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 absolutely despair of the Assad apologia that pops up on these threads.

Assad has killed more Syrians then any other party in this conflict.

Most refugees are fleeing Assad, because it's Assad who is conducting heavy aerial bombardment of heavily populated areas like Aleppo, Homs, Idlib and the outskirts of Damascus.

Assad said clearly "Assad or the country burns".

One of his methods of burning the country was to free a load of convicted jihadists from prison. These individuals went on to form ISIS in Syria.
The Assad regime avoided fighting ISIS, knowing that the more powerful ISIS became, the more the West would leave his regime alone.

Russia is not in Syria to fight ISIS, but to shore up Assad's rule, so that Russia can keep it's naval base.

Russia has not bombed any ISIS areas, instead focusing on the Free Syrian army and bombing SEVEN civilian hospitals.

Assad is not a partner for peace and any solution should involve is departure.

Does anyone honestly believe, after centuries of this crap, that the powers that be are actually trying to resolve this problem rather than perpetuate it? They fund and arm the people they want us to send our loved ones to fight.

This is all about, and has always been about, war crimes and big banking. It's us they hate and our way of life (if a life of insecurity and for many, poverty is to be envied).

Without airstrikes in Iraq in support of the Kurdish ground troops, it is extremely likely that ISIS would now be in control of all of Iraq - and its oil. Just look how close they still are to Baghdad.

When we intervened in Libya, Gadafi's troops were 3 days from Benghazi. Can you imagine the massacre that would have followed? How many innocent civilians would have died?

And if we hadn't attacked Saddam? I doubt if it would be all happy wedding parties like the Michael Moore film. What would have happened to the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs? A 3rd Gulf War? Would he now have the Bomb? Would Israel still exist?

Things might be v different now in Syria if action in support of the Free Syrian Army had taken place sooner and if Obama had not stepped back when Assad crossed his 'red line' regarding used of chemical weapons. ISIS was able to make use of the power vacuum and establish itself as the most effective opposition to Assad.

OK - so we'll never know. But doing nothing until it's too little, too late is not the answer. Chamberlain tried to sit down with Hitler. That went well. (Tho' it did give us breathing space to build up our forces.)

I admire pacifists for their ideals. But when it comes to the real world, I wouldn't want one running the country.

I don't agree more/better security is the answer. Yes short term it will make us (feel?) safer but it's not going to eliminate the problem.

If there's a prolific burglar in the area, better security will help protect individuals but the burglar just moves to softer targets and/or gets better at beating the security. The only way to rid the community of the problem is to remove him.

It's like being in a question time audience being on these threads. A little bubble where people think differently to the silent majority. A bit like the General election

I guess that as the UN backed a French resolution to tackle ISIS " by any means" I guess this whole thread is pretty academic.

Thank goodness for the silent majority

I am totally in agreement with Thymeout.

Last paragraph especially.

Corbyn is an idealist. If he were running the country I would fear he would dick about with something like this.

Didn't he say that whilst he didn't regret the death of Jihadi John, he thought he should have been taken alive and given a fair trial!! As if Jihadi John gave a shit about any of those poor aid workers he cold bloodedly beheaded in the desert.

The images of those poor men will stay with me forever, and they don't nudge me towards pacifism. They make me want to tell the likes of Corbyn to learn to live in the real world and shove his idealism up his arse. Because it is just that. Idealism. Lovely, but not reality.

It will be interesting to watch how the Oldham by-election goes, and see how the Labour vote is holding up in its heartlands under Corbyn.

To me it is simple. Either we kill them (Daesh) or they will kill us (everyone who is not Daesh). They are a cancerous tumour.

Thank goodness for the later crop of common sense responses. There is NO reasoning with ISIS. They dont want non believers to live and enjoy the freedom we do. There is no middle ground. And its awful that innocent civilians will get killed but this will happen at their hands if they aren't stopped- this is their aim. They dont want to kill to make a political statement they truly believe non believers deserve to die and thats their ultimate goal. People need to wake up and realise this before advocating lily livered peace talks

Pacifism would only have a chance of achieving anything if you were dealing with another pacifist regime or organisation. Otherwise, they will just walk all over you.

ISIS are about as far from being pacifist as it is possible to be.

That is why Corbyn's approach would be such a disaster.

Corbyn saying he wanted to take Emwazi alive was disingenuous. How could he do that if there were no troops in there? He can't have it both ways.

This is why I would never trust him. He is an idealist, not a realist.

From what i have just read, it looks like the uk will be joining in with bombing before christmas

Corbyn would be an utter disaster as PM, he's a total disaster as leader of the Labour Party.

You can remove British citizenship if someone is a dual national, but you can't if it's their only nationality. You cannot make someone stateless as that is again the UN Convention.

For dual nationals, they will usually renounce their citizenship if they get wind that the UK is going to seek to remove their UK passport.

It's a long complicated legal process that the taxpayer ends up funding.

We become the terrorists when we bomb countries, more innocent people are killed than extremists. Those in favour of intervention are you ok with that? So isis attack here targeting our leaders but kill hundreds of innocent men women and children? Are you ok with that?

I find it shocking that any intelligent human thinks that bombing works, it's been 14 years of intervention since 9/11 and the threat is worse?

But yeah Corbyn is in the wrong, being in favour of killing innocents (which means you accept the killing of innocent people here) is ok?

Fucking mental

So WHAT would you do?

Talk to people who DO NOT want or care what you say? How?

There is nothing that can be done. Honestly, i really struggle to see anything that can stop this.

Whatever is tried, i believe it will just worsen things. There is no possible way bombing syria is going to stop these, as the majority of them are probably no longer even in syria so wont be affected.
They will use it to further justify their actions, and use it to radicalise more.

Do what Corbyn would do. Isis seem like reasonable people, they seem approachable chaps. Sit down round a table with them and find out why they are such angry young men.

"You can remove British citizenship if someone is a dual national, but you can't if it's their only nationality. You cannot make someone stateless as that is again the UN Convention."

This is interesting, thank you!

I feel that IS presents- or is a symptom of a hugely complex problem, which will need multifacetted solutions and interventions. Maybe targeted bombing would be appropriate as part of a clear and comprehensive strategy but I remain unconvinced that DC has one. He comes across as incredibly sleazy and insincere and I remain utterly unconvinced that he is able to keep Britain safe with his politics. He seems like a puppet, I wonder who the masters are.

But Chip, none on this thread has suggested to engage in diplomatic talks with IS so I am not sure what you are talking about in your post.

People are suggesting that a mixture of intelligence and a well thought out political strategy regarding the ME as well as immigration and integration might take the edge off things. Nobody is saying that there is a simple solution to this. Bombing alone seems too simplistic and has not gained us any victories in this ongoing 'war on terror'. Sadly.

I agree with 100%. Fighting fire with fire is not the answer here. Yes the terrorists should be duly punished. No one would disagree with that, but you can't take that out on the innocent people of Syria. Each one of their lives are just as precious and beautiful as the poor soles who lost their lives in last Fridays atrocities. You certainly can't sacrifice them as a way of trying to put things right.
Plus our government goes in bombs them . They come back bomb us. Where does it ever end.
It's terrfying because as far as i can see there is no answer. You can't use the death penalty as a threat because many of them are sucide bombers so clearly are not afraid to die.
The only I know is that killing and maiming innocent people is certainly not the answer

I found this article to give a good clear account of whats gone on.

I particularly like the idea of dropping leaflets saying they are not true Muslims.

I believe this denouncement is also KEY in the fight against ISIS.

So perverted are their beliefs and actions, they can and must be denounced by the religious authorities, particularly by state-financed Saudi clergy as ‘devilish apostates’. Millions of leaflets should be dropped to make that message clear. They are not true Muslims

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3328812/On-murder-march-ISIS-Terror-expert-tells-slave-markets-summary-executions-morality-police-jihadi-group-2trillion-bank.html#ixzz3sE56q1Wo
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

If there's a prolific burglar in the area, better security will help protect individuals but the burglar just moves to softer targets and/or gets better at beating the security. The only way to rid the community of the problem is to remove him

yy Or THE forces storming the Bataclan, there were 20 civilians being held hostage in the final show down.

Does that mean the forces should NOT have gone in to save them all, in case one hostage was accidentally killed?

If you were being held hostage by a kk47 wielding death cult madman what would YOU want the security forces to do?

People on the ground in Syria are risking their lives to give us intel on whats happening, who to hit etc.

Topseyt: "Didn't he say that whilst he didn't regret the death of Jihadi John, he thought he should have been taken alive and given a fair trial!! As if Jihadi John gave a shit about any of those poor aid workers he cold bloodedly beheaded in the desert."

I don't suppose any of us are too sad that Jihadi John is no longer with us. But I think there are a couple of things to consider. One is that if we continually boast about our Western liberal values, which include the fact that we don't have capital punishment, we don't live under a dictatorship, we do give people a fair trial, then we undermine that boast when we kill someone without trial - particularly, as in this case, if that person is a British citizen. In other words, if we really do believe in those values, then surely we should believe in them wholeheartedly, all the time, not just when it suits us.

The second point is that you risk inflaming an already dire situation. There was some speculation that the Paris attacks were planned for a later date but brought forward as revenge for the killing of Jihadi John. Perhaps, just perhaps, if the security services had had more time, they might have been able to prevent them. And there's a real risk that you end up recruiting more people to the ISIS course. You can easily imagine a young, disaffected, easily-influenced Muslim being susceptible to the argument that the British, while pretending to be fair-minded, are utterly ruthless.