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

Thanks mefty. ( https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-air-strikes-in-iraq)

I find the RAF helping attempts to take Ramadi chilling. Ramadi is a Sunni area. Under Isis they're fairly safe. Were the Iraqi troops trying to take it Shia or Sunni. Sounds to me very much the the RAF providing air cover for Shia's taking a Sunni down. Is it any wonder the locals turn to Isis?

Anyone else remember our assistance with a Shia militia taking Tikrit. Effectively ethnically cleansing Sunnis by Shias we'd already defined as terrorists.

it reeked of having been prepared by commitee and rehearsed time & time again till he had it pitch perfect

He wrote it on his lap in the chamber during the day and can't have rehearsed it out loud.

Stop the War condemns the whining complaints from those MPs who apparently do not like being lobbied. If an MP is not robust enough to withstand emails and tweets, they should really not be voting for bombing other people - those who wish to be alone with their consciences would do better to consider a life of religious contemplation.

The age old excuse of the bully. Their victim was not thick skinned enough.

e wrote it on his lap in the chamber...

Not sure if that's a quote from the warmonger himself or opinion based on coverage, but I don't believe that for a second.

Not sure if that's a quote from the warmonger himself or opinion based on coverage, but I don't believe that for a second.

They said that on the news yesterday night. It might be false but I'd have thought 10 hours ought to be plenty of time to knock up a speech for a man with his experience of speech writing/politics so I see no reason why it couldn't have been.

The polling grapgh is classic 3:1 margin in favour

the full quote FWIW

In a joint statement, Stop the War chairman Andrew Murray and Convenor Lindsey German said: "Stop the War condemns the whining complaints from those MPs who apparently do not like being lobbied.
"If an MP is not robust enough to withstand emails and tweets, they should really not be voting for bombing other people - those who wish to be alone with their consciences would do better to consider a life of religious contemplation.
"Stop the War will continue to hold to democratic account all those MPs who vote for war."

Its fair enough really the Public will put their views across fairly robustly and they really should be able to deal with it. As for respect - Frmo a party that wont respect the mandate or wishes of the party that it serves that is amusing -MP's are seen as a bunch of self serving toadies who often ignore the people they elected and they want our respect. Do your job with probity honour and integrity is my advice rather than whining on the BBC that someone was a bit rude to you.

TBH I am not sure its that easy to bully an MP with an e-mail or a tweet

TBH it really depends what they say but did you see the reply from Binners MP patronising those against the war or dave calling folk terrorist sympathisers - thank god that is not bullying though only the common folk do that eh

So you're absolutely tumescent at our warplanes with all their civilian missing missiles, but you still want to whinge about refugees. Honestly, I know you once excused killing children as justifiable collateral damage, and I've yet to see you stoop so low, but our obligation to take refugees is now stronger than ever as we're adding to the firestorm around them.

I think for him it all depended on whose children it was and who was dropping the bombs

I dont think it would be the same reaction if it was some Palestinians bombing some Israelis .

'Our warplanes'
So when did the irish republic start dropping bombs on Syria then darsy? Do tell 🙂

Waves at DD one subject trollbot

(Funnily enough, you weren't as eager to agree to France's demands that we take more refugees as you are chuck some civilian sensing missiles in.)

To be fair the civilian sensors can't be all that if ISIS can simply get round them by removing their uniforms and putting on their pyjamas on instead.

Public opinion was for bombing according to YouGov - caveat all polls but certainly more representative than this thread.

48% of the UK public was for bombing, according to your own source.

As opposed to what percentage that was opposed konabunny?

But it's just stupid to say that "public opinion was for bombing" when only a minority of the public was for bombing.

Who cares about the "not sures" anyway.

Bombs away!!

But it's just stupid to say that "public opinion was for bombing" when only a minority of the public was for bombing.

Well I disagree as I wrote it - it would have been stupid if I had said the majority was for bombing but I didn't - its a binary test you ignore the don't knows - if you look at the coverage of the Independence Referendum, my wording is similar to that used by the press, where they stripped out don't knows.

But it's just stupid to say that "public opinion was for bombing" when only a minority of the public was for bombing.

Ok, was public opinion for or against Scottish independence? which side would you like to include the "not sure" and "didn't vote" on?

Convection quite clearly indicates that when 49% poll yes, and 31% poll no then "public opinion" is with the ayes.

Indeed, if you're eager to join the fight, you just ignore the don't knows.

Bombs away lads. The don't knows just haven't been persuaded to go for Yes yet.

Well you should have said "public opinion was both for and against bombing".

But let's settle this by everyone agreeing that a significant minority of the electorate supported air strikes in Syria?

its a binary test you ignore the don't knows

So its a binary test with three options ?

FWIW I think you both have a point but are both being very pedantic in your wording but you cannot have a binary situation that has three answers and ignore one to make yours the best

EDIT: ernies wording was way funnier to be fair

[quote=ernie_lynch ]But let's settle this by everyone agreeing that a significant minority of the electorate supported [s]air strikes in Syria?[/s] continuation with the Union 😆

How about amount the majority, who expressed a view, supported air strikes - but frankly this is what the Dutch called ant ****ing.

look at the coverage of the Independence Referendum, my wording is similar to that used by the press

You are defending the moronic. It is stupid to pretend that public opinion is for something when a proper characterisation is that it's quite split (Mancunian public opinion is not for Manchester City just because they have fractionally more fans than Manchester United). It is particularly stupid to insist that public opinion is for something when only a minority of the public is for that thing. This is such a stupid and unentertaining point that I'm simply going to ignore it from now on.

How about amount the majority, who expressed a view, supported air strikes

I would go for "100% of people who supported air strikes had made up their minds". That sounds more impressive.

Or perhaps "98.9% of people who supported air strikes had made up their minds" ..... that adds a little more credibility.

It's moot. Bombs are dropping. Missiles are flying. A lot of voices today internationally expressing the view that it's a token gesture. Caught the tail end of an interview on CNN and the opinion was that this bombing campaign could take a few years.

I can't help but wonder how and why a coalition of the worlds military super powers will take years to defeat 30,000 militia.

I think for him it all depended on whose children it was and who was dropping the bombs

I'm fairly sure after reading it on here that UK bombers don't do "collateral damage".

The "...our children..." bit made me cringe too. Just reminded me of all the ironic "child's face" comedy (loosely used) retorts on STW. Except that it was used without the slightest bit of irony and the pro-air strikes crowd lapped it up without a thought to the utter hypocrisy of it.

[img] ?w=720[/img]

Sorry derek, are you disappointed the focus has gone from discussing how Corbyn is so shite?

Scotroutes illustrates the point well. Your analogy is rubbish - Hora lives in Manchester and he supports the great Huddersfield Town.

Benn's speech seemed big on how bad Isis are and a bit light on how bombing will solve the problem.

Question time on BBC one now might be interesting. Looking forward to hearing Maajid Nawaz's thought on things.

jimjam - Member

Bombs are dropping. Missiles are flying.

Cancer is killing
Texaco's spilling
The whole world's gone to hell
But how are you?

I particularly hated the bit in Hillary Benn's speech in which he said "those could have been our children killed at the Bataclan". Well, true (and in fact I suspect this is far less an abstraction for my family than his). But it also could be our children killed as "collateral damage" by a UK bomb or in the death squad quagmire of our unsuccessful Iraqi japes - but of course he wasn't interested in empathy with those people.

I'd suggest he was emphasising that the threat is real and tangible, at places and doing things most of us can connect with, to encourage people to consider dealing with it. Horrific as events elsewhere in the world are, they won't have that immediacy to most people.

And the victims are the wrong colour, so... like.... whatevs

Civilans are already being killed in their 10's if not 100's of thousands, increasingly we are seeing civilians outside the immediate region of Syria and Iraq being killed. If the coaltion forces do nothing this will continue and intensify.

I thought Tony Blair's speech yesterday finally grasped the nettle and pointed out that IS and other Jihadi groups have millions of sympathisers, millions who believe 9/11 was Jewish/American conspiracy for example. When you watch the ViceNews specials on IS (from last year) and Al Nusra this year you see how children are schooled in hatred and Jihad. I see the irony of education of hatred of the Jews in children and people who will go on to kill primarily other Muslims.

If Jihadists, male and female, gather their children around them does that make them all a target or not ? As the events in California, in Paris with the Super Kacher killings and numerous suicide bombings showmJihadists are women and mothers too.

Question time on BBC one now might be interesting. Looking forward to hearing Maajid Nawaz's thought on things.

If Jihadists, male and female, gather their children around them does that make them all a target or not ?

There we go.

I dunno - is it better to be a terrorist sympathiser (questionable anyway) or someone who has no problem seeing children being killed as "collateral damage" (no doubt at all)?

Simple statement of fact as far as I'm concerned.

Given your tenuous grip on what is a fact and what's your opinion, that statement carries as much weight as a helium balloon.

Oh and did I hear something about an MOD leak that Cameron was advised [i]not[/i] to use the "70000" figure given how questionable (putting it lightly) it was?

Corbyn and McDonnell (for you DrJ) named once again as terrorist sympathisers. Simple statement of fact as far as I'm concerned.

[i]"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."[/i]

Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Simple statement of fact as far as I'm concerned.

It is. Everyone sympathies with terrorists of some kind. SOE, GHQ Auxiliary Units. Hard to imagine nobody voting against (or for) sympathized with any terrorist ever. (and some are on record saying so.)

Cameron shouldn't have said it because it's unhelpful and misleading in the context of ISIL, but it *is* true.

Jesus ****ing Christ! Terrorist sympathisers! You boil my piss!

So its OK to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia known for stoning people to death or beheading them. Women aren't allowed to drive

Israel use terror constantly aswell as popping people off around the globe

FFFS

For ****s ****ing sake

You have no moral compass.

[i]Everyone sympathies with terrorists of some kind.[/i]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1065913.stm

This guy.

Not been following the thread sorry - have we done this yet?

http://www.inspiretochangeworld.com/2015/11/why-russia-aggressively-went-into-syria-to-support-syrian-president-bashar-al-assad/

ctk - Member

Jesus * Christ! Terrorist sympathisers! You boil my piss!

So its OK to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia known for stoning people to death or beheading them. Women aren't allowed to drive

Israel use terror constantly aswell as popping people off around the globe

FFFS

For * * sake

You have no moral compass.

Wow wow wow fella, what are you saying? Are you saing that David Cameron ([i]gorblessim[/i]) is sympathetic to the brutal murderous Saudi regime who decapitate hundreds of their own civilains for trivial issues?

The same Saudi regime who export the Wahhabist philosophy that ISIS follow to the letter? The same Saudi regime who everyone including senior british militry figures say is the wellspring from which ISI and Al-Qaeda flow?

That's almost like saying David Cameron is sympathetic to ISIS. Isn't it. If that was true it would make Cameron the most disgustingly hypocritical pig f** wouldn't it?. If we lived in Saudi you'd have your head cut off for that.

Are you saing that David Cameron (gorblessim) is sympathetic to the brutal murderous Saudi regime who decapitate their own civilains for trivial issues?

Of course, JC is desperately trying to get the job that involves sucking up to Saudi. Wannabe Saudi sucker. 😀

Ha yes that's right! Corbyn is just [i]acting[/i] this way- its a negotiating position for when he gets into power. Extra gold coins for Corbs!

And Hilary Benn if he believes what he says then he should follow it through and get our soldiers involved on the ground. He did really seem to mean what he said didn't he?