At this point in time, the debate for bombing Syria is happening in the House of Commons.
It' a hard one ..... So many issues to influence a decision and at the end of the day it has to be the right decision.
Personally I can't justify bombing anywhere but this unfortunately is a very different situation and which ever way we look at it now , a world threat either if we do or if we don't.
Cameron loves doing his macho thing. Curling his upper lip and leaning on his elbow, trying to look tough. He can put as many planes over Syria as he likes but it wont stop the terrorist with the parcel in the middle of Manchester. Can you imagine the chaos in the air with bombers from France, America, Russia, Syria and then the UK? What a recipe for disaster.
I think we are ignorant of a lot of facts. Are the bombings aimed at Isis occupied cities where there are innocent civilians where bombs can't tell the difference or against military convoys and if there is a frontline (no civilians involved) I would personally support bombing of the latter but where it would be civilians (I mean folks who just want to live ordinary everyday lives) I think this could create more support for Isis.I think boots on the ground by the various anti Isis groups will be needed sooner than later. How does it help the fight against Isis if Russia keeps bombing those fighting against Isis but are against Assad and Iraq gov are bombing the Kurds fighting Isis
Is there any part of Syria where the UN could set up a war free zone and patrol it with UN troops from UN countries and I'm sure a lot of European countries (and charities) would contribute towards food and other essentials allowing refugees to be re-homed in a safe environment
I do think a lot of politicians the world over just think of number one and unless they are personally threatened by loss of power will just talk on and on instead of actually doing the right thing as quick as possible.
Dont know, but it feels wrong and hopeless. Id rather see our country spend 'bomb' money here ,on having copious numbers of undercover agents working at infiltrating cells of extremists ,mingling with all kinds of gatherings ( yes right down to mum and toddler groups) - immediately putting suspects under surveillance , deporting anyone who's a danger to us that weve reasonable proof against, immediately deporting those who rant their poison in the streets, so yes temporary loss of free speech) , instantly bring in security cards , with eye pattern recognition , all shops and garages ,ticket offices , hospitals,dentists, etc would have a reader ,no card no service, so that no-one can do hardly anything without identifying themselves . No doubt the same folk who dont want us to bomb Syria , would also resent their own freedoms being restricted so severely , but you cant do nothing - because so far, ISIL is winning. No action may well end up with us permanently having no freedom at all. Oh and youd have to renew your ID card regularly to help thwart forgers. Im sure my ideas arent that workable, but I like them better than the thought of bombed broken bodies all over the place. Still, if we dont want j'hardis spreading across the globe as they did in the tenth century , difficult measures have to embarked upon , and bombing may be one of them.
I get the feeling on here up to now is leaning toward no, and some very good and reasoned responses have been put forward, along the lines that it increases the likely hood of a blue on blue incident involving aircraft from different nations, bombs are indiscriminate and their use is limited to and against static targets and that the main reason we are joining in is to show solidarity with France, my own feeling is it will make very little difference if we join in apart from the propaganda value, ie; we will being seen to be doing something, I think along the lines already put forward that there needs to be a joint plan and policy put forward and agreed by all parties, and undertakings given for Syria to be given a democratic government, bombing alone is not enough.
...and how many years did Northern Ireland continue for ?
We also have to think of the millions that are suffering at the hands of ISIS. The Syrians who are being terrorised and tortured, sexually abused and beheaded.
We still decry Germany for much the same atrocities committed in WWII, is this different ?
Surely the innocents in Syria needing help, should be a major concern to us ?
My concern is Turkey and Russia. Which side of the fence would we be on if they fall out, and could things escalate.
One thing for sure, 'doing nothing' is not an option, otherwise the atrocities will continue, here ,there and everywhere.
The same number of years that this mess is going to last for.
If we hadn't have interfered with these countries they would be having very limited civil unrest - we have escalated it into a multi-national disgrace.
The situation between Turkey and Russia just shows how much instability has been created. One air plane down, two people dead and there is a possibility of all out war.
We haven't even got a proposed outcome for what we want in Syria - how can you justify bombing a place when you haven't got a plan? Its like primary school mentality.
Russia at least has a plan - America, UK and France haven't.
If Turkey and Russia have a war, we should not take sides - but of course we will as it has been moved to the North Atlantic apparently.
What is going to happen next is that Turkey will become part of the EU even though they do not meet the entry criteria - it will be part of some deal.
There is no doubt that we would side with Turkey granny, Ivan is smarting at losing an aircraft and two members of its armed forces, this in turn causes Putin to lose face as the hard man, they will be looking for some pay back as our American allies would say, if we stand back and look closely the plan is coming together for ISIS, it could result in WW3 it is that serious, Russia has been testing reactions around the world with aircraft and submarine incursions, and I have no doubt that they have been overflying Turkey to what end who knows? this game has been going on for years, I think it might have been wiser to escort the Russian out of its airspace but then we don't know the full circumstances.
no we should all put flowers in our hair and dance like hippies and act like everything is fine cos remember they're all nice people, then we should give money to help for heroes
If I remember correctly, Israel was the power behind the thrown when it came to pushing America and Britain into Attacking Iraq. Correct me if I'm wrong.
It comes to light that Israel had secret meetings with Russia in October about attacks in Syria. Considering Israel had not ever had much time for Russia, we have to wonder, yet again, who is pulling the strings. If this is true, then I believe we should stay out of it. I'm tired of Israel being at the pivotal centre point, they still continue to take land etc. This week there are plans to displace thousands of Palestinian Bedhouins to build several new Jewish only communities. Palestine will retaliate , of course, but why doesn't any country step up and speak up for the minorities when Israel is concerned. No one EVER does and we need to know why they don't.
Albert Einstein observed: "You can't bring about peace by waging war." and he was right. He usually was.
Nor will our bombs (a few hundred out of 30,000 already from various sources) make a lot of difference. What it WILL do is cause more terrorism here, giving this government a good excuse to monitor all our communications.
If it was possible I would say "walk away" from the Middle East mess and let them all kill each other. Unfortunately that is not possble because We (and lots of others post WW1 and WW2) created the artificial countries in the area that give some cause to the various inter-state conflicts Mr Blair "meddled" a few years back We have "feelings" for some of those opressed by various regimes and think we can help (debatable)
Mosty importantly it is not possible because Daesh or whatever you want to call it EXISTS and has a declared objective to cause havoc on the Western society that we know. They will do this whether or not we (UK) or Europe generally get more involved in the present conflicts. The declared objective can be seen on various posted videos/ documents that come either directly from the Middle East or from the represenatives of such organisations within Europe inc. UK
The most damming clip I can find is http://www.cbn.com/tv/embedplayer.aspx?bcid=1509282970001 OK, this is a clip from a US channel so many of us will consider it biased. However, there is NO doubt about what the Belgian guy is saying.
What REALLY gets me is WHY a guy like that is not simply shipped out of Belgium, a country and culture he obviously despises - whether or not he was even born there? "Uman rights I suppose. I said the same about old "Hooky" and it took YEARS to get rid of him. In general - all are welcome here IF THEY AGREE TO AND CONFORM TO our national spirit.
Seems to me to be a done deal---already had the ISIS "weapons of mass destruction" rhetoric similar to that Bliar used to get us into Iraq. Would think its almost certain that our Military leaders have agreed that air bombing has some value otherwise it wouldn't even be on the table for getting approval. Cant believe that its just down to the politicians to decide.
the former drone operators have described how their colleagues dismissed children as “fun-sized terrorists” and compared killing them to “cutting the grass before it grows too long.” Children who live in countries targeted by the drone program are in a state of constant terror, according to Westmoreland: “There are 15-year-olds growing up who have not lived a day without drones overhead, but you also have expats who are watching what’s going on in their home countries and seeing regularly the violations that are happening there, and that is something that could radicalize them.”
By reliable estimates, ninety percent of those killed in drone strikes are entirely harmless people, making the program a singularly effective method of producing anti-American terrorism. “We kill four and create ten,” Bryant said during a November 19 press conference, referring to potential terrorists. “If you kill someone’s father, uncle or brother who had nothing to do with anything, their families are going to want revenge.”
Those sort of remarks, would give thoughts to the unfortunate problem of desensitization.
I believe that any political vote on this should be individually backed up with a first class honours degree in Middle Eastern History.
Does anyone in this country really understand how they think and operate out there ?
When reading news reports form various other countries from the Arab world and the Israeli newspapers, it would appear that this ISIS thing, which obviously does need to be addressed in the most effective way, but the result would not rid that area of trouble. Always another group to follow. That is my opinion only, but Israel are constantly in the thick of it, (unbeknown to our news reporting by the British channels.)
We don't support the act of death penalties in Arab countries, but we make friends of them ! We can't offer our services to fight Israel's battle but bet your bottom dollar we will sooner or later by getting dragged into a bigger arena.
Qatar is voicing off against Israel for offending 1.5 billion Muslims world wide due to the provocation of the Temple Mount. Qatar are backing Hamas and ISIS . (so they are obviously linked somehow)
I think we are using the French support against ISIS as an excuse.
It's truly dreadful and if we go in, we are in for the long haul. We can't take hundreds of thousands of Muslims into Europe and then side with Israel.
Is that why Israel have asked Russia to get involved ?
We are constantly being told Israel has a right to defend its borders. Well, so does everyone else and we'd be forgiven for not knowing where Israel's borders start and finish, these days. Constant land grabbing or it would appear that way.
Putin continues to supply weapons to Israel's enemies, Israel supplied Russia with drone technology. Russia's interest in Syria is Tartus, a Russian Naval facility , so Putin is playing both hands too, and so it goes on. If Assad goes, how might Russia hold onto facilities at Tartus ?
Good old Britain, wants to be friends with everyone but it won't work. We can't be friends with all and stay alive for very much longer .
Maybe this mass exit of Syrians has been organised prior to what is becoming a massive invasion of their homeland. The various countries have known what is in the pipeline long before we might find out. Is that why no one went to the aid of Greece and Italy's problems with the migrant issue, and just left it to flow for as long as possible, without any intervention ?
In one way I hope that migration was acted out upon knowledge, as it will give more space for those who are trapped in the war torn communities and the possibility of getting shelter in the camps which have been overflowing to bursting. Maybe that's also why we have been warned the refugees could rise to 2 or even 3 million .
It always made me wonder why UAE started to conscript all 18 to 28 yrs olds into National Service, and only starting it 2 years ago...
....and where is Mr Blair ? Is he still calling the shots behind the scenes ? He wanted us to attack Syria four years ago. Dare I say it, maybe we should have.
So - Corbyn reiterates Labour is not in favour of uk extending bombing but his MP's to get a free vote according to their concience, and they wont be sacked for doing so................surely the unspoken last word will be 'yet'. At Hes pushing for a 2 day debate. He wont get it , but maybe it will give a little more time for MP's to sway over to a 'no' to Mr Cameron especially if they are pressured by the public. (Sign the petition going around)
If the Labour MP's do not represent the members then that is an undemocratic thing do and a completely different matter for not concurring with Corbyn's viewpoint.
TBH, I am surprised at how many people are against the Syrian bombing but the media is not being representative.
I believe the media should be reeled in, they are going way beyond expressing opinions. I've seen a few quotes recently that were from over 10 years ago but in the context of the news report they "appear" to be recent.
If the media wants to express an opinion it should be clearly marked as an editorial and not disguised as a news report.
How can democracy work when most information comes through media that is misrepresenting the facts.
I was dithering to be honest much as I hate the idea of bombings,Ive heard convincing arguments on both sides but the scales tipped this morning when I saw that chap who lost most of his kids in an area being bombed, that hadnt held IS for 2 years. Could be propaganda of course, the pile of stones that was his house could have been anywhere, but it just emphasized my main worry that the bombing has no real joined up strategy behind it ,and we have no reliable unbiased sources of information, eg the below, (as well as the media DD)
"Yet, despite its central role in the savage civil war, the grandly named Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is virtually a one-man band. Its founder, Rami Abdul Rahman, 42, who fled Syria 13 years ago, operates out of a semidetached red-brick house on an ordinary residential street in this drab industrial city."
Algezeera researched his abundance of on the spot contacts for the intelligence he was collecting on the Syrian situation and found they were few and far between, and of no particularly reliable standing. Could be many such outfits which sound like they are giving weight bearing 'guidance'- on all sides.
So, Im going for what Im hoping is the course of least deaths and suffering . I do think we will get repercussions here regardless of what we do or dont do though . Bring on more checks and security in the Uk please to root the evil out.
I have found out this morning that Germany is now deploying 1;200 troops to fight ISIL.looks like we will be heading for a civil war sooner than expected.
Will someone, who is in favour of bombing Syria, please explain to me how it will, as Mr Cameron believes, make us feel safer? Thank you.
Can't do that , particularly when we receive various reports on how many ISIS members there are. We have had figures in the last couple of months 20,000, 30,000 , 75,000 and in 2014 claims by a Kurdish leader of 200,000. Does anyone really know ? The only possible hope imo, is that bombing the ISIS training camps out there, will deter any who think they would like to join them in their mission. Ha ! Al Qaeda had a training camp in the Lake District in 2007. Not only but also, Crowborough in Kent, Tonbridge in Kent, New Forest, Berkshire and St Albans. If any Britain was caught doing the same thing in an Arab State, we would be facing the death sentence. In times of war, and this is a war on our home ground,with or without our involvement in Syria, maybe traitors to our country if caught, should face similar. We all had our objections to Guantanamo Bay ,and maybe we should shut up sometimes. I see Amnesty International are kicking off at Turkey for rounding up 1300 migrants, bound for Greece. Sending them to a repatriation centre and possibly deportation is referred to by Amnesty as "illegal as it is unconscionable". No one will ever win this battle but with European multicultural societies, it could get nasty and troops might be needed at home instead.
If some of us lived in Syria, and the Syrians bombed Britain our homeland, how would we feel ?
Possibly very slightly off topic but I wonder why the heads of the Muslim faith in this country have not collectively offered themselves to a national television audience and totally rejected any association with ISIS for either themselves or their believers....would not this sort of rejection from the spiritual heads possibly have a major effect on youngsters who otherwise might believe that ISIS is an acceptable extension of the Muslim religion
Possibly very slightly off topic but I wonder why the heads of the Muslim faith in this country have not collectively offered themselves to a national television audience and totally rejected any association with ISIS for either themselves or their believers....would not this sort of rejection from the spiritual heads possibly have a major effect on youngsters who otherwise might believe that ISIS is an acceptable extension of the Muslim religion
I have been saying the same thing, there has been no condemnation by the Muslim hierachy in this country, rudebox posted a list of names on another thread (Paris Bombings) made by some leaders mostly business people with a vested interest but no outcry from the rank and file no marches, banners not in my name etc, unlike in Paris were Muslims were openly condemning Isil, if we do start a bombing campaign you can bet there will be cries of outrage from the Muslim / Asian community, sadly what we have is a country within a country and a community within a community,with no wish to intergrate, we have preachers on the streets spouting all the ills of the world to the Kuffir (whilst they collect their benefits courtesy of the Kuffir) and the police stand by ( see ch4 British Muslim woman behind the veil)whilst they are allowed to undermine our country there will be no peace
Possibly very slightly off topic but I wonder why the heads of the Muslim faith in this country have not collectively offered themselves to a national television audience and totally rejected any association with ISIS for either themselves or their believers....would not this sort of rejection from the spiritual heads possibly have a major effect on youngsters who otherwise might believe that ISIS is an acceptable extension of the Muslim religion
Not seen the Pope or other Christian leaders defending themselves against the Klu Klux Klan, either.
Now Turkey are on board for stopping the migrants leaving for Europe, they have been paid a £2 billion deal with the possibility of visa free passage for all natural Turks to move freely in Europe. Now doing the maths, it seems rather extraordinary to say the least. Trying put a stop to about 23 million of Syria's population coming to Europe, millions which are already in camps and displaced but possibly opening the doors to a further 74 million Turks, of whom most are Muslim and have ISIS members also in amongst them. Was that the dangling carrot to be renegade upon , or has someone gone off their trolley ? It seems a crazy proposition and also shows that they could have stopped the flow from Turkey earlier and saved so many lives lost. None of these countries are to be trusted. They are different to us, and when it comes down to base line , we don't sing from the same hymn sheet.
Yes Casper, you are correct when saying the Imam's and leaders have still not faced up to the problem we all face. Themselves included. I suppose they can't, due to offending Allah and any backlash from within the Muslim communities. They are hiding, that is the only possible reason I can think of, which is pretty cowardly , under the circumstances. If they dare to speak up at a later date, it won't hold much water. Far too late and damaging then !
There is also a demo in Liverpool tomorrow for those who are in opposition :
Wed 2nd December at 6pm
BBC Radio Merseyside 57 Hanover Street L1 3
Certainly have , emailed Madders two days ago and nothing back yet, but I saw a tweet from him saying he didnt feel Cameron had made the case yet, and that he was still listening to constituents. Not 100% sure what that means . Will we find out which way they all voted?
Don't think we have any choice in this, wish we did. I'm no war mongerer far from it, it worries me to death what's going to happen. There's going to be another Paris like attack here soon, think the intelligence agencies are doing a great job but they won't be able to stop it all the time. Just a matter of when! Think we are better to join the allies than be on our own and just pray we get it right, we are going to be attacked whatever we do so let's try and fight this horrible organisation as one. If was a civilian in Syria I would have headed out to the hills or wherever, rather live in a cave than be in the city. Corbyn is inferring we sit down and talk with these IS , they won't do that , all they wan to do is kill and maim, always said he lives in cuckoo land.
What's to stop these Isis targets from keeping innocent civilians within their midst.I'm all for bombing their frontline? fighters
As regards foiling terrorist plots here, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were stopped by info supplied by members of the muslim community to our security services
And no I am not a terrorist sympathiser
Will we get involved against terrorists in other countries after Syria is sorted out and isis disperses to other parts
2) Agreed and instead of using our £125000 a pop Brimstone missiles, we could be using that money to help work with the muslim community to route out the home grown terrorists here, as well as upping our security generally. Attacking the ISIS Hydra head here would still be a contribution to the aims of our 'allies' which might also avoid being the 'cheese eating surrender monkeys'
Listening to the debate though , its just so complicated now with dozens of groups active withing Syria, it seems obvious that killing off just ISIS definitely wont help, the rest would just fight amongst themselves and against Assad and right now Im wondering if the accusation agains Russia taking out ALL terrorists from every group would leave a void into which he could step, might even be one of the least evils . Wicked and extreme he might be , but maybe for now thats the only way there might be relative peace, taking out all the 'active' top layer of groups , leaving the rest of them all under his strict rule --- for now till the Russians actually decide to get him out. This is really headachey stuff isnt it.
So what has bombing Syria got to do with removing the threat of terrorism? If we had bombed Ireland would that have removed the threat of terrorism - no, it would have increased terrorism, the considerable reduction in terrorism from Ireland was achieved with money and negotiation.
There is more than enough money getting thrown around in military actions to get this sorted out.
Whatever we do in destroying Syria, ISIS will remain a threat as a terrorist organisation, it is impossible to wipe them out as they exist in too many countries.
Hi granny, the need to bomb Syria is now becoming clear, its as I thought, General Dannat said on the news earlier basically that us joining in with the bombing wont make a difference, the main aim is to show solidarity with those already involved, Cameron pushing the "its our duty to support our allies" angle and his jingoistic speeches reek of desperation, and I have to say to imply that those who are against the bombing are terrorist sympathisers is outrageous and frankly disgraceful, Cameron along with the majority of his government have never served in the forces, I like many others who have served will feel anger at being branded because we oppose bombing, which we have a right to do by this pasty faced little sh*te and his patronising government.
Don't think these IS are interested in money DD, they give their lives up for their so called cause of changing the western world and making it Islamic. Maybe if certain countries stopped providing them with money now, that might help. The IRA were very bad but these maniacs are much bigger and even more evil. So frightening..
Having listened to much of the debate going on today, once again, it is so hard to really be decisive for or against.
My opinions flip flopping all over the place. I do think that Liam Fox made a good case, at the same time an MP received an email from someone in Raqqah, which he read out. It was a plea on behalf of a family saying how much longer can they stay and live with the atrocities and protect their children from seeing decapitated heads spiked along the roads.
That was quite powerful for myself which tipped me to the pro lobby.
Concerns consist of the one time point that we would never put troops on the ground, now that seems to have changed and in that possible scenario I can't help thinking that ISIS would undoubtedly use whoever they could, as human shields. I think Derek has raised a similar point.
Would this situation have arisen if Paris had not been attacked ?
I don't think Ireland compares to this ISIS problem DD, they didn't, behead, burn people alive,crucify, rape children or kill 250,000, but they did get financial aid and backing from America !
The IRA did burn people alive (necklacing). The IRA destroyed heritage. The IRA attempted to poison people and the environment. The IRA did behead people. The IRA did rape. The IRA did crucify people. IRA members are currently under investigation for child abuse. The IRA killed about 1700 people.
This bombing will be indiscriminate action, it will not end ISIS, it has no finite objectives.
I am not totally against taking action, but this resolution is not a solution.
Syria is a member of the UN yet we have been taking action against its government. There are 193 members of the UN - what percentage are taking action against ISIS?
I dont get how paying off can work. You might give some crooked money motivated leaders of the factions enough money to be under your control, but the ones beneath them , are motivated either by the wishes of Allah, or by injustice /wanting their piece of country to call their own/ or by revenge - the infidels have killed my relatives, /or by common hatred of Assad. Those 'underlings' have a lot invested emotionally in the 'battle' so far -they havent got much to lose. How are they going to be if the leaders suddenly turn round and appear to say hang on lads, weve got money on offer here from the infidels, lets stop fighting and be friends with the other groups we hate and have a bit of peace . Forget youve lost your brothers and sisters, forget revenge on the West , just fall into line ,theres good chaps? Anyway, I thought some of the groups are well funded ?
Leaders are invariably power hungry and greedy - give a terrorist leader the chance to become a main player in world politics and they jump at the opportunity, a financial incentive lubricates the process.
Its been done loads of times in the past, obviously the methods are disguised but if you look at any conflict that has a peaceful resolution you can almost guarantee that money and/or power is how it has been brought about.
Since the bombing of Syria has started, ISIS has become twice as big, the bombing has shown to be counter-productive. The most effective call to arms is being attacked - its Janet and John book one of group behaviour (I remember one of my instructors almost being lynched by all of us when he demonstrated this in a sneaky exercise).
If the Turkish and/or Saudi borders had been closed at the beginning of this, ISIS would not exist by now and far fewer people would be dead. Negotiating peace and diplomacy isn't just a matter of talking with the aggressors.
The IRA did burn people alive (necklacing). How many ? The IRA destroyed heritage. The IRA attempted to poison people and the environment. The IRA did behead people. How many ? The IRA did rape. How many ? The IRA did crucify people. How many ? IRA members are currently under investigation for child abuse. The IRA killed about 1700 people. How many civilians over a period of 30 years ?
The Irish facts and figures do not equate to the magnitude of murders, crimes and perpetrations committed by ISIS and Assad, in a much shorter period of time. I really feel that if the same things were happening on British soil, we would be calling out for help, to whoever would hear us, otherwise there would be no chance of the terror going away. Negotiating took how many years with the Irish problem ? Do we wait another 30yrs to come to some resolve in this dreadful affair ? In the meantime, Europe being flooded with more and more refugees from many more countries, how would we cope with that situation ? Maybe Britain should take another 200,000 or more of them, and increase our chances of being attacked on home territory. Would that be the answer ?
It's all so desperate from all sides, and I would not wish our troops to be the boots on the ground, neither would my wish be for the innocents in Syria to be subject to the ongoing threat from ISIS.
The UN have asked us to and the Syrian people have been begging for ages.
I emailed our MP this morning and made a 'NO' vote. If unsure, it has to be.
Heaven help everyone, whichever the way it happens.
Assuming the whole idea of the bombing would be to disperse ISIS from out of Raqqah (at the moment). Next move is unclear. Supposing that depends on success of the operation.
No surprise in the parliamentary outcome unfortunately. There really wasn't a need for over 10 hours of debate although a couple of untruths did surface.
I'm waiting for the voting report to see how many conservatives voted with their conscience or with their political career in mind.
George Galloway having a wee chat about Syria a couple of years ago and shoving home a few truths (you also might recognise the back bencher beside him).
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.
You can't bring peace by waging war, and a conventional army is useless against terrorism.
Past conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya have demonstrated this, and Syria will go the same way. You'd think they'd learn, but politicians love wars.
Not for the first time, the government has made me feel ashamed of being British.
Shades of Blair the Warmonger and his WMD! How many times last night did Maceroon say "It's either bomb Syria or Isis blowing up the UK" totally untrue, of course. Just why is he now referring to Isis, or Isal, as he has referred to the group so far, now suddenly called Daesh by macaroon. I do know that the group has a number of alternative names: it's just the sudden switch by macaroon that interests me.
Shades of Blair the Warmonger and his WMD! How many times last night did Maceroon say "It's either bomb Syria or Isis blowing up the UK" totally untrue, of course. Just why is he now referring to Isis, or Isal, as he has referred to the group so far, now suddenly called Daesh by macaroon. I do know that the group has a number of alternative names: it's just the sudden switch by macaroon that interests me.
'Maceroon'! Lol. Heard him called many names- but that is a new one, on me!!
Good old George love his speeches even if I might not agree (but often do)
yes it was a good speech but its sad to think that decisions are made and votes cast just on the best speech. It was characteristically similar to George Bushes "they hate our freedoms"
To obtain some peace you have to kill enough of them to get them to surrender. The more you kill the less they can do but as they seem to not give a sh*te it would mean eradicating them-but at what cost to innocents.
How long did we let Germany wreak havoc before we intervened oh and then in come the Yanks. Pointing much towards the armaggedon scenario although as yet Israel keeping a low profile.
Daesh is an intentional slightly derogatory acronym invented by the media.
You know that our government is getting desperate when they come up with statements like
Quote
Before our aircrew conducted their attacks, as is normal they used the aircraft's advanced sensors to confirm that no civilians were in the proximity of the targets, who might be placed at risk
Apparently our planes are fitted with ISIS detectors now - what total poppycock - propaganda at its insulting worst!
Another bit of drivel was that UK was being brought in for our "unique capabilities" referring to the Brimstone missile, not only has this fist mission not used our "unique" capabilities but the Brimstone missile isn't unique to the RAF, the Royal Saudi Air Force also have it - we sold them some of ours.
We were supposed to be attacking Rakka (aka Raqqa etc), which despite denials will result in civilian deaths. For the first mission they chose a target that they assumed will not cause civilian deaths - but there is no guarantee.
Here is a copy of a post I made a couple of hours ago in FB; it should answer your question.
For the people having a whinge about the RAF being involved in Syria - What you are forgetting is that the 'enemy' is intend on only two things - killing as many of us as possible, then dying themselves. They only understand one thing and negotiating with someone intend of butchery, torture and rape is a none starter. The only answer is to meet kind with kind and to annihiliate the threat. Blair should have been under arrest a long time ago for treason and using his position to make a personal fortune. Brown for robbing pensions and carrying on with Blairs open door policy and Cameron for not having the guts to close the door. Corbyn is an out and out terrorist lover, HAMAS IS and IRA are in his bed. Farage is right, was always right, and so, in the 60s was Enoch Powell. In 1919 and in 1948 Churchill also wrote about the threat we have today - but nobody listens. The planes of Russia and now the UK are not bombing innocent people, they are working on ground based intel with pin point locations. OK, some may get killed or injured and not be involved, but I bet its a very small number. Finally, IS have massacred thousands and thousands of innocent people and only recently a mass grave was found containing an entire village, slaughtered by IS. So, which is the lesser of the two evils, bomb or be bombed. I vote for the former.
Edit: Intel from on the ground within target areas is fed to the planes giving exact locations, and for a missile exact is close enough!! Also all planes carry IFF transponders, this means they are identyable to other aircraft, unless of course if you are Turkish!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
---------------------- 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.
I think we are all being led up the garden path by each and every one of them, and positioning ourselves. Israel want Assad out. Israel wanted Saddam out. To have registered support for political groups within our own political parties , in a way of opposition to different nations and religious cultures, is raising the chance for all out war. It should NOT be allowed. How would it work if there was a Support Group for Syria or Libya, to which MP's signed their name ? (maybe there is). We are too multi everything in this country now, too late to turn the clocks back, thanks to the likes of Liberty.
Note, Netanyahu asked Prince Charles to visit Israel ,last week. The invitation has been declined as it is not viewed as helpful in the continued disputes between Israel and Palestine, with opinions being voiced that Netanyahu would use the visit as a political lever of showing support to their cause. No Royal has ever visited Israel in an official capacity.
Below is the latest rhetoric to start from that Zionist. If he's not going to have a bi-national state solution, then why is The Labour Friends of Israel, working towards a two state solution i.e their Motto ? ;
Israel will not become a bi-national state, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared at Sunday's cabinet meeting, in a response to US Secretary of State John Kerry who in a speech on Saturday said the trend lines were leading in that direction.
“I want to make clear, Israel will not be a bi-national state, but in order for there to be peace, the other side also has to decide it wants peace. Unfortunately that is not what we see,” he said.
This is also an interesting article from the Times of Israel.
How there is concern when support for Israel is not paramount in our political parties and many other factors too. Do we have such influence in their political parties ?
I think your right granny, our two main political parties are fragmented within their own ranks, not only Labour were some of their front benchers voted for bombings and now seem to be taking that further by condemning the anti bombing campaign I think this is purely political and is more to do with embarrasing Corbyn than anything else, the Tories keep saying eventually there must be boots on the ground, as against we will not put them there, the retoric is changing, slowly but surely we are creeping toward full involvement, no doubt this has been talked about with our "allies" and Dave will appear with his best car salesmans war face to tell us the inevitable deployment of ground troops is the only way, I think if there is another terrorist action here that will be the excuse needed for full committment, I hope I am wrong.
At the moment I don't believe much that's written or spoken by the media - they are stirring things up at a new level. Try to take note of official statements or interviews and even then make sure they are current and not raked up from the past and hence out of context.
We can only hope that Donald Trump never gets past the first post. He said (on the 6th Dec.) that he will go after the wives of the terrorists because they know what's happening !
What is it that this man does not understand ? Probably not worth thinking about really.
Its gone quiet on the terrorist front now news wise, its been overidden with the flooding in the lake district, it just shows how much power the media have to influence local and world affairs, as simple as a headline.
Its gone quiet on the terrorist front now news wise, its been overidden with the flooding in the lake district, it just shows how much power the media have to influence local and world affairs, as simple as a headline.
Just had to be , didn't it ? Israel have bombed Damascus killing Samir Qantar . They have not accepted responsibility yet, but have tried to kill him 6 times already. Lebanon have said " Israel will pay the price of it's crime" . Yet again, they will trigger a situation that gets the West onto their side in a greater than the already bad situation. Crafty ...very crafty. They will never stop. Notice how they always seem make an impact and challenge when news on all other fronts seems to go quieter. Been the same for years. Maybe I'm just sick of them and their leader, but that is how it looks. (May I add, that this is not aimed at any of Jewish faith, just the politics of the country).
The government have given the ok for women to be allowed to carry out combat roles, they say that it is to fall into line with our allies, but being cynical I think that recruiting has dropped below requirements and they need to bolster numbers on the front line, other than that its a bad idea, I have no doubts about womens capability will and bravery to do the role, but in practice and for many reasons it wont work.
No doubt they will make a big deal of the first women (shades of GI Jane)and how successful it has all been, you will understand the difficulties more than most Madge, I remember well the derogatory nick names they had, splits, groundsheets amongst the more polite, and I dont think that culture will ever change.
No doubt they will make a big deal of the first women (shades of GI Jane)and how successful it has all been, you will understand the difficulties more than most Madge, I remember well the derogatory nick names they had, splits, groundsheets amongst the more polite, and I dont think that culture will ever change.
I served in the 80`s and never had any of that levelled at me, maybe cos im 5`11 and i would have put them on their arse if they had, lol, or maybe i just didnt mix with those types, i do know there was people like that but like in life there always is,
Yes we now have special forces from the UK and the USA on the ground, the government tell us they are only there as advisors, yet reports say the Americans have lost two special forces soldiers, looks like we are being sucked back in again, they had the parents of some of those lads who lost their lives last time saying to let it go as no useful purpose will be served losing more lives.
The Afghan army appear to have no arse in them, and I think the best thing we can supply them with is pumps.
Sheeples, everywhere../...baaa baah baah
