Hilary Benn

[Guinness Boy]

There are troops on the ground, these 70,000 or so people that cameron mentions plus the Syrian army. Cutting off the supply of arms from Saudi Arabia and other places; cutting off their supply of funds by not buying their oil; cutting off their propaganda by closing down their websites, cutting off their supply of fighters by closing their borders; continuing unmanned drones targeting their leaders; continuing to support the Iraqi government; providing better humanitarian support to the refiugees so they can return and rebuild their country in time; providing positive support to British mosques and imams to counter the terrorist propoganda; targeting development funding to deprived parts of the UK where homegrown jihadis are being bred.

For me, these are all better uses of the millions that we're otherwise spending on adding our bombs to those of the French, the Syrians, the US, the Russians. It actually gets us thinking about the issues and not just taking the easy route out by saying bombing is the answer.

The Germans bombed Britain for years but it didn't win them the war.

The contention of most of those opposed to bombing is that the 70,000 troops simply do not exist. They are hardly a regular army if they do. The Caliphate has no borders and WE are not buying their oil. Read up on it a bit eh?

 

[The Birdman]

I liked Andy Burnham but now I think he a creep they are all playing for positions.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Well just letting them get on with it isn't going to get rid of them either so what's the answer? Troops on the ground? That's EXACTLY what they want. They are operating to a prophecy that ends in the "Troops of Rome" engaging them in the Caliphate. Well directed bombs cutting off their funding and shrinking the Caliphate do not fit in to that prophesy and do severely harm them. They would not have attacked Paris if they were happy about it.

I *think* the article you got that from mentions that the prophesy fulfills in the time of the 12th Caliph, and we are currently at the 8th.

So we need at least 4 more accurate targetted drone strikes until Jesus Christ reappears for the End Of Days, and the Army of Rome is defeated.

When we start taking out the Caliphs is the time to worry...

 

[GT49er]

The Germans bombed Britain for years but it didn't win them the war.

.............and we bombed the Germans for years................and won.

Of course bombing alone won't eliminate ISIS - all the other things that have been suggested - cutting off their oil/wealth/support from Saudi, working with moderate imams, etc, etc, etc, need to be done. But bomb them at the same time; ultimately it may well be a case of killing them faster than they kill us.

 

[Igzilla]

.............and we bombed the Germans for years................and won.

Of course bombing alone won't eliminate ISIS - all the other things that have been suggested - cutting off their oil/wealth/support from Saudi, working with moderate imams, etc, etc, etc, need to be done. But bomb them at the same time; ultimately it may well be a case of killing them faster than they kill us.

Which, unfortunately, was the First World War response. Oh well, all we can do is hope for the best, which seems to be as far as the strategy goes.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Given the very healthy support that Corbyn got in his election, and the fact that the vast majority of the party's membership are against the bombing, very much the former.

Well yes, the active memberships of all parties are further from the centre than the general public is and this leads to tension between their MPs, who are elected by the general public, and the party activists, who aren't. Cameron is having a referendum he doesn't want in an attempt to square the circle and Corbyn is having to give his MPs a free vote on a fundamental policy issue (which never normally happens). It seems to me that the main difference between the two is that Cameron is acting like an MP who wants his party to have power and Corbyn is acting like an activist who doesn't much mind.

 

[glasfryn]

Which, unfortunately, was the First World War response. Oh well, all we can do is hope for the best, which seems to be as far as the strategy goes.

why do people keep harping on about strategy, there is no strategy, and as far as I can there never has been,other than go there and bomb.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

.............and we bombed the Germans for years................and won.

Of course bombing alone won't eliminate ISIS - all the other things that have been suggested - cutting off their oil/wealth/support from Saudi, working with moderate imams, etc, etc, etc, need to be done. But bomb them at the same time; ultimately it may well be a case of killing them faster than they kill us.

maybe, but I don't think we have enough money? so we have to prioritise. Didn';t we spend 13x more money bombing Libya than on reconstruction etc.? and look what a cluster**** that is. ISIS will probably retool over there when Syria become uninhabitable.

also, why just ISIS? We've been bombing Al Qaeda for years but seem to have given up on them, they were responsible for the Mali attacks. What about Boko Haram, the groups in Tunisia, Kenya, Indonesia, Yemen? Bombing might hurt ISIS Syria but will be motivation for the other groups.

Bombing is just the crassest way to try and kill an ideology

 

[Guinness Boy]

I *think* the article you got that from mentions that the prophesy fulfills in the time of the 12th Caliph, and we are currently at the 8th.

So we need at least 4 more accurate targetted drone strikes until Jesus Christ reappears for the End Of Days, and the Army of Rome is defeated.

When we start taking out the Caliphs is the time to worry...

It's this article in The Atlantic originally posted by [MENTION=46]Lush[/MENTION] and cited all over the place.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Yes it states the current caliph is the 8th and there will be 12. However, the armies of Rome meeting the armies of Islam in Northern Syria is a separate prophesy as clearly indicated in the article by it being separated from the caliph count by a semi colon.

In other words one is not dependent on the other.

The article ends with an Orwellian quote on fascism that agrees with Hilary Benn and concludes:

"Given everything we know about the Islamic State, continuing to slowly bleed it, through air strikes and proxy warfare, appears the best of bad military options. "

I would agree, though with nowhere near the intellectual expertise of the writer.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Hilary Benn's speech was remarkable for a number of reasons, one of which is that it is genuinely refreshing to hear a politician speak having carefully considered the facts, weighed up the rights and wrongs and put aside short-terms party political considerations.

Unlike Cameron he did not insult our intelligence by claiming bombing will make Britain a safer place - of course it won't, indeed those words could come back to bite him on the arse. And unlike Corbyn, his delivery was animated yet precise. He carries something of his father's political gravitas about him.

He didn't have a nationalist agenda on the topic, like the SNP who wash their hands of the whole UK foreign policy whilst simultaneously benefitting from the prestige of being one of the world's few superpowers.

He was accorded respect from Philip Hammond which I liked. A Tory party led by Hammond and a Labour party led by Benn would certainly have a much more grown-up political debate than the mess we've had in recent times.

 

[W.C.]

Of those speaking against Caroline Lucas gave a far better account of herself than Corbyn but she did not convince me as Benn did. Let's not be Chamberlains again eh?

That's basically what Blair said before Iraq. I don't have the answer but after the last 14 years I need a whole lot more convincing that bombings will have any positive effect.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Somewhat barbed comments from the Shadow Chancellor;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34993438

From the man who carries a book written by one of the 20th century worse despots, which considering the competition is saying something. Hypocrite of the highest order, international brigade against Franco - good. Any form of military action against a death cult - bad!

In a parliament full of twats he certainly excels. Strangely

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Somewhat barbed comments from the Shadow Chancellor;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34993438

He said exactly what I was thinking. Everyone keeps telling me that Corbyn and his allies are complete loons with no grip on reality but all I keep hearing makes perfect sense.

Cameron is trigger happy and going for the popular move without any reasonable probability that it will improve the world situation we face.

 

[beorhthelm]

He said exactly what I was thinking. Everyone keeps telling me that Corbyn and his allies are complete loons with no grip on reality but all I keep hearing makes perfect sense.

anyone who describes over a quarter of their party as " a small minority" doesn't have much grip on reality.

 

[Guinness Boy]

That's basically what Blair said before Iraq. I don't have the answer but after the last 14 years I need a whole lot more convincing that bombings will have any positive effect.

The difference for me is that I did not believe for a second that Saddam posed a threat to world stability or was involved in terrorism. I was - and still am - against that war in Iraq. This is a different enemy and one that will become immensely dangerous without being severely curtailed. .

 

[8ace]

Opportunist.

Most politicians are.

 

[W.C.]

The difference for me is that I did not believe for a second that Saddam posed a threat to world stability or was involved in terrorism. I was - and still am - against that war in Iraq. This is a different enemy and one that will become immensely dangerous without being severely curtailed. .

I agree with you, I just can't believe that this course of action will not make matters worse. I have no faith in any of our leaders around the world to truly cooperate. I often think back to that speech Robin Cook made, and how after 9/11 for a short while it really did seem like there was going to be a genuine coalition of nations. Look at things now.

 

[rippleman]

Shameful opportunist and a total embarrassment to his late, great father.

 

[GT49er]

Which, unfortunately, was the First World War response. Oh well, all we can do is hope for the best, which seems to be as far as the strategy goes.

Yes, we did a lot of work with moderate imams in the 1st. World War didn't we, and I remember it being drummed into us at O level history how crucial Saudi Arabia was to the outcome too!

 

[smudge]

We were wrong to send troops in to the illegal war in Iraq. How Blair got the Commons to believe his lies is beyond me, even now.
Now, because of that, we find it impossible to send troops in against an enemy that really does need confronting on the ground, wherever they are.