Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

Marching said:
You must have missed Obama having a go at Turkey then and the talk of a meaningful government being in place in Syria.

Did you give up on addressing the immediate problem of IS?
Click to expand...
Having a go at Turkey isn't going to achieve much when their current leader is an extremist himself.

I've not given up, but even I can see the flaws of the current plan.
 
phelans shorts said:
I'm not referring to just this thread, people are talking like this outside too. There's people spouting this shite in local pubs, workplaces etc... all over not just this country. It's ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Partly true. I find it difficult to criticise regular people for having generally unintelligent opinions on the matter, myself included. None of us really understand everything. Our leader's certainly don't.

What I do believe, however, is that the people that choose to join these cults and murder innocent people are capable of making their own decisions, and I'm uncomfortable with trying to shift the blame onto others for the subsequent extremist behaviour.
 
hobbers said:
The governing principles of a caliphate are that it's a state that exists to be in a constant war with everyone else and every member is a soldier. Incomparable to anything else as far as human civilisation goes.

I'm not doubting there are plenty of moderate civilians in the towns and villages in the areas under ISIS control. They are not under any threat from British airstrikes. But in their strongholds and around their major bases? Nope. All cannon fodder.
Click to expand...

You realise Raqqa is a city roughly the size of Coventry but more densely packed , whereas IS roughly number in the ten thousands. Now imagine the effects of bombing a city like Coventry while trying to target a small percentage of the population. It's not as if ISIS are all conveniently lined up and clustered together in isolation waiting for us to pick them off in a few clean surgical strikes.

Also if you have kids, consider yourself lucky that they're not amongst the 'cannon fodder' unlucky enough to be born in Raqqa and not allowed to escape.
 
hobbers said:
I don't think IS recognise the value of human life enough to use civilians (non-IS members) as human shields. They'd rather just use them for target practice or as a bonfire.

Of course it's not a definitive statement but civilian casualties would be absolutely minimal in bombing an IS stronghold. Nothing like the risks of bombing in Iraq in 2003 or indeed in bombing in Iraq now like we are doing.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they're intelligent enough to know that using human shields may potentially give them an advantage. They may be utterly sickening, but the fact that they continue to have certain levels of success despite their comparatively small numbers shows that they are capable of operating effectively, and are a difficult threat for us to deal with.

Not to mention that, with all due respect, what you're suggesting is largely what you think yourself based on a general opinion of ISIS. We can't go in bombing placing with general assumptions, in the hope that we're right.
 
Silva said:
Sanctions on Turkey and Saudi Arabia until they stop helping extremists out. And a long term plan to rebuild Iraq, achieve Kurdish independence and help out the Assad regime to take out the rest of the country and rebuild it (on condition of Syria becoming a democratic country).
Click to expand...

Spot on, and not too far from what Corbyn is suggesting. It's also the solution isis probably dread the most but unfortunately that involves close to little bombing so that won't sell.
 
Cheesy said:
I'm not against military action in any circumstances. I just think we should be very careful before entering into military operations, and need to be going in with a long-term plan. We have previously been involved in the military interventions in the Middle East that have, in the end, been rather ineffective when you consider that the problem of terrorism remains. If we go in, we need to do so with a long-term set of aims, and with increased support from the public. As it stands, it continues to remain unclear as to whether the general public actually support this.
Click to expand...

I agree with you we need to be careful and this conflict has been going on long enough for Cameron to have consulted with the other coalition countries and also with intelligence services to have come to his decision. You may not, but I do believe there is a long term plan as it would make no sense whatsoever for there not to be. It has to be remembered that there is a more immediate issue to be sorted and that is IS who simply can not be allowed to carry on with their barbaric atrocities.
 
Kaos said:
You realise Raqqa is a city roughly the size of Coventry but more densely packed , whereas IS roughly number in the ten thousands. Now imagine the effects of bombing a city like Coventry while trying to target a small percentage of the population. It's not as if ISIS are all conveniently lined up and clustered together in isolation waiting for us to pick them off in a few clean surgical strikes.

Also if you had kids, consider yourself lucky that they're not amongst the 'cannon fodder' unlucky enough to be born in Raqqa and not allowed to escape.
Click to expand...

But on the other hand Syria has a population of 22m and there are what, 7m refugees? I don't know how many people live in the densely populated regions controlled by Assad's regime but safe to say it's the majority of those remaining.
 
Silva said:
Having a go at Turkey isn't going to achieve much when their current leader is an extremist himself.

I've not given up, but even I can see the flaws of the current plan.
Click to expand...

Not given up but offer no solution.
 
Silva said:
Sanctions. He'll go bankrupt sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

But free to murder at will in the mean time? I'm playing devil's advocate a little, but what you suggest doesn't really do anything to eliminate the bloodshed.

You're teaming up with a tyrant in the hope that he changes. It's bold.
 
Silva said:
And blowing him up has had an insignificant effect to the overall picture. They've still got the resources to cause havoc.


And I'm interested to hear how we're actually going to do what you're listing there when the Turkish Government and Saudi Arabia are complicit with the extremist.

And if anyone's going to carry out an Attack here it's going to be some lone lunatic already here. Not someone in Syria.


Sanctions. He'll go bankrupt sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

You've not answered the question. You don't think we can achieve any of what I said? You really don't think we can destroy supply chains, revenue chains, weapons, soldiers on the ground because those regimes are complicit in your opinion?

We'll never be able to stop lone wolf attacks, but you're incredibly naive if you don't think impacting all of the above won't impact the ability of this organisation to strike at the UK.

Your plan please.....
 
Marching said:
Not given up but offer no solution.
Click to expand...
This was in reply to on your posts, I think you missed it:
Silva said:
Sanctions on Turkey and Saudi Arabia until they stop helping extremists out. And a long term plan to rebuild Iraq, achieve Kurdish independence and help out the Assad regime to take out the rest of the country and rebuild it (on condition of Syria becoming a democratic country).
Click to expand...

Chorley1974 said:
You've not answered the question. You don't think we can achieve any of what I said? You really don't think we can destroy supply chains, revenue chains, weapons, soldiers on the ground because those regimes are complicit in your opinion?

We'll never be able to stop lone wolf attacks, but you're incredibly naive if you don't think impacting all of the above won't impact the ability of this organisation to strike at the UK.

Your plan please.....
Click to expand...
See above.
 
hobbers said:
But on the other hand Syria has a population of 22m and there are what, 7m refugees? I don't know how many people live in the densely populated regions controlled by Assad's regime but safe to say it's the majority of those remaining.
Click to expand...
So those that haven't been able to leave everything behind are now dispensable?
 
Kag said:
But free to murder at will in the mean time? I'm playing devil's advocate a little, but what you suggest doesn't really do anything to eliminate the bloodshed.

You're teaming up with a tyrant in the hope that he changes. It's bold.
Click to expand...
Sanctions have, historically, worked better than war. See Iran and Cuba.
 
Kaos said:
You realise Raqqa is a city roughly the size of Coventry but more densely packed , whereas IS roughly number in the ten thousands. Now imagine the effects of bombing a city like Coventry while trying to target a small percentage of the population. It's not as if ISIS are all conveniently lined up and clustered together in isolation waiting for us to pick them off in a few clean surgical strikes.

Also if you have kids, consider yourself lucky that they're not amongst the 'cannon fodder' unlucky enough to be born in Raqqa and not allowed to escape.
Click to expand...

You do realise the coalition are not just bombing Raqqa don't you? I'm not sure Corbyn does as its all he talks about. There have been 2994 strikes on Syria with Raqqa being just one of many many targets.
 
What use are 'human shields' in a bombing campaign anyway? If ISIS had innocent civilians to use as protection from bombing they would have to make public for it to have any effect on Western civilian opinion on the conflict. That would make them look weak and desperate. I don't think that is the look they are going for.

If we didn't bomb due to the hypothetical human shields, it is just as safe to assume that ISIS would torture and kill them eventually anyway as it safe to assume that those hostages even exist in the first place.

ISIS have a broad definition of what constitutes a heretic and that they must be put to death. They won't be using anyone that believes in the Islamic state as hostages.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
What use are 'human shields' in a bombing campaign anyway? If ISIS had innocent civilians to use as protection from bombing they would have to make public for it to have any effect on Western civilian opinion on the conflict.That would make them look weak and desperate. I don't think that is the look they are going for.

If we didn't bomb due to the hypothetical human shields, it is just as safe to assume that ISIS would torture and kill them eventually anyway as it safe to assume that those hostages even exist in the first place.
Click to expand...
I think you've answered your own question there.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
What use are 'human shields' in a bombing campaign anyway? If ISIS had innocent civilians to use as protection from bombing they would have to make public for it to have any effect on Western civilian opinion on the conflict.That would make them look weak and desperate. I don't think that is the look they are going for.

If we didn't bomb due to the hypothetical human shields, it is just as safe to assume that ISIS would torture and kill them eventually anyway as it safe to assume that those hostages even exist in the first place.
Click to expand...

Finally some logic.
 
Kag said:
Aren't we a big target already?

We're more or less waiting for one small group of people to break through and kill 100+ people irrespective of Wednesday's vote. The only difference then is that our government will have to follow through with military action, most likely a lot more irrational than the current, supposed plans.
Click to expand...

You have a point really, I still feel an almost certain attack as things stand would become an almost certain much worse attack if we decide to join in. I still see nothing that can be gained really on the positive side for us by doing it, just varying degrees of bad.
 
Marching said:
I saw that but didn't feel it addressed the vital question of how to deal with IS now. Ideas?
Click to expand...
That is how you deal with ISIS. You need their allies to stop helping them before military action will be effective. If it weren't for Turkey and Saudi Arabia they wouldn't be able to control they land they do.
 
hobbers said:
Well, in a sense yes because IS will have already killed them.
Click to expand...
ISIS have had the run of the place for a few years now, if they wanted to kill everyone they would done so by now.

Of course the people there are living under treacherous oppression but that doesn't give us carte blanche to wipe them out as some dispensable sacrifice.

Let me ask you this - if ISIS had occupied Coventry, would you consider the whole city dispensable to wipe them out?
 
Marching said:
You do realise the coalition are not just bombing Raqqa don't you? I'm not sure Corbyn does as its all he talks about. There have been 2994 strikes on Syria with Raqqa being just one of many many targets.
Click to expand...

If the proposition was to carry out surgical strikes on ammo depots, checkpoints and Isis convoys while providing air support to the Kurds then you'll see little objection from me. The trouble is they're proposing to bomb a large densely packed city, which is exactly what Isis want.
 
Silva said:
That is how you deal with ISIS. You need their allies to stop helping them before military action will be effective. If it weren't for Turkey and Saudi Arabia they wouldn't be able to control they land they do.
Click to expand...

I agree that those assisting IS must be discouraged from doing so but IMO that is not enough and military action against them is also needed.
 
Kaos said:
ISIS have had the run of the place for a few years now, if they wanted to kill everyone they would done so by now.

Of course the people there are living under treacherous oppression but that doesn't give us carte blanche to wipe them out as some dispensable sacrifice.

Let me ask you this - if ISIS had occupied Coventry, would you consider the whole city dispensable to wipe them out?
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying wipe the whole of Raqqua out indiscriminately, I hope. Hit identified military targets is the aim. Unfortunately the reality of war is that some innocents will die in that process, as in any war.

Personally I don't see why we need to get involved just yet (although we already actually carrying out military missions there).

I would like to hear the credible alternative ideas on appropriate action, however.
 
Marching said:
I agree that those assisting IS must be discouraged from doing so but IMO that is not enough and military action against them is also needed.
Click to expand...
I'm not opposed to military action. If I thought the plan we were presented with would in any help I'd be all for it. But I can't see it doing anything other than adding to the misery of the region and pushing ISIS sympathisers in the UK over the edge.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Nobody is saying wipe the whole of Raqqua out indiscriminately, I hope. Hit identified military targets is the aim. Unfortunately the reality of war is that some innocents will die in that process, as in any war.

Personally I don't see why we need to get involved just yet (although we already actually carrying out military missions there).

I would like to hear the credible alternative ideas on appropriate action, however.
Click to expand...
hobbers has referred to the civilians there as "cannon fodder" and "target practice" in the last couple of pages.
 
Kaos said:
ISIS have had the run of the place for a few years now, if they wanted to kill everyone they would done so by now.

Of course the people there are living under treacherous oppression but that doesn't give us carte blanche to wipe them out as some dispensable sacrifice.

Let me ask you this - if ISIS had occupied Coventry, would you consider the whole city dispensable to wipe them out?
Click to expand...

No, just the areas that are key assets to them.
 
hobbers said:
The governing principles of a caliphate are that it's a state that exists to be in a constant war with everyone else and every member is a soldier. Incomparable to anything else as far as human civilisation goes.

I'm not doubting there are plenty of moderate civilians in the towns and villages in the areas under ISIS control. They are not under any threat from British airstrikes. But in their strongholds and around their major bases? Nope. All cannon fodder.
Click to expand...

edit; ah, you deleted your protest.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Nobody is saying wipe the whole of Raqqua out indiscriminately, I hope. Hit identified military targets is the aim. Unfortunately the reality of war is that some innocents will die in that process, as in any war.

Personally I don't see why we need to get involved just yet (although we already actually carrying out military missions there).

I would like to hear the credible alternative ideas on appropriate action, however.
Click to expand...

How do you carry out surgical strikes on a densely packed city where ISIS (who constitute a small minority of the city) are mixed with the locals? It's not like the city is split into ISIS and non-ISIS districts.

You'd have a point if we'd already exhausted the credible alternative of cutting off their supply points from Turkey and Saudi to no avail, but considering Cameron has recently sold the Saudi enablers billions of dollars worth of weapons while publicly backing Turkey after they shot down the Russian plane (which was incidentally bombing terrorist postions) it suggests they're not even bothering with that first.
 
hobbers said:
The RAF don't seem to be struggling with coming up with targets. At least up till now.
Click to expand...
The RAF have only been bombing convoys and depots thus far all the way out in the desert and abandoned small villages, bombing a fully living and densely packed city is a different ball game altogether.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.