Should we bomb De-ash/ISIS in Syria?

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

I heard the same figures rq.

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.

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.

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

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)

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

I do, however, agree that Cameron's outburst was vile. Totally ridiculous. And I bet even he wishes he hadn't said it.

To date there's been no civilian casualties reported from our air strikes in Iraq against ISIL.

I have no time for Diane Abbot.

Saudi Arabia did finance ISIL in its early days because it saw ISIL as a way to get rid of Assad.

JessM thanks for the link - very much as I feel. Although I do not come on here so much these days I do look in and like to pick up on the various links to read some of the facts and opinions.

Rosesarered who has said we will not "deal with extremists and terrorists"? Just because it needs to be done does not mean the way Cameron is suggesting has been shown in any way to be the way we should do it. It really isn't as simple as "let's bomb them" or "let's do nothing" and I am sure you would be offended if someone suggested you were unthinkingly saying "let's bomb them".

Rosequartz shouldn't we weep for all who have been affected by this horrendous regime, either directly by them or as a consequence of trying to stop them. That is surely why we must think very carefully about what we do and what the outcomes are likely to be.

Very by your post anniebach. You seem to have taken my post objecting to the word 'vile' as a personal criticism, it was a general observation.
I am not defending anyone.

To date there's been no civilian casualties reported from our air strikes in Iraq against ISIL.

I think that, in all the discussion about how we go forward with the problem of Daesh - it is not a recognised state - this is the most unbelievable remark I have seen WilmaKnickersfit

Just copy and paste "civilian casualties reported from our air strikes in Iraq against ISIL" into Google and see what comes up.

Talk about putting your head in the sand or blinkers on; what you say is just so far from the truth.

No rosequartz , not taken as a personal criticism , just tried to point out what I consider a criticism and a vile comment

Yes, gracesgran, I thought that's what I said, all those affected (perhaps I didn't).

My weeping and wailing doesn't do much good though, (neither did praying), so that is why I have been actively supporting a small charity helping refugees and those still suffering in Syria for years.

I repeat, the civilians in Syria are suffering a tragedy of epic proportions and we cannot turn our backs on them.
The decision for us to bomb or not to bomb may not make much difference to the situation. We are only adding fire power to a zone controlled by Isis. We are not starting a war. It could alleviate some suffering (precision bombing) or it may add to the misery for the civilians. It is a judgement that we do not have the military expertise to make.
We can put pressure on politicians to concentrate on humanitarian aid which the British army has some expertise in. A coalition with the US , France and Russia to set up safe camps and no fly zones with an interim government. Our involvement in the bombing will give us more authority in future discussions with this coalition.

Nigglenellie, may I suggest you join one of the pacifist movements in this country, you will see constant objections to killing of innocent people in
Iraq and all countries , we are not selective in condemning violence neither are we selective in condoning violence

Gracesgran I am thinking until my head is spinning, but the fact remains I don't have access to all the facts and it is not me making the decision.

I am deeply offended by Cameron's disgusting dismissal of those who oppose the increased bombing. Many people, better qualified then I, have discussed this situation and come to the conclusion that bombing Syria will not make any difference to the threat from Isis and will make the situation even more desperate for those civilians caught up in it. How dare he dismiss me as some kind of loony? How dare he accuse me of being a terrorist sympathiser? I am so angry and so sad and fearful at the same time. Irrespective of one's politics, surely everyone should be angered by this arrogance, this defamation?

Well said GILLT57, I too am angered at being called a terrorist sympathiser , I too am angry, sad and fearful

I have just emailed my MP and told him how angry I am.

Same here- according to the King of Saudi Arabia, as a humanist (atheist if you prefer) I am automatically a terrorist. Don't expect better from him really. And then, as someone who thinks that bombing Syria, without the support of troops on the ground and better intelligence- is not likely to solve the problems with Isis- Cameron now says I am a terrorist sympathiser. Now, even as a non Cameron fan- I did expect better from him - shame on him.

Did anyone watch Victoria Derbyshire prog. yesterday. ?

In the studio were two Labour MP's Angela Smith MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge and Ian Murry Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and Ken Livingstone on a live feed. They were discussing the Syria vote but both of the MP's called on Livingstone to 'apologise' for his comments that they both believed gave an excuse for the terrorists who committed the 7/7 bombings.

I don't think Cameron was wise to use the words he did even if it was in private. But I do think he was referring to comments and speeches that are available to read /hear concerning certain Labour MP's and the organisations they support that will allow people to make their own assessments as to how they perceive them.

I would hope that given the massive task they all have before them the politics of bias/rhetoric is put to one side for the next 10 hours and mature debate /questioning takes place as indeed it did when Cameron took questions for 3 hours on November 26th. Might I add I believe 3 hours was the same time Parliament debated before the vote on Iraq.

I hope too the 'pressure' that is reported to have been put on the Labour MP's does still allow them the right to vote by following their continence and putting the country before party politics irrespective of whether they vote for or against. It is not the time for anything else !!!!!!

What a pathetic man Cameron is. Last night those who opposed the bombing of Syria are terrorists sympathisers. This morning he has decided it is honourable to vote yes or no .

Perhaps a Cameronite would explain how there is honour in sympathising with terrorists?

Once we have bombed what then? Who fills the space left by IS?

Cameron not big enough to apologise for his remark.

He is showing himself to be a man of very little honour Anniebach.