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

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes, the inevitable in-fighting amongst ISIS groups is an advantage for those opposed to ISIS, but we better expect to have an on-going problem with morphing splinter groups - as much as ISIS splintered off from Al-Qaeda because they felt Al-Qaeda methods and strategy were not extreme enough, something similar will happen within the ISIS version of a Caliphate.

The French have asked for Britain's help. Assad has asked for Iran and Russia's help - each side's strategic interests in the region are at the expense of the other side but at least they are all agreed to strike at the symbol of ISIS, in between arming their own factions and trying to out-manoeuvre each other. I just can't help thinking that supporting Turkey while Turkish companies buy ISIS black market oil to enable ISIS to pay its fighters and buy weapons to fight us is like a dog chasing its tail - I wonder if the UK pilots will get an opportunity to drop some bombs on the oil tankers.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Gabriella,

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/why-isis-hate-being-called-daesh-whats-correct-name-worlds-most-dangerous-terrorists-1531506

If you would rather not answer this question then I will understand.

I think it is important, Joe public are drip fed, ISIS, ISIL, IS, if we can distance ourselves from any reference which connects to Islam then I think in a small way we hit back at the terrorists.

But as I say, if you think this question is stupid or it makes you uneasy, don't answer, I am glad to see you posting, I wish we had more Muslim voices on this forum.

Gonnagle.

[wigginhall]

Yes, I was wondering about the various Islamist splinters, or whatever you call them, and if the RAF are being asked to differentiate amongst them.  However, I guess the obvious criterion is whether they threaten the West, so Al Nusra presumably will not be bombed, and might even be useful to fight IS. 

But the numerous splinters and 'supergroups' show the problems in intervening in Syria.  I guess if the intention is purely to stop attacks in the West, that is one thing, but the idea of a 'peace plan' seems rather vague, since you have the problem of who will be involved.

There has been talk, for example, of Al Nusra being supported by the West against IS.   But then, as we know, Al Qaeda were originally supported by the West. 

It seems so easy to make things worse, especially with all the cross-currents - Russia is bombing the FSA, Turkey is bombing the Kurds, the West is bombing IS, Hezbollah is pursuing many rebel groups.   

Presumably, we will be taking more refugees now.

[Nearly Sane]

One of the anti bomb arguments that I really disliked was the whole of we bomb them they will just attack is line
 It was good to see Derek Twigg point that out while still arguing that the bombing was wrong.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Dear Gabriella,

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/why-isis-hate-being-called-daesh-whats-correct-name-worlds-most-dangerous-terrorists-1531506

If you would rather not answer this question then I will understand.

I think it is important, Joe public are drip fed, ISIS, ISIL, IS, if we can distance ourselves from any reference which connects to Islam then I think in a small way we hit back at the terrorists.

But as I say, if you think this question is stupid or it makes you uneasy, don't answer, I am glad to see you posting, I wish we had more Muslim voices on this forum.

Gonnagle.

Hi Gonnagle

I couldn't see a question, but if you're asking whether I agree calling them Daesh is better, than yes, if they dislike the term. I have no idea about whether breaking the link with Islam by calling them Daesh will alter the opinion of the public, but no harm trying it.

It's just that on this forum, certain posters derail with trying to link them to generalisations about Islam and religion if there is a Muslim posting, so I attempted to side-step the inevitable derail by just using more Islamic terms to refer to Daesh, rather than get caught up in a debate with non-Muslims about whether they represent Islam or whether the whole thing should be pinned on religion.

But ok will refer to them as Daesh on here from now on.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

One of the anti bomb arguments that I really disliked was the whole of we bomb them they will just attack is line
 It was good to see Derek Twigg point that out while still arguing that the bombing was wrong.

True - but symbolic gestures are important - using a particular name, bombing supply lines. Presumably we are aware that all sides gets potency from symbolic gestures? So a terrorist act on the streets of Britain might not alter the course of a battle in Syria but it will have symbolic value.

[wigginhall]

Wish Benn hadn't referred to the International Brigades in Spain, yuk. 

[Nearly Sane]

True - but symbolic gestures are important - using a particular name, bombing supply lines. Presumably we are aware that all sides gets potency from symbolic gestures? So a terrorist act on the streets of Britain might not alter the course of a battle in Syria but it will have symbolic value.

That seems to follow on from a different post of mine, where I was talking about the symbolism, rather than the one copied in?


But, yes, the power of symbolism works both ways, on that I quite liked the 4chan duck approach


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/28/isis-fighters-rubber-ducks-reddit-4chan

[wigginhall]

An interesting joke going the rounds - that Benn's was the best pro-war speech since Blair's in 2003. 

[Nearly Sane]

Wish Benn hadn't referred to the International Brigades in Spain, yuk.

Well it was a kitchen sink approach. There was a sort of echo of that Norwegian football commentator who listed all the famous English people he could think of and finished with 'your boys took a helluva beating'

[Nearly Sane]

An interesting joke going the rounds - that Benn's was the best pro-war speech since Blair's in 2003.

And there is also the comparison going around with his dad"s 1998 speech where the same person is behind them both

[Gonnagle]

Dear Gabriella,

Thank you for your reply.

Obama  Gabriella  no back bone Cameron Hollande

Now how do we convince the media, the BBC, The Express.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/609757/Putin-ISIS-Islamic-State-Syria-Raqqa-troops-soldiers-air-strike-jets-military

150,000 troops, what the F***!

Gonnagle.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That seems to follow on from a different post of mine, where I was talking about the symbolism, rather than the one copied in?

Yes - I just wanted to follow on from that point that there will probably continue to be attempts to bomb us - for symbolic reasons - and I didn't think it was a valid argument against largely symbolic air strikes, though there were I think other valid arguments against air strikes now, such as a lack of coherent plans for ground troops to follow up the air strikes or not telling us a plan to stop ISIS funds.

But, yes, the power of symbolism works both ways, on that I quite liked the 4chan duck approach


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/28/isis-fighters-rubber-ducks-reddit-4chan

Yeah that works.

[Nearly Sane]

Good article, I think


http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n24/james-meek/a-raqqa-of-the-mind

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Dear Gabriella,

Thank you for your reply.

Obama  Gabriella  no back bone Cameron Hollande

Now how do we convince the media, the BBC, The Express.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/609757/Putin-ISIS-Islamic-State-Syria-Raqqa-troops-soldiers-air-strike-jets-military

150,000 troops, what the F***!

Gonnagle.

That's one way of putting yourself centre-stage on the political map, and also get Russian troops in Syria to support Assad/ act as a counter to US bases in Saudi. Wonder what the Russian special forces will be up to? And if they will divert oil tankers from their routes to Turkish companies.

[jakswan]

I was more commenting on his delivery and that it is about the best case to be made. I agree that our allies are not just the French but they are the ones who have asked for our support.

As noted yesterday, I have severe doubts that Da'esh are as centralised as is being made out, so while the bombing can be argued for as being symbolic, the thing we are attacking is also, I would suggest, a symbol.

It was a great piece of oratory but there is no need for such to be correct.

Whilst I'd agree he was wrong about his conclusions I think his motives were admirable. I know we'll get 'its all about the oil' from some conspiracy theorists eventually.

The one part of the 'yes' arguments I didn't find convincing were 'these people do bad things', the Saudi Arabia regime have as bad a record on human rights but we don't attack them because the regime isn't out to kill us.

I think overall Assad will be happy with the Russians backing him and the West hitting IS I think his future looks rosy.
I have no doubt should this prove successful Islamic State will move to Libya in a few years and exactly the same cycle will start again.

[Jack Knave]

I find the juxtaposition of our first targets with what is happening in Paris this week somewhat ironic!!

Yes. Why don't we just pick it up at the point of delivery and use it for ourselves; fuel our jets.

[Jack Knave]

I saw that likeness several weeks ago, JK.

But his speech reminded me of Blair arguing for the Iraq war, all the spin and half truths; it was quintessentially Blair.

[Udayana]

...
I think overall Assad will be happy with the Russians backing him and the West hitting IS I think his future looks rosy.

nah... they seem to think it is a joke:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34995366

I have no doubt should this prove successful Islamic State will move to Libya in a few years and exactly the same cycle will start again.

It won't (prove successful), but no doubt their support in Libya will continue to grow:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/12028246/Islamic-State-is-building-a-retreat-zone-in-Libya-with-3000-fighters-say-UN-experts.html

[Hope]

I couldn't see a question, but if you're asking whether I agree calling them Daesh is better, than yes, if they dislike the term.

I'd always understood that they liked that term, not disliked it.  Perhaps I've been misled!!

[Hope]

Yes. Why don't we just pick it up at the point of delivery and use it for ourselves; fuel our jets.

JK, there is a Climate Change conference going on in Paris, whilst in Syria we potentially have burning oil wells!!

[Hope]

But his speech reminded me of Blair arguing for the Iraq war, all the spin and half truths; it was quintessentially Blair.

And he's been arguing in this same way for several weeks now, JK.  I recognized the similarity several weeks ago.

[Nearly Sane]

I think this is wrong on its own fawning over Churchill but it makes a point




http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/12/hilary-benns-speech-was-just-a-shallow-historical-re-enactment/

[Jack Knave]

I think the end result will be Assad in power which will be much the same as Saddam in Iraq.

We have to have at least learned by now that intervening is counter productive?

I think the end result will be no result!!!

[Nearly Sane]

Philippa Whitford's speech

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/4e6d04ee-df49-4789-a54a-42f2c7be53b2?in=20:19:14&out=20:22:17