Conscientious objection isn't a legitimate posture...

He's also only saying CO isn't a legitimate posture with regard to Syria, I think. I don't think he's saying CO is never a legitimate posture.

The whole title is "Conscientious objection isn't a legitimate posturefor Britain in the face of Isis ferocity".

Sorry, I got mixed up. Not Syria, but Isis. Murphy is very specific that he's only talking about Isis, not conscientious objection in general.

And of course, anyone and everyone can disagree with him. His is not the only legitimate point of view.

Are there any cos as regards IS?

Doing nothing may be hard to swallow because we all find the actions of terrorists deeply offensive to humanity - but if something is done it must be the right thing - and it is hard to discern what that might be. Sometimes doing something can have unforeseen long term consequences.

stopwar.org.uk/index.php/events/stop-the-war-events-national/02-nov-london-parliamentary-meeting-syria-the-case-against-military-intervention

I hope what is said at that meeting will be published in full.

At the moment I'm thinking that there is a parallel between the argument for not doing anything against Isis and the argument that Neville Chamberlain made against doing anything against Hitler's Germany at the Munich Agreement in 1938.

stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news/to-be-taken-seriously-jeremy-corbyn-needs-to-be-friends-with-rulers-who-behead-people

The meeting is open to the public, so of course it will be published in full.
It's not the StoptheWar coalition that wants things to be kept secret. They are not the ones who do secret deals with arms dealers.

stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news/don-t-upset-the-saudis-when-big-money-is-changing-hands-for-arms-dealers-and-tory-party

It's interesting to read how he advocated bombing Assad and now wants to bomb IS. If we had bombed Assad would there not be a possibility that IS would have even more power? And if we do bomb IS is there not a possibility that even more people will be attracted and join them? The idea that the only solution is to drop bombs is short sighted to say the least. To make out that if you are against bombing you must be a conscientious objector is ridiculous.

Saudi Arabia have committed more atrocities than Isis, including beheading.
Why is Jim Murphy not calling for bombing Saudi Arabia as well?

Are there any cos as regards IS? Many of the young men and families with teenage boys are leaving Syria precisely because they do not want to fight for Assad or ISIS.

Interesting to note that Jim Murphy left South Africa for Britain just as he was about to be called up for National Service there.

Are there any cos as regards IS? Many of the young men and families with teenage boys are leaving Syria precisely because they do not want to fight for Assad or ISIS.

Interesting to note that Jim Murphy left South Africa for Britain just as he was about to be called up for National Service there.

youtu.be/6C_UyIlzLAg

Fly kites not drones, from the Quaker website. Some interesting statistics on this animation.

Would it have been right not to tackle the Nazis head on?

Chamberlain tried peaceful means first.

Yes, dj, we know. I was not suggesting that the Stop the War campaign wanted to keep things secret. I was just looking forward to hearing or reading all about their meeting when I expressed my hope that all the speeches would be made public, preferably full transcripts because that's the format I like . I make quite a lot of enquiring but neutral comments, you know.

I even started this thread in the hope of airing Jim Murphy's views, which I don't regard as untenable even if I don't agree with them. His point of view is as valid as that of Stop the War. I want to hear all sides of an argument before I feel I can come close to understanding the issue and being able to make a decision about it myself. Jeremy Corbyn claims to be in favour of negotiation and discussion too so you should understand what I'm on about.

Chamberlain was right to try peaceful means first - he would have been failing in his duty had he not.

Whilst I understand the parallel you are making, I do think that the circumstances are vastly different on so many levels: new technology, the religious impetus, the widespread hidden enemy, the backlash effect (that has been partially responsible for the present situation) etc.

Any response needs to be properly planned and targeted. We have seen so many instances of western intervention that has been short-sighted, with no proper plan for what happens after the intervention.

I agree with all that, lucky.

I've just been thinking through some stages of hitting back. When I was bullied at school I eventually hit back, on the bully's head, with a very heavy physics book. Violence. I'm not a violent person, but it was necessary and it worked. She never bullied me again, even got quite friendly. She grew up allright too.

If bullying thugs like Isis attack innocent people and civilisation, which is what they're doing, there comes a point when what/who they are attacking has to hit back, or when we have to hit back on behalf of those innocent people. I think that's what JM is saying. It's the same as stopping Nazi thugs. I don't think either group was or is open to negotiation.

Their violence cannot be justified (which is what the apologistic "we caused it" stance is saying) in my mind, just as IRA violence against innocent people could never be justified even though I sympathised with their cause.

I am not sure that recognising that some of the actions of the west (short-term intervention, arms sales etc.) have contributed to the current situation could be seen as a "justification" for the actions of these maniacs (and that is certainly not where I am coming from); but it does serve as important information for future decision making I think. learning from history and all that.

I too agree that they are not open to negotiation, but cannot see what sort of intervention could be targeted precisely and could avoid stirring up more hatred.

We really are between a rock and hard place - and of course the terrorists know this.

Yes. Easy to say air strikes should be made. But sooner or later, troops on the ground will be needed. What then? God help us.

stopwar.org.uk/index.php/resources/stop-the-war-statements/stop-the-war-statement-hilary-benn-s-plan-for-uk-military-intervention-in-syria

This is Stop the War's answer to bombing Syria.

I do agree with that dj - whilst also being unsure how this might be achieved. Putting pressure on neighbouring states to play their part is an option - but how successful is this likely to be? They may themselves be harbouring IS - or even backing them.

It is a mess - those poor innocents whose homes are being bombed in causes that they do not subscribe to.

Years ago my OH (who can be a tad gloomy!) said that the third world war would start in the middle east - maybe he was right.

I read that the end of civilisation would happen where it started, in Mesopotamia. That's Syria and Iraq now.

Millions of Syrians are trying to be conscientios objectors by walking away. Unfortunately, the west having started these wars, we were not ready for that mass exodus.

It seems more and more like Orwell's 1984, the battles being fought in other people's countries by the west's more and more powerful weapons.
The drone video is quite powerful. You imagine when they talk about drones that those on the ground know they are being targeted, but the drones cannot be seen from the ground. Those firing the missiles do not know who they are firing at, just that there are people moving.

We need to stop selling weapons to anyone. That's the first step. Modern weapons are far too powerful.

My brother was one of the troops on the ground in the first Iraq war. I remember him saying that all they did was sweep up what was left, Iraqi soldiers cowering in underground trenches, after the bombs had been fired from elsewhere. He didn't feel like a proper soldier, whatever one of those was.

I don't agree that the West started the tribal wars in the middle east. We have taken part in some but we have not started them. They have been going on for a very long time to a greater or lesser extent. I guess this is one of the greater extent periods.

When all those Nigerian schoolgirls were kidnapped by terrorists, people complained that we weren't doing anything. When we do try snd do something to help a situation people say we shouldn't get involved.

Probably not the same people!

I think that this demonstrates the no-win character of this dreadful situation. Tribal conflict has been present for a long time and is very hard for the west (as outsiders from another culture) to understand what it is all about - probably because it is essentially irrational and atavistic. Lacking that understanding we cannot rule out the possibility that our intervention might exacerbate the situation if we do not get it right.

I sigh when I see our politicians shaking hands with an assortment of foreign dignitaries and always think ... what do you really know about this person and their attitudes? A fleeting visit for a bit of window-dressing is not what is needed. There needs to be objective and detailed research going on to help inform what action would be best. But, as we know from Iraq, such intelligence can be suspect.