Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria

[BashfulAnthony]

One thing that needs addressing, and I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread, and that is the danger from the scores of Muslims who have come back here from Syria, and from Daesh.  I think once they have done that, they should not be allowed back, and it should be made clear to all when they leave here.  It is asking too much for our security people to keep an eye on all these, as they must have to.

[Outrider]

So are the French wrong to bomb Syria?

I think so, yes. Who are they trying to kill, and why does the innocent bystanders they'll take out in the collatoral stand them any better than the people who killed French innocent bystanders?

This isn't a war, this isn't a nation we're up against, these are not elected representatives of a state who have gone to war in their name. These are largely uninterested, scared locals in the middle of a three-way civil war who just want people to stop killing everyone around them.

If these attacks were being directed against distinct military targets, fine, but they aren't. These are terrorist cells hiding out in civilian population centres, knowing that if they die for their religion there in a bomb-strike, the cause get's the PR coup of turning to the rest of the town and saying 'Look, they don't care about you'...

If we have concrete intelligence on where some of the ringleaders are, specifically, or if we have concrete intelligence on where some of the combat materiel is stored, send in squads and units and take those specific targets out, if you're going to take military actions.

Otherwise, put your military somewhere securable and invite the scared locals to come and be defended: show people that the priorities are people's lives and peace in the region.

O.

O.

[Jack Knave]

One thing that needs addressing, and I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread, and that is the danger from the scores of Muslims who have come back here from Syria, and from Daesh.  I think once they have done that, they should not be allowed back, and it should be made clear to all when they leave here.  It is asking too much for our security people to keep an eye on all these, as they must have to.

Once ISIS gets hit hard in Syria they will start to hit soft targets in MENA and Europe. They know we're coming, they provoked us, so must have planned for it.

[Hope]

That rather brings us back to the whole 'sect-cult' idea of a 'proper' interpretation of a religious belief. In the absence of any way to be definitive, I'm not sure you can suggest an unpopular - or, at least, less popular - interpretation is somehow 'quasi' sufficient. It's an entirely religious viewpoint, even if it's not a valid interpretation, and there's no easy way to determine that.

I'd disagree, O.  If a system is based on a single sentence/paragraph/verse of a far larger document or library of related documents, one can discern whether that basis is a valid one as regards to the larger picture.  Let us take Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist interpretation of biblical teaching regarding homosexuality; there is not a single Biblical verse/passage/theological thread that suggests that 'God hates fags'.  In fact, it is this very fact that leads many Christian homosexuals to believe that the Church's attitude down the centuries has been mistaken.  I'm not going into the various theological arguments regarding that, but it is why I as a Christian who holds the opinions I do would never argue that God hates homosexuals.

[Hope]

One thing that needs addressing, and I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread, and that is the danger from the scores of Muslims who have come back here from Syria, and from Daesh.  I think once they have done that, they should not be allowed back, and it should be made clear to all when they leave here.  It is asking too much for our security people to keep an eye on all these, as they must have to.

Again, I would only partially agree.  There are hundreds of Western Muslims who have travelled to Syria and its neighbouring countries on purely humanitarian programmes.  Sadly, at present, this kind of involvement is being treated very suspiciously, despite hundreds of non-Muslims doing the same and never having their motivation questioned.

[BashfulAnthony]

Again, I would only partially agree.  There are hundreds of Western Muslims who have travelled to Syria and its neighbouring countries on purely humanitarian programmes.  Sadly, at present, this kind of involvement is being treated very suspiciously, despite hundreds of non-Muslims doing the same and never having their motivation questioned.

But it shouldn't be beyond the wit of the Authorities to check these people effectively.

[Outrider]

I'd disagree, O.  If a system is based on a single sentence/paragraph/verse of a far larger document or library of related documents, one can discern whether that basis is a valid one as regards to the larger picture.

You could disagree, in some instances, in whether the religious beliefs were a valid interpretation of the documents, yes, but that doesn't make that set of beliefs any less a religion was one of the points I was trying to make. The fact that there are so many religions shows that at least some of them are predicated on either untrue claims or untrue interpretations of claims.

Let us take Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist interpretation of biblical teaching regarding homosexuality; there is not a single Biblical verse/passage/theological thread that suggests that 'God hates fags'.

I'm sure they could point to any number of different parts of the Old and New Testaments to justify their stance - that's the nature of religious texts, the ones that survive are the ones that are open to interpretation.

In fact, it is this very fact that leads many Christian homosexuals to believe that the Church's attitude down the centuries has been mistaken.  I'm not going into the various theological arguments regarding that, but it is why I as a Christian who holds the opinions I do would never argue that God hates homosexuals.

Not homosexuals, just homosexuality, right, because that apparently is a valid distinction... Hate the sin, love the sinner? Well, maybe that's what we should be looking at in Syria. We hate what they've done, but the answer isn't it to do it back, either to them or to the people they're hiding amongst.

O.

[Spud]

I think so, yes. Who are they trying to kill, and why does the innocent bystanders they'll take out in the collatoral stand them any better than the people who killed French innocent bystanders?

This isn't a war, this isn't a nation we're up against, these are not elected representatives of a state who have gone to war in their name. These are largely uninterested, scared locals in the middle of a three-way civil war who just want people to stop killing everyone around them.

If these attacks were being directed against distinct military targets, fine, but they aren't. These are terrorist cells hiding out in civilian population centres, knowing that if they die for their religion there in a bomb-strike, the cause get's the PR coup of turning to the rest of the town and saying 'Look, they don't care about you'...

If we have concrete intelligence on where some of the ringleaders are, specifically, or if we have concrete intelligence on where some of the combat materiel is stored, send in squads and units and take those specific targets out, if you're going to take military actions.

Otherwise, put your military somewhere securable and invite the scared locals to come and be defended: show people that the priorities are people's lives and peace in the region.

O.

O.

Thanks for that, O. I think your idea of safe areas is good, but I suspect there are targets that can be hit without colateral damage using air power. For example, heavy weaponry. If we hit that whenever we see it, then at least ISIS is prevented from gaining strength. I don't think sending in Western troops is an option at the moment because relatively few western citizens have been killed. I have noticed that we never get involved until they kill our citizens, and that seems in line with the principle given in the Noahic covenant. Namely, if you take a life then you must forfeit your own. This was Gods way of checking evil. We didn't start bombing ISIS in Iraq until one of our citizens was taken hostage and killed.  But yes, your idea of safe regions is essential.

[Outrider]

Thanks for that, O. I think your idea of safe areas is good, but I suspect there are targets that can be hit without colateral damage using air power. For example, heavy weaponry. If we hit that whenever we see it, then at least ISIS is prevented from gaining strength.

Those are the sorts of targets I'd be inclined to go after. I suspect - obviously, I'm not privy to intelligence documents, but it would make sense from Isis' point of view - that they'll be stored in populated areas, most of the time.

The only viable time to hit them would be when they're on the move, which requires assets on the ground (or a better surveillance capacity from the air than we currently seem to have in place) in order to identify them and safe targetting zones.

Building safe zones will, gradually, strip the populated areas of those human shields that are serving Isis well at the moment, too.

I don't think sending in Western troops is an option at the moment because relatively few western citizens have been killed. I have noticed that we never get involved until they kill our citizens, and that seems in line with the principle given in the Noahic covenant. We didn't start bombing ISIS in Iraq until one of our citizens was taken hostage and killed.

You'll appreciate that the Noahic Covenant doesn't mean any more to me than Thomas Covenant Europe's kicking off because Europe's been hit, which is understandable but sad. It was a terrible situation before, it's either worth interfering in to make things better or it isn't, it's not any more acceptable to interfere because this time some of the victims were here.

I think most of the reluctance from Western nations for troops on the ground comes from the perception of previous actions in the area: Afghanistan, Iraq etc. The real success would be to put some demands on our 'allies' in the region to supply the ground troops: Muslims from ostensibly Islamic nations on the ground enforcing the peace would make a massive difference, but the 'moderate' Muslim nations' rulers are quite happy to just keep raking in dollars for their oil and screw the rest of the world, Muslim and otherwise alike.

The sooner we develop reliable fuel-cell technology and/or nuclear fusion and cast those wastes of oxygen off the better.

O.

[Spud]

O, yes, with you on that. And yes, being extremely careful with targets, though presumably we never were going to be anything other than that. Like you say, Europe's been hit and is now involved. So the extent to which the UK joins a response will depend on how 'in' the EU we are. Maybe all the indecision is related to our being divided on that.
However, I'm very concerned about so called allies in the region. They seem to either run or defect when the pressure is on. After all, we are asking them to fight fellow Muslims. Part of me thinks, containment using air power, costruct safe zones, then maintain those two objectives long term.

[Hope]

I'm sure they could point to any number of different parts of the Old and New Testaments to justify their stance - that's the nature of religious texts, the ones that survive are the ones that are open to interpretation.

Whilst I see where you're coming from, I've seen the material that supports Fred Phelps' position and it is a loosely strung together set of material that at no time consists of anything more tham a verse taken from here and averse taken from there, invariably out of context.  That's why I say that there is nowhere in the Old or New Testament that says remotely what Phelps and co do.

Not homosexuals, just homosexuality, right, because that apparently is a valid distinction... Hate the sin, love the sinner? Well, maybe that's what we should be looking at in Syria. We hate what they've done, but the answer isn't it to do it back, either to them or to the people they're hiding amongst.

That's a very good comparison, O.  In a way that is why I wondered whether western special forces would be better than airstrikes as they could find hardware and other stuff, and destroy them with minimal bloodshed.  Reminds me of stories I've heard from ex-Chindits and the like.

[jeremyp]

Thanks for that, O. I think your idea of safe areas is good,

Excellent. Now we are planning to have concentration camps, in the original sense, not the Nazi sense, but they were still pretty bad.

but I suspect there are targets that can be hit without colateral damage using air power.

There are two things wrong with this. The first is this phrase "collateral damage". Let's call it what it is: "killing civilians". The second thing is that there is no way to target anything with high explosives without at least some risk of killing civilians.

[Bubbles]

I was listening to one of the videos produced by ISIS the other day ( I think I've posted the link somewhere on here) and one thing that came across was that they have plans of invading the whole of Europe.

They don't plan to stop with Syria and the creation of a Islamic State, they plan to make the world part of an Islamic state.

IMO this is not something you can enter a peace process with, their aim is to spread and force their unpleasant version of Islam on everyone, including peaceful Muslims who don't see Islam the way they do.

I listened to it and thought, this isn't like a country that creates itself like the dream of a Kurdish state or a Palistinian state who's main aim would have been to be recognised by other countries.

The aims of Isis appears to be to destroy democracy and our basic freedoms and agitate for a war between Sunni Muslims and the rest of civilisation in the hope Muslims will flock to their banner with all the resultant prejudice.

They hate us, because we are us..........

They believe their right to behave as they please ( and kill anyone anyhow ) is God given, and that other human beings have no value and don't matter.

They stress skin colour doesn't matter, but their behaviour fits that of one of the most racist organisations ever.

They are at war with the nicer aspects of modern life ( equality) and civilisation and would tear it all down for a world which is bleak, uncaring and cruel.

There is no action we could take ( other than give up our freedoms and way of life) , that would be enough in their eyes, for peace.

IMO Isis needs to be removed from the planet........... They are a threat to all of us and cannot be reasoned with.

I'm not keen on air strikes because I think as a lasting solution it doesn't remove them.

I get fed up with the UK having to step in all the time, it's someone else's turn.

There are more problems than just Isis, there is Assad and Russian support to contend with.

Because the world is split in its support of various groups, it makes it hard to unite to fight Isis.

However Isis needs to go, IMO.

What concerns me is that air strikes are unpopular and I think ineffective and the PM also wants to remove Assad which means taking on Russia.

Isis want an all out war, and are asking the USA to bring it on.

The answer is to eradicate Isis and Assad without pandering to Isis,  or upsetting Putin too much.

We really don't want WW3.

I don't think air strikes work although it might keep them in check.

I think it will make our own security even worse.

but I don't think we can ignore them because their war is with our way of life, and they are incapable of live and let live.

To much crap and I'd nuke em   

[Nearly Sane]

Good clear article

http://tinyurl.com/qxsjq3v

[Spud]

Excellent. Now we are planning to have concentration camps, in the original sense, not the Nazi sense, but they were still pretty bad.
There are two things wrong with this. The first is this phrase "collateral damage". Let's call it what it is: "killing civilians". The second thing is that there is no way to target anything with high explosives without at least some risk of killing civilians.

The question I asked Outrider was are the French right to authorize more airstrikes in Syria, considering that they have been attacked themselves. If the same thing happened in London would we have a legitimate reason to use airstrikes as well?

[Udayana]

Of course we would have "legitimate reason", but the question is whether or not that would help solve the problem or just make it worse.

[Gonnagle]

Dear more questions than answers,

Rose says,

They are at war

the question, are we ( we, Britian, the west, the world ) at war?

I think Roses post is a snap shot of how we are all feeling.

Jeremyp says,

Let's call it what it is: "killing civilians".

I think this is inevitable, but innocent civilians are being killed as I type this.

Dear Sane,

Good link, learn from past mistakes.

Einstein,

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over, but expecting different results

The really sad thing for me is that we have a Cameron, when what we really need is a Corbyn, we need hundreds more Corbyns, I am the same as Rose, angry, I want the terrorists gone, but this time lets do it right, learn from our past mistakes.

Gonnagle.

[Hope]

The answer is to eradicate Isis and Assad without pandering to Isis,  or upsetting Putin too much.

The problem with eradicating Assad is it has been his regime that has protected many of the minorities in Syria.  It is one reason, I understand, that ISIS so keen to overthrow him.

[Hope]

The really sad thing for me is that we have a Cameron, when what we really need is a Corbyn, we need hundreds more Corbyns, I am the same as Rose, angry, I want the terrorists gone, but this time lets do it right, learn from our past mistakes.

Gonnagle.

If you want to learn from our past mistakes, why do you want hundreds more Corbyns, Gonners?  I'm not suggesting we need Cameron instead, but as far as I can understand, the two are as deeply entrenched in their own - in my view, erroneous - opinions as each other.  Yes, the UN's stance needs to be far more focussed - and here I would agree with Corbyn, but if that was to go down the diplomacy route, I think we'd reach a Chamberlain-esque situation where we find someone waving a bit of paper around and claiming 'Peace in our time' followed pretty quickly by a massive attack by ISIS in direct contradiction of that bit of paper.

As has been the case with other events in the Mid-East, what we really need is other Muslim states - both Sunni and Shia - to band together and defeat ISIS for themselves, let alone anyone else.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Hope,

but if that was to go down the diplomacy route,

Oh! don't get me wrong Hope, I do think there is room for diplomacy but not with daesh, one day I may have to stand in front of God and answer, but right now I want daesh dead, eradicated from this earth, but I want it done right, something good to come out of this horror, there is no place in this world for terrorism.

Maybe that is another little victory for daesh, chipping away at my faith, bastards that they are.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Good article underlining the issues from a strong source

http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/sorry-but-just-bombing-isis-in-syria-wont-help-anyone/

[jakswan]

The really sad thing for me is that we have a Cameron, when what we really need is a Corbyn, we need hundreds more Corbyns, I am the same as Rose, angry, I want the terrorists gone, but this time lets do it right, learn from our past mistakes.

I agree with Corbyn on this issue but he couldn't lead a dance let alone a major political party. Labour might even lose Oldham West! We desperately need a good opposition in the country we don't have one at the moment.

[Jack Knave]

Those are the sorts of targets I'd be inclined to go after. I suspect - obviously, I'm not privy to intelligence documents, but it would make sense from Isis' point of view - that they'll be stored in populated areas, most of the time.

The only viable time to hit them would be when they're on the move, which requires assets on the ground (or a better surveillance capacity from the air than we currently seem to have in place) in order to identify them and safe targetting zones.

Building safe zones will, gradually, strip the populated areas of those human shields that are serving Isis well at the moment, too.

You'll appreciate that the Noahic Covenant doesn't mean any more to me than Thomas Covenant Europe's kicking off because Europe's been hit, which is understandable but sad. It was a terrible situation before, it's either worth interfering in to make things better or it isn't, it's not any more acceptable to interfere because this time some of the victims were here.

I think most of the reluctance from Western nations for troops on the ground comes from the perception of previous actions in the area: Afghanistan, Iraq etc. The real success would be to put some demands on our 'allies' in the region to supply the ground troops: Muslims from ostensibly Islamic nations on the ground enforcing the peace would make a massive difference, but the 'moderate' Muslim nations' rulers are quite happy to just keep raking in dollars for their oil and screw the rest of the world, Muslim and otherwise alike.

The sooner we develop reliable fuel-cell technology and/or nuclear fusion and cast those wastes of oxygen off the better.

O.

With reference to your first section ISIS managed to get to Ar Ramadi over open ground without being hit by the allies because of the lack of intelligence. To do a proper job with the bombing, to avoid unnecessary collateral damage, we would need to put many skilled special opts troops on the ground to guide the bombers in.

And to your second section, asking regional countries to supply the "boots on the ground" troops would be like asking a paedophile to take care of a group of children for a month. They are not impartial in this matter and would take sides once ISIS has been made ineffectual. This would lead to just more conflict and the extension of the religious animosity in the region for decades to come.

[Jack Knave]

O, yes, with you on that. And yes, being extremely careful with targets, though presumably we never were going to be anything other than that. Like you say, Europe's been hit and is now involved. So the extent to which the UK joins a response will depend on how 'in' the EU we are. Maybe all the indecision is related to our being divided on that.
However, I'm very concerned about so called allies in the region. They seem to either run or defect when the pressure is on. After all, we are asking them to fight fellow Muslims. Part of me thinks, containment using air power, costruct safe zones, then maintain those two objectives long term.

We were hitting them before they hit us. You sound as daft a Hollande saying we are now at war!!!

[Hope]

We were hitting them before they hit us.

Perhaps you could expand on this, JK.