Seems to me that this vote gives the worst of all worlds because;
a) Surely between them Russia, USA & France have the required firepower to bomb as much of Syria as they please, I doubt our paltry number of jets will make much of a difference - therefore our involvement must be for symbolic reasons only
b) I can't see that air strikes alone can defeat ISIS, clearly boots on the ground will be required and this vote rules them out
c) Arming & training 70,000 "Syrian moderates" sounds like a disaster waiting to happen
d) It seems ridiculous that we've just made the UK a far more likely and far more frequent target of terrorist attacks for a strategy that, given a, b & c, seems incredibly likely to fail
Thing is bombing will not make us anymore of a target, they have tried numerous times to kill again over here. Our authorities have been just too good so far to stop them since 7/7, other than the attack on Lee Rugby.
They are similar to the RUF in Sierra Leone in their behaviour but hide behind religion, even those they are supposedly saving are their victims. Forced either to fight or used as slaves.
Why are people banging on about killing civilians ? I think I'm right in saying that all this time we've been carrying out air strikes in Iraq, no innocent civilians have been killed.
Why are people forgetting that Syria has a government and is a sovereign country, how can we conduct air strikes without the Syrian governments permission?
I think achieving peace in "this" war is a utopian view.
I'm not saying it's not a honourable and human outcome to want - I think the majority of people on the left and right and from all religious backgrounds want the same thing.
It's not going to happen.
We're dealing with extremists who don't subscribe to a 'normal' way of thinking and haven't done for thousands of years.
Should you deal with extremists with extreme action? Maybe not in a utopian world but we don't live in one. Not doing anything would mean us losing long-term.
Thoughts and prayers with the RAF pilots and all those caught up in an extreme situation where they can't get out.
Seems to me that this vote gives the worst of all worlds because;
a) Surely between them Russia, USA & France have the required firepower to bomb as much of Syria as they please, I doubt our paltry number of jets will make much of a difference - therefore our involvement must be for symbolic reasons only
b) I can't see that air strikes alone can defeat ISIS, clearly boots on the ground will be required and this vote rules them out
c) Arming & training 70,000 "Syrian moderates" sounds like a disaster waiting to happen
d) It seems ridiculous that we've just made the UK a far more likely and far more frequent target of terrorist attacks for a strategy that, given a, b & c, seems incredibly likely to fail
We have already foiled 7 plots against us so it is not as if these terrorists were just waiting for this decision.
Seems to me that this vote gives the worst of all worlds because;
a) Surely between them Russia, USA & France have the required firepower to bomb as much of Syria as they please, I doubt our paltry number of jets will make much of a difference - therefore our involvement must be for symbolic reasons only
b) I can't see that air strikes alone can defeat ISIS, clearly boots on the ground will be required and this vote rules them out
c) Arming & training 70,000 "Syrian moderates" sounds like a disaster waiting to happen
d) It seems ridiculous that we've just made the UK a far more likely and far more frequent target of terrorist attacks for a strategy that, given a, b & c, seems incredibly likely to fail
We have already foiled 7 plots against us so it is not as if these terrorists were just waiting for this decision.
Quite, that's why I said that it's made us a "far more likely and far more frequent target of terrorist attacks" - I know there have been attempts already but how many more will there be now ?
If Britain bombing ISIS was likely to destroy them then we would say it was a risk worth taking and I would probably support the action, but it won't so it isn't.
We can't just do nothing based on the increased likelihood of attack
It's not enough to open arms and accept people fleeing Syria, that doesn't protect us from attacks at home by these scum, the nice ways stop now, we strike them first the oil fields where they are gaining their money,
We should concentrate on forcing turkey to close their border with Syria to stop the supplies reaching isis. And stopping their funding from Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
Seems to me that this vote gives the worst of all worlds because;
a) Surely between them Russia, USA & France have the required firepower to bomb as much of Syria as they please, I doubt our paltry number of jets will make much of a difference - therefore our involvement must be for symbolic reasons only
b) I can't see that air strikes alone can defeat ISIS, clearly boots on the ground will be required and this vote rules them out
c) Arming & training 70,000 "Syrian moderates" sounds like a disaster waiting to happen
d) It seems ridiculous that we've just made the UK a far more likely and far more frequent target of terrorist attacks for a strategy that, given a, b & c, seems incredibly likely to fail
We have already foiled 7 plots against us so it is not as if these terrorists were just waiting for this decision.
Quite, that's why I said that it's made us a "far more likely and far more frequent target of terrorist attacks" - I know there have been attempts already but how many more will there be now ?
If Britain bombing ISIS was likely to destroy them then we would say it was a risk worth taking and I would probably support the action, but it won't so it isn't.
Surely if a bomb hits a training camp, or kills someone planning an attack, we are safer, no?
Of course I understand we suffer from a far greater threat from within, but what are we supposed to do? Nothing?
Seems to me that this vote gives the worst of all worlds because;
a) Surely between them Russia, USA & France have the required firepower to bomb as much of Syria as they please, I doubt our paltry number of jets will make much of a difference - therefore our involvement must be for symbolic reasons only
b) I can't see that air strikes alone can defeat ISIS, clearly boots on the ground will be required and this vote rules them out
c) Arming & training 70,000 "Syrian moderates" sounds like a disaster waiting to happen
d) It seems ridiculous that we've just made the UK a far more likely and far more frequent target of terrorist attacks for a strategy that, given a, b & c, seems incredibly likely to fail
We have already foiled 7 plots against us so it is not as if these terrorists were just waiting for this decision.
Quite, that's why I said that it's made us a "far more likely and far more frequent target of terrorist attacks" - I know there have been attempts already but how many more will there be now ?
If Britain bombing ISIS was likely to destroy them then we would say it was a risk worth taking and I would probably support the action, but it won't so it isn't.
Surely if a bomb hits a training camp, or kills someone planning an attack, we are safer, no?
Of course I understand we suffer from a far greater threat from within, but what are we supposed to do? Nothing?
No. If the stated intention is to destroy ISIS then the Prime Minister should put forward a strategy that will achieve that, if that involves British ground troops (and surely it must) then so be it. Bombing them just because "we need to do something" is a ridiculous reason to go to war and increase the risk to innocent British and Syrian lives.
We should concentrate on forcing turkey to close their border with Syria to stop the supplies reaching isis. And stopping their funding from Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
How do they manage that? We can't even keep calais under control yet the Turks need to close over 400km?
Why are people banging on about killing civilians ? I think I'm right in saying that all this time we've been carrying out air strikes in Iraq, no innocent civilians have been killed.
Why are people forgetting that Syria has a government and is a sovereign country, how can we conduct air strikes without the Syrian governments permission?
How many if any civilians are going to get killed, how long and how much will it cost to put the country back together?
According to an RAF pilot on BBC Breakfast this am, they have achieved over 400 missile strikes against IS (not bombs we're not dropping them) in Iraq with no civilian casulties reported. The brimstone missiles have a small payload but precise (99%) accuracy. Especially useful against fast-moving vehicles that others - the USA included - don't have the ability to hit accurately.
I'm really uneasy, looking at the people in the press this morning rushing to praise Hillary Benn's speech.
Yes it was a great speech. As a speech. Now here are the important things Mr Benn did not cover:
1. The Daesh terrorists in Raqqa are not billeted in compounds. They are distributed among civilians. How on earth do bombs take out those terrorists without killing the civilians?
2. How does Mr Benn propose that we address the sinister hypocrisy of the governments of the UAE and Qatar? These countries are funding and supporting these scumbags, yet we sell the Saudis arms and let the Qataris buy vast tracts of UK business and real estate.
3. How is Mr Benn sure that the downing of the Russian airliner was a bomb planted by ISIS when the investigation has not been completed, a large number of pilots remain unconvinced that it was a bomb at all; and even if it was a bomb, given that the plane was Russian, how is it proved that it was ISIS and not, e.g. some Chechens?
4. How is Mr Benn going to ensure that both Turkey and Russia take action which supports our own efforts, rather than doing things which can be dangerously in conflict with them?
It reminds me of Blair. Great orator, Blair. Even convinced my wife (who is Czech). She hasn't forgotten how he duped her.
Wouldn't t be cheaper to bomb somewhere nearer home than Syria?
No. The airbase at Akrotiri, Cyprus is cheaper to operate than one in the UK.
Although now you mention it, flattening Dublin so that companies feel less like moving there to avoid UK corporation tax does seem like an attractive option and would be good for the economy.
How many if any civilians are going to get killed, how long and how much will it cost to put the country back together?
According to an RAF pilot on BBC Breakfast this am, they have achieved over 400 missile strikes against IS (not bombs we're not dropping them) in Iraq with no civilian casulties reported. The brimstone missiles have a small payload but precise (99%) accuracy. Especially useful against fast-moving vehicles that others - the USA included - don't have the ability to hit accurately.
We've already started dropping Paveway bombs overnight. They may be laser guided, they may have a higher degree of accuracy than indiscriminate non-guided bombs, but they are still bombs.
Quite simple, I cannot see us being any less/more of a target now they've voted in favour.
I suspect killing civilians in Syria could raise public support for the terrorists though?
Interesting point from cafcfan - however I also suspect that Daesh and their supporters will not be making a distinction between who fired missiles and dropped bombs when it comes to seeking their revenge.
We should concentrate on forcing turkey to close their border with Syria to stop the supplies reaching isis. And stopping their funding from Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
The elephant in the room. Who is buying oil from them also. Wasn't it reported last week after the downing of the Russian jet that the turkish pm's son was allegedly involved in buying oil from them?
Why are people banging on about killing civilians ? I think I'm right in saying that all this time we've been carrying out air strikes in Iraq, no innocent civilians have been killed.
Why are people forgetting that Syria has a government and is a sovereign country, how can we conduct air strikes without the Syrian governments permission?
What's that table got to with Iraq ? Or, for that matter, casualties caused by RAF piloted bombers ? The answer to my original point is zero.
The table has got to do with the Syrian government and was in response to LoneRanger's point. The clue is that I quoted LoneRanger before I posted it.
The link to the Iraq Body Count project, which you have ignored, is in response to your post.
It is possible to deal with more than one point in a post.
I ignored the article about the Iraq Body Count, as soon as I read that the organisation responsible for the counting have previous for under and over counting. Not that reliable really are they.
How many if any civilians are going to get killed, how long and how much will it cost to put the country back together?
According to an RAF pilot on BBC Breakfast this am, they have achieved over 400 missile strikes against IS (not bombs we're not dropping them) in Iraq with no civilian casulties reported. The brimstone missiles have a small payload but precise (99%) accuracy. Especially useful against fast-moving vehicles that others - the USA included - don't have the ability to hit accurately.
We've already started dropping Paveway bombs overnight. They may be laser guided, they may have a higher degree of accuracy than indiscriminate non-guided bombs, but they are still bombs.
The paveway bombs dropped last night were targeting oil refineries, not just dropped at random over the city.
How can a war be win against ISIS when they haven't got a Country? They are all over the place. We went into Iraq under false pretences and similar us happening in Syria. Of course, oil sits in the background. This 'war' will not be won, it will just move elsewhere, probably major European Cities included. Frightening!
Comments
a) Surely between them Russia, USA & France have the required firepower to bomb as much of Syria as they please, I doubt our paltry number of jets will make much of a difference - therefore our involvement must be for symbolic reasons only
b) I can't see that air strikes alone can defeat ISIS, clearly boots on the ground will be required and this vote rules them out
c) Arming & training 70,000 "Syrian moderates" sounds like a disaster waiting to happen
d) It seems ridiculous that we've just made the UK a far more likely and far more frequent target of terrorist attacks for a strategy that, given a, b & c, seems incredibly likely to fail
They are similar to the RUF in Sierra Leone in their behaviour but hide behind religion, even those they are supposedly saving are their victims. Forced either to fight or used as slaves.
The answer to my original point is zero.
I'm not saying it's not a honourable and human outcome to want - I think the majority of people on the left and right and from all religious backgrounds want the same thing.
It's not going to happen.
We're dealing with extremists who don't subscribe to a 'normal' way of thinking and haven't done for thousands of years.
Should you deal with extremists with extreme action? Maybe not in a utopian world but we don't live in one. Not doing anything would mean us losing long-term.
Thoughts and prayers with the RAF pilots and all those caught up in an extreme situation where they can't get out.
If Britain bombing ISIS was likely to destroy them then we would say it was a risk worth taking and I would probably support the action, but it won't so it isn't.
It's not enough to open arms and accept people fleeing Syria, that doesn't protect us from attacks at home by these scum, the nice ways stop now, we strike them first the oil fields where they are gaining their money,
Of course I understand we suffer from a far greater threat from within, but what are we supposed to do? Nothing?
The link to the Iraq Body Count project, which you have ignored, is in response to your post.
It is possible to deal with more than one point in a post.
The brimstone missiles have a small payload but precise (99%) accuracy. Especially useful against fast-moving vehicles that others - the USA included - don't have the ability to hit accurately.
Yes it was a great speech. As a speech. Now here are the important things Mr Benn did not cover:
1. The Daesh terrorists in Raqqa are not billeted in compounds. They are distributed among civilians. How on earth do bombs take out those terrorists without killing the civilians?
2. How does Mr Benn propose that we address the sinister hypocrisy of the governments of the UAE and Qatar? These countries are funding and supporting these scumbags, yet we sell the Saudis arms and let the Qataris buy vast tracts of UK business and real estate.
3. How is Mr Benn sure that the downing of the Russian airliner was a bomb planted by ISIS when the investigation has not been completed, a large number of pilots remain unconvinced that it was a bomb at all; and even if it was a bomb, given that the plane was Russian, how is it proved that it was ISIS and not, e.g. some Chechens?
4. How is Mr Benn going to ensure that both Turkey and Russia take action which supports our own efforts, rather than doing things which can be dangerously in conflict with them?
It reminds me of Blair. Great orator, Blair. Even convinced my wife (who is Czech). She hasn't forgotten how he duped her.
Although now you mention it, flattening Dublin so that companies feel less like moving there to avoid UK corporation tax does seem like an attractive option and would be good for the economy.
That's what I'm worried about, not some nutters on the the other side of the world.
Easier to drop bombs over there than to face the issues we have herd.
Interesting point from cafcfan - however I also suspect that Daesh and their supporters will not be making a distinction between who fired missiles and dropped bombs when it comes to seeking their revenge.
Not that reliable really are they.
The paveway bombs dropped last night were targeting oil refineries, not just dropped at random over the city.