BBC reports:
MPs have overwhelmingly backed UK air strikes against so-called Islamic State in Syria, by 397 votes to 223, after an impassioned 10-hour Commons debate.
Four Tornado jets took off from RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus, after the vote. Their destination has not been confirmed.
A total of 66 Labour MPs sided with the government as David Cameron secured a larger than expected Commons majority.
The PM said they had "taken the right decision to keep the country safe" but opponents said the move was a mistake.
...
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn argued that the case for war "does not stack up" - but his party was split, with senior Labour figures, including members of the shadow cabinet voting with the government after they were given a free vote.
The 66 MPs who backed military action was equivalent to 29% of the parliamentary party.
[Editor's Note: For non-Brits, MP="member of parliament"]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @05:11PM
Simple:
They hate Westerners because the Westerners are bombing them.
The war on terror creates terrorists.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @05:30PM
It's not just that.
The west promotes gender equality and (most of us anyhow) respect for peoples differences, free speech democracy etc. These ideas cause minorities (and females) to get ideas above there station (like education) and think they have any rights whatsoever.
This war isn't so much about religion as the leaders losing power of there own people. And they are terrified of that. So they make enemies of the west.
Of course western ground forces bombing suspected terrorists and causing ACCIDENTAL deaths of innocent people does nothing to counter their idiology and propaganda.
However they support INTENTIONAL murder of innocents (women, children and men), if that provokes the west into action it just reinforces there position.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @06:12PM
That is an understandable argument, although I think it's not the only reason they hate Westerners.
I suspect it pisses them off even more than the bombings, that lots of "their" population would rather risk their life fleeing *to* the decadent West, rather
than pay tax and work for the Greater Good(TM) in their little "paradise". What's wrong with those people?!1? Don't they want to go to heaven real soon?
So why do Daesh rape and murder Yazidis [wikipedia.org], again?
I haven't read about Yazidi bombing campaigns against other peoples in Syria or Iraq.
Regardless of reasons for Daesh subjects to hate the West, their leaders behave as a barbarian tyranny with goals of expansion and also acts as a support base,
a "safe haven" for terrorists to come and get trained (free 9-year old Yazidi wife, while supplies last, did you read that mikeeusa?).
If they didn't have expansion goals, hadn't done genocide, and were just supporting terrorists, there would be much less support in the West and other countries to bomb them.
Also, it's one thing to listen to what the Western governments say, but it's a completely different thing if the experienced Korean diplomat and UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon also condemns them:
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2015/852&Lang=E&Area=UNDOC
(p. 8 par. 33)
That sounds like setting up a whole next generation of terrorists. Similar to that crazy Joseph Kony and his Lord's Resistance Army [wikipedia.org].
That's a crime against humanity. Who's going to clean up that mess in the coming 30 years and re-integrate thos boys back into society??
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 04 2015, @04:24PM
The Moslems have use janissaries before - this is nothing new. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries [wikipedia.org] Slaves of the sultan, expected to die in the sultan's service. We've seen a lot of slavery in regards to Daesh. Most of the slaves are expected to just lie down, and spread their legs for good Daesh soldiers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05 2015, @05:24AM
>In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10-12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).[8] Inspired by the "Maiden Tribute" female reformers in the US initiated their own campaign[9] which petitioned legislators to raise the legal minimum age to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the minimum age to 16-18 years by 1920.
Christendom was fine with men marrying girls too.
What you are fighting for is feminism, not western culture.