[Closed] Forum House of Commons vote on air strikes in Syria - which way will you vote?

According to him now, there are another 25,000 as well as the 70,000 Special Magic Troops

But in his questionnaire although they'd ticked yes to the initial question...

[i]1. Are you prepared to fight alongside us against ISIS?[/i]

They'd then put a cross by the subsequent question...

[i]2. Will you then participate in some lovely democratic elections, overseen by us, with our chosen candidates.[/i]

They then vandalised the questionnaire with stuff about death to the infidel pig-dogs, so we took that as a no

SO if the SNP are going to vote against bombing Syria,
most of Scotland voted for the SNP,
does that make all Scots terrorist sympathisers?

I hear back from my MP this morning...

I have listened very carefully to all of the views, advice and information that I have received in the last few weeks on the question that will be put to Parliament today on Syria. I have met with my own constituency Labour Party where there was a very well informed and comradely debate on this and I have debated this with the local North West Durham Fabian Society. I have been contacted by hundreds of constituents and have received briefings and advice from church leaders and charities. I have also listened to the Prime Minister when he set out his case for bombing Syria. Having listened to all this I have decided that I will voting not to bomb Syria.

I believe that the issue that Parliament should be debating is how to remove the territory from ISIL/Daesh control, achieve an eventual ceasefire amongst other forces and bring about a transitional settlement to end the Civil War. This is an incredibly complex and difficult diplomatic task, but the first steps are already being taken via the Geneva Process.

I do not believe that the PM has made the case for bombing. I have seen no credible plan particularly in relation to what happens when the bombing stops. I cannot see how dropping even more bombs is going to improve things for the people of Syria, 250,000 of whom have already died in this civil war and the suggestion that our bombs are more accurate than two super-powers who are already bombing is, in my view, ludicrous. I do appreciate the arguments about us needing to stand together with our Allies but not sufficiently to justify the Government’s proposed actions.

Finally I cannot see how the UK joining in the current bombing in Syria will help the process, or defeat ISIL/Daesh; and there is a danger that it will unintentionally lead to civilian casualties and deepen the sense of grievance which ISIL/Daesh feeds upon.

I was appalled by the Paris massacres. People going about their business on a Friday night, enjoying a meal, watching a football match or attending a music concert represents the best of human nature. People joining together to deliberately murder other people in pursuit of a twisted ideology represents the worst of human nature. Those who in any way seek to transfer the blame for these actions to Western Governments are wrong but I believe that history shows that the West’s response to past terrorist actions have been disproportionate and have made matters far, far worse.

For all these reasons I will be voting against the Government’s proposal to bomb Syria when it is put before the House of Commons today.

Yours sincerely,

Pat Glass MP

Watching PM question time live now ...

Ya, ya, ya ... good performance from PM.

It looks like plenty of 'terrorist sympathisers' are getting a bit excited there. 😆

By the sounds of it Dave's 'terrorist sympathisers' is going to come back and haunt him about every 2 minutes along with a demand for an apology.

How many times now? They should have a bell for every time he's reminded of what an idiot he is.

Watching PM question time live now

Try to keep up. PMs question time was cancelled yesterday.

dazh - Member

Watching PM question time live now

Try to keep up. PMs question time was cancelled yesterday.

I see ... anyway PM is answering questions in the Parliament.

Oh ya ... what with this 'terrorist sympathisers' that keep going on?

Bloody swivel-eyed are calling us 'terrorist sympathisers' ... 😆

Looks like some people are getting their knickers in a twist.

The 'pen-pushers' need to get the description right coz that is much more important then the current debate. ... What? The wrong description? Now let us get the definition right ... what? What do you mean the definition is wrong? 😆

does that make all Scots terrorist sympathisers?

No, only 49.98% of them

My MP, who is an utter *, has posted this up on his website

[i]All the business has been cleared from today’s agenda in the House of Commons and the whole day which has been extended to 10pm will consist of a single debate on the motion set out in my last post. This will give 10 and a half hours of time for debate.

Not surprisingly I have received hundreds of emails urging me to vote against military action. It is clear from most of them that the senders appear not to have a full understanding of the situation in the middle east. the situation is extremely complex. I do not pretend that extending our military action across the border from Iraq to Syria will be a solution on its own to the threat from ISIL but it will, in my opinion, on balance, help defeat ISIL and I will vote for it. I should add that I have add some constituents urge me to vote for the motion.[/i]

All it need was for him to pat me on the head, and tell me to leave this to the grown ups

What a patronising *!!!!

My MP - John Mann gives his reasons here. (Against)

http://www.mann4bassetlaw.com/vote_on_the_raf_taking_part_in_air_strikes_against_isis_in_syria

binners - Member

According to him now, there are another 25,000 as well as the 70,000 Special Magic Troops

But in his questionnaire although they'd ticked yes to the initial question...

He should get Gerard Butler to lead them. He tried it with only 300.

I'd be surpisd if Cameron didn't get his way - they usually call a vote once they've checked with the whips what the outcome will be...it's very calculated and preplanned...

My MP, who is an utter ****, has posted this up on his website

How bizarre they have said their voters are thick

Even in this letter "some" have said bomb he is admitting that they will ignore the wishes of the vast majority

I guess if they voted for this **** they must be a bit t

[quote=sunnydaze310 spake unto the masses, saying]I'd be surpisd if Cameron didn't get his way - they usually call a vote once they've checked with the whips what the outcome will be...it's very calculated and preplanned...

The outcome of the vote is not in any doubt. What is interesting is how many Labour MP's vote against Corbyn, and what happens then.

I wouldn't concern yourselves with this mythical 70,000 'friendlies' Putin will see them off no problem.

FFS! Let JC(not Jesus Christ) make his speech! Stop shouting! 🙄

Let JC(not Jesus Christ) spells out the details ... What are we debating again ...? 😛

By the sounds of it Dave's 'terrorist sympathisers' is going to come back and haunt him about every 2 minutes along with a demand for an apology.

The telling image of the day is one of Corbyn delivering his speech flanked by Benn and Watson both of whom will vote against him and in favour of air strikes.

Having watched the whole debate live so far I can say I'm glad it's only 12 hours worth and not two days.

Many people have called Corbyn and McDonald terrorist sympathisers, me included

1) is this true

2) will it sway the doubters

Its a no from me on both counts.

Many people have called Corbyn and McDonald terrorist sympathisers, me included.

To be fair though Jammers, you don't regard Ariel Sharon as a terrorist, whereas I do, so I think we'll just have to beg to differ on this one.

Having watched the whole debate live so far I can say I'm glad it's only 12 hours worth and not two days.

We can agree on that though. Its not like anyone is going to change their mind, is it. Its a totally pointless farce

After 12 hours of debate MPs are going to get bored and grizzly. Someone must make reference to Cameron's porcine dalliance. 🙂

I've had to turn it off - was starting to feel all, well, radical and I don't think my keyboard's spittleproof 😳

Even in this letter "some" have said bomb he is admitting that they will ignore the wishes of the vast majority

Writing the most letters and shouting the loudest on social media doesn't make people a majority.

Writing the most letters and shouting the loudest on social media doesn't make people a majority.

. Its not like anyone is going to change their mind,

The longer it goes on for the more red faced and snipey Cameron will get, especially if he's pushed on his make believe 70000 troops issue, and the more he calls people who disagree with him terrorist lovers, the more labour MPs in particular are going to appreciate how clueless he is about it all.

Also I know the lib dems were hollowed out after their time in coalition, but did I read it correctly that they will all be voting for bombing?

The telling image of the day is one of Corbyn delivering his speech flanked by Benn and Watson both of whom will vote against him and in favour of air strikes.

That in itself is interesting. The fact that Corbyn has deliberately got people who will disagree with him on his front bench. Arguably good for debate and potentially good PR, should the media's screaming accusations of splits and infighting ever calm down.

Points repeatingly being made against the "No" voters as to their reluctance to state whether they are also against the existing campaign in Itaq which has universally been seen to have been a success in pushing back IS

Also very interesting that the term Daesh is now being used by everyone, except Corbyn. Daesh being the derogatory term most in the Middle East use to describe IS

Correct me if i am wrong but doesn't the 70000 troops include the Al Qeda fighters who are involved in a power struggle with Isis as to which brand of beardy nastiness is best? If so i think they used to be baddies and we should not trust them..

I believe the US tried to sign up a moderate force and fell 60906 short of 70000 troops.

That in itself is interesting. The fact that Corbyn has deliberately got people who will disagree with him on his front bench. Arguably good for debate and potentially good PR, should the media's screaming accusations of splits and infighting ever calm down.

On the topic at hand.
I think even though I'm completely against these air strikes, I think the crux of the matter is about supporting our allies and our position on the world stage.

Bryant (Labour) spoke very eloquently and clearly on Sky as to why he's voting yes, to paraphrase;

IS are already at war with us and trying to attack our way of life. We have to take action. I don't think Cameron has handled himself well over this issue but I will not let that form the basis of my decision

Daesh being the derogatory term most in the Middle East use to describe IS

The group is known in Arabic as ad-Dawlah al-Isl?miyah f? 'l-?Ir?q wa-sh-Sh?m, leading to the acronym Da'ish or Daesh

Shakes head that you would claim this.

I think we have started using it as its easier than having to add "so called" before hand which does express a view on them where as this is simply their NAME.

jambalaya

Points repeatingly being made against the "No" voters as to their reluctance to state whether they are also against the existing campaign in Itaq which has universally been seen to have been a success in pushing back IS

Yes, and the border between Syria and Iraq is constantly refered to as an imaginary line in the sand that's of no relevance. Consider who made that line in the sand.

Also consider why Iraq is a war zone. Then consider what the likely outcome of a successful bombing campaign in Syria will be. Asad isn't an imaginary dictator. Far from it, he's killed 200,000 of his own civilians in this war. He's got support from Russia. What are the implications of waging war on his turf? If a co-alition of the willing beats ISIS do they just turn on Asad? Will Russia have his back? What's the extent of this licence to wage war in Syria? What's the end game? What's to stop a small, mobile force from dissolving and regrouping in another country?

Junkyard - lazarus

Daesh being the derogatory term most in the Middle East use to describe IS

Its merely an Arabic abbreviation of their name

The group is known in Arabic as ad-Dawlah al-Isl?miyah f? 'l-?Ir?q wa-sh-Sh?m, leading to the acronym Da'ish or Daesh

Apparently the insulting derogatory aspect of using this term comes from mispronunciation. As to which pronunciation is the offensive one seems to be anyone's guess.

IS are already at war with us and trying to attack our way of life. We have to take action.

Many would agree with those two sentences. I suspect many would prefer that action we take be effective.

What are the implications of waging war on his turf? If a co-alition of the willing beats ISIS do they just turn on Asad? Will Russia have his back? What's the extent of this licence to wage war in Syria? What's the end game? What's to stop a small, mobile force from dissolving and regrouping in another country?

Don't you worry your pretty head about any of that princess. Leave this to the grown ups. It'll all be fine. Trust us. We've done this kind of thing before

Oh.....

jimjam
What's to stop a small, mobile force from dissolving and regrouping in another country?

And just as I say that MP Daniel Kawcynzski has just mentioned that ISIS are fleeing into Libya.

Apparently the insulting derogatory aspect of using this term comes from mispronunciation. As to which pronunciation is the offensive one seems to be anyone's guess.

Do people really think calling them Daesh really bothers them? The idea of politicians and the media arguing about terminology on the basis of how offensive it is, is just ridiculous, and demeans the whole debate. This is supposed to be a serious business is it not? If they were that bothered about it, why don't they just call them 'those c***s in the middle east'?

Doesn't look like it is going well for either party leader today. Margret Hodge tweeted this:

The level of debate brings shame on us all. Cameron should apologise and Corbyn practice new politics by direct answers.

The key thing for me is the lack of military strategy & endgame by Cameron. It seems just wants to waggle his tackle and be seen as a force on the world stage.
Given the air space in Syria seems to be crowded with Russians, Turks, France and US problems with 'friendly' fire would seem to be the greatest risk.
I suppose at least he has a UN resolution now but the main issue for me is that Syria is a Russian satellite state and therefore not a NATO playground like Iraq is.
Edit - this article makes some good points
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/01/vote-syria-airstrikes-david-cameron-libya

Do people really think calling them Daesh really bothers them? The idea of politicians and the media arguing about terminology on the basis of how offensive it is, is just ridiculous, and demeans the whole debate. This is supposed to be a serious business is it not? If they were that bothered about it, why don't they just call them 'those c***s in the middle east'?

those cs in the middle east'?

How about calling them the 'Arabian Nutters Against Liberty?'
or
'Those Other Stupid Syrians Enraging Real Syrians'

v8ninety

'Those C***s in the Middle East Waving Black Flags with White Arabic Script on' (TCITMEWBFWWASO)?

I think that describes a lot of those 70,000 freedom fighters.

The name IS is an attempt to make it sound like they speak for all of Islam. Best not give that any credence by repeating it, so I agree in this instance.

against the "No" voters as to their reluctance to state whether they are also against the existing campaign in Itaq which has universally been seen to have been a success in pushing back IS

At best, the bombing in Iraq caused a small loss of territory to IS. At worst, there was no net loss at all. There is no consensus about how to measure the territory controlled by ISIS, let alone a consensus that bombing is a success in pushing back ISIS. In fact...

This month, Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the fight against ISIS “tactically stalemated” with no “dramatic gains on either side,” predicting it would take “a decade or more to resolve” the problems that led to ISIS’s rise. This is the difference a year made.

Also very interesting that the term Daesh is now being used by everyone, except Corbyn. Daesh being the derogatory term most in the Middle East use to describe IS

I'm out on the moor/farm at dunscore (nr drumlanrig) and there's 3 jets flying helluva low up n' down the cairn valley, low enough for me to see the pilots as they bank above me, they are coming so close together I'm wincing,waiting on the impact as I watch them, I guess they are expecting a [i]yes[/i] vote 😐