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

[wigginhall]

The legality argument seems odd to me.  We are going into another country, without the permission of the government of that country?  Ah well, you can make it up as you go along.

I reckon that Cameron is feeling that it's in the bag, hence the 'terrorist sympathizer' gibe.  He doesn't have to be polite now, although he will probably give a half-apology in the Commons.   Well, he is OK, the Blairites will vote for war.

[Nearly Sane]

Link to the Chatham House review of the legality.


https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/assessing-legal-basis-uk-military-action-syria#

[jakswan]

The people who walk through the lobbies are identified as Jeremy Corbyn (who is in this case not explicitly identified as a terrorist sympathiser due to the lack of the word other), and terrorist sympathisers - so there are no other people in that phrase going through the lobbies.

Even had he phrased it as you want to read it, it's an ad hom and attempting guilt by association.

He phrased according to your earlier post. I thought the Shadow Chancellor would also qualify as a terrorist sympathiser.

I agree its an ad hom and a stupid thing to thing.

[Nearly Sane]

He phrased according to your earlier post. I thought the Shadow Chancellor would also qualify as a terrorist sympathiser.

I agree its an ad hom and a stupid thing to thing.

And I explained why on that phrasing he was wrong, and why you have to read into it a level that isn't there. The people who according to that phrase would vote against bombing are
1. Jeremy Corbyn
2. A bunch of terrorist sympathisers
3. That's it

And it has already derailed much of his speech, where he is effectively trying to say two contradictory things to two different . So in addition to that stupidity he is now lying. I disagree with those who will vote for bombing, but his approach has been a disservice to them.

[Spud]

Some of the MPs opposing the airstrikes are pointing to the fact that the RAF strikes on Iraq have not defeated isil; but has isil got bigger and stronger since then? No. Did they take Baghdad? No. Have the RAF hit civilians? No. So these MPs are not being honest.

Without ground troops this will always be a maintenance program to stop them expanding. That can always follow later, wait until the US and Russia take that initiative.

If we do participate in Syria though isil will try to take hostages, so it would be advisable for civilian Brits not to go there. I hope the gov will make it a no-go zone.

[Nearly Sane]

Note they are already being bombed in Syria. So yes, Da’esh have got stronger in Syria while being bombed.

[Udayana]

I think that is a simplistic characterisation of the argument for extending bombing into Syria, and also factually wrong as it implies that Russia wants to get rid of Assad when they don't. It isn't that others are doing it so we must but that those we are militarily allied with have asked for help AND that it is working in Iraq and will work here.

Now I disagree with that but it isn't because there is no critical thinking just that I think there needs to be a strategic plan in place not a tactical one.

Tuning in and out of the debate, I see that Cameron has been more graceful than his remarks last night but that much of what has been said so far has been taken up with his foolishness. That he, because, if politics can't apologise is one of our great problems, in that too many of us and them think apologies are signs of weakness.

I agree that is too simplistic - but that goes for all arguments being put, in parliament and elsewhere. Of-course Russia supports Assad, which is exactly why they are happy hitting the Syrian Free Army, our proposed "boots on the ground".

Not sure exactly what is working in Iraq?  And Syria is not Iraq. We should not feel obliged to help our allies unless they can propose a strategy worth pursuing. imo we've not seen one yet.

[jakswan]

And I explained why on that phrasing he was wrong, and why you have to read into it a level that isn't there. The people who according to that phrase would vote against bombing are
1. Jeremy Corbyn
2. A bunch of terrorist sympathisers
3. That's it

And it has already derailed much of his speech, where he is effectively trying to say two contradictory things to two different . So in addition to that stupidity he is now lying. I disagree with those who will vote for bombing, but his approach has been a disservice to them.

I agree with almost all of that apart from your list. According to Cameron those voting against the bombing are

1. Jeremy Corbyn
2. A bunch of terrorist sympathisers (which could include Corbyn)
3. Others who vote against

Lets say you thought the earth was 6000 years old and I said; why would you want to advocate for the same position as a bunch of theists?

Its pretty clear I'm not calling you a theist.

[Spud]

Note they are already being bombed in Syria. So yes, Da’esh have got stronger in Syria while being bombed.

Have they?

[Nearly Sane]

I agree that is too simplistic - but that goes for all arguments being put, in parliament and elsewhere. Of-course Russia supports Assad, which is exactly why they are happy hitting the Syrian Free Army, our proposed "boots on the ground".

Not sure exactly what is working in Iraq?  And Syria is not Iraq. We should not feel obliged to help our allies unless they can propose a strategy worth pursuing. imo we've not seen one yet.

Yep, I agree, as I said I am on the other side but that doesn't mean I cannot see the genuineness of belief on the other side that this is the best, if not the ideal, option.

I put up the two statements to show that this is not something that there is necessarily a huge gulf between people, despite being on different sides.


I am disappointed that there is a frequent portrayal so far in the debate by those supporting bombing of those opposed as arguing that the alternative is doing nothing. And as always when I hear about how evil Da'esh are, I am amazed that those speaking seem to ignore the parallel to Saudi Arabia to whom we sell arms, whom we supported getting chair of the Human Rights committee in the UK, and who will be our 'ally' theoretically here.

[Nearly Sane]

Have they?

Yes, that's part of the problem.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree with almost all of that apart from your list. According to Cameron those voting against the bombing are

1. Jeremy Corbyn
2. A bunch of terrorist sympathisers (which could include Corbyn)
3. Others who vote against

Lets say you thought the earth was 6000 years old and I said; why would you want to advocate for the same position as a bunch of theists?

Its pretty clear I'm not calling you a theist.

The people who he was speaking to would be your 3there but all those not in his party who vote against are then part of 2. That created a huge distraction as it meant those in Labour, SNP, Green, SDLP, Plaid voting against were characterised as a bunch of terrorist sympathisers.

[Nearly Sane]

And of course as per the statement from Alistair Carmichael, even someone who will vote for the bombing, sees Cameron's statement as portraying those who vote against as being terrorist sympathisers.

[Jack Knave]

DON'T  WORRY,  FOLKS,  IT'LL  ALL  BE  OVER  BY  CHRISTMAS!!!           

[floo]

DON'T  WORRY,  FOLKS,  IT'LL  ALL  BE  OVER  BY  CHRISTMAS!!!           

If only that were true!

[Nearly Sane]

Good speech from John Baron, you can see why UKIP are keen to turn him.

[Udayana]

Indded. He's made most of the relevant points against.

[Nearly Sane]

If only that were true!

The idea that Cameron was touting that if we reduced Da'esh there would be an interim govt in Syria that would be moderate in 6 - 18 months is bizarre

[Nearly Sane]

And Julian Lewis excellent 'bogus battalions'

[Gonnagle]

Dear Thoughts,

Our PM is weak.

Paris, France.

Vengeance.

I think I want bombing but the question still remains, what next, what else, seems to me that at some point troops will have to be sent in, who else will clean up.

What a bloody mess!

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

And very good from Yvette Cooper probably the best speech so far for bombing.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

Sanctuary, I like that word, and it should not give Cameron free rein, if we do decide to bomb, every bomb we drop should be under scrutiny, daesh will use innocent civilians as a shield.

Gonnagle.

[Udayana]

She is saying "we need to join in the air strikes" and "a lot of other stuff ..." and beware of "more stuff ..." and so on. But surely she already knows we will join in bombing raids and none of the rest? ie as per normal.   

[jakswan]

Maajid Nawaz has just posted this on facebook.

Non-Arabs telling people to say "Daesh", instead of ISIS, is just weird & silly. Daesh is merely the *exact* Arabic equivalent to the English acronym ISIS / ISIL. And no, Daesh does not *mean* anything in Arabic. It's merely the Arabic acronym. If the childish argument is: "but Daesh rhymes with XYZ, or sounds like so and so insult, they hate that, so let's use it." Well, ISIS is an Egyptian she-goddess, I know they hate her too (this would be the unforgivable sin of 'shirk', or idolatry)! So if I'm speaking Arabic, I'll use "Daesh". But if I'm speaking English, I'll use ISIS (or the more technical ISIL), thanks. Let's stop trying to be so bloody PC all the time! Sorry but I detest it when people don't do shit about extremism, yet parade their rebel credentials in my face by saying DA'ESH at me, in an Arabic accent. And they don't even speak Arabic.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

Sanctuary, I like that word, and it should not give Cameron free rein, if we do decide to bomb, every bomb we drop should be under scrutiny, daesh will use innocent civilians as a shield.

Gonnagle.

The whole idea of review is crucial. I mentioned this on The Wrong End of the Telescope thread that actions we take should generally have time limits where we ask 'Is this working?'