For all those passionate against war on ISIS..

[Johnnyuk123]

For all those against war on ISIS what would you suggest that we should do instead of war against ISIS that would make an impact on ISIS for them to want to sit around a table and resolve this matter in a humane way?

[Northern Monkey]

The words 'ISIS' and 'humane' cannot be put in the same sentence.There's only one language they understand and it's war.

[Shaun]

I don't generally pretend to know what to do. Everyone's an armchair critic. But it seems obvious to me that bombing the crap out of a country and hoping for the best is just kicking a hornets' nest, as well as creating more hornets.

I'd be totally for military intervention were the collateral not so frequently destructive, and were the chances of another Iraq incredibly slim.

[Johnnyuk123]

The words 'ISIS' and 'humane' cannot be put in the same sentence.There's only one language they understand and it's war.

I agree 100% but my question is what can we do here to get ISIS to sit at a table and sort this matter out once and for all?

[Johnnyuk123]

I don't generally pretend to know what to do. Everyone's an armchair critic. But it seems obvious to me that bombing the crap out of a country and hoping for the best is just kicking a hornets' nest, as well as creating more hornets.

I'd be totally for military intervention were the collateral not so frequently destructive, and were the chances of another Iraq incredibly slim.

But what can we say or do to get ISIS to converse with us to bring peace?

[Smithy]

I agree 100% but my question is what can we do here to get ISIS to sit at a table and sort this matter out once and for all?

But what can we say or do to get ISIS to converse with us to bring peace?

nothing because they wouldn't sit round a table

[Johnnyuk123]

nothing because they wouldn't sit round a table

I understand...But what should we do knowing that sitting around a table to talk with ISIS about peace is not even on the table?

[Johnnyuk123]

The UK and many other countries are at war with ISIS in Syria. That means they are only targeting ISIS in syria and not Syrian ciivilians. Local Syrians will not be close too ISIS bases unless forced too by ISIS. Why do many people find this hard too believe/understand? All those targeting their bombs in Syria are targeting those bombs directly on ISIS targets and not Syrian residents.

[AProducer'sWetDream]

The UK and many other countries are at war with ISIS in Syria. That means they are only targeting ISIS in syria and not Syrian ciivilians. Local Syrians will not be close too ISIS bases unless forced too by ISIS. Why do many people find this hard too believe/understand? All those targeting their bombs in Syria are targeting those bombs directly on ISIS targets and not Syrian residents.

If you believe that these air strikes will not cause the deaths of innocent civilians then you should take a look at the photos that came out of the country two days after the terrorist attacks in Paris. Many of the casualties were children.

[Johnnyuk123]

If you believe that these air strikes will not cause the deaths of innocent civilians then you should take a look at the photos that came out of the country two days after the terrorist attacks in Paris. Many of the casualties were children.

And how many children have been murdered by ISIS in Syria prior to Paris stepping in By ISIS?

[AProducer'sWetDream]

And how many children have been murdered by ISIS in Syria prior to Paris stepping in By ISIS?

So how are 'we' any better than ISIS? Two wrongs don't make a right...

[Johnnyuk123]

If you believe that these air strikes will not cause the deaths of innocent civilians then you should take a look at the photos that came out of the country two days after the terrorist attacks in Paris. Many of the casualties were children.

My question is about getting ISIS to sit around a table to bring peace in the world. Answer that question please.

[Kazanne]

How can you negotiate with people like them? they do not like us,they don't like our way of life,the way we dress ,our music,our TV etc,they hate the Western way of life,they hate our beliefs,our traditions and they hate that women are seen as equal,They want to take over the world and have everyone praying in mosques,following Sharia law, making women unseen and not heard,they want to possess the human race,that might be ok for some but personally I would rather die than be forced into any of that.

[Johnnyuk123]

So how are 'we' any better than ISIS? Two wrongs don't make a right...

How many british citizens have beheaded or blown up people?

[Johnnyuk123]

How can you negotiate with people like them? they do not like us,they don't like our way of life,the way we dress ,our music,our TV etc,they hate the Western way of life,they hate our beliefs,our traditions and they hate that women are seen as equal,They want to take over the world and have everyone praying in mosques,following Sharia law, making women unseen and not heard,they want to possess the human race,that might be ok for some but personally I would rather die than be forced into any of that.

:clap1::clap1::clap1: So well put Kaz.:wavey:

[Johnnyuk123]

If you believe that these air strikes will not cause the deaths of innocent civilians then you should take a look at the photos that came out of the country two days after the terrorist attacks in Paris. Many of the casualties were children.

The Uk has thwarted several ISIS attacks this year alone. Do we wait until people are blown up here before we get off the fence and do something about it?

[joeysteele]

I don't generally pretend to know what to do. Everyone's an armchair critic. But it seems obvious to me that bombing the crap out of a country and hoping for the best is just kicking a hornets' nest, as well as creating more hornets.

I'd be totally for military intervention were the collateral not so frequently destructive, and were the chances of another Iraq incredibly slim.

So far of all the posts in this thread this is the one I feel at best comfortable with.

I think the wrong decision has been made sadly.

I haven't the answers,no one has but as this post above says, all we may be doing is really stirring things up more.

[Johnnyuk123]

So far of all the posts in this thread this is the one I feel at best comfortable with.

I think the wrong decision has been made sadly.

I haven't the answers,no one has but as this post above says, all we may be doing is really stirring things up more.

Look at it like this... ISIS want to kill everyone in the world no matter where you live, no matter what country it is. All those countries now at war with ISIS have only one thing in common, they just want ISIS removed and for the world to be at peace. ISIS don't want that there sole goal is WAR until all infidels are dead and sharia law is global.

[AProducer'sWetDream]

How many british citizens have beheaded or blown up people?

The Uk has thwarted several ISIS attacks this year alone. Do we wait until people are blown up here before we get off the fence and do something about it?

Nobody is suggesting that we simply leave IS to do what they want. You seem to suggest in every thread on the subject that those against airstrikes want to negotiate with them, yet I've not seen one suggestion that we try and 'make peace' or 'sit round the table'. I don't pretend to know all the answers, but historically bombing middle eastern countries does not bring peace or stability, or any kind of solution to the problems that exist there.

[bots]

I think its best to look at what Corbyn proposes.

He wants a political settlement in Syria. The theory being that if Syria has a stable government then ISIS will somehow (without conflict) be wiped out.

Everyone talks about how ISIS is an ideology, but when broken down its not. ISIS has an army, thousands of soldiers with a vast array of weaponry, large and small. These troops are spreading themselves across Syria and Iraq, taking over towns and resources as they go. If left unchecked, that army will continue to grow and expand its reach both in Syria and Iraq and into other neighbouring countries. This is fact, because this is what they were doing until the coalition started bombing them.

Since bombing started, it has allowed the kurds to mount a defence of their towns and it has stabilised the situation around and close to Baghdad.

Bombing has achieved this, not negotiating with them. That's why bombing is an important part of the process. No-one is saying bombing alone will resolve it, but it will contribute to the eventual defeat of ISIS.

[Johnnyuk123]

Nobody is suggesting that we simply leave IS to do what they want. You seem to suggest in every thread on the subject that those against airstrikes want to negotiate with them, yet I've not seen one suggestion that we try and 'make peace' or 'sit round the table'. I don't pretend to know all the answers, but historically bombing middle eastern countries does not bring peace or stability, or any kind of solution to the problems that exist there.

The only side not open to negotiaton is ISIS. Please go ahead and prove me wrong...

[AProducer'sWetDream]

They only side not open to negotiaton is ISIS. Please go ahead and prove me wrong...

Nobody is denying this! There is middle ground between negotiation and bombing, you know...

[joeysteele]

Look at it like this... ISIS want to kill everyone in the world no matter where you live, no matter what country it is. All those countries now at war with ISIS have only one thing in common, they just want ISIS removed and for the world to be at peace. ISIS don't want that there sole goal is WAR until all infidels are dead and sharia law is global.

I have looked at it all ways,I change my mind on this on a daily basis, and there doesn't seem to be any way to deal with this, there was,before we joined in, already 3 major Nations bombing in Syria.
That hasn't altered much at all so even more bombing and more of the same doesn't seem to be a recipe for any great success again.

No one has the answers,unless they can get Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Arab Nations along with Turkey too to maybe march in across the Middle East to deal with these vile things.

That seems as far as away from being likely as it ever was so what this action will end up achieving now with all these foreign Nations bombing here, there and everywhere,is at best probably very little and at worst nothing except to make things even worse.
In the area and in all other Countries too possibly.

[Johnnyuk123]

I think its best to look at what Corbyn proposes.

He wants a political settlement in Syria. The theory being that if Syria has a stable government then ISIS will somehow (without conflict) be wiped out.

Everyone talks about how ISIS is an ideology, but when broken down its not. ISIS has an army, thousands of soldiers with a vast array of weaponry, large and small. These troops are spreading themselves across Syria and Iraq, taking over towns and resources as they go. If left unchecked, that army will continue to grow and expand its reach both in Syria and Iraq and into other neighbouring countries. This is fact, because this is what they were doing until the coalition started bombing them.

Since bombing started, it has allowed the kurds to mount a defence of their towns and it has stabilised the situation around and close to Baghdad.

Bombing has achieved this, not negotiating with them. That's why bombing is an important part of the process. No-one is saying bombing alone will resolve it, but it will contribute to the eventual defeat of ISIS.

The question should be ..... Does Corbyn believe that ISIS will sit aoround the table to discuss this when asked?

[Johnnyuk123]

Nobody is denying this! There is middle ground between negotiation and bombing, you know...

Middle ground with ISIS?

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Middle ground with ISIS?

Yes. Removing their ability to finance and arm their organisation, for example.

[Johnnyuk123]

Yes. Removing their ability to finance and arm their organisation, for example.

Isn't that what the UK forces are doing right now?

[Johnnyuk123]

On the Jeremy Corbyn mentality. What war has he ever voted for?

[jennyjuniper]

I agree 100% but my question is what can we do here to get ISIS to sit at a table and sort this matter out once and for all?

You can't, because sitting round a table and discussing reasonable solutions for peace is what normal, human beings do. The monsters that do what isis does are barely human and very far from normal.

[Johnnyuk123]

You can't, because sitting round a table and discussing reasonable solutions for peace is what normal, human beings do. The monsters that do what isis does are barely human and very far from normal.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

[Jake.]

I don't have the answer. It's not my job to provide the answer. But killing innocent people and children isn't the answer.

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Isn't that what the UK forces are doing right now?

But there are other ways to do it, like imposing trade restrictions on Turkey and other Arab countries so that IS can't make money from selling oil, and they cannot buy arms and ammunition from other countries.

[Johnnyuk123]

I don't have the answer. It's not my job to provide the answer. But killing innocent people and children isn't the answer.

And killing innocent people is NOT what the air strikes are about. They are targeting ISIS bases. No one wants syrina civilian people targeted in all of this.

[AProducer'sWetDream]

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

I still fail to see anyone here or on any other thread suggesting that we try and negotiate with ISIS.

[Jake.]

And killing innocent people is NOT what the air strikes are about. They are targeting ISIS bases. No one wants syrina civilian people targeted in all of this.

But what it is and isn't about is irrelevant when innocent people are dying because of it.

[Johnnyuk123]

But there are other ways to do it, like imposing trade restrictions on Turkey and other Arab countries so that IS can't make money from selling oil, and they cannot buy arms and ammunition from other countries.

And whilst we in a democratic world do we go about this whilst ISIS blow folk up in California just recently along with others. The only way ISIS see it is by blowing themselves up. No debate, no chat just pull the trigger. And we deal with this mentality by doing what, imposing trade restrictions. How many more lives will be lost before those restrictions actually kick in?

[joeysteele]

I still fail to see anyone here or on any other thread suggesting that we try and negotiate with ISIS.

No one is,you are right, and all opinions are valid but no one really has the answer to this and I don't think the decision made on Wednesday is the answer, it may be a part of an answer with other things in place but since they are not in place then success is very unlikely.
Now we are being told by our govt, this s going be a long process so a lot of bombing and a lot of innocents to be killed too as a result of that bombing, near for certain is that too.

[AProducer'sWetDream]

No one is,you are right, and all opinions are valid but no one really has the answer to this and I don't think the decision made on Wednesday is the answer, it may be a part of an answer with other things in place but since they are not in place then success is very unlikely.
Now we are being told by our govt, this s going be a long process so a lot of bombing and a lot of innocents to be killed too as a result of that bombing, near for certain is that too.

I admit that I don't know all the answers or the solution to this vastly complex problem. If I did, I would be a much richer and more powerful man :laugh:

[Johnnyuk123]

I repeat my original post...

For all those against war on ISIS what would you suggest that we should do instead of war against ISIS that would make an impact on ISIS for them to want to sit around a table and resolve this matter in a humane way?

Please keep to my original post and answer to that.

[Johnnyuk123]

I don't have the answer. It's not my job to provide the answer. But killing innocent people and children isn't the answer.

All countires bombing are targeting ISIS bases and NOT Syrian people.

[Tom4784]

As it stands, Bombing Syria is as effective as doing nothing, in fact it's worse since we waste resources to bomb a country. At this point we can't do anything that isn't already being done more effectively by superpowers with more means than us.

We aren't doing anything useful apart from fluffing our own egos by bombing Syria. We aren't needed yet. When something useful can be done and we can be of use then go for it but at the moment it's pointless.

[AnnieK]

Right, I'm going to put a slightly more human side to this. I'm sat here, watching my 5 year old son sleep peacefully tonight. He has no concept of a bad life other than stories of bad men,violence or God forbid Nything worse. I want to keep his innocence of the life his great grandparents and relatives fought, and in some circumstances died for him to have.

I worry constantly about the world i have brought him into but if our government can do anything to bring some stability from this ongoing crisis by bombings, then fair ****ing play. I will apologise till the cows come home if civilians get hurt, and I will feel it, but, and I dare anyone on this thread or forum to tell me different BUT if it came to us bombing them or them bombing us and killing our nearest and dearest which will happen, and according to reports has been planned before our intervention......what would you prefer????????

[Jamie89]

But what it is and isn't about is irrelevant when innocent people are dying because of it.

What it's about is completely relevent though because innocent people might die. Noone wants innocent people to die for no reason, but ordinary Syrians are already suffering immensely at the hands of ISIS and if we can help to stop them and choose not to, then it's only going to get worse for them.

I understand what Dezzy and a lot of other people are saying about how they believe there to be no need for us yet and we should wait for a more appropriate time, but when is that? What do ISIS need to do for us to deem it an appropriate time? And why should we back out because other superpowers are involved when we can help them? Surely it will just make the attack against ISIS stronger and less likely to drag on?

[kirklancaster]

Right, I'm going to put a slightly more human side to this. I'm sat here, watching my 5 year old son sleep peacefully tonight. He has no concept of a bad life other than stories of bad men,violence or God forbid Nything worse. I want to keep his innocence of the life his great grandparents and relatives fought, and in some circumstances died for him to have.

I worry constantly about the world i have brought him into but if our government can do anything to bring some stability from this ongoing crisis by bombings, then fair ****ing play. I will apologise till the cows come home if civilians get hurt, and I will feel it, but, and I dare anyone on this thread or forum to tell me different BUT if it came to us bombing them or them bombing us and killing our nearest and dearest which will happen, and according to reports has been planned before our intervention......what would you prefer????????

:worship: Reason and honesty Annie. A simply great post.

[kirklancaster]

What it's about is completely relevent though because innocent people might die. Noone wants innocent people to die for no reason, but ordinary Syrians are already suffering immensely at the hands of ISIS and if we can help to stop them and choose not to, then it's only going to get worse for them.

I understand what Dezzy and a lot of other people are saying about how they believe there to be no need for us yet and we should wait for a more appropriate time, but when is that? What do ISIS need to do for us to deem it an appropriate time? And why should we back out because other superpowers are involved when we can help them? Surely it will just make the attack against ISIS stronger and less likely to drag on?

:clap1: Your posts are ALWAYS well written, and more importantly, very valid and balanced Jamie.

[Kazanne]

Right, I'm going to put a slightly more human side to this. I'm sat here, watching my 5 year old son sleep peacefully tonight. He has no concept of a bad life other than stories of bad men,violence or God forbid Nything worse. I want to keep his innocence of the life his great grandparents and relatives fought, and in some circumstances died for him to have.

I worry constantly about the world i have brought him into but if our government can do anything to bring some stability from this ongoing crisis by bombings, then fair ****ing play. I will apologise till the cows come home if civilians get hurt, and I will feel it, but, and I dare anyone on this thread or forum to tell me different BUT if it came to us bombing them or them bombing us and killing our nearest and dearest which will happen, and according to reports has been planned before our intervention......what would you prefer????????

:clap1:

[Kazanne]

Well I do know as soon as something happens here these airstrikes will get blamed in the "See I told you" mould, NO we will get attacked anyway it was a given,the UK has thwarted many plots already,I am so pleased we have good security forces protecting us,IF Isis get their way,no one will be protecting us we will be target practice, and for those saying war accomplishes nothing,I don't think our old soldiers would agree with you there,we are using at least one thing it achieved free speech, but if we are not careful Isis will take that away too !!

[Cherie]

Right, I'm going to put a slightly more human side to this. I'm sat here, watching my 5 year old son sleep peacefully tonight. He has no concept of a bad life other than stories of bad men,violence or God forbid Nything worse. I want to keep his innocence of the life his great grandparents and relatives fought, and in some circumstances died for him to have.

I worry constantly about the world i have brought him into but if our government can do anything to bring some stability from this ongoing crisis by bombings, then fair ****ing play. I will apologise till the cows come home if civilians get hurt, and I will feel it, but, and I dare anyone on this thread or forum to tell me different BUT if it came to us bombing them or them bombing us and killing our nearest and dearest which will happen, and according to reports has been planned before our intervention......what would you prefer????????

Great post Annie, I would like just one person against bombing to explain exactly what the UK should be doing instead, and I don't hold with the argument that we are now more susceptible to attack not when 30 Brits never returned from their holiday in Tunisia just mere months ago

[Northern Monkey]

The way i see it is.
If you find a cancerous lump in your body.Do you just accept it and let it grow until it takes over?
or
do you fight it the best that you can?
This state that IS are creating is like tumour on the map and we can't just keep letting it grow until it takes over the middle east and even further.

[kirklancaster]

Well I do know as soon as something happens here these airstrikes will get blamed in the "See I told you" mould, NO we will get attacked anyway it was a given,the UK has thwarted many plots already,I am so pleased we have good security forces protecting us,IF Isis get their way,no one will be protecting us we will be target practice, and for those saying war accomplishes nothing,I don't think our old soldiers would agree with you there,we are using at least one thing it achieved free speech, but if we are not careful Isis will take that away too !!

:clap1: Excellent post Kaz. You are so correct.

ISIS have long had plans to commit Paris-style arocities in the UK, and IT IS only becuse of our Intelligence Services that those plans have repeatedly been foiled.

God Forbid, but if ISIS do now manage to breach our security, and actually execute one of their plans - almost certainly by activating some of the dozens if not hundreds of Jihadist 'sleepers' already ensconced here - then the cries from some of the anti-bombing anti-war anti-do anything brigade that "It is revenge", "It wouldn't have happened if we hadn't bombed Syria" etc etc will be unbearable AND wrong.

[lostalex]

You are either with us or against us.

we must protect the gays from ISIS. their treatment of gays (they have admitted they are committing genocide against gays) is all the reason we need to treat them no better than we would treat the nazis. If fighting the nazis is right, then so is fighting ISIS.

[joeysteele]

Well I do know as soon as something happens here these airstrikes will get blamed in the "See I told you" mould, NO we will get attacked anyway it was a given,the UK has thwarted many plots already,I am so pleased we have good security forces protecting us,IF Isis get their way,no one will be protecting us we will be target practice, and for those saying war accomplishes nothing,I don't think our old soldiers would agree with you there,we are using at least one thing it achieved free speech, but if we are not careful Isis will take that away too !!

This is the thing though Kazanne I can see both sides to this,what you and AnnieK outline makes perfect reasoned sense however so does what Dezzy and the others,like Shaun have said too.
No one has the monopoly on the best thing to do or what will sort it out for good without the full and involved help of 'all' the Nations in the Middle East,with all that support and cooperation first, then success may be more assured, without all that there will be havens for IS to flee to and re-group no matter how many bombs are dropped and no matter the cost.

We all want to be safe in the UK,I want all people in all Nations to be safe, I am not just selfishly looking at the UK,I do not believe all this bombing will do that,it is likely in reality to only scatter IS more across the region and into other Countries even probably.

I said earlier, for a fair while now the USA has been bombing so called IS in Syria, as have for a while now the Russians too,then the French have joined in yet things escalate,I do not see what difference we are going to really make or that will change that much without the full help and d determined resolve by the Arab Nations in the area, to ensure all aid to IS, no matter what it is, is cut off and that they then too seek them out, and do the ground work effectively.
If that does not come about then little will change and we could be there for even longer than we were in Iraq.
Going nowhere while unfortunately fuelling more hatred against us and the West particularly.

All points are valid but the one thing no one can claim is this bombing will make us in the UK safer or that not bombing will do so either.
I'd have supported the bombing on Wednesday in the debate,had I been voting, today I would have regretted doing that.
Tomorrow I may be back in favour.

That is the dilemma but I really believe nothing can work without a determined effort to clear the lot of them away by rooting them out.
Which should be done, and should have already been done, by the Arab Nations we are in effect allowing to just sit on their backsides paying lip service to the issue, rather than doing anything.
At no costs to themselves either while we and other European nations along with the USA use loads of resources to try to sort the problem of IS.

No view is totally wrong and no view is totally right,no one would disagree IS should be wiped off the face of the earth but frankly I cannot see that coming about at all as to what we are doing now and very few so called experts believe bombing alone will achieve much more that it has already.

[kirklancaster]

The UK and many other countries are at war with ISIS in Syria. That means they are only targeting ISIS in syria and not Syrian ciivilians. Local Syrians will not be close too ISIS bases unless forced too by ISIS. Why do many people find this hard too believe/understand? All those targeting their bombs in Syria are targeting those bombs directly on ISIS targets and not Syrian residents.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

[Jamie89]

This is the thing though Kazanne I can see both sides to this,what you and AnnieK outline makes perfect reasoned sense however so does what Dezzy and the others,like Shaun have said too.
No one has the monopoly on the best thing to do or what will sort it out for good without the full and involved help of 'all' the Nations in the Middle East,with all that support and cooperation first, then success may be more assured, without all that there will be havens for IS to flee to and re-group no matter how many bombs are dropped and no matter the cost.

We all want to be safe in the UK,I want all people in all Nations to be safe, I am not just selfishly looking at the UK,I do not believe all this bombing will do that,it is likely in reality to only scatter IS more across the region and into other Countries even probably.

I said earlier, for a fair while now the USA has been bombing so called IS in Syria, as have for a while now the Russians too,then the French have joined in yet things escalate,I do not see what difference we are going to really make or that will change that much without the full help and d determined resolve by the Arab Nations in the area, to ensure all aid to IS, no matter what it is, is cut off and that they then too seek them out, and do the ground work effectively.
If that does not come about then little will change and we could be there for even longer than we were in Iraq.
Going nowhere while unfortunately fuelling more hatred against us and the West particularly.

All points are valid but the one thing no one can claim is this bombing will make us in the UK safer or that not bombing will do so either.
I'd have supported the bombing on Wednesday in the debate,had I been voting, today I would have regretted doing that.
Tomorrow I may be back in favour.

That is the dilemma but I really believe nothing can work without a determined effort to clear the lot of them away by rooting them out.
Which should be done, and should have already been done, by the Arab Nations we are in effect allowing to just sit on their backsides paying lip service to the issue, rather than doing anything.
At no costs to themselves either while we and other European nations along with the USA use loads of resources to try to sort the problem of IS.

No view is totally wrong and no view is totally right,no one would disagree IS should be wiped off the face of the earth but frankly I cannot see that coming about at all as to what we are doing now and very few so called experts believe bombing alone will achieve much more that it has already.

The problem I have, is that while we're waiting, Syrian citizens are going to continue to be tortured and killed, and ISIS are going to continue to grow stronger. I just don't see waiting as being a viable option. Of course I agree that we would be in a much stronger position if we had the full cooperation of all middle eastern countries but I think we need to accept that we don't have that, and the situation isn't perfect, but it's not going to be. I think there's an elusive straight forward option that I'm sure we're all hoping for, but honestly, I just don't think it exists. We're stuck in the situation as is, and so we either continue to move forward regardless, accepting that we don't know for certain whether or not the outcome will be as desired, but at the very least contributing to the effort to bring a stop to ISIS and at the most stopping them altogether, or we do nothing because of our uncertainty, and because the situation isn't ideal, and we do so knowing for certain that ISIS atrocities will continue to happen.

And the thing is, even if it is likely that ISIS will scatter and regroup rendering the bombings useless, there are many varying likelihoods of any course of action we do or do not take, so for me this isn't convincing enough for us to back out. It could just as well be argued that it is likely they won't scatter (or at least not in a way where they would remain effective as an organisation and continue to be a credible threat).

The only thing that we can really be certain of is what is happening now, and what's happening now has to be stopped. And regardless of the likelihoods and maybes on both sides of the argument we aren't going to stop anything if we wait, or do nothing.

[joeysteele]

The problem I have, is that while we're waiting, Syrian citizens are going to continue to be tortured and killed, and ISIS are going to continue to grow stronger. I just don't see waiting as being a viable option. Of course I agree that we would be in a much stronger position if we had the full cooperation of all middle eastern countries but I think we need to accept that we don't have that, and the situation isn't perfect, but it's not going to be. I think there's an elusive straight forward option that I'm sure we're all hoping for, but honestly, I just don't think it exists. We're stuck in the situation as is, and so we either continue to move forward regardless, accepting that we don't know for certain whether or not the outcome will be as desired, but at the very least contributing to the effort to bring a stop to ISIS and at the most stopping them altogether, or we do nothing because of our uncertainty, and because the situation isn't ideal, and we do so knowing for certain that ISIS atrocities will continue to happen.

And the thing is, even if it is likely that ISIS will scatter and regroup rendering the bombings useless, there are many varying likelihoods of any course of action we do or do not take, so for me this isn't convincing enough for us to back out. It could just as well be argued that it is likely they won't scatter (or at least not in a way where they would remain effective as an organisation and continue to be a credible threat).

The only thing that we can really be certain of is what is happening now, and what's happening now has to be stopped. And regardless of the likelihoods and maybes on both sides of the argument we aren't going to stop anything if we wait, or do nothing.

I can easily take on board all you say above.
I said I can see all sides to this,I swing to and fro all the time so I am glad I was not asked to make a concrete decision as to it.

I really don't think any real 'one' conclusive answer or solution exists at present.
I hope there is some success to start to or make a difference from what is being done now, am I convinced there will be that much difference, no sadly I am not.

Intervention in tricky and demanding events, to be really successful,really needs to be done 'only' at the right time however, is that time now or not, well as things unfurl more and we see the results of the bombing, there is another maybe.
Still no one can know for sure that action or inaction at this time will make that much difference.
Obviously my hope is now we are there too, with those who have been conducting this for a fair while now, that it does.

[Kizzy]

I was against airstrikes and I still feel they were a mistake, trade restrictions, closer ties with other world leaders.
No wonder many became radicalised, when Syrians asked for help not long ago it was a big fat no wasn't it?
Seems the govt find it easier to attack than aid or defend.

[lostalex]

I was against airstrikes and I still feel they were a mistake, trade restrictions, closer ties with other world leaders.
No wonder many became radicalised, when Syrians asked for help not long ago it was a big fat no wasn't it?
Seems the govt find it easier to attack than aid or defend.

it was a big fat no because they were being selfish and ignorant. so many people think just because there isn't a big terrorist attack, that means ISIS is no threat and you can bury your head in the sand. The Paris attack changed that. shame on those MP's who changed their vote. and even more shame on those MPs who didn't change their vote.

[Vicky.]

What is the obsession with the idea of ISIS sitting round the table having cuppas and talking nicely?!

[Vicky.]

The UK and many other countries are at war with ISIS in Syria. That means they are only targeting ISIS in syria and not Syrian ciivilians. Local Syrians will not be close too ISIS bases unless forced too by ISIS. Why do many people find this hard too believe/understand? All those targeting their bombs in Syria are targeting those bombs directly on ISIS targets and not Syrian residents.

So its fine to kill those forced to be there?

Also if only ISIS targets are being hit...how come hospitals and such have been bombed?

I don't pretend to have the answers. I am still undecided on the whole issue to be quite honest. But those who think only ISIS members will be harmed through this are kidding themselves. Is collateral damage necessary? Maybe. But to pretend it won't happen at all, is ridiculous. As is the thought that the only other option to air strikes is peacetalks...

[Kizzy]

I's just an unfunny joke across about 4 threads now' oh does Corbyn want to invite ISIS to tea?'... :bored:

[lostalex]

I's just an unfunny joke across about 4 threads now' oh does Corbyn want to invite ISIS to tea?'... :bored:

well he, along with George galloway would probably have a lovely time together with ISIS. they seem to have a lot in common ideologically.

they can talk about hating the Jews (they can just use the word israel and pretend it's not about hating jews though) and they can talk about hating America, and they can talk about hating the free press (which they blame on America for the internet, and jews, cause of course jews run the media)

It would be a big fun tea party where they can hate jews and america!

[bots]

So its fine to kill those forced to be there?

Also if only ISIS targets are being hit...how come hospitals and such have been bombed?

I don't pretend to have the answers. I am still undecided on the whole issue to be quite honest. But those who think only ISIS members will be harmed through this are kidding themselves. Is collateral damage necessary? Maybe. But to pretend it won't happen at all, is ridiculous. As is the thought that the only other option to air strikes is peacetalks...

We have learnt a lot over the past decades.

Have there been any reports of civilian casualties from the British bombing of ISIS in Iraq? I will answer that one ... zero, nil, null. No civilian casualties whatsoever.

While its still possible for there to be civilian casualties, our guys at least, are very very careful on what targets that they hit and the possibility of civilian casualties.

Edit: While I'm on that topic. Some have said why are we there, we don't do anything that others can't do. Well, we bring the technology to reduce the risk of civilian casualties to the others in the coalition too. Our equipment in certain areas is way more advanced than anything anyone else has.

[Johnnyuk123]

:clap1: Excellent post Kaz. You are so correct.

ISIS have long had plans to commit Paris-style arocities in the UK, and IT IS only becuse of our Intelligence Services that those plans have repeatedly been foiled.

God Forbid, but if ISIS do now manage to breach our security, and actually execute one of their plans - almost certainly by activating some of the dozens if not hundreds of Jihadist 'sleepers' already ensconced here - then the cries from some of the anti-bombing anti-war anti-do anything brigade that "It is revenge", "It wouldn't have happened if we hadn't bombed Syria" etc etc will be unbearable AND wrong.

Both posts well written and true! :clap1::clap1::clap1:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/10/9/1349799315514/borisdave.gif

[joeysteele]

Both posts well written and true! :clap1::clap1::clap1:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/10/9/1349799315514/borisdave.gif

Everyone's posts on this issue are well written and also likely in the main true too as no one knows the end result to this action and or more conflict to come.
None of us have the solution or best answer at all,and as with Vicky too, many, maybe even most people at large, are still undecided on what to do or support.
Nothing wrong at all with any of that.

[kirklancaster]

We have learnt a lot over the past decades.

Have there been any reports of civilian casualties from the British bombing of ISIS in Iraq? I will answer that one ... zero, nil, null. No civilian casualties whatsoever.

While its still possible for there to be civilian casualties, our guys at least, are very very careful on what targets that they hit and the possibility of civilian casualties.

Edit: While I'm on that topic. Some have said why are we there, we don't do anything that others can't do. Well, we bring the technology to reduce the risk of civilian casualties to the others in the coalition too. Our equipment in certain areas is way more advanced than anything anyone else has.

Cracking post again BOTS.

[kirklancaster]

well he, along with George galloway would probably have a lovely time together with ISIS. they seem to have a lot in common ideologically.

they can talk about hating the Jews (they can just use the word israel and pretend it's not about hating jews though) and they can talk about hating America, and they can talk about hating the free press (which they blame on America for the internet, and jews, cause of course jews run the media)

It would be a big fun tea party where they can hate jews and america!

:laugh::laugh: Much truth there Alex - even if it is humorously written.

[joeysteele]

Well it is always easy to get at George Galloway but he does havea little knowledge of the Middle East.
When he poured scorn on the PMs claim of 70,000 moderates in the area,I had to just about agree with Galloway that is was pie in the sky and that if 70 moderates could be found in the area that would be more like it.

[Kazanne]

Both posts well written and true! :clap1::clap1::clap1:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/10/9/1349799315514/borisdave.gif

:joker::joker: @ that gif

[Northern Monkey]

I was against airstrikes and I still feel they were a mistake, trade restrictions, closer ties with other world leaders.
No wonder many became radicalised, when Syrians asked for help not long ago it was a big fat no wasn't it?
Seems the govt find it easier to attack than aid or defend.

You could easily say that about when the Syrians were asking for help against Assad a few years ago aswell and that was a big fat no from the house of commons.If we did everything we were asked of the Syrians we would've bombed Assad and removed him.
That does'nt make inaction now against ISIS the right thing to do.Three wrongs don't make a right.

[Johnnyuk123]

:joker::joker: @ that gif

He's a right mover is our David. :joker:
All the One Direction boys love our PM.
https://45.media.tumblr.com/8b3fd36b44efe52042c800f7575395f4/tumblr_mikw5gZF5z1s6v1geo1_500.gif

[DemolitionRed]

I's just an unfunny joke across about 4 threads now' oh does Corbyn want to invite ISIS to tea?'... :bored:

I think that's also pointed at all of us who don't agree Britain should of gone to war in Syria.

To all of those out there who believe we, along with Corbyn, are some sort of IS supporters, let it be known that we detest these murderous gangsters as much as you do. We want IS wiped off the face of the earth as much as you do and many of us, just like you, have children we will protect with whatever it takes; some of us believe, unlike you, that Western involvement in Syria could put our children in danger and not protect them from it.

We have gone into Syria under one coalition; the problem is and this could be massive, is, there is more than one coalition and the other coalition don't want the same things we want. When we start bringing Russia, Iran and possibly China into that other coalition then things start to get alarmingly complicated.

We all held our breath when a member of our coalition shot down a jet from the other coalition. Could this be the spark for the end of days? fortunately not but its early days and any of us who accept this bombing campaign must also accept that this conflict could lead directly into world war 3. Perhaps that's scaremongering but from where I'm sitting, the possibility of that is much bigger than the West being overrun with ISIS terrorists.

What we have to ask ourselves is this....With all the US military mite over the past 18 months...the 57,000 sorties and 9,000 air strikes that have rained down from the skies upon Syria, why have they barely touched that evil shadow?.

[DemolitionRed]

Another question you have to ask yourself is, why aren't we going after ISIS financiers such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar? Why do we give them a free pass?

[Northern Monkey]

I think that's also pointed at all of us who don't agree Britain should of gone to war in Syria.

To all of those out there who believe we, along with Corbyn, are some sort of IS supporters, let it be known that we detest these murderous gangsters as much as you do. We want IS wiped off the face of the earth as much as you do and many of us, just like you, have children we will protect with whatever it takes; some of us believe, unlike you, that Western involvement in Syria could put our children in danger and not protect them from it.

We have gone into Syria under one coalition; the problem is and this could be massive, is, there is more than one coalition and the other coalition don't want the same things we want. When we start bringing Russia, Iran and possibly China into that other coalition then things start to get alarmingly complicated.

We all held our breath when a member of our coalition shot down a jet from the other coalition. Could this be the spark for the end of days? fortunately not but its early days and any of us who accept this bombing campaign must also accept that this conflict could lead directly into world war 3. Perhaps that's scaremongering but from where I'm sitting, the possibility of that is much bigger than the West being overrun with ISIS terrorists.

What we have to ask ourselves is this....With all the US military mite over the past 18 months...the 57,000 sorties and 9,000 air strikes that have rained down from the skies upon Syria, why have they barely touched that evil shadow?.I actually agree with most of your post and the one after and i do support the airstrikes because i feel that not doing anything is worse than doing something.I also agree we should go after the countries who finance IS but i believe that is only part of the solution along with military action.
The Corbyn part is what i disagree with.He at worst has sympathies with terrorism and at best is incompetent of running a country.There are certain decisions that as a pacifist he cannot make which make him incompatable with the role of PM.

[bots]

Another question you have to ask yourself is, why aren't we going after ISIS financiers such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar? Why do we give them a free pass?

the coalition is being directed from a base in Qatar. The Saudi's are a coalition partner and Turkey are within Nato.

Each and every one of them will be being pressured to bring their house in order, but its better having them as partners than alienating them with headline making news.

[Ninastar]

How can you negotiate with people like them? they do not like us,they don't like our way of life,the way we dress ,our music,our TV etc,they hate the Western way of life,they hate our beliefs,our traditions and they hate that women are seen as equal,They want to take over the world and have everyone praying in mosques,following Sharia law, making women unseen and not heard,they want to possess the human race,that might be ok for some but personally I would rather die than be forced into any of that.

Well said, Kaz.

[DemolitionRed]

the coalition is being directed from a base in Qatar. The Saudi's are a coalition partner and Turkey are within Nato.

Each and every one of them will be being pressured to bring their house in order, but its better having them as partners than alienating them with headline making news.

But why wasn't this put to the table before we joined forces against ISIS? Why are the YPG (fighting ISIS) under a total embargo by the Turks? and why are the Turks bombing PKK forces (also fighting against ISIS)? Why is Turkey still treating wounded ISIS soldiers in Turkish hospitals? Why is Turkey buying ISIS oil?

Richard Dearlove, former M16 chief believes that Saudi and Qatar sustained funding to ISIS is the very reason for their massive growth. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/07/islamist-terror-threat-out-proportion-former-mi6-chief-richard-dearlove

As a citizen of a country at war, I want to hear more from our government about their strategies on these so called allies of the West.

[joeysteele]

I think that's also pointed at all of us who don't agree Britain should of gone to war in Syria.

To all of those out there who believe we, along with Corbyn, are some sort of IS supporters, let it be known that we detest these murderous gangsters as much as you do. We want IS wiped off the face of the earth as much as you do and many of us, just like you, have children we will protect with whatever it takes; some of us believe, unlike you, that Western involvement in Syria could put our children in danger and not protect them from it.

We have gone into Syria under one coalition; the problem is and this could be massive, is, there is more than one coalition and the other coalition don't want the same things we want. When we start bringing Russia, Iran and possibly China into that other coalition then things start to get alarmingly complicated.

We all held our breath when a member of our coalition shot down a jet from the other coalition. Could this be the spark for the end of days? fortunately not but its early days and any of us who accept this bombing campaign must also accept that this conflict could lead directly into world war 3. Perhaps that's scaremongering but from where I'm sitting, the possibility of that is much bigger than the West being overrun with ISIS terrorists.

What we have to ask ourselves is this....With all the US military mite over the past 18 months...the 57,000 sorties and 9,000 air strikes that have rained down from the skies upon Syria, why have they barely touched that evil shadow?.

Excellent post and no scaremongering at all I would say.
After all our PM and therefore we as the UK,as his mast placed at as well as IS getting rid of Assad and his regime.
Now that is 'not' the Russian ideal at all and there we are with Russia in this conflict.
Possibly treading on each others toes and in all conflicts, accidents or geared accidents can happen.

I think you raise brilliant points every time you post.
What a coup for IS if because of them drawing all these powers into the region and in to the action too,if something happened to then turn the superpowers on each other.

Brilliant post again Demolition Red,and you are in my view fully right in your opening line too which I have put in bold.
Great post,one that should make many think,it certainly has made me again.

[DemolitionRed]

Thanks Joey but I doubt my post will have people thinking any deeper than Cameron's warning of impending invasion and death. Instead of reading alarmist headlines and listening to Cameron's voice to the nation that have us all gripped in fear, it pays to be realistic about all possible outcomes.

[bots]

But why wasn't this put to the table before we joined forces against ISIS? Why are the YPG (fighting ISIS) under a total embargo by the Turks? and why are the Turks bombing PKK forces (also fighting against ISIS)? Why is Turkey still treating wounded ISIS soldiers in Turkish hospitals? Why is Turkey buying ISIS oil?

Richard Dearlove, former M16 chief believes that Saudi and Qatar sustained funding to ISIS is the very reason for their massive growth. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/07/islamist-terror-threat-out-proportion-former-mi6-chief-richard-dearlove

As a citizen of a country at war, I want to hear more from our government about their strategies on these so called allies of the West.

I don't disagree with your points at all. They are all perfectly valid. We all know these things are not black and white. We have direct lines of communication with each of them. In those circumstances the diplomatic services should and will be at full throttle. You don't alienate those who are currently supporting you, however flimsy that support may be. You work at diplomatic solutions.

[joeysteele]

Thanks Joey but I doubt my post will have people thinking any deeper than Cameron's warning of impending invasion and death. Instead of reading alarmist headlines and listening to Cameron's voice to the nation that have us all gripped in fear, it pays to be realistic about all possible outcomes.



It does indeed and that's is also what needed to be considered as to the vote for action too.
With so many as you said supposedly on the same side but not really except that all want IS eradicated.

It will be easy to sleepwalk into possibly a greater conflict.
All we have really heard from the PM since the vote is the action is being taken and now, that is going to be a long involvement there.
Now I am flung back to against the action rather than for it.

Thank all powers that be I was not one to help make the decision because I get more wary and unsure that the right thing has even been done.

[Northern Monkey]

Excellent post and no scaremongering at all I would say.
After all our PM and therefore we as the UK,as his mast placed at as well as IS getting rid of Assad and his regime.
Now that is 'not' the Russian ideal at all and there we are with Russia in this conflict.
Possibly treading on each others toes and in all conflicts, accidents or geared accidents can happen.

I think you raise brilliant points every time you post.
What a coup for IS if because of them drawing all these powers into the region and in to the action too,if something happened to then turn the superpowers on each other.

Brilliant post again Demolition Red,and you are in my view fully right in your opening line too which I have put in bold.
Great post,one that should make many think,it certainly has made me again.
I don't disagree with any of that and have made threads saying the same.It is a very complex situation.I still feel that fighting IS is much better than not.

[Kizzy]

JKqZZPVByQ4

[Johnnyuk123]

tyNI7wmjS6s