Should we bomb De-ash/ISIS in Syria?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Where do you want to be welcome when the danger is over, niggly?
I cannot imagine that anyone would want to go to Syria after all this is over, apart from to give humanitarian aid. Then we will be welcome, even more so if we have not bombed them.

They do not disrupt the flow , just ignore if not interested surely

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/01/cameron-accuses-corbyn-of-being-terrorist-sympathiser

The link to it, in case anyone hasn't read it.
Cameron is definitely getting rattled, Annie.

Nigglynellie, Canada and Australia have backed out, they have decided on humanitarian aid , are they no longer allies or could it be they see bombing as the destruction of innocent lives

Yes she does. But not usually in a serial manner on a thread where a positive dialogue had previously been going on.

Links just disrupt the flow, but of course some are so keen to transfer what's been delivered to their inbox onto here...

I'll leave you to it.

Cameron has decided those who oppose the bombing of Syria are terrorist sympathisers , mouth open before brain in gear yet again.

Same here Wilma and Annie. Just been learning carols, some of which were pretty gut-wrenching under the current circumstances: "And man at war with man hears not the love song that they bring."

I have no problem with links. If you do not want to read them you don't have to; and anyone is free to post links with the opposing view. They are often very informative - bags often posts interesting scientific and social research.

Same here, Wilma and Annie. However, stopthewar have not given up yet.

They are having a march again tomorrow, and sending this message to all MPs.

stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news/let-mps-examine-the-record-of-failure-before-voting-for-new-war-on-syria

about all the MPs who voted for wars over the past 14 years.

If we want to be part of any political process, we have to support our allies in this fight. You can't expect others to do the dangerous bit and then be welcome when the danger is over! Talk about cherry picking! What sort of ally is that?!

Wilma, the same with me , there is a very dark cloud looming

I feel very melancholy tonight, as if tomorrow will bring the start of something life changing. It's like an inevitableness.

I appreciate links, surely anyone who doesn't want them can ignore them ?

I do not think Cameron will take any notice of just me, Ana.
On the other hand he's not taking much notice of anyone who thinks he's an idiot for wanting to bomb Syria.
They do not call him the heir to Blair for nothing.

I think it is also the opinion of the person who wrote the comment in the Guardian. He's won human rights awards, which is more than will ever be able to be said of Cameron. He has also won FOI awards, something Cameron wants to stop. He's been a journalist since Cameron was in short pants, most of the time writing about defence, so I think he possibly knows a bit more than either of us, and even than Cameron.
I am prepared to trust his opinions.

Have you read the link? You really should.

In your opinion. It's not a fact.

This is why the Chilcot enquiry should have been published before now.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/01/chilcot-report-iraq-bomb-syria-mps-vote-airstrikes-isis

We risk repeating the mistakes made then. Cameron knows it, which is why he does not want it published yet.

Can't you just put it into words yourself, durhamjen?

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/01/cameron-has-failed-to-justify-syria-airstrikes-mps-committee-says

The foreign affairs select committee doesn't agree.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/01/vote-syria-airstrikes-david-cameron-libya

First Tory do say he will not vote for airstrikes.

Because we have made a difference in Iraq ( we don't have hundreds of jets so it is in a small way.)So just maybe, we can make a small difference in Syria too. we show our solidarity with France and the US.That in itself, is not a small thing.

'I don't see that our small involvement in going after IS in Syria is any different from going after them in Iraq.'

If it will not make much difference, why do it? Why have a small involvement?