!!

Guests can now post!

Welcome to Intelligent Answers.  As a guest, you are now able to post a question, subject to getting through our spam-bot filters.  However, if you want to answer any questions, you will need to register.  Thanks for visting!  (BTW - guests cannot post links, and if you post spam, we will block your IP and report you to every spam protection site we can find - we work hard to keep this site spam free for the benefit and enjoyment of our members!)

Author Topic: Bombing Syria...  (Read 2078 times)

Offline siasl

  • Founder member who you can't insult as I'm too ignorant.
  • Administrator
  • Chancellor
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 122
  • -Receive: 85
  • Posts: 5306
  • Helpfulness: 129
  • Intelligence is soluble in alcohol <hic>
Bombing Syria...
« on: 03 December, 2015, 12:45:26 PM »
Worth it or not?

imfeduptoo

  • Guest
Re: Bombing Syria...
« Reply #1 on: 03 December, 2015, 05:05:33 PM »
I really don't know enough about this - does anyone! - but this is what I think.

I can't see how bombing Syria is going to help much in the fight against the jihadists - they are all over the world. Especially in Europe since so many of them came disguised as immigrants.
They are being funded by rich and powerful people so this will be a minor irritation to their cause as far as I can see.
I can only see matters getting worse for us through this bombing as I think the jihadists will retaliate and we will be the target for their suicide bombers.

Offline Cosmos

  • Masters
  • **
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 25
  • -Receive: 8
  • Posts: 745
  • Helpfulness: 8
  • Sydney, NSW.
Re: Bombing Syria...
« Reply #2 on: 03 December, 2015, 08:03:46 PM »
I've read Israeli reports that some of those bombing Syria have kept Israel informed. This is about the only thing they are doing right. Considering the long history the US has with Israel I'm surprised they are not taking advice from them.

Assad is the most legitimate ruler of Syria. All those who oppose him are in the wrong. He is said to be a bad man. So were Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi but look what they've been replaced by. Preserve the status quo and later find a more moderate resolution to problems.
Bare barbarer barberer rabarbera bra .

Offline antonymous

  • Perpendicular Galileo Galilei
  • Founder
  • Marie Curie
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 92
  • -Receive: 133
  • Posts: 2016
  • Helpfulness: 168
  • "We're all bankers now!"
    • Antonymous2011 Flickr Page
Re: Bombing Syria...
« Reply #3 on: 03 December, 2015, 10:15:48 PM »
To assess whether this latest attempt to suck up to the USA and France is going to be worth anything, one should take into consideration not only the risk of reprisals from european based jihadists, the killing of innocent civilians in Syria, but also the effectiveness of the strategy and its ultimate outcome.

I'm afraid that recent history doesnt bode well for Mr. Cameron's prognosis. NATO has been bombing the Taliban in Afghanistan for the past 14 years, and their numbers have increased dramatically during that period, For every innocent civilian killed maybe  a hundred new recruits join the ranks.They are gaining in strength and numbers such that they now impose a real threat to the elected government.

Take Libya, NATO bombed Gadaffi out of power and what remains is a lawless, non-functional state where ISIS is rapidly gaining power amongst the local war lords who took over the country. The thousands of non-Libyan workers who have lost their jobs and livelihoods as a result of the collapse are drowning by their hundreds in Mediterranean Sea  in an attempt to get away from the country to Europe.

All the hot air and political chicanery that took place in Parliament on Wednesday was just smoke and mirrors. The RAF have, by Cameron's own admission*, been flying armed aircraft over Syria, unmanned drones, for many months.

*"The US drone strike targeting Mohammed "Jihadi John" Emwazi in Syria has prompted a barrage of news and claims – the latest being that an RAF drone was part of the operation to kill the Islamic State (Isis) executioner. The UK-operated unmanned air vehicle (UAV) apparently flew beside two American drones when the US executed the strike near Raqqa [SYRIA]on 12 November.

The claims comes from the BBC, which is quoting a "defence source" but the Ministry of Defence (MoD), the government body that looks after the Armed Forces, has declined to comment on the report. The latest strike follows an RAF drone attack in Syria in August.
[*Mr Cameron proudly announced this in parliament]
British UAVs killed Reyaad Khan, 21, from Cardiff, and Ruhul Amin, 26, from Aberdeen with a Predator missile in Raqqa.[SYRIA] Meanwhile, we know the Jihadi John attack was part of the ongoing US-led Operation Inherent Resolve, which has previously involved UK drones in surveillance roles across Syria and Iraq."  http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/jihadi-john-did-raf-drone-help-target-isis-executioner-mohammed-emwazi-syria-attack-1528668

So it is just a case of  more of the same with human pilots now - what a load of hogwash. Jeremy Corbyn is the only MP I trust. Long may he rule!
« Last Edit: 03 December, 2015, 10:46:27 PM by antonymous »
“Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple. Sometimes it'svice versa"

Offline Maxowerma

  • Contributor
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 0
  • Posts: 2
  • Helpfulness: 0
Bombing Syria
« Reply #4 on: 06 April, 2016, 02:43:11 PM »
Strategic bombing is nice, but like Israel Tal said: "The border is drawn where the tracks stop". its the forces on the ground that actually change things

Offline Maxowerma

  • Contributor
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 0
  • Posts: 2
  • Helpfulness: 0
Bombing Syria
« Reply #5 on: 06 April, 2016, 03:33:31 PM »
I never said Strategic bombing is not necessary, but it has some very obvious limits, one of them being that airplanes cant hold ground. In all your examples, the strategic bombing was there to facilitate the ground troops advance.

Offline antonymous

  • Perpendicular Galileo Galilei
  • Founder
  • Marie Curie
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 92
  • -Receive: 133
  • Posts: 2016
  • Helpfulness: 168
  • "We're all bankers now!"
    • Antonymous2011 Flickr Page
Re: Bombing Syria
« Reply #6 on: 06 April, 2016, 05:32:41 PM »
I never said Strategic bombing is not necessary, but it has some very obvious limits, one of them being that airplanes cant hold ground. In all your examples, the strategic bombing was there to facilitate the ground troops advance.

The only ground the Iraqi army has recaptured  from ISIL has been after the the place has been thoroughly blown to smithereens by the
coalition air forces.  Which illustrates that point.
It seems to have slipped rapidly out of the news but recently it was reported officially that,despite promises to the contrary by the US government, there are now US  army boots on the ground in a combat role.
« Last Edit: 06 April, 2016, 05:36:35 PM by antonymous »
“Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple. Sometimes it'svice versa"

Offline P-Kasso2

  • Awaiting inspiration.
  • PK unique
  • University Councillor
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 54
  • -Receive: 164
  • Posts: 12278
  • Helpfulness: 214
  • January 2011 prize-quiz winner.
Re: Bombing Syria...
« Reply #7 on: 24 May, 2016, 04:14:02 PM »

I have only just spotted the previous answers to this question and usually try to stay out of political debates but I can only say how much I agree with Antonymous's extremely well reasoned answers.

Gd_pst  Ant!
"I live in hope"