The Politics Thread

[Captain...]

You expect far too much from people. Many people I've spoken to don't understand the distinction between bombing in Syria now and the last vote on Syria.

And this whole, it makes us more of a target is nonsense. We've extended our campaign over the border into Syria, a border which ISIS don't recognise. We always were a target high on the list anyway, just fortunately for us, our intelligence services can only be matched by the US. 

 

But do you not think Daesh are monitoring the political activity of "Western infidels" and will be planning attacks to cause the maximum disruption?

 

An attack in London so soon after they voted to extend airstrike operations to Syria, would send a huge message to the rest of the world, and the enemies of Daesh, and do a lot more to destabilise and discredit the UK Government than an attack at any other time.

[Rincewind]

[Babylon]

If the targets hit by the RAF were so vital, why haven't the active coalition already hit them? Did they really need to wait for the extra four aircraft from us? It's merely symbolic, and of no practical use.

This doesn't make the UK safer. Quite the opposite.

They can't bomb all targets at once can they, otherwise it would be done and dusted and they would be packed up and gone home already.

 

There will be a list of targets, some critical that need doing now, some not so, some awaiting intel etc. Our planes would just take the place of someone elses on the run that was already scheduled. These things are ongoing daily don't forget... as they all symbolic?

 

We're already a target, anyone who things otherwise is just deluded I'm afraid. They don't care what country you come from, were they going around asking if people if they were French and American when they were gunning people down in Tunisia? No, they just wanted to kill westerners.

 

We're exceptionally fortunate that we have a large expanse of water between us and the rest of Europe that restricts the movement of terrorists and weapons into the country.

 

I can understand the worries of those for and against. It's a right old mess that's more complicated that most can ever hope to understand.

[James.]

I think it's pretty much accepted that there is at the very least a short term increase in the threat of a UK attack and that for many it is an "acceptable" risk to take in order to widen the bombing campaign.

[AKCJ]

So are you saying Cameron was wrong about Russia bombing Syria creating more radicalisation and terrorism?

 

Russia suffered a tragedy at the hands of Daesh and so retaliated and Cameron criticised them for it, saying they are wrong and their actions will lead to more terrorism, but now France has been targeted it is time to pile in.

 

To be honest it is not for me to say whether we are right or wrong to launch airstrikes against Syria and whether we can defeat them this way, or whether it will make us a target, but it is the weasel words from Cameron that I am just sick of and find it terrifying that this man can lead us into another war.

 

But you seem incapable of accepting that opinions can change.

 

Paris is less than 300 miles to London. It's ridiculous to sit back and accept these things now that they're targeting places so close to us.

 

The Paris attacks were a huge wake up call and they've certainly woken Cameron up.

 

 

 

I'm sure they can't wait to get bombed...

[Babylon]

The problem is that there's quite a likelihood that innocent civilians will be killed as IS seem to operate in 'public' areas.

 

Yes, the main objective of this airstrike scenario is to destroy oil/weapons factories operated by IS - but according to what's been said the plan is to target specific people in Syria.

There is always that chance and I'm sure it will happen. But IS are already killing innocent people, I'd suggest you don't watch them.... but there are videos out there of the shit they do to 1000's of men, women, children and babies. These people are slaughtering them for fun in the most inhumane ways imaginable.

 

Does everyone stand back and let that slaughter continue until they control the whole area. Or do you step in accepting that there will be innocent casualties?

[Captain...]

But you seem incapable of accepting that opinions can change.

 

Paris is less than 300 miles to London. It's ridiculous to sit back and accept these things now that they're targeting places so close to us.

 

The Paris attacks were a huge wake up call and they've certainly woken Cameron up.

 

I just find his weasel words to be disgusting, it wasn't that long ago he wanted us to launch air-strikes on Assad which would have paved the way for Daesh and given them more support against the west.

 

Cameron is entitled to change his opinion, as are we all, but I would just hope that he would be a little more certain in his views as he sends British troops into the most volatile environment in the World at the moment.

[Wymsey]

There is always that chance and I'm sure it will happen. But IS are already killing innocent people, I'd suggest you don't watch them.... but there are videos out there of the shit they do to 1000's of men, women, children and babies. These people are slaughtering them for fun in the most inhumane ways imaginable.

 

Does everyone stand back and let that slaughter continue until they control the whole area. Or do you step in accepting that there will be innocent casualties?

I agree.

 

But you have just reminded me of the video that went viral of the poor bloke being burnt to death in a cage.

[Babylon]

I agree.

 

But you have just reminded me of the video that went viral of the bloke being burnt to death in a cage.

 

They are horrendous... I don't want to rush into a bombing campaign, but my overriding feelings after seeing some of the shit they do was that those poor b*stards need help and that those doing it need wiping from the planet as they aren't human.

[Darkon84]

Just a general note for some people...

 

We shouldn't forget that this isn't just David Cameron, and people shouldn't let their dislike for him affect their ability to judge the air strike situation. The vote happened democratically and the option to extend the area of air strikes won. With, may I add, plenty of support from the opposite side of the house too.

[AKCJ]

Just a general note for some people...

 

We shouldn't forget that this isn't just David Cameron, and people shouldn't let their dislike for him affect their ability to judge the air strike situation. The vote happened democratically and the option to extend the area of air strikes won. With, may I add, plenty of support from the opposite side of the house too.

 

Dunno if it's been posted but...

 

 

[Darkon84]

Dunno if it's been posted but...

 

 

 

 

I hadn't seen that actually. So a third of the Labour party voted for the further action. The SNP stuck to their word too, that not a single one of them would vote for it.

[Finnegan]

I'd rather we go in to another war than extend air strikes, frankly. The major winners from air strikes are the Daesh propaganda machine and the arms dealers selling us ordinance at a hundred grand per shot.

We'll end up with more civilian casualties, more terrorists and refugees as a result and we'll still have no cultural interaction on the ground with the locals. That's where we'll win the "war", by convincing the normal folk of Syria and Iraq that the West cares, that the West can help.

Daesh are no military threat to us, NATO hopelessly outguns them. They're a terrorist threat and any Muppet with a some homemade explosives can be a terrorist. That Muppet will be much easier to recruit once we've bombed his cousin's wedding by accident or dropped a shell on his daughter's school because a circuit shorted.

I'm absolutely no military strategist but why don't we put special forces on the ground and go and assassinate the ***** quietly? If they can infiltrate a major western capital city with a few AKs and home made bombs, can we really not get the most well trained, well equipped killing machines in the world in there to whack a few ringleaders without dropping tonnes of explosives? Serious question, is that not possible?

[lgfualol]

rip those 7 conservatives that went against Cameron

[Jon the Hat]

I'd rather we go in to another war than extend air strikes, frankly. The major winners from air strikes are the Daesh propaganda machine and the arms dealers selling us ordinance at a hundred grand per shot.

We'll end up with more civilian casualties, more terrorists and refugees as a result and we'll still have no cultural interaction on the ground with the locals. That's where we'll win the "war", by convincing the normal folk of Syria and Iraq that the West cares, that the West can help.

Daesh are no military threat to us, NATO hopelessly outguns them. They're a terrorist threat and any Muppet with a some homemade explosives can be a terrorist. That Muppet will be much easier to recruit once we've bombed his cousin's wedding by accident or dropped a shell on his daughter's school because a circuit shorted.

I'm absolutely no military strategist but why don't we put special forces on the ground and go and assassinate the ***** quietly? If they can infiltrate a major western capital city with a few AKs and home made bombs, can we really not get the most well trained, well equipped killing machines in the world in there to whack a few ringleaders without dropping tonnes of explosives? Serious question, is that not possible?

 

Special forces are already there, but Syria is a big place.

[Fox Ulike]

As I have posted a few pro-extending the bombing comments, I feel I should clarify my position.  I support the government here, partly as I don't think there is a sensible distinction between bombing IS in Iraq or Syria, and it makes us look like idiots, and partly because I think we should be part of the coalition here.  Our allies - the real ones - want us in there, and we have more of a voice in terms of developing the strategy than sitting outside.  That doesn't mean I am 100% sure this is going to help, but I think on balance it makes more sense, and it send the signal that we are not going to stand by and watch IS kill our citizens.

 

The distinction between bombing in Iraq and bombing in Syria is this:  In Iraq, bombings are combined with an Iraqi ground force. In Iraq, there’s an established and co-ordinated military strategy which is led by the Iraqi Government. Firstly, bombs are dropped to weaken enemy positions, and then Iraqi ground troops (and humanitarian aid) are sent in to secure the territory.

 

No such strategy exists in Syria.  We are just dropping bombs.

 

Bombing doesn’t make us part of any coalition. We have acted independently and arbitrarily. Incidentally, the oil fields that we bombed in Omar had already been “blitzed” back in October.  This seems to be a clear case of a lack of any co-ordinated strategy or coalition.

 

http://qasioun.net/en/article/Airstrikes-over-Omar-oil-field-…-ISIS-executes-civilians-in-Qorya/4206/

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/614107/Airstrike-BLITZ-deals-huge-blow-to-ISIS-as-oil-field-and-supply-routes-are-OBLITERATED

 

 

Also, I’m sure you wouldn’t choose to support the Government if they chose to drop bombs on Brussels when we knew that the terrorists who carried out the Paris attack were holed up in an apartment there. I mean, if our bombs can be specifically and precisely targeted against enemy positions, with no risk to civilians, then why not bomb that apartment rather than risk Police lives in directly engaging the terrorists in Belgium?

[Finnegan]

Syria is a big place.

 

... what?

 

I'm a little lost as to why you think that's relevant. Surely we know where Daesh elements are before we send in the bombs? I'd like to think we know pretty accurately where they are before we're firing missiles. What's the difference between knowing where to send a missile and where to send a guy with a **** off great big anti material rifle to shoot the mole off an islamist commandant from a ridge five miles off?

[Jon the Hat]

... what?

 

I'm a little lost as to why you think that's relevant. Surely we know where Daesh elements are before we send in the bombs? I'd like to think we know pretty accurately where they are before we're firing missiles. What's the difference between knowing where to send a missile and where to send a guy with a **** off great big anti material rifle to shoot the mole off an islamist commandant from a ridge five miles off?

 

You seem to think a few hundred special forces on their own are going to kill off IS.  What they will be doing is identifying targets for bombing.  The benefit there being unlike a sniper shot, you can take out a group at once, and no one is generally able to work out where you are.

[Thracian]

I'd rather we go in to another war than extend air strikes, frankly. The major winners from air strikes are the Daesh propaganda machine and the arms dealers selling us ordinance at a hundred grand per shot.

We'll end up with more civilian casualties, more terrorists and refugees as a result and we'll still have no cultural interaction on the ground with the locals. That's where we'll win the "war", by convincing the normal folk of Syria and Iraq that the West cares, that the West can help.

Daesh are no military threat to us, NATO hopelessly outguns them. They're a terrorist threat and any Muppet with a some homemade explosives can be a terrorist. That Muppet will be much easier to recruit once we've bombed his cousin's wedding by accident or dropped a shell on his daughter's school because a circuit shorted.

I'm absolutely no military strategist but why don't we put special forces on the ground and go and assassinate the ***** quietly? If they can infiltrate a major western capital city with a few AKs and home made bombs, can we really not get the most well trained, well equipped killing machines in the world in there to whack a few ringleaders without dropping tonnes of explosives? Serious question, is that not possible?

 

I'd rather we go in to another war than extend air strikes, frankly. The major winners from air strikes are the Daesh propaganda machine and the arms dealers selling us ordinance at a hundred grand per shot. 

We'll end up with more civilian casualties, more terrorists and refugees as a result and we'll still have no cultural interaction on the ground with the locals. That's where we'll win the "war", by convincing the normal folk of Syria and Iraq that the West cares, that the West can help.

Daesh are no military threat to us, NATO hopelessly outguns them. They're a terrorist threat and any Muppet with a some homemade explosives can be a terrorist. That Muppet will be much easier to recruit once we've bombed his cousin's wedding by accident or dropped a shell on his daughter's school because a circuit shorted.

I'm absolutely no military strategist but why don't we put special forces on the ground and go and assassinate the ***** quietly? If they can infiltrate a major western capital city with a few AKs and home made bombs, can we really not get the most well trained, well equipped killing machines in the world in there to whack a few ringleaders without dropping tonnes of explosives? Serious question, is that not possible?

 

 

Underestimating the enemy is the cardinal sin of any commander and probably the last mistake anyone on active service against IS is likely to make.

 

IS capabilities may be limited in some ways and undefined in others, but when it comes to "dirty" fighting they're both adept, practiced and their centre is better guarded than you might imagine, by both money and fear, reading between the lines of reports.

 

They seem good psychologists and propagandists too and whatever any of us might think of their philosophy they have clearly studied underdog and guerilla warfare from all sorts of angles, are constantly updating their tactics and have done remarkably well to do all they have (from their point of view) without imploding.

 

It's clear from national media that we have special forces involved on the ground already and various media comments suggest they've already played a vital role in taking down ringleaders.

 

But their job is to remain unseen, unheard and un-noticed, requirements guaranteed to keep them 100% alert and respectful of what they're up against.

 

Infiltrating a major Western capital is relatively easy for a well prepared sleeper, especially given the naive/careless/irresponsible way we look, or don't look, at things (I won't be specific because a lot of good work is done as well).

 

But gaining access to an ever-changing network of suspicious fundamentalists who are constantly testing even their own people's loyalty and commitment is exceedingly difficult and risky, especially on their own soil.

 

Furthermore IS know their leaders are a target and are constantly preparing and training replacements.

 

Much of their strategic planning is likely to be conducted underground in labyrinths of tunnels which, I imagine, include ever-changing additional, or newly redundant tunnels, themselves designed to filter out potential traitors or to prevent all but a very small and select group knowing where any meeting might be taking place.

 

Special forces would need, not only to be sure of their information, but to protect their source. Because getting another source might take weeks of groundwork and all at massive risk all round.

 

By calling in precision air strikes I'd guess it's easier for special forces to maintain their anonymity and spirit themselves back into the shadows.  

So, to offer my own thoughts on your question, while anything is possible, I'd doubt what you suggest would be the most feasible or effective way forward.  

[Jon the Hat]

The distinction between bombing in Iraq and bombing in Syria is this:  In Iraq, bombings are combined with an Iraqi ground force. In Iraq, there’s an established and co-ordinated military strategy which is led by the Iraqi Government. Firstly, bombs are dropped to weaken enemy positions, and then Iraqi ground troops (and humanitarian aid) are sent in to secure the territory.

 

No such strategy exists in Syria.  We are just dropping bombs.

 

Bombing doesn’t make us part of any coalition. We have acted independently and arbitrarily. Incidentally, the oil fields that we bombed in Omar had already been “blitzed” back in October.  This seems to be a clear case of a lack of any co-ordinated strategy or coalition.

 

http://qasioun.net/en/article/Airstrikes-over-Omar-oil-field-…-ISIS-executes-civilians-in-Qorya/4206/

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/614107/Airstrike-BLITZ-deals-huge-blow-to-ISIS-as-oil-field-and-supply-routes-are-OBLITERATED

 

 

Also, I’m sure you wouldn’t choose to support the Government if they chose to drop bombs on Brussels when we knew that the terrorists who carried out the Paris attack were holed up in an apartment there. I mean, if our bombs can be specifically and precisely targeted against enemy positions, with no risk to civilians, then why not bomb that apartment rather than risk Police lives in directly engaging the terrorists in Belgium?

 

All fair points - it isn't perfect I agree there.  Lets not pretend there are no troops on the ground though.  They are not our troops, there might not be 70,000 of them and some of they might be only marginally better than IS in some respects, but if we are offering them air support you can bet they provide information for targeting IS, and that they will move in to gain ground afterwards.  It might not be the whole solution but it is going to help.

 

I wouldn't bomb Brussels because as it is not in the middle of a civil war the risk to forces on the ground is much lower.  Daft comparison no?

[Jon the Hat]

The question for those of you who would not add a few British bombs to the Syrian effort, is what would you do beyond what is already happening?  I don't think doing no more is an option at this stage.

[Captain...]

The question for those of you who would not add a few British bombs to the Syrian effort, is what would you do beyond what is already happening?  I don't think doing no more is an option at this stage.

 

I would be do everything I could to get the Arab league involved, I would be talking with Assad and Putin and Turkey and the Free Syrian Army about what the consequences would be of reinstating Assad to try and restore order and negotiate a cease fire between non Daesh parties to focus on the main threat.

 

I would be sending as much aid and help to the people that have been displaced as possible, I would also be doing everything to beef up security and safety in Britain. I would also be following the money finding out where the wealth is coming from and putting pressure on which ever nation is facilitating this.

 

All of those things do not prevent military action and are hopefully going on to some extent. So from a military point of view I think we are doing enough in keeping Daesh out of Iraq as much as possible and my focus for the armed forces in the area would be stabilising Iraq before piling in to Syria, especially as Russia and France seem to have it covered in terms of air strikes. I wouldn't want us to lose focus on Iraq and let Daesh infiltrate further.

[Guest MattP]

Do people still think we haven't done everything we can to get the help of the Arab League?

We've been trying for 18 months, they aren't interested.

[Finnegan]

You seem to think a few hundred special forces on their own are going to kill off IS.  What they will be doing is identifying targets for bombing.  The benefit there being unlike a sniper shot, you can take out a group at once, and no one is generally able to work out where you are.

 

 

I don't really think anything strategic is going to kill off Daesh. They're a movement, an idea, you can't wipe that out with bombs and guns either way. Bombs and guns give them ammunition to recruit and hit back.

 

I'm absolutely not saying don't do anything, I'm not even saying DON'T attack them physically, we clearly can't roll over and do nothing. I just think committing to airstrikes is half-arsed and will ultimately be counter-productive. They're "our" (NATO's) responsibility, at the end of the day, they're a bacteria that's grown out of our Petri dish.

 

Lets go in, flatten the arseholes ruining it for everyone but this time actually spend a bit afterwards. Have a whip round and build them some schools, mosques, universities, hospitals, halal McDonalds, give them wide screen TVs and good healthcare and a good education system (yknow, like Saddam had in Iraq.) Give them a few less reasons to be ****ed off with the West.

 

That's what we do best, isn't it? Throw money at areas, do 'em up. I mean, it worked on Hackney and Shoreditch.

[Guest]

I've been waiting for fusion energy for as long as I can remember. It was 10-20 years away when I was a kid and it still is now. Just throwing money at a problem doesn't make it disappear.

 

Solar, Wind , tide exist they need money and drive to become more efficient. Just like computer chips and batteries!