Committing our Armed Forces to conflict is one of the hardest decisions that Members of Parliament have to make. I don’t think anyone approves such a move lightly. Civilian lives and those of our servicemen and women have to be at the forefront of our thoughts along with our security here in the UK. I am of the opinion that we have to take the fight to ISIS/Daesh. Therefore I will be supporting a vote for air strikes in Syria but it is only right that I explain my reasons. This is a complex issue to which a short paragraph or sound-bite would do no justice. I have already had a number of points raised by constituents and so I have tried below to group my comments FAQ-style under headings of the most common questions:
Exactly what will I be voting on?
The wording of the motion which will be the subject of a 10.5 hour debate followed by a vote at about 10pm tomorrow evening has just been released and is as follows:
“That this House notes that ISIL poses a direct threat to the United Kingdom; welcomes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2249 which determines that ISIL constitutes an ‘unprecedented threat to international peace and security’ and calls on states to take ‘all necessary measures’ to prevent terrorist acts by ISIL and to ‘eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria’; further notes the clear legal basis to defend the UK and our allies in accordance with the UN Charter; notes that military action against ISIL is only one component of a broader strategy to bring peace and stability to Syria; welcomes the renewed impetus behind the Vienna talks on a ceasefire and political settlement; welcomes the Government’s continuing commitment to providing humanitarian support to Syrian refugees; underlines the importance of planning for post-conflict stabilisation and reconstruction in Syria; welcomes the Government’s continued determination to cut ISIL’s sources of finance, fighters and weapons; notes the requests from France, the US and regional allies for UK military assistance; acknowledges the importance of seeking to avoid civilian casualties, using the UK’s particular capabilities; notes the Government will not deploy UK troops in ground combat operations; welcomes the Government’s commitment to provide quarterly progress reports to the House; and accordingly supports Her Majesty’s Government in taking military action, specifically airstrikes, exclusively against ISIL in Syria; and offers its wholehearted support to Her Majesty’s Armed Forces .”
As can be seen, it acknowledges the fact that airstrikes alone will not succeed and the importance of avoiding civilian casualties, rules out UK troops being used on the ground and sets out the need to continue humanitarian support, to cut Daesh’s money and weapons and the importance of post-conflict stabilisation.
What does this have to do with security in the UK?
Daesh are a threat to our national security, and after the attacks in Paris, their abilities to cause untold terror in the western world has become evident. The deaths of Mohamed Emwazi, Ruhul Amin and Reyaad Khan in Syria, who were plotting attacks on UK soil show the threat we face lies there. Eliminating the territorial claims of Daesh will protect the thousands of Muslims in Syria that are being killed and displaced, cut off the funding of Daesh through oil sales and fatally undermine the credibility of the so-called Caliphate which relies on territory for that claim, enabling them to draw in yet more extremists. Some people ask if action will make a terrorist attack in the UK more likely. We know that Daesh already want to attack us. They wanted to attack us along with Belgium and Paris, only managing to commit an atrocity in the latter. The UK is already in the top tier of countries on Daesh’s target list so I believe that the only way to deal with that reality is to address the threat we face. We should not outsource our own security to other countries.
Is this a problem for Syrians to sort out themselves?
Last week’s unanimous UN Security Council resolution calling on countries to use all necessary measures against Daesh, shows the deep and broad international support for taking on these barbaric terrorists. UN Security Council resolution 2249 states that ISIL “constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security” and calls for member states to take “all necessary measures” to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by Daesh and crucially, it says that we should “eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria”. 62 countries are already involved in the coalition seeking to defeat this dangerous group who are claiming governance of territory similar in size to the UK. Daesh have no regard for human life. The beheadings, crucifixions and throwing people from roofs show that their ultimate aim is destructive. We have nothing to work with diplomatically.
Assad’s use of chemical weapons and barrel bombs against his own people show that he has no place in the future of Syria. It is vital that airstrikes are not about regime change, even if the future governance of Syria is a major calculation in post-conflict planning. We have an immediate threat to both UK security and the people of Syria in the form of Daesh and we must remain focused on this.
Will British involvement make a difference?
I do not believe that UK involvement will increase the likelihood of civil casualties. This is not a scenario where we are starting a conflict afresh: airstrikes are already taking place in Syria. However, I understand people’s concerns about how effective the strikes will be, and what the outcome will be. Our Brimstone precision missile system enables us to strike accurately with minimal collateral damage – something that even the Americans do not have. They have the accuracy to be able to hit an armoured vehicle travelling at 70mph. The RAF have conducted many missions in Iraq against Daesh without a single recorded civilian casualty. Only one-third of missions involve weapons being deployed as commanders need to be sure of their target and weigh the risk before giving the final order to strike. Of course that record can change at any moment but it is indicative of the caution taken before engaging. Since August last year, Daesh has lost about one-quarter of the territory that it held in Iraq. We can make a difference. Following the stepping up of airstrikes in Raqqa, Daesh leaders are reported to be leaving their HQ to travel to Mosul in Iraq, where we already have the ability to strike.
Will airstrikes make the situation worse?
I believe that inaction is the course that will definitely make the situation worse in Syria/Iraq. We are already involved in the situation on one side of the border. Daesh pay no attention to the Iraqi/Syrian border and therefore if we are to succeed, neither should we. There is a view that Daesh may turn their attention to the UK as a result but we are already in their scope for terrorist acts. We rely on our security services to foil plots before they succeed but the only long-term way to remove these threats are at source – in Iraq and Syria. We have a comprehensive counter-extremism strategy which details our plan to prevent and foil plots at home and to address the poisonous extremist ideology that is the root cause of the threat that we face.
Are we failing to learn the history of our involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya?
The particular lesson that we need to learn in my opinion, is to make sure that we have a comprehensive strategy, not only to defeat Daesh, but to protect the innocent and rebuild a stable Syria once Daesh have been defeated. I do not support UK ground forces in Syria which would be counter-productive. Airstrikes will not succeed on their own, but as one part of our approach. Yes, we need to cut off access to finance and weaponry. Daesh are already sitting on estimated reserves of £1 trillion. We need to intercept smugglers, seal borders, and enforce sanctions to stop people trading with ISIL. Ultimately, ISIL is able to generate income through its control of territory, so although we are working with international partners to squeeze the finances wherever we can, it is the rolling back of ISIL’s territory that will ultimately cut off its finances.
We need to build a coalition of local ground forces. There has been some question about the 70,000 moderate opposition fighters that the Joint Intelligence Committee estimates may be able to be brought together. An interesting article by Charles Lister, who has spent the last two years engaging face to face with Syrian Opposition groups, breaks down this figure and demonstrates how this ground force may look. Questions about the numbers of opposition fighters are perfectly valid but should not stop us being able to start to degrade Daesh in Syria now through the extension of our current action. There has already been an example of opposition fighters being killed after a RAF pilot had to call in an American to defend them after fighting crossed the border from Iraq to Syria. The RAF pilot was minutes away, the American an hour’s flight.
Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya differed from this conflict in a number of ways. This is an ongoing conflict which we are being asked to join, not a new venture which will come as a shock to those on the ground. It is focused on defeating a terrorist group, not regime change. This does throw up a difficult mix, with Russia supporting Assad, Turkey supporting those battling Kurd separatists and the UK holding the long-standing belief that Assad should not be part of Syria’s future. We need a diplomatic path running in parallel with our military intervention. This has started with Iran and Saudi Arabia sitting around the same table as America, Russia, France, Turkey and the UK, all of whom are working towards the transition to a new government in Syria. They have different starting positions but that is what diplomacy is, building coalitions and agreed positions which we can develop lasting solutions. The Prime Minister has pledged at least £1billion for post-conflict reconstruction. He said to the House last week: “All these elements – counter terrorism, political and diplomatic, military and humanitarian – need to happen together to achieve a long-term solution in Syria. We know that Peace is a process, not an event. I am clear that it cannot be achieved through a military assault on ISIL alone.”
The main difference between Libya and Syria is that we have firm international commitment from all the backers of a future Syrian government around the table at the Vienna talks, whereas the state of Libya had been hollowed out after 40 years of dictatorship. Institutions collapsed quickly as a result, after Gadaffi was deposed. The military, security and diplomatic advice all say that the risk of inaction is greater than action.
What has changed to make immediate action necessary?
We have a UN Security council resolution that was agreed unanimously. The Vienna talks offer a credible and legitimate peace process for Syria and of course Paris has happened. This attack did not just feel different from the many that have happened in the last year, there were significant tangible differences. This was both planned in Syria but also people were sent from Syria to help carry out the attack. We need to be good allies. Our nearest neighbour has been attacked and we should be there for them as we would hope they would be for us had it happened in London. But most of all we should cut the head of the Daesh snake to avoid this happening again. Daesh in Syria are a direct threat to the security of the UK. We need to act now.
r Scully, I’m heartbroken, but not surprised at your stance. You answered none of the questions I put to you in my comment above, and did exactly as I feared. Followed the party line, almost word for word. I’m truly ashamed of the kind of Britain we are living in, under a government, and M.P’s who would choose war above diplomacy. Shame on you Mr Scully. Shame on you
Woo ha woo haaa whoop haa woooo
Hi Paul
Very strange and difficult times we live in and unfortunately events and actions by others sometimes escalate, requiring very tough and drastsic actions being required.
I support the stance and decisions by both our government and those of our allies around the globe. This is not just a ‘muscle-flexing’ stance by our government but worldwide condemnation
Je ne suis pas non plus une fan des Dead Space : j’ai tendance à m’énerver quand j’y joue… J’ai joué à la démo et cela m’a suffi^^Par contre le guide est vraiment magnifique!
Thank you for calling the insurgents Daesh and not the name by which they want to be known.
Thank you also for voting for air strikes. Appeasement during the 30s allowed Hitler to pursue his expansionist and racial policies without external interference. Anyone advocating diplomacy in this instance is delusional.
Although I would have voted against the proposition I do realise in this very dangerous situation any decision is bound to be on an extremely fine balance. I do not envy you in having had to take responsibility in voting. I appreciate your reasoning and hope and pray that the decision made will prove the correct one. My chief concern I suppose is that Daesh have no concern over where their HQs are in relation to innocent civilians – perhaps seeing casualties as useful martyrs to the cause. I would have thought stronger air action will inevitably turn a considerable number of the population against the west, making future negotiations with Syria extremely difficult. Either way, it is going to prove perilously difficult to summon the resources, types of action and incredible diplomacy to see us through this and we do need to present some kind of united front now that the decision has been made.
Its so encouraging to know that not all of humanity is out to destroy our planet. Good work is also being done. I only hope it is enough in the long run.
Paul – as you say very difficult times for MPs, probably the hardest decision you have had to make so far. I agree that this can only be resolved by concerted international action on a range of fronts. Air strikes alone cannot beat them – and can make things worse, as we know from Afghanistan and Iraq. But targeted strikes with precision against known ISIL leaders can have an impact, and it is odd that we can do this in Iraq already but not in Syria. We must support our NATO allies especially France and the US – but keep our position under constant review to reassure the public that we are hitting only the terrorists and protecting innocent people both in Syria and elsewhere by taking this action. Thank you for being open and honest with your constituents regardless of their position – it is important to keep us all fully informed directly rather than via some media channels, who will inevitably use political spin to support their points of view.
Paul
I support and agree the manner in which you will vote.
Two concerns apart from the devastation and death that will visit innocent people.
1. Saudi Arabia surely funds Daesh and yet we stay ‘in bed’ with them because it’s good for our economy.
2. Syrians president has made it clear that he only supports intervention by the Russians, because they support him. What devastation might he cause knowing that once the immediate situation is quelled, we in the West turn our attentions on him ?
Your opinion would be appreciated.I am still uneasy but appreciate that you will vote as I would.
Regards
Mary Moore
I do not believe that bombing Syria will help to improve the safety of the UK. It will only strengthen their resolve to attack the West further. I do believe that innocent civilians will be caught up in an already terrible conflict. There will be further refugees displaced from their homes and Syrian people will continue to be unable to rebuild their communities. This only allows extremists like Isis to thrive further.
PLEASE listen to your constituents. The majority of the public do not want the UK to bomb Syria. Surveys in the press suggest that strength of feeling is up to 70% against bombing.
Do not vote to bomb Syria.
Paul, There is no debate vote to defend our country / values / religion.
Whilst I agree we should support our allies in Nato and to some extent the Russians. I am concerned that without proper coordination in conjunction with the Russians, we could be exposed to un intended conflict with them. The stubborn approach of not supporting President Assad in some way, puts a barrier between us and the Russians. There has to me more effort in seeking a compromise on that front, as we did in the second W W. Dictators are not perfect but they are a lot better for Western safety than what we have tried to put in their place,in Iraq and Libya, Ask yourself who is taking care of Christians in Syria–Assad when he can, likewise the Military government in Egypt. Remember also bombing alone does not win the war it also has a hardening of resistance as in England, Malta and Germany. Any land forces are fragmented and also the target of Russia. Most of the Kurdish forces do not want to defend beyond their enclave. So you would need to reach a compromise with all land forces to overthrow Isal including Assad`s. Bombing is only part of the answer and in isolation would be more dangerous for the West.
I agree with all Alan Plant has said, I couldn’t have put it better.
We are only in this mess because of Blair and Bush going into Iarq. Before different religions lived and worked along side each other, things weren’t perfect but people were safe.
Because it happened in Iraq and then we left them to it Isis took over and the same thing is happening in Syria. We need to help these people on the ground not bombing them.
Half of the people coming to Europe would rather stay in Syria if it was safe to do so. US has been bombing for a while and it has made no difference, so why put our RAF at risk, we have so few of them thanks to years of cut backs!
You are taking the correct decision, a difficult one, but the right one! You cannot use diplomacy as these people do not want to negotiate they just want to destroy democracy and replace it with another brutal dictatorship.
We have for some time been attacking ISIL in Iraq, but not Syria ;this has always been an entirely artificial , illogical, self imposed constraint. Everyone would always rather find non-violent means of dealing with threats to our people and the people of the region . Sadly given the nature of ISIL there is no practical alternative. We must collaborate fully with our allies to wipe out this dreadful threat. Clearly bombing alone will not solve the whole problem but it is part of the solution and should be pursued with vigour.
I endorse your support of the motion.
the French, Russians, Syrians,and americans are already bombing Syria.
Getting rather crowded there and the potential of a conflict with the Russians.
this problem of isis/daesh is only because we attacked and conquered another country and destroyed its infrastructure and then left it to sort them selves out. ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’.
The way to deafeat them is to reconstruct the countries we were responsible in conquering without trying to implement our own political system. It took Britain hundreds of years to come to its present state, you can’t create it overnight.
These people are brutal and dogmatic, but they do have support from the population because of the desperation they are in.
That the hell was Libya all about, now we want to bomb Syria and create more enemies.
This is a time for serious thinking to correct the mistakes made in the past, not modern day imperialistic attitudes.
NO BOMBING OF SYRIA!!
I am glad you will support the need for more immediate action on the part of this Country and thank you for setting out your reasoning which I support.
Of course none of us want to see more bombing and would prefer to be able to take a pacifist line of more negotiation or to have a political based solution. However realistic thinking unfortunately tells us we have been down those roads and failed, or the roads just don’t exist to reach an organisation like Daesh peacefully. They have set the scene by threatening our lives and cultural lifestyle and enough is enough.
Sadly I wish all our forces and our security services God’s Speed in their endeavours on behalf of our Country and our Culture.
Paul – this is not an easy decision. I support your decision to vote in favour of the motion. Clearly the public cannot be privy to all the information that the Government has, but I trust David Cameron when he says that the danger of inaction is greater than the danger of action. It’s a shame we live in such troubled times but wishing the situation will change is not enough.
Kind regards
Tim
Supporting our allies is the right thing to do for a whole range of reasons, even if our contribution does not make a significant difference; even if there is a risk of civilian casualties; and even if UK military action causes more people to join the Daesh unislamic cult. History shows us that appeasement of our enemies does not work.
Thanks for asking.
We too have been thinking about this especially after Paris.
But
1. British involvement in Afghanistan and the Iraq only served to make us MORE likely to suffer a terrorist attack – if not from outside, from Muslims here. The war was not just and quite frankly most Mothers would prefer their sons to be alive and to have food, water and electricity under the old regimes – especially women under Saddam – than what they have now.
2. Does David Cameron really want to be the heir to Blair – like being remembered as the heir to Slytherin – and just as snake
like.
3. Who exactly is the enemy? There seems to be some confusion here. Surely Assad was the enemy – but definitely not now.
We need some clarity here. Are we in alliance with the Russians as well? Actually they don’t seem so far wrong on this one.
4. The potential for a cock up is great. Turkish shooting the Russian plane was terrible – whether or not they lapsed over
into Turkish airspace – are we not on the same side?
5. Gaddafi was better than what Libya now has – so that intervention did not work.
6. The money (and George Osborne has said it will cost tens of millions) would be better spent beefing up the Intelligence
Services and the Police AT HOME.
7. We did not bomb Northern Ireland to get rid of the IRA – and now they are in government. We should have made that point to
America after 9/11 instead of getting involved in Afghanistan. To get the (former) terrorist mentality on this maybe we should consult them first before taking any action.
8. The very right of centre and the far left are both against bombing. Maybe they are the new moderates.
9. GB voted to Keep Labour Out. People are unlikely to vote like that again and you will lose votes to the left and UKIP.
Both Labour and Conservative and haemoraging votes to left and right.
9. The idea of being in the same alliance with Turkey does not thrill us. (Better to be in alliance with Russia)
10. It was too easy for Tony Blair to send other people’s sons to war in Afghanistan and Iraq whilst all his own slept soundly
in their beds. We are not far from Headley Court and some of the injuries are truly terrible – lives lost literally and in terms
of the lives they are capable of living now.
Dear Mr Scully, while I accept that action needs to be taken I have on reflection the thought that bombing is not the way to go. It was this action by Tony Blair that has created the vacuum for this group to excist. By taking this route you are forcing more people to flee into the hands of traffickers and lives put at risk at sea as well as casualties in Syria. I think money would be better spent on the intelligence services to infiltrate and destroy from with in also a strategy being planned now for what gets put in place after as nobody seems to have any answers to this. It’s all very well defeating them in Syria but what about the sleepers around the world who will be willing to avenge IS defeat. This issue needs to be dealt with differently from passed wars and our reaction to Paris should not be a knee jerk one, I don’t think it makes us weak to take a well considered different route to this one. I’m sure you will vote according to your conscience I just hope it is the right one .
Full support here Paul
This sort of vote is the beginning of a very very serious war. This is the sort of action that WILL lead to attacks in Britain, as well as the potential for conflict with Russia and the Middle East. The decision is this – allow other nations to go in and attempt to destroy Daesh or go in there ourselves and provide Daesh with more reason to attack us. If we go in, I do believe that we will end Daesh faster but they will retaliate and British civilians will die. OR we do not go in and Daesh survives for that much longer – but will eventually be destroyed by other nations. I do not the life of a civilian is worth that cost, you can rest assured that the tragedy that happened in Paris will happen in London if we take this course.
I would love for your actual opinion to be known Paul Scully, not just the course you have taken because your party has demanded it. Get some courage and do the job that you were elected to do.
Paul,
Whatever is decided it will displease people one way or another however I think it is out of hand now and many more people will be murdered if we do nothing. It’s is kind of them or us really.
I am with the majority that believe we should learn from history and not keep making the same mistakes..what is the difference between the taliban and the I.S. is it such a coincidence that all these so called refugees are arriving since the I.S. gained a footing..they are forcing people to come to europe to destabilize us..bombing will not solve this – spend the money on solving this problem at the source or just ‘nuke em’
with respect the only argument I’ve heard from the pro-bombing camp (forgive the crass description) is that ‘we’re pretty much doing it already’. IT IS NOT FOR US to judge what happens in a sovereign nation halfway across the world. Neither do I accept Ken Livingstone’s stance that this action would worsen the situation with regards to terrorist action over here. We failed in Iraq, we failed in Libya, Afghanistan is hardly an advert for military intervention either.
It concerns me that innocent people in Syria may well suffer as a result of the intended bombing. There must be other ways of defeating IS explored before this last resort. As others have said they are getting money and supplies from somewhere. Why are we not tackling this and depriving them of their resources?
I think use of military force should be in self defence. It seems to me to be a very complex and unclear situation and to potentially add to the destruction and harm to innocent people is not therefore an option.
Mr Scully, firstly thank you for being so open and honest with your constituency. It is reassuring that you are keeping us informed of your rationale and reasoning on this highly important and emotive topic.
I fully support and back the motion being put forward by the government today and am pleased that you are backing it. The evil death cult that is Daesh must be met head on and with full force. It would be great if we could rationalise and deal with these people without the use of military intervention, but the fact of the matter is that we can’t and therefore the only way to defeat them, and to maintain our national security, is with the use of force.
It is only a matter of time before a Mumbai/Paris style attack occurs in Britain (our security forces have already foiled a number of attacks) and this action will inhibit their ability to plan such an attack. Unfortunately the only way to kill a snake is to cut off its head.
If bombing Daesh in Syria is going to stop them, then you would have my support. However it is my belief that bombing will not help to curb Daesh. Bombing, which will inevitably cause injuries and deaths to civilians, will help Daesh instead.
I would urge you to vote against the motion.
Bombing Syria will not solve anything. One terrorist group will be replaced by another. The global community needs to unite and stop all funding avenues for ISIL. They are getting their funds from somewhere. Please do not be a party to more civilian deaths which will happen, and vote NO!
Those who under-estimate the dangers posed by Daesh, are bringing long term pain to our children. This evil must be routed, as they’ve never before experienced. They must be hunted on the ground, so that they cannot hide in villages, behind women and children.
I support this decision but really wish there was an alternative.Sadly this is the only way .
Paul, I agree with your comments and proposed vote.
Dear Paul
I have read ALL the comments submitted to date/time in respect of your decison in this matter to which I am in full agreement. Thank you.
The ‘conflict’ with North Africa goes back to November 1956 when Egypt decided to ‘attack’ our British trade routes through the Suez Canal – a combined French/British achievement – to the benefit of that country. As a National Service man of 19, I was ‘sent’ to retain our interests; subsequently to defend our ‘Commonwealth’ against EOKA terrorists in Cyprus. I returned to the UK as an ‘alien’ in the general public’s view – yet having no say in the then Government’s decisions to be a foot soldier. Am I bitter? Yes. The sooner the general public realise the threat from these ‘terrorists’ the better. Remember the Bishopsgate bombing by the IRA who were, for the British forces on active service in Norther Ireland, fighting against terrorists as devious as EOKA. Remember the Fawklands – another threat against this island – yet again! Remember 07/07 – how easy was that!
In my ‘humble’ opinion this country should discontinue ALL overseas
support, which is only being used for the purchase of weapons and lining the pockets of those country’s potentates. These present conflicts are NOT relative to religion BUT greed and Dictators – remember the Nazis, Franco and El Duce! Let’s concentrate on our home defences and public ‘charity’ requirements – it begins at HOME! History is repeating itself, yet again – 1930s ‘heads in the sand’.
Best regards.
Sadly I see no alternative than to follow the Daesh back into the syrian area they are hiding in, whilst no one in tehgir right minds wants a war people do seem to have forgoten the almost stone age tribal behaviour being adopted by the intolerance shown by the so called caliphate towards others and including religious differences and amongst the muslim community, so yove yes and end the conflict before the beheadings and murders continue unabated and end this cycle of horror there is no doubt it will need mopping up on the ground afterwards and we can source the paymasters and suppliers from this point vote yes to targeted bombing and end this now please! i am aghast that people say no, they clearly are not connected to a family whose had an aide worker slaughtered on camera for no clear purpose.
Daesh or IS have proved to be an evil beyond comparison to anything before. They are bent on converting, by terror and savagery, not only non muslim but also other muslims to their view of the world and are not open to negotiation but total domination. Although the Middle East situation is rendered even more complex because of the different actors involved and the corresponding ideological, social, political and economic issues to be addressed to stabilise the region, it is of immediate importance to reclaim the territory occupied by Daesh being used as a base to finance its operations via the illegal export of its oil and antiquities. Thus it is paramount that if the UK is to defend itself against this scourge, it must increase its participation in dismantling and defeating Daesh for the security and stability of this country. Whilst I realise that bombing Daesh targets on its own will not immediately achieve reclaiming the land, it is very likely that combined with and helping other coordinated local military initiatives on the ground will do so. The United Kingdom cannot stand by and hope the threat will go away. I hope parliament will vote in favour of the government’s motion and support our brave armed forces in the regard.
Dear Paul,
Your vote to support the strike-action against Syria should be a personal decision, and not one that is made as an elected representative. This should’ve been a referendum if we, in Great Britain, are truly barbaric and blood-thirsty just like those terrorists.
Along with this vote, I hope you demand for the Chancellor to release all financial income the British government shall stand to benefit for each plane deployed and each bomb exploded under the British flag. If this war we’re entering isn’t for financial gains, then, this profit should go to helping Assad building his country back, as we’re clearly helping him with his enemies.
I don’t know how you go to bed without feeling guilty with a vote to aid and abet a mass-murder, but Merry Christmas.
in my country 20% of all inmates are domestic 3 % are foreigners but 77% of people they couldnt determine ethnicy. but all of them a re foreigners.but often the police is afraid to inprison a foreigner but when it comes for a local, hes quicly in prison.ccountries that dont have foreigners can be very happy
I support the motion.
Ultimately Syria is a mess, and a mess which will not get better without military action. We are already attacking ISIS in Iraq, and so extending to Syria will not increase terrorism threat in the UK. Brimstone adds significant capability for targeted air strikes, while reducing innocent casualties. Yes, other approaches such as diplomacy, cutting off the sale of oil and other funding, should be followed, but this is not an either/or. Air strikes are a necessary, but not sufficient, action. Waiting for a firm plan is an excuse for non-intervention – there will never be a plan firm enough to convince everyone.
Paul-you have my strong support on this. As someone who writes about security matters I have to say that the war against DAESH is not something that can be shirked. Air strikes are essential. With todays accurate guidance systems, the risk of civilian casualties will be minimised, but of course expect plenty of DAESH propaganda clips and stills from other conflicts suggesting otherwise.
At the moment, our most reliable allies on the ground are the Kurds, and in the region the Kurds, the Jordanians and the Israelis. As someone who has been monitoring DAESH since they days they were AQI, I can tell you that they are intent on bringing their murderous campaign to the UK-London, Manchester and Glasgow being especially at risk. Thinking that they can be talked to is a fool’s errand. Deal with them now or never.
Paul,
I do not see that bombing one side of a line will make us any more or less safe.
I do not understand how one can even contemplate negotiating with a group who cut off the heads of human beings.
I do not understand how one can contemplate negotiating with a group who put human beings in cages and then sets them on fire.
But while bombing alone will not work, bombing one side of a line seems bizarre.
We must support our allies. But I would encourage the government to think more boldly. Assad and Putin are not the real issue here – Daesh is. Bring the Russians in, worry less about what happens to Assad, the only objective should be to wipe Daesh off the face of the earth and to do that, someone is going to have to put boots on the ground.
The talk here is of war, bombings, revenge, being strong against the evil terrorists of Isis, calling them a ‘death cult’ . . . . goodness, how can bombing cities bring about peace on the ground? As bombs predominately kill, mutilate and displace innocent people, and this helps to create hatred of ‘The West’.
I do respectfully urge you to reconsider and vote against the motion.
I do not believe I am a ‘terrorist sympathiser’.
Great. Lets try and give DAESH a hug instead and sing “Kumbaya” together..
Thanks for your open comment, I think after if & but we got no option but support our allies and quite agree with you . God bless our boys .
Put aside all arguments for and against action.
The United Nations has called on all its members to bring an end to the actions carried out by a band of evil people who could be accurately described as being an army the Devil himself would approve of.
If we do not respond to this call then there is no hope for us all
Apart from a natural threat there can surely be nothing worse than daesh let loose on civilisation.
I fully support the Government line in carrying the bombing over the border into Syria. If Daesh is not confronted now it will only get more and more powerful and cause death an destruction not only to the people in the region, including Muslims of whatever sect, Christians, Jews, Catholics and whatever religion it deems not to be obedient to their deviant ways. We cannot sit on the sidelines whilst the fanatical radicalised islamists of IS attack any country it decides to when their evil leaders deem it necessary. This medieval cult will keep women subservient and live by Shariah law, bent to their deviant will. Stand strong and vote with David Cameron.
I don’t believe that further bombing of Syria will help the situation. As other people have already mentioned several other countries are already bombing Syria. This is partly the reason so many people are trying to leave the country and becoming refugees along with the fact that they are being terrorised in their own country. Surely more bombing will only add to this problem causing yet more death and devastation to innocent people within the country. We need to support the people with miltary intelligence and help them resist and infiltrate terrorist factions that are dominating their country. We are playing into the terroists’ hands by bombing them as they see salvation in annihilation.
I don’t believe that additional air strikes will help our security, all air strikes to date have not achieved the desired effect. In the name of religion crime is being committed, against humanity all over the world.! A complete plan of action is required not just additional air strikes
No. Vote against bombing. It can’t have the positive impact claimed by the military-industrial complex and it will have negative impact.
Our foreign policy and military strategies in Iraq Afghanistan and elsewhere are ill-thought out, ignorant, morally bankrupt and totally disastrous.
Jumping on the bandwagon because others are doing so blindly is wrong. Look at those who aren’t blindly following. It is wiser to NOT intervene because it can only make things worse and at best will only push ISIL elsewhere.
We have no clue how to defeat this type of aggressor. So let’s get smarter in our analysis, cease our oil-greedy political support for barbaric regimes, and look at where these problems cane from. Watch Bitter Lake on More4/IPlayer. End the finance system that so distorts our democracies and war decisions, and end our dependency on oil by actually promoting renewable energy.
It’s a mindset change we need, away from the values and policies promoted by your party, and towards one that promoted equality and peace at a global scale. If we had that you wouldn’t be asking us this question today.
BTW, when we do bomb, I will expect a quick reversal of your party’s socially and economically flawed austerity policy. There’s clearly plenty of money sloshing around somewhere.
If you’re still reading, Thanks for asking.
Hi Paul
I do not support the motion to bomb Syria.I do not believe it will make us or Syrians any more safe. In addition, if the PM had any support, he lost it by his comments last night to the 1922group. His comments make it clear, that his objective is purely political.
Very difficult this one, a lose lose perhaps. On the one hand ‘something must be done’ but on the other simply extending airstrikes may only make a bad situation worse.
If we were to really go to war, then that will cost more blood and treasure than we have been willing to commit to date, would be what ISIS wants and has no guarantee of success.
But airstrikes alone won’t help here.
Instead of bombing UK can do more by political and use of intelligence services to cut off the funding to ISIL. It is clear that bombing by various countries has not and will not destroy ISIL. It requires joined up planning and clear strategy. We seems to be rushing in and putting our service personal at risk of harm.
Decisions of this magnitude cannot ever be easy to make and the situation is certainly complex. Yes, this country’s security has been under attack from a ‘death cult’ but adding British bombs to those already being dropped is not going to make us any safer and will lead to more innocent lives being lost in Syria.I am quite persuaded by suggestions that working to stop those economically supporting ISIS is far more likely to be effective with no risk of persuading more people to join them. Bombing can not destroy an ideology and will not create a safer or fairer society in Syria or here.
To uphold the interests of big business and bolster ‘confidence’, the government tries to create an illusion of safety through declaring a new offensive, plus allocating extra funding to ‘security’ measures. We actually need funds to stop the cuts in local government, not to futilely bomb another country.
The US-led coalition has already conducted 8,000 air strikes on Isis in just over a year but this hasn’t dislodged Isis from most of its territory. The “collateral damage” in Iraq was hundreds of thousands of women and children. We should stop this madness now.
I agree with government lets get stuck into them just like they would love to do to us
We cannot possibly condone airstrikes without a clear, realistic plan on what objectives this is expected to achieve. This isn’t a conflict where we are even clear who is our enemy and who is our ally.
Turkey, our ally, have not only shot down a Russian military jet, but they are bombing the Kurds who are in turn fighting Isis, who want replace Assad’s regime with their own wahhabi caliphate. To make this even more confusing, we almost entered into this conflict to overthrow Assad, the exact opposite of what is being proposed today.
There are questions surrounding the validity of the 70,000 ‘moderate’ ground troops, who would be supporting our military campaign. It wasn’t so long ago that we considered the Free Syrian Army to be the ‘moderate’ freedom fighters who would overthrow Assad with US and British assistance. A significant number of these freedom fighters filtered into ISIS ranks, taking these resources with them. This goes some way to answer the embarrassing question; Where ISIS got all those brand new toyotas from?
Secondly, it is absolutely impossible to oppose Isis yet turn a blind eye to Saudi Arabia, the epicentre of Wahhabism and our ally.
Without a strong case which addresses all these points in a coherent manner we would be making a huge mistake entering into this conflict militarily.
This is not to say that inaction is the way forward, it certainly is not.
If we cut off their money supply, their access to military hardware and their oil they will soon be diminished, all without having to resort to indiscriminate explosives which will inevitably kill thousands of innocent civilians trapped in Syria.
I urge to to consider this before you vote.
I am disappointed, although not surprised, that you will be voting for action. Inevitably involving UK forces will increase civilian casualties and does not form part of a lasting solution in the country and wider region. There are many other avenues to explore economically and politically before we should ever think of military action and the risks that that entails. The government has not made a convincing case for bombing and we should be involved in a search for a different solution, not the same old response of bombing
Suggest you read barry gardiner’s post:
http://www.barrygardiner.co/public_meeting_on_military_action_in_syria
Syrian situation is very complex with disparate groups with different aims, not all with the primary aim of defeating Isis. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee report from last week is clear – there are few moderates left and the Free Syrian Army are very weak. This means little chance of air strikes in Syria being partnered by an effective ground force capable taking territory temporarily vacated by bombing. Government are proposing an absurdly simplistic solution that at present will not work. Only hope is talks in Vienna.
No, I do not agree with your decision to bomb Syria. How on earth is that going to protect the UK from threat. You can not even protect our own border. You have let in thousands of terrorists as it stands to date and the USA have sold billions of weapons to Kuwait who in turn have re sold them to Syria.
I know very little about politics but for what Ive witnessed in my life time, neither do you any of you.
You just appear to follow orders from either USA or EU
Our Government have no control anyway, so why are we even bothering with poor excuses of appearing too!
I couldn’t agree more with this comment. Well done!
Vote no. Its an ill thought out policy which, if implemented will only result in more terrorist attacks here.
Paul,I am very pleased that you are voting in favour of the proposed action against Daesh.I am proud that the RAF have the facility to command accuracy in their bombing.The only other country that I know has such weapons is Israel.This ensures the minimum of damage ,but Daesh will no doubt be well practiced in using civilians as shields.I do believe that the no-bombers see bombing in the context of TV games,this is not Dresden that is being considered,but its success will definitely show jihadists that they cannot practice their religious barbarism with impunity.With regard to an end game,it cannot be established accurately at this point in time,in the same way that it would have been puerile to put that into any discussion on 3rd September 1939.
Those who do not vote for action to destroy this barbarism frighten me, in case they ever had the power for their thinking to control this country’s actions.
“eliminating the threat to UK security at its source whilst keeping the danger of civilian casualties at the forefront of our minds” that’s the key. We should not wait for the threat to come to our doorsteps before we respond. I am sure you will take the right decision..
eliminating the threat to UK security at its source whilst keeping the danger of civilian casualties at the forefront of our minds” that’s the key. We should not wait for the threat to come to our doorsteps before we respond. I am sure you will take the right decision..
Whatever we say you will tow the party line – you don’t want to lose your job or be seen to be a ‘terrorist sympathiser’by your boss. You are bombing for political reasons and have not thought this through properly.
Paul
Having read your full statement, I am pleased that you are voting in the correct and right way
Remember the old adage at election times.
” Don’t leave it to others because others are leaving it to you “.
The others ?
USA
France
Germany,etc.
We will be seen as “Frit ” by these countries who are our allies if we don’t go in and help them get rid of this menace.
Daesh have chosen to export their warped idealistic values and behaviour to Europe and the rest of the World. As someone whose own boots were on the ground in Vanuatu, Gulf War 1, Bosnia and a tour with the UN you have my 100 per cent support in taking the fight to their homelands.
Hi Paul
I support the decision for extending air strikes into Syria in a targeted campaign to reduce the capabilities of the Daesh, diplomacy will never work with people like this. It’s important to realise air strikes alone won’t stop them and that the government may need to realise we need President Assad and his troops to eliminate them on the ground.
Regards
Matt
Paul
I’m not in the least bit surprised that MPs voted for air strikes against Syria. You all had to tow the party line. I don’t believe that taking this action will do any good whatsoever. The root of the problem needs to be tackled. I can only foresee retaliation against the UK.
It’s amazing that anywhere I see the public being consulted I see opinions, almost unanimously against the bombing, yet the polls say around 50/50 in England and parliament have been anything but divided on this.
I stopped trusting polls after the last general election.
It appears everyone here, who Mr Scully represents is opposed to the bombing, yet he has voted in favour of it in parliament.
Do you feel represented?
My comment is post the Parliament Debate and conclusion. However, I compliment you Mr.Scully, for outlining your view and intentions beforehand. It would seem from the comments in this collection, together with the merger attempts of the BBC to gather opinion, there is almost a 50 -50 vote for the R.A.F. to extend their action into Syria. In the very unlikely event that were I an M.P., I would have entered the debate yesterday on the median of whether or not I would be convinced to vote with HMG. This is not because I do not rely upon the statement of accuracy of the R.A.F., and the need take action against the Dash/Isis, but am somewhat anxious about the potential for a negotiated settlement. Having lived in a section of Arabia which is not war-torn, nice people that they are, they are still tribalistic, and negotiation is usually based on friendship rather than on practicality. I’m afraid I don’t see much friendship in Syria nor will it come easily. However, oddly for a Conservative, I was nudged in your direction by two speakers from Labour. The charming Lady who stated, “If we had been attacked and asked France for help, what would we think of a refusal”. I go back to the days when we did ask for help, and, had it not been given we would be subservient to Germany. The Shadow Foreign Sec. endorsed that view. we must take action against fascism.
HMG needs to keep the public well informed.
Yes, these people will stop at nothing, have no conscience and have to be halted in their tracks. I admire your party’s courage, let’s change politically correct to politically right.
Paul
I think they should not involve any military , my worry is the innocent people that will die because of these, the vulnerable old people, civilians like kids and families. Let the military stay and protect UK and its people. Civilians are dieing all in the name of war and misunderstanding and the leaders are there in their country causing more harms and still they are being protected not be judged, questioned and how to negotiate in making peace in their country. It’s sad Paul.