My Rant on Syria

[Lewis 1,276]

Because I'm too scared to post this on FB - and I also don't like to use these things as a way for 'fishing for likes' I decided to post my opinions here, generally for the people who enjoy reading this kind of long political / global issues. (Veng, Keiji, Wist)

Waking up today in bed and getting home after Uni my FB and Twitter is full of left wingers raging about this decision, blood on the hands of MPs, waste of money, civilians gonna die.

Right:

Firstly, this is NOT an attack on Syria, we are not going to bomb Syria as a country, probably not even touch its major cities like Damascus. We are not at war with Syria. We are against ISIS. Our aim is to eliminate them, prevent their militaristic and terroristical expansion by killing them, isolating them, cutting off trade routes.

Most likely we wait for intel of the whereabouts of said radicals and strike them. Unfortunately, this may result in the death of innocent people.

Few things to lead off from that point:

-Saw an fb post expressing concern about their family in Syria. Why on earth would you choose to live in Syria unless you're offering aid to civilians? Syria is the location of one of the very few warzones globally right now.

-People are very limited in their outlook of this. Look towards the greater good, what are we meant to do? Sit back and do nothing? I guarantee many opinions would be different if London, Birmingham, Leeds - the city or town you live in was the target of an attack. Paris was first, and I'd place money on the fact that the next would be Berlin, London or Paris again. Do we do nothing and wait for more Western Europeans to die, then respond?

There is no widespread resentment or discontent about the complete destruction of Berlin in 1945. We raised that thing to the ground, more Germans died in the last 6 months than the whole war. Women were raped in thousands, planes destroyed 2 million homes - good thing though right? Because they attacked us! Let's wait for ISIS to attack us personally before we do anything.

Vice versa - London is attacked, and the French do nothing. Inb4 all these left wingers are complaining 'We helped you in WW2, we're allies, help us bomb syria!!!'

Two options as I see it here: Air strikes or a ground force movement

Former is much more effective, this is how wars are fought now. Why would we send in our army to engage in equal warfare, possibly unequal warfare due to unfamiliar territory and a form of guerilla warfare from ISIS like in the na'am. That option costs thousands of soldiers lives.

Again, I relate this back to WW2 - obviously the US didn't WANT to atom bomb Hiroshima (unless you go down the route of asserting dominance over Russia) but it ended WW2 in the space of a few hours. Whereas it was estimated a ground force operation would last a further 2 years, with the death of about 750k US troops.

MP vote was something like 397-220, but there seems to be a lot more people on social media against the idea. Perhaps that's because people like me are too afraid to post something like this to be attacked for supporting the death of civilians.

People really need to look to the longer term and also about broader implications - UK isn't intentionally trying to kill civilians, that will try to be avoided at all costs.

As for the argument I keep see coming up about how an air raid will cost something like half a million £££, which could pay for this and pay for that. Well, sure. But an air raid could also kill 100 suicide bombers, saving 100,000 people's lives.

I'm very thankful that UK actually took some initiative here, if we can end this quickly ourselves (unlikely) it'll be a lot more efficient than if a country like Russia bombs Syria - then you'll see the force of civilians dying.

In the words of greg:

Jgreg: we're too fucking liberal lol

Jgreg: just bomb them too high hell

Jgreg: we will do it as accurately as we possibly can

Jgreg: we arent dropping bombs like ww2

Jgreg: they are aimed

^ Pretty extreme wording, but I think there's something in it.

David Cameron is in a hard position, Paris is no more important on a global stage or from a Western ideal than London. Better to appear assertive and strike them now, rather than wait for an attack domestically and then act from a reactionary perspective. Then we all complain Y U NO STRIKE WHEN PARIS ATTACKED.

Reality is, people like to complain, no matter what. Even in a situation like this. People find immensely stupid facts about the amount of doctors we could have instead of taking down the biggest terrorist movement in the world. We have one of the best patient / doctor ratio's and medical organisations in the world! Time to focus on some pressing matters, no?

There is also a difference between defence / foreign spending and NHS spending, they don't just all merge into one big piggy bank which David Cameron picks out of to decide what goes where.

Jeremy Corbyn says it is 'almost inevitable' that civilians will be killed by British bombing in Syria - Good one Corbyn, you know what's a FACT rather than predicting the future? 300 people died in Paris 3 weeks ago

'To the innocent civilians of Syria, I'm sorry for my country's actions tonight and in the near future' - typical person who rants about civilians gonna die, but also ranted about ISIS attacks. Solutions pls bitch!

If I was to be arguing on the side of all these people. The main factor is that striking ISIS could produce a more radical response from them. Better to attack now and damage them hard before they attack us though.

Will edit this post as I think and see more stuff. Basically was thinking this whole thing over as I walked to Uni.

I could be completely wrong - my knowledge of war isn't extensive and I haven't studied politics intently for a year now.

BTW - I'm Liberal, not Cons. also - a fair few labour MPs voted yes in this

Ur thoughts on striking syria?

[SonyTwan 1,208]

I'm not sure where to stand tbh

but what I do know is that I'm not a military strategist, or someone involved in foreign affairs, etc

this is what was voted on and I hope it works out as well as it can

not gonna go up in arms on facebook about my opinion because frankly it doesn't matter

[M1nt-l0u 1,235]

It's a bit of a strange situation.

These people we're dealing with are not willing to compromise. They are not willing to reason and if we go with what Corbyn says then we are letting them off the hook I think. Innocent civilians should not be hanging around known IS HeadQuarters, the family of the extremists are just as much a part of it if they choose to stay there. Everyone is slowly turning against them and doing their bit to cut IS off as much as they can. Suddenly Benjamin from South Hampton is now some sort of high ranking war commander saying that "It's wrong", Without providing any immediate alternative. It is so easy to sit there and disagree with government action with no alternative solution. David Cameron has access to intel that we The general public do not. Therefore he is in a far better position to make the real decision.

It's interesting to think about the 'What if' scenario... Would the French help us if it was that way around? Or would they come out with the statement: "The French have decided not to take military action following the recent events that took place in the UK". Either way we have to deal with our current situation. I think we are best off sharing information with our EU affiliates and work out a plan of militarised action to swiftly wipe these lot out keeping the public as safe as possible while trying not to create too much public scare. I am not a commander chief, I do not have the intel, but from what I make from it is that we have to take out their communications and keep hitting them hard until they give up. Counselling is not on the table for these lot.

[SonyTwan 1,208]

Mintlou you make it sound like the people living near ISIS members or bases have any choice in the matter, they aren't just going to let them go.

This is why there are so many refugees, they're trying to get out before they're stuck under IS rule. Slight irony here with the stance you take on refugees.

Just goes to show how complicated it is though.

[M1nt-l0u 1,235]

I thought about that. Like I said, it's a very strange and complex situation as each action is all swings and roundabouts.

[Fluxy 1,660]

Or you could look at it more simply.

When has taking military action against these middle eastern countries, like Iraq, like Afghanistan and Libya, when has it ever solved ANYTHING?

Thats my real problem with it, its the same old shit rolled out by the government. There has been almost constant war in the middle east since 2000, even earlier if you count the first gulf war. It never changes, ever. ISIS was born out of the almighty fuck hole left by the wests actions in Afghanistan.

Vas from Far Cry 3 puts it more simply than I do

"Did I ever tell you what the definition of insanity is? Insanity is doing the exact... same fucking thing... over and over again expecting... shit to change... That. Is. Crazy. The first time somebody told me that, I dunno, I thought they were bullshitting me, so, I shot him. The thing is... He was right. And then I started seeing, everywhere I looked, everywhere I looked all these fucking pricks, everywhere I looked, doing the exact same fucking thing... over and over and over and over again thinking 'this time is gonna be different' no, no, no please... This time is gonna be different"

What people are saying is our approach needs to change, cause bombing the fuck out of them makes more problems than it solves

*edit*

additional thought.

ISIS want us to show them aggression, they want to have their excuses and claims justified. They bombed paris to provoke action. They want the West to hit back so they can build their cause, extend their influence. ISIS needs to be fought, but whats the use in spending all that money bombing their goats and roads when they people who do the actual killing are living in Western countries. at least 2 or 3 of the paris attackers where EU nationals. This knee-jerk outdated response will solve nothing. You can't drop a bomb on an idea

[M1nt-l0u 1,235]

Ok Fluxy, what's your solution?

[SonyTwan 1,208]

Vas from Far Cry 3 puts it more simply than I do

[Lewis 1,276]

I can sympathise and understand with the sort of points you and others raise flux - but as mintlou says, solution?

There are two options - fight back, or don't.

We are up on the elite list of countries in the world, many others are involved in striking - why should we sit back?

A response may be wanted, but a response is also needed. How many more capital cities fall victim to IS attack before we decide intervention is necessary?

And you know it's an exaggeration to say we're bombing their goats and shit, it'll be high secret operations, striking on known locations of IS military points. Just like Osama Bin Laden I suppose, if you believe it of course.

The decision was made in DC's words 'to make the UK safe' from his perspective he's nuking these radicals before they can blow up 300 of us like in Paris.

[The Untainted One 452]

At least on the bright side the world (West) has a common enemy. Maybe could bring the world together in an ideal world :)

[Thunder 174]

I feel like bombing ISIS will just lead to more extremists being created in the middle east, rather than actually solve anything. If innocent civilians are involved and killed in these bombings by the west, which let's face it, is gonna happen, people will be more motivated to turn against the west and become Islamic extremists.

Like fluxy said and history has shown these kind of interventions have just not worked in Libyia, Afghanistan, and now Iraq. The reasons those have failed is because there is no plan for afterwards. Bobming, invading areas and then just leaving it in a huge mess just doesn't work.

Bombing IS also won't solve the problem of domestic terrorism. This is imo the main threat that IS poses to the west and therefore we should focus our efforts on dealing with extremism within the U.K. and stopping the flow of ISIS recruits going to Syria.

I think that the best solution for the moment is to let the situation play out. The attacks in paris were terrible, but those kind of events won't stop because of a couple bombs being dropped. They are more likely to increase. Like mintlou said the situation is a huge mess and this is making it a bigger one. Even if IS gets annihilated, Assad is still in power, and now we can't get rid of him because he's backed by russia and iran. And after we leave, another extremist group will rise to power because the instability of the region.

I'm not a socialists or "lefty", im a liberal. I also don't sympathize for terrorist, I just don't think that bombing will solve anything, but rather will just make it worse for everyone.

P.S. not really relevant but these problems in the middle east come due to a huge drout in the area, so solve global warming and life is good.

[Quinn 643]

Firstly, this is NOT an attack on Syria, we are not going to bomb Syria as a country, probably not even touch its major cities like Damascus. We are not at war with Syria. We are against ISIS. Our aim is to eliminate them, prevent their militaristic and terroristical expansion by killing them, isolating them, cutting off trade routes.

Most likely we wait for intel of the whereabouts of said radicals and strike them. Unfortunately, this may result in the death of innocent people.

Anyone that claims this to be an attack on Syria is an idiot, and judging from what I've heard, almost nobody is claiming it to be an attack on Syria.

These are our current strikes in Syria, currently we're bombing an oil field. According to defence secretary Michael Fallon our air strikes are co-ordinated with a "very rigorous" process of choosing, and evaluating targets, and that these air strikes would abide by "very strict rules of engagement". Unfortunately Syrian state news agency 'SANA' has insisted that "Britain didn't ask permission from Syria's government". If we were going to carry out air strikes properly then we would probably want to consult with the individuals that govern the place we're bombing.

I guarantee many opinions would be different if London, Birmingham, Leeds - the city or town you live in was the target of an attack. Paris was first, and I'd place money on the fact that the next would be Berlin, London or Paris again. Do we do nothing and wait for more Western Europeans to die, then respond?

This is the very reason why we shouldn't be bombing ISIS, opinions change when violence happens, death begets death, harsh military actions induce harsh military reactions. You can't remove splinters with a hammer, furthermore you can't stamp on ant hills and expect them to go away. The Boston Marathon attack was carried out with a bomb made from a pressure cooker and ball bearings. No matter how much we bomb, we'll get bombed back by people that rape, pillage and steal out of a sense of glory and honour, by people that would rather blow themselves up than live in a world where other people are allowed to maintain viewpoints that differ from their own and most importantly by people that don't care about preventing civilian casualties.

An actual solution

ISIS represent a terrifying reality. The reality that some people are fucked up. What matters is differentiation, separating the fucked from the non-fucked. We can try our best to combat extremist Islam fascist bullshit, just as we should combat extremist anything fascist bullshit. The UN should occupy Syria, all of it, Assad needs to fuck off. France needs to calm the fuck down. No bombing, bombing gives them what they want, glory, honour, call it whatever you like. It just needs to stop, if we keep going it will be an endless circle of death and shit. The same goes for Saudi Arabia. War criminals should be treated like war criminals, regardless of circumstance, the people that die bombing places like Paris are not the families of people unfortunate to fall victim to radicalisation at the hands of ISIS. For the sake of justice and decency senseless violence needs to stop.

Any country that doesn't try its best to defend the human rights of its people should be given harsh warnings and then be put under the jurisdiction of the UN or some other regional body. War torn, broken countries can't be bombed back to health.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Guest

[Thunder 174]

it'll be high secret operations, striking on known locations of IS military points. Just like Osama Bin Laden I suppose, if you believe it of course.

Just a couple weeks ago the U.S. bombed a civilian hospital, killing 100s of innocent people. Clearly it's not as sophisticated as you think it is. We don't know what exactly is being bombed and how many other civilians are being killed.

[Fluxy 1,660]

I believe more effort should be put into preventing radicalization at home. That means, better schooling, better social care infrastructure, proper education on the dangers of radicalization. More efforts from our government to protect our people not bombing others. Saying that isis needs to be combated is true, as I said but saying ISIS needs to be bombed or we do nothing is simplistic and outdated. If we want to advance as a people and as a race we need to stop resorting to aggression the first chance we can. We do nothing but lower ourselves to their level. If we take military action to isis and we defeat them, the government thinks it has a victory.

But guess what, syria is a fucking mess, we need to stay and clean it up because that's our responsibility since we started this whole fucking thing in the first place. Que young, naive 18/19 YO's going out and getting fucking killed because they dont know any better by roadside bombs for next few years. They are abused and manipulated by goverment once again.

Then what? all the children of those radical isis fighters have grown up, guess what? they think their heroic father was blown up doing gods duty by evil westerners, lets all get together and terrorize those fuckers! They bombed us, well we can bomb them. How can you teach the next muslim generation that we are in the right when we reduce their country to dust?

[SonyTwan 1,208]

How are we to know if the ISIS members we're bombing are gay or not?

We just can't take that risk