who to fight first: ISIL or Assad. Is there a choice?

Who to fight First, ISIL terror entity or the Syrian dictator… is there really a choice for Britain? we should get our priorities right and list the dangers in descending order if we were to answer. The House of commons vote last week ( Dec 2,2015) by a majority of 174 to back Prime Minister David Cameron’s motion to extend the RAF mission into areas controlled by the terrorist entity the Islamic state ( or ISIl – the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) has accelerated a legitimate debate about priorities and who is the real enemy and the tactical realignment within the a larger strategy as with whom should the United kingdom and her allies. Some who understand history and reality of the region and Islamism correctly argue that the Islamic State terror entity is a real danger that we must fight. Others with motives hard to understand, or being anti the idea of extending air-campaign to or just have little experience, argue that we should get rid of Assad regime in Syria first before fighting isil, which is utter nonsense

Continue reading

Syria Commons Vote

There has been some nonsense argument from the left wing anti-war or stop the war and others against extending the RAF mission into Syria to destroy the Islamic State Terror bases.

here is an example from BBC radio4 Today programme this morning at 08;55 . John Humphrys interviewed BBC security hack  Frank Gardner on specific question: will attacks on ISIL in Syria have backlash here in UK and expose us to more attacks like 7/7 type?

Gradenr adamant if we bomb reqqa ISIL would attack london because of the propaganda value  – which is at best guess work no fact based analysis. A security military  expert interviewed also on the same item  refuted Gardner’s guess. He  told him it doesn’t mean that attacking ISIL in Syria would some how give the terrorist another means to increase their  capabilities and enhance their tools  to carry out new attacks more than what they are capable of doing now. He also  quoted congress report  how USA drone  attacks reduced. Alqaeda capabilities to do us harm and carry out more attacks.

Gardener  changed the argument to an issue (not mentioned in question)  to say a British A british pilot might fall into their hands ( even though pilots are already flying ISIL areas in Iraq)  and bombs might hit civilians (although the question was: will attacking reqqa put us in more risk in london )

Pat McFaden Labour, Wolverhampton South East, totally belittled this view as ” children fantasy dividing world into victims (Muslims) and perpetrators (the west) and it absolves the terrorists from responsibility. He argues it is also not a new military intervention, it is an extension of action already taking place  .