Michael Fallon’s ‘morally indefensible’ comment about IS in Syria is amazing

Incredible. Michael Fallon is perverting all good sense to claim that the UK has a moral obligation to bomb people in the Middle East.

He says we should do it ourselves, rather than relying on other people to do it for us – how twisted is that?

And he’s telling us the Conservative Government intends to wait until its friends in the media have altered public opinion with saturation stories about the evils of IS, before calling a second vote on possible military action; stacking the deck before the cards are dealt, basically.

The question is not currently about who should do the bombing, but about what diplomacy can achieve to prevent the violence in Syria (and neighbouring countries) from escalating.

Once there is a framework for containing IS, and for solving Syria’s internal problems – that’s when we can discuss whether the countries involved wish to allow the UK to deploy forces within their borders.

It is “morally indefensible” for Britain to rely on other countries to tackle the so-called Islamic State in Syria, Michael Fallon has said.

The defence secretary told the BBC he was appealing to MPs to reconsider the case for airstrikes in the country.

It comes after a Russian passenger plane crashed in Egypt’s Sinai desert last Saturday, which the UK government suspects was caused by a bomb.

In 2013, MPs rejected possible UK military action in Syria.

A four-year civil war in Syria has ground to a stalemate, with President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIL), an array of Syrian rebels and Kurdish fighters all holding territory.

Mr Fallon also dismissed reports a second vote has been dropped, saying it would be held when “we are pretty sure we can win”.

Source: Michael Fallon: ‘Morally indefensible’ not to bomb IS in Syria – BBC News

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Related posts

9 Thoughts to “Michael Fallon’s ‘morally indefensible’ comment about IS in Syria is amazing”

  1. jeffrey davies

    not in my name the bombing is killing the innocent has well making more travel to eu

  2. NMac

    These cretins can’t wait to bomb Syria. If they would only read their history books they would learn that it is European, particularly British, since 1914, which is the cause of most of the Middle East’s troubles. Two things in particular – the discovery of huge oil reserves and the infamous Balfour Declaration, where we actually, without any consultation, gave away someone else’s country to a bunch of religious zealots.

    1. Britain has been bombing the middle east since the 1920s. I believe they used Handley Page bombers in those days. The bombing killed plenty of people, but was politically ineffective. Bombing Syria would be an act of aggression, not just against IS and other Islamic extremist groups, but would also kill many civilians with no places to shelter, then to say nothing about the homelessness and starvation which inevitably follows. These days, few wars are won from the air. The only effect bombing would have would be to recruit more to the IS cause. Do we really want that?

      One has only to take a look at Fallon to see one of the most brutal of the tories.

  3. digger

    fallon wants to be a hero just like bliar and the pig fancier by murdering innocent people from the safety of an office they are all cowardly psychos and must be stopped

  4. Jim

    So what do you suggest we do, sit back and wait until they gather up a mass of weapons and soldiers and then they start invade Sharm and other places? These terrorists are the biggest threat to peace and security the world has seen for many, many years. Rather than nip this in the bud, they’ve been left to club together their most intelligent and dangerous minds, and we know nothing about when and where they are going to strike next.

    1. Mike Sivier

      My personal opinion is that we should wait until we are asked to do something, or until an actual attack on the UK is prevented (I have high confidence in the UK security services, who tell us very often about the number of attacks they foil), providing us with intelligence that can be used to make a difference, rather than simply keep the aggression rolling along.
      Bear in mind that UK – and western – involvement in the Middle East has helped create many of the problems we are seeing now.

  5. They don’t want diplomacy to work.
    The overall plan is to destabilise the whole region so the US & her allies can divvy it up between them.
    Murdoch, Rothchild & Cheney (Genie oil & Gas) need I say more?

  6. Perhaps he should be talking to Obomber & co and tell them to stop supplying arms to the terrorists

  7. just a big racket basically, with all kinds of institutions feeding into each other and benefiting from defending Israels hegemony, securing oil, military contracts. Been going on for a long time and those players just trot out the same tired old act for the next quarters financial boost.

    Its so backwards, and makes me ashamed to be in a so called progressive nation when our institutions bend over to this militaristic persuasion so often.

    Yet the public knows its a con, so whats going on in media and the government ? At times like this we need a science level government and media. Imagine if every time the media said something, or a military adviser said something or a politician said something they had to provide solid references, and show evidence of trying to falsify their arguments. And for their ideas to be reviewed independently.

    It would be a better world, less corrupt. In all the gaps that exist when there is no scientific rigour and we have speeches, compelling stories and eloquence a million evils can come into play.

    I think we should just get rid of politicians. The whole idea of getting politicians to take responsibility for us via term democracies got us out of dictatorships, but has had its day. Not get rid of all together, obviously people need to come forward as diplomats or policy creators, but its time to move to something away from getting in leaders and something more reactive to the public and more accountable. Everything they say should expected to be an academic level presentation, and everything they do should be approved by a weekly referendum via citizen voting.

    And this would also put of all the narcissists that proliferate in politics. Major examples being Blair and IDS. If it was that hard, and that accountable they would do something else like acting.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this:

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close