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?

And there's a third point (sorry, forgot). If we'd been able to capture Jihadi John alive, there's a possibility that he would have been able to give us valuable information about his associates.

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.

JJ was In Syria, at the black heart of ISIS.

Would you be happy to send your husband/brother/uncle in to Racca, to take JJ alive so he can be brought back here to be put on trial, for crimes he doesn't care about,to waste all that public money, then put him in jail, to radicalise and become a hero for any other isis wannabe's in jail.

More over, for the sake of your ideals, are you happy to the men of your family to enter into such a hell hole of death to extract JJ, knowing if captured your DH will end up in a cage being burned,or perhaps dragged behind a car, or more simply beheaded?

Perhaps, just perhaps, if the security services had had more time, they might have been able to prevent them

There are glaring holes in the security situation all over Beligum, France and goodness knows elsewhere!

So many safe houses packed to the brim with terrifying arsenal of weapons. prior to the attack they were driving at whim all over Europe ferrying arms around. The worlds most wanted, was flitting in and out of France - at will!

they had no handle on the situation at all. Thats painfully clear!

LimboNovember: I realise this is a forlorn hope, but do you think there's any chance you could discuss this in a measured way, without all the inflammatory language?

The truth is we put lots of unsavoury people on trial all the time. We don't simply execute people in the street, even if we know them to be guilty.

And yes, of course I understand the arguments for taking out Jihadi John the way they did. I'm not going to shed any tears for him. I'm just pointing out that there's another side to the argument, and that it's one that might be worth considering before we all descend into hysteria.

You want to put JJ on trial so we live up to our ideals.

But would you send in your own men from your family to get him out to bring him back to put him on trial?

Yes or No.

I'm no military expert but it would seem sensible to bomb supply routes and oil wells, training camps.

This isn't a tinpot band of fanatics. From the ny times;

The Islamic State takes in more than $1 million per day in extortion and taxation. Salaries of Iraqi government employees are taxed up to 50 percent, adding up to at least $300 million last year; companies may have their contracts and revenue taxed up to 20 percent. As other revenue streams have stalled, like banks and oil, the Islamic State has adjusted these rates to make taxation a larger portion of its income.

ISIS’ estimated assets as of
the fall of Mosul in June 2014
$875 mil.
ISIS’ estimated major
revenue sources in 2014
Extortion and taxation in Iraq
$600 mil.
Stolen from state-owned banks in Iraq
$500 mil.
Oil
$100 mil.
Kidnapping ransoms
$20 mil.
The New York Times|Sources: Patrick B. Johnston, Benjamin W. Bahney, and Howard J. Shatz at RAND Corporation, U.S. Department of the Treasury

I'm no expert on the situation but my gut feeling is that bombing isis is not the answer. You will get more radicalised home grown terrorists and more attacks andbombings.

How about Western forces work with Assad? I know he's not the nicest person but surely he's better than ISIS? Give him support, etc so he can better train/equip his troops to knock ISIS on the head?

Timri I don't understand why you keep saying 'what should we be doing'? We are doing plenty - but in the wrong direction. We're propping up the groups including IS, that are attacking Assad which is in "our" The Wests' economic/strategic interest. The gov are offering more bombing raids on who exactly? Anyone is the answer... Just to appease public opinion.

Write to your MP, Write to no 10, go on demo's to show our opposition is all we can do. Otherwise what, say nothing and don't offer your voice to the folly of dropping more bombs on random targets?

Of course it's the answer but we won't be doing that Whothefuck. Assad is standing in the way of the Qatar natural gas pipelines, which we've been wanting to build for years. That's why we're, (NATO to be precise), is going for regime change. Syria is a key link in the chain of countries it, (the pipeline), needs to span, and Syria leans in favour of Iran and Russia. Thus it was decided in Western capitals that its regime needs to change.. Russia doesn't want it as it would unseat them as the main supplier of natural gas to the west.

So us, the U.S., France , Qatar, Saudis and Turkey are pouring funds and arms into Syria to feed the so-called “moderate” rebel groups, many of which are comprised of foreign fighters of the lunatic jihadi persuasion, including many from al-Qaida. ISIS is just the most ruthless and violent of them all. It's quashing the moderate groups and taking their arms. The money and funds are still pouring in though.

Whats amazing is that people actually believe that we, The West, are acting out of humanitarian concern for the people of Syria. It's nothing but the push for energy, nothing more, and of course it’s the people who suffer most. In Syria, they are fleeing en masse.

I had heard some stuff about the gas pipeline. Shit isn't it?

As in ~ it isn't true, or an awful situation?

Your post makes a lot of sense batshit.

It's always a battle over resources isn't it? Only the average person does not concern themselves with the ins and outs and the black and white narrative ('them evil', 'us innocent') sells itself better in the Media and can be easily manipulated for political reasons.

Batshit and whothefuck - see my post upthread. Assad is the instigator of the Syrian conflict.

Just to emphasise that of course I am not doubting that ISIS is in fact a nasty, evil group without any srcuples or humanity. But the way they came into - and retain their power is more complex isn't it?

Also, if the West, i.e. Europe, US and our allies are indeed partly at fault of ISIS through meddling for the purpose of resources and power, those individuals and agencies who have meddled or condoned meddling are just as inhumane as ISIS aren't they? They cannot have been naive (or arrogant?) enough to think boosting rebel groups by providing arms and money to them would lead to a desirable situation? Sorry, I hope this doesn't sound too dimwitted but I do find it so difficult to get my head around all this.

As in an awful situation.

Just read your post Pontypine re Assad. I had heard that Russia and Assad were close. Hadn't realised that Russia wasn't bombing ISIS. Has this changed though since the russian plane bombing? I thought he was kicking shit out of them now? In which case maybe we should let Russia crack on?

The arguement, or at least mine, is not about who started it. It is about the policy of the West / Nato, which has seen this as an opportunity to further its strategic, geopolitical dominance, including control of valuable hydrocarbon resources in the Middle East. This is only going to lead to more instability and bloodshed both over there and here.

As Gisforgusty has stated it deserves far more of us to see it all in terms of goodies and baddies (as the mainstream media would have it). Where our violence is the good, well intentioned kind, all about 'ideas'. Whereas their's the evil, indiscriminate kind.....

Ah! Finally...'It's all about oil.' The Stop the War Coalition mantra.

So we should support Assad, who is already supported by Russia and Iran for their own purposes? Assad who used chemical weapons and barrel bombs on his own people when they were trying peacefully to rebel against him? Way back, before the jihadis arrived on the scene.

And we're as inhumane as ISIS because we 'meddled' by supplying the rebels with arms, when we should have just stood back and watched them be blown up? Op - have you read the news reports of mass graves of Yashidi elderly women?

And Hackmum - Jihadi John was an enemy soldier, regardless of his nationality. In WW2, there was a brigade of Norwegian fascists who fought for the Germans. No allied soldier thought twice about killing them in battle. No one called for them to be read their rights and arrested and brought back to Norway to have a fair trial, just because they were Norwegian.

You fight for the enemy, you get treated like one. And to imply that it's hypocritical because we don't have capital punishment - about Jihadi John of all people, the man who executed aid workers with a sword?

But let's not be beastly to ISIS because they might blow up the tube or a train or a concert hall. They will try to do that whatever we do. It is both a strategy and part of their ultimate goal.

Whothefuck - the first Russian bombs after the downing of the airliner just happened to land on the area controlled by the Free Syrian Army, the original opponents of Assad. Not ISIS. I know their weapons aren't as sophisticated as ours, but funny that.

"But let's not be beastly to ISIS because they might blow up the tube or a train or a concert hall. They will try to do that whatever we do. It is both a strategy and part of their ultimate goal."

It's not about not being 'beastly' but whether being 'beastly' I.e. Bombing Isis will actually improve the situation.

If it's just a token retaliation, like Israel retaliating against Palestinian terror attacks - no, it won't achieve anything.

But if it's a serious attempt to destroy ISIS high command and training camps, retake territory they have captured, then, yes, it's the right thing to do. ISIS isn't like Al Quaeda - a small group holed up in the mountains, directing the activities of multiple cells all over the world. It has the multiple cells, but it also has a visible army with conventional weapons fighting a conventional war. And a joint effort by multinational allies can do something about that.

Absolutely agree with batshitlady.
It is all about resources. Our government don't care about the people of Syria. There are examples of mass killings where nothing has been done as those countries have nothing to offer!

We've been through all this before. It didn't end well. They got their riches, everyone else gave up or still lives in great fear of them... I don't know what they want. Our respect?

OK the bottom line then - if we succeed in overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad, however wicked a dictator he is, it will only open the door for ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other Islamic extremists to take over all of Syria. There will be genocide and suffering on a scale beyond our imagination. These Islamic extremists will take over all the weaponry, infrastructure, and military hardware of the Syrian army and be more dangerous than ever before.

So I'm afraid this situation deserves to be dealt with via the intellect and not the vengeful, gut instinct Thymeout Sorry if that frustrates you. It does me.... But in the case of IS Terrorism, 'doing something' does not necessarily equate to bombing Syria. Let’s imagine that back in the 1970's and 80's the British military launched air strikes along the Northern Irish side of the border in counties Armagh and Down, in Derry and West Belfast on the advice of "intelligence"? Do you suppose that would have stopped people flocking to the IRA? Tell us, what the difference would be with Syria, other than the geographical, cultural and racial difference of those being blown to bits? I guess we could always say we didn't mean to kill civilians in that hospital, factory, school but y'know ~ this is war?

You eliminate enemies by turning them into something other than enemies. ISIS feeds on Western militarism and opposes humanism. We need to stop pouring arms and funding into Syria form a coalition with the forces that oppose them, rout them on the ground, and then negotiate a ceasefire.

'It's all about oil.' The Stop the War Coalition mantra That a very naive and simplistic way to view those who believe that bombing Syria even more will be counter productive, as far as reducing the terrorist threat is concerned. Are you seriously suggesting that baring in mind - Qatar (back in 2013), had already supplied Syrian 'rebels' to the tune of $3 billion and Saudi Arabia $1 billion, and Russia supplied the Syrian government with $1 billion in weapons, that the geopolitical significance of this conflict is a figment of my and my fellow "stop he war" loonies' imagination?