Should we bomb De-ash/ISIS in Syria?

He is Jen, same as he does at PMQ , insult people

nigglienellie who is talking about cherry picking? You are right though about supporting our allies in this fight if we want to be part of the political process. But just who should we be calling our allies? What about all the Syrians fighting against ISIL and Assad? The ones we are training and arming? Are they not also our allies?

Do you honestly believe the US or France would step up if it was not in their best interests to do so? I think not. We need to decide the right course of action for the UK, not what will appease France and the US.

Blair has been vilified for exactly what you are suggesting we do again. You seem very certain that this is the right course of action. Many others are not. No one is saying we should do nothing. We are already doing a lot and should do more, but we do need to be sure about what our next step should be and why we're doing it.

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/25/uk-made-missile-hit-civilian-target-yemen-say-human-rights-groups

I am sure this will not be listed as collateral damage. It's a missile that was sold to Saudi.

How many MPs do you think have not made up their minds yet?

US have said that they will send more troops to Iraq, but Iraq has said they do not want them. So how can we use the reason that we are already in Iraq as a reason for bombing Syria? We meaning allies, of course.

In my view, Cameron's comment "don't go along with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers" is dishonourable and ridiculous.

Does he seriously believe that those who express serious doubt or who oppose this country joining in the bombing in Syria are "sympathetic" to ISIS? These include David Davis, former Conservative Shadow Home Secretary and Julian Lewis, Conservative Chair of the Defence Select Committee. Louise Haigh, a Labour MP, said that following a briefing by national security adviser, Mark Grant, she had decided to oppose our involvement in the Syrian bombing. He and Deputy Head of Defence Staff Lt. Gen. Gordon Messenger admitted that the 70,000 purportedly "moderate" fighters were not a "coherent force" and represented "a spectrum of extremism".

Whatever one may think of Jeremy Corbyn, he is respectful of his opponents and does not stoop to such disgusting tactics.

Yes, Eloethan, there must be an awful lot of terrorist sympathisers as on the news it said that over 50% do not want bombing in Syria.

I am dreading what tomorrow will bring. In spite of recent history of disastrous interventions, polls showing that the majority of British People do not support bombing Syria, thousands signing petitions and sending letters to MPs, the majority of Labour Party members against bombing, thousands of 'no to bombs' protesters on the streets of our cities and the Foreign Affairs Committee advising against this action, it seems inevitable that David Cameron will get his way, the foolhardy bombing will begin and the situation will worsen.

The 10 hour debate will just be window dressing as most MPs appear to have already made up their minds - sometimes based on party in-fighting, sometimes with an eye to their own careers, or business interests.

Tonight I weep for the 'Mockery of Democracy' which is our Parliamentary system and which is held up as one of the things we have to fight to defend. And I weep for the Syrian People, either displaced into an unwelcoming, cold hearted world or about to be bombed again and again in their homeland.

We have Syrian families arriving locally seeking peace and safety. What will we say to them when they ask why we are bombing the friends/family they left behind? 'NOT IN MY NAME' will cut no ice. We, would-be peacemakers, have failed and will all be tarred with the same brush as the war-mongers.

Cameron's remark about terrorist sympathisers . Hardly prime-ministerial. I can only hope it will give pause for thought to some of the Blairite Labour MPs and convince them that they can't walk through the lobby with Cameron.

I'm not a pacifist and so would have no problem in agreeing to 'bomb IS' if I thought it would do any good.

Civilian casualties can't be avoided no matter how good we are at precision bombing.

We should be tackling the source of their income and inspiration i.e. the bankers and countries who are facilitating the sale of oil.

Turkey and Saudi Arabia are behind IS - what did we do when the king of SA died? Cameron lowered our national flag to half mast over 10 Downing Street.

I can only reiterate everything the grans above posted.

Those supporting bombing are delusional. It will do nothing towards peace. Nothing in the past 14 years has supported this notion.
It is both an outrage and a tragedy that the west continues headlong towards inflicting even greater terror, on its world citizens, only for those on the receiving end to form even more groups reacting to our actions. It is gradually escalating - who knows what the final outcome will be.

The latest poll shows 53% do support bombing IS in Syria.

I see we've got the labels 'bombing Syria' back again.

I disagree Riverwalk - Turkey is not behind IS.

Whilst Turkey is not the spiritual inspiration for IS they are certainly accused of enabling the sale of IS-controlled oil.

Without the highly-lucrative oil revenues their ability to fight for so long would be diminished. Every time we see pictures of them they are kitted-out with the latest 4-wheel drives, weaponry, etc.

A bunch of disaffected youths from Europe are surely not in control.

Cameron's vile attack on those who oppose the bombing was described on the paper review last night as his Flashman streak coming out again.

I heard 53% are against , 47 % for the bombing of Syria , this was on BBC news last night.

Anya it seems to be moving around the middle as the poll taken yesterday, as I assume yours was, that they are quoting on Sky said it was down to 48% in favour. This is hardly a strong mandate although we cannot rely on polls such as this of course.

I would imagine whatever the outcome no one will be cheering at the thought of war and the casualties that will involve. I certainly had nightmares last night with arms flopping out of lorries and worse.

Gracesgran

For those who prefer a more statesmanlike and measured approach to this problem here is Corbyn's Guardian article:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/01/cameron-failed-show-bombing-syria-isil-work-jihadist

Granny 23, please don't think of it as we failed , greed , lies and love of power are powerful opponents . When the figures of deaths of innocent people start to come in - or collateral damage as some choose to call killing of innocents- we will weep but we will not think - I should not have supported this bloodbath

So I am proud to say NOT IN MY NAME

We're bombing in Iraq anyway, are none of you vociferous people bothered by that? If you are, why have you not been protesting about this? Why doesn't the thought of civilian casualties in Iraq give you nightmares? Is it because we were invited in by the Iraqi government, which curiously makes these civilians legitimate casualties, and therefore not to be worried about?
Waving Mao's little red book, was pretty vile too!!! Diane Abotts explanation! competely bizarre, bearing in mind six million people killed one way or the other by this maniac!!

What was vile about the Little Red Book joke Nellie? I think most would admit it was not a good joke but it is hardly in the realm of the current vote. Surely a little balance in your views would help them carry more weight?

niggly that is just exactly what I was about to post on here.Nobody will answer the question about Iraq, and why they haven't been complaining all these past months about it, it's weird. All this ' I weep for this, I weep for that' didn't go on then did it? Why not?

Actually, if we don't try and deal with extremists and terrorists, there will be plenty to weep about here in Britain.

.nigglynellie, what civilian casualties in Iraq? We read here every day we only kill terrorists , we are just so clever , we bomb and shoot but only kill terrorists and tonight we will bombing people and buildings in Syria but we are not bombing Syria

annie I thought it said 53% for and 47% against on the news as they commented that views had changed.


I do wish people would stop using words like 'vile' as criticism; anyone commenting on JBC's dress sense etc in an amused way, welcoming of the IRA is immediately jumped on, but it is apparently OK for other people to use such extreme language as a way to describe those with whom they disagree.

Just an observation from the sidelines btw.

And apparently it seems to be OK to AGREE with other people on this thread but not on others where it is matter for ridicule!

Just another observation and personally I can't say I agree with much so far, I can't vote and the consequences either way are out of my hands.

Ignore post, just mulling things over out loud so to speak.

I fear the shambles on Labour's front bench and what looks like a crisis of confidence in their leader has meant Labour has handed it to Cameron a plate.
Is JC "too" sincere, naive even, to lead the party successfully? I cannot believe he was not better prepared and advised that this was coming.

Well, if any weeping has been done it should be for what has been going on in Syria for over 4 years, what is happening to women and children captured by ISIL , Boko Haram etc,
Personally I would rather be dead than that.

They must be desperate. Does no-one think of them?