[Northern Monkey]

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

[Kizzy]

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.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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?

[ebandit]

Mark L

[joeysteele]

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.

[DemolitionRed]

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")

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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.

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.

[Brother Leon]

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

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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

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

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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?

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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

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.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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

Interesting take there TS.
Good question.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by jaxie

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?

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?

[DemolitionRed]

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.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Interesting take there TS.
Good question.

Nope!

[Kizzy]

Youtube video

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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?

This all makes far more sense to me too.

[Kizzy]

Watch from around 15-16 mins in

Youtube video

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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?

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.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Watch from around 15-16 mins in

Youtube video

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


Noam Chomsky has gone senile

Youtube video

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Alf

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


Noam Chomsky has gone senile

Youtube video

"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.

[Toy Soldier]

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

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"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.

When is this going to be happening?

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

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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

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

Does that mean you agree with Chomsky?