So, now the UK threat level has been raised to 'severe'

  Forum Editor 18:10 29 Aug 14

which indicates that an attack from international terrorists on the UK mainland is 'highly likely'.

Tell me if I've got this wrong - we believe that an attack is highly likely, we know that religious fanatics are rampaging through parts of the Middle east murdering large numbers of people at will, we know that some of these killers come from, and are likely to return to this country, we have the means to do something about it all - by mounting airborne strikes against said murderers - we are being asked to do so by the government of Iraq, yet still our Prime Minister sits in Downing street and does nothing.

Do we have the right person at the controls?

  Forum Editor 18:21 29 Aug 14

"I suppose if they had listened to Enoch Powell we may not be in this predicament."

Of course we would. The two subjects are not in any way related.

As far as sending in the troops goes, nobody has suggested that. I mentioned air strikes.

  Quickbeam 18:23 29 Aug 14

"Do we have the right person at the controls?"

Well we picked him. Would the other two be better?

  Woolwell 18:25 29 Aug 14

There is a difference between sending in troops and mounting air strikes. I think that eventually we will have to use air strikes and come to an arrangement with Assad in Syria however distasteful that might be. The problem is that attacks on Muslims is likely to stir up more anti-British/Western feelings amongst the hot-headed Muslims already in UK and they will retaliate in UK.

I saw a program on BBC last Sunday morning where a young Muslim was all in favour of the caliphate and wanted to establish something similar in UK. Why he doesn't leave UK if he detests it so much I don't know.

  Woolwell 18:29 29 Aug 14

If this is what we are faced with Use of Biological Weapons - Fox news then that is really frightening.

  john bunyan 19:18 29 Aug 14

We have taken a viper to our bosom and are surprised that it bites?

To get involved in offensive action (not as part of NATO nor with a UN resolution) would be silly - especially as we have reduced our armed forces so much. Attacking the murderers in Syria and Iraq would exacerbate the situation.

WE should , by all means, provide SF, kit, and instructors to the Kurds and, as woolwell says maybe, temporarily, we should have some intelligence links to Assad.

Somehow we must isolate the UK jihadists and prevent their return by any available means.

Cameron is in a catch 22 - I cannot imagine Milliband would be any different.

  Woolwell 20:52 29 Aug 14

Rumpelteazer - All of them are too scared. Can you suggest anyone else? UK is weary and wary of war after Iraq and Afghanistan but we may be forced to react to the IS menace. The problem is that force tends to beget force.

  BRYNIT 21:02 29 Aug 14

I usually keep out of these discussions as I find it difficult to express my thought in writing but thought I give it a try.

"Do we have the right person at the controls?"

Personally I don't know and I doubt anyone can answer that question. We can all theorise on this subject but no one can give a definite answer. The person in control IMOP cannot make a snap decisions with out carefully considering all the facts and I doubt anyone you may think could do a better job would do anything different. Would you say the same thing if the Prime Minister sits in Downing street was from a Political Party that you may have voted for.

  flycatcher1 22:29 29 Aug 14

BRYNIT. I wholeheartedly agree with you, it is a shame that earlier Prime Ministers did not sit on their hands in Downing Street instead of joining some American adventures. Harold Wilson did this country a great favour in not supporting the Vietnam War. We are a member of NATO and I think that we should not engage in direct military action without the support of other members but hell will freeze over before this happens.

I have written before about the number of military aircraft available to EU nations, I suppose they are quite good for something but I know not what definitely not for fighting.

Cameron is a Coalition leader and operates with the Lib Dem ball and chain and with one hand tied behind his back. Not the best PM we have had but a lot better than some. We will never know how good he could be unless he gets to lead a one party Goverment .

  Devil Fish 22:33 29 Aug 14

Cameron could order air strikes but it can only ever be a short term strategy given the huge costs involved and im not just talking financial

the way forward in my opinion is firstly lobby iraq into forming an inclusive government to bring the different factions together

and open dialogue with the regional players to push the IS threat back

That will leave a bad taste in the mouth having to deal with the likes of Iran and Syria but it needs to be done if this mess is to be sorted out a mess essentially created by Bush and Blair

  BillSers 08:25 30 Aug 14

Tell me if I've got this wrong - we believe that an attack is highly likely, we know that religious fanatics are rampaging through parts of the Middle east murdering large numbers of people at will, we know that some of these killers come from, and are likely to return to this country,

If anyone wants to travel to countries at war to join the Jahadists surely the best solution would be to prevent them buying a return ticket. Let them go but to never return to these shores.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Sony Xperia XZ Premium review: Hands-on with the new 4K HDR phone with Motion Eye camera and Snapdr5…

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

Best laptop for design and art 2017: we test Apple, Dell, HP, Lenovo and Microsoft's best models…

CarPlay tips & troubleshooting guide: CarPlay tips & troubleshooting guide: Get the most from…