Isis: Majority of British people do not support air strikes against Syria

[Steve781]

It's more like a political act,France wants to push for the European defence,the idea to bolster the EU defence.
European nations are pretty nowhere,while we deployed 10.000 soldiers in overseas operations,almost nobody came to our help us on the ground,only some logistic supports..... only the Netherlands deployed some special forces with us in Mali,but it was more like under UN if i'm not wrong. (But also mainly for reconnaissance and gathering intelligence ) @Penguin

European nations are pretty nowhere. The only nations that proposed to help us are the UK,which will deploy a destroyer to protect our A/C (Already has the protection needed),and we are waiting for you to also act with us in Syria. Germany,pretty useless,a frigate to "defend" our A/C (It already has the needed protection....) and some Tornados,only for reconnaissance missions and Belgium who is also providing a frigate,so it's almost nothing. France decided to invoke the article 42.7,just to push more seriously toward an European defence,otherwise we would have invoked the NATO's article 5 and we would have had the help needed,because only the US would have seriously given the help needed. (Even if Obama is the most useless president the US ever had.)
But some European nations have cut their armies to a nowhere level,that i lost some hope....

Amazing how 28 nations let only one to act in the interest in the Union....

@Abingdonboy

Arab countries should do more. They just sit it out and leave it to Western countries which adds to the ISIS propaganda about "crusaders".
Moreover, what about all the young men of fighting age flocking to Europe?

 

[Abingdonboy]

It's more like a political act,France wants to push for the European defence,the idea to bolster the EU defence.
European nations are pretty nowhere,while we deployed 10.000 soldiers in overseas operations,almost nobody came to our help us on the ground,only some logistic supports..... only the Netherlands deployed some special forces with us in Mali,but it was more like under UN if i'm not wrong. (But also mainly for reconnaissance and gathering intelligence ) @Penguin

European nations are pretty nowhere. The only nations that proposed to help us are the UK,which will deploy a destroyer to protect our A/C (Already has the protection needed),and we are waiting for you to also act with us in Syria. Germany,pretty useless,a frigate to "defend" our A/C (It already has the needed protection....) and some Tornados,only for reconnaissance missions and Belgium who is also providing a frigate,so it's almost nothing. France decided to invoke the article 42.7,just to push more seriously toward an European defence,otherwise we would have invoked the NATO's article 5 and we would have had the help needed,because only the US would have seriously given the help needed. (Even if Obama is the most useless president the US ever had.)
But some European nations have cut their armies to a nowhere level,that i lost some hope....

Amazing how 28 nations let only one to act in the interest in the Union....

@Abingdonboy

Well other nations in Europe have other priorities (mostly on the Economic front) however there are only a few true military powers in Europe- France, UK, Italy and Germany. Germany has never really recovered its military prowess since the end of WW2 -by design of course but they are effectively impotent as a result, give very little attetion to the military and in fact invite more burden in the forms of millions of refugees. The UK well this is a self-inflicted own goal, our polticans (the Tories) have seen to it that our global military reach is gone for good and with a pitiful 82,000 man army we are extremely constrained. Towards the end of the Afghan mission we were having difficulties supporting just 1,000 combatants deployed aborad and the cuts have been far more serious since then. The Tories have inflicted lasting damage that won't be recovered for generations- if ever. Italy is facing some genuinly serious econmic issues but maitains a relatively decent military but their poltical agenda seems to be very inward looking and they do not appear to be interested in exerting themselves. France seems to be the one (major) European power who has sought to maitain, if not bolster, its expedtionary warfighting capabilties in recent times and is perhaps the only nation in Europe that is able to fully deploy military assets in any meanigful manner to operate in an expedtionary mission entirely independant of third party support (other European members or even the US).


The fact is "military" seems to be a taboo word for most European leaders- especially in Brussels.

 

[mike2000 is back]

It's more like a political act,France wants to push for the European defence,the idea to bolster the EU defence.
European nations are pretty nowhere,while we deployed 10.000 soldiers in overseas operations,almost nobody came to our help us on the ground,only some logistic supports..... only the Netherlands deployed some special forces with us in Mali,but it was more like under UN if i'm not wrong. (But also mainly for reconnaissance and gathering intelligence ) @Penguin

European nations are pretty nowhere. The only nations that proposed to help us are the UK,which will deploy a destroyer to protect our A/C (Already has the protection needed),and we are waiting for you to also act with us in Syria. Germany,pretty useless,a frigate to "defend" our A/C (It already has the needed protection....) and some Tornados,only for reconnaissance missions and Belgium who is also providing a frigate,so it's almost nothing. France decided to invoke the article 42.7,just to push more seriously toward an European defence,otherwise we would have invoked the NATO's article 5 and we would have had the help needed,because only the US would have seriously given the help needed. (Even if Obama is the most useless president the US ever had.)
But some European nations have cut their armies to a nowhere level,that i lost some hope....

Amazing how 28 nations let only one to act in the interest in the Union....

@Abingdonboy

Well, i agree to some extent. However, you have to know that since the U.S/U.K led Iraq and Afghanistan invasion/war, our public opinion(even that of our politicians/MPs) has changed completely from being favorable towards foreign intervention/wars protecting our interests to being negative and against any foreign wars/involvement whatsoever. This can be seen with Tony blair's labour party which today is quite unsure/against foreign involvement overseas due to the Iraq war legacy which still haunts the party.lol.
In short , our public and MP's are increasingly adopting an isolationist view, which is stupid considering the turbulent/violent world we live in today. Its true we might have made mistakes in the past with our involvement overseas, however that doesn't means we shouldn't intervene militarily when necessary when our interests/people are threatened abroad.

For example if Britain or even the U.S was in France's shoes/position i don't think Britain would have intervene for example in Mali, since public opinion and many MPs would have opposed such a move/invasion. Moreover you forget one MAIN POINT: BRITISH SYSTEM IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FRENCH SYSTEM. Since for our forces to launch an invasion/attack against any country overseas they need approval from our parliament. Which i believe is foolish and unnecessary, since it delays any meaningful action from being taken promptly when needed. However that's our system and there is nothing much we can do about it. So France has more flexibility to intervene overseas as fast as its wants since its president has the power to deploy troops anywhere in the world without any parliamentary approval whatsoever.

The U.S is in the same situation as the U.K in this regard in that U.S public/politicians have also become increasingly wary of any more foreign interventions/wars. We saw that in Libya where it was instead Britain(surprisingly) and FRANCE who were urging the U.S to intervene and provide help to other European powers in this campaign, the U.S only intervened reluctantly after a lot of pressure to do so. So France seems to be the lucky one/winner here. Since it was the only major European power who was sternly against the Iraq invasion in the first place and as a result , it now it has the moral high ground of intervening in any country it deems fit without much public backlash internationally. How times have changed, since before it was the ooposite with U.K/U.S being the proactive powers. lol

 

[Steve781]

Well, i agree to some extent. However, you have to know that since the U.S/U.L led Iraq and Afghanistan invasion/war our public opinion(even that of our politicians/MPs) has changed completely from being favorable towards foreign intervention/wars protecting our interests to being negative and against any foreign wars/involvement whatsoever. This can be seen with Tony blair's labour party which today is quite unsure/against foreign involvement overseas due to the Iraq war legacy. In short , our public and MP's are increasingly adopting an isolationist view, which is stupid considering the turbulent/violent world we live in today. Its true we might have made mistakes in the past with our involvement overseas, however that doesn't means we shouldn't intervene militarily when necessary when our interests/people are threatened abroad.

For example if Britain was in France's shoes i don't think Britain would have intervene for example in Mali, since public opinion and many MPs would have opposed such a move/invasion. Moreover you forget one MAIN POINT: BRITISH SYSTEM IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FRENCH SYSTEM. Since for our forces to launch an invasion/attack against any country overseas they need approval from our parliament. Which i believe is foolish and unnecessary, since it delays any meaningful action from being taken promptly when needed. However that's our system and there is nothing much we can do about it. So France has more flexibility to intervene overseas as fast as its wants since its president has the power to deploy troops anywhere in the world without any parliamentary approval whatsoever.

The U.S is in the same situation as the U.K in this regard in that U.S public/politicians have also become increasingly wary of any more foreign interventions. We saw that in Libya where it was instead Britain(surprisingly) and FRANCE who were urging the U.S to intervene and provide help to other European powers in this campaign, the U.S only intervened reluctantly after a lot of pressure to do so. So France seems to be the lucky one, in that it was keenly against the Iraq invasion in the first place and now it has the moral high ground of intervening in any country it deems fit without much public backlash internationally. How times have changed, since before it was the ooposite with U.K/U.S being the proactive powers. lol

Cameron doesn't actually need approval constitutionally. He just feels the need to hold a vote because of pressure from backbenchers.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Cameron doesn't actually need approval constitutionally. He just feels the need to hold a vote because of pressure from backbenchers.

Which is as a result of the Iraq war legacy. why i said the Iraq war legacy/fiasco still haunts our MPs/politicians, reason they are reluctant/against any more foreign interventions, even when it is completely justified and approved by the International community/UNSC. It will take quite a while for things to get back to normal and for our public/politicians to get over the Iraq war fiasco. Not so for France who has no Iraq war legacy haunting her(since France was openly against any war whatsoever), and thus it doesn't face any international/public pressure for its foreign military adventures.
France emerged as the big winner from the western world in this case.

 

[Jaanbaz]

I think ISIS should be allowed to govern the land

Are you insane? ISIS should be wiped out, every single one of their members along with their families should be targeted. If they can target innocent people going about their business in Paris, its time the war should be taken to them.

I now have changed my mind, I think Pakistan Army should support this war against ISIS. Sooner or later ISIS would want to expand their ideology in Pakistan, they have gained few Taliban members to their ranks, maybe its time to finish this cancer before it takes root in lower middle class extremist Pakistanis.

 

[livingdead]

Lool so you think Great Britain not intervening in Syria against ISIS will stop them from targeting Britain ?? Lool I can't really believe how naive some people are.
They killed a Chinese and Norwegian hostage in Syria. What has china and Norway ever done to them??

ISIS is an indirect result of iraq invasion and allowing a sectarian president to rule(which disenfranchised sunnis).. sunnis are forced to support an entity like ISIS, just like hamas is defacto ruler of part of palestine.
UK politicians know, ISIS cant be easily replaced and a power vacuum there will only create a messy situation messier. All the bombing has not solved the ISIS problem, lobbing a few more wont do much.

Which means, ground troops are the only way to clear the area. Can UK send ground troops for invasion? If they do, will they be able to hold onto it? For how long? Did not UK run away from afganistan? Did not US do a deal with shia militia in Iraq?

Why would anybody want to repeat the mistake expecting a different outcome?

Are you insane? ISIS should be wiped out, every single one of their members along with their families should be targeted. If they can target innocent people going about their business in Paris, its time the war should be taken to them.

I now have changed my mind, I think Pakistan Army should support this war against ISIS. Sooner or later ISIS would want to expand their ideology in Pakistan, they have gained few Taliban members to their ranks, maybe its time to finish this cancer before it takes root in lower middle class extremist Pakistanis.

sorry, I beg to differ, may be am not extremist? You advocate 'wiping' out along with family, and am the one insane?

 

[mike2000 is back]

Are you insane? ISIS should be wiped out, every single one of their members along with their families should be targeted. If they can target innocent people going about their business in Paris, its time the war should be taken to them.

I now have changed my mind, I think Pakistan Army should support this war against ISIS. Sooner or later ISIS would want to expand their ideology in Pakistan, they have gained few Taliban members to their ranks, maybe its time to finish this cancer before it takes root in lower middle class extremist Pakistanis.

Don't mind that Hindu guy.i dont know what game is playing on here. He must have an agenda.

ISIS is an indirect result of iraq invasion and allowing a sectarian president to rule(which disenfranchised sunnis).. sunnis are forced to support an entity like ISIS, just like hamas is defacto ruler of part of palestine.
UK politicians know, ISIS cant be easily replaced and a power vacuum there will only create a messy situation messier. All the bombing has not solved the ISIS problem, lobbing a few more wont do much.

Which means, ground troops are the only way to clear the area. Can UK send ground troops for invasion? If they do, will they be able to hold onto it? For how long? Did not UK run away from afganistan? Did not US do a deal with shia militia in Iraq?

Why would anybody want to repeat the mistake expecting a different outcome?


sorry, I beg to differ, may be am not extremist? You advocate 'wiping' out along with family, and am the one insane?

I hope you tell your government in India to stop oppressing Muslims(plus its involvement in Pakistan supporting other questionable groups) and let them be, even when/if they carry out terrorists attacks in India.lol.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/world/asia/27india.html?_r=0
The Indian Mujahideen: The New Face of Jihadist Consolidation - globalECCO
2001 Indian Parliament attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indian Mujahideen claims responsibility for Jaipur blasts | World news | The Guardian
Delhi Court Bomb Kills 11 People in Worst Attack Since 2008 - Bloomberg Business
Islamist group claims Delhi bomb blast by email - India - RFI

This one was just 3 days ago by the way.
Jaish-e-Mohammad attacks army camp in J-K, 3 terrorists killed : Jammu and Kashmir, News - India Today

There are several countless other terrorists attacks that takes place in the country every year which i cant begin to even post on here since i have lost count.lol.
Using your funny logic, Indian government Intervention in Kashmir and oppression of Muslims will only lead to more attacks against India and Hindus like it has been going on for decades now..lol Can you please explain to us how come there is so much terrorists attacks in India, since i thought India not invading any Islamic state/Muslim country will have meant there will be no attacks against India.
You are right we should just let ISIS,Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists groups be. Hopefully they will stop waging any jihad against the west/Russia/China etc . Good logic.

 

[war&peace]

I think ISIS should be allowed to govern the land they have occupied(sunni majority area), just like hamas does. As long as they promise not to push further(may be UN backed forces can enforce that), nobody need to fight against them.
With all their brutality and barbarism, ISIS has territorial ambition, which means they will one day sit across table and talk(unlike AQ for example who are anarchist by nature).

And I dont think UK's defence lies in ME, it lies at home, they should strengthen domestic security and border forces.

No they should not be allowed to exist. However airstrikes are not as effective we might think and cause a lot of civilian casualties and thus undesirable. They can only destroyed through a concerted ground attack which no country including Russia is ready to do but that is the only way to do it.

 

[mike2000 is back]

No they should not be allowed to exist. However airstrikes are not as effective we might think and cause a lot of civilian casualties and thus undesirable. They can only destroyed through a concerted ground attack which no country including Russia is ready to do but that is the only way to do it.

That Hindu guy has a hidden agenda for saying such a thing. I thought you all knew that by now.

 

[war&peace]

That Hindu guy has a hidden agenda for saying such a thing. I thought you all knew that by now.

I don't know what is his agenda but I know what is my agenda, the agenda of mankind and also the agenda of the Daesh terrorists. If we humans have to exist and live peacefully we need to get rid of this vermin and all the supporters of it. It is no secret now, who sponsors and supports them.

 

[livingdead]

Don't mind that Hindu guy.i dont know what game is playing on here. He must have an agenda.



I hope you tell your government in India to stop oppressing Muslims(plus its involvement in Pakistan supporting other questionable groups) and let them be, even when/if they carry out terrorists attacks in India.lol.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/world/asia/27india.html?_r=0
The Indian Mujahideen: The New Face of Jihadist Consolidation - globalECCO
2001 Indian Parliament attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indian Mujahideen claims responsibility for Jaipur blasts | World news | The Guardian
Delhi Court Bomb Kills 11 People in Worst Attack Since 2008 - Bloomberg Business
Islamist group claims Delhi bomb blast by email - India - RFI

This one was just 3 days ago by the way.
Jaish-e-Mohammad attacks army camp in J-K, 3 terrorists killed : Jammu and Kashmir, News - India Today

There are several countless other terrorists attacks that takes place in the country every year which i cant begin to even post on here since i have lost count.lol.
Using your funny logic, Indian government Intervention in Kashmir and oppression of Muslims will only lead to more attacks against India and Hindus like it has been going on for decades now..lol Can you please explain to us how come there is so much terrorists attacks in India, since i thought India not invading any Islamic state/Muslim country will have meant there will be no attacks against India.
You are right we should just let ISIS,Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists groups be. Hopefully they will stop waging any jihad against the west/Russia/China etc . Good logic.

lol.. what agenda can I have by arguing with people who are nobody(like me) on random issues, other than to pass time..
Get used to arguing people who have diagonally opposite view, otherwise whats the fun the agreeing with everybody and circlejerking. Your whole post was inadequate in responding to my post.
I can talk about kashmir but its offtopic(besides being different situation as UK does not consider iraq to be part of its territory, otherwise ground invasion and maintaining force like falklands/malvinas would have been appropriate response).

 

[Steve781]

Don't mind that Hindu guy.i dont know what game is playing on here. He must have an agenda.



I hope you tell your government in India to stop oppressing Muslims(plus its involvement in Pakistan supporting other questionable groups) and let them be, even when/if they carry out terrorists attacks in India.lol.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/world/asia/27india.html?_r=0
The Indian Mujahideen: The New Face of Jihadist Consolidation - globalECCO
2001 Indian Parliament attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indian Mujahideen claims responsibility for Jaipur blasts | World news | The Guardian
Delhi Court Bomb Kills 11 People in Worst Attack Since 2008 - Bloomberg Business
Islamist group claims Delhi bomb blast by email - India - RFI

This one was just 3 days ago by the way.
Jaish-e-Mohammad attacks army camp in J-K, 3 terrorists killed : Jammu and Kashmir, News - India Today

There are several countless other terrorists attacks that takes place in the country every year which i cant begin to even post on here since i have lost count.lol.
Using your funny logic, Indian government Intervention in Kashmir and oppression of Muslims will only lead to more attacks against India and Hindus like it has been going on for decades now..lol Can you please explain to us how come there is so much terrorists attacks in India, since i thought India not invading any Islamic state/Muslim country will have meant there will be no attacks against India.
You are right we should just let ISIS,Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists groups be. Hopefully they will stop waging any jihad against the west/Russia/China etc . Good logic.

Is he an Indian Indian? I thought he was born here.

 

[mike2000 is back]

lol.. what agenda can I have by arguing with people who are nobody(like me) on random issues, other than to pass time..
Get used to arguing people who have diagonally opposite view, otherwise whats the fun the agreeing with everybody and circlejerking. Your whole post was inadequate in responding to my post.
I can talk about kashmir but its offtopic(besides being different situation as UK does not consider iraq to be part of its territory, otherwise ground invasion and maintaining force like falklands/malvinas would have been appropriate response).

Its just that its the first time in my life i have seen someone saying we should all leave ISIS/Al Qaeda and other terror groups govern/rule the land they occupy. lol I am yet to see even some relatively radical Muslim members here make such a statement. lol

So its surprising, i will assume every member on here will agree with me that it's surprising to see someone(even more so a Hindu) say such a thing. lol

Anyway, thing is we should and will go after any group that threatens our interests/people wherever they might be hiding one way or another, despite what other might say its better than waiting and leaving these terrorists groups alone and expecting them never to strike us. Wishful thinking.

 

[Penguin]

Give you a hint?

Why do you think USA left her military hardwares behind in IRAQ to be captured by the ISIL?

Economics of war.

As they did in Afghanistan and as has happened numerous times e.g. in peace keeping missions in Africa (e.g. including pakistani military): often it is cheaper to write of, strip and leave extensively used equipment (and if need be get new equipment) than to ship it back home.
Scrap Heap of War: Billions in equipment being left behind in Afghanistan | Fox News
Marine pullout offers preview of what U.S. leaves behind for Afghan troops - The Washington Post
U.S. Military Equipment in Afghanistan to be Sold, Scrapped - US News

I would like to see the exact questions in the survey as the results seem very dubious. The indepedant have spun 59% of British people not supporting airstrikes in Syria but then go on to say these 59% fear such strieks would lead to terror attacks in the UK so which is it? I suspect 59% of people fear such action would be harmful for our own security in the UK and do not support airstrikes on those grounds but the headline of the Independant is very misleading and seems to imply it is because of ideological reasons.

As indicated Isis: Majority of British people do not support air strikes against Syria

The majority (48%) does back the air raids, with 30% wanting Britain to stay away and 21% undecided. WHat the newspaper has done is suggest a majority is against while in fact only 30% are against and 21% are undecided (not FOR but also not Against). The 'undecideds' have been arbitrarily counted as 'not for = against'

If the 'undecideds' split the same way as the rest of the respondents for 0% undecided you end up with 61% supporting and 38% opposing the air raids.

For the opponents to gather enough support to equal or better the proponents, 18 or more out of 21 percentpoints 'undecided' need to be turned to opponent: that is rather unlikely to happen in reality.

The fact that 59 per cent of people believe sending warplanes to bomb key Isis targets in the war-torn country will increase the risk of terrorist attacks in the UK say NOTHING about whether these people are FOR or AGAINST the bombing campaign (i.e. their willingness to take the risks).