Should we bomb Syria?

[Boydy]

It's kind of been touched on in other threads but I thought a thread of its own might be a good idea.

I really don't know. Everyone on social media and in the press seems to be a fucking military expert all of a sudden but I don't know. There seem to be pretty decent arguments for both sides.

[Spammer]

I don't know either. Seems like it's just continuing the cycle, but then what's the alternative? Sit them down for a cup of tea and come to a gentlemanly agreement?

Or do nothing, I guess. That option depends on just how genuinely dangerous they are, which is hard to get an understanding of which isn't spun through the media.

[Disco]

Bombing alone is pointless, it's a token gesture so it looks like we're doing something. Even if it wipes out every IS soldier (it won't) it's not a solution to anything.

[Jimmy Floyd]

It's pointless us voting to 'bomb' Syria given that America are too cowardly to do anything meaningful as per. Obama has been an absolutely terrible President, one of the worst in history.

[phonics]

No. Cutting the head off a Hydra.

Unless Muslin countries will put boots on the ground, its a loss every time.

[Lee]

If we take miltary action it has to be more than bombing and any sort of land invasion would require proper planning for afterwards. There does seem to have been a reversal of IS gains since bombing started but it does fuck all to rid us of the people planning attacks overseas.

[Henry]

It's more complicated than yes/no.

As things stand, going and bombing ISIS is pointless. It might roll them back a bit in terms of territory, but it radicalises more people and it does so in the absence of any coherent strategy to bring stability.
There are about ten different conflicts going on inside Syria, involving the Russians, Turkey, Iran, the Arab states and the west, and a shitload of factions. There needs to be political agreement at an international level about what a settlement will look like. Maybe then bombing someone or other might be of use to achieve it.

[phonics]

No public poll :nono:

[Yevrah]

Bombing on its own, as parliament appear to be advocating? No, absolutely not.

[Boydy]

It's more complicated than yes/no.

Obviously. But you can't really capture the nuances in a poll. You have the thread to explain yourself though.


No public poll :nono:

Yeah, I fucked that up. I only noticed that option wasn't ticked as I hit submit and then it was too late.

[Boydy]

This is quite an interesting article despite its clickbait title - 7 Things I Learned Reading Every Issue Of ISIS's Magazine (http://www.cracked.com/blog/isis-wants-us-to-invade-7-facts-revealed-by-their-magazine/)

[Baz]

I voted no.

If ISIS were wiped out, I'd genuinely miss their videos.

[Yevrah]

I had a read through one edition of ISIS' magazine. It is a very well put together publication, which coupled with the production quality of the videos makes me wonder if they haven't missed their calling.

[phonics]

The BBC Journalist they're holding hostage and forcing to make reports is some proper weird stuff.

[Boydy]

They might have some openings for graphic designers, Phonics?

[John Arne]

It's pointless us voting to 'bomb' Syria given that America are too cowardly to do anything meaningful as per. Obama has been an absolutely terrible President, one of the worst in history.

Alright, Mert.

[Henry]

I had a read through one edition of ISIS' magazine. It is a very well put together publication, which coupled with the production quality of the videos makes me wonder if they haven't missed their calling.

Where did you get hold of it?

That's a top article Boydy linked to. At the risk of sounding like Harold, with regard to cutting off their money, I told you so.

[mugbull]

It's pointless us voting to 'bomb' Syria given that America are too cowardly to do anything meaningful as per. Obama has been an absolutely terrible President, one of the worst in history.

Jesus haha. Why the fuck should America be on tha vanguard of this? Obama's doing exactly what he should do (that is, limited strategic operations), and as for his presidency you're just ignorant. Stop trying to discuss American politics.

[Yevrah]

Where did you get hold of it?

I just googled it and a found a pdf, which I think they put up there. If I remember rightly they translate the sodding thing as well.

[Disco]

Given their propensity for using the internet it can't be hard to get hold of.

Edit: In fact just googling ISIS magazine or Dabiq gets you there, as well as onto some watch lists probably, hi CIA!

[Yevrah]

Here's Issue 12 Henners, the "Paris Special".

https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/the-islamic-state-e2809cdc481biq-magazine-12e280b3.pdf

[Jimmy Floyd]

Jesus haha. Why the fuck should America be on tha vanguard of this? Obama's doing exactly what he should do (that is, limited strategic operations), and as for his presidency you're just ignorant. Stop trying to discuss American politics.

Probably because it caused a lot of this by making a complete tit of the previous war in the region, and then having absolutely no idea how to react to the Arab Spring, getting everything wrong then too.

But that's what happens when your internal politics veers between wets and neocons every decade.

[Yevrah]

Given their propensity for using the internet it can't be hard to get hold of.

Edit: In fact just googling ISIS magazine or Dabiq gets you there, as well as onto some watch lists probably, hi CIA!

I'm white and borderline middle class, it's fine.

[Kikó]

No. There is plenty of other armed forces there in place without Britain. Don't get involved.

[Yevrah]

No. There is plenty of other armed forces there in place without Britain. Don't get involved.

Don't get involved at all? Ever? No matter how bad things in Europe (and over here) might get?

[phonics]

I just googled it and a found a pdf, which I think they put up there. If I remember rightly they translate the sodding thing as well.

Into seven languages. It's one of the best media operations going.

[John Arne]

Don't get involved at all? Ever? No matter how bad things in Europe (and over here) might get?

That not what Kiko is suggesting at all.

[GS]

Yes. It's territory which is being used to train terrorists - flagrantly and openly.

Bombing in and of itself is not sufficient, but "stay out of it" isn't a strategy either. It needs to be dealt with, and wringing one's hands whilst expecting other countries to do the heavy lifting is pointless. We'd be bombing already if we hadn't decided to back Assad's enemies without understanding who the fuck they were.

Jim is right. Obama has been a disaster for the region.

[Kikó]

Don't get involved at all? Ever? No matter how bad things in Europe (and over here) might get?

I don't think it's going to get "that" bad. The Syrian conflict is either balls in or leave alone. I'd rather it be left alone. We've killed enough of the youth in far flung places recently.

[Yevrah]

That not what Kiko is suggesting at all.

It is.

[Yevrah]

I don't think it's going to get "that" bad. The Syrian conflict is either balls in or leave alone. I'd rather it be left alone. We've killed enough of the youth in far flung places recently.

Yevrah 1 John Arne 0

[Disco]

Links to all of them for anyone that's interested, have your islamic phrase book at the ready though and be prepared for most of it to be them ragging on other muslims.

NSFW obviously.

http://www.clarionproject.org/news/islamic-state-isis-isil-propaganda-magazine-dabiq

[John Arne]

I'm sure Kiko is saying based on the current situation, his answer would be no. Who on earth is talking about the future, and what it's and what about's?

[Yevrah]

Who on earth is talking about the future, and what it's and what about's?

Wanna take another run at that?

[John Arne]

Yevrah 1 John Arne 0

He still answered the question based on the current situation. You are the one who then talked about what happens in the future.
Regardless, enjoy your e-victory.

[Kikó]

It's difficult to predict what will happen next in the world of international terrorism but I think the armed forces of Russia, Iran, Turkey and France can beat Isis.

[Magic]

No. We should bomb Qatar, Saudi and Turkey.

[Yevrah]

He still answered the question based on the current situation.

And I asked him another one. Three of them in fact.

I've known Kik's (on this board) for years and as a result it's pretty obvious to me where his opinion would fall.

[John Arne]

And I asked him another one. Three of them in fact.

I've known Kik's (on this board) for years and as a result it's pretty obvious to me where his opinion would fall.

I don't care how long you've known 'Kiks' for. He answered a question, and it appeared to me that you were being flippant - maybe I just read your tone wrong, which is entirely possible.

[Henry]

It's difficult to predict what will happen next in the world of international terrorism but I think the armed forces of Russia, Iran, Turkey and France can beat Isis.

Problem is that Turkey is helping ISIS, and the others are basically just lobbing bombs in, and against different factions, some of which are also fighting ISIS.

[GS]

Syria should be partitioned whenever the situation finally resolves itself, whether that's next year or in ten years' time. There's no future for it within a pre-war framework.

[phonics]

The West piling in and carving the place up with a ruler has a great history of working out.

[GS]

The West piling in and carving the place up with a ruler has a great history of working out.

Who said it should be the West? The issue is the original partition between French and British zones of influence which split communities and created aggrieved minorities in both countries who were subsequently oppressed. Partition it along religious grounds and manage the movement of peoples properly - not Germany post-WWII or India/Pakistan or Israel/Palestine.

[Yevrah]

The West piling in and carving the place up with a ruler has a great history of working out.

Indeed.

I'd too be tempted to say leave it the fuck alone, but when your country already has more than enough ISIS supporters to carry out its aims then doing nothing could be a bit problematic.

[phonics]

The issue is the original partition between French and British zones of influence which split communities and created aggrieved minorities in both countries who were subsequently oppressed. Partition it along religious grounds and manage the movement of peoples properly - not Germany post-WWII or India/Pakistan or Israel/Palestine.

Yeah, that'll happen. It'd be the same as happens every time. I got to this bit first so here's a bloke who likes me to lead you while I skim your oil profits, toodles.

[Henry]

You've got Kurds, Alawites, Turkmen, Shi'tes, Sunnis, and various factions within the latter in particular, all mixed in together. Partitioning it along religious/ethnic grounds doesn't sound like a runner to me.

The entire problem here is the nation state system, but it doesn't look like we're changing that any time soon either.

[GS]

Yeah, that'll happen. It'd be the same as happens every time. I got to this bit first so here's a bloke who likes me to lead you while I skim your oil profits, toodles.

What's your solution? Recent history has seen the minorities in control 'persecuting' the majority. It's unworkable.

[GS]

You've got Kurds, Alawites, Turkmen, Shi'tes, Sunnis, and various factions within the latter in particular, all mixed in together. Partitioning it along religious/ethnic grounds doesn't sound like a runner to me.

The entire problem here is the nation state system, but it doesn't look like we're changing that any time soon either.

So given you recognise this great global ideal of no borders isn't happening - what's your solution?

[phonics]

Stay the fuck clear of the entire clusterfuck and let everyone else bomb each other until we end up having to back America in World War 3. Save some cash for a pwopa WAR!

[Henry]

So given you recognise this great global ideal of no borders isn't happening - what's your solution?

To the entire Syrian war? I don't have one, other than to say that a negotiations should be progressed without every medium and large power with any influence in the region trying to achieve its own selfish ends.

To ISIS? Force the Turks and the Saudi's to seal the borders and stop the funding. Ensure that the Kurds in particular are freed up and given international support up to fight them on the ground. Stop pretending that Al-Nusra and other jihadis are moderates. Deal with the refugees properly.

[GS]

To the entire Syrian war? I don't have one, other than to say that a negotiations should be progressed without every medium and large power with any influence in the region trying to achieve its own selfish ends.

To ISIS? Force the Turks and the Saudi's to seal the borders and stop the funding. Ensure that the Kurds in particular are freed up and given international support up to fight them on the ground. Stop pretending that Al-Nusra and other jihadis are moderates. Deal with the refugees properly.

How do you encourage relevant countries in the region to put their own selfish ends to one side to reach agreement? A realistic solution, not an idealistic one.

With reference to ISIS, how do you seal the border with Turkey? How do you bring the Turks along in overlooking the Kurdish role? How do you stop the Saudis funding ISIS without running the risk of undermining the monarchy and allowing something worse to take its place? What form should international support take? Military and arms? Presumably Jez wouldn't support sending arms to the Kurds, so what's your view on him if this scenario took hold?

How do you deal with the refugees properly?

I'm not being truculent, but that response ignores reality and practicality as you so often do.

You need Turkey to deal with the refugee crisis, accept a Kurdish role and yet you presumably advocate strong-arming them ("force them") into sealing the border. How the fuck does that work for Turkey?

[phonics]

I'm not being truculent, but that response ignores reality and practicality as you so often do.

Says the bloke who wanted to create 8 states and bus people to the states based on their religion. You also forgot to state who would be doing it because you said 'Who said it would be The West?'.

[Henry]

How do you encourage relevant countries in the region to put their own selfish ends to one side to reach agreement? A realistic solution, not an idealistic one.

With reference to ISIS, how do you seal with the border with Turkey? How do you bring the Turks along in overlooking the Kurdish role? How do you stop the Saudis funding ISIS without running the risk of undermining the monarchy and allowing something worse to take its place? What form should international support take? Military and arms? Presumably Jez wouldn't support sending arms to the Kurds, so what's your view on him if this scenario took hold?

How do you deal with the refugees properly?

I'm not being truculent, but that response ignores reality and practicality as you so often do.

The west has plenty of leverage on the Turks and Saudi's. If fighting ISIS is the priority, then using such leverage is not "unrealistic". If cosy political relationships because of NATO or oil or whatever are more important, then admit that we don't give enough of a fuck to put in the required effort , stop bitching about ISIS and stay the fuck out of it all.

[GS]

Says the bloke who wanted to create 8 states and bus people to the states based on their religion. You also forgot to state who would be doing it because you said 'Who said it would be The West?'.

It's one option - and one which has been tried before. There are lessons to learn from history. Would Pakistan/India/Bangladesh be better places if we'd maintained a united India? I doubt it.

[GS]

The west has plenty of leverage on the Turks and Saudi's. If fighting ISIS is the priority, then using such leverage is not "unrealistic". If cosy political relationships because of NATO or oil or whatever are more important, then admit that we don't give enough of a fuck to put in the required effort , stop bitching about ISIS and stay the fuck out of it all.

You need Turkey on-side as there is nothing whatsoever to stop them from letting refugees flood into the Greek islands from their western borders or to continue turning a blind eye to ISIS fighters crossing into Syria from the south. They're nervous about a Kurdish role.

You need to bring them along - not strong arm them and leverage them. They have a nationalistic, borderline dictator, in charge in Erdogan. How do you think it goes down with the Turks if the Imperialist West start strong-arming them into action, one which is potentially perceived as propping up a problematic minority in the Kurds who could threaten Turkish security? Erdogan would use it to prop up his own vote and the West would get fucking nowhere.

Give your head a rattle.

[Henry]

Turkey is "on-side" right now. Fat fucking good it's doing - they are the reason ISIS is enduring. If you have way to stop them from continuing in this role by playing nice, then perhaps you'd share it. But right now, what they're at is totally unacceptable and it needs to stop one way or another.

[GS]

Turkey is "on-side" right now. Fat fucking good it's doing - they are the reason ISIS is enduring. If you have way to stop them from continuing in this role by playing nice, then perhaps you'd share it. But right now, what they're at is totally unacceptable.

We buy them off by giving them a lot of money and telling them we will look favourably upon future cooperation in trade and security matters which will lead to us giving them more money.

[Henry]

Okay then, I'd go in for that - if they close the border and so forth.

[Lee]

Fuck Syria, a peaceful settlement has just been reached between GS and Henry.

[Lewis]

If the question is simply to bomb a few ISIS cunts into the ground then I'm inclined to say yes on the basis that we're doing them in Iraq anyway and because we should probably be standing with France. But as far as what the government put forward, with its political settlement (has anything referred to as a 'roadmap' ever succeeded?) and seventy-thousand 'moderates' and obvious susceptibility to mission creep, then lol no thanks I'm with Jezza. The Russians have taken complete control of the situation and they're welcome to it.

The original French Mandate for Syria and Lebanon would be a good basis for partition.

[Boydy]

Fuck Syria, a peaceful settlement has just been reached between GS and Henry.


I'm with Jezza.


The world turned upside down.

[Cord]

A little bit of bombing here and there seems like about the worst thing we can do. I can't imagine it'll cause that much disruption to Isis and it'll cause enough dead probably not involved locals to keep Isis in useful propaganda magazine articles for eternity.

On the other hand we've proved recently that all out invasion and pumping a shitload of money into a rebuild doesn't work (though I suppose we could try not to make a total arse of it this time), and since then we've also rather let the genie out of the bottle out of the whole prop up a local strong man thing. But then on the other hand they aren't going to leave us alone, even if we did completely withdraw from the whole thing, as they are nutters.

In other words, fuck knows. I'm off to have a sandwich and a cry.

[Dquincy]

I know only 15 people have voted,but i didn't expect an 80:20 split in favor of 'No'.

[Davgooner]

I've heard that those ISIS cunts don't even have a legit version of InDesign.

I don't see the need for us to get involved in Syria. On a military level we're just not needed and it's a lot of money and effort just to make Cameron feel more important on the world stage. We should be using western special forces to find and capture/kill specific individuals and groups linked to acts like Paris; all other ground action needs to remain in the hands of the locals. The air campaign can't really be intensified beyond the current effort without knowingly smashing civilians, so let's hope the twats on the right in America don't force some move in this direction.

[Reg]

No.

What is it about ISIS' ideology or past actions that has made anyone think that bombing them would be a good idea?

[Davgooner]

Well, because it annihilates them. This isn't just a place for soapy-titwank politics and diplomacy, you still need to smash the fuck out of the cunts. You just need to make sure you're doing it in a targeted way.

[Reg]

Nobody can bomb them like they would a country. ISIS aren't sitting around in one group waiting to be hit.

Edit- which your last sentence acknowledges to be fair. I just don't see how that could be done, though, away from any moral arguments.

[Lewis]

http://i64.tinypic.com/1sh8ao.jpg

Target that.

[Spoonsky]

It's pointless us voting to 'bomb' Syria given that America are too cowardly to do anything meaningful as per. Obama has been an absolutely terrible President, one of the worst in history.

That last claim is obviously ludicrous, but I do agree that foreign policy has been Obama's biggest weakness. I'd bet it will be the biggest weakness of the next president too. US foreign policy at large has been a pile of piss since the end of World War 2; we've become the "leaders of the world" without really having any idea what to do with that. I don't know what to do about it either, Glorious Isolation doesn't seem so bad to me but it does seem anachronistic in 2015.

[Davgooner]

Nobody can bomb them like they would a country. ISIS aren't sitting around in one group waiting to be hit.

Edit- which your last sentence acknowledges to be fair. I just don't see how that could be done, though, away from any moral arguments.

This isn't 1940. We're hitting specific targets. The real issue is getting the opposition forces better equipped to engage them in prolonged warfare; they'll be more exposed and the air power will be more effective.

[Spoonsky]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/03/us-led-air-strikes-on-isis-targets-killed-more-than-450-civilians-report

There's a reason people become radicalized. If we're doing it to destroy terrorism it seems pretty counterproductive.

[ItalAussie]

Says the bloke who wanted to create 8 states and bus people to the states based on their religion. You also forgot to state who would be doing it because you said 'Who said it would be The West?'.
I'd assumed that was parody. :D

You don't get to pick at why other solutions might be impractical when you propose something like that. Log/mote in the eye situation there.

The truth is, if there were any solution with any degree of workability, we'd have found it by now. The only way to proceed in the Middle East is trying to find the least worst option. It's messed up.

[Yevrah]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/03/us-led-air-strikes-on-isis-targets-killed-more-than-450-civilians-report

There's a reason people become radicalized.

While that's true (and I've said many times I disagree with solely bombing) it's not the sole reason these nutjobs are taking up arms, or being joined by wannabe badasses from Walthamstow.

[elth]

It's pointless us voting to 'bomb' Syria given that America are too cowardly to do anything meaningful as per. Obama has been an absolutely terrible President, one of the worst in history.

Settle down there, Breitbart.

[elth]

While that's true (and I've said many times I disagree with solely bombing) it's not the sole reason these nutjobs are taking up arms, or being joined by wannabe badasses from Walthamstow.

Yup. ISIS are killing way more of their people than bombing is, but nobody is getting anti-ISIS radicalised by that.

Bombing civilians doesn't help, of course, but it's only one reason in a whole cacophony of issues that contribute to radicalisation.

[Pepe]

Foreign policy. Shit goes on for whatever reason, whoever is the US president is blamed. Good stuff.