Shadow Cabinet Anger Over Shock Corbyn Letter

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

We never lost any that were put in a cage and set on fire and I see 1 pilots death like that changing everything

I think that would just increase support for taking ISIS on.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think that would just increase support for taking ISIS on.

Me too. We lost troops who were burned and mutilated in Iraq/Afghanistan, not quite in ISIL production quality but nonetheless true. Soldiers blown to bits, gunned down by supposed 'allies', burned alive in helicopters, personnel carriers and the like. It didn't make any difference. Furthermore we've seen everything nasty ISIL can do to their defenceless victims time and time again, whether it's beheading volunteers, drowning prisoners or mowing down unarmed people in ditches. As sad as it may be, the fate of any captured pilots won't make the slightest difference. In fact it'd probably make more difference to our policy if they were kept alive and used as bargaining chips.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

If we really want to be safer on our streets then the ISIS 5th columnists and their sympathisers in our midst must be watched and arrested if needs be.

Shot on sight in some cases.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Taf

Shot on sight in some cases.

Unless they're attacking Corbyn, in which case I'm sure he'd want the security forces to task them nicely not to and then try to wound them...

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think that would just increase support for taking ISIS on.

Really, there'd be anger and a desire for revenge but that would soon subside. This country and our allies have already proven twice that we don't have the apatite for a long, attritional war, they'll just melt away and wait us out like in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Really, there'd be anger and a desire for revenge but that would soon subside. This country and our allies have already proven twice that we don't have the apatite for a long, attritional war, they'll just melt away and wait us out like in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This isn't that kind of war though. I just think the country has shown before that actions against Britain or British personnel only increases the appetite for action. ISIS have already killed British citizens which just served to increase the desire for us to go after them, people approved of the killing of the Jihadi John.

The counterpoint to the argument about how this action will be perceived in the aftermath of an attack is what happens if we vote No and ISIS attack London? That will probably be retrospectively judged as a bad move.

[Osem]

ISIS really aren't going to start targeting the UK and its citizens because we start bombing Syria. They're already targeting the UK and its citizens. There have been numerous attacks planned (and fortunately prevented by our security forces) already and it's only a matter of time before one or maybe several succeed. Be under no illusions that this will continue whatever we do so the notion that we'll be safe if we avoid taking this action is IMHO fatally flawed.

---------- Post added at 10:34 ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 ----------

Lot's of noise being made about Cameron's 'terrorist sympathisers' remark with some Labour MP's apparently claiming it will change how they vote. Well as annoyed as they might be, which I can understand, surely no insult should change what I'm sure they'll all want to claim is a vote based on conviction. As much as this is a blunder by the PM, those who publicly change the way they vote because of it will ,IMHO, be making an even bigger one and allowing personal feelings of anger to cloud their judgement.

[techguyone]

I'm more concerned about mission creep as we edge ever closer to another boots on the ground scenario. We never have an exit strategy worth ****, which is how this whole mess started to begin with. Unpalatable as it may seem, when we keep toppling over (or encouraging) the dictators to fall, we simply fail to realise that bad as they are, they keep a tight lid on much worse things. We never learn; Yugoslavia the balkans, Iraq, Libya, Syria... As far as adventures in foreign climes go it is a Muslim problem, and should be dealt with by the Muslim neighbours.

Lets see how long it takes before we go from Airstrikes to other more direct forms of warfare.

[Osem]

Given they're inclined towards moral outrage, Corbyn might want to consider the widespread 'bullying' and intimidation his side of the argument appear to be engaged in during what he promised would be a free vote.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...n-labour-ranks

It all sounds very nasty and there was I thinking nastiness was a Tory preserve...

---------- Post added at 11:16 ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 ----------

Originally Posted by techguyone

I'm more concerned about mission creep as we edge ever closer to another boots on the ground scenario. We never have an exit strategy worth ****, which is how this whole mess started to begin with. Unpalatable as it may seem, when we keep toppling over (or encouraging) the dictators to fall, we simply fail to realise that bad as they are, they keep a tight lid on much worse things. We never learn; Yugoslavia the balkans, Iraq, Libya, Syria... As far as adventures in foreign climes go it is a Muslim problem, and should be dealt with by the Muslim neighbours.

Lets see how long it takes before we go from Airstrikes to other more direct forms of warfare.

I don't see what sort of credible exit strategy we can have in such complicated and uncertain circumstances. Even if we had one, the chances are that it'd fairly soon be rendered dubious for one reason or another as the situation changes and ISIS change their tactics. I really do think we're going to have to accept that there's no easy way out of this and what we're already involved in isn't going to end in the sense that a traditional conflict would do with a defined victory.

Incidentally I do think that whatever else happens, we need to be taking out as many of the weapons dumps, supply compounds, oil depots etc. as possible before ISIS decide to start filling them with civilians. We're already fighting with one arm tied behind our backs due to the need to minimise civilian casualties so how much harder would that be if ISIS change their tactics.

[Kymmy]

Watching the current debates and he still wants diplomatic talks to solve the IS problem. I suggest we should drop him by parachute into the middle of IS territory and let him talk to them

[Osem]

Just another example of how completely out of touch he is I'm afraid. ISIS would respect 'diplomatic talks' (if you can have such talks with a disparate organisation like them) with the same level of respect the Japanese usually treated surrendering allied troops.

Err does he want to talk to ISIS or does he want to sort out Assad FIRST.The fact is that ISIS is supported throughout the Middle east by all sorts of groups and these are the people we need to stop supplying arms and money to ISIS.That's the talks we need to be having..

---------- Post added at 14:06 ---------- Previous post was at 13:31 ----------

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015...ukhpmg00000001

So I guess I'm one too..

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Err does he want to talk to ISIS or does he want to sort out Assad FIRST.The fact is that ISIS is supported throughout the Middle east by all sorts of groups and these are the people we need to stop supplying arms and money to ISIS.That's the talks we need to be having..

---------- Post added at 14:06 ---------- Previous post was at 13:31 ----------

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015...ukhpmg00000001

So I guess I'm one too..

By his definition, an awful lot of people are. Shows how ill-judged his remark was. Bad judgement: not what you want from a PM at this moment in time ..

[denphone]

It was a utterly dreadful remark and one unbecoming of someone in high office whatever political colour they may be.

Agreed