:00:00. > :00:26.Conservative former Defence, now Business Minister, Anna Soubry.
:00:27. > :00:29.Labour's Shadow Home Secretary, Andy Burnham.
:00:30. > :00:32.Guardian leader writer, former editor of the French daily
:00:33. > :00:37.Le Monde, and just back from Paris, Natalie Nougayrede.
:00:38. > :00:39.Military historian, Daily Mail columnist and former editor of
:00:40. > :00:47.Broadcaster Mehdi Hasan, based in Washington working for
:00:48. > :00:54.And the Russian-British businessman Evgeny Lebedev, owner of the
:00:55. > :01:14.If you want to text or tweet our hashtag is BBCQT,
:01:15. > :01:20.Text comments to 83981, and press the Red Button to see what
:01:21. > :01:38.Lets have our first question from Dr Nina Parmar, please. Is it time to
:01:39. > :01:46.take full military action against Isis? Anna Soubry. In short, yes.
:01:47. > :01:52.APPLAUSE I think it is really important that
:01:53. > :01:56.everybody, if I may say, understands that nobody likes to say yes,
:01:57. > :02:01.because we understand that that is a very dangerous thing to do and it
:02:02. > :02:04.puts lots of lives at risk. But it is the right thing to do now because
:02:05. > :02:09.of what has happened in France, in Paris, the city of love that has
:02:10. > :02:14.been turned into these terrible scenes, which I think have touched
:02:15. > :02:19.everybody's hearts, and rightly so. But it has shown us, as if we did
:02:20. > :02:23.not know, what crisis really is like. It is a barbarity and
:02:24. > :02:28.brutality I don't think we have seen the like of before. So we do need to
:02:29. > :02:33.take that action and we need to take it as quickly as we can. But I also
:02:34. > :02:38.want to say that we need to take it with political consensus, as much as
:02:39. > :02:42.we can. I am pleased to hear the words of Alex Salmond, foreign
:02:43. > :02:47.affairs spokesman for the SNP. We have our differences but he speaks a
:02:48. > :02:52.lot of sense at times, and he speaks with authority. And I think he is
:02:53. > :02:57.beginning to talk the right language, if I may say. And I look
:02:58. > :03:02.forward to Labour also coming with us, and other parties, so that if we
:03:03. > :03:07.can build a consensus, we need to get on with this. Unfortunately, we
:03:08. > :03:10.need to act quickly. The question was to take full military action.
:03:11. > :03:17.What do you mean by that, Anna Soubry? At the moment, we mean air
:03:18. > :03:20.strikes, not boots on the ground. There is an argument that that is a
:03:21. > :03:24.more effective and additional way of taking on these terrorists, but we
:03:25. > :03:30.now need to join our international colleagues. We are working in Iraq
:03:31. > :03:34.and taking action thereby we need to extend it into Syria. But it is not
:03:35. > :03:39.against the Syrians. Make it clear, this is not the same as 2013 when
:03:40. > :03:43.the vote was about Syria, Assad and what he was doing with chemical
:03:44. > :03:51.weapons. This is about Isis, and times against us and we need to get
:03:52. > :03:54.on and sort it out. Mehdi Hasan. Full military action. Let's start
:03:55. > :03:58.with the point that there is already military action. Isis have been
:03:59. > :04:01.bombed for nearly a year now and that has not made as much difference
:04:02. > :04:06.as those who were in favour of that were saying a year ago. For me, I
:04:07. > :04:09.remember 9/11 when I think about Paris, I think about the major
:04:10. > :04:15.atrocity of our lives, the September 11 attacks. What did we do after
:04:16. > :04:19.that? We had a president who declared war, went into Afghanistan
:04:20. > :04:25.guns blazing, had air strikes, supported rebel groups on the ground
:04:26. > :04:29.and toppled the Isis of 2001, the Taliban, a horrific regime. We
:04:30. > :04:33.patted ourselves on the back and 14 years later we are still stuck in
:04:34. > :04:37.Afghanistan fighting a brutal terrorist insurgency, fighting
:04:38. > :04:42.terrorists across the world. Who believes the world is any safer than
:04:43. > :04:49.it was on September 12, 2001? In fact, the opposite.
:04:50. > :04:55.APPLAUSE So, no action is your view? Not at
:04:56. > :05:00.all. But the idea of full military action... What action? There is a
:05:01. > :05:05.reason why Isis are striking -- thriving in Syria and Iraq, it is
:05:06. > :05:09.because they war-torn countries. If you are going to defeat Isis in
:05:10. > :05:13.Syria the first thing to do is get a ceasefire and solution in Syria. The
:05:14. > :05:17.Foreign Office select committee pointed out that your government has
:05:18. > :05:21.not made the case for air strikes because it has no coherent policy
:05:22. > :05:25.and air strikes distract -- distract us from what needs to be done on the
:05:26. > :05:30.ground, getting Saudi Arabia and Iran round the table.
:05:31. > :05:37.APPLAUSE I want to hear from the man down
:05:38. > :05:42.there in white. Unfortunately, the conflicts in the Middle East date
:05:43. > :05:46.back to the seventh century. A political solution at this second is
:05:47. > :05:53.out of the question for both sides at this moment. The man on the
:05:54. > :05:55.gangway. Anna Soubry, you talk of political consensus but earlier
:05:56. > :05:59.today I was reading on the BBC that David Cameron was willing to take
:06:00. > :06:04.action without a UN mandate because of the Russians blocking it with a
:06:05. > :06:08.veto. That is different. Ira member when we were going into Iraq and
:06:09. > :06:13.Tony Blair did not have a mandate from the UN, that has become his
:06:14. > :06:21.legacy. -- I remember. How would it be OK for David Cameron but it was
:06:22. > :06:24.not OK back then? Max Hastings. I agree with everything that was just
:06:25. > :06:28.said on the other side of the table about the need for caution at this
:06:29. > :06:33.stage. Anybody who pretends the answers are easy are people we
:06:34. > :06:37.should mistrust. We have to strengthen domestic security against
:06:38. > :06:41.terrorism here in Europe. That is the easy part. But what we do
:06:42. > :06:46.abroad, the great principle one should act on is don't make things
:06:47. > :06:50.any worse. We talk of building consensus, but consensus for what? I
:06:51. > :06:54.know hardly anybody in the military field who believes simply bombing in
:06:55. > :07:02.Syria will achieve anything, unless there is also a political and
:07:03. > :07:08.somatic offensive. -- unless there is also a political and diplomatic
:07:09. > :07:11.offensive. As you know, this is not just about taking air strikes
:07:12. > :07:16.against Isis, that is only part of all the other things we are doing,
:07:17. > :07:21.including finding a short and long-term solution in Syria and
:07:22. > :07:25.Iraq. This is just another thing. Can we get it in the right order?
:07:26. > :07:28.The first thing that has to be done, whether you like it or not, the
:07:29. > :07:34.Russians have to be talked to. There can be no deal in Syria without
:07:35. > :07:41.talking to the Russians. Cameron has a ready done that, talked to Putin.
:07:42. > :07:45.Which side are you on in this argument? In the circumstances we
:07:46. > :07:50.find ourselves this week, it would be wrong to rule anything out. This
:07:51. > :07:55.is an attack on our way of life. I don't think we can sit by and accept
:07:56. > :07:59.it. But I have sat in Parliament this week and I have had a growing
:08:00. > :08:03.feeling that we are back where we were ten or more years ago as Mehdi
:08:04. > :08:08.Hasan was saying, and not learning the lessons of the last decade. What
:08:09. > :08:13.were the two big lessons of Iraq? Number one, the UN mandate. That was
:08:14. > :08:18.a failure on our part. We should have worked to get that and we
:08:19. > :08:21.didn't. It was reported that Cameron met Putin in Vienna last week but
:08:22. > :08:26.did not once raised the question of the UN. We need to see evidence that
:08:27. > :08:29.he wants to get the UN mandate because you need to build a
:08:30. > :08:34.consensus, build solidarity to take on this question. He should be
:08:35. > :08:37.working hard to get that UN mandate. Are you saying it would not
:08:38. > :08:42.be legitimate without the UN mandate. In the House of Commons he
:08:43. > :08:48.said it was desirable but not an essential qualification. You have to
:08:49. > :08:52.look at the circumstances. We have four of five permanent members
:08:53. > :08:56.involved in some way. The circumstances are building and we
:08:57. > :09:00.have had progress with Russia. The 2nd question is an important one.
:09:01. > :09:05.The 2nd failure of Iraq was the failure to plan for the aftermath.
:09:06. > :09:08.That was the failure. And that actually...
:09:09. > :09:12.APPLAUSE And let's be honest, speaking as
:09:13. > :09:18.somebody who voted for that intervention, that failure to plan
:09:19. > :09:20.led to the conditions that we see. Let me finish the point.
:09:21. > :09:24.led to the conditions that we see. to be a plan for Syria, doesn't
:09:25. > :09:28.there, there has to be to be a plan for Syria, doesn't
:09:29. > :09:28.what will happen on the ground. Syria
:09:29. > :09:31.what will happen on the ground. different groups, if you just bomb,
:09:32. > :09:33.what will happen on the ground. what is going to happen on the
:09:34. > :09:44.ground? The conditions are being plan that has international backing
:09:45. > :09:47.so if there is action there is then a plan for the future of Syria. So
:09:48. > :09:52.the idea a plan for the future of Syria. So
:09:53. > :09:55.cross over the phoney border into a plan for the future of Syria. So
:09:56. > :10:03.Syria, you would oppose them doing a plan for the future of Syria. So
:10:04. > :10:07.of their power unless there was UN agreement on the future of Syria and
:10:08. > :10:11.those other things. I didn't quite say that. I want to see the Prime
:10:12. > :10:16.Minister straining every sinew to get that UN backing. I am saying
:10:17. > :10:19.that looks possible now, given the progress with Russia and given the
:10:20. > :10:24.fact that members of the Security Council, most of them, are now
:10:25. > :10:27.committed one way or another. It looks possible. He
:10:28. > :10:29.committed one way or another. It prioritising that, not just
:10:30. > :10:33.committed one way or another. It it would be nice. He needs to get
:10:34. > :10:38.that UN mandate because if he gets it we will be in a stronger position
:10:39. > :10:43.going forward. About the UN mandate, we all know that for the four years
:10:44. > :10:49.that the Syrian civil war has been going on, Russia has presented three
:10:50. > :10:55.times its veto in the UN Security Council, blocking that UN mandate.
:10:56. > :11:00.Now, Russia will, I think, only agree to a resolution if the text
:11:01. > :11:05.says that Assad, the Syrian president who has had his army
:11:06. > :11:06.bombing civilians for four years now and creating a huge human
:11:07. > :11:09.bombing civilians for four years now is responsible for the overall
:11:10. > :11:15.majority of the 250, up to is responsible for the overall
:11:16. > :11:21.300,000 people who have been killed sure he is considered as an ally.
:11:22. > :11:28.This is the problem we now. The person who has set his own
:11:29. > :11:34.country to fire and caused this tragedy in Syria. What has happened
:11:35. > :11:40.in Paris this past week is basically the Syrian civil war flowing out,
:11:41. > :11:43.exporting its disorder and its horrors to our European soil. And we
:11:44. > :11:49.are all faced, as Europeans, with this problem. And I think it
:11:50. > :11:52.revolves centrally around stopping the massacres and atrocities that
:11:53. > :12:01.Assad has been carrying out. APPLAUSE
:12:02. > :12:08.We were hearing about Putin's involvement. There's been talk about
:12:09. > :12:14.the possibility of an alliance between countries in Europe which I
:12:15. > :12:21.very much hope will be achieved very soon. We work together to achieve
:12:22. > :12:26.something which I believe is truly the biggest threat humanity faces.
:12:27. > :12:29.When I read about Isis the first time, or Islamic state, or the
:12:30. > :12:36.formation of it and the potential threat that I saw it would be posing
:12:37. > :12:39.to our way of life because their whole culture, their whole way of
:12:40. > :12:44.living and the whole premise on which they exist is to fight against
:12:45. > :12:50.our way of life, the aim of the caliphate is to spread the caliphate
:12:51. > :12:55.across all worlds Muslims and to spread Islam across the world, I
:12:56. > :12:59.don't know how much more, how many more atrocities need to happen in
:13:00. > :13:03.order for people to wake up, for the Governments to wake up to work
:13:04. > :13:12.together to defeat this enemy. We've had so far Tunisia, Beirut, Turkey,
:13:13. > :13:16.the downing of a Russian plane with 224 innocent civilians and last
:13:17. > :13:23.weekend we had Paris. The terrible thing... I just say one thing.
:13:24. > :13:28.If Putin was bombing Isis, why did Isis claim to bring down the Russian
:13:29. > :13:34.plane. You mentioned 9/11 earlier and the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
:13:35. > :13:38.Al-Qaeda train and exist on Taliban-controlled Afghanistan land
:13:39. > :13:44.and the atrocity that was committeded on American soil on 9/11
:13:45. > :13:48.was absolutely outrageous. Islamic state is much more sophisticated
:13:49. > :13:52.than Al-Qaeda was then, can you just imagine what they are capable of
:13:53. > :13:58.doing. The question that Nina asked was, is it time to take full
:13:59. > :14:02.military action. What military action do you think should be taken
:14:03. > :14:06.and would Russia agree to? At the moment there is a need for
:14:07. > :14:10.coordinated air strikes and I complete hi agree with Max that air
:14:11. > :14:16.strikes on their own is not going to solve this, but, as I learn and, as
:14:17. > :14:20.I speak to, actually independent newspaper correspondents who I
:14:21. > :14:25.believe, particularly Patrick Hoburn, one of the greatest world
:14:26. > :14:33.experts on Isis who's just written a book on Isis, a coalition of ground
:14:34. > :14:41.forces fighting already on Syrian land is the solution so far. The
:14:42. > :14:47.woman there? It seems to me as though we are fighting an
:14:48. > :14:50.unconventional and evolving enemy so it's conventional warfare, is that
:14:51. > :14:54.the solution, I don't think it is, it doesn't seem the solution, it
:14:55. > :14:59.hasn't worked so far. In what sense is it not? Do they really have
:15:00. > :15:03.boundaries, specific land boundaries? They seem to be
:15:04. > :15:08.infiltrating the whole world so going in and bombing a specific part
:15:09. > :15:13.of the woshled... Max Hastings, what do the military say about taking on
:15:14. > :15:17.Isis, on the military front... The military is very divided. There are
:15:18. > :15:20.some military leaders who'd like to see us go in there and bomb but the
:15:21. > :15:25.problem is still, and the friends whom I respect feel this, nobody
:15:26. > :15:30.around this table yet has defined what are our objectives, whose side
:15:31. > :15:34.are we on, it's not enough to be against Assad and Isis, I would have
:15:35. > :15:38.thought everything we have learn learnt in the last 14 years is
:15:39. > :15:45.about... The question was about Isis and you are confusing it with our
:15:46. > :15:48.dispute with Assad. It's been fuelled by Assad. He's killed...
:15:49. > :15:52.ALL SPEAK AT ONCE
:15:53. > :15:56.This is really important. I want air strikes against Isis. We are doing
:15:57. > :16:00.the right thing by having all our negotiations in Vienna about the
:16:01. > :16:04.future of Syria, we want peace in Syria, and Assad was part of the
:16:05. > :16:08.short-term, but not the long-term solution. What about Libya? We are
:16:09. > :16:12.doing lots of things. This is one thing we must now do because of
:16:13. > :16:17.what's happened, particularly in Paris, but also the downing of the
:16:18. > :16:21.jet. This is where there's a problem. The Government's argument I
:16:22. > :16:25.think has been too simplistic because you are trying to separate
:16:26. > :16:30.the two things completely and trying to say there's Isil here and Assad
:16:31. > :16:33.and the Civil War here. These two things can't be separated in that
:16:34. > :16:36.way, if you were to bomb around Raqqa and that area, you have a
:16:37. > :16:43.complex situation on the ground because of the Civil War. And you,
:16:44. > :16:45.you too have to make a choice. The Select Committee said to the
:16:46. > :16:48.Government, you cannot separate these things in the way that you are
:16:49. > :16:52.trying to do and you've got to answer that as a Government before
:16:53. > :16:59.you can expect... All right, hold it you two. We a
:17:00. > :17:05.agree on that. Fine, let us hear what our audience think. You, Sir,
:17:06. > :17:10.on the front? Is it not more realistic to talk about engaging
:17:11. > :17:13.Isis, potentially driving a wedge between the various factionses that
:17:14. > :17:17.constitute Isis, but also the reality surely is not about
:17:18. > :17:21.eliminating Isis but a policy of condition teenagement because the
:17:22. > :17:25.idea that they are somehow going to be eliminated from the region I
:17:26. > :17:30.think is ridiculous. What do you mean by containment? How would it
:17:31. > :17:35.prevent Paris happening? Well, it looks as though the successes have
:17:36. > :17:39.already been achieved if we are to believe it, it's about taking out
:17:40. > :17:47.leaders and the higher Echelons of Isis in an attempt to hold back the
:17:48. > :17:52.movement and hold back the spread of... Hold on, hold on panel, I want
:17:53. > :17:55.to hear members of the audience because I think people watching
:17:56. > :17:59.would like to hear what they have to say. It's obvious that you are keen
:18:00. > :18:02.to go in and bomb and have massive military action. Keen or not keen,
:18:03. > :18:06.you think it's now the time to to so, how are you going to protect
:18:07. > :18:10.against massive collateral damage and civilian loss because these poor
:18:11. > :18:14.people are being attacked by Assad, their own government and now by our
:18:15. > :18:18.forces, the French went in and bombed today, I don't know if you
:18:19. > :18:21.have seen the images of loss of life, children, hospitals, where do
:18:22. > :18:26.these people turn because they can't turn to us?
:18:27. > :18:30.All right. APPLAUSE
:18:31. > :18:36.NATS Lee, President Hollande has said France is at war, what is your
:18:37. > :18:43.answer to her -- Natalie? It's obvious that I think a policy that
:18:44. > :18:47.would be just about air strikes, it has its obvious limits and it's
:18:48. > :18:55.Daning ruse, the ones you just mentioned. -- dangerous. Concerning
:18:56. > :18:58.those dangers, collateral damage, I would worry more because I covered
:18:59. > :19:02.the war in Chechnya ten years ago and I would worry much more about
:19:03. > :19:06.the collateral damage from Russian bombs than from western bombs at
:19:07. > :19:11.this point in time, but it's obvious that just air strikes will not do
:19:12. > :19:18.it, so we are facing a very complex situation where I don't think Isis
:19:19. > :19:22.can be convinced or it doesn't look like it's an entity that you can
:19:23. > :19:29.break down into different tendencies an trends. These are highly
:19:30. > :19:32.idealogyised. Look, nobody wants to do this, nobody has a happy heart
:19:33. > :19:37.doing it, it's just that because of where we are, we can't negotiate
:19:38. > :19:40.with these people, they are beyond reason and, almost humanity. It's
:19:41. > :19:45.with huge regret... You have made your point. The woman with the
:19:46. > :19:50.spectacles three in and then I'll come to you as you have had your
:19:51. > :19:56.hand up for some time. You, first? Should we not be investigating who's
:19:57. > :20:01.actually funding Isis... Yes APPLAUSE
:20:02. > :20:06.The idea that it can be stopped, the funding? Oh, yes. Yes, so who is
:20:07. > :20:11.buying oil potentially from them, who is giving them weapons, who is
:20:12. > :20:21.giving them arms, for example, and shouldn't we sanction countries that
:20:22. > :20:28.are funding them, is that not more of a point for the UN to tackle?
:20:29. > :20:33.Should we sanction it ourselves, that's the danger. What about the
:20:34. > :20:38.money flowing now? It's outrageous that Isis is selling $2 million
:20:39. > :20:45.worth of oil a day, it's outrageous that the oil roots have only just
:20:46. > :20:50.been bombed now. Just to clarify, you would like the oil routes
:20:51. > :20:54.bombed? I'm saying if you are going to take military action against
:20:55. > :21:00.Isil, do that. You are bombing Raqqa, a city of people. You approve
:21:01. > :21:04.of the bombing, clarify? My view is Isis cannot be defeated without a
:21:05. > :21:08.component of military action. Should it be the West? No. That raises a
:21:09. > :21:13.whole other issue with blow back. I want to say one thing, if military
:21:14. > :21:17.action is the right course of action, fine, but let's be honest
:21:18. > :21:23.about the consequences, it's not cost free. Plenty of Isis experts
:21:24. > :21:29.have said, they have made the point that Russia's attacked Isis and a
:21:30. > :21:33.plane went down, France is bombing Isis, Paris is. There are
:21:34. > :21:37.consequences to our foreign policy. There have been seven thwarted
:21:38. > :21:45.attacks in the last 12 months on our country, on our people. We need to
:21:46. > :21:49.contain them. David Cameron went on Andrew Marr and said Russia
:21:50. > :21:56.intervening in Syria leads to more radicalisation and terrorism. He was
:21:57. > :22:00.supporting Assad. We'll be supporting Assad if we go in and
:22:01. > :22:04.only take on Isis. The woman there on the gangway. You, yes? I would
:22:05. > :22:08.like to go back to the first statement you made Anna, you said
:22:09. > :22:12.Isis is a threat, I would like to remind you that Assad's regime has
:22:13. > :22:19.killed seven more times people than Isis has done this year alone. When
:22:20. > :22:23.will Assad become a threat, when he attacks a European country? That's
:22:24. > :22:29.what it seems to me now. What do you think of Isis? It doesn't represent
:22:30. > :22:33.Islam, it goes there saying we are going to take over and we are doing
:22:34. > :22:37.this for the sake of Islam. . It doesn't. My heart goes out to the
:22:38. > :22:41.people attacked in Paris but now we have the situation where we have to
:22:42. > :22:45.apologise and do this and that, but what I want to ask you, Isis is a
:22:46. > :22:50.threat, but Assad is a bigger they want. Why don't you take that into
:22:51. > :22:54.account? I don't think he's a bigger threat. I agree with your analysis
:22:55. > :22:59.of the barbarity of the regime. Parliament took a vote that we'd not
:23:00. > :23:04.get involved in the internal Civil War against Assad. We are working
:23:05. > :23:08.diplomatically in Vienna, working with allies, I'm talking about Isis
:23:09. > :23:11.and the need to take the air strikes which others are doing to join in
:23:12. > :23:21.that coalition. Thank you, I don't want to stop you but I don't want to
:23:22. > :23:26.stop the other five people. When you spoke of us and them, of
:23:27. > :23:30.none-Islamic individuals and Islamic individuals, I want to reiterate
:23:31. > :23:33.that Islamic state doesn't represent Muslims at all.
:23:34. > :23:38.APPLAUSE I did agree with a lot of what he
:23:39. > :23:43.said though. Mehdi's point, why is it that we criticise Russia's stance
:23:44. > :23:48.but not our own in terms of mill tar action. I'll take another question
:23:49. > :23:53.-- military action. We have a number of questions on the topic. I'll come
:23:54. > :23:57.to you if a moment then you, Sir. Simon Warr. I should say, as ever,
:23:58. > :24:00.where we are going to be next though. We are in Manchester next
:24:01. > :24:05.week and Birmingham the week after that. On the screen is the number if
:24:06. > :24:08.you want to come. We'll be back in Belfast where we were due to be
:24:09. > :24:17.tonight, we'll be back there in January. Simon Warr, please?
:24:18. > :24:23.Isn't declaring all out war on Isis precisely what they want us to do?
:24:24. > :24:30.Natalie? I think you have a point there. I think they do want to
:24:31. > :24:34.attract as much retaliation and response as possible, possibly even
:24:35. > :24:39.ground troops which I think would be a dangerous option from a Western
:24:40. > :24:42.perspective and, we've seen the results of ground operations
:24:43. > :24:46.elsewhere which weren't quite convincing. So I do think that one
:24:47. > :24:50.has to be careful with that kind of vocabulary. It's clear the French
:24:51. > :24:56.President used that kind of vole cack lair because of the utter
:24:57. > :25:03.horror of what had happened in Paris -- vocabulary. The pain everybody
:25:04. > :25:07.felt, it was felt there was a need to put everybody in mobilisation
:25:08. > :25:11.mode. That was clearly a rhetoric he felt would be able to rally people
:25:12. > :25:17.in France, but also people beyond France. I do want to make the point
:25:18. > :25:23.that French people have been extremely sensitive and touched by
:25:24. > :25:31.the signal of support and the messages of support they have been
:25:32. > :25:34.getting. I think it's important, it's important to see the larger
:25:35. > :25:38.European angle and I think it's important to keep in mind that we
:25:39. > :25:42.need to do something together and show that we are in this together
:25:43. > :25:49.and not fragmented each and every nation on its own. Simon, you say it
:25:50. > :25:53.may be that all-out war may be precisely what Isis wants. Are you
:25:54. > :25:57.suggesting no military action should be taken because that's what it
:25:58. > :26:02.wants to provoke? Yes. They should go by divide and rule. Isis have had
:26:03. > :26:05.their nose put out of joint because everybody is flooding across to
:26:06. > :26:09.Western Europe. They want to turn Muslims in Europe against other
:26:10. > :26:15.Muslims. I read in the paper some incident in Scotland where some poor
:26:16. > :26:20.innocent Muslim man in a shop was threatened because of this. That's
:26:21. > :26:25.exactly what Isis want, the more we attack them, we bomb them, innocent
:26:26. > :26:29.Muslims are going to be slaughtered, they'll say, look what the West are
:26:30. > :26:31.dog to us again and they are going to hopefully...
:26:32. > :26:40.APPLAUSE Get the support.
:26:41. > :26:46.We have heard a lot about strategy and what is David Cameron's strategy
:26:47. > :26:56.tonight, but I would raise this question. President Hollande
:26:57. > :27:01.declared war against Isis. France is a member of Nato and as I understand
:27:02. > :27:07.it the philosophy of Nato is that if one member is attacked, all members
:27:08. > :27:14.are attacked. So what is Nato's strategy? Max Hastings. We are still
:27:15. > :27:17.coming to terms with the huge problem of non-state enemies, which
:27:18. > :27:21.is new to this generation. In the days of the old days of Nato we knew
:27:22. > :27:26.who the enemy was, the Soviet Union, but this is a new world. Everybody
:27:27. > :27:32.is still trying to feel their way to how to deal with this. It isn't easy
:27:33. > :27:35.because it was by no means a silly point that was put about the notion,
:27:36. > :27:40.would we be doing what Isis wanted by attacking them. They are putting
:27:41. > :27:45.out videos all the time challenging the West to come and fight them on
:27:46. > :27:50.the ground. But everything I have heard so far this evening, outrage
:27:51. > :27:54.is no substitute for policy. We all load of Isis and everything it
:27:55. > :27:59.stands for, we all recoil from Assad, but if we are going to launch
:28:00. > :28:02.military action, who are we for, who are we aiming to support? I think it
:28:03. > :28:06.is right that Nato, France or Britain stops to answer that
:28:07. > :28:11.question before we launch any military action.
:28:12. > :28:16.APPLAUSE Let's hear the Jeremy Corbyn take on
:28:17. > :28:20.this. This is my take on it. I want to come back to what Simon said
:28:21. > :28:25.because I think he put it very well. They want us to be forced into knee
:28:26. > :28:28.jerk response is my take on it. I want to come back to what Simon said
:28:29. > :28:30.because I think he put it very well. They want us to be forced into knee
:28:31. > :28:34.jerk responses polarise. That is what this is designed to do, it is
:28:35. > :28:37.designed to divide us, to set one country against another, designed to
:28:38. > :28:41.set one religion against another, designed to make us want to turn our
:28:42. > :28:46.back on refugees, which in my view we must not do. That is what it is
:28:47. > :28:51.designed to do and we need to think it through, which is why we must not
:28:52. > :28:55.let it happen, which is why the UN route is so important. If we are not
:28:56. > :29:02.allowing ourselves to be divided, we will be in a stronger position. If
:29:03. > :29:06.we hold together, that is how we will prevail. You are suggesting the
:29:07. > :29:10.Prime Minister should get parliamentary approval here, from
:29:11. > :29:15.labour and Jeremy Corbyn, if the UN route is taken, and otherwise it is
:29:16. > :29:21.a rather iffy question. He has not put his proposal, David, has he? We
:29:22. > :29:26.don't know what he wants. It is premature, but I am saying that I
:29:27. > :29:29.think the question is a very good one, because that is understanding
:29:30. > :29:33.the nature of what we are confronting. We need to become more
:29:34. > :29:38.sophisticated. Country that was attacked in the first place often
:29:39. > :29:42.has an instinctive strike back straightaway. We should do it
:29:43. > :29:46.together, as the gentleman says, as a European union. You must all
:29:47. > :29:49.please come on the panel, keep your remarks a bit more taut, because
:29:50. > :29:54.otherwise nobody in the audience will get a chance to speak and half
:29:55. > :29:58.the panel will not get a chance to speak. I agree we need to be
:29:59. > :30:02.sophisticated, and I worry about the language of war. I get why President
:30:03. > :30:05.Hollande talk that way, I get his desire for vengeance and I would
:30:06. > :30:11.probably say the same in his position. But war is traditionally
:30:12. > :30:14.between two states. Why give these cowardly women or is the prestige
:30:15. > :30:25.and status they desperately crave as warriors and soldiers, and which
:30:26. > :30:30.they do not deserve. -- why give these cowards the prestige. In the
:30:31. > :30:33.month of Remembrance Sunday, I find it astonishing that we are not
:30:34. > :30:38.thinking of the human cost to UK troops, and the fact that we know
:30:39. > :30:44.after the last two war is the amount of damage it did to our troops, the
:30:45. > :30:49.number of lives lost. Last week, 8000 veterans that served this
:30:50. > :30:52.country were homeless. When we are talking about long-term strategy, we
:30:53. > :30:55.need to think about how we are going to deal with that, our mental health
:30:56. > :31:01.resources, supporting to deal with that, our mental health
:31:02. > :31:05.the streets. It is appalling, the way we treat them. Are you saying
:31:06. > :31:11.that no act of war is legitimate for whatever purpose? Not at all. I am
:31:12. > :31:15.saying if we are putting our troops on the ground in a vulnerable
:31:16. > :31:19.position we need to not only think about the cost to civilian life in
:31:20. > :31:22.that country, but the cost to our troops and public services and how
:31:23. > :31:29.we are going to support them, which we are failing to do at the moment.
:31:30. > :31:35.APPLAUSE Politicians all the way up to our
:31:36. > :31:38.previous Prime Minister Tony Blair, commentators, experts have all
:31:39. > :31:41.acknowledged that commentators, experts have all
:31:42. > :31:47.has partly led to the unrest in the region and even
:31:48. > :31:49.has partly led to the unrest in the bodies. I am concerned, as a citizen
:31:50. > :31:52.of this country, that any bodies. I am concerned, as a citizen
:31:53. > :31:55.action will lead to bodies. I am concerned, as a citizen
:31:56. > :32:02.into Isis and more unrest in the region. How can we avoid that? We
:32:03. > :32:08.are suppressing lessons learned from Iraq with the delay in the Chilcot
:32:09. > :32:11.Inquiry. I was very much against the invasion of Iraq and if I had been
:32:12. > :32:17.in Parliament I would not have voted for it. But in the extraordinary
:32:18. > :32:21.circumstances which we are in, we have never known anything like Isis.
:32:22. > :32:25.It is not just about what they did in Paris, or what they did with the
:32:26. > :32:30.aeroplane or in Baghdad. It is also the fact that they behead people.
:32:31. > :32:35.They murder people because they are gay. They are beyond barbarity. We
:32:36. > :32:40.have never known anything like this before. There are other things, this
:32:41. > :32:47.is not in isolation. Do you know before. There are other things, this
:32:48. > :32:49.that Saudi Arabia beheads people and we are quite close allies with Saudi
:32:50. > :32:58.Arabia? APPLAUSE
:32:59. > :33:03.Hang on, that sounds like apologies. They don't go onto the streets of
:33:04. > :33:08.Paris and shoot people in the way that they did. Don't try and make
:33:09. > :33:13.out... You said that headings, I am just pointing out. You are just
:33:14. > :33:16.making a cheap point, this is beyond cheap political points.
:33:17. > :33:21.making a cheap point, this is beyond cheap point, it goes to the heart of
:33:22. > :33:25.our policy in the Middle East. Re-evaluate what the
:33:26. > :33:27.our policy in the Middle East. in the Middle East. Are we taking
:33:28. > :33:29.the right stance in the various conflicts? Right now, a
:33:30. > :33:32.the right stance in the various Arab countries are bombing Yemen,
:33:33. > :33:40.the poorest country in the Middle East, and we are helping them do
:33:41. > :33:51.that. You are just throwing stuff into muddy the waters. Don't have a
:33:52. > :33:55.spat. What are you trying to say? Only people in Paris matter? I am
:33:56. > :34:01.not saying that and you know that. You are better than these cheap
:34:02. > :34:04.points. I would go back to Simon's original question about whether this
:34:05. > :34:08.is exactly what they want us to do and I would say no, because they
:34:09. > :34:11.would not be able to withstand the military might of a united force.
:34:12. > :34:16.The trouble with what is happening now is that it is very this jointed.
:34:17. > :34:19.The French are doing something, the Russians are doing something, the
:34:20. > :34:24.Brits are not doing anything on Syrian territory. The idea that if
:34:25. > :34:25.Brits are not doing anything on we leave them alone they will leave
:34:26. > :34:31.us alone is really not going to work and is naive. I will tell you why,
:34:32. > :34:33.because as was pointed out earlier, there have been seven possible
:34:34. > :34:43.attacks foiled in this country just this year. That is a terrifying
:34:44. > :34:46.thought. If we do try and boost Rape Crisis, we are going to kill a lot
:34:47. > :34:50.of innocent civilians at the same time. That is going to breed more
:34:51. > :34:59.discontent which will lead to other groups. We may get rid of Isis, but
:35:00. > :35:02.another group will grow. We need to keep a sense of proportion. You keep
:35:03. > :35:07.saying this is an unprecedented threat. This is quite untrue. In the
:35:08. > :35:11.2nd and First World War, this country faced far graver
:35:12. > :35:16.challengers. Isis is a disease, and unpleasant disease, but this is not
:35:17. > :35:19.an existential threat. The one thing that will not help us is if
:35:20. > :35:25.politicians in senior positions, such as you, grossly exaggerate.
:35:26. > :35:29.Isis is not an ex is then shall threaten our society. We keep our
:35:30. > :35:33.nerve, act sensibly and do not make things worse by military action. We
:35:34. > :35:38.will see this through and I'm quite sure we will prevail.
:35:39. > :35:42.APPLAUSE I wanted to address the point that
:35:43. > :35:45.this country has faced extraordinary threaten the First World War and the
:35:46. > :35:51.2nd World War but I would argue that this threat is just as strong. We
:35:52. > :36:01.are not going to be invaded and occupied. One person at a time.
:36:02. > :36:04.Natalie, please. I think we are facing a very, very scary
:36:05. > :36:14.phenomenon, which is a combination of territories controlled today, in
:36:15. > :36:19.Syria and Iraq, controlled by Isis, networks that feed into Europe, that
:36:20. > :36:24.exist. There are Isis cells in Europe. Then there is the ideology
:36:25. > :36:27.of Isis, which spreads online and which tries to target young Muslims
:36:28. > :36:34.in Europe, but not just young Muslims. We know this is a
:36:35. > :36:38.completely new phenomenon. They want to cast themselves as a state, and
:36:39. > :36:42.they have some of the attributes of a state because they do have hard
:36:43. > :36:46.military equipment, heavy military equipment, and they claim even to
:36:47. > :36:51.produce their own money. We are dealing with a phenomenon which is
:36:52. > :36:55.quite new. The point is not to ask whether the West or Europe hasn't
:36:56. > :36:58.made mistakes in the Middle East, of course it has made mistakes in the
:36:59. > :37:03.Middle East. But that is not the question today. The question today
:37:04. > :37:07.is how to get it right and how to understand that the new guy
:37:08. > :37:11.mentioned is that this thing going on in the Middle East is now coming
:37:12. > :37:15.to us. -- the new dimensional is that this thing is coming to us.
:37:16. > :37:19.That is the new phenomenon. It is not quite the first time. There have
:37:20. > :37:24.been bombings in London and Madrid in the last decade or so, but the
:37:25. > :37:29.magnitude of what has happened in Paris forces us to get it right this
:37:30. > :37:33.time. I think we can only do that if we work together and if we identify
:37:34. > :37:39.that the main factor that has grown Isis these last years has been the
:37:40. > :37:45.massacres, the massacres carried out of Sunni populations by the Assad
:37:46. > :37:51.regime. In Syria, that has been the main reason for the growth of Isis.
:37:52. > :37:56.I am going to move on to a slightly different question. Amy Anderson.
:37:57. > :38:01.How are British citizens supposed to feel protected when Europe has
:38:02. > :38:10.welcomed jihadis back into our world as apparent refugees. How is Britain
:38:11. > :38:16.supposed to feel protected when Europe has welcomed jihadis back as
:38:17. > :38:19.apparent refugees? Well, I think the original response of Europeans was
:38:20. > :38:24.very, very admirable, because the pictures that we saw, and actually
:38:25. > :38:29.the Independent newspaper was the first to publish the picture of the
:38:30. > :38:32.little boy washed up on shore, the fact that Europeans welcomed
:38:33. > :38:36.refugees with open arms was very, very commendable. That said, with
:38:37. > :38:42.recent events and what has happened in Paris, I think we have two review
:38:43. > :38:51.how we accept and what we do with the incoming refugees, and how they
:38:52. > :38:57.are accepted, and not be, I suppose, well, not free for all. I would say
:38:58. > :39:06.we just need to have some sort of controls and see how we can accept
:39:07. > :39:10.them. Mehdi Hasan. With regard to the question, in France and Paris,
:39:11. > :39:16.as far as I am aware, there were no refugees involved, every perpetrator
:39:17. > :39:20.was an EU citizen. There has been a fake Syrian passport recovered, but
:39:21. > :39:25.no evidence of a refugee involved. You know what, I don't care. Let's
:39:26. > :39:30.say there were eight refugees involved. Are we going to punish 5
:39:31. > :39:34.million Syrian refugees because five Syrians were involved in an act of
:39:35. > :39:40.terror? What steps would you take to try and make sure that among the
:39:41. > :39:45.people, 20,000 is the target in Britain, according to the Prime
:39:46. > :39:51.Minister... We have taken 216 on the UN scheme. What would you make --
:39:52. > :39:56.how would you make sure that didn't include... What would you do about
:39:57. > :39:59.it? The United States government already has intensive vetting
:40:00. > :40:03.procedures for refugees in resettlement schemes. If you had
:40:04. > :40:06.more than open door on refugees you could vet them better, if they do
:40:07. > :40:10.not come on rickety boats, which is harder to deal with. But if you
:40:11. > :40:14.leave them in overcrowded camps on the borders of Syria, they are much
:40:15. > :40:18.more prime targets for Isil recruitment than if they come here
:40:19. > :40:25.and we show the world there is no clash between the West and Islam. Do
:40:26. > :40:30.you agree? I don't think there is evidence yet, as has been said. The
:40:31. > :40:34.thing to stress is that Isis, Isil, they want us to turn our backs on
:40:35. > :40:40.the few gees. It makes us better than them, the fact that we do
:40:41. > :40:44.welcome people in. -- refugees. What could we do about it? Of course,
:40:45. > :40:48.there needs to be better control. In the summer, Greek authorities were
:40:49. > :40:51.overwhelmed and could not process people arriving on the shores of
:40:52. > :40:55.Europe, so they were not properly getting the details down so that the
:40:56. > :41:00.information could be shared across Europe with intelligence services,
:41:01. > :41:04.so gaps were therein the system. We need a much better system across
:41:05. > :41:07.Europe. I think the time has come to look again at the Schengen
:41:08. > :41:12.agreement, the idea that Europe can have no internal borders at all. It
:41:13. > :41:16.is wonderful, it is idealistic, but I think it is basically designed for
:41:17. > :41:19.a different age than the one that we are now in. We need better control
:41:20. > :41:24.because that better protect vulnerable people as well. Your
:41:25. > :41:28.characterisation in your question I don't think was fair. However, it
:41:29. > :41:32.would seem one of the individuals who went back to Belgium had been in
:41:33. > :41:38.Syria. That was actually mostly my point. We have found out obviously
:41:39. > :41:44.that the people that committed the Paris atrocities were EU citizens.
:41:45. > :41:49.However, what happened is they went to Syria, committed further
:41:50. > :41:57.atrocities, but they were not picked up and they came back. You have a
:41:58. > :42:03.really good point. And that, bottom line, we should know who these
:42:04. > :42:06.people are. Your point is strong and the point is that other member
:42:07. > :42:10.states who do not have a history of dealing with terrorism, such as
:42:11. > :42:13.Belgium, perhaps don't have sophisticated systems to monitor
:42:14. > :42:17.people. The characteristics of this terrible attack was that it was an
:42:18. > :42:20.attack planned and coordinated in a different member state from the one
:42:21. > :42:26.in which it was carried out. That tells us there need to be better
:42:27. > :42:32.sharing of information about people coming in and out. Such as a carload
:42:33. > :42:37.of explosives guns... Exactly, better checks at the Channel Tunnel.
:42:38. > :42:42.I don't think that there are the same border checks there. We need to
:42:43. > :42:43.look at our procedures across Europe because quite frankly there are
:42:44. > :42:48.gaps. OK, a question very much on this
:42:49. > :43:08.point OK, a question very much on this
:43:09. > :43:13.intelligence is where it should be. OK, a question very much on this
:43:14. > :43:14.We shouldn't confuse refugees and all the right things we are doing by
:43:15. > :43:21.them and what has all the right things we are doing by
:43:22. > :43:30.passports taken away from all the right things we are doing by
:43:31. > :43:32.they couldn't go and join terror groups notely in countries like
:43:33. > :43:38.Syria. I was astonished at this figure. Nearly 100,000 figure were
:43:39. > :43:49.refused entry into Brinton grounds they were a float to our national
:43:50. > :43:57.security -- 100,000 people were refused entry into Britain. What
:43:58. > :44:00.about the police though, Anna? Andy I will quite happily deal with the
:44:01. > :44:07.question about the police. You are about to cut the police aren't you,
:44:08. > :44:10.25% cuts? No. APPLAUSE
:44:11. > :44:15.You made a speech where you said it was doable and I would like you to
:44:16. > :44:21.agree that it was doable to make cuts of between 5 and up 2010%. Do
:44:22. > :44:25.you still stand by that, yes or no? Well, an narks I'm taking a very
:44:26. > :44:34.responsible position because you are planning 25% cuts. That was what
:44:35. > :44:38.George Osborne at the Budget said, unprotected department budgets at
:44:39. > :44:40.the department. Would you take it in turns to talk and not talk over each
:44:41. > :44:48.other. Wait a minute. turns to talk and not talk over each
:44:49. > :44:48.turns. I have said on advice from the police, they
:44:49. > :44:54.turns. I have said on advice from over 5 years is difficult but
:44:55. > :44:58.doable. If you go beyond that 52010%, it debts more difficult.
:44:59. > :45:01.Going into doubling figures, it's very dangerous. I've learnt
:45:02. > :45:07.something and I've been made aware of a letter that's been sent to the
:45:08. > :45:10.Home Secretary, commissioned by COBRA last weekend when the question
:45:11. > :45:14.was asked, what are the resource implication for the police in the
:45:15. > :45:18.wake of Paris and the let's gone back which says what I've just said,
:45:19. > :45:23.that it's doable to do 5% over the next five years, if you cut the
:45:24. > :45:27.budget between 5 and 10 it's difficult but go beyond that it's
:45:28. > :45:30.dangerous. That would take thousands of police officers off the beat if
:45:31. > :45:33.you do that. I'm saying to you, I'm supporting the Government in many
:45:34. > :45:38.ways in terms of what you are doing. I support what they are dog on the
:45:39. > :45:45.investigatory powers Bill. You have got to listen to the police and drop
:45:46. > :45:49.these plans. You didn't answer the question. I did answer the question.
:45:50. > :45:54.Do you stand by your statement that you made - and now you are
:45:55. > :45:59.interrupting me - do you stand by your statement that 5-10... I stand
:46:00. > :46:04.by my statement. I won't interrupt you. Let me tell you what I said.
:46:05. > :46:08.Look, this is getting silly. Wait a moment. Look, we've got serious
:46:09. > :46:11.things to talk about. APPLAUSE
:46:12. > :46:16.In the House of Commons, there's room for a lot of political tit for
:46:17. > :46:28.cat, we are talking about serious things here. You are saying that a
:46:29. > :46:32.5% cut 5 is doable, 5-10 is difficult, over 10 is dangerous. Is
:46:33. > :46:38.that clear? Your point is? In a speech Andy said... I've just
:46:39. > :46:45.repeated it, Anna. Let mayor finish, for goodness sake. Come on? In a
:46:46. > :46:51.speech, he said 5-10% was doable. That's what he said already. I've
:46:52. > :46:58.said it again. I'm going to leave this. Can I answer the gentleman's
:46:59. > :47:08.question? Yes, I'm going to leave the point. He's changed his mind.
:47:09. > :47:11.France expanded their surveillance power after Charlie Hebdo, please
:47:12. > :47:18.let's not assume that mass surveillance is a magic bullet. Some
:47:19. > :47:24.of the most repressive countries, Saudi, Iran, China, Russia vrks had
:47:25. > :47:30.mass casualty attacks. Every time there is an attack, we increase and
:47:31. > :47:35.get more counterterror laws, we don't care about civil liberties,
:47:36. > :47:41.the terrorist want to turn open society into closed society.
:47:42. > :47:45.Max Hastings, same rule force you? -- rules for you? We have to
:47:46. > :47:49.remember that a range of plots has been frustrated in the last year,
:47:50. > :47:54.ten years, which are overwhelmingly due to electronic surveillance.
:47:55. > :47:58.Where do we draw the line? What is obvious, our parents and
:47:59. > :48:00.grandparents had to defend themselves with Spitfires. It's
:48:01. > :48:06.obvious that when we are dealing with a threat of this seriousness,
:48:07. > :48:11.and it is serious enough that we have to review at every level,
:48:12. > :48:14.including the police and intelligence and electronics experts
:48:15. > :48:17.of what we do. It must be a proportionate response and we have
:48:18. > :48:22.to keep our head. Listening to the representatives of the two main
:48:23. > :48:28.parties arguing about police funding is deeply depressing.
:48:29. > :48:34.APPLAUSE All right.
:48:35. > :48:39.I want to take a question from Emily Otvos, please? Do Muslims have a
:48:40. > :48:43.responsibility for controlling and preventing radicalisation? Do
:48:44. > :48:45.Muslims take a responsibility or have a responsibility for
:48:46. > :48:56.controlling and preventing radicalisation? Absolutely. I think
:48:57. > :49:02.we need to hear more Muslims speaking out about what is happening
:49:03. > :49:07.against Islamic state, its policy and I really hope we'll hear more of
:49:08. > :49:11.that. The other point to make is that the coalition I talked about
:49:12. > :49:15.earlier has to include Muslim countries because that's absolutely
:49:16. > :49:18.crucial a part of war against Islamic state. I think that is a
:49:19. > :49:23.worrying statement because I think if we hold, after an event like
:49:24. > :49:28.Paris, if we hold all Muslims somehow responsible or we ask them
:49:29. > :49:32.that they need to somehow feel a special responsibility for it, we
:49:33. > :49:39.are stigmatising huge communities. Hear, hear. That is what Isis wants.
:49:40. > :49:46.I didn't say that, I said I would like to hear more moderate Muslims
:49:47. > :49:50.voicing their opinions. What about a march of moderates? That implies
:49:51. > :49:54.that Muslims are especially responsible. I have nothing to do
:49:55. > :50:05.with Isis, my daughter doesn't, my 77-year-old father doesn't. In fact,
:50:06. > :50:09.last week two of the attackers in Paris were guys who owned a bar and
:50:10. > :50:13.sold a bar six weeks before the attacks, not my definition of devout
:50:14. > :50:18.Muslim. Should I ask bar owners to go on a march. All right, you have
:50:19. > :50:25.made the point, thank you Mehdi. Thank you. Please, I know you are
:50:26. > :50:30.getting angry. I'm not angry at all, you are. I'm not. I want to be able
:50:31. > :50:34.to hear what everybody is saying. You, there? I was the one that asked
:50:35. > :50:38.the question and I don't think Muslims have any more right than
:50:39. > :50:42.anybody else to take responsibility for preventing radicalisation. The
:50:43. > :50:48.Isis militants come in and destroy our Western democracy and, as a
:50:49. > :50:52.society, we all out of basic level of humanities have a responsibility
:50:53. > :50:54.for preventing radicalisation. It happens in schools, every day
:50:55. > :51:00.communities, we all need to take responsibility for this and, saying
:51:01. > :51:06.that Muslims alone should take responsibility just encourages
:51:07. > :51:13.Islamophobia. The man in the third row, fourth in? I'm a teacher and I
:51:14. > :51:21.take your point about Muslims. In Luton, we want to talk about the
:51:22. > :51:27.mosques, students, we have talked to them. We argue that we are white
:51:28. > :51:34.English teachers, how the hell are we supposed to know who they are. We
:51:35. > :51:40.don't have a clue. I hope the mosques would know more than we
:51:41. > :51:43.would. Andy Burnham? Well, I think politicians particularly knead toe
:51:44. > :51:48.take great care in making statements of the kind that you are objecting
:51:49. > :51:52.to. Earlier in the summer, the Prime Minister made a speech where he said
:51:53. > :51:56.parts of the Muslim community were quietly condoning extremism. Now,
:51:57. > :52:02.that alienates at a stroke the very people that you need to be working
:52:03. > :52:05.with together hand in hand to deal with the issues, so I take the point
:52:06. > :52:14.entirely where you are coming from. However, and this is to give a nod
:52:15. > :52:18.to Evgeny, Sadiq Khan, one of the most prominent Muslim politicians in
:52:19. > :52:22.the country, has said prominent Muslims should do more to take on
:52:23. > :52:25.the cancer of extremism - his words. Coming from him, that is an
:52:26. > :52:29.important statement and people do want to hear that, but it's about,
:52:30. > :52:34.as you are saying, everybody, a cross community, it's everybody's
:52:35. > :52:39.issue. It's not a religion, it's a perversion of Islam, as we have
:52:40. > :52:42.said. Often it's because communities are disenfranchised where people
:52:43. > :52:45.feel like they are second class citizens where they don't get the
:52:46. > :52:50.same opportunities in life. There are deep-seated causes and we need a
:52:51. > :52:56.more sophisticated response. If I could say one thing to add to
:52:57. > :53:00.Sadiq's words, which is that they should stop burying their heads in
:53:01. > :53:06.the sand and speak out against this cancer. The Muslim Council of
:53:07. > :53:12.Britain... Anna Soubry? Every single leading cleric and leader of Muslim
:53:13. > :53:16.communities came out and signed a statement condemning what happened
:53:17. > :53:21.in Paris and in other terror attacks by Isis and it's really sad it
:53:22. > :53:23.didn't get the publicity it deserved.
:53:24. > :53:27.APPLAUSE This idea that the Muslim community
:53:28. > :53:33.is not doing its bit is not true and I think it's worth remembering,
:53:34. > :53:37.actually more Muslims died in Paris than actually committed those
:53:38. > :53:41.atrocities. APPLAUSE
:53:42. > :53:47.Max Hastings? One thing we haven't said to far this evening, I for one,
:53:48. > :53:51.I doubt if anyone else in this hall would disagree, I'm absolutely
:53:52. > :53:55.confident that we are going to win this, although what's happening is
:53:56. > :53:58.horrendous, Isis is a death cult borne out of the deep frustration in
:53:59. > :54:03.extreme Muslim circles that it has nothing to offer. All the
:54:04. > :54:06.hard-working, sensible law-abiding Muslims around the world who're
:54:07. > :54:12.getting on with their lives, it has nothing to offer the world at large.
:54:13. > :54:16.Whereas communism and fascism pose more serious threats, we ought to,
:54:17. > :54:21.as we approach the end of the programme, there's every reason to
:54:22. > :54:26.feel an optimism despite this ghastly event in Paris and despite
:54:27. > :54:30.whatever may happen here, we are stronger than they are because our
:54:31. > :54:43.values are income braibly more valuable than theirs. Plawzth
:54:44. > :54:49.APPLAUSE -- income braibly more valuable than
:54:50. > :54:49.theirs. APPLAUSE
:54:50. > :54:55.This is not a war from APPLAUSE
:54:56. > :55:01.necessarily Christians or the West, it's also a war on Muslims. Millions
:55:02. > :55:09.of refugees. The woman in the second row from the back? Hi. I would like
:55:10. > :55:09.to ask Evgeny, instead of asking Muslims to
:55:10. > :55:16.to ask Evgeny, instead of asking shouldn't he perhaps ask the media
:55:17. > :55:21.to take responsibility for propagating this afilliation between
:55:22. > :55:27.Muslims and Isis when actually that should feeds into Islamophobia and
:55:28. > :55:29.alienates Muslims? APPLAUSE
:55:30. > :55:34.You have to speak for the whole media, not just your particular bit?
:55:35. > :55:40.I shall. I'll say the war being waged against us is a different war,
:55:41. > :55:43.as Max rightly pointed out. It's waged on three fronts; on the
:55:44. > :55:46.ground, information war which you mentioned and the third is
:55:47. > :55:52.ideological war and you are right, it's a very, very fine balance and I
:55:53. > :55:55.know that editors that workfor my newspapers and other newspapers have
:55:56. > :55:59.to come up against a very difficult decision on a daily basis on whether
:56:00. > :56:04.to give coverage to particular atrocities being committed. But
:56:05. > :56:09.where do you draw the line and stop showing the public, where do you
:56:10. > :56:16.stop thoughing what is happening, for example when Stephen Sotlov was
:56:17. > :56:22.beheaded, the Independent took a decision not to put Jihadi John on
:56:23. > :56:30.the front-page in his boiler suit but a picture of Stephen Sotlov when
:56:31. > :56:35.he was free. What is your objection? A lot of what matters is not what
:56:36. > :56:39.you show, but how you show it. I take objection to the fact that we
:56:40. > :56:45.refer to the terrorist group as imlambic state. At what point are
:56:46. > :56:54.they acting -- Islamic state. If I call myself a zebra, do you then
:56:55. > :56:59.refer to me as a zebra? You on the third row a quick point if
:57:00. > :57:01.refer to me as a zebra? You on the would? We are a British society and
:57:02. > :57:06.Government. We would? We are a British society and
:57:07. > :57:07.to Isis and others. We have programmes running successfully
:57:08. > :57:08.where we programmes running successfully
:57:09. > :57:18.we undermine, challenge programmes running successfully
:57:19. > :57:20.this awful dogma, this programmes running successfully
:57:21. > :57:24.that's been and said to be in some way part of Islam, it's not, it's
:57:25. > :57:29.completely contrary and we make that argument and it's done by brilliant
:57:30. > :57:32.people who often do it voluntarily within the Muslim community. That is
:57:33. > :57:36.such an important way to stop this from happening in the very first
:57:37. > :57:40.place. This is not going to be a short-term thing, it's going to take
:57:41. > :57:44.a long time. On that note, we have had an hour, aired a number of
:57:45. > :57:49.issues but we can't go on longer but I hope some of the things we have
:57:50. > :57:51.said have been interesting and helpful to those watching. Thank you
:57:52. > :57:54.to the audience for taking helpful to those watching. Thank you
:57:55. > :57:57.to the audience for taking part. We are in Manchester next week and
:57:58. > :58:00.Birmingham the week after that. If you would like to come either place,
:58:01. > :58:04.Manchester or Birmingham, it would be good to see you. You can apply to
:58:05. > :58:09.the website or to the number on the screen there.
:58:10. > :58:13.If you are listening on Five Live, as many do, as you know, the debate
:58:14. > :58:19.will go on in a lively form on Question Time extra time, but here,
:58:20. > :58:22.my thanks to our panel and again to you our audience for coming here for
:58:23. > :58:24.this special programme. Until next Thursday from Question Time, good
:58:25. > :58:26.night.