Categories
Air Strikes Syria

Are UK Airstrikes Necessary?

I am not convinced of the need for the United Kingdom to carry out airstrikes on IS targets in Syria.

I cannot see that a few bombs dropped by us is going to either solve the Syrian civil war, or decapitate IS and stop them from being able to launch terrorist attacks in our or other western countries.

I appreciate that we have very-premise weaponry on our tornadoes but I just don’t see it making such a massive difference.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve not gone all Corbyn on you.  I can see an argument for being able to take out anyone specifically involved in the murder of British citizens, or conspiracy to murder on a large scale.  I do also wonder if the special forces could play more of a role.

But I just do not see the importance that some in government are placing on us being able to drop bombs within the Syrian borders.

That said, the internationally recognised borders of Syria are only borders on maps and not in reality.  It does seem daft that we can bomb targets in Iraq but when we get to the border that doesn’t exist any more, we cannot go after them.  There is the argument that either we should be going for IS everywhere, or we should leave it to others.

The current status quo is militarily illogical.

If I were an MP, I guess I would support my party leader on this issue, given that I have no particularly convincing opinion either way.

However, I do believe strongly that the time for military action was 4 years ago, to try to stop the slaughter of innocent people by the Syrian government…before IS blossomed into its current threat.  That would, of course, have required the kind of after-war planning and state-building which was initially conspicuous by its absence in Iraq, and dreadfully incompetent in Libya.

Is there a solution to the conflict in Syria?  Definitely.  But then again, there are also definite ways to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I’ll talk about my solution another time.

Categories
Corbyn Jihadi John

So, Corbyn Is Sad That Jihadi John Is Dead

I read that Corbyn is disappointed with the likely killing of Jihadi John.

Pray, tell me, Jeremy, how were you expecting to capture and arrest him?  Are you suggesting that we send in our army to do so?  I thought not.  Were you expecting him to surrender?  Maybe we can invent a drone that arrests terrorists?

Totally ridiculous.  And this is the perfect example of the lack of judgement which means Corbyn cannot be allowed to be in charge of our country.

This man, for want of a better word…oh how about murderous bastard.  This murderous bastard executed innocent people in the most barbaric ways possible.

He was a chief executioner.  He killed charity workers and journalists – not to mention the taxi driver delivering aid to Syrians.

And Corbyn thinks it would have been preferable for him to stay alive to carry out more murders.

Absolutely disgusting.

I don’t agree with violence.  I don’t like killing people.  But this is one of those areas where you just have to close your eyes, shut your mouth and just let it be.  Jihadi John was a nasty, evil piece of scum and the world is better with him departed (assuming it turns to be true).

I am not defending every move we have made in the war on terror, but this is clearly the right decision.

Had the murderer been in this country, then all efforts to capture him alive and put him on trial would and should have happened.  But Syria isn’t an orderly society which we can police.  It is a lawless, broken country.  Capturing him alive was simply not going to happen.

Thankfully, the more Corbyn comes out with such stupid and unpopular ideas (albeit well intentioned), the more likely it becomes that there will be another Conservative majority next time.  And maybe by then the damage of the last Labour government will have been fixed and we can start to enact more popular policies and have some money to spend instead of always having to repair their mess.