Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    This makes no sense. How are you going to "support a effective fighting force" without air strikes on ISIS targets? The Kurds would have been destroyed at Kobane (and probably then in the rest of the areas they held) if the US hadn't stepped in with air strikes (the UK joined in Syria much later).

    It's actually a bit insulting that you want to "support" the Kurds but oppose air strikes to support those very people, the one method of support that makes such a huge difference very quickly.

    Problem is the US is now making an enemy of the Kurdish YPG. At Turkey's request they have warned the Kurds to withdraw from Manbij and areas west of the Euphrates or face airstrikes.

    Turkey has taken some territory from ISIS on the Syrian side of the Turkish border and agreed to return to ISIS land taken from them by the Kurds so basically Turkey takes Jarabulus and a portion of land from ISIS but helps them take back land they lost to Kurds thus preventing any conflict with ISIS and Turkey.

    Problem is when ISIS retakes Manbij there with be a massacre and human catastrophe, nobody has planned the evacuation of Manbij to safe havens or out of Syria. ISIS was humiliated when Kurds liberated Manbij and women were burning their burkas in the street, burning the ISIS flag etc. ISIS isn't gonna take too kindly to this when they return to Manbij
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    Problem is the US is now making an enemy of the Kurdish YPG. At Turkey's request they have warned the Kurds to withdraw from Manbij and areas west of the Euphrates or face airstrikes.

    Turkey has taken some territory from ISIS on the Syrian side of the Turkish border and agreed to return to ISIS land taken from them by the Kurds so basically Turkey takes Jarabulus and a portion of land from ISIS but helps them take back land they lost to Kurds thus preventing any conflict with ISIS and Turkey.

    Problem is when ISIS retakes Manbij there with be a massacre and human catastrophe, nobody has planned the evacuation of Manbij to safe havens or out of Syria. ISIS was humiliated when Kurds liberated Manbij and women were burning their burkas in the street, burning the ISIS flag etc. ISIS isn't gonna take too kindly to this when they return to Manbij
    Since when are Turkey going to return Manbij to ISIS? I'd love to know where you're getting your 'information' from. The US aren't weakening their alliance with the Kurds, they've just told them to withdraw to make way for Turkey because otherwise they'll end up fighting each other which will divert forces away from the true enemy; ISIS. Getting Turkey involved militarily on the ground is a good way for a professional force to fight ISIS so America aren't going to stand in the way of that, and Turkey aren't seceding land to ISIS either.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Double post. Please delete this one.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    1) The airstrikes in Syria seem to have very little effect against ISIS. The terror organisation is still very active. The US has withdrawn support for the Kurdish forces at the request of Turkey, so effectively there is no effective trustworthy ground opposition against Daesh.

    2) Airstrikes have caused significant damage and loss of life such as the 5 year old boy who was the victim of an airstrike. We should stop this when it causes lost of innocent lives! Just what are we gaining by hitting civilian targets?

    3) Airstrikes are very expensive. With massive cuts to NHS, welfare, disability benefits pip, policing etc, money would be better spent on our public services instead of an ineffective air campaign, that's causing more damage and loss of life than its preventing.

    4) Time to let other countries sort the mess in Syria. Turkey seems overly keen all of a sudden, let them deal with Syria.

    5) Airstrikes encourage more terrorism as revenge and our involvement in Syria is only putting us in more danger not less, RE point 1. They're having no effect!

    6) Airstrikes are only adding to the refugee crisis as people leave Syria to avoid our bombing raids! Then we tell them they can't come to Britain, is that fair?
    Have you been living under a rock for the past 9 months? I'm happy to debunk your points one by one:

    1) Air strikes having very little affect? Sorry but the facts disagree with you:

    "Since then, IS has lost approximately 40% of the populated territory it once held in Iraq, and 10-20% of the populated territory it had seized in Syria, according to the US."

    Looking at source material, it looks as though Coalition air strikes have killed 26,000 Da'esh fighters since the beginning of the campaign. That figure is taken from February this year so it's safe to say that number has increased. Some sources now put the amount of their fighters killed as 45,000. I'm not sure you can call that ineffective.

    "When you add that to the 20,000 estimated killed prior to our arrival, that's 45,000 enemies taken off the battlefield," he said during a Pentagon briefing.The U.S. military has typically declined to give the number of enemy dead, to avoid the Vietnam War practice of using "body counts" as misleading measures of success. However, MacFarland, who is wrapping up his 11-month tour in Baghdad, added, "I only tell you this number to provide a sense to the scale of our support and perhaps explain why enemy resistance is beginning to crumble." The three-star general said ISIS's frontline fighters are diminishing in quantity as well as quality, and are easier to kill. "We don't see them operating nearly as effectively as they have in the past, which makes them even easier targets for us so as a result they're attrition has accelerated here of late," he said."

    2) You do realise that image of the boy was caused by President Assad's forces & not the Coalition, right? Do you also realise that it's the Russians who are carpet bombing in Syria and not the Coalition? Even the somewhat biased sources out there are struggling to pin civilian casualties on Western/Coalition air strikes.
    "The London-based non-governmental organisation Airwars estimates at least 1,500 civilians have lost their lives in the coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria in the two years since the airstrikes began."

    Don't get me wrong. I understand that even one civilian death is one death too much; however, if you look at the amount of civilians butchered by Da'esh and also by Russian & Syrian forces then you can't even compare those numbers. And do you know how many civilian fatalities the RAF has been responsible for in Iraq/Syria?

    Not. A. Single. One.

    "The UK has been the second largest contributor to the air campaign in Iraq. In November 2015 the government suggested that the UK had carried out 8% of coalition air strikes in Iraq; while British Tornado aircraft had provided nearly 60% of the intelligence effort. Reaper and Airseeker aircraft, which have been authorised to fly surveillance missions over Syria since October 2014, have also been providing up to 30% of the intelligence effort in Syria.On 7 July 2016 the MOD confirmed that the UK had conducted more than 2,800 missions, including 915 airstrikes against ISIS targets in both Iraq and more recently Syria (865 and 50 strikes respectively). It went on to state that “the RAF has not operated at this sustained operational tempo in a single theatre of conflict for a quarter of a century”.
    The Government has consistently maintained that no civilian casualties in Iraq or Syria, to date, have resulted from UK air strikes."

    3) Many of the weapons being used are already paid for. The money being spent is from the Defence budget & not from the NHS, welfare, budgets etc. Please, don't just make stuff up to suit your agenda.

    4) Do you really want to trust Turkey to sort anything out? They're just as likely to attack the Kurdish forces as they are Da'esh.

    5) As I mentioned in point 1, air strikes are having a massive effect. Da'esh are in full retreat across both Iraq & Syria. Do you really think Islamic terrorist groups just want to leave us alone? Many of them have advocated global jihad even before 9/11.

    6) I think it's fair to say the majority of these refugees are fleeing Da'esh's murderous regime or fleeing from President Assad & his use of indiscriminate force & WMDs. But, hey, I'm sure that if we stop air strikes then all the refugees will stop coming... (I think not). The UK is actually helping refugees in camps & has flown some directly to the UK as opposed to inviting them to make the perilous journey across the Mediterranean trusting their lives to people smugglers.

    Please OP, at least next time you should make it a challenge to counter all your untruthful drivel.
    It's also worth pointing out that most of Da'esh's funding comes from taxation & extortion
    QED, if we push them out of populated areas they can't charge these civilians money.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27838034
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    The reason why they're having no effect is because we're not bombing ISIS, we're bombing Assad and will eventually cause a second Libya. Instead of stopping the airstrikes we need to respect Syria's sovereignty and pull our troops out of Syria and target ISIS instead of Assad.
    I'm not sure how you can argue that Assad in the wronged party. The fact he used WMDs on his own population means he's part of the problem rather than part of the solution in my opinion. As Pinemartin has said, the West haven't even remotely targeted Assad.


    That said, it does appear that trying to export Western values to the Middle East hasn't exactly been a success and, as much as I hate to say it, sometimes leaving dictators in charge is better than the alternative. I do also think this is a good enough reason to limit migration from the Middle East to the West unless they actually want to conform to Western values.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    1) The airstrikes in Syria seem to have very little effect against ISIS. The terror organisation is still very active. The US has withdrawn support for the Kurdish forces at the request of Turkey, so effectively there is no effective trustworthy ground opposition against Daesh.

    2) Airstrikes have caused significant damage and loss of life such as the 5 year old boy who was the victim of an airstrike. We should stop this when it causes lost of innocent lives! Just what are we gaining by hitting civilian targets?

    3) Airstrikes are very expensive. With massive cuts to NHS, welfare, disability benefits pip, policing etc, money would be better spent on our public services instead of an ineffective air campaign, that's causing more damage and loss of life than its preventing.

    4) Time to let other countries sort the mess in Syria. Turkey seems overly keen all of a sudden, let them deal with Syria.

    5) Airstrikes encourage more terrorism as revenge and our involvement in Syria is only putting us in more danger not less, RE point 1. They're having no effect!

    6) Airstrikes are only adding to the refugee crisis as people leave Syria to avoid our bombing raids! Then we tell them they can't come to Britain, is that fair?
    1) Between our strikes and the US strikes their sources of revenue are practically non existant and their leadership is dropping like flies, the consequence of this is weaker forces because their numbers are now made up of the desperate and the fanatics rather than people who just want to feed their families (they used to pay quite well), their war machine really is seizing up.

    2) You need to learn the difference bettwen the different airstrikes. UK strikes are focused on the economy of IS, that means the likes of the oil drilling and refinement facilities, consequently civilian casualties are low, claimed to be zero; then you get the American strikes, more in populated areas as well as the oil fields, taking out leadership; and then there are the Russian and Assad strikes, the ones you refer to, which don't intend to take out IS, they intend to secure Assad's position.

    2) Actually they're not necessarily. The expense for the strikes is actualy rather low, and that's before you look at the procurement structure. Arguably it is economically better to have the strikes because the munitions are being used rather than destroyed because they hit their use-by date; the equipment isn't bought when it's needed, it's bought in case it's needed. Further you get that all the manpower required is there anyway, and the increase in maintenance should be minimal, consequently the only real cost is the fuel, some of which would have been used anyway for training and routine flights that might be being avoided, all in all you won't get much.

    4) fair

    5) You seem to forget that these people don't need a reason, they don't attack us out of revenge for what we did yesterday, they attack for what we did much longer ago, they attack us because of our way of life, suddenly going "you know what, we're not going to bother anymore" won't stop them.

    6) See point 2.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    ffs I thought these airstrikes were struck down in parliament 3 years ago?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    ffs I thought these airstrikes were struck down in parliament 3 years ago?
    Strikes against Assad's forces were. The current air strikes are limited to ISIS (bar a handful of Nusra commanders targeted by the US).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tempest II)
    Have you been living under a rock for the past 9 months? I'm happy to debunk your points one by one:

    1) Air strikes having very little affect? Sorry but the facts disagree with you:

    "Since then, IS has lost approximately 40% of the populated territory it once held in Iraq, and 10-20% of the populated territory it had seized in Syria, according to the US."

    Looking at source material, it looks as though Coalition air strikes have killed 26,000 Da'esh fighters since the beginning of the campaign. That figure is taken from February this year so it's safe to say that number has increased. Some sources now put the amount of their fighters killed as 45,000. I'm not sure you can call that ineffective.

    "When you add that to the 20,000 estimated killed prior to our arrival, that's 45,000 enemies taken off the battlefield," he said during a Pentagon briefing.The U.S. military has typically declined to give the number of enemy dead, to avoid the Vietnam War practice of using "body counts" as misleading measures of success. However, MacFarland, who is wrapping up his 11-month tour in Baghdad, added, "I only tell you this number to provide a sense to the scale of our support and perhaps explain why enemy resistance is beginning to crumble." The three-star general said ISIS's frontline fighters are diminishing in quantity as well as quality, and are easier to kill. "We don't see them operating nearly as effectively as they have in the past, which makes them even easier targets for us so as a result they're attrition has accelerated here of late," he said."

    2) You do realise that image of the boy was caused by President Assad's forces & not the Coalition, right? Do you also realise that it's the Russians who are carpet bombing in Syria and not the Coalition? Even the somewhat biased sources out there are struggling to pin civilian casualties on Western/Coalition air strikes.
    "The London-based non-governmental organisation Airwars estimates at least 1,500 civilians have lost their lives in the coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria in the two years since the airstrikes began."

    Don't get me wrong. I understand that even one civilian death is one death too much; however, if you look at the amount of civilians butchered by Da'esh and also by Russian & Syrian forces then you can't even compare those numbers. And do you know how many civilian fatalities the RAF has been responsible for in Iraq/Syria?

    Not. A. Single. One.

    "The UK has been the second largest contributor to the air campaign in Iraq. In November 2015 the government suggested that the UK had carried out 8% of coalition air strikes in Iraq; while British Tornado aircraft had provided nearly 60% of the intelligence effort. Reaper and Airseeker aircraft, which have been authorised to fly surveillance missions over Syria since October 2014, have also been providing up to 30% of the intelligence effort in Syria.On 7 July 2016 the MOD confirmed that the UK had conducted more than 2,800 missions, including 915 airstrikes against ISIS targets in both Iraq and more recently Syria (865 and 50 strikes respectively). It went on to state that “the RAF has not operated at this sustained operational tempo in a single theatre of conflict for a quarter of a century”.
    The Government has consistently maintained that no civilian casualties in Iraq or Syria, to date, have resulted from UK air strikes."

    3) Many of the weapons being used are already paid for. The money being spent is from the Defence budget & not from the NHS, welfare, budgets etc. Please, don't just make stuff up to suit your agenda.

    4) Do you really want to trust Turkey to sort anything out? They're just as likely to attack the Kurdish forces as they are Da'esh.

    5) As I mentioned in point 1, air strikes are having a massive effect. Da'esh are in full retreat across both Iraq & Syria. Do you really think Islamic terrorist groups just want to leave us alone? Many of them have advocated global jihad even before 9/11.

    6) I think it's fair to say the majority of these refugees are fleeing Da'esh's murderous regime or fleeing from President Assad & his use of indiscriminate force & WMDs. But, hey, I'm sure that if we stop air strikes then all the refugees will stop coming... (I think not). The UK is actually helping refugees in camps & has flown some directly to the UK as opposed to inviting them to make the perilous journey across the Mediterranean trusting their lives to people smugglers.

    Please OP, at least next time you should make it a challenge to counter all your untruthful drivel.
    It's also worth pointing out that most of Da'esh's funding comes from taxation & extortion
    QED, if we push them out of populated areas they can't charge these civilians money.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27838034
    Correctimundo, but it's maddening how often we have to dispel outrights lies like this all the time.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    ffs I thought these airstrikes were struck down in parliament 3 years ago?
    Back in December they were approved by a majority of 174, but even then a vote in Parliament is unnecessary as parliamentary approval is in no way needed to go to war, much less approve any and all operations.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tempest II)
    Have you been living under a rock for the past 9 months? I'm happy to debunk your points one by one:

    1) Air strikes having very little affect? Sorry but the facts disagree with you:

    "Since then, IS has lost approximately 40% of the populated territory it once held in Iraq, and 10-20% of the populated territory it had seized in Syria, according to the US."

    Looking at source material, it looks as though Coalition air strikes have killed 26,000 Da'esh fighters since the beginning of the campaign. That figure is taken from February this year so it's safe to say that number has increased. Some sources now put the amount of their fighters killed as 45,000. I'm not sure you can call that ineffective.

    "When you add that to the 20,000 estimated killed prior to our arrival, that's 45,000 enemies taken off the battlefield," he said during a Pentagon briefing.The U.S. military has typically declined to give the number of enemy dead, to avoid the Vietnam War practice of using "body counts" as misleading measures of success. However, MacFarland, who is wrapping up his 11-month tour in Baghdad, added, "I only tell you this number to provide a sense to the scale of our support and perhaps explain why enemy resistance is beginning to crumble." The three-star general said ISIS's frontline fighters are diminishing in quantity as well as quality, and are easier to kill. "We don't see them operating nearly as effectively as they have in the past, which makes them even easier targets for us so as a result they're attrition has accelerated here of late," he said."

    2) You do realise that image of the boy was caused by President Assad's forces & not the Coalition, right? Do you also realise that it's the Russians who are carpet bombing in Syria and not the Coalition? Even the somewhat biased sources out there are struggling to pin civilian casualties on Western/Coalition air strikes.
    "The London-based non-governmental organisation Airwars estimates at least 1,500 civilians have lost their lives in the coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria in the two years since the airstrikes began."

    Don't get me wrong. I understand that even one civilian death is one death too much; however, if you look at the amount of civilians butchered by Da'esh and also by Russian & Syrian forces then you can't even compare those numbers. And do you know how many civilian fatalities the RAF has been responsible for in Iraq/Syria?

    Not. A. Single. One.

    "The UK has been the second largest contributor to the air campaign in Iraq. In November 2015 the government suggested that the UK had carried out 8% of coalition air strikes in Iraq; while British Tornado aircraft had provided nearly 60% of the intelligence effort. Reaper and Airseeker aircraft, which have been authorised to fly surveillance missions over Syria since October 2014, have also been providing up to 30% of the intelligence effort in Syria.On 7 July 2016 the MOD confirmed that the UK had conducted more than 2,800 missions, including 915 airstrikes against ISIS targets in both Iraq and more recently Syria (865 and 50 strikes respectively). It went on to state that “the RAF has not operated at this sustained operational tempo in a single theatre of conflict for a quarter of a century”.
    The Government has consistently maintained that no civilian casualties in Iraq or Syria, to date, have resulted from UK air strikes."

    3) Many of the weapons being used are already paid for. The money being spent is from the Defence budget & not from the NHS, welfare, budgets etc. Please, don't just make stuff up to suit your agenda.

    4) Do you really want to trust Turkey to sort anything out? They're just as likely to attack the Kurdish forces as they are Da'esh.

    5) As I mentioned in point 1, air strikes are having a massive effect. Da'esh are in full retreat across both Iraq & Syria. Do you really think Islamic terrorist groups just want to leave us alone? Many of them have advocated global jihad even before 9/11.

    6) I think it's fair to say the majority of these refugees are fleeing Da'esh's murderous regime or fleeing from President Assad & his use of indiscriminate force & WMDs. But, hey, I'm sure that if we stop air strikes then all the refugees will stop coming... (I think not). The UK is actually helping refugees in camps & has flown some directly to the UK as opposed to inviting them to make the perilous journey across the Mediterranean trusting their lives to people smugglers.

    Please OP, at least next time you should make it a challenge to counter all your untruthful drivel.
    It's also worth pointing out that most of Da'esh's funding comes from taxation & extortion
    QED, if we push them out of populated areas they can't charge these civilians money.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27838034
    I'm surprised you wasted so much time correcting him. I'm still trying to decide if he's a troll or not with such misinformed arguments as those.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    No. We need to defeat ISIS.
    Even if that means displacing families from their homes? The harm these airstrikes inflict on Syria outweighs the good it does. Take Omran Daqneesh, the airstrikes have stripped him of his home and sadly his brother, or the children who perished in a Syria Barrel Bombing. With the refugee crisis, they don't have anywhere to go, they don't have a choice anymore.

    Each day Syrians are plagued with more death and sorrow as a result of the war. These airstrikes brings more death and suffering to the people of Syria, it's unacceptable.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paranoid_Glitch)
    Even if that means displacing families from their homes? The harm these airstrikes inflict on Syria outweighs the good it does. Take Omran Daqneesh, the airstrikes have stripped him of his home and sadly his brother, or the children who perished in a Syria Barrel Bombing. With the refugee crisis, they don't have anywhere to go, they don't have a choice anymore.

    Each day Syrians are plagued with more death and sorrow as a result of the war. These airstrikes brings more death and suffering to the people of Syria, it's unacceptable.
    That boy had absolutely nothing to do with the anti-ISIS coalition. He was hit by an air strike in Aleppo city, where there is no ISIS presence, and was hit by either a Syrian or Russian air strike. Syria and Russia use far less accurate bombs than the US, UK and other western countries.

    Given how much ground has been taken from ISIS in offensives backed by coalition air power, I'd very strongly disagree that "the harm outweighs the good". Civilian deaths from coalition bombing have been low, especially when compared to the inaccurate and indiscriminate bombing by the Syrian government.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    1) The airstrikes in Syria seem to have very little effect against ISIS. The terror organisation is still very active. The US has withdrawn support for the Kurdish forces at the request of Turkey, so effectively there is no effective trustworthy ground opposition against Daesh.

    2) Airstrikes have caused significant damage and loss of life such as the 5 year old boy who was the victim of an airstrike. We should stop this when it causes lost of innocent lives! Just what are we gaining by hitting civilian targets?

    3) Airstrikes are very expensive. With massive cuts to NHS, welfare, disability benefits pip, policing etc, money would be better spent on our public services instead of an ineffective air campaign, that's causing more damage and loss of life than its preventing.

    4) Time to let other countries sort the mess in Syria. Turkey seems overly keen all of a sudden, let them deal with Syria.

    5) Airstrikes encourage more terrorism as revenge and our involvement in Syria is only putting us in more danger not less, RE point 1. They're having no effect!

    6) Airstrikes are only adding to the refugee crisis as people leave Syria to avoid our bombing raids! Then we tell them they can't come to Britain, is that fair?
    Completely agree. In fact, point 5 (in iraq and afghanistan for the last 15 years) I reckon is the main cause for a mass increase in islamaphobia and muslim-related terrorism
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Paranoid_Glitch)
    Even if that means displacing families from their homes? The harm these airstrikes inflict on Syria outweighs the good it does. Take Omran Daqneesh, the airstrikes have stripped him of his home and sadly his brother, or the children who perished in a Syria Barrel Bombing. With the refugee crisis, they don't have anywhere to go, they don't have a choice anymore.

    Each day Syrians are plagued with more death and sorrow as a result of the war. These airstrikes brings more death and suffering to the people of Syria, it's unacceptable.
    Ummm, so you think that this conflict is going on in the whole of the middle East? No, it's going on in one country with a slight spill into another, to say there is nowhere to go just shows how idiotic so many people are, sorry, I forgot that there aren't FIVE countries border it, in turn bordered by about half a dozen more without having to touch any water; I'm sorry, I forgot that in several of those countries there are large refugee camps that are SPECIFICALLY there for civilians to flee to in safety is just a figment of my imagination; and I'm sorry I forgot that it certainly isn't a conscious decision people make to put their families at risk by either not going to the camps that are a figment of my imagination, or choosing to travel further in search of wealth.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paranoid_Glitch)
    Even if that means displacing families from their homes? The harm these airstrikes inflict on Syria outweighs the good it does. Take Omran Daqneesh, the airstrikes have stripped him of his home and sadly his brother, or the children who perished in a Syria Barrel Bombing. With the refugee crisis, they don't have anywhere to go, they don't have a choice anymore.

    Each day Syrians are plagued with more death and sorrow as a result of the war. These airstrikes brings more death and suffering to the people of Syria, it's unacceptable.
    Yes, personally I think we should still do it in order to protect Britain from terrorism. People are going to die in every day, that doesn't mean we should just let ISIS do their work.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    the liklihood of many isis being in the radius of a bomb explosion going off is minimal, instead its innocent people!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shawtyb)
    the liklihood of many isis being in the radius of a bomb explosion going off is minimal, instead its innocent people!
    Not true. The casualties from bombing have overwhelmingly been ISIS fighters, with civilian deaths being quite low.

    The bombs used by the western coalition are very accurate, and some missiles can easily hit moving targets that are miles away. It is entirely possible to target ISIS positions and vehicles and hit them with guided weapons. They're not just dropping unguided bombs and hoping for the best.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    Yes, personally I think we should still do it in order to protect Britain from terrorism. People are going to die in every day, that doesn't mean we should just let ISIS do their work.
    There will always be casualties during war, but that does not make it okay. I doubt you would say the same thing or even appreciate people saying such things if these airstrikes were targeted at your home.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    That boy had absolutely nothing to do with the anti-ISIS coalition. He was hit by an air strike in Aleppo city, where there is no ISIS presence, and was hit by either a Syrian or Russian air strike. Syria and Russia use far less accurate bombs than the US, UK and other western countries.

    Given how much ground has been taken from ISIS in offensives backed by coalition air power, I'd very strongly disagree that "the harm outweighs the good". Civilian deaths from coalition bombing have been low, especially when compared to the inaccurate and indiscriminate bombing by the Syrian government.
    In regard to the amount of lives lost, i'm not talking about a single airstrike (sorry if that was misunderstood) but airstrikes in general. They create more pain for the people of Syria. Yes there are always casualties during war, it's inevitable. But even though that is the case, it shouldn't be acceptable. I'm not saying "Stop these airstrikes" but instead redirect them from Assad and focus on ISIS.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.