paris
Comments
-
It's weird. When the attack us, we are resolute. When we plan to bomb them, are we expecting them to just give up?
I see your point but I think their is an air of the expectation that we will cripple them by bombing them.
It's worked well enough through history........My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
It's weird. When the attack us, we are resolute. When we plan to bomb them, are we expecting them to just give up?
I see your point but I think their is an air of the expectation that we will cripple them by bombing them.
It's worked well enough through history........
Not sure where you're coming form but we ended up re-building Dresden and other places.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Can someone please tell all involved to stop using the word "Syria" instead of "ISIS"?
If it turns out that we are indeed bombing Syria instead of ISIS then I am even more confused as to what is going on.
UK is bombing ISIS already in Iraq, but it isn't bombing them in Syria.
The vote is about now bombing ISIS in Syria. So it's pretty apt.
--
My main issue is this:
What are the concrete, specific, objectives that the UK gov't wants to achieve through bombing ISIS, and in what specific way will success or failure be measured?
So far it seems to be, 'they bombed our ally, let's bomb them', which, if it was a playground, wouldn't considered very mature.
If we are to believe the terrorists targeted France because they were keenest on bombing ISIS, does this not pose a downside risk to bombing? That there will be more effort to target the UK?
And, in reality, how much extra value will bombing add? From the little I've read it sounds like it'll be something like 20 bombs a week. What will that solve?
Now, if someone can present a convincing case that bombing really will make a big difference, i'm willing to hear it, but so far it seems to be Cameron saying 'trust me'. HIs track record (Libya), isn't great on this topic so far, and the last time a Prime Minster said that about going to war it was Tony Blair and Iraq.0 -
Rick, I think that's about it.
Cameron is off the pace. He wants his war, and this is his way in. Hitch up his trousers, be the statesman, and wade in. Hoo yeah, let's bomb those SOBs back to the stone age.
The French are sore, and they will wade into a fight. They were already over there, bombing sandy bits to aid the Americans.
In the meantime, the Chilcott enquiry into Iraq is still to publish why wars are or are not a good idea. :roll:Ecrasez l’infame0 -
What are the concrete, specific, objectives that the UK gov't wants to achieve through bombing ISIS, and in what specific way will success or failure be measured?
I think the main objective so far is that they must be seen to be doing something. I'm struggling to believe that anyone in power really thinks that they are going to destroy ISIS like this.0 -
IS will not be destroyed with bombing alone.To join in would just make us in the UK more of a target without actually diminishing IS in Syria. The only way IS will be wiped out in the middle east is with a very significant infantry war. Even then as I said before if every last one of them were killed out there, there would still be many others throughout the world willing to carry out attacks.
Re:Syrian civil war,Assad needs to be given a "way out" without the threat of imprisonment or death. That would clear the way for discussions about the runninig of Syria and the squeeze could then be put on IS.
Assad was /is a sh1t as was gadaffi and Sadam, however when they were all in charge there was a certain type of balance out there. Not one the greedy b@st@rds in the west liked but it was steady(ish). Through inglorious intervention we have now created right hell hole.
Before you get involved in a war there has to be a get out policy otherwise you run the risk of making a bad situation even worse.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
From the same authorMost concerning of all, he said, was Isis fighters’ belief that “all religions who agree with democracy have to die”.
He said the view that kept being repeated was that Isis want to “conquer the world” and all who do not believe in the group’s interpretation of the Koran will be killed. The only other religions to be spared, Todenhöfer said, were the “people of the book” – Jews and Christians.
“This is the largest religious cleansing strategy that has ever been planned in human history”, he told RTL.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/inside-isis-the-first-western-journalist-ever-given-access-to-the-islamic-state-has-just-returned-9938438.html0 -
Just to add another variable to the mix - Turkey. Politically volatile with unclear motives.Despite that, links to some aspects of Isis continued to develop. Turkish businessmen struck lucrative deals with Isis oil smugglers, adding at least $10m (£6.6m) per week to the terror group’s coffers, and replacing the Syrian regime as its main client. Over the past two years several senior Isis members have told the Guardian that Turkey preferred to stay out of their way and rarely tackled them directly.
Concerns continued to grow in intelligence circles that the links eclipsed the mantra that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” and could no longer be explained away as an alliance of convenience. Those fears grew in May this year after a US special forces raid in eastern Syria, which killed the Isis official responsible for the oil trade, Abu Sayyaf.
A trawl through Sayyaf’s compound uncovered hard drives that detailed connections between senior Isis figures and some Turkish officials. Missives were sent to Washington and London warning that the discovery had “urgent policy implications”.
Shortly after that, Turkey opened a new front against the Kurdish separatist group, the PKK, with which it had fought an internecine war for close to 40 years. In doing so, it allowed the US to begin using its Incirlik air base for operations against Isis, pledging that it too would join the fray. Ever since, Turkey’s jets have aimed their missiles almost exclusively at PKK targets inside its borders and in Syria, where the YPG, a military ally of the PKK, has been the only effective fighting force against Isis – while acting under the cover of US fighter jets.
Senior Turkish officials have openly stated that the Kurds – the main US ally in Syria – pose more of a threat than Isis to Turkey’s national interests. Yet, through it all, Turkey, a Nato member, continues to be regarded as an ally by Europe. The US and Britain have become far less enamoured, but are unwilling to do much about it. The worry in both capitals is that to do so would introduce yet another variable into an already highly volatile region, where alliances, strategies, and implications are constantly changing.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/vladimir-putin-turkey-isis-terrorists-warplane-analysis0 -
From the same authorMost concerning of all, he said, was Isis fighters’ belief that “all religions who agree with democracy have to die”.
He said the view that kept being repeated was that Isis want to “conquer the world” and all who do not believe in the group’s interpretation of the Koran will be killed. The only other religions to be spared, Todenhöfer said, were the “people of the book” – Jews and Christians.
“This is the largest religious cleansing strategy that has ever been planned in human history”, he told RTL.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/inside-isis-the-first-western-journalist-ever-given-access-to-the-islamic-state-has-just-returned-9938438.html
Nobody doubts what a nasty lot they are. The question is how to deal with it.0 -
It looks like it boils down to the fact that we want them destroyed but want someone else to do it.
Can't see that happening somehow.0 -
It looks like it boils down to the fact that we want them destroyed but want someone else to do it.
Can't see that happening somehow.
It could also boil down to the fact that many people no longer believe that we can destroy terrorism by bombs.0 -
It looks like it boils down to the fact that we want them destroyed but want someone else to do it.
Can't see that happening somehow.
It could also boil down to the fact that many people no longer believe that we can destroy terrorism by bombs.
i dont believe anything will completely defeat them, its more a case of containment, bombing just turns more moderate islamists against us, as they see their towns and loved ones killed by our bombs, bombing and artillary alone always fails did in flanders, ww2, Vietnam and libya.
as i ve said before, what we should do is form an alliance with Russia, allowing them to re arm Assad and let Syrian troops rid the country of IS and any other groups who are fighting there, forcing them back into Iraq and far smaller areas, wont happen, well not yet, because our leaders are idiots who put ideology first.0 -
It looks like it boils down to the fact that we want them destroyed but want someone else to do it.
Can't see that happening somehow.
It could also boil down to the fact that many people no longer believe that we can destroy terrorism by bombs.
i dont believe anything will completely defeat them, its more a case of containment, bombing just turns more moderate islamists against us, as they see their towns and loved ones killed by our bombs, bombing and artillary alone always fails did in flanders, ww2, Vietnam and libya.
as i ve said before, what we should do is form an alliance with Russia, allowing them to re arm Assad and let Syrian troops rid the country of IS and any other groups who are fighting there, forcing them back into Iraq and far smaller areas, wont happen, well not yet, because our leaders are idiots who put ideology first.
I don't have the answers either. I do fear that we will have to take action far beyond what is being discussed now, in coalition with western powers, Russia and let's be hoped, forces from the region. That includes ground troops to some extent. Turkey would be a key player but who knows what their game is?
Mamba's view that we should arm Assad and let him do the job for us probably would find favour with the majority and I see merit in it.
I do find it kind of perverse that we would baulk at causing deaths by bombing but find it acceptable to arm a tyrant to cause a greater level of destruction so that our conscience is salved.
Lets not hide behind this idea that if we attacked ISIS we would become a target. We are already a target and even if we decide to abstain from action, that isn't going to change.0 -
This is not new. This has been going on since Islam began. France has been invaded by Islam before. Spain was almost entirely Muslim between 711 and 1492 AD.
If people want to continue the lives they have known then we will have to push them back as we have before.0 -
i dont believe anything will completely defeat them, its more a case of containment, bombing just turns more moderate islamists against us, as they see their towns and loved ones killed by our bombs, bombing and artillary alone always fails did in flanders, ww2, Vietnam and libya.
as i ve said before, what we should do is form an alliance with Russia, allowing them to re arm Assad and let Syrian troops rid the country of IS and any other groups who are fighting there, forcing them back into Iraq and far smaller areas, wont happen, well not yet, because our leaders are idiots who put ideology first.
I don't have the answers either. I do fear that we will have to take action far beyond what is being discussed now, in coalition with western powers, Russia and let's be hoped, forces from the region. That includes ground troops to some extent. Turkey would be a key player but who knows what their game is?
Mamba's view that we should arm Assad and let him do the job for us probably would find favour with the majority and I see merit in it.
I do find it kind of perverse that we would baulk at causing deaths by bombing but find it acceptable to arm a tyrant to cause a greater level of destruction so that our conscience is salved.
Lets not hide behind this idea that if we attacked ISIS we would become a target. We are already a target and even if we decide to abstain from action, that isn't going to change.
i dont see that our actions should be governed by if we are a target or not, thats just cowardice.
Our actions should be what will work and us bombing and sending in western troops has proven not too have done any good in other countries.
Allowing Assad (by not having sanctions that force his regime to buy IS oil) to sort out his countries problems using his own troops, backed up by his allies air support ie Russian (so forcing him to stop using those barrel bombs) seem to me to be a solution that may work.
Russia will never let Assad fall, as they ve bases in the area and they need stability in that country, so IS would have to go to.0 -
i dont believe anything will completely defeat them, its more a case of containment, bombing just turns more moderate islamists against us, as they see their towns and loved ones killed by our bombs, bombing and artillary alone always fails did in flanders, ww2, Vietnam and libya.
as i ve said before, what we should do is form an alliance with Russia, allowing them to re arm Assad and let Syrian troops rid the country of IS and any other groups who are fighting there, forcing them back into Iraq and far smaller areas, wont happen, well not yet, because our leaders are idiots who put ideology first.
I don't have the answers either. I do fear that we will have to take action far beyond what is being discussed now, in coalition with western powers, Russia and let's be hoped, forces from the region. That includes ground troops to some extent. Turkey would be a key player but who knows what their game is?
Mamba's view that we should arm Assad and let him do the job for us probably would find favour with the majority and I see merit in it.
I do find it kind of perverse that we would baulk at causing deaths by bombing but find it acceptable to arm a tyrant to cause a greater level of destruction so that our conscience is salved.
Lets not hide behind this idea that if we attacked ISIS we would become a target. We are already a target and even if we decide to abstain from action, that isn't going to change.
i dont see that our actions should be governed by if we are a target or not, thats just cowardice.
Our actions should be what will work and us bombing and sending in western troops has proven not too have done any good in other countries.
Allowing Assad (by not having sanctions that force his regime to buy IS oil) to sort out his countries problems using his own troops, backed up by his allies air support ie Russian (so forcing him to stop using those barrel bombs) seem to me to be a solution that may work.
Russia will never let Assad fall, as they ve bases in the area and they need stability in that country, so IS would have to go to.
Totally agree. But it is a view you hear again and again.
A perplexing state of events is the lack of involvement by regional powers. They surely have a great stake in what happens in their region.“The last Saudi plane seen flying as part of the coalition over Syria was three months ago, the last Qatari plane was nearly a year ago,” Lord Ashdown said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/david-cameron-sets-out-case-for-british-air-strikes-in-syria-but-will-it-make-the-uk-safer-from-isis-a6749621.html0 -
I am still waiting on anyone (not just on this site, and from leaders in particular) to give a version of events that could be termed as a successful end game.
I guess that is not an important factor. #sarcasm.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I am still waiting on anyone (not just on this site, and from leaders in particular) to give a version of events that could be termed as a successful end game.
I guess that is not an important factor. #sarcasm.
Putin is the only leader worth listening too and looking to the long term, he is a clever guy, which given his back ground is to be expected i suppose.0 -
A perplexing state of events is the lack of involvement by regional powers. They surely have a great stake in what happens in their region.“The last Saudi plane seen flying as part of the coalition over Syria was three months ago, the last Qatari plane was nearly a year ago,” Lord Ashdown said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/david-cameron-sets-out-case-for-british-air-strikes-in-syria-but-will-it-make-the-uk-safer-from-isis-a6749621.html
I can't see the Saudis or Qataris wanting to prop up Assad's regime, which is closely allied to both Russia and their regional rivals Iran.0 -
You can't put an ideology against the wall and shoot it dead.
It's a multi faceted approach which should be aimed at addressing some of the drivers for recruitment and radicalisation as well as militarially.
True. But decent moderate Muslim preachers could do more to combat it.
Out of interest, where are your clamours to have Christians come out and condemn the planned parenthood shooting in the US?0 -
The deep hypocrisy in the US is that they are far more likely to be killed in a domestic hand gun incident than by a terrorist.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
You can't put an ideology against the wall and shoot it dead.
It's a multi faceted approach which should be aimed at addressing some of the drivers for recruitment and radicalisation as well as militarially.
True. But decent moderate Muslim preachers could do more to combat it.
Out of interest, where are your clamours to have Christians come out and condemn the planned parenthood shooting in the US?
As I explained in the earlier post when I rebutted your allegation of discrimination citing N Ireland as evidence of my perceived double standards, I was critical of the people on both sides of the sectarian divide who harboured murderers and terrorists and fermented further violence.
Robert Lewis Dear seems to have been a loner with little or no contact with the community, living as a recluse. He seems to hold strong anti abortion and anti Obama views, whether they are borne from his religious views, I can't say. If they do stem from any religion, it reinforces my view that all religions are holding mankind back and are responsible for a great deal of suffering. If he was offered support by any religious group, they need outing and shown up for what they are.
But it appears not to be the case does it? It appears he had barely any contact with any community, never mind support or even tacit approval.It's safe to say that few people knew who Dear was until he walked out of the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood after allegedly shooting 12 people and terrorizing many others.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/29/us/colorado-planned-parenthood-shooting/
Anyone who was aware of his intentions and did nothing would be culpable and I would be scathing in their condemnation.0 -
We are already bombing IS in Iraq and are tying ourselves in knots over IS in Syria. They are the same organisation separated by an imaginary border line that IS themselves don't recognise.
It is said that the operation in Iraq is given legitimacy because the Iraqi government asked for help. They argue that a similar operation in Syria would be unlawful without a UN resolution. Can it be that some amongst the 'No' camp when it comes to air strikes would lose their objection if Assad, who is still nominally President of IS controlled areas asked us to bomb?
Strange world. :?0 -
We are already bombing IS in Iraq and are tying ourselves in knots over IS in Syria. They are the same organisation separated by an imaginary border line that IS themselves don't recognise.
It is said that the operation in Iraq is given legitimacy because the Iraqi government asked for help. They argue that a similar operation in Syria would be unlawful without a UN resolution. Can it be that some amongst the 'No' camp when it comes to air strikes would lose their objection if Assad, who is still nominally President of IS controlled areas asked us to bomb?
Strange world. :?
What is the motivation for ousting Assad? Killing his own people? Hussein was 'the butcher of Bagdad' and we eventually bumped him off. But not only did we kill as many Iraqis in the process but look, no more than a had full of years later and another nasty regime has taken his place and will kill anyone it does not like instead. And its not as if we didn't try to prevent this. We trained an army, gave them weapons. And when it came to it they threw down their weapons and ran. We cannot free these people because we are not their oppressor. They have to take freedom for themselves otherwise they will not have the will to keep it when they are tested.
If we ignore what people do in their own countries and let them sort out their own problems are we being irresponsible? Or are we expected to run their countries after ousting the likes of Assad? Because then we are dragged into colonialism and we will receive no gratitude for that.0 -
We are already bombing IS in Iraq and are tying ourselves in knots over IS in Syria. They are the same organisation separated by an imaginary border line that IS themselves don't recognise.
It is said that the operation in Iraq is given legitimacy because the Iraqi government asked for help. They argue that a similar operation in Syria would be unlawful without a UN resolution. Can it be that some amongst the 'No' camp when it comes to air strikes would lose their objection if Assad, who is still nominally President of IS controlled areas asked us to bomb?
Strange world. :?
Is that correct? france and US are bombing syria and cameron will after wednesday vote.
what good it will do though? its not as if we want them at any negotiating table, IS were being bombed in syria & iraq, way before Paris and it didnt seem to make any difference to them.0 -
We are already bombing IS in Iraq and are tying ourselves in knots over IS in Syria. They are the same organisation separated by an imaginary border line that IS themselves don't recognise.
It is said that the operation in Iraq is given legitimacy because the Iraqi government asked for help. They argue that a similar operation in Syria would be unlawful without a UN resolution. Can it be that some amongst the 'No' camp when it comes to air strikes would lose their objection if Assad, who is still nominally President of IS controlled areas asked us to bomb?
Strange world. :?
Is that correct? france and US are bombing syria and cameron will after wednesday vote.
what good it will do though? its not as if we want them at any negotiating table, IS were being bombed in syria & iraq, way before Paris and it didnt seem to make any difference to them.
I make no claim if it is correct or not, I am not a lawyer. nevermind one versed in international law. I am just pointing out the idiosyncrasies of some people's decision making.0 -
It is all about being seen to be doing something.We are already bombing IS in Iraq and are tying ourselves in knots over IS in Syria. They are the same organisation separated by an imaginary border line that IS themselves don't recognise.
It is said that the operation in Iraq is given legitimacy because the Iraqi government asked for help. They argue that a similar operation in Syria would be unlawful without a UN resolution. Can it be that some amongst the 'No' camp when it comes to air strikes would lose their objection if Assad, who is still nominally President of IS controlled areas asked us to bomb?
Strange world. :?
Is that correct? france and US are bombing syria and cameron will after wednesday vote.
what good it will do though? its not as if we want them at any negotiating table, IS were being bombed in syria & iraq, way before Paris and it didnt seem to make any difference to them.
Quite frankly, I think they even realise that they don't know what they are doing.
Absolutely nothing will be achieved by the bombing.
Apart from a few munition sales. And breeding new hatred.
And the vicious circle continues, and tightens.
I am no leftie peacemaker wannabe. I just want to know the objective before beginning.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
As Bally said, we are already bombing IS in Iraq so I don't understand your phrase 'before beginning'."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
Okay, change the wording to "continuing " or "expanding".As Bally said, we are already bombing IS in Iraq so I don't understand your phrase 'before beginning'.
Now answer the question.
What is the objective?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
