Letters: Don’t fall into the trap of bombing Isis

The extremists do not fear death and we have seen how they embrace the opportunity to become martyrs to their cause. Inevitably air strikes will kill civilians, families, men, women, children, and that could increase the radicalisation of many more people in Syria and the West.

How will that reduce the threat to the British people? It’s ridiculous to think that bombing Syria will weaken the terrorists’ resolve to harm us. Did the bombing of our cities in the 1940s not strengthen our resolve to defeat the bombers? Why should air strikes against Isis not do the same?

And what about after the air strikes? I’ve not heard a convincing plan for what happens next and I fear we’ve learnt little from the Iraq debacle. Of course we have to tackle this threat, but please, let’s think it through, and quickly, before it escalates even further

Di Lilley

Maidenhead, Berkshire

Tony Blair’s big lie, before the war in Iraq, was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. David Cameron’s big lie is that there are 70,000 “moderate” Syrian ground troops, ready to sustain “democracy”.

In fact, the majority of anti-Assad forces fighting alongside Isis are violent Islamists, such as the Al Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front. The Front is known to pose a serious threat here in Britain, yet we are expected to maintain the fiction that its fighters are moderates or de facto allies. If the government gets its way, we will bomb only Isis (and civilians of course).

Cameron’s long-term aim is still illegal regime change. He is intent on removing Assad by force, even if it means allying himself with people far worse than the Syrian president. The consequences for the people of Syria, especially for women, the Shia, Kurds and other minorities are likely to be truly terrible.

Jean Calder

Brighton

While I sympathise with Yasmin Alibhai-Brown’s point of view (“Not one Muslim I know thinks war in Syria is justified”, 30 November), I wonder how she feels we should be dealing with Isis, a militaristic proselytising organisation which tolerates only its narrow interpretation of Islam and is out to eradicate, in the most brutal way possible, all who believe otherwise.

The problem is that the more land Isis controls and the more power it is seen to project, the more attractive it becomes for recruits from the Middle East and from among impressionable young Muslims in Europe. To counter this, the organisation’s expansion must be stopped and reversed.

To expand, Isis needs money. Apart from donations from other Middle Eastern sources, this comes mainly from the export of oil. The only way to stop that is to destroy the oil installations currently under Isis control. This can be done by pinpoint bombing. To maintain control of areas currently under its jurisdiction and to expand, it needs military hardware. Pinpoint bombing can help here too.

Sitting back and doing nothing cannot be an option. Isis must be seen to be retreating. Only then will its attraction, particularly for Muslim youth in Europe, begin to fade.

Dave Barker

Boxmeer, Netherlands

There may be a compelling case for bombing Isis in Syria, but David Cameron hasn’t made it. Far from being concerned about sub-contracting the nation’s security to France and the US, his real fear is of being left out of the seating arrangement at the top table, harrumphing along with the “big boys”’ who, let’s face it, will do no more than perpetuate their appalling track record in the Middle East.

Labour MPs must therefore oppose him, not their own leader, Jeremy Corbyn.

And after our air strikes have dealt with these pesky blighters in balaclavas, what of terrorism? That will still be not just over there and over here, but overlooked.

Shelagh Gardiner

Friockheim, Angus

Before we bomb Isis, can someone please explain to me whether the Syrian rebels who murdered the Russian pilot are “good” rebels or “bad” rebels?

Beverley Thompson

Milton Keynes

In Michael McCarthy’s item on the Paris climate change conference (28 November), he writes: “The principal aim, of course, is to cut emissions”. The use of “of course” implies not only that the reduction of emissions is the obvious thing to do, but that it is also the right thing to do.

No. Cutting emissions is indeed a good thing to do, but it is not the right thing to do. Far more important than slowing down the build-up of atmospheric greenhouse gases by cutting emissions is to reduce their absolute level. So the principal aim of the Paris conference must be to commit resources to a new international project to develop methods to extract greenhouse gases directly from the atmosphere.

Dennis Sherwood

Exton, Rutland

The world leaders’ meeting on climate change is a waste of time. Temperatures are indeed rising, animal species are becoming extinct, forests are being decimated and natural resources depleted. The question is why, and the simple answer is over-population.

Unless the rapid rise in world population is addressed and halted the world leaders’ good intentions will come to nothing. However, could this subject be too sensitive to mention when one considers the religious aspects of this problem?

S Silgram

Blackburn

The “Pay to Stay” clause in the Housing and Planning Bill, currently going through Parliament, is potentially disastrous for fully mutual housing co-operatives, small businesses that provide sorely needed social housing at no cost to the state.

Co-op tenants manage themselves on a voluntary basis, paying rents that make co-ops self-sustaining. Pay to Stay will force London co-ops to charge very much higher rents to households earning over £40,000.

Tenants on low-to-middle incomes will be obliged either to earn less or to leave. Those who can afford to stay will be unlikely to volunteer large amounts of time to manage the housing of those paying much less. Co-ops, stripped of skilled volunteers, will be unable to continue. Those left behind will need housing at the state’s expense.

Co-ops work hard to help themselves and their communities. They provide essential sustainable social housing, and support for vulnerable tenants. It is proposed that fully mutual housing co-operatives be excluded from Right to Buy. Surely they should also be exempted from Pay to Stay?

Dr Katherine Woolf

John Harrison

London NW6

Your editorial of Saturday subscribes to the predominant media view that the Labour Party is in chaos and its leader weak. It is not as simple as that. Your letters page of the same day shows a lot of reader support for Jeremy Corbyn’s position.

On the other hand, a majority of Labour MPs appear to favour a middle-of-the-road, don’t-rock-the-establishment line, not far from the Conservative position; and, as much as any decisions by Corbyn, it is their scheming which is stressing the Labour Party.

Disagreement within any party is natural and healthy. Winston Churchill consistently failed to support the Conservative Party line in the years before the 1939-1945 war. Both his and Chamberlain’s views were principled. Only the event would prove who was right.

Hugh Legge

Northampton

The present leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, by seeking to go behind his own MPs to the membership of the party, has raised a serious issue.

We have of course an unwritten constitution, but according to Dicey, the leading authority on our constitution, the Sovereignty of Parliament is the dominant characteristic of our political institutions. We are not a democracy in the ancient Athenian sense. We are a parliamentary democracy.

We elect MPs every five years to decide our laws. Corbyn, by seeking to go behind his MPs, is undermining the very basis of our constitution.

John Moses

Richmond, Surrey

It’s not clear from your article “Flying Scotsman voted most famous” (30 November) whether people were voting for a most famous train or a most famous locomotive. The poll results show a mixture.

The Flying Scotsman as a train for many years left London King’s Cross for Edinburgh at 10am. In due course the name was dropped. But the locomotive, as you report, is still with us. I suspect that many people voted for the locomotive not knowing the difference between a train and a locomotive.

Ian K Watson

Carlisle