capabilities as we are showing the area can carry out dynamic targeting. our pilots can strike the most difficult targets at rapid pace air support forces on the ground. we have the missile system that .nables us our drones are providing up to 30% of the intelligence in syria rate they are not currently able to use their low collateral high precision systems. we also have the ability to sustain operations. for months into the future.

of course we have these capabilities, but the most important answer to the question why us is even more fundamental. it is this. we should not be content standing aside. we have a fundamental question. act now with our friend has been struck in this way, then the allies of the world can be forgiven for asking, if not now, when. that leads to the next question, why now. wasfirst answer to that because of the grave danger that they pose to our security. there are additional reasons why action now is so important.

paris,t the attack in there's a real political process underway. this could lead to a new government in syria with whom we can defeat for good. we cannot wait for that to be complete before we begin acting to grant isil. let's be clear about the military objectives that we are pursuing. yes we wanted to take a terrorists by canceling their network committed targeting their training camps, and taking of those policy against the u.k., but there is a broader objective. peddlelong as i sulk and the myth of a so-called caliphate and a rock in syria it will be a rallying call for islamist extremists all around the world. that makes us less safe. just as we have reduced the scale and size in iraq push you

out of a rock, so we need to do the same thing in syria. now is reason for action is pute success in iraq at risk by our failure to act in syria. oureriously hamper hanford's if we stopped acting would reach the syrian border. when we come to the question why now we have to ask ourselves whether the risks of inaction are greater than the rest of taking action. every day we fail to act is in a dead -- is a day when i suck and grow some stronger. that is why all of the advice i have received, the military was buys diplomatic advice command security advice all says yes that the risks of inaction are greater.

some of the actions could make you the u.k. more of a target. let me tell the house the sayment and the chairman that the u.k. is in the top tier of countries that they are targeting im clear that the only way to deal with that reality is to address the threat we face and to do so now. let me turn to the question of legality. it is a long-standing .onstitutional convention right ofnded on the defense. the right of self-defense may be exercised individually where it is necessary to the uk's own defense, and collectively in the defense of our friends and allies.

basis is the collective self-defense of a rock. the have a legitimate government, the one that we sell part and help. firstly, that there is a direct link, and the ongoing tax. that they are unwilling or unable to take action necessary to prevent their continuing attack on iraq or whether attacks on us. their campaign against the u.k. and our allies has reached the level of an armed attack. such that force may be used in self-defense to prevent further atrocities being committed by isil. this is further underscored by the unanimous adoption of un security council resolution 224 nine. we should be clear about what it says, and what it means.

the whole world came together, including all five members of the security council to agree to this resolution and unanimously. it calls for member states to take, and again i quote, all necessary measures to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks committed specifically by isil. crucially it says that we should, eradicate the safe haven they have established oversight significant parts of iraq and syria. question of which ground forces would assist us, in a rock answer is clear. we have the security forces and the kurdish peshmerga. in syria it is more complex. we believe that there are around 70,000 syrian opposition fighters, principally the free syrian army who do not along to

extremists is, and with whom we can coordinate attacks on isil. there are kurdish armed groups that show themselves capable of taking territory, holding territory, and administering it. the syrian kurds have a fetish kurdish areas and retaking territory around the city of kobani. they stopped attempts to capture the main have a fetish moving humanitarian into the southern province. the southern front has consolidated its control over significant areas and has worked to prevent terrorist from operating. these people are bound ground

weops and need our help and should do more to help them from the air. the full answer cannot be achieved until there is a new syrian government that represents all the syrian people . christian, sunni, shiite, and we went. mr. speaker, we cannot defeat of the sibling from the air or purely material action alone. it requires a full political settlement. the prep questions can we wait for the settlement before we take action? then answer is no we cannot. on the question on if this is an overall strategy, the answer is yes. our approach has four pillars. extreme's strategy says we have a comprehensive plan to prevent and foiled plots

at home and also to address the poisonous ideologies that is the root cause of the threat we face. our support for the diplomatic process. we should be clear about this process. many across this house say it is right to have all of the key regional players around the table including iran and russia. we are seeing a ron and saudi arabian city run the same table with america. theof us working for transition to a new government in syria. the third pillar is the military action i've describing two degrees grade isil and reduce the threat they pose. it is working in a rock and i believe it can work in syria. the fourth pillar is a major humanitarian support. we have heard many times that they have given over 1.1 billion

pounds but by far the largest commitment of any european country, second only to you the united transamerica. this is helping to reduce the need of syrians to attempt the perilous journey to europe. . britain's answer to that question is absolutely yes i can tell the house that britain will taking all of these elements, counterterrorism, political and diplomatic, they all need to happen together to achieve a long-term solution in syria. we know that peace is a process, not an event. i'm clear that it cannot be achieved through military

assault alone. it also requires the removal of a solid from the political transition. i am also clear about the sequencing that is to take place. this is an isil first strategy. no one predicted isil's rise, and we should not pretty said it is impossible to bring them to an end. they do not represent the drizzle -- true religion of islam. we are not naïve to the complicity of the task. it will require patience and assistance. we will not be complete until we reach our true end goal, having governments in both iraq and syria that can command the confidence of all their people.

in syria ultimately means a government without a thought. a missile can a terrorist, but only good governance can kill terrorism. as we discuss all these things, people want to know that we've learned the lessons of previous conflicts. what anyone thought of the iraq war, terrible war mistakes in the aftermath. we will never make those mistakes again. the political process in syria will in time your new leadership and that is the thing we must support. we have been hollowed out after 40 years of dictatorship. the big difference between libya and syria is that in syria time we have firm international futureent for all the

syrian government around the table at the vienna government talks. the commitment is clear to preserve and development the state in syria and allow a new recommended to government. i have attempted to answer the main questions. why, why now, why. is it legal one of the ground forces is their strategy, what is the endpoint, and what his plan for reconstruction. i know this is a highly complex willtion and no members meet answers this morning. let me reassure the house that a memorandum of understanding with the russians. this enables daily contact and pragmatic military planning to ensure the safety of all coalition forces. this will include our pilots.

this simply is not the case. it is killing sunni and shia light rate our fusion for the onere syrian is only governed in the interest of all his people. while we welcome the presence of states and their support for international action. the house will also want to know what we're doing about the financing of isil. the document sets this out and it introduces intercepting smugglers, and enforcing sanctions to stop people trading with isil. but ultimately isil is able to generate income through its control of territory.

it is the rolling back of territory which will ultimately cut off the finances and two of those complex questions in the conflict situation are entered with these. answer is that we maintain integrity. is our view that assad much scope, and does it help in isil? this confuse the picture? advice i have cannot be more clear. we will not beat isil if we wait in our view that he must go. we cannot win over majority opinion which is vital for a long-term stability if we were to suddenly change of position.

mr. speaker, in the end it comes back to this one main question. should we take action? all those who say ultimately we need a diplomatic solution and introduces you to a new government in syria, they are right. working with a new representative government is the way to eradicate isil in syria in the long term. can we wait for that happened before we take military action? i say we cannot. let me be clear. be a vote in this house unless there is a clear majority for action. we will not hand and publicity .o today so any motion we bring before this house will explicitly recognize that military action is not the whole answer. as proud as i am of our servicemen and women i will not overstate our contribution. i will not understand the complicity of this issue nor the

risks that are involved in any military action. face aaker we do fundamental threat to our security. a politicalit for transition. we have to hit these terrorists in their height land right now and we must not sure our responsibility for security or hand it to others. throughout our history the united kingdom has stood up to defend our values and our way of life. we can and we must do so again. i commend this statement to the house. thank you very much mr. speaker and i appreciate the events copy of your statements which i got earlier today.

after the despicable and horrific attacks in paris a fortnight ago the whole house will, i'm sure, agree that our first priority must be the security of britain and the safety of the british people. so when we consider the prime minister's case for military action in syria, the issue of whether what he proposes strengthens, or undermines our national security must be front and centre stage. there is no doubt that the so-called islamic state group has imposed a reign of terror on millions in iraq, syria and libya. all that isis stands for and does is contrary to everything those of us on these benches have struggled for over generations. and there is no doubt that it poses a threat to our own people. the question must now be whether extending the uk bombing from iraq to syria is likely to reduce, or increase, that threat and whether it will counter, or spread, the terror campaign isis is waging in the middle east. with that in mind, i would like to put seven questions to the prime minister. first, does the prime minister believe that extending air strikes to syria, which is already being bombed by the us, france, russia and other powers , will make a significant

military impact on a campaign which has so far seen isis gain, as well as lose, territory? does he expect it will be a war winning strategy? and why does he think other members of the original coalition, including the gulf states, canada, and australia have halted their participation? , second, is the prime minister's view that the air campaign against isis-held areas can be successful without ground forces? if not, does he believe that kurdish forces or the relatively marginal and remote free syrian army would be in a position to take back isis-held territory if the air campaign were successful? is it not more likely that other stronger jihadist and radical salafist forces would take over? third, without credible or acceptable ground forces, isn't the logic of an intensified air campaign mission creep and western boots on the ground? can

can he today rule out the deployment of british ground forces to syria? fourth, does the prime minister believe that un security council resolution 2249 gives "clear and unambiguous authorisation" for uk air strikes? and what coordinated action with other un member states has there been under the terms of the resolution to cut off funding, oil revenues and arms supplies from isis in the territory it currently holds? and in the absence of any coordinated un military or diplomatic strategy, does he believe that more military forces over syria could increase the risks of dangerous incidents, such as the shooting down of a russian military aircraft by turkish forces this week? fifth, how does the prime minister think an extension of uk bombing would contribute to a comprehensive negotiated political settlement of the syrian civil war, which is

widely believed to be the only way to ensure the defeat of isis in the country? sixth, what assessment has the prime minister been given about the likely impact of british air strikes in syria on the threat of terrorist attacks in the uk? and what impact does he believe an intensified air campaign will have on civilian casualties in isis-held syrian territory and the wider syrian refugee crisis? finally, in the light of the record of western military interventions in recent years, including in iraq, afghanistan and libya does the prime minister accept that uk bombing of syria could risk more of what president obama called unintended consequences, and

that a lasting defeat of isis can only be secured by syrians and forces from within the region? >> analyzing the gentleman for his questions? i very much respect his long-held views about these issues and his quite correct caution before committing to any of these actions. but i do believe there is a good answer to the seven absolutely legitimate questions he asked. first of all, in terms of extending air strikes, whether they be a significant military impact, what i tried to give it my statement was a flavor of the specific things we think we would be about to do. but in many ways it is worth listening tour closest allies, the arrogance and the french want us to take part in not just for the cover that provides, but because of the capabilities that we bring. i have been listening very

say.ly to what they yes we would make a military difference. absolutely right to make this issue of ground forces. house thatde the there are obviously many who want to play down the existence and the role of the free syrian army information is that there are at least 70,000 forces that are able to help. we can see the help they have been given that including the examples i gave in my statement. let me give an insurance, we are not deploying bridges combat forces, we are not going to deploy british combat forces. we think that would be counterproductive. that is one thing we have all collectively learned from previous conflicts. we do not want to make that mistake again.

there was a resolution that contemporary february. we should continue to support all those measures. as explained in the statement, there is a confliction between what russia is doing and what the coalition is doing. what happened in turkey is we have to get to the bottom of that. overflymission to turkey's airspace, and they are ally in this conflict. what we are planning will help with transition, and i think the answer to that is a very strong yes. the intention is to do deny the

integrity of syria. i would also make the point that when we look to the future syria in is going to meet the involved of moderate sunnis in the future of the country. them, thee can help is yes thenansition important question about the impact of action on the threat level to this country. cleared my statement was the chairman of the joint intelligence committee and the head of mi5. we are already at the very highest level we can be in terms threats from isil. this is about learning the lessons of iraq. we have now this architecture of the joint intelligence committee chaired by a very senior official who has that independent view. i cleared every word of my statement very clearly with

them. on the issue of civilian casualties, which is important, i believe the truth of the matter is this. in a year and three months of the action we've taken in iraq there have been no reports of civilian casualties. we believe we have some of the most accurate weapons known to man. i think extending our activities and to syria is likely to reduce civilian casualties rather than increase them. finally, he asked about unintended" is -- unintended consequences. he can have a big debate about the action we have had to take around the world. in my view we have to recognize that this poor business -- poisonous narrative is a battle for our generation. we see it in nigeria, we see it in somalia. we can see it in our own country. got,ting a everything went

such as argument and all those things together. i believe we thought through the consequences of his actions. i think it is worth remembering that this american presidents, who saw that part of his role was withdrawing america from some of these foreign entanglements than trying to take a different approach to these actions, he is not only firmly behind american action in syria, he is asking america's oldest friend and partner to help out in this final work. my right honorable friend for responding so, principally to the report. i also think the chancellor for responding positively. part of the committee has concern early from the region

around i saw for this statement. other colleagues are completely -- are requiring regional perspective, part of our inquiry into the coalition against isil, as was our initial report which addressed the narrow issue of british airstrikes over the area. how did that narrow issue that the bigger questions, and one the coalition have the strategy of achieving against isis? does he agree with the senior leaders we met in the region that getting the politics right in both a rock in syria is the immediate and overriding priority, and we must not lose focus on baghdad? the committee will discuss its collective view early next week. we will want to report on these .rospects of success

is he aware that in the light of vienna, and his response to the committee that it is now my personal view that the country --ld be best served they should play fall role in the coalition, to support and shape the policy, and the eventually ideological defeat of isil? >> thank you for coming back to be weapons in the house today. thank him for what he said today . he is right that any action we take less a nested in an overall

strategy, which i've tried to set out today. the region are crucial in our understanding of this. most important of all, trying to make sure that iraq makes progress to being a more pluralistic and solid country. the politics and the action in my view go together. will come to the committee in the house in two months, and i'm very happy to come back anyway if we decide to go ahead with this action. whether to make a regular update to the house of commons or indeed appear in front of his committee to go through detailed questions. as in all things, i am the houses servant. >> thank you for your statement and raising by his national security advisor last night.

it was valuable to have that briefing, and we expressed our thanks to keep us all safe. please share the concerns of everybody in this house and in the country in the terrorist threat. strongly supports the national initiative agreed in vienna to secure a cease-fire in syria. he transitioned to stable government and cantering terrorist groups. we believe these aims will be through agreement. we get this cease-fire? are we planning for the long-term reconstruction and stability and support?

i asked two questions about syria which the prime mister did to answer so i would like review them today. how will be secure peace on the ground in syria? hich ground forces will take hold and administer territories captured for isil?" plan longhe u.k. stern -- long-term stability? ? how much, as i asked yesterday, does the prime minister estimate the total cost, and does he

think the amount of his statement today will be sufficient? two years ago he urged us to bomb the opponents of crisis in. that probably would have strengthened this terrorist organization. today he wants us to launch a violent campaign without effective ground support in creative a fully reconstruction plan. the private distress asked us to consider his plan. we have listened closely. however key questions posed by the foreign affairs select committee remain unanswered. and unless the prime minister answers these russians satisfactorily, the scottish national party will not vote for airstrikes in syria. for payingank him tribute to my national security advisor. i think he is right that what is

wired is political agreement and the long-term reconstruction of syria. my argument is not to disagreement with that. my argument is that as well is that we need to take action now to help protect us against the terrorism that we have seen on the streets of paris and elsewhere. he asked to questions about how we are supporting the negotiation initiative. we're playing a full part in the foreign secretary, but also funding the work of the united nations envoys who are trying to bring the parties together. who are the troops on the ground, and they are the free syrian army, they are the kurdish forces, and worth that makes it a more complicated picture than a rock where you have the iraq security forces. but these forces we can help them to take and to hold ground and to relieve suffering. you have seen that with what has happened around. important progress can be made.

i was very afraid in my statement. of course the true arrival of ground forces awaits the arrival of a new government in syria. that is the best way long-term to eradicate entirely isil. do have that partner. but again the question comes up and we wait for that to happen before we take some action that will do great iso-and great its capability to do us harm? you asked about the long-term reconstruction of syria. we have one of the largest budgets and anywhere in the world. we would be prepared to commit one billion pounds to that sort of reconstruction. the whole world would come together when there is a new's government in syria. there are syrian people desperately wanting to go home. they will get the support in britain, but they will get the support of the whole world. the prime minister has made a

alice ofg case for both sides of this meaningless international border at the moment. but also for the political process that we can have a voice in of bringing the americans closer to the russians and the saudi's and the turks closer to the radiance. cept that weac have to look for whatever agreement can produce stability and a more peaceful situation? and we may have to prepare ourselves for something that falls for short of what a liberal western democracy would look like? is it not the experience of the arab spring that goes straight to democratic elections that does not produce a resolution? evan the agreement is going to things beunpleasant involved and not just those who would naturally be our allies?

other people may have to be involved because the big enemy is iso-, which is dangerous and which is not possible to engage in any political negotiation? >> i think my right honorable friend speaks with a great amount of wisdom. he is never been an unquestioning supporter of military action and the things through carefully. what he says about the transition that needs to be taking place fall short of some of the democratic norms we want to see. of course that is likely. assad say that i believe cannot be part of the long-term government of syria, that is a -- not a preference statement of political preference but of fact. do i believe that a transition in syria will produce some

perfect democracy, of course it will not. but it might give us a partner with which we can complete the obliteration of isil and make it safer. that tworemind him years ago he was equally eloquent and telling us how central it was to bomb assad regime? decision taken, which was the correct one, if we done so it would be even worse than it is now. would military action help the situation to defeat isis? answern to believe the is no. i wonder how many members of the house really believe that it will make any real difference at all in defeating this hated death cult? >> i do not want to reenter the

arguments about chemical weapons use. i think of the thousands of people, including children who ssad been killed by a since that about. but will this make us safer or not? it is the views of our closest allies and our military and our intelligence experts in those responsible for our domestic security saying to us that we should take this action as part of a coalition to help make us safer. that is why every forward this statement and i will bring forward a vote. limited but the important progress on the track indiana, and the unanimous adoption by the united nation

resolution 2249 on iso-, is it not clear mr. speaker that the prime minister's response today is absolutely compelling? protectthe way we innocent civilians. i'm thankful for your support. this is about discharging our sillyssibility to our own -- citizens. isilll never be safe while and the so-called caliphate exist. iraq that weed in can take a territory, we can destroy so much of its infrastructure. we can make real progress. but we are hampered by not being able to do the same in syria. if we agree that the eradication of isil is essential for our national security, we should not put off a decision.

is correcte minister to say that the continued persistence of the so-called caliphate is an inspiration to violence, extremist, not only the middle east but in our own country. give some indication about what the characteristics of a legitimate transitional government might be? let me agree with him about the so-called caliphate. as i have tried to say in my statement there are the military objectives in terms of trying to break of the terrorist training grants infrastructure. but there is a bigger picture which is why this so-called caliphate exist. i do not believe we are safe until we should be part of his dismantling. about,stion he asked

this is what is being discussed in vienna, but it should start with cease-fire. it should then proceed to the political work of drawing up what institutions and should look like in leadership. to me is essential because in the end it is political transition that will help us defeat isil. military force cannot do it alone. i'm not coming to say there is a military solution there. there's a political committee diplomatic and military solution and we need to do more. honorable members, including me personally entirely agree with the prime minister that isil must be crushed militarily in syria. the crushing will indeed have to be military.

alone will not be effective. they have to be in coordination with credible ground forces. the suggested was that there are 70,000 non-islamist credible ground forces. me, anda revelation to i suspect most other members in this house. this depends upon the participation of the syrian army. tothe dictator assad refuses resign, which is the greater danger to our national interest? ? syria under him, or the youinued expansion, because may have to choose between one and the other. myi have great respect for honorable friend who thinks through things very carefully.

we agree in the dangers of issa, we believe it needs to be crushed. we also agree, as i put in my response to the committee, that we need an isil first strategy. they are the greater threat to the united kingdom. think the only area of disagreement as one on a technical point. one slightly more profound, but not unbridgeable. about 70,000aid moderate forces in syria is not my figure, it is the considered opinion of the joint intelligence committee. a committee that was set up and given independence to avoid any of the mistakes that we had in the past of the potential misuse of intelligence and other information. new, that document has been entirely cleared i then, as has my statement. the other issue we have to come to is that of course he and i

agree that in time the best ground troops should be the syrian army. my view is that will be more than likely to happen after a political transition has taken place in syria. my contention is the problem of believing it can be done with a side is that it will never get the cease-fire. you'll navigate the participation of the sunni majority in syria oil he is still there. but i think the disagreement between us is narrowing. as is the discriminate between britain, france, american and russian. we need a military and political solution. a the prime minister has made strong moral, legal case for totalitarianism in syria and iraq. but the real question is obviously the practical one. the house will want to consider

russian objectives in syria. how do we avoid getting the support to a saudi forces and becoming dependent on him? giving succor to isolate and its recruitment in the region? >> this is important. we have been very clear, our target is isil, not the regime. ourwe will be helped by if the sunni isil majority continues to believe, rightly, that we leave syria requires a transition away from a solid. he cannot be in the long-term running the country. i the russian objectives, think the gap between us has narrowed i.

i think the difference is that russia is still attacking the moderate syrian forces that we ofieve in time could be part it -- and the solution. this means a nice workforce strategy that is where the greatest threats come from. my rightcongratulate honorable friend for setting up such a controversy as a approach that comprehensive approach. does he accept that will united kingdom not to act is a policy that position in itself it will have consequences because the

jihadists hate does not what we do and who we are and what we stand for? we do not have the luxury of not confronting isolate because they have chosen to confront us. is do we confront them there are take the risk of having them confront us here? a great clarity to this. taking action is itself a choice. that choice has consequences. it is my judgment and the independent,hose impartial, highly trained advisors on security and military issues to take the same view. in action is the greater risk. >> i think the prime minister for his statement. there are understandable knee-jerk reaction on both sides from parent and that parents and -- from paris and

beirut. there will be those who say intervene at all cost and those who say do not. i have five criteria by which to judge the statement. the prime minister recognizes that airstrikes alone will not to defeat isil. he has already heard that he will need to give much more evidence to this has to convince us that the ground operations that are there are sufficient of the capability and credit see credence. what role could we play in delivering this victory if that is the direction in which we choose to go? aso in the statement is reference to humanitarian aid. but he will know that no amount of aid can help an innocent family. avon. there is no reference in this bombment to establish a

shelters or save havens to protect innocent civilians. will he answer the question? >> i think the honorable response and his for the fact that his party is clearly wanting to engage with the arguments, think very carefully, and then consider the key national security arguments before i know the national security adviser was pleased to brief them last night and stands ready on any questions they might have. i determined that there should be no knee-jerk reaction. i take very seriously what happened in paris. the threat we face is very, very severe, but i want us to consider this. i don't want anyone to feel that a process has not been followed. in terms of the two specific

questions he asked, on , we willian aid continue to deliver that. , that coulds require the presence of ground troops. we are not going to be putting in ground troops for those purposes, but of course, what we want is a growing part of iraq and a growing part of syria to have no bomb zones because there placee no bombing taking because we will have the political cease-fire we need and we will have taken action to reduce crisis. gulfe question of other countries, they, on the whole, have been helping to fund the moderate syrian opposition which, in my view, need to play a part in the future of this country, and they strongly

support the actions this country is willing to tape. -- take. >> boots on the ground are essential if bombing is to be relevant. i would like him to convince me that what he refers to as the army actually exists rather than a ragtag group of forces with no coherent force. i would like him to convince me that there is a moderate group we can back whereas in times of constitutional dissolution, it is almost the law of human nature that people rallied to the most extreme and forceful advocates of their groups. there are no moderates. and i would like to be convinced that we can act against islamists rather than assad.

>> what i say to my friend, and i respect that he -- the point he takes. .here are moderate forces there are forces in the free syrian army. they have taken the fight to isis and they have prevented isis from taking vital ground, and we can see the effect of them taking ground, holding ground, and indeed administering territory as i said in my reply. but let me add this point. there is one sure way to make sure there is only one choice for syrians, and that is if we don't support the moderate forces. people in syria are not either fans of bashar al-assad or

psychopathic extremist killers. most people want to have a country in which they can get on with their lives. that is what they are fighting for, and that is why they deserve our support. >> the prime minister makes a strong case to the house today, but he will be aware that members on both sides of the will be assured that he and the government both show the persistence and patience required over many months to get agreement on both the political strategy and reconstruction in syria and iraq. what reassurance can he give that the government will provide that commitment today? >> the commitment i can give to the honorable lady is that this is not only the number one national security issue that we face, but a massive question for all european countries, britain

included, and it deserves the maximum amount of attention and resources we can give it. i believe we will have to be patient not just on the humanitarian angles -- where i think we have a good humanitarian record. he did not just suddenly respond. we have been giving aid over the last four years. but persistent action has led to gainededuction in isis territory. -- the strategy in strategy we are pursuing is one it does take time because we are working with the government on the ground in iraq and legitimate forces in syria, so we cannot expect immediate results, but over time, it will make us safer.

>> if the attacks had taken place in london in london instead of paris, i believe the british people would be dismayed and upset about why it is taking so long to react. given your statement today and of what thetion intelligence committee has stated, will you ask our chief whip to gain insurance -- assurance from the opposite chief whip that we will come to the aid of our allies sooner rather than later. david cameron: i think my honorable friend makes a good point. and let's be frank. this attack could just as well in london as it was in paris. and we should recognize what a close alliance we have with

france and the united states, and how together we can make the world safer. held, it's about the importance of our national security and the message we can spend -- send to our enemies. i am trying to make sure we draw together the biggest possible coalition of members of parliament for all sides of the house to support what i promise will be a motion that importance ofe the strategy, every element of that strategy. i think there were many points past in the labour party conference on this issue that either have been addressed or can be addressed through the actions we are taking. of course, everyone has to come to their own decision, but i do

not want to give anyone out of a be part of that decision. i think the prime minister for discussions we have had in recent days. at times like this, it is right again to thank our brave and precious servicemen and women who stand ready to do their duty . ofhear know the consequences for toog terrorism long. will the prime minister concede that the action today is against isis terrorist and nobody else. to confirm the importance of an overall strategy, the targeting of terrorists, and an endpoint.

ready to do what is in the best interest of our national security. i think the prime minister. david cameron: i think the honorable gentleman speaks for the whole country in the work he -- in his words thanking the military for the work they are doing. i completely agree that being clear about strategy, being clear about targeting, and, as i was today, clear about the endpoint of what we are trying to achieve, they are all very much part of our approach. barrow: in the absence of a long-term strategy in proper local knowledge, we risk repeating the errors we made in our intervention in iraq, afghanistan, and libya.

key questions remain. extremism andmbat ideology that all extremist groups feed off, how best to --rupt the business flows over a year now, there has been no effect, and also, i would ask you to look again at the figure of 70,000 free syrian army because i have been told in no uncertain terms there are very few moderates on either side of the civil war. will this reinforce the western failure in the region generally at a time when already there are too many aircraft chasing too few targets? david cameron: i believe what there is too many of our -- our terrorists threatening the country, but i agree that we have to combat the ideology.

that is a very big part of our domestic strategy of prevention. what our schools and universities must do together. i think we have taken more action in this country than many others in europe and around the world. i think the issue of starving isis of money and resources, i couldn't agree more. if there is more to be done, i will be the first to push for it, but let's be clear about where they get their money from. they get their money from the banks in mosul. the charlotteom sought. this is not my figure. i have not produced any of these stickers -- figures. they come from the experts who advised me now filtered through a joint intelligence committee process set up after the iraq war. i am determined that we learn the lessons of that conflict.

but surely it cannot be a lesson that when we are threatened and we can make a difference, we should somehow stand back. >> the prime minister was commended rightly for not tunisia.ut military in that he is runabout escalating a regional war into a world war between christians and -- wrong about escalating a regional war into a world war between christians and muslims. in 2003, we deepened the the divideeepened between muslims and christians. wantis their strategy, and this action now lead to more? the great threat is homegrown terrorism, and isn't this action likely to increase recruits to

jihad is them and terrorism -- jihadism and terrorism in the world? mr. cameron: i know the gentleman deeply wants to have the peaceful world we all dream of, and in that, we have something in common. but isis was behind the murder of the people on the beach in tunisia. oure behind the plots in country. they butchered our friends, citizens in paris. in terms of the battle between muslims and christians, that is to stopwant to avoid, this extremism and stop isis. to prevent this clash from taking place. as for isis themselves, they civilians in large numbers. we cannot source this to someone

else. we must be part of it. >> for those of us who saw another prime minister in the dispatch box and felt we voted at that time to take military action on a false premise, can i thank the prime minister for coming to this house and his approach and openness over what i believe is a very real and present threat to citizens in the u.k.? there can be no doubt that we would bring a very specific whenary capability if and we join in this military action in syria. is the prime minister satisfied that we have sufficient stocks and manufacturing capability to sustain and the fill our military objective in syria? david cameron: i can confirming of sufficient stocks, but let me respond to my right honorable friends wider point.