Should we bomb De-ash/ISIS in Syria?

Latest figures released this morning ,BBC, are 48% for the bombing of Syria

Soimetimes lg the degree of nasty sarcasm is too huge to ignore. Sorry if that offends you. (don't read my posts if you don't like 'em)

Rosequartz, you may choose to defend calling those who oppose the bombing of Syria and terrorist sympathisers as a criticism , for me it is vile

Let's put it this way ? I have spoken out against the bombing of Syria from the start so you post and accuse me of being a terrorist sympathiser , it would just be a criticism yes?

So I could say those here who support the bombing of Syria are blood lusting warmongers with no respect for human life and it would be accepted as a criticism ? I think not, and I wouldn't say it because it would be a vile thing to say.

So Cameron calling me a terrorist sympathiser allows me to say it is a vile comment

Of course we think of them roseq but there is little evidence that the bombing will change the views of those who are responsible for these atrocities or stop them acting. Very interesting discussion on Newsnight last night. The most informed person seemed to be an ex-army officer, now an MP who was against the bombing. He said there were too many forces already involved in bombing too few targets and that nothing would be resolved without ground forces. So even if we bomb ground troops will still be needed. He also said that what would probably result is the creation of even more factions who will make war against each other.

A "bunch of terrorist sympathisers" - I hope this will not be the level of debate we will hear today - what a crass remark that was - and indicative of the lack of statesmanship of DC.

jingl - your post attacking Annie's is an equally low level of debate - there are those on here who do not agree with Annie but outline their opposing views to add information to the debate - they do not stoop to rudeness.

Anniebach you have made a really stupid post there. ( 09:03:37)

I heard the same figures rq.

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?

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.

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.

.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

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

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?

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?

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!!

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

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

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.

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.

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.

I disagree Riverwalk - Turkey is not behind IS.

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

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

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.

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.

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 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.