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

As long as he doesn't ask every bloody day how he should do it.

Wait, did Renton plan the Paris attacks to ensure he'd get a new job?

Jambabolix strikes again as I predicted a 75 majority just a 1 out, 175. I doubt the government will have a clearer majority throughout the life of the Parliament

Seems roughly 1/3rd of Laboir MPs voted in favour. Hilary Benns speech widely praised, interesting he compared them to fascists, I imagine Daesh would see themselves as very egalitarian - provided you are a member of the club. The "educational" classes in Luton which Vicenews filmed showed young women being told housing is allocated purely based on need, size of family etc

The Labour Party are in such a shambles they are unable to be anything but the center of the story. That plus the fact that very many people understand Corbyn and McDonald to be terrorist sympathisers, IRA, Hezbolah, Hamas. MacDonald might have tried to apologise on Question Time but only the die hard leftists will have been impressed with that.

Labour have landed no blows on Cameron. Post the debate I saw more Sky airtime from the SNP than Labour "No" supporters

AIUI SNP whipped against.

Ed Milliband voted against.

Jambabolix strikes again as I predicted a 75 majority just a 1 out, 175

Well done 100 out and predicting the thing that was only going to take place if he could win was a win.

Any chance of the lottery numbers this week 😉

only the die hard leftists will have been impressed with that.

Seems roughly 1/3rd of Laboir MPs voted in favour.

I see, it's not just Labour Party members who were opposed to bombing Syria, even two thirds of the Parliamentary Labour Party were also opposed.

So it turns out that one of Corbyn's principle opinions which he is renowned for, ie opposition to bombing, is shared not only by the majority of the Labour Party but also by the majority of Labour MPs.

Not quite what some people have been saying ever since he first announced his bid to become leader of the Labour Party.

And it also turns out that Cameron had to rely on the usual Blairite right-wing New Labour pointless MPs to save him from humiliation.

I think there's a lesson we can all learn there.

two thirds of the Parliamentary Labour Party were also opposed. ... I think there's a lesson we can all learn there.

Yes, the lesson is a capable Labour leader would have prevented UK jets bombing the other side of the line.

I can't find the whole speech but here's the final 1:24 of Benn. Corbyn looks distinctly grumpy by the end 8)

I can't find the whole speech but here's the final 1:24 of Benn. Corbyn looks distinctly grumpy by the end

As a supporter of an extremist group who believes in the killing of civilians to further their aims - I'm sure you're elated tonight.

And it also turns out that Cameron had to rely on the usual Blairite right-wing New Labour pointless MPs to save him from humiliation.

Actually the LibDems and the DUP got him there, needed no help from Labour to win but obviously he felt a large majority was important.

jambalaya - Member
I can't find the whole speech but here's the final 1:24 of Benn. Corbyn looks distinctly grumpy by the end

Opps ... think he might be the next "king" with that speech.

The stuart might have to relinquish his comfortable seat soon by the looks of things. 😀

obviously he felt a large majority was important.

Can you imagine the humiliation of winning the vote by just one or two, despite having a comfortable majority in the House of Commons?

Just as well for Cameron that the usual Blairite right-wing New Labour pointless MPs, along of course with the pointless LibDem MPs, where there to save him from humiliation.

That is a new definition of comfortable majority to me.

The government has a working majority of 17, that's a comfortable majority imo.

You are of course free to call it a wafer-thin majority if you prefer.

There is a small but definite possibility that Cameron does Corbyn's job for him eventually.

If this goes bad in Syria or is used as the "reason" a major terrorist attack takes place in the UK he is going to face some extremely inconvenient questions about his leadership.

Also why after its become pretty clear that the whole middle east is basically "toxic" as far as western intervention is concerned.... and the absolute mess Iraq and Afghanistan turned into... he fought SO HARD to drag us into another conflict.

Just one Tornado going down and 2 pilots being paraded online before being beheaded could easily bring him down.

God forbid that any UK citizens or Forces personnel lose their life just to humble that idiot though!

Corbyn and McDonald

Jamba - at some point are you going to learn the name of the Shadow Chancellor ?

Is this all true?

[img] ?oh=96859302d821527ee7665496959006a7&oe=56F54863[/img]

So the RAF has bombed some oilfields, in order to reduce Daeash's income, that they couldn't have bombed yesterday due to being the wrong side of an arbitrary line in the sand.

That's been a disaster then!

Everyones crowing on about Benn's speech and how pissed off Jezza was, but Dave'll be the one party leader the most pissed off. He was deprived of his 'We Will Fight Them on the Beaches....' moment by the son of a bloody commie!

So the RAF has bombed some oilfields, in order to reduce Daeash's income, that they couldn't have bombed yesterday due to being the wrong side of an arbitrary line in the sand.

Well without their revenue from oil I can't see how they can carry out a terrorist atrocity in a European city now. Unless they manage to get an overdraft or something. I feel safer already.

Btw the Russians were bombing ISIS oil assets when one of their planes was shot down by a NATO warplane. Obviously everyone knows exactly what they're doing and I can see it all being over by Christmas.

Well without their revenue from oil I can't see how they can carry out a terrorist atrocity in a European city now. Unless they manage to get an overdraft or something. I feel safer already.

They'll have to max out their credit cards for car rental. Then the banks will get angry and they'll REALLY be in trouble.

I'm loving all the in-depth descriptions of the Tornado's different awesomez weapons systems on the front pages of all the papers, and being talked through it on every news bulletin.

gets me rest moist, it does

So the RAF has bombed some oilfields, in order to reduce Daeash's income, that they couldn't have bombed yesterday due to being the wrong side of an arbitrary line in the sand.

Aye, and if a few civilian oil workers happen to get blown to chunks by our precision guided British values - that's just tough.

[s]If[/s] [b]when[/b] this goes bad in Syria [s]or[/s] [b]and[/b] is used as the "reason" a major terrorist attack takes place in the UK he is going to face some extremely inconvenient questions about his leadership

Which he will bluster through like the buffoon he is and order more bombs, when he should be accepting direct responsibility.

These Islamist terrorists have a long list of reasons from Western intervention in the a Middle East, repression of their right to practice their religion, the crusades or simply that the Koran gives them the right, indeed the obligation to wage Jihad against apostates.

I see once again we have posters pointing accusing fingers at the leader, the vote was nearly 2:1 in favour, an overwhelming collective decision of our Parliament

I see once again we have posters pointing accusing fingers at the leader, the vote was nearly 2:1 in favour, an overwhelming collective decision of our Parliament

Somewhat different from the proportion of the population in favour of bombing. The bloody terrorist sympathisers eh?

Hurray for representative democracy!

Heres what my MP wrote yesterday ...

[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 had some constituents urge me to vote for the motion[/i]

So thats me told. I don't have full understanding of the situation apparently. Thankfully my [s]patronising bell end of an[/s] MP does though. Phew!

binners - Member
Everyones crowing on about Benn's speech and how pissed off Jezza was, but Dave'll be the one party leader the most pissed off. He was deprived of his 'We Will Fight Them on the Beaches....' moment by the son of a bloody commie!

Nope, still don't have the PM look I am afraid ... might be good at arguing but most opposition politicians are so what's this emotional speech?

Ya, but we all know that Labour cannot be voted in for at least two generations whether the commies can make good speeches or want to fight on the beach or apply their guerrilla warfare.

Commies are commies and will always be commies trying to micro-manage the life of each individual coz that is who they are. 😆

Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention yesterday but I seem to remember a lot of those in favour siting the RAF's superior skill and weaponry as being neccessary to attack ISIS in their stronghold of Raqqah as a matter of urgency in order to releive human suffering. Buuuut they've gone and targeted oil fields, which I presume (possibly ignorantly) won't be as densely populated as a city of 900,000 people.

I can't help but wonder why the USAF lacked the capability to do this.

I see once again we have posters pointing accusing fingers at the leader, the vote was nearly 2:1 in favour, an overwhelming collective decision of our Parliament

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Much like you.

El-bent - Member

I see once again we have posters pointing accusing fingers at the leader, the vote was nearly 2:1 in favour, an overwhelming collective decision of our Parliament

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Much like you.

We don't learn from history, we read it as story . We like story don't we, so what's your point exactly?

If human can learned from history we would be at peace long time ago so what's with your new found "wisdom"?

I see once again we have posters pointing accusing fingers at the leader, the vote was nearly 2:1 in favour, an overwhelming collective decision of our Parliament

Which just shows how removed parliment is from the wishes of the general public (~55% against bombing in yougov poll IIRC). As for pointing fingers, as with anything the buck must stop with the person in charge.

Cameron's argument is we need to bomb to protect the UK, but at the end of the day, most terrorists are domestic, perhaps go to middle east training camp and then return to plot. If our domestic situation wasn't conducive to radicalisation it would happen far less. Better welfare and better integration of minorities would be better for UK security than bombing oilfields.

Our political situation and removal from public interest is currently so bad I'm beginning to wonder if we are going to see some non-religious radicalization as people become so disaffected protest marches turn to riots and worse.

To be honest, if I thought I'd be remembered as a pig-****ing PM, I'd probably get us involved in a war as well.

deadlydarcy - Member
To be honest, if I thought I'd be remembered as a pig-**** PM, I'd probably get us involved in a war as well.

That's why you are not a politician or can be one.

most terrorists are domestic, perhaps go to middle east training camp and then return to plot.

I doubt they need to go anywhere near the middle east TBH, far too dangerous. 🙄

wasn't Al-Masri (hooks for hands, remember him?) accused of setting up a training camp in Arizona?

ferrals

Cameron's argument is we need to bomb to protect the UK, but at the end of the day, most terrorists are domestic, perhaps go to middle east training camp and then return to plot. If our domestic situation wasn't conducive to radicalisation it would happen far less. Better welfare and better integration of minorities would be better for UK security than bombing oilfields.

Something has to be said (seemingly ad-nauseum) about Saudi Arabia's contribution to radicalisation though. It seems that between them and Qatar they are wholly responsible for exporting the radical interpretations which lure people in. The text books, the madrasas, apparently they have their claws in a lot of mosques.

As for improving the integration of minorities I agree 100% but it's only a part of the picture. A big aspect of radicalisation imo is sympathy and the ability to relate. Being disenfranchised or alienated in mainstream society may be a driving factor, but simply seeing jihadi's and Islamists as your countrymen or not dissimilar to you is a massive part of it.

So to some degree the integration, societal inclusiveness and welcoming won't destroy young british Muslim's ability to empathise with their countrymen and seek confirmation in mosques which are funded by Saudi.

So the RAF has bombed some oilfields, in order to reduce Daeash's income, that they couldn't have bombed yesterday due to being the wrong side of an arbitrary line in the sand.

The Genie Energy/Murdoch thing is bollocks. Syria hasn't had a hope of stopping Israel doing what it wants in the Golan Heights for ages. It would be like nuking Scotland because you had fifty quid on Real Madrid beating Partick Thistle and didn't want to risk losing your money.

Like the arbitrary line in the sea around the Falklands or the arbitrary line along a burns that distinguishes the UK from Ireland? or the arbitrary line between Israel and Jordan?

Perhaps. Have I missed your point?

Better welfare and better integration of minorities would be better for UK security than bombing oilfields.

I agree. But that's a long term solution. We face a short term issue in the meantime.

We have to confront both, and to do that will take different tactics.

Cameron is a contemptible, spineless, ham-faced **** of the highest order. And the moronic sheep who blithely followed him are worse - they're clearly brainless too.

Sorry, I'm annoyed so I just thought I'd get that out of the way. I don't doubt that someone's already raised this salient point up there ^^^

Cameron's argument is we need to bomb to protect the UK, but at the end of the day, most terrorists are domestic, perhaps go to middle east training camp and then return to plot. If our domestic situation wasn't conducive to radicalisation it would happen far less. Better welfare and better integration of minorities would be better for UK security than bombing oilfields.

Ferral well said. There have been similar thoughts/arguments presented by Arun Kundnani in his book The Muslims are Coming.

the Koran gives them the right, indeed the obligation to wage Jihad against apostates.

the [s]Koran[/s]Torah gives them the right, indeed the obligation to wage oppressive war against [s]apostates[/s]Palestinians as Israel is theirs.

Convincing innit.

So the RAF has bombed some oilfields, in order to reduce Daeash's income, that they couldn't have bombed yesterday due to being the wrong side of an arbitrary line in the sand.

So we also appear to have redefined the meaning of the word "civilian" to exclude drivers, oil workers, engineers,...

They kill our non-combatants, we kill their non-combatants.

bencooper

So we also appear to have redefined the meaning of the word "civilian" to exclude drivers, oil workers, engineers,...

They kill our non-combatants, we kill their non-combatants.

The Geneva convention doesn't extend to henchmen of evil I'm afraid.

"The vote was nearly 2:1 in favour, an overwhelming collective decision of our Parliament" Not really the party with the majority was so split it had to issue a three line whip so it was much more a "dragooned" decision than a collective one and even then some Tories had the backbone to rebel.

I doubt the saps we are killing driving the trucks and running the oil fields are henchmen of evil much more likely to be forced labour.

I don't consider those oil workers and families held under threat of death to be henchmen of evil

Is this all true?

Ah, you see, it had to be down to the Israelis somehow didn't it?

Just another tentacle of that worldwide Jooish conspiracy they've all been warning us about...

Sssssshhhhh!! You're ruining the simplistic black/white good guy/bad guy Hollywood narrative

Agreed. They are, in essence, victims murdered by Dash with many others. What a horrible situation.

It's the henchmens families I worry about:

Ninfan thanks, I was channeling a bit of Austin Powers. I don't consider them henchmen of evil either, although I'm sure plenty of people see them as fair game.

So we also appear to have redefined the meaning of the word "civilian" to exclude drivers, oil workers, engineers,...

Well USAF dropped leaflets first, then flew over and fired warning shots, before going in and hitting the targets. They didn't just fire a missile from 50 miles away with no warning.

Agreed. They are, in essence, victims murdered by Dash with many others. What a horrible situation.

ahhh... the "Stop Hitting Yourself" defence.

Personally in spite of being on the "no" side I think some civilian deaths are inevitable and even acceptable but to try and whitewash them as not being our fault is utterly cowardly.

dragon

Well USAF dropped leaflets first,

I wonder what the wording on those leaflets was.

" Dear Henchmen of ISIS,
On behalf of the coalition of the willing we hereby issue you with a notice of fore-bombing. Please hand in your letters of resignation to your murderous, genocidal, child raping jihadi death cult leaders stating that you wish to terminate your employment with immediate effect as we will commence bombing you withing 48hrs. We wish you luck in your future career, the middle east is a flourishing warzone and we have every confidence that you will find other sources of evil employment.

We sincerely hope that your employers will release you from your contracts without any undue decapitation or crucifixion.

Best Regards
'Murica XOX "

[IMG] [/IMG]

Well USAF dropped leaflets first, then flew over and fired warning shots, before going in and hitting the targets. They didn't just fire a missile from 50 miles away with no warning.

This is just so much shite, I can't believe that you even think this is true. Please do tell us that they do this when using drones on civilian locations....

They didn't just fire a missile from 50 miles away with no warning.

They do, you know

Did you also know that the word gullible isn't in the English dictionary?

The Geneva convention doesn't extend to henchmen of evil I'm afraid.

Like the people who worked on the Death Star when Rebel Alliance destroyed it.

So those above arguing that the risk of civilian caualties means we should not conduct airstrikes are comflcited in the same was as Corbyn is about the existing campaign in Iraq. Without airstikes there many 1000's more Yazidis would have been murdered and Baghdad would have fallen, in parts at least. Daesh is co-ordinating attacks, recruiting drives and fund raising from Syria. Not to be part of the international effort with the backing of the UN made little sense.

As for "public opinion" if you used this thread it would suggest it's 90/10 against - representative ? A poll showing a contrary result to the parliamentary vote makes good headlines and leads to more polls being commissioned. Also the polls show substantialy more people in favour of strikes than against, the ones I've seen are something like 50 for, 25 against with 25 unknown. that 2:1 ratio is similar to the vote last night.

I have absolutely no idea what any of you are talking about. I just heard the news this morning and thought 'oh we're bombing someone again'. Happens every few years.

Bombing oilfields, eh? Hmm. That's going to be a problem if/when ISIS are defeated..

[img] [/img]

So those above arguing that the risk of civilian caualties means we should not conduct airstrikes are comflcited in the same was as Corbyn is about the existing campaign in Iraq.

This must be the seeing other sides appeal you were going on about and I enjoy the way you fluidly apply principles to every issue.

So those above arguing that the risk of civilian caualties means we should not conduct airstrikes

D'you remember a few weeks ago when Cameron stood up in Parliament and condemned the Russian entry into the air war in Syria? He said it would lead to "Further radicalisation and increased terrorism"

as for "public opinion" if you used this thread it would suggest it's 90/10 against - representative ?

Has anyone said that the MPs' voting pattern is representative of UK public opinion?

D'you remember a few weeks ago when Cameron stood up in Parliament and condemned the Russian entry into the air war in Syria? He said it would lead to "Further radicalisation and increased terrorism"

We'll file that one along with his promise not to cut tax credits, being the greenest government ever, and no top down re-organistion of the NHS

[url= https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/01/support-air-strikes-dips-below-majority/ ]Public opinion was for bombing according to YouGov[/url] - caveat all polls but certainly more representative than this thread.

So all those advocating bombing and accepting there will be civilian casualties presumably would be fine with been killed (along with everyone in their street) because their neighbour happened to be a suspect?

Or maybe we should've done this in NI and 'solved' the Troubles, far easier than diplomacy...

I'm more concerned about Daves 70,000 willing Syrian allies, chomping at the bit to uphold our values in the region. What if we take some of them out by mistake?

@tuskaloosa - I will look into tat book, thanks.

@jimjam - I agree it is not the entire solution, but from a 'money well spent' point of view...

After all the boasting about our amazing Brimstone missiles which are so polite they ask if someone is a terrorist before quietly killing them and then redecorating, what's used in the first airstrikes?

Paveway laser-guided bombs.

This is just so much shite, I can't believe that you even think this is true.

Why wouldn't it? Dropping leaflets is a fairly standard tactic going back to WW2 and before. Both the US and Russians have dropped them already this year, so why not this time? I think it's more believable than not TBH.

Ben the use of which is fully explained on the BBC website.

I'm more concerned about Daves 70,000 willing Syrian allies, chomping at the bit to uphold our values in the region. What if we take some of them out by mistake?

Simples. If we bomb them they're Isis - that's how we tell.

"So those above arguing that the risk of civilian caualties means we should not conduct airstrikes"
to be honest i could easily stomach a few civilian causalities if it was to archive a clearly defined attainable beneficial outcome .

No one has yet indicated what our joining in a bombing campaign will actually achieve nor how they expect it to work .

We asked to accept a policy that Cameron himself has said will be counter productive on the vague notion if we do step 1 (which has royally failed for the past year) some unidentified group will do step 2 and this will lead to the defeat of Isis which will lead to a as yet undefined desirable outcome that will be better than our current position. Not actually a sound basis for killing innocents in my view.

dragon - I have a rich Nigerian uncle who is a senior figure in the government. He has recently had his bank accounts frozen, and needs [s]someone who'll believe anything[/s] a suitable person who would allow him to transfer his millions into their account. They would be very handsomely rewarded

Email address in profile if you're interested. Just send me your bank account details. I'll do the rest. We'll use the proceeds to start a leaflet printing business in Syria. We'll be quids in!

dragon, you mean the bit where it says "The use of high precision Paveway bombs, rather than the Brimstone missile, suggests they were hitting static rather than moving targets."

Oil refineries aren't known for being fast-moving, yes. Do the Paveway 500lb high explosive bombs wait for anything that can move to get out of the way before they explode?

Or do they just blow up, incinerating anyone who happens to be in the large blast radius?

[quote=outofbreath ]AIUI SNP whipped against.

Are you suggesting that some SNP MPs might have voted in favour of bombing otherwise and that it needed a whip to get them all voting the same way?

I'd remind you that all the Scottish Labour MPs voted against and all the Scottish Tory and Scottish LibDems voted for.

scotroutes - Member

I'd remind you that all the Scottish Labour MPs voted against

Even the scottish labour party can't quite arrange a split with one person.

I think with the Lib Dems, it went like this:

"So Cameron, what are our votes worth?"
"A blow job".
"You'll give us a blow job if we vote for you?"
"No, I'll let you give me a blow job if you vote for me"
"Deal"

Well USAF dropped leaflets first, then flew over and fired warning shots, before going in and hitting the targets. They didn't just fire a missile from 50 miles away with no warning.
This is just so much shite, I can't believe that you even think this is true. Please do tell us that they do this when using drones on civilian locations...]