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.

referendum ? maybe you’re right

. 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.

It’s not like he had much choice though is it!
One’s his Deputy and the other is Shadow Foreign Secretary!

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

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

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’?

It’s about not causing offence to uk Islamic population.
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.

those c***s in the middle east’?

Because that’s a little errr, non specific. There appaears to be quite a few variations of c***s. maybe, ‘Those C***s in the Middle East Waving Black Flags with White Arabic Script on’ (TCITMEWBFWWASO)?

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.

So are we going to start calling other countries the So Called People’s Republic of China, the Alleged Islamic Republic of Iran, the Purportedly United Kingdom?

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

JAMBAFACTS!

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.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/isis-territory-map-us-campaign/404776/

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

Why aren’t you calling them Daesh if it’s such a big deal, then? Are you some sort of terrorist sympathiser?

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 yes vote 😐

Had a nice email from my labour MP explaining why he will be voting in favour. (I’d asked him to vote against). I wonder how many had emailed or written expressing a view, and if the overwhelming opinion was against if he would have taken a different action?

@kona I am telling what I heard during the live coverage of which I watched about 2.5 hours, if you don’t think it’s true listen yourself. I’m happy to call them Daesh. @JY the BBC won’t use the term Daesh as they know it’s a derogatory name and they think that to use the term would impact their impartiality 😯

@gear, it’s highly likely in circumstances like this that the vast majority of messages MPs will get will be against military action. That doesn’t mean they reflect the majority view, many people in favour won’t email their MP to say so.

@soma – they don’t fly low like that to drop guided weapons although of course they may be sharpening up their general flying skills ahead of a deployment. Sky was reporting we’d deploy more Tornados and some Typhoons . As a note the Tornado was said to be a better aircraft for such operations despite its age.

Ooooooooo – can we start talking about missile systems again……

@soma – they don’t fly low like that to drop guided weapons although of course they may be sharpening up their general flying skills ahead of a deployment. Sky was reporting we’d deploy more Tornados and some Typhoons . As a note the Tornado was said to be a better aircraft for such operations despite its age.

Flying low over here too, can’t be for practicing in the Middle East as it’s pi55ing down 🙂

Former soldier John Baron MP defends opposing airstrikes & says: “I’ve been called a pacifist and worse.” Tory shouts: “What’s worse?”

Tories really are vermin.

Tories really are vermin.

You realise John Baron is a tory too, right? I think you mean “some MPs really are vermin”.

I’m happy to call them Daesh.

But you didn’t. You said it was “interesting” that Jeremy Corbyn didn’t call them Daesh. I think it’s interesting that you and terrorist sympathiser Jeremy Corbyn don’t call it Daesh. 😀

I am telling what I heard during the live coverage of which I watched about 2.5 hours, if you don’t think it’s true listen yourself.

I think that shows how woefully poorly informed the debate is, then, if it was universally accepted that ISIS bombing in Iraq has been successful, when not even the Pentagon thinks that.

Klunk – Member

Former soldier John Baron MP defends opposing airstrikes & says: “I’ve been called a pacifist and worse.” Tory shouts: “What’s worse?”

Tories really are vermin.

There’s a school of thought that pacifism, when taken to it’s logical conclusion is a recipe for genocide. IE, if the whole of the western Europe were committed pacifists ISIS could kill us all with sharpened sticks. See Gandhi’s comments that the Jews should walk willingly to the gas chambers.

Professional career politicians, particularly right wing ones will no doubt be aware of this viewpoint.

Wonder what odds I can get at the bookies to us being back here again within a year discussing bombing Libya?

There’s a school of thought that pacifism, when taken to it’s logical conclusion is a recipe for genocide.

How does that work then?

See my stealth edit Binners.

You realise John Baron is a tory too, right?

what he’s not defected to UKIP yet, I’m surprised/

So are we going to start calling other countries the So Called People’s Republic of China, the Alleged Islamic Republic of Iran, the Purportedly United Kingdom?

It’s daft. Kind of thing you’d expect from a seven year old.
Why not just call them smell faces or something?
And while we’re into correct labelling – Britain isn’t great and it’s certainly not united.

There’s a school of thought that pacifism, when taken to it’s logical conclusion is a recipe for genocide.

Well I suppose, a bit like in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king, in the land of the pacifist, the thug is king. Kinda.

I’m not sure that qualifies as “thought”.

The problem with pacifism, is that everyone has to subscribe to it for it to work. Which they don’t. Which leaves a thorny issue. Still no to airstrikes on Syria though.