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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    RAF Tornadoes struck ISIS terrorists on the 12th of this month, and the MoD has released footage. The MoD also has a webpage with a log of the attacks they mount on ISIS targets.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/u...-against-daesh

    Some of the more recent ones;

    Friday 8 April – Typhoons destroyed a terrorist “hell cannon” in western Iraq.
    • Saturday 9 April – a Reaper struck a Daesh mortar team in western Iraq.
    • Sunday 10 April – Tornados attacked a suspected headquarters in northern Iraq, as well as a rocket base and a sniper team.
    • Monday 11 April – Typhoons hit four terrorist positions in northern Iraq.
    • Tuesday 12 April – Tornados struck three Daesh positions in northern Iraq, including rocket and mortar teams, while Typhoons destroyed two terrorist strongpoints in the west of the country.
    If the hard left had got their way in 2014 and 2015 and prevented a military attack on ISIS, and stopped us from intervening to assist the Kurds, what would the situation be now? Interested to know other TSRians thoughts on that

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    [/list]If the hard left had got their way in 2014 and 2015 and prevented a military attack on ISIS, and stopped us from intervening to assist the Kurds, what would the situation be now? Interested to know other TSRians thoughts on that
    Yes, I've made that point on here before. They were quiet like the mice that they are.

    Probably by now most of the Kurds in Iraq would have been either killed or displaced (along with all religious minorities) and maybe even Baghdad would have been attacked. Don't forget that they were pretty close before the strikes began. Meanwhile these people would be patting themselves on the backs for being so "progressive", "empathetic" and "peaceful" while the blood of the victims drained from the bodies. How the hell can you protest against using weaponry with the accuracy to destroy ISIS assets and arms while creating barely any civilian casualties? These people are morons.

    This is the thing with pussyfists, sorry I mean pacifists. Standing on the moral high ground while the genocide is happening beneath them. Complete burdens yet always with the most obnoxious self-righteousness. These Stop the War Coalition idiots for example. Like Corbyn. They're not actually about reducing violence and misery like they claim. They're only about hindering us and anybody we wish to help. There is nothing at all noble about them or any of their views.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Typical Islamophobic and racist air strikes.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    i love to see SOCTIS being given the good news by our lads.

    they don't like it up 'em

    :danceboy:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Yes, I've made that point on here before. They were quiet like the mice that they are.

    Probably by now most of the Kurds in Iraq would have been either killed or displaced (along with all religious minorities) and maybe even Baghdad would have been attacked. Don't forget that they were pretty close before the strikes began. Meanwhile these people would be patting themselves on the backs for being so "progressive", "empathetic" and "peaceful" while the blood of the victims drained from the bodies. How the hell can you protest against using weaponry with the accuracy to destroy ISIS assets and arms while creating barely any civilian casualties? These people are morons.

    This is the thing with pussyfists, sorry I mean pacifists. Standing on the moral high ground while the genocide is happening beneath them. Complete burdens and always with the most obnoxious self-righteousness. These Stop the War Coalition idiots for example. Like Corbyn. They're not actually about reducing violence and misery like they claim. They're only about hindering us and anybody we wish to help. There is nothing at all noble about them or any of their views.
    They're cowards, frankly. They'd rather a million innocent lives die at someone else's hand than be responsible for one death due to collateral damage. They'd rather have an easy sleep at night than face the harsh realities of war. Selfish cowards the lot of them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Probably by now most of the Kurds in Iraq would have been either killed or displaced (along with all religious minorities)
    Exactly. The 5000 Yezidis on Mount Sinjar who had been surrounded would undoubtedly have been carried off into slavery and (for the men) certain death. Many thousands more Kurds and Yezidis would be killed and ISIS would be well-advanced in their plan to ethnically and religiously cleanse northern Iraq.

    It cannot be disputed that Western airpower was the crucial element in helping the Kurds to defend Kobane. Before the air sorties stared, Kobane was completely surrounded and on the verge of falling, Erdogan was gloating about it and everyone thought it was a fait accompli.

    Then the US Air Force cavalry arrived and they worked closely with the Kurds to turn Kobane into a giant ISIS graveyard. It was their Stalingard, over 2000 ISIS fighters were killed. Following that the Kurds retook the city and the surrounding villages and have expanded out from there, such that they are not that far away from Raqqa now. It is insane for the hard left to claim that it would have been better if we'd simply allowed Kobane to fall. There's an infuriating cowardice about it, and note how free they are with other people's lives. The Kurds want to fight, we have the means to help them in a big way, but the hard left says "Let them die. It's better to have Kurdish blood on our hands from inaction than ISIS blood on our hands from action".

    and maybe even Baghdad would have been attacked. Don't forget that they were pretty close before the strikes began.
    That's a very important point. ISIS was on the outskirts of Baghdad, there were reports that Iraq government ministers were preparing to fly their staff out to Basra to set up a new command centre there. The hard left often appeal to the importance of stability (the irony... "progressives" desperately clinging to the status quo and calling it principle and values?), and talk about how the 2003 invasion of Iraq "destabilised" the Middle East. Well, the Iraqi government collapsing and Baghdad falling to ISIS would be more destabilising than anything we've seen for centuries. The psychological shock that would cause would be incalculable. It would probably cause tens of thousands more sympathisers to flock to ISIS banner seeing that it was on the march.

    They're not actually about reducing violence and misery like they claim. They're only about hindering us and anybody we wish to help. There is nothing at all noble about them or any of their views.
    Precisely. They will say it's better to have the blood of innocents on our hands from inaction than the blood of criminals and bloodthirsty terrorists on our hands through action. That is a horrible position to adopt, as you say there's nothing principled about it. They are simply doing whatever they perceive is in opposition to the West, no matter how many people will die as a result.

    And for those who say there is a moral difference on the perspective of action vs inaction, that is less salient where the actor in question (the West) has so much power. If you are a 6foot5 wrestler and you see a puny little runt trying to rape a child, then you do have much more moral culpability than, say, failing to get involved where it was ten guys with guns and you are just one. If you have it within your power to help and that help you provide is nothing to you but it makes a huge difference to the life of the victim, then I don't believe that the "pacifists" can plead that inaction has no moral turpitude attached and that only action does.
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    They're cowards, frankly. They'd rather a million innocent lives die at someone else's hand than be responsible for one death due to collateral damage. They'd rather have an easy sleep at night than face the harsh realities of war. Selfish cowards the lot of them.
    Well said. And as I say above, when the actor in question is very powerful and helping costs them nothing, and the cost of inaction to innocents is so high, then they can't claim that failing to act has no moral implications. Ultimately I don't think they are opposed to violence per se, look how gleefully they cheered on the Russian bombardment and how they shrieked with delight babbling about how "Only Putin is confronting ISIS" (a total lie, but they swallow the Moscow line whole).

    Ultimately they will always oppose whatever the West does, and support Russia. The British anti-war movement are effectively Trotskyists and Stalinists, and for whatever reason they feel this vestigial allegiance to Russia (even though Russia is crony capitalism on steroids). They will oppose any Western military action, period. And they will support Russia and any Russian client states where these states are in conflict with the West. They will criticise Western client states and dependents like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Israel while justifying the most heinous human rights abuses in Russian clients like Syria and Iran. They are only consistent on one point; obedience to Moscow
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Yes, I've made that point on here before. They were quiet like the mice that they are.
    I thought this video might cheer us up. It's an airstrike during the Battle of Kobane; there was an ISIS infestation on a hill near the town, they'd raised their flags and dug trenches, and were firing down on the town from it.

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    I thought this video might cheer us up. It's an airstrike during the Battle of Kobane; there was an ISIS infestation on a hill near the town, they'd raised their flags and dug trenches, and were firing down on the town from it.

    but... they had an unhappy childhood and needed counselling for anger management issues :cry2:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    but... they had an unhappy childhood and needed counselling for anger management issues :cry2:
    They just received 2,000 pounds worth (geddit) of the best counselling the US Air Force can offer. And it works; they won't be feeling any fear or upset now.

    In all seriousness, ISIS terrorists who are killed by the West get off pretty easily. It doesn't hurt being dead and you don't know you're dead. For a lot of them, one moment they're driving down the highway in their Toyota Hilux, the next moment they simply cease to exist after a Brimstone missile takes them out.

    It's a much more humane death than they give to many of their victims.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    They're cowards, frankly. They'd rather a million innocent lives die at someone else's hand than be responsible for one death due to collateral damage. They'd rather have an easy sleep at night than face the harsh realities of war. Selfish cowards the lot of them.
    But they'll scream blue bloody murder if we don't act if there's a famine or a potential genocide going on.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    But they'll scream blue bloody murder if we don't act if there's a famine or a potential genocide going on.
    They'll only scream bloody murder on the latter to use it as political ammunition and claim we're being hypocritical (i.e. if we can't intervene everywhere we shouldn't intervene anywhere)

    The hard left are pretty much opposed to all interventions, even obviously justifiable humanitarian interventions like Kosovo and Sierra Leone. There's definitely been a shift in that area in the last 20 years I think, the anti-intervention conservatism has moved on (although you still have a few of them like Oborne and Peter Hitchens) and the left has taken up that mantle
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    They just received 2,000 pounds worth (geddit) of the best counselling the US Air Force can offer. And it works; they won't be feeling any fear or upset now.

    In all seriousness, ISIS terrorists who are killed by the West get off pretty easily. It doesn't hurt being dead and you don't know you're dead. For a lot of them, one moment they're driving down the highway in their Toyota Hilux, the next moment they simply cease to exist after a Brimstone missile takes them out.

    It's a much more humane death than they give to many of their victims.
    they expect to be fondling doe-eyed virgins { boys or girls... whatever they desire } and feasting on nectar in the Paradise Garden.

    instead they are tormented by the minions of Shaitan for eternity in the burning abyss of Jahannam. and that's just for starters.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Meanwhile these people would be patting themselves on the backs for being so "progressive", "empathetic" and "peaceful" while the blood of the victims drained from the bodies.
    This is a problem I have with them as well. At best it's just like "yay we stopped another Irag disaster from happening" but that means the new Saddam is still killing people.... It isn't a victory to cheer about. Either outcome is awful and you have just chosen the least awful.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    This is a problem I have with them as well. At best it's just like "yay we stopped another Irag disaster from happening" but that means the new Saddam is still killing people.... It isn't a victory to cheer about. Either outcome is awful and you have just chosen the least awful.
    And in the period after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the vast majority of people killed have been killed by their fellow Iraqis.

    The US didn't go in to exploit the country, it immediately set about negotiating with the grandees of the Shi'a, Sunni and Kurdish community and asking them how best to organise elections (which occurred in January 2005).

    These "great" and "heroic" resistance leaders like Moqtada al-Sadr... where was he when Saddam Hussein was the President? Iraqis didn't hear a peep from al-Sadr during all those years. Suddenly after the fall of Saddam he's this great resistance leader and freedom fighter?

    Iraq had a real chance after 2003 to transition to democracy, pluralism and freedom. In many ways Iraq has made strides, but thanks to the sectarians on both Sunni and Shi'a sides, a real chance to move the country forward was spurned.

    In the case of ISIS, I can't think of a more straightforward case for intervention since 1945. We have obligations post-2003 to help the Iraqi government and Kurds to ensure they do not fall. We have obligations under international law to prevent genocide which is what ISIS has been engaging in against the Yezidis, Assyrians and Mandaeans. We have the ability to help them missile technology that is highly accurate and has made astonishing progress in the last 20 years, at little cost to ourselves and in a manner that is greatly helpful to them. The moral case could not be clearer in my opinion. Helping the Kurds and Iraqis and fighting ISIS isn't just the least worst option, it is the best option and clearly preferable
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    They're cowards, frankly. They'd rather a million innocent lives die at someone else's hand than be responsible for one death due to collateral damage. They'd rather have an easy sleep at night than face the harsh realities of war. Selfish cowards the lot of them.
    Bang on the money. Noble as a rat.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Exactly. The 5000 Yezidis on Mount Sinjar who had been surrounded would undoubtedly have been carried off into slavery and (for the men) certain death. Many thousands more Kurds and Yezidis would be killed and ISIS would be well-advanced in their plan to ethnically and religiously cleanse northern Iraq.

    It cannot be disputed that Western airpower was the crucial element in helping the Kurds to defend Kobane. Before the air sorties stared, Kobane was completely surrounded and on the verge of falling, Erdogan was gloating about it and everyone thought it was a fait accompli.

    Then the US Air Force cavalry arrived and they worked closely with the Kurds to turn Kobane into a giant ISIS graveyard. It was their Stalingard, over 2000 ISIS fighters were killed. Following that the Kurds retook the city and the surrounding villages and have expanded out from there, such that they are not that far away from Raqqa now. It is insane for the hard left to claim that it would have been better if we'd simply allowed Kobane to fall. There's an infuriating cowardice about it, and note how free they are with other people's lives. The Kurds want to fight, we have the means to help them in a big way, but the hard left says "Let them die. It's better to have Kurdish blood on our hands from inaction than ISIS blood on our hands from action".



    That's a very important point. ISIS was on the outskirts of Baghdad, there were reports that Iraq government ministers were preparing to fly their staff out to Basra to set up a new command centre there. The hard left often appeal to the importance of stability (the irony... "progressives" desperately clinging to the status quo and calling it principle and values?), and talk about how the 2003 invasion of Iraq "destabilised" the Middle East. Well, the Iraqi government collapsing and Baghdad falling to ISIS would be more destabilising than anything we've seen for centuries. The psychological shock that would cause would be incalculable. It would probably cause tens of thousands more sympathisers to flock to ISIS banner seeing that it was on the march.



    Precisely. They will say it's better to have the blood of innocents on our hands from inaction than the blood of criminals and bloodthirsty terrorists on our hands through action. That is a horrible position to adopt, as you say there's nothing principled about it. They are simply doing whatever they perceive is in opposition to the West, no matter how many people will die as a result.

    And for those who say there is a moral difference on the perspective of action vs inaction, that is less salient where the actor in question (the West) has so much power. If you are a 6foot5 wrestler and you see a puny little runt trying to rape a child, then you do have much more moral culpability than, say, failing to get involved where it was ten guys with guns and you are just one. If you have it within your power to help and that help you provide is nothing to you but it makes a huge difference to the life of the victim, then I don't believe that the "pacifists" can plead that inaction has no moral turpitude attached and that only action does.

    Well said. And as I say above, when the actor in question is very powerful and helping costs them nothing, and the cost of inaction to innocents is so high, then they can't claim that failing to act has no moral implications. Ultimately I don't think they are opposed to violence per se, look how gleefully they cheered on the Russian bombardment and how they shrieked with delight babbling about how "Only Putin is confronting ISIS" (a total lie, but they swallow the Moscow line whole).

    Ultimately they will always oppose whatever the West does, and support Russia. The British anti-war movement are effectively Trotskyists and Stalinists, and for whatever reason they feel this vestigial allegiance to Russia (even though Russia is crony capitalism on steroids). They will oppose any Western military action, period. And they will support Russia and any Russian client states where these states are in conflict with the West. They will criticise Western client states and dependents like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Israel while justifying the most heinous human rights abuses in Russian clients like Syria and Iran. They are only consistent on one point; obedience to Moscow
    Excellent post. Agree with all of it.

    My Iraqi friends were telling me that the people in Baghdad were arming themselves to the teeth and getting ready when ISIS were closing in on Baghdad. It was around this time when the airstrikes started really kicking in and they've not come close since. Can you imagine what would have happened if they'd moved in like they did in Mosul? I don't even want to think about it......

    Your post actually casted my mind to the Rwanda genocide where over 4 million were killed. Clinton wanted to intervene just as it was kicking off. I don't think I need to explain to you the rest of this..........
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    This is a problem I have with them as well. At best it's just like "yay we stopped another Irag disaster from happening" but that means the new Saddam is still killing people.... It isn't a victory to cheer about. Either outcome is awful and you have just chosen the least awful.
    But this is it. It's not the least awful is it? They've knowingly chosen the most awful just because they perceive it to the most righteous because instead of doing fighting themselves, they've held back and watched far more getting killed.

    The point that people are making is that the air strikes in Iraq have saved a hell of a lot lives. Probably that of all the Kurds in Iraq for starters. The people we are talking about would have gladly witnessed these deaths and congratulated themselves for being on the moral high ground. It's disgusting.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Excellent post. Agree with all of it.

    My Iraqi friends were telling me that the people in Baghdad were arming themselves to the teeth and getting ready when ISIS were closing in on Baghdad. It was around this time when the airstrikes started really kicking in and they've not come close since. Can you imagine what would have happened if they'd moved in like they did in Mosul? I don't even want to think about it......
    Precisely. The shock to the Arab and Muslim world of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ascending the steps of the pulpit of the Grand Mosque of Mosul in July 2014 to openly declare the Caliphate... the psychological and religious significance of that moment cannot be overstated in explaining ISIS' successes and the tens of thousands of followers who immediately travelled to Iraq/Syria to join.

    If we had seen Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, following an ISIS conquest of Baghdad the capital of the Islamic golden age and the Abbasad Caliphate, if we had seen him ascend the pulpit of the Abu Hanifa Mosque in Baghdad to make a similar speech the consequences could not be predicted. Baghdad looms so large in the psychology of the Arab Muslims, in their history and culture, I believe we would probably start to see spontaneous ISIS uprisings all over the Middle East.

    Your post actually casted my mind to the Rwanda genocide where over 4 million were killed. Clinton wanted to intervene just as it was kicking off. I don't think I need to explain to you the rest of this..........
    The implications of allowing the ISIS infestation to fester in Northern Iraq are grave; the various races of northern Mesopotamia like the Yezidi, the Assyrian Christians, the Mandaeans... these are essentially the only remnants (except maybe the Marsh Arabs who are basically Sumerians) of pre-Islamic Mesopotamia and the vestiges of the ethnicities and religions of the Near East at the time of Alexander the Great.

    So much of the Middle East has suffered from Arab Muslim homogenisation, with other religions and ethnicities driven out. A region which used to be heterogenous beyond belief has suffered from the dominance of the Arab Muslims. ISIS has a clear agenda to further that agenda of homogenisation in one of the few areas of the Near East where you had many such pre-Islamic groups still in existence, groups whose religions hark back to Gnosticism, Zoroastrianism and other forms of worship.

    We have clear obligations under the Genocide Convention to prevent and punish genocide. We have the military capability to do so at little risk to ourselves (we've killed over 25,000 ISIS terrorists with only one Western soldier killed). To fail to act in such circumstances is immoral beyond description
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 19, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.