Hilary Benn's arguments for war

Based on my paraphrase of his recent speech, Hilary Benn's arguments for war are as follows (with opposing arguments in brackets).

We should bomb now because:

• The enemy could attack us 

(true, but it is unclear how bombing prevents this given the nature of previous attacks);

• Others are already bombing Syria and have asked us to join them 

(the fact of being asked to do something is insufficient reason to do it);

• The UN wants us to bomb Syria 

(this relies heavily on a disputed interpretation of what the UN said);

• We are already bombing Iraq and the enemy does not distinguish between Syria and Iraq 

(this requires us to make the same distinctions, or lack thereof, as our enemy);

• Local commanders say bombing is effective 

(contrary testimony can also be cited);

• Civilian casualties caused by us are accidental and therefore acceptable in comparison to deliberate atrocities by the enemy 

(doing it by accident doesn't make it acceptable);

• The enemy will reduce the number of its potential Syrian opponents if we wait for a united opposition to emerge in Syria 

(in fact greater loss of life has occurred due to the actions of other belligerents and so seeking a ceasefire among them should be a priority);

• We can't afford to wait to make a decision that may not get any easier 

(this is a simple abdication of reason on the basis of an assertion of urgency that can be used to justify any and no position);

• We have a history of helping other countries 

(irrelevant, we don't cease to be who we are if we don't follow the proposed course of action);

• The enemy hates us 

(the enemy in this case primarily hates Shia "apostates" and "Safawis");

• The enemy's beliefs are completely contrary to our beliefs

(but are entirely consistent with the beliefs of many of our allies, such as Saudi Arabia).