The ISIS threat to Europe

[Davkaus]

I look forward to the day we spent tends of billions on another ground war, wipe out the ISIS threat, then everyone is amazed by the next attack on the west due to what the next bunch of extremists see as further western aggression. What are the taliban and al'qaeda up to these days?

 

The empire is gone, how about we pull out troops back and mind our own **** business for a few years and see if people still want to blow us up.

[Rodders]

they will.

there's an excuse, a greed for power and dominance, that just backing away from this won't solve. political solutions are the best bet for longer term stability of a kind, but that looks a long way off.

Edited November 27, 2015 by Rodders

[snowychap]

22 minutes ago, Awol said:

It's also (and this isn't a dig at you personally) a form of moral cowardice.

I think this accusation needs a bit of careful explaining if your comment is not to be mistaken for a more general dig at people who don't necessarily share your view that extending bombing to Syria is the correct course of action and will bring about the desired consequences (whatever they might be).

The problem with chucking in comments like 'a form of moral cowardice' is that debate, discussion and reasoning is on rather rocky ground thereafter.

Edited November 27, 2015 by snowychap

[Demitri_C]

17 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I look forward to the day we spent tends of billions on another ground war, wipe out the ISIS threat, then everyone is amazed by the next attack on the west due to what the next bunch of extremists see as further western aggression. What are the taliban and al'qaeda up to these days?

 

The empire is gone, how about we pull out troops back and mind our own **** business for a few years and see if people still want to blow us up.

Lets just put our heads in the sand and wait for them to attack us like they did in paris. The sad reality is that is what is going to happen if they are not delath with. i mean look at Belgium have they actually done any bombings ?? And wasnt there alert there recently? We all want peace but unfortuantely its not going to happen 

 

 

[Awol]

21 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I think this accusation needs a bit of careful explaining if your comment is not to be mistaken for a more general dig at people who don't necessarily share your view that extending bombing to Syria is the correct course of action and will bring about the desired consequences (whatever they might be).

The problem with chucking in comments like 'a form of moral cowardice' is that debate, discussion and reasoning is on rather rocky ground thereafter.

We are attacking them already because of what they have done, what they continue to do and what they plan to do in the future. 

If you hit someone it is because they deserve it. Not doing so for fear they might hit you back is what I find morally problematic. In any case they already have and we've blocked more than a few of their punches before and since.

i don't think fear of retaliation should even enter into consideration when making such a decision.

i hope that is clearer? 

[chrisp65]

Questioning the efficacy of just adding some bombs into the mix in Syria is hardly moral cowardice.

Moral cowardice is wanting to drop some bombs, on a bit of a budget, because that's what all the big boys are doing. 

Again, I'm not utterly opposed to bombing in any circumstances. I, like many moral cowards, would like to know there is a bit more of a plan this time. What with not having had a plan on a number of previous occasions I was just thinking perhaps we might learn something, try something different to what has previously failed, failed and failed again.

Let's just drop some more bombs and hope it goes away this time, is not strategy. Let's drop some bombs and hop a.n.other pops up and persuades the middle east to be compliant, is not strategy. Let's drop some bombs and hope that persuades suggestible kids to have a shave and embrace western ideology, is not strategy.

 

[villaglint]

Nail on the head there Chris.

Amazing how revolutionary a view it is to some people. (Not aimed at you Awol)

 

[Awol]

Chris, not sure if you are deliberately missing my point,  but I'm not saying that questioning the bombing of IS in Syria is moral cowardice. I am saying that not doing so because of fear of retaliation is moral cowardice. That's a pretty major distinction.

 

[snowychap]

22 minutes ago, Awol said:

i hope that is clearer? 

Morally problematic leaves a lot more room to discuss, question and decide certainly.

If you hit someone it is because they deserve it.

Whatever the hit is, whoever is doing the hitting and whomever is being hit?

[AshVilla]

nvm

Edited November 27, 2015 by AshVilla

[bickster]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

IWhat are the taliban and al'qaeda up to these days?

 

AQ in Syria have been rebranded "The Rebels", makes it so much easier to give them weapons

[blandy]

14 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Moral cowardice is wanting to drop some bombs, on a bit of a budget, because that's what all the big boys are doing. 

Again, I'm not utterly opposed to bombing in any circumstances. I, like many moral cowards, would like to know there is a bit more of a plan this time. What with not having had a plan on a number of previous occasions I was just thinking perhaps we might learn something, try something different to what has previously failed, failed and failed again.

Let's just drop some more bombs and hope it goes away this time, is not strategy. Let's drop some bombs and hop a.n.other pops up and persuades the middle east to be compliant, is not strategy. Let's drop some bombs and hope that persuades suggestible kids to have a shave and embrace western ideology, is not strategy.

 I agree. I don't think AWOL is wrong, though on his moral cowardice comment, either, just that it's kind of misplaced.

The notion that "we" shouldn't do this, because "they" might retaliate maybe isn't best expressed as "moral cowardice", but there's something in it. A rubbish analogy might be if you see someone getting hurt or attacked in the street, do you fail to intervene to help them because you might get hurt?  Sometimes it's fair to say, you should perhaps accept the danger to yourself to help someone who desperately needs it. I guess that's the argument being used, but it's inapplicable in this instance. The situation in Syria isn't one where (for the reasons you give) our bombing them will actually solve a threat to France or to us. The attacks on them and us are by and large from our own citizens, and not from people in Syria. It's not a case of bomb people in Syria and people in Syria might bomb us, so we shouldn't - that whole argument is misused.

If people in Syria are going on the internet encouraging Brits to attack us, then take out the internet pages and so on. No bombs needed.

Like you say, have a proper plan of actions that will actually remove the threat to people everywhere. We just haven't seen detail of any such plan. There isn't one. The cowardice is therefore that of Politicians ordering bombing without regard for the implications of their actions, other than being seen to help their allies in the US and France etc. and their careers.

While there is a civil war going on, where there are few "moderates", where Turkey is attacking the Kurds, Russia is attacking Assad's enemies, We want to get rid of Assad. Where there's so many different groups which morph and split and remerge and mutate and "we" have no understanding or commonality with any of them what will bombing achieve, and how will it achieve it, and what will happen when we stop, when that aim has been achieved? No one can say. People can say "we want a stable peaceful middle east" or similar, but they can't / don't want to work out how to achieve that - whether we can help, how we might in fact hinder it, if we're not careful.

It's a confused mire, and given that ISIL wants as a stated aim to fight the west in Syria, on the ground, and have an "end of days" apocalypse, should we be doing the thing our enemy most wants us to do? Shouldn't we keep trying to work with the likes of Iran to support the bringing about of peace. By staying out of it, couldn't we basically gain some diplomatic credit to help facilitate the nations of the area in sorting it out?

 

[snowychap]

16 minutes ago, Awol said:

I am saying that not doing so because of fear of retaliation is moral cowardice.

Which takes me back to where 'morally problematic' is better as it allows for the opinion you've expressed above (if someone were precisely and only advocating not doing it for that sole reason*) but also for continuing a discussion where people are putting up the possibility of an action having a detrimental effect on the security situation as a (valid) counter to the person advocating the action [Cameron] when he has said that it will have the opposite effect.

 

*As per blandy's post above.

Edited November 27, 2015 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

Well, yes and no, Awol. It wasn't deliberate missing of the point, and putting it that way is a bit different. I missed the subtlety of the message.

But I'd still challenge the premise that not wanting bomb a terrorist enemy into more atrocity and a cycle of revenge is cowardice. It's not automatically cowardice. It looks a bit like a sane response. 

If the solution goes on to say, we'll do anything not to upset them, that's cowardice. If the solution is less bombs, spend the money on something smarter that actually has a chance of working. That's not cowardice.

Fear of a cycle of revenge attacks is not necessarily a bad thing. Fear is not automatically a bad thing. What you do with it is what counts.

 

[blandy]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

Fear of a cycle of revenge attacks is not necessarily a bad thing. Fear is not automatically a bad thing. What you do with it is what counts.

Indeed. One man's cowardice is another's "rational reasoning". We wouldn't call it cowardice not to attack a nation, if we knew they'd use Nukes to retaliate, we'd call it weighing up the risks and acting with sound reasoning, or something. It is a fair question for people to ask "if our government bombs them will it make our lives more dangerous"?

[Wainy316]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

I look forward to the day we spent tends of billions on another ground war, wipe out the ISIS threat, then everyone is amazed by the next attack on the west due to what the next bunch of extremists see as further western aggression. What are the taliban and al'qaeda up to these days?

 

The empire is gone, how about we pull out troops back and mind our own **** business for a few years and see if people still want to blow us up.

 

Genuine question, are Belgium bombing Syria or Iraq?

[lloydxmas]

Easiest way to stop ISIS? Legalise cannabis and heroin on a global scale.  its how they generate a huge portion of their funds.

junkies are less dangerous than mentalists.

Either that or get the agent orange out again 

Edited November 27, 2015 by simont123

[sharkyvilla]

It seems to me that the terrorist attacks are becoming far more 'professional' and it's due to proper training and organisation by ISIS in their homeland, even if they are largely carried out by homegrown terrorists, so logically it will make us safer if we take them out in Syria.  You won't be able to stop an individual terrorist all the time, but the Paris attacks with so many different people involved in different places with precision timing and impact makes the likely death toll much higher.  We have foiled seven attempts this year, the idea that they will ignore us because we aren't bombing them is ridiculous, especially as we are bombing them in Iraq anyway.  Our missiles are supposed to be the most accurate in the world, as well as our surveillance equipment, we need to add our expertise to the fight to get the best results.  We also need UN troops on the ground IMO and it will just be a matter of time.

[YLN]

4 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Again, I'm not utterly opposed to bombing in any circumstances. I, like many moral cowards, would like to know there is a bit more of a plan this time. What with not having had a plan on a number of previous occasions I was just thinking perhaps we might learn something, try something different to what has previously failed, failed and failed again.

These are clever men that organise these wars. They wouldn't be given access to billions of dollars worth of arms otherwise (Please don't reply with any pictures of George W with a bible in one hand and his other hand hovering over the red button). Do you think that they would do something over and over despite the fact that it has failed every time? Might be worth toying with the idea that it hasn't failed, but instead always produces exactly the outcome they want. 

[YLN]

In case anyone hasn't seen it. This is a very tough watch. As an aside from the current discussion. I saw EODM four days previously in Dublin. I think it was the best gig I've ever been to in terms of fun and dancing and good times. Not sure how they can come back and play their songs again. Certainly looks very far away now.