Should we bomb De-ash/ISIS in Syria?

I do hope that those who have not listened to him and what he has to say, will take the time and trouble to do so.

Thanks Wilma- I missed it. Only saw it today and I think he is so right.

If you want to kill a drunken crazy hornets nest- you better be sure of what you are doing- or you'll disperse the lot and they will be a lot more dangerous then.

I saw this map of Syria that shows the territory held by the various groups. Thought others would find it interesting. Idlib is where last Sunday, Russian air strikes destroyed a bakery set up by a humanitarian aid organisation. I posted about this attack before. 45000 displaced Syrians are in Idlib. 7 trucks of humanitarian supplies were also destroyed in the same attack. Idlib is in an area held by Syrians fighting Assad. Da-esh is not in that area.

Actually gj that video was posted by durhamjen on Tuesday after I posted about him. He wrote an article for the Guardian that I gave a link to in another thread.

POGS Hilary Benn didn't say anything about concerns that the bombing would be illegal without UN authorisation. He said:-

"They have to come up with an overall plan, which they have not done. I think the focus now is finding a peaceful solution to the civil war."

I agree with him when he says the international community failed to come to the aid of the Syrian democrats. We should have acted then.

If you take time to listen to the young French man who was held hostage for over 10 months by Jihadi John and ISIS - he explains very well that war is exactly what they want- and we have fallen right into the trap. Please take time to listen to what he has to say, in the link in my last post.

Frank Gardiner on R5 earlier said the reason oil fields were not targeted earlier is because of the civilians forced to worked there by Daesh (mainly engineers and drivers). Also, the oil fields are part of the Syrian infrastructure and contribute a major amount of revenue for the country. Yes, that means Assad right now, but after Assad is gone Syria will still need those oil fields.

Interestingly he also said Daesh does not have the capability to bring down planes and that's why they're attacking soft targets like Paris and Sousse. Daesh is trying to provoke us to committing ground forces because it wants face to face combat. This war is seen by Daesh as the final battle of good against evil - where Daesh is the good.

From June 2014 onwards we saw fleets of white 4x4 cars waving the Daesh black flags arriving in towns to take them over. These convoys are easy targets for drones and air craft, so that kind of flashy show stopped months ago. Since then Daesh has infiltrated civilian populations, but now it is trying get out of Syria and regroup in Mosul in Iraq.

The thing that struck me listening to Frank Gardiner (who I respect very much), is expanding our air strikes into Syria increases the chance of the UK being targeted. Hopefully we can prevent that happening long enough to remove/reduce the threat of the UK being one of those soft targets.

Fair enough, let's have balance and fairness, does Cameron look upon the dead children killed in their primary school targeted by the French as collateral damage . Someone posted they would have all been briefed before the vote which went in favour of more bombing

This man knows what is going on- and explains so well why bombing is exactly what Isis wants, listen to him:

youtu.be/KovpPJULvgk

I truly hope you will.

Durhamjen

That is exactly what is being done but you cannot attempt to cut off the oil supplies unless you destroy the production of the oil at it,'s source , the distribution of oil which means destroying the vehicles moving it and the roads they travel on and that can only be done by having the capability to destroy those priorities and have the ability to move into those areas where it is taking place.

You simply cannot have it both ways it is a folly to think that simply talking about what should happen , providing a logical way as to what should. be done to stop IS from obtaining funding from oil will result in it happening . It is the unpalatable truth to stop IS oil production and distribution requires the weapons, the strategy and the ability to hit them in Syria.You cannot achieve anything without going into IS held territory in Syria which is now due to having little to no opposition fighting it holding over half of the land mass of Syria, it is huge.

Think what has happened to Syria. Assad holds only a quarter share of Syria, anti Assad rebels in the north hold a quarter share, IS held territory holds the other half both north and south. Without outside help to defeat IS how long could they hold out against IS achieving it's goal to take over Syria to become a caliphate by slaughtering it's way across Syria.

Rosequartz of course people are going to belittle the RAF ( on here) it seems that 'anything goes' for some, like saying that 'does Hilary Benn care about little dead children'. This is exactly what Socialist supporters have been doing on social media to Labour MP's who voted Yes to action in Syria.

CelticRose I am not sure which of my posts you were responding to in your post of 04.12. 38 - perhaps I am losing the plot too.
Not difficult on a thread as long as this one.

Developing the idea of comparing the Vietcon to IS. There are similarities. Both infiltrate the population. Both given assistance one by supply lines from China the other with the purchase if oil. Both have a strong ideology.

I think people quote the UN because of Tony Blair and the Iraq war.

I do hope people are not going to belittle the RAF who are doing a very difficult job at the behest of the majority of Parliament.

Professor from Exeter this morning argued that airstrikes will never do it and pointed to the level of bombing in Vietnam and that outcome.

An army will definitely be needed. Let us hope we can agree strategy with Russia and who is the target otherwise it is going to be a disaster

So Hilary Benn has no problem with a primary school being attacked and little ones killed by the French . Suppose those little lives are collateral damage

Celticrose

The United Nations is mentioned so often because the war in Iraq is seen to have been illegal as there was no agreement, resolution from the United Nations. It has been a thorn in our side that we were fed so many lies by Blair of Weapons of mass destruction and our threat levels by Iraq. Because of this UK politicians look to the United Nations resolutions to never be placed in that position again who can blaim them.

Not having a UN resolution doesn't stop wars from happening obviously but the protocol, the process of gaining ageement from the United Nations is a major issue . You make a valid point re how useless it can be but whether we as individuals agree with it or not is not the point.

The United Nations passed a resolution calling for all countries to do what they could to defeat IS unanimously 2 weeks ago and for those who were looking for clarification any involvement by the UK into Syria was legal/abiding by international law that was it.

So there will always be 'mention' of the United Nations as it is the framework for agreement,sanctioning which governments look to before taking military action. It doesn't stop wars, it cannot stop wars, it is at times useless and impotent but it is the only tool the world has to show unity and without it the world would probably
be in a bigger mess than it is now .

The problem is the likes of IS/Jihadists do not conform to it's rules , have no desire to ,they are taking on the world and again whether we like it or not it is only
by the world trying to defeat their barbarism will there be a cat in hells chance of being stopped.

If anyone is interested Tony Benn gave a great analysis of the wars we have fought and the reasons behind them. He says the UK gov congratulated Hitler in 1938 on defeating communism in Germany, talks about how Saddam Hussein was funded by the USA to attack Iran, and how as a government minister they urged him to get the Shah of Iran to accept nuclear weapons. It leads you to wonder what is really going on with the funding and who is supporting IS really. www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/centres/richinst/Video/benn_video.htm

stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news/dear-hilary-benn-mp-eleventh-hour-plea-on-bombing-syria

"Using surveillance aircraft/drones alongside attack drones, crude oil movement can be stopped. In parallel, bankers should be persuaded to block anonymous donation funding through the financial networks.

IS is shipping around 25,000 barrels of crude oil a day to Turkey by road tanker, sold on the black market for as little as US$25 a barrel – then a quarter of market price. Now it sells to rogue traders in organised operations within Iraq and Syria.

Why is cutting off the oil trade supporting IS not being addressed more enthusiastically? Russian strikes have inflicted damage on the tanker fleets, but of 10,600 coalition strikes, only 196 have targeted oil infrastructure. With better use of airborne surveillance it would be easier to identify and destroy the tankers used to move illicit crude oil, cutting off this vital source of income and hastening an end to the conflict."

Interesting comments. Should we be concentrating on this given that we are now bombing Daesh?

The rest of the article in case anyone wants to read it.

theconversation.com/to-defeat-islamic-state-we-must-sever-its-oil-lifeline-heres-how-51751

Anyone tuned in to Fox News this morning? Hannity and O'Reilly. Very interesting relating to the topic of this post.

Roseq I remember when France under de Gaulle kept veto-ing the GB application to join the then EEC. He also tried to take Monaco with threats of military force. Where am I going with this.... have I lost the plot. Same country different leaders. I don't recall France being sympathetic to terrorist acts in the UK. Indeed, they also supplied Exocets to Argentina during the Falklands war. There is more if you check previous creditable news reporting over the last 30 years. Any life anywhere in the world taken by terrorists is reprehensible. This country went to World War twice because of terrorists in that age.

Why do people keep quoting the UN!!!! Yes, they make Resolutions but cannot - and do not - enforce them. No money for one thing - and as for the soldiers of the UN, they have no recognisable chain of command. No one to answer to. Take the UN soldiers in the Congo recently raping and abusing those they are sent to protect. This also happened in Kosovo. Another UN mess in the form of Serbian/Croatian conflicts. It is one long list of failure. Monitor but take no action. Toothless. Just to name but two Resolutions. Resolutions 162 (1961) and 171 (1962) against Israel attacking Palestine and Syria respectively - and look where we are now. I wonder what the salaries are for the UN General Assembly reps. More recently (October 2015) it has been reported for corruption scandals. So, don't quote UN Resolutions to me. The theory is wonderful, but the practical isn't working.

I note the date that Benn made that comment was November 15th.

The United Nations Resolution calling on all nations to defeat IS by any means was passed on November 20th. There was a need for proof of legality for engaging in Syria and that proved to be the reason so many changed their views.