These people have the same philosophy as Star Trek's Borg. There is only one way to deal with such people.

The trouble is, that's what Joe Public sees on TV all the time. Shot of Backfire bombers releasing great sticks of unguided "iron" bombs, reminiscent of B52s carpet bombing North Vietnam - then cut to shots of Aleppo, or wherever, in ruins, and you are obviously going to get a negative response. Pose the question - "do you wish RAF aircrews to engage carefully selected IS targets with highly accurate weapons in Syria, as they are currently doing in Iraq?" and you would probably get a very different response. I would hazard a guess that in Corbyn's letter to Labour party members to sound opinion on the matter his question was not posed as I suggested.

No.
At least not until we know what we want from it. I agree there is no negotiating table. At least that's the way they've played it so far. However the people at the top often persuade those down the chain to live a life they don't necessarily lead themselves.

That objective is almost impossible to define. Peace, no slaughter, no sectarian strife?

A strategic plan might be easier to create: proper blockade and sealing borders, stopping movement of people, freeze assets as such, stop all trade especially weapons resupply.

Harder RoE such as free-fire zones and at night outside settlements - if it moves ********

YES

The objective is, I believe, to destroy/degrade D'aesh, as there is no realistic prospect of negotiating with them.

Their awful regime takes no account of the borders drawn 100 years ago, and D'aesh have claimed one of the goals of its insurgency is to reverse the effects of the Sykes–Picot Agreement. "This is not the first border we will break, we will break other borders ...". Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi expressed the same view in 2014. *

It seems to me that on that basis, anywhere they operate makes them a viable target, whether in Iraq, Syria or anywhere else their vile presence can be found. Lines on maps are of little relevance.

* from Wikipedia

Yes

I concur with incubus above.

Batco's a YES
 

Yes, bomb ISIS in Syria and northern Iraq. Hunt them and interdict wherever we can, and 'put up the barricades' or at least control access to our land.
Do that, as a measure to contain and 'attrit' them, (recognising that they're probably beyond deterring) until the 'nation building' lot get up their part of the plan.

Batco

This assumes the RAF can find Syria.

A big vote for yes if there is a end.

But, as I have asked before what is the ultimate endgame?

Can we (coalition) really get rid of Isis? Will another radical group just sprout up and be worse?

Are we joining a war where there is no end and we are burdening our children with a war that IMHO we cannot win unless there is some unplatable changes to how we fight and who we live our lives amongst.

YES

Unenthusiastic, but
1. we need to demonstrate solidarity with those already engaged
2. we are a target already and there is a need to not be supine.

In terms of effort/return it will probably be a low score on both sides.

My big reservation is the safety of our aircrew, for whom I pray.

Hmm.
 

I was a YES, but having seen the carnage that the Russian efforts are inflicting on the civilians in the NON ISIS held areas I have deep concerns that despite the heroic efforts by our aircrews [and I am being 100% serious here] to purely target ISIS, we will end up being tarred with the same brush as the area/barrel bombers with subsequent disastrous consequences for the UK and her intrests.

UNDECIDED

gr.

glad rag,

Whilst the Russians are 'carpet bombing' and the Regime are barrel bombing, the 'moderate' opposition aren't entirely in the clear thanks to their use of their improvised howitzer, Jahannam or Hell Cannon, that due to their lack of precision targeting capability means they just launch into areas of towns and cities.

I sort of see why they do this, its a rag tag Dad's Army affair, but it's still not the discriminate bombing we would practice. The bottom line is that this is a very messy affair where there is no black and white only very grubby shades of grey, and the line between what we in the west might view as acceptable and unacceptable is dotted and shifts frequently. If the politicians are expecting a clean and clinical war, I'm afraid they need to brace themselves for an alternate reality.

Wrong Question?
 

Surely the question is should we be bombing ISIS at all? Which country they are in doesn't make any difference to me.
I think questions about where does it lead to and the need for a foundation for a lasting settlement make entire sense. But not doing anything seems a far worse option. We can of course just leave it to others, but that does not seem right to me. So:
A) just bomb in Iraq? How can that make sense?
B) Stop the bombing, allow ISIS to establish itself. Not a good thing
C) Sit back and watch?
D) Bomb in Syria and work toward a lasting settlement ( support ground troops, better deal for Sunni's in Iraq and Syria, containment of Saudi .........)

So a yes for me

Targets
 

Just generally bombing ISIL targets in Syria with the small number of forces at the UK's disposal will only make a marginal military difference. However, if a specific group who pose a direct threat to the UK could be taken out, then security would be improved. I refer to the British passport holders who have chosen to desert their own country and who will potentially to take up arms against it when they return. If some of these scum can be taken out, I will totally support the PM.

Indeed M.

You have to balance ^^those^^ thoughts with the sheer barbarity of IS, something which, once the initial shock and horror wore off, has become almost mainstream news now.

IS need exterminating.

However how do you do that without generating even more jihads ?? Any action in Syria needs a out plan that leaves the country stable and secular.

Guess who that leaves in charge??

:hmm:

I'd rather they nailed the 700 known sympathisers who are back in the UK, but we are too fluffy and politically correct to do so.

We will have to wait until civilians are killed before our police kick doors in and ask them to go stand in the corner whilst some rapacious human rights lawyer goes to work.

YES.

My heart says yes, my brain still has some reservations.

We should participate in the attacks on ISIS in Syria to ensure that all these scum are wiped out. However, I am not too sure of the effectiveness of a bombing campaign without any assurance that the area bombed will not fall back into ISIS hands due to lack of reliable Allied boots on the ground

I assume that the Allied SAR units are in place and are coordinated to some extent? The thought of RAF aircrew being captured are at the top of my concerns.

Will this all be academic if Corbyn insists his MP's toe the line and vote NO?

Yes, bomb them and choke all their means of financing their evil and primitive war.

Absolutely, and thankfully, we're not like that..


Oh... Maybe we are.

Please How is the score going [I have no responsibility as "I didn't start it!"]