Syria

[MARKXE]

So here we go yet again, beggars belief.

[Pol]

Yes agreed especially when  it was us bombing Iraq and Iran that got us here in the first place.

Got to admit though I was fckin angry after what happened in Paris don't know how I would feel if it happened in Scotland or anywhere in the UK for that matter

[Amandistan]

I admit to after the Beirut and Paris attacks to have out of anger and sadness said to blow IS off the face of the earth.
But not I see it's a terrible idea. After reading that France bombed a school, I was appealed and ashamed that I had thought that bombing was the answer.

 

[MARKXE]

It will happen its just a matter of time unfortunately.
We really are led by fools who welcome the return of our old friend Collateral damage.
Whilst I and millions of others despise the evil that is Isis, Is, Daesh or whatever we are calling them this week, bombing will only result in more dead children, women and men and an influx in support from those who see the West as the aggressor.
There is no easy answer the world has changed however bombing is not the solution.
Today is a sad day.

[Coumarin]

I think this man made a very good speech. Be you for or against air attacks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_dRCzd19Uc

[MARKXE]

I think this man made a very good speech. Be you for or against air attacks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_dRCzd19Uc

He did indeed.

[peternotbaldyet]

From the early 80's when the Western powers helped the Mujahadeen fight the Russians in Afghanistan, (Nothing bad came from that, did it?) through the first gulf war, then the 2nd Gulf war when we liberated Iraq and dropped Hussain at the end of a rope, turning Iraq into a peaceful and tranquil nation. And we dallied in Afghanistan again turning it into a delightful democracy. We helped bring about change in Libya and ended Gadaffi's tenure with a shot to the head and now Libya is also a beacon of peace and democracy. And Egypt! We helped the Egyptians turn their country into a safe and beautiful place. Then we had Tony Blair, peace envoy for the Middle East. What a fline chap and such a great job of spreading peace around that region that they should have paid him double. So I think it's fair to say that with all the bombs we are going to put onto Syria, peace, love and happiness will soon be in plentiful supply there. I can't see how it could possibly go wrong. Can anyone else?

[Bunny]

Irrespective of WMD which it would appear an anti Saddam Iraqi fed to the West, Im not entirely sure what we (The West) are supposed to do. I cant see how Al Qaeda and the Taliban were not going to be tackled by warfare, given 9/11 and 7/7. Lets not forget Saddam, Gaddaffi and Assad (corrected in edit....oops) have equally killed their own people. Are we supposed to just allow that? Equally I dont see how Daesh are going to be tackled without warfare?? I get the hesitation about civilian casualties. But that would happen if boots and tanks were on the ground. Equally Daesh have made civilian casualties, not to mention displacing hundreds of thousands. I personally would love the Middle East to sort its own issues out. But it hasnt and never has. So do we just allow IS to kill at will both here and over there? Seriously, I get the concerns but I dont hear an alternative being given. Anyone?

[Rusco]

Maybe we could say that everything origins about lust for power and resources that once was there... Even Bin Laden's family backgrounds were from a once rich, well behaving generic that enjoyed all that money from oil in 70's. They co-worked together with a western world and all the quarters were satisfied. Or kind like that. Then something really went wrong.

If we look at a chronologically set list Peternotbaldyet put above we can realise what scenarios all the different generations have faced later on and what age they were. Now if we think about an estimated age what these new terrorists are it's possible to trace a way back to those quite recent wars there've been in last 15-25 years when they were little children.


EDIT:I fixed some misleading typos; "satisfied"  - not "contended". 

[peternotbaldyet]

No one knows how to stop these groups. No one has ever known. That's why we keep getting it wrong and thats why we're bombing again. We have to be seen to be taking some sort of action even though it will just add more misery and death and no resolution.

[Bunny]

I get all of that and of all the wars we've been involved in the Bush-Blair war is the only one I can say is wholly wrong and illegal. I also think that the Middle East is tribal dominated and muslim killing muslim is the biggest problem. However, the West didnt invade Kuwait, the West didnt make the Taliban or IS. The ideology was already there. Equally Al Qaeda were attacking the West way before Afghanistan. The Taliban were also blowing up statues of Buddha, way before anyone set foot in Afghanistan. It strikes me that there are numerous middle Eastern Countries that dont kill their own people and get along in peace. And yeah. No-one knows the answer. But doing nothing is equally as wrong as hitting civilian casualties. Either way people are dying. I just think that taking action, given the UN and even Russia are willing to tackle it, has to be better than doing nothing.

[Shush]

Whether you are for or against British aerial bombing of Isis targets, I am struggling to see the objective of the first R.A.F. attacks. Bombing oil fields to have a detrimental effect on Isis finances. There is still money in the Country where ever it comes from. If Isis are forced to make cut-backs, will it be less military supplies , or less hospital supplies ?
Crippling Isis territories financially I can only really see creating even greater refugee movement and yet more radicalization of the remaining population.
If the first targets had been known military stores or weapons cashes it might have made more sense. That said, after being conned into believing the invasion of Iraq was a just cause , any such stated targets would have to be viewed with suspicion.

[peternotbaldyet]

The way I see it, the west through the 2 gulf wars, created the conditions in Iraq that allowed the most brutal group to fill the power vacuum that we created. If you think about it, a society that thrives on conflict between its member groups (and I agree with you about same faith hatred) is never going to end up with a liberal or even a reasonable, peace seeking leadership.

[Pol]

I think shush hit the nail there , after what happened with bush and Blair the so called weapons of mass destruction its like we can't trust anyone anymore and any action is being viewed extremely suspiciously.

Yes the bombing will cause human fatalities, but what will cause more innocent deaths our bombs or sitting back doing nothing

[Bunny]

Not sure id agree about the first Gulf war creating it but second definitely. In relation to the oil fields, I understand that target. In some ways its like castle sieges. If you cut off supply lines, then an army can't fight. Equally there is less risk of civilian injuries. Id imagine every bombing campaign prior has gone for military targets so it would take a range of targets. I dont think Daesh were right up there with hospitals and welfare before but I stand to be corrected.