what will bombing achieve?

[the truth]

Theres already 7 different groups bombing them and all its doing is making everything worse....millions of immigrants, 100s of innocents killed....creating more hate and even more bombers?

There are over a billion muslims in the world , living all over the world. when some of their friends and relatives are bombed in the middle east, guess what? they are full of bitterness and hate too and some will act upon this

Yes maybe specific targets and munitions and weaponry , but why risk killing innocent people? yes send in the sas and ground troops and massively beef up airports and border patrol but surely We simply have to be far smarter and more compassionate than bombing Syria to smithereens

[Denver]

They are only bombing cities that have been claimed by these terrorist so effectively do everyone a favour by wiping out as many as possible

[Ashley.]

I don't think we should generalise all immigrants as muslim...

Secondly, why would the immigrants hate us when we're the ones who have taken them in and given them roofs over their heads? I can't see this happening.

[arista]

It will make the war go on forever

You can not destroy a ideology

[the truth]

I don't think we should generalise all immigrants as muslim...

Secondly, why would the immigrants hate us when we're the ones who have taken them in and given them roofs over their heads? I can't see this happening.

eh talk about missing the point:shrug:

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

Nothing 😔

[bots]

Targeted bombing can achieve a lot. It can destroy supply lines, attack ISIS heavy weaponry, degrade its capacity to take over new towns and cities, push the balance in our favour rather than theirs and help ground troops win battles.

[DemolitionRed]

Good topic TheTruth. I think you probably already know how I feel about this!

Although this video, which has been watched over 27 million times, isn't about this new bombing campaign, it goes a long way into showing how such campaigns don't work.

How the US created ISIS
https://www.facebook.com/UniversalFreePress/videos/1109286879117550/

[the truth]

Targeted bombing can achieve a lot. It can destroy supply lines, attack ISIS heavy weaponry, degrade its capacity to take over new towns and cities, push the balance in our favour rather than theirs and help ground troops win battles. it were tat simple and that 100 effective...if only governments showed that much discipline...yes destroy munitions....but after that everyone gets carried away and 100s of innocent people get killed, hospitals are destroyed, water supplies, fod supplies, medical supplies etc etc etc theft and looting ensues, only the strong survive and the weak go to hell in a handbasket. this is my prediction based on every single bombing campaign that has ever happened over there....just take a look at Iraq and Vietnam ....bombed them for years and still got us nowhere and 1000000s of innocents died

[joeysteele]

We cannot do nothing, this vile scum needs to be completely wiped out of existence, the whole lot of them.
I will wait and hear the Prime Minister's case for the UK to be more involved before deciding if it is right to do so or not.

However I am fast at the point where I don't think right comes into this anymore, all the Arab Nations and Nations in the middle east, need to do a lot more themselves to dig out this scum and since they know the territory better, could and should be doing loads more already.
However,whatever it takes now to clear the earth of these vile things is fast becoming acceptable to me now.

[Tom4784]

Bombing just makes a statement, it's not going to put an end to ISIS.

It'll be intel that puts paid to them which is why taking prisoners, when possible, is important.

[MTVN]

Targeted bombing can achieve a lot. It can destroy supply lines, attack ISIS heavy weaponry, degrade its capacity to take over new towns and cities, push the balance in our favour rather than theirs and help ground troops win battles.

^

I am normally opposed to military intervention but as long as we are not trying to force regime change I am in favour of it. The air strikes can shore up and stabilise the Iraqi and Syrian states rather than destroy them.

[Ashley.]

eh talk about missing the point:shrug:

Talk about avoidance?

[JoshBB]

They are only bombing cities that have been claimed by these terrorist so effectively do everyone a favour by wiping out as many as possible

Terrorists may have 'claimed' the land, but many of the people living under these towns do not condone terrorism and we would be killing innocent civilians by bombing them.

[JoshBB]

^

I am normally opposed to military intervention but as long as we are not trying to force regime change I am in favour of it. The air strikes can shore up and stabilise the Iraqi and Syrian states rather than destroy them.

Why would bombs 'stabilise' a country? They lead to huge amounts of civilian death which is also illegal under international law. The air strikes are too reckless and too many people are dying that should not be.

[DemolitionRed]

I think we need to shut down home turf mosques that are known to be run by extremists and we need to put Muslim moles into our mosques to ensure they are doing what they say they are doing.

We need to chase the Saudi tail for their covert support of ISIS and if necessary, put heavy sanctions on them. We should start sanctioning any more arms to Saudi regardless of what they have to say on the matter.

We need to invest some money in comfortable refugee camps where refugees would remain until their identity has been heavily scrutinized.

We need to listen to Putin and stop treating him like the other enemy.

[kirklancaster]

We cannot do nothing, this vile scum needs to be completely wiped out of existence, the whole lot of them.
I will wait and hear the Prime Minister's case for the UK to be more involved before deciding if it is right to do so or not.

However I am fast at the point where I don't think right comes into this anymore, all the Arab Nations and Nations in the middle east, need to do a lot more themselves to dig out this scum and since they know the territory better, could and should be doing loads more already.
However,whatever it takes now to clear the earth of these vile things is fast becoming acceptable to me now.

:worship:

[MTVN]

Why would bombs 'stabilise' a country? They lead to huge amounts of civilian death which is also illegal under international law. The air strikes are too reckless and too many people are dying that should not be.

Do you think no civilians are dying without strikes? Do you think Syria is stable right now or is miraculously going to stabilise itself? If people think ISIS are bad now then they have seen nothing yet if the Syrian and Iraqi states are allowed to completely disintegrate.

[kirklancaster]

Do you think no civilians are dying without strikes? Do you think Syria is stable right now or is miraculously going to stabilise itself? If people think ISIS are bad now then they have seen nothing yet if the Syrian and Iraqi states are allowed to completely disintegrate.

:worship::worship:

[kirklancaster]

I think we need to shut down home turf mosques that are known to be run by extremists and we need to put Muslim moles into our mosques to ensure they are doing what they say they are doing.

We need to chase the Saudi tail for their covert support of ISIS and if necessary, put heavy sanctions on them. We should start sanctioning any more arms to Saudi regardless of what they have to say on the matter.

We need to invest some money in comfortable refugee camps where refugees would remain until their identity has been heavily scrutinized.

We need to listen to Putin and stop treating him like the other enemy.

:clap1::clap1::clap1: I cannot fault any of these excellent suggestions. Credit where it is due.

[kirklancaster]

Terrorists may have 'claimed' the land, but many of the people living under these towns do not condone terrorism and we would be killing innocent civilians by bombing them.

I would be very interested in what you would propose Josh - Seriously with no ulterior motive, just curiosity as to what a young intelligent view might be.

[bots]

Why would bombs 'stabilise' a country? They lead to huge amounts of civilian death which is also illegal under international law. The air strikes are too reckless and too many people are dying that should not be.

Depends on the bombing campaign and what its goals are Josh. Bombing can be extremely focussed like taking out a single mobile large gun or a fuel lorry.

Not one of those countries involved in bombing in Iraq or Syria are proposing carpet bombing towns or targeting civilian areas, they are degrading the ISIS capability to fight, so that when the ground troops go in, their job is much easier

[Northern Monkey]

What else can we do?
Just sit back and let them take over countries city by city and town by town raising their black flag over each one.No,They must be stopped.People are dying at their hand now.Are we just going to let them bomb and shoot up our countries with no retaliation?We can't let them create their Islamic State,They need to be stopped before they succeed!

[the truth]

What else can we do?
Just sit back and let them take over countries city by city and town by town raising their black flag over each one.No,They must be stopped.People are dying at their hand now.Are we just going to let them bomb and shoot up our countries with no retaliation?We can't let them create their Islamic State,They need to be stopped before they succeed!

have not read any other replies?

[lostalex]

Good topic TheTruth. I think you probably already know how I feel about this!

Although this video, which has been watched over 27 million times, isn't about this new bombing campaign, it goes a long way into showing how such campaigns don't work.

How the US created ISIS
https://www.facebook.com/UniversalFreePress/videos/1109286879117550/

The US didn't create ISIS, ISLAM created ISIS.

[the truth]

The US didn't create ISIS, ISLAM created ISIS.

The US and to a lesser extent UK helped arm them