Former DAESH Hostage Says Air Strikes are a Trap - Polidicks

[quote]A French journalist held hostage by Islamic State for 10 months, has made an impassioned plea against bombing Syria, saying it was a trap that would only benefit Isis. Nicolas Hénin, previously held hostage by Mohammed Emwazi, implored the international community to seek a political solution. Engaging with Syrians, not bombing them, was the surest way to bring about the collapse of Isis, he said. In a five-minute video said to have been recorded in the past few days in Paris and posted on YouTube by the Syria Campaign, Hénin said: “Strikes on Isis are a trap. The winner of this war will not be the parties that have the newest, most expensive, most sophisticated weaponry, but the party that manages to have the people on its side.” In his message, apparently timed to coincide with Wednesday’s UK parliament debate on joining Syria airstrikes, he said: “At the moment, with the bombings, we are more likely pushing the people into the hands of Isis. What we have to do, and this is really key, we have to engage the local people. “As soon as the people have hope in the political solution, then Islamic State will just collapse. It will have no ground any more. It will collapse.” Hénin was released along with other French hostages in April 2014. He had been held captive alongside James Foley, Steven Sotloff, David Haines and Alan Henning, who were all murdered by Emwazi[/quote] [url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/02/nicolas-henin-video-isis-syria-strikes]source[/url] Can't find the video on YouTube to embed it, but it's in the source. I find it ironic when people say that thinking we should find a political solution is naïve. If anything is naïve, it's thinking exploding them away will work.

According to Cameron, this man is a terrorist sympathizer. Honestly it sucks no one will pay attention to this.

Bombing helpless countries creates angry people who want to fight western civilization? That almost sounds like Iraq. It's only going to get worse kids.

He's entirely right - airstrikes are a temporary solution, the longer term solution is boots on the ground.

Not doing anything will cause the terrorists to gain control. ISIS wins every time.

The options aren't limited to bomb the fuck out of them or do nothing, that's exactly the point this dude is trying to get across.

[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;49229254]According to Cameron, this man is a terrorist sympathizer. Honestly it sucks no one will pay attention to this.[/QUOTE] Yeah well Cameron is a fruit. The guy would call his own mother a sympathizer if she didn't agree with his choice of tea. Hell, just a couple links down he's calling someone else ( Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the Labour Party, UK ) a sympathizer and when I put his name into Google the first thing I see is an article about how he believes all "9/11 and 7/7 truthers should be treated as ISIS", to whatever truth it is. But none the less, he sure seems to believe there is a lot of support for ISIL around him.

[QUOTE=Inspector N;49229279]He's entirely right - airstrikes are a temporary solution, the longer term solution is boots on the ground.[/QUOTE] That alone isn't going to do much still. Daesh receive members from disenfranchised and borderline brainwashed individuals in the population around them. Kinda hard to fight the latter, it's just a huge propaganda game, but the former we can fight with some effort. Boots on ground can weed out the obvious hidey holes for insurgents, and clean them out in a way that bombs can't match in terms of collateral. Obviously at the risk of the men and women fighting. But even if you get the few hideouts you can find, you still need to try and give the local people a reason not to take up arms and fight you back. You need to help them rebuild, prove that we aren't the enemy, that we hold no ill will against them. You can kill as many Daesh members as your throbbing murderboner can take, but you wont kill the organisation that way. That requires thought and rebuilding.

[QUOTE=hippowombat;49229297]The options aren't limited to bomb the fuck out of them or do nothing, that's exactly the point this dude is trying to get across.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]He said the radicalisation was the result of passivity by the international community, who failed to assist Syrian democrats “as they were yelling for their freedom, and the Syrians were living in total despair”. He said: “For every single Syrian killed since the beginning of this conflict by Islamic State, between seven and 10 have been killed by the Syrian regime. We have to understand that these two parallel disasters for the Syrian people, they depend one on the other, and one cannot fight one without fighting the other.”[/QUOTE] I can remember very clearly that during the first year of the Syrian civil war, the unitary consensus was NOT to intervene because of the danger of creating another Iraq, or to a smaller extent Libya. The fact that people are now coming forward saying "We should have helped the people fight Assad!!!" is extremely comical. Damned if you do, damned if you don't in its purest form.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;49229300]That alone is going to do much still. Daesh receive members from disenfranchised and borderline brainwashed individuals in the population around them. Kinda hard to fight the latter, it's just a huge propaganda game, but the former we can fight with some effort.[/quote] Not to mention they're making huge money out of trading oil, and there are nearby nations and individuals believed to be complicit or involved, and they need to get negotiated and sanctioned, rather than ignored and not spoken of. [quote]Boots on ground can weed out the obvious hidey holes for insurgents, and clean them out in a way that bombs can't match in terms of collateral. Obviously at the risk of the men and women fighting. But even if you get the few hideouts you can find, you still need to try and give the local people a reason not to take up arms and fight you back. You need to help them rebuild, prove that we aren't the enemy, that we hold no ill will against them.[/quote] Basically this, but I think it would be better to mobilize the nearby Muslim nations for this, rather than an outside force, so we don't risk stirring up more anti-western sentiment. That'd definitely also help in showing people that Muslims in general are against IS.

[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;49229254]According to Cameron, this man is a terrorist sympathizer. Honestly it sucks no one will pay attention to this.[/QUOTE] One opinion doesn't really amount to much

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;49229350]I can remember very clearly that during the first year of the Syrian civil war, the unitary consensus was NOT to intervene because of the danger of creating another Iraq, or to a smaller extent Libya. The fact that people are now coming forward saying "We should have helped the people fight Assad!!!" is extremely comical. Damned if you do, damned if you don't in its purest form.[/QUOTE] Again, it's not that black and white, sending in a more diplomatic force would not necessarily equate to mirroring what was done in Iraq. It needs to be more about interfacing with the people and less about contributing to turning their homes into a warzone.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;49229300]That alone is going to do much still. Daesh receive members from disenfranchised and borderline brainwashed individuals in the population around them. Kinda hard to fight the latter, it's just a huge propaganda game, but the former we can fight with some effort. Boots on ground can weed out the obvious hidey holes for insurgents, and clean them out in a way that bombs can't match in terms of collateral. Obviously at the risk of the men and women fighting. But even if you get the few hideouts you can find, you still need to try and give the local people a reason not to take up arms and fight you back. You need to help them rebuild, prove that we aren't the enemy, that we hold no ill will against them. You can kill as many Daesh members as your throbbing murderboner can take, but you wont kill the organisation that way. That requires thought and rebuilding.[/QUOTE] either way, having an actual physical presence in the area is required for any forward progress to be made. both attacking ISIS and rebuilding will require military occupation

i wonder if this means some members of facepunch will stop false dichotomising the conflict, and will stop saying "LOL WE SHOULD REHABILITATE THEM IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING"

"political solution" What political solution? What would that even be? I seriously think ISIS doesn't gives a shit about that and are just out to spread terror.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49229503]i wonder if this means some members of facepunch will stop false dichotomising the conflict, and will stop saying "LOL WE SHOULD REHABILITATE THEM IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING"[/QUOTE] That is completely irrelevant, but I appreciate another effort to try and make Facepunch into a hivemind when in reality you simply disagree with an idea

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49229503]i wonder if this means some members of facepunch will stop false dichotomising the conflict, and will stop saying "LOL WE SHOULD REHABILITATE THEM IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING"[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=kweh;49229565]"political solution" What political solution? What would that even be? I seriously think ISIS doesn't gives a shit about that and are just out to spread terror.[/QUOTE] Somehow I doubt it.

[QUOTE=kweh;49229565]"political solution" What political solution? What would that even be? I seriously think ISIS doesn't gives a shit about that and are just out to spread terror.[/QUOTE] Cut off their illegal trade, and use the UN to mobilize neighbouring nations against them.

[QUOTE=hippowombat;49229577]Somehow I doubt it.[/QUOTE] yeah totaly the same, guy :downs: [editline]2nd December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=CrumbleShake;49229586]Cut off their illegal trade, and use the UN to mobilize neighbouring nations against them.[/QUOTE] That sounds like its next to impossible, since we don't know who exactly ends up funding them. But airstrikes do indeed do nothing. The only way they'd help imo would be in capturing heavily fortified key structures that just can't be assaulted for whatever reason, or that need to just disappear for a good reason, but not carpet bombing the shit out of everything.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49229503]i wonder if this means some members of facepunch will stop false dichotomising the conflict, and will stop saying "LOL WE SHOULD REHABILITATE THEM IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING"[/QUOTE] He's saying we should make the people like the West more by providing security. How do you want to provide security without boots on the ground or airstrikes? And no flight zones aren't going to happen, unless you want to piss off Russia even more.

[QUOTE=kweh;49229589]yeah totaly the same, guy :downs: [editline]2nd December 2015[/editline] That sounds like its next to impossible, since we don't know who exactly ends up funding them. But airstrikes do indeed do nothing. The only way they'd help imo would be in capturing heavily fortified key structures that just can't be assaulted for whatever reason, or that need to just disappear for a good reason, but not carpet bombing the shit out of everything.[/QUOTE] My point is that the whole tired, "ISIS doesn't care about diplomacy," argument is the biggest fucking strawman, the gun needs to be aimed at ISIS, the diplomacy needs to be aimed at the people ISIS wants to recruit/brainwash, but we need to be more involved diplomatically. Of course ISIS doesn't give a shit about diplomacy, they're not the ones who need it.

Whatever happened to winning their hearts and minds? That doesn't mean ISIS.

[QUOTE=Inspector N;49229279]He's entirely right - airstrikes are a temporary solution, the longer term solution is boots on the ground.[/QUOTE] I'd say boots on the ground and a focused constructive goal alongside it. Not just soldiers, but soldiers dedicated to building a better world for all, laying down a potent infrastructure that'd make life in Syria and the Middle East much better. By ensuring that every child can have a proper education, that food and water and electricity are abundant, that'd certainly be a big help in winning over the hearts of the people, and if ISIS tries to dismantle and disrupt the wonderful gifts that the western "knights" have brought to the East, it'd paint the "Islamic State" as true monsters in the eyes of civilians. It might sound sickly saccharine and optimistic, but to win this "war", winning the hearts of the native population would be a crucial part of the solution, so that they'd be a lot less cooperative with the forces of chaos and end up supporting the noble "knights" who're working to make life easier all around.

Not boots on the ground in a traditional sense. You'd want to separate the soldiers defending a city from the ones helping build an infrastructure and a society. You can't expect a civilian to be compassionate with somebody wearing desert camo and a rifle. Build a place that would make even members of DAESH would look at and go "damn that's a nice llace to live" This is very hard to accomplish though.

[QUOTE=ironman17;49229815]I'd say boots on the ground and a focused constructive goal alongside it. Not just soldiers, but soldiers dedicated to building a better world for all, laying down a potent infrastructure that'd make life in Syria and the Middle East much better. By ensuring that every child can have a proper education, that food and water and electricity are abundant, that'd certainly be a big help in winning over the hearts of the people, and if ISIS tries to dismantle and disrupt the wonderful gifts that the western "knights" have brought to the East, it'd paint the "Islamic State" as true monsters in the eyes of civilians.[/QUOTE] That's wonderful and all, but who's going to pay for this? Who's going to commit the 250,000 - 500,000 soldiers needed to occupy Syria and Iraq for the next two decades to accomplish this?

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;49229350]I can remember very clearly that during the first year of the Syrian civil war, the unitary consensus was NOT to intervene because of the danger of creating another Iraq, or to a smaller extent Libya. The fact that people are now coming forward saying "We should have helped the people fight Assad!!!" is extremely comical. Damned if you do, damned if you don't in its purest form.[/QUOTE] You're forgetting two very important things: Many people didn't trust the Syrian rebels at all and couldn't ignore the likelihood that Assad had become a target primarily because of his relations with Russia. Even without taking the war exhaustion from Iraq into account, Syria was very, very unappealing for most people. Furthermore ISIS hasn't done much to make the idea of supporting the rebels or fighting Assad more popular (It has arguably made the Kurds more popular, though). Those who want boots on the ground in Syria are usually only interested in ISIS' part in the war.

[QUOTE=Srillo;49230021]That's wonderful and all, but who's going to pay for this? Who's going to commit the 250,000 - 500,000 soldiers needed to occupy Syria and Iraq for the next two decades to accomplish this?[/QUOTE] That's been the problem for thousands of years, "who's going to pay for this?". We all have to abide by the rules of money, always have to put a price on everything so that the people who do stuff get back something equal to what they put in. Sure, it sounds like a total "hippy" thing to say, but what choice do we have but to play along with "the game of gold"? We have to abide by the rules because people need and want to get what they give as part of equivalent exchange, but it's resulted in too many people saying "what's in it for me?" as opposed to "alRIGHT, let's DO this!" We need selfless acts in order to fight back the massive problems that're stampeding towards us, but everyone wants to know what's in it for them in the short term. It's like some people just want a string of numbers in favour of actually seeing tomorrow, when really they should see the horrors looming on the horizon and say "this needs to be fixed, and blow the cost".

[QUOTE=wauterboi;49229569]That is completely irrelevant, but I appreciate another effort to try and make Facepunch into a hivemind when in reality you simply disagree with an idea[/QUOTE] i said 'some members of facepunch' please read my post and realise that i'm talking about certain members, presumably like yourself judging by your response in fact i said that because i knew someone would do the whole 'facepunch not a hivemind' shit suggests that you had your reply precanned before you even read the post (or didn't)

at the rate syria is being depopulated, even if every man in isis's neighborhood of syria joined up, they have to run out of fighters eventually

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49230226]i said 'some members of facepunch' please read my post and realise that i'm talking about certain members, presumably like yourself judging by your response in fact i said that because i knew someone would do the whole 'facepunch not a hivemind' shit suggests that you had your reply precanned before you even read the post (or didn't)[/QUOTE] I'm just commenting about the aggressiveness of your first post. I'm all for disagreeing with others but trying to put a, "haha told you so" spin on it is pompous and defensive over nothing No one even brought up rehabilitation until you posted about it, and I haven't seen a "rehab" post in a long while - at least not within the context of ISIS/terrorists.