trader. i said, i'm a free trader. but when four years, we have a $400 imbalance of over billion every year, that is called dumb trade. the head of china comes. for obama, it is so sad. t is so said., in he greets him with a state dinner. about, our partner. i want to be a partner where i'm making $400 billion. differente guy, system. the toughest, smartest guy gets to the top. we don't do that here. from the time they are in kindergarten, the smartest and

toughest. that guy is tough. he is looking at obama. talking about his wonderful relationship. he is building military islands in the south china sea. i don't think he got an environmental impact statement. they said, do we have to do this? they put 300 excavators out there and started to gain and dropping that sand. --digging and dropping that sand. andve said, bomb the oil keep it. i did not want to go into iraq to re. this guy looks like a warrior. i am more militaristic than anybody in this room rate but i want to build that military strong. i have been saying, don't go into iraq.

in 2003 or 2004, the delegation came from the white house. eveloper. d in, the head of comcast, an incredible guy came to my guy with people from nbc. they want to extend me. i said, i want to run for president. they said no, we want to extend you. nobody thought i was going to run. they announced they are going to extend "the apprentice" with me. season 15 and 16. it has been a great hit ev. i held my breath. wife, are you sure i want to be doing this? i said, let's go. we went down the escalator. it looks like the academy awards. the press. look out tonight, so many cameras back there.

look at all those red lights. every word. is an amazing thing. i said to my wife, come on, let's go. she waved you to flee. illegal about immigration. little did i know, i was hitting a nerve that was so incredible. had i not made that speech and talked about what is happening, acause after that you had wonderful man killed to read you saw his father on television. just shot, viciously shot for no reason. shut off the sidewalk. and then kate in san francisco, shot, by in illegal immigrant. -- rush limbaugh said nobody has taken more abuse. this is a lot of incoming. i had never heard that term with

respect to the press. rush limbaugh said i have never seen a man take incoming like that. he doubled down on it in said i am right about it. i know how it works. you have to be smart and tough. else would have said, i would like to apologize. is there anyway i can apologize? you cannot do that when you are running. if you're are right, you are right. you have to stick with it. i said, at this level of intensity, there is no way a human being can make it. it all of a sudden people saw, i was right. if i did not take all of that unbelievable harsh and unfair punishment from the mainstream media, we wouldn't even be talking about illegal immigration. the crime. don't kid yourself, i don't mention it that often.

the jobs being taken away from people in our country, we are losing tremendous numbers of jobs. we are going to change that. points for give vision when you elect somebody. i think i have everybody in this room. do i have everybody. [applause] i think so. say, they are there because he is a great entertainer. i'm not here to entertain. and entertainer. i read stories like, the people in the room are there because he is a wonderful show and entertainer. you arenot why ar here. you are here to vote. i'm not and entertainer. i know how to get things done. i have one all my life, whether it is the apprentice or business or the art of the deal, one of the biggest selling business

books of all time. i think the biggest. if it is three short, i will get killed. that is what i do. we can win together. vision. take you, take the oil, take the oil. we shouldn't have been there. fight, they love to fight. we want to rebuild our country. we build a guest-ish in. work.llion bid it didn't if we want to spend two dollars in this country, we don't have any money. up our roads,fix they are decrepit. our bridges are falling down to read in china, they are building bridges all over the place. said, take the oil and keep it. we shouldn't have been in iraq

but take the oil. if you don't, we have spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives, wounded warriors, and we give some of that oil to the families of the people that have lost of their kids. we give money to wounded warriors. they are the most incredible of all people. i deal with them all the time. they have the biggest smile. they may be missing their leg, worse than that. their strength is the strongest of all. iraqroblem is, we go to and we spend 2 trillion. wounded warriors. and we get nothing. we don't have anything. victorr happened to the getting the spoils? in the old days, when we were

smart and strong, we are stupid, we are being led by stupid people. intolow them to get office. how does it happen? , if they were standing here, most of them become converted. they agree with me. what is not to agree with? i'm saying common sense, a little business. a lot of heart. i want to take care of people. there are people who cannot afford of anything. we cannot let them down. you can't let them die on the streets. say, trump said something that is not republican to read what are you going to do, let them die in the streets? is not so bad, it is not so much. i am saying, we are going to fix our country. why are liberals opposed? i don't think they are. there are some people and it

doesn't matter but i don't think they are. the pollsgly, one of said more people, if i win and hillary wins, more people will the historypolls in of the country. it will set a record. likeu think of it, just the 24 million and 23 million people set the record. the people that come are going to vote for trump. they said that. it's got to be, tough on the border. some of the hispanics won't like it. but they love me. the ones that are here, thank you. hispanic, where did i see that sign? i saw a great sign. dios, amigos.

america great again to read the african-american vote. a poll came out. of the african american vote. for a republican, that is unheard of. one of these commentators is devastated because a republican would normally get 5%? i have a poll. i don't think these pastors are going to be standing up with too many other candidates. i don't think so. african-americans want trump. by the way, they hate that i am winning. they have such a hard time with the polls. one just came out, quinnipiac. i'm killing everybody. uz and rubio are in second place. they said, rubio and crews are

doing great. i said, what about me? did orup as much as they more. it is harder when you are high. i'm beating them by a lot. they didn't even mention my name. thee trump is winning, others are doing nicely. it is unbelievable. we are driving the media not. we are driving them nuts. they don't know how to handle it read they are very dishonest. many of them. i only say 70%. 70% are dishonest. what is going to happen, what did happen, they mention the 25%. trumplking head said, if gets 25% of the african-american vote, this election is over. he wins. and why wouldn't i?

obama, what has he done? think of this and then we are going to take questions. inc. of it. -- think of it. obama, your african-american unemployment. age, they have unemployment double and triple. i don't think he cares about them. i think he has done nothing. it is all talk, it is all words. he is in unbelievable divider. i thought he would be a great cheerleader for the country. i said, he will unify the country and he will divide the country. we are going to unify the country. we are going to do amazing, we are going to set records with the african-american vote. was such an honor for me tonight. such an honor.

it.ppreciate said aree things i true. just to finish, before we take questions. if you were with me two weeks ago, i was different. i was talking about china all the time. trade. all the bad deals, companies are leaving, which is true. they are moving to ireland and other places. we have $2.5 trillion offshore and we cannot begin to act because of tax laws. we are cutting middle income families to the lowest level they have been in years. we have been destroying our middle class which built this country.

i'm cutting companies taxes. we are the number one taxed nation. i am bringing it back to, not exactly the lowest. taxed nationsst in the world. the middle class will be taken care of. we are seriously simplifying the code so you don't have to spend at h&r block and spend your money doing this complicated code. we are going to do some things that are amazing. we are going to have a dynamic economy. this country is going to be rocking and rolling and it is going to be something special. it is going to be something much more special. it is already special but it is going to be more special. great but we are talking about really great. remember this. we have a great country. a wonderful country.

it is at the tipping point. it is not going to be there for us much longer. it is in big trouble. we are not going to let that happen. all right? let's now take some questions. give me some good ones. you have a question? these job -- people did such a good job. they had so many votes. we need like 5000 signatures. 16,000. the people at registration said, we have never seen anything like this. with the kind of people i deal with, if they find mistakes, if you have 15,000, they are going to have to find many mistakes. thank you very much. do you have a question? to let you know, mr. virginiae citizens of

and the hispanic community that i represent love you, respect you, and are going to vote and support you. mr. trump: thank you. thank you very much. let's go. wherever you want. a young man, come on. what is the wall going to be made out of? trump: that is a good question. bring him appear. come on. so cute. come on up. come here. this is such a great question. are you ready? >> what are the walls going to be made out of? walls going to be made out of? mr. trump: that might be the best question.

i will tell you, it is going to concrete andrdened rebar and steel. that is what i do. you ever see parking plank? up, you want feet to come down gently. the drive trucks over them. ramp and drive trucks over them. it is going to be made out of concrete and rebar steel. we are going to set them and heavy foundations. one of the reasons it was not built, and this is hard to believe but true. was i right about new jersey? one i took such heat. over the last couple of days,

reports coming out, trump is right. even some of the mainstreamers are saying it. how many people would have taken that if he is without saying, i am sorry? i am right. there was a lot of hatred going on. we need vigilance. we need vigilance. we can't let this happen. they cannot blow up our buildings. they cannot cut off our people's heads. or other people's heads. let's have a question. trump.ove your tone, mr. 1992 when ross perot ran, he said, should lightning strike and i get elected, we are not going to wait a hundred days to start doing something?

mr. trump: ross perot, i haven't known much. he made a big mistake. he quit. a week later or whatever he said, i made a mistake. when he went back, it was over. he had a certain style. i studied it closely. better to run is as a republican, i will tell you that and i want to run as a republican and i am leading by so much. the question was asked before, would you ever run as an independent. i want to run and win as a republican. we are there. we are this close. we are going to probably run against a woman who cannot win. her whole life has been corrupt. she is not going to win. we are going to knock the hell out of obamacare. the great thing about executive orders, i don't have to go back to congress. signing, maybe not

all, maybe there are a couple of good ones. i doubt it. we are going to be on signing a lot of executive orders. basically his order that lets anybody they want pour into the country. that is going to end. to start working on social security and medicare so we make it strong. we are going to bring back great things. he has that trump shirt on. you are going to be so proud of me. you will be very happy. go ahead. >> mr. trump, can you talk about israel and your relationship with that country? mr. trump: i love israel. our strong supporter if you look at what is going on. i will tell you wide. -- why.

very soon, i'm going to israel. i will be meeting with bibi netanyahu. the asked me to make a commercial during his election run. i made a commercial. i said nice things about him. he is a good man, he has worked hard. he has no support from president obama. absolutely none. i am very pro-israel. question, how about the young man in the green shirt? young, strong guy. >> as a veteran and small business owner, you have my vote. mr. trump: you are a veteran? whiow. did you have any problems or difficulties? good. you are healthy. we have 20 of healthy pets. -- plenty of healthy vets. >> my question is, what are your

plans for the v.a.? mr. trump: i put on a big plan and people love it. three months ago, on a wednesday, they announced that in the history of the veterans administration, which is very corrupt. you have some great doctors there, by the way. at in this traders who are disgrace. the waiting times and problems. people are waiting five days, six days to get in. you sell that three months ago. the longest wait in the history of the v.a.. i put in a plan that is more complex. basically, we have doctors who are not doing well because of obamacare. i have a friend who's a doctor, he is going to be quitting. -- going to be retired. he said i have more accountants then nurses.

the paperwork is so terrible. i don't feel like i am a doctor anymore. we have doctors with plenty of open time. public and private hospitals not doing well. we are going to let those bets, instead of standing in line and dying. waiting to see a doctor. hundreds of thousands. i could not believe it. you think one, too. the numbers are incredible. men and women waiting for a doctor. it may be a simple procedure or pill. they end up dying. we are not going to have that anymore. they are our greatest people. i would not be here. most of these people would not be here. true.n, it is it is true. we are having a simple plan.

you have hospitals that are looking for business. are not a vet.u what do you do? one second. you have hospitals across the street. you are going to get out of there. cv the hospital. pay for the bill. it is much cheaper and everybody is going to be happy. we are going to use that hospital, looking for business. could be private, could be public. we are going to pay the bill. it is going to go quickly. cheapering to be much than what we are doing right now. .k go ahead. you are a designer? i did not think you are a vet.

go ahead. >> i would like to say americans are winners. we love winners and that is what you are. mr. trump: thank you. how nice to say that. thank you, darlene. my question is, the future of america looks beautiful with you. understanding the thing with china. i would like to see more made in america labels for apparel. mr. trump: come on up, get her up here. work it out. come on, get up here. what a nice question. is so important. you know the old days, some of us were young and some not even born. we had a sticker that said, made in the usa.

that meant quality. if it said made in japan, it was no good. now it is reversed. we had those stickers, made in the usa. that meant super quality. i want her up. i thought she was so fantastic. come on over. if i didn't like the question, she would not be up here. don't worry about that. come on up. get upot to work to here. secret service, when you are picked number one, all of the sudden you have a lot of protection. look at this. [applause] what is your name? i think he will definitely make america truly beautiful and great. i designed mostly for men.

i think guys are at a disadvantage with the fashion world. everybody can appreciate that. been living overseas for a while. what i would love to see is all of you wearing made in america. [applause] mr. trump: you are great, thank you. great statement and question. you do not see it anymore. you don't see it anymore. we are going to be proud to have that sticker. let's remember that question. the usa was so important. we don't make that much anymore. it is not like it was. i went to los angeles recently. i saw the biggest shifts you have ever seen with cars coming in from japan. pouring out of these ships. we send them practically

nothing. it is a one-sided deal. saw was the last time you -- we make good cars. great cars. now we are doing great. let's have a good question. how about this guy with a good head of hair? go ahead. question, first of all, we love you. this is for president trump. how are you going to deal with president putin? mr. trump: fair question. putin cannot stand obama, like a lot of people. what else is new. i was on 60 minutes. separately, they interviewed me. mate. he is my

when he started bombing, i said let him bomb. our country has, we don't even know who we are fighting. but if to fight assad, we fight assad we are fighting other countries. ad is bad, but the rebels could be isis. a general told me, we have no idea who they are. let's say they take over syria. i love that russia is dropping bombs over isis. i love it. [applause] we have a president, he doesn't know who to fight. two weeks ago, he says we are sending 50 men and maybe weapons.

was not moreed he specific. he should have been more specific. we are sending 50 men to syria, iraq. i don't think he even knows where they are going. why does he have to talk? why does he have to stand up and say, we are sending those people? these are our finest, greatest soldiers. do we have to do that? why does he have to open his mouth? why can't he send them and be quiet? no he just announced they are sending another small group over. just announced, we are sending more soldiers. small numbers. is so smallnumber that if you are going to do it, do it. it is so small, i don't think it is a good pr move. the enemy is not stupid. they are not contained.

they are looking for these men and women. they are looking for them. what the hell does he have to say it for? the word, unpredictability. we don't have that anymore. general macarthur, he would not talk. general george patton. they would have thrown him out in his first year because he was a vicious and violent guy who used foul language. he was brutal. he could not be a general today. he was too crude. but he was a genius. his men loved him and fought for him but he could not be a general. televisions are on all the time. i don't want my generals on television. i don't want the enemy watching. one word and you are giving something up. recently, they called up my opponent. me.ould not stand

he said something that was interesting. he was honest. he told the root order, mr. trump was tough because he was unpredictable. i don't know if he was being nice to me. i said, what does that mean? we couldn't figure you out. i thought it was a compliment but i had to be sure. we had no unpredictability. we have to get smart. one of the things -- the pastor has a question. i had to take care of my pastor. one second. are going things, you to say when you leave this room. such an amazing thing that is happening. you are going to say, we were here at a time that it really was important.

people have come together but you have to go out and vote. with all the talk about this group.r that wrote -- mccain could not have won the first time. romney should have been an easy victory. say what you want on obama, he was on letterman and all over the place. i am saying, when are you going to get on television to romney and his people? said, just get on television. he is killing you. he is on every night. letterman, leno. romney did not do it. he let us down. if the people in this room who did not vote and all the other people, who would have never voted for obama, if they had the incentive to get up and go vote, romney would have won. but they were not inspired. i inspired.

i have the biggest crowds anyone has ever seen. we have to remember that. i'm going to do something that is really not smart. i like to end on a high note. i can say, make america great. i leave and i go back home. unlike hillary, i think about things. she goes to sleep and you don't see her for five days. elton john would always say, and i love elton john. he said, you want to finish with a big bang. he finishes great. they say, more. they do once on. two songs. three songs. people are saying, this is getting boring. you are like, let's go home. is, my pastorhave wants to ask me a question.

how can i turn him down? we may it a nice question so i do not leave here on a low note? >> mr. trump, i want to address the issue of black lives matter. matter, no matter who kills them. there is more people killed with black on black crime than white people killing them. mr. trump: it is true. a tremendous problem. from 2007-delphia 2015, more than 3000 black people were shot dead by black people. my question is, where was black lives matter? they were not around. is, will you come to

theadelphia and address black community on what we are going to do about stopping crime in the black community? whartonp: i went to the school of finance in philadelphia. he is a highly respected, great man in philadelphia and the answer is yes. yes, i love it. ladies and you come in, i want to thank you all. you are spectacular people. doing this is actually easy. in this room.love we are going to make america great again. i love you. i love you. thank you. thank you, everybody. you. everybody [captioning

performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] c-span takes you on the road to the white house. access to the candidates. meet and greets. we are taking your comments on phone., facebook, and by every campaign event we cover is available on our website. on the next washington journal, a congressman from the deal reached on transportation funding. congressman on the u.s. military effort against isis in iraq and syria. the debate over syrian refugees and the nuclear agreement. -- you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> we now come to mission number

two, isil. -- >> the question is how we keep the british people safe about the threat from isil. i respect that governments have had to fight terrorism and take the people with them as they do so. i respect people who come to a different view. and those who vote accordingly. i hope that provides reassurance to people across the house. to theppy to give way

honorable lady. >> he is a right in his opening statement to say how important respect opinion on all sides of the house. will you apologize? >> i could not be clearer. i respect people who disagree. thatpect the fact governments of all colors have to fight terrorism. and i respect that we are discussing how to fight it, not whether to fight it. >> the prime minister is clearly not at this stage giving way. he has the floor. >> i will take it dozens of interventions in the time i have. i'm conscious of not taking up too much time. i will give way during my speech. let me give progress in the

start. i am not pretending the answers are simple. the situation in syria is complex. i'm not overstating the contribution our servicemen and women can make. neither and my ignoring the risks of military action or pretending it is more than one part of the answer. i'm absolutely clear that there's a comprehensive strategy that includes political, democratic, and humanitarian action. in syria, as in iraq, must ultimately be a government that represents all of its people and one that can work with us to defeat the evil organization of isil for good. notwithstanding all of this, there is a simple question at the heart of the debate today. we face a fundamental threat to our security. isil have brutally murdered hostages, inspired the worst terror attack against british

people on the beaches of tunisia and have brought atrocity after atrocity on the streets here at home. since last year, we have foiled seven different plots against our people. so this threat is very real, and the question is this, do we work with our allies to degrade and destroy this threat. do we sit back and wait for them to attack us? i give way to the honorable member. >> it would be helpful if he could retract his inappropriate comment, but will he be reassured that no one on this side of the house will make a decision based on any such remarks, nor will we be threatened into -- from doing what we agree, with the honorable gentleman in this

house, should make up their mind on the arguments in this house, and there is honor in voting for and against. that is the way this house should operate and i want to be absolutely clear from the start of my sentence, this is how we should fight terrorism. i will make progress and give way in a moment. in answering this question, we should remember that 15 months ago, facing a threat from isil, this house 524 to 43, voted to authorize air strikes in iraq. since then, our brilliant pilots have helped local forces to halt isil's advance and recover. on monday, i spoke to the president of iraq in paris and he expressed his gratitude for

the vital work forces are doing. even when isil's headquarters are in syria, and it is from here that many of the plots against our country. i hand it over to the honorable mr. gordon. >> the amendment was signed by 110 members of this house from six different political parties. i've examined that list very carefully. i cannot identify a single terrorist sympathizer among that list. will he not apologize for his deeply insulting remarks? >> mr. speaker, we possess the capability to reduce this threat to our security. and my argument today is that we should not wait any longer

before doing so. the action we propose is legal, it is necessary, and it is the right thing to do to keep our country safe. and my strong view is that this house will make it clear that we will take up our responsibilities rather than pass them off and put our own national security in the hands of others. i give way to member. >> i have just returned from baghdad, the route has been cut off. everyone on the ground tells me unless we attack isil in syria, all they will do is regroup and come back and attack our country. >> i think my honorable friend makes a very important point and it's very clear that it exists

in syria as well as iraq is a direct threat to iraq and the government of iraq. he talks about some of the -- i would also add to that what's happened in tikrit, since that's been taken off isil. later on in this debate, the importance of humanitarian aide and reconstruction, that can only work if you have good government in those times and the absence of isil in those. we'll make a little bit of progress and i will take more interventions including from the different political parties in this house. mr. speaker, since my statement last week, the house has had an opportunity to ask questions of our security expert. i've arranged a briefing for all members, as well as more detailed briefings. i've spoken further to our allies, including president obama, chancellor merkel and the king of jordan.

the king of jordan has written in the daily telegraph expressing his wish for britain to stand with jordan in eliminating this global threat. i've also listened carefully to the questions asked by members on all sides of this house and i hope that honorable members can see the influence this house has had on the motion that stands before us. the strength on stabilization and reconstruction, the importance of standing by our allies, the importance of only targeting isil, not deploying grand troops in combat operations, the need to avoid civilian casualties. the importance of cease fire and political settlement and the commitment to regular updates to this house.

i've drawn these points from across the house and put them in the motion. i want as many people as possible to feel able to support this action. i give way to the honorable member cash olsen. >> can i say this, i will be supporting him today. i do think, however, that he needs to apologize for comments he made in relationships to the labor party. can i ask him, though, specifically, in relation to civilian casualties, what will you say governments are going to do to minimize those? >> the honorable gentleman raises a very important point. in iraq for a year and three months, there has been no reports of civilian casualties related to the strikes that britain has taken. our starting point is to avoid civilian casualties altogether, and i have argued and indeed i'll argue again today that our precision weapons and the skill of our pilots makes civilian casualties rest-like, so -- civilian agile to less likely, -- civilian casualties less likely, so civilians in iraq can be effective in the campaign against isil and can help us to avoid civilian casualties as well. let me give way to honorable member. >> i'm grateful, prime minister, are you aware in the press

reports that over the recent past, 60,000 syrian troops have been murdered by isil and our allies are waiting to attack until after those murderous acts have taken place. there is a key part in the motion for many of us that talks about our action will be exclusively against isil. if isil are involved in attacking syrian government troops, will we be bombing isil in defense of those troops or will we wait for isil to kill those troops and then for us to bomb? prime minister: i will say to the right old gentleman, i have great respect for, the motion says exclusively isil, because that was a promise i made in response to points made from both sides of the house, and as far as i'm concerned, wherever isil are, wherever they can be properly targeted, that is what we should do. and let me just make this point, because i think it is important, when it comes to this argument

about grand troops. in my discussions with the king of jordan, he was making the point that in the threat of syria, there already is cooperation between, of course, the jordanian government and the french and the americans and the free syrian army. but also, there's a growing cease-fire between the regime troops and the free syrian army, so they can turn their guns on isil. that is what i've said. this is an isil-first strategy. they are the threats and the ones we should be targeting. this is about our national security. let's make a little bit of progress and i will take more interventions. in my remarks, i want to address the most important points being raised and, of course, i'll take as many interventions as i can. mr. speaker, i believe the key questions raised are these: first, could acting in this way actually increase the risk to our security by making an attack on britain more likely? second, does britain really have the capability to make a significant difference? third, the question asked by a number of members, including the

honorable member gordon, is why don't we increase our number of air strikes in iraq to free up capacity amongst other members of the coalition so they can carry out more air strikes in syria? four, will there really be the grand forces needed to make this operation a success? fifth, what is the strategy for defeating isil and securing a lasting political settlement in syria? and sixth, is there a proper reconstruction post complex stabilization plan for syria? i want to try in the time i've got available to answer all of these. in turn, let me give way to the honorable member. >> i know how members of my party feel when it comes to fighting and dealing with terrorism. for that, there will always be support, no matter where terrorism raises its head. can i ask the prime minister if he can guarantee the house where he indicates that the governments will not deploy u.k. troops not deploy u.k.

in ground combat operations, if it becomes necessary at a later date to do that, will he come back to this house and seek approval for that? prime minister: it's not only something i don't want to do, it's something that i think if we did, would be a mistake, because the argument was made to us by the iraqi government, that the presidents of western grand -- that the presence of western grand troops, that can be a radicalizing force and can be counter-productive, and that is our view. i would say to colleagues behind me who are concerned about this issue, i accept that this means that our strategy takes longer to be successful, because we rely on iraqi grand troops in iraq. we rely on the patch-work of free syrian troops there are in syria. in time, we hope for syrian grand troops from a transitional regime. and all of that takes longer. and i think one of the messages that has to come across today is that, yes, we do have a strategy. it's a complex picture. it will take time but we are acting in the right way. let me make one more point before i take some interventions, because before we

get onto all of these things, mr. speaker, i want to say more about the terminology we use to describe the evil death trap. the strong representations made to me by the honorable member, and listening to many members across the house, i feel it's time to join our ally france, and other members of the international community and use as frequently as possible the terminology daesh rather than isil. this evil death cult is neither a true representative of islam, nor is it a state. >> i'm interested in hearing what the honorable gentleman said about daesh. should he not take his opportunity to withdraw the remark, and he is calling those who will not be voting with him tonight a bunch of paris sympathizers, because not only is that offensive, it is dangerous, and it is untrue! prime minister: i've made my views clear about the importance of all of terrorism and i think it's time to move on. so let me turn to the important

question, and i will take interventions as i go through these questions. first, could acting increase the risk to our securities? this is the most important question we have to answer. after a briefing from the chair of the independent joint intelligence committee, i can't share all the material, but i can say this. paris wasn't just different because it was so close to us or because it was so horrific in scale. paris was different because it showed the extent of terror planning from daesh in syria and the approach of sending people back from syria to europe. this wasn't like the head of the snake in action. so it's not surprising in my view that the judgment of the chair of the joint intelligence committee and the judgment of the direct security service, is that the risk of a similar attack in the u.k. is real, and that the u.k. is already in the top tier of countries on isil's target list,

so let me be frank, mr. speaker, i want to make this point, and i will make some more interventions. if there's an attack on the u.k. in the coming weeks or months, they will say it's because of our air strikes. i do not believe it's the case. they have been trying to attack us for the last year, as we know from the seven different plots our security services have foiled. the terrorist threat level to the u.k. was raised to severe last august with a threat, meaning an attack is highly likely. to wit: 800 people, including families and children, have been radicalized to an extent. the house should be under no illusion, these terrorists are plotting to kill us and to radicalize our children right now. they attack us, because of who we are, not because of what we do. honorable gentleman. thank you mr. speaker, -- >>

thank you mr. speaker. we all on these benches share the prime minister's horror for daesh and its death cult and abhor terrorism. will it take the present opportunity to identify who he regards as terrorist sympathizers? prime minister: everyone in this house can speak for themselves. but what i'm saying is when it comes to the risk of military action, the risk of inaction are far greater than the risks of what i proposed. next, there are those who ask whether britain conducting strikes in syria will really make a difference. let me say this, and then i'll take his question. this point has been raised in briefing after briefing. i believe we can make a real difference. i told the house last week about our dynamic targeting, about our brim stone missiles, about the rap report are on our tornadoes and the intelligence-gathering work. i'm not going to repeat all of that today.

but there is another way of putting this, which i think is equally powerful. there is, of course, in the coalition a lot of strike capacity. but when it comes to precision-strike capability, whether covering iraq or syria, last week, the whole international coalition had some 26 aircraft available. eight of those were british tornadoes. so typically, the u.k. actually represents between a quarter and a third of the international coalition's precision-bombing capability and unmanned strike capability in the region. so we have a significant proportion of high-precision strike capability. that's why this decision is so important. i'll give way to the honorable gentleman. he's right to sing the praises of the pilot. >> my constituent's sun -- son was tragically killed training for the r.e.f. in a tornado in 2012. he has asked me specifically this question. will the air force in northern iraq or is the air force in

north iraq and going to syria, does it have coalition warning systems attached? absolutely essential to the safety of our pilots, that the honorable gentleman, has the right to raise this issue and i pay tribute to his constituent son. we will be part of the deconfliction process that already exists between these coalition partners in syria and the russians, and, of course, in terms of our own airplanes, they have the most advance defensive air suites possible to make sure they are kept safe. so the argument i was making is one reason why members of the international coalition, including president obama and president hollande who made these points to me personally, believe these british planes will make a real difference in syria as they are already doing in iraq. honorable gentleman. >> mr. speaker, with the prime minister giving way, it's important in this debate that

there's respect across the house and that senate, will the prime minister come and apologize for the mess that was put on the o -- put on every member of the opposition last night. can we have a proper debate. prime minister: either vote is an honorable vote. i really do suggest that we get on with the debate that the country wants to hear about. in many ways, what i just said helps to answer the next question that some members have asked about why we do not simply increase our level of air strike in iraq to free up other coalition capacity for strikes in syria. we have these capabilities that other members of the coalition want to benefit from, and it makes absolutely no sense to stop using these capabilities, and a border between iran and syria, the daesh simply do not recognize or respect. in fact, there was -- let me make this argument. this is an important detail point. there was a recent incident in which syrian opposition forces needed opposition support

against daesh. british tornadoes were eight minutes away just over the border in iraq. no one else was close. britain couldn't help so the syrian opposition force his to wait 40 minutes in a perilous situation while other coalition forces were scrambling. now, that sort of delay, it endangered the lives of those fighting daesh on the ground and, frankly, does nothing for our reputation with our vital allies. let me give way to honorable friend. >> thank you for giving way, prime minister. can you understand, what concerns many of us is a lack of a comprehensive strategy, both military and non-military, including an exit strategy, one of the fundamental differences between iraq and syria, is that you have a million personnel on the government payroll and still having trouble pushing isil back to syria with 70,000 armed moderates, quite frankly, can i

just ask, what is the reaction to the foreign affairs committee's decision yesterday that actually prime minister had not adequately addressed our concerns? prime minister: let me answer both of ese, my honorable friend. the second question is perhaps answered by something perhaps the whole house would join me, which is wishing the honorable member good health, given his recent illness, who normally is always at the foreign affairs select committee and always voting on a non-party basis on the basis of the arguments he believes in. where my honorable friend and i disagree is that i believe there is a strategy of which military action is only one part, and the clear answer to his question is that we want to see a new syrian transitional government whose troops will then be our allies in squeezing out and destroying the so-called caliphate altogether. we cannot wait for that to

happen. the threat is now. isil daesh are planning the attacks now. we can't act in syria as we act in iraq, and in doing so, we can enhance the long-term security and safety of our country and that is why we should act. let me give way to the honorable member raymond. >> thank you for that change in terminology, prime minister, and all members across the house will support this. will the prime minister join me in urging the bbc to review their bizarre policies when they write to me to say that they can't use the word "daesh" because it would breach their impartiality rule? we are at rule with terrorists, prime minister. we have to defeat the ideology, we have to be united in that. will you join me in urging the bbc to review that bizarre policy. prime minister: i agree with my honorable friend and i've already corresponded with the bbc about their use of i.s., islamic state, which i think is worse frankly than the so-called

i.s. or, indeed, isil, but daesh is clearly an improvement, and i think it's important, we all try and use this language. let me make some progress and i will give way some more. there's a much more fundamental answer to carrying out air strikes in syria ourselves. it is this, it's syria that is a threat to our security. it is in syria where they pump and sell the oil that does so much to help finance their evil act. as i've said, it is in syria where many of the plots against our country are formed. so we must act on syria to deal with these threats ourselves. give way to honorable member. >> prime minister, i would prefer to hear an apology but i want to discuss the facts and the facts are we are proposing some very different things than what we're talking about in northern iraq. two questions. what practical steps will be used to reduce civilian casualties? and secondly, what sorts of targets will we be going against

that will reduce the terrorists in the u.k. and directed against our citizens? prime minister: let me answer him very direct. in terms of the sorts of targets we can go off, clearly, it's the leaders of this death cult itself. it is the training camps. it's the communications hubs. it is those that are plotting against us. as i'm going to argue in a minute, the limited actions that we took against hussein, which was, if you like, an air strike on syria has already had an impact on isil, on daesh, and i think that is a very important point. so how do we avoid civilian casualties? we have a policy of wanting zero civilian casualties. one year and three months into these iraqi operations, we haven't had any reports of civilian casualties. i'm not standing here and saying that there are no casualties in war. of course there are. it is a very, very difficult situation we're putting ourselves into. it's hugely complex. it's a difficult argument in many ways to get across, but

it's a simple point, will we in the long term be safer and better off if we can get rid of the so-called caliphate which is radicalizing muslims, turning them against us, and plotting atrocities on the streets of britain. let me take a question from my honorable friend. >> i'm very grateful for my honorable friend for giving way. would you agree with me that there are hundreds if not thousands of civilian casualties, those that are burned, decapitated, criticized, away from their coalitionists. those are the civilian casualties we are trying to help. prime minister: my honorable friend put it very clearly. that is one of the aims we're doing to prevent this death cult from carrying out the ghastly acts it does on a daily basis. let me make progress.

let me turn to the question of whether there will be grand forces to make this a success. those who say there aren't as many ground troops as they like and they aren't in as many places are correct. we aren't dealing with an ideal situation. let me make a series of important points first. we should be clear what air strikes alone can achieve. we don't need troops to supply oil that funds terrorism. we don't need to hit the infrastructure and supply routes, their training facility, weapons supplies. it's clear, they can have an effect with the issue of kohn and hussein. r.e.f. can do serious damage to daesh's ability right now to bring terror, and we should give them that report. >> thank you, prime minister. how would the prime minister respond to the point that daesh since its attack on its offensive of baghdad was blunted, has actually changed

its tactics, dispersed its forces, and particularly, 600,000 people, at best its operations, all throughout that city, into small units, which make it impervious to catch impersonators given the small force we have. prime minister: i think what you have said is absolutely right. of course, they have changed their tactics from early days when air strikes were more effective. that's not an argument for doing nothing. it's an argument for using air strikes where you can, but having a longer-term strategy to deliver the ground troops through the transition that you need. but the argument really before the house is very simple. do we wait for perfection, which is a transitional government in syria? or do we start the work now of degrading and destroying this organization at the request of our allies, at the request of the gulf state, on the knowledge from our security experts that it will make a difference? i'll make a little bit of progress and will take interventions from both sides. as i said last week, the full answer to the question of grand

-- question of ground forces can't be achieved until there's a new syrian government that represents all of the syrian people, not just suni and shiite, but christians and others. it's this new government who will be the natural partners for our forces in defeating daesh for good. but there are some grand forces we can work with in the meantime . last week, i told the house -- let me give the explanation, and you can intervene if you like. last week, i told the house we believe there are around 70,000 syrian opposition fighters who don't belong to extremist groups with whom we can coordinate attacks on daesh. there are some limits i can say about these groups, i can't risk the safety of these courageous people who are being targeted daily by the regime or by daesh or by both, but i know this is an area of great interest and concern for the house so let me try and say a little more. the 70,000 is an estimate of independent joint committee based on detailed analysis updated on a daily basis and drawing on a wide range of open

source and intelligence. all of these 70,000, the majority are from the presyrian army, along the 70,000 there are some 20,000 kurdish fighters with whom we can also work. now i'm not arguing -- this is a crucial. i'm not arguing that all of the 70,000 are somehow ideal partners. some, though, left the syrian army and they clearly can play a role in the future of syria. and that is a view by the russians as well as well. >> you spoke about long-term strategy in syria. possibly more of a challenge with russia. i wonder if he can update the house and conversations that he had with president putin directly or by the united states as to the short and long-term of

president assad. >> i've had conversations with president putin on many occasions. the president of the united states barack obama had a meeting tat climate change in paris. as i said before in this house, there was an enormous gap between, britain, america, france and saudi arabia and russia on the other hand. we wanted assad to go instantly. they wanted him to stay potentially forever. that gap has narrowed and i think it will narrow further. let me make a point because some people worry it's a process. the very clear ambition in the viena talks is for a transitional government within six months and a new constitution, fresh elections within 18 months. there's a real momentum behind these talks. let me give way to the honorable

member. >> he remains completely committed to humanitarian effort which has kept so many people alive by the government in that region. [shouting] >> i can certainly confirm that. the second largest bilateral donor in the world after america and will be keeping and will be cosharing in london to make sure we fill the gap of the funding. >> if it comes to the house and asked for narrow to take out isil i think it would command a widespread consent. he's asking for wider authority than that. in iraq there are ground forces in place. in syria there aren't. a little bit more at the. >> at least about what ground forces he envisions joining us

in the syrian raqaa. >> the difficulty of this case. i don't think you can separate taking out the commander and control of isil's operations against the uk, france, belgium or elsewhere. i don't think you can separate that from the task of degrading or destroying the daesh they've created. the two are linked. as i argued in front of the house last week, as long as this so calefit exist it's a threat to us. it is radicalizing muslims from across the world who are going to fight for that organization and potentially returning to attack us. second question about ground troops as i've explained. there are three parts of the arguments. don't underestimate them. the ground troops that are there. not ideal, not as many as we

would like. three, the real plan is as you get a transitional government in syria that can represent all the syrian people, there will be more ground troops for us to work with to defeat -- defeat daesh and the calefit. i know that's complex and that's the strategy but we need to start with the first step which is going after the terrorist today. let me take the honorable lady. >> i'm grateful but i think the prime minister has to acknowledge that the ground troops with which we can work with would be absolutely essential for the long-term strategy and at the moment he has not shown to me that as we defeat isil we create a vacuum into who assad will move and another enemy. can i give motherly advise, whoever does not wk with the division of it, he would improve

his standing in the house enormously. [shouting] >> i'm very happy to repeat what she said. people who vote either division of it do serve with honor. i couldn't be more clear about that. what i would say to her if she's saying there aren't enough ground troops, she's right. if they're not always in the right places, she's right. the question for us is should we act now in order to try to -- let me make some progress. i just want to be clear about the 70,000. that figure does not include a further 25,000 extremist fighters in groups which reject political participation and reject coordination with nonmuslims. so although they fight daesh they cannot and be our partners. mr. speaker, there are ground force who is will take the fight to daesh and many many cases we can work with them and we can assist them.

i want to make one final point and i will give away to the leader of is smp if we don't act now, we should be clear there would be even fewer ground forces over time as daesh will get stronger. we have to act now. >> would you clarify for every member of the house the advise that he's been given and ores have been given in relation to the 70,000 forces that he speaks of? how many of those 70,000s are classified as moderate and how many of them are classified as fundment alists that can never work with? >> over 70,000. the advise i have is that the majority is made up of free-syrian army. 70,000 excludes those. as i said very clear with, i'm not arguing that the 70,000 are

ideal partners. some of we don't agree with. the 70,000 is those people who have been prepare today work with and continue to be prepare today work with. let me make this point again f we don't take action against daesh now the number of ground forces we can work with will get less and less and less. if we want to end up with the situation with a butcher assad in one hand and stronger isil on the other side -- [shouting] >> i know from my time in government how long and how hard the prime minister thinks about these he's questions, but will he ensure that we complete the military aspect of this campaign at all possible so we can get on to the really important, perhaps the most difficult aspect of the questions he's posed, namely the post conflict destabilization?

>> i think my friend who himself thought about this is right. that's the end goal. we shouldn't take our eyes offff the prize. it's a syria a peace so we don't have the migration crisis and terrorism crisis. that's the goal. let's turn to the overall strategy. i said it in the house last week. let me say a little more about the nonmilitary elements. counterterrorism, counterextremism and the vital humanitarian work. gives britain a comprehensive plan and also to address the poison ideology that's the root. we will establish a comprehensive review to root out any remaining funding of extremism within the uk, this

will examine the nature, scale, origin including any overseas sources. it will report to myself and my right secretary next spring, there are some that suggest that military action can undermine by radicalizing british muslims. british muslims are appalled by daesh. they are hijacking the peaceful religion of islam. as the king of jordan says in his article today, these people are not muslims, they are outlaws from islam. we must stand with our muslim friends here and around the world as they reclaim their religion from these terrorists. so far from an attack on islam, we are engaged in a defense of islam. [shouting] >> far from the risk of

radicalizing, failing to act betray muslims. i give way to the honorable gentleman. >> the prime minister said that -- [inaudible] >> the saudis, turks, why do they not fight these people? [shouting] >> the turks are taking part in this action and urging us to do the same. the saudis are taking part in this action and urging us to do the same. the jordanias are doing the same. the second part of our strategy is support for the diplomatic

process. it begins with identifying the right people to put around the table. next week we expect regime to negotiate under united nations. over the last 18 months, political and armed oppositions have converged. we know the groups and the ideas. saudi arabia will host a meeting for representatives in riadt united nations will take steps, which we expect to take place before christmas. aim is clear as i've said, transitional government in six months, a new constitution and free elections with 18 months. i would argue that the key elements of a deal are emerging. opposition groups coming together t regime looking at negotiation, the key players, america and russia, saudi arabia

and iran and key regional players like turkey all in the room together. my argument is this hitting daesh doesn't hurt the process which hurts -- [shouting] >> murderers on the beach and carnage in paris changes everything and the british people would find it rather odd that it would take something more than that for britain to stand shoulder to shoulder with a number of other countries and to take on daesh. >> my honorable friend speaks for many, they attack us for who we are and not what we do. they want to attack us again and again. the question is do we answer the call of our allies, closest friends in the world. the french and the americans who want us to join with them and our partners in this work or do we ignore the call. we ignore

the call, think for the moment that it thinks as britain as as an ally, think of the countries in the region. if britain won't come to the aid of france, its neighbor in these circumstances just how reliable a neighbor and a friend and ally this country is. let me make some progress on humanitarian because i'm conscious of the time. extra 1 billion pounds that we are expected to commit in syria reconstruction and the alliance in rebuilding phase. mr. speaker, let us be clear and my honorable friend made this point, people will not return to syria if part of it is under the control of an organization that enslaves, throws gay people off buildings and forces children to mary before they are 10 year's

old. >> welcome any comments british muslims in scottland from daesh and i welcome the use of terminology, now, i ask the prime minister as a new member of the house, also been in the chamber for some period of time on such occasions, given that the language being used would be considered on becoming of for the benefit to new members, would the prime minister -- [shouting] >> in relation -- >> everyone is focused on the main issues in front of us and that is to be focused. >> let me turn to the plan. i said we would be prepared to committing the billion pounds.

protection, security, stabilization and issue measures including basic humanitarian needs such as education, helping the refugees to return. over time the focus would shift, long-term rebuilding of syria's shattered infrastructure, expertise of financial institutions and the private sector. as i said last week, we are not in the business of trying to dismantle the syrian state or institutions. we would aim to allocate reconstruction funds against a plan agreed in syrian government and international community once the conflict had ended. i'll take another one from over there and go to a close. >> i'm grateful to prime minister. what matters to my constituents is whether they already safer after this process takes place. we are attacking the heart of this terrorist organization. will he assure the house as well

as taking action in syria he will also sure up services, scottish services in the united kingdom? >> i think that's what our constituents want to know. what are we doing to strengthen our borders, intelligent information across europe, what are we doing to strengthening, all of this we should see through the prism of national security. that's what our first duty is. and when you have your allies asking you, the intelligent there, the knowledge that can make a difference, i believe we should act. let me take question from liberal democrats. >> he rightly make it is point of how important it is that we don't just stand with allies and friends in europe but stand with them as well. however, prime minister has not stood with european allies in the matter of taking our fair share of refugees from this chris sis and other. will he look again at the save

children request that this country take 3,000 orphan children refugee currently in europe? >> i would say we have made -- played a huge part. no other european country has given enough as much as britain has and we've also going to take 20,000 refugees with a thousand arriving by christmas, but i'm happy to look once again at the issue of orphans. i think it's better to take orphans from the region rather those that come over with extended families, but i'm happy to take a look both in europe and out of europe to see if britain can do to filadelfia -- fulfill responsibility. we cannot use for excuse of inaction. let's be clear, mr. speaker, inaction does not amount for strategy for security or for the syrian. inaction is a choice. i believe it's the wrong.

we face clear threats. we've listened to allies. we have unanimous united nations resolution. i responded personally to the detailed report of the foreign affairs select committee. we have a proper motion before this house and we are having a ten and a half-hour debate today n. that spirit i look forward to the rest of the debate. i look forward to listening to contribution of the members on all floors of the house. the house will come together in large numbers for britain to play its part in defeating these evil extremists and taking the action that is needed now to keep our country safe. in doing so, i pay transcribe out to the extraordinary bravery and service of our inspirational armed force who is will once again put themselves in harms way to protect our values and our way of life and i commend this motion to the house. [shouting]

>> the question is mission number 2 as on the order paper. i call the leader of the opposition jeremy corbin. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the whole house recognizes the decisions to send british forces to war are the most serious solemn and morally challenging of any that we have to take as members parliament. the motion brought before the government today authorizing military action in syria against isil faces with exactly that decision. one with consequences for all here in britain as well as people in syria and middle east. for all members take a decision that british servicemen and women in harms way lead to death of innocence is a heavy

responsibility. .. >> thank you for prime minister the move. will have to move on with the debate. and i hope he will be stronger later to recognize that yes, he

did, and apologizing for will be very helpful to improve the atmosphere of this debate today. will my honorable friend give i speak with yes. >> my honorable friend, i thank them. as you probably for the out of the prime minister has not shown leadership by not withdrawing his or on the others. we also agree with me that there is no place whatsoever in the labour party for anybody who is been abusing those members of the labour party who choose to vote with the government? [shouting] mr. speaker, abuse has no part in the responsible, democratic political dialogue. i believe very strongly. that is what i wish to conduct myself and wish others would conduct themselves in that way. if they do give way then i will move on.

>> i am grateful for my friend giving way. would he agree with me that -- prime minister made a clear apology he would clear the air so we could move on? >> as he often does in these occasions he appears to be taking advice from a chancellor of the exchequer on this matter. if you want to apologize now that's fine but if he doesn't, well, the whole world to note he is not apologizing. mr. speaker, since the prime minister first made his case for extending british going to syria the lastly, questions espresso most of the house have only grown and multiplied. that's what the matter of such concern that the government has decided push this vote through parliament today. it would have been far better to allow a full two days debate

that would've given all members a chance to make a proper contribution and you yourself, mr. speaker, and for those that wanted to do some have applied to speak in this debate. it is, mr. speaker, -- >> i'm grateful for the right honorable joe been giving way. he and i worked together on issues. hinault so tough fighting faces in both iraq and syria. his shadow foreign secretary believes the poor conditions debated at labour party conference for taking action and syria have been met. why does he disagree with him on that? >> he may have to wait a few moments to hear that but it will be in my speech, i can promise him. but also am pleased he has made respect to the kurdish people because at some point over the whole of the middle east and the whole -- that has to be a recognition of the rights to kurdish people, whichever country in which they rest.

he and i have shared that view for more than 30 years. my view has not changed all that. [inaudible] >> i thank my wonderful friend for giving way, and i'm glad he mentioned the kurds. cootie be clear at the dispatch box that he or anyone on this binge in a way will want to remove the air protection which is voted on with an overwhelming majority in the house 14 months ago? >> i thank my friend for the intervention is not part of the motion today. so we move on with this debate. [shouting] >> is in possible, i think, mr. speaker, t tug-of-war conclusion that the prime minister understands that public opinion is moving increasingly against what i believe to be an ill thought out rush to war. and he wants to hold this vote before the opinion grows even

further against him. whether it's the lack of strategy, the absence of credible ground troops, the missing diplomatic plan for a syrian settlement, failed to address the impact of the terrorist threat, or the refugee crisis and civilian casualties, it's becoming increasingly clear that the prime minister's proposals are military action simply do not stack up. >> i'm very grateful to the honorable gentleman give way, and i agree what has been said and the case has not been proven. i wonder under the circumstanc circumstances, i wonder whether not he will reconsider that it's important that the labour party and it's entirety join with these benches here -- to make sure this government -- [inaudible] >> everybody has to make a decision today. every mp has a vote today. every mp has constituency at every mp should beware of what

constituents and public opinion is that they will make up their own mind. obviously, i am proposing that we do not support the government motion tonight and i would encourage all colleagues on all sides to join in the opposition lobbying tonight to the government's proposal. last week the prime minister focused his case for bombing industry on the critical test cross party foreign affairs select committee. given the holes in the government's case it's surprising that last night the committee reported the prime minister had not come and i quote, adequately addressed their concerns. in other words, mr. speaker, the committee judged, judged that the prime minister case for bombing and failed its case. [shouting] spit i'm grateful for the right honorable gentlemen.

with the absence of his honorable friend who would have resisted that motion. but it is on a narrow point where it almost impossible for the prime minister to adequately meet those concerns given the fact he's not in a position to produce sufficient detail obviously to satisfy some of my colleagues. it is a very weak point for him to rely on. [shouting] spirit i thank the member, and he and i have often a very amicable discussion on many of these issues and i'm sure we will again. the fact of the matter is ago at the meeting of foreign affairs select committee there was a verdict given that the prime minister had not adequately addressed the concerns. now, obviously i understand our differencdifferenc es of opinion. goodness, there's plenty of

differences of opinion all around this house. [shouting] so i ask the chair of the select committee to recognize that a decision has been made by his committee. after the despicable and horrific attacks in paris last month, the question of whether the government proposal for military action strengthens or undermines our own national security must, mr. speaker, be the center of our deliberations. there is no doubt that the so-called islamic state group, mr. speaker, i've given way quite a long time already. they are 107 members who wish to take part in this debate and so i think i shall try to move on and see the upside which seems to meet with your approval, mr. speaker. there's no doubt the so-called islamic state has imposed care. in iraq, syria in lebanon.

it also causes a thread our own people. the issue now is whether extending british bombing from iraq to syria is likely to reduce or increase that threat to britain. and whether it will counter or spread the kerry campaign isil is waging across the middle east. the answers don't make the case for the government notion on the contrary their warning set back the vote against yet another ill-fated twist in this never ending war on terror. let's start with the military dimension. the prime minister has been unable to explain why extending airstrikes to syria will make a significant military impact on the existing campaign. i feel it already -- syria our rack by the u.s. airstrikes, britain and russia, and other powers. canada has interestingly withdrawn from this campaign and

no longer takes part in it. during more than a year of bombing isil has expanded and lost territory. isil gains include iraqi city of ramadi and to syria city. the claim that the superior british missiles will make a difference is actually quite hard to credit, when the u.s. and other states as an intervention said earlier, when u.s. and other states are struggling to find targets come extending british bombing are not likely to make a huge difference. secondly, the prime minister has failed to convince almost anyone that even if british participation in the air campaign would tip the balance to the incredible ground forces at the take back territory now held by isil. in fact, mr. speaker, it's quite clear to our no such forces. last week the prime minister suggested that a combination of

kurdish militias, the free syrian army, would be able to fill the gap. he even claimed a 70,000 strong force of fighters who were ready to coordinate action against isil with the western air campaign. that claim has not remotely stood up to scrutiny. kurdish forces are a distance away, in the sunni area were isil controls. it includes a wide range of troops, few if any would regard as moderate and mostly operate in other parts of the country. k visa on the ground forces can take against of a successful anti-isil air campaign are stronger, jihadists and salafis groups close to the iso controlled area. i think the are serious issues we need to think very carefully. because i believe that's what the prime minister bombing campaign could lead to.

this is why the subject that -- try to i would give way but i think i should enable to make what i think is an important part of this contribution. this is why the logic of an extended air campaign is, in fact, mission-critical. and western boots on the ground, whatever the prime minister me say now about keeping british combat troops out of the way of our a real possibility. thirdly, military aim of attacking isil targets in syria is not really part of a coherent diplomatic strategy. the resolution passed after the pairs atrocities and side in today's government motion does not give her an unambiguous authorization for uk bombing in syria. to do so it would've had to be part under chapter seven of the united nations charter to which the security council could not

do. [shouting] the u.n. resolution is certainly a welcome framework. for joint action to cut off funding, oil revenues, arms supply from isil. but i wonder how much is happening? [inaudible] nsse to cut off their oil supplies i do very much agree with them. [inaudible] >> here, here. >> the problem is the oil supplies that are being sold by isil are going into other countries come into turkey and to other places. and i think we need to know, i think we need to know exactly

who is buying the oil, who is funding that oil, what banks are involved in financial transactions which ultimate end up with isil an in which other countries in the region may or may not be involved in it. that's despite, mr. speaker, the clear risk of potentially disastrous instance, the shooting death of a russian military aircraft by turkish forces is the site of the danger of a serious escalation of this whole issue. but i'm grateful to them for giving way. the number of these grants is known and to compensate is also unknown but we did it is they are by definition opposition fighters. they are anti-assad. does he agree that the prime minister's still needs at how we can work with them to retake ground from daesh without

getting brought into wider conflict with russia considering they are on the other side? >> i think the member mentioned a very important point and she has been very active in trying to promote humanitarian resolutions to the many conflicts that exist around the world. fortunately, mr. speaker, the prime minister has avoided spelling out the british people the warning he has surely been given. the rightly impact of uk airstrikes on the threat of terrorist attacks in the uk. that's something everyone should wait and think about it very carefully before we vote whether or not just in our air pilots into action over syria. it is critically important, mr. speaker, that we as a house are honest with the british people about the potential consequences of the action to transfer is proposing to his today. i'm aware that there are those with military experience,

including members on the benches opposite as well as the site, -- [shouting] that sending uk bombings will and i quote come increase the short-term risk of terrorist attacks in britain. we should also remember the impact, mr. speaker, on communities here in britain. since the terrorist attacks has been a sharp increase in islamaphobe at instance and physical attacks are discussed this with people at my local mosque in my constituency, and a terrific. shirley, mr. speaker, the message from all of us in this house today must go out. none of us and we can say this together, we will not tolerate any form of anti-semitism, islamophobia a racism any form in this country. >> here, here. >> the prime minister has not offered a series assessment in

my view, of the intensified air campaign on civilian casualties in isil held syrian territory, or the wider syrian refugee crisis. at least 160,000 have already been killed in syria is a terrible civil war. 11 million made homeless and 4 million forced to leave the country. many more have been killed by the assad regime than by isil it so. yet more bombing in syria will kill innocent civilians. there's no doubt about that. and turned many more syrians into refugees. yesterday i was sent a message from a constituent of mine who comes from syria. i'm sorry, it's not funny. it's a family who is suffering. i quote from his message, i am a

syrian from a city which is now controlled by isil. members of my family still live there, and many were killed. my question today is can you guarantee the safety of my family when you're air forces dropped bombs on my city? it's a fair question from a family who are very concerned. [shouting] >> thank you very much. i would say to my right honorable gentleman i speak as a member of the military who has left and there's a fundamental point here that we think that the leader of the opposition is making, that is a that this is about national security. all these conflicting arguments, the complex situation is very, very difficult it becomes delta national security and inhibiting what these people are trying to do on the streets of this country. >> here, here. >> yes oyes, of course is featun

the streets of this country in all of our communities is a very important. that's why we have supported the government's, no longer the same stretch of cutting the police and also increasing security in this country because clearly none of us want any kind of atrocity on the streets of this country. by perot was deeply affected by 7/7 in 25 -- 2005. >> order. i would jus just say the membero has the for cannot be expected to give way to a further intervention when he's in the presence of managing an existing one. the honorable gentleman is experienced enough in this has to be aware of the. mr. jeremy corbyn. >> i would like to -- [laughter] >> i'm very grateful the leader of the opposition.

in making this point since e leader of the opposition has said that there 70,000 moderate sunnis that the prime minister claimed as their, consists of many different jihadists groups. and there is some concern, i think it's across the house, that in potentially degrading isil, daesh, which is possible, we actually create a vacuum into which other jihadists, overtime. that surely does not make the streets of britain safer. spent mr. speaker, i now give way to the member. >> thank you very much. i'm very, very grateful for him giving way. he has a consistent position militia opposing airstrikes. on 26th of september 2014 when he voted against airstrikes

against isil in iraqi said this, he said i do not believe that further airstrikes and the deepening of our involvement will solve the problem. as he maintained his opposition to airstrikes in iraq though only increase and extend into syria? >> mr. speaker, i think both members for the intervention and the point made my honorable friend made is a very service one. we have to be careful about what we do in the future. we have to ask the prime minister has said and others have said we have to be very aware of the danger of some people, mainly young people being people radicalized agenda doing very, very dangerous thing safety. if the radicalization of some, a very small number but nonetheless a significant number of young people across europe products of a war or something else? i think we need to think very, very deeply about that and think they're very deeply about what's happened in this world since 2001, and the increasing numbers of people that are suffering because of it.

i rest my case at that point. there is, mr. speaker, ndu wide -- [shouting] there isn't a strategy -- [shouting] -- to provide humanitarian assistance to those victims. mr. speaker, perhaps most importantly of all i ask the prime minister this. is he able to explain how british bombing in syria will contribute to a comprehensive negotiated political settlement of the syrian war? such a settlement is widely accepted to be the only way to ensure the isolation and defeat of isil. isil grew out of the invasion of iraq and it is forged in syria, and the chaos and horror of a multi-fronted civil war. spoof i thank my right honorable friend for giving way.

the prime minister spoke often between a choice of action and inaction. but those of us who will be voted against airstrikes we also want to see action. the prime minister said almost nothing about cutting off the financial supply for daesh which helped radicalized recruits. does my right honorable friend agree with me that we need action on this point? >> we absolutely need action to ensure there is a diplomatic and political solution to the crisis. i welcome what the prime minister said about speeding up the process in vienna, bush was a message ought to be let's speed that up rather than sending the bombers and now to bring about political settlement. [shouting] what we need, therefore, mr. speaker, is an involvement of all the main regional and international power.

now, that i know, i know that is being attempted. i know that there have been discussions in vienna, and we welcome that. i think it is regrettable that -- trench on going to make progress with his speech if i may. there are over 150 members who which to speak, therefore i think long speech from the front bench is taken out of backbenchers speeches. so the aim must be to establish a broad-based government in syria that has the support of majority of its people. difficult as that is at the present time. [shouting] >> no. such a settlement could help take back territory from isil and bring about lasting defeat from syria. ultimately, mr. speaker, i am really sorry to have to tell members opposite, i've given away quite a lot on members on both sides to i'm not going to continue with my speech. [shouting]

>> ultimately -- [shouting] >> order. very long-established convention of his house. the member who has the floor gives way or not as he or she chooses. the lead of the opposition has made it clear that for now he is not get away. the appropriate response isn't an endeavor to jump up and shout give way. it's just not terribly sensible. mr. jeremy corbyn. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the point i was make it was the ultimate dissolution in syria has to be but all the people of syria but i think on that surely we all agree. [shouting] >> i thought i made it clear, mr. speaker, mcclure that at the moment i'm not giving away. i'm really sorry but i'm not, okay? shot back. >> the government's proposal -- [shouting] the governments proposal -- --

>> point of order. spent mr. speaker, there is indeed -- he on the floor decide whether to give with it is not also customary to also questioned whether putting intervention and we are waiting for the answer on iraq. [shouting] >> the honorable gentleman is a sufficiently experienced parliamentarian who know that he's made his own point in his own way, and it's on the record. mr. jeremy corbyn. >> thank you, mr. speaker. [shouting] try to if i could move on with the speech i would be most grateful to the government's proposal -- [shouting] the government's proposal for military action in syria are not backed by clear and unauthorized, clear and

unambiguous authorization by the united nations. it does not meet a group our own foreign affairs committee but it does not fulfill three of the four conditions laid down in my own party conference resolution a couple of months ago. [shouting] the past week, mr. speaker, boyce have been given to great opposition to the government's plans across the country. in parliament and in immediate and, indeed, in my own party. and i believe it's a consideration of all the wars we've been involved in in the last 14 years. these matters were degraded through my own campaign to be elected the leader of the labour party, and many people think very deeply about these matters. the right of the record of western military interventions is one that has to be analyzed. british bombing in syria risks yet more of what president obama

in a very thoughtful mom called the unintended consequences of the war in iraq, which he himself opposed at the time. iraq, afghanistan and libya looms over this debate. [shouting] mr. speaker, i am not giving way. i'm going to carry on with my speech. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, to oppose another war and intervention, in my view, is actually not pacifism. it's common sense which i think we should be thinking about it today in this house. to resist our self-determination to draw the western powers back into the middle east isn't to turn our backs our allies. it's refusing to play into the hands of isil of what i suspect some of them wanted to do. is in the wrong for us when we

sesee a problem, passing motion, drop bombs and pretending we are doing something to solve it? that's what we did in afghanistan, iraq, libya. has terrorism increased or decreased as a result of all of that? the prime minister said he was looking to build a consensus around the military action he wanted to take. i don't believe he has achieved anything of the kind. he has failed in my view, to make the case for another bombing campaign. all of our efforts are going to go into freeing the syrian civil war to an end. iraq, afghanistan, libya, i ask members to think very carefully about the previous decisions we have made. [shouting]

what we are proposing to do that they descend british bombers -- >> point of order spent on a number of occasions of receiving complaints from the public, what do you think the public thinks when i write on both in the leader of the opposition is being shouted out constantly by the government benches? >> i think what the public wants is a civilized the robust debate by members on both sides of the house. i think the honorable gentleman, very experienced member for the point of order. let's proceed without fear or favor. mr. jeremy corbyn. >> thank you, mr. speaker. sometimes in this house we get carried away with the theatrics of the play, and forget the art millions of people who sent us to this house to represent them, and we should be able come and we should be able to conduct our debates any decent, respectful

and cvilized manner. and short as this debate is compared the number who want to speak, i hope all those members who have applied to speak to get called. and i conclude with this point, mr. speaker. in my view, only be negotiated political and diplomatic endeavor to bring about an end to the civil war in syria will bring some hope to the millions who have lost their homes, who are refugees, who are came out and there is point all across europe, dreaming of a day that they can go home. i think the overriding goal should be to end of the civil war in syria. and, obviously, also to protect the people of this country. that is why, mr. speaker, i do not believe that the motion put by the prime minister achieve that because it seems to put the

emphasis on bombing now were as i think the emphasis should be not on bombing now, but i'm bringing about all our endeavors, all our intelligence and all our efforts -- [shouting] i think it very strange that members don't seem to understa understand, they don't want to hear people shouting at each other. for those reasons, for those reasons, mr. speaker, for those reasons, mr. speaker, i urge members on all sides of the house to think very carefully about responsibility lies with them today. do we send in bombers not totally unaware of what are the consequences are going to be, or do we pause, not sinned and come and instead put all of our efforts into bringing about take peaceful, humanitarian and just political settlement to the terrible situation faced by the people in syria? >> or alan duncan.

>> mr. speaker, i don't think there is anybody on either side of the house, as all of us are trying to show responsibility and duty who in any way relish the decision that we are being asked to take today. it is not straightforward like the response in patients of the falklands. it's a very for difficult decision we are being asked to take it and taking it i think we have to have two issues in the forefront of our thinking. first, the security of our own country, and secondly the desperate need to restore stability in the middle east. but rather, i would like to pick out and emphasize a few points

which i would ask the house solemnly to consider. the question of whether to commit our armed forces has actually over the last figures become seriously muddied, both by the painful expense of past decisions and by the complexity of the unfolding disorder across the arab world. the experience of afghanistan and asking for which the leader of the opposition referred, and of iraq, more significantly, have led to growing precedent and, indeed, unrest. the first point i would like to emphasize is that he must take the decisions today based on the merit of the day. we must base it on the day's facts and not on yesterday's mistakes and regrets. >> here, here. >> welcome before i give way

quickly, can i just point out politely to the stop the war coalition. that when it actually comes to syria, stopping the war is exactly what we want to do. >> here, here. >> i think the gentleman for giving way. i absolutely agree that what we need are facts and greater clarity about our capability to take on the task that is ahead of us. yesterday we were told that there were between 20 and 30,000 daesh across syria and iraq but i could be given a number as to how many taliban were fighting in afghanistan to get a comparative when we had 10,000 of our troops and 30,000 others fighting to get i couldn't get that. i couldn't get an answer to how -- automatic editing get an answer to how many troops we will be flying. do we need those questions

answered? >> these must not be speeches, however well intentioned. alan duncan. >> i appreciate the search for certainty in the middle east is a vain hope, perhaps the watchword which 35 years ago when i first -- if you're not confused you don't understand. [laughter] it is a very, very complex world in which we are fighting a daesh. secondly, mr. speaker, let me move on to my second point. the second point if i might address this right honorable gentleman the leader of the opposition, we must not underestimate the extent and the nature of the danger we face and say that because it's all over there, it's not over here. it's not only a vicious force running rampant through that measurable space between iraq in syria. it is also between those who

would readily walk up the main street of a major city with a suicide bomb or a caring a collapsing bomb. so to those in favor of airstrikes would increase the danger, i would urge them not to get into that narrative. these people are already targeting us now. >> here, here. >> thirdly we have to see this threat -- no. in the context of even come of even greater regional danger. we are witnessing the collapse of nation-states across potentially -- along with a violent release of centuries of sectarian hatred. a crucial element of our policy, mr. speaker, should be to try to stop the spreading. and that means that we must support stable rules within six countries of the gcc and those

-- conduct, simply do not understand the horror that would be unleashed by further instability in the region. even now we face the real prospects of an art of brutality and terrorism stretching from syria through iraq to yemen, right across into a terrifying link with the horn of africa. and forcefully, we can't turn away from this threat and subcontract our obligations. >> here, here. >> if we are to pursue the destruction of ice is a daesh and rebuild stable governments -- ice is daesh -- and underpin wider stability and make more and make all of that a series in nvincing objective of our foreign policy, we must be part of the convoy that is trying to

do it. we cannot watch it roll by on not playing our part. but, frankly, our reputation, our international reputation has suffered from the vote in august 2013. our allies now question -- no. whether we can be relied upon when they call for joint assistance. mr. speaker, if we choose today to ring on the sideline, especially when there is a new and unequivocal u.n. resolution in place, it signals to the world that the uk has indeed chosen to withdraw. mr. speaker, we should not be in the business of national resignation from the world stage. >> here, here.

>> perhaps indeed the paradox of our position today is not that we are doing too much, but that we are doing too little. but if i get the concern come and in manila correctly to the right honorable gentleman, the leader of the opposition, it is the action i hope we will vote for tonight is not the whole answer. at the prime minister is not pretending that it is. the hopes that local so-called moderate forces can do the job on the ground and somehow put humpty dumpty together again is of course more an act of faith that a certain plan. but i think it's wrong, however, that the leader of the opposition to dismiss the significance and conclude that their composition is sufficient reason to do nothing. tonight, mr. speaker, i think we should carry the motion.

we've got to carry it with our eyes open, knowing that we are flying into a mass that shows that easy prospect on being quickly resolved, but we cannot leave a viable force unchallenged. >> here, here. >> mr. speaker, these airstrikes it do matter. i believe they are justified. i also think my view, the future judgment of the prime minister about what then follows will eventually become more important than the decision we're taking tonight. >> here, here. >> mr. angus robertson. [shouting] >> it's a pleasure to follow the right honorable gentleman, a fellow member of the intelligence and security committee although if there will be in different places. mr. speaker, -- implementing support which appears in my name and those of honorable and right honorable gentleman, i dropped into the fact --

[inaudible] signed by members of six different political parties and over 100 members from across the house and it reads that while welcoming the renewed emphasis towards piece and reconstruction in syria and accountants recognition that accompanies a strategy against daesh is required but not the least the participation in the ongoing air campaign in syria by 10 countries has been made under current circumstances, and consequent declined to authorize -- >> here, here. >> mr. speaker, med begin by thanking the prime minister. i'd like to thank them for his statement and his nationals good advice and colleagues from the minister of defense, the foreign commonwealth office and other agencies. and i again put on record our appreciation to all of those who are charged with keeping a safe at home and abroad. >> here, here. >> and notwithstanding the profound differences i have with the prime minister on the issue, i would wish to commend him of

parliamentary in recent weeks -- [inaudible] it's disappointing to say the least that he chose to describe opponents of his bombs aspect -- describe opponents of his plans. [inaudible] >> the and in the is signed by my colleagues, both of whose husband served in the armed forces with distinction. it's also been signed by members of northern ireland who have expressed terrorism firsthand. it is totally wrong for members of this house -- bombing syria.

i fear he is not going to. [inaudible] i will give way to the prime minister if he wishes to apologize. [shouting] i hope the prime minister regrets what he said. [shouting] -- share the concerns with her when else house as a country about the terrorist threat by daesh, the assad regime and regular raised the issue of refugees across the region and in your. europe if there is agreement that the threat is real and doing nothing is not an option. however, however we recall that only two years ago this prime minister, this government wanted us to bomb -- [inaudible] which we no doubt would have strengthened them. now, of course, there is no shortage of countries currently

bombing in syria. most recent the russians have been targeting daesh and too often the moderate opposition to assad as well. strikes in syria includes and it's a long list, australia, bahrain, canada, france, jordan, saudi arabia committed in which also uses brimstone as a weapon, the republic of turkey which addressing is also bomb our allies in kurdistan, the united arab emirates in the united states of america. open sources confirm, mr. speaker, that since september 2014 these airstrikes have included falcons come f-22's, super hornets, sea launch tomahawk cruise missiles and also weapons from drones launched from above the syria. the united states center command

confirmed that the united states has conducted more than 2700 airstrikes in syria. in its update from the combined joint strike force coalition shows that military forces have continued to attack gays terrorists in syria, send bombers and remotely-piloted aircraft -- in a moment. these have included -- destroyed and isil tactical vehicle -- i'm everything from reports from the united states military, from raqqa, this would isil vehicles, one strike destroyed and isil vehicle, two strikes strike and isil tactical unit and destroyed and isil checkpoint. the point is there is bombing currently underway in syria, and to pretend that what is being proposed while not taking that into account is highly misleading and they give way to the honorable gentleman.

>> does he think there is a legitimate case for those operations i would want them to withdraw? >> i'm supportive of efforts which are later stabilization in iraq. it's very important, but i would like to stress one thing in particular. i think we have a particular responsibility towards the kurds, old in the back and in syria. and i would wish that the prime minister would use his good offices would do with nato allies that we do not undermine efforts in iraq and syria. [shouting] and ensure that turkey does not bomb our kurdish allies. i've given way and that will make progress. the prime minister has asked us to listen to his speech for bomb in syria and we have. i know have repeatedly asked to very specific questions to all members on both sides by the

south but how will the uk plan to compete on the grid in syria? the house of commons workers committee asked which ground forces will take hold and administered territories captured from daesh in syria? and the second question, the second question that i posed was how will the uk plan secure long-term stability and reconstruction in syria, given that the uk spent 13 times more bombs in libya and honest post-conflict stability and reconstruction? and ask the prime minister, how much do you estimate this will cost and how much has he allocated from the united kingdom? i would like to turn to those two questions. regarding the issue of growth forces would've told our 70 troops that are opposed to assad and daesh which could take the territory that daesh currently holds. the problem is that only a part of those forces are moderate and

there's actually no evidence whatsoever that they would deploy from other parts of the country. i asked the prime minister and interventions and members will have heard. i asked the prime minister of those 70,000, how many are moderate and how many are fundamentalist? i have not had an answer to that question and i would like many members of the comments aikido the rest of the house what that is. [shouting] >> -- critical issue on the critical issue posed by -- i will give way in a moment to distinction of intelligence and security committee, of course i will but this is an absolutely vital point. it was a vital point raised by the ford affairs select committee, a key part of the argument of having any credibility that a bombing strategy will lead to meeting a long-term piece in syria and it

was the daesh, is our grand -- ground forces cable taking the ground? we are repeatedly, that asked again, will any, i will give way, if any member of the government side wants to elucidate and explain to the house where the prime minister would not, therefore secretary, i'm happy to give way to him if he will confirm what is the makeup of the 70,000 -- [shouting] >> tried to i have not asked a question directly to the prime minister which he didn't answer. i challenged the force i could answer the question. is anybody else from the government side who answer the question? i give way to the honorable gentleman. >> we are at a very similar

points. the point the right angle gentleman is making is a knit picking quibbling point -- [shouting] if he wanted me out. if you will hear me out. if you will hear me out. it's dancing on the head of a pin to try and achieve the result of the honorable gentleman's answer. the on these people, we have to trust them. they are not on -- site and they're not on isil site. we need to work with them. >> here, here. >> let's get this right, mr. speaker. the prime minister has been asked the question. before secretary chu was given an opportunity to confirm the answer to the house. members from the government were asked the question. i see another member prepared to intervene so let me except of that intervention if we're going to get an answer to the question, 70,000, non-assad and non-daesh forces, how many of them are moderates and how many of them are fundamentalist? i give way.

>> he is a clever man and he rarely ask a question that he does not know the answer to himself. so i will put the question back to you. how many moderates he thinks? and also recently tied up on the 70,000. seems he has forgotten the courage and syria from the several battalions of syria christians and also the arabs in north and northeast syria who will work with the free syrian army to take on daesh. no answer. >> anybody watching this debate and reading hansard in the future will be able to recognize that this question has been asked time and time and time again and we have not had an answer to that question. i have given away a significant number of times no. [shouting] and nobody has answered me and nobody --

[shouting] sorry. if my ex-dean -- my esteemed colleague is able to answer the question i would be delighted. >> what interests me about the argument the right honorable gentleman is putting forward is erased is perfectly legitimate questions which should i hope be answered in the course of the debate. but what he glosses over is what his and his party's position is on the current operations which i think you will agree with me are, in fact, controlling daesh ability to do violence and cruelty in the area, and terrorism in europe. and if, indeed, those actions at the moment involving our allies both in syria and in iraq are achieving that goal i find it difficult to -- how we ourselves should not cooperate.

>> here, here. >> i have great respect for the right honorable judgment and i will comment later but we haven't heard and acted to the question which i oppose. if the honorable gentleman can answer the question. [shouting] >> i think the right honorable gentleman for giving way. are members of the foreign affairs select committee, -- [inaudible] the answer that you seek, i contend, is about 10-15,000 that would be absent -- the answer given by everyone there.

>> that's a very favorite import intervention from the honorable lady. from her experience and having traveled the region she is suggesting that the government figures that we been provided are massively wrong here and this is a favorite important point, mr. speaker. we are now hearing on a crucial issue raised by the ford affairs summit committee a crucial -- far from the 70,000 we heard, it's significantly less. they should worry us all and i will have made some progress. the problem with this issue and it is a critical issue, is that it is only a part of the forces that the prime minister and his colleagues have spoken about are moderate and there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they would definitely --

[inaudible] and it appears totally -- that a comprehensive -- any redirection of any forces from other fronts in syria. on stabilizing and rebuilding syria, mr. speaker, the second question i pose to the prime minister, it will cost $170 billion to rebuild syria to the prime minister has made a commitment that should be 1 billion pounds which is welcomed money to do with the rebuilding after the stabilization of syria, which we welcome. we are entitled to ask however, mr. speaker, whether contribution of less than 1% of what is required is realistically going to be enough. >> here, here. >> yesterday like some of the members of the house i took the time to meet syria exiles to hear their views.

it was heartbreaking to hear about people who are literally surviving just on hope and a 16 year-old who only wishes to attend their makeshift school in the basement. they asked whether we are -- stop fighting assad and move into other parts of the country to fight daesh. that asked how we expect people to fight daesh if they have no feeling of any support. now yesterday, mr. speaker, -- [inaudible] from many different organizations, from solidarity uk, from the sunni community in manchester, from the kurdish house and the syrian community southwest, from scotland to syria, from the syrian welsh of society, from the syrian platform for piece and the syrian association of yorkshire or and in their letter to us

they said that mps are asking the wrong question on syria. that being whether or not to bomb daesh. they said, they said complex and make the point and then i will give way to the honorable gentleman, they said from his many organizations across the united kingdom that daesh must be defeated for the sake of the people in syria as well as people in europe and britain as well. however, they stress the greatest threat comes from assad rather than daesh with a number of people killed by the assad regime being over to have timed the view pane so that is killed during the second world war. i give way. >> i'm very grateful for giving way. irrespective of how this house votes tonight, isn't it important that we do see a successful political resolution to the difficulties in syria? and given that prime minister

has set out timescales where he expects to be a transitional government, which is a price i was at those timescales given the current impasse between the likes on one hand of russia and iran, and on the other hand, the u.s.a. and france and others in respect of the future of assad speak with the honorable gentleman makes a good point. i'd like to give way to the honorable gentleman who i wish to commend on behalf of all of us in the house for the support of the campaign with all daesh, real name which is daesh and nothing else. >> thank you, and your entire party wanting to support me in this campaign when i first raised when changing the terminology to the defeatist evil organization. will he join me and urge the lead of the opposition to join his own foreign secretary to join his select committee, to

join the treasury, to ensure we use of the right common object to defeat this terrorist organization? .. explicitly by concrete actions, besides air attacks on civilians. this is the point raised by honourable gentleman from the

labour party. i believe all members in house support the the interinitiative on syria agreed in vienna to. we believe that these aims will only be secured through agreement on a serious long-term commitment into syria and this surely must be the key diplomatic priority for this government to make sure the time scale is as quick as can be delivered. the u.k. must step up its support for the international syria support initiative and other diplomatic efforts to secure sees fire in syria, political transition, combating terrorists like daesh and long-term reconstruction stability and support. i believe that the government has not answer the questions posed by the foreign affairs committee posed by house of commons. in fact neither do a majority who voted on iss in the rin affairs, committee.

in these circumstance, mr. speaker, we can not support the government. it is important, however, mr. speaker, and this is very, very important, that a message goes out to our armed forces that regardless of the differences that we have in this place, we -- for their safety an we appreciate their professionalism. this is particularly ref haven't for me as it would appear most aircraft deployed to the region will b from raf in my constituency. the u.k. government, mr. speaker, is going to have a huge problem with legitimacy and mandates for this operation in scotland. it may well win the vote tonight but it will do so with support of only two out of 59 scottish mps. and opinion poll released today shows that 72% of scotts are opposed to the bombing plans of the government and under normal circumstance, in a normal

country under these circumstances the armed forces would not be deployed. mr. speaker, i was cosponsor of the 2003 amendment to oppe invading iraq. and i am proud to cosponsor today's amendment opposing bombing in syria. i appeal to colleagues on all sides to make sure we do not ignore the lessons of afghanistan, ignore the lessons of iraq, ignore the lessons of libya. let's not repeat the mistakes of the past. let's not give breen light to military action without a comprehensive and credible plan to win the peace. >> dr. liam fox. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker it is very important for the whole house that in this debate today we're clear about what is hidden about. this is not about provoking a new confrontation with daesh. they have already confronted peace and decency and humanity.

we've seen what they're capable of in terms of beheads, crucifixes, mass rape. refugee crisis they provoked in the middle east with its terrible cost. their willingness to export jihad whenever they're able to do so. it is also not about bombing syria per se being portrayed outside. it is extension of a military campaign we're already following in iraq. nonexistent border in the sand. unwillingness of leader of your position to answer question of my honourable friend will give clear impression he is not just against extension of bombing campaign in syrian territory but he is against bombing daesh at home. very serious position to hold and to understand the nature of the threat that we face and why require as military response. we need to understand the mind-set of the jihadists

themselves. first of all, they take an extreme and distorted religious position. they then dehumanize the their opponents calling them infidels, hair rhett ticks, apostates. majority of them they killed are other muslims, not those of other religions. they tell themself it is god's work. because its god's work. accept no man made restraint. no laws, no borders. they deploy extreme -- self-appointed mission. we've seen that violence on the sands of tunisia. we have it in the screams of the jordanian pilot who was burned alive in a cage. we need to be under no illusions about the nature of the threat that we face. this is not like some of the armed political terrorists we've seen in the past. this is a fundamentally different threat. this is a group that does not

seek accommodation. they seek domination. we need to understand that before we are able to determine what our response should be. i will give way once to my right honourable friend. >> greatful to my right honourable friend. he will know of concerns about daesh starting to leave syria t go to libya in growing numbers. does he agree with me, when we are tackling isis and-in syria we will have to confront them at some stage in libya -- daesh. >> he is absolutely right. we have not chosen this confrontation. they chosen to confront us and free world and decency and humanity. it is prerequisite for peace and stability in the future we deal with this threat wherever it manifests itself. there are two elements to this motion, mr. speaker. there are the military elements and political elements. all the military questions, will british bombing as part of an allied action in syria be a

game-changer? no, it won't be a game-changer but it will make a significant and serious contribution to what the alliance is able to do. and the prime minister is absolutely correct when he says some of the weaponry we possess enables us to diminish civilian casualties. that is important from a humanitarian point of view. it is important in not handing a propaganda weapon to our opponents in the region. britain has contributed to this. we did it successfully in libya. minimizing civilian casualties. it is not an unimportant contribution to me. i believe we must be rational and cautious about wider implications. no war, no conflict is ever won from the air alone and the prime minister was right to point out this is only a part of the wider response. if we don't degrade the command-and-control of daesh territory will need to be taken

and will need to be held. i believe ultimately we will need to see an international coalition on the ground if that is to be successful in the long term. there may be syrian fighters of a number that actually set out. they may be coordinating the international coalition. they may be capable of doing so but we have to recognize that there needs to be a wider ability to take and hold territory. but can i say to those who are opposing the motion. the longer we wait to act, the smaller that number of allies is likely to be and the less their capability is likely to be as part of a wider coalition. if we do not have stability and security on the ground in syria there is no chance of peace whatever happens in vienna. mr. speaker, on the political side, our allies simply believe that it is absurd for britain to be part of a military campaign

against daesh in iraq but not in syria. it is patently militarily absurd position for us to hold and we have a chance to correct it today but we must not contract out the security of the united kingdom to our allies. it is a national embarassment that we are asking, asking our allies to do what we believe is necessary to tackling fundamental threats to the security of the united kingdom and this house of commons should not stand for it. finally, mr. speaker, on that, when we do not act it makes it much more difficult for diplomatically for us to persuade other countries to the airstrikes and peeling off of u.a.e., and saudi from the coalition attacking daesh is of great significance. we have a chance to revert that if we take a solid position today. mr. speaker, this vote on the action proposes will not in itself defeat daesh but it will help.

alongside the vienna process it may help bring peace long term to the syrian people. without the defeat of daesh there will be no peace. we have not chosen this conflict but we can not ignore it. to do nothing is policy position which will have its own consequences. if we do act it doesn't mean we will not see a terrorist atrocity in this country but if we do not tackle daesh, at the source over there there will be increasing risk we have to face the consequences over here. that would be an abdication of the primary responsibility of the house of commons which is the protection and defense of the british people. that is what this debate is all about. >> the gerald kaufman. >> mr. speaker, there is of course absolutely no doubt that daesh, i-s, is vial, loathsome,

murderous organization. the attack in paris, murder of 130 innocent people, could just have well as been in london and their choice of paris was retaliation against french activity in their region but that does not justify our taking activity if it were, appropriate, relevant and above all successful. they claim to call themselves islamic and the prime minister talked talked about reclaiming is lame from them -- islam from them. they do not own islam.

hundreds of thousands of people around the world are appalled by their murders, beheadings, kidnappings, all the act bomb minutable things they do. mr. speaker our loathe of daesh, our wish to get rid of it, to defeat it, to stop it is not the issue here today. the issue here is what action could be taken in order to stop them, in order to get rid of them and i have to say that i don't see such an action. the prime minister spoke about getting a transitional government in syria. he spoke about the situation in syria. i've been to syria many times. i did it with some distaste as

shadow foreign secretary and met leading officials in the syrian administration. murderers, i knew they were murderers. they murdered their own people. they murdered 10,000 people in hama alone. i would be delighted to see them got rid of but they're not going to go. and when there is talk about negotiations in vienna, the assumption somehow or another that will result in getting rid of assad, getting rid of the administration, is a delusion. putin, one of the most detestable leaders of any state in the world, will make sure that because they're his allies and because they suit him, action against them is not going to be successful. so what is the issue today?

it isn't an issue about changing the regime in syria which would make me, very, very happy indeed. it isn't about getting rid of daesh, getting rid of daesh, would make me very happy indeed. it's about what practical action can result in some way in damaging daesh, in stopping their atrocities, in stopping the people who are fleeing from them, in stopping the people who are flocking to them including sadly some small number of people from this country. if what the government were proposing today would in any way

not simply or not totally get rid of daesh but weaken them in a significant way so that they would knot go on behaving in the abominab fashion that we see, i wouldn't have any difficulty in voting for this motion today but there is absolutely no evidence of any kind that bombing daesh, that bombing raqqa will result in an upsurge of other people in the region to get rid of them. what it would do would, would, might cause some damage, it won't undermined them. what it will undoubtedly do, despite the assurances of the prime minister which i'm sure are given in good faith, it will

kill innocent civilians and i am not going to be a party to killing innocent civilians for what will simply be a gesture. i'm not interested in gesture politics, i'm not interested in gesture military activity. i'm interested in effective military activity and if that is brought before this hoe, i vote for it. when the previous conservative government came to us and asked for our support to get rid of saddam hussein from kuwait, i, as shadow foreign secretary formulated the policy that led labour members of parliament into the division lobby to voight for that. i am not interested in gestures. i'm interested in effective activity.

this government's motion and the activity that will follow, including military action from the air, will not change the situation on the ground. i'm not interested in making a show. i'm not interested in members of the house putting their hands up for something in their own hearts they know will not work. and for that reason i shall vote against the government motion. >> order. eight minute limit on back bench speeches will now apply with immediate effect. mr. christian blount. >> mr. speaker, people who have honorably opposed intervention on any occasion since 2003 including my honourable friend and fellow member of foreign affairs committee, who is the mover of today's principle amendment. part of strength of his case is that he was uou