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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paranoid_Glitch)
    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.
    What on earth are you talking about? The West isn't striking the Assad regime. All of its airstrikes are against ISIS.

    As for pain for the people of Syria (and Iraq), what would be more painful would be leaving ISIS in power and allowing them to solidify into a real-state with long-term prospects. The Kurds and Iraqis have told us precisely how valuable and vital Western air power has been in helping them roll back the ISIS horde. Every serious observer agrees that the airstrikes have been devastating to ISIS.

    45,000 ISIS terrorists have been killed as against around 1,500 civilians, over the last two years. By contrast, ISIS slaughtered 1,500 Iraqi air force cadets (18 and 19 year olds) in a single afternoon, simply for the "crime" of being Shi'a or perceived to be in league with them, after they captured the academy. There is no question that had we allowed those 45,000 ISIS members to live, they would have murdered far more civilians than the number that has been unfortunately killed in our airstrikes.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    Strikes against Assad's forces were. The current air strikes are limited to ISIS (bar a handful of Nusra commanders targeted by the US).
    oh yeah, you're right - it's such a shame that our governments toy around with the middle east like an angry hornets' nest *still*
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Its impossible to stop terrorism, given that virtually ANYONE can rent a truck and ram it into a crowd, or stab someone.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Its impossible to stop terrorism, given that virtually ANYONE can rent a truck and ram it into a crowd, or stab someone.
    I've been against iraq, libya and the original syrian motives, but surely ISIS have proven themselves as dangerous to the UK? so if they're attempting to establish a haven in a particular country like afghanistan (or in this case syria) then that's an objective threat to our national security? I don't believe in attacking countries for basically no reason (iraq, libya) but there actually is a justifiable reason here, surely? would you not say that this would pass a UNSC test at least? if you're against bombing terrorist cells, then what *are* you in favour of? imagine if this was WWII and the nazis were taking over france to gain the power to invade the UK - wouldn't *that* be grounds for a defensive invasion? so why not here? I know you "can't stop terrorism" but this would sure as **** put a damper on it, right? in the same sense you "can't stop nazis" but you can still beat the **** out of them in other countries until they chill out
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (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.
    A 100% lie. If the West were attaking Assad he would have lost by now.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    I've been against iraq, libya and the original syrian motives, but surely ISIS have proven themselves as dangerous to the UK? so if they're attempting to establish a haven in a particular country like afghanistan (or in this case syria) then that's an objective threat to our national security? I don't believe in attacking countries for basically no reason (iraq, libya) but there actually is a justifiable reason here, surely? would you not say that this would pass a UNSC test at least? if you're against bombing terrorist cells, then what *are* you in favour of? imagine if this was WWII and the nazis were taking over france to gain the power to invade the UK - wouldn't *that* be grounds for a defensive invasion? so why not here? I know you "can't stop terrorism" but this would sure as **** put a damper on it, right? in the same sense you "can't stop nazis" but you can still beat the **** out of them in other countries until they chill out
    ISIS isn't dangerous to us or the UK. We have an excessively low chance of being caught up in an ISIS terrorist attack, you're far more likely to die in a car crash or something. ISIS does not pose an existential threat to our nation, their armies are weak, disorganised and isolated to the Middle East and other, remote parts of the world. People like to let the media brainwash them into thinking that they are notoriously unsafe from terrorism, realistically your chances of being involved in one and killed are negligible. Alongside this, they've basically declared war and encouraged airstrikes from almost every world power, their existence in their current state has an expiry date within the next 5 years.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    ISIS isn't dangerous to us or the UK. We have an excessively low chance of being caught up in an ISIS terrorist attack, you're far more likely to die in a car crash or something.
    you can't wage an international war against "car crashes" though. they are accidents. ISIS murders are not accidents - they are political actions against the members of an innocent nation-state and deserve to be prevented as an obligation of our government via the obvious social contract that we have with it (protection for taxation). the fact that you're saying that the likelihood of being killed in an ISIS attack being low means that we ought not try and prevent this from being a threat to those that *are* killed is disgraceful. these are citizens of our nation. they're not just some throw-away individuals - they deserve as much protection as anybody else.

    ISIS does not pose an existential threat to our nation, their armies are weak, disorganised and isolated to the Middle East and other, remote parts of the world. People like to let the media brainwash them into thinking that they are notoriously unsafe from terrorism, realistically your chances of being involved in one and killed are negligible. Alongside this, they've basically declared war and encouraged airstrikes from almost every world power, their existence in their current state has an expiry date within the next 5 years.
    again, I know fully that the chances of *me* personally being killed by ISIS are very low. I probably have as much of a chance of being murdered by ISIS than any other individual or group, yet you strangely think that ISIS shouldn't be stopped, yet criminals in our nation *should* be stopped. my argument doesn't rely on an assumption that *I* will be killed. it is based on the assumption that innocent people in our country will. and as long as you don't give me any proof of this random "5 years" prediction I have no choice but to not take you the least bit serious.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    nah let the **** hit the fan, I'm so over world peace-an attractive dream is all it is.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    you can't wage an international war against "car crashes" though. they are accidents. ISIS murders are not accidents - they are political actions against the members of an innocent nation-state and deserve to be prevented as an obligation of our government via the obvious social contract that we have with it (protection for taxation). the fact that you're saying that the likelihood of being killed in an ISIS attack being low means that we ought not try and prevent this from being a threat to those that *are* killed is disgraceful. these are citizens of our nation. they're not just some throw-away individuals - they deserve as much protection as anybody else.



    again, I know fully that the chances of *me* personally being killed by ISIS are very low. I probably have as much of a chance of being murdered by ISIS than any other individual or group, yet you strangely think that ISIS shouldn't be stopped, yet criminals in our nation *should* be stopped. my argument doesn't rely on an assumption that *I* will be killed. it is based on the assumption that innocent people in our country will. and as long as you don't give me any proof of this random "5 years" prediction I have no choice but to not take you the least bit serious.
    When exactly did I say ISIS shouldn't be stopped? They should be and I support refined airstrikes against them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    oh yeah, you're right - it's such a shame that our governments toy around with the middle east like an angry hornets' nest *still*
    Why would airstrikes against ISIS stir up Muslims in general?

    All the states of the region support the war against ISIS. In fact, I cannot think of an intervention involving substantial Western forces that has been so widely supported.

    More importantly, the Iraqis and Kurds, have explained exactly how vital is the support and assistance which we are providing to them (which includes training their soldiers, providing equipment, providing intelligence and also air support in the form of air strikes when they are in battle, and a more general campaign of strikes against all forms of ISIS infrastructure and materiel).

    All serious observers agree that the withering rain if airstrikes against ISIS has been devastating to them; they spend so much time looking up at the sky checking for drones, and constantly scared they are about to get clipped, that they don't really have any energy or motivation to go on the offensive.

    I, for one, cannot see how that is wrong. We have for the most part kept ground troops out of Iraq and Syria in any appreciable numbers, and only provided support as part of a coalition that involves partners on the ground whose land it actually is, involving regional states both the Shi'a and the Sunni, and also all the major European countries, and Russia and China.

    The best numbers we have are that 45,000 ISIS members have been killed and around 1,500 civilians in our airstrikes over the last 2 years. ISIS murdered 1500 Iraqi air force cadets (18 and 19 year olds) in a single afternoon when they overran the air force academy. They forced some to lie down in large groups and then machine gunned them, others they walked out one by one onto a giant block next to a river where they shot them in the head and then pushed the body into the river,

    Can anyone seriously doubt that if those 45,000 ISIS members were still alive, that they would not have killed far more than the 1,500 civilians who have tragically died in our airstrikes?

    Our involvement has been very cautious, very precise in calibrating it to support partners on the ground whose country it is, and avoiding a major ground deployment that might provoke the Muslims. The idea that instead we should have just allowed ISIS to overrun the Kurds and probably cause the fall of the Iraqi government is pure insanity.

    I suppose when you're an 18 year old sitting behind your computer, with no real responsibilities and little sense of consequences, it's much easier to airily dismiss the earth-shattering consequences that would follow from the conquest of Baghdad by ISIS (a city which has enormous cultural and religious significance) and allow the government to fall, and an ISIS state to establish itself permanently.
    Offline

    14
    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!
    You're talking about the Assad/Russian bombings. If you're talking about the RAF strikes then the exact opposite is true.............
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Why would airstrikes against ISIS stir up Muslims in general?
    ...?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    You're very biased, you don't seem to mention the success of airstikes in weakening Daesh's capabilities and assets. Several high ranked terrorist targets have been killed ISIS fighters have been killed and it sends the message we won't stand for it. I think now is the time to back Turkey, have Russia agree a coalition with the USA and Turkey and make it work. If you support and fund the Kurds you are expanding the crisis. And this government wouldn't spend that money on public services, it'd be spent to fund their planned tax breaks for the super rich companies.
    • 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.
    Unfortunately the US and I presume the whole coalition has stopped their
    support for the Kurds in Syria at the request of Turkey. That means ISIS is likely to retake the major city of Manbij which they only liberated 2 weeks ago with horrific consequences for its entire population and the people living to the west of the Euphrates who have also lost Kurdish support after Kurdish forces were threatened with Turkish airstrikes.

    My question is who the hell will defend Kobane when the Kurds have been beaten back by ISIS. In 2014 they had US air support. Which they don't have now. And Peshmerga ground forces from Iraq helped save Kobane which is not likely to happen now.

    The US has succeeded in dividing Kurds in Iraq and Syria. Iraqi Kurds and peshmerga enjoy a lot of US support, weapons tanks etc. The Syrian Kurds get nothing from Uncle Sam except threats not to upset the US's beloved Turkey. That has done nothing but divide and upset the Kurds who see Iraqi Kurds as traitors.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    Unfortunately the US and I presume the whole coalition has stopped their
    support for the Kurds in Syria at the request of Turkey. That means ISIS is likely to retake the major city of Manbij which they only liberated 2 weeks ago with horrific consequences for its entire population and the people living to the west of the Euphrates who have also lost Kurdish support after Kurdish forces were threatened with Turkish airstrikes.

    My question is who the hell will defend Kobane when the Kurds have been beaten back by ISIS. In 2014 they had US air support. Which they don't have now. And Peshmerga ground forces from Iraq helped save Kobane which is not likely to happen now.

    The US has succeeded in dividing Kurds in Iraq and Syria. Iraqi Kurds and peshmerga enjoy a lot of US support, weapons tanks etc. The Syrian Kurds get nothing from Uncle Sam except threats not to upset the US's beloved Turkey. That has done nothing but divide and upset the Kurds who see Iraqi Kurds as traitors.
    The US is still supporting the Kurds. It's Turkey who want them to leave the area, and Turkey's intervention has just complicated things a bit.
    Offline

    1
    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
    completely false.

    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    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?
    The bombing of Japan also killed innocent lives, but without it the war and deathtoll would have been ten times higher


    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    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.
    it's not an ineffective air campaign and you KNOW THAT, every week there is a new video on youtube of NATO bombers destroying ISIS tanks/compounds/training bases

    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    4) Time to let other countries sort the mess in Syria. Turkey seems overly keen all of a sudden, let them deal with Syria.
    Turkey are not going to "deal with" Syria, they are dealing with the kurds and only the kurds.

    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    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!
    ISIS were cutting the heads off innocent iraqi's and Syrians a full year before any airstrikes took place, as one of the nations that messed up Iraq in the first place it is partly our job to makes sure ISIS are not our legacy

    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    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?
    ISIS and the Syrian war are the cause of the refugee crisis, the sooner ISIS are bombed to dust the sooner this war can end and people can rebuild their country.

    All in all your understanding of the conflict is as bad as some lefty liberal like Owen Smith's.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by remiremi)
    completely false.



    The bombing of Japan also killed innocent lives, but without it the war and deathtoll would have been ten times higher




    it's not an ineffective air campaign and you KNOW THAT, every week there is a new video on youtube of NATO bombers destroying ISIS tanks/compounds/training bases



    Turkey are not going to "deal with" Syria, they are dealing with the kurds and only the kurds.



    ISIS were cutting the heads off innocent iraqi's and Syrians a full year before any airstrikes took place, as one of the nations that messed up Iraq in the first place it is partly our job to makes sure ISIS are not our legacy



    ISIS and the Syrian war are the cause of the refugee crisis, the sooner ISIS are bombed to dust the sooner this war can end and people can rebuild their country.

    All in all your understanding of the conflict is as bad as some lefty liberal like Owen Smith's.
    We have to admit the only way to end this war is to negotiate with IS. The only 3 sides we have now are the Regime, FSA and ISIS. They can be the only winners.

    There can be 3 divisions in Syria. 1) Assads regime 2) FSA and 3) ISIS. Syria can be divided like Germany was in WW2.
    ISIS occupy the North and East. And Assads forces and FSA occupy the west of Syria.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    We have to admit the only way to end this war is to negotiate with IS. The only 3 sides we have now are the Regime, FSA and ISIS. They can be the only winners.

    There can be 3 divisions in Syria. 1) Assads regime 2) FSA and 3) ISIS. Syria can be divided like Germany was in WW2.
    ISIS occupy the North and East. And Assads forces and FSA occupy the west of Syria.
    Owen Smith, is that you? Or is it Corbyn wanting to negotiate with terrorists, legitimise them, and give them land and power?

    If we did this with every terrorist threat that doesn't go away overnight we'd be in a right old state.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Owen Smith, is that you? Or is it Corbyn wanting to negotiate with terrorists, legitimise them, and give them land and power?

    If we did this with every terrorist threat that doesn't go away overnight we'd be in a right old state.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Problem is that ISIS can't be beaten in Syria like they are in Iraq. There is no effective opposition in Syria supported by the west. Only Russia but they are not attacking ISIS.

    ISIS is already taking back huge swathes of land and cities from the Kurds and committing horrific atrocities in these places. IS now controls the West Bank of Euphrates.

    If we negotiate now we could stop their re-occupation of land now. They stop their offensives and their state is recognised in a future federal Syria divided between, Shia Regime people, Sunni Arabs and IS. That's the only outcome because this isn't Iraq. IS is here for the long term and continuing airstrikes is having little effect other than destroying schools and hospitals.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    Problem is that ISIS can't be beaten in Syria like they are in Iraq. There is no effective opposition in Syria supported by the west. Only Russia but they are not attacking ISIS.

    ISIS is already taking back huge swathes of land and cities from the Kurds and committing horrific atrocities in these places. IS now controls the West Bank of Euphrates.

    If we negotiate now we could stop their re-occupation of land now. They stop their offensives and their state is recognised in a future federal Syria divided between, Shia Regime people, Sunni Arabs and IS. That's the only outcome because this isn't Iraq. IS is here for the long term and continuing airstrikes is having little effect other than destroying schools and hospitals.
    I don't think you've been listening to the news or their rhetoric, they're losing land, and they will not accept a divided Syria, they want it all, and some more, I doubt they would even agree to get around the negotiating table you propose because it's with two sets of infidels held by infidels; if they did agree it would only be to attempt an attack on it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    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.