Syria bombing

[FQ]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34992032

Four Tornados from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus took part in the operation soon after MPs voted to approve bombing.
The "successful" strikes hit the IS-controlled Omar oil fields in eastern Syria, the defence secretary said.
But the PM cautioned that campaign would take time, saying "we're going to need to be patient and persistent".
"It is complex and it is difficult what we are asking our pilots to do, and our thoughts should be with them and their families as they commence this important work," David Cameron said.
MPs overwhelmingly backed UK military action against IS - also known as Daesh - in Syria, by 397 votes to 223, after a 10-hour Commons debate on Wednesday.
Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said the MoD would be assessing the damage done by the bombing later, but the aim was to strike "a very real blow on the oil and revenue on which Daesh depends".

This is absolutely awful. Why would anyone want to do something like this, probably knowing that they would mostly hit innocent civilians? Where do you stand?

 

[deltic]

While I'm not in favour of bombing Syria it is very clear that the RAF crews are on the whole extremely conscious about doing all they can to minimise civilian causalities and frequently return to base without carrying out an attack because of that.

 

[St Rollox]

Bae Systems shares have risen 5 points, so somebody is happy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

While I'm not in favour of bombing Syria it is very clear that the RAF crews are on the whole extremely conscious about doing all they can to minimise civilian causalities and frequently return to base without carrying out an attack because of that.

Talk about believing your own proganda.

 

[Domh245]

I also read somewhere that the Brimstone missiles being fired by the RAF aircraft were better at preventing civilian causalities. It essentially boiled down to them having higher accuracy than other missiles in use, and being a non-fragmentation warhead. They said that you could survive one landing 5m from you, but had a 50% chance of getting killed if the russian equivalent landed 130m away. It also has very accurate radar and laser guidance systems which help ensure accuracy.

I still feel that if we want to have the best effect, we ought to collaborate with the Syrian government, but that would be a lesser of 2 evils situation. This whole thing began with Assad as the enemy, but now I think he is somewhat key to the overall success.

 

[Iskra]

I'm completely against this and haven't found anyone who wants to bomb Syria at all today. Also my facebook feed is full of people against it (apart from one person), thus I have come to the conclusion that our MP's are completely out of touch with reality if they genuinely believe the people of Britain wanted this.

A couple of questions, when was the last time a bomb achieved anything positive?

Equally, how do you destroy an enemy that hides amongst a civilian population with bombs? It's an utterly flawed approach and we should have learnt our lesson by now after creating a succession of failed states in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

I'm not a pacifist or tree-hugging hippy, I simply believe this is a flawed operation and a tragically flawed foreign policy (again) that is being carried-out against the wishes of the majority of British people.

 

[meridian2]

What I can't get over is the astonishing level of hypocrisy from the Left; after all they did support an illegal war in Iraq..

 

[St Rollox]

If only Scotland had voted YES we would have been spared this warmongering.

 

[Antman]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34992032



This is absolutely awful. Why would anyone want to do something like this, probably knowing that they would mostly hit innocent civilians? Where do you stand?

I'm not particularly in favour of it but is there any evidence that it would mostly hit innocent civilians or is this just scaremongering? According to an RAF spokesman they would be hitting strategic targets and not civilians.

 

[DarloRich]

so what is your solution for dealing with IS?

I am all for a negotiated settlement but to reach that someone has to retard the ability of IS to savagely wage their brand of war. How do you propose to develop a situation of safety whereby these talks can take place?

I am torn over this issue. We need to stop IS yet i don't feel we have a plan to do that short of bombing.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Bae Systems shares have risen 5 points, so somebody is happy.

They've risen 70p a share since the Paris bombings. It's not bad news for everyone. (And yes, I am as cynical as Hugh Laurie was when he wrote The Gun Seller.)

I'm not particularly in favour of it but is there any evidence that it would mostly hit innocent civilians or is this just scaremongering? According to an RAF spokesman they would be hitting strategic targets and not civilians.

I don't think anyone seriously thinks the RAF will be setting off to bomb civilians, but let's face it, that's what they're going to do. ISIS, like all guerilla organisations, don't have huge military compounds in the middle of nowhere with a huge sign saying JIHADIS WELCOME CAREFUL BOMBERS at the front gate. They hide their military compounds in the middle of civilian areas.

Both the USAF and the RAF have a long and dignified tradition of blowing up civilians. Only last week the USAF had to admit they've just blown up a Medicins Sans Frontieres hospital in Afghanistan.

 

[Oswyntail]

...I am torn over this issue. We need to stop IS yet i don't feel we have a plan to do that short of bombing.

I think tis is the case with most people in this country (and our MPs reflected that).
Very few people in the media, social or otherwise, seem to me to be asking the important questions. Notably,what are we trying to achieve across the region: Democracy? Stability? An end to infra-Islam strife? An end to the refugee crisis? Threat removal? Protecting our "interests"? Assuaging old guilt? Preventing others gaining more influence? All those are worthy, and most are achievable. But they might also be incompatible (the most stable periods have been far from democratic). The ultimate solution must be diplomatic, but, to my mind, must only involve local nations - not the US, not the UK, not Russia. And that is ALL local nations, including Iran, Saudi, and Israel.

 

[ainsworth74]

How many civilian casualties have RAF strikes in Iraq caused?

 

[RichmondCommu]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34992032



This is absolutely awful. Why would anyone want to do something like this, probably knowing that they would mostly hit innocent civilians? Where do you stand?

I stand on hunting ISIS down to the last man / woman and killing the lot of them. Ask yourself this question; why would any human being want to place another human being in a cage, douse them in petrol and then burn them alive?Where do you stand on that?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I stand on hunting ISIS down to the last man / woman and killing the lot of them.

All very appluadable, nobody is in disagreement.

But:
a) do you think it is theoretically achievable, and,
b) how do you think that air strikes will achieve it?

 

[RichmondCommu]

All very appluadable, nobody is in disagreement.

But:
a) do you think it is theoretically achievable, and,
b) how do you think that air strikes will achieve it?

In all honesty I don't know but I think its worth trying to make life as uncomfortable / nasty for ISIS as we possibly can. The rest is for Mr Cameron and his fellow leaders to sort out; I'm not the Prime Minister!

 

[Tetchytyke]

In all honesty I don't know but I think its worth trying to make life as uncomfortable / nasty for ISIS as we possibly can.

And that's the issue. The thought process seems to be "we must do something, this is something, we must do this".

We should save time and set up the Chilcott Enquiry Part Two now.

 

[Butts]

If only Scotland had voted YES we would have been spared this warmongering.

How do you figure that out ?

There was a timetable for Independence which would certainly not yet have come to fruition. My inkling is that protracted negotiations and haggling would still be taking place.

It must be galling for you that combat aircraft have today left RAF Lossiemouth for Cyprus.

ps Why didn't the SNP allow a free vote like Labour - talk about political pointscoring !!

 

[DarloRich]

I am not against bombing them. We have the capability to retard their ability to fight and we should do that. As long as we have a plan to change things after we bomb them!

However we cant bomb them out of existence. Someone has to occupy the ground, someone has to fight them on the ground and someone has to lead both Iraq and Syria. That seems ot be the missing aspect to all this.

I have seen a very sensible plan for promoting peace in the region via a transition to local power, UN observers, negotiations, peace process etc BUT none of that can happen till IS are beaten back.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How many civilian casualties have RAF strikes in Iraq caused?

they claim none

 

[SS4]

so what is your solution for dealing with IS?

My preferred solution is for our allies to do the bombing. The RAF's contribution is negligible compared to that of the Americans.

I am all for a negotiated settlement but to reach that someone has to retard the ability of IS to savagely wage their brand of war. How do you propose to develop a situation of safety whereby these talks can take place?

You have to defeat them using force. The only way to do that is to win the ground war and turn the hearts and minds of their supporters.

I am torn over this issue. We need to stop IS yet i don't feel we have a plan to do that short of bombing.

Ain't that the truth?

Overall I am disappointed that money can be found to bomb Syria when we are facing a time of unprecedented cuts at home - now all but proven to be ideologically based

 

[ainsworth74]

they claim none

Anyone claim different?

 

[DarloRich]

Anyone claim different?

I am sure IS would claim 570000
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My preferred solution is for our allies to do the bombing. The RAF's contribution is negligible compared to that of the Americans.

Yet we are told our ability to deliver precision attacks is greater than that of our allies

Yet we are told that our weapons are move accurate and destructive to the enemy than our allies weapons

Yet we are told that the reconnaissance pods on the Torndao and our other surveillance aircraft are delivering the majority of targeting data for allied air strikes

You have to defeat them using force. The only way to do that is to win the ground war and turn the hearts and minds of their supporters.

You cant beat the old proxy war It isn't clear who will be used ot beat them on the ground

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

In all honesty I don't know but I think its worth trying to make life as uncomfortable / nasty for ISIS as we possibly can. The rest is for Mr Cameron and his fellow leaders to sort out; I'm not the Prime Minister!

Perhaps, then, we could do more to stop ISIS/ISIL/Daesh receiving arms,munitions etc from their allies in the Gulf (and through Turkey) and attempt to cut off their income from the sale of oil. Who is buying it? (oh, it's probably our allies).

 

[RichmondCommu]

Perhaps, then, we could do more to stop ISIS/ISIL/Daesh receiving arms,munitions etc from their allies in the Gulf (and through Turkey) and attempt to cut off their income from the sale of oil. Who is buying it? (oh, it's probably our allies).

For what its worth the Allies are seeking out and bombing shipments of exported oil and their supply lines. In fact from what I read this morning that's what the RAF were doing last night.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And that's the issue. The thought process seems to be "we must do something, this is something, we must do this".

We should save time and set up the Chilcott Enquiry Part Two now.

Why, to buy more time for ISIS? I don't see what harm there is in taking out as much ISIS infrastructure as we can and if we can kill a few ISIS at the same time than that's just great.

 

[SS4]

Yet we are told our ability to deliver precision attacks is greater than that of our allies

Yet we are told that our weapons are move accurate and destructive to the enemy than our allies weapons

Yet we are told that the reconnaissance pods on the Torndao and our other surveillance aircraft are delivering the majority of targeting data for allied air strikes

Eh, you still need to actually drop the bombs for them to do any damage and I'd not believe everything we're told.

You cant beat the old proxy war It isn't clear who will be used ot beat them on the ground

Indeed, yet who do we get to do our dirty work for us? It's a cluster**** of alliances and enemies

 

[WestCoast]

I'm not a terrorist sympathiser, a pacifist or anything else those that opposing air strikes have been labelled as, but personally I remain unconvinced about intervening with air strikes in this brutal ideological war between societal fractions. It might seem like weakening IS in Syria in this way is the right thing to do at this specific point in time, but it seems we are never far away from the next threat caused by a power vacuum in the Middle East. Just my personal opinion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And that's the issue. The thought process seems to be "we must do something, this is something, we must do this".

Sums up why I'm unconvinced.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

For what its worth the Allies are seeking out and bombing shipments of exported oil and their supply lines. In fact from what I read this morning that's what the RAF were doing last night.
.

Yes, I did see that, but given the length of time that the US/France etc have been bombing with their precision smart missiles, it does seem very surprising that IS are still able to export the oil. I really don't think that the west have been trying at all to influence our 'allies' in the region who support the terrorists.(cf how quickly sanctions were applied to Russia over Ukraine)

 

[ainsworth74]

Eh, you still need to actually drop the bombs for them to do any damage and I'd not believe everything we're told.

Perhaps you'd like to provide some sources that call into question the effectiveness and usefulness of the RAPTOR pod carried by Tornados as well as some sources calling into question the accuracy of our Brimstone missiles and the various Paveway guided bombs carried by both Typhoon and Tornado?

 

[St Rollox]

I stand on hunting ISIS down to the last man / woman and killing the lot of them. Ask yourself this question; why would any human being want to place another human being in a cage, douse them in petrol and then burn them alive?Where do you stand on that?

Unless your a serving member of the special forces your asking somebody else to it.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Unless your a serving member of the special forces your asking somebody else to it.

Yes I am asking someone else to do it. Do you have an issue with that?

And what about the poor soul burning in the cage? Is it OK because someone is burning other than your good self?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, I did see that, but given the length of time that the US/France etc have been bombing with their precision smart missiles, it does seem very surprising that IS are still able to export the oil. I really don't think that the west have been trying at all to influence our 'allies' in the region who support the terrorists.(cf how quickly sanctions were applied to Russia over Ukraine)

Which countries are actively supporting ISIS and how much oil is being exported via the Black Market? It can't be easy hunting down every shipment of oil, even with on the ground intelligence.

 

[Domh245]

Slightly off topic, but I will admit that Hilary Benn's speech was rather impressive, even if it was 14 minutes long!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34993438