Thursday, December 3, 2015

British ISIS Airstrikes

RAF Typhoons arrive in Cyprus
View of British planes going to bomb ISIS fields in Syria

Britain has started its first airstrikes on ISIS in Syria. After Wednesday’s 397-223 vote, Britain has bombed an oilfield near the Syrian border with Iraq. It is believed that this oilfield is a main source of income for ISIS. The strikes have been successful, and there are already more planes on the way to Syria. Britain is planning to continue the airstrikes for multiple years. Prime Minster David Cameron has said that this fight will take time and people need to be patient and have respect for the pilots involved.
So far, the United States has sent the most planes to bomb ISIS areas. Because ISIS is such a major global concern, more countries, specifically Germany, have been pressured to join the effort with more vigor. At this point, there is not a lot of information available about the British strikes as they have happened so recently.
Are airstrikes a good way to fight ISIS? Do you think this will be effective?
Do you think the US, UK, and other countries should be spending money and troops on this fight?
How does ISIS play into the overall threat of terrorism?

Sources: These sources have more specific information about the types of planes involved in the British airstrikes.


Christopher Griffis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christopher Griffis said...

(repost to fix errors)
I am glad that countries are increasing action against ISIS. Although the US has been sending drone strikes in the past, ISIS was still growing uncontrollably as countries argued over whether or not it was in their best interest to fully commit in attacking ISIS. However the major countries should be cautious as these airstrikes/ drone strikes have killed innocent civilians in the past which further empowers ISIS by driving these citizens against the the major countries.

I also think that the major countries have been forced to act against ISIS due to their Paris attack which, if not countered by immediate action, would have given ISIS more confidence to attack other major cities and countries. In attacking ISIS there is also the flip side being that because of the increase in attacks against ISIS, they feel they have more reason to attack. Not only, the major countries must be careful not to create another movement that transforms into a new terrorist group similarly to how the US has done in the past.

Adjon Tahiraj said...

I do not think that airstrikes are the most efficient way to fight ISIS but I do believe at the moment airstrikes are the best option available without having to send actual soldiers in these areas. I think the airstrikes will be a bit effective but defiantly not to the point of actually stoping ISIS.

I think the US and other countries should definitely be spending money in this fight because ISIS poses a threat to every country in the world, as they have recently displayed, and it will take every country and their resources to stop ISIS.

Right now ISIS is the biggest terrorist threat in the world. If we are able to take ISIS down, this will display that the United States and the rest of the world will not tolerate terrorism anymore, and consequently there will be less terrorism. At the moment the success that ISIS has achieved thus far is fueling them to get more support from radicals and grow as an organization.

Danny Halawi said...

I agree with Adjon on the matter of how effective the airstrikes are. In order to truly put up a good fight against ISIS, it's probably necessary for us attack in various ways, such as sending troops in and other methods of infiltration. ISIS obviously isn't going to be easy to defeat, and their influence has been growing greatly throughout the Middle East. In order to truly put an end to their wrongdoing, I think it's very important that all nations unite at this time to defeat ISIS.

In my opinion, I think that the best way to put an end to ISIS is by having a mass infiltration where several countries, such as the US, Britain, and France, send troops to their bases. By bombing their bases, you're giving them time to re-strategize and relocate their troops, so the only hope we have at actually defeating ISIS is by trying to destroy everything they have at one moment.

Brianna Panozzo said...

One benefit of airstrikes is the speed and efficiency with which we can possibly prevent horrible things from happening by dropping a few bombs. There is a downside that innocent people might always have to die in order to destroy ISIS's territory, but if the cost is worth the outcome, then I would say that effective and carefully planted air strikes are a great way to combat ISIS at this point in time, before the US has made any major decisions about what to do about the situation.

Yes I do think we should all be spending money on taking down ISIS, but we also need to work together in this take-down. I think that there should be some meeting between major countries to figure out a way to prevent ISIS from gaining more power. Working independently might not be the most effective way to go about this, but for right now I do think that the US is doing quite a lot. One of Emma's sources stated that the US bombs ISIS more than any other country, so it's nice to see Britain stepping to the battle too.

If we take ISIS down, we will be less threatened and frightened by disasters, like that which just happened in Paris. Sure, we will never be able to stop all hate acts and other terrorism, but we sure can try, and it's our moral obligation to protect all innocent lives. Taking down ISIS is a starting point.

Meghan Hilbert said...

After doing personal research and coming across this article,, it appears that air striking Isis-populated zones of Syria is an extremely effected way to weaken the terrorist group. Going combat-style on the floor of Syria would risk too many foreign casualties. Airstrikes can attack very precise areas, and because Isis isn't a country or state, it seems that hitting Isis populated zones would basically only be efficient with planes. I think it's great that many countries are getting involved, however I don't think drastic amounts of money should be spent because unfortunately spending most of the time bombing Syria could be pointless. Since Isis is focused on religion and an extreme belief of it, it has spread to foreign ground, so I believe countries at stake should pay attention to national security. Isis plays an original threat to terrorism. It's a group, not a country. It's spread all over the world, posted on social media, and anyone can join. It's hard to tell who is and isn't a member, I recently came across an article about two Austrian, Caucasian teenage girls who fled to the Middle East to pursue their Isis beliefs! There is no stereotype, contrary to what many believe. Although we are stronger than them, they have poor defense and little money. They can be defeated.

kristen said...

I believe targeted air strikes are very effective to combat ISIS. ISIS is not formally a nation but acts like a nation to be born. It needs money to pay its fighters, primarily through seized oil fields and other tactics such as kidnappings for ransoms. The air strikes require intelligence on the field in addition to what high tech methods such as satellite imageries can provide. Primarily however, western powers essentially dominates the air space where ISIS operates. Close collaborations with UK, France, Germany and even Russia are needed to ensure proper targets are selected for the utmost effective results, including targeting ISIS leadership infrastructure such as training facilities, weapons depots and other strategic installations. These air strikes are instrumental I believe to prevent ISIS from strengthening. ISIS ideology and allure are gaining strengths as we speak (recent calamities in Paris is a prime example on how apparently easy it was for ISIS to penetrate especially European open borders and planned major attacks in a matter of weeks). Are air strikes alone enough? No. However I don't think major troops deployment is going to help as ISIS does not congregate in any one particular area in the Middle East. I believe Western powers need to help countries in that region such as Iraq, Turkey and Syria to fight ISIS, by providing tactical, strategical and intelligence help.

Alex Binsacca said...

It is difficult to say on wether or not these planned bombings has had a positive effect on ISIS. The reason behind it is because in the past planned bombings did not have a very good result when it came to trying to defeat Al Qaida. Another problem is bombs can easily have thousands of innocent casualties. However, I will say that bombings when it comes to ISIS have had a more positive result. given some of the facts posted by the other commenters, like how fast, and how effective it has actually currently been on ISIS. Just because it failed with Al Qaida doesn't mean it will fail with ISIS.

Personally I do think that all countries should be trying to spend more efforts to put this group out of commission. However, america will have to take a couple of steps back or at least be very cautious on how much we do in this conflict. Since they attack France (an ally) I think that all nations allied with France should contribute with effort to put an end to ISIS.

Until now I did not consider ISIS a very big threat at all, just a group trying to get attention by striking fear into the citizens of the world. However, now that I am aware of what they are cable of I think they are an extreme threat to the whole world. So now I think that they must be put to an end as quickly as possible.