-
It's a grim choice to have to make. I'm glad it's not my decision.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-terror-group-executed-over-10000-men-women-children-syria-iraq-1521094
William.-
Someone on my fb feed today posted a thing about IS throwing homosexuals off roofs and stoning them, commenting that "they must be stopped!", in response to a comment of "and airstrikes will help how?" they said "but what other option is there? we have to do something!".
It's not a choice between action (airstrikes) and inaction (no airstrikes). It's bullshit to present it that way. "We must be seen to do something!" leads to more political mess, more death, injury and terror adding to the daily horror of living in that region.
You're right - it's complicated and difficult. So let's not do something basic and crude?
I find it pretty horrifying how a couple of weeks ago the media food was "Cameron doesn't have enough support" and how rapidly that changed to "Cameron is going to win this vote". The situation hasn't really changed. Paris? That hasn't changed anything except public opinion, malleability, fear. It hasn't actually changed the overall situation - an attack like that could've happened at any time in the last few years. How many similar attacks have been prevented? Nothing has changed.
Don't dress it up as us "saving" the people from IS. That won't be a serendipitous by-result.
It's basic revenge. Except the people that will suffer aren't the enemy.
hoefla
There are lots of things we don't know that influence what the "right" decision is, but one outcome that is certain is that airstrikes would kill a significant number of civilians. Surely this should be more than a minor consideration.