Turn on thread page Beta

Why haven't isis been atom bombed yet?. watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ellie0497)
    -Improving security
    -Stop giving ISIS so much media attention
    -Integrate people (e.g. living in the UK) rather than alienate
    -Stop intervening through violent means since that never seems to work
    I would agree with those as being the safest options for people in the UK, however I doubt it would keep innocent civilians in Iraq or Syria safe
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foreverton)
    I would agree with those as being the safest options for people in the UK, however I doubt it would keep innocent civilians in Iraq or Syria safe
    They would feel safer without Bashar al-Assad and foreign intervention.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ellie0497)
    -Improving security
    -Stop giving ISIS so much media attention
    -Integrate people (e.g. living in the UK) rather than alienate
    -Stop intervening through violent means since that never seems to work
    How would any of that prevent the IS carrying out genocidal massacres (see: Sinjar massacre) in Syria/Iraq?


    Empty platitudes such as "improving security" do nothing for the women getting raped, or men and children massacred, by the animals of the Islamic State. Some element of military involvement is needed to protect those at risk from the IS.


    If you disagree, please refer to my earlier question ("How would any of that prevent the IS carrying out genocidal massacres (see: Sinjar massacre) in Syria/Iraq?" ) and present your alternative solution.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    this troll is quite funny
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ellie0497)
    They would feel safer without Bashar al-Assad and foreign intervention.
    Even more so without Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (yes I had to google that )
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shillary)
    How would any of that prevent the IS carrying out genocidal massacres (see: Sinjar massacre) in Syria/Iraq?


    Empty platitudes such as "improving security" do nothing for the women getting raped, or men and children massacred, by the animals of the Islamic State. Some element of military involvement is needed to protect those at risk from the IS. If you disagree, please refer to my earlier question ("How would any of that prevent the IS carrying out genocidal massacres (see: Sinjar massacre) in Syria/Iraq?" and present your alternative solution.
    Helping the Syrian people is a complete contradiction to your previous argument about sending missiles.
    They feel less threatened by ISIS compared to the attacks their government is carrying out which countries like Russia are in favour of (being Assad's greatest international backer).

    Also, I have to add Assad's regime are more savage than ISIS.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ellie0497)
    Helping the Syrian people is a complete contradiction to your previous argument about sending missiles.
    The Yazidis have been massacred by the IS. "Sending missiles" (against the IS) helps protect them from such massacres (as it has done and continues to do).


    Please explain the contradiction.

    They feel less threatened by ISIS compared to the attacks their government is carrying out
    Source?


    Regardless, this doesn't address any of my points in favour of air-strikes (which you have consistently failed to respond to).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ellie0497)
    Also, I have to add Assad's regime are more savage than ISIS.
    The IS mass-rape female civilians, sell female slaves at auction, drown and burn civilian live, behead Western journalists, and carry out terrorist attacks in the heartland of the West killing hundred of Western civilians (see: Paris attacks). The Syrian Government has done none of this, so to claim some sort of moral equivalence between the two is vile.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shillary)
    The Yazidis have been massacred by the IS. "Sending missiles" (against the IS) helps protect them from such massacres (as it has done and continues to do).


    Please explain the contradiction.


    Source?


    Regardless, this doesn't address any of my points in favour of air-strikes (which you have consistently failed to respond to).
    The contradiction is, how does killing equate to helping?
    I mean using missiles is a sheer play with probability where innocent people may get killed.
    The Syrian Network for Human Rights reported that Assad's regime are responsible for 75% of deaths.

    "Of the 15,748 people reported killed by government forces, a vast majority, 12,044, were civilians. Thirty-eight percent of civilian casualties were women and children, the human rights group said. For comparison, ISIS was reportedly responsible for the deaths of 2,098 people, which included 1,366 civilians."
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foreverton)
    Would it even be possible without harming any civilians


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Civillians are just terrorists that haven't joined the cause yet 😈
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ellie0497)
    They would feel safer without Bashar al-Assad and foreign intervention.
    How do you remove Assad without foreign intervention? Assad is even worse than ISIS he just doesn't get media attention.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ellie0497)
    The contradiction is, how does killing equate to helping?
    I have answered this question more times than I care to count (killing bad people who want to kill good people = helping good people).


    It is clear you lack the ability/will to have a meaningful discussion about this.


    I am happy to let those who read our exchange come to their own conclusions about the merits of our arguments (not that I think you have made any)/positions.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shillary)
    I have answered this question more times than I care to count (killing bad people who want to kill good people = helping good people).


    It is clear you lack the ability/will to have a meaningful discussion about this.


    I am happy to let those who read our exchange come to their own conclusions about the merits of our arguments (not that I think you have made any)/positions.
    You could also say killing bad people (Assad's regime)=helping good people.
    It is impossible to kill bad people who live within good people without killing the good people too.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whorace)
    How do you remove Assad without foreign intervention? Assad is even worse than ISIS he just doesn't get media attention.
    The thing is foreign intervention tends to focus on getting rid of ISIS and not Assad. Russia are in favour of Assad so that kind of intervention doesn't work.

    He doesn't get the media attention he deserves.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Because the americans were the ones that started it...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ellie0497)
    It is impossible to kill bad people who live within good people without killing the good people too.
    "To date there have been no known cases of civilian casualties resulting from UK strikes in Iraq"

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/war-isis-30...alties-1530517
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shillary)
    "To date there have been no known cases of civilian casualties resulting from UK strikes in Iraq"

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/war-isis-30...alties-1530517
    Are we even talking about just the UK?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ellie0497)
    The thing is foreign intervention tends to focus on getting rid of ISIS and not Assad. Russia are in favour of Assad so that kind of intervention doesn't work.

    He doesn't get the media attention he deserves.
    It's because ISIS have directly threatened the West and Assad has maintained a policy of neutrility, if you look at actual policy most effort is directed towards arming and training moderate Sunni groups in the FSA who are fighting both Assad and ISIS. Russian strength is exaggerated and leaving the Middle East to them uncontested would be a disastrous policy for anyone who supports the very principles Russia stands against, namely a free society based around real capitalism and civil rights.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ellie0497)
    Are we even talking about just the UK?
    As a citizen of the UK, I am primarily concerned with the UK's foreign policy, so yes.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shillary)
    The IS mass-rape female civilians, sell female slaves at auction, drown and burn civilian live, behead Western journalists, and carry out terrorist attacks in the heartland of the West killing hundred of Western civilians (see: Paris attacks). The Syrian Government has done none of this, so to claim some sort of moral equivalence between the two is vile.
    While the IS certainly appear to be a lot more brutal in their methods, it cannot be denied that the Assad regime has been the main source of death and destruction since 2011.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

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.