Can someone explain to my why bombing will work?(37 Posts)
All the arguments for/against I've heard so far seem to be either it's wrong to bomb innocent civilians, or look what these people did to us, in Tunisia, Paris etc.
In my simple mind, of course bombing civilians is wrong and there's no disputing that the other events were dreadful. However, I don't understand how bombing Syria will make it stop.
I don't want another long thread about the rights and wrongs, but can someone explain why those in favour think it will make the terror stop? If I thought the bombing would put an end to the terror attacks, I might find myself in favour, despite the inevitable civilian causalities, with a reluctant needs must attitude but ATM it just seems like were sending the bombs just to do "something" without a clue as to how or why it will be effective.
But maybe I've missed something?
I think the plan is that they will bring down Isis communication, oil supplies which they use for finance and killing key figures within isis. I'm no expert though.
Bombing alone won't make it stop. It does mean that we can stop Isis gaining more territory.
We are already bombing Iraq so it means we can fly across borders into Syria - Isis does not respect borders.
We will need ground troops.
As I just posted on another thread, there is a good article here www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/03/cameron-corbyn-terrorist-appeaser-isis-coherent-military-strategy stating why it won't work.
Cameron has no ground troops in Syria – his own or anyone else’s. He has been captivated, like so many prime ministers before him, by the glamour of the air lobby, for whom ground troops are an embarrassing side issue.
The trouble for Cameron in Syria is that the only ground troops worth the name belong not to the joint intelligence committee’s phantom army but to President Assad, whom Cameron wants to topple. In support of Assad are Iran and Russia, from whom Cameron does everything to distance himself.
Yes, theunfairersex, I've heard lots of arguments about why it won't work but I haven't heard a convincing argument for why it will and yet the ayes "won". What persuaded them?
But Cameron is saying there will be no ground troops Ubik?
Cameron is depending on Syrians fighting against isis to gain and hold territory.
The oil fields are being bombed to cut off their income source and weaken them. No civilians have been bombed.
It won't have any effect on ISIS but it will pave the way to the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline. This attack has nothing to do with ISIS , that's a smokescreen it's all about Oil and money.
Salene can you elaborate on that please? I hear it's all about oil often but mostly by people who can't back it up with facts (I'm not being snipy by the way, I'm genuinely interested).
I'm interested too. I've considered myself at war with terrorism my whole adult life. Isn't this another form of terrorism?
Surely we need a fully thought out strategy to defeat and stop these terrorist groups?
Doesn't bombing and destroying infrastructure just mean they will gain support, grow in numbers, see us as the terrorist invaders, and do the same back to us repeatedly when our troops go in to rebuild Syrian infrastructure (as happened in Iraq)? How is this part of a long term solution?
'I hear it's all about oil often but mostly by people who can't back it up with facts'
The Saudis and Qataris want to run a pipeline through Syria to Turkey to supply oil to Europe. Initially they wanted Assad to go along with it. But he refused and signed a deal with Iran and Iraq to run his own pipeline through Syria and supply Europe that way from the Iranian fields. That is when the war against him was funded and all the Jihadis appeared and were armed and supplied through neighbouring countries to topple Assad.
The money of the Qataris and Saudis is in opposition to speading Iranian influence so the idea was to bust up Syria, break it up into ethnic/religious enclaves to take it away from the Syrian government in order to be able to run the pipeline through Syria to Turkey. "Assad must go" because he stands in the way of the oil pipeline plans.
'Surely we need a fully thought out strategy'
We don't control events, we are a small player in all of this, as John McCain said yesterday
"John McCain Calls RAF A 'Token' Force That Will 'Drop A Few Bomb' In Syria Should It Join The Fight"
Thanks Claig, even though isis may be funded for oil/financial reasons surely they still need to be stopped so the oil issue is a moot point?
It won't work. What will happen is ordinary people in Syria will bear the brunt of the horror - no infrastructure, little food, the continual terror of not knowing what is going to happen, the loss of family and friends and neighbourhood. Meanwhile, the ISIS fighters will cling on to the idea that theirs is a noble cause worth fighting for and will endure anything as an example of how righteous their fight is and how terrible western society is. Who will suffer?? Ordinary people; women, children, families, people just tying to get on with their lives. Cameron should be ashamed. This knee jerk reaction to a terrifying situation does no one any good and I disagree with every fibre of my being that it is a good idea.
Claig has domed it up pretty well
If you google the friendship pipeline you will find lots of info on it.. This war is about oil and nothing else.
They definitely need to be stopped, but you have to ask who funds and supports them and why. If you stop their funding and those who are enabling the terrorists or as Putin said are the "accomplices of the terrorists", then the London DJ Jihadis and Belgian bar owning Jihadis will stop threatening us and stop threatening the civil liberties of 450 million Europeans and stop the death and destruction in Syria.
Oh well that's alright then. Public opinion has been appeased because we've 'done something' and lined up with USA, Russia and France and dropped some mighty big bombs. Against all advice from the experts. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee (with a Tory majority) issued a detailed report, quoting much expert evidence, as to why last night's motion was a bad idea. The Chair of the Defence Select Committee (a Tory) spoke passionately against it. Yet Parliament has chosen to ignore the MPs who have most expertise in such matters. I am happy enough to go to war against this cancer, I am simply not convinced that bombing is the answer.
And everyone agrees that the only way to stop them is with ground troops, so you have to ask why no one is prepared to send ground troops in and catch every last oe of the DJ Jihaids and rapper Jihadis. How can a band of DJ Jihadis threaten the security of 450 million Europeans? Why doesn't France send their crack troops in to get the DJ Jihadis if they are "at war" with the DJs?
'The Chair of the Defence Select Committee (a Tory) spoke passionately against it.'
Yes, Tory MP, Julian Lewis, was excellent. But this is way above his head and above the heads of the decision makers. It is out of all their hands. The Sure Start expert MPs don't really understand what it is about, and the MPs who do understand it, don't have enough influence to do anything.
I can see that the root cause which looks to be oil needs to be tackled.
Needaname As for the civilians living in terror because of Cameron I feel that they are living in terror anyway due to isis and other militant groups. These people have had to flee their country and the ones who have stayed are most likely living in a permanent state of fear.
Some of our generals said they could defeat Isis in 14 days if tanks and troops were sent in. That would finish them, and after that we should find out who funded them and put them on trial for sponsoring terrorism.
But instead we are told that the campaign against the DJs could take years.
I'm biased as I have family in the armed forces but I hope they don't send ground troops in. These people are worse than animals and I can just imagine what they would do if they got their hands on a troop.
Yes, they are barbaric butchers, but we don't need to send our own troops in. We need to do a deal with Assad, who is no threat to us, who doesn't throw gays from buildings etc, and we need to allow other foreign troops to finish off the Jihadis while at the same time stopping all of the resupply of the Jihadis over the Turkish border.
We can't accept being threatened by this funded group of Islamists and we can't see our civil liberties reduced because of them. We can stop them.
The good news is that after Russia intervened, the other powers had to quickly restart the political talks and had to drop their intransigence and insistence that nothing could happen until "Assa must go". So a political deal seems to be in the works. It looks like Turkey possibly tried to stick a spanner in the works with the shootdown of the Russian plane, but hopefully everyone can come to an agreement to finish the Jihadis off quickly.
I hope so Claig, we are living in such uncertain times I can't imagine the fear those in Syria are feeling.
Join the discussion
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.