And there you have it, not some bloke sat behind his keyboard in his safe western home, and think he knows best, or a politician making a war mongering speech and at the same time making a case for Labour leadership, but a fella who has been there and done it and knows what he is talking about. Still wanna bomb them?
It's a compelling argument, well put too. I agree we are playing into their hands with this supposed apocalyptic battle, it is what they want - but who says it has to be world ending?? Only them. They believe in a prophecy that is false we need to remember that.
His take on the refugee crisis this summer was truely enlightening, and I 100% agree with him there.
I think there is some confusion, ignited when Camoron lit the blue touch paper with his' terrorist sympathisers' comment, what a class act he is.......! I'm not a pacifist, if required I would fight for my country. I want to defeat ISIS (or whatever their called), but I also understand that in order to defeat ISIS in a war theatre you need troops on the ground, bombing is an isolated plan of attack does not work. But sending our troops to war, and a lot of our troops will die, does not garner popularity and win votes for the PM. Cameron has played a great card convincing those who dont get it, that bombing will help us to become victorious, it wont, and the MP's who colluded, whatever their political leanings have also popped a small feather in their caps because by colluding they have impressed the easily impressed.
No. Bombing will help defeat Daesh. It will downgrade their numbers and capability. It will destroy their armaments and destroy their ability to produce and transport oil. It will stop their expansion and drive them back.
Imo there will need to be a ground war to finish the job but to say that air strikes will not help defeat them is palpable nonsense.
But it is only a short term card. in a year, two years when the IS threat to us may even be greater, maybe the 'terrorist sympathisers' will be listened to. What they seem to be advocating, is a harder military solution, that will involve troops unfortunately losing their lives in a fight for freedom. I'm not sure how this is pacifism in any language!
And there you have it, not some bloke sat behind his keyboard in his safe western home, and think he knows best, or a politician making a war mongering speech and at the same time making a case for Labour leadership, but a fella who has been there and done it and knows what he is talking about. Still wanna bomb them?
It's a compelling argument, well put too. I agree we are playing into their hands with this supposed apocalyptic battle, it is what they want - but who says it has to be world ending?? Only them. They believe in a prophecy that is false we need to remember that.
His take on the refugee crisis this summer was truely enlightening, and I 100% agree with him there.
I think there is some confusion, ignited when Camoron lit the blue touch paper with his' terrorist sympathisers' comment, what a class act he is.......! I'm not a pacifist, if required I would fight for my country. I want to defeat ISIS (or whatever their called), but I also understand that in order to defeat ISIS in a war theatre you need troops on the ground, bombing is an isolated plan of attack does not work. But sending our troops to war, and a lot of our troops will die, does not garner popularity and win votes for the PM. Cameron has played a great card convincing those who dont get it, that bombing will help us to become victorious, it wont, and the MP's who colluded, whatever their political leanings have also popped a small feather in their caps because by colluding they have impressed the easily impressed.
No. Bombing will help defeat Daesh. It will downgrade their numbers and capability. It will destroy their armaments and destroy their ability to produce and transport oil. It will stop their expansion and drive them back.
Imo there will need to be a ground war to finish the job but to say that air strikes will not help defeat them is palpable nonsense.
Air strikes as part of an overall strategy will of course help. But in themselves, without the end-game strategy, they can make things worse. Of course IS will be weaker in Syria, but maybe stronger in Brussels and Luton!
Bombing to a point is important But what is also needed is a UN force made up by a majority of Muslim nations from Indonesia, Malaysia, UAE, Qatar etc. it needs to show that this is not a war on Islam but on a death cult.
Of course this won't happen because these countries are scared about domestic terrorism breaking out.
And there you have it, not some bloke sat behind his keyboard in his safe western home, and think he knows best, or a politician making a war mongering speech and at the same time making a case for Labour leadership, but a fella who has been there and done it and knows what he is talking about. Still wanna bomb them?
It's a compelling argument, well put too. I agree we are playing into their hands with this supposed apocalyptic battle, it is what they want - but who says it has to be world ending?? Only them. They believe in a prophecy that is false we need to remember that.
His take on the refugee crisis this summer was truely enlightening, and I 100% agree with him there.
I think there is some confusion, ignited when Camoron lit the blue touch paper with his' terrorist sympathisers' comment, what a class act he is.......! I'm not a pacifist, if required I would fight for my country. I want to defeat ISIS (or whatever their called), but I also understand that in order to defeat ISIS in a war theatre you need troops on the ground, bombing is an isolated plan of attack does not work. But sending our troops to war, and a lot of our troops will die, does not garner popularity and win votes for the PM. Cameron has played a great card convincing those who dont get it, that bombing will help us to become victorious, it wont, and the MP's who colluded, whatever their political leanings have also popped a small feather in their caps because by colluding they have impressed the easily impressed.
No. Bombing will help defeat Daesh. It will downgrade their numbers and capability. It will destroy their armaments and destroy their ability to produce and transport oil. It will stop their expansion and drive them back.
Imo there will need to be a ground war to finish the job but to say that air strikes will not help defeat them is palpable nonsense.
In your opinion, not in the opinion of people who know what they are talking about.
Over the past week I've heard that USA, Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia and now Assad have all been funding ISIS. Maybe Assad is I don't know but it would be a risky move on his part considering ISIS are virulently anti-nationalist and have allegedly attacked his strongest ally, Russia. What happens if ISIS is destroyed? Do we leave and ignore Assad and Russia?
I don't think it's the case of Assad donating money to the cause, more buying the oil from the oilfields they've captured.
And there you have it, not some bloke sat behind his keyboard in his safe western home, and think he knows best, or a politician making a war mongering speech and at the same time making a case for Labour leadership, but a fella who has been there and done it and knows what he is talking about. Still wanna bomb them?
It's a compelling argument, well put too. I agree we are playing into their hands with this supposed apocalyptic battle, it is what they want - but who says it has to be world ending?? Only them. They believe in a prophecy that is false we need to remember that.
His take on the refugee crisis this summer was truely enlightening, and I 100% agree with him there.
I think there is some confusion, ignited when Camoron lit the blue touch paper with his' terrorist sympathisers' comment, what a class act he is.......! I'm not a pacifist, if required I would fight for my country. I want to defeat ISIS (or whatever their called), but I also understand that in order to defeat ISIS in a war theatre you need troops on the ground, bombing is an isolated plan of attack does not work. But sending our troops to war, and a lot of our troops will die, does not garner popularity and win votes for the PM. Cameron has played a great card convincing those who dont get it, that bombing will help us to become victorious, it wont, and the MP's who colluded, whatever their political leanings have also popped a small feather in their caps because by colluding they have impressed the easily impressed.
No. Bombing will help defeat Daesh. It will downgrade their numbers and capability. It will destroy their armaments and destroy their ability to produce and transport oil. It will stop their expansion and drive them back.
Imo there will need to be a ground war to finish the job but to say that air strikes will not help defeat them is palpable nonsense.
In your opinion, not in the opinion of people who know what they are talking about.
If we drop bombs:- Will it make it more likely that we will be targeted in the UK - No, already targeted as much they can manage.
Will more civilians be killed - No, we are told we don't drop bombs if we know civilians are in harms way. No record of civilians being killed by the RAF last year.
Will it get rid of IS - No
Will it restrict the expansion of IS - Possibly
Will it prevent IS killing more people - Possibly
Will it cause more converts to IS - Probably, but not materially.
Will it increase UK influence in any future political solution - Yes
If we don't drop bombs:- Will it make it less likely that we will be targeted in the UK - No, already targeted as much they can manage.
Will fewer civilians be killed No, we already don't bomb civilians.
Will it make IS kill fewer people. - No
Will it get rid of IS - No
Will it restrict the expansion of IS - No
Will it cause fewer converts to IS - Probably, but not materially.
Will it decrease UK influence in any future political solution - Yes
Don't really get the anti bombing lobby, their logic doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny. For many, like the "Stop the War" faction, its simply because they depict supporters of the bombing action as blood thirsty savages so they don't need to engage their brain to take a position.
Many simply fall in line with their political allegiances, again, saves having to engage the brain. That's OK except the only reason politicians voted no in my opinion was to protect their reputation in case something goes wrong, and they face what Tony Blair has had to face.
Those MPs who voted no are more concerned with their political careers than the rights and wrongs expressed in the debate, and Cameron should have said so instead of the stupid remark about terrorist sympathisers.
Clearly many wavering MPs voted yes, and listened to the debate, those who voted No had already made up their minds and weren't interested in the debate except for covering their arse.
I think the anti bomb lobby would answer a couple of those questions differently. Also - the will it get rid of IS question is telling. We need to do something to which the answer is YES. My view is we should bomb, but as part of a UN force which included Islamic countries and China and as part of a plan that goes beyond the bombings, to defeating IS, then beyond that and winning the peace. Why can't we learn from history? I can't understand why this position is not obvious to most people!
And there you have it, not some bloke sat behind his keyboard in his safe western home, and think he knows best, or a politician making a war mongering speech and at the same time making a case for Labour leadership, but a fella who has been there and done it and knows what he is talking about. Still wanna bomb them?
It's a compelling argument, well put too. I agree we are playing into their hands with this supposed apocalyptic battle, it is what they want - but who says it has to be world ending?? Only them. They believe in a prophecy that is false we need to remember that.
His take on the refugee crisis this summer was truely enlightening, and I 100% agree with him there.
I think there is some confusion, ignited when Camoron lit the blue touch paper with his' terrorist sympathisers' comment, what a class act he is.......! I'm not a pacifist, if required I would fight for my country. I want to defeat ISIS (or whatever their called), but I also understand that in order to defeat ISIS in a war theatre you need troops on the ground, bombing is an isolated plan of attack does not work. But sending our troops to war, and a lot of our troops will die, does not garner popularity and win votes for the PM. Cameron has played a great card convincing those who dont get it, that bombing will help us to become victorious, it wont, and the MP's who colluded, whatever their political leanings have also popped a small feather in their caps because by colluding they have impressed the easily impressed.
No. Bombing will help defeat Daesh. It will downgrade their numbers and capability. It will destroy their armaments and destroy their ability to produce and transport oil. It will stop their expansion and drive them back.
Imo there will need to be a ground war to finish the job but to say that air strikes will not help defeat them is palpable nonsense.
In your opinion, not in the opinion of people who know what they are talking about.
Who knows what they're talking about then, those that agree with you?
And there you have it, not some bloke sat behind his keyboard in his safe western home, and think he knows best, or a politician making a war mongering speech and at the same time making a case for Labour leadership, but a fella who has been there and done it and knows what he is talking about. Still wanna bomb them?
It's a compelling argument, well put too. I agree we are playing into their hands with this supposed apocalyptic battle, it is what they want - but who says it has to be world ending?? Only them. They believe in a prophecy that is false we need to remember that.
His take on the refugee crisis this summer was truely enlightening, and I 100% agree with him there.
I think there is some confusion, ignited when Camoron lit the blue touch paper with his' terrorist sympathisers' comment, what a class act he is.......! I'm not a pacifist, if required I would fight for my country. I want to defeat ISIS (or whatever their called), but I also understand that in order to defeat ISIS in a war theatre you need troops on the ground, bombing is an isolated plan of attack does not work. But sending our troops to war, and a lot of our troops will die, does not garner popularity and win votes for the PM. Cameron has played a great card convincing those who dont get it, that bombing will help us to become victorious, it wont, and the MP's who colluded, whatever their political leanings have also popped a small feather in their caps because by colluding they have impressed the easily impressed.
No. Bombing will help defeat Daesh. It will downgrade their numbers and capability. It will destroy their armaments and destroy their ability to produce and transport oil. It will stop their expansion and drive them back.
Imo there will need to be a ground war to finish the job but to say that air strikes will not help defeat them is palpable nonsense.
In your opinion, not in the opinion of people who know what they are talking about.
Who knows what they're talking about then, those that agree with you?
It worked in iraq daesh have been pushed back from being nearly in bagdad
Innocent people are being killed by these bstds all over the middle east and in Europe to do nothing is not defending our citizens and doing nothing to assist an allied country is unacceptable
I know what your saying NLA, but didn't France stay back when we went into Iraq because it was illegal, and we just went in anyway?
I just hope we don't regret this, I'm sick of war.
We are already at war. Bombing Isis in Syria is simply an extension of the current policy.
All these people saying 'let's not go to war etc' obviously fail to see that there have been 7 failed terrorist attempts in London this year. We are at war and they are coming for us whether we bomb them or not.
Just bombing them isn't the answer. We need to back up bombing with political and economic policy, but not bombing would be completely irrisponsible
Not to mention our own people being massacred in Tunsia, which people seem to forget so easily.
I have not read all this thread, in fact I only read page 1 and 2. I then decided to try and find Hillary Benns speech in full on the internet, having only heard the last bits of it last night on the news. I have now listened in full to his speech and in my humble opinion that is one of the greatest speeches I have ever heard in Parliament. To receive applause from all sides of the house is a rare occurrence, yet he deserved it for the impassioned way he delivered it and for the sound advice he also gave. We must not forget he is the son of Tony Benn, who in the main was against any form of war, and I guess the late Mr Benn may have been turning in his grave as his son delivered it. That speech, in full, made Cameron and Corbyn sound like amateurs, but he also stated that "Terrorist Sympathizers" was a rude and incorrect thing for Cameron to say, and I think Cameron now understands he was out of order, but he hasn't got the 'guts' to apologise for a tasteless remark. So where does that leave my opinion in this matter, as an ex-squadie it would have been easy for me to just say blow them up, but I had to think long and hard about the potential consequences that others on here have discussed, so before the vote last night I was veering towards 'no', perhaps I am one of those so-called 'terrorist sympathizers' (despite having served my country during times of turmoil and fighting terrorists) but having now heard that speech I have moved to the 'yes' camp. I haven't turned because of Cameron, but because of a well thought out, impassioned speech by Mr Benn. He should be proud of himself and I can only hope Mr Corbyn recognizes the skill and sense he displayed and said.
Hilary Benn just over 2 weeks ago on November 15th:
'Mr Benn said the “terrible events in Paris” meant it was “even more important that we bring the Syrian civil war to an end” before considering air strikes on Isis.
He outlined his thinking: “Why? Because the vacuum in which Isil/Daesh [Islamic State] in Syria thrives is a consequence of that civil war.
“Therefore I hope that the talks that are taking place really will redouble their efforts to say, look we’ve got a find a way of bringing this to a conclusion – we’ve got to bring this to an end.
“Because then, people can then really focus their efforts on the threat from Isil/Daesh and the circumstances in Syria will have changed.”
Strangely no high minded mention of 'Labour's internationalism' and 'not walking by on the otherside', or the 'International Brigade' fighting fascism in Spain, and not ignoring the request for help from 'fellow socialists' in the French government that we heard last night when he argued for supporting bombing?
It worked in iraq daesh have been pushed back from being nearly in bagdad
Innocent people are being killed by these bstds all over the middle east and in Europe to do nothing is not defending our citizens and doing nothing to assist an allied country is unacceptable
I know what your saying NLA, but didn't France stay back when we went into Iraq because it was illegal, and we just went in anyway?
I just hope we don't regret this, I'm sick of war.
We are already at war. Bombing Isis in Syria is simply an extension of the current policy.
All these people saying 'let's not go to war etc' obviously fail to see that there have been 7 failed terrorist attempts in London this year. We are at war and they are coming for us whether we bomb them or not.
Just bombing them isn't the answer. We need to back up bombing with political and economic policy, but not bombing would be completely irrisponsible
Not to mention our own people being massacred in Tunsia, which people seem to forget so easily.
exactly right both of you. I'm actually surprised at the opposition to this. Will pale into insignificance when a mandate is requested to send in ground troops, which will happen, maybe not for a while but it will, because until we do we won't defeat Daesch.
It isn't really as simple as a yes or no. Even most of the nos accept something of a military nature is needed. I thought Benn's speech was powerful, moving but also emmotive. I hate IS and want us to get rid of them. I think it should be a priority to do this, and we need to do it in such a way that we don't get something as bad, or worse filling the void. Diplomacy - forming a global alliance has to be step one.
And there you have it, not some bloke sat behind his keyboard in his safe western home, and think he knows best, or a politician making a war mongering speech and at the same time making a case for Labour leadership, but a fella who has been there and done it and knows what he is talking about. Still wanna bomb them?
It's a compelling argument, well put too. I agree we are playing into their hands with this supposed apocalyptic battle, it is what they want - but who says it has to be world ending?? Only them. They believe in a prophecy that is false we need to remember that.
His take on the refugee crisis this summer was truely enlightening, and I 100% agree with him there.
I think there is some confusion, ignited when Camoron lit the blue touch paper with his' terrorist sympathisers' comment, what a class act he is.......! I'm not a pacifist, if required I would fight for my country. I want to defeat ISIS (or whatever their called), but I also understand that in order to defeat ISIS in a war theatre you need troops on the ground, bombing is an isolated plan of attack does not work. But sending our troops to war, and a lot of our troops will die, does not garner popularity and win votes for the PM. Cameron has played a great card convincing those who dont get it, that bombing will help us to become victorious, it wont, and the MP's who colluded, whatever their political leanings have also popped a small feather in their caps because by colluding they have impressed the easily impressed.
No. Bombing will help defeat Daesh. It will downgrade their numbers and capability. It will destroy their armaments and destroy their ability to produce and transport oil. It will stop their expansion and drive them back.
Imo there will need to be a ground war to finish the job but to say that air strikes will not help defeat them is palpable nonsense.
In your opinion, not in the opinion of people who know what they are talking about.
I presume you know that that everything posted on here is opinion. That's how this place works.
I do of course give way to your superior intellect on this though.
And there you have it, not some bloke sat behind his keyboard in his safe western home, and think he knows best, or a politician making a war mongering speech and at the same time making a case for Labour leadership, but a fella who has been there and done it and knows what he is talking about. Still wanna bomb them?
It's a compelling argument, well put too. I agree we are playing into their hands with this supposed apocalyptic battle, it is what they want - but who says it has to be world ending?? Only them. They believe in a prophecy that is false we need to remember that.
His take on the refugee crisis this summer was truely enlightening, and I 100% agree with him there.
I think there is some confusion, ignited when Camoron lit the blue touch paper with his' terrorist sympathisers' comment, what a class act he is.......! I'm not a pacifist, if required I would fight for my country. I want to defeat ISIS (or whatever their called), but I also understand that in order to defeat ISIS in a war theatre you need troops on the ground, bombing is an isolated plan of attack does not work. But sending our troops to war, and a lot of our troops will die, does not garner popularity and win votes for the PM. Cameron has played a great card convincing those who dont get it, that bombing will help us to become victorious, it wont, and the MP's who colluded, whatever their political leanings have also popped a small feather in their caps because by colluding they have impressed the easily impressed.
No. Bombing will help defeat Daesh. It will downgrade their numbers and capability. It will destroy their armaments and destroy their ability to produce and transport oil. It will stop their expansion and drive them back.
Imo there will need to be a ground war to finish the job but to say that air strikes will not help defeat them is palpable nonsense.
In your opinion, not in the opinion of people who know what they are talking about.
I presume you know that that everything posted on here is opinion. That's how this place works.
I do of course give way to your superior intellect on this though.
Any innocent non weapon welding deaths that arrive from here on in the accountability and blood on hands lie firmly and only with the daesh scum, not British or United nations hands,
It might not sit well with folks but we are at war both on theses shores and foreign ones
I hope that we bomb hard and on target and that the troops we send in cone home safe above all other lives first,
God bless the British armed forces and bring them home safe
I thank them for doing what's needed and protecting my family with the work they do
I thank the British government all that voted in favour of doing our bit
And I am proud to belong to a nation that won't stand and watch these filthy terrorist bstds walk un hindered
Any innocent non weapon welding deaths that arrive from here on in the accountability and blood on hands lie firmly and only with the daesh scum, not British or United nations hands,
Is the blood of anyone killed in Assad's barrel bombing on the hands of the Free Syrian Army?
Not denying that Hilary Benn's speech was powerful but I feel that underneath it all, he struggled to put a convincing argument as to why *we* would make a difference.
Everyone knows that Daesh are an unimaginably evil force that must be halted. The MPs who voted no won't have disagreed with him on that.
My reservations are all about the long term plan for the Middle East. I'm concerned that military action will leave another political vacuum as in Iraq, Afghanistan and in Libya.
Who's side are we on? Are we now siding with Assad? The man who has killed almost 200x the amount of innocent civilians?
I just don't see any logic in the decision to drop bombs.
I've read (or tried to read) most posts on this thread so this might be a repetition.
1. Am I against bombing now? Yes because stages 2, 3, 4 .... of the campaign against Daesh hasn't been thought through. 'Bomb them now and think about what we'll do afterwards'. There's also an element of 'we had to do something' - sometimes/most of the time it helps to consider consequences and sequel before acting.
2. Does that make me a terrorist sympathiser? No - I want every member or active supporter of Daesh to die, and the sooner the better.
3. Will bombing alone defeat Daesh? No - it will contain them in Syria/Iraq but a ground offensive will be needed which clearly hasn't been thought through (see 1 above).
4. Will Daesh be defeated by destroying them in Syria/Iraq? No - They will only be defeated when their ideology has been destroyed.
5. Are the streets of London safer by bombing them in Syria? No - but then declaring war on Germany in 1939 hardly made the streets of London safer.
All deaths if innocent non weapon welding hands as a result of the airstrikes is my point be them in Syria or any other country that people use Syria as an excuse for the acts that cause them
I'd have assad shot and bombed out of his bed also
Re. The terrorist sympathisers comment; I ain't one of DC's biggest fans, but I personally like the fact that a politician hasn't apologised for saying something he really thinks, instead of pathetically backtracking with a wishy washy apology and not meaning a word of it (I think they call it lip service).
Also, if you look at the two top blokes running the shadow cabinet, with a proven track record of rubbing shoulders and sympathising with known terrorists and their organisations (Corbyn and McDonnell with Hamas and the IRA), you can start to see where the comment was aimed at
Comments
Imo there will need to be a ground war to finish the job but to say that air strikes will not help defeat them is palpable nonsense.
Of course this won't happen because these countries are scared about domestic terrorism breaking out.
Must have been on the runway ready to go.
Wishing a safe return for all the air crews.
If we drop bombs:-
Will it make it more likely that we will be targeted in the UK - No, already targeted as much they can manage.
Will more civilians be killed - No, we are told we don't drop bombs if we know civilians are in harms way. No record of civilians being killed by the RAF last year.
Will it get rid of IS - No
Will it restrict the expansion of IS - Possibly
Will it prevent IS killing more people - Possibly
Will it cause more converts to IS - Probably, but not materially.
Will it increase UK influence in any future political solution - Yes
If we don't drop bombs:-
Will it make it less likely that we will be targeted in the UK - No, already targeted as much they can manage.
Will fewer civilians be killed No, we already don't bomb civilians.
Will it make IS kill fewer people. - No
Will it get rid of IS - No
Will it restrict the expansion of IS - No
Will it cause fewer converts to IS - Probably, but not materially.
Will it decrease UK influence in any future political solution - Yes
Don't really get the anti bombing lobby, their logic doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny. For many, like the "Stop the War" faction, its simply because they depict supporters of the bombing action as blood thirsty savages so they don't need to engage their brain to take a position.
Many simply fall in line with their political allegiances, again, saves having to engage the brain. That's OK except the only reason politicians voted no in my opinion was to protect their reputation in case something goes wrong, and they face what Tony Blair has had to face.
Those MPs who voted no are more concerned with their political careers than the rights and wrongs expressed in the debate, and Cameron should have said so instead of the stupid remark about terrorist sympathisers.
Clearly many wavering MPs voted yes, and listened to the debate, those who voted No had already made up their minds and weren't interested in the debate except for covering their arse.
So where does that leave my opinion in this matter, as an ex-squadie it would have been easy for me to just say blow them up, but I had to think long and hard about the potential consequences that others on here have discussed, so before the vote last night I was veering towards 'no', perhaps I am one of those so-called 'terrorist sympathizers' (despite having served my country during times of turmoil and fighting terrorists) but having now heard that speech I have moved to the 'yes' camp. I haven't turned because of Cameron, but because of a well thought out, impassioned speech by Mr Benn.
He should be proud of himself and I can only hope Mr Corbyn recognizes the skill and sense he displayed and said.
'Mr Benn said the “terrible events in Paris” meant it was “even more important that we bring the Syrian civil war to an end” before considering air strikes on Isis.
He outlined his thinking: “Why? Because the vacuum in which Isil/Daesh [Islamic State] in Syria thrives is a consequence of that civil war.
“Therefore I hope that the talks that are taking place really will redouble their efforts to say, look we’ve got a find a way of bringing this to a conclusion – we’ve got to bring this to an end.
“Because then, people can then really focus their efforts on the threat from Isil/Daesh and the circumstances in Syria will have changed.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hilary-benn-shadow-foreign-secretary-says-labour-wont-back-air-strikes-on-syria-a6734651.html
Strangely no high minded mention of 'Labour's internationalism' and 'not walking by on the otherside', or the 'International Brigade' fighting fascism in Spain, and not ignoring the request for help from 'fellow socialists' in the French government that we heard last night when he argued for supporting bombing?
Clearly a man of consistency and principle.
I do of course give way to your superior intellect on this though.
It might not sit well with folks but we are at war both on theses shores and foreign ones
I hope that we bomb hard and on target and that the troops we send in cone home safe above all other lives first,
God bless the British armed forces and bring them home safe
I thank them for doing what's needed and protecting my family with the work they do
I thank the British government all that voted in favour of doing our bit
And I am proud to belong to a nation that won't stand and watch these filthy terrorist bstds walk un hindered
Everyone knows that Daesh are an unimaginably evil force that must be halted. The MPs who voted no won't have disagreed with him on that.
My reservations are all about the long term plan for the Middle East. I'm concerned that military action will leave another political vacuum as in Iraq, Afghanistan and in Libya.
Who's side are we on? Are we now siding with Assad? The man who has killed almost 200x the amount of innocent civilians?
I just don't see any logic in the decision to drop bombs.
1. Am I against bombing now? Yes because stages 2, 3, 4 .... of the campaign against Daesh hasn't been thought through. 'Bomb them now and think about what we'll do afterwards'. There's also an element of 'we had to do something' - sometimes/most of the time it helps to consider consequences and sequel before acting.
2. Does that make me a terrorist sympathiser? No - I want every member or active supporter of Daesh to die, and the sooner the better.
3. Will bombing alone defeat Daesh? No - it will contain them in Syria/Iraq but a ground offensive will be needed which clearly hasn't been thought through (see 1 above).
4. Will Daesh be defeated by destroying them in Syria/Iraq? No - They will only be defeated when their ideology has been destroyed.
5. Are the streets of London safer by bombing them in Syria? No - but then declaring war on Germany in 1939 hardly made the streets of London safer.
I'd have assad shot and bombed out of his bed also
Also, if you look at the two top blokes running the shadow cabinet, with a proven track record of rubbing shoulders and sympathising with known terrorists and their organisations (Corbyn and McDonnell with Hamas and the IRA), you can start to see where the comment was aimed at