ISIS - Wot! No thread?

[steveo]

This from the Spectator believe it or not

http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/jeremy-corbyn-is-more-sensible-about-syria-than-david-cameron/

[miga]

I don't think it's that odd that the Spectator would entertain non-intervention. People from a variety of positions (libertarians, socialists, conservatives who like to mind their own business etc.) aren't into intervention.

[Sue]

That's an excellent article.

Thanks for posting it, steveo.

[JohnL]

I supported Corbyn as he would drag the whole political debate leftwards -- and he has.

Osborne will be centre-left soon.

Left wingers can be more war crazy than right wingers however - but not until they get into power :)

[Ridgley]

Isis is very difficult dilemma I don?t think bombing them will actually work, and you can?t reason with a prehistoric ideology so I am not sure on this one and Iam not saying do nothing either.

[JohnL]

Ridgley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Isis is very difficult dilemma I don?t think

> bombing them will actually work, and you can?t

> reason with a prehistoric ideology so I am not

> sure on this one and Iam not saying do nothing

> either.

Not unless you carpet bomb - and that is not seen as right (Dresden was terrible).

Russia might however

http://theaviationist.com/2015/11/18/tu-22m3-carpet-bombing-receiving-end/

[Jeremy]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I supported Corbyn as he would drag the whole

> political debate leftwards -- and he has.

> Osborne will be centre-left soon.

Really think it's a stretch to suggest that this is a result of Corbyn.

If anything the lack of credible opposition has given the tories more freedom.

[Dog duck]

Stupid Tory boy Cameron reckons bombing isis will make it safer here... Twat! They're here already?

[Alan Medic]

Perhaps you should inform the authorities.

[Alan Medic]

There's a civil war in Syria. Russia supports the existing regime, the others the rebels. Then there's IS. How the hell do you know who you are bombing?

[JohnL]

Dog duck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Stupid Tory boy Cameron reckons bombing isis will

> make it safer here... Twat! They're here already?

There's a Guardian article which asks why we think attacks against Russia

are linked to them getting involved whilst assuming attacks against us are

due to our Western values.

[JohnL]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There's a civil war in Syria. Russia supports the

> existing regime, the others the rebels. Then

> there's IS. How the hell do you know who you are

> bombing?

You don't - unless you have spotters on the ground.

Do NATO (maybe) Do Russia (doubt it)

[uncleglen]

Of course they are here already, and there are known IS men amongst the 6,000 lined up in Calais. From what I know from reading about Daesh it is akin to Hitler and the Nazis in its efforts at world domination and genocide (of infidels, and the Shia).

[DulwichFox]

Every British PM has to have Their War...

Thatcher The Falklands..

Blair Iraq in both 1998 and 2003, Kosovo (1999), Sierra Leone (2000) and Afghanistan (2001).

Cameron Afghanistan , Iraq, Syria..

DulwichFox

[Blah Blah]

War has been a tactic for deflecting from issues at home used by many governments. Nothing like a bit of patriotic fervour to whip up votes. That's cynical I know but nobody is talking about what Saudi Arabia are currently doing in Yemen for example. There is no way to bomb and avoid civilian casualties. The revenge bombing by the French after Paris killed 73 civilians, many of them children for example. Yet all but one of the terrorists were European born! You can not bomb an ideology out of existence. This is the disconnect in those for bombing.

What you can do however, is shut down routes of funding (swiss banks btw) and the routes for arms smuggling (hard to do when we are one of the four biggest arms traders flooding the world with these weapons). And of course, homeland intelligence is the most effective way of seeking out these cells.

Long term, we have to find ways to stop disaffected men and women from becoming radicalised. From a psychological perspective, nationals who subscribe to these ideologies are often 2nd or 3rd generation, migrant descendants, who feel no sense of cultural identity and loyalty, either to the culture of their parents and their country of origin, or to the culture of the country they are born into. THAT is what we have to tackle within our own society.

As for Syria, as pointed out above, it is a conflict between four different sides with different aims. There can be no military intervention until NATO and her allies sit down and work out a strategy to which all are signed up, including local leaders and forces on the ground. Without that, any action is doomed to fail and hurt ordinary innocent people most. It will lead to a refugee movement on a scale far bigger than anything we have seen yet.

And finally there is the cost of action. Who will be paying for the bombs we drop? I don't want my taxes being used to kill civilians halfway around the world. Iraq was an unmitigated disaster. I see nothing in Cameron that understands that.

[JohnL]

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Every British PM has to have Their War...

>

> Thatcher The Falklands..

>

> Blair Iraq in both 1998 and 2003, Kosovo (1999),

> Sierra Leone (2000) and Afghanistan (2001).

>

> Cameron Afghanistan , Iraq, Syria..

>

> DulwichFox

And the Falklands and Sierra Leone seen as a success ?

Corbyn could easily have the last laugh here (it won't win him much though).

[BrandNewGuy]

Ridgley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Isis is very difficult dilemma I don?t think

> bombing them will actually work, and you can?t

> reason with a prehistoric ideology so I am not

> sure on this one and Iam not saying do nothing

> either.

A minor correction: their ideology is anything but prehistoric ? it is to use modern technology and communications in such a way to further their religious aims. These are not the anti-modernity Taliban, but a relatively young bunch who are enthusiastic users of 21st-century technology.

[JohnL]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ridgley Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Isis is very difficult dilemma I don?t think

> > bombing them will actually work, and you can?t

> > reason with a prehistoric ideology so I am not

> > sure on this one and Iam not saying do nothing

> > either.

>

> A minor correction: their ideology is anything but

> prehistoric ? it is to use modern technology and

> communications in such a way to further their

> religious aims. These are not the anti-modernity

> Taliban, but a relatively young bunch who are

> enthusiastic users of 21st-century technology.

But the aim is to fight the western nations at the

place described in the Koran as Armageddon (not the

same as the one in the old testament - it's Dabiq in

Syria).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabiq

That's what a lot of observers are saying anyway.

[steveo]

An alternative point of view