Friday, 27 November 2015

Don't Let's be Beastly to the Syrians

This is not a pacifist blog. I'd hope it's a pacific one however, except obviously when the Moot House dissolves in ashes. And I notice that the Labour leadership is not totally pacifist, either. The Shadow Chancellor, for example, has previously indicated he doesn't mind people bombing, for instance, the British army or shoppers. Although apparently these days he prefers throwing Chinese-made books at people.

But the pressure is on to bomb Syria. Even Hillary Benn seems to think it's a good idea. His dad would be so proud. But David Cameron is determined we should do our bit.

David Cameron was also determined to do his bit two years ago, when he wanted to bomb the other side. Or, at least, one of the other sides.

It's really complicated, as shown when Turkey (anti-ISIL) shot down a Russian (anti-ISIL) plane for allegedly straying into its airspace. Turkey doesn't only want to hit ISIL - it also keeps attacking Kurds. And it wants Assad gone. And Russia doesn't only want to bomb ISIL - it also wants to bomb the people who want Assad gone. Though it doesn't want to bomb Turkey. Not yet.

So with all this bombing going on, and Syrian airspace thick with the aviation of all nations, David Cameron thinks that there needs to be a bit more bombing. It's like, "there's enough munitions in the Syrian air to blow Raqqa into tiny pieces. Every legitimate target could have been destroyed months ago. What could possibly help now? Chocks away, Ginger! The Brits are coming!"

The only way, it seems to me, that ISIL is going to be properly driven out of Syria is by really well-equipped, well-disciplined soldiers on the ground. But Turkey wouldn't want them to be Kurds or Assad's army. And Russia wouldn't want them to be an army that would then take on Assad. Nobody wants it to be an affiliate of Al Qaeda. And the West won't put up with another round of British or American body bags returning from a foreign field that is forever Armageddon.

So chuck a few more bombs in. If there's one thing Syria can use right now, it's a few more bombs. But of course these will be British bombs. They'll make all the difference, won't they?


  1. Given that the complexity of aviation over Syria, are they going to set up an independent Aircraft Control System to keep the aircraft from coming into the same airspace at the same time?

    And, if we are to be involved, will it oblige the government to finally fit anti-collision control systems to the Tornado, after 40 years in service, and plenty of deaths and crashes due to airborne collisions, to prevent any more unnecessary deaths over Syria?

    If they need troops on the ground in Syria, we should give the Iranians a free hand (they support Assad) to go in, which will bring the Saudi's in to oppose them (they tacitly support Isil) and they can than bomb Syria even more, while trying to kill each other, all on which is for them, Neutral Ground.

    The West can offer places to the whole Syrian nation to resettle while their homeland becomes a warzone for ever.

    These distractions will keep the West safe, while a potential enemy (Iran) fights a potential friend (Saudi Arabla) and we can sell arms to both and prosper.

    Job done (by the way, Syrian Refugee's are welcome here as long as they have a guaranteed income of more than 2 million £ per annum, and vote Tory).

  2. Surely even in the Moot House, young Gideon George is known to be the Chancellor, and he believes in shoppers, not in bombing them.


Drop a thoughtful pebble in the comments bowl