I suppose the IFS has half an understanding too? I’ve seen the affect of Labour spending policies first hand and I don’t want them repeated by a very left wing Labour government.

Stop talking utter ****e. Uniformed, unarmed bobbies do not do anti-terror policing, they do regular anti-crime policing and crime has fallen. Children got killed because some idiot let an Islamic militant into the country and their offspring turned out to be Islamic militants too.

Apart from all the jobs they create, who cares? Do you see any other nations giving up their nuclear status? France say?

The funding for Islamic terrorism would still come from the same places regardless of who was an ally. Corbyn was in favour of the ‘messy’ withdrawal and so were most of his left wing nuts. None of these attacks have had anything to do with Israel whatsoever. Islamic terrorism does not exist because of foreign policy, foreign policy exists because of Islamic terrorism. The only continent on this Earth not affected by Islamic terrorism is Antarctica and that’s probably only because they think the penguins are wearing burqas. Perhaps if Islamic terrorism only affected the US, UK and some EU allies I might agree with you, but no, it’s everywhere, every continent. China, Indonesia, Philippines, South America, Somalia, Cameroon, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Kenya etc. The UK has had nothing to do with these instances. They attack because they are a-holes and some verses of the Qu’ran are frankly nuts. The best defence is to stop them coming into the country in the first place, because wherever they are, there are problems. The do not and can not exist in any country without problems.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40057115

Labour’s calculations that £49bn a year could be raised from the wealthiest individuals and companies were flawed and would raise £40bn at most in the short term, and less in the long term, it said.

However, Labour’s proposal to maintain the triple lock and to start paying state pensions no later than the age of 66 would be “immensely expensive in the long run – up to £50bn a year in 50 years’ time” compared with raising the state pension age in line with life expectancy and increasing the pension in line with earnings.

No-one has said ISIS are not bad people. That does not mean we have to join in the war in Syria. Not the same thing.

I am not digressing into ‘who bombed flight 103’ That is a conversation full of nutters and tinfoil hatters that is beneath even this forum.

Also I am not playing ‘My religion is better than your religion’. I am just pointing out the dificulties in your own rather medieval approach.

So we just let them run rampant, like Hitler. One minute ago someone was saying we never stayed long enough to finish the job, now you’re saying we shouldn’t help finish the job. I’m confused.

Well if it’s just about tin-foil hats, how come they released the murderer of 270 people?

Neither of them is my religion. What’s medieval about encouraging people to reconsider the words in a document, which they’re following, that actually is medieval in terms of its date of composition?

ISIS in Syria are fighting against a dictator.

To join in the fighting would be to side with Assad and Putin who are barrel bombing civilians. No I know it’s no worse, but is messy and wading in there would make it messier. That is why Corbyn (and a lot of people who have actually thought it through) are against doing it. Lessons of history and all that. It really isn’t as simple as the Mail would like you to believe (Stroppy brown people ‘running wild’. Bomb them).

What does ISIS stand for? Did you forget the second ‘I’. They are also fighting against the democratically elected government in Iraq and the Kurds and the more moderate rebels groups in Syria. They drove past cars of civilians in Northern Iraq who were trying to flee and gunned then down. They are just as dangerous to a post-Assad Syria as they are now. In fact they’re one of the many reasons a post-Assad Syria would probably still be fighting.

So his father was an activist in the early nineties. Hmm. Do you recall what happened in 1986? Come to that, do you remember Lockerbie?

You mean the plane Iranians downed that was pinned on some Libyans? And this whole enemy-of-my-enemy crap, it’s never true when it comes to Islamic fighters. The Manchester attackers, the Boston Marathon bombers, Al-Quaeda, ISIS. All enemies-of-our-enemy at some point and yet still enemies not friends.

Think how untennable your ‘solution’ is. Imagine you were suggesting the way forward would be for committed Christians to admit the Bible was wrong – as the starting point in your plan? How would you do that – the rack? Pulling out their fingernails? Brainwashing? What? Come on, think it through.

Many Christian and the Church have changed their views on many things, such as gay rights, the whole eye for an eye thing etc. People are currently just waiting for Islam to join us in the 21st century.

Foreign policy has not caused Islamic extremism and even if it were, would it be right for us to be forced to change foreign policy because of terrorism? Islamic extremism is a problem in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Australia and Asia. Antarctica is so far the only continent not affected by it, fortunately for the penguins. Is everyone causing Islamic terrorism? No, Islamic terrorism is inherent to the Qu’ran. It’s really not a misinterpretation, it’s just what it says.

And as for politicising a terror attack that’s just a big and obvious no-no, even if you weren’t doing so as an apologist, which makes it at least 100x worse.

UKIP – Bad for politicising it.
Labour – 100x worse for making excuses for it.

‘Along with’ implies both leading.

Lockheed Martin drops out of US Navy missile competition