Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » 11 weeks of EURef polling and all but two of the surveys on

13

Comments

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,062
    IMO Labour is finished if it backs war in Syria.

    Same people who sided with war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are at it again.

    3 times we have made matters worse.

    Now Tories and New Labour MPs line up to do it all again.

    Will we ever learn
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Scott_P said:

    @rosschawkins: Diane Abbott on C4: The shadow cabinet doesn't appoint the leader, the leader appoints the shadow cabinet

    There is a serious question, if Corbyn can't find enough MPs to fill a cabinet, what happens?

    Some MP's would have to fill double posts, that's simple.
    Getting rid of some shadow cabinet people that cause all the trouble is worth it.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,756

    IMO Labour is finished if it backs war in Syria.

    Same people who sided with war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are at it again.

    3 times we have made matters worse.

    Now Tories and New Labour MPs line up to do it all again.

    Will we ever learn

    What's your answer to the problems and threats caused by IS?
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited November 2015
    Roger said:

    OT. Mark Rylance is a deceptively fine actor who has that very rare gift of commanding the screen while seeming to do very little. The good British actors seem to be much in demand in American blockbusters at the moment. The film itself-Bridge of Spies-should appeal to the PB commentariat. Lavish and expensive but quite nerdish and old fashioned at the same time.

    He was excellent in Wolf Hall – one of those British actors that’s been around for years and appeared in countless films/TV etc and yet I can never remember his name…
  • (snip)

    And those can be argued the other way as well.

    E.g.: "totally and self-confessedly partial and one sided"

    You link to RT twice. Enough said.
    And that's sufficient.

    Clearly you've absorbed nothing from the total of our exchanges on this topic. It's a bizarre deficiency in information uptake I can only pity you for. I haven't quoted an RT opinion piece. I haven't quoted an RT interview with an analyst. I have quoted a RECORDED INTERVIEW with the man who IS The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights which is entirely ON VIDEO on the link provided. Again, you didn't even look before dismissing it due to outlet. I have no wish to continue this exchange further, it's embarrassing for you, and frankly tedious for me.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 22,395

    Very interesting insight into Osborne's (and the Government's) thinking by the very well informed James Forsyth:

    "(Osborne) believes falling levels of home ownership and spiralling house prices are one of the biggest obstacles to creating a new-centre-right majority in Britain. He is far less concerned than Cameron about the effect that major house-building will have on the landscape.

    Another area where Osborne is determined to keep putting in extra resources is the health service. He believes it was Cameron’s NHS commitment that was the most important and electorally significant element of Tory modernisation. The tensions between 10 and 11 Downing Street and Jeremy Hunt in recent weeks have been borne out of frustration that, despite the cash that the Tories are pumping in, they are still regularly waking up to headlines about the NHS being in crisis.

    This spending review was made harder by the fact that most of the obvious cuts were made last time round. But it was made easier by the absence of Liberal Democrats: Nick Clegg had no veto. Some ministers have also remained enthusiasts for reducing spending even though they now run departments. I understand that both the Business Secretary, Sajid Javid, and the Environment Secretary, Liz Truss, had some of their proposed cuts knocked back by the Treasury. Indeed, the extent to which Osborne has tried to protect elements of the government’s ‘industrial strategy’ from sweeping cuts to the Department for Business shows how much he has changed in office. His politics now owe more to Michael Heseltine than Nigel Lawson."

    https://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/the-spending-cuts-george-osborne-flatly-refused-to-make/

    On the house-building issue, and the political implications, I think Osborne is right.
  • Wanderer said:

    Scott_P said:

    @rosschawkins: Diane Abbott on C4: The shadow cabinet doesn't appoint the leader, the leader appoints the shadow cabinet

    There is a serious question, if Corbyn can't find enough MPs to fill a cabinet, what happens?

    Was wondering the same thing?

    Is there any real requirement to have a shadow cabinet? Can Corbyn declare the whole idea obsolete and "old politics"?

    If Labour didn't appoint shadows would the SNP argue that its spokespeople should be called first to reply to ministerial statements?
    Thinking about this a little further, isn't there a constitutional argument to be had that if the second largest parliamentary party cannot find enough people to support the leadership in opposing the government, they do not in fact support the leadership. Hence does that not fatally undermine their position as the official opposition from a numerical standpoint?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,062
    LBC ‏@LBC 48m48 minutes ago
    David Cameron has said airstrikes would protect the country, Jeremy Corbyn disagrees. Who do you think is right?

    26% David Cameron
    74% Jeremy Corbyn
  • eekeek Posts: 2,029
    Scott_P said:

    I think Corbyn will have to allow a free vote. If he does not, there is a strong chance that HM Opposition cannot put together a shadow cabinet. Where does that leave them?

    Free vote not enough. Shadow Cabinet want whipped in favour, which Corbyn would then defy
    Anyone know when the vote is scheduled to take place?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,768

    LBC ‏@LBC 48m48 minutes ago
    David Cameron has said airstrikes would protect the country, Jeremy Corbyn disagrees. Who do you think is right?

    26% David Cameron
    74% Jeremy Corbyn

    How scientific is that poll?
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited November 2015
    AndyJS said:
    Let them, at least we will know who are those "expletives deleted" that are so anti-Corbyn that want us in that Syrian [email protected], just because Corbyn is against.
  • AndyJS said:
    Oh goody *reaches for popcorn*.

    I still wonder if the Labour Party will step back from the brink and agree some spineless fudge though. They've been very good at that historically when it looked like civil war would erupt.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Will we ever learn''

    Why are some labour MPs so keen to back the PM here? I don't really understand.

    Its not as if us bombing ISIS in Syria will make much of a difference either way.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,062

    IMO Labour is finished if it backs war in Syria.

    Same people who sided with war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are at it again.

    3 times we have made matters worse.

    Now Tories and New Labour MPs line up to do it all again.

    Will we ever learn

    What's your answer to the problems and threats caused by IS?
  • LBC ‏@LBC 48m48 minutes ago
    David Cameron has said airstrikes would protect the country, Jeremy Corbyn disagrees. Who do you think is right?

    26% David Cameron
    74% Jeremy Corbyn

    LBC?
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    edited November 2015
    tlg86 said:

    isam said:

    Harry Kane is paying my mortgage

    You have no shame.
    including the opener against ourselves... shocking behaviour

    Must go to training now.. goals like this don't just happen by chance you know

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 7,366
    edited November 2015
    taffys said:

    ''Will we ever learn''

    Why are some labour MPs so keen to back the PM here? I don't really understand.

    Its not as if us bombing ISIS in Syria will make much of a difference either way.

    It's an internationalist (read the US) agenda. Why do you think Cameron wants to do it in the first place? They're currying favour with where they think the power lies. Careerists.

    See also Labour MPs in favour of Trident renewal.
  • Pong said:

    Just got £50 on at 1000/1 on Paul Ryan getting the GOP NOM.

    It's not going to happen. But it's not quite 0% either.

    Popbitch reckon he'll be throwing the towel in after Thanksgiving
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    LBC ‏@LBC 48m48 minutes ago
    David Cameron has said airstrikes would protect the country, Jeremy Corbyn disagrees. Who do you think is right?

    26% David Cameron
    74% Jeremy Corbyn

    I think most people, even those in favour of air-strikes, know the domestic risks that are attached.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,062

    IMO Labour is finished if it backs war in Syria.

    Same people who sided with war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are at it again.

    3 times we have made matters worse.

    Now Tories and New Labour MPs line up to do it all again.

    Will we ever learn

    What's your answer to the problems and threats caused by IS?
    Not doing the same thing over and over.

    Which of the 3 previous interventions do you think have helped with islamic extremism.

    Will killing every single IS fighter in Syria along with thousands of innocents produce more / fewer IS sympathisers?

    To me its obvious but presumably supporters of intervention think 4th time lucky.
  • KingaKinga Posts: 59
    Anorak said:

    Dair said:

    chestnut said:

    Dair said:

    They would get the opportunity to buy the property at a lower price without BTL distortion of the market.

    The only opportunity they get is to compete for a house with every one else who is seeking to buy, and that opportunity itself relies on their capacity to raise a deposit and secure funding from a lender.

    If they can't do that, all that has happened is a reduction in the supply of housing that they can reasonably get.
    As I said, a transition from BTL to its elimination through tax is, and must be, a gradual process with incremental tax increases and it must also go hand in glove with a significant increase in social housing development and a regulated private rental sector which would both be except from rental tax.

    Malcolm's tenant might not move for most of the implementation period, depending on the finances of Malcolms situation, he may never feel the need to stop renting the property.

    But some would, so more and more housing as the years progress would enter the OO market, the tenant may be able to buy one of those properties. Or, as others undoubtedly WOULD be able to buy, he would find other private rental opportunities or one of the new Housing Association properties or one of the new exempted, regulated for profit rental companies properties.

    Social Housing builds have dropped from an average of 200,000 per year from 1949 to 1979 to less than 50,000 per year since 1980. In addition, you need to add Demolitions of social housing. This year Glasgow alone demolished over 2000 social housing units. And built virtually none.

    No more private rentals, no more OOs, 2000 less social housing stock. In one year,.

    The private sector has utterly failed to provide sufficient housing over the period since 1980 despite being given carte blanche by government. The cheapest credit in history, the most favourable planning laws since the war, the most profitable environment ever for housebuilding. But it has failed and to continue something that has failed for 30 years would be utter madness,.
    Fleet Admiral Dair
    Air Marshall Dair
    Professor Dair (Economics)
    Professor Dair (Sociology)
    Professor Dair (Geopolitics)
    Investment Banker Dair

    A polymath indeed.
    Wiki-Dair?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,305

    IMO Labour is finished if it backs war in Syria.

    Same people who sided with war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are at it again.

    3 times we have made matters worse.

    Now Tories and New Labour MPs line up to do it all again.

    Will we ever learn

    What's your answer to the problems and threats caused by IS?
    Not doing the same thing over and over.

    Which of the 3 previous interventions do you think have helped with islamic extremism.

    Will killing every single IS fighter in Syria along with thousands of innocents produce more / fewer IS sympathisers?

    To me its obvious but presumably supporters of intervention think 4th time lucky.
    You cleverly avoided answering the question ;)
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''It's an internationalist (read the US) agenda. Why do you think Cameron wants to do it in the first place? They're currying favour with where they think the power lies. Careerists.''

    Interesting answer, I'm not sure I buy it.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,062

    LBC ‏@LBC 48m48 minutes ago
    David Cameron has said airstrikes would protect the country, Jeremy Corbyn disagrees. Who do you think is right?

    26% David Cameron
    74% Jeremy Corbyn

    LBC?
    A little radio station in London or perhaps Lefty Broadcasting Company
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,756

    On topic, sort of - at least on thread, British involvement in Syria will allow the RAF to use its Brimstone missiles to target and kill key ISIS individuals supported, where necessary, by "Kurds" (otherwise known as British special forces in Kurdish uniforms)

    It will greatly disrupt and weaken ISISs command and control infrastructure, which is worth doing.

    I've heard some really good things about Brimstone from acquaintances. One also acclaims Storm Shadow (though as he worked on it, I take what he says with a pinch of salt)
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693

    Pong said:

    Just got £50 on at 1000/1 on Paul Ryan getting the GOP NOM.

    It's not going to happen. But it's not quite 0% either.

    Popbitch reckon he'll be throwing the towel in after Thanksgiving
    As far as I'm aware, he threw the towel in back in January.
  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806

    taffys said:

    ''Will we ever learn''

    Why are some labour MPs so keen to back the PM here? I don't really understand.

    Its not as if us bombing ISIS in Syria will make much of a difference either way.

    It's an internationalist (read the US) agenda. Why do you think Cameron wants to do it in the first place? They're currying favour with where they think the power lies. Careerists.

    See also Labour MPs in favour of Trident renewal.
    It's partly a matter of many countries in the world seeing us as a major player. Many don't think we have the guts to fight and would not depend on us to help them in time of trouble. Having the right profile brings many commercial benefits as well as political. Ask Hollande.

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,062
    RobD said:

    IMO Labour is finished if it backs war in Syria.

    Same people who sided with war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are at it again.

    3 times we have made matters worse.

    Now Tories and New Labour MPs line up to do it all again.

    Will we ever learn

    What's your answer to the problems and threats caused by IS?
    Not doing the same thing over and over.

    Which of the 3 previous interventions do you think have helped with islamic extremism.

    Will killing every single IS fighter in Syria along with thousands of innocents produce more / fewer IS sympathisers?

    To me its obvious but presumably supporters of intervention think 4th time lucky.
    You cleverly avoided answering the question ;)
    I answered the what not to do to make things worse question

    TBF I was right the first 3 times, were you?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Will killing every single IS fighter in Syria along with thousands of innocents produce more / fewer IS sympathisers?''

    If you follow your logic then all military action is counter productive.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,401
    In 2013 Cameron wanted military action against Assad .
    In 2015 he wants 70000 moderate fighters to hold ground to be taken from ISIS.
    Who provides him with this intelligence ?

  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,305

    RobD said:

    IMO Labour is finished if it backs war in Syria.

    Same people who sided with war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are at it again.

    3 times we have made matters worse.

    Now Tories and New Labour MPs line up to do it all again.

    Will we ever learn

    What's your answer to the problems and threats caused by IS?
    Not doing the same thing over and over.

    Which of the 3 previous interventions do you think have helped with islamic extremism.

    Will killing every single IS fighter in Syria along with thousands of innocents produce more / fewer IS sympathisers?

    To me its obvious but presumably supporters of intervention think 4th time lucky.
    You cleverly avoided answering the question ;)
    I answered the what not to do to make things worse question

    TBF I was right the first 3 times, were you?
    But that wasn't the question posed :p
  • eekeek Posts: 2,029

    Pong said:

    Just got £50 on at 1000/1 on Paul Ryan getting the GOP NOM.

    It's not going to happen. But it's not quite 0% either.

    Popbitch reckon he'll be throwing the towel in after Thanksgiving
    You seem to have Paul Ryan and Rand Paul mixed up... Popbitch posted

    Rand Paul is rumoured to be quitting
    the race for the Republican party
    nomination after Thanksgiving.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,756

    IMO Labour is finished if it backs war in Syria.

    Same people who sided with war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are at it again.

    3 times we have made matters worse.

    Now Tories and New Labour MPs line up to do it all again.

    Will we ever learn

    What's your answer to the problems and threats caused by IS?
    Not doing the same thing over and over.

    Which of the 3 previous interventions do you think have helped with islamic extremism.

    Will killing every single IS fighter in Syria along with thousands of innocents produce more / fewer IS sympathisers?

    To me its obvious but presumably supporters of intervention think 4th time lucky.
    Neither Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya caused the embassy bombings, the Cole, 9/11, or any number of other terrorist atrocities of the 90s. The interventions have probably worsened them, but the clash with radical Islam had already started.

    So again I ask: what's your answer to the problems and threats caused by IS?
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    chestnut said:

    The social housing allocation model does not work. It is inflexible and does not adapt to changing household circumstances.

    The private housing allocation model does not work. It has not delivered the required number of houses in any year since was given primacy by Thatcher.

    The social housing model HAS worked in the past, it worked very well for 30 years between 1949 and 1979.

    We know it delivered, we know it was popular and we know it made sense. Anything else is just dogma.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,062
    taffys said:

    ''Will killing every single IS fighter in Syria along with thousands of innocents produce more / fewer IS sympathisers?''

    If you follow your logic then all military action is counter productive.

    Against Islamists it is.

    How many times does it need to be proved!!
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited November 2015

    IMO Labour is finished if it backs war in Syria.

    Same people who sided with war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are at it again.

    3 times we have made matters worse.

    Now Tories and New Labour MPs line up to do it all again.

    Will we ever learn

    What's your answer to the problems and threats caused by IS?
    First things first a strong and proper border policy, the EU doesn't have one and as a result most european countries are flooded by ISIS terrorists already. Regardless of whether Cameron is going to bomb Syria, Brussels is the ISIS capital of terrorism not Al-Raqqa.

    Controlling who is going in and out of Syria is another thing, you can't let that responsibility fall to Turkey because their loyalties and effectiveness is suspect, have the UN control the Turkish-Syrian border.

    If you can't get in Syria to bomb it, no problem, there is no shortage of countries that are fighting each other there, however most people ignore the fact that the bigger and stronger part of ISIS is in Iraq and what is Britain doing there? Visibly nothing.

    Also there are other countries under ISIS control, like Libya, again British combat presence is zero.

    Finally try to get the different factions to stop fighting each other in Syria and unite against ISIS.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    taffys said:

    ''Will we ever learn''

    Why are some labour MPs so keen to back the PM here? I don't really understand.

    Its not as if us bombing ISIS in Syria will make much of a difference either way.

    We opted for non-intervention in 2013.

    In the interim, the carnage has not only continued but escalated; a million refugees have washed up on the shores of the European Union (and therefore, have potential access here); the Jihadis have secured great revenue from oil fields, jihadist attacks have spread throughout North Africa including the killing of many Britons in Tunisia; they have moved onto Europe and are only a train ride away from London (quicker than Glasgow); the best part of 1000 of our citizens have gone to take up arms against western civilisation (us).

    Non-intervention has been every bit as disastrous as previous interventions.
  • isam said:

    Harry Kane is paying my mortgage

    He scored 0 when in my fantasy footie team from the start of the season, so I sold out of him and he hasn't stopped since.

    I won't buy him back pre-chelsea therefore!!
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,062

    IMO Labour is finished if it backs war in Syria.

    Same people who sided with war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are at it again.

    3 times we have made matters worse.

    Now Tories and New Labour MPs line up to do it all again.

    Will we ever learn

    What's your answer to the problems and threats caused by IS?
    Not doing the same thing over and over.

    Which of the 3 previous interventions do you think have helped with islamic extremism.

    Will killing every single IS fighter in Syria along with thousands of innocents produce more / fewer IS sympathisers?

    To me its obvious but presumably supporters of intervention think 4th time lucky.
    Neither Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya caused the embassy bombings, the Cole, 9/11, or any number of other terrorist atrocities of the 90s. The interventions have probably worsened them, but the clash with radical Islam had already started.

    So again I ask: what's your answer to the problems and threats caused by IS?
    The interventions have probably worsened them as you say so lets intervene.

    Whats the solution, dont know do you?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited November 2015
    Against Islamists it is.

    How many times does it need to be proved!!

    ??? neither of the first two gulf wars were fights against islamists. In Libya we bombed Gaddafi, not islamists. Afghanistan was largely a ground engagement, no bombing by jets.

    I think this is the first time we have ever bombed islamists, in fact.
  • Anorak said:

    Dair said:

    chestnut said:

    Dair said:

    They would get the opportunity to buy the property at a lower price without BTL distortion of the market.

    The only opportunity they get is to compete for a house with every one else who is seeking to buy, and that opportunity itself relies on their capacity to raise a deposit and secure funding from a lender.

    If they can't do that, all that has happened is a reduction in the supply of housing that they can reasonably get.
    As I said, a transition from BTL to its elimination through tax is, and must be, a gradual process with incremental tax increases and it must also go hand in glove with a significant increase in social housing development and a regulated private rental sector which would both be except from rental tax.

    Malcolm's tenant might not move for most of the implementation period, depending on the finances of Malcolms situation, he may never feel the need to stop renting the property.

    But some would, so more and more housing as the years progress would enter the OO market, the tenant may be able to buy one of those properties. Or, as others undoubtedly WOULD be able to buy, he would find other private rental opportunities or one of the new Housing Association properties or one of the new exempted, regulated for profit rental companies properties.

    Social Housing builds have dropped from an average of 200,000 per year from 1949 to 1979 to less than 50,000 per year since 1980. In addition, you need to add Demolitions of social housing. This year Glasgow alone demolished over 2000 social housing units. And built virtually none.

    No more private rentals, no more OOs, 2000 less social housing stock. In one year,.

    The private sector has utterly failed to provide sufficient housing over the period since 1980 despite being given carte blanche by government. The cheapest credit in history, the most favourable planning laws since the war, the most profitable environment ever for housebuilding. But it has failed and to continue something that has failed for 30 years would be utter madness,.
    Fleet Admiral Dair
    Air Marshall Dair
    Professor Dair (Economics)
    Professor Dair (Sociology)
    Professor Dair (Geopolitics)
    Investment Banker Dair

    A polymath indeed.
    who Dairs whines
    Calm down, Dair!
  • isam said:

    Harry Kane is paying my mortgage

    He scored 0 when in my fantasy footie team from the start of the season, so I sold out of him and he hasn't stopped since.

    I won't buy him back pre-chelsea therefore!!
    Please do!
  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806

    isam said:

    Really what I am saying is that the terrorists that will attack us are probably not in Syria but in East London, Luton, Bradford, Leeds, Manchester or Birmingham (sounds like Panic by The Smiths). I think in the long term that is the bigger problem

    And that is one of my problems with the proposed bombing. IS is an ideology that is present in many countries. In Syria, Iraq and Yemen it is threatening the state. If we were to cut it out of those three countries then the cancer will still live elsewhere. They will still be organising on t'Internet.

    Having said that, it is necessary to remove their state-like apparatus from these countries, for those structures are spreading the cancer (*). But even with them removed, the ideology will live and perhaps thrive without it.

    So as well as the bombing, if we do it, we need to tackle the ideology, and one thread of that involves getting moderate Muslims onside and not alienate them. We need to try to mitigate the Sunni-Shia divide. And we need to promote why our system and way of life is better.

    We also need to ask ourselves why 'normal' men and women go from being westernised to moving to Syria. Why non-Muslims convert and do the same, sometimes within a matter of months.

    Basically, I have no easy answers to what is a massively complex and multi-dimensional problem. But one thing I will say: we should not assume IS are stupid. Whilst I disagree with them on almost everything, they will use anything we do against us. They are more adaptable than us because our system is better.

    (*) Although I am unsure how bombing will do that, given IS formed in Iraq during the American presence there. If they could not remove it, how can bombing?
    IS was largely formed in Iraq by Sunni Bathists who were imprisoned by the Americans. The prisoners formed networks while in prison and created IS when they got out. Some might say that the Americans should have shot their prisoners but of course they are far too liberal and fair-minded to do that.

  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 9,064
    Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 30s31 seconds ago
    Hill have shortened their odds for Jeremy Corbyn to stand down as Labour leader this year from 11/1 to 7/1
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Non-intervention has been every bit as disastrous as previous interventions.''

    At least now we know who the enemy is. Sort of.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,756

    (snip)

    And those can be argued the other way as well.

    E.g.: "totally and self-confessedly partial and one sided"

    You link to RT twice. Enough said.
    And that's sufficient.

    Clearly you've absorbed nothing from the total of our exchanges on this topic. It's a bizarre deficiency in information uptake I can only pity you for. I haven't quoted an RT opinion piece. I haven't quoted an RT interview with an analyst. I have quoted a RECORDED INTERVIEW with the man who IS The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights which is entirely ON VIDEO on the link provided. Again, you didn't even look before dismissing it due to outlet. I have no wish to continue this exchange further, it's embarrassing for you, and frankly tedious for me.

    And again you start off with snide comments. It's almost as if you argue from a script.

    You also you rather spectacularly miss the point.

    How do you know I didn't look, especially as it is irrelevant to the points I was making? I suggest you continue reading what I wrote afterwards, and particular try (if you can) to answer the question I asked.

    I'm glad it's tedious foe you, and I will continue pointing out that your high-and-mighty rules are nothing but self-aggandising rubbish, and you believe whatever fits your sick view.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,062
    chestnut said:

    taffys said:

    ''Will we ever learn''

    Why are some labour MPs so keen to back the PM here? I don't really understand.

    Its not as if us bombing ISIS in Syria will make much of a difference either way.

    We opted for non-intervention in 2013.

    In the interim, the carnage has not only continued but escalated; a million refugees have washed up on the shores of the European Union (and therefore, have potential access here); the Jihadis have secured great revenue from oil fields, jihadist attacks have spread throughout North Africa including the killing of many Britons in Tunisia; they have moved onto Europe and are only a train ride away from London (quicker than Glasgow); the best part of 1000 of our citizens have gone to take up arms against western civilisation (us).

    Non-intervention has been every bit as disastrous as previous interventions.
    You think the West has not intervened in Syria?

    Of course Cameron wanted to Dethrone another secular dictator in 2013 and now wants to fight on the same side as said person.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Yorkcity said:

    In 2013 Cameron wanted military action against Assad .
    In 2015 he wants 70000 moderate fighters to hold ground to be taken from ISIS.
    Who provides him with this intelligence ?

    A Mr. D.Cameron.
  • Who decides if its a free vote - the leader, or the Shadow Cabinet?

    The Ghost of Chairman Mao...
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,633

    IMO Labour is finished if it backs war in Syria.

    Same people who sided with war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are at it again.

    3 times we have made matters worse.

    Now Tories and New Labour MPs line up to do it all again.

    Will we ever learn

    What's your answer to the problems and threats caused by IS?
    Not doing the same thing over and over.

    Which of the 3 previous interventions do you think have helped with islamic extremism.

    Will killing every single IS fighter in Syria along with thousands of innocents produce more / fewer IS sympathisers?

    To me its obvious but presumably supporters of intervention think 4th time lucky.
    Neither Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya caused the embassy bombings, the Cole, 9/11, or any number of other terrorist atrocities of the 90s. The interventions have probably worsened them, but the clash with radical Islam had already started.

    So again I ask: what's your answer to the problems and threats caused by IS?
    The interventions have probably worsened them as you say so lets intervene.

    Whats the solution, dont know do you?
    Who does know? I don't think any Wesrern "statesman" does.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,869
    May be we should help IS as opposed to bombing them.

    As a first principle I am against violence, war and killing.

    However IS are an entity that can not be ignored. We could help them by dropping a couple of hundred thousand suicide belts into Syria, one for every fighter and supporter.

    I would hope our spooks are willing to eaves drop on every mosque where they believe there is any chance of radicalisation. Just because it is a religious building it shouldn't be exempt from spying.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    IMO Labour is finished if it backs war in Syria.

    Same people who sided with war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are at it again.

    3 times we have made matters worse.

    Now Tories and New Labour MPs line up to do it all again.

    Will we ever learn

    What's your answer to the problems and threats caused by IS?
    Not doing the same thing over and over.

    Which of the 3 previous interventions do you think have helped with islamic extremism.

    Will killing every single IS fighter in Syria along with thousands of innocents produce more / fewer IS sympathisers?

    To me its obvious but presumably supporters of intervention think 4th time lucky.
    Neither Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya caused the embassy bombings, the Cole, 9/11, or any number of other terrorist atrocities of the 90s. The interventions have probably worsened them, but the clash with radical Islam had already started.

    So again I ask: what's your answer to the problems and threats caused by IS?
    The interventions have probably worsened them as you say so lets intervene.

    Whats the solution, dont know do you?
    Who does know? I don't think any Wesrern "statesman" does.
    On the long term, replacing oil as a fuel.
    Replacing coal got rid of the miners, replacing oil will get rid of the islamists.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Who does know? I don't think any Wesrern "statesman" does.

    The tactics are surely to weaken ISIS so much by bombing that their enemies on the ground can beat them. Its much better if the locals do it because there's less chance of a power vacuum afterwards....???

    And it of course encourages waverers locally to fight against ISIS, maybe.

    As opposed to do nothing or rolling in with a quarter of a million non muslim western troops, its probably not a bad solution.
  • Wanderer said:

    Scott_P said:

    @rosschawkins: Diane Abbott on C4: The shadow cabinet doesn't appoint the leader, the leader appoints the shadow cabinet

    There is a serious question, if Corbyn can't find enough MPs to fill a cabinet, what happens?

    Was wondering the same thing?

    Is there any real requirement to have a shadow cabinet? Can Corbyn declare the whole idea obsolete and "old politics"?

    If Labour didn't appoint shadows would the SNP argue that its spokespeople should be called first to reply to ministerial statements?
    Thinking about this a little further, isn't there a constitutional argument to be had that if the second largest parliamentary party cannot find enough people to support the leadership in opposing the government, they do not in fact support the leadership. Hence does that not fatally undermine their position as the official opposition from a numerical standpoint?
    It undermines their claim to be able to form a government. This is of course nothing new for some time, however it might have self perpetuating consequences.
    Corbyn is probably not bothered about the current PLP and indeed not bothered about rational opposition beyond projecting his own world view and asking other people's questions.
    He just wants to take over the workings of the labour party and use its hollowed out shell as a vehicle for the StopThe War Coalition and other fellow travellers. It will be a neat trick if he can get away with it and the broad membership are probably on his side.
    So we can expect to see Corbyn isolated in parliament whilst shadow ministers if any plough their own furrow.
    Labour is and will remain at war with itself at a totally fundamental level whether Corbyn stays or goes.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,401

    chestnut said:

    taffys said:

    ''Will we ever learn''

    Why are some labour MPs so keen to back the PM here? I don't really understand.

    Its not as if us bombing ISIS in Syria will make much of a difference either way.

    We opted for non-intervention in 2013.

    In the interim, the carnage has not only continued but escalated; a million refugees have washed up on the shores of the European Union (and therefore, have potential access here); the Jihadis have secured great revenue from oil fields, jihadist attacks have spread throughout North Africa including the killing of many Britons in Tunisia; they have moved onto Europe and are only a train ride away from London (quicker than Glasgow); the best part of 1000 of our citizens have gone to take up arms against western civilisation (us).

    Non-intervention has been every bit as disastrous as previous interventions.
    You think the West has not intervened in Syria?

    Of course Cameron wanted to Dethrone another secular dictator in 2013 and now wants to fight on the same side as said person.
    If Cameron now wanted to fight on the same side as Russia and help the syrian army defeat ISIS there might be some logic to this position.
    However he wants 70000 so called moderates to hold the ground and then hold a peace conference.
    This position does not look credible to me.
    The USA gave millions to moderates, I heard they trained about 5 people.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Yorkcity said:

    chestnut said:

    taffys said:

    ''Will we ever learn''

    Why are some labour MPs so keen to back the PM here? I don't really understand.

    Its not as if us bombing ISIS in Syria will make much of a difference either way.

    We opted for non-intervention in 2013.

    In the interim, the carnage has not only continued but escalated; a million refugees have washed up on the shores of the European Union (and therefore, have potential access here); the Jihadis have secured great revenue from oil fields, jihadist attacks have spread throughout North Africa including the killing of many Britons in Tunisia; they have moved onto Europe and are only a train ride away from London (quicker than Glasgow); the best part of 1000 of our citizens have gone to take up arms against western civilisation (us).

    Non-intervention has been every bit as disastrous as previous interventions.
    You think the West has not intervened in Syria?

    Of course Cameron wanted to Dethrone another secular dictator in 2013 and now wants to fight on the same side as said person.
    If Cameron now wanted to fight on the same side as Russia and help the syrian army defeat ISIS there might be some logic to this position.
    However he wants 70000 so called moderates to hold the ground and then hold a peace conference.
    This position does not look credible to me.
    The USA gave millions to moderates, I heard they trained about 5 people.
    500$ million, they cancelled it a month ago due to mass defections of the very few they trained to ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited November 2015

    You think the West has not intervened in Syria?

    Of course Cameron wanted to Dethrone another secular dictator in 2013 and now wants to fight on the same side as said person.

    A million refugees....Britons being wiped out at Tunisian tourist resorts.....1000 of ours enlisting for the enemy....

    We did nothing, yet it still happened.

    Eighteen years ago last week, Bin Laden financed the Luxor Massacre before George W set foot in the White House and while Teflon Tone was still eulogising about the People's Princess.

    Four years later he was killing 3000 in New York. All before we set foot in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Their hatred, religious zealotry and megalomania defines them; not our behaviour.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    chestnut said:

    You think the West has not intervened in Syria?

    Of course Cameron wanted to Dethrone another secular dictator in 2013 and now wants to fight on the same side as said person.

    A million refugees....Britons being wiped out at Tunisian tourist resorts.....1000 of ours enlisting for the enemy....

    We did nothing, yet it still happened.

    Eighteen years ago last week, Bin Laden financed the Luxor Massacre before George W set foot in the White House and while Teflon Tone was still eulogising about the People's Princess.

    Four years later he was killing 3000 in New York. All before we set foot in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Their hatred and megalomania defines them; not our behaviour.
    And oil funds them, who says no to an arab oilman or an arab banker, Bin Laden had a fortune of billions.

    Give an uneducated goat farmer a billion pounds and the result will be some very irresponsible behaviour.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,694
    Not convinced by the case for UK action in Syria. Fear yet another country will just complicate an already complicated situation.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    dr_spyn said:

    ITV News ‏@itvnews 10s11 seconds ago
    Jeremy Corbyn wants to whip Labour MPs to vote against airstrikes in Syria, Labour source tells @carldinnen http://www.itv.com/news/story/2015-11-26/corbyn-cant-support-pms-plan-for-uk-airstrikes-in-syria/

    Who was that up thread saying Labour had got through the day unscathed......

    Just goes to show though that if push came to shove, Corbyn has absolutely now problem in pushing the big round juicy "nuclear button"


    I am seriously seriously 'popcorned out' now.

    :lol:
  • TomsToms Posts: 1,574
    @ chestnut

    Chestnut, I think it was you a few threads ago who wanted to know which *high* rating was fairly recently bestowed on the NHS. It was this one

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health

    upon which Cameron tried to claim credit by repeatedly using the phrase "under this government" in PMQs, whereas the rating was based entirely on the efforts of previous governments.

    I came across this when I read Private Eye no 1370, July 2014 under "HP Sauce".
  • Moses_ said:

    dr_spyn said:

    ITV News ‏@itvnews 10s11 seconds ago
    Jeremy Corbyn wants to whip Labour MPs to vote against airstrikes in Syria, Labour source tells @carldinnen http://www.itv.com/news/story/2015-11-26/corbyn-cant-support-pms-plan-for-uk-airstrikes-in-syria/

    Who was that up thread saying Labour had got through the day unscathed......

    Just goes to show though that if push came to shove, Corbyn has absolutely now problem in pushing the big round juicy "nuclear button"


    I am seriously seriously 'popcorned out' now.

    :lol:
    Is that not an attempt by said Labour source to ensure it doesn't happen?
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Jonathan said:

    Not convinced by the case for UK action in Syria. Fear yet another country will just complicate an already complicated situation.

    All this is political posturing though, at worst Cameron will do a messy deteriorating situation worse, at best it will have zero impact on the ground.

    An air campaign wont do much, you need infantry support that the west can't provide.
    Cameron talked of 70000 ground troops, but no one has those numbers.

    Also it will have zero impact on the terrorist threat, because the terrorists are already on the other side of the english channel.
    Throwing a large anti-terrorist force in France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany, and also close down the refugee flow will do the most impact.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,305
    Toms said:

    @ chestnut

    Chestnut, I think it was you a few threads ago who wanted to know which *high* rating was fairly recently bestowed on the NHS. It was this one

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health

    upon which Cameron tried to claim credit by repeatedly using the phrase "under this government" in PMQs, whereas the rating was based entirely on the efforts of previous governments.

    I came across this when I read Private Eye no 1370, July 2014 under "HP Sauce".

    "based entirely on the efforts of previous governments".. anything to back up that claim?
  • TomsToms Posts: 1,574
    RobD said:

    Toms said:

    @ chestnut

    Chestnut, I think it was you a few threads ago who wanted to know which *high* rating was fairly recently bestowed on the NHS. It was this one

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health

    upon which Cameron tried to claim credit by repeatedly using the phrase "under this government" in PMQs, whereas the rating was based entirely on the efforts of previous governments.

    I came across this when I read Private Eye no 1370, July 2014 under "HP Sauce".

    "based entirely on the efforts of previous governments".. anything to back up that claim?
    Only the PE article. They are rather careful I think.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,756
    perdix said:

    isam said:

    Really what I am saying is that the terrorists that will attack us are probably not in Syria but in East London, Luton, Bradford, Leeds, Manchester or Birmingham (sounds like Panic by The Smiths). I think in the long term that is the bigger problem

    And that is one of my problems with the proposed bombing. IS is an ideology that is present in many countries. In Syria, Iraq and Yemen it is threatening the state. If we were to cut it out of those three countries then the cancer will still live elsewhere. They will still be organising on t'Internet.

    Having said that, it is necessary to remove their state-like apparatus from these countries, for those structures are spreading the cancer (*). But even with them removed, the ideology will live and perhaps thrive without it.

    So as well as the bombing, if we do it, we need to tackle the ideology, and one thread of that involves getting moderate Muslims onside and not alienate them. We need to try to mitigate the Sunni-Shia divide. And we need to promote why our system and way of life is better.

    We also need to ask ourselves why 'normal' men and women go from being westernised to moving to Syria. Why non-Muslims convert and do the same, sometimes within a matter of months.

    Basically, I have no easy answers to what is a massively complex and multi-dimensional problem. But one thing I will say: we should not assume IS are stupid. Whilst I disagree with them on almost everything, they will use anything we do against us. They are more adaptable than us because our system is better.

    (*) Although I am unsure how bombing will do that, given IS formed in Iraq during the American presence there. If they could not remove it, how can bombing?
    IS was largely formed in Iraq by Sunni Bathists who were imprisoned by the Americans. The prisoners formed networks while in prison and created IS when they got out. Some might say that the Americans should have shot their prisoners but of course they are far too liberal and fair-minded to do that.

    Those prisoners did form a large part of the original base of al Qaeda in Iraq (at least as I understand it). But that first name they chose is the clue: they were inspired by al Qaeda before latterly splitting from that group. If they had been killed then this particular problem might not be as strong (but that cannot be certain), but I bet al Qaeda would be exploiting disharmony wherever it occurred in Muslim lands.

    My bet was always on Pakistan, and whilst parts of that country are essentially wild frontier lands, to my surprise it has still held together as a state. And none of us should want nuclear-armed Pakistan to go even more rogue ...
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited November 2015
    Jonathan said:

    Not convinced by the case for UK action in Syria. Fear yet another country will just complicate an already complicated situation.

    Cameron's wrong on this. We should let the French and the Russians wreak their revenge, and keep well away from the boiling cauldron of chaos.

    As things stand ISIS *might* stage a major attack on the UK mainland. If we bomb Syria, they most certainly *will* go on the rampage here, and I fear it will be on a far greater scale than the carnage in Paris.

    We'd do better spending the money on internal and border security, and educating potential jihadists here.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,062
    chestnut said:

    You think the West has not intervened in Syria?

    Of course Cameron wanted to Dethrone another secular dictator in 2013 and now wants to fight on the same side as said person.

    A million refugees....Britons being wiped out at Tunisian tourist resorts.....1000 of ours enlisting for the enemy....

    We did nothing, yet it still happened.

    Eighteen years ago last week, Bin Laden financed the Luxor Massacre before George W set foot in the White House and while Teflon Tone was still eulogising about the People's Princess.

    Four years later he was killing 3000 in New York. All before we set foot in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Their hatred, religious zealotry and megalomania defines them; not our behaviour.
    I ask again do you think killing every single IS fighter in Syria along with thousands of innocents will

    Increase or decrease the numbers willing to support islamic terrorist acts.

    I think it will create more do you agree or 4th time lucky.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited November 2015
    Moses_ said:

    dr_spyn said:

    ITV News ‏@itvnews 10s11 seconds ago
    Jeremy Corbyn wants to whip Labour MPs to vote against airstrikes in Syria, Labour source tells @carldinnen http://www.itv.com/news/story/2015-11-26/corbyn-cant-support-pms-plan-for-uk-airstrikes-in-syria/

    Who was that up thread saying Labour had got through the day unscathed......

    Just goes to show though that if push came to shove, Corbyn has absolutely now problem in pushing the big round juicy "nuclear button"


    I am seriously seriously 'popcorned out' now.

    :lol:
    I think Corbyn won the argument and the debate with Cameron on Syria, and has gained enough public support from that, for his position, to confront the war supporters within Labour.
    So does Corbyn apparently.
  • TomsToms Posts: 1,574
    Happy Thanksgiving
    Gateway to Black Friday.
    Materialism can sure ruin some things.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,062
    JeremyCorbyn4PM ‏@JeremyCorbyn4PM 37s37 seconds ago
    "Cameron offends intelligence of his colleagues & British public.... "70,000 moderate rebels" is the new 45 minutes"


    And yet New Labour MPs fall for it again
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    chestnut said:

    You think the West has not intervened in Syria?

    Of course Cameron wanted to Dethrone another secular dictator in 2013 and now wants to fight on the same side as said person.

    A million refugees....Britons being wiped out at Tunisian tourist resorts.....1000 of ours enlisting for the enemy....

    We did nothing, yet it still happened.

    Eighteen years ago last week, Bin Laden financed the Luxor Massacre before George W set foot in the White House and while Teflon Tone was still eulogising about the People's Princess.

    Four years later he was killing 3000 in New York. All before we set foot in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Their hatred, religious zealotry and megalomania defines them; not our behaviour.
    I ask again do you think killing every single IS fighter in Syria along with thousands of innocents will

    Increase or decrease the numbers willing to support islamic terrorist acts.

    I think it will create more do you agree or 4th time lucky.
    I don't care. I'd rather we flushed the buggers out and brought the thing to a head.

    Constant appeasement will not work.

  • glwglw Posts: 4,335
    What is the Labour suggestion for dealing with IS? The real one, not the platitudinous drivel about dialogue.

    IS have already killed 30 Brits in Tunisia. They have killed several more in Iraq and Syria. Seven terrorists plots in the UK have been disrupted this year alone, and I suspect at least a couple of those will have IS links. There are even stories that the initial target of the recent airliner bombing from Sharm el Sheikh might have been British.

    The Labour line seems to do nothing and hope IS won't attack us, but IS are already attacking us.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,756

    IMO Labour is finished if it backs war in Syria.

    Same people who sided with war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are at it again.

    3 times we have made matters worse.

    Now Tories and New Labour MPs line up to do it all again.

    Will we ever learn

    What's your answer to the problems and threats caused by IS?
    Not doing the same thing over and over.

    Which of the 3 previous interventions do you think have helped with islamic extremism.

    Will killing every single IS fighter in Syria along with thousands of innocents produce more / fewer IS sympathisers?

    To me its obvious but presumably supporters of intervention think 4th time lucky.
    Neither Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya caused the embassy bombings, the Cole, 9/11, or any number of other terrorist atrocities of the 90s. The interventions have probably worsened them, but the clash with radical Islam had already started.

    So again I ask: what's your answer to the problems and threats caused by IS?
    The interventions have probably worsened them as you say so lets intervene.

    Whats the solution, dont know do you?
    You seem to think that all these ills come down to those interventions. They do not. As people have repeatedly told you, the problem has much deeper roots than Afghanistan, Iraq et al.

    I don't know the solution now; ideally we wouldn't have allowed it to get into this mess. But you need to realise something: knowingly doing nothing is as much a decision as knowingly doing something.

    And you are all for knowingly doing nothing.

    I'm finding it hard to see how bombing would help at the moment, but I also fail to see how doing nothing would in any way help. So if you have an alternative instead of whinging and unthinkingly backing your party, please say.

    If you don't have an alternative, then perhaps you should consider that bombing may, reluctantly, be the way to go.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,612
    edited November 2015

    IMO Labour is finished if it backs war in Syria.

    Same people who sided with war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are at it again.

    3 times we have made matters worse.

    Now Tories and New Labour MPs line up to do it all again.

    Will we ever learn

    This is utter nonsense. The three cases were each totally different, both in motivation and in the way they worked out.

    1. Afghanistan was (like the proposed action against ISIS) a simple matter of self-defence against a quasi-state organisation which was waging a sort of war against us and our close allies. It was very successful: we took them out, and as result Al Quaeda's ability to kill and maim our citizens and those of our allies was massively reduced. (Admittedly the US and Blair then lost the plot, but that's item 2..)

    2. Iraq was an unmitigated disaster sold to us on a lie. Saddam, disagreeable though he was, didn't pose a threat to us, as we now know - that's completely different from the case of ISIS or Al Quaeda. By the time of the war he didn't even pose too much of a threat to his own people. (Not only was it a disaster in its own right, it also meant that the US and its allies lost control of Afghanistan - a double disaster).

    3. Libya was a simple, short, and successful campaign to avert an immediate humanitarian disaster.

    We are now faced with a very nasty and direct threat aimed at us. We need to address it before it gets even worse. Unlike Iraq, sold to us on a lie, or Libya, where there were pros and cons, the case for action against ISIS is one which really shouldn't be controversial: these guys are already attacking us and our close allies, and we need to biff them back to make it harder for them to do so.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,062

    IMO Labour is finished if it backs war in Syria.

    Same people who sided with war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are at it again.

    3 times we have made matters worse.

    Now Tories and New Labour MPs line up to do it all again.

    Will we ever learn

    What's your answer to the problems and threats caused by IS?
    Not doing the same thing over and over.

    Which of the 3 previous interventions do you think have helped with islamic extremism.

    Will killing every single IS fighter in Syria along with thousands of innocents produce more / fewer IS sympathisers?

    To me its obvious but presumably supporters of intervention think 4th time lucky.
    Neither Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya caused the embassy bombings, the Cole, 9/11, or any number of other terrorist atrocities of the 90s. The interventions have probably worsened them, but the clash with radical Islam had already started.

    So again I ask: what's your answer to the problems and threats caused by IS?
    The interventions have probably worsened them as you say so lets intervene.

    Whats the solution, dont know do you?
    You seem to think that all these ills come down to those interventions. They do not. As people have repeatedly told you, the problem has much deeper roots than Afghanistan, Iraq et al.

    I don't know the solution now; ideally we wouldn't have allowed it to get into this mess. But you need to realise something: knowingly doing nothing is as much a decision as knowingly doing something.

    And you are all for knowingly doing nothing.

    I'm finding it hard to see how bombing would help at the moment, but I also fail to see how doing nothing would in any way help. So if you have an alternative instead of whinging and unthinkingly backing your party, please say.

    If you don't have an alternative, then perhaps you should consider that bombing may, reluctantly, be the way to go.
    Dont have a solution. It is just obvious bombing will create more potential terrorists IMO
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited November 2015
    Toms said:

    @ chestnut

    Chestnut, I think it was you a few threads ago who wanted to know which *high* rating was fairly recently bestowed on the NHS. It was this one

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health

    upon which Cameron tried to claim credit by repeatedly using the phrase "under this government" in PMQs, whereas the rating was based entirely on the efforts of previous governments.

    I came across this when I read Private Eye no 1370, July 2014 under "HP Sauce".

    That's the one that says it's all great except for actually keeping people alive, where it's one of the very worst.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,421

    IMO Labour is finished if it backs war in Syria.

    Same people who sided with war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are at it again.

    3 times we have made matters worse.

    Now Tories and New Labour MPs line up to do it all again.

    Will we ever learn

    This is utter nonsense. The three cases were each totally different, both in motivation and in the way they worked out.

    1. Afghanistan was (like the proposed action against ISIS) a simple matter of self-defence against a quasi-state organisation which was waging a sort of war against us and our close allies. It was very successful: we took them out, and as result Al Quaeda's ability to kill and maim our citizens and those of our allies was massively reduced. (Admittedly the US and Blair then lost the plot, but that's item 2..)

    2. Iraq was an unmitigated disaster sold to us on a lie. Saddam, disagreeable though he was, didn't pose a threat to us, as we now know - that's completely different from the case of ISIS or Al Quaeda. By the time of the war he didn't even pose too much of a threat to his own people. (Not only was it a disaster in its own right, it also meant that the US and its allies lost control of Afghanistan - a double disaster).

    3. Libya was a simple, short, and successful campaign to avert an immediate humanitarian disaster.

    We are now faced with a very nasty and direct threat aimed at us. We need to address it before it gets even worse. Unlike Iraq, sold to us on a lie, or Libya, where there were pros and cons, the case for action against ISIS is one which really shouldn't be controversial: these guys are already attacking us and our close allies, and we need to biff them back to make it harder for them to do so.
    Agreed (Mostly) - Ed Miliband was actually correct to stop us bombing the Assad regime. Vile as it is.

    I view this in the same way as Afghanistan, a necessary campaign.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,694

    IMO Labour is finished if it backs war in Syria.

    Same people who sided with war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are at it again.

    3 times we have made matters worse.

    Now Tories and New Labour MPs line up to do it all again.

    Will we ever learn

    This is utter nonsense. The three cases were each totally different, both in motivation and in the way they worked out.

    1. Afghanistan was (like the proposed action against ISIS) a simple matter of self-defence against a quasi-state organisation which was waging a sort of war against us and our close allies. It was very successful: we took them out, and as result Al Quaeda's ability to kill and maim our citizens and those of our allies was massively reduced. (Admittedly the US and Blair then lost the plot, but that's item 2..)

    2. Iraq was an unmitigated disaster sold to us on a lie. Saddam, disagreeable though he was, didn't pose a threat to us, as we now know - that's completely different from the case of ISIS or Al Quaeda. By the time of the war he didn't even pose too much of a threat to his own people. (Not only was it a disaster in its own right, it also meant that the US and its allies lost control of Afghanistan - a double disaster).

    3. Libya was a simple, short, and successful campaign to avert an immediate humanitarian disaster.

    We are now faced with a very nasty and direct threat aimed at us. We need to address it before it gets even worse. Unlike Iraq, sold to us on a lie, or Libya, where there were pros and cons, the case for action against ISIS is one which really shouldn't be controversial: these guys are already attacking us and our close allies, and we need to biff them back to make it harder for them to do so.
    I am not convinced.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @bigjohnowls

    'The interventions have probably worsened them as you say so lets intervene.

    Whats the solution, dont know do you?'


    Doing fu$k all & or sucking up to them is not a solution either,just seen as weakness.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,062
    chestnut said:

    chestnut said:

    You think the West has not intervened in Syria?

    Of course Cameron wanted to Dethrone another secular dictator in 2013 and now wants to fight on the same side as said person.

    A million refugees....Britons being wiped out at Tunisian tourist resorts.....1000 of ours enlisting for the enemy....

    We did nothing, yet it still happened.

    Eighteen years ago last week, Bin Laden financed the Luxor Massacre before George W set foot in the White House and while Teflon Tone was still eulogising about the People's Princess.

    Four years later he was killing 3000 in New York. All before we set foot in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Their hatred, religious zealotry and megalomania defines them; not our behaviour.
    I ask again do you think killing every single IS fighter in Syria along with thousands of innocents will

    Increase or decrease the numbers willing to support islamic terrorist acts.

    I think it will create more do you agree or 4th time lucky.
    I don't care. I'd rather we flushed the buggers out and brought the thing to a head.

    Constant appeasement will not work.

    Killing innocents in Syria along with IS terrorists will just increase ten fold (or worse) the number of buggers we need to flush out though IMO
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,487

    IMO Labour is finished if it backs war in Syria.

    Same people who sided with war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are at it again.

    3 times we have made matters worse.

    Now Tories and New Labour MPs line up to do it all again.

    Will we ever learn

    What's your answer to the problems and threats caused by IS?
    Not doing the same thing over and over.

    Which of the 3 previous interventions do you think have helped with islamic extremism.

    Will killing every single IS fighter in Syria along with thousands of innocents produce more / fewer IS sympathisers?

    To me its obvious but presumably supporters of intervention think 4th time lucky.
    Neither Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya caused the embassy bombings, the Cole, 9/11, or any number of other terrorist atrocities of the 90s. The interventions have probably worsened them, but the clash with radical Islam had already started.

    So again I ask: what's your answer to the problems and threats caused by IS?
    The interventions have probably worsened them as you say so lets intervene.

    Whats the solution, dont know do you?
    You seem to think that all these ills come down to those interventions. They do not. As people have repeatedly told you, the problem has much deeper roots than Afghanistan, Iraq et al.

    I don't know the solution now; ideally we wouldn't have allowed it to get into this mess. But you need to realise something: knowingly doing nothing is as much a decision as knowingly doing something.

    And you are all for knowingly doing nothing.

    I'm finding it hard to see how bombing would help at the moment, but I also fail to see how doing nothing would in any way help. So if you have an alternative instead of whinging and unthinkingly backing your party, please say.

    If you don't have an alternative, then perhaps you should consider that bombing may, reluctantly, be the way to go.
    Dont have a solution. It is just obvious bombing will create more potential terrorists IMO

    And not bombing will create more actual terrorists.

  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited November 2015

    chestnut said:

    chestnut said:

    You think the West has not intervened in Syria?

    Of course Cameron wanted to Dethrone another secular dictator in 2013 and now wants to fight on the same side as said person.

    A million refugees....Britons being wiped out at Tunisian tourist resorts.....1000 of ours enlisting for the enemy....

    We did nothing, yet it still happened.

    Eighteen years ago last week, Bin Laden financed the Luxor Massacre before George W set foot in the White House and while Teflon Tone was still eulogising about the People's Princess.

    Four years later he was killing 3000 in New York. All before we set foot in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Their hatred, religious zealotry and megalomania defines them; not our behaviour.
    I ask again do you think killing every single IS fighter in Syria along with thousands of innocents will

    Increase or decrease the numbers willing to support islamic terrorist acts.

    I think it will create more do you agree or 4th time lucky.
    I don't care. I'd rather we flushed the buggers out and brought the thing to a head.

    Constant appeasement will not work.

    Killing innocents in Syria along with IS terrorists will just increase ten fold (or worse) the number of buggers we need to flush out though IMO
    So, your plan seems to be to let them carry on killing innocents, including UK tourists in Tunisian hotels.

  • TomsToms Posts: 1,574
    chestnut said:

    Toms said:

    @ chestnut

    Chestnut, I think it was you a few threads ago who wanted to know which *high* rating was fairly recently bestowed on the NHS. It was this one

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health

    upon which Cameron tried to claim credit by repeatedly using the phrase "under this government" in PMQs, whereas the rating was based entirely on the efforts of previous governments.

    I came across this when I read Private Eye no 1370, July 2014 under "HP Sauce".

    That's the one that says it's all great except for actually keeping people alive, where it's one of the very worst.
    Yes. We live in an age when bureaucrats & ministers try to arrange us by assigning a few simple numbers to professional activities about which they usually know F-all. For instance Peter Higgs has said that had he had to work in the present environment he would have been ejected for not writing enough papers.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,421
    Owls - Here is what we're dealing with:

  • IMO Labour is finished if it backs war in Syria.

    Same people who sided with war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are at it again.

    3 times we have made matters worse.

    Now Tories and New Labour MPs line up to do it all again.

    Will we ever learn

    This is utter nonsense. The three cases were each totally different, both in motivation and in the way they worked out.

    1. Afghanistan was (like the proposed action against ISIS) a simple matter of self-defence against a quasi-state organisation which was waging a sort of war against us and our close allies. It was very successful: we took them out, and as result Al Quaeda's ability to kill and maim our citizens and those of our allies was massively reduced. (Admittedly the US and Blair then lost the plot, but that's item 2..)

    2. Iraq was an unmitigated disaster sold to us on a lie. Saddam, disagreeable though he was, didn't pose a threat to us, as we now know - that's completely different from the case of ISIS or Al Quaeda. By the time of the war he didn't even pose too much of a threat to his own people. (Not only was it a disaster in its own right, it also meant that the US and its allies lost control of Afghanistan - a double disaster).

    3. Libya was a simple, short, and successful campaign to avert an immediate humanitarian disaster.

    We are now faced with a very nasty and direct threat aimed at us. We need to address it before it gets even worse. Unlike Iraq, sold to us on a lie, or Libya, where there were pros and cons, the case for action against ISIS is one which really shouldn't be controversial: these guys are already attacking us and our close allies, and we need to biff them back to make it harder for them to do so.
    So just to be clear, you're refuting the claim that Western military intervention made Libya worse?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,612
    edited November 2015
    Jonathan said:

    I am not convinced.

    What's the case for inaction? That means letting ISIS get more and more powerful and increasingly bold as it consolidates its quasi-state, from which it finances its attacks, creates its propaganda video-nasties, recruits and radicalises youngsters for suicide missions, trains them, equips them, and sends them to attack us. (Oh, and it rapes, murders, enslaves and tortures the local population as well, although you could argue that's not our problem if you're an isolationist).

    I'm not convinced by the case for inaction, but I'm willing to listen to the arguments in support of the idea.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,612
    edited November 2015


    So just to be clear, you're refuting the claim that Western military intervention made Libya worse?

    I'm refuting the claim that it has anything much to do with this situation.

    As to whether it made things worse: impossible to be sure, because we don't have the alternative reality to compare it with, but on balance the likelihood is that it made things better. It certainly prevented the humanitarian disaster which was imminent.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,746
    taffys said:

    Against Islamists it is.

    How many times does it need to be proved!!

    ??? neither of the first two gulf wars were fights against islamists. In Libya we bombed Gaddafi, not islamists. Afghanistan was largely a ground engagement, no bombing by jets.

    I think this is the first time we have ever bombed islamists, in fact.

    No bombing in Afghanistan? -Really?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,674
    isam said:

    JackW said:

    isam said:

    JackW said:

    isam said:

    JackW said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Or will it? Everyone's an expert here it seems.. how will bombing Syria make people in the UK safer?

    I'd rather close down mosques in London and arrest the people on Mondays Dispatches

    The attacks on us and our closest allies are being planned from Syria, with personnel trained in Syria, recruiting terrorists with video nasties filmed in Syria, using finance gathered in Syria, all coordinated by leaders in Syria.

    The idea that we can simply ignore this, and let them get on with it as they establish more territorial control and get more and more powerful, is out with the fairies, frankly.

    As for your second point, it's not an either/or - we need to do a lot here as well, of course.
    Do you think the inevitable terrorist attack when we start bombing will be for the long term good in a utilitarian way?
    I think you'll find ISIS have already undertaken terrorist attacks on British citizens.

    In Britain? Must've missed them sorry
    I hadn't realised terrorist attacks on British citizens only counts within the United Kingdom.

    The families of beheaded Britons and those massacred in Tunisia among others will be pleased to note their loss is peripheral.

    Does the government have to wait for a Paris like outrage in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast to take action?

    I dare say attacks have already been attempted and foiled in Britain (nice way of pointing out four cities in different British countries there btw-punchy, really illustrated the point) so I wouldn't say the desire for bombing was more or less immediate if one succeeded.

    But the main danger we have is from a small proportion of British Muslims.. Dispatches on Monday showed what's going on in East London and online. Temporarily closing mosques, banning Burqas, whatever it takes to reduce the number of radical islamists might be a better idea than bombing the middle east again
    I utterly disagree with your second paragraph

    ISIS are a fundamental attack on liberal democracy and all that we hold dear and cherish in our nation. Closing mosques and banning the burqas is an attack on our way of life from within - a spectacular own goal of epic proportions.

    Utterly agree to utterly disagree.. I prefer it to bombing, and the death of innocent civilians that incurs
    How does closing mosques and banning burqas reduce radicalisation? The ISIS narrative is Crusaders vs Islam. If you act like a Crusader then you feed the ISIS ideology.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,062
    chestnut said:

    chestnut said:

    chestnut said:

    You think the West has not intervened in Syria?

    Of course Cameron wanted to Dethrone another secular dictator in 2013 and now wants to fight on the same side as said person.

    A million refugees....Britons being wiped out at Tunisian tourist resorts.....1000 of ours enlisting for the enemy....

    We did nothing, yet it still happened.

    Eighteen years ago last week, Bin Laden financed the Luxor Massacre before George W set foot in the White House and while Teflon Tone was still eulogising about the People's Princess.

    Four years later he was killing 3000 in New York. All before we set foot in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Their hatred, religious zealotry and megalomania defines them; not our behaviour.
    I ask again do you think killing every single IS fighter in Syria along with thousands of innocents will

    Increase or decrease the numbers willing to support islamic terrorist acts.

    I think it will create more do you agree or 4th time lucky.
    I don't care. I'd rather we flushed the buggers out and brought the thing to a head.

    Constant appeasement will not work.

    Killing innocents in Syria along with IS terrorists will just increase ten fold (or worse) the number of buggers we need to flush out though IMO
    So, your plan seems to be to let them carry on killing innocents, including UK tourists in Tunisian hotels.

    and yours is to create thousands more willing to do so, again!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,305

    chestnut said:

    chestnut said:

    chestnut said:

    You think the West has not intervened in Syria?

    Of course Cameron wanted to Dethrone another secular dictator in 2013 and now wants to fight on the same side as said person.

    A million refugees....Britons being wiped out at Tunisian tourist resorts.....1000 of ours enlisting for the enemy....

    We did nothing, yet it still happened.

    Eighteen years ago last week, Bin Laden financed the Luxor Massacre before George W set foot in the White House and while Teflon Tone was still eulogising about the People's Princess.

    Four years later he was killing 3000 in New York. All before we set foot in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Their hatred, religious zealotry and megalomania defines them; not our behaviour.
    I ask again do you think killing every single IS fighter in Syria along with thousands of innocents will

    Increase or decrease the numbers willing to support islamic terrorist acts.

    I think it will create more do you agree or 4th time lucky.
    I don't care. I'd rather we flushed the buggers out and brought the thing to a head.

    Constant appeasement will not work.

    Killing innocents in Syria along with IS terrorists will just increase ten fold (or worse) the number of buggers we need to flush out though IMO
    So, your plan seems to be to let them carry on killing innocents, including UK tourists in Tunisian hotels.

    and yours is to create thousands more willing to do so, again!
    What is your plan? I've seen you say that the current/proposed course of action is wrong, but yet to hear any alternatives.
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 959
    Probably as successful as the "efficiency savings" at HMRC will be at raising revenue

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34933962
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,694

    Jonathan said:

    I am not convinced.

    What's the case for inaction? That means letting ISIS get more and more powerful and increasingly bold as it consolidates its quasi-state, from which it finances its attacks, creates its propaganda video-nasties, recruits and radicalises youngsters for suicide missions, trains them, equips them, and sends them to attack us. (Oh, and it rapes, murders, enslaves and tortures the local population as well, although you could argue that's not our problem if you're an isolationist).

    I'm not convinced by the case for inaction, but I'm willing to listen to the arguments in support of the idea.
    There is no evidence air attacks solve the above. Or at least they haven't yet in Syria or quite frankly elsewhere.

    We have responsibilities elsewhere that would benefit from focus.

    There are proven risks of sharing airspace.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,244
    Many thanks to you all for rehearsing the various arguments.

    I don't know what to think, and the discussion has been helpful.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,062


    So just to be clear, you're refuting the claim that Western military intervention made Libya worse?

    I'm refuting the claim that it has anything much to do with this situation.

    As to whether it made things worse: impossible to be sure, because we don't have the alternative reality to compare it with, but on balance the likelihood is that it made things better. It certainly prevented the humanitarian disaster which was imminent.
    Removing Saddam/ Gaddafi have changed both countries from Secular to Muslim fundamental govts.

    I despair anyone thinks we get a different answer if we try the same trick again.
  • Single
    Next Labour Leader British
    Hilary Benn
    Next Permanent Labour Leader
    Odds: 17.00
    1 line at £10.00

    Tonight means I'm putting my money (albeit £10) where my mouth is...
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,746
    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    You think the West has not intervened in Syria?

    Of course Cameron wanted to Dethrone another secular dictator in 2013 and now wants to fight on the same side as said person.

    A million refugees....Britons being wiped out at Tunisian tourist resorts.....1000 of ours enlisting for the enemy....

    We did nothing, yet it still happened.

    Eighteen years ago last week, Bin Laden financed the Luxor Massacre before George W set foot in the White House and while Teflon Tone was still eulogising about the People's Princess.

    Four years later he was killing 3000 in New York. All before we set foot in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Their hatred and megalomania defines them; not our behaviour.
    And oil funds them, who says no to an arab oilman or an arab banker, Bin Laden had a fortune of billions.

    Give an uneducated goat farmer a billion pounds and the result will be some very irresponsible behaviour.
    Forgive me, I am slightly confused by your post - is the goat herder part a generalisation or are you thinking of someone in particular and where did Bin Laden get these billions?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,756
    All the conversation about bombing IS this evening has been interesting, and mostly respectfully argued. It shows our greatest weakness: we are hamstrung by our desire to do the right thing and to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as possible, at home and abroad. We are uncertain.

    Meanwhile, IS have few uncertainties. They know they are right, and most follow their leaders' cult religiously. Failure to follow that cult has severe consequences.

    Yet I don't doubt we will eventually triumph. Their system may be more certain, but it is also fundamentally weak. We are more resilient than them.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    and yours is to create thousands more willing to do so, again!

    Back in 97, Islamic terrorists were killing westerners and pursuing Sharia law and Islamic States etc. in 2001, they were killing thousands.

    They are there, whatever.

    The choice is to confront or cower.

    Your position is very clear.

This discussion has been closed.