Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Hope on November 27, 2015, 09:18:33 AM
-
Following the very public split amongst the Labour leadership on this (and the rather quieter disagreements in just about every other party), I thought it would be worth our investigating the pros and cons of the issues. For instance, the argument goes that since ISIS do not recognise the border between Syria and Iraq, we shouldn't feel the need to recognise it either when it comes to bombing ISIS.
I'm not suggesting that we should come to a conclusion, but I'd be interested to see what the members of this place believe are the underlying issues, as opposed to some of the more publically announced ones.
What place does the diplomatic have in the issue and what place the military?
-
I'm not usually a fan of Giles Fraser in the Guardian, but his article today makes what for me is one of the best arguments against air strikes in Syria:
We wouldn't bomb Brussells to get the terrorist cells that are hiding there, so why are we thinking of bombing Raqqa on the same grounds?
If we were going to actually try to achieve anything militarily in Syria we'd send in ground troops, and we've already seen in Afghanistan and Iraq what that does for a region.
There is a place for military action in Syria, but it's not bombing major cities where thousands of innocent lives will be the inevitable price to pay for giving ISIS the PR coup of rising to their level of violence. The place for the military is to create and secure safe-havens in the area for people who aren't involved with ISIS, and to intercept and destroy military vehicles and movements. Enforce the peace, and nothing more - we won't change minds or hearts with bombs, that's going to require talking to people and actually listening to them.
O.
-
Agree with O. Joining in the bombing would lead to making the situation worse - just like every British decision on the ME from the Sykes-Picot agreement onwards.
-
Enforce the peace, and nothing more - ...
So are you suggesting that we don't get involved until there is peace - or at least a peace process in play?
-
I'm not usually a fan of Giles Fraser in the Guardian, but his article today makes what for me is one of the best arguments against air strikes in Syria:
We wouldn't bomb Brussells to get the terrorist cells that are hiding there, so why are we thinking of bombing Raqqa on the same grounds?
If we were going to actually try to achieve anything militarily in Syria we'd send in ground troops, and we've already seen in Afghanistan and Iraq what that does for a region.
There is a place for military action in Syria, but it's not bombing major cities where thousands of innocent lives will be the inevitable price to pay for giving ISIS the PR coup of rising to their level of violence. The place for the military is to create and secure safe-havens in the area for people who aren't involved with ISIS, and to intercept and destroy military vehicles and movements. Enforce the peace, and nothing more - we won't change minds or hearts with bombs, that's going to require talking to people and actually listening to them.
O.
I see the point, but if the terrorist cells where in Brussells, I would have confidence that the authorities there could handle and take care of the situation.
I have no such confidence about Raqqa, where the terrorists will just go about their business unhindered.
-
This will be used as a recruiting tool for IS can't believe we are thinking of doing this again.
-
So are you suggesting that we don't get involved until there is peace - or at least a peace process in play?
Militarily, yes. Diplomatically, no.
I'm suggesting that if no imminent cease-fire is in the offing, which it seems as if it isn't, then we should be only sending troops with two main tactical objectives:
a) Creating safe-haven areas which are free of violence
b) Intercepting military forces in transit and eliminating them in unpopulated areas.
There are difficulties in those, certainly they are more difficult and risky missions than arial bombardment of heavily occupied cities, but that's why we have some of the best trained armed forces in the world.
Strategically we can't be expecting military action to be the answer.
At the same time as that military action, we should be making it clear that seats are available at a negotiating table for those that are ready to come and talk - military force will never create a lasting peace, it can only enforce one with its continued presence, and we don't want to be committing to a permanent military presence which will only feed the fundamentalist PR machine.
O.
-
This will be used as a recruiting tool for IS can't believe we are thinking of doing this again.
Dit-Fucking-to
-
Like jakswan, I can't believe we're doing this again.
Well, Cameron has his own sexed up dossier - 70, 000 friendly fighters are just waiting the signal to start fighting IS. I just don't believe this - the US has spent a fortune training friendly rebels, who promptly decamp to IS, or just quit.
The peace plan looks very ropey. Russia is bombing rebel groups, and Hezbollah are mopping up afterwards, to help secure Assad. Is this what we're joining?
The Sunni tribes will go to IS, if they suspect that Iranian backed militias are advancing on them, as they did in Iraq. How is bombing going to stop that?
Meanwhile, the Saudis are bombing Yemen, and Turkey is bombing the Kurds - what a mad situation. Ah, but Dave 'call me Churchill' Cameron is on the way!
-
Like jakswan, I can't believe we're doing this again.
Well, Cameron has his own sexed up dossier - 70, 000 friendly fighters are just waiting the signal to start fighting IS. I just don't believe this - the US has spent a fortune training friendly rebels, who promptly decamp to IS, or just quit.
The peace plan looks very ropey. Russia is bombing rebel groups, and Hezbollah are mopping up afterwards, to help secure Assad. Is this what we're joining?
The Sunni tribes will go to IS, if they suspect that Iranian backed militias are advancing on them, as they did in Iraq. How is bombing going to stop that?
Meanwhile, the Saudis are bombing Yemen, and Turkey is bombing the Kurds - what a mad situation. Ah, but Dave 'call me Churchill' Cameron is on the way!
It reeks of 'We must do something, this is something, let's do this'
-
We must do something - oh, here's a sexed up dossier that has something in it.
Peace deal - Russia to bomb the Sunni villages which have been harbouring IS; then the Syrian army and Hezbollah move north, destroying everything in their path. Job done! Dave's a hero.
-
Dear Hope,
What place does the diplomatic have in the issue and what place the military?
Troops first diplomacy after, not bombs.
No matter where I look, papers, internet, telly, I keep hearing one thing, we can't talk to these terrorists.
I also think that revenge is there, as a Christian I should be saying, turn the other cheek, but right now I can't.
If we do send in troops, it must be with one message, terrorism does not work, terrorism is a thing of the past.
And has been stated in the media, we need to learn from past mistakes, massive investment from every country which send in troops, no whinging from any country that they are fed up watching as there taxes are sent to foreign shores, no walking away and thinking that charities will pick up the pieces.
Gonnagle.
-
I agree, Gonners, that revenge is a valid motive. However, it should not blind us to political realities on the ground.
Where are the ground troops? I don't think the West will send their own, unless there are further (and worse) atrocities.
One thing we have surely learned from previous campaigns - it's easy to make things worse.
-
Dear Wigs,
Where are the ground troops? I don't think the West will send their own, unless there are further (and worse) atrocities.
Pro active instead of re active, listening to Ken Livingstone on radio 2, a broad coalition of troops on the ground, although I get a queasy feeling when he talks about us being bombed in WW 2.
Gonnagle.
-
And so Corbyn continues on his mission to destroy the Labour Party, when he was supposed to be re-buiding it.
-
And so Corbyn continues on his mission to destroy the Labour Party, when he was supposed to be re-buiding it.
By wanting a real justification for killing people? As opposed to Blair, killing people on a lie, and see what good that has done.
-
By wanting a real justification for killing people? As opposed to Blair, killing people on a lie, and see what good that has done.
I was rather suggesting that his methods in dealing with a Labour dilemma are ham-fisted and divisive, whatever you think of his beliefs.
-
And so Corbyn continues on his mission to destroy the Labour Party, when he was supposed to be re-buiding it.
The figures I've seen suggest that his take is more in line with the majority of the Labour party membership, it just seems to be at odds with the Labour MPs... I suppose it's a matter of opinion which of those constitutes the 'real' Labour party.
O.
-
The figures I've seen suggest that his take is more in line with the majority of the Labour party membership, it just seems to be at odds with the Labour MPs... I suppose it's a matter of opinion which of those constitutes the 'real' Labour party.
O.
I don't think the views of the mass of Labour adherents are clear at this stage.
-
I was rather suggesting that his methods in dealing with a Labour dilemma are ham-fisted and divisive, whatever you think of his beliefs.
As opposed to the active briefing against him by half his shadow cabinet who want to bomb the brown people? Too many of the Shadow cabinet are using hamfists to metaphorically masturbate Cameron (who is fond of ham coitus to start with)
-
Thank God that Corbyn is putting forward the voice of sanity on war. I feel ashamed of the right-wingers in Labour who are backing Cameron - I guess they supported Blair, so are carrying on in the same vein.
-
Dear Bashers,
I don't think the views of the mass of Labour adherents are clear at this stage.
From what I am hearing, the mass are with Corbyn, as in ordinary Labour voters, it is the minority of Labour back bencher's who are against him.
Gonnagle.
-
As opposed to the active briefing against him by half his shadow cabinet who want to bomb the brown people? Too many of the Shadow cabinet are using hamfists to metaphorically masturbate Cameron (who is fond of ham coitus to start with)
They are briefing against him because of his ham-fisted e-mail and letter of yesterday; at least in part. The man has no idea how to manage a Party, which inevitably constitutes a variety of opinions.
-
They are briefing against him because of his ham-fisted e-mail and letter of yesterday; at least in part. The man has no idea how to manage a Party, which inevitably constitutes a variety of opinions.
Maybe in this case the party is unmanageable?
-
Maybe in this case the party is unmanageable?
Unmanageable? Maybe. But he is not the man for the job, whatever the state of the Party. His election was a potential disaster; and each week that goes by, he is proving that it is.
-
Hello, another derail.
-
Dis rail, or dat rail?
-
A Bash-rail.
-
Hello, another derail.
If such a capital offence worries you, then ignore it, and it no longer derails. Okay?
-
If such a capital offence worries you, then ignore it, and it no longer derails. Okay?
Not really. I understand that you need to derail many threads, but there is a thread on Corbyn somewhere, so why don't you go there and whine?
-
Not really. I understand that you need to derail many threads, but there is a thread on Corbyn somewhere, so why don't you go there and whine?
No. I chose to whine here. I know it annoys you. :)
-
As NS said, trolling, trolling, trolling, keep those fallacies rolling.
-
As NS said, trolling, trolling, trolling, keep those fallacies rolling.
One of NS's less effective comments. He was quite likely off somewhere quietly overcome by flatulence:: see earlier posts. :)
-
Good luck with this thread, Gordon!
-
Good luck with this thread, Gordon!
Yes Gordon; he was warning you that he's joining any de-rails that are going. He is a one! :)
-
Unmanageable? Maybe. But he is not the man for the job, whatever the state of the Party. His election was a potential disaster; and each week that goes by, he is proving that it is.
The party is broken. He didn't break it;he is a symptom of it being broken. They could have elected a combination of Gandhi, Darth Vader and Carol Kirkwood, and they would still be a porcine cephelus to G&D
-
The party is broken. He didn't break it;he is a symptom of it being broken. They could have elected a combination of Gandhi, Darth Vader and Carol Kirkwood, and they would still be a porcine cephelus to G&D
I agree; and if he went tomorrow it would only be a good thing for Labour.
-
I agree; and if he went tomorrow it would only be a good thing for Labour.
Except it wouldn't because if he goes the party breaks further. To be fair they will not win the next election, unless the next leader of the Tories joins ISIS live on TV while shooting the Queen and spunking jism over the lifeless beheaded head of David Attenborough.
-
I agree; and if he went tomorrow it would only be a good thing for Labour.
In what sense? It might make them more electable, but only because they'd be red tories - where would be the Labour that represents a socialist mindset of any kind?
O.
-
Except it wouldn't because if he goes the party breaks further. To be fair they will not win the next election, unless the next leader of the Tories joins ISIS live on TV while shooting the Queen and spunking jism over the lifeless beheaded head of David Attenborough.
It might if it was the head of David Cameron! ;)
-
In what sense? It might make them more electable, but only because they'd be red tories - where would be the Labour that represents a socialist mindset of any kind?
O.
That disappeared with the advent of the blessed-one, Blair!
-
That disappeared with the advent of the blessed-one, Blair!
Perhaps, but those people didn't disappear. Corbyn's been there since before Blairites came around, and that mentality will likely around for a considerable while yet.
O.
-
Perhaps, but those people didn't disappear. Corbyn's been there since before Blairites came around, and that mentality will likely around for a considerable while yet.
All Corbyn is doing is highlighting the fact that old Labour is gone, dead and buried; and he is a political dinosaur.
-
Dear Sane,
Except it wouldn't because if he goes the party breaks further. To be fair they will not win the next election, unless the next leader of the Tories joins ISIS live on TV while shooting the Queen and spunking jism over the lifeless beheaded head of David Attenborough.
That is supposing that the tories are intelligent, which they are not, they are crafty, fly, masters of smoke and mirrors, but then maybe that is all it takes in politics, for me, Corbyn is a breathe of fresh air, a man of principle, maybe, just maybe the British electorate will wake up.
Gonnagle.
-
Assuming that this thread is still about Syria - there are some interesting discussions about troop numbers going on. The US had 170, 000 in Iraq, facing an insurgency probably smaller than IS. I think there was hand to hand combat in Iraq, e.g. Fallujah, but IS may well use guerrilla tactics - some journos are already saying that many have left Raqqa. Still, keep on bombing.
Agree,and what are they there for? Are they savingS and getting rid of Assad? Are they getting rid of Assad and killing the Kurds? Are they supporting Saudi in Yemen but killing the Saudi supported ISIS? Or doesn't it realtor matter as they are all a bit brown?
-
I just want them to kill anyone and everyone that wants to kill us, as quickly and efficiently as possible.
-
Agree,and what are they there for? Are they savingS and getting rid of Assad? Are they getting rid of Assad and killing the Kurds? Are they supporting Saudi in Yemen but killing the Saudi supported ISIS? Or doesn't it realtor matter as they are all a bit brown?
It strikes me that it's not really about 'them', so much as it's about 'us'. It's an expression of anger and frustration at the deaths in Paris, even though the majority of people responsible for that are already dead. It's an empty gesture from Cameron pitched as 'security' and 'justice'; it's not even the counterproductive 'vengeance', it's just targetting 'other' with the appearance of significant action rather than having the courage to do something worthwhile even if it doesn't make for headline grabbing pictures.
Political opportunism in the wake of tragedy - it's no wonder politics disgusts so many people.
O.
-
It strikes me that it's not really about 'them', so much as it's about 'us'. It's an expression of anger and frustration at the deaths in Paris, even though the majority of people responsible for that are already dead. It's an empty gesture from Cameron pitched as 'security' and 'justice'; it's not even the counterproductive 'vengeance', it's just targetting 'other' with the appearance of significant action rather than having the courage to do something worthwhile even if it doesn't make for headline grabbing pictures.
Political opportunism in the wake of tragedy - it's no wonder politics disgusts so many people.
O.
I sort of understand what you are saying. As you say most who committed THAT offence are dead. The problem surely is that more are coming.
-
Dear Sane,
That is supposing that the tories are intelligent, which they are not, they are crafty, fly, masters of smoke and mirrors, but then maybe that is all it takes in politics, for me, Corbyn is a breathe of fresh air, a man of principle, maybe, just maybe the British electorate will wake up.
Gonnagle.
The Tories are about to change the number and division of seats to something that is in the favour of Labour to an extent to one that will be in their favour. The swing needed then will make 1997 look like a breathed wave vs a tsunami.
And as for Jeremy and the Labour party, where was he and nearly of them this vote in the vote against Trident renewal? Hmmm abstaining.
-
I sort of understand what you are saying. As you say most who committed THAT offence are dead. The problem surely is that more are coming.
And why is that? And does fairly indiscriminate bombing and the collateral killing of innocents stop it in any way?
-
And why is that? And does fairly indiscriminate bombing and the collateral killing of innocents stop it in any way?
No that will not help at all.
Is that what they intend to do?
-
No that will not help at all.
Is that what they intend to do?
Bombs by their nature are indiscriminate.
-
I sort of understand what you are saying. As you say most who committed THAT offence are dead. The problem surely is that more are coming.
If we were sending someone to bomb their isolated camp in the middle of nowhere that wouldn't be a problem for much longer, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about bombing heavily populated cities in the middle of a three-way (at least) conflict with no specific targets and no longer-term plan than creating some blasts to give the illusion that we're doing something about it.
O.
-
It strikes me that it's not really about 'them', so much as it's about 'us'. It's an expression of anger and frustration at the deaths in Paris, even though the majority of people responsible for that are already dead. It's an empty gesture from Cameron pitched as 'security' and 'justice'; it's not even the counterproductive 'vengeance', it's just targetting 'other' with the appearance of significant action rather than having the courage to do something worthwhile even if it doesn't make for headline grabbing pictures.
Political opportunism in the wake of tragedy - it's no wonder politics disgusts so many people.
O.
Agree, as stated earlier, 'We must do something, this is something, therefore we must do this'
I didn't see much of the debate on the statement yesterday but I saw one Tory MP ask if we were doing enough to deal with the threat, particularly since it was Christmas time! Feckin dog whistles!
-
Militarily, yes. Diplomatically, no.
I'm suggesting that if no imminent cease-fire is in the offing, which it seems as if it isn't, then we should be only sending troops with two main tactical objectives:
a) Creating safe-haven areas which are free of violence
b) Intercepting military forces in transit and eliminating them in unpopulated areas.
There are difficulties in those, certainly they are more difficult and risky missions than arial bombardment of heavily occupied cities, but that's why we have some of the best trained armed forces in the world.
Strategically we can't be expecting military action to be the answer.
At the same time as that military action, we should be making it clear that seats are available at a negotiating table for those that are ready to come and talk - military force will never create a lasting peace, it can only enforce one with its continued presence, and we don't want to be committing to a permanent military presence which will only feed the fundamentalist PR machine.
O.
Thanks for clarifying your point: I wasn't disagreeing with you, just hoping you'd expand it.
-
Thank God that Corbyn is putting forward the voice of sanity on war. I feel ashamed of the right-wingers in Labour who are backing Cameron - I guess they supported Blair, so are carrying on in the same vein.
I'm not sure that Corbyn - or Cameron - are voicing sanity of any sort. They are both taking very partisan lines and - in my view - failing to actually address the core issues which I started this thread to explore.
-
I'm not sure that Corbyn - or Cameron - are voicing sanity of any sort. They are both taking very partisan lines and - in my view - failing to actually address the core issues which I started this thread to explore.
What's the partisan line Corbyn is taking?
-
It strikes me that it's not really about 'them', so much as it's about 'us'. It's an expression of anger and frustration at the deaths in Paris, even though the majority of people responsible for that are already dead. It's an empty gesture from Cameron pitched as 'security' and 'justice'; it's not even the counterproductive 'vengeance', it's just targetting 'other' with the appearance of significant action rather than having the courage to do something worthwhile even if it doesn't make for headline grabbing pictures.
Political opportunism in the wake of tragedy - it's no wonder politics disgusts so many people.
O.
So are you suggesting that everything President Hollande has said over the past 2 weeks has been nothing more than 'political opportunism' and 'empty gesture' - and that the closure of schools, transport systems and other things in Brussels has been no different?
-
What's the partisan line Corbyn is taking?
From what I can understand of what he says, he seems to want to make sure that we only act with UN agreement, but that that agreement must be in the form of diplomacy leading to a form of peace. Now I'm not sure whether he is a die-hard pacifist or merely a die-hard anti nuclearist, but he seems to be suggesting that a process which ISIS had been clear that they aren't interested in is the only real way forward.
I realisethat in the past, we have regularly spoken to 'terrorists' whilst denying that we are, but I think these guys are a totally different form of terrorists, who don't have a political agenda - as the IRA, the Palestinians or the Basques have had, but only a pseudo-religious one.
-
So are you suggesting that everything President hollande has said ver the past 2 weeks has been nothing more than 'political opportunism' and 'empty gesture' - and that the closure of schools, transport systems and other things in Brussels has been no different?
Everything Hollande's said, no, of course not. The bits about sending bombers to Raqqa and elsewhere, yes.
The fact that these acts of terror won't stop France being a secular, open society: that's not empty in the sense it's meaningless, it's empty in the sense that these acts are changing the way French people go about their lives, it's changing French foreign policy and military activities.
Closing facilities and services in Belgium is a rational short-term response, searching for the specific individual who is presumed to have escaped to/through Belgium is also fine; this person has been identified and is being individually targetted.
Sending bombs to Syria is an empty gesture, which is the bit I was talking about. Other things I'll take on a case by case.
O.
-
I realisethat in the past, we have regularly spoken to 'terrorists' whilst denying that we are, but I think these guys are a totally different form of terrorists, who don't have a political agenda - as the IRA, the Palestinians or the Basques have had, but only a pseudo-religious one.
I don't see why it's 'pseudo' religious, I'd say it's fairly explicitly religious. Further, given that they are intent on founding a theocratic state, and indeed that many strains of Islam don't differentiate between the religious and political spheres, I'd say they have a solid political agenda.
What they don't appear to have at the moment is any sort of interest in diplomatic activity, but the only way we'll end this without one is to either surrender or wipe them out. Given where they are situated at the moment, that's going to be a slaughter of innocents that I don't want to even think about.
O.
-
From what I can understand of what he says, he seems to want to make sure that we only act with UN agreement, but that that agreement must be in the form of diplomacy leading to a form of peace. Now I'm not sure whether he is a die-hard pacifist or merely a die-hard anti nuclearist, but he seems to be suggesting that a process which ISIS had been clear that they aren't interested in is the only real way forward.
I realisethat in the past, we have regularly spoken to 'terrorists' whilst denying that we are, but I think these guys are a totally different form of terrorists, who don't have a political agenda - as the IRA, the Palestinians or the Basques have had, but only a pseudo-religious one.
Then (a) you are misunderstanding him and (b) you still haven't shown even with that that it is partisan.
For (a) the approach is to get the UN to agree in the action, not for that to be necessarily not violent. I don't understand your point about nuclear? Even Cameron isn't suggesting nuclear.
-
One of the aims of a diplomatic solution would be to 'drain the swamp', that is, peel away those who have been supporting IS, either covertly or openly. If this could be done, they would shrink a lot. This includes those countries who send finance and arms, or buy oil, and those Sunni leaders and tribes who support IS.,
It's clear that this can be done, as it was done in Iraq with Al Qaeda, who were initially supported by various Sunni leaders. But eventually, they fought against AQ. Of course, this all went pear-shaped, and IS emerged.
I don't see why Corbyn's ideas are partisan either. They sound sane to me.
-
The lack of ground troops is the big flaw in Cameron's thesis. On the other hand, you could take the cynical view that he knows that British bombing won't make any difference, and it's symbolic and for the prestige. That's the way that politicians think, although they pretend otherwise.
-
The obvious reason not to go into Syria is this so called 70,000 boots on the ground they say they have. This is not a coherent, homogenous group. It will include both rebels and Assad's troops, and at minimum the rebel troops will need to be armed to the teeth to fight ISIS.
What do people think will happen when ISIS starts to melt away, run to the hills or join some of the rebel groups, leaving the rebels and Assad's troops facing each other? With all those extra weaponry supplied by the Grand Coalition the original civil war will take off in earnest. This will not only cause absolute mayhem but will be a recruiting agent for a future jihadist terrorist group.
What the Big Boys think they have negotiated for this Grand Coalition is nothing but fool's gold, and when the shit hits the fan it will spray back into their faces; our faces.
-
It's clear that this can be done, as it was done in Iraq with Al Qaeda, who were initially supported by various Sunni leaders. But eventually, they fought against AQ. Of course, this all went pear-shaped, and IS emerged.
I don't see why Corbyn's ideas are partisan either. They sound sane to me.
I believe that they are partisan for the very reason you have given that IS emerged - see italicised section. OK, 'partisan' may be the wrong term, but I was using a term that I suspect had been misused in another's post that I responded to.
-
Or maybe Cameron is faking it. He hasn't a clue what to do, but big guns tend to look good.
-
I believe that they are partisan for the very reason you have given that IS emerged - see italicised section. OK, 'partisan' may be the wrong term, but I was using a term that I suspect had been misused in another's post that I responded to.
Well, Corbyn is also warning that more violence may actually make things worse, as it did in Iraq. This isn't partisan, it's just common sense, and learning from experience. This is the problem that Russia face - OK, they can bomb the rebel groups, but then Hezbollah follow up on the ground - what are the Sunni tribes going to do? Freak out, and join IS, maybe.
-
I don't see why it's 'pseudo' religious, I'd say it's fairly explicitly religious. Further, given that they are intent on founding a theocratic state, and indeed that many strains of Islam don't differentiate between the religious and political spheres, I'd say they have a solid political agenda.
I used the term 'pseudo-religious' because of the fact that very few Muslim scholars and Islamic scholars believe that what ISIS claims to be scriptural even exists within the Quran. I would regard something like Westboro Baptist as pseudo-religious for the equivalent reason.
What they don't appear to have at the moment is any sort of interest in diplomatic activity, but the only way we'll end this without one is to either surrender or wipe them out. Given where they are situated at the moment, that's going to be a slaughter of innocents that I don't want to even think about.
I think that a slaughter of the innocents has been on-going for 2 or 3 years already.
-
Well, Corbyn is also warning that more violence may actually make things worse, as it did in Iraq. This isn't partisan, it's just common sense, and learning from experience. This is the problem that Russia face - OK, they can bomb the rebel groups, but then Hezbollah follow up on the ground - what are the Sunni tribes going to do? Freak out, and join IS, maybe.
I agree that bombing will do nothing to seriously help the issue, but then diplomacy isn't going to work with ISIS as they currently exist - leaving us with 2 other options: leave them be and just wait till we get more Paris/ 7/7 - type events somewhere in any one of the Western countries, or do something militarily. I wonder whether it might not be better to send in some of the Western nations' more specialist forces - such as the SAS, the Seals, etc. to handle the matter. That way they coud be rather more 'surgical' than even the most 'precision' bombing.
-
Bombing is doing something militarily. Can we stop using euphemisms like doing something militarily or boots on ground to hide it means people there to kill and be killed.
-
I agree that bombing will do nothing to seriously help the issue, but then diplomacy isn't going to work with ISIS as they currently exist - leaving us with 2 other options: leave them be and just wait till we get more Paris/ 7/7 - type events somewhere in any one of the Western countries, or do something militarily. I wonder whether it might not be better to send in some of the Western nations' more specialist forces - such as the SAS, the Seals, etc. to handle the matter. That way they coud be rather more 'surgical' than even the most 'precision' bombing.
But a diplomatic solution doesn't mean inviting IS to the table. It (partly) involves draining the swamp, that is, getting the countries, and leaders, and tribes, who support IS, to stop. It can be done, as it was done in Iraq with Al Qaeda. Of course, it involves more than this, possibly a de facto partition, which seems to have happened in Iraq.
This leaves Assad in place, but probably nobody is going to have the energy to overthrow him anyway.
-
I used the term 'pseudo-religious' because of the fact that very few Muslim scholars and Islamic scholars believe that what ISIS claims to be scriptural even exists within the Quran. I would regard something like Westboro Baptist as pseudo-religious for the equivalent reason.
That rather brings us back to the whole 'sect-cult' idea of a 'proper' interpretation of a religious belief. In the absence of any way to be definitive, I'm not sure you can suggest an unpopular - or, at least, less popular - interpretation is somehow 'quasi' sufficient. It's an entirely religious viewpoint, even if it's not a valid interpretation, and there's no easy way to determine that.
I think that a slaughter of the innocents has been on-going for 2 or 3 years already.
Unfortunately, yes, and our previous actions have contributed to that, but we weren't doing it ourselves. If we do send in bombers it will be difficult, later, to try to claim any sort of moral high-ground in requests for diplomatic solutions.
O.
-
But a diplomatic solution doesn't mean inviting IS to the table. It (partly) involves draining the swamp, that is, getting the countries, and leaders, and tribes, who support IS, to stop. It can be done, as it was done in Iraq with Al Qaeda. Of course, it involves more than this, possibly a de facto partition, which seems to have happened in Iraq.
This leaves Assad in place, but probably nobody is going to have the energy to overthrow him anyway.
No point draining the swamp the worms will just burrow into the muddy ground!!!
-
Sending bombs to Syria is an empty gesture, which is the bit I was talking about. Other things I'll take on a case by case.
O.
So are the French wrong to bomb Syria?
-
One thing that needs addressing, and I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread, and that is the danger from the scores of Muslims who have come back here from Syria, and from Daesh. I think once they have done that, they should not be allowed back, and it should be made clear to all when they leave here. It is asking too much for our security people to keep an eye on all these, as they must have to.
-
So are the French wrong to bomb Syria?
I think so, yes. Who are they trying to kill, and why does the innocent bystanders they'll take out in the collatoral stand them any better than the people who killed French innocent bystanders?
This isn't a war, this isn't a nation we're up against, these are not elected representatives of a state who have gone to war in their name. These are largely uninterested, scared locals in the middle of a three-way civil war who just want people to stop killing everyone around them.
If these attacks were being directed against distinct military targets, fine, but they aren't. These are terrorist cells hiding out in civilian population centres, knowing that if they die for their religion there in a bomb-strike, the cause get's the PR coup of turning to the rest of the town and saying 'Look, they don't care about you'...
If we have concrete intelligence on where some of the ringleaders are, specifically, or if we have concrete intelligence on where some of the combat materiel is stored, send in squads and units and take those specific targets out, if you're going to take military actions.
Otherwise, put your military somewhere securable and invite the scared locals to come and be defended: show people that the priorities are people's lives and peace in the region.
O.
O.
-
One thing that needs addressing, and I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread, and that is the danger from the scores of Muslims who have come back here from Syria, and from Daesh. I think once they have done that, they should not be allowed back, and it should be made clear to all when they leave here. It is asking too much for our security people to keep an eye on all these, as they must have to.
Once ISIS gets hit hard in Syria they will start to hit soft targets in MENA and Europe. They know we're coming, they provoked us, so must have planned for it.
-
That rather brings us back to the whole 'sect-cult' idea of a 'proper' interpretation of a religious belief. In the absence of any way to be definitive, I'm not sure you can suggest an unpopular - or, at least, less popular - interpretation is somehow 'quasi' sufficient. It's an entirely religious viewpoint, even if it's not a valid interpretation, and there's no easy way to determine that.
I'd disagree, O. If a system is based on a single sentence/paragraph/verse of a far larger document or library of related documents, one can discern whether that basis is a valid one as regards to the larger picture. Let us take Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist interpretation of biblical teaching regarding homosexuality; there is not a single Biblical verse/passage/theological thread that suggests that 'God hates fags'. In fact, it is this very fact that leads many Christian homosexuals to believe that the Church's attitude down the centuries has been mistaken. I'm not going into the various theological arguments regarding that, but it is why I as a Christian who holds the opinions I do would never argue that God hates homosexuals.
-
One thing that needs addressing, and I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread, and that is the danger from the scores of Muslims who have come back here from Syria, and from Daesh. I think once they have done that, they should not be allowed back, and it should be made clear to all when they leave here. It is asking too much for our security people to keep an eye on all these, as they must have to.
Again, I would only partially agree. There are hundreds of Western Muslims who have travelled to Syria and its neighbouring countries on purely humanitarian programmes. Sadly, at present, this kind of involvement is being treated very suspiciously, despite hundreds of non-Muslims doing the same and never having their motivation questioned.
-
Again, I would only partially agree. There are hundreds of Western Muslims who have travelled to Syria and its neighbouring countries on purely humanitarian programmes. Sadly, at present, this kind of involvement is being treated very suspiciously, despite hundreds of non-Muslims doing the same and never having their motivation questioned.
But it shouldn't be beyond the wit of the Authorities to check these people effectively.
-
I'd disagree, O. If a system is based on a single sentence/paragraph/verse of a far larger document or library of related documents, one can discern whether that basis is a valid one as regards to the larger picture.
You could disagree, in some instances, in whether the religious beliefs were a valid interpretation of the documents, yes, but that doesn't make that set of beliefs any less a religion was one of the points I was trying to make. The fact that there are so many religions shows that at least some of them are predicated on either untrue claims or untrue interpretations of claims.
Let us take Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist interpretation of biblical teaching regarding homosexuality; there is not a single Biblical verse/passage/theological thread that suggests that 'God hates fags'.
I'm sure they could point to any number of different parts of the Old and New Testaments to justify their stance - that's the nature of religious texts, the ones that survive are the ones that are open to interpretation.
In fact, it is this very fact that leads many Christian homosexuals to believe that the Church's attitude down the centuries has been mistaken. I'm not going into the various theological arguments regarding that, but it is why I as a Christian who holds the opinions I do would never argue that God hates homosexuals.
Not homosexuals, just homosexuality, right, because that apparently is a valid distinction... Hate the sin, love the sinner? Well, maybe that's what we should be looking at in Syria. We hate what they've done, but the answer isn't it to do it back, either to them or to the people they're hiding amongst.
O.
-
I think so, yes. Who are they trying to kill, and why does the innocent bystanders they'll take out in the collatoral stand them any better than the people who killed French innocent bystanders?
This isn't a war, this isn't a nation we're up against, these are not elected representatives of a state who have gone to war in their name. These are largely uninterested, scared locals in the middle of a three-way civil war who just want people to stop killing everyone around them.
If these attacks were being directed against distinct military targets, fine, but they aren't. These are terrorist cells hiding out in civilian population centres, knowing that if they die for their religion there in a bomb-strike, the cause get's the PR coup of turning to the rest of the town and saying 'Look, they don't care about you'...
If we have concrete intelligence on where some of the ringleaders are, specifically, or if we have concrete intelligence on where some of the combat materiel is stored, send in squads and units and take those specific targets out, if you're going to take military actions.
Otherwise, put your military somewhere securable and invite the scared locals to come and be defended: show people that the priorities are people's lives and peace in the region.
O.
O.
Thanks for that, O. I think your idea of safe areas is good, but I suspect there are targets that can be hit without colateral damage using air power. For example, heavy weaponry. If we hit that whenever we see it, then at least ISIS is prevented from gaining strength. I don't think sending in Western troops is an option at the moment because relatively few western citizens have been killed. I have noticed that we never get involved until they kill our citizens, and that seems in line with the principle given in the Noahic covenant. Namely, if you take a life then you must forfeit your own. This was Gods way of checking evil. We didn't start bombing ISIS in Iraq until one of our citizens was taken hostage and killed. But yes, your idea of safe regions is essential.
-
Thanks for that, O. I think your idea of safe areas is good, but I suspect there are targets that can be hit without colateral damage using air power. For example, heavy weaponry. If we hit that whenever we see it, then at least ISIS is prevented from gaining strength.
Those are the sorts of targets I'd be inclined to go after. I suspect - obviously, I'm not privy to intelligence documents, but it would make sense from Isis' point of view - that they'll be stored in populated areas, most of the time.
The only viable time to hit them would be when they're on the move, which requires assets on the ground (or a better surveillance capacity from the air than we currently seem to have in place) in order to identify them and safe targetting zones.
Building safe zones will, gradually, strip the populated areas of those human shields that are serving Isis well at the moment, too.
I don't think sending in Western troops is an option at the moment because relatively few western citizens have been killed. I have noticed that we never get involved until they kill our citizens, and that seems in line with the principle given in the Noahic covenant. We didn't start bombing ISIS in Iraq until one of our citizens was taken hostage and killed.
You'll appreciate that the Noahic Covenant doesn't mean any more to me than Thomas Covenant :) Europe's kicking off because Europe's been hit, which is understandable but sad. It was a terrible situation before, it's either worth interfering in to make things better or it isn't, it's not any more acceptable to interfere because this time some of the victims were here.
I think most of the reluctance from Western nations for troops on the ground comes from the perception of previous actions in the area: Afghanistan, Iraq etc. The real success would be to put some demands on our 'allies' in the region to supply the ground troops: Muslims from ostensibly Islamic nations on the ground enforcing the peace would make a massive difference, but the 'moderate' Muslim nations' rulers are quite happy to just keep raking in dollars for their oil and screw the rest of the world, Muslim and otherwise alike.
The sooner we develop reliable fuel-cell technology and/or nuclear fusion and cast those wastes of oxygen off the better.
O.
-
O, yes, with you on that. And yes, being extremely careful with targets, though presumably we never were going to be anything other than that. Like you say, Europe's been hit and is now involved. So the extent to which the UK joins a response will depend on how 'in' the EU we are. Maybe all the indecision is related to our being divided on that.
However, I'm very concerned about so called allies in the region. They seem to either run or defect when the pressure is on. After all, we are asking them to fight fellow Muslims. Part of me thinks, containment using air power, costruct safe zones, then maintain those two objectives long term.
-
I'm sure they could point to any number of different parts of the Old and New Testaments to justify their stance - that's the nature of religious texts, the ones that survive are the ones that are open to interpretation.
Whilst I see where you're coming from, I've seen the material that supports Fred Phelps' position and it is a loosely strung together set of material that at no time consists of anything more tham a verse taken from here and averse taken from there, invariably out of context. That's why I say that there is nowhere in the Old or New Testament that says remotely what Phelps and co do.
Not homosexuals, just homosexuality, right, because that apparently is a valid distinction... Hate the sin, love the sinner? Well, maybe that's what we should be looking at in Syria. We hate what they've done, but the answer isn't it to do it back, either to them or to the people they're hiding amongst.
That's a very good comparison, O. In a way that is why I wondered whether western special forces would be better than airstrikes as they could find hardware and other stuff, and destroy them with minimal bloodshed. Reminds me of stories I've heard from ex-Chindits and the like.
-
Thanks for that, O. I think your idea of safe areas is good,
Excellent. Now we are planning to have concentration camps, in the original sense, not the Nazi sense, but they were still pretty bad.
but I suspect there are targets that can be hit without colateral damage using air power.
There are two things wrong with this. The first is this phrase "collateral damage". Let's call it what it is: "killing civilians". The second thing is that there is no way to target anything with high explosives without at least some risk of killing civilians.
-
I was listening to one of the videos produced by ISIS the other day ( I think I've posted the link somewhere on here) and one thing that came across was that they have plans of invading the whole of Europe.
They don't plan to stop with Syria and the creation of a Islamic State, they plan to make the world part of an Islamic state.
IMO this is not something you can enter a peace process with, their aim is to spread and force their unpleasant version of Islam on everyone, including peaceful Muslims who don't see Islam the way they do.
I listened to it and thought, this isn't like a country that creates itself like the dream of a Kurdish state or a Palistinian state who's main aim would have been to be recognised by other countries.
The aims of Isis appears to be to destroy democracy and our basic freedoms and agitate for a war between Sunni Muslims and the rest of civilisation in the hope Muslims will flock to their banner with all the resultant prejudice.
They hate us, because we are us..........
They believe their right to behave as they please ( and kill anyone anyhow ) is God given, and that other human beings have no value and don't matter.
They stress skin colour doesn't matter, but their behaviour fits that of one of the most racist organisations ever.
They are at war with the nicer aspects of modern life ( equality) and civilisation and would tear it all down for a world which is bleak, uncaring and cruel.
There is no action we could take ( other than give up our freedoms and way of life) , that would be enough in their eyes, for peace.
IMO Isis needs to be removed from the planet........... They are a threat to all of us and cannot be reasoned with.
I'm not keen on air strikes because I think as a lasting solution it doesn't remove them.
I get fed up with the UK having to step in all the time, it's someone else's turn.
There are more problems than just Isis, there is Assad and Russian support to contend with.
Because the world is split in its support of various groups, it makes it hard to unite to fight Isis.
However Isis needs to go, IMO.
What concerns me is that air strikes are unpopular and I think ineffective and the PM also wants to remove Assad which means taking on Russia.
Isis want an all out war, and are asking the USA to bring it on.
The answer is to eradicate Isis and Assad without pandering to Isis, or upsetting Putin too much.
We really don't want WW3.
I don't think air strikes work although it might keep them in check.
I think it will make our own security even worse.
but I don't think we can ignore them because their war is with our way of life, and they are incapable of live and let live.
To much crap and I'd nuke em :o >:(
-
Good clear article
http://tinyurl.com/qxsjq3v
-
Excellent. Now we are planning to have concentration camps, in the original sense, not the Nazi sense, but they were still pretty bad.
There are two things wrong with this. The first is this phrase "collateral damage". Let's call it what it is: "killing civilians". The second thing is that there is no way to target anything with high explosives without at least some risk of killing civilians.
The question I asked Outrider was are the French right to authorize more airstrikes in Syria, considering that they have been attacked themselves. If the same thing happened in London would we have a legitimate reason to use airstrikes as well?
-
Of course we would have "legitimate reason", but the question is whether or not that would help solve the problem or just make it worse.
-
Dear more questions than answers,
Rose says,
They are at war
the question, are we ( we, Britian, the west, the world ) at war?
I think Roses post is a snap shot of how we are all feeling.
Jeremyp says,
Let's call it what it is: "killing civilians".
I think this is inevitable, but innocent civilians are being killed as I type this.
Dear Sane,
Good link, learn from past mistakes.
Einstein,
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over, but expecting different results
The really sad thing for me is that we have a Cameron, when what we really need is a Corbyn, we need hundreds more Corbyns, I am the same as Rose, angry, I want the terrorists gone, but this time lets do it right, learn from our past mistakes.
Gonnagle.
-
The answer is to eradicate Isis and Assad without pandering to Isis, or upsetting Putin too much.
The problem with eradicating Assad is it has been his regime that has protected many of the minorities in Syria. It is one reason, I understand, that ISIS so keen to overthrow him.
-
The really sad thing for me is that we have a Cameron, when what we really need is a Corbyn, we need hundreds more Corbyns, I am the same as Rose, angry, I want the terrorists gone, but this time lets do it right, learn from our past mistakes.
Gonnagle.
If you want to learn from our past mistakes, why do you want hundreds more Corbyns, Gonners? I'm not suggesting we need Cameron instead, but as far as I can understand, the two are as deeply entrenched in their own - in my view, erroneous - opinions as each other. Yes, the UN's stance needs to be far more focussed - and here I would agree with Corbyn, but if that was to go down the diplomacy route, I think we'd reach a Chamberlain-esque situation where we find someone waving a bit of paper around and claiming 'Peace in our time' followed pretty quickly by a massive attack by ISIS in direct contradiction of that bit of paper.
As has been the case with other events in the Mid-East, what we really need is other Muslim states - both Sunni and Shia - to band together and defeat ISIS for themselves, let alone anyone else.
-
Dear Hope,
but if that was to go down the diplomacy route,
Oh! don't get me wrong Hope, I do think there is room for diplomacy but not with daesh, one day I may have to stand in front of God and answer, but right now I want daesh dead, eradicated from this earth, but I want it done right, something good to come out of this horror, there is no place in this world for terrorism.
Maybe that is another little victory for daesh, chipping away at my faith, bastards that they are.
Gonnagle.
-
Good article underlining the issues from a strong source
http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/sorry-but-just-bombing-isis-in-syria-wont-help-anyone/
-
The really sad thing for me is that we have a Cameron, when what we really need is a Corbyn, we need hundreds more Corbyns, I am the same as Rose, angry, I want the terrorists gone, but this time lets do it right, learn from our past mistakes.
I agree with Corbyn on this issue but he couldn't lead a dance let alone a major political party. Labour might even lose Oldham West! We desperately need a good opposition in the country we don't have one at the moment.
-
Those are the sorts of targets I'd be inclined to go after. I suspect - obviously, I'm not privy to intelligence documents, but it would make sense from Isis' point of view - that they'll be stored in populated areas, most of the time.
The only viable time to hit them would be when they're on the move, which requires assets on the ground (or a better surveillance capacity from the air than we currently seem to have in place) in order to identify them and safe targetting zones.
Building safe zones will, gradually, strip the populated areas of those human shields that are serving Isis well at the moment, too.
You'll appreciate that the Noahic Covenant doesn't mean any more to me than Thomas Covenant :) Europe's kicking off because Europe's been hit, which is understandable but sad. It was a terrible situation before, it's either worth interfering in to make things better or it isn't, it's not any more acceptable to interfere because this time some of the victims were here.
I think most of the reluctance from Western nations for troops on the ground comes from the perception of previous actions in the area: Afghanistan, Iraq etc. The real success would be to put some demands on our 'allies' in the region to supply the ground troops: Muslims from ostensibly Islamic nations on the ground enforcing the peace would make a massive difference, but the 'moderate' Muslim nations' rulers are quite happy to just keep raking in dollars for their oil and screw the rest of the world, Muslim and otherwise alike.
The sooner we develop reliable fuel-cell technology and/or nuclear fusion and cast those wastes of oxygen off the better.
O.
With reference to your first section ISIS managed to get to Ar Ramadi over open ground without being hit by the allies because of the lack of intelligence. To do a proper job with the bombing, to avoid unnecessary collateral damage, we would need to put many skilled special opts troops on the ground to guide the bombers in.
And to your second section, asking regional countries to supply the "boots on the ground" troops would be like asking a paedophile to take care of a group of children for a month. They are not impartial in this matter and would take sides once ISIS has been made ineffectual. This would lead to just more conflict and the extension of the religious animosity in the region for decades to come.
-
O, yes, with you on that. And yes, being extremely careful with targets, though presumably we never were going to be anything other than that. Like you say, Europe's been hit and is now involved. So the extent to which the UK joins a response will depend on how 'in' the EU we are. Maybe all the indecision is related to our being divided on that.
However, I'm very concerned about so called allies in the region. They seem to either run or defect when the pressure is on. After all, we are asking them to fight fellow Muslims. Part of me thinks, containment using air power, costruct safe zones, then maintain those two objectives long term.
We were hitting them before they hit us. You sound as daft a Hollande saying we are now at war!!!
-
We were hitting them before they hit us.
Perhaps you could expand on this, JK.
-
And to your second section, asking regional countries to supply the "boots on the ground" troops would be like asking a paedophile to take care of a group of children for a month. They are not impartial in this matter and would take sides once ISIS has been made ineffectual. This would lead to just more conflict and the extension of the religious animosity in the region for decades to come.
Not sure where you get this from, JK. And certainly find your analogy highly offensive. ISIS wants to destroy not only the West but also that part of the Muslim world that doesn't adhere to their own warped and non-Quranic version of Islam. Since that would include just about every Islamic nation in the Middle East, they owe it to themselves to be involved in any offensive agin ISIS.
-
The problem with eradicating Assad is it has been his regime that has protected many of the minorities in Syria. It is one reason, I understand, that ISIS so keen to overthrow him.
And yet Assad has been buying oil off ISIS helping their cause and has, like Russia, been hitting the 'moderate' rebels more than ISIS. ISIS hasn't really challenged Assad's heartland.
-
If you want to learn from our past mistakes, why do you want hundreds more Corbyns, Gonners? I'm not suggesting we need Cameron instead, but as far as I can understand, the two are as deeply entrenched in their own - in my view, erroneous - opinions as each other. Yes, the UN's stance needs to be far more focussed - and here I would agree with Corbyn, but if that was to go down the diplomacy route, I think we'd reach a Chamberlain-esque situation where we find someone waving a bit of paper around and claiming 'Peace in our time' followed pretty quickly by a massive attack by ISIS in direct contradiction of that bit of paper.
As has been the case with other events in the Mid-East, what we really need is other Muslim states - both Sunni and Shia - to band together and defeat ISIS for themselves, let alone anyone else.
You're joking!?!?!?
Well, once ISIS is got rid of they will obliterate each, because they are such good friends....
-
Dear Hope,
Oh! don't get me wrong Hope, I do think there is room for diplomacy but not with daesh, one day I may have to stand in front of God and answer, but right now I want daesh dead, eradicated from this earth, but I want it done right, something good to come out of this horror, there is no place in this world for terrorism.
Maybe that is another little victory for daesh, chipping away at my faith, bastards that they are.
Gonnagle.
Gonny, you wont be standing you'll be on your knees looking at the floor!!!
-
I agree with Corbyn on this issue but he couldn't lead a dance let alone a major political party. Labour might even lose Oldham West! We desperately need a good opposition in the country we don't have one at the moment.
He has two Left feet!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D
And he could lose Oldham West to UKIP!!!! ;D ;D ;D
-
Perhaps you could expand on this, JK.
Sorry Hope?
What do you think we, the Allies, have been doing this last year?
-
Not sure where you get this from, JK. And certainly find your analogy highly offensive. ISIS wants to destroy not only the West but also that part of the Muslim world that doesn't adhere to their own warped and non-Quranic version of Islam. Since that would include just about every Islamic nation in the Middle East, they owe it to themselves to be involved in any offensive agin ISIS.
And what do you think will happen once ISIS is out of the picture? Peace amongst all...... ::)
I think Libya is a good example of naïve expectations...
-
Of course we would have "legitimate reason", but the question is whether or not that would help solve the problem or just make it worse.
Depends how good the RAF is. Most of the bombing footage I've seen shows targets being hit that are isolated and in unpopulated areas.. So assuming they are capable of hitting legitimate targets and not firing on anything they aren't sure about, they won't make it worse. Rather it will make isis incapable of using anything other than smaller weapons and suicide bombs.
Which they will attempt to do, so we need the additional capability of foiling terrorist plots. We may not foil every plot, but is that worse than an isis which is using tanks, armoured vehicles and potentially WMD?
If the only way they can attack their targets is by using methods that result in their own deaths, then they will never have more than a handful of fighters.
No it won't solve the problem completely, that would take ground forces to retake the towns and cities in Syria from isis' control. Until that happens, Isis will be like North Korea, cut off from the rest of the world.
-
We also need to remember that if we use airstrikes they will most probably kidnap and kill British individuals in retaliation. I think we need to avoid this, and so the best way forward is to stop supplying arms to anyone in the region, don't get involved militarily, focus on helping refugees and work to reduce Islamic State's ability to acquire arms.
-
This is an interesting read.
http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/jeremy-corbyn-is-more-sensible-about-syria-than-david-cameron/
As they observe what an odd people we are.
-
Spud,
Depends how good the RAF is. Most of the bombing footage I've seen shows targets being hit that are isolated and in unpopulated areas.. So assuming they are capable of hitting legitimate targets and not firing on anything they aren't sure about, they won't make it worse. Rather it will make isis incapable of using anything other than smaller weapons and suicide bombs.
Which they will attempt to do, so we need the additional capability of foiling terrorist plots. We may not foil every plot, but is that worse than an isis which is using tanks, armoured vehicles and potentially WMD?
If the only way they can attack their targets is by using methods that result in their own deaths, then they will never have more than a handful of fighters.
No it won't solve the problem completely, that would take ground forces to retake the towns and cities in Syria from isis' control. Until that happens, Isis will be like North Korea, cut off from the rest of the world.
and
We also need to remember that if we use airstrikes they will most probably kidnap and kill British individuals in retaliation. I think we need to avoid this, and so the best way forward is to stop supplying arms to anyone in the region, don't get involved militarily, focus on helping refugees and work to reduce Islamic State's ability to acquire arms.
There are a lot of assumptions and ifs and buts there ... if we had a track record of success in combating insurgents by bombing, without ground troops, then it could be considered a possibility but, in practice, the more we (including France and the US - even without the UK) bomb in Syria the faster the terrorists will spread worldwide.
-
Udayana,
I'm very torn between the two options. If we bomb their tanks, for example, they will capture aid workers and kill them. If we do nothing I can't see the islamic state just stopping where it is. It will expand more and more until it takes over countries like Israel and acquires long range missiles that could reach Europe. From the barbaric way in which it has taken territory so far I think it is quite obvious that it will attempt to do this. I think we have a duty to do something to contain, if not eradicate it. But it will mean each individual has to watch his back wherever he/she is in the world. If would make travel to the Middle East very risky.
-
There is not a chance in hell of ISIS taking over Israel. They have nothing like that capability, and there is a strong tendency to overhype them.
-
There is not a chance in hell of ISIS taking over Israel. They have nothing like that capability ...
That, but you forgot the more salient reason; the Israeli army (deservedly, for good reason) are what are miltarily called a bunch of right hard bastards.
-
Udayana,
I'm very torn between the two options. If we bomb their tanks, for example, they will capture aid workers and kill them. If we do nothing I can't see the islamic state just stopping where it is. It will expand more and more until it takes over countries like Israel and acquires long range missiles that could reach Europe. From the barbaric way in which it has taken territory so far I think it is quite obvious that it will attempt to do this. I think we have a duty to do something to contain, if not eradicate it. But it will mean each individual has to watch his back wherever he/she is in the world. If would make travel to the Middle East very risky.
Even if we don't bomb them, they still need to be eliminated - I don't think anyone has suggested doing nothing. And they are far more likely to attack the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia than Israel.
We should deal with those in Syria by isolating them from the rest of the world, stopping their oil shipments, arms and equipment supplies. Disrupt their communications, how is it they can use phones, e-mail, internet to recruit and spread their propaganda? You need to stop them being able to enter or leave the country at will.
UN safe zones, defended by air and ground troops could be set up to separate the civilian populations from ISIL to some extent.
-
Another clear sighted article
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/11/isis-war-syria-iraq/417552/
-
Even if we don't bomb them, they still need to be eliminated - I don't think anyone has suggested doing nothing. And they are far more likely to attack the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia than Israel.
We should deal with those in Syria by isolating them from the rest of the world, stopping their oil shipments, arms and equipment supplies. Disrupt their communications, how is it they can use phones, e-mail, internet to recruit and spread their propaganda? You need to stop them being able to enter or leave the country at will.
UN safe zones, defended by air and ground troops could be set up to separate the civilian populations from ISIL to some extent.
That sounds fine on paper, but with Syria you are entering into a very chaotic scene. For example, the 70, 000 rebels groups cited by Cameron as possible ground troops, are being bombed by Russia, and are probably in no mood to fight IS.
I think the idea of choking off the supplies and arms of IS is a good idea - but who is going to persuade the Saudis and Turkey? They are now hostile to Russia, since they see them encouraging Hezbollah (Iranian backed). In other words, we are in a proxy war.
You also have the Sunni rebel groups, hostile to Assad, probably terrified of Hezbollah, unsure of how much they can trust the West. Some of them may well continue to defect to IS.
-
their own warped and non-Quranic version of Islam.
ISIS are the ones with the Quranic version of Islam.
-
That sounds fine on paper, but with Syria you are entering into a very chaotic scene. For example, the 70, 000 rebels groups cited by Cameron as possible ground troops, are being bombed by Russia, and are probably in no mood to fight IS.
I think the idea of choking off the supplies and arms of IS is a good idea - but who is going to persuade the Saudis and Turkey? They are now hostile to Russia, since they see them encouraging Hezbollah (Iranian backed). In other words, we are in a proxy war.
You also have the Sunni rebel groups, hostile to Assad, probably terrified of Hezbollah, unsure of how much they can trust the West. Some of them may well continue to defect to IS.
Yes. But to stop ISIL, with or without bombing, we need to deal with all of that also. That has to be politically/diplomatically. If you bomb without having a plan for Syria itself that the Sunis can agree to, ISIL will build up more support among them - as you suggested earlier.
-
Yes, I agree. Political reconstruction is the key, and was lacking in Iraq. You have to somehow reconcile the majority Sunni, who are enraged with Assad, but also Assad's own people, then the Iranians (and their proxy, Hezbollah), the Russians, the Kurds, and so on. Very difficult. The obvious solution is partition of a kind, but would it hold?
-
I wonder if Corbyn will go for a whipped vote?
If he opts not to then he 'de facto' allows the bombing to go ahead, if he does go for a whipped vote then much of the Labour Shadow Cabinet has to resign.
Blow up Syria or blow up Labour.
-
ISIS are the ones with the Quranic version of Islam.
Only if you take the Quran and turn it pside down, jeremy; or are you suggesting that every other form of Islam, from Sunni and Shai to Wahhabi, are non-Quranic?
-
With reference to your first section ISIS managed to get to Ar Ramadi over open ground without being hit by the allies because of the lack of intelligence. To do a proper job with the bombing, to avoid unnecessary collateral damage, we would need to put many skilled special opts troops on the ground to guide the bombers in.
As I said, we need assets on the ground to achieve anything defensible - simply sending bombers in on patchy information is lining civilians up to suffer for our empty gesture of vengeance.
And to your second section, asking regional countries to supply the "boots on the ground" troops would be like asking a paedophile to take care of a group of children for a month. They are not impartial in this matter and would take sides once ISIS has been made ineffectual. This would lead to just more conflict and the extension of the religious animosity in the region for decades to come.
That rather depends on which countries you get - certainly the likes of the UAE, Jordan, Egypt etc. are too invested in the outcome. Somewhat further afield though, if we could get the likes of Bangladesh, Pakistan or Malaysia to contribute, it might be helpful - non-Western, Islamic and not directly vested interests. Unfortunately, of course everyone is concerned to a degree, everyone has some interests in the region, and no-one's willing to actually cede troops to a proper, unaffiliated, UN controlled peacekeeping force.
O.
-
I wonder if Corbyn will go for a whipped vote?
If he opts not to then he 'de facto' allows the bombing to go ahead, if he does go for a whipped vote then much of the Labour Shadow Cabinet has to resign.
Blow up Syria or blow up Labour.
Both, would be the ideal answer!
-
Both, would be the ideal answer!
Sounds like he is given the green light for a free vote, so looks like he will 'de facto' be supporting the air strikes. I'm surprised expected him to stick to his principles.
-
Sounds like he is given the green light for a free vote, so looks like he will 'de facto' be supporting the air strikes. I'm surprised expected him to stick to his principles.
Why isn't he doing just that as is, though? He's still as against it as he ever was personally, but thinks that MPs should vote according to their beliefs rather than the party line - something that distinguished Corbyn's thirty-odd years as a backbencher, surely. To act otherwise would be for him to be a colossal hypocrite, and that he ain't.
-
I think whipping on a question of war is quite odd. I suppose it's kind of giving in to his opponents, but reculer pour mieux sauter, eh?
-
Sounds like he is given the green light for a free vote, so looks like he will 'de facto' be supporting the air strikes. I'm surprised expected him to stick to his principles.
Which principle does he think is more immediately important - not killing bystanders in Syria, or not supporting open democracy here.
Does he tell representatives to ignore their own sentiment? He tried to encourage them to listen to their electorate; not all representatives think that they are there to parrot their constituency, some think that they have been elected for their capacity to make informed decisions on their behalf and should follow their own conscience.
He's between a rock and a hard place on this one, at least this way next time an issue comes around he'll still have a labour cabinet to try to work with. He loses this particular battle - which was going to happen anyway - but still has the possibility of winning future ones, rather than losing this one anyway and not having a force to stand up at the next.
I am curious as to why so many of the current Labour front-benchers are remaining in place, given the apparent disjunction between the intention of the broader membership and their own views.
O.
-
Are they hoping to topple Corbyn, and resume their careers?
-
Udayana,
I'm very torn between the two options. If we bomb their tanks, for example, they will capture aid workers and kill them. If we do nothing I can't see the islamic state just stopping where it is. It will expand more and more until it takes over countries like Israel and acquires long range missiles that could reach Europe. From the barbaric way in which it has taken territory so far I think it is quite obvious that it will attempt to do this. I think we have a duty to do something to contain, if not eradicate it. But it will mean each individual has to watch his back wherever he/she is in the world. If would make travel to the Middle East very risky.
ISIS are not going to expand their territory to that extent. This is why we should not enter the war but exit. When the Gulf States start to get it up their arses then they will fight back. It's their backyard let them deal with it; that being the Sunni/Shia issue. It is not our fight and I don't understand why some people/politicians keep saying it concerns us.
-
As I said, we need assets on the ground to achieve anything defensible - simply sending bombers in on patchy information is lining civilians up to suffer for our empty gesture of vengeance.
That rather depends on which countries you get - certainly the likes of the UAE, Jordan, Egypt etc. are too invested in the outcome. Somewhat further afield though, if we could get the likes of Bangladesh, Pakistan or Malaysia to contribute, it might be helpful - non-Western, Islamic and not directly vested interests. Unfortunately, of course everyone is concerned to a degree, everyone has some interests in the region, and no-one's willing to actually cede troops to a proper, unaffiliated, UN controlled peacekeeping force.
O.
As you clearly point out there is no chance of acquiring an effective non partisan "troops on the ground" force. No one who isn't involved at this point in time wants to invite ISIS to come and bomb them, nor get themselves entangled in the Syrian/ME mess. Without this nothing decisive and productive can be done against ISIS. Anyway it isn't about a physical war but a war concerning ideas and ideology, and a gun can't kill those.
-
As you clearly point out there is no chance of acquiring an effective non partisan "troops on the ground" force. No one who isn't involved at this point in time wants to invite ISIS to come and bomb them, nor get themselves entangled in the Syrian/ME mess. Without this nothing decisive and productive can be done against ISIS. Anyway it isn't about a physical war but a war concerning ideas and ideology, and a gun can't kill those.
Which is fine, except for all the people it condemns to torture and death at the hands of ISIS in the area, and the fact that it leaves ISIS with a secure position from which to continue plotting terrorist activities around the world.
It's questionable whether over-running them in the region would significantly hamper their terrorist activities directly - it might disrupt their command network, but that's fairly distributed anyway, and in the absence of any clear idea of their financial network it's difficult to say what it would do to that. Certainly it seems likely those are protected against direct attack.
So military activity in the area isn't about securing us, it's about a 'rescue' mission for the people in the region, if you do it at all, and that's difficult to achieve when there's no clear way to differentiate friend from foe.
If we're going to go in with any actual purpose that's what we're getting into. That, of course, isn't about ending the threat of ISIS, that's about securing the safety of the people in the area. If we want to end the threat of ISIS we've got to educate and improve the lot of the people in the area to deprive them of recruits and let them wither to a small, hardcore of fundamentalist nutbags.
They're always likely to be there, in one form or another.
O.
-
Both, would be the ideal answer!
Well, Corbyn is not whipping but going freestyle. Could he be seen as being a weak leader now?
-
Well, Corbyn is not whipping but going freestyle. Could he be seen as being a weak leader now?
That rather depends on whether you thing strength is demonstrated by forcing people to your will or the confidence of allowing them their say and still being in place afterwards.
Personally, I see more strength in the confidence that comes from having the sort of groundswell support that means you can accept opposition from your own party than I do in such a small majority that you have to keep cracking the whip over what are ostensibly your own allies.
Of course, when Cameron faced the issue, when his own back-benchers threatened to revolt - he had the luxury of not bringing the bill to vote to avoid the situation.
O.
O.
-
Which principle does he think is more immediately important - not killing bystanders in Syria, or not supporting open democracy here.
Does he tell representatives to ignore their own sentiment? He tried to encourage them to listen to their electorate; not all representatives think that they are there to parrot their constituency, some think that they have been elected for their capacity to make informed decisions on their behalf and should follow their own conscience.
He's between a rock and a hard place on this one, at least this way next time an issue comes around he'll still have a labour cabinet to try to work with. He loses this particular battle - which was going to happen anyway - but still has the possibility of winning future ones, rather than losing this one anyway and not having a force to stand up at the next.
I am curious as to why so many of the current Labour front-benchers are remaining in place, given the apparent disjunction between the intention of the broader membership and their own views.
O.
Because, perhaps, they are scared that if they leave the front bench, and all the power positions, that the Corbynites they will take over and force through de-selection; as they know many of their members are pro Corbyn.
-
Well, Corbyn is not whipping but going freestyle. Could he be seen as being a weak leader now?
I suspect he's got his own position in mind here. I think he'e getting quite used to being the Leader, and he doesn't want to risk any kind of internal revolt. I may be wrong, but he is human
-
Which is fine, except for all the people it condemns to torture and death at the hands of ISIS in the area, and the fact that it leaves ISIS with a secure position from which to continue plotting terrorist activities around the world.
It's questionable whether over-running them in the region would significantly hamper their terrorist activities directly - it might disrupt their command network, but that's fairly distributed anyway, and in the absence of any clear idea of their financial network it's difficult to say what it would do to that. Certainly it seems likely those are protected against direct attack.
So military activity in the area isn't about securing us, it's about a 'rescue' mission for the people in the region, if you do it at all, and that's difficult to achieve when there's no clear way to differentiate friend from foe.
If we're going to go in with any actual purpose that's what we're getting into. That, of course, isn't about ending the threat of ISIS, that's about securing the safety of the people in the area. If we want to end the threat of ISIS we've got to educate and improve the lot of the people in the area to deprive them of recruits and let them wither to a small, hardcore of fundamentalist nutbags.
They're always likely to be there, in one form or another.
O.
If the plan is to help the Syrian people from all this potential suffering then we ought to be going into N. Korea, if not many other places. We should have bombed China decades ago. That reason is a stupid reason. It concerns us because of oil and our rich friends in the ME region - do you really think our world leaders give a toss about the people unless their suffering makes them look overtly bad?
As you say the money and help would just change direction to some other similar group, as we are not dealing with a purely centralised opposition - it has multiple heads. So anything we do will just force it underground for it to pop up somewhere else later on.
"...when there's no clear way to differentiate friend from foe." That was the problem Vietnam had...
As for your last paragraph it is true that the motivations of those living in the West with resentment to the West have varying degrees of differing reasons for their hate for it than ISIS's motivations and so (not education) reasoning and a dialogue with them would help to negate their extreme wishes for violence. This is where the Mosques should come in to not only do this but to give their religion and God a good name; but can we trust them and are they sufficient in doing this. They have failed so far by sticking their heads in their backward, conservative, cultural ways.
-
I suspect he's got his own position in mind here. I think he'e getting quite used to being the Leader, and he doesn't want to risk any kind of internal revolt. I may be wrong, but he is human
Well, surprise, surprise, Corbyn is playing the long game. He needs time to entrench his power at the heart of Labour. Perhaps the emails and pressure on his MPs was to test the waters.
-
Well, surprise, surprise, Corbyn is playing the long game. He needs time to entrench his power at the heart of Labour. Perhaps the emails and pressure on his MPs was to test the waters.
I'll have bet: he won't last till the next Election.
-
I'll have bet: he won't last till the next Election.
You're probably right. Unless some earthquake happens in the country's/world's situation the people won't vote for him and this will mean the moderate lot will oust him out before 2020; and probably sooner then later.
-
You're probably right. Unless some earthquake happens in the country's/world's situation the people won't vote for him and this will mean the moderate lot will oust him out before 2020; and probably sooner then later.
Hope it's sooner. With all the issues facing this country at present, all Labour are doing, in effect, is engaging in internal differences.. The sooner it ends, the better. Maybe they can attempt to be an effective Opposition.
-
Well, Corbyn is not whipping but going freestyle. Could he be seen as being a weak leader now?
Only by the same brain donors who thought he didn't bow at the correct angle at the Cenotaph. An MP notable for going his own way and acting/voting according to his conscience for thirty something years has done the same with the MPs in his party - that's weakness? Really? As Outrider said above:
That rather depends on whether you thing strength is demonstrated by forcing people to your will or the confidence of allowing them their say and still being in place afterwards.
-
Hope it's sooner. With all the issues facing this country at present, all Labour are doing, in effect, is engaging in internal differences.. The sooner it ends, the better. Maybe they can attempt to be an effective Opposition.
Better still, if not only Labour implode but the Conservative do too with the referendum and leadership fight.
-
You're probably right. Unless some earthquake happens in the country's/world's situation the people won't vote for him and this will mean the moderate lot will oust him out before 2020; and probably sooner then later.
I hadn't appreciated that this is not just a free vote,but one where Hilary Benn will be able to speak for the Labour Party against the policy of the Labour Party. In a free vote they would normally speak as an individual MP. This is a guddle in a menoge.
-
I am out tomorrow forming the much missed David Penhaligon's stuff them all party as the rest are doing a grand job of screwing up
-
Sounds like he is given the green light for a free vote, so looks like he will 'de facto' be supporting the air strikes. I'm surprised expected him to stick to his principles.
To show leadership Cameron must now order the deselection of Tory rebels.
-
Maybe they can attempt to be an effective Opposition.
Them and whose army? ;)
-
Them and whose army? ;)
One lives in hope!
-
If the plan is to help the Syrian people from all this potential suffering then we ought to be going into N. Korea, if not many other places. We should have bombed China decades ago.
Yep.
That reason is a stupid reason.
I can't think of a better reason to send armed people in with a mandate to shoot than if we don't more people will end up dead, or worse.
It concerns us because of oil and our rich friends in the ME region - do you really think our world leaders give a toss about the people unless their suffering makes them look overtly bad?
I think on some level they might, but as professional politicians they think such concerns are beneath the more important task they have, and they think that politics is almost entirely about economics with enough deference to popular ethics to engender a little support from the 'unsophisticated' public.
I wasn't giving reasons why I thought our politicians should send troops in, though, I was giving the basis on which I would send in a military response.
As you say the money and help would just change direction to some other similar group, as we are not dealing with a purely centralised opposition - it has multiple heads. So anything we do will just force it underground for it to pop up somewhere else later on.
It's not a threat that can be responded to as a 'conventional' military threat. Just as the military of 1914 was still trying to fight the colonial conflicts of the late 1800's, so this generations politicians are still trying to fight the Cold War.
"...when there's no clear way to differentiate friend from foe." That was the problem Vietnam had...
One of them, yes. The other being that the majority of the people in the region weren't on one side or the other of the conflict, but were rather caught in the middle.
As for your last paragraph it is true that the motivations of those living in the West with resentment to the West have varying degrees of differing reasons for their hate for it than ISIS's motivations and so (not education) reasoning and a dialogue with them would help to negate their extreme wishes for violence. This is where the Mosques should come in to not only do this but to give their religion and God a good name; but can we trust them and are they sufficient in doing this. They have failed so far by sticking their heads in their backward, conservative, cultural ways.
There are a range of Muslim views, and in the west the vast majority are being ignored whilst they continually protest what is being done, as they see it, in Islam's name. The problem isn't the majority of Muslims, it's the fact that the influential Muslims - the Saudi royals, the Iranian elite and the like - are sitting on the fence. They don't want to aggravate their markets in the West, they don't want to aggravate potentially violent terrorist groups, so they pretend like it's not their issue whilst funneling cash into the region to support one ragtag bunch of nutjobs or another.
O.
-
Hope it's sooner. With all the issues facing this country at present, all Labour are doing, in effect, is engaging in internal differences.. The sooner it ends, the better. Maybe they can attempt to be an effective Opposition.
Yeah, hope it's sooner, because what we need to oppose the Tories is Tories in red...
O.
-
Yeah, hope it's sooner, because what we need to oppose the Tories is Tories in red...
O.
We need an intelligen bunch, with the needs of the country at heart, not just MP's playing the Westminster Game; and somebody who can deal in the real world.
-
We need an intelligen bunch, with the needs of the country at heart, not just MP's playing the Westminster Game; and somebody who can deal in the real world.
And you think the Labour party right-wingers are 'equipped to deal in the real world'? You don't think they're MPs playing the Westminster Game whilst they vote for vengeance strikes in the middle East to try to appeal to Daily Mail readers out for blood and try to engineer the downfall of their own leader because he has the temerity to actually represent the Labour party membership?
Maybe you have a different understanding of 'The Westminster Game' to me...
O.
-
And you think the Labour party right-wingers are 'equipped to deal in the real world'? You don't think they're MPs playing the Westminster Game whilst they vote for vengeance strikes in the middle East to try to appeal to Daily Mail readers out for blood and try to engineer the downfall of their own leader because he has the temerity to actually represent the Labour party membership?
Maybe you have a different understanding of 'The Westminster Game' to me...
O.
I'm not suggesting the Labour right-wingers are to be espoused. I think the whole Party is inept at present; and especially the dinosaur Corbyn and his lackeys. The whole Party needs a complete overhaul and re-think.
I quite understand what the "Westminster Game" is. I don't need any lessons from you.
-
If he's such a dinosaur why did he trounce his fellow candidates in the leadership election with such a thumping majority and why have upwards of 50,000 people joined Labour in the couple of months since he won?
-
If he's such a dinosaur why did he trounce his fellow candidates in the leadership election with such a thumping majority and why have upwards of 50,000 people joined Labour in the couple of months since he won?
Because, old chap, he isn't the only dinosaur left from the Kinnock era; just as there are plenty of Thatcherites left from those dismal times ( Cameron, Osborne, et al.). Not much of a position to espouse, to say there isn't just one idiot abroad, but thousands!
-
I was wrong to say that 50,000 new members have joined Labour since Corbyn was elected and I withdraw that remark.
Apparently it's over 60,000 - 183,000 since May over all ;)
-
I was wrong to say that 50,000 new members have joined Labour since Corbyn was elected and I withdraw that remark.
Apparently it's over 60,000 - 183,000 since May over all ;)
Funny: all these staunch Labourites seem to have been missing in the Election (just six months ago.), when Labour was trounced. Guess it's just a few sillies, jumping on the band-wagon; but for how long. Thursday will tell is something about how things really are.
-
Funny: all these staunch Labourites seem to have been missing in the Election (just six months ago.), when Labour was trounced.
Probably because nobody wanted Wallace out of off of Wallace and Gromit as PM. Except him.
-
Probably because nobody wanted Wallace out of off of Wallace and Gromit as PM. Except him.
Miliband didn't exactly help; but despite a lame duck like him, there wasn't enough support to keep out the unctuous Cameron and co.
I haven't time for any of them.
-
Funny: all these staunch Labourites seem to have been missing in the Election (just six months ago.), when Labour was trounced. Guess it's just a few sillies, jumping on the band-wagon; but for how long. Thursday will tell is something about how things really are.
Couldn't possibly be because the Labour party of the time wasn't actually representing them, could it? Couldn't possibly be that there's a significant gap between the majority of the proto-Tory parliamentary body of the Labour party and the bulk of their popular membership?
O.
-
Which principle does he think is more immediately important - not killing bystanders in Syria, or not supporting open democracy here.
Does he tell representatives to ignore their own sentiment? He tried to encourage them to listen to their electorate; not all representatives think that they are there to parrot their constituency, some think that they have been elected for their capacity to make informed decisions on their behalf and should follow their own conscience.
He's between a rock and a hard place on this one, at least this way next time an issue comes around he'll still have a labour cabinet to try to work with. He loses this particular battle - which was going to happen anyway - but still has the possibility of winning future ones, rather than losing this one anyway and not having a force to stand up at the next.
I am curious as to why so many of the current Labour front-benchers are remaining in place, given the apparent disjunction between the intention of the broader membership and their own views.
O.
Labour are supposed to be a government in waiting, the cabinet take collective responsibility. Corbyn could have forced those that oppose him out, he bottled it.
-
I was wrong to say that 50,000 new members have joined Labour since Corbyn was elected and I withdraw that remark.
Apparently it's over 60,000 - 183,000 since May over all ;)
There is a view that there exists many in the UK that are as far left as Corbyn. How many though?
If the Oldham seat goes you should have a clearer indication.
-
There is a view that there exists many in the UK that are as far left as Corbyn. How many though?
Far left? Bloody hell. It's coming to something when ideals that historically Labour stood for and that earned them a landslide election win in 1945 are now described as "far left." I think anybody of that mind has had their brain addled by Blair and his decaffeinated Thatcherite, Noddy version of a Labour Party.
Instead of thinking in terms of "far left" perhaps it's more likely that people are anti-austerity, anti the denigration and persecution of the sick and disabled, anti another pointless skirmish far away causing innumerable deaths, and so on.
-
Labour are supposed to be a government in waiting, the cabinet take collective responsibility. Corbyn could have forced those that oppose him out, he bottled it.
I think that's the sort of confrontation they want - as party leader, that sort of infighting hurts his image more than theirs. He could have forced them, but he then risks them stepping down - I don't know if he feels there aren't enough competent left wingers in the party to step up or if he feels he needs the 'big names' in his cabinet.
O.
-
Far left? Bloody hell. It's coming to something when ideals that historically Labour stood for and that earned them a landslide election win in 1945 are now described as "far left." I think anybody of that mind has had their brain addled by Blair and his decaffeinated Thatcherite, Noddy version of a Labour Party.
Instead of thinking in terms of "far left" perhaps it's more likely that people are anti-austerity, anti the denigration and persecution of the sick and disabled, anti another pointless skirmish far away causing innumerable deaths, and so on.
Bloody hell its coming to something when people can't understand that left and right are terms that are relative to the time that they are used. Some start tribally grandstanding if someone suggestions they occupy a position they do actually occupy.
Lets try again, I think Corbyn's supporters are many, is it enough to win an election?
Now I don't want to stand in the middle whilst the extreme right shout at the extreme left that they are a bunch of tree hugging pacifists, and the extreme left shout at the extreme right they are a bunch of toffs only interested in themselves.
I last voted LibDem (yes me and 3 others), I have in the past voted Cons and Labour so I'm the typical sort of voter Corbyn has to win over. I admire Corbyn, a nice man, who has principles but I couldn't vote for him, for many reasons but one of the reasons is that he doesn't seem to have the support of his party.
-
I think that's the sort of confrontation they want - as party leader, that sort of infighting hurts his image more than theirs. He could have forced them, but he then risks them stepping down - I don't know if he feels there aren't enough competent left wingers in the party to step up or if he feels he needs the 'big names' in his cabinet.
I think he is safe for now, I suppose if he genuinely wants to create a 'new politics' then perhasp he wants all sides of the party to be represented on the front bench maybe.
He must know the knives are being sharpened for him though!
-
A loss in Oldham following on from a revolt of 60+ and I don't think he is safe. The problem was though that the alternative when it looked like they were the abstention party would be as damaging in a different way. Corbyn can't lead the PLP, no one else can lead the membership.
This was always going to be a stopgap until they sat down and tried to answer what they are for. The problem they will have is that the leadership is now only a job a mad person would go for.
The only pitch that I can see for the next leader, is to say the 2020 election is gone but commit to a complete policy and organisation change which in the short term will seek to use all legal means to stop the excesses of Tory policy (note whether you believe it is excessive doesn't really matter, it's the only option they have). Stop offering all policy,offer only opposition. It's not a million miles away from what Blair did but it is a lightyear away from the circs Blair did it in.
-
I find the latest suggestion that the Government are 'rushing to war' to be a bit daft. We've been at war with ISIS for a couple of years already.
-
Dear Me,
Is it reason enough to join in with air strikes that we show solidarity with France?
If what happened in Paris had taken place in London, Glasgow, Birmingham, would we be sending in air strikes? would we be asking France to join us?
Air strikes are the wee guy with his finger in the dyke, air strikes and be damned, well I think we are already damned.
Vive la France, Vive la solidarité.
Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord, nope sorry big man I think we have dibs on that now :( :(
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Me,
Is it reason enough to join in with air strikes that we show solidarity with France?
Hi Gonners, I thought that we've showing solidarity with France for several months. After all, we are already involved in the air strikes - both of Iraq and Syria.
-
Dear Hope,
Hi Gonners, I thought that we've showing solidarity with France for several months. After all, we are already involved in the air strikes - both of Iraq and Syria.
Well I did say we are already damned.
Gonnagle.
-
Couldn't possibly be because the Labour party of the time wasn't actually representing them, could it? Couldn't possibly be that there's a significant gap between the majority of the proto-Tory parliamentary body of the Labour party and the bulk of their popular membership?
O
Time will tell. Oldham, on Thursday, may give an inkling of how Labour supporters are viewing things. There is something like a 16,000 Labour majority there. So they ought to at least maintain that lead, if not increase it, if Corbyn is having any effect.
-
A loss in Oldham following on from a revolt of 60+ and I don't think he is safe. The problem was though that the alternative when it looked like they were the abstention party would be as damaging in a different way. Corbyn can't lead the PLP, no one else can lead the membership.
This was always going to be a stopgap until they sat down and tried to answer what they are for. The problem they will have is that the leadership is now only a job a mad person would go for.
The only pitch that I can see for the next leader, is to say the 2020 election is gone but commit to a complete policy and organisation change which in the short term will seek to use all legal means to stop the excesses of Tory policy (note whether you believe it is excessive doesn't really matter, it's the only option they have). Stop offering all policy,offer only opposition. It's not a million miles away from what Blair did but it is a lightyear away from the circs Blair did it in.
I think in the UK there is active vocal support from as far left as Corbyn. They are miffed because Blair went to the centre and they don't feel represented. Elections are won in the centre, so I think what ought to happen is that the hardcore need to decide if a Centre left party is better than Tory and they won't be represented, or, that representation is more important than power.
I think if the Centre Labour politicians broke away they could mount a challenge to the Tories.
They could always go centre and talk left like the SNP, need some discipline and a very good leader to do that though.
-
I find the latest suggestion that the Government are 'rushing to war' to be a bit daft. We've been at war with ISIS for a couple of years already.
I sort of agree - we are bombing them but we are not at war. At the same time, the govt are implying we aren't bombing them.
-
Labour are supposed to be a government in waiting, the cabinet take collective responsibility. Corbyn could have forced those that oppose him out, he bottled it.
I was half way through writing a post that refuted you, but I actually talked myself into agreeing with you.
I think the perception is that he had to "bottle it". If half the cabinet resigned, it would be spun as the collapse of the party.
Corbyn doesn't have the backing of the parliamentary party otherwise he would have told the cabinet to follow his lead or get out. Then he could replace them with people that align better with his views. He can't do that because the parliamentary party won't follow him. The only way to change that is to cull the right wing MPs and bring in more people on the left. That can't happen before the next general election and it will be a veritable bloodbath if he does it and the parliamentary party would be too damaged in the lead up to the election to be effective.
-
Dear Jeremyp and Jakswan,
This Corbyn bloke, interesting to watch him grow, he is now the boss and a lot of people don't like the new boss, he now has new responsibilities, playing politics whilst still sticking to his principles.
I saw a bit of him on the Andrew Marr programme, suited and booted, very calm and telling us he wants to be Prime Minister.
I think a lot of people are underestimating the man, he plays the scruffy politician but I think he is very quick to learn.
He did play a big part in overturning tax credits and his victory over the other wannabes was over whelming.
And this free vote, I think he is doing the smart move, I don't know but I think he is a very canny operator.
Gonnagle.
-
Time will tell. Oldham, on Thursday, may give an inkling of how Labour supporters are viewing things. There is something like a 16,000 Labour majority there. So they ought to at least maintain that lead, if not increase it, if Corbyn is having any effect.
It might, but there are a number of other effects in play too: the possible dissolution of the existing Lib Dem vote, or possible retrieval of lost Lib Dem votes from other parties, the precipitous drop-off in UKIP activism now that they're focussed on the European referendum...
O.
-
Time will tell. Oldham, on Thursday, may give an inkling of how Labour supporters are viewing things. There is something like a 16,000 Labour majority there. So they ought to at least maintain that lead, if not increase it, if Corbyn is having any effect.
Or rather the share of vote as the turnout is likely to be much smaller.
-
Or rather the share of vote as the turnout is likely to be much smaller.
The polls, for what they're worth, are suggesting an up-swing in the UkIP vote, despite their low-profile. Not much of a choice, if you don't like Corbyn: either Cameron or UKIP, basically: or no vote at all; and that is telling in itself when politics are so much to the fore at present. I do believe that any reduction in the Labour vote, whether it is in actual numbers, or percentage of the vote, means a smack in the face for Corbyn.
-
The polls, for what they're worth, are suggesting an up-swing in the UkIP vote, despite their low-profile. Not much of a choice, if you don't like Corbyn: either Cameron or UKIP, basically: or no vote at all; and that is telling in itself when politics are so much to the fore at present. I do believe that any reduction in the Labour vote, whether it is in actual numbers, or percentage of the vote, means a smack in the face for Corbyn.
So say for example, turnout halved but all votes went to Labour? Your position isn't sensible in psephological terms. Further if there is a small swing in % terms to UKIP, while not being great for Corbyn, if Labour were to do better vs Tories in % terms could be portrayed as net good for Corbyn.
Given the spread of issues since the general election, it would seem presumptive to take this as a purely a referendum on Corbyn, and the question is would any other leader do better for Labour at this stage. Corbyn is a side show here. Either he will be gone before the next election and we may have a similar situation to the early 80s with a Gang of considerably more than 4, or he will lose badly due to the electoral changes.
The Labour Party is not up the schtuck because of Corbyn, he is a mere symptom.
-
Incidentally, as I have previously pointed out some readers of the runes on the polling are predicting it to be closer than the polls are showing. Anything less than a 5% swing from Labour is a perfectly spinnable result for them. The problem will be that many of those who will be arguing it is a disaster would be members of the Shadow Cabinet.
-
I was half way through writing a post that refuted you, but I actually talked myself into agreeing with you.
I think the perception is that he had to "bottle it". If half the cabinet resigned, it would be spun as the collapse of the party.
Corbyn doesn't have the backing of the parliamentary party otherwise he would have told the cabinet to follow his lead or get out. Then he could replace them with people that align better with his views. He can't do that because the parliamentary party won't follow him. The only way to change that is to cull the right wing MPs and bring in more people on the left. That can't happen before the next general election and it will be a veritable bloodbath if he does it and the parliamentary party would be too damaged in the lead up to the election to be effective.
Yes fair point, though if he does it early enough it would give them time. I think a lot of hardcore left actually believe their own spin, 'those nasty Tories and their voters, we are nice lovely people they are bound to vote for us, what is not to like!'
-
I notice that Cameron has said something interesting - that in Iraq, the air-strikes have worked, since IS territory has been retaken.
'Retaken' is an interesting word, which presumably refers to ground troops, the Iraqui army probably.
So how will this work in Syria? We have the promise of the 70, 000 friendly fighters. However, they are being bombed by Russia, and are fighting the Syrian army and Hezbollah. Will they abandon this and begin to fight IS?
Well, they might of course. It seems a bit flimsy to me.
-
I hadn't appreciated that this is not just a free vote,but one where Hilary Benn will be able to speak for the Labour Party against the policy of the Labour Party. In a free vote they would normally speak as an individual MP. This is a guddle in a menoge.
Are you saying that usually in a free vote the cabinet or core of a party still speak with one voice?
-
PM Katie Hopkins
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/01/cameron-accuses-corbyn-of-being-terrorist-sympathiser?CMP=share_btn_fb
-
Are you saying that usually in a free vote the cabinet or core of a party still speak with one voice?
Depends. In a full free conscious vote they don't have to, but here JC is stating that he is speaking for the Labour Party. In that case it can be collectively responsible for the shadow cabinet, here not, but there can be no speaking for the Labour Party opposing the Labour Party which is where we appear to be
-
Wes Streeting the Labour MP posted the message below. I think it it a powerful set of thoughts
'This has certainly been the worst day I've experienced in Parliament since my election. It's come in stark contrast to every other day because I can - hand on heart - say that I love my job and every aspect of it. How many of us are lucky enough to say that?
The atmosphere in Parliament is febrile. Tempers are fraying and even good friendships strain as people debate the right course of action in a conflict that is deeply complex.
I felt very let down by the Prime Minister tonight, when the media reported that he told the Conservative backbenchers' committee (known as the 1922 Committee) not to "walk through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers". I have lived in this city, which has endured terrorism, all my life. This is a deep insult to MPs from all parties who have very serious concerns about the strategy that the Prime Minister set out last week - in a far more dignified way than he behaved tonight. This is not the way I'd expect any Prime Minister to behave in these circumstances.
I'm also upset at the way in which MPs who plan to support air strikes are being treated. I wrote before about some of the nasty tactics against some of my Labour colleagues, but there seem to be many people who believe that anyone voting for air strikes is unthinking or unprincipled. Let me assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. On an issue like this, we all weigh the evidence, we all search our consciences and we all do what we believe to be right. Opponents of air strikes do not have a monopoly on wisdom or conviction.
I bumped into someone this evening who has been working in foreign affairs for decades and he couldn't tell me with certainty what the right answer to Syria is. I felt reassured, because I've spoken to people who are 100% sure that air strikes are right and those who are 100% sure they're wrong. On the eve of tomorrow's vote, I both envy that certainty and find it unnerving.
This afternoon I added my name to a cross-party amendment opposing air strikes in these circumstances (see below). Tomorrow, I will support the amendment and oppose the government's strategy for air strikes.
However difficult today has been is nothing compared to a day in Syria. Whatever the decision tomorrow, I pray it's the right one. It is one that will rest heavily on our consciences'
-
Yes Camerons latest rhetoric offers little, I feel sorry for Red Ken, he has become something of a liability recently.
-
NS - thanks for posting that. It articulates many of my doubts and uncertainties on this matter.
It's nice to know that Mr Cameron considers me a terrorist sympathiser - simply because I can't see what good throwing more bombs at the problem will do.
One thing the comments of our PM show is his petulant nature - the sooner the electorate wake up to his knee jerk tendancies the better.
-
Whilst I dislike Corbyn's political outlook, I think Cameron was bang out of order to make the comment about sympathising with political terrorists!
-
NS - thanks for posting that. It articulates many of my doubts and uncertainties on this matter.
It's nice to know that Mr Cameron considers me a terrorist sympathiser - simply because I can't see what good throwing more bombs at the problem will do.
One thing the comments of our PM show is his petulant nature - the sooner the electorate wake up to his knee jerk tendancies the better.
Slight pedantry on my part Cameron is not calling you a terrorist sympathiser but Corbyn, Red Ken and McDonnell. Who have sympathised with terrorists.
Its cheap shot a bit like opponents saying everyone who supports air strikes are war mongers, it makes Cameron look like a prat.
-
Slight pedantry on my part Cameron is not calling you a terrorist sympathiser but Corbyn, Red Ken and McDonnell. Who have sympathised with terrorists.
Its cheap shot a bit like opponents saying everyone who supports air strikes are war mongers, it makes Cameron look like a prat.
He's calling everyone who votes against him in the commons terrorist sympathisers.
-
Slight pedantry on my part Cameron is not calling you a terrorist sympathiser but Corbyn, Red Ken and McDonnell. Who have sympathised with terrorists.
Its cheap shot a bit like opponents saying everyone who supports air strikes are war mongers, it makes Cameron look like a prat.
From what I have heard, the comment was that MPs who oppose extending air strikes are terrorist sympathisers; he didn't specify any particular MPs - so that covers Tory MPs who oppose today's motion, Labour MP's who oppose it, SNP MPs who oppose it, etc. By extension, he is then suggesting that anyone who opposes the motion, even if they have no vote on it, are 'terrorist sympathisers'.
-
He's calling everyone who votes against him in the commons terrorist sympathisers.
From your earlier post;
he said 'walk through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers'
he did not say 'walk through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and you will be a terrorist sympathiser'
-
From your earlier post;
he said 'walk through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers'
he did not say 'walk through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and you will be a terrorist sympathiser'
The people who walk through the lobbies are identified as Jeremy Corbyn (who is in this case not explicitly identified as a terrorist sympathiser due to the lack of the word other), and terrorist sympathisers - so there are no other people in that phrase going through the lobbies.
Even had he phrased it as you want to read it, it's an ad hom and attempting guilt by association.
-
Dear Mr Cameron, ( I doubt he would last two seconds on this forum )
Is the strain telling, should you step down, will you admit it was a bloody stupid thing to say.
Gonnagle.
-
And the following is a statement from Alistair Carmichael about why he is voting to support the bombing. As with Wes Streeting's statement, it illustrates the consideration being taken by MPs but comes down on the other side
'You will have seen it reported in the press and media this morning that Liberal Democrat MPs will support the motion in the House of Commons today to extend to areas of Syria our current military involvement against ISIL/Da’esh in Iraq. I want to explain why, after lengthy discussion and deliberation, we have reached this decision and why I will support it.
Decisions of this sort are never easy and this has been the most difficult one that I have ever known. I certainly do not share David Cameron’s reported view that those who oppose intervention are “terrorist sympathisers”. This is an issue on which we have all had to come to our own conclusions and for many of us it has been an enormously difficult process. I know no one, inside parliament or not, who has approached this from anything other than a position of good faith and I respect completely those who have reached a different conclusion from mine.
By comparison the decision to oppose war in Iraq was simple by comparison – it was clearly illegal and it was difficult to identify what the British interest in intervention was.
Recognising that some of the problems we are dealing with today have their roots in that disastrous misadventure, we should be quite clear about why this is a different conflict with different issues.
The intervention against ISIL/Da’esh in Iraq which we currently support is legal by virtue of the fact that we were invited to take part by the Iraqi government. The proposed extension of that to Syria is legal as it has the mandate of a United Nation Security Council Resolution 2249. The legality of the proposal is therefore clear.
The wording of that resolution, if fact, goes further than authorising action. It “calls on” states that have the capacity to act.
I also believe that there is a UK national interest that justifies acting here. Our neighbour and ally France has asked that we should. That same request has already received positive responses from Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark.
ISIL/Da’esh is a brutal organisation that subjugates woman, tortures and executes gays and will kill or torture anyone in their own community that does not actively support them. They have a capacity to take their war to our own communities as recent atrocities in Beirut, Paris and Sharm Al Sheikh have demonstrated. They are a force that has to be confronted. We are already engaged in this through our participation in strikes against them in Iraq. Refusing to extend that to Syria will not remove the threat of an attack happening in this country.
Of course, bombing alone is not going to be enough to resolve this. To beat ISIL/Da'esh militarily will require ground troops and those must come from within Syria and the surrounding countries.
It will also require a concerted political and diplomatic effort. That means that the Vienna process must be supported and broadened as far as possible.
Most importantly of all, if we are really to learn from the mistakes of Iraq and Libya we must be prepared to commit to engaging in post-conflict stabilisation and reconstruction and to commit the money to that.
Whatever decision the Commons takes today will have consequences. Be in no doubt, however, that failing to act will also have consequences. The civil war that has killed thousands and which has seen unprecedented numbers of people displaced from their homes and come to Europe as refugees will continue.
Earlier this summer the response of British people to that refugee crisis was a compassionate one which had at its heart a determination to help. We have an opportunity (NB this is only an opportunity – it comes with no guarantees) to be part of an international effort to bring that conflict to an end, to use international institutions to rebuild a broken state and to do so in a way that is legal. To shrug our shoulders and refuse that opportunity because it is too difficult or should be left to others is to cheapen the compassion of that response and determination to help.'
-
hmm .. just seems to demonstrate the lack of critical thinking applied to the issue.
Oh well, if we are going to join in just to keep up with Joneses, maybe we could take some tips from our new Russian allies and, accidentally on purpose, get rid of Assad while we are there? :o
Then, with the Russians wiping out the Sunni rebels and Turkey the Kurds, should leave a nice large peaceful wasteland -similar to Afghanistan (?)
-
Dear Forum,
Its daesh!! right! right.
Pronounced dye esh.
Me and Mr Cameron agree, oh no :( :(
But he will not apologise, saying sorry, is it such a hard thing to do :o
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-34961844
Gonnagle.
-
hmm .. just seems to demonstrate the lack of critical thinking applied to the issue.
Oh well, if we are going to join in just to keep up with Joneses, maybe we could take some tips from our new Russian allies and, accidentally on purpose, get rid of Assad while we are there? :o
Then, with the Russians wiping out the Sunni rebels and Turkey the Kurds, should leave a nice large peaceful wasteland -similar to Afghanistan (?)
I think that is a simplistic characterisation of the argument for extending bombing into Syria, and also factually wrong as it implies that Russia wants to get rid of Assad when they don't. It isn't that others are doing it so we must but that those we are militarily allied with have asked for help AND that it is working in Iraq and will work here.
Now I disagree with that but it isn't because there is no critical thinking just that I think there needs to be a strategic plan in place not a tactical one.
Tuning in and out of the debate, I see that Cameron has been more graceful than his remarks last night but that much of what has been said so far has been taken up with his foolishness. That he, because, if politics can't apologise is one of our great problems, in that too many of us and them think apologies are signs of weakness.
-
The legality argument seems odd to me. We are going into another country, without the permission of the government of that country? Ah well, you can make it up as you go along.
I reckon that Cameron is feeling that it's in the bag, hence the 'terrorist sympathizer' gibe. He doesn't have to be polite now, although he will probably give a half-apology in the Commons. Well, he is OK, the Blairites will vote for war.
-
Link to the Chatham House review of the legality.
https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/assessing-legal-basis-uk-military-action-syria#
-
The people who walk through the lobbies are identified as Jeremy Corbyn (who is in this case not explicitly identified as a terrorist sympathiser due to the lack of the word other), and terrorist sympathisers - so there are no other people in that phrase going through the lobbies.
Even had he phrased it as you want to read it, it's an ad hom and attempting guilt by association.
He phrased according to your earlier post. I thought the Shadow Chancellor would also qualify as a terrorist sympathiser.
I agree its an ad hom and a stupid thing to thing.
-
He phrased according to your earlier post. I thought the Shadow Chancellor would also qualify as a terrorist sympathiser.
I agree its an ad hom and a stupid thing to thing.
And I explained why on that phrasing he was wrong, and why you have to read into it a level that isn't there. The people who according to that phrase would vote against bombing are
1. Jeremy Corbyn
2. A bunch of terrorist sympathisers
3. That's it
And it has already derailed much of his speech, where he is effectively trying to say two contradictory things to two different . So in addition to that stupidity he is now lying. I disagree with those who will vote for bombing, but his approach has been a disservice to them.
-
Some of the MPs opposing the airstrikes are pointing to the fact that the RAF strikes on Iraq have not defeated isil; but has isil got bigger and stronger since then? No. Did they take Baghdad? No. Have the RAF hit civilians? No. So these MPs are not being honest.
Without ground troops this will always be a maintenance program to stop them expanding. That can always follow later, wait until the US and Russia take that initiative.
If we do participate in Syria though isil will try to take hostages, so it would be advisable for civilian Brits not to go there. I hope the gov will make it a no-go zone.
-
Note they are already being bombed in Syria. So yes, Da’esh have got stronger in Syria while being bombed.
-
I think that is a simplistic characterisation of the argument for extending bombing into Syria, and also factually wrong as it implies that Russia wants to get rid of Assad when they don't. It isn't that others are doing it so we must but that those we are militarily allied with have asked for help AND that it is working in Iraq and will work here.
Now I disagree with that but it isn't because there is no critical thinking just that I think there needs to be a strategic plan in place not a tactical one.
Tuning in and out of the debate, I see that Cameron has been more graceful than his remarks last night but that much of what has been said so far has been taken up with his foolishness. That he, because, if politics can't apologise is one of our great problems, in that too many of us and them think apologies are signs of weakness.
I agree that is too simplistic - but that goes for all arguments being put, in parliament and elsewhere. Of-course Russia supports Assad, which is exactly why they are happy hitting the Syrian Free Army, our proposed "boots on the ground".
Not sure exactly what is working in Iraq? And Syria is not Iraq. We should not feel obliged to help our allies unless they can propose a strategy worth pursuing. imo we've not seen one yet.
-
And I explained why on that phrasing he was wrong, and why you have to read into it a level that isn't there. The people who according to that phrase would vote against bombing are
1. Jeremy Corbyn
2. A bunch of terrorist sympathisers
3. That's it
And it has already derailed much of his speech, where he is effectively trying to say two contradictory things to two different . So in addition to that stupidity he is now lying. I disagree with those who will vote for bombing, but his approach has been a disservice to them.
I agree with almost all of that apart from your list. According to Cameron those voting against the bombing are
1. Jeremy Corbyn
2. A bunch of terrorist sympathisers (which could include Corbyn)
3. Others who vote against
Lets say you thought the earth was 6000 years old and I said; why would you want to advocate for the same position as a bunch of theists?
Its pretty clear I'm not calling you a theist.
-
Note they are already being bombed in Syria. So yes, Da’esh have got stronger in Syria while being bombed.
Have they?
-
I agree that is too simplistic - but that goes for all arguments being put, in parliament and elsewhere. Of-course Russia supports Assad, which is exactly why they are happy hitting the Syrian Free Army, our proposed "boots on the ground".
Not sure exactly what is working in Iraq? And Syria is not Iraq. We should not feel obliged to help our allies unless they can propose a strategy worth pursuing. imo we've not seen one yet.
Yep, I agree, as I said I am on the other side but that doesn't mean I cannot see the genuineness of belief on the other side that this is the best, if not the ideal, option.
I put up the two statements to show that this is not something that there is necessarily a huge gulf between people, despite being on different sides.
I am disappointed that there is a frequent portrayal so far in the debate by those supporting bombing of those opposed as arguing that the alternative is doing nothing. And as always when I hear about how evil Da'esh are, I am amazed that those speaking seem to ignore the parallel to Saudi Arabia to whom we sell arms, whom we supported getting chair of the Human Rights committee in the UK, and who will be our 'ally' theoretically here.
-
Have they?
Yes, that's part of the problem.
-
I agree with almost all of that apart from your list. According to Cameron those voting against the bombing are
1. Jeremy Corbyn
2. A bunch of terrorist sympathisers (which could include Corbyn)
3. Others who vote against
Lets say you thought the earth was 6000 years old and I said; why would you want to advocate for the same position as a bunch of theists?
Its pretty clear I'm not calling you a theist.
The people who he was speaking to would be your 3there but all those not in his party who vote against are then part of 2. That created a huge distraction as it meant those in Labour, SNP, Green, SDLP, Plaid voting against were characterised as a bunch of terrorist sympathisers.
-
And of course as per the statement from Alistair Carmichael, even someone who will vote for the bombing, sees Cameron's statement as portraying those who vote against as being terrorist sympathisers.
-
DON'T WORRY, FOLKS, IT'LL ALL BE OVER BY CHRISTMAS!!! ;D ;D ;D
-
DON'T WORRY, FOLKS, IT'LL ALL BE OVER BY CHRISTMAS!!! ;D ;D ;D
If only that were true!
-
Good speech from John Baron, you can see why UKIP are keen to turn him.
-
Indded. He's made most of the relevant points against.
-
If only that were true!
The idea that Cameron was touting that if we reduced Da'esh there would be an interim govt in Syria that would be moderate in 6 - 18 months is bizarre
-
And Julian Lewis excellent 'bogus battalions'
-
Dear Thoughts,
Our PM is weak.
Paris, France.
Vengeance.
I think I want bombing but the question still remains, what next, what else, seems to me that at some point troops will have to be sent in, who else will clean up.
What a bloody mess!
Gonnagle.
-
And very good from Yvette Cooper probably the best speech so far for bombing.
-
Dear Sane,
Sanctuary, I like that word, and it should not give Cameron free rein, if we do decide to bomb, every bomb we drop should be under scrutiny, daesh will use innocent civilians as a shield.
Gonnagle.
-
She is saying "we need to join in the air strikes" and "a lot of other stuff ..." and beware of "more stuff ..." and so on. But surely she already knows we will join in bombing raids and none of the rest? ie as per normal.
-
Maajid Nawaz has just posted this on facebook.
Non-Arabs telling people to say "Daesh", instead of ISIS, is just weird & silly. Daesh is merely the *exact* Arabic equivalent to the English acronym ISIS / ISIL. And no, Daesh does not *mean* anything in Arabic. It's merely the Arabic acronym. If the childish argument is: "but Daesh rhymes with XYZ, or sounds like so and so insult, they hate that, so let's use it." Well, ISIS is an Egyptian she-goddess, I know they hate her too (this would be the unforgivable sin of 'shirk', or idolatry)! So if I'm speaking Arabic, I'll use "Daesh". But if I'm speaking English, I'll use ISIS (or the more technical ISIL), thanks. Let's stop trying to be so bloody PC all the time! Sorry but I detest it when people don't do shit about extremism, yet parade their rebel credentials in my face by saying DA'ESH at me, in an Arabic accent. And they don't even speak Arabic.
-
Dear Sane,
Sanctuary, I like that word, and it should not give Cameron free rein, if we do decide to bomb, every bomb we drop should be under scrutiny, daesh will use innocent civilians as a shield.
Gonnagle.
The whole idea of review is crucial. I mentioned this on The Wrong End of the Telescope thread that actions we take should generally have time limits where we ask 'Is this working?'
-
The idea that Cameron was touting that if we reduced Da'esh there would be an interim govt in Syria that would be moderate in 6 - 18 months is bizarre
Yes, I thought he was really stretching it, when he had a passage about ground troops becoming available, as a peaceful solution was found in Syria. This would be comic, if it wasn't such a grave situation.
Intervening in a civil war is usually an awful idea, but here you have so many different forces at work, Russia bombing FSA, Turkey bombing the Kurds, various Islamist groups, whose loyalties are uncertain, Hezbollah helping Assad, and so on.
But I don't think Cameron's thesis has to be credible to get through. If enough people want it to be true, it will pass, as with Iraq.
-
If we the West hadn't armed the rebel opposition against Assad then those who splintered off from the rebels to form isis would not have had the weapons that enabled them to then take so much territory in Iraq and Syria. If we are going to say no to airstrikes then we should not supply arms to the rebels, as they can't be trusted.
-
If we the West hadn't armed the rebel opposition against Assad then those who splintered off from the rebels to form isis would not have had the weapons that enabled them to then take so much territory in Iraq and Syria. If we are going to say no to airstrikes then we should not supply arms to the rebels, as they can't be trusted.
Yet Cameron's argument is based on 'friendly fighters' among the rebel groups, who he hopes, will rally to our cause against IS. Government policy based on wish fulfillment.
-
Agreed. Maybe it would be best to assume that in the long term Assad will stay in power, since he has Russia behind him.
-
I mean ideally we would leave Russia to sort it out, since they are Syria's ally. But we need to keep Iraq as we left it, and Isis is attacking Iraq from their stronghold in Syria, so they have to be tackled there too.
-
I mean ideally we would leave Russia to sort it out, since they are Syria's ally. But we need to keep Iraq as we left it, and Isis is attacking Iraq from their stronghold in Syria, so they have to be tackled there too.
All this 'we need to keep Iraq as we left' smacks of neo-colonialism to me. No wonder the West is hated by so many people in the region, we are still acting as if it was the 19th century. Order a gun-boat to Tripoli, my lord, the niggers are being restless.
-
I mean ideally we would leave Russia to sort it out, since they are Syria's ally. But we need to keep Iraq as we left it, and Isis is attacking Iraq from their stronghold in Syria, so they have to be tackled there too.
Leaving Russia and Assad in charge could result in a bloodbath. I honestly don't know I know that sounds flaky but there isn't an easy option. I don't trust Cameron and I don't have much faith in Corbyn.
-
It reminds me of that idea that the solution is the problem. I mean, the West thinking that it has solutions to various problems in the Middle East makes the problems worse, and also creates new problems. But I don't think that we can withdraw now; we have to keep looking for a cure, and making it worse.
-
My take on this is that the various militant groups, including ISIS and their opponents, are well funded and armed by private donors, outside powers and black market oil sales. This funding and support will not end with bombing ISIS.
Air strikes also won't stop new recruits joining ISIS. Only disrupting the ties of locals to ISIS, protecting locals from anti-Sunni government repression or stopping the nepotism and the unequal distribution of oil revenue to the various different communities in the country will do that. And, not sure how air strikes and supposedly 'friendly' ground troops are going to chase ISIS fighters across international borders e.g. into Turkey, given that Turkey shot down a Russian plane, and that Turkey would prefer ISIS to defeat Kurdish forces. So probably not a lot to prevent ISIS fighters using standard guerrilla tactics of dropping back into Turkey and coming back to attack opposition towns and positions. And not sure what the strategy is to deal with ISIS fighters who hide themselves amongst the civilian population - air strikes won't help there.
And regardless of whether ISIS lose territory in Syria and Iraq, they will, while capable through funds and technology, continue a strategy of international terrorism because that has been shown to work in disrupting foreign political and military support for their opponents. ISIS probably reason that if on-going dead US and UK soldiers reduced US and UK popular support for foreign military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq (not to mention what the sight of dead US soldiers did for the support of US intervention in Vietnam), dead foreign civilians will be just as effective if foreign troops won't meet them on the ground.
With the advances in technology and social media, every year it gets easier for insurgents to reach or communicate with foreign shores to gain support. This support may come in the form of terrorism, which is why there has been a rise in these types of terrorist tactics against soft targets on foreign shores rather than fighting conventionally against the superior military power of foreign troops, which would only result in military defeat for ISIS. The North Vietnamese army took on ground troops and US air strikes in Vietnam without surrendering - some of the North Vietnamese troops had tattooed "Born in the North to die in the South" on their bodies, so I'm not expecting foreign military intervention to reduce extremism in the ME, through it may disrupt some of the militants' supply lines.
Iran's 1979 revolution against the extremely brutal dictatorship of the US-installed Shah has always been a source of inspiration to Arab insurgents/ militants/ guerrilla movements. Even Western thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson, principal author of the US Declaration of Independence, wrote in a letter " ...what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure."
ISIS extremists have their own narrative of the need for bloodshed of tyrants and the need for martyrs. They seem to have a very simplistic belief that their Caliphate will guarantee social and economic security for the local Sunni population, and they don't think the local population need any freedoms that will interfere with the practice of the ISIS brand of Islam, hence the label of "extremists".
And this won't end quickly because revolutions, wars of liberation and counter-revolutions are usually followed by sectarian reprisals, and illegal executions in the local area as people fight to retain privilege and eliminate the competition e.g. the actions of the KKK after the US civil war to resist what they saw as non-Southern values, the violence in post-war Iraq and in Libya.
Given the protracted nature of any 'solution', Cameron's argument for air strikes seems to be that he has been asked to by the French government, who are his allies (and who presumably help stem illegal immigration through Calais and help disrupt terrorism in Britain by sharing intelligence) and so he doesn't want to upset the French. And also that ISIS expansion of territory and oil fields is of course a threat to British national interests. He also seems to be saying that it's not morally right to let our allies face the inevitable terrorist backlash to their air strikes against ISIS, without the UK facing some of that backlash ourselves, and presumably he hopes that UK security services with help from the intelligence services of his political allies will continue to be effective in disrupting that terrorist backlash.
-
If we need to keep Iraq as we left it, does that mean our aim is to keep it as a basket case?
-
If we need to keep Iraq as we left it, does that mean our aim is to keep it as a basket case?
I think the end result will be Assad in power which will be much the same as Saddam in Iraq.
We have to have at least learned by now that intervening is counter productive?
-
60 - 90 Labour MPs being predicted to vote with Govt. If it is to high end and the majority in Oldham falls by a 15% swing, Corbyn may be gone by end of January. Replaced by Dan Jarvis. Or he may remain and we may have a gang of 90.
-
I think the end result will be Assad in power which will be much the same as Saddam in Iraq.
We have to have at least learned by now that intervening is counter productive?
Isn't bombing a country intervening? Looks like we will be intervening the hell out of Syria by this time tomorrow.
-
And regardless of whether ISIS lose territory in Syria and Iraq, they will, while capable through funds and technology, continue a strategy of international terrorism because that has been shown to work in disrupting foreign political and military support for their opponents. ISIS probably reason that if on-going dead US and UK soldiers reduced US and UK popular support for foreign military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq (not to mention what the sight of dead US soldiers did for the support of US intervention in Vietnam), dead foreign civilians will be just as effective if foreign troops won't meet them on the ground.
They are deluded if so, every terrorist attack sparks a stupid knee jerk reaction from the West.
I suspect they do it because it plays into the narrative of West against Islam, doesn't help much there is also a nasty right wing element in the West which will gain power with every successful terrorist attack.
-
Isn't bombing a country intervening? Looks like we will be intervening the hell out of Syria by this time tomorrow.
Yes, I'm against the air strikes.
-
If we need to keep Iraq as we left it, does that mean our aim is to keep it as a basket case?
Or as a colony with a Hashemite king.
-
Yes, I'm against the air strikes.
To be fair, not bombing Syria does not mean we are not intervening. Most obviously we have bombing I Iraq, but I am not sure that a strict isolationist policy is possible anymore.
-
Salmond very fiery; also Caroline Lucas in fine form. Farron whining.
-
In some ways, I would respect an argument for revenge. But Cameron has put together a finagled sort of segue between bombing and ground troops and a peace plan, which sounds as flimsy as last week's condom, (sorry for mixed metaphor).
-
I think the best argument for bombing was done by David Davis, pity for that side he's against it. It would be symbolic and that would have meaning. That ties into the idea of revenge. It also lets the lack of a coherent plan going forward be a non argument since the initial action is justified in its own terms.
There have been hints of this on the Bomb side; Johnny Mercer 's worry that we are over analysing. But then that harks back to the whole neocon idea of defining our own reality.
-
I think the best argument for bombing was done by David Davis, pity for that side he's against it. It would be symbolic and that would have meaning. That ties into the idea of revenge. It also lets the lack of a coherent plan going forward be a non argument since the initial action is justified in its own terms.
There have been hints of this on the Bomb side; Johnny Mercer 's worry that we are over analysing. But then that harks back to the whole neocon idea of defining our own reality.
That is a strong argument, but I suppose Cameron dare not advance it, as it would seem too insubstantial. But he then cited various things, such as ground troops, and a peace plan, which don't seem credible. But I don't think he has to be credible really, as the symbolism will win the vote.
-
Interesting that current and previous leader of Labour party oppose bombing. Also rumours that 2 Lib Dems are struggling with voting for.
-
I was wondering how many proxy forces there are intervening now in Syria - US, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Germany, Saudis, France, UK, poor buggers, the Syrians I mean.
-
That is a strong argument, but I suppose Cameron dare not advance it, as it would seem too insubstantial. But he then cited various things, such as ground troops, and a peace plan, which don't seem credible. But I don't think he has to be credible really, as the symbolism will win the vote.
There is an odd skittishness about doing something symbolic. Cameron could have said this is not about improving things and it is a shot in the dark but I will stand by France and against the murdering thugs who shot up the Bataclan in order to say No, Non. There is a notional line in the sand that is the Syria/Iraq border, a line that the evil members of Da'esh, Isis, so called Muslims, whatever you want to address them as, ignore. A line on which either side they kill, burn, behead people. Christians, Muslims, Atheists . People of all faiths and none. But we will make a metaphorical line that you will cross at the peril of full prosecution, of nations far stronger in ways that you haven't begun to imagine, and we will stop your killing, stop your raping, stop you. That line is a symbol, a symbol of our strenth, a symbol of your weakness and one which we will enforce. Not only will you not pass, you will be become a failed memory, a lost thuggery, and the attempts you make to attack us will be like a literal line in sand, gone with wind and forgotten for all time.
-
Angus McNeil saying that 17 out of 25 IS leaders came out of a US jail for Iraquis. Rather like the IRA.
-
I was wondering how many proxy forces there are intervening now in Syria - US, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Germany, Saudis, France, UK, poor buggers, the Syrians I mean.
Angus Robertson listed them in his speech. In addition to those certainly Australia, Bahrain, and Canada.
-
They are deluded if so, every terrorist attack sparks a stupid knee jerk reaction from the West.
I suspect they do it because it plays into the narrative of West against Islam, doesn't help much there is also a nasty right wing element in the West which will gain power with every successful terrorist attack.
Short term there will be air strikes to be seen to be doing something or revenge, but as in Afghanistan, it is difficult to hold territory or maintain rule of law without ground troops and a political solution, and in the long-term there will be a reduction in foreign ground troops.
ISIS are probably gambling on being able to put out images of dead civilians from air strikes on the internet to play into the anti-Islam narrative and inspire and radicalise some disaffected violent young men to carry out some kind of terrorist attack. Even ISIS's claim of terrorist attacks against Russian civilians doesn't prevent Russia from attacking those who oppose Assad, even if they also oppose ISIS. So ISIS will find room to manoeuvre amongst the political in-fighting and they have some powerful allies.
I think ISIS would welcome a rise in the right-wing elements in British society - apart from enjoying the conflict in liberal societies, people being nice to Muslims would actually worry ISIS more as it disrupts their anti-Islam narrative. So even if mainstream Muslim voices condemning ISIS ideology are getting more media publicity the moderates will find it hard to counter the frustrations of disaffected young people experiencing right-wing anti-Muslim prejudice who are drawn to the ISIS call to fight back by taking part in the "glorious" battle by any means necessary .
-
I think there is also a strange acceptance of the wanking death cult's claims to coherence. They have created a narrative where even where there are acts of cowardly murder carried out by groups they hate, they can tie it all in to them. It's like the Judean People's Front, get credit for the People's Front of Judea and the Popular Front of Judea.
-
And possibly worse some of the 70,000 that Cameron talked of comprise of the Popular People's Front of Judea, and the People's Front of Judea etc etc
-
All this 'we need to keep Iraq as we left' smacks of neo-colonialism to me. No wonder the West is hated by so many people in the region, we are still acting as if it was the 19th century. Order a gun-boat to Tripoli, my lord, the niggers are being restless.
We invaded Iraq in error, then attempted to right that wrong. Get with the program.
-
www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/isis-releases-video-purportedly-showing-beheading-alleged-russian-spy-n472921
I wonder why ISIS are picking a fight with Russia, they will less concerned with collateral damage and this plays into the narrative?
-
We invaded Iraq in error, then attempted to right that wrong. Get with the program.
What program? Do you actually mean that or are you entering for POE of the Month? Which time did we leave Iraq in a state you want to keep it in?
-
www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/isis-releases-video-purportedly-showing-beheading-alleged-russian-spy-n472921
I wonder why ISIS are picking a fight with Russia, they will less concerned with collateral damage and this plays into the narrative?
because Russia back Assad, a murderous thug that used to be ours and is a symbol of the secular Western approach to controlling the Middle East. If you attack Russia you are attacking a regime that all of Cameron's 'bogus battalions' of 70,000 are already fighting.
-
I can't think of a better reason to send armed people in with a mandate to shoot than if we don't more people will end up dead, or worse.
So you think we should be the world's police? What mandate do we have to go invading countries just because we don't like the fact that they don't adhere to what we see as being correct?
One of them, yes. The other being that the majority of the people in the region weren't on one side or the other of the conflict, but were rather caught in the middle.
That tends to be the case most of the time. It is an aggressive idealistic few with greedy motives that force the rest into their madness.
There are a range of Muslim views, and in the west the vast majority are being ignored whilst they continually protest what is being done, as they see it, in Islam's name. The problem isn't the majority of Muslims, it's the fact that the influential Muslims - the Saudi royals, the Iranian elite and the like - are sitting on the fence. They don't want to aggravate their markets in the West, they don't want to aggravate potentially violent terrorist groups, so they pretend like it's not their issue whilst funneling cash into the region to support one ragtag bunch of nutjobs or another.
My response was about what is needed back home, which was I thought your comment was about. You mentioned educating those who may have jihadist attitudes but education to me implies talking at people as oppose to talking with them. If the Muslim community is outraged by all this then I would expect them to be proactive but I can't say I've seen much proof for this. Neither can I see much proof for our government really trying to fully understand what is going on; understanding how British Muslim's feel and think etc. Instead they seem to just gather in their Westminster bubble and come up with schemes for the Muslim community to take on board. Whether here or in Syria our government is way behind the curve and I see much of what Cameron does or want to do as too-late-knee-jerk-reactions.
-
Leaving Russia and Assad in charge could result in a bloodbath. I honestly don't know I know that sounds flaky but there isn't an easy option. I don't trust Cameron and I don't have much faith in Corbyn.
Saying we want Assad gone is about as much good as saying we want Putin to step down.
-
What program? Do you actually mean that or are you entering for POE of the Month? Which time did we leave Iraq in a state you want to keep it in?
When we withdrew our forces .
-
When we withdrew our forces .
So when it was still effectively in a form of civil war, with ongoing bombings and allowed Da'esh etc to emerge. Sounds brilliant idea.
-
Leaving Russia and Assad in charge could result in a bloodbath. I honestly don't know I know that sounds flaky but there isn't an easy option. I don't trust Cameron and I don't have much faith in Corbyn.
Leaving Assad and Russia in charge is by far the best option. Russia was right all along. Of course the Americans don't like it, especially since it's becoming clear that the CIA and Mossad backed ISIS.
-
So when it was still effectively in a form of civil war, with ongoing bombings and allowed Da'esh etc to emerge. Sounds brilliant idea.
Go back to the point I was addressing you're way off track
-
If he's such a dinosaur why did he trounce his fellow candidates in the leadership election with such a thumping majority and why have upwards of 50,000 people joined Labour in the couple of months since he won?
Considering the number of voters in the UK that isn't a great deal, and no doubt represents the extreme Lefties in the country. He won because many in the Labour party and those that joined for £3 (a policy that opened the door to such abuse) were also extreme Lefties. Given that he only got nominated because of the stupid Labour/Leftie attitude of naively helping the underdog with no sensibility of the dangers involved the Labour party were destined to fall foul of their myopic whinging.
-
So when it was still effectively in a form of civil war, with ongoing bombings and allowed Da'esh etc to emerge. Sounds brilliant idea.
The politics in Iraq is mind-boggling. Al Qaeda were actually defeated, partly by the Sunni tribes, and then everything went pear-shaped, and IS emerged. Of course, Syria is much more straight-forward (not). Intervening there should be a doddle.
-
I think there is also a strange acceptance of the wanking death cult's claims to coherence. They have created a narrative where even where there are acts of cowardly murder carried out by groups they hate, they can tie it all in to them. It's like the Judean People's Front, get credit for the People's Front of Judea and the Popular Front of Judea.
Agreed. I have no idea which group actually carried out various terrorist attacks and beheadings and explosions or whether they are united under an actual leadership or whether they just come together for photo-calls and videos to post on YouTube for propaganda purposes.
-
Leaving Assad and Russia in charge is by far the best option. Russia was right all along. Of course the Americans don't like it, especially since it's becoming clear that the CIA and Mossad backed ISIS.
If the West backs Assad, I would predict a Sunni uprising which would make IS look like a tea-party, spreading right across the Sunni arc, Iraq, Syria, Turkey. I suppose genocide might work.
-
Agreed. I have no idea which group actually carried out various terrorist attacks and beheadings and explosions or whether they are united under an actual leadership or whether they just come together for photo-calls and videos to post on YouTube for propaganda purposes.
The whole concept that various points that people argued that Raqqa is a command and control centre seems to ignore their other position that this is some new form of entity we are dealing with.
-
The politics in Iraq is mind-boggling. Al Qaeda were actually defeated, partly by the Sunni tribes, and then everything went pear-shaped, and IS emerged. Of course, Syria is much more straight-forward (not). Intervening there should be a doddle.
And when we initially intervened there was no Al Qaeda there
-
Go back to the point I was addressing you're way off track
In what way? We left Iraq as a civil war. You stated you wanted to keep it like that.
-
There is a view that there exists many in the UK that are as far left as Corbyn. How many though?
If the Oldham seat goes you should have a clearer indication.
The majority at the 2015 election was 14,000. It is unlikely to be totally out done, so the real question is how much will Corbyn lose from that majority. If it is substantial then expect real pressure from the moderates to try to oust him. I hear that the fighting over the Syria vote has crossed a line in the Labour camp and the knifes are out anyway.
-
Considering the number of voters in the UK that isn't a great deal, and no doubt represents the extreme Lefties in the country. He won because many in the Labour party and those that joined for £3 (a policy that opened the door to such abuse) were also extreme Lefties. Given that he only got nominated because of the stupid Labour/Leftie attitude of naively helping the underdog with no sensibility of the dangers involved the Labour party were destined to fall foul of their myopic whinging.
You are making a category mistake here of those who joined for the leadership election, which was about 250,000, a small number in overall electoral terms but huge in terms of political parties, and those elaborate joined following.
-
The majority at the 2015 election was 14,000. It is unlikely to be totally out done, so the real question is how much will Corbyn lose from that majority. If it is substantial then expect real pressure from the moderates to try to oust him. I hear that the fighting over the Syria vote has crossed a line in the Labour camp and the knifes are out anyway.
it's nearly as bad as UKIP
-
If the West backs Assad, I would predict a Sunni uprising which would make IS look like a tea-party, spreading right across the Sunni arc, Iraq, Syria, Turkey. I suppose genocide might work.
The alternative, it seems, is to let ISIS win.
-
www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/isis-releases-video-purportedly-showing-beheading-alleged-russian-spy-n472921
I wonder why ISIS are picking a fight with Russia, they will less concerned with collateral damage and this plays into the narrative?
There are Chechens fighting for ISIS who probably want to continue the fight against Russia. Some Chechen fighters made peace with the Russian government while other Chechen fighters consider Russian to be like a mad dog that needs to be put down.
-
The alternative, it seems, is to let ISIS win.
I don't see why. Al Qaeda were defeated in Iraq, partly with the help of the Sunni tribes. In Syria, the Sunni are the majority, whereas in Iraq a minority, but I don't think the Syrian tribes and groups want an IS regime or an AQ regime. They talk of autonomous Sunni regions, it might be possible, but in Syria they have to be part of the government.
-
Wes Streeting the Labour MP posted the message below. I think it it a powerful set of thoughts
'This has certainly been the worst day I've experienced in Parliament since my election. It's come in stark contrast to every other day because I can - hand on heart - say that I love my job and every aspect of it. How many of us are lucky enough to say that?
The atmosphere in Parliament is febrile. Tempers are fraying and even good friendships strain as people debate the right course of action in a conflict that is deeply complex.
I felt very let down by the Prime Minister tonight, when the media reported that he told the Conservative backbenchers' committee (known as the 1922 Committee) not to "walk through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers". I have lived in this city, which has endured terrorism, all my life. This is a deep insult to MPs from all parties who have very serious concerns about the strategy that the Prime Minister set out last week - in a far more dignified way than he behaved tonight. This is not the way I'd expect any Prime Minister to behave in these circumstances.
I'm also upset at the way in which MPs who plan to support air strikes are being treated. I wrote before about some of the nasty tactics against some of my Labour colleagues, but there seem to be many people who believe that anyone voting for air strikes is unthinking or unprincipled. Let me assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. On an issue like this, we all weigh the evidence, we all search our consciences and we all do what we believe to be right. Opponents of air strikes do not have a monopoly on wisdom or conviction.
I bumped into someone this evening who has been working in foreign affairs for decades and he couldn't tell me with certainty what the right answer to Syria is. I felt reassured, because I've spoken to people who are 100% sure that air strikes are right and those who are 100% sure they're wrong. On the eve of tomorrow's vote, I both envy that certainty and find it unnerving.
This afternoon I added my name to a cross-party amendment opposing air strikes in these circumstances (see below). Tomorrow, I will support the amendment and oppose the government's strategy for air strikes.
However difficult today has been is nothing compared to a day in Syria. Whatever the decision tomorrow, I pray it's the right one. It is one that will rest heavily on our consciences'
And we have the EU referendum to come.
-
The legality argument seems odd to me. We are going into another country, without the permission of the government of that country? Ah well, you can make it up as you go along.
I reckon that Cameron is feeling that it's in the bag, hence the 'terrorist sympathizer' gibe. He doesn't have to be polite now, although he will probably give a half-apology in the Commons. Well, he is OK, the Blairites will vote for war.
It seem the LibDems are going to vote for bombing as well....not sure why.
-
I don't see why. Al Qaeda were defeated in Iraq, partly with the help of the Sunni tribes. In Syria, the Sunni are the majority, whereas in Iraq a minority, but I don't think the Syrian tribes and groups want an IS regime or an AQ regime. They talk of autonomous Sunni regions, it might be possible, but in Syria they have to be part of the government.
Speculation:
If the West stayed out and left it to Assad and Russia (and possibly France), the Sunni rebels could join with ISIL in carving out a new state. The war would continue for ages with the rebels financed by Saudi and the Gulf states, similar to Afghanistan but without Russians on the ground.
-
I agree that is too simplistic - but that goes for all arguments being put, in parliament and elsewhere. Of-course Russia supports Assad, which is exactly why they are happy hitting the Syrian Free Army, our proposed "boots on the ground".
Not sure exactly what is working in Iraq? And Syria is not Iraq. We should not feel obliged to help our allies unless they can propose a strategy worth pursuing. imo we've not seen one yet.
How long have the Allies been bombing in Iraq, with all those Iraqi troops in support? Year plus? If so shouldn't have those amateur ISIS lot have been trounced by now? Cameron rattles on as if this is just the start of the bombing campaign and we're going in to deal with them with one good blow.
-
If only that were true!
It's a quote from the start of WWI, which of course ended before Christmas.
-
It's a quote from the start of WWI, which of course ended before Christmas.
Well, come on, be fair ...
... it ended before Christmas 1918.
-
Speculation:
If the West stayed out and left it to Assad and Russia (and possibly France), the Sunni rebels could join with ISIL in carving out a new state. The war would continue for ages with the rebels financed by Saudi and the Gulf states, similar to Afghanistan but without Russians on the ground.
Personally I just trust Russia more at the moment. Russia was right when it warned the US & Co not to interfere. What is happening now is all part of the CIA and Mossad plan in the name of a greater Israel. Europe should have nothing to do with it. With should align ourselves with Russia.
-
And Julian Lewis excellent 'bogus battalions'
I heard his speech and it pull out all the salient points.
I think one point why all this is getting so heated is because our Allies are wondering how reliable we are and one Syria vote has gone down the pan which scuppered things. I reckon all this is about our place in the world and less so about the Syrian people. If this fails then there's going to be a big ? over us in our Allies' eyes, and for some of our power crazy leaders that's looking like a massive lose of face.
-
Dear Thoughts,
Our PM is weak.
Paris, France.
Vengeance.
I think I want bombing but the question still remains, what next, what else, seems to me that at some point troops will have to be sent in, who else will clean up.
What a bloody mess!
Gonnagle.
Yes. When the 70,000 'troops' fail will mission creep step in?
-
Yes, I thought he was really stretching it, when he had a passage about ground troops becoming available, as a peaceful solution was found in Syria. This would be comic, if it wasn't such a grave situation.
Intervening in a civil war is usually an awful idea, but here you have so many different forces at work, Russia bombing FSA, Turkey bombing the Kurds, various Islamist groups, whose loyalties are uncertain, Hezbollah helping Assad, and so on.
But I don't think Cameron's thesis has to be credible to get through. If enough people want it to be true, it will pass, as with Iraq.
Cameron's speech just reminded me of the spin and lies, and double talk, of Blair!!!
-
Cameron's speech just reminded me of the spin and lies, and double talk, of Blair!!!
Scarcely a Rizla between them, that's why.
-
I heard his speech and it pull out all the salient points.
I think one point why all this is getting so heated is because our Allies are wondering how reliable we are and one Syria vote has gone down the pan which scuppered things. I reckon all this is about our place in the world and less so about the Syrian people. If this fails then there's going to be a big ? over us in our Allies' eyes, and for some of our power crazy leaders that's looking like a massive lose of face.
So if the ally thing is crucial, that's why France helped us invade Iraq? Hmmm
-
Excellent speech by Hilary Benn
-
Dear Forum,
We bomb.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Forum,
Just to add, twice in one year I have seen we are very lucky in this country to have the privilege of living in a free, open, democratic country.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Forum,
Just to add to the add, Cameron is in charge, no backbone Cameron, I feel a prayer coming on.
Father in Heaven,
I question your sense of humour, and yes I know your answer, we reap what we sow.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Forum,
We bomb.
Gonnagle.
Yes and they have sent the first wave already
-
I find the juxtaposition of our first targets with what is happening in Paris this week somewhat ironic!!
-
Cameron's speech just reminded me of the spin and lies, and double talk, of Blair!!!
I saw that likeness several weeks ago, JK.
-
So you think we should be the world's police? What mandate do we have to go invading countries just because we don't like the fact that they don't adhere to what we see as being correct?
The UN request to intervene, the UN case that the situation there is unacceptable. What we do is a strategic and tactical decision, but that we do something happens under that UN mandate.
That tends to be the case most of the time. It is an aggressive idealistic few with greedy motives that force the rest into their madness.
Not even all of the rest, just some of them. That's why the relatively indiscriminate tactic of arial bombardment in isolation is, I think, unjustifiable.
My response was about what is needed back home, which was I thought your comment was about. You mentioned educating those who may have jihadist attitudes but education to me implies talking at people as oppose to talking with them.
Whilst there are times when lecturing is an effective form of education (not the the most effective, generally), that tends to be in situations where you are delivering facts, not those situations where you are attempting to build a rapport and foster understanding and respect. Too often, I'd agree, the bravado of 'we're right' gets the in the way, from both sides.
If the Muslim community is outraged by all this then I would expect them to be proactive but I can't say I've seen much proof for this.
Hardly any at all, it would seem.
Neither can I see much proof for our government really trying to fully understand what is going on; understanding how British Muslim's feel and think etc. Instead they seem to just gather in their Westminster bubble and come up with schemes for the Muslim community to take on board.
I don't think we're alone in that. I don't see much in the way of a welcoming hand in France's ban on burquas, for instance, or in the US Republican candidates speaking of creating a register of Muslims in the country... but they are playing for the attentions of a slightly racist population. The down-side of democracy is that power, ultimately, lies in the masses who aren't necessarily equipped for the magnitude of the decisions.
Whether here or in Syria our government is way behind the curve and I see much of what Cameron does or want to do as too-late-knee-jerk-reactions.
From the a strategic decisions of trying to fight last century's wars, to the 'moral' case of only fighting back once 'we' have been attacked, because Syrian lives don't matter as much as, say, French...
O.
-
I saw that likeness several weeks ago, JK.
According to the Shadow Chancellor Hilary Benn was very much like Tony Blair. Odd the way he took Cameron to task and defended Corbyn was very typical of what a leader should have done.
-
Excellent speech by Hilary Benn
Didn't get what he meant about standing shoulder to shoulder with allies opposing ISIS ideology, given our MPs voted to stand shoulder to shoulder with our ally Saudi Arabia, which appears to have done little to crack down on Saudi private funding for ISIS and are also funding Islamist rebel factions, as they are more concerned about using all available resources to oppose Assad.
We also appear to be standing shoulder to shoulder with Turkey, who aren't successfully policing their borders against ISIS fighters slipping back and forth, and who oppose the Kurds more than ISIS, and who according to Russia (which claims to have satellite images) are the main consumers of ISIS black-market oil.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/12/02/us-mideast-crisis-russia-turkey-idUSKBN0TL19S20151202#20kUfwMjHbW8DE6I.97
I agree with his point that what little air strikes that Britain can muster can hinder ISIS supply lines, troop movements and positions so can be considered an action in line with the UN resolution to dismantle their self-declared state. If ISIS lose territory, that is a propaganda coup but as in Afghanistan any territory gains against ISIS would have to be defended on an on-going basis.
I also agree with his point that we don't know how many ground troops are available to fight ISIS. Any ground troops are split into factions that are spread over a wide geographic area in Syria, many of whom are fighting each other as well as Assad (who claimed his regime to be the last stronghold for secularism in the region) and who are unlikely to trek over as Britain's "boots on the ground" to ISIS controlled areas unless it is in their strategic interests, as opposed to because Britain got upset because some French people were murdered.
Also, there are desertions from the Free Syrian Army due to tough battlefield conditions and the low pay not being enough to provide for fighters' families who need to be evacuated from their shelled homes. Meanwhile Islamist rebels who reject secularism and democracy but are fighting Assad and fighting ISIS are better paid, better armed, more fired-up on their Islamist ideology and are therefore able to drive out ISIS from certain areas where the FSA have failed to do so, and in the process help themselves to FSA supplies and weapons. Their superior prowess attracts more fighters to their factions - as not surprisingly militants prefer to throw their lot in with strong groups that at least have some chance of battlefield success due to better weapons, supplies, training and motivation.
So essentially, Hillary Benn seems to be saying it's better to do something military against ISIS, however small or symbolic, rather than do nothing, and there will never be a perfect time to deploy the air strikes, so why not now.
-
I was more commenting on his delivery and that it is about the best case to be made. I agree that our allies are not just the French but they are the ones who have asked for our support.
As noted yesterday, I have severe doubts that Da'esh are as centralised as is being made out, so while the bombing can be argued for as being symbolic, the thing we are attacking is also, I would suggest, a symbol.
It was a great piece of oratory but there is no need for such to be correct.
-
Yes, the inevitable in-fighting amongst ISIS groups is an advantage for those opposed to ISIS, but we better expect to have an on-going problem with morphing splinter groups - as much as ISIS splintered off from Al-Qaeda because they felt Al-Qaeda methods and strategy were not extreme enough, something similar will happen within the ISIS version of a Caliphate.
The French have asked for Britain's help. Assad has asked for Iran and Russia's help - each side's strategic interests in the region are at the expense of the other side but at least they are all agreed to strike at the symbol of ISIS, in between arming their own factions and trying to out-manoeuvre each other. I just can't help thinking that supporting Turkey while Turkish companies buy ISIS black market oil to enable ISIS to pay its fighters and buy weapons to fight us is like a dog chasing its tail - I wonder if the UK pilots will get an opportunity to drop some bombs on the oil tankers.
-
Dear Gabriella,
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/why-isis-hate-being-called-daesh-whats-correct-name-worlds-most-dangerous-terrorists-1531506
If you would rather not answer this question then I will understand.
I think it is important, Joe public are drip fed, ISIS, ISIL, IS, if we can distance ourselves from any reference which connects to Islam then I think in a small way we hit back at the terrorists.
But as I say, if you think this question is stupid or it makes you uneasy, don't answer, I am glad to see you posting, I wish we had more Muslim voices on this forum.
Gonnagle.
-
Yes, I was wondering about the various Islamist splinters, or whatever you call them, and if the RAF are being asked to differentiate amongst them. However, I guess the obvious criterion is whether they threaten the West, so Al Nusra presumably will not be bombed, and might even be useful to fight IS.
But the numerous splinters and 'supergroups' show the problems in intervening in Syria. I guess if the intention is purely to stop attacks in the West, that is one thing, but the idea of a 'peace plan' seems rather vague, since you have the problem of who will be involved.
There has been talk, for example, of Al Nusra being supported by the West against IS. But then, as we know, Al Qaeda were originally supported by the West.
It seems so easy to make things worse, especially with all the cross-currents - Russia is bombing the FSA, Turkey is bombing the Kurds, the West is bombing IS, Hezbollah is pursuing many rebel groups.
Presumably, we will be taking more refugees now.
-
One of the anti bomb arguments that I really disliked was the whole of we bomb them they will just attack is line
It was good to see Derek Twigg point that out while still arguing that the bombing was wrong.
-
Dear Gabriella,
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/why-isis-hate-being-called-daesh-whats-correct-name-worlds-most-dangerous-terrorists-1531506
If you would rather not answer this question then I will understand.
I think it is important, Joe public are drip fed, ISIS, ISIL, IS, if we can distance ourselves from any reference which connects to Islam then I think in a small way we hit back at the terrorists.
But as I say, if you think this question is stupid or it makes you uneasy, don't answer, I am glad to see you posting, I wish we had more Muslim voices on this forum.
Gonnagle.
Hi Gonnagle
I couldn't see a question, but if you're asking whether I agree calling them Daesh is better, than yes, if they dislike the term. I have no idea about whether breaking the link with Islam by calling them Daesh will alter the opinion of the public, but no harm trying it.
It's just that on this forum, certain posters derail with trying to link them to generalisations about Islam and religion if there is a Muslim posting, so I attempted to side-step the inevitable derail by just using more Islamic terms to refer to Daesh, rather than get caught up in a debate with non-Muslims about whether they represent Islam or whether the whole thing should be pinned on religion.
But ok will refer to them as Daesh on here from now on.
-
One of the anti bomb arguments that I really disliked was the whole of we bomb them they will just attack is line
It was good to see Derek Twigg point that out while still arguing that the bombing was wrong.
True - but symbolic gestures are important - using a particular name, bombing supply lines. Presumably we are aware that all sides gets potency from symbolic gestures? So a terrorist act on the streets of Britain might not alter the course of a battle in Syria but it will have symbolic value.
-
Wish Benn hadn't referred to the International Brigades in Spain, yuk.
-
True - but symbolic gestures are important - using a particular name, bombing supply lines. Presumably we are aware that all sides gets potency from symbolic gestures? So a terrorist act on the streets of Britain might not alter the course of a battle in Syria but it will have symbolic value.
That seems to follow on from a different post of mine, where I was talking about the symbolism, rather than the one copied in?
But, yes, the power of symbolism works both ways, on that I quite liked the 4chan duck approach
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/28/isis-fighters-rubber-ducks-reddit-4chan
-
An interesting joke going the rounds - that Benn's was the best pro-war speech since Blair's in 2003.
-
Wish Benn hadn't referred to the International Brigades in Spain, yuk.
Well it was a kitchen sink approach. There was a sort of echo of that Norwegian football commentator who listed all the famous English people he could think of and finished with 'your boys took a helluva beating'
-
An interesting joke going the rounds - that Benn's was the best pro-war speech since Blair's in 2003.
And there is also the comparison going around with his dad"s 1998 speech where the same person is behind them both
-
Dear Gabriella,
Thank you for your reply.
Obama Gabriella no back bone Cameron Hollande
Now how do we convince the media, the BBC, The Express.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/609757/Putin-ISIS-Islamic-State-Syria-Raqqa-troops-soldiers-air-strike-jets-military
150,000 troops, what the F***!
Gonnagle.
-
That seems to follow on from a different post of mine, where I was talking about the symbolism, rather than the one copied in?
Yes - I just wanted to follow on from that point that there will probably continue to be attempts to bomb us - for symbolic reasons - and I didn't think it was a valid argument against largely symbolic air strikes, though there were I think other valid arguments against air strikes now, such as a lack of coherent plans for ground troops to follow up the air strikes or not telling us a plan to stop ISIS funds.
But, yes, the power of symbolism works both ways, on that I quite liked the 4chan duck approach
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/28/isis-fighters-rubber-ducks-reddit-4chan
Yeah that works.
-
Good article, I think
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n24/james-meek/a-raqqa-of-the-mind
-
Dear Gabriella,
Thank you for your reply.
Obama Gabriella no back bone Cameron Hollande
Now how do we convince the media, the BBC, The Express.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/609757/Putin-ISIS-Islamic-State-Syria-Raqqa-troops-soldiers-air-strike-jets-military
150,000 troops, what the F***!
Gonnagle.
That's one way of putting yourself centre-stage on the political map, and also get Russian troops in Syria to support Assad/ act as a counter to US bases in Saudi. Wonder what the Russian special forces will be up to? And if they will divert oil tankers from their routes to Turkish companies.
-
I was more commenting on his delivery and that it is about the best case to be made. I agree that our allies are not just the French but they are the ones who have asked for our support.
As noted yesterday, I have severe doubts that Da'esh are as centralised as is being made out, so while the bombing can be argued for as being symbolic, the thing we are attacking is also, I would suggest, a symbol.
It was a great piece of oratory but there is no need for such to be correct.
Whilst I'd agree he was wrong about his conclusions I think his motives were admirable. I know we'll get 'its all about the oil' from some conspiracy theorists eventually.
The one part of the 'yes' arguments I didn't find convincing were 'these people do bad things', the Saudi Arabia regime have as bad a record on human rights but we don't attack them because the regime isn't out to kill us.
I think overall Assad will be happy with the Russians backing him and the West hitting IS I think his future looks rosy.
I have no doubt should this prove successful Islamic State will move to Libya in a few years and exactly the same cycle will start again.
-
I find the juxtaposition of our first targets with what is happening in Paris this week somewhat ironic!!
Yes. Why don't we just pick it up at the point of delivery and use it for ourselves; fuel our jets.
-
I saw that likeness several weeks ago, JK.
But his speech reminded me of Blair arguing for the Iraq war, all the spin and half truths; it was quintessentially Blair.
-
...
I think overall Assad will be happy with the Russians backing him and the West hitting IS I think his future looks rosy.
nah... they seem to think it is a joke:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34995366
I have no doubt should this prove successful Islamic State will move to Libya in a few years and exactly the same cycle will start again.
It won't (prove successful), but no doubt their support in Libya will continue to grow:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/12028246/Islamic-State-is-building-a-retreat-zone-in-Libya-with-3000-fighters-say-UN-experts.html
-
I couldn't see a question, but if you're asking whether I agree calling them Daesh is better, than yes, if they dislike the term.
I'd always understood that they liked that term, not disliked it. Perhaps I've been misled!!
-
Yes. Why don't we just pick it up at the point of delivery and use it for ourselves; fuel our jets.
JK, there is a Climate Change conference going on in Paris, whilst in Syria we potentially have burning oil wells!!
-
But his speech reminded me of Blair arguing for the Iraq war, all the spin and half truths; it was quintessentially Blair.
And he's been arguing in this same way for several weeks now, JK. I recognized the similarity several weeks ago.
-
I think this is wrong on its own fawning over Churchill but it makes a point
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/12/hilary-benns-speech-was-just-a-shallow-historical-re-enactment/
-
I think the end result will be Assad in power which will be much the same as Saddam in Iraq.
We have to have at least learned by now that intervening is counter productive?
I think the end result will be no result!!!
-
Philippa Whitford's speech
http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/4e6d04ee-df49-4789-a54a-42f2c7be53b2?in=20:19:14&out=20:22:17
-
I think the best argument for bombing was done by David Davis, pity for that side he's against it. It would be symbolic and that would have meaning. That ties into the idea of revenge. It also lets the lack of a coherent plan going forward be a non argument since the initial action is justified in its own terms.
There have been hints of this on the Bomb side; Johnny Mercer 's worry that we are over analysing. But then that harks back to the whole neocon idea of defining our own reality.
I'm against bombing but the logical answer for those pro-bombing would be to bomb both ISIS and Assad, as they are both against our 'moderate' rebels, murdering bastards and against our 'good' democratic ideas.
-
There is an odd skittishness about doing something symbolic. Cameron could have said this is not about improving things and it is a shot in the dark but I will stand by France and against the murdering thugs who shot up the Bataclan in order to say No, Non. There is a notional line in the sand that is the Syria/Iraq border, a line that the evil members of Da'esh, Isis, so called Muslims, whatever you want to address them as, ignore. A line on which either side they kill, burn, behead people. Christians, Muslims, Atheists . People of all faiths and none. But we will make a metaphorical line that you will cross at the peril of full prosecution, of nations far stronger in ways that you haven't begun to imagine, and we will stop your killing, stop your raping, stop you. That line is a symbol, a symbol of our strenth, a symbol of your weakness and one which we will enforce. Not only will you not pass, you will be become a failed memory, a lost thuggery, and the attempts you make to attack us will be like a literal line in sand, gone with wind and forgotten for all time.
I don't understand this thing about the boarder. Assad is slaughtering his people, so on what grounds should we recognise his leadership and governess? We should have bombed his military bases yonks ago. Though my reservation with this is that our leaders can't help themselves but grab a massive dose of mission creep.
-
I don't understand this thing about the boarder. Assad is slaughtering his people, so on what grounds should we recognise his leadership and governess? We should have bombed his military bases yonks ago. Though my reservation with this is that our leaders can't help themselves but grab a massive dose of mission creep.
And that, given the last couple of years, could have lead to something like Da'esh been in govt. Creating political vacuums hasn't got a great history.
-
Rereading my faux speech for Cameron, if I had flung in a couple of historic struggles against fascism, it might have been Hilary Benn's speech
-
And possibly worse some of the 70,000 that Cameron talked of comprise of the Popular People's Front of Judea, and the People's Front of Judea etc etc
It's worse than that. This 70,000 includes about 50 tribal groups who are more interested in protecting their people in their little corner from Assad than doing Cameron's bidding and going out to territories they don't know to face ISIS who they probably don't full disagree with.
-
Agreed. I have no idea which group actually carried out various terrorist attacks and beheadings and explosions or whether they are united under an actual leadership or whether they just come together for photo-calls and videos to post on YouTube for propaganda purposes.
If that is the case then putting pressure on them and depleting their resources should make them fight amongst themselves.....? Though history shows us they just melt away and re-emerge.
-
You are making a category mistake here of those who joined for the leadership election, which was about 250,000, a small number in overall electoral terms but huge in terms of political parties, and those elaborate joined following.
But I thought the issue raised was how General Electable Corbyn was. It might get him power in his little Labour bubble but if the masses don't care for him then he and Labour are dead in the water.
-
it's nearly as bad as UKIP
Not really....
-
Well, come on, be fair ...
... it ended before Christmas 1918.
OK, this Syria thing will end before Christmas 2040.....I think.
-
So if the ally thing is crucial, that's why France helped us invade Iraq? Hmmm
I don't understand all this solidarity with France, France are selfish bastards in the EU - let the stupid fuckers suffer is what I say!!!
-
Excellent speech by Hilary Benn
Bollocks!!! It was pretty much all emotional claptrap and very little substance.
-
The UN request to intervene, the UN case that the situation there is unacceptable. What we do is a strategic and tactical decision, but that we do something happens under that UN mandate.
---------------------------------------
Not even all of the rest, just some of them. That's why the relatively indiscriminate tactic of arial bombardment in isolation is, I think, unjustifiable.
Whilst there are times when lecturing is an effective form of education (not the the most effective, generally), that tends to be in situations where you are delivering facts, not those situations where you are attempting to build a rapport and foster understanding and respect. Too often, I'd agree, the bravado of 'we're right' gets the in the way, from both sides.
Hardly any at all, it would seem.
I don't think we're alone in that. I don't see much in the way of a welcoming hand in France's ban on burquas, for instance, or in the US Republican candidates speaking of creating a register of Muslims in the country... but they are playing for the attentions of a slightly racist population. The down-side of democracy is that power, ultimately, lies in the masses who aren't necessarily equipped for the magnitude of the decisions.
From the a strategic decisions of trying to fight last century's wars, to the 'moral' case of only fighting back once 'we' have been attacked, because Syrian lives don't matter as much as, say, French...
O.
Not much to reply to there as much of it is in my ballpark, except the first bit which was about policing the world not the specific case of Syria.
-
I agree with his point that what little air strikes that Britain can muster can hinder ISIS supply lines, troop movements and positions so can be considered an action in line with the UN resolution to dismantle their self-declared state. If ISIS lose territory, that is a propaganda coup but as in Afghanistan any territory gains against ISIS would have to be defended on an on-going basis.
The big plan is to get the rebels and Assad to become best of friends and form a coalition politically and then join together to fight ISIS with Allies' air cover. Sounds, uh.....great ::)
So any ground taken will 'definitely' be in safe stable hands. ;)
-
And he's been arguing in this same way for several weeks now, JK. I recognized the similarity several weeks ago.
But this was an extra polished turd version for the big debate, as Blair did it.
-
JK, there is a Climate Change conference going on in Paris, whilst in Syria we potentially have burning oil wells!!
As I said wait for them to process it and nick in transit as they delivery it. Saves all that wasted, burning oil.
-
As I said wait for them to process it and nick in transit as they delivery it. Saves all that wasted, burning oil.
Unfortunately, the some of the UK's planes bombed part of it last night!!
-
But this was an extra polished turd version for the big debate, as Blair did it.
I found what he said yesterday somewhat subdued in comparison with some of the stuff he's been saying since the party conferences.
-
And that, given the last couple of years, could have lead to something like Da'esh been in govt. Creating political vacuums hasn't got a great history.
I meant as well as bombing ISIS.
-
Bollocks!!! It was pretty much all emotional claptrap and very little substance.
Which at times is what makes an excellent speech. To finish the debate, it struck a chord for those voting yes, and made the best case they had, the symbolic one with ladles of emotion. Previously on here, I pointed out to Alan (Alien) that William Lane Craig's debates which he generally wins in the impression given, do not mean anything about him being right. Same here. Doesn't mean I cannot admire the skill, and careful fitting of the speech to the moment.
-
Unfortunately, the some of the UK's planes bombed part of it last night!!
I know. I was just saying that they could have had less of a gung-ho, two faced attitude and waited for the delivery.
-
I meant as well as bombing ISIS.
Except you were arguing for bombing Assad from a time when Da'esh barely existed, if at all, and now you are just arguing random bombing until something works
I suggest you go back and listen to Julian Lewis' speech.
-
I found what he said yesterday somewhat subdued in comparison with some of the stuff he's been saying since the party conferences.
Well, he was less rude; as I said polished.
Was Blair ever rude and blunt?
-
Which at times is what makes an excellent speech. To finish the debate, it struck a chord for those voting yes, and made the best case they had, the symbolic one with ladles of emotion. Previously on here, I pointed out to Alan (Alien) that William Lane Craig's debates which he generally wins in the impression given, do not mean anything about him being right. Same here. Doesn't mean I cannot admire the skill, and careful fitting of the speech to the moment.
I had to reach for the vomit bag!!!
-
Except you were arguing for bombing Assad from a time when Da'esh barely existed, if at all, and now you are just arguing random bombing until something works
I suggest you go back and listen to Julian Lewis' speech.
I'm in the no bombing camp, but we could have used that time to hit Assad's military bases. The fact that ISIS was just a twinkle in our eyes then didn't change the fact that Assad was bombing civilians which I believe is a fair reason, under UN law etc., to help out.
-
But this was an extra polished turd version for the big debate, as Blair did it.
You see this is quite interesting because I thought Cameron was quite poor, certainly in comparison to Blair on Iraq which was a bit of a tour de force. Cameron doesn't do 'sincerity ' anywhere near as good as Blair.
-
I'm in the no bombing camp, but we could have used that time to hit Assad's military bases. The fact that ISIS was just a twinkle in our eyes then didn't change the fact that Assad was bombing civilians which I believe is a fair reason, under UN law etc., to help out.
Which would then have created the vacuum. As to its legality, there wasn't a resolution then so not really the case. It is one of the differences between 2 years ago and today. There wouldn't have been much chance of getting a resolution then as Russia would have vetoed it.
-
You see this is quite interesting because I thought Cameron was quite poor, certainly in comparison to Blair on Iraq which was a bit of a tour de force. Cameron doesn't do 'sincerity ' anywhere near as good as Blair.
I agree, Blair was a real slime ball, but the tactics of spin and half truths and the nature of the arguments were the same.
-
You can kill every IS member, but they will return in another form, until the issue of Sunni representation is solved. In both countries, they feel shut out.
You can see this with the history of Al Qaeda, who were largely destroyed in Iraq, but the Sunni tribes were shut out of national politics, and some of them moved back to IS.
This is so obvious, and every political analyst of the area has been saying it for years, but of course, how will it happen? Russia and Iran want to bolster Assad, yet if he represses the Sunni tribes and groups, you are doomed to more civil war, or alternatively, large-scale massacres, and further extremism.
-
Which would then have created the vacuum. As to its legality, there wasn't a resolution then so not really the case. It is one of the differences between 2 years ago and today. There wouldn't have been much chance of getting a resolution then as Russia would have vetoed it.
The vacuum could have helped the moderate rebels to fight back which would have meant less would eventually go over to the emerging ISIS.
UN Resolution/Russia 2 years ago I agree on, but my point is that we wouldn't have needed one because civilians were being slaughtered.
-
The vacuum could have helped the moderate rebels to fight back which would have meant less would eventually go over to the emerging ISIS.
UN Resolution/Russia 2 years ago I agree on, but my point is that we wouldn't have needed one because civilians were being slaughtered.
It doesn't really matter, you still need one, hence the fuss over Iraq.
The 'moderate' rebels included what has become Da'esh, and various other groups of murdering thugs. The whole saintly rebel stuff was always a bag of shite. The Free Syrian Army was mince then, and mince now.
-
Dear Gabriella,
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/why-isis-hate-being-called-daesh-whats-correct-name-worlds-most-dangerous-terrorists-1531506
If you would rather not answer this question then I will understand.
I think it is important, Joe public are drip fed, ISIS, ISIL, IS, if we can distance ourselves from any reference which connects to Islam then I think in a small way we hit back at the terrorists.
But as I say, if you think this question is stupid or it makes you uneasy, don't answer, I am glad to see you posting, I wish we had more Muslim voices on this forum.
Gonnagle.
Good point, but the term daesh still means Islamic state. I agree with the article that the term 'state' is inappropriate for them, so we should not use any term that in any way conveys the meaning of a state. Thus, "so-called Islamic state" works. I would call Saudi Arabia an Islamic state, because its main religion is Islam. So I would call 'Isis' something simple like the Syrian death cult group.
-
Dear Spud,
Syrian death cult group.
Well that works, but it is Joe public we need to convince, and Joe public is lazy and stupid ( bye the way, I am a member of Joe public ) Syrian death cult group is to long, daesh, which I have read they don't like, is small easy, Joe public likes easy, something they can hang their coat on.
Gonnagle.
-
Good point, but the term daesh still means Islamic state. I agree with the article that the term 'state' is inappropriate for them, so we should not use any term that in any way conveys the meaning of a state. Thus, "so-called Islamic state" works. I would call Saudi Arabia an Islamic state, because its main religion is Islam. So I would call 'Isis' something simple like the Syrian death cult group.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/why-isis-hate-being-called-daesh-whats-correct-name-worlds-most-dangerous-terrorists-1531506
Due to Arabic wordplay, it could also be an insult and IS threatened "to cut the tongue of anyone who publicly used the acronym Daesh, instead of referring to the group by its full name", the Associated Press wrote in September 2014.
Muslims have always preferred to use the term Daesh rather than Islamic State, given that, they argue, the territory the terrorist group controls in Iraq and Syria is neither Islamic nor a state.
I originally thought it was a bit much for the gov to tell the BBC how to phrase things ( propaganda ) but given the threats made by the terrorists, Daesh it is then.
If everyone does it, they can't cut everyone's tongue out. >:(
Perhaps the BBC didn't want to become a target like the French paper.
They won't be if every paper and media outlet and the public do it 🌹
-
60 - 90 Labour MPs being predicted to vote with Govt. If it is to high end and the majority in Oldham falls by a 15% swing, Corbyn may be gone by end of January. Replaced by Dan Jarvis. Or he may remain and we may have a gang of 90.
So 66 was at the low end of expectation but the by election had a swing to Labour. The result makes it very hard to do anything about Corbyn, no matter how Hilary Benn's speech is seen.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-34988145
-
Dear Spud,
Well that works, but it is Joe public we need to convince, and Joe public is lazy and stupid ( bye the way, I am a member of Joe public ) Syrian death cult group is to long, daesh, which I have read they don't like, is small easy, Joe public likes easy, something they can hang their coat on.
Gonnagle.
How about 'Al-bagdaddy and the black flaggies'?
-
So 66 was at the low end of expectation but the by election had a swing to Labour. The result makes it very hard to do anything about Corbyn, no matter how Hilary Benn's speech is seen.
Agreed a great result for Labour, Corbyn should remain until May at least and Labour do well then he should be good to go for the next election.
Hopefully this dissent within Labour will be stifled and we can have a more coherent opposition.
-
Dear Story Telling Humans, ( this whole post is one big question )
http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/can-science-explain-why-we-tell-stories
I had forgotten all about this part of human thinking until I listened to Question Time last night, a Mr Maajid Nawaz ( a ex terrorist, I think :o ) who spoke about the narrative.
This got me thinking about Hilary Benn's speech, I think that we can all agree Mr Benn told a wonderful story, he was out to win hearts and minds ( how do you win someone's heart ) but my two remaining grey cells did not stop there, what about all the other storytellers we heard in the House of Commons.
Cameron, the man has no passion and if he had shown a little humility we may have listened to his story using our heart ( yes heart, not mind ).
Corbyn, in my opinion, not a good story teller, and the poor man was constantly heckled ( but I seriously think he was trying to reach our minds, not heart ).
This morning as I was sitting on the cludgie ( I do some of my best thinking and reading sitting on the throne ) I was flipping through a small book entitled "The Art of Thinking Clearly" one of those kind of self help books, the author talks about the difference between intuitive and rational thinking.
Rational, what do I think about this.
Intuitive, how do I feel about this.
When thinking ( the author states ) we mostly use our intuitive thinking, why, because it is easier, lazy mans thinking ( guilty yer honour ).
The world is full of lazy man/woman thinkers, gut instinct thinkers.
Anyway, what is all this chuntering about, daesh or IS, we need to win hearts and minds, especially the lazy mans heart and mind, this lazy man would be quite happy with, murdering terrorist bastards, but that is still to long.
Gonnagle.
PS: Feel free to tell me this post is just one long lazy man thinking.
-
I think you are more worried about what they are called than they are :)
-
Hopefully this dissent within Labour will be stifled and we can have a more coherent opposition.
I think that is virtually impossible - basically because Corbyn and a small group of his parliamentary supporters are fundamentally at odds with the vast majority of the parliamentary party.
While he has a mandate in the wider membership he has no mandate amongst Labour MPs, where I just a handful voted for him.
He also has the problem of credibility if he attempts to drive loyalty amongst his MPs, given that he has spent his parliamentary career voting time and again against his party leadership.
-
Dear Udayana,
Worried, yes I am, did you happen to listen to Mr Andrew Neil last night when he tried to trivialise Camerons attempts to change (rebrand as Mr Neil called it ) the BBC's mind about the issue.
Propaganda, the propaganda war ( the BBC have entertained and educated me since I was a child ) we all listen to the BBC, ( we might not agree ) they have a big part to play in this propaganda war.
Propaganda war at home, here, this little island, I don't want the lazy man thinker ( me ) to start pointing the finger, we do not want anti Islamic thinking on the street, daesh win if we go down that route.
Story telling, the BBC have been at it for years, daesh, a baby step, tell me I am wrong and I will shut up ( me wrong ::) )
Gonnagle.
-
Hi Gonnagle,
Actually I did catch Andrew Neil ... and you are right that the propaganda war needs to be fought, imo this is more important than bombing, Best way is for the BBC and media to bring us detailed factual reports with analysis about what is happening, not waste effort on trying to find something silly to call them!
Agree that we don't want the general public attacking Muslims here, but the best way is for Muslims to share their repudiation of ISIL ideology and that they do not associate themselves with it - rather than "hide" an association by choosing a name that does not, in it's English version, sound as if it contains "Islam".
-
Dear Udayana,
Thank you for your reply, I could try and defend my position, I could ::) reply to your post with kneejerk responses, but I won't, you have me thinking, "hide", "silly", how very dare you ;) ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Udayana,
http://www.theweek.co.uk/isis/62422/islamic-state-daesh-or-isis-the-dilemma-of-naming-the-militants
Others suggest the matter of semantics is not the top priority when a group of murderous militants are taking lives across the world. As John Crace at The Guardian points out, "the least of the problems in dealing with Isis is deciding on what to call it".
Hmmm!!
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/02/bbc-rejects-mps-calls-to-refer-to-islamic-state-as-daesh
But the head of the BBC rejected the demands, saying that using Daesh would not preserve the BBC’s impartiality as it risked giving an impression of support for the group’s opponents, the Times reports. He is said to claim that the term is used pejoratively by its enemies.
Risk of giving support for the groups opponents.
One of the groups opponents.
Other groups have joined in the protest against the use of the name. In a letter to the prime minister, the Islamic Society of Britain and the Association of Muslim Lawyers said: “It is neither Islamic, nor is it a state. The group has no standing with faithful Muslims, nor among the international community of nations.”
In his column for the Dundee Courier, Salmond wrote: “We should start by understanding that in a propaganda war language is crucial.
“Any description of terrorists which confers on them the image that they are representing either a religion or a state must surely be wrong and an own goal of massive proportions. It is after all how they wish to refer to themselves.
“However, the real point of using Daesh is that it separates the terrorists from the religion they claim to represent and from the false dream of a new caliphate that they claim to pursue.”
Quoting Salmond, that hurt :o :o
Gonnagle.
-
“However, the real point of using Daesh is that it separates the terrorists from the religion they claim to represent and from the false dream of a new caliphate that they claim to pursue.”
And why is that helpful - to me is simply seems dishonest.
It would be like deciding to call the IRA something that doesn't mention that they are Irish Republicans and their primary goal being to unite northern ireland with the rest of the republic. Why would it have helped to have called them something that was totally detached from what they were and what they were trying to achieve.
-
Dear Prof,
And why is that helpful - to me is simply seems dishonest.
Propaganda, kill them with honesty.
The Irish, funny I was thinking about that this morning, I have many Irish friends my ex wife is one, south west coast, all republicans, ( came as a shock to them that Rangers supporters did not have horns and tails ) anyway, the majority voiced an expression I have heard over the last couple of weeks, not in my name!!
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
Propaganda, kill them with honesty.
The Irish, funny I was thinking about that this morning, I have many Irish friends my ex wife is one, south west coast, all republicans, ( came as a shock to them that Rangers supporters did not have horns and tails ) anyway, the majority voiced an expression I have heard over the last couple of weeks, not in my name!!
Gonnagle.
I think dishonesty does no good at all - merely plays into their hands of being able to claim that the west can't even acknowledge our faith or our struggle.
I don't think that calling the IRA a made up word that sounds something like the acronym IRA, but in Gaelic to try to hide who they were and what they wanted would have helped on iota.
-
Good point, but the term daesh still means Islamic state. I agree with the article that the term 'state' is inappropriate for them, so we should not use any term that in any way conveys the meaning of a state. Thus, "so-called Islamic state" works. I would call Saudi Arabia an Islamic state, because its main religion is Islam. So I would call 'Isis' something simple like the Syrian death cult group.
I thought ISIS meant Idiotic Stupid Imbecilic Shitheads.......?
Have I been misinformed?
-
How about 'Al-bagdaddy and the black flaggies'?
That sounds like a Punk band.
-
At least we have our mojo back!
-
Good piece in the Telegraph about what is happening in Madaya.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/12091006/If-the-RAF-cant-drop-food-to-Madaya-in-Syria-we-shouldnt-bother-having-an-air-force-at-all.html
-
It would certainly seem the right thing to do, whatever the consequences.
-
And now after all that hoo-ha they have only dropped a few bombs because they can't find anymore targets. What a joke!!!
-
3 hospitals bombed today, presumably by Assad or Russia. I suppose Putin thinks he is really showing the West a thing or two, well maybe. He is certainly bombing the shit out of rebel groups, thus helping the Syrian army move forwards.
I would think that Cameron's 'moderate groups' have been flattened now.
But for the West to intervene seriously seems impossible politically. Western influence in the Middle East is going down the tubes.
-
3 hospitals bombed today, presumably by Assad or Russia. I suppose Putin thinks he is really showing the West a thing or two, well maybe. He is certainly bombing the shit out of rebel groups, thus helping the Syrian army move forwards.
I would think that Cameron's 'moderate groups' have been flattened now.
But for the West to intervene seriously seems impossible politically. Western influence in the Middle East is going down the tubes.
Yes high time to West left the Middle East alone!
-
3 hospitals bombed today, presumably by Assad or Russia. I suppose Putin thinks he is really showing the West a thing or two, well maybe. He is certainly bombing the shit out of rebel groups, thus helping the Syrian army move forwards.
I would think that Cameron's 'moderate groups' have been flattened now.
But for the West to intervene seriously seems impossible politically. Western influence in the Middle East is going down the tubes.
I've heard that the rebels hate Assad more than they hate ISIS and will join them to try to kick Assad out, and that the Saudis and possibly the Turks will help out. Sounds like fun for all... :(