To bomb or not to bomb

Do you support bombing of ISIS

  • Support in any circumstances

    Votes: 4 21.1%
  • Support subject to a satisfactory follow-up policy

    Votes: 12 63.2%
  • Don't support in any circumstances

    Votes: 3 15.8%

  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .

archie

Senior Jockey
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
3,720
Location
North Wales
Trying to set a poll:
Support bombing in any circumstances

Support bombing if follow-up options clearly specified

Don't support bombing in any circumstances
 
It's to be hoped that during today's debate some flesh is put on the bones of the "follow-up policy" as there's been very little so far other than nebulous and non-commital assurances 'there will be' 'plans are in place' blah blah and the wheeling-out of various retired forces' chiefs and academics to air their views. General Dannatt has, I think, been largely alone in emphasising strongly that there must be 'boots on the ground' at some point

Mention of deployment of the British Infantry at some point seems to have been taboo thus far, at least from those who will actually decide upon it. Not a surprise given recent examples but it has to be discussed today doesn't it?

Under what circumstances, when, if will do for starters Dave et al
 
I don't get the clamour for a plan at this stage.

The situation on the ground is entirely fluid, and the Western Alliance are still tip-toeing around the subject of Assad, and failing to form the kind of consensus required to properly tackle Deash. It is abundantly clear that the strategic aims of any 'grand coalition' that might manifest, have still to be agreed, and consideration of such weighty geo-political matters, are not going to be aligned to the demands of a Parliamentary timetable. However, that should not preclude us from deploying tactical measures - of which the decision to act in Syria is one option - in the interim, whilst these issues are being dissected, and agreements reached.

The concern lacks a certain technical relevance, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I just get the feeling that the public are more concerned about our ground forces going into a foreign field once again than they are an aerial offensive on its own. Given that it seems you can't have the latter without the former and MPs are supposed to represent the views of their constituents, shouldn't it be made clear, or less unclear, what follow-up plans have been discussed and do those discussions include mobilization of our infantry 'if needs be'

They are in racing parlance 'related contingencies' as knowledge of secondary follow-up plans would influence the percentage of those voting for preliminary air strikes, IMO

Having been out and missed the early exchanges I'm now going to assume couch potato status and try to watch and may be even listen to a few hours' coverage from parliament:)
 
I think there would be another vote if they wanted to extend participation to deployment of ground troops, Drone. In fact, I can't see how they could possibly avoid one, so I don't think that particular question needs to be answered at this juncture.
 
Last edited:
Labour have a new leader

hilary Benn. Very very impressive

a great speech from a class act
 
Last edited:
It was a tremendous speech, quite moving and got the reception it deserved

Hilary Benn, Dan Jarvis and Keir Starmer strike me as a threesome to extricate Labour from the quagmire

A very good debate that seems to have addressed my questions about a follow-up strategy, as best they could be addressed given the complexity of the problem

I don't envy anyone in the government, parliament, security services or forces making the decisions they have had to and will have to in the future
 
I watched it again. It was breathtaking, even the second time. Agree with your description and it was more than an impassioned plea. It was coherent and completely convincing.

Maybe this should be on the election thread but if the so called members cannot see what they are missing and what they have than they are even denser than I imagined them to be.
 
I think there would be another vote if they wanted to extend participation to deployment of ground troops, Drone. In fact, I can't see how they could possibly avoid one, so I don't think that particular question needs to be answered at this juncture.
CREEP.
No, not you GH, (and not referring to the Radiohead hit song either) ! :)
Rather, Mission Creep. These things have a habit of spiralling out of control.

You can't control a territory without occupying it. These "70,000" rebels in a hundred disparate factions -- who would have a closer allegiance to their Sunni brothers than to a British or Western agenda -- aren't going to be our proxy out there. William Hague is already hinting at "boots on the ground". He's right; such will be necessary or else it will be case of perma-bombing for years to come.

Anyway, the vote has been carried; war is declared. And we have to support all the efforts irrespective if some of us think that an exit strategy or follow-up plan is currently hard for us to visualize.
 
As you know, I'm a great fan of Angelina Jolie's ambassador to the UK, but he actually made a sensible point yesterday too (quite possibly the first time ever in these matters). Everyone is talking about post war Syria and who runs it, how they introduce free and open democratic elections. It's becoming more and more apparent to me at least that this might not necessarily be the starting point. Hague might of course be haunted by his not insubstantial contribution to the **** up known as Libya, but he was suggesting (probably correctly) that redrawing the map should be the start point. We have Turkmen's, Kurds, and Alawites, as well as nationalist claims on Aleppo and possibly Homs too. Trying to impose a form of government on people that relies a degree of political maturity and instutional establishment is difficult enough, when you overlay this with a background of ethnic tensions, and civil war, and then suggest that they all have to live within some artifical 1920's boundary, you're setting something up to fail. Basically democracy tends to promote winners and losers, and as we saw in Iraq, the electorate will march to the tune of narrow sectarian views which means one group wins and the other one grows embittered. We can hardly be surprised when insurrections result

It also became clearer to me as I tried wading my way through the bewildering array of engaged groups trying to untangle the composition of the Free Syrian Army, that Jabhart Al Nusra and Ahrar ash Sham might emerge as the two strongest Islamists yet. I kind of suspect we might see a proliferation of 'democratic' groups appearing in the next 6 months too. Beware!

I was actually struck when trying to conduct this exercise incidentally how often articles attributed to same author(s) gave different figures depending on who they were being written in support of, or being used to rebuke. My own guesstimate was 20,000 in the end, which wasn't too far removed from the "10,000 - 15,000" that was briefed yesterday as the figure that had been given to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. The absence of a credible ground force is going to restrict progress, and I note Michael fallon tacitly admitting this morning when talking about "a long campaign". The next substantial move in Syria probably rests with Putin and whether he can get some momentum into the Syrian government side. If he can't, does he start to deply ground troops?
 
Last edited:
Remember what our PM said at the start of the Russian bombing in Syria...."it will lead to further radicalisation and increased terrorism." No wonder so many people are confused.
 
Last edited:
I laughed at that one too, Dan.

The Government have been utterly bewildered when it comes to a strategy - though they finally seem to have realised that setting wholly-unrealistic aims, gets you nowhere fast, when it comes to dealing with a situation as complex as Syria.
 
I saw an interesting article from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung which tries to analyse how the IS finances itself.

The oil revenue is not their only source of funds. Most of their revenue comes, it seems, from what they can press out of the population in the territory they take over. They hit a bonanza in Mosul where the Iraqi army ran away and left large sums of money in the vaults of the local branch of the central bank. They also make money through ransoms, protection money from Christian and other minorities, confiscation of assets from people who have fled, etc.

The oil has to be sold at a discount and they are not in full control of the supply chain. Also, they have a shortage of skilled people to work the oilfields.

Their sources of revenue therefore appear to be short term. Once the lemon has been squeezed dry it can't be renewed.

Another point made in the article is that they don't receive much outside aid and are certainly not dependent on it, for the time being at least. Also, their cells in Europe are self financing, largely through counterfeit fraud, robbery and drug peddling.

I take from all this that the key aim has to be to stop them taking over new territory. At the moment they're better off losing territory in one place and gaining it in another, because it means that they have a fresh population to drum money from, than if they are confined to their existing frontiers. They need to be penned in.

Meanwhile we can continue to expect attacks in Europe for as long as there are people here motivated enough to carry them out.

Given these parameters, how are the bombs going to help? One thing for sure that they won't achieve is to reduce the risk of attacks in Europe, in fact they are sure to increase it. So what can they achieve?
 
Last edited:
It might help disrupt the oil supply-chain, which is regardless a significant part of Daesh income.

It might help disrupt training of further jihadis.

It might compel Daesh foot-soldiers to spend more time out-of-sight, and therefore reduce the level of oppression they can apply daily to the local populace.

It might deter anyone thinking about going to Syria for an 'adventure' to not bother with the idea in the first place.

It might demonstrate to the Kurds that they are not in it alone, and perhaps motivate them to join a wider coalition, with a view to them providing a 'Northern Army'.

It would demonstrate fraternity with France, and allow us to meet our NATO obligations to them.

It might encourage other countries that there is indeed a moral imperative, and lead to a greater coalition that can more readily contain and defeat Daesh.

It might help demonstrate the futility of funding the Caliphate to its external stakeholders, and result in a reduce flow of funds towards Daesh.

It might help prevent the primary purpose of the Caliphate i.e. territorial expansion. Failure to expand the lands of the Caliphate, brings the Caliph into disrepute, which could result in insurrection/chaos within Daesh itself.

It might lead to further repproachment with Iran and Russia, leading to practical positive benefits elsewhere.


The risk of a terrorist attack in the UK and Europe is already with us - that much should be self-evident. It won't increase because we choose to attack Syria, because that threat already exists, and won't dissipate by doing nothing.
 
Last edited:
I'm not trying to make a case for doing nothing, I'm saying the main thing that needs to happen is to pen them in, and any military action, of whatever type, should be serving that aim. I'm not convinced that dropping bombs and watching them scatter is the way to contain them.

Regarding the threat in Europe (a term which I thought already included the UK by the way? :whistle:), I think you're wrong to assume that it is independent of any action we take in Syria. Increased bombing over there will lead to increased recruitment over here.
 
Why would it lead to increased recruitment? Anyone who is a Daesh/IS sympathiser is effectively recruited already, because you can't really caveat support for a death-cult, can you?

At the risk of repeating myself, this isn't like piling into a country on dubious pretences, to change its Government - leaving thousands dead and millions impoverished, before you bail back out again. This is a response not only to terror attacks in the West, but against oppression and murder which is visited upon many more Muslims on a daily basis, than it is Christians and/or Jews.

Any Muslim who views these interventions against Daesh as an affront to Islam, rather than an attempt to save millions of Muslims from oppression (which is what it actually is), is highly likely on the other side the argument already, or so inclined to be so, that it makes no difference.
 
Demographic factors alone mean that each year sees a new cohort of potential recruits, then add to that the impact of civilian deaths, stray bombs landing on the wrong targets, etc. The more there is for potential recruits to be angry about the more likely it is they will be radicalised. People understandably enough don't like bombs falling on places they hail from or relate to in some way.

Action is definitely necessary, I've already made it clear I agree with that, and I think the purpose of that action should be to contain Daesh within their existing territory and then to start turning the screw.
 
Livingstone calling for labour MPs who voted for action to be deselected. This will include Hilary benn of course. Margaret Beckett. Alan joh son. Tom Watson.

you can be absolutely certain that this is with authorisation of corbyns team. Would suggest that the insults towards the mp with the mental illness last week were not off the cuff and was a signal warning that we will attack however we like. Livingstone works closely with them and this is coordinated

corbyn has been likened to Henry 11 who got his Knights to do the dirty work and portrays a innocent "not me guv" to the public

hes filth. The far left always are
 
Demographic factors alone mean that each year sees a new cohort of potential recruits, then add to that the impact of civilian deaths, stray bombs landing on the wrong targets, etc. The more there is for potential recruits to be angry about the more likely it is they will be radicalised. People understandably enough don't like bombs falling on places they hail from or relate to in some way.

Action is definitely necessary, I've already made it clear I agree with that, and I think the purpose of that action should be to contain Daesh within their existing territory and then to start turning the screw.

What about the impact of civilian deaths that Daesh are responsible for? Wouldn't that encourage 'potential recruits' to go and fight against Daesh?

If you are already a 'potential recruit' for Daesh (and lets remember their place at the far-end of the militant scale), you have pretty-much already crossed the Rubicon, and no amount of Western action (or inaction) is going to make a blind bit of difference to you. That is undeniable fact, imo.

Again, at the risk of repeating myself, this intervention is different to Iraq, because it is intended to save Muslim lives, and - eventually - to find a peaceful solution to the Syrian Civil War, rather than imposing a change of regime in an Islamic country, and leaving a political vacuum in its wake. If we had bombed Assad two years ago, the parallel with Iraq would have been much greater, imo.
 
Last edited:
There's degrees ranging from passive sympathy right up to active support. It's a passage really that people progress along. Even those who do support terrorism still need to complete the final piece in order to become active

Last month's issue of Dabiq was pretty clear that the original passenger aircraft identified for attack over the Sinai was not Russian, and the decision to switch to Metrojet was taken at the eleventh hour to demonstrate specifically to Putin that there were consequences for his bombing (Qisas). Dabiq doesn't specify the nationality of the jet that was earmarked for destruction other than to say it was "western". Since neither America nor France have any routes flying into Sharm el Shiekh, and that both Jordan and Turkey have continued to fly there, you would have an odds on favourite. It would indicate strongly that there is a higher hiercrachy of target countries and the whole thing isn't quite as random as the government would want us to believe. Indeed, it was slightly chilling listening yesterday to Cameron getting what sounded like his explanation in early.

"If there is an attack on the UK in the coming weeks or months,
there will be those who try to say it has happened because of our airstrikes.
I do not believe that would be the case."


Having said that, the chances are the hierarchy has remained unchanged, albeit someone might try a bit harder to put the UK in the crosshairs now, albeit if one occurs in the next few weeks, I'm not sure I wouldn't correlate the two myself

I also think its worth looking at the attacks that have occurred in Europe, or which have directly affected the UK this last 12 months. I know that the political classes and media always comment on how well planned and organised these are etc that makes sense. It would be foolish to wave the red rag and call them amateurish, but really .... they haven't shown a particularly high degree of sophistication and planning, and would much more closely support the idea of autonomous cells

The Hebdo attacks were poorly executed, even to the point where the perpertrators didn't seem to know who they were operating on behalf of. They passed up ample opportunity to add to their body count. Having escaped and sent France into a massive manhunt, they only resurfaced when they got hungry and decided to rob a petrol at gunpoint for a few sandwiches! Shoplifting presumably wasn't good enough for them, albeit going without food for 24 hours might have been within their compass of sufference too. The guy in the Jewsih supermarket couldn't even hang a phone up properly

The Thalys train attack suffered from a jammed gun

The Paris 2 attacks saw three of the suicide bombers turn up late to the Stade France and fail to kill anyone other than themselves.

You might even look to the Sousse attack and turn this on its head suggesting that it was the indirect result of an aerial bombing campaign in Libya, and also the influence of Assad attacking ISIL and Jabhat al Nusra. Or put another way, would Rezgui have received the training had Gadaffi been allowed to re-establish his control of Libya? Even if he had, would his target have been different? We don't know, but I don't think it unreasonable to speculate given his particular journey through radicalisation to eventual action

I think on balance, we would reasonably deduce that the likelihood is the UK has faced a similar level of threat (the seven plans) from groups who are mainly home grown with a bit of overseas stimulation. I don't see why we would face something more potent than the French? I'm, not sure we've really seen a well planned and organised attack prosecuted in Europe yet though, albeit I'd feel a lot safer if our media weren't so intent on doing the brain storming for them!!!

My biggest argument against these aerial attacks is more tactical than anything. I just don't think the conditions to defeat the caliphate are being met by them. In the meantime they are leaving us more vulnerable to a long thick detail of exposure. My own view is probably nearer to that articulated by Chatham House. We shouldn't be cowed into action because we're scared of retaliation, but we should ask if we're doing things the right way in light of the probability of retaliation

I realise that Obama welcomes it, as do the French, and that is probably one of the strongest arguments in favour, but unburdened by the necessities of having to follow the diplomatic protocols of office any more, I noted that Senator John McCain might not be better reflecting the reality of things;

“Then we will have some token aircraft over there from the British and they'll drop a few bombs, and we'll say thank you very much,” he said. “The president will be able to say 'now we have the British who will be helping us', and that's good."
The war veteran, who contested the 2008 presidential race against Barack Obama, added that he appreciated “support from our British friends,” albeit insignificant.
“Air strikes alone won't win a conflict but it's good to have increased air strikes, it's good to have increased air activities, it's good to have shows of support from our British friends," he noted. "So I'm glad of it, thank you, we appreciate it! But to say that it's going to make a significant difference, no I've got to be a little more candid than that."

Finally, I think it's likely that the more effective counter measure we've employed to date has been the passive preventative community outreach work that we've done much better than the French and Belgians. They've been more inclined to allow ghettos to form as an undeclared policy. Neither side there has shown any real appetitie to engage the other, with drift therefore being inevitable. OK, I accept that this can't pick up everyone, but than neither does a bombing campaign succeed in hitting every individual. I'd have thought it quite unlikely to be honest that the two from the paris nine who are thought to have links to Syria would have been killed had the RAF been engaged earlier. Passive prevention rarely radicalises people when it fails either. Bombing most certainly can do. The other thing to add to that of course is a technical one about just how long a fast jet that flies at 1000mph can stay over a target before it runs out of fuel. The scope we have for disrupting their movement is likely exaggerated, though I'd accept it exists certainly
 
Last edited:
What about the impact of civilian deaths that Daesh are responsible for? Wouldn't that encourage 'potential recruits' to go and fight against Daesh?

That's one of the great unasked, and unanswered questions isn't it?

The nazis brutalised their conquered territories but still faced resistance movements.

I did speculate a few weeks ago what the effect of dropping loads of weapons into Raaqa might be? No idea? Probably not very sensible, but you would have thought that there must be some special forces in the area trying to organise resistance movements and weapons supplies

The next big move now looks like Putin's. What's he going to do? The Syrian army aren't gaining territory at the rate that he would want them to, and the west has signalled a long drawn out campaign (code for building their own proxy force - again!). We also have a combination of a US election and seasonal window for fighting to consider. Is he tempted to seize the moment between now and March? Or dare he? Can he even? Airborne assault against Raaqa, but that would involve a few overflight permissions which he's unlikely to be granted

Mind you, in the left field ideas stakes, I'm struggling to match this one

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...ists-you-have-take-out-their-families-n472711

Things don't improve with the new challenger (Marco Rubio) who has reassured Parisians that the recent attacks are all part of Gods plan, so they really have nothing to fear then

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/12/02/marco-rubio-gods-plan/

Hillary Clinton - your planet needs you!!!
 
Last edited:
Frankie Boyle


The most effective way to defeat Isis is to lock them up in a cell and deny them martrydom and glory. No paradise, no virgins – just a guard wishing them a bland good morning, and a regular change of towels


Friday 4 December 2015 16.35 GMT

So we decided to stop children drowning on the beaches by killing them in their beds. It’s hard to think of a more poetic metaphor for our utter lack of ideas than spending several years dropping high explosives on to a desert. Dropping something from a great height can never be precise – this is why Santa still parks up the sleigh. I have to admit that I was sort of disturbed by the palpable excitement in parliament, and couldn’t escape the feeling that our politicians like wars because they make them feel important.

The motion they voted on was a vague list of “necessary measures” and “requests for assistance”, with “specifically airstrikes” at the very bottom – as if someone had shouted it out of the front door as they were starting the car: “Oooh! Don’t forget eggs, milk – and airstrikes!!” One MP argued that IS need a lot of space to move and that airstrikes would limit their territory. The Paris shooters lived in one room with a mattress; we could bomb Syria to the average size of a London flat and they’d still find room to manoeuvre. Bombing Syria will achieve nothing. Let’s at least take a swing at China and have these dull winter skies replaced with a curtain of incendiary light.



What is Cameron’s problem with IS? Ordinary people who in their spare time have formed a huge multinational oil trade and a workforce of thousands willing to be paid in rice and fear – that’s the Big Society right there. Cameron called them “Women-raping, Muslim-murdering, medieval monsters” – he carefully avoided saying “child molesters” in case one of the backbench shouted: “Present!” This is before we get to the fact that he used the word “medieval” to justify a military expedition into the Middle East. Of course bombing will cause delight in Islamic State, where it will form the only entertainment. There’s no music, no dancing, and we’re spending a couple of million quid a night providing the mise en scène for these sadists’ fantasy life.

Hilary Benn, the product of his father’s tempestuous affair with Lembit Opik, showed a fighting spirit that was direct proof of Johnny Cash’s A Boy Named Sue. I think it’s worth remembering that if you say something and Tories start cheering, then you have said something awful. Yes, Hilary, we bombed Hitler, but we were being attacked here by German planes that were leaving from Germany – not by a teenager in west London who had been assembling a Doodlebug in the garage. Benn’s whole speech was played in celebratory fashion the next night on Radio 4, feeding into my theory that George Orwell was so prescient about our society that he moved to Jura to deliberately encourage his TB.

We learned little from the debate, except for the fact that the word caliphate sounds hilarious in a Northern Irish accent, and so do a bunch of other words. Perhaps we’ll soon be so used to the Middle East being in permanent conflict that retaking a Syrian Village from IS will become one of the tasks on The Apprentice. Perhaps destruction is simply easier than kindness. We find it easier to tell a stranger on WhatsApp we want to have sex with their face than hold hands with someone we might be falling in love with. It’s ridiculous really. Charles Manson or Anders Breivik murder people to try to start a race war and it’s laughably insane, but when IS do it we decide to give them one.




Islamic State practise a brand of Islamic law so strict that apparently Raqqa only has two Irish Pubs. For some reason the BBC website keeps reporting opposing moderate rebel groups, but never names them. I know the names of all the cat-hybrid-vegetable-marine-biologist Octonauts, but the differences between the groups fighting Assad are deemed too complex for me. Moderate seems to be a very fluid term when it comes to offshoots of al-Qaida and whatnot, and moderate groups vary from outfits such as Nuclear Allahcaust, who despise the west, and more reasonable elements such as the Al-Jihadi Infidel Soul Harvest, who despise the east, because if you travel east for long enough, you reach the west.

I wonder if the Commons really understands or cares that they are making Britain a target. How affected will MPs be by terrorism? In their high-security lives, the only fear they have of an attack on a bus is that the waiters will be late for a drinks reception. I think we live in a country that sometimes forgets how effective the rule of law is, perhaps because our governments have often found it inconvenient. We invest a vast amount of money in intelligence and terrorists have to, by their nature, take risks: cross borders, move weapons. I think the most effective place for those guys to end up is not in a martyr video, but in a small but comfortable jail cell. Somewhere in Kent, perhaps. No paradise, no virgins, no meaning leant by us to their stupidity, no glory, no attention. Just a guard wishing them a bland good morning, and a regular change of towels. And if you think that’s insufficient punishment, give them a television that only gets terrestrial, and all our newspapers everyday..


:lol::lol::lol::cool: Different class...
 
No disrespect gigilo but the only laugh I would get from boyle would be a video of him getting his head kicked in. Want the audio too

one of many reasons why. It is not so much the sick joke but the attempt to bully the audience member

who would have been perfectly entitled to pull a knife across his face

In a performance on his 2010 tour, Boyle interrupted a "long, seemingly semi-improvised skit" about Down's syndrome by challenging a woman in the front row who seemed uncomfortable with the material.[SUP][39][/SUP] The audience member explained that her five-year-old girl had the condition, and strongly criticised Boyle's portrayal of Down's syndrome.[SUP][39][/SUP][SUP][40][/SUP][SUP][41][/SUP]Mencapspokesman Ismail Kaji said that the comments could be misconstrued and seen as "no different to bullying".[SUP][41][/SUP]
 
Last edited:
Don't ever go to see Jerry Sadowitz, Clive.

I generally think no subject should be off-limits when it comes to comedy, and the above report is meaningless anyway, minus the added context of how the skit developed.

Boyle is entirely predictable in his 'edginess', and the woman in question should have fu*cked-off to see Michael McIntyre talk about funny names and the school-run instead, if she was worried about being offended.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top