Should the UK bomb Syria? Yes or no thread.

[AnotherEffingOrangeRevel]

Shall we have a little vote, here and now?

It's a big "no" from me.

I haven't RTWT (there are 23 pages) but this is an interesting read re the NO vote : www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/nicolas-henin-the-man-who-was-held-captive-by-isis-for-10-months-says-how-they-can-be-defeated-a6757336.html

No

No

Let's stop terrorism with... More terrorism

Seeing as the OP hasn't done it, I tallyed up the yes/no/maybe responses on the first 10 pages only - counting only those responses which were short and not-too-ambiguous (there were quite a few "yes, buts" that I counted as yes).

Of the 195 responses that I counted (pages 1-10 only), 160 or 82% were against - almost all unambiguously so - while 27, or 14%, were in favour (though many said they would support air strikes only under certain conditions). There was a surprisingly small number of undecideds but perhaps that is because I counted a lot of the "maybes" as yes votes.

Of course this is a small sample, and of course it's not representative, but the overwhelming majority of no votes would tend to suggest that mumsnet posters aren't terribly keen on bombing.

Thanks Mistigri
I hadn't found a moment to do it yet.

The point of bombing oil fields, etc, I suspect (and someone said this on Radio 4 this morning) is to buy time and keep IS from expanding further, whilst decreasing their oil revenue as much as possible and keeping them busy repairing damage. This until negotiations can sort out what to do next and how best to exert pressure on countries giving covert support to IS. If IS expand further, plenty of innocent people in their new territories will die or be enslaved.

kesstrel Frank Gardner of the bbc made what I thought was quite a telling point on this earlier. If bombing oil fields is going to make a difference then the US have had 15 months to get on with it. He also noted that the Russians have been targeting oil tanker convoys since their intervention.

I am hopeful given that Russia has welcomed the UK's intervention that this may be the start of a more coherent Allied strategy, but I am deeply sceptical given the mixed messages from the US and the EU regarding Turkey, Russia and Assad.

For the 83%...

That speech by H Benn sickened me tbh. I can't believe Labour have rolled over to give Cameron his blood. Still they all supported Blair during his frenzies for war, so I don't know why it should come as a surprise??

I can't believe Labour have rolled over to give Cameron his blood

They voted for the decision they felt was right.

I didn't understand why so many people said H Benn gave a good speech. It was full of warm words but said nothing about how yet another country joining the several countries already bombing would make any difference whatsoever and why it wouldn't just add to the anti-Western hatred.
Middle eastern Muslims are the only ones who can sort out extremist middle-eastern Muslims, otherwise it will just be seen as the Crusades all over again.
There aren't huge numbers of secular Syrians wanting our help, just loads of religiously deluded factions. If Syria has a civil war then Syria has a civil war. Other countries didn't bomb us in our civil wars.
I don't see how this will help at all. It's doing something for the sake of doing something.

Are they going to bomb places in Britain where ISIS are found.
today 4 in Luton, so why aren't they bombing here then?

new, why would they need too? they can go in and get them cant they? physically?

we cant put foot soldiers in the ME. otherwise we would.

Elf

I'd rather not be part of your we thank you.

But innocent people will be killed by bombs in Syria. there may be loads more in Luton and other parts of the country.
best we bomb the lot to make sure we get them all.

This is how bloody ludicrous it is.

Yep New life. Luton, various areas of Belgium, Paris... Why are they (not we) not bombing them all while they're at it?

Howabout From what I've read, the point about bombing oil fields is that in an oil-sodden area like iraq/eastern Syria, you don't need much technology to collect the oil. Which is why the bombing has to be repeated, because Isis just repair the damage and start again. Same with repairing roads.

The whole point, as I said before, is to hinder and harass them (the military term is degrade their infrastructure") as much as possible, in order to limit their ability to gain more territory (and hopefully cut back their income). Because more territory gains means they will control still more resources, as well as giving them more civilians to mass-murder, torture and turn into sex slaves.

I would like to know what people who are saying 'don't bomb' think what should be done.

I wonder if it would be helpful to compare this to a hostage situation. Say a hundred hostages are shut up in a building with a couple of terrorists. They are raping and torturing at random. Children are dying slowly. The situation continues. Some people say it's impossible to kill the terrorists because it will mean taking a risk with the hostages lives. Some people say there's no point trying to bomb the building because the terrorists might escape and go do the same thing elsewhere. Some people say they can't stand by any longer so they have to do something to end the suffering, even if it means loss of innocent lives. And all the time the hostages are wondering when this nightmare will end, discovering what it means to hope for death, and confused about where the people are who are supposed in help at times like this.

What is anyone supposed to do?

Because Isis territory isn't like fucking Luton

They don't crucify people, sell and rape women and children, execute 'spies', throw gay people off buildings, cut off people's hands, desecrate and obliterate other cultures in fucking Luton

What is anyone supposed to do?

Cut off the funding and training. Stop continually creating and perpetuating circumstances for these groups to thrive, and then using the existence of the groups to justify power-hungry and materially motivated "war".

You don't bomb people just because you can't think of anything else to do. That's an insane argument!
Bombing terrorist organisations just fuels the terrorism.

Precisely Rebecca. If the proposed action is more harmful and less helpful than doing nothing, then we should do nothing. In reality there are plenty of possible non-bombing actions which are much more likely to be effective, but they don't suit government agenda.

Baroness Samedi pretty much has it down pat. My grandfather was part of the occupation forces in Japan - going into Nagasaki about a week or so after the bomb was dropped and staying there until 1947. For the rest of his life, he suffered mental health problems because of the war and he was convinced that America armed them up in the first place and then destroyed them for the lucrative rebuilding contracts. Not that he was sympathetic to the Japanese leadership and soldiers who were brutal and also wanted war but he could never get over the level of collusion - as we're seeing now.

Middle eastern Muslims are the only ones who can sort out extremist middle-eastern Muslims, otherwise it will just be seen as the Crusades all over again

I lived in the Middle East many years ago and there is a belief amongst some in religious countries that everything is God's will and you just accept it, it is His decision that x or y should happen. So thinking they will try to change what is God's will is not going to happen.

Do they believe they should help those less fortunate than themselves? Who are not of their religion? Not sure, we do believe we should help those less fortunate, eg fleeing Syrians. Not all muslim countries are helping.

So there could be a long wait for someone else to step in. Can we live with our consciences whilst nothing is done?

That would be my point rather than revenge for what the terrorists did in Paris etc

Erm, isn't bombing the oil fields a way of cutting off funding?

Why does everyone accuse the RAF of killing innocent civilians when they haven't (and may not?) it's not a foregone conclusion and I hope they don't of course. But let's not get over emotional about something that hasn't happened.

Effing it's just your opinion that this action is more harmful than doing nothing. There is no choice but to try and hinder this enemy, unless we want them to flourish and spread gradually to the rest of the world. Is that what you want for our grandchildren?