No air strikes on Syria because:

Over the decades, NATO air strikes have always killed more innocents than fighters.  We end up doing more harm than good and making more enemies than friends.  Totally counter productive and thoroughly evil!

That should be the only argument (the killing of civilians) to stop the Western bombing (and now Russian air strikes, too) of even Iraq.

Aha, aha!  But UN has said to take “ 'all necessary measures'  to prevent and suppress its terrorist acts on territory under its control in Syria and Iraq."  That was the 15 members of the Security Council.  It was not the more than 190 members of the General Assembly of all the nations.

Bombing will not get rid of Islamic State.  They are bigger and stronger than ever after 18 months or so of such barbarity.

Military meddling in yet another Muslim majority country follows on from Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya - and, now Syria. 

We have given ourselves permission to bomb yet another country.  It continues our disastrous and aggressive foreign policy that has turned parts of the Meddle East into a bombing ground, a killing field and well over a million refugees fleeing from the Western fire and flames from the air.

Al Qaeda enraged the US/UK/French bull by 9/11.  Al Qaeda poked the snake and got just the reaction they wanted.  Bombing in far off countries is not effective.

Is this poetic justice?  We must be to blame for the mayhem, murder and mass migration to some of the countries striking the Muslims.  "12 million displaced people of Syria." (John Finnemore on the 'Now Show' 18 Dec 2015)  And, we magnificent, so magnanimous Brits take 20,000 fleeing from our bombing and over all of five years, too.  Never mind Germany taking one million in this year alone.

True national hero who has not had to engage in warfare to be a hero.

​

Dear Ian Kirk-Smith - and copied to my war voting MP, James Morris Esq

I drove over to a meeting with Ludlow Quakers last night to hear your outstanding and veteran, national hero, John Lynes speak about the history of the Middle East and its present turbulence.

For 

​one

 decade, John 

​was

 part of Christian Peacemaker Teams, observing and recording man's inhumanity to man.  He explained that such work does have a moderating effect in abating violence.  If these brave men and women are held, they and their spouses have signed that no ransom is to be paid and no rescue launched.

From last night's meeting I have concluded that talking to terrorists is invariably done, sooner or later and that Islamic State, that we call murderous barbarians, akin to Hamas trying to wipe iron clad Israel off the face of the earth with pinpricks on a map, are wanting a caliphate based on the First Caliphate of the 7/8th century.  John said that it was a golden age of Islam, with a level of civilisation well ahead of that of Europe. 

​

 Jews and Christians mostly lived peacefully in Muslim countries, but often had to pay an additional tax.  Before the 18th century, Jews were certainly better treated by Muslims than by Christians.

I was reminded that Islamic State is fighting for a caliphate free from Western interference, and modeled on earlier caliphates.  Perhaps, we can hardly be surprised at that after 100 years of off and on Western military intervention and of British duplicity in the Middle East!

Further, can UK aerial bombing of Islamic State be justified when our Parliament chose to commence air strikes only after two American held hostages were beheaded in retaliation for American bombing of Islamic State?  Free humanitarian gifts from the air for all the refugees would be more in line with the life and teaching of the non-violent Christ of the Gospels whom some Muslims feel that the 'Christian' West should be following.

Finally, when I mentioned to the organiser that I was a visitor, he kindly gave me a copy of the outreach issue of 'The Friend' and invited me to write when I said, "What I would really like is for Quakers to conscientiously abstain from voting for the three main political parties who so love to conduct their crimes of aggression and warfare in the Middle East."  I might also have added that there might be a non-violent Green Party candidate standing, however, that would fit the bill nicely for the ethical voter!

Yours sincerely

Islamic State v Judeo-Christian States or,

Muslim fighters and civilians wiped out, versus not even a scratch on us lot.

AIR STRIKES BY NATO ON IRAQ - more cowardly asymetric warfare but so popular when we can kill foreigners without being killed ourselves.  524 in favour; 43 against on Friday 26 September 2014.

As with Israel in attacking Gaza with almost complete impunity, we are also waging our wars from the air, alone so not one of our armed forces people stand any chance whatsoever of getting killed.  Drones and war planes to bring death for Muslims from the skies but, our soldiers risking their deaths on the ground to effectively deal with Isis, is ruled out.  For me, these are immoral, unjust wars but very popular with the 'Christian' West and Israel when their own soldiers are immune from harm.

In all our wars, we end up killing mostly civilians, the non-combatants who simply want to be left alone from American, British, French and Israeli attacks from the air.    Once you start down that road, in order to win your war, you have to commit genocide and slaughter the lot, which is obviously impractical and immoral.

As we found with our wars of aggression in SE Asia over many decades of killing 'Communists', the people we are trying to kill simply melt away into 'nowhere'.  We lost every single war, too!

As we waged war on Muslims and others in the Middle East, we found with the failed War of Terrorism, that many of our weapons simply ended up in the hands of the Jihadists.  We should never have started.

As we found with our friend and ally Israel, trying to stop the noise and inconvenience of Hamas rockets by sending over their/our much more lethal missiles, it still ends with killing and injuring many more Gazan civilians than Hamas fighters who never did stop their rocket firing - until the ceasefire took effect.

If they want to have a pure, Shariah law, Islamic State let them.  We have our pure, democratic, capitalist state.  In the West, after centuries of intolerance and brutal religious persecution, we now pride ourselves on our political and religious tolerance - until recent years.  Muslims in the UK are no threat to ourselves and are not even campaigning for the imposition of Shariah Law, apart from in a few domestic/marital matters affecting Muslims, only.  In Iraq, I understood, IS gave the people the choice of converting to Islam, paying a fine or leaving.  When Christians fled to the mountain top, American humanitarian aid was dropped but, also, the bombing and missile attacks from the air began.  In retaliation, the beheadings of Western journalists and aid workers started.   Revenge is sweet for the religious and irreligious of both 'Islam' and 'Christianity'.  We all like to get our own back in some way or another.