War against ISIL

The French President reacted strongly to the barbarous attacks on  Paris, saying that France is at war with ISIL. Responding to terrorist mass murder is never easy, and his  language may well have caught the mood of anger of the moment. We need, however, to consider carefully what is the best response to this and similar outrages. We can learn from history.

There are three main ways established states and governments can respond to terrorism on home territory.  Terrorists can be treated as the most brutal kind of criminals. Their conduct is against the criminal law code of all civilised countries, as well as against the morality of most people in advanced societies. It is best under this approach to find, arrest  and prosecute them. It may be essential to kill them if they are caught during an  attack and threatening to kill more people if not stopped by force. The aim is to respond under our rule of law. Terrorists and suspects also have the right to a fair trial if apprehended, but can be killed legally by our authorities if they are an immediate threat to the rest of us. We do not licence our authorities to go round killing suspected or potential terrorists here in the UK who are  not an immediate threat, but wish to put them on trial or to deport them.

The second approach is to see them as warriors fighting against our society. One of the problems with this approach is they do not usually qualify as war fighters under international law. They do not normally wear uniforms so they can be  easily identified, may not carry identification documents, and do not fight on behalf of a recognised state that has declared war on us first. As the West is busy denying that ISIL is an official state, the act of identifying them as soldiers in a war in France is to undermine the argument that ISIL is not a proper state. Allowing them the dignity of soldiers also implies that we should expect retaliation against our society. When German bombs fell on London people did not rail against the criminality or illegality of the action, as we did  the same to German cities. It was brutal war where you had to accept retaliation. It seems to me unwise to glorify these mass murderers as soldiers with the implied recognition of their so called  state. We should not allow any justification of this monstrous violence.

The third approach which has been adopted for some past terrorist movements – which I am not recommending for today’s  ISIL – is to see that they have a political agenda which has some justice if pursued in a non violent way, and to initiate political talks to see if a new peace can be created where the terrorist groups come to play a peaceful political role. Some thought of the ANC as a terrorist organisation, but the world came to see it as a legitimate expression of opposition to apartheid which could  become the elected government of South Africa. The IRA were brought into the peace process in Northern Ireland and turned to political action.

So how should the West respond to ISIL and related groups spreading their criminal deeds from the Middle East to the streets of Paris or London?  There are a number of things our governments must do.

The first is to redouble the efforts to secure good intelligence. There has to be deep and constant scrutiny of those most likely to be terrorists, where there is reason to  be suspicious.

The second is to have stronger  border controls than we currently have, to prevent the entry of those who might be a threat to our society, and to monitor or control the re entry of British citizens who have chosen to go on prolonged  visits to places where they have access to terrorist and extremist training.

The third is to make sure we have well armed rapid reaction forces close to likely targets and in our main cities capable of deploying very quickly should a terrorist attack begin.

The fourth is to evict on evidence more from our country who do not wish to live by our rule of law after coming here, and who may represent a threat to us.

The fifth is to ensure our education system in secondary schools and Colleges is free from extremist and hate based influences.

All this is a sensible programme of security for the UK,  based on the enforcement of our criminal law.

This leaves open the large question of what if anything   the UK and the rest of the West can do to help stabilise the situation in Syria? The UK has to accept that we should not and could not lead an invasion of Syria ourselves to defeat ISIL and other rebel and terrorist groups, in order to install some new administration. The US could do that, but under President Obama has no intention of doing so . The Western allies are agreed that any ground war fighting in Syria has to be done by Arab forces,  not by the US or UK armies. The US is providing some air intervention, but so too now is Russia. Until we have a clearer idea of the ground forces that can win and need our help I do not wish to see UK planes or drones doing this job. The lack of any invitation to do so from the official government of Syria is not just a legal  but also a practical complication in the way of bombing campaigns, making access to the ground to target bombs well and follow up to check results that much more difficult. The nature of the official Syrian government is a major obstacle in planning intervention in the Syrian civil war.

I welcome the opening of a peace process. Syria needs more political energy and fewer bombs.




    November 15, 2015

    Bataclan Club youngsters, if they stayed alive long enough whilst being fired upon by shooters waited two hours for the finer points of police/politician intercommunication to reach a determined conclusion.

    An AK47 tells its own tale, second by second in a somewhat ungentlemanly staccato impatient brevity: much too undiplomatic for the niceties of Western democracy.

    IRA and ANC templates do not fit. The shooters do not appear to be members of a Paris branch of the Salvation Army nor members of a Methodist Church Choir. It would seem they are French and Flemish people of the Muslim Faith who decided to kill innocent people en masse. No-one in the equation was Syrian.
    The shooters are now dead.
    They may have objected to France’s bombing of Syria. Generally, young people on a beer and wine binge on a Friday night certainly do not know the whereabouts of Syria after a few drinks, nor care.

    Of course the UK and French governments knew full well their own undemocratic “adventures” into Syria and the surrounding countries would bring violence onto their own streets and innocent people would certainly be killed and maimed. The Armed Forcest attacked Syria without a proper defence strategy of their home base ( UK & France ) They chose to pursue their indistinct goals irrespective of deaths which would inevitably follow.
    In military terms it is idiotic and wrong not to protect your rear; not to protect the vast main body of your potential combatants. etc ed

    1. Stephen Berry
      November 16, 2015

      “In military terms it is idiotic and wrong not to protect your rear; not to protect the vast main body of your potential combatants.”

      But Christopher, you don’t tell us how this can be done. Indeed, short of mass population expulsions, Soviet style, I do not see how it could be done.

      It’s clear that, at the moment, we have the worst of all worlds. Large scale immigration of Moslems into Europe and a foreign policy which could not have been better designed to get them riled up.

      There is much talk on the media about the infiltration of ISIS members into the migration flow. But what about the present foreign policy of many Western countries (and Russia) towards the Middle East which serves as such an excellent recruiting sergeant for ISIS and other groups? The immediate political reaction looks awfully similar to that after 9/11. Prepare for a long, hard slog.

  2. Lifelogic
    November 15, 2015

    Much sense in all that. But almost anything can be a terrorist target. You can never protect them all. Religion is surely a large part of the problem, a belief that people of other religions being inferior beings on the level of animals. A belief in the justice of their cause and even a belief in martyr’s after life rewards in paradise are also drivers. The last thing we want is state funded schools divided on religious grounds and legal protections for such believes.

    We should avoid these cleavages in society as far as we possible can. Children are children, not baby Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Catholics, Hindus or Zoroastrians. The last thing we need is any protection of belief systems from any criticism through the legal system.

    It is important to remember the numbers and put things in proportion. Worldwide over 100 million people die every year in tragic accidents, car crashes, natural tragedies, from illness, diseases, falling down stairs, wars and countless other ways. The number who die in terrorist incidents is a very tiny proportion of these. Tragic and pointless though each of these sad deaths clearly are. There are for example around 10,000 death and many injuries from gun crime in the USA ever year.

    Perhaps we should react by putting more money into the provision of clean water poor countries or research into malaria and other such diseases. Saving far, far more lives than were lost.

    It is also important that the government and media does not encourage such terrorism or do their work for them. Terrorists want to disrupt normal life and gain loads of publicity. Governments over reacting (as they nearly always do) just helps them in this aim and encourages them to repeat their actions.

    It is best just to tidy up, treat the injured, bury the dead and get on with life as normal as far as possible.

    1. getahead
      November 18, 2015

      “Perhaps we should react by putting more money into the provision of clean water poor countries or research into malaria and other such diseases.”

      We would be better assisting in birth control to limit populations to levels which can be supported by the agriculture and rainfall of their respective countries.

  3. Lifelogic
    November 15, 2015

    We have for example yesterday, 10 killed as French high-speed train derails & catches fire near Strasbourg. The deaths are surely equally sad and tragic.

    1. Lifelogic
      November 15, 2015

      Perhaps rather easier to avoid or prevent in future too.

    2. Denis Cooper
      November 15, 2015

      What are you saying?

      That we should treat mass murder as just another kind of accident?

      1. Lifelogic
        November 15, 2015

        No not at all. It is clearly dreadful but all we can do is clear up, treat the injured, try to catch the organisers and get on with life. Just as we do after natural tragedies, air crashes, or road deaths.

        We should not let the threat of terrorism make us change our lifestyles, nor our behaviour. Nor should it be give it so much publicity, as that gives them a victory too. They should know that whatever terrorist actions they take it will change nothing. Then they might well stop these pointless murders.

        1. Denis Cooper
          November 15, 2015

          Well, it won’t change my lifestyle. It might if I hankered after holidays in terrorist hotspots for the sake of sun and blue sea, but I don’t.

        2. graham1946
          November 15, 2015

          I can see what you are trying to say, LL, and most people will carry on as usual, and the bombers will do it again and again regardless, but it will inevitably change our lives. Our governments say exactly the same thing, then introduce the most onerous kneejerk conditions on travel, big brother and all that which do exactly what they say they don’t want – change our lives.

          I think you confuse Islamists with thinking people. They don’t think at all, they just do and believe what they are told because of fear of the afterlife. Same for nearly all religions, really, I suppose.

  4. Javelin
    November 15, 2015


    The British public have stayed calm and been extremely patient and generous with lib, lab and con politicians for the past 10 years telling them to stop it reverse immigration. The current class of politicians cannot say they have not been treated well and respected by the public when being warned that immigration was not good for the country.

    It is time for the voters and politicians to realise that the cool calmness of voters for the past ten years will continue and that the the political class will need replacing.

    The decision to replace the entire political class will be the same level headed ness used when replacing a old car and calculating that the cost of maintenance is no longer justified.

    This will be a once in a century decision. But all the main political parties must be removed.

    1. Anonymous
      November 15, 2015


      I agree.

      I blame our politicians more than anyone. Katie Hopkins is bang on the money in the Mail today.

    2. Dame Rita Webb
      November 15, 2015

      When it comes to elections if your party’s candidate does not measure up you need brace yourself and vote for someone else who is at least competent. If you keep voting for dross do not expect any other form of representation. Most of the current political class is not up to the job. They even have such faulty political antennae (a basic qualification for the job I would have thought) that they will hop on to any band wagon which they believe has some sort of popular support. The obvious case here would be Ms Cooper. It would be interesting to hear if she still wants to put up a family of refugees in her two houses? Or if Ed still has a taste for pasties?

      1. Timaction
        November 15, 2015

        There are able politicians but they are not allowed near the levers of power and will not be selected by their leaders. The agenda of the legacy leaders and there supported class in the civil service is a left of centre gradual move towards a united states of Europe. One of the mechanisms is the mass importation of people to remove feelings of national identity and culture. It is NOT an accident. Little or no Government action or enquiries on those obscene opinions and behaviours by some of the imported peoples.
        We don’t want it, never asked for it and they have no mandate for it. They didn’t have for the creation of the EU either. They just lied and lied again.
        Thankfully wise people are waking up to the realities not what they say, but what they do. The first action of Government is to protect its people and keep them safe. How does reducing our military budgets, Police, fire and rescue, Borders Force and ambulance services help that? Then they prioritise foreign and EU aid budgets to the tune of £24 billions a year. That is 3 times the budget for the police in England and Wales!
        They are not serious about securing our borders or removing those who are here illegally and a threat to us. Look at Calais. How many years and how much time and resource does it take to build a proper barrier and insist on structural changes to lorries? It’s not rocket science. Ms May has had 6 years and still we see the consequences. If we keep voting for the same parties we will keep getting the same promises and the same outcomes.

        1. Denis Cooper
          November 15, 2015

          Correct, while in theory any adult UK citizen can get elected to the UK Parliament in practice entry is almost completely controlled by the political parties. At each general election there may perhaps be one or two independent candidates who slip through, but that is all, and all of the old parties are agreed that top priority must be given to preventing the election of a new party like UKIP.

          So once the EU got control of the main political parties, as it did, it effectively got control of Parliament; which is still the supreme legal authority for the UK, even though most of those who have been elected to it in recent decades no longer have any belief in that.

          Reply The main parties do not unite against UKIP and have no means of stopping them other than normal democratic debate. I did not mention UKIP or do anything negative to their campaign to stop me winning in Wokingham. They came fourth without my intervention on their campaign.

          1. JoeSoap
            November 15, 2015

            Reply to reply:
            The oddity is that you appear to agree with UKIP’s aims but refuse to back them. You, amongst others, therefore hand credence to all the discredited works of Cameron and Osborne-from open borders, to QE, to denying Grammar Schools, expensive green energy…. you just can’t for ever put your money on one horse but ride another against it in the same race!

            Reply I have favoured coming out of the EU for longer than UKIP has been around, and have been a long term critic of the Euro and all its works, so I think you have it the wrong way round.

          2. Denis Cooper
            November 15, 2015

            I’m sure you treated the UKIP candidate and his supporters with civility, possibly more than the other way round, and refrained from any smearmongering and scaremongering against UKIP. On the other hand people in Wokingham are exposed to the national mass media where there was plenty of both. Of course there was very little chance that you wouldn’t win and even less that the UKIP candidate would win instead; it was just a pity that despite getting the biggest rise in vote share of all the candidates he still only came fourth.

          3. Leslie Singleton
            November 15, 2015

            Dear John–Reply–The history matters little and the fact of the matter is that the arrival of UKIP in its latest mode is clearly seen by all as having made a game-changing impact. They came mighty close to a major breakthrough and you and a few others joining them at the pivotal time would with a great deal of certainty have helped them go all the way. Instead you chose to stick with Janus-faced Cameron and now that ridiculous letter. Reading the papers today it is almost as if that risible letter hadn’t existed–almost as if it should be rewritten or supplemented by a second letter but to my mind what he has written cannot be added to so we and he are stuck with what little he has “demanded” (joke) and personally I hope his playing around all the time on this comes back and hits him so hard that he is thrown out in disgrace. Leaving the EU or not is easily the biggest issue of our time and in comparison with that, Party politics and loyalties are chicken you know what. I was disappointed in you.

            Reply I think you need to realise what I am doing and get behind it instead of constant carping. If I had resigned and fought an election as UKIP I would probably have lost in Wokingham, as Reckless did in Rochester. Anyway I do not agree with all UKIP says and does, though of course we agree on the issue of getting out of the EU. I wanted to secure the referendum, which I and others with me have now done. UKIP was never going to get us a referendum. We in Wokingham wanted a Conservative government and the referendum it promised.

          4. ChrisS
            November 15, 2015

            Why would anyone want to vote for UKIP when they have an eloquent pro-Brexit sitting MP and an ex-cabinet minister to boot ?

            If, on the other hand, Ken Clarke was my MP, much as I respect him, I would cast my vote for another anti-EU candidate.

            I am fortunate that Christopher Chope is my MP so I don’t have to look any further for someone who shares my view on the EU.

          5. matthu
            November 15, 2015

            “The main parties do not unite against UKIP and have no means of stopping them other than normal democratic debate.”

            I think on reflection, John, you will realise that this statement is wrong. the entire weight of the Conservative party is sometimes directed against a smaller party electing a single individual.

            Correct me I am wrong, but weren’t all Conservative ministers directed to make multiple visits to certain individual constituencies, and all other Conservative MP’s urged to make at least one visit to the same constituencies?

            To my mind, that goes way beyond normal democratic debate and is more akin to a U.S. election where wealth and power is brought to bear in order to sustain a particular party.

            Reply In the General election Inwas not asked to go anywhere to oppose UKIP but was asked to go to several places with a Lib Dem MP we wished to replace.UKIP presumably stood inWokimgham to try to help the Lib Dem to win.

          6. Bob
            November 16, 2015

            @Mr Redwood

            “The main parties do not unite against UKIP”

            There were suspicious voting patterns in the Newark by-election where the establishment were worried about a ukip breakthrough.

            I am convinced that Denis is correct about Tories and Labour conspiring to exclude ukip.

          7. Lifelogic
            November 17, 2015

            @ ChrisS why do you respect Ken Clark? He is perhaps pleasant enough, but he is just wrong (just like the Libdims on nearly every issue) – from the EU, to the green crap, borders controls, deterrents for criminals, the size of the state sector, airports, tax complexity, the ERM, the EURO, the endless regulations, on human rights. Even his choices in Jazz leave so much to be desired!

        2. Dame Rita Webb
          November 15, 2015

          Yes you are correct about who is let near the levers of power. If Osborne was serious about reforming welfare in the UK why has Frank Field not been given a serious consultative role? Its the same with the failure of multi-culturism Mr Field knows it does not work. Similarily the former Labour MP Anne Cryer was pushed to the sidelines when she pointed out that things were not working out well in her constituency either.

          JR you have supported a Chancellor, who from 2010, who has doubled the national debt and who continues to deficit spend. Please can you tell us where all that money has gone or is going? The local paper here says the NHS wants to get a rid of the local hospital (it does not have the money to pay its electricity bill for example) and the MoJ the local court. While the police and the fire brigade say continued cuts to their budgets will harm their ability to deliver a competent service.

          Reply It has gone on increased spending – higher rates of benefit, higher pensions, substantial increases in NHS, education, overseas aid spending etc. I have often set out the figures for readers here.

          1. Dame Rita Webb
            November 15, 2015

            So apart from the NHS some £600 billion has gone up against the wall supporting wasters at home and abroad? That is money well spent!

          2. Ken Moore
            November 16, 2015

            Reply I think you need to realise what I am doing and get behind it instead of constant carping. If I had resigned and fought an election as UKIP I would probably have lost in Wokingham, as Reckless did in Rochester. Anyway I do not agree with all UKIP says and does, though of course we agree on the issue of getting out of the EU. I wanted to secure the referendum, which I and others with me have now done. UKIP was never going to get us a referendum. We in Wokingham wanted a Conservative government and the referendum it promised.

            JR won with a majority of 24,193 – one of the largest in the country. His support is rock solid.

            Mark Reckless was returned with a majority reduced by 7100 to 2900 when he defected to UKIP in 2014.
            When the Conservative party ‘threw the kitchen sink’ at him in 2015 he was ousted.

            In my view Dr Redwood, a more prominent figure with a much larger majority would more than likely be returned if he moved to the UKIP camp albeit with a reduced majority.

          3. Lifelogic
            November 17, 2015

            In the medium to long term the Tories will have far more chance of becoming a successful, in power, get out of the EU party than does UKIP. True they are very full of Libdem dopes and leaders currently.

    November 15, 2015

    Publicly, no politician in the UK, I’m sure, would find it politic to ask the necessary questions of our Armed Forces; namely, what was your last military victory?

    In regard to a Russian paratrooper force in former Yugoslavia. Did you :

    A/ Obey orders to attack from the legitimate commander?

    B/ Question the orders because of belly-aching from lower ranks?

    C/ See your Assistant … Chief Commander, refuse a direct order, and him say “I’m not going to start World War Three for you,” and order a humiliating retreat ( again ) as in Hong Kong and Dunkirk, then retire, and write a book?

    The truth is, our Armed Forces dress well and with one or two notable exceptions are properly well-groomed but they’re not a match for a rag-tag-and -bobtail excuse-me-boots outfit like ISIS.

    1. Mark B
      November 15, 2015

      The Upper-echelons maybe, but the lower ranks are made of better stuff.

      Show some pride and respect, at least for them and theirs, sir

        November 15, 2015

        The Top Brass do sound and look as if they have a long-sucked circular fruit gum stuck firmly behind their two front teeth. Can’t think how this goes down with the men in their regiments. Though I guess a certain proportion would be invigorated by them.

    2. Alan Wheatley
      November 15, 2015

      To summarily dismiss our armed forces as you have is wide of the mark. It is not their fault if they are under resources, under staffed and undermined.

      It is (most of) the politicians who are not a match for those with whom we find ourselves in conflict.

    3. alan jutson
      November 15, 2015


      Rather sad that you had to write this.

      I believe that our armed forces are one of the best in the World, but they are under resourced for what they are often asked to do, and at the same time controlled by politicians.

      Thus they are trying to fight with their hands very often tied behind their backs.

      The politicians are the ones who are very often to blame, not those who try and attempt clear up their mistakes.

      It does not exactly help morale when you risk being sent to jail for killing the enemy, by a civilian Court sitting in their comfy seats, well away from any risk to their lives.

      1. Ian wragg
        November 15, 2015

        Mr Houston you are a disgrace. The armed forces of this country deport themselves with aplomb. It is not their fault that they have poor kit because idiots like Brown sent them to war in snatch Land Rovers.
        The Navy can’t man the ships because Call me Dave and the toe rag Clegg sacked half of them and chopped up the maritime surveillance aircraft.
        Our armed forces are well up to the task, it is the clowns in Westminster that are the 5th column.
        Whilst I typed this in my phone another 6 potential idiots have been allowed into the country and will be signing up for benefits tomorrow whilst they plan to destroy us.
        Direct your invective to the MP’S who are the real problem.

    4. DaveM
      November 15, 2015

      The UK – or indeed any professional – Armed Forces would annihilate IS on a battlefield. However, the enemy defeating our Armed Forces is the lawyer-controlled govt which ties the military’s hands for fear of prosecution at home and in the Hague.

      The military is a tool with which to pursue Foreign Policy, but it’s no good keeping a lion in chains while the dogs it is fighting are free to do what they want.

      The Police and Security Services also feel the intense frustration of being severely restricted by the very people who are employing them.

      Reply ISIL are embedded in civilian communities in cities. Are these places a battlefield?

      1. DaveM
        November 16, 2015

        To reply:

        In a word, yes, if you are referring to cities in Syria and Iraq.

        Political resolve is the key. It depends how squeamish you are going to be. If you want to utterly defeat ISIS on their territory, you need to shape the battle space initially. Make it clear that the borders will be sealed as far as is practicable, and that your forces are going to sweep through the entire country, and all fighting age males will be killed or detained (depending on their posture). Make it clear also that you will give the people sufficient time to get the hell out of the way. At the same time ensure there is a robust reconstruction plan ready to be conducted on completion of warfighting operations, and one which incorporates “peacekeeping” and a handover to native civilian authorities.

        Obviously this is what was planned in Iraq, but the eagerness of politicians to declare the “win” meant that phase 1 was never completed, and the reconstruction operation was horrifically mismanaged. But we can learn lessons. There are also the ongoing religious and tribal issues, but the answer was definitely not what happened in Afghanistan – people need to police their own areas, not be shipped around the country to alien tribal areas. Pre-war intelligence needs to define the shape of post-war operations.

        If you are referring to cities in Europe and the US, no we obviously cannot regard them as battlefields. But my opinion on this whole IS situation has always been that we need to concentrate on making our homeland absolutely secure first, which means allowing the Police and security forces the right level of funding and manning, but more importantly, allowing them to operate without restrictions being imposed by human rights lawyers.

  6. Richard De Witt Jans
    November 15, 2015

    Do not get involved in an Islamic divide between Wahabi and Shiaism. If the West wants to intervene in this then LEAN ON the actual power blocks (KSA & Iran) whose design it is to export their respective Islamic ‘persuasions’ round the M.E, Near East and North Africa and who finance thereby arm them. Both these Countries are quite content for the West to intervene by toppling or creating” situation” in the M.E so that the populations who live in this part of the world consider what we do as “here we go – the Christian Crusader again!.”
    If the truth be known all the Potentates, Dictators and Royal families are actually not any better than those we have already deposed except that those remaining do exactly what those before them have done but behind closed doors. Iran suffered HUGELY under sanctions which finally brought them to the table over their NUKE program – so they can be persuaded again. There are 5000 Saudi Princes? but only about 800 of them are important because these are the immediate and Principal ruling family. They need to sell oil first and foremost to keep their own Nationals on side by continuing to “reward” each of their citizens with the yearly bonus that each receives thereby give them (their citizens that is) the lifestyle that they have become accustomed to and now expect. Remember of course that the majority of Saudi wealth is outside the country not in it -perhaps quite wise in view of the fact that without the support of the West the Rulers position could become quite ‘delicate’. History shows us that the only people who can topple Governments, Dictators and the rest of the ‘Bad Lot’ are the people of those Countries themselves and if they want to do it one day they will. We are STILL not learning from this – USA, Russia and France (and us behind the scenes in our unobtrusive way) are MIGHTILY involved in Syria and we want to topple Al Assad (a noble Crusading venture) but we havent the feintist who comes after him? Libya all over again and what a mess that is for us- not for ISIS _ they have waited for us to do our righteous bit – leave it in chaos – for them to move in – JOB DONE- and how easy it was for them.
    LEAVE THIS ALONE and have the courage to “hard ball” KSA and IRAN for goodness sake!

  7. Mike Stallard
    November 15, 2015

    Whose side are you on? The side of the weeping and terrified woman or the side of the dead Jihadi? The side of the man in the night club who was lucky to escape with his life or the gunman shooting for fun and killing people cowering on the ground?

    Well, me, I am on the side of the decent, peaceful people. This has been a public relations disaster for Islam as a religion. If it was Christians who had gone, say, into a night club in Singapore and shot up a lot of Muslim men, then it would be a Christian disaster.

    Which is why I was pleased, for almost the very first time, to see on TV Muslims roundly condemning this outrage. On Facebook a Muslim friend was simply disgusted.

    When I am weak, then I am strong…

    Reply Of course I am on the side of the victims! I also wish the western authorities to tackle the problem in a way which improves things.

    1. Lifelogic
      November 15, 2015

      The way to improve things is too make it clear that these attacks will make no difference to anything at all, sweeps up the mess and carry on as before. Improve intelligence as best the authorities can, to try to prevent further attacks – but that is very hard an almost impossible task.

      Put things in relative perspective, tragedies in life occur all over the place every day. Some are far more avoidable than others, concentrate on preventing these.

      1. APL
        November 15, 2015

        Lifelogic: “.. tragedies ..”

        This was not a tragedy it was an atrocity.

        1. lifelogic
          November 15, 2015

          It was both, but I agree atrocity is perhaps the better choice.

  8. fedupsoutherner
    November 15, 2015

    I see one of the passport connected with one of the terrorists shows he came over with the refugees from Syria. Isn’t it time we closed our open borders and stopped the flow of immigrants? This is something the public have wanted for a long time and yet we have invited in thousands of young men who we know nothing about. Complete and utter madness. One, who had come back from Afghanistan after living in the UK illegally was telling the reporter how he had managed to get back to European soil. The reporter actually laughed!! I don’t think many of us find it a laughing matter and we can all expect more of these atrocities in the future. All this has been predicted but nobody did anything. John, I agree that those who are causing trouble should be deported but how long is that going to take? To do that we need to get rid of the Human Rights Act because it will take several years and cost us millions. After all that they often get granted permission to stay.

    1. alan jutson
      November 15, 2015


      Certainly agree with your points.

      Most of us out here have been making the same common-sense remarks for years, unfortunately for many years those sort of remarks have labeled many a person as racist, and politicians have gone along with it for the past decade or more and refused to listen.

      The do gooders will eventually do more harm to this Country, in more ways than one, than those with a bit of good old fashioned common-sense.

      1. Timaction
        November 15, 2015

        Indeed. Political correctness is a tool of the left to stop discussion and debate on issues that concern us all. It is no coincidence it goes hand in hand with the introduction of equality laws to disadvantage those who believe in a meritocracy. People should always be selected on merit not on any other grounds as our politicos have inflicted upon us.

    2. forthurst
      November 15, 2015

      “I see one of the passport connected with one of the terrorists shows he came over with the refugees from Syria.”

      Actually it doesn’t show anything of the sort since there is a massive counterfeiting operation of Syrian passports such that the Germans are unable to determine who is and who is not a Syrian refugee of those that have entered their country on the invitation of Frau Merkel. Actually it put me in mind of the pristine passport found at the WTC on 9/11.

  9. Margaret
    November 15, 2015

    There are times when rationality alone is not helpful. These murderous animals are bound to hitch a ride over to the EU. They don’t share the same sensibilities as normal people and see the boat rides over to Greece, Italy etc as a chance to kill. Reason is not something they understand. It is purely about winning.

  10. Denis Cooper
    November 15, 2015

    Islamic State calls itself a state, it already has many of the attributes of a state and it is set upon acquiring the rest. It has not yet been officially recognised as being a state by any of the existing officially recognised states, as far as I’m aware, and it has no seat at the UN and on other international bodies.

    But if it is allowed to survive long enough then all of that will no doubt come in time, even though a small number of states may still be stubbornly refusing to officially recognise it decades hence when all other states have done so.

    As far as I’m concerned the key must be to make sure that it doesn’t survive long enough to become fully established in that way, rather it must be extirpated. Not just defeated, but destroyed.

    However in the meantime if any UK citizen wishes to give it their allegiance as if it were a new state then we should take them at their word and initiate proceedings to remove their citizenship. I’m not keen on the concept of dual citizenship in the first place but the idea that somebody can in effect take out citizenship of the purported Islamic State while retaining their UK citizenship takes it to a new level of absurdity.

    I would allow exceptions, especially for minors and vulnerable adults, on a case by case basis, but the general defence that removal of citizenship would leave somebody stateless, that is without any homeland, should not be admissible.

    That falls short of giving official recognition to Islamic State, it is simply saying that if such undesirable persons are stripped of UK citizenship and excluded from the UK then they will not be left with nowhere else to go.

    1. Mark B
      November 15, 2015


      I have long said it is far better to have this out in the open and say to people who wish to go; “Go if you must, but first, renounce your citizenship and promise NEVER to return or act against the UK, its citizens and interests.”

      Once we know who has gone, they can never return, either here or elsewhere. Which rather suits me.

    2. Mark
      November 17, 2015

      The other good reason for doing this is that by reducing the numbers the security services must monitor it makes their task more feasible.

  11. Mark
    November 15, 2015

    It is indeed plain that the UK would be totally incapable of enforcing a peace through armed occupation in Syria. So too is the US according to Hilary Clinton – it is tired of its losses of blood and treasure in the Middle East. Saudi forces are pre-occupied along with those of the UAE in the war in Yemen, and are in any case not likely to be motivated to deal with ISIS, which has had much support from Saudis and Qataris. It is hard to see that Arabs are the likely providers of stability for Syria. Neither are the Turks, who continue to attack Kurds under cover of the Syrian situation, nor are the Iranians, who lack military punch and would limit their motivation to support for Shia populations. Western coalition dogma has foolishly sided with the warlike Saudis in demanding the ousting of Assad as a pre-condition when ISIS is the real enemy. There are many different populations within Syria and among its refugees. Perhaps the Russian strategy, which appears to consist of securing the places closer to the coast first before encircling ISIS has merits that Western generals and diplomats would do well to consider and support. The UK’s role in this should be to press diplomatically for a military solution that includes the Russians as the party with perhaps the clearest vision and willingness to tackle the problems, while putting pressure on Arabs and Turks (who buy discounted oil from ISIS) not to support ISIS with arms and money, with the aim of generating sufficient peace for refugees to start to return to rebuild their country.

    Meanwhile, the problem of tackling terrorism in Europe can only be addressed sensibly by reducing the population of potential terrorists. During the Cold War the numbers of people coming from East Bloc countries was limited to a handful of diplomats, trade representatives, ballet dancers and musicians. That kept the numbers down to a population that the security services was able to monitor. Emigré populations who fled Communism earlier were already well integrated. Now that the Cold War is ended I have grown used to hearing Russian and Polish on our streets.

    Intelligence services are already not able to keep proper tabs on those who are identified as a terrorism risk, as the repeated cases of terrorist acts perpetrated by those already “known to the security services” demonstrates. But the rapid increase in populations likely to harbour and contain terrorists poses a different risk altogether. As someone put it the other day – if you want to find needles in a haystack, don’t start by building a bigger haystack.

    There is no evidence that security services need enhanced powers and capabilities beyond the support of our courts and laws in ensuring that those identified as terrorist risks and sympathisers are ejected, and those likely to become so are not granted admission to the country in the first place. We cannot expect to win if we carry on letting the Trojan Horse through our gates – that way lies a future civil war.

    1. Mark
      November 15, 2015

      Politicians need to re-think to avoid the risk of a future civil war.

      1. ChrisS
        November 17, 2015

        Civil war between whom ???????

        Do you mean Scotland and Corbyn against the rest of the UK ???

    2. Mark
      November 17, 2015

      It is indeed plain that the UK would be totally incapable of enforcing a peace through armed occupation in Syria. So too is the US according to Hilary Clinton – it is tired of its losses of blood and treasure in the Middle East. Saudi forces are pre-occupied along with those of the UAE in the war in Yemen, and are in any case not likely to be motivated to deal with ISIS, which has had much support from Saudis and Qataris. It is hard to see that Arabs are the likely providers of stability for Syria. Neither are the Turks, who continue to attack Kurds under cover of the Syrian situation, nor are the Iranians, who lack military punch and would limit their motivation to support for Shia populations. Western coalition dogma has foolishly sided with the warlike Saudis in demanding the ousting of Assad as a pre-condition when ISIS is the real enemy. There are many different populations within Syria and among its refugees. Perhaps the Russian strategy, which appears to consist of securing the places closer to the coast first before encircling ISIS has merits that Western generals and diplomats would do well to consider and support. The UK’s role in this should be to press diplomatically for a military solution that includes the Russians as the party with perhaps the clearest vision and willingness to tackle the problems, while putting pressure on Arabs and Turks (who buy discounted oil from ISIS) not to support ISIS with arms and money, with the aim of generating sufficient peace for refugees to start to return to rebuild their country.

    3. Mark
      November 17, 2015

      Meanwhile, the problem of tackling terrorism in Europe can only be addressed sensibly by reducing the population of potential terrorists. During the Cold War the numbers of people coming from East Bloc countries was limited to a handful of diplomats, trade representatives, ballet dancers and musicians. That kept the numbers down to a population that the security services was able to monitor. Emigré populations who fled Communism earlier were already well integrated. Now that the Cold War is ended I have grown used to hearing Russian and Polish on our streets.

      Intelligence services are already not able to keep proper tabs on those who are identified as a terrorism risk, as the repeated cases of terrorist acts perpetrated by those already “known to the security services” demonstrates. But the rapid increase in populations likely to harbour and contain terrorists poses a different risk altogether. As someone put it the other day – if you want to find needles in a haystack, don’t start by building a bigger haystack.

      There is no evidence that security services need enhanced powers and capabilities beyond the support of our courts and laws in ensuring that those identified as terrorist risks and sympathisers are ejected, and those likely to become so are not granted admission to the country in the first place. We cannot expect to win if we carry on letting the Trojan Horse through our gates – that way lies a future civil war.

      P.S. I do not know why you chose not to publish this comment – clearly something about it upsets you. Now of course most readers will have moved on anyway.

      reply When I’m busy I leave long ones for later

  12. Iain Gill
    November 15, 2015

    Some of our university’s are hot beds of radicalisation.

    1. Iain Gill
      November 17, 2015

      I don’t remember any Marxist organisations at my uni preaching shooting people in the West.

      1. libertarian
        November 17, 2015

        “I don’t remember any Marxist organisations at my uni preaching shooting people in the West.”

        I do !!!!

        Whilst not in England admittedly there were plenty of marxist terrorism , violence and murder in the 70’s baader meinhof, Red Army Faction, Angry Brigade, FARC, 1st October, Red Brigade and of course the Socialist/Marxist Sinn Fein

  13. Denis Cooper
    November 15, 2015

    Surely France has the right to call upon all its NATO allies for assistance?

    That would not exclude other countries, it would just mean that there would be a core of NATO countries, including the UK, committed to assisting France by:

    “taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

    1. forthurst
      November 15, 2015

      “Surely France has the right to call upon all its NATO allies for assistance?”

      Would that include Turkey which has been a conduit for Daesh terrorists, a market for pirated oil and the source of chemicals used to make mustard gas.

      The problem we face is that Daesh is being actively supported by several of our so-called allies in the Near East as well as those outside. Daesh could not possibly be an endogenous infestation of Syria and Iraq and it is naive to view it as such.

      1. Mark B
        November 15, 2015

        My preference would be for deportation. I hear South Georgia is nice this time of year. No need to erect fences and far enough away not to bother the rest of us.

  14. The PrangWizard
    November 15, 2015

    The fourth is to evict on evidence more from our country who do not wish to live by our rule of law after coming here, and who may represent a threat to us.

    The word ‘more’ should be ‘all’, but more seriously in addition it seems you are suggesting that those who arrived here illegally but are now living ‘lawfully’ should be allowed to stay.

    Reports suggest that one of the barbarian murderers came into Europe as one of the many fake refugees I have often referred to. It is quite possible that what you might thus call a ‘legal illegal’ is at worst a killer in waiting. To allow illegals residence is another one of the ‘pulls’ which is a major part of the general problem we have, and it strengthens the ‘no borders’ advocates.

    1. APL
      November 15, 2015

      The PrangWizard: “those who arrived here illegally but are now living ‘lawfully’ should ”

      Disagree, those who arrived here illegally should be repatriated and invited to apply for residency from their country of origin.

      Such people are not living here ‘lawfully’ nor can they be if they broke the law to arrive.

      1. The PrangWizard
        November 15, 2015

        Reply to APL.

        Either I didn’t make myself clear, or you have perhaps misunderstood me, but I was trying to say that all those who arrive here illegally should be removed.

        It seems to me that it is Mr Redwood who is saying that those who arrived here illegally, but are otherwise living ‘legal’ lives should not be removed, as these appear to be omitted from his statement, only those who do not wish to live by our rule of law after coming hereare Mr Redwoods words.

        I apologise for perhaps labouring the point but I do not wish to be misunderstood on a vital issue.

        Reply My words do not mean illegals can stay

        1. APL
          November 15, 2015

          APL: ” or you have perhaps misunderstood me, ”

          Quite possible.

      2. Denis Cooper
        November 15, 2015

        They are illegal immigrants, but our politicians accepted that the illegality of their entry could be overlooked when they agreed to Article 31(1) in the 1951 Convention on Refugees:


        “The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
        illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory
        where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or
        are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present
        themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
        illegal entry or presence.”

  15. Ex-expat Colin
    November 15, 2015

    The weaponry in use is small arms and DIY explosives which are easy to deploy. AK47 manufacturing is at local workshop level or often the mountain towns of Pakistan. Those lost by the USSR are likely trash now or for parts. This makes it difficult to eradicate this favoured weapon. Its the phycho’s and their financiers we are after.

    Hollande used the term “merciless response” in a promise. Sounds good but is waiting to be whittled down I suspect. Forgiveness…nope, embarking on murderous campaigns forfeits all rights.

    If these terrorist organisations are not abruptly cut off from their financing friends then attacks will not stop. These friends are in the Far East, West and the Southern Arabian states. They are our friends allegedly …some of them. And many live amongst us in the West. They take advantage of our over liberal weaknesses brought about by crazed leftists.

    I’ll go with Russia on this one, because the USA (management) is a huge and mischievous drag on positive and rapid progress. And suddenly they hit Libya?

  16. Denis Cooper
    November 15, 2015

    “The fourth is to evict on evidence more from our country who do not wish to live by our rule of law after coming here, and who may represent a threat to us.”

    Some are born here and being UK citizens they cannot easily be evicted under the present law; they can however be charged with treason in cases which merit that, and perhaps the law should be changed to include deprivation of citizenship as potentially part of the sentence imposed if they are found guilty?

    1. Ian wragg
      November 15, 2015

      Denis the treason law should be reinstated and the death penalty alongside it.
      If they want to be martyrs let’s accommodate them.

  17. Gary C
    November 15, 2015

    Several times this year I have been listening to chat radio stations and heard a presenter slapping down a caller saying we should not be letting in refugees as there is likely to be a number of terrorists among them, presenters tugging at emotional heart strings pointing to the picture of a child face down on the beach while preaching we should let in all as we ‘don’t know’ for sure that terrorists will be with the innocent looking for shelter.

    From the start it was obvious ISIL would use this opportunity to spread it’s evil as and when it could spreading death and fear far and wide yet politicians across Europe knew better, closing their eye’s and patting each other on the backs ignored all that spoke out against opening the borders to all.

    Those who allowed this to happen are not fit for to be in the position they hold and should be no longer listened to, action is needed and needed now, handing over billions to others hoping they will solve the problem will not work.

    It’s sad to see the world we have guardianship over has become a bad place for many, I now say to those governing Europe: Your pathetic attempts of soft touch social engineering have failed, what are you going to do now ?

    Going by past experience . . . . . an emergency meeting . . . . . in two or three weeks time ?

    1. Ken Moore
      November 17, 2015

      Or telling the caller ‘the NHS’ would ‘collapse’ without foreign doctors and nurses’..as if this justifies the importation of 300,000 new people per year.

  18. Alan Wheatley
    November 15, 2015

    Syria isn’t the problem, it is but a symptom of a much bigger problem. There are very many places around the World where people are acting violently towards other people. This is the history of humanity.

    When the violence is driven by religious fanaticism there is no likelihood of any talking leading to peace, other than total, unconditional surrender by one side. We have the worked example of different factions within Christianity fighting each other so as they can impose what they “know” to be the “truth” on all others. There seems currently to be a rerun within Islam.

    Depressing, isn’t it!

    The only positive thought I can offer is that the Commonwealth can be a force for good, and Commonwealth Countries working together could show the rest of the World how it can be done.

  19. Mark B
    November 15, 2015

    Good morning.

    And apologies to our kind host on the length of this.

    First let me start by expressing my condolences to those affected by this evil and cowardly act. Those that supported, planned and carried out this act of barbarously against innocent and undefended individuals in the name of a religious cult are the enemies of all humanity.

    Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. That is what happened in Afghanistan. We went in there to get someone, only to get bogged down in a never ending pointless war – which we did not win. And I a reliably informed, by an Afghan friend, that ISIS are moving in and the local Warlords are pledging their allegiance to them.

    So I think that this attack is a means of provoking France, and others, into engaging in Syria and widening the conflict.

    As for today’s piece by our kind host, this could have been written decades before against those like the IRA, the PLO and many others. The horrible truth is, violence does indeed work. Over time, you gain acceptance and, even get to drink tea with the Queen.

    We have a shoot to kill policy. Look at what happened to, Charles DeMenzes.

    ISIS / ISIL do have a political agenda. You can read it in their holy book. Like the EU, it really is an all or nothing deal.

    Border controls will not work. Much, if not all the terrorism that has been aimed at this country, and acts that have been successful and not stopped in time by the Security Forces, have come from so called, ‘Home Grown’ terrorists. The 7/7 bombers, the murderer of Private Lee Rigby (RIP) and not to mention all the countless victims of IRA atrocities, such a Lord Tebbit’s wife. And with the exception of the latter it was those in Parliament that have invited them here. We were never asked if we wanted such unprecedented numbers of people from all around the world to come and live here as ‘they pleased’ – ie Sharia Courts ?!?!?!?

    There will be of course days of mourning and shows of solidarity from remote and truly uncaring politicians. If they really cared, why would they inflict such things as open borders and inviting just about anyone to partake on the benefits of a civilized society, a society they had no hand in building and in some cases, despise.

    Those that warned against allowing boat loads of economic migrants and open borders will of course be ignored. Too embarrassing. But the Pandora’s box to growing civil unrest has well and truly been opened. Trying to close it is just another lesson in man’s futility. A lesson he will never learn.

  20. Douglas Carter
    November 15, 2015

    …’The fourth is to evict on evidence more from our country who do not wish to live by our rule of law after coming here….’….

    Divergent implications in that sentence – ‘from our country’ will also preclude eviction of those who were born in the UK, and did not arrive subsequently under one legal auspice or another, or indeed via non-legal circumstances. (i.e. including, but not limited to legitimate claims of refugee status, or feigned claims of the same).

    In your fourth tenet I would wish to see included a more strident directive given to the Courts and the Judiciary that they also have their place in protecting the innocent. Not just by protecting the innocent from undeserved punishment but also by ensuring the public (who generously fund their wages and their Courtrooms, as do they generously fund the process which formulates the Laws they interpret) are protected by physical separation from the guilty. This should always defer to treatment of such offenders as separating them from the public they pose a threat to.

    Where this will obviate ejection from the UK, this should take place automatically, without reference to the nation state to which they may be deported. Rather laughlingly, in less recent years, some cases of Deportation refused to send the offender to France since it was not designated as a ‘safe destination’ for such individuals.

    If by the office of their personal conduct, certain individuals stand at associate risk in the country they may be deported to, this is not something the UK Taxpayer should bear a penalty in safety of. If individuals who disqualify themselves by self-conduct are to be removed from the country. they should be counted as having voluntarily contravened and weakened their own rights – it should not be considered a fault of the UK Authority.

    1. old salt
      November 15, 2015

      Surely is it not about time that offspring of foreigners should also be deemed the same particularly so if conceived elsewhere.

      1. Denis Cooper
        November 15, 2015

        I think you have to be fair to people. If the government invites somebody here and says that they will be welcome to settle permanently and make their life and start a family, it cannot then in all fairness turn around later and say that it has changed its mind and decided that they and/or their children would no longer have any right to be here and so they could be deported at any time. It seems to me that the key thing is to be very careful at the start about exactly what promises are made, and do not invite people to become a permanent part of our society unless you are quite sure about it and mean it. The fact that promises have been made by the government against the wishes of the majority of the citizens is a failure of democracy but doesn’t mean that it would be fair to renege on them.

  21. waramess
    November 15, 2015

    “The fourth is to evict on evidence more from our country who do not wish to live by our rule of law after coming here, and who may represent a threat to us.

    The fifth is to ensure our education system in secondary schools and Colleges is free from extremist and hate based influences.”

    Let’s start from here; it’s a good place to start and it is something the government can do right now.

    No more Mr nice guy, no more Halal meat slaughter houses, no more face coverings; embrace our culture or find somewhere more appropriate. This is serious stuff where many Muslims want to change our culture for theirs and this is the sharp end of an unwelcome wedge.

    Any tolerance shown is a sign of weakness and tolerance now will simply lead later to either catastrophic consequences for the Muslim communities, as extremist organisations gain a foothold in Europe or, worse still, we end up with the likes of ISIL achieving their goal.

    1. Gary C
      November 15, 2015

      Re: “No more Mr nice guy, no more Halal meat slaughter houses, no more face coverings; embrace our culture or find somewhere more appropriate. This is serious stuff where many Muslims want to change our culture for theirs and this is the sharp end of an unwelcome wedge.”

      I 100% agree with you on the above statement, we have been too soft for too long.

    2. Graham
      November 15, 2015

      I agree

      We should also let the world know what sort of people we are looking at and stop pretending that by checking more elderly white folk that we are being fair to all.

      If in an Asian country old tall white men like me were known to be people of interest then I would expect to be checked out on arrival there – and not expect them to keep checking those with Asian characteristics.

      The PC culture this last decade or so has a lot to answer for

    3. sm
      November 15, 2015

      Is the West at war with ISIL? Good question?

  22. formula57
    November 15, 2015

    Cogent analysis: thank you.

    It might be a help to send a copy around to the Ministry of Defence lest the Blair-like bloodlust of our correspondence-challenged Defence Secretary is aroused afresh and needs cooling.

  23. Old Albion
    November 15, 2015

    As the first victims of this latest piece of Islamic barbarism are put to rest, their murderers are replaced within the waves of immigration over Europe.
    Whilst some, possibly most of those Muslims fleeing Islamic terror will be refugees, among them will be IS recruits.
    They arrive in Europe claiming asylum, are paperless and unidentifiable. Governments of Europe wave them through proclaiming European compassion and humanity.
    Our reward for this folly will be more events like Paris.
    If European heads of state do not or will not stop this stupidity. We on this island can. It’s time to close our borders.

  24. Javelin
    November 15, 2015

    The causes of the attacks in Paris goes back to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1984. Then the U.S. Funded the development of the Extremist Islamic philosophy.

    The question today is how to respond to the crisis. Specifically do you respond inside a legal framework or a military one. As Hollande said this is an act of war. In which case he could invoke the NATO option. If that happened a military response is also possible.

    I think the key is to understand whether this is a terrorist attack or a military attack. If this is a terrorist attack the it sends the message out this is not as serious as a military attack. It also implies that Isis is making demands and not looking for victory. The only demand of a terrorist is terror. Soldiers have s different agenda of control and surrender.

    If we continue to treat this as terrorism we can use civil and criminal law which is restrictive and limited by human rights. If this is a military then these are soldiers attacking the enemy and we can rely on the conventions of war such as internment and prisoners of war.

    In my view this is not a terrorist attack being launched by a guerrilla army (like the ira or eta) this is a state with resources at war with Europe. As such I think we need to treat these guys as soldiers until Isis are defeated. That means prisoner of war camps for the soldiers who have returned and then returning them to Syria once Isis are defeated. If the Government do not do this they are guilty of negligence and to protecting their own subjects.

    No doubt part of the question is how to fight an asymmetric war. Whilst we thought an asymmetric war meant drones and bombers destroying a nation with little blood lost on our side I think it was not a complete understanding. Asymmetric war does not mean completely exclusive it simply means one sided. It means that we have simply been very luck that we have only had a hand ful of attacks. We feel safe, that the war has past us by. If I were an Isis leader I would see Europe as a valid target too. Our luck has now run out.

    The growth of Islamic extremism has been growing for 30 years. Words and actions within the human rights act are not enough to turn the tide. The west has been lured into believing civil and criminal law can be used to fight a military war. It can’t and it’s been losing ground for thirty years. The west have believed so much in themselves they have invited millions of immigrants from countries they are attacking. It’s x huge error of judgement by our leaders.

    Now Isis have changed their tactics it has exposed a large number of errors by the west that were driven by emotional decisions about immigrants. Today we need to step back and understand these errors and make calm decisions and put the emotional desire for immigration to one side. We must also understand that because these errors have been taking place over 30 years that the remedy against Muslim extremism will be very deep rooted and involve reversing years of appeasement and ignoring the beliefs of Muslims. It will be very painful for the Muslim community but this is what is needed.

    1. Javelin
      November 15, 2015

      I justed wanted to add that if you fight this war with civil and criminal law you will run into a real problem of blurring civil acts with military acts. We will lose our civil freedoms. If you treat this as an act of law you can deal with these problems using military law against Islamic extremism.

      If find it perfectly compatible to have military law along side civil law in a free democracy. There simply has to be a specific test whether the suspect is a supporter of our enemy.

  25. Pete
    November 15, 2015

    Yet another approach would be for the UK government to cease supporting “moderate” terrorists in Syria (as there is no such thing), cease interfering in foreign conflicts, cease underlining any government that Washington orders and cease the entirely fake demonisation of Russia. That would do more to prevent terrorism than any of the posturing that is going on now.

  26. alan jutson
    November 15, 2015

    I would like to see rather more being done by those of the Muslim faith, to condemn this sort of terrorist action, which is being done in their so called name, by people who are extreme in every sense of the word.

    Whilst I am sure that the vast majority of those of Muslim faith will recoil in horror as much as any faith at these type of atrocities, the fact is that those who commit these type of actions seem to be able to hide amongst those of that faith rather too easily, and without being reported to the authorities.

    In my view the Muslim population need to take rather more action to openly condemn these people than they have done so far to date.

    Having visited Bletchley Park recently, it was clear that the gathering of good quality intelligence was of huge benefit to the outcome of the II World War, but equally true, was the fact that the general population also helped that intelligence effort by reporting anything suspicious to the authorities.

    The Media also have a part to play in all of this, for in my opinion they are far too eager to want to explain how intelligence is gathered, and by what means, and in doing so virtually give the game away to those who want to do us harm, to use new or alternative ways of communication.

    It of course goes without saying, that strong border controls will always help in keeping a Country secure.

  27. MikeP
    November 15, 2015

    Neither the ANC nor IRA had an objective of global domination whereas ISIL has publicly declared its intention of converting the whole world to Islam, and their version of Islam at that. So I don’t see any opportunity or likelihood of getting round the table with these people. But I do agree that the Middle East needs to be seen to be much more involved in sorting out the rise of factions in their part of the world and the apparent lack of action over Syria by Jordan, Iran, Egypt and the Gulf States is deplorable.
    I cannot see how there will be a political consensus (or from the electorate) any time soon to bomb Syria, let alone put troops on the ground, so efforts must continue to bring about a change of leadership in Syria, either Assad operating in a totally acceptable way to his people and neighbours or a new Government that may then be more decisive in asking the global community to help eradicate the terrorist threat.

  28. Original Richard
    November 15, 2015

    War against ISIL is not the answer. ISIL will only be defeated through the realisation that to live a life the ISIL way is simply a terrible way to live.

    Just as communism was not defeated through war but simply because it became recognised everywhere that it was useless.

    Firstly, and most importantly, our politicians need to admit that multiculturalism was a big mistake because many Islamic groups simply hate our way of life, in particular for the way we enjoy ourselves, for our laws,and for the equality for women.

    We need to stop immediately any further immigration, etc ed.

    Australia has shown that immigration can be stopped.

    We need peace and stability in the Middle East. If this means that there exists a country called ISIL, then so be it.

    We need to keep out of the affairs of the Middle East. It is ironic that US wish for regime changes in the Middle East is just as ISIL wanted it.

    We need to ensure that we eliminate in our country the non-European practices of FGM, forced, and first cousin marriages, “honour killings”, polygamy, sex segregation and slavery etc..

    We particularly need to eliminate child abuse. Not only the sexual exploitation of young girls but also where girls are never allowed out of the home and boys are “schooled” every evening from tea time to bedtime and are never allowed to play sport or mix with others of their own age.

    There needs to be integration.

    Any person or family who is not happy to accept out laws and culture and does not wish to integrate with our society should be encouraged to move to a more suitable country.

  29. MickN
    November 15, 2015

    I fully accept that those Islamists that wish us harm are in the minority. However why is it that when an atrocity like this happens we don’t see 10,000 of them marching with “Not in my name” banners. However should someone print a cartoon that they don’t like…..

  30. agricola
    November 15, 2015

    Point 1. Agreed

    Point 2 Yes, but we have already made the mistake of allowing them back into the UK. About 400 we read, of which a small number were so disillusioned by what they experienced in Syria as to be fully repentant. Let them live under scrutiny in the UK. The rest should be drained of what intelligence they may have, charged with treason and incarcerated in a dedicated military prison. If we do not have one then create one.

    Point 3. I am sure this is well in hand if it is left to the military via Cobra.

    Point 4. Yes, there should be a concerted effort to root out all illegals and remove them from UK soil. Combine this with much stronger border controls. We have to leave the dysfunctional EU to achieve this.

    Point 5. Yes education is very important. It should be fully integrated in the accepted national system, and no more Islamic schools.

    To your penultimate paragraph I would say NATO and Russia must agree a policy on Syria and Iraq, putting it into effect in the air and on the ground. Left to Middle Eastern countries it would be a shambles, but if they wish to help so be it.

    Finally get all the refugees back to their countries of origin once they are stable. It might take twenty years while they acquire the habit of democracy, but better that than have them roaming Europe where a limited number can create mayhem.

  31. oldtimer
    November 15, 2015

    I noted that the French Ambassador to the UK explained, on the Marr Show, that they referred to the terrorists as Daish. France did not consider them “Islamic” nor a “State” so it did not want to dignify them by describing their organisation as ISIL.

    That said it seems clear that this group is an effective organisation with a clear political objective and is well financed. It has mastered modern communication techniques, namely it projects a clear message far and wide to potential supporters around the globe, but particularly within Europe. It is, clearly, anathema to the values by which we seek to live and is a mortal threat to our way of life. It will be difficult to destroy because, if or when defeated on the ground in Syria/Iraq, it surely has the ability to go underground if necessary. It would be very surprising if it does not already have Plan B in place for that eventuality.

    It also seems obvious that the Schengen agreement and the EU`s weak external border controls are a gift to the terrorists. Even more surprising was the report that German police stopped a car, loaded with Kalashnikovs, travelling to France and failed to alert the French authorities to this fact. So much for so-called “solidarity”.

    The Home Secretary, on the same Marr Show, played a very straight bat and said the things that needed to be said. Within the UK I agree with your idea that the organisation and its supporters be dealt with in the way you describe. Externally I believe the UK should use its diplomatic influence to mobilise those already on the ground to fight the ground war. But the UK also has a role to play in fighting the secret, underground war too.

  32. Bert Young
    November 15, 2015

    It is difficult to be calm , collected and sensible in the wake of , yet again , another horrific terrorist attack . First reaction is to expel immediately all those who have entered this country illegally and not to pussy-foot around with them as the ECHR regulates and , making our borders completely water-tight is now imperative . Our Armed Forces and all its supportive systems also ought not to be handicapped financially in keeping everything absolutely top notch – any reaction we might be called upon to make has to beyond criticism . As an Island we have a certain advantage – lets use it .

    The mistake Merkel made in having uncontrolled numbers of migrants has been exposed ; her decision has allowed some elements of the worse kind to be present and will always now be a potential threat in the future . She is lucky that it was Paris and not Berlin as the target . Hopefully now the borders of all European countries will revert to proper controls .

    I fully agree that we must not become embroiled in the Syrian mess . The different tribes will forever be at each others throats and any outside influence will only suffer in the short and long term . What is essential is to cut off and prevent the outside financing of the terrorist groups ; those who provide arms also have to be stopped . The UN has a role to play in these controls ; it has to put in place a world wide effective mechanism and prove to everyone that it can be a force of and for peace .

  33. miami.mode
    November 15, 2015

    “….The second is to have stronger border controls than we currently have, to prevent the entry of those who might be a threat to our society……”

    Criminals will always exploit the weaknesses of decent people and the Schengen agreement is obviously assisting perpetrators of these dreadful crimes.

    Theresa May was on TV this morning saying how we should strengthen our borders but how does she equate this with Mrs Merkel’s invitation to all and sundry. The EU’s borders are our borders.

    1. Denis Cooper
      November 15, 2015

      “The EU’s borders are our borders.”

      Not entirely, at the moment, as we are not in Schengen and we have a pretty comprehensive treaty opt-out from the EU’s common asylum and immigration policy. Of course freedom of movement across the EU makes it easier for illegal immigrants to get here, and once one of the member states gives somebody national citizenship then they also become EU citizens and are free to come here.

      1. miami.mode
        November 15, 2015


        I was thinking along the lines of your last sentence.

  34. Lindsay McDougall
    November 15, 2015

    The rule of English law does not extend to areas where the Queen’s Writ doesn’t run.

    ISIL is a de facto State. Who cares if it is a de jure State? If it wants a war, it can have one.

    Unlike the ANC, neither the IRA or Sinn Fein could ever win an election in Northern Ireland. This remains true even though we foolishly allow citizens of the Irish Republic to vote in our elections. There was no reason to grant republicans priviledged status via the Good Friday Agreement and there still isn’t. If republicans don’t like living in Northern Ireland, they can sell up and move south.

    To evict people from our country you need to have somewhere to evict them to. As a means of dealing with 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants who have turned to criminality or terrorism, that’s somewhat difficult, unless we use one of Edward Lear’s ideas and make them sail to sea in a sieve.

    One way of getting rid of extremist ideas based on theology is for the State to refuse to finance any religious education, and to withdraw all finance from any school that propagates hate filled religion.

    The reason for bombing ISIL is not to solve Syria’s problems. It is simple self defence and deterrence. If we take a hundred of them out for each one of us that they kill, the terrorism will eventually stop, at least temporarily. Even Hamas has pauses in its activities after Israel retaliates in spades.

    For a political solution in Syria, Assad’s party must be allowed to share power. Otherwise, peace will only come in about 30 years when everyone is war weary. Dare I say it, Russia must be involved.

    I think that about covers it.

  35. bigneil
    November 15, 2015

    “may not carry identification documents” – – a bit like those who destroy theirs as they come across from Calais ( in an attempt to avoid deportation? ) – – but we put our “nameless imports” in hotels, all mod cons, fed 3 meals a day and nice rooms kept warm and dry. and give them more money to spend than people who have contributed for 45yr. – nice to know that criminals/potential terrorists are classed as more worthy.

  36. forthurst
    November 15, 2015

    I agree entirely with the last main paragraph; we should not continue to act ouside the framework of International law unless we are prepared for the continuous adverse consequences to ourselves and the region we presume to police. Since 9/11 we have taken a ride on the neocons’ shirt tails; it has cost us much in blood and treasure whilst turning many prior states into permanent war zones, breeding grounds for terrorists.

    We must ensure that we detect the use of Twitter to entice refugees to come to other European states such as Germany and severely punish those who are intent on making a bad situation far worse for the whole of Europe.

  37. stred
    November 15, 2015

    Listening to all the discussions on the box this morning, I was struck by the lack of understanding of the word ‘war’. All my life, there have been wars abroad and I was lucky to have been born after the wars which nearly killed my father. Most of the wars in the ME originated from British and French interference, creating new countries and boundaries. Then the US with UK help became involved and legitimately evicted Saddam’s Sunni boys from a small oil rich country. Up to then, the Sunnis and Shias had been killing each other in the war between Iraq and Iran. Some Iranian friends came to live here to escape; others lost their sons.

    Unsurprisingly, terrorism became the type of war favoured by some in the ME to get even and after 9.11 the gloves were off. More wars and the previously Democrat ‘neocons’ were advising the Republican president and socialist UK PM. Most people, like myself had never heard of neoconmen until recently. Their answer to the problems in the tribal Middle East is to extend western parliamentary democracy there, if necessary by force. Well it may have worked for a while in Tunisia. Tony Blair and others are good at apologising for things which had nothing to do with them personally. How about TB, Eural and Sarko apologising for the complete mess they have caused in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Afganistan. We now have ‘states’ which are ideal homes for any person with psychopathic tendencies who like murdering anyone but extreme Muslims.

    Then,to help matters along, the west has decided to display itself to the Islamic world as the home of degenerate morality. TV channels can be viewed everywhere showing every sort of sexual act and violence. Italian televisions seems to have more pornography than other channels. We only have about ten, just between the news and sport. And we are surprised when some Islamists think we are a bunch of degenerates. Anyone who says this should be suppressed is told they are living in the last century. etc ed

    JR is right that we ought to try to make it clear that ordinary people in the west do not all support wars and immorality. At least the extremists are in one place now in Iraq and Syria and the local legitimate governments, Russia, the US and EU seem to be on the same side, rather than trying to overthrow the secular clans running the place before.

  38. graham1946
    November 15, 2015

    Open borders and too much tolerance are at the bottom of all this, thanks to the soft headed who only see good in the world and its inhabitants – in short we are too soft with people who despise us and our way of life, though they all can’t wait to get here and our leaders fall over themselves to ‘respect’ their pre-historic practices and beliefs. (No offense intended, of course).

    They say this attack is in revenge for France bombing ISIS or DAESH or whatever its called this week, so next on the list should be Moscow. Anyone reckon they will find that one quite such a soft touch? How do you get 8 Kalshnikovs and bomb vests into a theatre – they can hardly be concealed in a packet of popcorn? Soft in action, soft in the head. Those youngsters were let down by officialdom. Apparently France is even softer than we are and with a Muslim population twice ours – go figure. Bellicose politicians shouting the odds will change nothing.

    Shooting at random outside a cafe is a different case which no-one will ever be able to eliminate, especailly with gun laws which only stop the honest citizen being able to get hold of them.

    Our leaders will huff and puff for a bit until the furore has died down, then it will be business as usual, sucking up to corrupt regimes and kowtowing to alien cultures and beliefs.

    Reply The Russian airliner that crashed may have been blown up by people from the same movement.

    1. graham1946
      November 15, 2015

      Reply to reply:

      Good point, John, although of course that was not done in Russia – it was done in Egypt, where security is pretty lax and where there will be sympathisers of the Islamic nut-jobs.

    2. Ken Moore
      November 16, 2015

      We do need a draw a distinction between the political class and the people they serve who are ,by and large much more hard headed and realistic. We have become so accustomed to idiotic politically correct decisions that fly in the face of common sense we hardly question them anymore.

      Blairs unhinged wars were about putting political correctness into the heart of foreign policy making – which seems to have backfired spectacularly.

      The politically correct despise this country and are ashamed of it’s past – it’s hardly surprising that they treat those that wish us harm almost like natural allies.
      PC is in every corner of every town hall, on the national curriculum, spews from the BBC news service like sewage from a sewer pipe..yet nobody seriously questions it ?

      Here is some free money, a nice house, now go and be a good citizen and try to stay out of trouble is the tough message given to the jihadis returning from Syria.
      It’s pathetic.

      The public never asked for politicians to turn a blind eye to ‘honour killings’ , genital mutilation and the rape of white children in Northern towns. The majority do not want Sharia law courts or to eat meat that has come from animals that have not been stunned before slaughter. It all just happened quietly without serious thought or questions asked. Shameful.

      I don’t recall either a huge public outcry for the crime of ‘Islamophobia’ to be recognised officially so that Muslims could be afforded special victim status.

      After years of displays of weakness, the failure to defend our own culture and values, the failure to be at all judgemental about other culture or beliefs we have come to this. The politicians (and now us) are reaping what they have sown.

    3. Bazman
      November 17, 2015

      Russia? You are in a dream world.
      You forgot the Moscow theatre hostage crisis, an absolute fiasco with most of the hostages dying from the gas pumped in to subdue the terrorists. some choking on their own tongues as they were carried out. All 40 of the attackers were killed, presumably while unconscious. An insane woman was allowed to just walk into the front door and be shot and thrown out again.
      A previous siege saw five of the hostages killed by an explosive charge placed on a wall they were sitting against.
      Its not about saving hostages its about killing terrorists in Russia. You are in serious danger from both sides.
      How many of the rich have fled to Russia to enjoy their 15% taxation rate? You know why.

  39. yosarion
    November 15, 2015

    Its time Treason was put back on Statute, after all, if we are wrong and they are right, we will burn for eternity and they will live in paradise, seems a fair deal to me.

    1. Denis Cooper
      November 15, 2015

      Treason is still on the statute book:


      but the laws may need updating.

      1. Mark
        November 15, 2015

        Treason was the last remaining capital offence until Blair’s government reduced the penalty early in his first administration.

  40. NickW
    November 15, 2015

    Margaret Thatcher spoke of “Denying the terrorists the oxygen of publicity” with respect to the IRA.

    It is worth remembering that the terrorist cannot cause terror unless and until the media provides the publicity.

    Having once respectable broadsheet newspapers (among others) treat terrorist attacks as “Disaster porn” is something that we can all do without. They are no less traitors in our midst than the terrorists themselves.

    1. graham1946
      November 15, 2015


      That was one of the silliest comments Mrs.T made. How can news not be reported.? I think we all remember the ridiculous situation where Gerry Adams etc al were shown speaking but their words were silenced – just made the British government look ridiculous and added not a jot to the peace process.

  41. Denis Cooper
    November 15, 2015

    Off-topic, I have just read that despite assurances that the Tory party will officially be neutral in the EU referendum its Chairman is raising funds for the Remain side:


    Perhaps we should now seek an assurance that even if a senior officer of the Tory party is raising money to keep us in the EU he won’t be accepting any from illegitimate sources such as foreign businessmen or the EU or the CIA, as happened in 1975.

  42. M.W Browne
    November 15, 2015

    There are many comments here on the lines of ‘we must do….’ or ‘we must stop….’. Unfortunately none of these wishes will come about. Part of the problem, in my view, is the poisonous influence of the BBC in England.
    What, if anything, is going to result from the current BBC Charter review ?
    I’m not holding my breath.

  43. TimC
    November 15, 2015

    Simple suggestion:
    Recognise ISIL as the legitimate government of Northern Syria.
    Declare war on that ‘state’
    Then declare that any ‘Brits’ who aid it are committing treason and that they have forfeited their British nationality by adhering to another state.
    Treat as traitors any who return home

  44. ChrisS
    November 15, 2015

    I don’t think the West can do anything much to solve the problems of Syria or the wider Middle East. Whatever our politicians can agree on will make very little difference and even a full military campaign on the ground involving any group of Western forces would cause an even bigger backlash among Islamic groups, including those within Europe. It is a problem that only the Middle East can solve and no amount of extra bombing by UK forces will help that much.

    The fact that after less than three months in Europe at least one militant masquerading as a refugee has caused mayhem in Paris is surely a lesson the Schengen area has to take on board.

    A small rural town I know well in Germany has a population of just 11,800 people, almost all of German origin. My friends there tell me the town has just had 2,500 migrants dumped on them and they are struggling to provide accommodation and all
    services including language tuition with little or no outside help.

    This is being repeated all over that country as well as in Sweden and voters are not going to put up with it for long, especially as the numbers arriving in Europe are still running at 10,000 per week. I believe that this is going to rebound on Frau Merkel and ultimately she will be replaced by her party before the 2017 election.

    On the wider European level, we have seen Poland sensibly pull out of Junker’s enforced quota system and other European leaders must now be coming round to realising that the British Government’s policy of sending large amounts of cash to aid refugees in the area around Syria is the only sensible policy.

    We should, of course, allow the most deserving medical cases to come to Europe to be treated in our hospitals but the remainder of the refugees should be housed close to home not least because they will need to return to Syria when the time comes to rebuild that country.

    All those thousands of young men should be signing up to fight to save their country rather than take the cowardly option of just running away.

    The events of Friday evening show that it is essential for a proper assessment process to be carried out before any refugee is admitted into Europe. Any not claiming asylum on arrival in the first safe country they set foot in ( including Turkey ) or that refuse to go to an assessment centre if they actually get to Europe, need to be incarcerated immediately and scheduled for deportation the very next day.

    Nothing less will keep the people of Europe safe.

    November 15, 2015

    Horrific casualty rate in Paris. 129 dead.
    Survivors spoke of several re-loadings of Kalashnikovs. Continued fire, in one testimony, over 15 minutes…. by several shooters in a virtually enclosed space with a literally captive audience.
    The numbers don’t add up.

  46. Peter A
    November 15, 2015

    No such thing as a poltical option until ISIS is destroed in Syria and Iraq. i have a feeling, that as they did in Mali, the French military will embarrass the rest of the world. Probably in concert with the Russians. If the french invoke article 5 as GWB did then we’re all in as we should be.

    Western government s should recognise that we’re at war and divert more from pointless foreign aid to intelligence and put it on a war footing. It takes 20 trained men to surveil one person and we have hundreds of haters who have already returned from Syria as well as a huge fifth column of angry young men indocrinated in the ghettos of the UK. MI5 needs more money. Futhermore, as a security analyst mentioned on sky news today, French police managed to outgun the ak47s of ISIS which cut short the massacre. UK police MP5s would not. He also mentioned that there is little possibility of the MET being able to respond to 7 simultaneous gun attacks by more heavily armed, combat vets as the French did. Perhaps some of the soldiers we are prematurely sacking could be gainfully employed and their combat experience utilised.

    These people are not terrorists. They are heavily trained, heavily armed combat vets who represent a state that is systematically cleansing the middle east of Christians and fellow Muslims, who dissent, alike. Americas absence from world realpolitik and Obamas weakness have been recognised and the vacuum filled. ISIS are not JAYVEE, not contained and they are not mere terrorists. They should be treated seriously and harshly. Churchill, Thatcher and reagen would not have allowed this hydra to grow and if we do, will will only reap what we sow

  47. Iain Gill
    November 15, 2015

    I don’t think we have any alternative but to fight, it gives me no pleasure to say that.

    Europe needs to radically review immigration.

    We need peace loving Muslims on our side.

    But we need to plan ahead for what happens after we wipe Isis out in Syria.

    1. Iain Gill
      November 15, 2015

      If France puts boots on the ground in Syria I don’t think we (or the US) can afford to see them loose. I’m sure the french foreign legion parachuted in to start taking on isys will be a rather fairer fight than unarmed civilians in Paris.

  48. Tom William
    November 15, 2015

    I agree with Alan Jutson. When are we going to see Muslim Imams openly and publicly denouncing ISIL/Daish and denying that death in the cause of professed Intifada does not lead to eternal bliss and 72 virgins but eternal damnation and suffering?

    Are they too frightened to say this?

    1. Iain Gill
      November 15, 2015

      Plenty of Muslims on my social media feeds condemning these acts. True our media doesn’t highlight this.

  49. Maureen Turner
    November 15, 2015

    It’s a wise General who says first of all Know your Enemy. Well what do we know?

    Sadly, when it comes to ISIS very little other than it wants to oust Chrtstianity from Europe and introduce an Islamic Caliphate under sharia law and to reach its aim no degree of barbarity will be ruled out. It’s a maverick to its own religion so it is good to see it being condemned by its genuine followers.

    To imagine we can sort this problem out through the channels of diplomacy sounds neat and tidy but I’ve a horrid feeling this will just be seen as more weakness from the West.
    Remember most of those young men who want to kill us and our culture are driven by hatred to the point where even the beauty of the amphitheatre at Palmyra had to be destroyed.

    Some time in the immediate future we have got to crush this evil cult before its tentacles stretch wider and if this requires sitting down with Assad and Putin so be it. Diplomacy it ain’t rather it’s necessity.

    The UK’s borders should be closed as should all EU exterior borders until such time as our country doesn’t have to suffer the terror we witnessed in Paris last Friday evening. It is a ridiculous situation where our Security Services work their socks off to prevent attacks while all the time our border controls are only partially secured.

    The EU’s crazy open borders policy has a lot to answer for here but then almost everything it decrees has a habit of being unworldly.

  50. ian
    November 15, 2015

    After reading the blogs today, one thing they have in common and write about is the enemy within. That is where the people fight is.

  51. ian
    November 15, 2015

    Politician are paid to be blind to what want, you haven’t got anything out yet and you never will. politician media and banker, three blind mice.

  52. ian
    November 15, 2015

    All your hopes, dreams and culture is going to be destroy as the politician roll out their idea of a new world for you to live in, the only people who will like it will be the ones at the top with big wages and pension with the pension that increase with inflation like government pension and increase even if their not living in the country.

  53. ian
    November 15, 2015

    You would of thought with all the misery story that come into politician surgeries every week that they would do something but all they do is turn a blind eye and plough on regardless to a melting pot of explosive cultures which was started after the second world war with now a big housing problem low wages problem and big unemployment problem for all the English people to deal with on there own.
    What it is is the biggest depression the English people have ever been in, brought on by their own politician with no change in sight, even if wet&mad flood the country with council pension money for his time in office it will be back to square one within a handful of year with the people looking at a worsts out come with lots more people coming to the country to take up the jobs and when ends you will be two step back.

  54. ian
    November 15, 2015

    It not the people you want off the roads with HS2 it the lorries you want off your roads with HS2 yes lorries having their own network up and down the country and across the country
    The only use I can see for HS2 is bring people to the heart of England from middle east and Africa from the first HS station they come to in Europe but that politician dream is a few years away as yet.

  55. graham1946
    November 15, 2015

    I heard on the news today some American (must be someone of consequence I suppose) saying NATO should now put 10000-15000 troops on the ground for a ‘final solution’ to ISIS

    Where do they get these people? They don’t seem to realise even now that they started most of this with their idiot Bush and his poodle Blair stirring up a hornets nest without the first clue of what they were doing or of what to do after his famous ‘Mission Accomplished’ speech to his troops. Knocking down cities is easy, knocking down ideology is impossible except by education and they don’t want to learn. They are quite happy to just do what they were told 1500 years ago.

    Einstein said the definition of insanity was to keep doing the same thing whilst expecting a different result. Will they never learn? Even with the greatest military in history they haven’t won a war in 250 years.

    Reply It would take far more troops than that to invade and occupy the whole of Syria, to then try to place a new government in office. Look how many troops Afghanistan took.

    1. Iain Gill
      November 15, 2015

      If they are going to shoot up our cities I don’t think we have any choice but to take them on. But we also need to tackle the world view they spout, especially in our own countries, a real hearts and minds operation. Sure it will take a lot of manpower to win them, but what’s the alternative? just put up with this? we also need to radically review the open borders situation. We also need to improve the arms and training of our armed response teams within this country.

    2. graham1946
      November 16, 2015

      John, I agree. Even if we had all the troops required, it would still be wrong. This must be settled by the nations of the region. Even if we delivered Utopia, we’d still be the Great Satan.

      But is just shows what the insular Americans think.

      Still don’t know who this guy was and I can’t be bothered to find out, but no doubt yesterdays News at One is on iplayer or whatever its called for anyone interested.

  56. ian
    November 15, 2015

    What this weekend marks is the start of something and it has only a little to do with terrorists it to do with power and money

  57. John Francis
    November 15, 2015

    An excellent analyisis from JR and interesting and helpful comments by contributers.
    In my view, nothing will happen unless the UK leaves the EU, and we withdraw from the ECHR, and the UN convention and protocols relating to Asylum and refugees. This is unlikely in the immediate future.
    Many people are commenting on Islam, (I have deleted the interpretation of Islam provided as I am no expert on Islam and do not wish this site to become dominated by arguments about the nature of Islam ed)

    1. John Francis
      November 17, 2015

      It’s your site that you pay for John, and you can edit posts as you please,but it’s interesting that John Kerry has made exactly the comment I suggested Western secularist politicians would say.
      You are an international politician with a considerable intellect, who is in touch with reality and communicates conservative ideas and philosophy clearly and without ambiguity. With the utmost respect, may I suggest you do become informed about the true nature of Islam as declared in the Qu’ran.

  58. Freeborn John
    November 16, 2015

    The world needs a policeman. Otherwise no-go zones emerge in failed states like Syria with de-facto power being held by barbarians like ISIS. You say that the US has abandoned the role or world policeman, and the U.K. Can’t do it alone, so the Arab states should step up instead. But surely they have less means to act as world policeman than the UK. The US, UK & France are the only candidates for the job. Russia will only act in her own perverted interests and China has yet to act in the global interest either using her emerging power to advance narrow territorial disputes. The vote in parliament not to participate in action in Syria really set a bad precedence which has made the US less willing to act as world policeman. France ironically under Hollande is more willing than under Mitterand to be responsible. I really think Uk parliament has a duty to put troups on ground in Syria alongside French and Americans to rid the world of ISIS.

  59. Jon
    November 16, 2015

    A lot of sense there, until a clear objective emerges if at all then our armed forces need to be trained in urban terrorism combat and all around the populated areas and areas of large events. Instead of sending thousands abroad they could put thousands across London on active service waiting in case something happened. They could be armed response units within 1000 yards of anything taking place.

  60. Jansen
    November 17, 2015

    Only KSA ( wahabis) and IRAN (Shia) can stop this because it is they who are steering this in the name of their different Islamic persuasions. It needs joint ‘hard ball’ and unmistakably ‘Clear Direction’ by USA & Russia to make these people LISTEN and take note. So leave this very complex situation to those that can ACTUALLY MAKE THE DIFFERENCE and if you must be involved do so by encouraging USA & Russia to put aside their differences and work together on this. It can be done.
    Never mind the Near East/North Africa/ M.E WE must look closer to home and tackle the ‘unfinished business’ in Northern Ireland – a Province STILL very much divided – it’s as divided as some areas of the Near East with ‘no go’ areas, burned out streets and all the rest. Don’ t believe it? Go and have a look and experience it – it’ s not shown on TV but it’s there and in a Western city. It’s a discussion where Politicians fear to tread to use a backward statement. It’s easier for them to pontificate on Syria and what we should or shouldn’ t do about it and ignore our own back yard.

  61. ChrisS
    November 17, 2015

    I see that Hollande has invoked the Lisbon Treaty clause calling for member states to provide “aid and assistance by all the means in their power” to a member that is “the victim of armed aggression on its territory”.

    Being France, it isn’t really surprising that he failed to call on their rather more reliable allies in NATO for support but I wonder what the five traditionally neutral countries that are members of the EU will feel about this ?

    Personally, even if they have any modern bombers, I can’t see aircraft from Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden and Malta lining up on the runway ready to attack ISIL in Iraq let alone Syria.

    At least David Cameron is about to test Corbyn and Labour on the issue of military action in Syria.

    It will be fascinating to watch Corby squirm in the debate and then go into the Nos Lobby with the SNP while most of his shadow cabinet join almost the entire Conservative Parliamentary party in the Ayes lobby !

Comments are closed.