>> make sure they are kept safe. the argument i was making is one reason why the members of the international coalition, including president obama and president hollande -- they believe britain would make a real difference in syria as they are already doing in iraq. >> it is important in this debate that there is respect across the house. in that spirit of respect, will the prime minister -- he must apologize. for what was put on every member of the opposition last night.

cameron: i really do suggest that we get on with the debate. the country wants to hear about it. in many ways, what i have just said, i believe helps to answer the next question that some members have asked about why we do not simply increase our level of airstrikes 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 no sense to stop using the capabilities at a border between daeschd syria that simply do not recognize or respect. let me make this argument -- there was a recent incident in which syrian opposition forces needed support in their fight against daesch. british tornadoes were eight minutes away over the border in iraq. no one else was close. but britain could not help, so the syrian opposition forces had to wait 40 minutes in a perilous

situation while other coalition forces were scrambled. that sort of delay endangers the lives of those fighting daesch on the ground, and a frankly -- and frankly this nothing for our reputation with our allies. can he understand that at a time when too many aircraft are whating few targets, concerns many of us is the lack of a comprehensive strategy, both military and nonmilitary, including an exit strategy. one of the fundamental differences between iraq and syria is that you have nearly a million personnel on the government payroll, and still we are having trouble pushing isil back from syria. we risk reliving the lesson of libya. yesterday the prime minister has

not adequately address our concerns. david cameron: the second question i think is perhaps something on which the whole house will join me, wishing the honorable member -- given his recent illness, he is normally always at the foreign affairs select committee and arguing on the basis of the arguments he believes in. where we disagree is i believe there is a strategy of which military action is only one task. the key answer to his question is 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. but my disagreement with my honorable friend is that i believe we cannot wait for that to happen. daesch are planning the attacks now. we can act in syria as we acted in iraq, and in doing so we can

foster the long-term security and safety of our country, and that is why we should act. >> thank you for that change in terminology, and all members of parliament. with the prime minister join me in reviewing policy when they wrote to me that they cannot use the word daesch because it would breach their impartiality rule. we are at war with terrorists. we have to defeat their ideology . we have to unite in that. reviewurging the bbc to that is our policy. agree with my i honorable friend. i have already corresponded with the bbc. i think "islamic state" is even worse than saying "so-called let me make some

progress, and i will give way some more. there is a much more fundamental answer as to why we should carry out airstrikes in syria ourselves, and it is this. syria where they pump oil that does so much to help finance their evil acts. as i have said, it is in syria where many of those against our country are born, so we must act in syria to deal with these threats ourselves. >> i would have preferred to hear an apology, but i want to discuss the facts. we are proposing to target very different things than we are targeting in northern iraq. what practical steps will be used to reduce civilian casualties? and what sort of targets will reduce the terrorist threats in the u.k.? cameron: clearly it is the leaders of this death cult

itself. it is the training camps, the communications hubs. it is those that are plotting against us. as i am going to argue in a minute, the limited action that hussein, which was an air strike on syria, has already had an impact on isil, on daesch. that is an important point. how do we avoid civilian casualties? we have a starting point of wanting zero civilian casualties. one year and three months into the iraq he operations, we have not had any reports of civilian casualties. i am not standing here and saying that there are will these in war. of course there are. it is a very difficult situation we are putting ourselves into, hugely complex. it is a difficult argument in many ways to get across, but at task is a simple point -- will we in the long-term be safer and better off if we can get rid of this so-called caliphate, which is radicalizing muslims and

plotting atrocities across the streets of britain? >> i am very grateful to my friend for giving way. would he agree with me that there are already hundreds, if not thousands, of civilian casualties? those who are thrown off buildings, burned, decapitated, crucified, who have had to flee syria? those are the civilian casualties we are trying to help. david cameron: my honorable friend is putting it extremely clearly. that is one of the aims, to prevent this death cult from carrying out the acts they are carrying out on a daily basis. who say there are not as many ground troops as we would like, and that they are not all in the right places -- they are correct. we are not dealing with an ideal situation. but let me make a series of

important points. we should be clear what airstrikes alone can achieve. we do not need ground troops to target the supply of oil, which daesch uses to support terrorism. we do not need to target their -- we do not need ground troops to target their forces and supplies. forces,tive of ground can do serious damage and we should give them that supported i give way to the honorable general book -- to the honorable general. >> how would you respond to the point that daesch, since its offensive against baghdad was blunted by a power, has changed its tactics, dispersed its forces, and particularly in raqa, it has dispersed into small units?

thed cameron: i think what honorable general says is exactly right. they have changed tactics from the early days when airstrikes were more effective, but that is not an argument for doing nothing. it is an argument for using airstrikes where you can but having a longer-term strategy to deliver the ground troops through the transition that you need. but the argument will for 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 the grading and destroying this organization at the request of our allies, at the request of the gulf states, on the knowledge that it will make a difference? as i said last week, the full answer to the question of ground forces cannot be achieved until there is a new syrian government that represents all the syrian people. it is this new government who will be the natural partners for our forces in defeating daesch

for good. but there are some ground forces we can work within the meantime. last week i told the house -- let me give the explanation. i told the house i believe there were 70,000 opposition syrian fighters who do not belong to extremist groups and with whom we can coordinate attacks on daesch. there are some limits on what i can say about these groups, not the least that i cannot risk the safety of these courageous people who are being targeted daily by the regime or by daesch or by both. but i know this is an area of great interest and concern to the house, so let me try and say a little more. the fund of 70,000 is an estimate from our independent joint intelligence committee. based on a detailed analysis, updated on a daily basis, and joining from a wide source of intelligence. are from the free syrian army. alongside the 70,000, there are 20,000 kurdish fighters with whom we can also work.

aam not arguing -- this is crucial point -- i am not arguing that all of these 70,000 are somehow ideal partners. some left the syrian army because of bashar al-assad's brutality, and they can clearly play a role in the future of syria. that is a view that is taken by the russians as well, who are prepared to talk. >> thank you for the prime minister -- thank you to the prime mister forgiving way. he spoke of long-term strategy to fuel a new government in syria. there is possibly a bigger challenge with russia. i wonder if he can talk about the conversations he has had with president pugin and the united stash with president putin -- with president pugin. cameron: i have had these conversations with president putin.

him atas a meeting with the climate change conference in paris. there wasn't a norma's gap -- there was an enormous gap wanted bashar al-assad to go instantly, they wanted him to stay forever. that gap has narrowed and it will never further as these talks get underway. -- the very people clear ambition in the vienna talks is for a transitional government within six months and a new constitution and fresh elections within 18 months. there is a real momentum behind these talks. >> thank you for giving way. will you confirm to the house that alongside any intervention in syria that may be authorized by the house tonight, he remains completely committed to the effort that has kept so many people alive by this government in that region.

david cameron: i can certainly confirm that. we have been the second largest bilateral donor in the world after america, and we will keep that up with a vital conference that will be cochairing next year, ringing together the whole world to fill the gap of the funding that has been available. thank you to the prime minister. if the house asks for a narrow license to take out their capability, we would consent. but he is asking for a higher authority than that. in iraq, there are ground forces in place through the in syria, there are not. can i invite him to say a little bit more, at the very least, about what ground forces he envisages? david cameron: it goes to the difficulty of this case. i do not think you can separate command andhe

control of isil's operations against the u.k. or france or belgium or elsewhere. i do not think you can separate that from the task of degrading and destroying the daesch caliphate they have created. the two are intricately linked. as i argued in front of the house last week, as long as this so-called caliphate exists, it is a threat to us, not least because it is radicalizing muslims across the world who are going to fight for that organization and potentially returning to attack us. but on this issue, on his second question about ground troops -- there are three parts to this argument. one, the things that we can do without ground troops -- do not underestimate them. 2 -- the ground troops are there. not as many as we would like, but people that we are working with and can work with more. a transitional government in syria that can represent the syrian people, there will be more ground troops for us to work with to defeat

daesch and the caliphate, which will keep our country safe. i know that takes a long time, i know that is complex, but that is the strategy. we need to start with the first step, which is going after these terrorists today. i am so grateful, but i think the prime minister has to acknowledge that the ground troops which we can work with would be absolutely essential for his long-term strategy. at the moment, he has not shown to me that as we defeat isil, we simply create a vacuum into which assad will move, and we will be fighting another enemy. can i give him some motherly advice? he said whoever does not walk -- whoever does not walk with me through the division hall is not a terrorist. david cameron: i am happy to repeat what you said.

i could not have been more clear about it. is if she ising saying there are not enough ground troops, she is right. if she is saying they are not always in the right places, she is right. but the question for us is, should we ask now -- should we act now? i will certainly give way to the leader of the s&p in a moment. i want to be clear about the 70,000. that figure does not include another 25,000 extremist fighters in groups that reject the political participation and reject coordination with all muslims. although they fight daesch, they cannot and will be -- and will not be our partners. in many cases we can work with them and we can assist them. i want to make one final pouring, and then i will get -- i want to make one final point, and then i will give way to the leader of the snp. even getll he

stronger. in my view, we cannot afford to wait. we have to act now. would you clarify for every member of the house the advice that he has been given and others have been given in relation to the 70,000 forces that he speaks of? how many of those 70,000 are classified as moderate, and how many are classified as fundamentalists who we can never work with? majority are: the made up of free syrian army. but there is leadership in different parts of the country. the 70,000 includes -- excludes those in extremist groups that we will not work with. as i said very clearly, i am not arguing that the 70,000 are ideal partners. some of them have views that we do not agree with. but the definition of the 70,000 is those people that we have been prepared to work with and continue to be prepared to work

with. let me make this point again. if we do not take action against daesch now, the number of ground forces we can work with will get less and less and less. if we want to end up with a situation where you have the assad on one side and isil on the other side, that is one thing we cannot bring about. >> i know from my time and government how hard and how anxiously the prime minister thinks about these questions. but will he ensure that we complete the military aspect of this campaign so that we can get onto the important but perhaps most difficult aspect of the actions he poses, namely the post-conflict stabilization? cameron: i think my colleague is right. that is the end goal, and we

should not take our eyes off the prize, which is a reconstructed syria with a government that can represent all the people. where we do not have the migration crisis or the terrorism crisis. let me turn to the overall strategy. progress.e some let me say more about each of the nonmilitary elements. counterterrorism, counter extremism, the political and diplomatic processes, and the political and diplomatic work that i just referred to. a counterterrorism strategy gives britain a comprehensive poisonousjust the extremist ideology that is the root cause of the threat we face. i can announce today that we will establish a comprehensive review to root out any funding of extremism within the u.k. this will examine specifically the nature, scale, and origin of the funding of extremist activity in the u.k., including any overseas sources. it will report to myself -- and

i want to make this point before giving way again -- i know that some think military action will undermine our counter extremism strategy by radicalizing british muslims. let me take this head on. british muslims are appalled by daesch. women-raping, muslim-murdering extremists are hijacking islam for their warp ends. we must stand with our muslim world as they the reclaim their religion from these terrorists. so, far from an attack on islam, we are engaged in a defense of islam. far from a risk of radicalizing british muslims by acting, failing to act would actually be muslims inritish

their hour of need. >> the prime minister says that why do not the saudi's, the turks -- why do they not fight these people? why is it always up to us to fight them? cameron: the turks are taking part in this action and urging us to do the same. in saudis are taking part this action and urging us to do the same. the jordanians are taking part in this action and urging us to do the same. i have quote after quote from leader after leader in the gulf world, begging and pleading with britain so that we can take the group thatis threatens us all so much. the second part about strategies support for the diplomatic and political process. let me say a word about how this process leads to receipts fire -- leads to a cease-fire. it begins in identifying the

right people to put around the table. next week we expect the syrian nominate a team of people to negotiate under the auspices of the united nations. over the last 18 months, political and armed oppositions have converged. we know the main groups and their ideas, and in the coming days saudi arabia will host a meeting for opposition representatives in riyadh, and united nations will take steps toward a cease-fire, including at the next meeting of the international syria support group, which we expect to take place before christmas. the aim is a transitional government in six months, a new constitution in 18 months. the key elements of the deal are emerging -- cease-fires, opposition groups coming together, the key players america and russia, saudi arabia and iran, and key regional players like turkey, all in the room together. does not hurt this process, it helps this process, which is the eventual

goal. >> does the prime minister agree with me that the murders on the the carnageisia and in paris on november 13 changes and the british people would find it rather odd that it would take something more than that for written to stand -- for britain to stand shoulder to shoulder with a number of other countries and to take on daesch? they attack us for who we are, not because of what we do. they want to attack us again and again, and the question for us -- you would answer the call of our allies, some of our closest friends in the world -- the french and the americans -- to join with them, or do we ignore that call? think of what that says about britain as an ally. they give what it says to the countries in the region who will be asking themselves, if britain

will not come to the aid of france, its neighbor, in these circumstances, just how reliable of a friend and neighbor and ally is this country? i am conscious of the time. i said last week our support for refugees in the region, and the commitment of one billion pounds to commit to the rebuilding phase. but, mr. speaker, let me be clear. people will not return to syria if part of it is under the control of an organization that people, throws gay people off buildings, beheads aid workers, and forces children to marry before they are even 10 years old. so we cannot separate the humanitarian work and the reconstruction work from dealing with daesch itself. >> i think the prime minister for giving way.

welcome his views about terminology. i asked the prime minister a question as a new memory of this house. given that the language being used would be considered , and for the benefit of new members, with the prime minister withdraw his remarks? david cameron: i think everyone is now focused on the main issues in front of us. the plan for to pro -- for post-conflict reconstruction. oneid we should commit to billion pounds for reconstruction. it would be for security, stabilization, and confidence building measures, including basic you military and needs, and helping the refugees to

return. over time, the focus would shift to longer-term rebuilding of syria potshot at infrastructure. longer-term rebuilding of syria's18úxúñ