IS Just War
Christian Persecution

Our MPs should not let fear hold them back – this is a just war against IS

Today offers the chance for MPs to begin to redeem themselves.

After an attempt by David Cameron to intervene in Syria that fell flat on its face, and an Iraq war based on dodgy evidence, the House of Commons once again finds itself in a position to take us to war. This time, though, things are very different. Whereas the legal cases for Iraq and Syria were never fully proved, the Iraqi government’s request for support gives sufficient legality to join the alliance of nations which are attacking IS from the air and on the ground.

If ever there was a clear-cut case where the desire to intervene militarily was wholly acceptable, then this is it. And I don’t say this lightly. I strongly opposed our Government’s intention to attack Syria last year, believing that any action would do more harm than good.

Having read  and thought through Jesus’ teachings on turning the other cheek, loving our enemies and being peacemakers as I was growing up, I developed strong pacifist tendencies. I still believe that war should be a last resort when all other options have failed, and am naturally much more a dove than a hawk. But as time has moved on and my experience of life and understanding of my faith have grown, I have moved away from the ideological stance that would have caused me to oppose any vote in favour of military action by our Government in Iraq.

When Jesus talked about turning the other cheek, I now know that he wasn’t telling us to stay passive whilst people attempt to take advantage of you. It was actually about shaming the aggressor and proving that they are not able to break your resolve. In doing so, you turn the tables and become the one who exerts the power by depriving them of the ability to manipulate you in a way they crave to do so. It may have been in Sudan rather than Iraq, but when Meriam Ibrahim stood up to the authorities who had thrown her into prison and threatened to execute her, her voice began to grow in power as she held her ground in the face of their intimidation, until she had the world on her side and the authorities were pummelled into releasing her.

And what of the call to be peacemakers? Peace should always be sought through love – love for our enemies.

For several years now I have followed the incredible work of restoration and reconciliation that Canon Andrew White has conducted in Iraq, bringing together warring sides and natural enemies to build trust and understanding. As a foreign Christian speaking mostly with Iraqi Muslims, he has achieved more than anyone might rightly believe possible. He has repeatedly had to deal with attacks and murders of members of his congregation, and yet he has risked his life and given his everything for the sake of the future of Iraq. Despite this, he admits that the biggest obstacle he faces in his work is those people who refuse to forgive: “If there is no forgiveness, then pain, hurt, bitterness and anger incubate in the human soul,” he has said.

IS have become a living embodiment of what happens when this is taken to an extreme. Their corrupt ideology has obliterated any thoughts of love for others. Their bitterness against anyone who opposes their beliefs spills out as virulent hatred and has led to a tide of evil utterly engulfing them.

It would be a foolishly brave peacemaker who would risk attempting to negotiate with them. Based on what we have seen, the most likely outcome would be capture and a brutal murder further down the line. IS are not remotely interested in hearing any other view than their own, as their routine mass public executions have demonstrated. This is when the question arises of whether killing those who seek to kill a much larger number is acceptable. If love for our enemies allows them to murder innocents, then what sort of love is this? Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers”, but this is not peacemaking, it is capitulation and appeasement.

It is as we reach this point that we encounter the realms of the Just War. There is a significant difference between last year’s vote in Parliament, where the proposed intervention against Syrian forces would have dubious outcomes, and today’s vote, where UK armed forces will join a wide coalition of nations which have been asked to defend a sovereign state from outside attackers. Whichever precise definition of Just War we might subscribe to, this is a conflict that we can legitimately enter into. Our country, as a significant player on the international scene and one which has committed itself to upholding human rights, owes it to the people of Iraq and especially those groups which have been so heavily persecuted, to play its part in the fight against the terror of IS.

If our MPs are to move on from the serious mistakes of the past and address military intervention without fear or guilt, they will need to consider outcomes as much as the  immediate impact in their debating. No matter what military hardware you may possess, weapons cannot defeat ideologies. Evil cannot be defeated by airstrikes and bombs; it can only be overcome by good. When it is safe to do so, it will take foolishly brave individuals like Andrew White to work towards true healing and peace. The war that is engulfing Syria and Iraq has religion (in a dark and twisted form) at its heart, but without religion that brings lasting hope playing its part, the war will ultimately never be won.

  • bluedog

    ‘… they will need to consider outcomes as much as the immediate impact in their debating.’

    Absolutely right. But what is the strategic plan? We can’t afford another power vacuum like that which followed the defeat of the Baathists in Iraq in 2003.
    That’s why we are where we are today, dealing with the consequences of that power vacuum, together with the effect of a provocatively sectarian government in Iraq. It is essential to give thought to the governance of the areas liberated from IS, if that is the outcome, and we may see Baathists seizing power once again in Western Iraq. One understands that in Syria, Assad’s army has already capitalised on US airstrikes after IS forces have been routed, retaking ground. This can’t be what we are planning to fight for.

    The electorate need to hear that a reputable Arab army, such as that of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, will provide an occupation force if IS is defeated.
    It goes without saying that an occupation force of kuffars will simply trigger the next insurgency.

    A drama-queen like Cameron loves splashy headlines of military daring-do, particularly with an election in the offing. We know that Cameron is unable to think beyond tomorrow, and one can only hope that the Cabinet contains at least a few who can.

    The benchmark for success in this venture can be measured in the numbers of refugees who are able to return home safely and continue their lives in peace and security.

  • Dreadnaught

    A secular West has no place in a Religious war – it is an illogical quagmire.

    • SidneyDeane

      They all need to be killed though don’t they.

      • Dreadnaught

        Do you realise how ignorant you sound? if you don’t appreciate reality or respect atheism why not just butt out of making such comments – you give atheists a bad name.

        • SidneyDeane

          What do you want to do, have a sit down with them and mull it over?
          Youre the one who needs a reality check buddy.

          • Dreadnaught

            You said ‘they all need to be killed’ without defining ‘they’ or how or anything else which stuck me as being a bit stupid and vague let alone achievable.

          • SidneyDeane

            I thought it was pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain I was talking about IS – the topic of the article! Jesus Christ.

          • Dreadnaught

            Now that you have have explained your medical condition allow me to apologise for taxing your intellect.

          • bluedog

            Amusing to see the atheists bickering over who has the correct interpretation of nothing.

          • Dreadnaught

            Its not ‘nothing’ to challenge a view of killing people, but glad you find the subject matter amusing Dogger – I suppose you may say we’re human just like the rest of you.

          • bluedog

            Very pious. If your atheistic positions were derived from Islamic rather than Judeo-Christian morality you would be able to argue the reverse.

          • Dreadnaught

            A very pious atheist? now that’s a first for me.

          • SidneyDeane

            challenge the view of killing terrorists. haha. r u nick cleggs shoe cleaner? what a pussy.

          • Dreadnaught

            Re-read my comment to which you replied and look again at what you said.

  • len

    The reticence of the UK Government to act against ISIS ( infuriatingly slow to commit) is understandable because errors have been made in the past.To do nothing is not an option however in an ever escalating rampage by a psychopathic bunch of thugs determined to impose their evil rule on anyone they can subjugate.
    The UK is imposing ridiculous limitations on its ability to fight ISIS no airstrikes in Syria ‘,no boots on the ground’,a token amount of planes to carry out these airstrikes.There seems to be a lack of commitment which gives totally the wrong signals to ISIS.
    No sane person ever wants to take part in a war but sometimes to do nothing is the worse option both physically and morally. This evil which is ISIS (and other terrorist groups) needs to be confronted before it can spread like a virus in the Middle East and beyond.
    There is no alternative.

    • Dreadnaught

      The UK is still in Afghanistan after fifteen years and achieved nothing that can’t be undone in six months. The Iraqi army dropped billions of dollars worth of weapons and equipment without destroying them and now they will be used against us. This situation should be resolved by Iran and the Gulf States and co-ordinated through involvement of Turkey.

      Its not possible for the West to get involved and come away with clean hands.

  • Graham Wood

    Gillan. You say in effect that the ‘just war’ theory is now applicable.

    I think you are right that the principle is certainly there, but war against IS by the British state is not OUR just war, it belongs primarily to Syria and Iraq, and those affected nations which will be affected by it in the immediate region.

    You speak also that somehow the UK is obligated for “human rights” to the people of Iraq and especially those groups which have been so heavily persecuted. I suggest the UK is not so obligated as the nebulous “human rights” issue could be applied right across the innocent or warring nations of the ME.

    You make the naïve statement “Evil cannot be defeated by airstrikes and bombs; it can only be overcome by good” Two things follow:

    1. IS is not open to the norms of “good”, or rational arguments, diplomacy, or political settlement, but only in raw power and conquest in order to form its own Moslem caliphate.

    2. Nobody would argue for a moment for the self-evident truth that “evil cannot be defeated by air-strikes”. For that reason alone the UK should not, and need not be involved. We have no national interest at stake in the ME wars which are a complex mix of many political, religious, and ideological issues. There are no “good guys”, only Moslems killing fellow Moslems.

    On a purely practical level there is an overwhelming negative for engaging in air strikes, and that is the inescapable fact that, once easily identifiable IS targets run out, all that will remain will be wrecked town and villages into which the IS will melt away. Where is the justification for bombing the many pockets of innocent civilians, women and children in such places? The end does not justify the means.

    • CliveM

      “A far away country of whom we know nothing” look where that logic took us. Actually this isn’t about Iraq or Syria, it’s about IS and it is in our national interest that they are defeated. When children are being beheaded and women raped, eyes gouged out and babies murdered, to stand aside is a betrayal. To stand aside, means that we would instead be standing alongside IS. Our Government has stood aside for reasons of petty politics, it should have done more, earlier. It is still not proposing to do enough.

      • carl jacobs

        CliveM

        Are you willing to do what would be necessary? Are you willing to suppress their religious freedom? Are you willing to kill their teachers and destroy their mosques and burn their literature? Are you willing to criminalize their religion and follow through with the logical implications? Don’t be deceived. That’s what it would take to root out ISIS, and that effort would have to be expended over a very long time. None of it can be done from aircraft, and none of it can be accomplished by exporting Western notions of liberal democracy to an Islamic state.

        Count the cost first.

        carl

        • CliveM

          Carl

          Your point is a fair one. We can’t destroy the underlying philosophy of IS by war. Our Governments aren’t going to be willing to pay the price you outline, that is clear. The “war” is going to be tactical rather then strategic. When some group like IS gets to the the type and level of threat it is today, then it needs to be addressed. I think we will see ongoing wars of containment. An ‘Israeli’ type strategy perhaps.

          However part of the decision making process will rightly include issues such as atrocities and just because what can be achieved is limited, it doesn’t stop you doing it.

        • The Inspector General

          Nonsense, that man.

          We’re not trying to root out Islam but destroy IS. And
          aircraft are thebest way of doing it. Breaking the strangle hold that Islam has over theless achieving races is another matter, but one we needn’t concernourselves after we restore the secular dictatorships that gives thesedesert wretches stability. As for exporting our notion of democracy tothem, there can’t be many newly enlightened politicians in the West whoare not pragmatic enough to realise that will never happen.

          • carl jacobs

            Inspector

            Aircraft could be a great solution. All we have to do is get every ISIS fighter to densely congregate in one place. The employment of one fuel-air explosive would achieve the objective nicely. Of course, the solution reveals the problem. And, anyways, in six months you would be right back where you started. Dreadnaught was right. There is nothing we can do that they can’t undo.

            Aircraft are possibly the worst possible choice for everyone except politicians. Aircraft can be employed with almost zero risk of bloodshed or entanglement. But God help you if mechanical failure causes you to lose a pilot. They will make an example of him – on YouTube. And then what will you do? This is a dangerous game being played.

            For me, things would change radically in such circumstance. The goals would change. And given what would be on that video, I wouldn’t be too careful about things like the Geneva Convention in the course of achieving those goals.

            carl

          • The Inspector General

            Carl, you’re being far too hesitant. Wiping the blighters out in totality is an objective too much to aspire to, but the idea is to keep those prepared to join and stay with IS to a minimum. At least under 10,000. This can be achieved by making IS camps extremely dangerous places to be around. Hopefully, plenty
            will get cold feet and take the first camel out.

            You put the frighteners on them, you see.

            As for possibly losing pilots to IS, although one is not up to date with rescue strategy, Global Satellite positions and fast aircraft that can effect a landing in the desert will see to that if it came to it

    • Albert

      Graham,

      You make the naïve statement “Evil cannot be defeated by airstrikes and bombs; it can only be overcome by good”

      In the film Karol: A Man Who Became Pope, the young Karol escapes from Nazis shooting people in the streets because he is rescued by a mystic whose name escapes me. The mystic says “We will win with love.” Karol replies “How can you say that with Nazis in the street?” The mystic replies “The Nazis will disappear because evil will devour itself. But if we don’t win with love they will just come back in a different form.”

      It is not Dr C who is being naïve.

      • carl jacobs

        Albert

        The Nazis didn’t disappear because ‘evil devoured itself.’ They were seized by the throat and strangled to death and great cost in blood and treasure.

        There was nothing mystical about it.

        carl

        • Albert

          You have misunderstood the nature of the comment. It wasn’t pacifistic. Evil always devours itself, although sometimes it needs to be given a military push. The question is, what do you do next?

          Cranmer’s comment evil “can only be overcome by good” has a rather first rate authority behind it.

          • carl jacobs

            States are not best conceived as anthropomorphized creatures subject to the divine law imposed on individuals. The Sermon on the Mount does not apply to the interaction of states.

            carl

          • DanJ0

            it’s probably not what you really meant but I’ve always thought machiavelli captured something important along those lines in ‘the prince’

          • Satire, Danjo?

          • DanJ0

            Ofgs. No.

            And don’t bother doing the Google Savant thing again just so you can interact with me some more, you almost certainly won’t understand the themes or the challenges in it by doing that.

          • Ooooo. So passive aggressive. As it goes, Jack does understand Machiavelli .

          • Albert

            It looks to me like DanJo is on to something here: states are collections of people, they are subject to divine law. I grant you that divine law may not apply to states in the same way as it does to individuals, but it does apply.

            But the point I am making is being repeatedly misunderstood. There is more to winning this battle than simply blasting ISIL. I saw an interview with an Iraqi man. He said four of his family had been murdered by ISIL, but he preferred to support ISIL than be run by Shias. It’s men like him that we need to win over. He will not be won over by evil, but by good.

          • Morality is morality – surely it applies to states as well as individuals?

            “Let every soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power but from God: and those that are ordained of God. Therefore, he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves damnation. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.”

            And certainly the people of Israel were subject to a moral code given by God.

          • “The Sermon on the Mount does not apply to the interaction of states.”

            No but it applies to the individuals who lead any state and to the members of a state called upon to act on its behalf.

      • Dreadnaught

        Where in a culture that defines stoning a woman to death for a perceived sexual transgression as ‘good’ or indeed one in which burning a person at the stake for their own ‘good’ was acceptable, one has to be careful how such actions are later deemed to be ‘not good’. This is the timeless danger of confusing fantasy with reality.

        • carl jacobs

          Dreadnaught

          When you have some basis for defining ‘good’ other than ‘what Dreadnaught would prefer’ then you can make this criticism.

          carl

          • Dreadnaught

            And there was I starting to think of you as a good guy – silly me!

          • carl jacobs

            Dreadnaught

            Well, that was totally non-responsive.

            You speak as if you have authority and yet you inhabit a universe devoid of moral authority.

            You implicitly assume the existence of objective concepts like ‘good’ having first denied that objectivity exists.

            You judge according to standards that you have cribbed verbatim from the very religion you would condemn – concepts that become completely unintelligible in the absence of that religion.

            And after all that you think I should take seriously your criticism? You could have substituted any action in your argument, and the argument would gave been just as valid.

            carl

          • Dreadnaught

            Carl – this is de ja vous. There’s no point for me in trying to defend my position as you and I have been down this tired old road before. I don’t find life as fraught and complicated as you seem to, why else would you abrogate your natural commonsense to some abstract authority of someone’s imagination by which I mean … religion? Isn’t this the epitome of what is wrong with Islam?

          • carl jacobs

            Dreadnaught

            If you don’t want to fight on that tired old road, then why do you send regiments down that tired old road? I see the advance and can do nothing but command “By files right into line.”

            I don’t accept that it is an abstract authority or that it is the product of imagination. God is real and He may be known. The problem with Islam is that it has no connection to the Living God.

            carl

          • Dreadnaught

            The problem with Islam is that it has no connection to the Living God.

            Not to a Muslim.

          • carl jacobs

            Not to a Muslim

            If a Muslim had authority, that would be a problem.

            carl

          • Dreadnaught

            I think you should be taking that up with them rather than me. I’m out.

          • Albert

            The moral reality is not that Muslims disagree with secular liberals, it’s that they agree: morality is just a matter of personal choice or will. For the Jihadi, morality is decided by (what he takes to be) the will of Allah. For the secular liberal, it is his own will, in the light of whatever the latest fashionable opinion. In neither case is there any matter of truth involved, beyond the fact that it is somebody’s will that morality be so. Both are ultimately arbitrary, and that’s why the secular West is struggling with this one.

          • carl jacobs

            Well, that was totally non-responsive.

            You speak as if you have authority and yet you inhabit a universe devoid of moral authority.

            You implicitly assume the existence of objective concepts like ‘good’ having first denied that objectivity exists.

            You judge according to standards that you have cribbed verbatim from the very religion you would condemn – concepts that become completely unintelligible in the absence of that religion.

            And after all that you think I should take seriously your criticism? You could have substituted any action in your argument, and the argument would gave been just as valid.

            carl

      • Graham Wood

        Albert. Your point is lost on me. Please read my reply to Gillan, to the effect that IS is impervious to the “good” in any shape or form.
        As all concede, IS only understands brute force, and that is why opposing ME states in the region must defeat it by military action or else in turn risk annihilation. Nothing to do with Nazi scenarios!.

    • DanJ0

      “I think you are right that the principle is certainly there, but war against IS by the British state is not OUR just war, it belongs primarily to Syria and Iraq, and those affected nations which will be affected by it in the immediate region.”
      Yes, quite.

      • Uncle Brian

        Primarily, yes. But, as Gillan Scott says, “the Iraqi government’s request for support gives sufficient legality to join the alliance of nations which are attacking IS.” It’s not an easy decision but I’m inclined to think he ‘s right.

        • DanJ0

          Legality isn’t really the issue … though it’s a prerequisite. I don’t agree with George Galloway’s overall position but he made some good points in his rhetoric today.

          • CliveM

            As the current situation is a result of our own and US actions, I feel we have a moral obligation to support and help the Iraqi People. We blundered in when we shouldn’t have and then left (for purely domestic reasons) before we should have.

          • DanJ0

            I understand that reasoning, for sure, but I wonder if we’re not just perpetuating our mistakes. Ultimately, this is a religious war within Islam built on regional geopolitics. I suspect that the dominant Sunni states in the region have brought this to a head. The West involving itself primarily to protect its interests in the region is probably just going to feed the narrative that we’re oppressing Muslims in general. We have the power to do stuff, for sure, but there isn’t an absence of power in the region. At most, I reckon we should be encouraging the use of it upto and including the destruction of ISIL, whilst trying to limit the escalation of a Sunni-Shia war between sovereign states politically at UN level.

          • CliveM

            Sadly the ME is a mess and as I said our blundering has made things worse. Sadly, as is usual it is the women and children who suffer the most. I have said earlier that I think we will see ongoing low level engagements probably only ceasing when another unpleasant thug like Sadam comes along.

          • CliveM

            I think I should also have said that whilst I agree in principle with the intervention, I feel what is currently being proposed is driven more by domestic issues, then any real attempt to address the problem.

  • Graham Wood

    “The war that is engulfing Syria and Iraq has religion (in a dark and twisted form) at its heart, but without religion that brings lasting hope playing its part, the war will ultimately never be won.”
    This is another piece of incoherent nonsense. However you define “religion” it most certainly cannot bring “lasting hope” to Syria and Iraq or anywhere else in the ME.
    We know the only “religion” which realistically promises any kind of hope is Christianity, and that is not in prospect in this situation.

    • Shadrach Fire

      Graham,
      I commented the other day that whilst the Home secretary wanted a legal approval for action, I wanted to know a Biblical approval. Then I saw this again.
      2
      Corinthians 10:4

      ‘The
      weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they
      have divine power to demolish strongholds.’

      • Graham Wood

        Shadrach. Thanks. Yes and I could not agree more.
        Also, politicians too readily overlook the operation of the law of un intended consequences!
        Someone rightly asked the vital question – what would be our exit strategy?

    • dannybhoy

      I agree.
      As I have mentioned before Islam is roughly where the Christian Church once was. The medieval Church operated as a theocracy; with its control of governments, selling of indulgences and relics to the faithful and temporarily penitent and programmes aimed at correcting wrong thinking…… 🙂
      Until Islam itself finds a way to resolve its differences, allow freedom of speech and belief, the West can only blunder about and repeat the same mistakes it committed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
      The Christian Church in the West could have made a far greater effort to stand up for our brethren in Muslim countries who are still being murdered raped and beheaded.
      Apart from a few non denominational groups we have singularly failed to do so. We should have been foremost in pressing our government to extend help and sanctuary to these Christians, but perhaps for fear of upsetting our interfaith dialogues we have indulged in the usual hand wringing and sad smiles instead..

  • “How could God be called ‘good’ if He forbade His people to protect their wives from ravishment and strangulation by drunken marauders, or to resist invaders who
    have come to pick up their children and dash out their brains against the wall? No policy would give freer rein to wickedness and crime than a complete surrender of the right of self-defense on the part of the law-abiding members of society. No more effective way of promoting the cause of Satan and the powers of hell could be devised than depriving law-abiding citizens of all right of self-defense. It is hard to imagine how any deity could be thought ‘good’ who would ordain such a policy of supine surrender to evil as that advocated by pacifism. All possibility of an ordered society would be removed …

    No nation could retain its liberty or preserve the lives of its citizens if it were prevented from maintaining any sort of army for its defense. It is therefore incumbent on a ‘good God’ to include the right of self-defense as the prerogative of His people. He would not be good at all if He were to turn the world over to the horrors of unbridled cruelty perpetrated by violent and bloody criminals or the unchecked aggression of invading armies.”
    (Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties)

  • SidneyDeane

    kill them faster than Christianity is irreversibly declining in the Uk.
    If that were possible.
    🙂

    • carl jacobs

      That isn’t funny, Sidney. Killing people isn’t a fit subject of humor – no matter who they are. But perhaps I say that only because I recognize man is more than a glorified ring of benzene.

      That’s two throw-away lines about killing that you have dropped into this thread. Quite invested in the concept, I see. Picking up a rifle, are you? Because you seem really hot to pull the trigger.

      carl

      • SidneyDeane

        Im not saying it isn’t serious but we need to do what needs to be done.
        If we don’t kill them they will kill us.

        • CliveM

          You say you understand it’s serious but you still included a cheap shot about declining church numbers. Didn’t seem a serious attempt to me,

        • Phil Rowlands

          Perhaps you need to set up a committee to decide a policy that will decide that someone else will do something

          You are not quite sure yet because you have agreed on a policy on what sort of morality to adopt.

          Not easy being an Atheist you see

  • IanCad

    Had we supported Assad we would not be in this jam.
    OK; IS wants to survive. That means a withdrawal back to Syria and from thence – before another debate as to whether we should enter that conflict – to Saudia Arabia and the Gulf States. That is where their funding comes from.
    Iran will be the winner here.

  • JayBee

    Regardless of the arguments about supporting the government of Iraq and protecting displaced communities, don’t we have a legitimate national interest in taking part in air-strikes against Islamic State? Despite the risk that air-strikes may provoke reprisals against UK citizens here and abroad, isn’t action to degrade IS capability in the ME necessary, if only to reduce the number of battle hardened Jihadis and the amount of weaponry available to cause havoc on our streets? Thousands of radicalised citizens from Western nations are already fighting for IS and frankly the fewer of them that get the chance of sneaking back through our porous border the better. The emerging Caliphate has already declared war on us by plotting terrorist outrages. Surely we cannot afford to let it develop into a formidable rogue state capable of training, arming and financing successive waves of infiltrators? This may not be a winnable war in the conventional sense but its certainly a war we cannot afford to lose.

    • dannybhoy

      We have around 3-4million Muslims living here. Most are decent people just wanting to get on with their lives, some dislike our country and our culture and especially our foreign policy.
      So doing what you’re suggesting is not perhaps the wisest thing to do.
      I don’t think we have a right to interfere in other people’s countries or policies as we did in Iraq for example. We can condemn, appeal or even boycott, but actually bombing or going in and taking over rarely turns out well..

      • JayBee

        You may be right, bombing might not turn out well. The consequential risk of community unrest and the need to pre-empt it may be why the likes of Anjem Choudary and Co were rounded up. However being a major NATO member and doing nothing in the face of barbarism might not turn out well either. It broadcasts a signal of weakness and voluntary dhimmitude.

        • dannybhoy

          The real problem is that the future of the indigenous peoples of our country and the rest of Europe is being slowly changed and in some cases challenged, by (mostly but not all) Muslim communities.
          Previous generations of our countrymen did not have this situation to face, as being an island nation and perhaps more insular/nationalistic immigration was pretty negligible being mainly from other Christian European nations.
          The lie has been fed that we have always been a nation of immigration, but that simply isn’t true.
          Anyway the point is that our potential enemies are now without and within. Our actions overseas could well lead to adverse reactions at home, so not only is the EU sapping our sovereignty other domestic influences are affecting our ability to act in our own best interests.
          This has nothing to do with being judgmental or discriminatory, simply saying that if we are to continue as an independent nation we have to face the reality of our situation.
          Bomb overseas – get bombs in British towns and cities

    • Dreadnaught

      In the short term, bombing IS is necessary and will buy time for ground forces to engage them and defeat them but those ground forces should be from Muslim countries only.
      How many more times will we go into a conflict as the good guys and be demonised within weeks by Muslims themselves.
      Saudi Arabia has 700 war planes; Muslim countries have something over two and a half million men under arms: they should be more than capable of erasing what they like to call an abomination of the faith and culture.
      Its not morally incumbent on us to save Muslims from themselves, they alone have the means to build themselves a future and that will begin with calling a truce between the Sunni and Shia sects.
      They have to bite the bullet and revise their holy text and remove all those elements that rely on an in depth knowledge of Arabic. In short, Islam has to undergo a complete revision and reformation if it wants to have peace in place of Jihad.
      At the same time the West has to lay markers on how far we are prepared to compromise our freedom and culture to defend ourselves from the danger of unfettered Muslim immigration.

      • SidneyDeane

        You act like we have no stake in this. They are training ‘British’ muslims to come home and kill us. We must stop that. By killing them before they return.
        Your post is right in an ideal world.

    • Marie1797

      Why should Britain have to use it’s meagre air force to take part in the
      bombing of IS when the Saudis have a top of the range fleet of air
      fighters and are in the alliance to combat IS??? We should be round
      the table getting them to take responsibility themselves not doing it
      for them they are never going to respect us otherwise.

      Then there is Iran and the other ME countries that are in the alliance to
      stop IS, what are they doing?

      • JayBee

        You’re quite right about some of the major regional players needing to do more but we are where we are because Middle East politics is what it is. At least we had aircraft from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates taking part in striking oil refineries in eastern Syria on
        Wednesday. The Iranians have boots on the ground in Iraq through their Shia militias. The Kurdish Peshmerga are fighting valiantly with the armaments available to them. Bahrain has struck IS from the air and Jordan is involved. Why do we have to get involved? To degrade a terrorist threat to the UK. To fight alongside our NATO allies and demonstrate united Western resolve. To put some steel into an otherwise disparate and shaky Arab coalition and to get the job done properly.

      • Phil Rowlands

        If the Saudis were ordered to fly against IS.

        How many would obey?