You are either with us or against us.

we must protect the gays from ISIS. their treatment of gays (they have admitted they are committing genocide against gays) is all the reason we need to treat them no better than we would treat the nazis. If fighting the nazis is right, then so is fighting ISIS.

This is the thing though Kazanne I can see both sides to this,what you and AnnieK outline makes perfect reasoned sense however so does what Dezzy and the others,like Shaun have said too.
No one has the monopoly on the best thing to do or what will sort it out for good without the full and involved help of 'all' the Nations in the Middle East,with all that support and cooperation first, then success may be more assured, without all that there will be havens for IS to flee to and re-group no matter how many bombs are dropped and no matter the cost.

We all want to be safe in the UK,I want all people in all Nations to be safe, I am not just selfishly looking at the UK,I do not believe all this bombing will do that,it is likely in reality to only scatter IS more across the region and into other Countries even probably.

I said earlier, for a fair while now the USA has been bombing so called IS in Syria, as have for a while now the Russians too,then the French have joined in yet things escalate,I do not see what difference we are going to really make or that will change that much without the full help and d determined resolve by the Arab Nations in the area, to ensure all aid to IS, no matter what it is, is cut off and that they then too seek them out, and do the ground work effectively.
If that does not come about then little will change and we could be there for even longer than we were in Iraq.
Going nowhere while unfortunately fuelling more hatred against us and the West particularly.

All points are valid but the one thing no one can claim is this bombing will make us in the UK safer or that not bombing will do so either.
I'd have supported the bombing on Wednesday in the debate,had I been voting, today I would have regretted doing that.
Tomorrow I may be back in favour.

That is the dilemma but I really believe nothing can work without a determined effort to clear the lot of them away by rooting them out.
Which should be done, and should have already been done, by the Arab Nations we are in effect allowing to just sit on their backsides paying lip service to the issue, rather than doing anything.
At no costs to themselves either while we and other European nations along with the USA use loads of resources to try to sort the problem of IS.

No view is totally wrong and no view is totally right,no one would disagree IS should be wiped off the face of the earth but frankly I cannot see that coming about at all as to what we are doing now and very few so called experts believe bombing alone will achieve much more that it has already.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

The problem I have, is that while we're waiting, Syrian citizens are going to continue to be tortured and killed, and ISIS are going to continue to grow stronger. I just don't see waiting as being a viable option. Of course I agree that we would be in a much stronger position if we had the full cooperation of all middle eastern countries but I think we need to accept that we don't have that, and the situation isn't perfect, but it's not going to be. I think there's an elusive straight forward option that I'm sure we're all hoping for, but honestly, I just don't think it exists. We're stuck in the situation as is, and so we either continue to move forward regardless, accepting that we don't know for certain whether or not the outcome will be as desired, but at the very least contributing to the effort to bring a stop to ISIS and at the most stopping them altogether, or we do nothing because of our uncertainty, and because the situation isn't ideal, and we do so knowing for certain that ISIS atrocities will continue to happen.

And the thing is, even if it is likely that ISIS will scatter and regroup rendering the bombings useless, there are many varying likelihoods of any course of action we do or do not take, so for me this isn't convincing enough for us to back out. It could just as well be argued that it is likely they won't scatter (or at least not in a way where they would remain effective as an organisation and continue to be a credible threat).

The only thing that we can really be certain of is what is happening now, and what's happening now has to be stopped. And regardless of the likelihoods and maybes on both sides of the argument we aren't going to stop anything if we wait, or do nothing.

I can easily take on board all you say above.
I said I can see all sides to this,I swing to and fro all the time so I am glad I was not asked to make a concrete decision as to it.

I really don't think any real 'one' conclusive answer or solution exists at present.
I hope there is some success to start to or make a difference from what is being done now, am I convinced there will be that much difference, no sadly I am not.

Intervention in tricky and demanding events, to be really successful,really needs to be done 'only' at the right time however, is that time now or not, well as things unfurl more and we see the results of the bombing, there is another maybe.
Still no one can know for sure that action or inaction at this time will make that much difference.
Obviously my hope is now we are there too, with those who have been conducting this for a fair while now, that it does.

I was against airstrikes and I still feel they were a mistake, trade restrictions, closer ties with other world leaders.
No wonder many became radicalised, when Syrians asked for help not long ago it was a big fat no wasn't it?
Seems the govt find it easier to attack than aid or defend.

it was a big fat no because they were being selfish and ignorant. so many people think just because there isn't a big terrorist attack, that means ISIS is no threat and you can bury your head in the sand. The Paris attack changed that. shame on those MP's who changed their vote. and even more shame on those MPs who didn't change their vote.

What is the obsession with the idea of ISIS sitting round the table having cuppas and talking nicely?!

So its fine to kill those forced to be there?

Also if only ISIS targets are being hit...how come hospitals and such have been bombed?

I don't pretend to have the answers. I am still undecided on the whole issue to be quite honest. But those who think only ISIS members will be harmed through this are kidding themselves. Is collateral damage necessary? Maybe. But to pretend it won't happen at all, is ridiculous. As is the thought that the only other option to air strikes is peacetalks...

I's just an unfunny joke across about 4 threads now' oh does Corbyn want to invite ISIS to tea?'... :bored:

well he, along with George galloway would probably have a lovely time together with ISIS. they seem to have a lot in common ideologically.

they can talk about hating the Jews (they can just use the word israel and pretend it's not about hating jews though) and they can talk about hating America, and they can talk about hating the free press (which they blame on America for the internet, and jews, cause of course jews run the media)

It would be a big fun tea party where they can hate jews and america!

We have learnt a lot over the past decades.

Have there been any reports of civilian casualties from the British bombing of ISIS in Iraq? I will answer that one ... zero, nil, null. No civilian casualties whatsoever.

While its still possible for there to be civilian casualties, our guys at least, are very very careful on what targets that they hit and the possibility of civilian casualties.

Edit: While I'm on that topic. Some have said why are we there, we don't do anything that others can't do. Well, we bring the technology to reduce the risk of civilian casualties to the others in the coalition too. Our equipment in certain areas is way more advanced than anything anyone else has.

Both posts well written and true! :clap1::clap1::clap1:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/.../borisdave.gif

Everyone's posts on this issue are well written and also likely in the main true too as no one knows the end result to this action and or more conflict to come.
None of us have the solution or best answer at all,and as with Vicky too, many, maybe even most people at large, are still undecided on what to do or support.
Nothing wrong at all with any of that.

Cracking post again BOTS.

:laugh::laugh: Much truth there Alex - even if it is humorously written.

Well it is always easy to get at George Galloway but he does havea little knowledge of the Middle East.
When he poured scorn on the PMs claim of 70,000 moderates in the area,I had to just about agree with Galloway that is was pie in the sky and that if 70 moderates could be found in the area that would be more like it.

:joker::joker: @ that gif

You could easily say that about when the Syrians were asking for help against Assad a few years ago aswell and that was a big fat no from the house of commons.If we did everything we were asked of the Syrians we would've bombed Assad and removed him.
That does'nt make inaction now against ISIS the right thing to do.Three wrongs don't make a right.

He's a right mover is our David. :joker:
All the One Direction boys love our PM.
https://45.media.tumblr.com/8b3fd36b...v1geo1_500.gif

I think that's also pointed at all of us who don't agree Britain should of gone to war in Syria.

To all of those out there who believe we, along with Corbyn, are some sort of IS supporters, let it be known that we detest these murderous gangsters as much as you do. We want IS wiped off the face of the earth as much as you do and many of us, just like you, have children we will protect with whatever it takes; some of us believe, unlike you, that Western involvement in Syria could put our children in danger and not protect them from it.

We have gone into Syria under one coalition; the problem is and this could be massive, is, there is more than one coalition and the other coalition don't want the same things we want. When we start bringing Russia, Iran and possibly China into that other coalition then things start to get alarmingly complicated.

We all held our breath when a member of our coalition shot down a jet from the other coalition. Could this be the spark for the end of days? fortunately not but its early days and any of us who accept this bombing campaign must also accept that this conflict could lead directly into world war 3. Perhaps that's scaremongering but from where I'm sitting, the possibility of that is much bigger than the West being overrun with ISIS terrorists.

What we have to ask ourselves is this....With all the US military mite over the past 18 months...the 57,000 sorties and 9,000 air strikes that have rained down from the skies upon Syria, why have they barely touched that evil shadow?.

Another question you have to ask yourself is, why aren't we going after ISIS financiers such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar? Why do we give them a free pass?

I actually agree with most of your post and the one after and i do support the airstrikes because i feel that not doing anything is worse than doing something.I also agree we should go after the countries who finance IS but i believe that is only part of the solution along with military action.
The Corbyn part is what i disagree with.He at worst has sympathies with terrorism and at best is incompetent of running a country.There are certain decisions that as a pacifist he cannot make which make him incompatable with the role of PM.

the coalition is being directed from a base in Qatar. The Saudi's are a coalition partner and Turkey are within Nato.

Each and every one of them will be being pressured to bring their house in order, but its better having them as partners than alienating them with headline making news.

Well said, Kaz.