Do you support air strikes on IS in Syria?

[judas]

Do you support air strikes on IS in Syria?

[lucky]

No but can't vote on the phone

[Allant1981]

Cant vote on phone but yes if its not innocent people being killed

[Aldo]

Yes!

[Sir David Gray]

100%.

[BroxburnHibee]

No the killing needs to stop.

This is about keeping the arms trade going.

This bloodlust is disgusting!!!!

[HibeeLR]

No, can't vote on phone

[Onceinawhile]

Nope. Can't think of a reason for them tbf.

[Betty Boop]

Aye because bombing really solved matters, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

[Glory Lurker]

As part of a larger, thought-through, multinational effort with provision for on-the-ground reconstruction and stabilisation? Yes.

As presently intended? No.

[Bristolhibby]

As part of a larger, thought-through, multinational effort with provision for on-the-ground reconstruction and stabilisation? Yes.

As presently intended? No.

This. We (Britain) are a bit like a small kid with hard mates, who after the bigger kids have beaten some other kid up, join in right at the end, just to get the kudos that they "gave that **** a doing".

Pathetic.

Bombing for bombings sake. It's an absolute basket case in Syria and we are better off out of it.

We sell arms to Saudi, Saudi sell those arms and find ISIS.

Go to the root of the problem (the Whabhi Saauds).

J

[Pretty Boy]

As part of a larger, thought-through, multinational effort with provision for on-the-ground reconstruction and stabilisation? Yes.

As presently intended? No.

This is where I am.

IS can't be reasoned with but Cameron was repeatedly questioned on his reconstruction plans for Syria post bombing by Angus Robertson and has failed to answer on multiple ocassions. It was that kind of short sightedness by Blair that created a perfect breeding ground in Iraq for the current situation to develop.

[Pretty Boy]

This. We (Britain) are a bit like a small kid with hard mates, who after the bigger kids have beaten some other kid up, join in right at the end, just to get the kudos that they "gave that **** a doing".

Pathetic.

Bombing for bombings sake. It's an absolute basket case in Syria and we are better off out of it.

We sell arms to Saudi, Saudi sell those arms and find ISIS.

Go to the root of the problem (the Whabhi Saauds).

J

Spot on re the Saudis.

No one wants to hear it though and Her Majestys horse breeding operation might be jeapodised if we upset the House of Saud and we can't have that.

[(((Fergus)))]

This is where I am.

IS can't be reasoned with but Cameron was repeatedly questioned on his reconstruction plans for Syria post bombing by Angus Robertson and has failed to answer on multiple ocassions. It was that kind of short sightedness by Blair that created a perfect breeding ground in Iraq for the current situation to develop.

Reconstructing Syria would be like trying to reconstruct Yugoslavia. Best outcome - the one that is happening "naturally" now - is partition; but how will those new borders be "agreed" except through warfare? We need to decide who our allies are (Kurds, Christians, Druze...) and support them 100% in establishing and maintaining their safe zones, i.e. states. (Of course there will also have to be at least one sunni islamic state where no doubt barbarism prevails but containing it will be a step in the right direction.) The problem is that the, at best, naive American administration still believes it can fool the sunni Arabs into thinking we love them and they will love us in return. They are also invested the IS-supporting Turks at the expense of the Kurds. So, before bombing anyone, let's decide whose side we're really on and then commit to them fully. That clarity in itself will be a strategic victory that won't cost a single life or bullet. The chaos in Syria etc is only there because of the vacuum in leadership and that leadership can only come from the United States - unless perhaps France wants to step up to the plate. It was they after all who decided to forge ahead with a multinational Syrian state rather than divide it on ethnic lines in the first place.

[Hibrandenburg]

No because an air war will only make the situation worse. The attacks on Daesh are simply acts of retaliation and that's never a good reaction. Our middle east policy needs to be thought through and include a lasting solution that can be agreed upon by all parties but especially those that live there. Before that can happen Daesh need to be removed by force and that means boots on the ground. The question is then whose boots? It's a difficult one because from all of the fighting parties on the ground there's not one that the west could back with a clear conscience.

[RyeSloan]

Thing is we are already bombing Syria via drones and attacking IS in Iraq. Add in the logistical help we are providing for Syria sorties by our allies and it's a bit of a moot point I would say.

Do I support Royal Air Force bombers flying in Syria and dropping expensive ordinance...yes I suppose I do if it can be shown what the intended outcome of such actions is....a vague 'defence of the realm' ambition doesn't really cut it for me.

That said doing nothing is not an option and waiting for the perfect all encompassing solution would mean waiting forever so I see why the government feels the need to 'do something'.

[bigwheel]

I don't support it. there is no way it can be done without killing many many innocent civilians. It is likely to increase radicalisation, rather than stem the tide.

[lord bunberry]

If the government could tell us how bombing in Syria would improve the situation over there then I would possibly be for it. Imo we're wanting to do it so that we can say we're doing our bit, when it's not needed or going to make the slightest difference. They're talking about sending a minimal amount of obsolete planes over, how is that helping defeat Isis?

[Sir David Gray]

If the government could tell us how bombing in Syria would improve the situation over there then I would possibly be for it. Imo we're wanting to do it so that we can say we're doing our bit, when it's not needed or going to make the slightest difference. They're talking about sending a minimal amount of obsolete planes over, how is that helping defeat Isis?

Surely helping the Americans, French and any of our other allies who have a presence in Syria, bomb strategically important Islamic State targets will help.

What is the alternative?

[CropleyWasGod]

Surely helping the Americans, French and any of our other allies who have a presence in Syria, bomb strategically important Islamic State targets will help.

What is the alternative?
In the short to medium term, dealing with the funding of ISIS. That, more than anything, helped to degrade Al Qaida.

In the longer term, education (of all sides ) , consultation and reconciliation. No terrorist war in the modern area has ever been won without a combination of the above.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[lord bunberry]

Surely helping the Americans, French and any of our other allies who have a presence in Syria, bomb strategically important Islamic State targets will help.

What is the alternative?
They don't need our help militarily, this is a political decision.

[Future17]

Surely helping the Americans, French and any of our other allies who have a presence in Syria, bomb strategically important Islamic State targets will help.

What is the alternative?

But help to do what? What are these strategically important targets?

The truth is none of us really understand the situation in Syria just now or what effect bombing will have in the long term. Even those who, perhaps, should know what's going on don't appear to...or at least they aren't articulating it well.

There are many, many alternatives to explore before politicians commit to a bombing campaign in all our names without an understanding of the consequences or, at the very least, a clear and realistic picture of what we are trying to achieve.

[Bristolhibby]

They don't need our help militarily, this is a political decision.

Exactly. If I were a massive cynic if see the present Government sniffing the wind of public opinion and wanting to score points by "dropping some bombs".

Remember we wanted to bomb Assad 2 years ago! The very guy who is fighting ISIS. Our Allies are the Turks, who are bombing the Kurds, who are also fighting ISIS.

Seriously guys?

J

[Sir David Gray]

In the short to medium term, dealing with the funding of ISIS. That, more than anything, helped to degrade Al Qaida.

In the longer term, education (of all sides ) , consultation and reconciliation. No terrorist war in the modern area has ever been won without a combination of the above.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

I do not believe that any sort of diplomatic approach is going to help here.

You are talking about people who truly believe that they are carrying out the will of their God and that they are superior to all others. Not only that but they are also willing to die in order to carry out these duties. They are not interested in talking with the other side to achieve peace, they want their belief system and their way of life to rule over the entire planet and won't rest until they have achieved it. This is not a normal war that we are fighting here.

[Bristolhibby]

I do not believe that any sort of diplomatic approach is going to help here.

You are talking about people who truly believe that they are carrying out the will of their God and that they are superior to all others. Not only that but they are also willing to die in order to carry out these duties. They are not interested in talking with the other side to achieve peace, they want their belief system and their way of life to rule over the entire planet and won't rest until they have achieved it. This is not a normal war that we are fighting here.

Turn off their money (Saudi and oil) they will disappear. We also need a stable government in Syria.
Assad in this case IMHO is the lesser of two evils the Russians have the right idea.

J

[CropleyWasGod]

I do not believe that any sort of diplomatic approach is going to help here.

You are talking about people who truly believe that they are carrying out the will of their God and that they are superior to all others. Not only that but they are also willing to die in order to carry out these duties. They are not interested in talking with the other side to achieve peace, they want their belief system and their way of life to rule over the entire planet and won't rest until they have achieved it. This is not a normal war that we are fighting here.
I didn't use the D word, on purpose.

You can't obliterate an ideology with bombs. You can, however, reduce its effectiveness by limiting the practical help that it needs, and gets.... from vested interests , an unfortunate number of whom are in the West.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[QMU-1875]

I just don't understand why these issues don't go to national referendum. It's ridiculous that politicians decide this on the basis of a party whip. Should be listening to their constituents.

[Bristolhibby]

I just don't understand why these issues don't go to national referendum. It's ridiculous that politicians decide this on the basis of a party whip. Should be listening to their constituents.

Because we the people, are generally speaking, nasty knee jerkers who can't or aren't shown the big picture to make an informed decision.

If we had a media and government that was rational and gave us balanced information, I'd be happier.

J

[ronaldo7]

Looks like a vote might be going ahead on Wednesday, and with Jezza allowing a free vote on the subject, the Gov will win the day imo.

Cameron will have his party onside, and it looks like he's got some Labour MP's alongside him.

[marinello59]

Looks like a vote might be going ahead on Wednesday, and with Jezza allowing a free vote on the subject, the Gov will win the day imo.

Cameron will have his party onside, and it looks like he's got some Labour MP's alongside him.

Pitiful leadership from Corbyn, further evidence that he is totally out of his depth.

[Hibbyradge]

Pitiful leadership from Corbyn, further evidence that he is totally out of his depth.

He hasn't made a decision yet.

Woeful.

[ronaldo7]

He's fighting a losing battle, brought about by his own hand.

https://t.co/ik368uusX3

[bigwheel]

I just don't understand why these issues don't go to national referendum. It's ridiculous that politicians decide this on the basis of a party whip. Should be listening to their constituents.


That's why we elect Politicians , to represent us in parliament on the big decision of education, economy, health, defence etc

The general public are too emotive..you'd be as well giving it to Daily Mail readers...

[southfieldhibby]

I've just watched Daily Politics, a pro-bomb MP used the argument of the 70,000 troops and the dreadful Assad regime as reasons to bomb ISIS. I really couldn't follow that train of thought, can anyone help me out?

[johnbc70]

What I don't understand is David Cameron saying if we get the go ahead we can be bombing strategically important targets within hours (or something along those lines)

If they are that important why have they not be handed to the French and Americans to bomb them weeks ago?

[bigwheel]

What I don't understand is David Cameron saying if we get the go ahead we can be bombing strategically important targets within hours (or something along those lines)

If they are that important why have they not be handed to the French and Americans to bomb them weeks ago?

I think you have answers that question - because it's a lie. They are more keen on destruction and murder than genuine sustainable resolution - guns before people - it's a modern day shame


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bristolhibby]

I think you have answers that question - because it's a lie. They are more keen on destruction and murder than genuine sustainable resolution - guns before people - it's a modern day shame


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also listened to the ex head of Army counter terrorism, some General. He categorically stated that bombing Syria will not make the streets of the U.K. safer.

So this "ohhh, Paris, it could happen to us", is bull ****. Yes it could be us, but it's good Policing and counter intelligence that's keeping us safe, not bombing a bunch of people thousands of miles away.

J

[ronaldo7]

Do we really need to bomb these humans any longer?

15705

Shame on any MP who votes to bomb these people.

[CB_NO3]

The two biggest armies in the world are currently bombing Syria. What impact is our Mickey Mouse army going to do?

[Peevemor]

Imagine if these were your families.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=7YSUfEH68bc

[Future17]

The two biggest armies in the world are currently bombing Syria. What impact is our Mickey Mouse army going to do?

I'm just being pedantic but, on the assumption you mean the US and Russia, the latter isn't in the top two armies in the world based on number of personnel. It probably isn't even top 10.

To be even more pedantic, armies don't do aerial bombing of the type that is being conducted by other countries in Syria right now.

[lyonhibs]

This will get voted through and I give it 2 weeks before a British bomb drops on a hospital or school that "intelligence" said was being used as an IS stronghold when in fact it's full of patients/pupils. Then repeat as necessary until some Jihadi bampot goes bang and we have another 7/7 on our hands. Lessons have clearly not been learnt.

Also, the notion that nations like the USA and France actually NEED our assistance from a military strength POV against ISIS is laughable

[Just Alf]

I voted yes in the poll.

That said its a much more difficult question than a simple yes/no.

No to targets based in town villages and the like... Targeting "people" isn't going to work and will almost always involve bystanders/innocents .. It makes thinks worse (just look at Israel/Palestine)

Yes to Da'esh's money making machine... Can't remember the numbers but it's $millions (per day!) made by selling oil. The main route seems to be tanker convoy's from the oil fields to refineries then again to pipelines in the north, feeding into Europe and further west... IF we were to paralyse the movement of tankers on the open road then we'd severely limit Da'esh resources. This tactic would hopefully drastically minimise (I'd like to say eliminate but that's impossible) the deaths of innocents.

Do WE need to join in at this stage?..... I don't think we do from a military aspect, the political aspect is probably different.


However you look at it the middle east/north Africa situation is a mess.

[Future17]

I voted yes in the poll.

That said its a much more difficult question than a simple yes/no.

No to targets based in town villages and the like... Targeting "people" isn't going to work and will almost always involve bystanders/innocents .. It makes thinks worse (just look at Israel/Palestine)

Yes to Da'esh's money making machine... Can't remember the numbers but it's $millions (per day!) made by selling oil. The main route seems to be tanker convoy's from the oil fields to refineries then again to pipelines in the north, feeding into Europe and further west... IF we were to paralyse the movement of tankers on the open road then we'd severely limit Da'esh resources. This tactic would hopefully drastically minimise (I'd like to say eliminate but that's impossible) the deaths of innocents.

Do WE need to join in at this stage?..... I don't think we do from a military aspect, the political aspect is probably different.


However you look at it the middle east/north Africa situation is a mess.

In order for this to be truly effective, I'd estimate you would need to destroy 80-100% of the tankers, which is unlikely to be achieved without a massive military spend on all sides and significant collateral damage. There's also the question of whether the Western world even has the will to target oil exports. Doing so would hurt Western economies as well as Daesh.

If we are genuinely talking about air strikes in Syria being used to make Britain's streets safer, then I think that idea is misconceived. The question of how we break the cycle created by war, terrorism, religion, radicalisation, extremism, jihadism and economic opportunism is an extremely difficult one and I don't think anyone currently has the answer.

[CB_NO3]

I'm just being pedantic but, on the assumption you mean the US and Russia, the latter isn't in the top two armies in the world based on number of personnel. It probably isn't even top 10.

To be even more pedantic, armies don't do aerial bombing of the type that is being conducted by other countries in Syria right now.
I was using army as a generic term for Navy, Air Force or whatever, and numbered personnel means nothing. Sure the Yanks or even Britain for that matter could wipe out North Korea's 1 million soldiers with one bomb. I was talking about overall capablities as a nation and Russia will be in the top 3 at least. I am not sure what the Chinese are up to these days?

[JimBHibees]

What I don't understand is David Cameron saying if we get the go ahead we can be bombing strategically important targets within hours (or something along those lines)

If they are that important why have they not be handed to the French and Americans to bomb them weeks ago?

Fantastic question. :not worth

[cabbageandribs1875]

No

[Pretty Boy]

Good speech by Salmond there.

[ronaldo7]

Hilary Benn closing for Labour gets a round of applause from the Tories as he votes for War.

[cabbageandribs1875]

aye= 397

naw= 223

the aye's have it

[Mon Dieu4]

Least they all had a good giggle to themselves after the result was announced and couldn't get out soon enough, let's vote to bomb some folk and then **** off, brilliant

[Sir David Gray]

This will get voted through and I give it 2 weeks before a British bomb drops on a hospital or school that "intelligence" said was being used as an IS stronghold when in fact it's full of patients/pupils. Then repeat as necessary until some Jihadi bampot goes bang and we have another 7/7 on our hands. Lessons have clearly not been learnt.

Also, the notion that nations like the USA and France actually NEED our assistance from a military strength POV against ISIS is laughable

There's already hundreds of Jihadi bampots planning another 7/7 on our streets as it is, so I don't see how this vote will make an attack on British soil any more likely.

The Americans and the French obviously don't need our assistance but I agreed with the point that someone made a few days ago (may have been David Cameron) about not leaving it up to our allies to do what we feel is necessary to defeat our enemy.

[easty]

Just scratching his nose then?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3343270/Is-giving-Margaret-Beckett-finger-Labour-MP-appears-make-rude-gesture-party-colleague-argues-extending-airstrikes-against-ISIS-Syria.html

[Gatecrasher]

Least they all had a good giggle to themselves after the result was announced and couldn't get out soon enough, let's vote to bomb some folk and then **** off, brilliant

What do you want them to do? They have been there since like 10 this morning. It's not like they turned up voted then went home in the space if a few minutes. Everything both sides wanted to say has been said

[Pretty Boy]

There's already dozens of Jihadi bampots planning another 7/7 on our streets as it is, so I don't see how this vote will make an attack on British soil any more likely.

The Americans and the French obviously don't need our assistance but I agreed with the point that someone made a few days ago (may have been David Cameron) about not leaving it up to our allies to do what we feel is necessary to defeat our enemy.

Equally it doesn't make it any less likely. I don't feel any more or less safe tonight than I did this morning and I dare say that won't change any time soon.

[Mon Dieu4]

There's already dozens of Jihadi bampots planning another 7/7 on our streets as it is, so I don't see how this vote will make an attack on British soil any more likely.

The Americans and the French obviously don't need our assistance but I agreed with the point that someone made a few days ago (may have been David Cameron) about not leaving it up to our allies to do what we feel is necessary to defeat our enemy.

no matter what governments say about the accuracy of bombs there is always always "collateral damage" lots of innocent people are about to lose their lives, members of their family and friends will potentially look for retaliation on the people they see as responsible for it, then you have helped radicalise a whole new generation

[Mon Dieu4]

What do you want them to do? They have been there since like 10 this morning. It's not like they turned up voted then went home in the space if a few minutes. Everything both sides wanted to say has been said

I want them not to burst out laughing 12 seconds after they have just voted to bomb people

[ronaldo7]

Bomb happy warmongerers = 397

Terrorist sympathisers = 223

the aye's have it

Fixed it fur ye:greengrin

[Gatecrasher]

I want them not to burst out laughing 12 seconds after they have just voted to bomb people

I would debate whether you can call isis people, I wouldn't even call them animals.

[marinello59]

I would debate whether you can call isis people, I wouldn't even call them animals.

What about the innocent civilians who will suffer?

[Mon Dieu4]

I would debate whether you can call isis people, I wouldn't even call them animals.

Ah must have missed the bombs we have created that only killed terrorists, my mistake, everything is cool now, forget I mentioned it

[Sir David Gray]

I would debate whether you can call isis people, I wouldn't even call them animals.

He's suggesting that we won't be bombing IS but we'll be bombing, and killing, civilians.

[Gatecrasher]

He's suggesting that we won't be bombing IS but we'll be bombing, and killing, civilians.

I didn't see a vote on that, must have missed it.

[Bristolhibby]

Ready for the grainy bombs eye view video on the BBC news tomorrow morning. I'd imagine the RAF crews will be briefing now, ready to head off in the next couple of hours.

I just hope now that we really do hit the bad guys, and keep innocent deaths to a minimum. I pray no RAF crews have to bail out.

Most importantly we step up our efforts putting pressure on Saudi and their funding of ISIS, call the *******s out.

Show Turkey up for buying Isis oil and bombing Kurds (who are fighting Isis).

And have full commitment to the Vienna talks for a non western boots on the ground solution. As the destruction of Isis cannot be achieved without an Muslim lead solution.

J

[Gatecrasher]

Ah must have missed the bombs we have created that only killed terrorists, my mistake, everything is cool now, forget I mentioned it

Well if your going to be arsey I'll just leave this thread now.

[Pretty Boy]

Ready for the grainy bombs eye view video on the BBC news tomorrow morning. I'd imagine the RAF crews will be briefing now, ready to head off in the next couple of hours.

I just hope now that we really do hit the bad guys, and keep innocent deaths to a minimum. I pray no RAF crews have to bail out.

Most importantly we step up our efforts putting pressure on Saudi and their funding of ISIS, call the *******s out.

Show Turkey up for buying Isis oil and bombing Kurds (who are fighting Isis).

And have full commitment to the Vienna talks for a non western boots on the ground solution. As the destruction of Isis cannot be achieved without an Muslim lead solution.

J

We'll put pressure on the Saudis right after the Queens stallions visit the lovely broodmares at Juddmonte Farms, we turn a blind eye to up to 50 beheadings in a matter of weeks, allow them to continue to obliterate Yemen in the name of a religious extremism every bit as grim as IS, maybe back them for membership of a human rights council and extend our arms and trade deals with them. As soon as we have done all of that then we'll put pressure on them.

[Mon Dieu4]

Well if your going to be arsey do will I.

Wouldn't say I was being particularly arsey to be honest, lots of innocent people are about to die and some politicians in my opinion acted with with total distaste by having a wee giggle to themselves, you assumed I was referring to IS as "people" which I certainly do not see them as in the slightest.

As usual in the debates like this the every day person going about their business will suffer the most and hardly get a mention

[Bristolhibby]

We'll put pressure on the Saudis right after the Queens stallions visit the lovely broodmares at Juddmonte Farms, we turn a blind eye to up to 50 beheadings in a matter of weeks, allow them to continue to obliterate Yemen in the name of a religious extremism every bit as grim as IS, maybe back them for membership of a human rights council and extend our arms and trade deals with them. As soon as we have done all of that then we'll put pressure on them.

My tongue was in cheek.

None of that's going to happen, we will just stumble into another war where we will leave a country in a worse state (if that's possible), and look surprised when we look back in about 3 years time.

Hindsight is a great thing, it's a shame we never seem to use it.

J

[Sir David Gray]

We'll put pressure on the Saudis right after the Queens stallions visit the lovely broodmares at Juddmonte Farms, we turn a blind eye to up to 50 beheadings in a matter of weeks, allow them to continue to obliterate Yemen in the name of a religious extremism every bit as grim as IS, maybe back them for membership of a human rights council and extend our arms and trade deals with them. As soon as we have done all of that then we'll put pressure on them.

Totally agree with this. :agree:

I don't believe there's a whole lot of difference between many of the laws which govern Saudi Arabia and the Islamic State and yet we are keen to strengthen our ties with the Saudis but bomb IS.

Whilst I completely support any effort to defeat IS, I cannot fail to notice the hypocrisy that lies in having a close relationship with Saudi Arabia.

PS-I just read about them going for membership of the human rights council last night. I actually thought it was a joke at first.

How the hell can a country which bans women from driving, bans women from going out in public without a male chaperone, executes people for leaving the Islamic faith and still has witchcraft down as a criminal offence be considered as a suitable nation to be represented at the UN human rights council?

[Ronniekirk]

Hilary Benn s speech has clearly damaged his Leaders Authority and exposed clear policy divisions in Labours ranks .
The easy part is sending in planes to bomb but even the Military have made it clear that Iin itself won't solve anything long term ,At some point there has to be a Political solution and Russia is currently bombing factions trying to get rid of Asad more than I S .
The situation has got more complicated than ever with no agreed exit strategy to work to
I Look at the State that Libya is now in and yet it hardly gets a mention now .we just forget about the implications further down the line
I agree II S needs stopped but everyone knows at some point there needs to be dialogue and agreement between factions to bring about a settlement . Will be interested to see how long this takes and what eventual outcome is .
I







Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sir David Gray]

Hilary Benn s speech has clearly damaged his Leaders Authority and exposed clear policy divisions in Labours ranks .
The easy part is sending in planes to bomb but even the Military have made it clear that Iin itself won't solve anything long term ,At some point there has to be a Political solution and Russia is currently bombing factions trying to get rid of Asad more than I S .
The situation has got more complicated than ever with no agreed exit strategy to work to
I Look at the State that Libya is now in and yet it hardly gets a mention now .we just forget about the implications further down the line
I agree II S needs stopped but everyone knows at some point there needs to be dialogue and agreement between factions to bring about a settlement . Will be interested to see how long this takes and what eventual outcome is .
I







Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

How do you propose that we have dialogue with an organisation that is hell bent on brutally enforcing their own laws and practices on the rest of the world and, not only that, fully believe that they are following the will of their God when they are carrying out their atrocities across the world?

These people are not going to change their minds or be brought round the negotiating table by the UK and our allies, just because we ask them to. The members and supporters of Islamic State openly express their opposition to democracy and do not recognise any legal framework, other than their own interpretation of Sharia Law.

I wonder what state the world would be in today, had we taken such an approach with Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. I consider IS to be just as much of a danger to the world as the Nazis were all those years ago and so I believe we should take any action necessary to defeat them.

[lord bunberry]

There's already hundreds of Jihadi bampots planning another 7/7 on our streets as it is, so I don't see how this vote will make an attack on British soil any more likely.

The Americans and the French obviously don't need our assistance but I agreed with the point that someone made a few days ago (may have been David Cameron) about not leaving it up to our allies to do what we feel is necessary to defeat our enemy.
What do we do once our enemy is defeated? Our current enemy is a consequence of defeating our last enemy.

[marinello59]

It took barely an hour from the vote until the UK joined in with the killing in Syria. The world seems a more dismal place this morning.

[GreenLake]

I would love huge bombs falling on stone age throat cutting belligerents but also like them to fall on those who formed and continue to support them for their own nefarious purposes. Whoever they might be.

Can't see that happening though.

Better would be efficient lie detector tests carried out on the entire Western population as to whether they consider their fellow countrymen to be enemies or allies. A failed result would send that individual on a C5 to be parachuted into the so called Caliphate.

[ronaldo7]

What do we do once our enemy is defeated? Our current enemy is a consequence of defeating our last enemy.

:agree:

Mujahideen, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, Daesh, with hundreds of other splinter groups, and another one will pop up when this round of Bombing finishes.

Do we actually know who our enemy is?

[bigwheel]

What do we do once our enemy is defeated? Our current enemy is a consequence of defeating our last enemy.

Our enemy are actively living all around the world today , including Scotland , England and everywhere else - our strategy since the second Iraq war has created radical Islamic views in a whole generation of disaffected people ...

This is exactly why bombing in Syria is not getting to the root cause - 2 years ago they wanted to bomb Assad. Now it's Daesh run oil fields ...this is not a strategy that reduces risk. It increases radical views




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HappyHanlon]

This will get voted through and I give it 2 weeks before a British bomb drops on a hospital or school that "intelligence" said was being used as an IS stronghold when in fact it's full of patients/pupils. Then repeat as necessary until some Jihadi bampot goes bang and we have another 7/7 on our hands. Lessons have clearly not been learnt.

Also, the notion that nations like the USA and France actually NEED our assistance from a military strength POV against ISIS is laughable

Spot on with that btw.

Nothing good will come out of bombing Syria.

I'd also like to throw into the mix that our pals America will do their usual friendly fire accident and down one of our jets.

[Sir David Gray]

Our enemy are actively living all around the world today , including Scotland , England and everywhere else - our strategy since the second Iraq war has created radical Islamic views in a whole generation of disaffected people ...

This is exactly why bombing in Syria is not getting to the root cause - 2 years ago they wanted to bomb Assad. Now it's Daesh run oil fields ...this is not a strategy that reduces risk. It increases radical views




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I keep reading stuff like this, how do you explain their attacks on the Yazidis and the Kurds and anyone in Syria and Iraq who holds a different set of beliefs to their own?

I'm not sure how that can be blamed on western foreign policy. These people are just murdering, terrorising ****.

[Bristolhibby]

I keep reading stuff like this, how do you explain their attacks on the Yazidis and the Kurds and anyone in Syria and Iraq who holds a different set of beliefs to their own?

I'm not sure how that can be blamed on western foreign policy. These people are just murdering, terrorising ****.

I think it's the fact that we had relatively stable yet questionable dictators that held the region in check through an iron fist. While preventing mass chaos.

(A bit like the current Saudi and Qatari governments, but just not on our side).

Since GW2, we have removed these dictators in Iraq, Lybia and Syria, and the resultant vacuum has let the militant religious nutters take over.

Are we (and the world) in a better situation since GW2 (and the non existent WMDs) and the Arab Spring? No way.

Did we bring about this situation (your original question), yes I feel.

J

[Colr]

Excellent short closing speech by Hilary Benn, I thought.

Reflected my views very well although I think Corbyn is right in saying that we need a political exit route from the conflict, he's not right to say we should sit on our hands in the meantime.

Benn as a possible leader? If there's more where that came from, why not?

[ronaldo7]

Excellent short closing speech by Hilary Benn, I thought.

Reflected my views very well although I think Corbyn is right in saying that we need a political exit route from the conflict, he's not right to say we should sit on our hands in the meantime.

Benn as a possible leader? If there's more where that came from, why not?

I just wish he'd make up his mind. https://t.co/RoHZo6Sy7T

[(((Fergus)))]

I think it's the fact that we had relatively stable yet questionable dictators that held the region in check through an iron fist. While preventing mass chaos.

(A bit like the current Saudi and Qatari governments, but just not on our side).

Since GW2, we have removed these dictators in Iraq, Lybia and Syria, and the resultant vacuum has let the militant religious nutters take over.

Are we (and the world) in a better situation since GW2 (and the non existent WMDs) and the Arab Spring? No way.

Did we bring about this situation (your original question), yes I feel.

J

Saddam, Assad and Gaddafi all sought to acquire nuclear weapons. In place of that, as a direct result of the vacuum they left, we now have mass muslim immigration on our hands. The solution to both Arab/Muslim dictatorial control over lucrative resources and the current power vacuum and migration crisis is being demonstrated right now in Kurdistan.

[ronaldo7]

The British Governments first strike in Syria last night was an Oil field. You'd have thought one of the other 12 nations bombing would have picked this one up before last night, after all they've pummelled the place with over 2,800 airstrikes.

[stoneyburn hibs]

The British Governments first strike in Syria last night was an Oil field. You'd have thought one of the other 12 nations bombing would have picked this one up before last night, after all they've pummelled the place with over 2,800 airstrikes.

Ah but the Westminster government have bombs that are particularly precise dontcha know.

[Bristolhibby]

Saddam, Assad and Gaddafi all sought to acquire nuclear weapons. In place of that, as a direct result of the vacuum they left, we now have mass muslim immigration on our hands. The solution to both Arab/Muslim dictatorial control over lucrative resources and the current power vacuum and migration crisis is being demonstrated right now in Kurdistan.

Not true. Saddam didn't have them. Gadaffi was brought in from the cold (remember Blair in the tent) and Assad was too chummy with Russia for us. Pretty sure there never had nukes, or even been close.

We play hardball with Nuclear proliferation, but quite frankly, if you are a bad *******, but our bad *******, we are fine with that.

IMHO the ME would be a whole safer with the afore mentioned dictators in power. We would have smoked the peace pipe and have our fingers in the oil pie.

Instead we have a basket case situation where so called friends are arming enemies and friends are killing our other friends.

J

[ronaldo7]

Hope the guys ok. Looks like the votes coming home to roost.

https://t.co/OoCWoVkDeP

[lord bunberry]

Hope the guys ok. Looks like the votes coming home to roost.

https://t.co/OoCWoVkDeP
Thank god we made the people of this county safer with our vote the other night :rolleyes: