Today's HOC Vote

Old Skier said:
Perhaps you can explain why you think this. Are you under the impression that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone.
Click to expand...
Whilst I think we are right to act, I can admit to not being 100% sure what that course of action should be. I do know however that bombing alone, targeted or otherwise is not the answer. A more extensive military and diplomatic solution is required than simply blowing stuff up. There are no ground forces, the 70k don't exist in the form required to consolidate the gains made by bombing. The west doesn't have the stomach for this and I'm not sure if the ruskies would let it happen anyway.

Bombing will make us more at risk. Not from some fella in a tent in the desert, but from some idealistic teenager in a bedroom in Bradford. It will radicalise more. As soon as pictures of a bombed hospital are shown it will act as the best recruiting poster Isis could have.

They won't march up the mall, they can already walk up it unimpeded. This war isn't won with bombs, it's won with ideas, opportunity and education.
 
therod said:
Whilst I think we are right to act, I can admit to not being 100% sure what that course of action should be. I do know however that bombing alone, targeted or otherwise is not the answer. A more extensive military and diplomatic solution is required than simply blowing stuff up. There are no ground forces, the 70k don't exist in the form required to consolidate the gains made by bombing. The west doesn't have the stomach for this and I'm not sure if the ruskies would let it happen anyway.

Bombing will make us more at risk. Not from some fella in a tent in the desert, but from some idealistic teenager in a bedroom in Bradford. It will radicalise more. As soon as pictures of a bombed hospital are shown it will act as the best recruiting poster Isis could have.

They won't march up the mall, they can already walk up it unimpeded. This war isn't won with bombs, it's won with ideas, opportunity and education.
Click to expand...

Do you really think ISIS are open to " ideas , opportunity and education " ?

They have one idea and only one and it's not about education - it's about power and terror and ruling and making people suffer. It's punishment towards the western world.

A hospital may act as a recruitment poster - a training camp destroyed may act as a deterrent. ISIS themselves have destroyed all signs of civilianisation in the areas they control. They rule by force and terror.

We have been bombing already for 18 months against ISIS
 
Liverpoolphil said:
Do you really think ISIS are open to " ideas , opportunity and education " ?

They have one idea and only one and it's not about education - it's about power and terror and ruling and making people suffer. It's punishment towards the western world.

A hospital may act as a recruitment poster - a training camp destroyed may act as a deterrent. ISIS themselves have destroyed all signs of civilianisation in the areas they control. They rule by force and terror.

We have been bombing already for 18 months against ISIS
Click to expand...

Education & opportunity relate to the home front. All these kids want is a job and a girlfriend. Fundamentalism fills a vacuum.
No you can't negotiate with nutters, which they are...but you can starve them of new recruits by not glamorising their cause, not making martyrs of them and not doing what they want. They want us to bomb them, it legitimises their cause. If there's a room full of Isis generals (if there is such a thing) bomb them, but they won't make it that easy, they don't wear name badges.

I would take military action where appropriate but what's more important is winning the propaganda war, and the 2 seem in conflict to me.

I read somewhere that Isis are a construct of Assad, who is mates with the Russians. We may get into a situation that no one wants.
 
therod said:
Education & opportunity relate to the home front. All these kids want is a job and a girlfriend. Fundamentalism fills a vacuum.
No you can't negotiate with nutters, which they are...but you can starve them of new recruits by not glamorising their cause, not making martyrs of them and not doing what they want. They want us to bomb them, it legitimises their cause. If there's a room full of Isis generals (if there is such a thing) bomb them, but they won't make it that easy, they don't wear name badges.

I would take military action where appropriate but what's more important is winning the propaganda war, and the 2 seem in conflict to me.

I read somewhere that Isis are a construct of Assad, who is mates with the Russians. We may get into a situation that no one wants.
Click to expand...

We have been bombing them for over 18 months


If we can't negotiate with them and they want us to bomb them ( I'm not so sure about that )

Then what do we do ?

This is more than radicals in the UK - much more than that. This is a global issue

A job and a girlfriend ?!? Sorry Nick but I would really like to understand that theory because the opportunities for anyone in the country are there
 
therod said:
Education & opportunity relate to the home front. All these kids want is a job and a girlfriend. Fundamentalism fills a vacuum.
No you can't negotiate with nutters, which they are...but you can starve them of new recruits by not glamorising their cause, not making martyrs of them and not doing what they want. They want us to bomb them, it legitimises their cause. If there's a room full of Isis generals (if there is such a thing) bomb them, but they won't make it that easy, they don't wear name badges.

I would take military action where appropriate but what's more important is winning the propaganda war, and the 2 seem in conflict to me.

I read somewhere that Isis are a construct of Assad, who is mates with the Russians. We may get into a situation that no one wants.
Click to expand...

Wot he said.

And Saudi is the elephant in the room, and ultimately the people who must sort this out. They are Sunni, provide much of the money and have the most to lose if the whole region implodes.

As for Cameron decrying terrorist sympathisers, it seems he is cool with despots and tyrants, seeing how he sucks up to China and Saudi.
 
Ethan said:
Wot he said.

And Saudi is the elephant in the room, and ultimately the people who must sort this out. They are Sunni, provide much of the money and have the most to lose if the whole region implodes.

As for Cameron decrying terrorist sympathisers, it seems he is cool with despots and tyrants, seeing how he sucks up to China and Saudi.
Click to expand...

So the answer for the uk is what ? Don't bomb them and do what exactly ?

Right now what exactly should the UK do ?

Sorry should say "stop bombing" as it's an action we have been a part of for over 18 months
 
Liverpoolphil said:
We have been bombing them for over 18 months


If we can't negotiate with them and they want us to bomb them ( I'm not so sure about that )

Then what do we do ?

This is more than radicals in the UK - much more than that. This is a global issue

A job and a girlfriend ?!? Sorry Nick but I would really like to understand that theory because the opportunities for anyone in the country are there
Click to expand...
My point is bombing isn't a solution, it's one of a raft of measures, I don't see the other measures being utilised. Bombing will not work, it may disable their infrastructure but it won't kill ideas.

Their recruits don't come from leafy suburbia in Belgium or Paris or London. They are disenfranchised inner city kids from sink estates. In the absence of other opportunities they are seduced by something that gives them an identity. Ie fundamentalism. No one is born a religious nutter, they are radicalised. Bombing reinforces radicalisation not diminishes it IMO.

Hearts & minds, not shock and awe.
 
therod said:
My point is bombing isn't a solution, it's one of a raft of measures, I don't see the other measures being utilised. Bombing will not work, it may disable their infrastructure but it won't kill ideas.

Their recruits don't come from leafy suburbia in Belgium or Paris or London. They are disenfranchised inner city kids from sink estates. In the absence of other opportunities they are seduced by something that gives them an identity. Ie fundamentalism. No one is born a religious nutter, they are radicalised. Bombing reinforces radicalisation not diminishes it IMO.

Hearts & minds, not shock and awe.
Click to expand...

You are talking about 1% of ISIS that get radicalised away from the Middle East - cuddling the guys in this country doesn't stop ISIS killing innocents - in fact it wouldn't change a thing because they have hundreds and thousands of recruits already in the Middle East.

Whilst it is an area that needs tackling for the UK - the worldwide issue of ISIS is a much bigger problem. Not one single person who backs the air strikes has suggested it's a solution - no one. It's part of measures that will be used to nulify the ability of ISIS to train and launch terror campaigns. Hearts and minds ?!?! These guys are killing innocent civilians not because they are bored , not because of a lack of opportunity or lack of girlfriend - they are killing to rule buy force and terror.

So what do the UK do right now.
 
Liverpoolphil said:
So the answer for the uk is what ? Don't bomb them and do what exactly ?

Right now what exactly should the UK do ?

Sorry should say "stop bombing" as it's an action we have been a part of for over 18 months
Click to expand...

OK, once again, the UK, EU and US needs to put diplomatic and political pressure and offer support to on local players to lead action against IS, including starving them of resources and weapons, and blocking their sale of oil.

The UK and EU can provide advice but so long as IS can paint this as a western Christian crusade against Islam, it will never end and it will only drive resentment and terrorism against the west. And after Syria, where next? The disastrous foreign policy domino effect which began with using 9/11 as political cover to go after Saddam has led to a catalogue of disaster, hundreds of thousands of deaths and destabilised the entire region. There is no sign of this stopping and this new bombing campaign makes matters worse.

You will no doubt say that something had to be done. I would agree so long as we could know that something wouldn't make matters worse.
 
therod said:
My point is bombing isn't a solution, it's one of a raft of measures, I don't see the other measures being utilised. Bombing will not work, it may disable their infrastructure but it won't kill ideas.

Their recruits don't come from leafy suburbia in Belgium or Paris or London. They are disenfranchised inner city kids from sink estates. In the absence of other opportunities they are seduced by something that gives them an identity. Ie fundamentalism. No one is born a religious nutter, they are radicalised. Bombing reinforces radicalisation not diminishes it IMO.

Hearts & minds, not shock and awe.
Click to expand...
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the theory, unfortunately many of our home grown terrorists appear to have first started along the petty criminal route (common amongst those that become terrorists) and then seem to want to move on to a more dominating form of thuggery which seem to result in them going off for a spot of glory in the promised land.

I have always wondered, with the several hundreds who went off to fight with ISIS, how many are still involved, how many have tried to bail out but havnt been able to/have been killed off or held captive. The other number that would be interesting but for obviouse reasons would not be given out is how many are being monitored by the security services.

Without the numbers we will never know how many are really being recruited as a result of our actions.
 
Ethan said:
OK, once again, the UK, EU and US needs to put diplomatic and political pressure and offer support to on local players to lead action against IS, including starving them of resources and weapons, and blocking their sale of oil.

The UK and EU can provide advice but so long as IS can paint this as a western Christian crusade against Islam, it will never end and it will only drive resentment and terrorism against the west. And after Syria, where next? The disastrous foreign policy domino effect which began with using 9/11 as political cover to go after Saddam has led to a catalogue of disaster, hundreds of thousands of deaths and destabilised the entire region. There is no sign of this stopping and this new bombing campaign makes matters worse.

You will no doubt say that something had to be done. I would agree so long as we could know that something wouldn't make matters worse.
Click to expand...
My issue with this, is, how long do we try this for?, I would absolutely 100% agree this would be a better way forward. Let's say for arguments sake we give it 12/24 months, what if it doesn't work and them knowing they are free from bombing, what's to stop them getting stronger!
 
Ethan said:
OK, once again, the UK, EU and US needs to put diplomatic and political pressure and offer support to on local players to lead action against IS, including starving them of resources and weapons, and blocking their sale of oil.
Click to expand...

They already have the funds and weapons - local players aren't going to "lead" - talking to them right now doesn't stop innocent people getting killed - that doesn't stop Paris being bombed. It's not going to happen. They can talk and talk and talk but that doesn't stop ISIS continuing to kill innocent people

The UK and EU can provide advice but so long as IS can paint this as a western Christian crusade against Islam, it will never end and it will only drive resentment and terrorism against the west. And after Syria, where next? The disastrous foreign policy domino effect which began with using 9/11 as political cover to go after Saddam has led to a catalogue of disaster, hundreds of thousands of deaths and destabilised the entire region. There is no sign of this stopping and this new bombing campaign makes matters worse.

You will no doubt say that something had to be done. I would agree so long as we could know that something wouldn't make matters worse.
Click to expand...

Do you really think ISIS are going to stop killing innocent people whilst the Western countries chat and negotiate ?

9/11 to go after Saddam ? Really ?

Why are you talking about "After Syria" - is there any hint that an air strikes will move somewhere else after ?

How can you say "it will make matters worse"

In Iraq it has made matters better by helping to defeat ISIS and take back areas they used to control.

Yes something had to be done - talking can happen all the time but talking doesn't stop ISIS killing people
 
Liverpoolphil said:
They already have the funds and weapons - local players aren't going to "lead" - talking to them right now doesn't stop innocent people getting killed - that doesn't stop Paris being bombed. It's not going to happen. They can talk and talk and talk but that doesn't stop ISIS continuing to kill innocent people



Do you really think ISIS are going to stop killing innocent people whilst the Western countries chat and negotiate ?

9/11 to go after Saddam ? Really ?

Why are you talking about "After Syria" - is there any hint that an air strikes will move somewhere else after ?

How can you say "it will make matters worse"

In Iraq it has made matters better by helping to defeat ISIS and take back areas they used to control.

Yes something had to be done - talking can happen all the time but talking doesn't stop ISIS killing people
Click to expand...

No, but there is every possibility that the domino effect of destabilisation that has moved around the region as the balance of power shifts will continue.

Iraq2 was conceived after 9/11. This was based on alleged links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. In reality Saddam was strongly opposed to them. Cheney was the main driver of this, aided by Rumsfeld. Bush did what he was told.
 
Ethan said:
It had everything to do with 9/11. Cheney proposed going after Saddam on 9/12.
Click to expand...

Did he ?

There was me thinking getting to Saddam was about WmD and go to Afghan was about 9/11 and Al Qaeda
 
Ethan said:
No, but there is every possibility that the domino effect of destabilisation that has moved around the region as the balance of power shifts will continue.

Iraq2 was conceived after 9/11. This was based on alleged links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. In reality Saddam was strongly opposed to them. Cheney was the main driver of this, aided by Rumsfeld. Bush did what he was told.
Click to expand...

What about the rest of the post ?

There is also a possibility that reducing th effect of ISIS could decimate them that much they just wither away and disappear.

I'm guessing the last paragraph is more about opinion as opposed to facts ?
 
Liverpoolphil said:
Did he ?

There was me thinking getting to Saddam was about WmD and go to Afghan was about 9/11 and Al Qaeda
Click to expand...

As you know well, the CIA knew there were no WMD and the politicians had to concoct the false evidence to that effect.

They also knew that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda but Cheney wasn't having any of it.
 
Ethan said:
As you know well, the CIA knew there were no WMD and the politicians had to concoct the false evidence to that effect.

They also knew that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda but Cheney wasn't having any of it.
Click to expand...

Well these are startling relevations.


Is this all proven factual information ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top