Red Mosquito

I didn't say they deserve it I said they were asking for it.

Bombing Syria is exactly what IS wants and as much as certain western countries are already being targeted, this only provokes and justifies more attacks in the minds of IS.

'Russia's bombing campaign in Syria will lead to further radicalisation and increased terrorism' - David Cameron 4th October 2015

'Those against Syrian bombing are 'terrorist sympathisers' -David Cameron 2nd December 2015


That's not only a helluva 180 but it's also baffling in that he's suggesting somehow British bombing will be for a greater good while Russian bombing will have a negative outcome.

That's because you don't distinguish between the efficacy of good guy bombs and bad guy bombs, Dime.

Yeah I gotta work on that.

Don't feel bad. I've had training

dimejinky99 wrote:'Russia's bombing campaign in Syria will lead to further radicalisation and increased terrorism' - David Cameron 4th October 2015

'Those against Syrian bombing are 'terrorist sympathisers' -David Cameron 2nd December 2015


That's not only a helluva 180 but it's also baffling in that he's suggesting somehow British bombing will be for a greater good while Russian bombing will have a negative outcome.

I don't really know the ins and outs of the geopolitical issues in Syria, but It seems like most of the western countries are hoping for Assad's ouster and Russia is for keeping him in power, so pretty much everyone in the world is for bombing the shit out of ISIS (ISIL) and the NATO countries would rather Russia not bomb the factions of rebels who are trying to remove Assad, Russia, as I understand it, is for bombing the lot of them.

So that's probably the reason for odd comments from Cameron. They dance around this shit a lot rather than just admitting the intentions. Russia I guess is a little less ambiguous in their intentions than most western governments.

I'm not convinced bombing is a good solution at all, because since Vietnam, when coalitions do anything, they seem to try and politically target what collateral damage is ok and what isn't. (IE OK to bomb this, not ok to bomb that) It ends up being woefully ineffective militarily and not accomplishing the intended goals while being amazingly expensive in terms of lives cost and dollars spent in waging war.

But the short story is that, there's a lot going on, and no real clear path to a good solution. Hollande is doing something for the sake of doing something.

dimejinky99 wrote:I didn't say they deserve it I said they were asking for it.

My issue was that the phrasing seemed to suggest that a retaliatory attack on the West would be at least partially justified.

Were the terrorists in Paris justified in killing those people because of Western interference in Syria?

dimejinky99 wrote:Bombing Syria is exactly what IS wants and as much as certain western countries are already being targeted, this only provokes and justifies more attacks in the minds of IS.

I've seen this argument put forward often and while I don't think it's entirely untrue, they probably do want us to attack, I don't follow how it leads to the conclusion that we shouldn't do it regardless.

Electromatic wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:'Russia's bombing campaign in Syria will lead to further radicalisation and increased terrorism' - David Cameron 4th October 2015

'Those against Syrian bombing are 'terrorist sympathisers' -David Cameron 2nd December 2015


That's not only a helluva 180 but it's also baffling in that he's suggesting somehow British bombing will be for a greater good while Russian bombing will have a negative outcome.

I don't really know the ins and outs of the geopolitical issues in Syria, but It seems like most of the western countries are hoping for Assad's ouster and Russia is for keeping him in power, so pretty much everyone in the world is for bombing the shit out of ISIS (ISIL) and the NATO countries would rather Russia not bomb the factions of rebels who are trying to remove Assad, Russia, as I understand it, is for bombing the lot of them.

So that's probably the reason for odd comments from Cameron. They dance around this shit a lot rather than just admitting the intentions. Russia I guess is a little less ambiguous in their intentions than most western governments.

I'm not convinced bombing is a good solution at all, because since Vietnam, when coalitions do anything, they seem to try and politically target what collateral damage is ok and what isn't. (IE OK to bomb this, not ok to bomb that) It ends up being woefully ineffective militarily and not accomplishing the intended goals while being amazingly expensive in terms of lives cost and dollars spent in waging war.

But the short story is that, there's a lot going on, and no real clear path to a good solution. Hollande is doing something for the sake of doing something.

To make it even more complicated, ISIS is a faction trying to remove assad!

Birds in Hell wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:I didn't say they deserve it I said they were asking for it.

My issue was that the phrasing seemed to suggest that a retaliatory attack on the West would be at least partially justified.

Were the terrorists in Paris justified in killing those people because of Western interference in Syria?

dimejinky99 wrote:Bombing Syria is exactly what IS wants and as much as certain western countries are already being targeted, this only provokes and justifies more attacks in the minds of IS.

I've seen this argument put forward often and while I don't think it's entirely untrue, they probably do want us to attack, I don't follow how it leads to the conclusion that we shouldn't do it regardless.

There's mounting evidence that, left to its own devices, the islamic state is going to collapse under its own awfulness and false promises. Bombing them is likely the only route to legitimization the group has.

Watch this for a minute...what a town in Syria looks like post bombing..its frightening

Did anybody post this one?


but the war has been raging before we got involved. Those tanks do a lot of damage.

Birds in Hell wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:I didn't say they deserve it I said they were asking for it.

My issue was that the phrasing seemed to suggest that a retaliatory attack on the West would be at least partially justified.

Were the terrorists in Paris justified in killing those people because of Western interference in Syria?

dimejinky99 wrote:Bombing Syria is exactly what IS wants and as much as certain western countries are already being targeted, this only provokes and justifies more attacks in the minds of IS.

I've seen this argument put forward often and while I don't think it's entirely untrue, they probably do want us to attack, I don't follow how it leads to the conclusion that we shouldn't do it regardless.

I wasn't for even a second saying any retaliation was justified spenno. I was saying the Brits are asking for it. They have a huge disenfranchised Muslim community who are all getting a hard time for this stuff but the sharp edge are using that and gaining ground support and financial from among the entire population not just hardliners.

Suits the govt agenda to have another attack or two on British soil, they'll take the collateral damage as further justification of their actions.
They've managed to foil a number of attacks the last while and kept it quiet so as not to raise awareness and encourage more militants and also prevents panic among the people.

Bombing Syria won't help anything. And as they've done it minutes after they voted to, they should be forced to take more refugees.


Oh wait, they won't, cos they're about to leave Europe via a referendum or
By whatever hook or crook they can.

No idea Britain even knows its own agenda right now. It was anti bombing a month ago and now it's bombing and they've had their fill of refugees and immigrants and are barely putting a polite face on even that.

dimejinky99 wrote:I wasn't for even a second saying any retaliation was justified spenno. I was saying the Brits are asking for it.

Still foggy on the distinction here, dime.

dimejinky99 wrote:Suits the govt agenda to have another attack or two on British soil, they'll take the collateral damage as further justification of their actions.

This is deluded, conspiracy theory-level thinking.

dimejinky99 wrote:Bombing Syria won't help anything. And as they've done it minutes after they voted to, they should be forced to take more refugees.

Will doing nothing help anything? I can't see how.

I understand Britain has already committed to taking 20,000 Syrian refugees.

dimejinky99 wrote:Oh wait, they won't, cos they're about to leave Europe via a referendum or
By whatever hook or crook they can.

I think this is a separate issue for the most part.

dimejinky99 wrote:No idea Britain even knows its own agenda right now. It was anti bombing a month ago and now it's bombing and they've had their fill of refugees and immigrants and are barely putting a polite face on even that.

There are legitimate issues that need to be faced with respect to British immigration, the success of parties like UKIP reflects that disastrous mistakes have been made over the last few decades. Anti-immigration sentiment isn't entirely driven by bigotry and small-mindedness.

Birds in Hell wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:I wasn't for even a second saying any retaliation was justified spenno. I was saying the Brits are asking for it.

Still foggy on the distinction here, dime.

dimejinky99 wrote:Bombing Syria won't help anything. And as they've done it minutes after they voted to, they should be forced to take more refugees.

Will doing nothing help anything? I can't see how.

On the first point, justified implies that the retaliation is morally legitimate - dime's point is that the Brits are likely taking actions that are going to result in more attacks against them

And as hard as this is to accept, sometimes the option is which action (or inaction) causes less harm, not which will help more.

I don't really buy the argument that attacks on Syria will make Britain (or France or the USA, etc.) any less safe. We are not safe from these attacks now, we have already been a target numerous times and will continue to be. Islamic terrorism is not going to go away if we simply leave them alone.

There is a whole wide array of tactics, strategies, approaches, and methods in between 'do nothing' and 'Western imperial powers bomb war torn region, destroy lives, expect gratitude, surprised to discover they've made new enemies'

Birds in Hell wrote:I don't really buy the argument that attacks on Syria will make Britain (or France or the USA, etc.) any less safe. We are not safe from these attacks now, we have already been a target numerous times and will continue to be. Islamic terrorism is not going to go away if we simply leave them alone.

Its not going to go away if we bomb them either. Its just not going away.

verb_to_trust wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:I don't really buy the argument that attacks on Syria will make Britain (or France or the USA, etc.) any less safe. We are not safe from these attacks now, we have already been a target numerous times and will continue to be. Islamic terrorism is not going to go away if we simply leave them alone.

Its not going to go away if we bomb them either. Its just not going away.

Sounds like it's time to kill all mooslims, amirite

verb_to_trust wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:I don't really buy the argument that attacks on Syria will make Britain (or France or the USA, etc.) any less safe. We are not safe from these attacks now, we have already been a target numerous times and will continue to be. Islamic terrorism is not going to go away if we simply leave them alone.

Its not going to go away if we bomb them either. Its just not going away.

There's no way to ever eliminate terrorism or violence. But it's not like there aren't steps that can be taken to address this either. They will take a long time, they will involve changes in an entire region, and further western military intervention is likely to make it more hard to do the things that need doing.

Right now three of the most useful moves the United States could make is cutting off aid to Saudi Arabia and Israel until they stop funding terrorist groups and end the west bank/gaza occupations, respectively, and embrace Iran as a necessary partner in regional stabilization. This should be followed by a willingness to abandon territorial boundaries that are relics of a western imperial occupation, which will make peace deals easier.

None of this ends the problem. But it creates a place where you can begin to build something over time.