The ISIS threat to Europe

[tinker]

If we do bomb Syria and then as a result have a mass casualty terrorist attack in this country (heaven forbid) then he will go down in history, it could be the Tories swan song and Corbyn's turn around moment.

Hes playing a dangerous game implying the questioning of the logic in bombing Syria is supporting terrorism, its bullying the democratic process.

 

[chrisp65]

I don't believe there is that direct link.

I think we are just as threatened with or without extending from Iraq into Syria. Whilst I'm not convinced extending bombing does much for us, I'm also not concerned it will trigger revenge. We are not free from threat today, we will not be free from threat tomorrow, regardless of how the vote goes.

What we might get, is an attack with a different strap line. Some bunch of scrotes might be already planning an attack on Barnstaple Winter Wonderland. If we vote to bomb Syria, they'll simply tag it as 'revenge' for that. If we don't, it'll be in response to something else.

The media however, are setting themselves up (and therefore a good proportion of us also) for a meltdown.

[snowychap]

In the same way that I dislike the Cameron 'make us safer' argument, I also worry about the 'if we bomb Syria and then have a terrorist attack' argument.

There doesn't have to be any connection between the two (bombing or not and being the victims of an attack or not) and I'd be concerned with any argument that says because of one, then the other.

[Demitri_C]

15 minutes ago, tinker said:

If we do bomb Syria and then as a result have a mass casualty terrorist attack in this country (heaven forbid) then he will go down in history, it could be the Tories swan song and Corbyn's turn around moment.

Hes playing a dangerous game implying the questioning of the logic in bombing Syria is supporting terrorism, its bullying the democratic process.

 

But then  if we did nothing and still got bombed it would destroy Corbyn so works both ways. I dont like the idea of bombing but I am just so undecided what to do, as I think they will come after us regardless if we bomb or not

[Jon]

4 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

. I dont like the idea of bombing but I am just so undecided what to do

I'd not bomb then. You'd need a warplane, first off, and then a big enormous bomb thing, and I doubt you have either.

[Rodders]

I still don't understand why he's already unilaterally decided ground troops are off the table, it seems like with Warrish actions generally being a bit bloody, deadly and irksome for those involved intimately and indirectly, it might be a jolly good idea to keep all options open, but it's been bizarrely predetermined that only PLANES will do the trick. Maybe it's because they look so awesomely bigwilly powerful what what without the image of soldiers being killed in battle again. But as said, surely the graveness of the potential action would preclude silly PR considerations? Surely?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Dead troops cost votes.

[Jon]

1 minute ago, CarewsEyebrowDesigner said:

Dead troops cost votes.

whereas dead Syrians, ISIS or not, don't. Sad state of affairs.

[chrisp65]

we don't need troops though

Once the extra 16 planes are added into the mix on top of the 5,600 sorties already undertaken this will tip the balance and persuade an army of 70,000 liberal and democratic freedom fighters to rise up and take over areas formally occupied by the now totally vanquished ISL.

These newly free and democratic areas will set up police and army units to self govern in a civilised non sectarian manner and will be left to their own business by Russia and the Assad regime. By many projections, they will probably have an american themed fast food franchise in Raqqa just before Christmas.

[Davkaus]

32 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

By many projections, they will probably have an american themed fast food franchise in Raqqa just before Christmas.

Which the ungrateful bastards had better be celebrating by then.

[Brumerican]

35 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

we don't need troops though

Once the extra 16 planes are added into the mix on top of the 5,600 sorties already undertaken this will tip the balance and persuade an army of 70,000 liberal and democratic freedom fighters to rise up and take over areas formally occupied by the now totally vanquished ISL.

These newly free and democratic areas will set up police and army units to self govern in a civilised non sectarian manner and will be left to their own business by Russia and the Assad regime. By many projections, they will probably have an american themed fast food franchise in Raqqa just before Christmas.

Islamic House Of Pancakes ?

 

[Davkaus]

I'll be happy as long as I can get a Bomb-inos pizza.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Rodders said:

but it's been bizarrely predetermined that only PLANES will do the trick.

it's even more bizarre than that - they all admit that it needs troops on the ground to "sort it out", but they will absolutely not send any troops. They're doing this, knowing it won't work, in other words.

[blandy]

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

We are not free from threat today, we will not be free from threat tomorrow, regardless of how the vote goes.

What we might get, is an attack with a different strap line. Some bunch of scrotes might be already planning an attack on Barnstaple Winter Wonderland. If we vote to bomb Syria, they'll simply tag it as 'revenge' for that. If we don't, it'll be in response to something else.

If there's a UK terrorism attack, the Government will say "that's why we had to bomb syria - to get the people who do this kind of thing". They will absolutely not say "Oops, perhaps we were a bit war-mongery with the Syria business, sorry about that"

[colhint]

I think this is all about unity. I don't think our planes would make much diiference to be honest. But i think the aim is to get all of the security council on board (not the actual planes)

[Chindie]

Our planes will make absolutely no difference at all. Its a gesture, grandstanding. You already have numerous air forces pounding Syria. If we don't turn up with our handful of planes, there will be just be a few more bombs dropped by the US, or Russia, or France instead.

It might make a difference if it was part of a wider strategy, but that doesn't appear to be happening and is a far far harder question to answer and tackle. And asks far wider questions we don't want to answer.

[Marka Ragnos]

19 hours ago, Chindie said:

Isn't it the US tactic for this kind of thing to send in 'military advisors' who happen to like to advise in a very hands on way?

I think I differ from you on this. I don't think this is a "this kind of thing" thing. The recent parallels aren't there, IMHO. ISIS reminds me slightly of Khmer Rouge of the late 70s or Madhist Sudan from the 19th century, but they're not a typical insurgency because the end-game is the creation of the Apocalypse -- not independence, not recognition, not "justice," not removal of the Great Satan from their land, not money.

[blandy]

[Chindie]

25 minutes ago, Marka Ragnos said:

I think I differ from you on this. I don't think this is a "this kind of thing" thing. The recent parallels aren't there, IMHO. ISIS reminds me slightly of Khmer Rouge of the late 70s or Madhist Sudan from the 19th century, but they're not a typical insurgency because the end-game is the creation of the Apocalypse -- not independence, not recognition, not "justice," not removal of the Great Satan from their land, not money.

I think you may miss my somewhat flippant point :). 

My point was to say that the US has previous on slowly involving itself on the ground in conflicts where ground forces are sensitive issues by sending troops the designate as advisors that they then morph the mission into all or combat roles.

I wasn't really making a comment on the nature of IS or action against them.

[Rugeley Villa]

a french hostage who was held by isis has said bombing syria is a trap and is exactly what they want. cant post links but its on the net and an interesting read from a person who basically lived with isis.  they want the end of times to come from this and the whole world to be against them so it unites muslims,  isis hated the fact that countries happily accepted refugees and it kind of killed the myth that the west hates muslims. very interestingly he said the paris attacks were done to close the borders so the west would stop accepting refugees and therefore create the image again that the west hates muslims.