MP's who voted against bombing in Syria

MPs who voted against the motion

Labour:
Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test)
Albert Owen (Ynys Mon)
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North)
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish)
Andrew Smith (Oxford East)
Andy Burnham (Leigh)
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough)
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith)
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South)
Barry Gardiner (Brent North)
Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central)
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East)
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood)
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North)
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green)
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central)
Chris Evans (Islwyn)
Christian Matheson (City of Chester)
Christina Rees (Neath)
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East)
Clive Efford (Eltham)
Clive Lewis (Norwich South)
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge)
David Anderson (Blaydon)
David Crausby (Bolton North East)
David Hanson (Delyn)
David Lammy (Tottenham)
David Winnick (Walsall North)
Dawn Butler (Brent Central)
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth)
Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Derek Twigg (Halton)
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North)
Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington)
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North)
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury)
Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields)
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East)
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough)
Gavin Shuker (Luton South)
Geraint Davies (Swansea West)
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South)
Graham Allen (Nottingham North)
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton)
Grahame Morris (Easington)
Harry Harpham (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough)
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood)
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore)
Iain Wright (Hartlepool)
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham)
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck)
Ian Mearns (Gateshead)
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South)
Imran Hussain (Bradford East)
Ivan Lewis (Bury South)
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington)
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington)
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North)
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley)
Jessica Morden (Newport East)
Jim Cunningham (Coventry South)
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central)
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead)
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne)
John Mann (Bassetlaw)
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington)
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham)
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth)
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South)
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde)
Judith Cummins (Bradford South)
Julie Cooper (Burnley)
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central)
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston)
Karen Buck (Westminster North)
Karin Smyth (Bristol South)
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East)
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston)
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall)
Kate Hollern (Blackburn)
Kate Osamor (Edmonton)
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras)
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North)
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East)
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West)
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South)
Lisa Nandy (Wigan)
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton)
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley)
Lyn Brown (West Ham)
Madeleine Moon (Bridgend)
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West)
Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston)
Mark Hendrick (Preston)
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside)
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside)
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich)
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch)
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby)
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East)
Naz Shah (Bradford West)
Nia Griffith (Llanelli)
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe)
Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent)
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen)
Owen Smith (Pontypridd)
Pat Glass (North West Durham)
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central)
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
Paul Flynn (Newport West)
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury)
Peter Dowd (Bootle)
Rachael Maskell (York Central)
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West)
Rebecca Long-Bailey (Salford and Eccles)
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield)
Richard Burgon (Leeds East)
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West)
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South)
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham)
Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green)
Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley)
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton)
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow)
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth)
Sadiq Khan (Tooting)
Sarah Champion (Rotherham)
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston)
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood)
Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West)
Sir Alan Meale (Mansfield)
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)
Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow)
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon)
Stephen Pound (Ealing North)
Stephen Timms (East Ham)
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby)
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak)
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton)
Sue Hayman (Workington)
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead)
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield)
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn)
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South)
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford)
Wes Streeting (Ilford North)
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East)
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield)

SNP:
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
Alex Salmond (Gordon)
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central)
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East)
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar)
Angus Robertson (Moray)
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East)
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute)
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South)
Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk)
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West)
Chris Law (Dundee West)
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West)
Corri Wilson (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock)
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith)
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife)
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)
Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan)
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
George Kerevan (East Lothian)
Hannah Bardell (Livingston)
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber)
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West)
John McNally (Falkirk)
John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire)
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire)
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North)
Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow)
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West)
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw)
Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire)
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk)
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South)
Mike Weir (Angus)
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts)
Owen Thompson (Midlothian)
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran)
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North)
Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire)
Peter Grant (Glenrothes)
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill)
Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire)
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway)
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath)
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde)
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife)
Steven Paterson (Stirling)
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East)
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South)
Stuart Blair Donaldson (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East)
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire)
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East)

Conservatives:
Andrew Tyrie (Chichester)
David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden)
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey)
John Baron (Basildon and Billericay)
Julian Lewis (New Forest East)
Philip Hollobone (Kettering)
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage)

Plaid Cymru:
Hywel Williams (Arfon)
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd)

SDLP:
Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South)
Margaret Ritchie (South Down)
Mark Durkan (Foyle)

Lib Dems:
Mark Williams (Ceredigion)
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk)

Independents:
Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West)
Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East)

Greens:
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion)

Wasn't it a labour government that sent our brave soldiers to war in the first place and contributed massively to the current situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria?

It certainly was, although New Labour wasn’t Labour it was a shift towards Tory policies "Tory Lite". On paper there wasn’t much between them and at that point I personally gave up all interest and didn’t even vote for years. 
 
Hence it came down to voting for the leader that could spin the best and Blair … oh he was very good at that. It’s also why Margret Thatcher said that Blair and new Labour was her greatest achievement. You either have two parties the same and it doesn’t really matter who you vote for things will pretty much stay the same. Or you have a real opposition with different ideas and the public can make an actual choice.
 
Cameron is another Blair, very good at spin and belittling people at PMQ but substance? There ain’t much there. Osbourne, a chancellor with a history degree as a creditation for running the country’s finance, well what to say here. I would say go google “How many economics experts agree with George Osborne”. Osbourne’s problem is he’s treating the economics of a country like that of the finances of a household. 

SORRY GEORGE IT DON’T BE WORKING LIKE THAT. The two are not comparable. 

Then again type into google “How many economics experts agree with Jeremy Corbyn” now I’m not saying that Corbyn is 100% right on the economics angle. Far beit for me to go along with a whole myriad of economics experts who know far, far, more than me. 
Where he is 100% right, is what Osborne is currently doing is not working, (The deficit has doubled under Osbornes policies) and to suggest we need to be debating other way’s make 100% sense. Which is what Corbyn is suggesting. 

As for bombing Syria it makes no sense without troops on the ground, which they havnt got, another Tory lie. Its little more than trying to be part of the big stage with the few military assets Cameron has left (Due to their cuts) to move on the chessboard. Dont forget Cameron left the country without aircraft carrier support for over 10 years, probably longer as the F35 harrier replacement will probably not be ready in 2020. Think of the implications of that when the newspapers start bandying around whos a security risk to the country.

Strangely enough Labour actually ordered the VTOL version the F35b which the Tories cancelled in preference of the F35c. They have recently had to U turn on this, a decision Admiral West described as a "shambles".
"It is extraordinary, it does smack of total incompetence. I'm just utterly amazed," The Tories are currently trying to get out of the F35c contracts at whatever cost that will be.

Margaret Thatcher's greatest achievement: New Labour

Government in £100m U-turn over F35-B fighter planes

Doubts over MoD jet order for aircraft carrier

Corbyn was a supporter of Tony Benn

The Claims and the facts

"Corbyn was a supporter of Tony Benn". ~ Yes he was (That's got the easy one out of the way)

"And it was Benn in the 1970s that tried to destroy the UK". ~ Benn didn't set out to destroy the UK he had views that he thought were correct and wasn't prepared to concede on them. Corbyn has learnt from that mistake, which is why hes trying to include views from both left and right sides of the labour party.

"Benn had done so much damage to the UK that when Thatcher came to power she took over a country with 13% unemployment" ~ Unemployment was 5.3% in 1979 and it increased to 7.2% by end of 1997, it also peaked at nearly 3.2 million during Thatchers term) 

and inflation of near to 24%. ~ Inflation in 1979 was 13.4%

And the UK had gone bankrupt pre Thatcher. The UK has never gone bankrupt, in 1976 there were problems that led to the UK going to the IMF for a $3.9billion loan. By 1977 circumstances had improved and the UK never took all of the loan.


List of Prime Ministers

1970-74 Edward Heath
1974-76 Harold Wilson
1976-79 James Callahan
1979-90 Margret Thatcher
 


1972: UK unemployment tops one million

"The number of people out of work and claiming benefit has risen above one million for the first time since the 1930s"

"The Speaker was forced to suspend the sitting for 10 minutes for order to be restored after the Prime Minister, Edward Heath, was greeted with prolonged abuse and catcalls from the Labour benches.
Mr Heath said he "deeply deplored" the level of unemployment"


 Note on the graph below the period folowing 1979 the thatcher era 

"For example, taking figures for the Thatcher-Major Conservative period in office from the LFS, unemployment increased from 1.4 million at the end of 1979 to over two million in 1997, and from a rate of 5.3% to 7.2%."

https://fullfact.org/economy/labour_government_record_unemployment-31114

 






http://benpoliticalblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/judging-tony-benn.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/20/newsid_2506000/2506897.stm 
https://fullfact.org/economy/labour_government_record_unemployment-31114 
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/sterling-devalued-imf-loan.htm 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4553464.stm 
Historical UK Inflation Rates (CPI) 
UK Unemployment Stats and Graphs
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/datablog/2013/apr/08/britain-changed-margaret-thatcher-charts 
 

3 Reasons Hilary Benn’s Use of the International Brigades to Justify Bombing Syria Was Ignorant

by Javier Moreno Zacarés

Origional post here

http://wire.novaramedia.com/2015/12/3-reasons-hilary-benns-use-of-the-international-brigades-to-justify-bombing-syria-was-ignorant/ 

On Wednesday night, with the war drums beating louder after ten and a half hours of debate, Labour’s shadow foreign secretary, Hilary Benn, delivered a speech in support of the prime minister’s plans to bomb Syria. 67 Labour MPs defied the wishes of Jeremy Corbyn and joined the Conservatives in voting through the government’s motion, and the speech has already been labelled ‘historic’ by the British press.

Furthermore, to the dismay of the left (barely recovered from Michael Gove’s co-option of Gramsci), Benn pushed for the motion by invoking the memory of the International Brigades and their struggle against fascism during the Spanish Civil War. In his powerful concluding remarks, Benn compared Daesh to the armies of Franco, the Spanish dictator, before stating “what we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated.” He said:

“And it is why, as we have heard tonight, socialists and trade unionists and others joined the International Brigade in the 1930s to fight against Franco. It’s why this entire House stood up against Hitler and Mussolini. It is why our party has always stood up against the denial of human rights and for justice. And my view, Mr Speaker, is that we must now confront this evil. It is now time for us to do our bit in Syria. And that is why I ask my colleagues to vote for this motion tonight.”

This rosy view of history is based on a problematic collapse of rather different processes: the participation of British volunteers in the fight against Franco, the involvement of the United Kingdom in the Second World War, the Labour party’s record on human rights, and the necessity to somehow save people by bombing them. So before antifascist history becomes rewritten and assimilated into the mythologies of British Jingoism, it may be worth unpacking the premises of this loaded speech.

 

1. The United Kingdom left the Spanish Republic to die.

The conflation of the involvement of British fighters in the International Brigades with Britain’s war declarations against Germany and Italy is a cheeky one; after all the British state did make war on fascist countries between 1939 and 1945. Yet, only a few years earlier, Britain did not seem so committed to the fight. We must remember that the Spanish Civil War erupted in 1936 on the back of a failed military coup against a democratically-elected government. That same year, a London-based committee formed by representatives of the UK, France, Germany and Italy (among others), pledged ‘non-intervention’ and agreed to an arms embargo on all belligerent parties.

However, not only were the fascist countries quick to break the pact and heavily arm the Nationalist side, but they actually intervened: Italian troops would take Malaga while leaving a trail of atrocities against civilians. In the meantime, American and British companies literally fuelled the rebels, as Texaco and Shell became the key suppliers of oil to Franco’s war machine. As this happened, throughout the war Britain pressured France to continue with the arms embargo, further choking the already besieged Spanish Republic. Ironically, the Republican government dissolved the communist-led International Brigades in 1938 as an appeal to the UK to bring the embargo to an end.

One might argue that the problem was Neville Chamberlain’s isolationism, later corrected with the arrival of the mythic Winston Churchill to power. However, with the war raging, Churchill had been quite keen on Franco’s vision. In a 1936 article in the Evening Standard, he defended Britain’s ‘ “strictest neutrality” as he sympathised with ideals of the fascist insurrection: “Shall Spain, […] now sink into the equalitarian squalor of a communist state, or shall it resume its place among the great Powers of the world? Here is an appeal of the youth and manhood of a proud people.” If the British parliament stood up “against Hitler and Mussolini” in 1939, it certainly was not due to the continuation of a proud antifascist record.

 

2. The Labour party then and now.

In 1937 Clement Attlee, the future Labour prime minister, visited the British battalion of the International Brigades, which was renamed after him. One year later, as British fighters returned home at Victoria station, he was amongst the crowd that welcomed them as heroes.

Needless to say, this is not today’s Labour party (and has not been for a while). Their stance on British citizens who have joined the Kurdish forces, for instance, has been much less clear. Labour remained silent when Silhan Özçelik was sentenced to 21 months behind bars less than two weeks ago, accused of trying to join Kurdish forces in their fight against Daesh.

Meanwhile, with no sense of irony, the most hawkish factions of the Labour party appropriate the distantly friendly freedom fighters of Spain to cleanse their recent stance on human rights. Someone should remind Benn that his suit and tie remain stained with Iraqi blood from 2003.

 

3. Who was doing the bombing in Spain again?

Long story short, the Spanish Civil War has been dug out to argue for the historical necessity to bomb Syria. Paradoxically, this situation resonates more the stance of certain allies of Franco rather than the International Brigades. In 1937, the Nazi luftwaffe flattened the Basque town of Gernika, a village of little military and strategic value. The operation was more likely a symbolic gesture to demonstrate German prowess and test out new weaponry.

Back to the future, the British government has been unclear as to what the bombings will bring to the table. While it claims they will assist the strategic advance of Kurdish fighters and the Free Syrian Army, they have also withheld arms and funding from these groups, while other supplies have been scant.

Equally contradictory is the lack of appal at the assistance of Daesh from Turkey and the Gulf states, and the unclear stance on the future of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, in the event of the US’s proposed ceasefire (a problem which also divides the left). It looks as if David Cameron is more concerned with playing the great power game, and Benn, who less than a month ago rejected the extension of bombings to Syria, with destabilising Corbyn’s leadership of the party. In the meantime, thousands of civilians will surely die from the bombing of Raqqa, which is far from the front line, for the government’s arrogance and lack of sight.
Photo: Zofia Szleyen/Wikimedia Commons
–
If you want to support media for a different politics, you can donate or subscribe to Novara Media at support.novaramedia.com.

Cameron blatantly bullied people, lets talk about that.

I don't agree with abuse of others just because they hold a different view or voted a different way, that is democracy.

Whilst much is being said about these unfortunate incidents, in fact the press is whipping itself into a feeding frenzy about bullying and threats, I would like to know what is being done about Cameron's comment when he bullied members on both sides of the house, prior to the debate and said that anyone not voting for it was a terrorist sympathiser.

I personally believe that this statement manipulated the vote at that point. He then further manipulated the vote by steadfastly refusing to apologise when asked on 12 different occasions by 12 different members of the house.

Many people may have voted differently was it not for the threat of being branded a terrorist sympathiser. That comment In my opinion is worse than any post vote abuse because it was intended to manipulate a very important vote and this should be brought to the front of the current discussion on abuse.

The unanswered question where are the Ground forces?

WHERE ARE THE 70,000 GROUND TROOPS

SILENCE WAS THE ANSWER

One of the most crucial parts of the debate still unanswered. Mr Cameron himself even stated that bombing alone could not defeat Daesh.

He went on to claim that there were 70,000 Syrian ground troops available. However when pressed by Angus Roberston, no one not Cameron, Hammond or numerous other back benchers on the Tory side who stood up, had anything meaningfull to offer.

Only one opposition member stood up to say after visiting Syrian she had been told the number was possibly 10-15,000

1. So our air force goes into combat against Daesh.
2. Cameron or Hammond had no clues to offer about any ground troops being available. Apart from the mystical and unsubstantiated 70,000 figure.
3. Daesh cannot be defeated by air attack alone.
4. The USA has been bombing Daesh for nearly 17 months now with little effect on their numbers.
5. There is no exit strategy.

THERE ARE NO CREDIBLE GROUND FORCES

Sir Edward Lee: 'can't defeat ISIL with military action' 

 BUT ITS OK OUR BOMBS ARE DIFFERENT

'Britain is on the verge of entering into a long war in Syria based on wishful thinking and poor information...'

David Cameron's 70,000 'moderate' Syrian opposition are fighters from 120 different rebel groups

Foreign Affairs Select Committee does not support Syria airstrikes

Out of the warmongering mists, a shining light, from a most unlikely source.

Foreign Affairs Committee publish report saying there should be no British airstrikes in Syria without a coherent international strategy to both defeat ISIL and end the Syrian civil war.

The Committee finds that the benefits of extending British involvement in Coalition airstrikes in Syria are more than outweighed by the risks of legal ambiguity, political chaos on the ground in Syria, military irrelevance, and diplomatic costs.
 
The Committee is not persuaded by the Government’s efforts to treat ISIL and the Syrian civil war as separate issues, and considers that the focus on the extension of airstrikes against ISIL in Syria is a distraction from the much bigger and more important task of finding a resolution to conflict in Syria, which is itself a main cause of ISIL’s rise.

Chair's comments

The Chairman of the Committee, Crispin Blunt MP, said:

"We are concerned that the Government is focusing on extending airstrikes to Syria, responding to the powerful sense that something must be done to tackle ISIL in Syria, without any expectation that its action will be militarily decisive, and without a coherent and long-term plan for defeating ISIL and ending the civil war.
There is now a miscellany of uncoordinated military engagements by an alarming range of international actors in Iraq and Syria, all of whom share an interest in defeating ISIL and who between them possess an overwhelming capability to do so. These forces desperately need coordinating into a coherent strategy and that is where our efforts should be focused. Making the military picture yet more complex is a distraction from the key task to help end the suffering and reverse the spread of this dangerous, barbaric and regressive ideology.
Just as we need a coordinated military strategy to defeat ISIL, we urgently need a complementary political strategy to end the civil war in Syria. By becoming a full combatant in the US led campaign at this stage, the UK risks needlessly compromising its independent diplomatic ability to support an international political solution to the crisis. Right now, the Government should be focusing all its energies supporting the efforts at international diplomacy in Vienna.
In this report, we set out seven points on which the Government should provide further explanation before asking the Commons to approve a motion authorising military action. Success in Vienna would produce an international strategy. There would still be military questions to answer. Until all these points are satisfied, the Government should not try to obtain Parliamentary approval to extend British military action to Syria."

#removepresidentassad

Over the past few days Ive read a lot about Syria

 The more I've read, the more Ive realised, that I actually know even less than I thought I did about the area.

However I believe the plan should be:

1. Political agreement on getting rid of Assad 
2. Syrian troops can then take on ISIS in syria
3. Iraqi troops can take on ISIS in Iraq
4. Air support could be made available if Syrian and Iraq troops request it. 

Nato general Sir Richard Shirreff warns air strikes on Syria are useless

Ive read a lot about people who dont want to bomb ISIS in Syria. Ive read a lot about people who want to bomb ISIS in Syria, this is understandable after the lives lost in France. But many, many more lives have been lost by Christian and Muslims in Syria and Iraq. Beheadings, Burnings, Shootings, Drownings, Crucifictions, rape etc. You would have to be part way mad to not want to get rid of this scourge and wipe it of the face of the earth.

HOWEVER ....

The one thing you do not want to do to an opponent, is give them what they want. The terrorist attacks, the Beheadings, Burnings, Shootings, Drownings, Crucifictions are all designed to get a reaction.  ISIS needs support to survive, if we fight them, if we bomb them, they get their support and we will achieve very little as the USA has already found out.

Lets face it the USA is the biggest military machine in the world, yet after 17 months of precision bombing there has been no impact on ISIS.

"WASHINGTON (AP) — After billions of dollars spent and more than 10,000 extremist fighters killed, the Islamic State group is fundamentally no weaker than it was when the U.S.-led bombing campaign began a year ago, American intelligence agencies have concluded." [More Here]

There are too many players involved, all with their own game plans. We have Russia, USA, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, France, UK, Israel, President Assad, Syrian rebels, Syrian Kurdish Popular Protection Units, Turkish Kurdistan Workers' Party, Hezbollah, ISIS and the list  goes on as there are believed to be around 100 different factions operating in Syria.

How do we think we can come out of that mixing pot with a workable plan?

One thing that is agreed by most sensible people, is that only a political solution can end the conflict, a sentiment that is also held by none other than President Vladimir Putin, a key player in the area.

But back to ISIS.

The only way to defeat the ISIS ideology, is for Middle east countries to kill them off. To pave the way for that, the Assad problem has to be dealt with. Which is a difficult one, as he's backed by Russia, non the less its an issue that needs a solution.

Once Assad is gone the Syrians will be free to take on ISIS in Syria themselves and with Iraq army combatting them in the south they wouldnt last long. Air support could be offered then if needed.

The point is, without our involvement, there will be no flow of replacement fighters rushing to join the battle with the infidel. Syria and Iraq will be able to deal with the problem on their own.

Which is the way it should be.

The Truth is Labour's shadow cabinet is isolated not Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn isolated as 'majority of shadow cabinet backs air strikes' 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/12017887/david-cameron-syria-air-strikes-plan-live.html?

There are 380,000 labour party members, 59% of which support Jeremy Corbyn. That's 224,200

There are 30 shadow cabinet members, some of which also support Corbyn.

Isn't the true picture that the Shadow Cabinet is isolated?

Whilst there should always be differing views in a healthy democracy any thoughts of any undemocratic coup attempts should be consigned to the bin and the Shadow cabinet should get on with doing its job. 

Len McCluskey warns entire union movement would defend Jeremy Corbyn from Labour coup attempt

George, those Tornado's you were decomissioning ......

Cameron the Proven Threat to UK security

The chickens are now coming home to roost and its now proven, beyond all doubt, that Cameron and the Tory policies are the real threat to the UK's security.

Jeremy Corbyn is once again proved right by not being a sheep like others and having the guts to question Camerons plans. The mark of a real leader.

Very simply here is the proof

1. Decomissioned all of our carriers and carrier based aircraft the Harrier. This means that we havnt got the forces needed to retake the Falklands, if we needed to.
2. The F35 wont be combat ready till at least 2020, meaning we will have carriers in service with no aircraft which is an absolute farcical situation.Thats assuming the F35 is ready by 2020.
3. The spiraling costs and delayed delivery of the US-made F-35, coupled with the retirement of the Tornado fighters, will leave the UK’s airspace with no protection and its air force capacity a “joke,” according to a raft of senior officials.
4. The Navy has been cut back so much they wont have enough personel to crew the Carriers.
5. Cuts to the RAF means that we really are now just an also ran on the world stage. We dont have the capability to mount a campaign on our own. How can we defend ourselves?
6. The Tornado is being decomissioned therfore there are not enough aircraft available for our forces to use in Syria to effectivly bomb ISIS.

Julian Lewis, the Tory chairman of the influential Commons Defence Select Committee, said last night that "Britain's fleet of mission-ready Tornados was so small that it could only make a 'marginal' contribution to the war against Islamic State, should Parliament vote to approve air strikes on targets in Syria." [More Here]

Britain does not have enough aircraft to carry out effective bombing missions against Islamic State in Syria, a senior Conservative MP has told The Mail on Sunday. Experts say that 24 Tornado ground-attack aircraft would be needed for Britain to mount an effective campaign, while maintaining current missions in Iraq.

But RAF sources say that only 'two to four' jets are poised to join the eight-strong force already operating over IS territory from Britain's airbase at Akrotiri in Cyprus.

According to a well-placed source, David Cameron was informed of the lack of available aircraft by Defence officials and was said to have been 'disappointed'. Downing Street did not respond to requests for comment last night.

Sir John explained that the UK actually has about 72 Tornado ground-attack jets. But because the aircraft is due to be retired from service in 2019 only a limited number are available for operations.

He said: 'Inevitably towards the end of the Tornado's lifespan everything which keeps it in the skies is wound down – that's simply a fact of retiring the aircraft. 'We simply couldn't sustain a deployment of 24 with the numbers of Tornado we have now. For every one you send out on a mission, you need two more in readiness, just to maintain the operational tempo.' [More Here]

What would be worse, no not worse, it would be criminal, to put our front line forces in danger, should bombing go ahead, with out the right backup assets. David Cameron needs to explain how he will keep our forces as safe as they can be, in a theatre of war, with the depleted resources they have, depleted due to his cuts.

The UKs forces have been depleted so much by David Cameron and the Tories that we no longer can make anything more than minimal effect with the aircraft available. 

Therefore the ambition to join in the Syrian bombing campaign is nothing more than Cameron trying to look like a big leader when he is in fact an also ran. 

One has to question how Cameron didnt know he had enough operational aircraft available before the speech in the commons.  This is incompetance at the highest level.

Jeremy Corbyn proved right yet again to question Cameron's rickety plans.

Is the real reason that Cameron wants to join France and US in bombing because hes made so many cuts he hasnt got a credible force to go it alone. If anything crops up we would struggle without France or US backing us. He needs them due to his incompetance therfore he has to back them. Both France and US have carrier forces and I'm sure they wouldnt be stupid enough to get rid of them before a replacement was ready, unlike Cameron and Osbourne.

Delays in costly ‘white elephant’ F-35 leave British skies ‘vulnerable’

Navy has no sailors for new aircraft carriers

Fiasco of Britain's missing Tornados: No10 wants to send more jets to Syria...but we have '2 to 4' spare as defence expert MP reveals cuts and mothballing makes us a 'marginal' force

Cameron's white lie about security threat

To bomb ISIS in Syria or not?

 That is the question and its a situation we shouldn't walk into lightly.

What stomach will British people have for watching our own troops or Airforce burned alive or beheaded?

Is there another way?

How long would ISIS last with out its rich backers and oil?

This is a situation that transcends political views and whilst there are the normal comments saying that Jeremy Corbyn is a threat to security again. It could be that David Cameron is the threat to security, if he doesnt get this right.  Actually its more if we dont get this right because of the countries involved this could be more than just taking on a Terrorist group.  There is nothing wrong with Corbyn saying, "I do not believe that the Prime Minister made a convincing case that British air strikes on Syria would strengthen our national security or reduce the threat from ISIS". What would be more worrying is someone who would blindly follow a call for military action without considering the consequences.

Corbyn has sent out emails to the whole of the Labour membership to ask their opinions. I know this because I'm a Labour party member. He's not done this because he is weak, democracy is not weak, it brings great strength. Leaders are there to guide and inform, one person or small group of people should not make the decision on military intervention or war. We know what Corbyn's stance is on Syria at present, but he's a good enough leader to ask and take note of others opinions. Gradually we will get all the information needed to ensure that we don't get into a monumental abyss.

According to David Cameron there is 'Clear Legal Basis' To Bomb I.S.

But is there?

It was very noticeable that David Cameron had dropped his normal belittling, mudslinging persona for something much more reasonable. Is this just to gain support or a genuine change?

Obviously we are not party to the same information that politicians have but having examined the arguments available and looked at lots of information from various sources, my personal opinion is....

1. I Agree that ISIS needs to be eradicated.
2. Don't agree that bombing will achieve that, therefore I'm against Bombing at present, unless 3, 4 are in place.
3. A viable local ground force is available. Not coalition. ISIS cant be beaten by air alone.
4. A Plan to deal with ISIS very rich funders is in place (to stop ISIS re-spawning) and working at the same time as military action.
5. Bombing will increase the threat level in the UK which isnt at its highest as the PM incorrectly claimed. Current threat level is severe and not critical. Critical is the highest level. MPs and the public need to be aware of this.

I will be sending the above back in reply to Jeremy Corbyn.

The Arguments FOR

1. We need to stop ISIS as they are a threat to our security.
2. We shouldn't let our friends ie France and US act alone. (Both France and the US supported the UK during the Falklands War)
3. Action will only be against ISIS and not against other forces.
4. We are already at the highest security risk. (Actually thats incorrect)
5. UN Resolution 2249 backs Military action.
6. UN Resolution 2249 "The Security Council determined today that the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant/Sham (ISIL/ISIS) constituted an “unprecedented” threat to international peace and security, calling upon Member States with the requisite capacity to take “all necessary measures” to prevent and suppress its terrorist acts on territory under its control in Syria and Iraq."
7. UN Resolution 2249 "Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Da’esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security Council, pursuant to the statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria"

The Arguments AGAINST

1. History shows its easy to get into these conflicts and very difficult to get out.
2. Fear makes people do stupid things.
3. No coherent strategy for what happens if ISIS is defeated.
4. No strategy for dealing with ISIS backers, so ISIS will just re-spawn.
5. Very risky area with Russia involved.
6. The PM claimed our threat level was at its highest. Its actually not, its currently at Severe, one less than the maximum of Critical. [Current Threat Level]
7. Even if our security level was at its highest, doesn't mean that the risk of attack wont increase, or get worse.
8. ISIS actually want us dropping bombs on them as it gains them support.
9. ISIS want troops on ground as it fulfils their prophecy of Armageddon battle in Syria.
10. Will increase the risk of more Muslims getting radicalised.
11. ISIS will use civilians to hide meaning more civilians killed.
12. More refugees will head towards Europe which is what ISIS want as it destabilises the countries that take them.
13. There are around 100 different factions involved on the ground in Syria getting any agreement or organising these will be impossible.
14. The biggest military force in the world the US has been bombing ISIS for 17 months now and we are expected to believe our 7 tornado jets are going to make all the difference?
15. Syria is extremely complex area we should not be meddling in area's that we pretend to understand but dont.
16. So far, we have pretty strong proof that the air war has been a failure—after more than 10,000 allied sorties, ISIS still controls much the same territory.
17. In conflict never give someone what they want. ISIS want us to attack them.
18. Russia strongly supports Assad
     

QUESTIONS THAT NEED ANSWERING

1. This cannot be won by air assault alone so will require ground troops?
2. How do we know that the 70,000 Syrian fighters will take back and hold area's that ISIS leave?
3. If the Syrian fighters are not effective. Will UK ground troops be deployed?
4. How many ground troops will be deployed?
5. Will all UN countries deploy troops?
6. What will happen if any of our troops/air force are captured and beheaded/burned alive etc?
7. Will attacks be co-ordinated with Russia to avoid any possible mishaps?
8. Is Turkey trading with ISIS?
9. UN Resolution 2249 "Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law.  "In compliance with international law." is a handy little get out clause there and begs the question. Is it in compliance with international law to bomb another country if that country hasn't actually attacked you?. 
10. Have any lawyers confirmed that this would be in compliance with international law. 
11. Does Assad use ISIS for his own agenda?
12. Russia backs Assad so is Russia really attacking ISIS?

 

Links to information sources

1. Security Council ‘Unequivocally’ Condemns ISIL Terrorist Attacks, Unanimously Adopting Text that Determines Extremist Group Poses ‘Unprecedented’ Threat
2. MPs debate Syria air strikes
3. Jeremy Corbyn WON'T back bombing Syria he tells Labour MPs throwing shadow cabinet into turmoil
4. Dennis Skinner warns against military intervention in Syria's 'crazy war'
5. Peter Hitchens On Cameron’s ‘Delusional ‘Case For War
6. I know Isis fighters. Western bombs falling on Raqqa will fill them with joy
7. PM's Plan To Fight IS: Fantasy, Not Strategy
8. Iraq inquiry: Ex-MI5 boss says war raised terror threat
9. ISIS survives largely because Turkey allows it to: the evidence
10. Meet The Man Who Funds ISIS: Bilal Erdogan, The Son Of Turkey's President
11. Is Turkey collaborating with the Islamic State (ISIS)?
12. Why the British Brimstone missile is the most sophisticated of its kind - in 60 seconds
13. Cameron’s drive to bomb Syria is macho, foolish and must be stopped
14. David Cameron's plan to bomb ISIS is based on "fantasy"
15. Isis: Majority of British people do not support air strikes against Syria
16. Tom Watson piles pressure on Jeremy Corbyn after backing British air strikes on Isis in Syria
17. Cameron’s drive to bomb Syria is macho, foolish and must be stopped
18. Syria air strikes: Government ministers call Labour MPs for support
19. Syria bombing: Where UK parties stand
20. Can British forces make a difference in Syria?
21. Viewpoint: West 'walking into abyss' on Syria
22. Trudeau to Obama: Canada to pull out of bombing campaign against ISIS
23. Australia to bomb ISIS in Syria: Why now?
24. The pretend war: why bombing Isil won't solve the problem
25. Bombing ISIS Will Not Work
26. Jeremy Corbyn Statement on Syria
27. MI5 UK Current Threat Level
28. Russia and France wreak revenge on ISIS: Putin orders his warships in Med to work with French Navy as jihadists in Syria are pummelled from the air 
29. The Guardian view on David Cameron’s Syria statement: a short but serious debate is required 
30. David Cameron's full statement calling for UK involvement in Syria air strikes
31. Bombing ISIS Isn't Enough. 6 Steps To Achieving A Diplomatic Solution In Syria
32. The Oil War Against ISIS: Why Bombs Won't Cut Off The Flow 
33. Why U.S. Efforts to Cut Off Islamic State's Funds Have Failed 
34. ISIS can only succeed if we overreact — so we shouldn’t 
35. Russia just handed ISIS a 'big win' in Syria's largest city
36. Erdogan denies Turkey buys oil from ISIL
37. Syria's Assad directly supporting ISIS
38. Who Benefits Most From Paris Attacks? Assad
39. Britain has a moral obligation to intervene militarily in Syria
40. Isis threat to UK 'will only increase' if UK starts air strikes in Syria
41. Cameron’s delusion in the Middle East is the threat to our national security, not Jeremy Corbyn
42. DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Mr Cameron hasn't yet made the case for bombing Syria
43. British Bombs Will Not Solve the Syrian Crisis
44. Cameron’s cunning plan for bombing Isis in Syria
45. Letter from British Syrian Community to David Cameron

For those of you not in the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyns email is below

Gary,

On Thursday David Cameron set out his case in the House of Commons for a UK bombing campaign in Syria.

We have all been horrified by the despicable attacks in Paris and are determined to see ISIS defeated.

The issue now is whether what the Prime Minister is proposing strengthens, or undermines, our national security.

I put a series of questions in response to the Prime Minister's statement, raising concerns about his case that are on the minds of many in the country. You can read my response here.

There could not be a more important matter than whether British forces are sent to war.

As early as next week, MPs could be asked to vote on extending UK bombing to Syria.

I do not believe that the Prime Minister made a convincing case that British air strikes on Syria would strengthen our national security or reduce the threat from ISIS.

When I was elected I said I wanted Labour to become a more inclusive and democratic party.

So I am writing to consult you on what you think Britain should do. Should Parliament vote to authorise the bombing of Syria?

Let me know your views, if you are able to, by the start of next week: 

Yours,

Jeremy Corbyn MP
Leader of the Labour Party

Labour are the workers party.

Tories are the workers party

Yeah right!

There is only one leader that will stand up for Workers rights and he's on the left.

against a bunch of upperclass freemasons who will do anything to protect each other.


 

Corbyn knows the right respect

Real people care about others, Cameron and Co just preach it because they know its what people want to hear. Its not what you say, its what you do, that makes a difference.

Whilst being slated for not bowing enough Jeremy Corbyn quietly stayed behind to support and talk to veterans. Whilst others, Cameron, Osborne, Blair etc went to a VIP lunch. He then went onto a rememberance in his own constituancy. No fuss, No loads of photographers, No film crew.

Respect! 


 

Corbyn's Talks with the IRA

Corbyn controversially invited Sinn Féin Party President Gerry Adams to London in 1984, a move from which then-Party Leader Neil (now Lord) Kinnock "did everything in his power" to disassociate himself.  A second meeting in 1996 was cancelled following pressure from the Labour Party. Corbyn responded by saying "dialogue with all parties remains essential if the peace process is to continue". He has been strongly criticised by Labour and Conservative MPs for holding meetings with former members of the PIRA in the Palace of Westminster, to discuss topics such as conditions in Northern Irish prisons and the PIRA ceasefire. In an interview on BBC Radio Ulster in August 2015, Corbyn stressed his opposition to "all bombing" and welcomed the ceasefire and peace process, although he did not express a direct opinion about the actions of the IRA specifically.

As the British were not Bombing the Irish I think we can safely say that Corbyn stressed his opposition to bombing many times.

Everyone criticised Corbyn for talking to the IRA but Thatcher was already talking to them in 1981 about conditions in NI Prisons, whilst telling the general public "We don't talk to terrorists"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16366413

These talks continued after and led to the peace process. Prior to that we had 36 years of Bombing, killing, kneecappings, british troops being killed. So whilst im not suggesting that Corbyn started the peace talks he was clever enough to realise that nothing would be solved unless people did talk. Thatcher had to drop the "We dont talk to terrorists" line to get the problem resolved. If she had carried on we would still have bombs going off in London now. It didnt matter how many troops they put in NI it didnt put the IRA out of action.

It was the same regarding the ANC and Nelson Mandela, Corbyn also advocated talking to the ANC, the Tories wouldn't talk to them at one stage, there is no need to cover that here as the rest is history.


Was Corbyn wrong to talk to the IRA? If he was then it goes without saying that the Conservative Government and Thatcher were wrong also.

Is he a terrorist sympathiser? He has said may times that, he is against injustice, killing, bombing and believes that sometimes you have to talk to people to get issues resolved. That's not a unique view, most of the UN and EU and NATO prefer to talk rather than just blowing people up. We'll they do when the country can fight back, like russia, if its just a small country .... like Iraq, we just blow them up, or invade, especially if they have oil.

Some claim that because pictured with Gerry Adams that makes Corbyn a Terrorist Sympathiser ...many others were talking to Gerry Adams as well so this is a fallacy as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Corbyn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher 'negotiated with IRA' 

Corbyn condemns IRA & British Army violence in Troubles, lauds peace process

15 times when Jeremy Corbyn was on the right side of history

If Jeremy Corbyn was wrong on Northern Ireland, so was Nelson Mandela

Thatcher and the ANC as ‘terrorists’

Nelson Mandela death: Tories 'right on South Africa'

https://www.thepileus.com/uk/corbyn-terrorist-sympathiser-no-grow-up/

SERCO and conflicts of interest

So there you have it Rupert Soames is CEO of SERCO but why is this important?

Its important because, yet again, there is a major conflict of interest here. Basically because his brother is Nicholas Soames former Conservative defence minister. Nicholas Soames is Chairman of Aegis Defence Services Ltd a provider of private security services in Iraq. As an MP Nicholas Soames consistently voted for the Iraq war and is currently still MP for Mid Sussex along with being chairman of Aegis Defence. Anyone think thats a conflict of interest?

SERCO provides the government with all manner of services covering, State security, Transport, Science, Prisons and justice, Defence, Aviation, Health, Education, Leisure, Information technology & Waste.

Quite why SERCO is still allowed to quote for goverment contracts is mystifying. Both SERCO and G4S were being investigated by the serious fraud squad for overcharging on an electronic tagging contract.  SERCO agreed to pay pack 68 million  although the charges were actually dropped?

SERCO agreed to pay back 68 million. They agreed to pay back 68 million .....Basically they admitted they had defrauded the government out of at least 68 million. You can bet if they agreed to pay back 68 million, they owed more. Also the charges were dropped as police found no evidence of wrong doing? So even though they admitted charging the Government for tagging thousands of criminals who were actually dead, imprisoned or non-existent. The charges were dropped and they are still providing services and quoting on contracts. WHY?

There are a couple of other things that came up while looking into this. One was a Nicholas Soames connection to Princess Dianna where he alledgedly phoned her and said "Drop the anti-landmines campaign, you never know when an accident is going to happen!" he has always denied making the call.

Prior to becoming CEO of SERCO Rupert Soames was CEO of Aggreko a position he stepped into after the previous CEO Philip Harrower died when his car collided with a train in the United States.





https://www.serco.com/investors/governance/directorprofiles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Soames
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serco
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Soames
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10555/nicholas_soames/mid_sussex/divisions?policy=1049
http://www.nicholassoames.org.uk/contact
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/dec/19/offender-electronic-tagging-serco-repay-68m-overcharging
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/ray-of-light-for-serco-as-investigation-is-dropped-9937321.html
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/nov/04/serious-fraud-office-inquiry-g4s-serco-overcharging

Dealing with ISIS, talking to terrorists, trident, Saudi and Wahhabism

Mehdi Hasan gives 'War on Terror' a reality check
In Iraq, there were zero suicide attacks in the country's history until 2003. Since then, there have been 1,892.In Pakistan, there was one suicide attack in the 14 years before 9/11. In the fourteen years since, there have been 486.After 14 years, $4.4tn, and hundreds of thousands of deaths - has the so-called war on terror made the world a safer place?In the Reality Check, Mehdi Hasan exposes the failures of the global military campaign to fight "terrorism".For more, keep up with his new show on Al Jazeera, UpFront:http://aljazeera.com/upfront
Posted by Al Jazeera English on Sunday, 13 September 2015

The he's friendly with terrorists chant continues with regard to Jeremy Corbyn and as I've had to point out to many people, he doesn't align himself with terrorists but advocated in the past talking to them. In this he was proved to be correct both with the IRA and the ANC. For years Corbyn promoted that, talking to the IRA was the only way to resolve things. Not long after Corbyn talked with them, the Government, even though they had said they would never talk to terrorists, started talking to them. "The Troubles" were eventually  resolved when the Government got into secret talks, something that 36 years of armed struggle with the IRA did not. I wont go any further into that as its all there on the internet but just to quickly clarify im not suggesting that Corbyn had anything to do with bringing peace just that talking was proved the correct route.

Onto socialism, (again sorry, still killing many birds with one stone) we may never have had true socialism in this country, however, everyone benefits from it. You wouldn't have the society we enjoy today if it wasn't for socialism, nor the NHS or trade unions that did so much to raise standards for working people, nuff said about that. 

Onto ISIS..... ISIS is a difficult group to deal with, its a radical ideology that stems from Saudi and has backers there, the Wahhabi religious movement is about as radical as it comes. Note that it is also described as ultraconservative. Hmmm.

I've said it before, so I'll say it again, in my humble opinion you cant kill a religious ideology, it doesn't matter how many troops you send or how many missiles, you will just convert more and more moderates over to the radical side to take their place. They will actually be queing up to die because they want to die in battle against the infidel ie us. Everything they are doing is attempting to make the prophecy of Armageddon that is in the Quoran, true. 

I guarantee that this problem will not be solved by troops and war. I'm still killing several birds with one post here so bear with me ......Back to Corbyn, he is not advocating talking to ISIS, he's not stupid. He is saying that its better to avoid conflict with them, which will slow down the conversion of moderate Muslims to the radical Wahhabi side and we should do that by choking them. Cut off their funding, their arms etc, the reason governments don't like that idea is, we sell arms to Saudi.  Now we come to a problem, the arms sellers are going to make billions on the arms used in conflict with ISIS and it could go on for years. So the powers that be are not going to promote that particular idea.

Trade with Saudi should be stopped until they stop funding ISIS...... Oooops catch 22 ....That wont happen either because Saudi has the Oil.  But it does need to happen, we need our Governments to find another way apart from a military one, because that will never work. But then I fear they don't really want it to work. Keep the money pouring into the arms manufacturers eh!

It really is a tricky one which is why it requires a lot of intelligent thought rather than the knee jerk bomb the feckers attitude. It might make everyone feel better but it will lead to blood on the streets of the UK similar to Paris.

Whilst on this subject lets drop onto Trident as well, France is a nuclear power and it never stopped them being attacked, it wont stop us being attacked either. What we also need to be careful of is, party leaders have a habit of using conflict to gain popularity. Thatcher would have never been re-elected, if it wasn't for the Falklands war and dont forget Thatcher was deemed unelectable by her own party. 
Trident was useful during the cold war and may even be useful stopping the likes of North Korea thinking they can take over the world, albeit a radio active one.  
I would point out though, that we are signed up to a treaty "The treaty on the Non-Proliferation of nuclear weapons" that treaty says, we will start talks with a view to reducing or getting rid of completely, nuclear weapons. At some stage we have to start talking and that is exactly Corbyns point, no one is showing any signs of starting any form of debate on the subject apart from banging on and calling anyone who mentions anything about getting rid of Trident as being madmen and a risk to security, really? 
Lets look at the plans for Armageddon, our own little armaggedon, not the ISIS one. Apologies for going of track again, but very simply theres one of our subs on patrol 24/7. If it cant complete a series of communication checks with dear old Blighty, lets hope radio 4 doesn't go down, the commander goes to the safe and opens up a letter sealed by the Prime Minister. This then gives him instructions in what to do next. Nuke the feckers!!! no doubt. What this will mean is we are no longer here, we've been nuked in a preemptive strike, so your deterrent is no longer a deterrent its a  retaliatory weapon, which is what it really was all along.  Even if ISIS got hold of a nuke and nuked us we couldnt retaliate, who would you fire it at Syria?

The bottom line is ISIS = Wahhabism

Wahhabism comes from Saudi 
Saudi backs ISIS or rather very rich individuals do
Qatar and Kuwait back ISIS as well 

It doesnt take a nuclear physisist to work out which countries need to be pulled into line, but it wont happen. Instead they will try and blast ISIS off the face of the earth, the real brains and money behind it all will be unscathed and ready to launch another wave of fighters, all climbing over each other to get to the Virgins. Meanwhile people will die in this country because of the sledgehammer aproach. 

The truth about Isis!USA war against them is bullshit Explains why nothing has happened after 2 years!
Posted by Politically Incorrect Europe on Monday, 16 November 2015

 


Tony Blair urges British airstrikes in Syria after 'killing' of Jihadi John
In what world is Corbyn 'radical' for standing against more killing, while revenge bombing is 'moderate'?
Jeremy Corbyn WILL Authorise Lethal Force Against Terrorists If 'Strictly Necessary'

Qatar and Saudi Arabia 'have ignited time bomb by funding global spread of radical Islam'