Defence secretary:"You can't take tea with terrorists who want to kill us"
 

Islamic State is the evil of our age. A heinous terrorist death cult which is a direct threat to our national security and revels in bringing murder and destruction to its strongholds in Syria and Iraq.

It claims to represent Islam but has warped this great religion into a recruiting sergeant for barbaric atrocities.

Women and girls are systematically raped and abused by IS militants. Those who reject its twisted ideology face being beheaded, crucified or burned alive. Children are used as human shields on the battlefield.

Ancient cities are destroyed as IS seeks to wipe out all signs of civilisation and bring about a new dark age.

A sophisticated propaganda machine uses the internet to spread its message around the world – intent on poisoning young minds and radicalising people into carrying out attacks on the UK and elsewhere.

That is why Britain is proud to be playing a leading role in the Global Coalition against Islamic State – 65 countries committed to eliminating the threat it poses to us all.

Together we are working to defeat IS on the battlefield, disrupt its finances, prevent foreign fighters joining its deranged cause, backing aid and stabilisation programmes, and fighting back against its propaganda.

I have just returned from the Global Coalition meeting in Copenhagen, and thankfully we are making progress. IS has lost nearly two thirds of the territory it controlled in Iraq, and more than a third it held in Syria.

Four million people have been freed from IS rule. Thousands of its terrorist fighters have been killed. Britain’s armed forces have been key to this success. Around 1,350 servicemen and women work every day to hit IS. The British Army trains Iraqi forces.

The Royal Navy helps protect US aircraft carriers. RAF Typhoons, Tornados and Reaper unmanned aircraft have carried out more than 1,000 strikes in Syria and Iraq - second only to the US - taking every effort to minimise civilian casualties.

But this is a hard fight, and Britain must not waver from its commitment to defeat this evil. Nor should be seen to do so. Which is why some of the comments we have seen from Jeremy Corbyn recently have been dangerously irresponsible.

Corbyn, who could be our prime minister in four weeks’ time, has hinted he wants to end the RAF strikes in Syria which are hitting IS in its heartlands. He has suggested he would not authorise a drone strike to take out the group’s barbaric leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, calling for a ‘political solution’ instead.

Let’s be clear what this means: Corbyn wants peace talks with a murderous terrorist organisation that wants to wipe Western civilisation off the face of the Earth.

Last weekend footage emerged of Corbyn calling for our drone programme to be scrapped entirely. The same Reaper drones that in recent months have been providing critical surveillance to help Iraqi forces banish IS from Mosul, and supporting that by eliminating terrorists with Hellfire missiles and GBU-12 guided bombs.

Today we learn Corbyn thinks Nato’s role as a global peacekeeper – and its guarantee that an attack on one member is an attack on all – is “nonsense”.

He has previously called for it to be ‘closed down’, and former chiefs have warned he has already undermined Nato’s credibility. And Corbyn’s obsession with scrapping our Trident nuclear deterrent, and slashing military spending, is well known. He even thinks we should abolish our Army.

In contrast, today Theresa May is pledging that a Conservative Government will honour our Nato commitment to spend at least 2 per cent of GDP on defence – and increase the defence budget by at least 0.5 per cent in real terms every year.

Jeremy Corbyn’s misguided idealism would be a security risk to the United Kingdom. Of course we all want peace.

But we also have to show in no uncertain terms that we are prepared to defend our values against those who seek to attack us and destroy our way of life.

You can’t hold peace talks or take tea with terrorists who are determined to murder innocent civilians in London and other European cities.

You have to be prepared as the prime minister to take military action if that is the only way of preventing attacks on this country. To suggest otherwise will only encourage IS to redouble its efforts – and hands it a huge propaganda victory by suggesting we are giving up the fight and are prepared to live alongside these despicable extremists.

The stakes are high at the general election on June 8 and voters face a clear choice.

Do you want the strong and stable leadership of Theresa May and the Conservatives, who have a proven track record in taking the difficult decisions needed to keep our country safe?

Or do you want a weak and floundering Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street, a man who cannot say if he would authorise a strike to kill the leader of Islamic State - a terrorist group that wants to destroy us?









https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dai...t-kill-us.html

Discuss

Do we want another war monger like Tony Blair?... That is what she would be.

No

The tactic is to ramp up the rhetoric that we are in immediate danger constantly, the politics of fear... no thank you very much.

Do you watch the news? You do know terrorist attacks are increasing - have you any reason to think that will change?

http://www.ppu.org.uk/peacematters/p...lowerpower.jpg

Mark L

Michael Fallen,another waste of space.
In the 2015 election with defence spokespersons on a debate programme with Andrew Neill,he refused to commit Conservative votes to a Labour administration,if it brought forward proposals to renewing Trident.

Corbyn is no danger to defence.
I would be sure of that and this govt.have in part helped the escalation of vile IS across the middle East anyway with their interference,particularly in Libya.

I'm more likely to watch something like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b0vLH3k5cI than the news (What a Former U.S marine things about this "War on Terror")

Excuse me for not believing your assurance that Corbyn is no danger to defence as you are no expert.

As for the interference point, if you want to curtail to terrorists out of fear of 'payback' that is your problem, but don't expect others to react the same.

I want the man who warned us that invading Iraq and Syria would create more terrorists immigrants while everyone was war mongering. Thanks.

Why are you so desperate for everyone to live in fear? Is it just because you do? A "misery loves company" sort of deal?

So this doesn't tell me anything about the subject being discussed. Are you saying you support Corbyn's roll over and not defend yourself kind of stance or some other?

As my post makes clear I think those too scared to 'upset' the terrorists are the ones that live in fear.

They are allowing the terrorists to dictate what they can and can't do.

Interesting take there TS.
Good question.

Dropping bombs will make it worse. Communication wont solve it easily but it is the ONLY way. It's not even just my opinion that going to "war on terror" and dropping bombs will make it worse. It's not that people are "too scared of them to do it". We have already ****ing tried it and made things worse. Don't they say that one of the definitions of insanity is doing the same things repeatedly, and expecting different results?

I'll go with Ken O'Keefe when he says, "too many of those in Syria and Iraq believe we are the terrorists who hold the hand of ISIS. Western governments are in bed with Saudi Arabie with the full knowledge that they are the primary funder of ISIS

We trained ISIS. America spent $500million training Syrian rebels. They trained the "minister of war” for ISIS on American soil ffs. Al Qaeda was made in the USA. So the idea that the west is fighting a war against ISIS is beyond ridiculous. There is no war on terror because the West need an open ended war for global dominance and I believe we are all being lied to.

Nope!

This all makes far more sense to me too.

Watch from around 15-16 mins in

You cannot communicate with some people - they don't want to listen. They have proved that many times. So we can only do something once except when it comes to communication. That was tried and when it failed action was taken.

The terrorists who repeatedly carry out attacks certainly seem to be putting the fear of god into some who simply want to appease them with actions synonymous with being seen to be doing/saying the right thing in order to prevent terrorism. Let's appease the terrorists at all costs - they might attack us if we Don't.

So what? We go to war and create a whole new generation of terrorists. And then we look back and say "Wups! Guess we shouldn't have gone to war because now we have loads more terrorists!", and then 5 years later we do it again?

We did the "War On Terror" under Bush and Blair. It CREATED isis. You realise that, right? Are you really naive enough to think "but this time we'll beat them all!"? It will make it worse. Whatever comes after ISIS as a result of more war heaped upon war, will be worse.

I saw this earlier, but I saw a version where Sargon was taking it apart.


Noam Chomsky has gone senile

"Taking it apart" by not understanding that no ancient Civilisation has had the power that the modern United State of America has (i.e. the power to literally end the world).

He bangs on about how it's ridiculous that "he said they're the worst in history!!!"

Except he didn't say the worst. He said "the most dangerous". There is a difference. Unless this clever little turd believes that Alexander the Great or the Romans - or ISIS for that matter - had the military might to literally end life on Earth.

But he sure says a posh "****ing" an awful lot so I guess he must have a point. And his laugh is just adorable.

When is this going to be happening?

And if or when it does, then Chomsky may have a case.

Fair enough, you think he doesn't have a point.

Does that mean you agree with Chomsky?

Seeing as you like him so much, I'll post lots more videos of him, just for you.

America is the most dangerous country in the world, and that the world has ever seen, yes. That doesn't mean that they are the "worst" country or that they are evil. Just what it is. Most dangerous. That they are more dangerous than ISIS or an ancient civilization with swords and catapults is plain common sense.

I'd be less willing to commit to the "Republican Party" angle. The other side of American politics isn't (generally) any less dangerous. Though I do think that Trump is more dangerous than the average president from either party. He is an egomaniac, a narcissist, a proven liar, petty, and emotionally volatile.

I think with the likes of Chomsky and Corbyn they believe, or want to believe, that the West, and America in particular, is the cause of all evil in the world, when it really isn't.

Really for people like Chomsky etc. it is all a tool for changing the politics of their own countries.

It's quite easy for them to turn a blind eye to a lot of bad stuff going on in parts of the world because events which don't have a western angle to them, are judged to be uninteresting to people here, and are largely under-reported.

IS came to our attention so much, and became impossible to ignore because of the terrible western hostage videos they put out.

They are not saying that at all, in terms of power and influence they are big hitters however, what is imperative is that citizens are mindful that human rights are not compromised in the west.

Nobody turns a blind eye to other things, other areas are regularly highlighted as having terrible human rights records, is it enough to say 'Oh well, at least we're not as bad as them' Whilst chipping away at our own?

They don't 'believe' or 'want to believe'... They see it happening, they know the history , what has been done that is being systematically undone.

It came to our attention because of the hostages? Is that ignoring the gulf war in the 90s ?... the millions who protested against action in 2004?

We aided in destabilisation, many turn a blind eye to that, Blair admits it but those who through some misguided patriotism can not.

I don't think they're blaming ALL evil in the world on the west at all, but even if they were, is insisting that th west is squeaky-clean and has had no hand in it any better?

The US (and the UK too, hand in hand) have been making political and military decisions in the middle east for over half a century, that have directly lead to the rise of terrorism and groups like ISIS. Not only have we carried out devastating campaigns (in the supposed name of democracy, but that is a straight up lie) that have destroyed lives and families and motivated broken people to turn to hatred... But in less abstract terms - we (along with Russia) literally armed them and militarised them in the first place.

Anyone who wishes to deny that has to completely ignore the facts and the history. It's not "a theory" - it's what happened.

And now people beat about there being no point in words, no point trying to find a peaceful solution, that we must "crush" them and bomb them into oblivion. A scattered, stateless entity that relies only on finding broken civilians for recruitment :think:. But it's not even just that it's obvious that it simply won't work. Like I said above - we tried it! Are people's memories really so short? It has been done before. Before you ever heard the word ISIS. And what rose from the ashes? ISIS. Scaring people more than ever.

But here we are again, with people screeching "Yaaarrr bomb dem. If we bomb dem all derr will be none left and then we are all be safe."

NOPE. In a couple of years you'll simply be quivering at the news that SUPER-ISIS has risen and is more dangerous and bloodthirsty than ever.

The really insane part is that some people STILL won't get it.

One thing we should of learnt in modern warfare is, we can not beat gorilla warfare. We can bomb them into the dust but that will just bring about more international terrorist atrocities.

All this media talk about ISIS infuriates me because its leading us up the garden path. Other movements like Jabhat al-Nusra, The Muslim Brotherhood, al-Sham militia and Faylaq and others, are more formidable than ISIS. They all have fanatical ideologies and they all treat none Muslims brutally. Nursa were the group responsible for forcing 150 Christian families to flee Turkey. ISIS is just another, now small group who exists amongst these rebel forces. The problem is much larger than ISIS; in fact ISIS has been drastically weakened over the past 8 months, not by the West but by Nursa and other rebel forces (all enemies of the West).

I believe that the reason the West are always told its ISIS every time a terrorist attack happens is because we are all familiar with who ISIS is. If our media were to suddenly announce that a terrorist attack was the work of Nursa, we would all be asking a lot of questions because most of us have never heard of them. The reality is, international terror could be coming from any of those rebel forces.

If we got rid of ISIS… every last one of them, international terror would continue because all these rebel groups, many, much bigger and more formidable than ISIS have witnessed what they consider to be, achievements against the West.

We need to stop arming the enemy. We need to stop funding Saudi Arabia and we need to stop bombing civilian towns and cities and we need to stop trying to create new empires because only that will stop terrorist atrocities happening on our shores.

Nothing to add here from me.
Incredible and thoughtful post that says so much that should be seen,in my view,as pure logic.

I 100% agree too as to Saudi Arabia, our far too close funding and even support to that Nation borders on being really nauseating.

The **** will hit the fan as soon as Saudi oil runs out, and they've been over-reporting how much is left for decades :shrug:.

No problem, lets just go and invade those countries who do have oil. We can start with Iraq, Syria then Iran and sell it the West as "war on terror"!! :sad: