Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Should We Bomb Syria

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60

viddy9

Original post by AlifunArnab

Your post shows clear ignorance on the reasons for the formation of isis.

Thank you for your reply. Could you expand upon it and explain some of the reasons for ISIS's formation?

Reply 61

MedCrashCourse

Bomb syria = more peace if you think about it. This also means less immigrants which can be terrorists.

Reply 62

IbbyA

Hahahaha good one! Bomb Syria= More hate towards West as innocents are likely to be killed and then relatives and friends wanting revenge will most likely join ISIS meaning more terrorists, also more Bombing means more people will flee which means more refugees which means that there is a bigger chance that one of them is a terrorist. Your a fool to think bombing helps, look at Al-Qaeda they have been attacked constantly for over a decade they seem to be well and strong.

Original post by tutorscience

Bomb syria = more peace if you think about it. This also means less immigrants which can be terrorists.

Reply 63

MedCrashCourse

Original post by IbbyA

Calm yo titties. I am just agreeing with David Cameron. If we bomb the whole syria = problem solved! no need to get agressive here :smile:

Reply 64

IbbyA

Sorry I just found it disturbing how flawed your logic was, if we bomb ALL of Syria then pretty much every Arab country would be outraged and they would most likely turn on the West.

Original post by tutorscience

Calm yo titties. I am just agreeing with David Cameron. If we bomb the whole syria = problem solved! no need to get agressive here :smile:

Reply 65

MedCrashCourse

Original post by IbbyA

Sorry I just found it disturbing how flawed your logic was, if we bomb ALL of Syria then pretty much every Arab country would be outraged and they would most likely turn on the West.

Not complaining. Who started the fire first? hmmm Paris attack.*cough* just better bomb them all as a deterrent. "An eye for an eye" I hope they agree this too.

EDIT: They don't even have nuclear weapons.

NO.

yes. the idea of trying to get them round the table to talk just simply won't work. the US and the french are doing it, and we shouldn't be seen to be retreating on the world stage even more than we already have done - although the rise in defense spending may reverse this a bit.
it is wrong to expect the US and the french to fight our battles for us.
I think that civilian casualties are something we need to think about, of course, but the RAF are a very highly trained bunch and they will avoid this at all costs. The US rely on the RAF to pin point targets for them as the RAF are more highly trained. As far as I'm aware, the RAF hasn't caused any civilian casualties in Iraq -- that has been the Russians.

So, although I do understand the opposition, ultimately we have to intervene militarily in syria -- if the commons votes against it is simply a major embarrassment and IS have been trying to attack us anyway and we're not even in syria yet.

Simply: YES we should

Reply 69

RF_PineMarten

Original post by IbbyA

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.

Civilian casualties can be minimised but not completely avoided. That is just a fact. So a certain level of civilian casualties is unavoidable.

I'm going to need sources for those figures (particularly "more than double" the number of ISIS deaths). One article (from November 2015) says the civilian toll is 680-975+ from 8400+ strikes , and that over 10,000-15,000 ISIS fighters had been killed.

Reply 70

hoping4Astars

I think that we should bomb Syria, mainly because of the fact that many of the IS members are there simply to train for attacks on the West, such as on the UK. Places like Raqqa are far safer strongholds for IS than the Iraqi side. We should bomb these areas to destroy IS and keep Britain safe. At the same time, we should pressure Assad's supporter (Russia) to remove their support for the regime using more economic sanctions. We should also try to stop the flow of migrants into the EU by agreeing to take in more migrants directly from Syria, where we can make sure that they are unarmed and have no terrorism history, instead of blindly taking in anyone who claims to be a 'refugee'. The Paris attacks have shown how dangerous it is to let in illegal migrants from these countries without any proper background checks.

So overall, the strategy should be bomb IS, sanction Russia for supporting Assad and press for a new government, tighten EU border controls to reduce migration. This should keep the UK safer from the effects of the Syrian War.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 71

Mackay

We should stop thinking of ISIS in terms of land boundaries. They are NOT a state. They don't merely occupy one area of the world. We need to realise that.

Reply 72

TheArtofProtest

Original post by Mackay

We should stop thinking of ISIS in terms of land boundaries. They are NOT a state. They don't merely occupy one area of the world. We need to realise that.

IS are neither a terrorist group nor a state but more like a proto-state, taking it upon themselves to levy taxes as well as provide welfare and other services for it's citizens.

Reply 73

AlifunArnab

Original post by viddy9

Thank you for your reply. Could you expand upon it and explain some of the reasons for ISIS's formation?

With all due respect, there is a plethora of information on the net. Just to guide you in the right direction, google 'Shia death squads' and read about the events that led up to the rise of isis.

As a summary however :

A combination of Sunni alienation (US invaded the country and gave it to the Shia) + Sunni massacres (Shia deathsquads killing indiscriminately) in Iraq is primarily what brought about the rise of isis.

In your first post, there's absolutely no mention of working with Sunni groups in the region. You've mentioned Iran, Iraqi government and Shia militias yet the last two are effectively proxies for Iran. The fact is, the US did the same thing when they left not realising the effects it would have years later.

Reply 74

DiddyDec01

Original post by TheArtofProtest

IS are neither a terrorist group nor a state but more like a proto-state, taking it upon themselves to levy taxes as well as provide welfare and other services for it's citizens.

IS are not a terrorist group? Do you want to expand on that?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 75

TheArtofProtest

Original post by DiddyDec

IS are not a terrorist group? Do you want to expand on that?

In the sense that they are not a conventional "terrorist group" per se.

The issue is more with "group" than terrorist. IS doesn't act like a terrorist group which mostly focuses on military warfare but it has a comprehensive social dynamic to the areas in which it exercises control.

That is why it is more like a state, than a group.

Reply 76

KimKallstrom

Original post by Bupdeeboowah

We sit them around the table, serve them tea (fair trade) and scones (organic and cruelty-free), and negotiate with them on the best possible non-violent solution to the problem in the Middle East.

Hey guys, can you please less in a bit on the mass killing, rape, torture and slavery of people who are different to you? In return we will ban concerts and Jews. Thanks.

Reply 77

MichaelGreen

Oooh, I dunno, what does Chilcot say?

Reply 78

KimKallstrom

Original post by Scott.

Level the country, like we did Germany. Then put boots on the ground and implement freedom. We'll decimate whatever small economy they have.

Or we could have negotiated with the group who were determined to kill every Jew, gypsy, mentally ill person and sympathiser to all the above in Europe.

Reply 79

Pegasus2

Original post by IbbyA

The Americans tried that in Iraq, they did something called debaathification ( In Germany it was denazification) and it meant they sacked everyone in the baath party ( Sadaam Hussein's party) these party members who got sacked formed a group to take back Iraq. This grou is called Daesh.

That's compete shash.

ISIS existed in 1999 and were killing and car bombing people back then. They joined Al-Q and became the Syrian arm of Al-Q in 2003.

There probably are some Baa'thists but to say ISIS IS formed by them is rubbish.

Also, laser guided bonds are very accurate, you can drop them from 20,000ft and they will go through someone's front door if you want them to.

Civilian casualties minimum.

Also it's not as if ISIS don't kill civilians as apostates.