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 .
frankly the endless ah yes whatabout! Digging this and that up from history is boring. You are dealing with the here and now

Stop the war are a disgrace . They knew the impact of the comment and eitehr xouldnt help themselves or simply wanted to sneer in their echo chamber of stupid lefties
 
Last edited:
Drone said:
...and there we have it, at last: the stating of the bleedin' obvious that Warbler chose to expand into a lengthy essay;
Click to expand...

Actually Warbler asked a question "Which bit are you disagreeing with?" and then spelt where I thought the similarities existed, and where they didn't.

The answer to my question was just abuse though.
 
clivex said:
frankly the endless ah yes whatabout! Digging this and that up from history is boring. You are dealing with the here and now

Stop the war are a disgrace . They knew the impact of the comment and eitehr xouldnt help themselves or simply wanted to sneer in their echo chamber of stupid lefties
Click to expand...

I did make the point that I thought it was likely point scoring Clive. I don't think it's glorifying them, but there is an underlying significance behind the dynamic of any army that recruits like this. What I find mildly amusing is that I've made the same observation myself a couple times as we've watched the flow of volunteers work their way over to Syria and it's never provoked a reaction
 
Warbler said:
Of course I remember that bit, and it's hugely relevant.

The evidence is simple. Hilary Benn wanted to make the connection with ISIL and fascism. No problem with that. Ideally he wanted to do so in a way that presented Labour as the exclusive fighter of fascism in order to appease his own party. Since the conservatives opposed the creation of the international brigades Spain potentially played out to this narrative very well. But only so far. As the Trot whose made the observation points out, the appeal that ISIL is having, and the way it is able to reach beyond the borders of the conflict to recruit, is closer to the way that the international brigades formed than the government's aerial bombing campaign. It's not an unreasonable observation based on both historical fact and recent history

From this the Independent have run a headline which has succeeded in stirring up the emotional response in someone like yourself they were no doubt hoping to provoke. I don't see what they've said as some sort of glorification at all. At worst I'd call it point scoring, at best I'd call it cold observation. It is definitely based in fact though rather than opinion. Unless of course you want to try and deny that ISIL are able to lever in volunteers from around the world, and that the international brigades didn't appeal to similar sentiment, albeit with a polar opposite focus

Look, the way an army recruits and organises is actually very important, and in both cases the role played by international civilian volunteers is much, much higher than we usually see. It's a very pertinent dynamic and in the case of ISIL one of the horcruxes. I made it pretty clear that after this though, the similarities end due to they pursuing polar opposite objectives. I really don't see why you've got so animated about it.
Click to expand...

More technocratic bilge.

The critical phrase used by the author of the post is ".......far closer to the spirit of internationalism and solidarity......"

Note the use of the word 'spirit', which goes to motive i.e. he attempts to draw a parallel between ISIS's reasons for action and those of the International brigades - which is patently horse-sh*it of the highest order. His post has nothing whatsoever to do with the rubbish you have trotted-out about 'organisation'.
 
Last edited:
So will corbyns mob be publishing an article pointing out the similarities with organisation between an abbatoir and isis?

about as relevant isn't it

stoo the war also published a piece claiming that evil Israel generated the fifa corruption enquiry. I wonder what lies behind that one
 
Grasshopper said:
More technocratic bilge.

The critical phrase used by the author of the post is "far closer to the spirit of internationalism and solidarity......"

Note the use of the word 'spirit', which goes to motive i.e. he attempts to suggest that their reasons for action were similar/the same. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the rubbish you have trotted-out about how ISIS organise themselves.
Click to expand...

yes agree. As close as you can get to outright endorsement

the context and supoosed history surrounding the comment are completely irrelevant. Any one who is even mildly repulsed by isis (and what sort of worm couldn't be absolutely revolted by them) would not even dream of writing such a sentence. Not in a million years.

We should also remember that stw protested strongly against the rescue of the 40000 Christians marooned on that hill. It was a straight either/or argument and they backed the expected isis slaughter. No question about that

its strange how it's the independent to blame for reporting this when clearly it's stop the war who wanted to get the message out. The words are pretty clear . The author knew exactly what the impact would be. Talk about blame the messenger

as for long winded answers, they do not impress anyone. I liken it to my work when I'm meeting a new business for financing. The owner that is on top of his brief always is concise. The one that's in a muddled mess waffles . Every single time
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
More technocratic bilge.

The critical phrase used by the author of the post is ".......far closer to the spirit of internationalism and solidarity......"

Note the use of the word 'spirit', which goes to motive i.e. he attempts to draw a parallel between ISIS's reasons for action and those of the International brigades - which is patently horse-sh*it of the highest order. His post has nothing whatsoever to do with the rubbish you have trotted-out about 'organisation'.
Click to expand...

Which is all I asked in the first place, only to be met by the usual torrent of abuse. Still, you finally got to the bit that offended your sensibilities (answered the question) instead hurling abuse around and uncontrollably swearing.
 
People need to cool down and recognise that the enemy we are dealing with are not pure thugs. Some of the people they are recruiting are petty criminals, some are psycho-, socio- and every other kind of paths, some are probably mad. But it has to be assumed that the majority are not, unpleasant as that fact may be to acknowledge.

I always opposed and disliked the IRA and never will but the old British habit of demonising them at every turn, calling them criminals and cowards and all the rest, never helped. It led the British to underestimate the durability of their adversary and if anything it helped their recruitment drive. When even anglophile politicians like Garret Fitzgerald tried to point this out the reaction from some quarters was furious; Dublin was offering succour to terrorists, etc. At the end of the day all that had to change, of course and everyone had to sit at the same table.

Warbler is right, you have to dispassionately analyse what you're dealing with and give some thought to ways of cutting off the supply of recruits, from Europe at least. ISIL need to be hemmed in so they can take no new territory, no oil gets out and no recruits get in. That will require a political as well as a military strategy and we might have to settle for a stalemate that lasts for some time.
 
Warbler, my 'abuse' does to come in "torrents' and neither is it "usual". My statements were borne of frustration, and I'm happy to apologise if you were offended.

As for the swearing, it is not used for effect - just ask anyone who has ever met me - but it does not mean that I lack verbal perspicacity. Indeed, you will find that my use of language can be quite refulgent at times, and anyone who suggests otherwise is being discommodious. ;)
 
Last edited:
Grey said:
People need to cool down and recognise that the enemy we are dealing with are not pure thugs. Some of the people they are recruiting are petty criminals, some are psycho-, socio- and every other kind of paths, some are probably mad. But it has to be assumed that the majority are not, unpleasant as that fact may be to acknowledge.

I always opposed and disliked the IRA and never will but the old British habit of demonising them at every turn, calling them criminals and cowards and all the rest, never helped. It led the British to underestimate the durability of their adversary and if anything it helped their recruitment drive. When even anglophile politicians like Garret Fitzgerald tried to point this out the reaction from some quarters was furious; Dublin was offering succour to terrorists, etc. At the end of the day all that had to change, of course and everyone had to sit at the same table.

Warbler is right, you have to dispassionately analyse what you're dealing with and give some thought to ways of cutting off the supply of recruits, from Europe at least. ISIL need to be hemmed in so they can take no new territory, no oil gets out and no recruits get in. That will require a political as well as a military strategy and we might have to settle for a stalemate that lasts for some time.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the point that Warbler was trying to make, Arthur.
 
That's got nothing to do with defending a comment which was intended to offend as well as demonstrating latent admiration.

What ia incredibly bone headed ans somewhat desperate by those worried that about the impact of bombing om isis is that they actually believe that these objectives are mutially exlusive. Ie if you bomb you cant trace their funding and so on

its ridiculous
 
In my opinion that's absolutely spot on Grey. There is no single or instant solution to this. Cut off as much of the money as possible, make communication more and more difficult, cut off territory advances and push them back, work as hard as possible on cutting off it's multiplying heads, and target all possible influential leaders of their cause wherever they may be on this planet and take them out permanently.
 
In an effort to bring this dialogue back to something more productive (and acknowledging my own part in it's recent move away from that), it seems that Government forces in Syria are about to re-take Homs - the birthplace of the Syrian revolution. Certain rebel-groups will be leaving the city (along with some residents) under a cease-fire deal just brokered.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35048404

Perhaps this is the first tentative step towards some form of rapprochement between Assad and some of the more 'moderate' rebels - which may allow the internal focus in Syria to move more towards the battle with Daesh?
 
Thats really good news, as I'd been getting very concerned about the lack of progress that the SAA were making with Vlad throwing the bombs about. The Aleppo campaign had all but drawn to a stalemate.

The more recent trend however has been for the moderates to align with Al Nusra, so I'm not holding breath regarding a popular front against ISIL emerging just yet. I have certainly been guilty of under estimating that the moderates second preference vote was going to the Islamists, but similarly, there has to be some who must be prepared to realign with the SAA. Alternatively they might just melt back into civilian life which in itself is a development of sorts if it releases troops to fight in other theatres
 
Last edited:
Who said there was one solution ? This is of no interest at all. Its those who want to stick labels on cameron and the brits who come out with this stuff
 
Last edited:
Would it be impossible that Russia downed their own plane to get the sympathy and go ahead from the West to forget Ukraine and saturate Syria with their armed forces ??
Its happened before! Chechen attacks proven to be Russian secret service?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top