Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Should the UK bomb Syria? Yes or no thread.

600 replies

AnotherEffingOrangeRevel · 26/11/2015 13:54

Shall we have a little vote, here and now?

It's a big "no" from me.

OP posts:
NoahVale · 27/11/2015 11:13

no, but also afraid of the repercussions here if we do.

NoahVale · 27/11/2015 11:14

Why indeed do so many muslims get radicalized, we need world peace

Sallystyle · 27/11/2015 11:15

It's a no from me.

Shirkingfromhome · 27/11/2015 11:24

No.

Completely disagree with it; it only serves to strengthen the argument of IS for home terror attacks. And I also don't agree with the risk of bombing civilians. I'm not sure our lowly opinions count though!

Radicalrooster · 27/11/2015 11:38

Well it wouldn't be a moral compass if it wobbled about in different directions according to peer pressure, would it?

It's not about peer pressure, it's about reacting to developments and adjusting one's attitudes rather than toeing an unflinching ideological line regardless. ISIS could be machine gunning children into open graves right now and he'd still find a way to blame the Americans.

And actually, seeing as he's so fond of negotiations, I'll pay his airfare out of there so he can parlay with the scum. He's got a weedy neck, so it wouldn't take too long for them to cut through it.

StarTravels · 27/11/2015 11:41

No.

I'm a Tory voter, and I never thought I'd say this, but I completely agree with Jeremy Corbyn.

It makes no sense at all to just bomb Syria with no actual plan. It also makes no sense to murder civilians in Syria as some sort of punishment for civilians being murdered by ISIS extremists in Paris.

The SAS should be sent in to take out key ISIS leaders - ideally they should be arrested and put on trial. If the US can send a drone in to kill just one man (jhadi john) then they should be able to carry out more targeted intervention and take out the key leaders.

We aren't supposed to believe in "an eye for an eye". I had hoped we were more civilised than that.

We also need to stop funding and supplying arms to these extremists in the first place!

Booyaka · 27/11/2015 11:49

Really now. Is that what the Kurds and the Turkmen are doing, in your opinion? hmm

CotedAzur, they are not enough on their own to defeat ISIS. And they are both pretty focused on specific localised areas rather than wanting to wipe ISIS out.

This is not just me saying it, it was on one of the main news reports last night and it's been in multiple other news sources as well. The U.S. has spent huge amounts of money trying to find and train 'moderate' Syrians (as opposed to ethnic minorities ie Kurds, Turkmen). And they just don't appear to exist. They can't find them, and when they have, they've often defected to ISIS and taken their weapons with them.

The fact is that there is no effective opposition to ISIS except Assad. There's no way that Kurd or Turkmen are going to be able to effectively govern the whole of Syria. Really, we should be backing Assad as the lesser of two evils.

Incidentally, speaking to both Russian and ME friends, they seem to believe that the U.S. deliberately fomented instability in Syria to serve their own interests with regard to energy etc, thinking they could install a friendly government to look after their own interests. Except it's all gone tits up and extremists have taken over and it's bitten us on the arse. Like we did with Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya....

Every time we have been convinced at the time there was a good reason to go to war. And each time we realised later it was just about money, resources and power.

leaningtoweroflego · 27/11/2015 11:53

"Like we did with Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya....

Every time we have been convinced at the time there was a good reason to go to war. And each time we realised later it was just about money, resources and power."

Sadly and very worryingly you have hit the nail on the head.

AnotherEffingOrangeRevel · 27/11/2015 11:55

Star, despite the current rhetoric, I don't think the left-right political spectrum is very closely related to this decision. I don't think being a Tory is at all inconsistent with thinking that bombing Syria is a terrible idea. And I think it's generally good that people are able to think independently of their chosen party's current position.

OP posts:
Geekmama · 27/11/2015 11:59

No..... not at all, there's already been too much death!

LaPharisienne · 27/11/2015 12:02

No

EnthusiasmDisturbed · 27/11/2015 12:07

so the Arab Spring the call for changes in many ME and North African countries was nothing to do with Assad reacting to that and all to do with America wanting a different government in place ?

BarbarianMum · 27/11/2015 12:08

The reports I've heard is that the majority are most often killed fighting ISIS. labelling them all as a bunch of defectors is unfair.

LittleLionMansMummy · 27/11/2015 12:13

The point in your opening paragraph has already been made Radical by a pp and I have responded.

You're clearly no fan of Corbyn and you're entitled to take issue with his political views. But graphically violent and personal phraseology somewhat undermine any sensible point you wish to make.

VocationalGoat · 27/11/2015 12:21

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

VocationalGoat · 27/11/2015 12:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

nauticant · 27/11/2015 12:24

The fact is that there is no effective opposition to ISIS except Assad.

Don't be too sure about Assad opposing ISIS. There have been a number of reports that Assad is willing to provide ISIS with support if they are attacking other opposition groups:

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/02/syria-isis-advance-on-aleppo-aided-by-assad-regime-air-strikes-us-says

shimmershine · 27/11/2015 12:25

No

chipsandpeas · 27/11/2015 12:28

no

StarTravels · 27/11/2015 12:29

I agree AnotherEffingOrangeRevel. I was responding to the comments up thread which suggested the reason most people were saying 'No' was simply because the majority of posters on MN are left wing.

Varya · 27/11/2015 12:37

No, although some of our RAF are over there.

alleypalley · 27/11/2015 12:58

No

MajesticWhine · 27/11/2015 13:09

* It also makes no sense to murder civilians in Syria as some sort of punishment for civilians being murdered by ISIS extremists in Paris. *
**
Strange thing to say. No one is suggesting that, absolutely no one. Of course civilians would not be the target. It's about defeating ISIS. It's not about indiscriminate bombing for revenge.

NoTechnologicalBreakdown · 27/11/2015 13:10

Most definitely no from me.

There have already been bombs flying over there, and what has it achieved? What has any military intervention in the Middle East ever achieved? More violence. Violence only breeds violence.

If we really want to stop IS, stop their funding - look to Saudi Arabia where a lot of it seems to be coming from. Reduce our oil dependency to help do that too. Only none of that is in our ruling oligarchs interests is it?

Cameron makes me sick, the grinning little schoolboy is going to drag us into WW3 at this rate along with his playboy chums.