To agree with Corbyn on response after Paris attacks?

[Gisforgustywinds]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34886321.

I am no expert but surely simply bombing Syria is not going to reduce the likelihood of terrors attacks in the UK?

Also, why not remove those who have travelled to Syria to fight with IS from the UK? Would this even be possible?

So I'm afraid this situation deserves to be dealt with via the intellect and not the vengeful, gut instinct

What the sensible countries want to do is, get rid of Assad and put in a transition government, balanced to carefully help and not inflame the sunni/shia situation.

They cant do that because of Russia! So they have to work round russia and assad.

Al Queda has not gone away and according to some is posing more of future threat than isis.

So what's Corbyn's strategy then? He says "That is why we should use the UN Security Council resolution passed last night to accelerate moves towards a comprehensive settlement of the conflict", but how do we do this?

He's quite good at saying what we shouldn't do, but not coming up with any clear ideas himself.

I'll happily chip in for his ticket over there to speak to them, I may even have an orange jumpsuit lying around that he could borrow - but I'm not convinced that you can negotiate with a ideology....

ISIS feeds on Western militarism

ISIS uses many things to feed on, its not an ISIS v WEST situation. Its a medieval cult v anyone else they don't feel fits into their vision for the future situation.

www.itv.com/news/2015-11-22/mcdonnell-uk-needs-to-tackle-syria-crisis-in-a-very-considered-way/

^ This man John Mcdonnell comes across much better than Corbyn.

I just sense he has a sympathy with ISIS.

With Corbyn, rather like ISIS and anyone who lives through an ideology first....it hampers reacting in a fluid way to situations like those we are facing now...

The forces that truly oppose ISIS in Syria are the FSA and the Kurds, who have recently formed a coalition in some areas, not Assad

Its a medieval cult v anyone else I agree, I really do. So should we be empowering them to turn Syria into a slaughterhouse? Because that's what overthrowing Assad will bring about.

Many of the weapons they have sent to the more “moderate” groups have ended up in the hands of the Extreme groups. The "moderates" have also joined more radical factions, taking their US-provided training and weapons with them. All they have to put up with is - occasionally being attacked by US, allied and maybe now, our planes.

If Assad's regime falls becaue we bomb Syria to pieces and destroy the current regime/government which is holding both the state and the country together, the result will be another Iraq or Libya with Islamic fundamentalists taking over what's left of the place.

IKnowIAm Corbyn is worried that if we create the same chaos in Syria that we left behind in Iraq and Libya that will only make IS stronger. Hollande has launched revenge bombing and Cameron of course just wants to get in on the act. One can see how the first world war started. Militarism and the industrial war machine assisted by self seeking politicians.

Assad's regime is not holding the country together, unless by holding the country together you mean "Bombing vast swathes of civilians, causing death, famine and people fleeing en mass"

I don't know how much more clearly I can spell it out for you: Most refugees are fleeing Assad. They will not return unless he leaves. There can be no peace process with him in place.

Go and google photos of Homs. Is that "holding the country together"?

Assad is only being propped up by the Iranians and the Russians, with the former running out of the capacity to help.

Stop listening to Stop the War propaganda and try looking into what Syrians themselves say. Syrian Solidarity UK is a good place to start.

People are such hypocrites.
All this mock concern for civilian Syrians, but when you actual break it down, people don't give a fuck about them really, or give a fuck what Assad does to them, as long as they are stable
(Stable meaning not a threat to us, or our public transport)

Also, I would have no problem writing to number 10.
If someone could give me a plan.
Not a plan involving what we shouldn't do, but what will stop them.

Regarding 'negotiations', I mean, a religious apocalypse is a pretty all or nothing deal....

I don't know if Corbyn is right or not. I admire his bravery for not just going along with the prevailing jingoism.

I think it is appalling that Cameron has not managed (or should I say bothered) to make any well-argued case for why he wants to commence bombing and how he thinks doing so will help to defeat IS.

Corbyn is a wet lettuce! God help us if he ever gets in to Power. He will scrap Trident and disarm all Police. What a great plan, when we are in this very unstable time. I cannot stand him. Airy Fairy. Let's have a chat with ISIS. Er, yeh, off you go then Cockwomble.

Stop listening to Stop the War propaganda and try looking into what Syrians themselves say. Syrian Solidarity UK is a good place to start

^ Well what do they say?

Corbyn is worried that if we create the same chaos in Syria that we left behind in Iraq and Libya that will only make IS stronger

We did not create the chaos. We removed two nasty evil brutal dictators. What we - Blair et al failed to realise was the extent of the sunni shia problem and how to successfully transit from one regime to another.

There would be problems but to a far less degree if ISIS and the sunni/shia divide - spread of Whabbism etc did not exist.

If Assad's regime falls becaue we bomb Syria to pieces and destroy the current regime/government which is holding both the state and the country together, the result will be another Iraq or Libya with Islamic fundamentalists taking over what's left of the place

Everyone knows this, its the big problem that makes the situ so complicated.

Russia wont let us get rid of Assad, they said Assad is non negotiable.

Batshit - comparing ISIS to the IRA is way off beam. The IRA weren't rampaging round Ireland, north and south, capturing cities, and imposing their own brand of Catholicism and legal system with mediaeval brutality. By focusing on the fact that they both initiate(d) terrorist attacks, you are missing the bigger picture. The IRA was ONLY a terrorist organisation, whereas ISIS is a terrorist organisation that now has a visible army, fighting in Iraq and Syria.

'Rout on the ground'. ISIS do not have an airforce. That is their opponents' main advantage. Why not use it? Strategic air strikes, as in Iraq, in support of the Kurds, is probably our best bet. Before GB and the USA started air strikes, the Kurds were being driven back.

My objection to 'It's all about oil' is it's the Stop the War's default position which they use, in a 'simplistic' and 'naive' way, to divert discussion of any potential Western intervention into an attack on the U.S.A. As you have done. Some of it, a lot of it, is about oil. Obviously, oil is important and to have people like Saddam or ISIS in control of it threatens everyone's security. But do you really think we should just stand by and watch unspeakable acts of genocide?

All this mock concern for civilian Syrians, but when you actual break it down, people don't give a fuck about them really, or give a fuck what Assad does to them, as long as they are stabl
(Stable meaning not a threat to us, or our public transport

This is what I find odd, when your stuck and trapped you want help from people who arnt going to turn around and repress you - like ISIS rescuing the syrians from Assad.

What the sensible countries want to do is, get rid of Assad and put in a transition government, balanced to carefully help and not inflame the sunni/shia situation.

Hmm
' get rid of Assad' how? Ask him nicely to leave? What about Isis?

'Put in a transition government' well that's gone so well in the past hasn't it. Which of the warring lunatic factions in Syria shall we choose to head up our 'interim' government? There's some hot headed young chaps call Isis we could ask.

'Carefully help not inflame the Sunni/Shia situation' well if you know how to do that you'd better let the UN know.

Also people talk about the oil situation, as though it somehow proves the nihilistic cult doesn't exist.
It's possible for things to happen simultaneously you know.

The existence of one does not negate the existence of the other

And, Batshit, the Kurds, who are the only people with any success against ISIS, are those same Kurds who Saddam was in the process of eliminating, euphemism, and who were extremely pleased and relieved when he was removed.

get rid of Assad' how? Ask him nicely to leave? What about Isis?

They can't this is the problem!

'Put in a transition government' well that's gone so well in the past hasn't it The people I heard talk about this, realise the problems with the Iraq gov and would address that within a transition government.

Who knows if this ^ would ever happen, with Russia in the way.

But at the moment, all they can do is unite against ISIS and reduce their power and influence there and in turn here.

the Kurds, who are the only people with any success against ISIS, are those same Kurds who Saddam was in the process of eliminating, euphemism, and who were extremely pleased and relieved when he was removed

Indeed.

We have to face up to some hard truths - oil underpins our lifestyles, our prosperity and stability. It's fundamental.

Of course Ubik
But does oil really create religious cults of death?

And if it were about oil, how does that explain them killing all the 'wrong type of Muslims' in the vicinity.
Whilst I certainly agree that oil creates a hell of a lot of problems, I don't believe it has created this one

No it doesn't.

The fact that members of Isis actually seem to believe a 7th century version of Islam - enough to torture and kill, enough to die for it - is something I struggle with.

Struggle to understand, I mean.

Exactly.
It's very complicated and I think people really just want to over simplify it,
Some people are actually denying that they are doing it for the reasons they are saying they are doing it
It's all very bizarre

I suppose people are concerned that if they position Islamic state as a fundamentalist Islamic religious group motivated by the purest understanding of Islam then what does that say about Islam as a religion?

I don't think we get to be the good liberal guys in this. I think we need pragmatism and ruthlessness to protect people in this country - and that includes protecting our Muslim populations who are just as much under threat as anyone else.