Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You don't understand the situation man, you're just googling "arguments in favour of bombing syria" and letting sharper minds try and do your work for you. At least I admit my limitations, I'm no security expert, but I do know that bombing will create further problems for us down the line. Y'know why? because that's what it always fucking does. The people calling for further airstrikes are those who've more invested in the continuation of the Mil-Ind complex, rather than actually looking for a long term resolution.

 

You're a taxi driver from Boldon, do you honestly think that anybody believes you've a clue about the entangled mess that is international security & constructive responses to an indescribably complex situation in the Middle east? We all know you're just a contrary gobshite. I honestly imagine you sitting with your back to the monitor, typing your LBC responses as you glance over your shoulder.

:lol:

 

Typical Fish bashing the keyboard through watery eyes.

 

Some of us were discussing cutting off Isis revenue from oil sales.

 

You clearly didn't understand how it works, which is fine. But rather than trying to understand you are simply resorting to your typical abusive self.

 

I'll leave you to mop up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Some yank reporter on BBC breakfast this morning was being shown the very missile that delivered the chemical attack, I think he was with the same group of journalists as Robert Fisk was. I think my p

They should sever any alliances with Germany. They didn’t help much on D-Day either

Posted Images

:lol:

 

Typical Fish bashing the keyboard through watery eyes.

 

Some of us were discussing cutting off Isis revenue from oil sales.

 

You clearly didn't understand how it works, which is fine. But rather than trying to understand you are simply resorting to your typical abusive self.

 

I'll leave you to mop up.

"discussing" Behave yourself man, you were regurgitating articles you'd googled but not fully understood, and the others were tolerating you like a toddler at a dinner table.

 

You haven't the authority on this to state categorically that the only way to address the oil revenue is to bomb an oil field.

 

Hell, I wouldn't trust you to state directions with any degree of authority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jezzer's take, from the Grauniad

 

Since David Cameron made his case for extending UK bombing to Syria in the House of Commons last week, that case has been coming apart at the seams. No wonder he is trying to hurry the debate through parliament this week.

 

He knows that opposition to his ill-thought-out rush to war is growing. On planning, strategy, ground troops, diplomacy, the terrorist threat, refugees and civilian casualties, it’s become increasingly clear the prime minister’s proposal simply doesn’t stack up.

That’s why the respected House of Commons foreign affairs select committee – whose critical report on his bombing plans was the focus of the prime minister’s statement – tonight made clear he had not adequately addressed their concerns.

 

After the despicable and horrific attacks in Paris last month, the issue of whether what Cameron proposes strengthens – or undermines – our own security is crucial. There is no doubt that the so-called Islamic State (Isil) group has imposed a reign of terror on millions in Iraq, Syria and Libya. And there is no doubt that it poses a threat to our own people. The question is now whether extending the UK bombing from Iraq to Syria is likely to reduce, or increase, that threat – and whether it will counter, or spread, the terror campaign Isil is waging in the Middle East.

 

The prime minister has been unable to explain why extending airstrikes to Syria – which is already being bombed by the US, France, Russia and other powers – will make a significant military impact on a campaign that has so far seen Isil gain territory, such as the cities of Ramadi in Iraq and Palmyra in Syria, as well as lose it.

 

Crucially, he has failed to convince almost anyone that, even if British participation in the current air campaign were to tip the balance, there are credible ground forces able to take back Isil-held territory.

Last week the prime minister suggested that Kurdish forces or the Free Syrian Army would be able to play that role. He even claimed there is a 70,000-strong force of moderate FSA fighters ready to coordinate on the ground with a western air campaign.

 

That claim has not stood up to basic scrutiny. Kurdish forces will be of little assistance in the Sunni Arab areas Isil controls. Nor will the FSA – which is now a disparate umbrella group, including elements few would regard as moderate, and mostly operating in other parts of the country. The only ground forces now able to take advantage of a successful bombing campaign are the stronger jihadist and radical Salafist groups.

 

That’s why the logic of an intensified air campaign is mission creep and western boots on the ground, whatever the prime minister says now about the deployment of British combat troops.

UN security council resolution 2249, passed in the aftermath of the Paris attacks, does not give clear and unambiguous authorisation for UK airstrikes. But it’s a welcome framework, for example, for action by UN member states to cut off funding, oil revenues and arms supplies from Isil territory.

 

There’s little sign, however, of that happening in earnest. Nor is there yet any serious evidence that it’s being used to coordinate international military or diplomatic strategy in Syria, despite the clear risk of potentially disastrous incidents, such as the shooting down of a Russian military aircraft by Turkish forces.acebook

 

The prime minister has avoided spelling out to the British people the warnings he has surely been given about the likely impact of British airstrikes in Syria on the threat of terrorist attacks in the UK. And he’s offered no serious assessment of the impact of an intensified air campaign on civilian casualties in Isil-held Syrian territory, or on the wider Syrian refugee crisis.

 

Most importantly, Cameron has been entirely unable to explain how UK bombing in Syria would contribute to a comprehensive negotiated political settlement of the Syrian war. That is widely understood to be the only way to ensure the defeat of Isil in the country. Isil grew out of the invasion of Iraq, but it has flourished in Syria in the chaos and horror of a multi-front civil war.

 

Cameron’s approach is bomb first, talk later. But instead of adding British bombs to the others now raining down on Syria, what’s needed is an acceleration of thepeace talks in Vienna, involving all the main regional and international powers, with the aim of negotiating a broad-based government in Syria that has the support of the majority of its people. In the context of such a settlement, internationally backed regional forces could help to take back territory from Isil. But its lasting defeat in Syria can only be secured by Syrians themselves.

 

In the past week I have aimed to give a lead to the growing opposition to Cameron’s bombing plans – in the country, in parliament and in the Labour party. Rejection of 14 years of disastrous wars in the wider Middle East was a key part of the platform on which I was elected Labour leader. However bumpy a ride that has been in parliament, it is essential to learn the lessons of those wars.

In the light of that record of western military interventions, UK bombing of Syria risks yet more of what President Obama called “unintended consequences”.

 

The prime minister said he wanted a consensus behind the military action he wants to take. He has achieved nothing of the kind. After Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, MPs thinking of voting for bombing should bear in mind how terrible those consequences can be. Only a negotiated peace settlement can overcome the Isil threat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for bombing the oil complex Isis hold in Syria. It goes out through Turkey and onto tankers owned by Erdongan's son.

Bomb him! :lol:

 

Blackwater dudes are active in Syria and are setting up a fire base, also there to direct peshmerga and FSA fighters. Theyve been asked to help with directing air strikes too as there's not enough UK/US special forces to do the job. Talk of a similar set up to go into Libya too. No publicity, just $$$$$$$$$$$$s all round please :good:

Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting to see the range of views from both sides of the house in this upsum from the guardian. - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/02/syria-airstrikes-debate-best-commons-speeches?CMP=share_btn_fb

 

the tory mp and head of the treasury select committee andrew tyrie sums it up best for me

 

 

 

 

The ruling out of western ground forces is very significant. It tells us that, after Iraq and Afghanistan, the west appears to lack the will, and perhaps the military strength, to commit the resources that might be needed to construct a new order from the shaken kaleidoscope of Syria. As in Libya, it would be relatively easy to remove a brutal dictator from the air, and perhaps also to suppress Isil, but it would be extremely difficult to construct a regime more favourable to our long-term interests.

 

We do not need to look into a crystal ball to see that; we can read the book. The result of over a decade of intervention in the Middle East has been not the creation of a regional order more attuned to western values and interests, but the destruction of an existing order of dictatorships that, however odious, was at least effective in suppressing the sectarian conflicts and resulting terrorism that have taken root in the middle east. Regime change in Iraq brought anarchy and terrible suffering. It has also made us less safe.

 

Above all, it has created the conditions for the growth of militant extremism. We should be under no illusions: today’s vote is not a small step. Once we have deployed military forces in Syria, we will be militarily, politically and morally deeply engaged in that country, and probably for many years to come. That is why the government’s description of the extension of bombing to Syria as merely an extension of what we were already doing in Iraq is misplaced. We simply have not heard enough from the government about exactly what the reconstruction will mean.

 

The timing of this vote has everything to do with the opportunity to secure a majority provided by the shocking attacks in Paris. Everybody feels a bond with the French, but an emotional reflex is not enough. Military action might be effective at some point, but military action without a political strategy is folly. We have yet to hear that strategy, so I cannot support the government’s motion tonight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can see excellent arguments both for and against the airstrikes.

 

I would point out one thing though. It would be nice if the anti-interventionists would refrain from attempting to hold a monopoly on 'compassion', and acknowledge the fact that inaction will result in just as much, if not more innocent blood being spilled than UK airstrikes. So calling people 'child killers' and 'evil' for agreeing with the strikes is a bit simplistic.

 

I know the Kurds appreciated them a hell of a lot in Iraq.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Houghton and Sunderland South MP Bridget Phillipson was forced to delete a string of Facebook posts from trolls. She stressed she respects “strongly-held” views but chose to make a statement after two posts, one on Facebook and another on Twitter, involved her baby boy, who is not yet two weeks old.

 

The Twitter post wished harm on the baby and other various posts on Facebook saw her called her a “disgrace to our country and humanity” and “no better than a murderer”.

 

One reads: “Bit of luck you didn’t give birth to your lovely boy in Raqqa, eh?”

 

Various pictures of bloodied Syrian children were also posted on the MP’s Facebook page.

 

She said: “Deciding whether or not to support military action is one of the toughest decisions a member of parliament has to make, but I stand by my decision last night to vote to extend airstrikes against Daesh in Syria.

 

“I understand and respect the strongly-held views that people hold on this complex issue, but there can be no excuse for personal abuse.”

 

Tynemouth MP Alan Campbell, Redcar’s Anna Turley, Darlington’s Jenny Chapman, North Durham’s Kevan Jones, Sedgefield’s Phil Wilson and Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland MP Tom Blenkinsop are all Labour MPs that voted for air strikes. Anne-Marie Trevelyan and Guy Opperman, Conservative MPs for Berwick and Hexham, respectively, also voted for, but it appeared that some of the worst abuse was reserved for Labour MPs who rejected leader Jeremy Corbyn’s anti-war stance.

 

The “for” vote was carried by a substantial majority: 397 votes to 223.

 

A tweet by the campaign group Left Unity called on the 66 Labour MPs who voted for air strikes to be deselected.

 

Abusive comments to various MPs included “disgusting war pigs”, “weasels”, “gutless coward” and “I hope your December is as tragic as that of the Syrians you have chosen to bomb”. Ms Turley and Mr Blenkinsop also reported finding abusive posts.

 

 

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/syria-air-strikes-north-east-10546871

 

Bridget had a babby? Aaaw, happy for her.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the better short guides on ISIS i've read, goes into detail without heading off into la la land.

 

ISIS’s rise cannot be explained as simply an outcome of ideology or religion, as many Western commentators appear to believe. There are very real social and political roots that explain the organization’s growth.

But taking the ideological expression seriously helps us understand how various intersecting factors — the destructive spread of sectarianism, the devastating repression in Syria and Iraq, and the interests of different regional and international powers in the Middle East — have acted to incubate the rise of ISIS.
Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an interesting chap, ex jihadist, on Question time last night discussing how lack of intervention by the West had also swelled Isis ranks.

 

He himself became a jihadist because the West wasn't intervening in Bosnia. Similarly, current jihadists in Syria felt abandoned by the West during Assads onslaught over the last few years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good read that RM.

 

It's similar to my thoughts of Isis being a kind of Year Zero moment for radical Islam...Where they feel there is no longer space for a plural conversation with the West (break down of the Arab Spring) and its Neo-imperial projections (indeed not even other parts of Islam). Isis is Beyond Good and Evil in a very Nietzschean sense. Faced with the total erasure of ME nations, the wholesale breakdown of state architecture and social-economic crisis, I guess they got it into their mad heads they need to build a new one.

 

The quasi-mystical choice of Dabiq (good Star Wars name that), a place of no tactical or resource based relevance (surrounded by miles of farmland) reveals an insistence on Prophetic texts and a complete dissonance with regard to their military thinking. Yet at the same time a powerful call that supersedes all other narratives in the minds of those attracted to them. As the writer correctly identifies a lot of Isis literature is fantastical and Utopian.

Edited by Park Life
Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an interesting chap, ex jihadist, on Question time last night discussing how lack of intervention by the West had also swelled Isis ranks.

 

He himself became a jihadist because the West wasn't intervening in Bosnia. Similarly, current jihadists in Syria felt abandoned by the West during Assads onslaught over the last few years.

Nawaz is well dodgy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the Californian atrocity appears to be an act of islamic terrorism. Terrifying to think what could happen in the US if a few cells became established, considering the easy access to automatic weaponry there.

 

Meanwhile, the Times I'm reading says that IS has firmly established itself in Afghanistan, opening up another front. This is so fucked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...