Why bombing Syria is wrong – in a nutshell

Until someone comes up with a bomb that only explodes when in the presence of its intended targets, there will always be the deaths of innocent people, euphemistically known as ‘collateral damage’ to ignore the reality of all the innocent victims.

As terrorists care as much about innocent victims as a Tory MP does, they will increasingly surround themselves with more non-combatants by either moving into areas with a high civilian population or by moving the civilians to their base of operations.

Given the increase in the deaths of innocent civilians, ISIS will be able to point their fingers at the UK and the other Western States and say that the carnage is the reason that they must continue to fight their Jihad.  It won’t matter that ISIS are the real reason for the civilian casualties because they will ‘spin’ things in such a way that it will reinforce their ideological needs.

With ISIS now having ‘evidence’ of the righteousness of their fight, they will be able to start radicalising young people who are at risk of falling prey to such hate-mongering because of their disaffection with the West.

The process of radicalisation of disaffected youths will help swell the ranks of ISIS and increase the number of terrorists the UK and its allies have to worry about with regards to retaliatory strikes.

Here’s a piece of wisdom for you – when an angry man hits you, hitting him back will only make him even more angry.  ISIS is full of angry people.  Bombing them is just making them angrier and giving them more reason to want to attack those who attack them.

Just sayin’…

The problem with the Syria/ISIS debate

There has been much debate over the last few weeks over whether the UK should have sent bombers to Syria to take out areas under the control of ISIS and that debate has, obviously, been divided between the pro-bombing and the anti-bombing camps.  The decision was made by a majority of Members of Parliament to send in the bombers on the premise that some of the bombs may actually his a member of ISIS and not several innocent bystanders.

The problem with the debate, I believe, was that it largely surrounded the greater or lesser use of Irrational Criteria (IC).

Jeremy Corbyn tried to stop the UK going into an unwinable war in the Middle East by wanting to use rational and less violent means or, to put it another way, used an argument that was less on IC.

Unfortunately, David Cameron managed to scare a majority of MPs into voting for war in Syria by using much more knee jerk emotional and irrational arguments or, to put it another way, used a more on IC case and people fell for his half-lies.

I have always known that Cameron was more-on-IC but now it seems that a great deal more MPs are more-on-IC than any of us could have thought.