Could you please tell that to the Yazidis in Iraq.
I'm sure that they would be enthralled to hear such wisdom seeing as they never attacked ISIL but they themselves were not only over-run, but subjected to the most horrific violations. I'm sure the families of the children who died from exposure on Mt Sinjar would happily listen.
Perhaps you'd like to tell this to Yazidis women who have been kidnapped by ISIL and sold in slave markets. Perhaps you'd like to tell the girls who've been sold and gang raped that if only they had left ISIL alone then ISIL would have left them alone.
You could always get to Sinjar, which has just been liberated by YPG and the Peshmerga and perhaps preach to the rotting bodies found in mass graves who turned out to be old women that ISIL had no "use" for.
Honestly, I've read some absolute drivel on this forum regarding ISIL and Syria (it's full of misinformed opinion), but this post is without doubt the most naive.
Try educating yourself about ISIL.
Is that why we're going to bomb them? Because of the Yezidis? Is that what we do in such cases, when peoples are subjected to genocide? Recall Blair and his WMD reason for going to war. Saddam had massacred various populations without incurring a Western invasion, and we were told it was on account of Saddam's WMD that we were invading. Explicitly we were told it was not to effect regime change, even though his regime was cruel and violent in the highest degree.
There are various places where local indigenes are being wiped out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples Are you suggesting that we go to war with the states, or bomb the areas occupied by the armed groups involved? Is that what you're saying? If it is, very good. I might agree. See what support you get from Cameron. If not, your argument falls. It reveals itself as special pleading to justify an attack conducted for other reasons, such as was resorted to by Blair after the failure to find any WMD.
ETA I've just seen this. We can expect more of the same. You accuse opponents of the bombing of being indifferent to the fate of the Yezidis. Cameron is smart enough not to use that argument; I think for the reasons I give above. So he's using the same tactic, but a different atrocity. Not the Yezidis. This is from the Guardian website.
Cameron accuses Corbyn of being 'terrorist sympathiser'
Prime minister urges Tory MPs not to vote with Labour leader and ‘a bunch of terrorist sympathisers’ against Syria airstrikes.
So, doesn't care about the Yezidis - sympathises with the Paris murderers - and there's more to come, folks. When things get serious the propaganda machines start churning out their usual stuff.
ETA 2 Here's more terrorist sympathisers and rape enablers.
David Cameron’s plans to launch airstrikes in Syria are already facing a rebellion of around 20% of his party membership, but now the powerful Foreign Affairs Select Committee has voted against the proposed airstrikes.
The Foreign Affairs Select Committee is chaired by Conservative MP Crispin Blunt, and has a majority of Conservative members – yet this evening, the powerful committee has defied the government and expressed their opposition to the planned strikes. A Conservative member of the committee, John Baron MP, has written a piece for The Guardian outlining the reasons for the no vote.
