 'move on' given he has survived thus long.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



This is a first for me. The majority of my Pub threads either fade away or get deleted by the Mods.

Glad to see, that this discussion is maturing nicely without too many numpty replies.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I'm unsure about the efficacy of bombing, half a dozen Tornados isn't much more firepower when compared with the U.S. contribution. My main concern is that it's the precursor to committing ground troops, which would be simply repeating the mistakes of Iraq.

I disagree with it increasing the threat of UK Muslims blowing themselves up in the UK. The cohort of Muslims prepared to kill their fellow citizens on behalf of other Muslims anywhere else in the world is probably as big as it's going to get unless we start deliberately killing civilians. To a minority of our fellow citizens we are already infidels who deserve to die, nothing less than submission to radical Islam will change that. Expect Islamist terror attacks regardless of what we do. It also seems to imply that decent law abiding British citizens might be a bit unstable just because of their religion.

I also think that allowing a tiny minority of the population to dictate UK foreign or domestic policy by threatening murder is setting a very dangerous precedent. Should we completely stop foreign aid or immigration because the far right might start planting bombs?

In reply to Shani:




This will be the crux of any coalition. Clearly the West is targetting IS and, currently at least, IS appear to be the top priority for Russia.
What happens when IS are sufficiently weakened /destroyed so that the only opponents to Assad are the loose coalition of forces vaguely under an FSA label ?

At that time we and coalition allies will need a rethink - hopefully by then the Vienna and other talks will have negotiated some sort of transition with Assad.
The danger is that Russia use the guise of allying against IS to put more boots on the ground and more air support FOR Assad rather than against IS.
I think it's relevant that Russia appear keen to do that regardless of any Western involvement.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I don't "want" them to say anything particularly. It's just interesting how those complaining about dead kids in Syria, picketing parliament, abusing MPs and generally bombarding social media with some sort of isolationist view of "Western involvement wrong" haven't been seen picketing the Russian embassy, writing to MPs to call for action to dissuade Russia or objecting to the involvement of anyone except the West in the Syrian conflict.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

In reply to The Lemming:

So what you're asking is: war. What is it good for?

James Brown Version: Absolutely nothing.............................say it again. YEAH.

or

Billy Bragg Version: Its good for business..................................Yeah thats correct unfortunately.

Rock n Roll answers to a rock question.

In reply to thewho:

Edwin Starr?

In reply to Ridge:


I agree. It's just deja vu, mission creep, power vacuum, venal motives, ignorance and wishful thinking, blah blah blah. Our military involvement is a mistake; a new way, mobilising those who have *real* motives to stabilise the situation should be found instead.


As I said, our policy choices lead us either further into the image of muslim-bombing, oil-hungry world-dominating infidels, or could potentially (partially) divorce ourselves from that image (image that?! difficult to comprehend I know). No one knows what the actual correlation between that policy choice and probability of a successful terrorist attack might be, but I would like to see policy go in the direction that discourages rather the encourages the suicide vests.


Well I'm afraid if you want to define a certain sector of the population that are vulnerable to becoming terrorist nutters, I think you'd have to conceded that being young, male and muslim puts you in with the biggest chance. It might not be that huge a chance, but the *relative* risk compared to being say a COE blue-rinse biddie is pretty overwhelming!


No. You haven't been listening. The point here is that the debate was framed around the 'defence' argument so this is very important because it unravels the case for war. Which is the whole point.

In reply to off-duty:

I'm sorry, I'm still confused. You want the Stop The War lot to be as focused on the Russian govt as on the UK? Are you serious?

In reply to off-duty:


Surely no one trusts Putin as far as they can throw him. He's very temporarily been painted as an anti-ISIS ally, but isn't he just forming the same Iran-Assad-Russian block as ever? I have no idea how we can hope to achieve anything good for the Syrian people while we have the West and Russia both bombing the f*ck out of the place with largely opposing but slightly overlapping (with respect to ISIS) motives. That crap that Hammond said about Putin being as bothered about ISIS as us just wasn't true. The whole thing's totally bonkers, I want out!

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Ahh yes I stand corrected..............one motown legend to another. Thanks

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I know crazy isn't it. You'd think they'd actually want to stop the war, rather than just "We want to blame the West for the war" Not as catchy I suppose.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I'm not sure there is a viable 'new' way. It's not an either/or. Slowly degrading IS military and economic targets could be used in conjunction with other initiatives, neither are likely to work in isolation.


I understand your view, but I'm not sure there is a way back from the 'Great Satan' view of the West by radical Islamists.


That's true, but we still end up tiptoeing around potential nutters out of fear.


It could be argued we're already at war. We've been merrily bombing IS on one side of an imaginary line in the sand that IS don't recognise for a while, we've just decided we don't recognise that imaginary line either. But I'm drifting off the point a bit.

As for the defence argument the thrust of the argument was that terrorist attacks in Europe are supposedly planned in Syria. Personally I don't see how that works, I'd have thought a flat in Tower Hamlets would be a more convenient location. However targeting the black market oil supply might well disrupt funding, so could be seen as a defensive action. No one in government has suggested that targetting UK jihadis in Syria probably makes sense in terms of 'defence' by preventing their return, and probably makes financial sense when you consider the huge financial and manpower costs of monitoring 500 confirmed nutters in the UK for the rest of their lives. However that probably counts as state execution, so no one will admit that for fear of upsetting the electorate.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I sort of agree. I think Putin will use the alliance to further his own agenda first, whilst blaming the West for anything negative... However....

...if we remain outside the coalition we are in an extremely weak position, both for facilitating any negotiated settlement and for applying any influence on Putin's actions. Whilst we will still be the clear target for IS terrorism that you appear to fear. I don't think our involvement paints a bigger target on us than we already have.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Putin remembers well Chechnya and is seriously concerned that IS will galvanise them, and the other Muslims in Russia, into rebelling again. If IS actually succeed in taking land and forming some sort of state that would show others that they can do the same, it would encourage them to do the same. If they can take a swathe of land from one of Russia's few real allies that's an absolute blow to Russia.

To us, realistically, they're a far off group that we see harming others which makes us upset, there are some by products that bother us, and there have been a few successful attacks on us. To Russia they're a serious threat to the territorial integrity of what is the remains of an old empire, and they (or others like them) have led serious rebellions against him. Why do you think he doesn't care?

In reply to thomasadixon:


Yes, but this means supporting Assad against ISIS, not destroying ISIS as a primary aim. Our motivations are far from aligned, which is why Philip Hammond is a liar - he knows this far better than me.


Because he's using his resources against a lot of people, not just ISIS.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

What exactly are you talking about? I'm certainly not a fan of his but it's not a lie that we're aligned where ISIS is concerned.


So? He needs to defeat them all. First things first. Getting rid of the other rebels (our rebels) before ISIS if he can is tactically pretty sound.

In reply to off-duty:


I have no faith in this ending with a western-friendly "negotiated settlement".


It'll be interesting to see what influence on Putin we manage to exert...


How many times? The point about feeding the IS narrative is that it undermines the case for air strikes which was one of defence. I'm a scientist with an understanding of probability and statistics: I'm not scared of terrorism!

In reply to thomasadixon:



If he cares so much, why is he bombing other people? Even after the downing of the airliner?

http://iswresearch.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/russian-airstrikes-in-syria-novem...

In reply to thomasadixon:


He lied when he said "Assad will have gone by this stage, the transitional government will be in control" - Jon Snow's response is perfect, watch the clip again.


Yes, so he can leave Assad in place. How is this aligned with our aims?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Did you see question time tonight?

Interesting contribution from Maajid Nawaz who was in favour of the government's action and gave very thoughtful reasons.

Despite the fact that he was the only ex Islamic radical and political prisoner tortured and detained without trial on the panel everybody else just seemed to ignore him.

He certainly gave me a reason to pause for thought.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

"we're aligned where ISIS is concerned."

Hadn't seen the right clip, seems like massively wishful thinking to me.

On the other hand, if we're going to be able to convince Russia to transfer it's attention to IS, which would need us to convince the rebels to stop fighting Assad, we do need to be involved. We need to support the rebels who are fighting IS and losing to them (like the Kurds in Kobane) to have any chance of forcing Assad to negotiate with them. We need to have rebels that are fighting just IS, that we can identify to Assad and Putin - who will then find it difficult to attack them. Once they're entrenched, if we can get temporary peace between them and Assad, then it will be hard for Assad, and Putin, to not negotiate with them. If we give them all something else to do for a while that makes a peace more likely too. If we can help the Kurds and our rebels block the border to Turkey we could even take them out of the equation, not that they'd be happy of course.

Bloody dangerous stuff of course, and the zeal of people like Hammond to get rid of Assad right now will not help. It's just not going to happen. I think I'm on the side that it's too dangerous, won't work and we should stick to Iraq (that's bad enough)...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

The rebels are between him and ISIS in the north, and they're taking up his ground troops (the Syrian Army) in battles at the moment. It'd also be in Assad's interest to take out the nicer rebel groups asap leaving just people we're all against, then it'd be certain he'd be back in power.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I'm cautiously optimistic. Interviews with Charles Lister amongst others indicates a large amount of behind the scenes diplomacy is being conducted.


As with most things, we'll be in the position of never knowing what influence we would have had if we had never got involved.


I can see a valid self defence argument, as well as an argument that to fulfil our obligations to Iraq we were hamstringing ourselves with a non-existent border.
Should we fail to get involved we are essentially allowing IS to continue to foment strife, promote atrocities, groom terrorists from Syria whilst relying on other countries to do the dirty work trying to tackle them.
By involvement we are taking positive action to target those who have committed and continue to conspire to commit atrocities against us both directly and indiscriminately - eg Paris.
Failure to get involved will not suddenly mean that IS no longer look to target us - failure to get involved will not in any way aid our defence against them.

In reply to rogerwebb:





He was very impressive, the rest of the panel were hopeless in comparison, (particularly Abbot).

In reply to off-duty:


Just like we allow the Saudi religious clerics to do those very same things?

You seem to think the bombing is the best course of action. Do you think we should also distance ourselves from the Saudi regime? Do you think that any part of this campaign is linked to sales of military equipment or protection of our oil interests in the region? Do you also think we should be taking the same action as we are taking against ISIS in Iraq and Syria against similar groups in Yemen, or Boko Haram et al. in Africa? They all share the ideology, so if that's what we're trying to "protect the British public" against, then surely our bombs should be directed there too. If not, then why not? Do you think these groups and their ideologies have no role to play in the recent attacks in Europe?

That's not even mentioning the immense costs of the bombing raids, when we can't find money to improve our own society at home. Do you honestly see a day in the UK where we are really at the mercy of ISIS and the like - on our own soil? I'm not afraid of terrorists so don't support the bombing, but I would like to see better schools, more equal opportunities in education...more social progress in general. Spend money on intelligence gathering on UK soil to prevent attacks and less on blowing shit up abroad?

Many people in the Middle East, mostly moderates, are weary of Western powers trying to export their "superior" version of democracy. They know this model doesn't often work in a region that has deep-seated differences between several groups sharing the same countries. As odd as it sounds, many people feel better off under a dictator than they do with foreign bombs dropping out of the sky on a daily basis, then being exploited for contracts to rebuild infrastructure and their country being left to deteriorate to a worse state than at the starting point. If we focused a little more on our own back yard and spent less time riding our big white horse around the Middle East preaching some holier than thou bullshit, I believe that we'd be in a much stronger position and looking at a much better future in the UK.

What I object to most in this instance is the lack of honesty about the reasons for bombing. if those in power were a little more honest about their motives then - at least to me - that would be preferred. I'd still say bombing won't help, but at least I'd feel like my own government doesn't treat us all like the dumb f@cks reading and believing the Daily mirror headlines or joining the ranks of Britain First.

In reply to off-duty:

Much of the grooming is NOT taking place in Syria. Look at who is conducting atrocities in Europe.


Another interpretation is that we are feeding in to the extremists' narrative.


I don't think ANYONE on this thread or in Westiminster has suggested we don't get involved. Inappropriate involvement will likely aid recruitment to ISIS.

In reply to The Lemming:
Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby has admitted simply bombing Iraq and Syria's wells would harm civilians more than militants and potentially radicalize locals in the long run.

Moscow's bombing campaign will lead to further radicalisation and increased terrorism, claimed David Cameron on 4 October.

8 October the US defence secretary, Ashton Carter, warned of the consequences for Russia itself, which is rightly fearful of attacks .


so will the recent events make us "safer" ?
after a few years of France bombing Syria how did that work out?

ISIS took more land and is stronger now that it was then, bombing alone is not going to work.

In reply to gd303uk:

They only started in September this year.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-france-syria-idUSKCN0RR07Y...


ISIS took the land hit has before the US & NATO started bombing them. Since the bombing started they haven't made big gains, apart from over running rebels being bombed by Russia.

The US policy of containment is actually working, sure it won't end the war put it is stopping ISIS taking more territory with the associated atrocities.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

my mistake , I should have said months but even so if they started bombing Syria in september ( they have been bombing ISIS in Iraq since last year BTW ) and Paris occurred in November , my point is airstrikes didn't make france safe on 13/11/2015

Isis have still made gains even under airstrikes from when the USA started it campaign.

In reply to gd303uk:

I agree with that, it was your last sentence that is wrong. I do think interventions make the countries taking part targets for terrorism.

The containment policy has worked, yes there have been some gains since the start of NATO bombing but nothing like the huge gains the made before. ISIS are weaker than they were a year ago.

There's a map lower down on this article

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/30/world/middleeast/syria-contro...

Should a successful containment policy be abandoned because of the threat of terrorist attacks at home?

In reply to Mike Stretford:
excellent maps, thanks for posting that, they are newer than the ones i was looking at.

http://time.com/3917097/as-isis-grows-its-territory-it-becomes-increasingly...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/dec/02/isis-territory-...

even in picture form the conflict looks complicated , i guess i am against airstrikes as the cost to civilian lives is too great for me, not including any threat to us.
i am still confused as to what isis is, and who their enemy is when they are dealing with some of their enemies like Assad.
the radicalisation of more people as a result of airstrikes will according to US officials increase. containment by airstrikes alone does appear; according to those maps, to be working but not eliminating, can we assume their ranks have shrank or just moved elsewhere and wearing a different hat.

it is a mess .

In reply to Mike Stretford:




You can't make the claim that 'ISIS has been contained' from that map. For a start the map does not feature Belgium, France, nor Leeds.

To concentrate on a dust bowl in the Middle East for a measure of the ISIS threat is to miss the threat to the West almost completely.

In reply to Shani:



Isolated terrorist attacks in the West are of course awful, but it is not the same as living under a fascist theocracy day in day out. I don't claim to be able to answer the question I posed above, but it does demonstrate the moral certainty some have is misplaced. Even if you don't care about people living in a 'dust bowl', there are ramifications for Europe, eg refugee crisis

In reply to 1234None:


Why on earth not? Do you think that our cities are immune to the kind of attack that took place in Paris, Mumbai and Kenya and in a thousand other places, if so what lead you to that conclusion? After all, Paris is just across the channel, and many hundreds of people with British passports have joined ISIS and could be returning surreptitiously to execute mass civilian attacks.

If you think this is an exaggerated threat, are you prepared to speak in the same terms about the Westboro Baptist Church (about which you would be fairly contemptuous and ridiculing, at a guess, feel free to deny it if this is not the case) and Islam? If not, is that genuinely because you think that Islam is a more respectable, reasonable religion than the fairly extreme form of Baptist practiced in Westboro, or is it rather a fear-driven self-censorship that prevents you from treating similar, and similarly baseless, claims to divine origin of their system, whereas you know perfectly well that annoying Baptists is a free hit.

In reply to Simon4:
do you accept that not all Jews are racist fascists just because a few exist?
if so then not all Muslims are the same either. there is no threat from islam in this country there might be from a few and thats it, just as not all catholics were a threat during the troubles, you cant judge an entire religion by one small group or compare an entire religion to a single christian church.
i don't see a time when an ISIS flag is flying over a town hall in the uk.

youtube.com/watch?v=dPxv4Aff3IA&

In reply to gd303uk:

As non-sequiturs go .... that is one!

In reply to Shani:



A few people have mentioned Maajid Nawaz during this discussion. Obviously he is just one man etc etc, but his book is fascinating as a 1st-hand insight into the islamist movement worldwide (and particularly in the UK) during the 90s that doesn't really exist elsewhere.

One of the things that struck me most about it was that for him it a political identity far more than a religious one. As he described it, his recruitment was a result of being persuaded that Muslims had to help themselves because nobody else would. The evidence that he was presented with was the atrocities committed against the Muslim populations of the Balkans, and the relative inaction of the rest of world during those conflicts. Doing nothing will fit into their narrative equally well.

In reply to MarkJH:



Interesting perspective. I am aware of Maajid Nawaz and he has had some interesting dialogues with Sam Harris which have resulted in a book (http://bit.ly/1Ogs90T and http://bit.ly/1lZKALn).

I will seek out his earlier book.
Cheers,

In reply to Simon4:

By "at the mercy of ISIS" I mean being prevented from having the freedoms people currently enjoy in the UK, or being forced to submit to their specific brand of nonsense on our own soil. Of course there's a risk of attacks on UK soil and I acknowledge that clearly when I suggest spending money preventing them in the UK. In my view that's where the focus needs to be, rather than bombing Syria. Especially if the targets are oilfields, which will result in civilians suffering and supposedly "friendly" rebels having reduced access to fuels.

Reading the Middle East mainstream press today, this whole scenario is portrayed very differently here. According to most of the press, the majority of Syrians - the majority being peaceful - don't want the bombs. A large proportion of British people don't want this to happen either. The Syrian government haven't sanctioned this action either (yes, yes, I know many question the legitimacy of Assad's govt, but if Russia decide Cameron and his cronies haven't played fair would you accept Russian warplanes dropping bombs in the UK?). When it is reported like this in the press here, what sort of picture does it paint of our government?


I didn't make any comparisons between Islam and Christianity, so you're barking up the wrong tree here. Get bogged down with that if you wish. I'm not going to.

In reply to 1234None:

So publish a cartoon of "the Prophet" of the kind that is published more or less daily about David Cameron then, if you think our freedoms are not being eroded, i.e. to ridicule, even in gross and offensive terms if we so wish, that which we oppose or consider ridiculous, including that particular religion. Incidentally the flag, not yet of ISIS but certainly of HAMAS, which is a similar but slightly less virulent Islamic terror group, certainly has been flown from some town halls in Britain. Charlie Hebbdo and Salman Rushdie have left authors and publishers very much afraid of criticising certain groups and beliefs, not because they feel that such criticism is not very well deserved, simply because they are afraid, in our advanced, tolerant Western democracies, that they will be murdered if they do so.

So yes, we are very much starting to lose our rational, tolerant, intelligent freedoms to ISIS and unless we defend them, will lose more or all of them.


Yes you are, even if it is implicit, because you are too afraid to make an explicit one. It is fear, not high-mindedness or disdain, that is stopping you.

I am not so afraid, they are both based on a nonsensical premise, with one individual claiming, with no external evidence at all to support the claim, to have been directly addressed by a deity that as far as all objective test can tell, does not exist at all. But one of them, Christianity, for all the absurdity of its foundation myth, is driven by a largely benign, enlightened philosophy of mostly good principles of tolerance and compassion. The other, while equally baseless is almost entirely malign, aggressive, intolerant and barbaric, with specific and permanent instructions to its followers, which can never be withdrawn as they are the eternal, fixed word of God, to use the most brutal violence possible against those of other faiths and none and to enforce submission to it.

The origins of both faiths, for that matter most of the major world faiths, may be similar, the outcome very definitely is not.

In reply to Simon4:
it is down to interpretation and the religious clerics of the time, christians have done their fair share of horrors over the years, women were stoned and burned alive, people were tortured, killed imprisoned, for their sexual orientation, believing the earth rotated around the sun etc.
the crusades were not entirely a christian a jolly abroad.
the inquisition were those who didn't follow what the church said, including Muslims, Jews, and Protestants, were found, questioned, and killed. etc. etc. etc.
the bible has enough passages in it for you to froth over.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6120373/Top-10-worst-Bible-passage...

“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

religion and its interpretations change at the moment you choose to highlight the radical fundamental side of an otherwise peaceful religion.

In reply to Orgsm:


You'll never be Prime Minister if you keep reading that stuff!

In reply to off-duty:


That isn't sufficient justification for me. Remember that we're talking about bombing here, which is going to involve killing innocent people, and furthermore it looks like we're being dragged into an impossible long-term war (are we going to sit by and watch the 'bogus battalions' get slaughtered, or will we end up sending our own young people over there?).


I can't see the self-defence argument, it's totally ridiculous. Do you genuinely believe that all the jihadists posing a threat to the UK are in Syria? And that we'll kill them all? Isn't that a bit mad? What infrastructure can we destroy in Syria that prevents terrorist attacks here? That can't just be replicated elsewhere? It's just total nonsense. Bombing in Syria does not help reduce terrorism in the UK.


Well you can't have it both ways. We're already involved in Iraq, but in Syria it's impossible because there we have Assad backed by Putin and Iran. Our ally Turkey is more bothered about making sure the Kurds all get slaughtered than anything that helps us with our terrorism woes. It's a war that we simply cannot help in. It's a total f*ck-up.


No it won't, but it will drop us down the list of priorities.


But it will save a lot of money, innocent civilians killed, and years or even decades of pouring our resources - including perhaps our children's lives as soldiers - into this totally hopeless, planless foreign policy adventure. I assume our real motives are venal, but I can't even see how its impossible to deliver on those goals.

In reply to Simon4:
Simon, almost everything you ever write on here is based on the premise that Islam is bad. Sometimes you go to great lengths to make this case, with lots of specific reference to the Koran and comparisons that show how Christianity isn't nearly so bad.

But you're missing an enormous point when you proclaim (as though you're some kind of Islamic scholar) that ISIS represent the true Islam because the Koran supposed to be the literal world of god. If you look back over the last millenium, you don't see IS-style Islam constantly attempting to take over the world. You see all kinds of different interpretations of Islam, coexisting peacefully with other people, even Jews. Wahabism and IS represent a pretty special form of Islam, and no retreat into amateur theology is going to show that that's what all muslims believe in really.

You put a great deal of effort into your 'Islam is bad' diatribes, but I'd be more interested, for a change, on your views on our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Due you support Cameron's shameless arse-licking? Are they the right people to be selling weapons to? What role do you think they have played in advancing the crazy, violent interpretations of Islam at the expense of the normal peaceful ones?

In reply to Simon4:

It's not implicit. It's imaginary, on your behalf.



You're determined to turn this into a discussion about faith/religion or whatever you want to call it. I'm not that interested as I agree that they're all totally baseless. Your determination to have a pop at Islam as a whole could, however, have you labelled with some of the words you're using to describe it. The barbarism and intolerance of ISIS are not the real reasons for these bombs, so I'm not in favour of them. If you really believe they're a good thing then for your sake, I hope the outcome is better than the rest of the West's Middle East interventions over the past few decades. You don't sound like the "humble pie eating" type though, so if/when this approach doesn't work, I don't expect that you'll admit it was a mistake. Nowt more to add.

In reply to 1234None:
I've given up arguing with Simon on his diatribes, as they are sadly just as rigid and disconnected from humanity as many of those he gives the impression of hating (from Isil ...fair enough... to the seemingly almost as dangerous Guardian clones ). Sometimes his posts do yeild a gem and I will remember his call for equality of satirical treatment for Cameron in the UK and the prophet Mohammed in an Islamic state for a while (the Uk has its own blasphemy law until 2008 and the new law still retains protections agaisnt religious hatred)

I finally caught up with the film Fair Game last night which dramatises the events where a CIA agent was outed by someone because her ex-ambassador husband had announced to the public that Bush public information about Iraq links to Nigan yellowcake was incorrect ... key evidence that the Iraq nuclear programme was live, that helped the push for the second Iraq war; and all despite the CIA knowing from numerous sources that there was almost certainly no nuclear programme at the time. The film is a drama with its own inaccuracies but the yellowcake (and similar 'sexing up' of some aluminium pipes) and the CIA knowledge of local scientists was real enough. Its hard to trust our modern western political leaders about war if things like this can happen in the face of clear opposing intelligence.

In reply to Offwidth:


Sounds like a good plan!

We saw Fair Game here a while ago. Enjoyed it, and as you say, worrying some ways.