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?

I agree with Corbyn.

I was thinking really that the next set of terrorist may well be uk citizens ( which is a real possibility) do we them become legitimate retaliation targets of the victims county.

They already are UK citizens! 7/7 bombers. Lee Rigby's murderers. All British.
France has a worse record on integration than us and a horrible colonial past in North Africa.

I have no problem with police officers, members of the armed forces or just a random civilian killing someone who poses a serious threat to life or safety.

That is not what is meant by a shoot-to-kill policy.

Shoot to kill = death squads.

batshitlady
Ok, fine, I will help put pressure on the government to make them do.... What, exactly?
As I said if someone, anyone, can give me a tactic that will stop ISIS, I'd be all for it.
I agree that western governments have contributed to the problem. I don't believe western governments have caused the problem.
Again, lots of what we shouldn't have done, and what we shouldn't do. What 'should' we do?

Sadly, I think that this time around, should our government decide to go to war, people will not even bother to protest as they we did under Blair.

Cameron's war talk sounds so cringy and, for some reason, insincere, although i have no doubt he would condone bombing Syria if that made hi popular with certain people. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34846457

Ponty because Assad has to be part of any end to the Syrian civil war. However, because that's unpalatable, no-one will confront the issue. Getting rid of Assad is not going to lead to a lovely, democratic transition - the non-Islamist Assad opposition is virtually non-existent. All getting rid of Assad will do is lead to an even bloodier civil war, and make further victims of the Syrian people: especially the non-Sunnis.

Cameron sounded unhinged when he answered the last of Corbyns questions on Wednesday.

Op

I think Blairs legacy has been disastrous for our country for a mutli fold of reasons.

His behaviour since he was PM has shown him to be a slimy fuck wit. How we let him rule our country for so long is shameful embarrassment.

BUT Bombing Iraq and Bombing Syria are two different set of circumstances, just because they are both in the ME doesn't make them comparable at all.

YABU, as is Corbyn. The man says one thing and the minute his advisers tell him his views aren't going down well with the public he changes his mind! I would have a modicum of respect for him if he at least had the courage of his convictions. As it is he is clearly desperate to stay as leader of the LP and is willing to do what it takes to make that happen.

If Assad - Bastard, Evil, Assad, surely one of the most wicked evil men to ever walk the earth, decided to give up his country imagine how much blood shed would be saved.

If he would step down. That is the simplest solution.

Problem with bombing Syria is that many innocent people will die or be injured. How does this make us better than the terrorists since they claim they attack us in retaliation. And so the cycle continues. Where will it end...?

LimboNovember- so you want a fully armed police force who go around shooting and killing people they suspect of being terrorists? That sounds far worse to me than the current terrorist threat we have.

Also on the flip side of the 'bombing Iraq didn't help' argument, bombing the Nazis did help, did it not?
I mean, people do think the right thing was done there, don't they?

I agree with Corbyn. Don'the think bombing Syria will solve anything in fact could have the opposite result.
The majority of the press are so against him cos he's a bit too left for their liking. He's probably one of the most honest senior politicians in a long while but the press seem to be out to get him. He's a bloody good and highly respected MP (yes, he is my MP).
The whole situation with what to do re. ISIS isn't clear but I don't think we should retaliate by attacking Syria.

hefzi I agree with you. Syria was a stable dictatorship but the uprising in 2011 was supported by the West. Arms were supplied. But Assad is still there and we have to do business with him.
I know they have a horrible human rights record, but the Chinese do too and apparently the way to influence change there is to trade with them. We have Chinese leaders riding up the Mall to Buckingham Palace but we can't talk to Assad.

DestinysDaughter the Syrian civilians would still be being killed if we did nothing.
This is what I don't understand about the argument.
We might not be killing them ourselves if we did nothing, but wouldn't we be complicit in their deaths by just letting ISIS get on with it?

Problem with bombing Syria is that many innocent people will die or be injured

In terms of Russia bombing Syria I have no doubt, and no doubt there will be some casualties in racca.

But I heard on TV this am someone from US saying they are concentrating on for instance bombing oil trucks he said:

" The problem is - many men driving the trucks are just local Syrians so we tell them by text and other means what our plans are, so they can get out of the way"

Thousands of people in Syria are trapped as slaves and prisoners, in a dead lock with ISIS in charge there is no hope for them, with bombs, disruption, chances for escape created. they have a chance.

We cant let ISIS have an iron grip over Racca. They have been allowed to flourish for so long.

but aside from ISIS its Boko Haram that scare the shit of me.

Thanks hefzi. So what's the solution? Where does it end?

He is an absolute ideologist who would be fine speculating away and trying to change the world in his own social bubble, but he would be an absolute danger to the UK if he ever got into power.

Timir I agree.

The scottish girls in the basement of the Bataclan were trapped in the basement, they had no where to go

They said if the terrorists had found them, game over. One said " it sounds silly but we hoped they would blow the place up, because then at least we would have a chance to get out"

How many people trapped and stuck in Racca are desperate for a chance for some sort of intervention.

For people to escape, you need to draw the enemies attention away .

I'm talking about the bombing of ISIS in Iraq that's currently going on. Not the unseating of Saddam Hussein.
Bombing the Germany in WW2 was different. Two clear cut sides using conventional methods of war. States at war. A clear command structure. Totally different.

Bombing countries creates terrorists. I have no idea why they haven't worked that out yet.

And blowing up people having a night out creates HUGE anger...

I don't know what the answer is. But as PP have said, we have to look at the worst case scenario, which is that we lose our liberty. I don't want a single innocent person to die though.

That's the point though, isn't it?
They see themselves as a state.
If the Islamic State was an actual state, we would have declared war. But as they're not, we haven't.
And the fact that they're using unconventional methods makes it harder to fight them surely?
In terms of our involvement, I was under the impression that whilst we did aid arming the rebellion, we didn't start the rebellion?

Why do we hate Assad then sucking? Syrians had by and large a peaceful life but not democracy. We supported them rising up against Assad and inevitably dying for their liberty and democratic wishes. Yet we throw away our liberty rather than lose Western lives.
Rank hypocracy.