Should the UK bomb Syria?

[Macman]

Cobryn - "Only a diplomatic solution will bring hope to Syrians"

In the event the UK doesn't get involved in the bombing, it is still likely we will be targeted by IS.

In the event the UK does get involved in the bombing, it is still likely we will be targeted by IS.

Why?

It has been known that, they wish to take over the UK and implement Sharia law.

Just what are your thoughts?

[shaithis]

Don't need to bomb them, just stop them entering the country and tighten controls and laws to help us deport more.

While the sentiment is a bit BNP (who I hate!) it certainly seems a much more tolerant approach than bombing...and while it is painting a lot of people with the same brush, that brush isn't in the form of bombs (which will also not be discriminate when they land!)

Sorry Muslims but there is a point when you just have to realise gods are not real and people are dying over your absurd beliefs.......I'd have a go at Christianity as well but it certainly isn't causing the grief it used to any more.....and in this country we have a recent precedent for rubbishing beliefs: Jedi religion on the census.

[scaryjim]

... It has been known that, they wish to take over the UK and implement Sharia law. ...

I'd love to see a reliable reference to that. They may think that the entire world should submit to Sharia law; that's very different from saying they wish to "take over" a specific country and implement Sharia law directly. Daesh (or IS, as they prefer to call themselves) is a radical fundamentalist religious group. it's also an extreme minority. Any implication that they could "take over" a western country is clearly ludicrous.

As to should we bomb Syria? My personal opinion is that wiping out more infrastructure in a war-torn country is going to hinder rebuilding if a legitimate government can be restored, and emplying open warfare against a group that is more used to guerilla and terror tactics is likely to be expensive, inefficient and ultimately ineffective. I'm not opposed to military action, but airstrikes will only work if we have good intelligence and are targetting a centralised command chain. I'm not convinced either of those things is even close to being true in Syria...

[peterb]

I think it is likely we will be targeted by Daesh anyway. If reports are true, there have been several unsuccessful attacks on the UK in the past twelve months.

Taking action in Syria may increase the likelihood of those, but it is difficult to assess by how much, at least as a bystander. The security services probably have a better idea about this.

'Bombing' is a somewhat emotive term, and tends to imply carpet bombing seen in WW2 or Vietnam. In practice the munitions are smart guided weapons, such as the Brimstone missile and smart guided bombs.

But air strikes alone won't recapture territory, that may need troops on the ground (and I would be very surprised if we didn't have SF in there already) and ultimately there has to be some form of diplomatic solution to fill the vacuum when Daesh are defeated. There also needs to be e Ono ic effort to cut off the revenue streams that fund Daesh.

There also has to be effort to address the reasons (and methods) for radicalisation and why they are so successful in recruiting.

Military action is but one part of this, but there must be a clear mission aim, and an appropriate e it strategy, both which were missing in the second Gulf conflict.

[abaxas]

Send Corbyn over on a fact finding mission first.

[scaryjim]

... There also has to be effort to address the reasons (and methods) for radicalisation and why they are so successful in recruiting. ...

I might have an inkling towards some of the reason:

... just stop them entering the country and tighten controls and laws to help us deport more. ...

... Sorry Muslims but there is a point when you just have to realise gods are not real and people are dying over your absurd beliefs...

Just sayin'

[Domestic_Ginger]

Voted no.

Collateral dmg , prolonging and as I've said before; we lose this lot; v3 will be even worse. The daesh idealism has to be quelled. Video footage of dead innocents is powerful propaganda.

There are enough planes with bombs there. Surgical insertion perhaps. The real problem is Assadists vs rebels. All the powers have a favourite, without any daesh to kill and the buildup of arms; its going to get sticky. I think this needs to be resolved now if the country is going to have any stability but after 4 years seems unlikely.

[big_hairy_rob]

I'm just not certain what bombing would achieve. Sure, it may disrupt the military maneuvers, however it's not going to prevent people from joining up, nor is it likely to bring an end to their leaders (who still are not clear). I am however certain that it would cause them to desire to retaliate against us as they have so very publicly against France and Russia (as well as others). So do I want this country to get involved in another unwinnable war? No! No I don't!

[Domestic_Ginger]

Can't back down through fear though :/ they'll start to think they're winning.

We already lost this one by backing the rebels in Syria and here we are 4 years later.

[Ttaskmaster]

Yes they are a problem.
Yes, they need dealing with.

That they’d even consider trying to terrorise the UK, given the apathetic response with which all the other organisations’ efforts have been received, suggests they are more stupid than they look. I recall the IRA bombings of train stations and tracks which obviously disturb those directly involved, but the vast majority of people were more miffed that the trains were delayed!
Bomb a bus in London and people will be mildly piqued that they have to wait for the next one.
Do something in America and they’ll go nuts on the over-reactive security paranoia, as they also retaliate with full-scale war on your entire country… but the UK cannot be terrorised, because we just don’t care!!!

Humour aside - They may be a 'minority', but that word carries with it the implication that they are negligible. However small, they are still a very real danger to us and clearly to our allies.

What I would expect is to see the majority, ie the rest of Islam in all its forms, stand up for their own beliefs and vehemently disavow ISIS in its entirety – If they are THAT serious about their insistence that True Islam preaches peace, ISIS should be the subject of scathing ridicule in the same way we treat the Westboro Baptists. There have been some, but the religion as a whole needs to stand up and say NO.

Speaking as a former soldier myself, I would expect precision strikes against confirmed targets, involving ground units face to face, rather than just blanket bombing.

[DeludedGuy]

I fail to see what bombing will achieve - killing key targets and IS fighters wont stop the next generation who will be influenced by the same extremist ideology.

[g8ina]

Im rather pleased this thread has not descended into sillyism.... Tensions are quite high right now and it would seem very easy to start back biting, but thanks guys, you've kept it cool, keep it up

[kalniel]

Im rather pleased this thread has not descended into sillyism.... Tensions are quite high right now and it would seem very easy to start back biting, but thanks guys, you've kept it cool, keep it up

Ah.. don't follow this link then:
http://newsthump.com/2015/12/02/came...e-and-for-all/



Seriously, same old, same old really.

As I said in the last thread that discussed something similar, we should probably try educating more people about Islam and other faiths and help bring them more into the open so that the extremists can't use people's ignorance on both sides against them.

As for bombing - is someone asking us to? We're not as good at it as even the French these days IMHO, certainly not up to US or Russian capabilities. And certainly there's massive confusion about Russia's role in the airspace - piling another nation in isn't going to help that confusion.

[Saracen]

I think "bombing Syria" is a bit misleading. What this motion was about was targeted air strikes on Daesh, and ONLY Daesh, in Syria. It's not like we'll be carpet-bombing Raqqa.

All this gives permission for is the RAF to conduct the same missions against Daesh in Syria that we're already conducting in Iraq.

As for what it'll achieve, it's impossible to know. A handful of strikes, if you get the right targets, could make a significant difference. Imagine a WW2 bombing raid hitting a command post during a senior ranks briefing, maybe killing Rommel. A handful of gifted commanders, or planners, can make a big difference.

Or it can be small but significant things. Did anyone listen to the debate? Cameron gave one example of a group of (IIRC) Kurds engaged in a firefight with Daesh requesting air support. RAF Tornados were 8 minutes away but the incident was 1.5 miles inside Syria, so they could not assist. No other support was available, so those Kurds had to wait 40 minutes for other support, when the RAF could have done it but for that restriction, in less than a quarter of that time. That extra 32 minutes could be the difference between fighters we support being alive when air support arrives, and them not being. It might not be hugely important on a geopolitical scale, but I'm sure it was important to those Kurds, and their families. Not being able to help may well result in extra deaths under Daesh.

Also, from figures given, the Brimstine missile has a capability pretty much unique to us, which is that it's relatively small warhead but is extremely accurate and highly effective at hitting fast-moving targets. The small warhead means, apparently, that it'll destroy small targets, like vehicles, but without flattening adjacent buildings in the process. So, that may offer the ability to hit targets where, without it, the choice is to not fire and let the target escape, or fire and risk substantial "collateral damage". Horrible term, that.

I'm no military expert, but even I can see that gaving that capability available may open up attack options that aren't politically viable, due to collateral, without it.

And according to figures given, in Iraq, the UK has 8 out of 25 aircraft capable of high precision attacks, to represents approximately 33% of the capability. And of some 2500 missions flown, under 400 have resulted in weapons fired, and there have been ZERO reported civilian casualties resulting.


All told, while I have some serious reservations about strikes, I support them on this limited and restricted basis because while doing something has a cost, so does not doing something. Daesh might well do a Paris-style attack in the UK. After all, they've already tried. But Corbyn's notion that we'll be less safe if we act seems, firstly, simply craven, and secondly, naive and idiotic. What does he think Daesh think of us .... that because we're conducting air operations against them in Iraq they're okay with that and won't try to hit the UK, but if we do it in Syria too, they will? Oh please, JC, what planet are you on?

[badass]

And according to figures given, in Iraq, the UK has 8 out of 25 aircraft capable of high precision attacks, to represents approximately 33% of the capability. And of some 2500 missions flown, under 400 have resulted in weapons fired, and there have been ZERO reported civilian casualties resulting.

This I like the sound of. Killing innocent peoples families is a great recruitment tool for extremism as well as an awful price to pay. If it's just combatants that are getting hit the humanitarian concerns are gone and a major recruitment tool is denied from them.

We just need to be very careful about making sure we're selecting the right targets and not using AC-130 gunships to level hospitals like a certain military have done recently.....

[kalniel]

Or it can be small but significant things. Did anyone listen to the debate? Cameron gave one exampleof a group of (IIRC) Kurds engaged in a firefight with Daesh requesting air support. RAF Tornados were 8 minutes away but the incident was 1.5 miles inside Syria, so they could not assist. No other support was available, so those Kurds had to wait 40 minutes for other support, when the RAF could have done it but for that restriction, in less than a quarter of that time.

But why was the RAF the only one that could help in that time? Air support is (in my completely non-expert opinion) better able to be provided by the US and French from their carriers, or the Russians from their base *in Syria*. If it's a question of cost, we don't we just help out financially and make more efficient use of that money? Or if we have an airbase in a good location, why not allow these other nations to make use of it?