The Student Room Group

Should We Bomb Syria

Scroll to see replies

Original post by IbbyA
I completely agree ALL lives matter it is ridiculous that people are saying the answer to Daesh is to bomb them. If anything it will only make them stronger.


How will it make them stronger?

ISIS do what they do regardless of western intervention. Without air strikes, they would undoubtedly end up stronger because it would be much easier for them to capture and hold territory. If you think bombing them makes them stronger, imagine how strong they would become if they were left alone and no one bombed them - they'd be free to expand pretty much as they wanted. Air strikes have helped local ground forces win against ISIS in a number of places - these successes (and I can name and explain plenty if you want) would simply not have happened without air strikes.

The only thing I would say is that there needs to be a peace process between the Syrian government and the non-ISIS opposition to try and end the wider war, and we should be prepared to back the Syrian government to fight ISIS. That's where our current policy is lacking - it is not the air strikes that are the problem.
Original post by IbbyA
Do you know what shariaah law is if so tell me what you believe it is.


why...how is this relevant?
i fail to see what a uk bombing campaign could achieve that the american, french, canadian, saudi etc campaigns haven't other than adding more fuel to the jihadist fire. there is no way we can eradicate daesh (isis) with bombing alone. the only option is boots on the ground to capture and hold territory, western nations however are reluctant to do this because once again it will add more fuel to the jihadist fire. in my opinion it should be sunni muslim nations that provide the ground forces, saudi arabia for example, this is however unlikely because saudi wahabis are providing daesh with the money to fund the war.
I think it's pretty obvious as to IbbA's views. He's trying to hide it but the agenda is obvious. All his posts are in this thread and they registered today.
Reply 24
Original post by driftawaay
why...how is this relevant?


because you mentioned it in your previous comment
Reply 25
Original post by Pegasus2
I think it's pretty obvious as to IbbA's views. He's trying to hide it but the agenda is obvious. All his posts are in this thread and they registered today.


And what is my "Agenda"?
Original post by Pegasus2
I think it's pretty obvious as to IbbA's views. He's trying to hide it but the agenda is obvious. All his posts are in this thread and they registered today.


Yeah its a banned member lol.
Reply 27
Original post by RF_PineMarten
How will it make them stronger?

ISIS do what they do regardless of western intervention. Without air strikes, they would undoubtedly end up stronger because it would be much easier for them to capture and hold territory. If you think bombing them makes them stronger, imagine how strong they would become if they were left alone and no one bombed them - they'd be free to expand pretty much as they wanted. Air strikes have helped local ground forces win against ISIS in a number of places - these successes (and I can name and explain plenty if you want) would simply not have happened without air strikes.

The only thing I would say is that there needs to be a peace process between the Syrian government and the non-ISIS opposition to try and end the wider war, and we should be prepared to back the Syrian government to fight ISIS. That's where our current policy is lacking - it is not the air strikes that are the problem.


Bombing will make them stronger as many innocent people are dying so when the families and friends of these dead innocents see what has happened some will want revenge. And guess what Daesh are right there welcoming them in. I never said we should leave them alone all i am saying is we shouldnt bomb Syria.
Reply 28
Original post by driftawaay
Yeah its a banned member lol.


What do you mean?
Original post by IbbyA
What do you mean?


What could i possibly mean?
Reply 30
I dont know that is why i am asking
Original post by driftawaay
What could i possibly mean?
Original post by IbbyA
Foreign countries like Russia the US and Britain are what I meant by we and I'm talking about the bombings which are occurring in Syria,


Foreign countries are already bombing Syria.

Russia are primarily bombing FSA rebels and the US are bombing isis.
Reply 32
Original post by AlifunArnab
Foreign countries are already bombing Syria.

Russia are primarily bombing FSA rebels and the US are bombing isis.


Yes but just because Daesh are targeted doesn't mean innocents aren't dying thats why I am asking if people think it should be happening.
Reply 33
Original post by driftawaay
... and you think that's gonna stop terrorism and suddenly the huge number of people who have joined ISIS are just going to disappear magically?


Of course not but it will stop many would be Daesh members
I worry there is no long term plan to turn Syria into a stable country people feel they have a reason to take pride and care in.


We can't let Daesh continue, their plan is global control, so they will not leave us alone, ignoring them will not give us peace, we also can't expect persecuted Sunnis live under a leader who has persecuted and killed them for years, but there is a real danger than we remove Assad, defeat Daesh in every fight, but after that there is no credible plan to rebuild Syria and create an inclusive politics.




The terrorism doesn't stop when we take Raqqa, the terrorism stops when Muslims feel they have more to live for than they have to die for.
Original post by IbbyA
Bombing will make them stronger as many innocent people are dying so when the families and friends of these dead innocents see what has happened some will want revenge. And guess what Daesh are right there welcoming them in. I never said we should leave them alone all i am saying is we shouldnt bomb Syria.


Civilian casualties, while unfortunate, are unavoidable. They are also sometimes exaggerated. Civilian casualties from precision guided bombs have actually been relatively low, and western countries have been known to leave particular targets alone if the risk of large scale civilian casualties is too high.

ISIS persecute all opponents, including those from particular ethnic and religious groups. So think about the civilian casualties from leaving ISIS alone to expand.

And anyone prepared to turn to ISIS because of western air strikes were never going to be our friends anyway. The only people who will change allegiance to ISIS over something like that are the ones who already have some sympathy for them.
Original post by viddy9
We need to be wary of making knee-jerk, emotional reactions to a terror attack.

Firstly, we need to come to a diplomatic agreement with all of the major players in the region aside from ISIS, agree on a strategy, and then implement it. Ideally, those in the region (the Kurds, Iran, Hezbollah, Iraq, the Gulf States, the Shia militias in Iraq, as well as Assad backed by Russia) would be doing the most to fight IS, because any military intervention will increase the risk of a terror attack in Britain, and would also play into IS's hands, allowing them to radicalise more people. The UN mandate recently passed is a step forward in this domain.


We also need to get Assad and the Syrian opposition to come to a diplomatic agreement as President Obama and others have been making renewed attempts to do in Vienna. This would allow the focus to be shifted squarely onto IS. .


Your post shows clear ignorance on the reasons for the formation of isis.
I'm against war and violence in general.

I'm opposed to air strikes. Oddly enough though I think boots on the ground in Syria would be a good idea.

US led ground invasion with support from UK and France = bye bye Daesh in a matter of weeks. Assad wouldn't agree to it though, and Putin would piss his pants.
Reply 38
Original post by RF_PineMarten
Civilian casualties, while unfortunate, are unavoidable. They are also sometimes exaggerated. Civilian casualties from precision guided bombs have actually been relatively low, and western countries have been known to leave particular targets alone if the risk of large scale civilian casualties is too high.

ISIS persecute all opponents, including those from particular ethnic and religious groups. So think about the civilian casualties from leaving ISIS alone to expand.

And anyone prepared to turn to ISIS because of western air strikes were never going to be our friends anyway. The only people who will change allegiance to ISIS over something like that are the ones who already have some sympathy for them.


You would be surprised what the loss of a child will make a parent do. Just because Daesh don't care who they kill doesn't mean we should stoop to their level. And your attitude to saying loss of human life is unavoidable shows a complete lack of remorse on your part. Also civilian deaths are relatively low, you have got to be joking at least 650 innocents have died due to bombings that is more than double than the number of Daesh deaths from bombs.
Reply 39
Original post by PAStudent1996
I'm against war and violence in general.

I'm opposed to air strikes. Oddly enough though I think boots on the ground in Syria would be a good idea.

US led ground invasion with support from UK and France = bye bye Daesh in a matter of weeks. Assad wouldn't agree to it though, and Putin would piss his pants.


Putin pissing himself. Now that's something I would pay to see

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending