>>4600
I think that the decision of the UK to fight Daesh is more nuanced than for America. Many of the most recent Islamic terrorist attacks have taken place in Europe. It's true that Daesh is becoming stronger but the majority of the terrorists (if not all of them) have been home-grown. That's why I don't think that destroying Daesh will stop terrorist attacks in Europe.

The problem is deeper than "bomb these guys and call it a day." The Western world is seen as islamaphobic by these guys and we need to do our best to change that image, not only for our own safety, but so that groups like Daesh don't emerge again. Proving a firm hand is useful in the short term, but we need to do a lot more to rebuild the infrastructure of the middle east after we spent trillions to tear it down.

Not to mention that worsening living conditions in the middle east brought on global climate change pushes desperate people to violence and extremism. The plan for attack is complex and many-fold, but our first step should probably involve destroying Daesh, especially for Europe.

This all being said, Cameron's rhetoric is pathetic and cowardly. It's easy to call someone a "terrorist sympathizer." They should not immediately scramble to take on Daesh, but rather think of a way to do so while simultaneously offering aid to displaced Syrians and offering to take in even more refugees.

>>4600
What will airstrikes do exactly?

I get they'll kill some people, who clears out the towns of le isilboogeymen? who takes over if they magically vanish? Is there anyone able to govern and protect these areas? 'moderate' rebels?

>>4610
>The Western world is seen as heathen
ftfy,

Regrettably the arab nationalist movements were destroyed and replaced with sunni or shia islamism.

>>4613
>What will airstrikes do exactly?
Not much other than just makes it look like they are doing something.
In reality it changes little. Sure you blow up a few members and resources here and there, but at the same time it is just a drop in the ocean. Only real way to even have some kind of effect would to be have a stable alliance of ground troops actually help and even then that won't ever wipe them out. This has been shown by how al qaeda still exists after so many attempts to clear them out.

>>4615
Yes, but if the reason they were attacking us is because we're "heathens," wouldn't that mean that we would have have had people bombing the West for hundreds of years now in a steady stream? The upswing of terrorism would not be explained this way.

>>4613
Assad. Which is why the US strikes in Syria have the purpose of directing Islamic State forces against the Syrian Army, instead of breaking their back by bombing their oil infrastructure.

>>4613
>What will airstrikes do exactly?
Make the Syrians angry at you.

>>4626
In all honesty, what these airstrikes will do is
1) get more people in to ISIS since they will have nowhere else to turn to
2) kill half of the innocent people above

I mean, sure, Islam is fucked up, but large numbers of Islam sub-groups still wouldn't resort to full-on mass-murder and terrorism. (just treating females as slaves and gays as stone targets)
But these attacks will only push more and more people towards that sort of stuff.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34989302
>MPs have overwhelmingly voted by 397 to 223 to authorise UK air strikes against so-called Islamic State in Syria.
Well that is that then.

Fuck those 67 rebelling Labour MPs and especially fuck Hillary Benn for that speech, he should be sacked

I think bombing Syria won't do anything to stop ISIS. It will give them something else to fight for which will convert more people to that group.

I think all those millions could be used to look for ISIS. THEN we can bomb those bastards.

>>4600
"Russia's bombing campaign in Syria will lead to further radicalization and casualties. It helps IS."
David Cameron, Oct 4th 2015

>>5000
GET

>>5138
That is genuinely hilarious.

The main argument against bombing seems to be the entirely reasonable assertion that you always end up killing innocent people by accident, and those people's relatives get pissed off and join the terrorists. So I don't particularly support the bombing. However, France are going in anyway. ISIS were going to get BTFO by aerial super-techno-death however the vote went. The vote was just about whether or not we should help France. And I think we should help France, because it indicates that an attack on one is an attack against us all, so maybe when all the Syrian Elliott Rodgerses join ISIS, they won't fuck with badass Europe and will just go after camels in Mali or somewhere instead.

By the way, Indonesia is the most heavily-populated Muslim country in the world, and it's pretty hardcore in some of its beliefs. How come there are no Indonesian terrorists? What can we do to make Syria and Iraq more like Indonesia?

>>5060
https://twitter.com/LeftUnityUK/status/672198233431654400?ref_src=twsrc
Names of the labour MPs that voted aye

>>5188
One of my turbo-SJW Facebook friends posted that link too.
>It's a free vote
>Vote with your conscience
>Here's a link so you can harass people whose conscience is wrong

>>5188
">Here's a link so you can harass people whose conscience is wrong"
Not what was said. Is undeniably interesting reading.

Additionally if my understanding is correct the vote and the whole action of bombing in Syria is going to be debated tomorrow:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/113231

>>5259
Vote was already held though, there was ample discussion all day and some very points raised.
Pretty much beating a dead horse at this stage.

>>5152
>What can we do to make Syria and Iraq more like Indonesia?
Undo the damage that we wrought.

And, no, bombs don't undo damage.

>>5138
been hunting for source on this since i saw it... doesn anyone have a lead on the specific speech?

>>5259
I was watching it yesterday, and when the petition was mentioned after the vote, it was laughed at in parliament.

Democracy lads.

>>5259
I want the PLP to represent the wish of the members and the mandate that Corbyn has. Of course I don't wish anyone to be bullied, abused, etc, as some people certainly have been, but mps who don't respect the wishes of the party members should be expected to be deselected by members, that isn't bullying that's simply representitive democracy.
I'm rather perturbed that the PLP is so ready to defy Corbyn not because I'm infatuated with the bearded one, but because there are so few Labour MPs that could conceivably replace Corbyn as leader. Corbyn's unpopularity among voters is a disturbing indication that the smear campaign and character assassination in the media is succeeding, and as such it may well become necessary to replace Corbyn as leader before the 2020 election, but there are few left Labour MPs that are viable replacements and I fear that Benn, as powerful an orator as he has proven to be could conceivably become the next leader.
Deselection may be the only way to bring the PLP in line with the party member's wishes, this is not bullying but representation - I don't wish anyone who voted for bombing on their conscience to be bullied, harassed, etc but they should represent the wishes of their CLP and if they are not so doing then it is right for them to be deselected.

>>5747
As an addendum to that it's also nessesary to point out that this isn't the only factor to consider in deselection for instance, there's no reason to deselect MPs with large majorities in their constituency etc.

>>5747
Jeremy Corbyn famously voted against his party more than 300 times before becoming leader. I thought that was probably the best argument against him becoming leader, really (not only does he frequently not represent Labour interests, but he also is a maverick who does whatever he wants, which means that if he has a bad idea while leader, he is unlikely to be able to be dissuaded from it).

I know you said you weren't infatuated with him, but would you have him deselected from the party?