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 think Corbyn is right in his approach......these guys in ISIS seem like reasonable people to me....I'm sure they'd much rather sit down and chat about the issues, coming to an agreement which suits all sides, than carry out the mayhem they are spreading at the moment.

Corbyn is a Tory plant to make Labour unelectable. Every time he opens his pacifist, fifth columnist gob, Cameron just laughs out loud.
I despair of what the Labour part has become.

I never said it was right, did I?

This is not a black and white scenario. Complex is an understatement.

I agree re Corbyn not being credible.

And, also, of course Daesh are not going to sit down. This is not a situation that can be compromised on by those who wish to annihilate a certain way of life.

We all get rightly outraged at ISIS killing innocent people in Paris and elsewhere. But if we kill innocent people in Syria, how does that make us any better? Why are European lives worth more than those of people in the Middle East? Why would we be surprised that people in in the Middle East get angry and outraged when civilians are killed by American drones?

hackmum,
are you really trying to justify the murder of french citizens because of American actions?

Yes they should bomb Syria. And yes there should be a shoot to kill policy.

We cannot negotiate out way out of this because these Isis fanatics are driven by ideology. They want to die. They will not listen to reason. They want to establish an Islamic state and then expand it.

There isn't a simple objective.

We have to be pragmatic. Sadly that might mean propping up Assad, supporting Saudi Arabia.

Corbyn is only not credible because people are credulous.

I'm a Labour voter who is far to the right of Corbyn but I agree with what he says because it's honest. He frustrates me because he tells the truth and that's lethal.

People want to believe a lie. So though I admire him and agree with him, I wish he'd keep his trap shut.

BTW why do so many people want to have Tony Blair indicted as a war criminal?

He bombed Muslim countries. Isn't that what you want?

hackmum the difference is that we are not killing civilians as such. We are not targeting them. But you see the terrorist organisation that killed all the civilians in Paris, they're also killing the Syrian civilians. They are targeting the civilians, we're not.
Didn't they say no civilians were killed when they blew up the ISIS training centre?

Giddyonzakhunt
*
Yes I think the money would be better spent on stopping attacks via intelligence, stopping radicalisation, looking after refugees who want to change their country. If they've been happy and welcome here then they're less likely to hate us.*
**
How nieave. The whole problem is that there are radicals that want is all under sharia law and want any non believer dead.

What happens when we ignore ISIS in the Middle East and they then end up with their own state. One where civil rights are non existent and anyone that does not believe as them is put to death. They will then try and grow.

Sadly, I don't think that there is much option. Sitting around hoping it will go away is not the answer. Because it won't. It will just come back to bite us, or France or any other non sharia country.

ISIS need to be stopped. But we need to remember that not all Muslims are ISIS even if all of ISIS purport to be Muslim

Timri sorry I don't quite see what you're getting at. They might think they're some kind of state in the sense of the Caliphate but they aren't. And if they were (and therefore were funding terrorism like Libya did) then we'd be protesting to the UN for sanctions as a first step.
But they have no trappings of statehood. They have no command structure. If we bomb them it takes 7 disaffected young people with the right contacts to walk into a city centre and cause carnage. They are hatching the plots at a regional level. Will bombing the bit of ISIS we're not already bombing stop that?

Hackmum. ISIS set out to kill innocent civilians in Paris. They targeted them.

The opponents of ISIS in Syria are targeting combatants, training camps, oil routes. Innocent civilians may die, but not as many as if we allow them to continue their murderous course.

In WW2, we bombed Holland to kill the German forces of occupation. The Dutch people saw it as Liberation, even tho' Dutch people died, too.

behave where does radicalism come from? It doesn't spring to life fully formed. It is fostered. It grows.

limitedperiodonly:
The reason that the left don't like Blair is that he had the courage to attack a fascist dictator.
People like Corbyn would prefer to surrender.

red so you approved of the invasion and voted for TB in 2005?

This was the statement they made:

In a blessed attack for which Allah facilitated the causes for success, a faithful group of the soldiers of the Caliphate, may Allah dignify it and make it victorious, launched out, targeting the capital of prostitution and obscenity, the carrier of the banner of the Cross in Europe, Paris
Youths who divorced the world and went to their enemy seeking to be killed in the cause of Allah, in support of His religion and His Prophet, Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, and his charges, and to put the nose of His enemies in the ground. So they were honest with Allah, we consider them thusly, and Allah conquered through their hands and cast in the hearts of the Crusaders horror in the middle of their land, where eight brothers wrapped in explosive belts and armed with machine rifles, targeted sites that were accurately chosen in the heart of the capital of France, including the Stade de France during the match between the Crusader German and French teams, where the fool of France, Francois Hollande, was present

[They also targeted] the Bataclan Conference Center, where hundreds of apostates had gathered in a profligate prostitution party, and other areas in the 10th and 11th and 18th [arrondissements] and in a coordinated fashion. So Paris shook under their feet, and its streets were tight upon them, and the result of the attacks was the death of no less than 100 Crusaders and the wounding of more than those, and unto Allah is all praise and gratitude

Note 'the capital of prostitution and obscenity' 'apostates' 'crusader teams'

Why will people not believe they are killing people for the reasons they are SAYING they're killing them
While the Western influence may play a part, it is not the reason
The reason is that they want to create a caliphate and will attack anyone who tries to stop them.

Giddy. It isn't going to go away just by ignoring it

It's all very well to say that we need to work on the homegrown jihadists and I don't disagree. But without taking out those committing abominations like the murders of non Muslims in Syria you are ignoring more than half the problem.

If he actually started being a proper opposition and could come up with some credible alternative I may listen(and the plp might as well)

Whilst I don't want the UK dragged into another war, I also don't believe sticking our heads in the sand will do anything worthwhile either. Libya is touted as a reason why we shouldn't even use our air power - which was true for that situation, but this situation is very, very different. We're hoping the power vacuum will be filled by the Iraqi/Syrian governments, but things can't get worse than it already is: IS is the dirty product of a power vacuum themselves.

If we all collectively decided to do nothing to combat IS, things would be worse, not better. IS are not rational players, and even if we didn't do anything to provoke them, they would still attack, because they hate everything we stand for. A strong IS would just continue expanding, and the main powers in the region can't stand up to them (excepting Israel, of course). Iran could only fight them if they were invaded, they don't have the logistical capacity to sustain a large scale ground offensive outside of their own territory.

Yes, we shouldn't have started in the first place, but moaning about how we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in 2003 gets us exactly nowhere. I would support stopping Western involvement at the right time, but this certainly isn't the right time. Iraq and Syria is absolutely fucked, and things can be made better if IS are eliminated.

It won't be easy, but it has to be done, there's no room in this century for those cunts.

They're hardly going to say Well a bunch of Europeans who used to be in gangs and lived in poverty had a bit of a grudge so we fed them some incitement and fibs about the Caliphate, so they came and killed people, are they? Of course the Caliphate say it was for the glory of the Caliphate.

Giddy:
Yes, anyone who hates fascism would do the same.
It's interesting that the liberal left don't feel the same way.
Saddam Hussein tortured and murdered his own citizens, he gassed the kurds and claimed to have weapons of mass destruction.

redbinneo: "hackmum,
are you really trying to justify the murder of french citizens because of American actions?"

No.

(As an aside, are you really so thick that that's the inference you drew from what I wrote? I mean, really?)

Timri: "hackmum the difference is that we are not killing civilians as such. We are not targeting them."

We may not be targeting them, but we are killing them. If you're the mother of a child who has been killed by an American drone, it probably isn't a massive amount of consolation to you that your child wasn't deliberately targeted.

The point - for some people who seem to have difficulty grasping it - is that if you kill innocent civilians, then people are going to be angry about it. They're not going to sit round, thinking, in a very reasonable fashion, "Well, I understand that the Americans have to do this, and we just have to accept as bad luck that a load of innocent people will die as a consequence."

Strangely, people don't tend to think like that. If you have observed on here how angry people get because someone childless used a parent and child parking space, or their mother-in-law criticised their approach to weaning, then I don't quite see how you can imagine that people will suddenly become philosophical about having bombs dropped on them.

Giddy I agree, radicalisation needs to be targeted, we need to do all we can to prevent it happening.
But that alone isn't going to stop them.
I'd also have a bit more sympathy for the 'we created this problem' brigade if they were targeting the government
As they're targeting civillians it seems to me it's more of a 'religious cleansing' Ie, exactly what they, themselves are saying it is.
It also wasn't 7 random French ISIS sympathisers who planned it among themselves was it?
They said it was carried out it France, planned in Belgium and that the order came from Syria

behave but it is not unreasonable to be sceptical whether spending huge amounts of money on bombing Syria will have any effect either. We have been bombing ISIS in Iraq. It didn't stop Paris.

Well said Timri. Where did the order come from. Syria.

hackmum Yet that's exactly what you're expecting the French to do though, isn't it?
Going by your own logic of course they're going to bomb ISIS. They're very angry that their civilians have been killed.

People are acting as if this is an abusive relationship. 'Perhaps if I make sure sure the kids don't make a noise today, I won't get a broken nose tonight'