Galloway is another who is in bed with the IS and HAMAS. And lets not forget a certain speech in Tower Hamlets last year where he incited the crowd to riot, and they did, chasing bare headed ladies down the street screaming in arabic. He was not arrested, and police stood and watched. Galloway is a self ego tripper who thinks he is 'something' - sadly forum rules stop me from stating exactly what he is.
Thank you Red-devil. My sentiments too. DD has tried to persuade me to the contrary, but so far he hasn't been successful.
Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect. ~Chief Seattle
just had a response email back from our MP Angela Eagle explaining why she voted for action to be taken, it goes on to explain in fair detail all the considerations and reasons why she did so, to be fair can't fault that, or her reasoning and belief, however I am not convinced that we are not getting sucked into another fiasco, utterance's from the Tory defence minister so soon after the vote that there will be a need to put boots on the ground are starting to ring alarm bells, I have no doubt that we already have special forces on the ground spotting for targets, lets hope there is no conflict with what the Russians have in place or it could become very messy.
Never ever will vote for her again. She was at Wallasey CLP on the 27th November and basically lied.
The justifications I heard in parliament were ....
1. We are bombing Iraq so we might as well cross the border and bomb Syria. 2. Other people are bombing Syria, we might as well join in. 3. We've been asked to. 4. Its better than doing nothing. 5. We are defending ourselves from terrorist attack. 6. We should learn from our mistakes, we are doing it differently this time. 7. We shouldn't look at our previous mistakes, its not the same this time. 8. We are needed there.
I'd be amazed if Angela Eagle added anything else and would love to hear of any other "for" arguments.
Some of the many important questions which were not answered are:-
1. What will UK bombing achieve? 2. What do the UK want as an outcome in Syria? 3. How will bombing Syria reduce the terrorist threat in the UK? 4. How long will we bomb for? 5. Whose sides are we on?
This is about appeasing the USA who are trying to destabilise much of the world - good time to announce the invitation of Montenegro into NATO wasn't it, pure destabilisation.
We don't do charity in Germany, we pay taxes. Charity is a failure of governments' responsibilities - Henning Wehn
Thank you for writing asking me not to vote to extend our bombing zone to include both Iraq and Syria.
I voted to expand our policy for one major reason. The President of Syria commits the most terrible of crimes but he does not train terrorists to go into other countries around him, or into Europe, to commit murder as does ISIL. It is quite clear we are a target for this murderous group.
For this reason I voted to extend our bombing against ISIL to cover Syria as well as Iraq. I know, of course, that this policy alone is inadequate and needs to be extended radically to a diplomatic strategy trying to gain a peace settlement. Overseas aid, similarly, must play a larger part in protecting refugees and then in rebuilding Syria once some semblance of peace is re-established.
I am sorry that I do not agree with you on this key issue but I am grateful for knowing your views in the lead up to the vote.
We don't do charity in Germany, we pay taxes. Charity is a failure of governments' responsibilities - Henning Wehn
Angela Eagle's statement why she supported air strikes ....
Quote
In consultation with the Shadow Cabinet, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has granted Labour MPs a free vote on the motion and I know from talking to colleagues how much deliberation and careful thought has gone into each Labour MP’s individual judgement.
All of us know that involving the UK armed forces in any kind of military action is a decision which can never to be taken lightly.
All of us are acutely aware of the seriousness of this situation and will vote for what we sincerely believe is in the best interests of the citizens of this country and is more likely to defend our democracy, our values and our way of life from those who wish to destroy them.
In making such judgements I am acutely aware that there is no easy or correct answer to this question and there is no certainty that any particular course of action or inaction will be guaranteed to succeed.
It is clear from information given to MPs that the UK is under a growing threat of attack by ISIL/Daesh similar to that witnessed in the atrocities in Paris, Ankara, Beirut and on board the Russian airliner which was brought down over Sinai.
There has also been the gunning down of British tourists in Tunisia and our security services have foiled seven similar plots on the UK mainland in the last year. Information confirms that these activities are being coordinated planned and directed from Raqqa in North East Syria.
Labour values values of universal human rights mean we should be taking all effective action to prevent the enslaving of Yazidi women and children for sex, the beheading of hostages, the execution of LGBT people by throwing them off buildings and the slaughter of Shia Muslims all of which are routinely undertaken by ISIL/Daesh in the territory they control.
The Labour party is proudly internationalist and believes in an international rules based system. Share article
We are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, indeed we helped to establish the system of international law which seeks to govern the conduct of all nations. We therefore have a particular duty to assist in upholding its decisions.
The first responsibility of government and of the opposition is to defend the national interest and to defend its people. Therefore, on balance, I believe the right thing to do is to support the extension of airstrikes against Daesh to Syria.
We don't do charity in Germany, we pay taxes. Charity is a failure of governments' responsibilities - Henning Wehn
Alison McGovern's statement why she supported air strikes ...
Quote
TODAY I had to make an impossible choice about whether to extend RAF airstrikes against Daesh in Iraq across the border into Syria.
The government’s approach to the crisis in Syria has been far from perfect.
I am angry because they have turned away from the world when they could have demonstrated to the world what it means to be British.
I believe they have done not nearly enough to offer aid and assistance to the humanitarian disaster which begun in Syria and is engulfing Europe.
I am angry because I believe they have turned their backs on vulnerable refugees for whom we should have held out our hands.
Taking 20,000 refugees by 2020 is not enough. It is much too slow compared to what are our neighbours are doing.
I also believe that if we are to defeat Daesh we must show real commitment to tacking the root causes of radicalisation and extremism.
The biggest recruiting argent for extremism is want.
Whether in the back streets of Britain where racism and disadvantage still compound with poor education to create hopelessness, or in the cities of Africa and the Middle East where young people find that powerful people forget them far too quickly, it is this pervasive want that is fertile ground for the blame and resentment that extremists cultivate.
We must not turn our backs on the people of Syria. Rather we should offer them refuge now, and our backing tomorrow.
It is clear that the people of Syria need more than our military assistance.
They need proper hospitals with trained doctors, proper schools with brilliant teachers and proper courts with impartial judges.
Most of all the people of Syria need peace and that is why I will be holding the Prime Minister to account on the progress he is making in the Vienna peace talks and ensuring that the UK is fully committed to the reconstruction of Syria when the conflict is ended.
The choice I had to make today was about a tactic in a much larger struggle.
There is no easy option or risk-free course of action. Extending the strikes risks civilian casualties, so too does inaction.
I do not believe that these strikes alone will defeat Daesh, but on balance I believe that they may make a small positive contribution. It is on that basis that I decided to support the motion today.
This support is however conditional on the government honouring the promises they have made regarding peace talks, reconstruction and refugees. If necessary I will pursue backbench motions if their plan does not work.
I respect that there are many different views on this issue. I went into the debate today undecided, determined to listen to the arguments before deciding how I would vote.
My decision is not taken lightly nor can I claim to be totally certain in my vote.
But I owe my constituents my best judgement on this complex decision and that is what I have given them today.
We don't do charity in Germany, we pay taxes. Charity is a failure of governments' responsibilities - Henning Wehn
Margaret Greenwood's statement why she did not support air strikes ...
Quote
I listened very carefully to the Prime Minister’s statement to the House of Commons last week, and to the debate that has followed, both in Parliament and the wider community.
I have been contacted by many hundreds of constituents who felt very strongly about whether airstrikes should take place and wanted to express their view.
I was not convinced by the Prime Minister's arguments and I decided to vote against UK airstrikes in Syria, although I respect those colleagues who reached a different conclusion.
I was shocked by the recent tragic events in Paris and there is no doubt that ISIL is an extremely dangerous organisation that inflicts terror both in the Middle East and the west. It clearly poses a threat to the security of our own citizens.
However, I did not believe that the Government has a coherent military plan to defeat ISIL.
Military commentators seem to be agreed that ISIL cannot be defeated by air strikes alone, but the 70,000 troops already on the ground that the Prime Minister has referred to are not a united force.
They are composed of many different factions, sometimes hostile to each other and many focused primarily on fighting the Assad regime rather than ISIL.
I was particularly concerned that airstrikes could result in civilian deaths in places like Raqqa. I was also disappointed at the lack of any detailed political and diplomatic proposals from the Government to help bring about an end to the fighting in Syria.
For all these reasons I decided that I could not support UK airstrikes in Syria.
We don't do charity in Germany, we pay taxes. Charity is a failure of governments' responsibilities - Henning Wehn
There is no case for bombing Syria, BUT there is a case to bomb Daesh who have made Syria their stronghold.Some of the Syrians within cry out to the rest of the free World for help in the battle to free them from a two headed snake (Sadat and Daesh).Our press will show us the picture of a small boys body but spare us the horror of a dozen heads stuck on railings by the real enemy.The great British public then berate their own Government for the exodus??? and some make party politics a feature of something that is not. This sick ideology has to be defeated from whatever quarter it comes from home and abroad.The people of Syria choose to call the real enemy "Daesh" the word was coined in 2013 by a Syrian activist called Khaled al-Haj Salih. A bit of Syrian satire that does not translate very well to English, hence lazy journalism bent the meaning. source :- Free Word, Alice Guthrie 19/2/15 I know some will like to read this very good article
5 Precepts of Buddhism seem appropriate. Refrain from taking life. Refrain from taking that which is not given. Refrain from misconduct. Refrain from lying. Refrain from intoxicants which lead to loss of mindfulness
Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect. ~Chief Seattle
---------------------- Thank you for your email regarding the vote that took place yesterday regarding extending air strikes to Syria.
I was grateful for the vast number of Constituents who shared their views with me, I would like to take this opportunity to let you know that I fully considered your views when I was making my decision on how to vote. When I entered Parliament in May I was fully aware of the responsibility I was accepting and I did not take the vote on military action in Syria lightly.
I voted against extending air strikes to Syria as I was not convinced by the strategy David Cameron offered. I would like to explain how I came to this decision.
Nobody could fail to be horrified by the events in Paris when hundreds of innocent people were gunned down in a cowardly and calculated attack. The attack is designed to divide us and to provoke us into a knee jerk reaction that ISIL will use as a recruiting agent to bolster their numbers.
The civil war in Syria has more than two sides, with ISIL capitalising on the chaos that has ensued and with the recent added complication of Russia backing the Assad regime who most of our Western Allies wish to see removed. The risk of a proxy war is significant with no coherent international strategy yet agreed.
But the question remains, how do we tackle ISIL at source?
There is no doubt there needs to be a plan, but it needs to have widespread international agreement. It needs not just to be a military response but a political and diplomatic solution, and it needs to recognise that in order to tackle the twisted ideology that ISIS propound, the commitment involved is likely to be for years rather than months.
A coordinated international strategy has not yet been proposed to determine how the transition to an inclusive Government in Syria will be arrived at. Headway has also not yet been made to bring about the proposed ceasefire between the regime and opposition in Syria.
The UK needs to throw its full diplomatic weight behind the ongoing talks – the Vienna process. However, until those talks have concluded, I feel that any action would be premature. If we undertake military action without having a clear, coordinated and coherent strategy for the aftermath, we risk repeating the mistakes that we made in Iraq.
Airstrikes without an effective ground force will simply not be successful and I have seen no evidence to suggest that there is anything resembling an effective ground force in Syria. I do not have confidence in the ability of what the Prime Minister referred to as “around 70,000 Syrian opposition fighters on the ground who do not belong to extremist groups” to retake the ground from ISIL. The debate yesterday offered no further assurances.
The ending of the civil war in Syria and the defeat of ISIL are inextricably linked and it is my belief that action at this stage risks pushing the end of the civil war in Syria further away, rather than bringing it closer.
The Prime Ministers response to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee which forms the basis for the vote states that in order to defeat ISIL “We need partners on the ground….and we need a political solution to the Syrian conflict”. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee decided that they did not believe their conditions for action had not been met and I believe that even the Prime Minister would concede the two conditions referred to above have not yet been met. It seems the timetable for military action is based more on securing a majority in the House of Commons rather than whether the time is right for action. Being led by a timetable that is primarily being dictated by domestic political concerns is not a sensible basis upon which to engage.
I am not opposed to the UK taking military action, if a coherent, effective and proportionate case made. I do not believe that the Prime Minister’s strategy meets all of these tests and it is for these reasons that I cannot support action in Syria at this stage.
