At 11:30am on 2nd December 2015 the House of Commons met to debate whether the UK should be allowed to start bombing ISIS targets in Syria. 157 MPs asked to speak in the debate which lasted over 10 hours.
The question posed for the house to debate was as follows:
"That at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to ISIL in Syria (United Nations Security Council Resolution 2249) not later than 10pm; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply"
Let's start with the core of the question: UN Security Council Resolution 2249. This resolution was passed 20th November 2015. It basically calls ISIS a bunch of cunts. It also says that a country may bomb them if the nation is threatened. The resolution is a basic reaction to the horrific murder by ISIS terrorists in Paris on 13th November 2015. Essentially, a load of terrorists ran around Paris murdering innocent people because they believe their god told them to do it, or their god wanted them to murder people eating meals or watching live music. No one really knows what these scummy tripped out religious folks do these things for. This is a group of people that blew up 2,000 and 4,000 year old relics because they believed it acted as a shrine to some long forgotten god and their god does not like any other god being remembered, or some such nonsense. They have a low opinion about how sensitive their god is. Their god cries a lot.
So, the question put to the UK Parliament was whether resolution 2249 should be accepted and should the UK forces start bombing ISIS in Syria. In a short way, this is a simple question - they're evil, they're bastards so let's go bomb them back to the stone age where they belong. Alas, it is not as simple as this. If they only ever went into fields to "play with" their goats, then yes, bombing them would be that simple. It is not. These people are cowards. They hide behind women and children (that is when they're not raping them). They genuinely put women and children in front of them to make sure no one shoots them. As a consequence of this, any bomb that is intended to land up the arse of some goat fucker is almost definitely going to put innocent people in the line of fire. Every MP (well, the vast majority) were not voting over killing ISIS scum, they were voting on whether they could risk the lives of innocent people in the pursuit of the execution of the human waste. Those innocent people include children. They include people that want ISIS dead more than we do. Those innocent people are not to blame for the cancer that has taken root in the Middle East, so why should they die just because laser guided bombs cannot always land where they are supposed to? Why should they have their lives reduced down to "collateral" caught up in a good bombing that managed to kill some evil goat fuckers? That is what the MPs were debating.
In addition to the question of the death of innocents - especially the death of innocent children who were already suffering - the problem of Tony Blair arose. Tony Blair lied to parliament in 2002/03 in order to start a war in Iraq he lied to his Parliament and the people of the UK because he had already agreed with Bush to start the war long before he asked Parliament6]. Indeed, many think that Blair should be charged with either lying to Parliament or with crimes against humanity. Indeed, the inquiry into the war and the political decisions leading up to it are STILL subject to review and is not expected to be released for a long time, with most people assuming it is Blair's office desperately trying to bury it under the maxwellisation process. [If you are asking: I think Blair and Bush should both stand trial for crimes against humanity, and both should be jailed for life.]
The horror show that was the political hot-potato of Iraq is to be avoided at all costs by David Cameron. Blair lied to Parliament. Blair used a "dossier" to "prove" that Iraq was swimming in weapons of mass destruction. It transpired he had plagiarised a thesis and then re-wrote it. There were no weapons of mass destruction, it was all a fiction. Why? Because Blair was a poodle to Bush's bucking bronco. Bush was surrounded by people who had vested interests and would earn hundreds of billions if the US and UK went and bombed Iraq. They killed millions, but those people earned hundreds of billions. That horror, that genuine horror, that we could once again be lied to and that innocent lives will be lost - and worse, children will be killed in their beds simply to allow some yank to profit from oil and arms is something that must make every MP stay awake at night.
Tony Blair has issued a sort of apology. It is a shitty apology, in which he is clearly laying down his defence for his trial at the Hague. I really hope his wife skins him alive when the report comes out.
In addition to the genuine things that needed debating, it turned out the Labour Party leader was vehemently against any form of bombing. Indeed, this man, Jeremy Corbyn, even said that he did not think terrorists should be shot - he thinks that if we are under attack by terrorists the police and army should be ordered not to kill them. How he thinks a police officer will deal with a man aiming an AK47 at him without using deadly force is beyond me. I think the man lives on a different planet. But, that was his stance. It looked like on the eve of the by-election in Oldham West & Royton the Labour leader could rip his party in two. It then turned ugly before the debate when David Cameron is alleged to have said anyone voting against his war as being a "terrorist sympathiser". He said this, I think, for two reasons. (1) Jeremy Corbyn had loved the IRA when the IRA was murdering British people in the 1970s and 1980s. It was a cheap political stunt to hammer home who the new leader of Labour is, an IRA sympathiser who now sympathised with ISIS. And (2) As noted, the Oldham West & Royton election was about to be held. UKIP had used Corbyn's IRA sympathies on its leaflets - it seemed to me that David Cameron was talking directly to the voters in Oldham.
So, the debate was never going to be nice. Labour said publicly that MPs could vote how they wished. That is not what they did in the background. MPs have come forward saying that the party's henchmen were out in force. Added to that, MPs' constituents were bombarding MPs with threats and nastiness if they voted for the war. Indeed, so severe is it that some MPs have now called in the police because Labour supporters are turning nasty on them.
Now, as a side note - I found this amusing. During the general election - and long before that - UKIP candidates would get all kinds of threats and death threats from Labour supporters and especially from the extreme left. I hasten to add that the Labour supporters and candidates in Stretford & Urmston were always 100% polite to me - they challenged me, but not one was nasty or threatening. However, I did see the nastiness. I saw how nasty the Wythenshawe Labour branch was. I was shocked. Lee Clayton, who stood, is a former soldier and an incredibly nice guy. Yet the Wythenshawe Labour group were foul, vile wankers. Now the Labour MPs are finding out what it is like having to deal with that kind of evil nastiness. I hope you remember that the next time you try to subvert democracy and authorise a mob to try and stop someone talking freely, or from exercising their democratic right to challenge Labour or freedom of expression.
Anyway, I was in a unique position. My MP is Lucy Powell. She voted for the air strikes. My former opponent is Kate Green and she voted against the air strikes. Lucy put up a very well written explanation before and after, and it really is worth reading. I ran a check on her twitter handle on Twitter and no-one said a negative thing to her. Lucy ran Ed Milliband's leadership campaign in 2010, then was his chief of staff and in September she was (I think rightly) chosen by Corbyne as his Shadow education Secretary. She publicly voted for the air strikes and is a front bencher. I emailed Lucy the day after the vote saying this:
"I imagine today you are getting abuse for voting "yes" yesterday evening. Despite being in an opposite political view generally, I just wanted to say that as my MP I fully support your vote and I am glad you voted yes."
Kate Green has rallied around the people that voted no. And, again correctly, has said that Labour must now pull together. She put out many tweets about Labour MPs not being victimised or bullied, and I agree with her. I am astonished that there was any threats, but they all seem to have come from within the party itself. I cannot find any Tory MPs that have been threatened. I mean, Caroline Flint even got threatened by Anonymous, allegedly. Simon Danczuk has spoken how the distress he has had from the death threats he has received.
Neither Kate green nor Lucy Powell spoke at the debate (which is not a criticism).
I personally struggled with the question. I saw both sides. I dearly would love to bomb ISIS. I would love to press the button that released the bombs. I would not want to kill innocent people, and innocent people are going to die - they have done already. The reason I have repeatedly mentioned children in this article is because a child was killed recently by Russian bombs. I was always "for" bombing, but, the death of innocents and the death of young children is something that I think means that I would need to know a lot more than I do right now before i voted yes, but my initial thoughts are I would vote yes. But, as I said in my tweet - it really does have a lot of issues behind it, so I would support any MP for voting no. I personally do not see the question as a party political one, hence why I have spoken across the party lines here.
So what else is there to think about? There is the cost. There is also another odd thing that has happened. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not one of these nuts who believes in conspiracy bollocks. But, I don't understand how in one year the US were barely able to do anything when bombing Syria. They got no-where and in the last 12 months ISIS just kept on going, getting bigger and taking more land. The Russians come in and suddenly ISIS is crippled, their weapons stores and ammunition are depleted and we see daily videos of ISIS scum dying in bombing raids. Something about it just did not add up. Then, to make it seem even more bizarre, the US and Europe were all really angry that Russia was bombing ISIS. That just did not make any sense, at all. I still do not understand why the US is so upset that Russia is bombing ISIS.
So, the only issue really, aside from the death of innocent people, is the issue of cost. Bombs cost a huge amount of money. As an example, the Storm Shadow bomb. Has a range of 250 miles, fits to Tornado aircraft and they really mean business. They cost £800,000 each. That is enough money to home every single homeless person in London for the whole of Christmas. One bomb could fix London's homeless problem until the New Year. We have people on the streets, going hungry. We have people who cannot afford to eat and so use food banks. We have NHS services falling to pieces and we have a police service that is one step away from not being able to protect us. But we are now going to spend years at war in Syria - and that will cost billions. Billions of pounds that could be used for schools, the NHS, the homeless and a whole host of other things.
So, I cannot offer any conclusions on this. We know that the Paris killers were in talks with people in Birmingham before they went on their killing spree. We know that hundreds have been allowed to come back to the UK having been trained to be killers in Syria, and many have been allowed to get on with their lives, some have gone to prison. Mi6 is reported to have alleged in 2014 that it could not keep up with the numbers returning to the UK. There will be deaths on the streets of Britain - Lee Rigby will not be the last. So, do we strike first and kill those pigs in the grubby hell holes they are in or do we hope that the unarmed police will some how be able to protect us from a group of killers that appear out of no-where and kill, as they did in California this week and as they did in Paris.
Edit: two minutes after publishing this, a man has been arrested for trying to behead someone at a tube station in Leytonstone
06/12/2015: Post-post edit: A man has now been charged with making death threats to two MPs:
 Standing Order 41A: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmstords/900/body.htm
(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), Standing Order No. 38 (Procedure on divisions) shall not apply if, after the time for the interruption of business, the opinion of the Speaker as to the decision on a question is challenged in respect of any question.
 Resolution 2249: "Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts"
"Security Council ‘Unequivocally’ Condemns ISIL Terrorist Attacks, Unanimously Adopting Text that Determines Extremist Group Poses ‘Unprecedented’ Threat" http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc12132.doc.htm
 Wikipedia page on it - sorry, but there are soooooo many media articles I don't know how to keep it updated without using wikipedia, which is regularly updated. Apologies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks
 Clare Short book "Clare Short: Tony Blair lied and misled parliament in build-up to Iraq war":
 Daily mail 16/10/2015 "Smoking gun emails reveal Blair's 'deal in blood' with George Bush over Iraq war was forged a YEAR before the invasion had even started"
 Daily mail 01/06/2014: "Charge Blair with contempt of Parliament - only then will we know if he lied over Iraq: An explosive proposal from former foreign secretary DAVID OWEN as crucial evidence from Chilcot Inquiry is censored"
 The Iraq Inquiry headed by Sir John Chilcot
 Guardian 1st December 2015 "We need Chilcot’s lessons from Iraq now – before we bomb Syria"
 Maxwellisation is the process by which anyone negatively commented upon by a regulatory or political inquiry or finding has the right to respond to the criticism/finding and either request it is reconsidered or their response is considered before it is published. Guardian 27th August 2015 "Chilcot defends long-delayed Iraq inquiry – but sets no date for publication"
 Telegraph 23/07/2013 "Former head of MI6 threatens to expose secrets of Iraq 'dodgy dossier'"
 8/11/2015 Global Research "Plagiarism and Fake Intelligence Used to Justify the War on Iraq: Copied and Pasted from the Internet into an “Official” British Intel Report"
 23 Feb 2008 Bush Admits There Were No Weaponds of Mass Destruction, Youtube, www.AnonymousHateGroup.blogspot.com
 23/03/2013 Daily Mirror "Who really won the Iraq war? Oil barons, big business and mercenaries"
 Again, sorry for using Wikipedia, but there are so many articles, this is the easiest way of getting a sort of impartial resource for all of them.
 Guardian 25/10/2015 "Tony Blair makes qualified apology for Iraq war ahead of Chilcot report"
 Telegraph 27/11/2015 "Jeremy Corbyn is against the Syrian war because he's against all war"
 Telegraph 16/11/2015 "Jeremy Corbyn: I'm 'not happy' with shoot-to-kill policy if terrorists are attacking Britain]
 Telegraph 01/12/2015 "Jeremy Corbyn and Hilary Benn in open conflict as David Cameron prepares for Syria air strikes - as it happened on Tuesday December 1"
 Guardian 02/12/2015 "David Cameron accuses Jeremy Corbyn of being 'terrorist sympathiser'"
 Telegraph 10/10/2015 "Revealed: Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell's close IRA links"
 City AM 30/11/2015 "Syria air strikes: Labour confirms MPs will have a free vote on bombing campaign"
 New Statesman 02/12/2015 "Stella Creasy targeted for deselection"
 Daily Hate Mail 05/12/2015 "Tory MP who voted to bomb Syria in Facebook death threat row after adding 'unless you die' to constituent's email"
 Express 04/12/2015 "Now POLICE are called in to protect pro-airstrike Labour MPs from their OWN supporters"
 Lucy Powell MP Website 03/12/2015 "ote on air strikes against ISIL/ Daesh in Syria"
 Daily Star 05/12/2015 "Doncaster MP's staff threatened by anonymous caller over Syria airstrikes vote"
 BBC 25/12/2015 "Simon Danczuk speaks of 'distress' over Syria death threat"
 The Guardian 04/12/2015 "Killed by a Russian bomb, a five-year-old visiting relatives in Syria"
 RAF Website:
 03/12/2015 "Paris bomber believed to have visited Britain sparking fears of UK terror cell"
This website is © Kalvin Chapman 2015 & 2016. This website is owned and operated by Kalvin Chapman, and is promoted by Kalvin Chapman on behalf of UKIP, UKIP Stretford & Urmston and UKIP Manchester