What ideas are there instead of bombing?

Poppy Begum in today's Telegraph www.Telegraph.co.uk/comment writes with passion, knowledge, experience and sound common sense when she says

Isil wants to split the world into two camps – “us versus them – and engender the kind of hatred that resulted in the vicious verbal attack on a young British Muslim woman, Ruhi Rehman, last week on the Metro in Newcastle
After Paris, Isil must have known hate crimes against Muslims would increase; it’s what they were counting on – the rejection and vilification of Muslims. If people turn on each other now, that will be a victory for them. More than ever, we need to stick together, which is why I was so heartened to hear how the passengers on that Newcastle train came to Ruhi’s rescue. That, for me, demonstrates British values of liberty and tolerance at their best. Surely that ideology is our best defence against terror

There will always be stupid people on both sides, if using the word sides is the right one.

There has been the case of the muslim family who converted to Christianity and have been viciously attacked.

I have not heard one UK parliamentarian, read one main stream paper, heard one UK t.v station who has not tried to, gone out of their way to impress on their listener reader to make the point that IS is an extreme Muslim ideology that has no connect, nothing, Nada, zilch to do with the millions of Muslims who interpret the Quaran in a peaceful manner. Indeed there is repeated reference to the fact IS is killing those of the Muslim faith in greater numbers.

I think there is a lot of trouble 'caused ' by some who insist that there is a constant xenophobic, negative , anti Muslim rant by the media in particular. They are as bad as the idiots who don't understand the difference between IS and the Muslim faith in general but I am not of the belief that is the majority of the UK public, quite the opposite. I believe we are more sensible than to listen to either group.

I don't agree with bombing, too many innocent people will be hurt. I worked last week with a young lass who wore a burka, I was scared at first but I got to know her a bit and found out she was young and enthusiastic about her career and loving towards her family. We cant bomb innocent people. How would Britain react if they got planes and bombed us, it is bad enough what already has been done in france but imagine wholesale bombing of british cities. I think that is what it will escalate to if this is not stopped.

How long a bath do you think whitewave has, POGS?

At the same time there were probably lots of people being killed by US drones, Russian bombs, and any other weapons sold to despots by the UK arms trade.

Two very good and well thought out posts from POGS.
there is no other recourse but action ( as well as trying to cut off arms and cash) to wipe out ISIS, but some people would prefer that other countries do it for us! We are not talking, as one poster on here says, about bombing hell out of them, this is not the Blitz, times have changed and bombs, missiles,are more selective, in some cases ( drones) extremely selective.
there is, frankly, no alternative as these barbaric people do not listen, discuss or debate, unless it's about the best way to behead or crucify.

Perhaps Jeremy Corbyn could be flown over the region, and dropped( with or without parachute.)

These barbaric people are using civilians as human shields and so I have serious doubts about bombing as a way to deal with them. I want to see something from the UN (remember the UN Resolution we never had before we bombed Iraq?) and a bit more international support for the Kurds, who seem to be the only ones making any progress against IS. Bombing is not, in spite of what we are told, accurate or discriminatory, and I think that it would only lead to more recruits for the barbarism.

rosesarered, at least Jeremy Corbyn is a politician with the courage to say what he believes.

I believe Corbyn does say what he believes, the problem is, that he is out of touch with most of the country. he is only in touch with Labour Party Members who are very left wing and pacifist, and he is totally unsuited to be any kind of leader. great at meetings, committees, debates etc.but that is all,
More of a loser than a leader.

We need to be influencing to stop the financial support/ arms sales that keep Daesh going, be providing safe havens and safe air space for the ordinary people of these strife ridden countries to get to places of safety. That is the way to undermine terrorists. Bombing and killing only perpetuates the situation and increases the numbers angry people, ripe for persuasion by Daesh, on the ground.

Oh he may be in the minority in his view ( although I am not sure) but that doesn't mean he is wrong. I am absolutely convinced now ( It has taken me a lot of thought to reach this conclusion) that bombing is not and has never been the answer. Those who are advocating bombing must be utterly sure of the rightness of their decision. How otherwise can they live with the knowledge of the deaths they will be causing?

Wheniwasyourage

There was a United Nations resolution passed last week.

'ISIS CONSTITUTES A GLOBAL AND UNPRECIDENTED THREAT TO INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY AND EXPRESSES THE COUNCILS DETERMINATION TO COMBAT "BY AL MEANS' THIS UNPRECIDENTED THREAT'

'THE RESOLUTION CALLS 'ON ALL' UNITED NATION STATES TO 'INTENSIFY' THEIR
EFFORTS TO STEM THE FLOW. OF FOREIGN TERRORISTS FIGHTING IN IRAQ AND SYRIA AND TO PREVENT AND SUPPRESS THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM'

We are already doing selective strikes in Iraq, against ISIS , or somehow, does this not count?

Wellroses I know of at least one Labour Party member who is not very left wing. As for being pacifist, I admit I would balk at throwing people I disagreed with out of aeroplanes!

(grin)

It talks about intensifying efforts, it doesn't say what those efforts should be. You cannot assume it means I tensive bombing.

How have those selective strikes helped so far?

Or even

But it does mention stopping the financing of terrorism. A good idea to stop selling weapons from here, then. Why didn't we think of that?

Whitewave

Nobody can be sure they have made the right decision, not you, not I.

I could ask you in return how do you live with yourself knowing your decision will have done nothing to help those being killed by IS terrorists. I ask that question in response to your comment and only to prove a point because personally I find it a question that I can answer from both sides of the arguement. The horrible, wretched fact is lives are being lost due to taking action and not taking action .

I hate the thought of warfare. I hate the thought our service men and women have to be involved. I hate the whole bloody situation. But I equally hate to see the world doing nothing to stop the slaughter , rape, enforced prostitution of women and children that IS and their affiliates such as Boko Haram are barbarically doing wherever they can gain a foothold.

Not attempting to stop the spread of IS is not 'saving ' lives it is giving them the opportunity to kill more people from any colour, creed or religion as there is nothing standing in their way.

What can stop IS , talking, even John McDonald said today there is no possibility of that. Yes we should stop their funding the biggest funding they receive is through black market selling of oil. To stop that the UN has called on nations to unite , Turkey must be stopped from being two faced , big decisions to be made there from the UN, Assad can't be told to stop buying but he is getting the jitters seeing IS progress in Syria he is next, hence Russia has joined Assad by supplying arms, troops and equipment. Then there is bombing of the oil refineries that is going on , yes bombing a necessary evil.

Everybody is right and everybody is wrong. Nobody is right and nobody is wrong we have different approaches as to how to deal with the one thing we agree , IS is a barbaric, medieval bunch of b-----s that must be stopped. The saddest thing of all lives will be lost that is the inevitable in war.

From what I've read, Syrians don't want to be bombed to be saved. They fear Asaad as much as IS.

It's probably easier for those who don't live there to make that difficult decision on their behalf.

If we bomb it will be like Iraq all over again. Lots of 'Collateral damage'. IS are hiding amongst civilians, they keep moving. But they are too dangerous to ignore. We have to do everything possible - cut off funds, intercept weapons and funds from supporters and immoral companies/individuals who ignore sanctions, send in spies, secret agents, (who would have to be able to pass as local) to kidnap/assassinate the ringleaders. Use the Internet to counter their propaganda and show what life is really like in their supposed Islamic state. It will not be easy or quick.
At the same time we have to address the hate preachers in our own countries, those who say the laws of Islam over ride those of the country they have chosen to live in, and those who call non Moslems evil. At worst this is nothing less than treason and should be punished as such. All immigrants should sign an agreement to support the government and civil laws of the host country on pain of immediate repatriation, regardless of any family they may have acquired along the way. They should of course be free to worship as they wish, and we should embrace those of a different culture, but in some countries, and even in enclaves in western countries, fundamentalists teach children only the Koran and no other subjects, they cut themselves and their families off from mixing in non Moslem society.and women and girls are barely allowed out of the house. This goes against the UN conventions for the rights of the child to education and against other human rights, such as the equality of women.
There are no easy answers, but bombing will only strengthen the hand of the fundamentalists and prove their point.

From what I've read, Syrians don't want to be bombed to be saved. They fear Asaad as much as IS.

Any settlement would have to take account of that

And most people fear ISIL - more so than fear Assad.

Cannot help wondering what the late Lord BL Montgomery would have thought of it all-amongst other "alumni" of WW2 such as Zukov? To achieve victory out of defeat is a unique achievement by any standard.It needs clear thinking/concrete planning/thorough research as well as luck. Monty perceived that WW2 needed a different approach to WW1-not least the fact that this was a mechanised army with ground troops backed by aerial support . So-intelligence is vital as is detection of the essential financial/economic backing needed to purchase armaments to conduct it in the first place. Also needed is a sense of cohesion-different "philosophies" MUST approve a common plan of approach. Not a bad idea would be an all-out campaign to put Allied countries on a war footing i.e. mobilise all of a certain age to join a one year VSO course (or similar) between school and employment/College.Also encourage juveniles to participate in voluntary work such as Oxfam etc. Good luck-they'll need it!

Tank you Durhamjen, you have my vote !