Member Kevin McSherry disagrees with bombing in Syria. Here he explains why.
The Prime minister’s statement is inaccurate and misleading.
The head of the defence select committee has admitted that Britain does not have superior weapons to those of Russia and France and the USA as claimed by David Cameron in his speech. The corollary to which is that Britain is not able to make the unique contribution that the PM claimed.
The PM also stated that there are 70,000 moderate fighters waiting to rise and defeat ISIS as soon as conditions on the ground are such that they can succeed. This is not credible and it is not a strategy.
Bombing does not address the major problem.
More than a quarter of a million people have been killed and more than 4 million have fled their homes to seek refuge and the focus of this fear and slaughter has not been ISIS but the brutality of the Assad government. The uncomfortable coalition that is forming to bomb ISIS has opposing loyalties to Assad. Joining a conflict when the successful outcome is itself in conflict is incredibly foolish and potentially very dangerous.
It is not likely to succeed.
There are many examples in recent history of failed armed interventions; it is not sensible or necessary to make the same mistakes again.
Innocent people, who are already terrorised, will be killed.
The concept of a clinical airstrike and of minimal collateral damage is both offensive and dishonest. Airstrikes take the lives of the innocent as well as those of combatants. The efficacy of targeting is only as accurate as the intelligence. By virtue of the nature of the conflict; the intelligence is compromised and remote and bombs are indiscriminate.
Bombing will strengthen ISIS.
It would appear that the purpose of the strategy of terror being pursued by ISIS is to promote a global war between Muslim and Non Muslim; bombing will give greater credibility to their cause and exacerbate the situation. Britain has visibly aided the oppressive regimes of the Middle East, including Israel, while refusing to take in refugees; bombing is likely to increase the number of radicalised people, who will be able to see the incongruity between action and rhetoric, and seek to join the ranks of the jihadists and take part in terrorist activity.
The Major victims of terror are not in the western world.
The total number of deaths from terrorism in 2014 was 32,685, over 70% occurred in just five countries; Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria. (see graphic below)
Non-violent solution strategies.
Britain should focus its efforts on removing the sources of income which supply ISIS, seeking a diplomatic solution to the conflict between Assad and the people of Syria and removing the injustices which foment radicalised behaviour.
Some research suggestions are taken from the Leeds Justice and Peace Commission Website:
THE PARIS ATTACKS – A ‘BLOWBACK WAR’
The attacks in Paris on 13th Nov have generated enormous media coverage and outrage and sadness among many people. In a spirit of encouraging people to look under the surface of problems, here are a couple of places to start:
Paul Rogers, professor in the Peace Studies Dept at Bradford University , describes the attacks as a “blowback war.”
The Guardian on 16th there was a thoughtful piece by Scott Atran which raises some question marks about the more hysterical rhetoric coming from some quarters of the media.
It’s also important to get these tragic events in perspective. This infographic from The Independent of a year ago gives a very different impression to what we see & read normally.
If you want to contact Julian Smith MP to express your opinion against bombing in Syria then please feel free to use this link.