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

124»

Comments

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,844

    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...

    Hope not but if there aren't enough MPs to nominate a left wing candidate its not bad odds.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 4,942

    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 largely agree with that - though our own contribution will amount to little more than tokenism and fall well short of being materially significant.
  • 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...

    Hope not but if there aren't enough MPs to nominate a left wing candidate its not bad odds.
    I do now believe he is properly the favourite if Corbyn goes in the next three months; and a serious contender for the nine after that.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,844
    RobD said:

    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.
    I don't have one.I just think.......

    The more innocent civilians we kill while bombing IS the more terrorists we create.

    Do you have a solution Rob?
  • Surely the point is to support France, USA and Russia and earn a place at the table for influence on the eventual settlement in Syria. Cannot imagine what Hollande and Obama must think of Corbyn but I doubt he will be getting any invitations any time soon from them
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,913
    Alistair said:

    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.

    Surely their narrative is more subtle than that? After all, they're killing orders of magnitude more Muslims than Christians.

    Some of what we are seeing is a battle for the 'soul' of Islam, and one that has soured the religion almost since the prophet's death. They want their version of Islam to be dominant, and many see Muslims who disagree as worse than Christians. It even transcends the Sunni and Shia split.

    Apparently they also really hate apostate Muslims who have adopted western ways. If I remember correctly, one of their arguments to persuade people to move to their 'caliphate' is that it is impossible to be a true Muslim in the west. The only place you can be is in the caliphate, so you must move there.

    For this reason, I wonder if an ISIS-inspired atrocity might occur in a mosque in this country.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    This C4 documentary on kids is utterly adorable and hilarious.

    it almost makes having kids seem worthwhile.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited November 2015
    I think BJO is correct .. we must not bomb ISIS..We must step back from trying to stop their barbaric and savage sweep across the Middle Eastern countries..executing,torturing and raping as they go...because if we say stop or even dare to stop them they might turn their beady bloodlust eyes in our direction..again..and we are all sacred shitless of that happening..best to do nowt and they might just leave us alone....ooeerr
  • Speedy said:


    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.

    The fact he only had two people speak for him at the shadow cabinet, and will have dozens vote against him next week surely suggests that, whether or not he's right on the substance, he very definitely has not won the debate?

    This is Corbyn's trouble, and that of his supporters, all over. They simply mouth off as they like and declare themselves winners. Collective decision making, and the pretence of a credible government in waiting, has fallen apart. It's a tragedy for progressive politics in the UK.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,441
    @DPJHodges: On last week's Question Time Andy Burnham said we'd need a UN resolution for him to back Syria action. We get one. He opposes Syria action.
  • Dair said:

    This C4 documentary on kids is utterly adorable and hilarious.

    it almost makes having kids seem worthwhile.

    Why - don't you think having children and grandchildren is worthwhile
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,844
    chestnut said:

    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.

    As is yours.

    I bet you were in favour of other interventions that have made the problem worse too and probably in favour of overthrowing Assad in 2013 by arming Muslim groups that are now IS supporting?
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Floater said:

    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?
    We were bombing from the air, left, right and centre.
  • Scott_P said:

    @DPJHodges: On last week's Question Time Andy Burnham said we'd need a UN resolution for him to back Syria action. We get one. He opposes Syria action.

    They don't call him Andy Flip Flop for nothing.
  • tysontyson Posts: 4,388
    Nabavi- the Libya campaign resulted in a failed state, a flood of weapons and arms being flooded into Africa- Nigeria mostly (Boko Haram), but encouraging further poaching too, and set in tow a passage through Africa of illegal immigrants at the door of Italy.

    The campaign in Libya caused more harm to our national interests, those of the planet, to conserving Africas magical wildlife, than a hundred ISIS's could ever do.

    So you can imagine why people are slightly sceptical about the point of us getting involved in another conflict.

    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.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Dair said:

    This C4 documentary on kids is utterly adorable and hilarious.

    it almost makes having kids seem worthwhile.

    Why - don't you think having children and grandchildren is worthwhile
    I'm sure it is, just not something for me.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,844

    I think BJO is correct .. we must not bomb ISIS..We must step back from trying to stop their barbaric and savage sweep across the Middle Eastern countries..executing,torturing and raping as they go...because if we say stop or even dare to stop them they might turn their beady bloodlust eyes in our direction..again..and we are all sacred shitless of that happening..best to do nowt and they might just leave us alone....ooeerr

  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838

    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.

    I think you're right, though we are going through an unusually prolonged and deep period of introspection just now. (This is not surprising. In fact it's a predictable consequence of Iraq.)
  • Dair said:

    Dair said:

    This C4 documentary on kids is utterly adorable and hilarious.

    it almost makes having kids seem worthwhile.

    Why - don't you think having children and grandchildren is worthwhile
    I'm sure it is, just not something for me.
    Fair enough
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Chris_A said:

    Probably as successful as the "efficiency savings" at HMRC will be at raising revenue

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34933962

    Genius. Still, HMG is only £70 million down on the deal, and all the naughty drivers get a letter.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,238

    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.
    Apart from what the Islington & District Stop the War Branch (Upper St faction) says, do you have any idea what the Islamists want?

    Do you have any idea what Wahhab, Qutb, Azzam, Faraj, Bin Laden and on and on and on actually want?

    I am a long way from saying that every Muslim is an Islamist but every Islamist, notably the ones named above, want something that would shock and revolt you down to your pure, untrammeled, idealistic left wing core.
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,401
    edited November 2015
    I'm not sure this split with Corbyn will enhance Benn's leadership prospects, if the majority of Labour membership don't support air strikes, they're not going to look favourably on Benn effectively backing Cameron over Corbyn on this issue. Also if things go wrong in Syria after the vote is won, Benn is done for.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,441
    @SpecCoffeeHouse: Hilary Benn didn’t see Corbyn’s Commons speech on Syria before he gave it, reports @IsabelHardman https://t.co/MlQQ0ZAaHy
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,366
    edited November 2015

    Alistair said:

    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.

    Surely their narrative is more subtle than that? After all, they're killing orders of magnitude more Muslims than Christians.

    Some of what we are seeing is a battle for the 'soul' of Islam, and one that has soured the religion almost since the prophet's death. They want their version of Islam to be dominant, and many see Muslims who disagree as worse than Christians. It even transcends the Sunni and Shia split.

    Apparently they also really hate apostate Muslims who have adopted western ways. If I remember correctly, one of their arguments to persuade people to move to their 'caliphate' is that it is impossible to be a true Muslim in the west. The only place you can be is in the caliphate, so you must move there.

    For this reason, I wonder if an ISIS-inspired atrocity might occur in a mosque in this country.
    In ISIS's version of reality ISIS's version of Islam is the only true Islam. Muslims who don't subscribe to their death cult views are lumped in with the Crusaders.

    EDIT: Indeed they have a series of videos for Syrian refugees asking, demanding and cajoling thme to come to the Caliphate rather than the West where they will be forced or paid to covert to Christianity, beaten etc.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,844

    I think BJO is correct .. we must not bomb ISIS..We must step back from trying to stop their barbaric and savage sweep across the Middle Eastern countries..executing,torturing and raping as they go...because if we say stop or even dare to stop them they might turn their beady bloodlust eyes in our direction..again..and we are all sacred shitless of that happening..best to do nowt and they might just leave us alone....ooeerr

    Incredibly one of the posts I agree with most is from Watford 30

    Paraphrasing. Turns likleyhood of attack from within from pretty likely to certain.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Scott_P said:

    @SpecCoffeeHouse: Hilary Benn didn’t see Corbyn’s Commons speech on Syria before he gave it, reports @IsabelHardman https://t.co/MlQQ0ZAaHy

    To be fair, there wasn't much of a speech to see.
  • tysontyson Posts: 4,388
    Listen anyone with remotely half a brain cell does not want to immerse themselves in the Syrian conflict if they can bloody well stay out. It is the most complicated conflict imaginable. Between Assad, the Kurds, The Turks, Iran, Hezbollah, the Islamist freedom fighters, ISIS, and now the Russians, and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all...what the fuck do we want to get our name on this roll call of utter nihilism between warring factions. Grow up people.

    Scott_P said:

    @DPJHodges: On last week's Question Time Andy Burnham said we'd need a UN resolution for him to back Syria action. We get one. He opposes Syria action.

    They don't call him Andy Flip Flop for nothing.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,844
    TOPPING 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.
    Apart from what the Islington & District Stop the War Branch (Upper St faction) says, do you have any idea what the Islamists want?

    Do you have any idea what Wahhab, Qutb, Azzam, Faraj, Bin Laden and on and on and on actually want?

    I am a long way from saying that every Muslim is an Islamist but every Islamist, notably the ones named above, want something that would shock and revolt you down to your pure, untrammeled, idealistic left wing core.
    Yes I agree 100%

    If you know how to get rid of them I am all ears
  • This has been a fascinating discussion on here tonight.
    While the Arab strongmen of Saddam, Gadaffi and Assad may be utter vile scumbags.
    It would have been better to have kept them in place and tried to curb their worst excesses, Benghazi etc. As the alternatives are sooo much worse.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited November 2015

    I bet you were in favour of other interventions that have made the problem worse

    Unless you have some privileged insight that enables you to see exactly how an alternative reality would play out, you really have no clue whether things are better or worse.

    What we can see now is how 2013 non-intervention has played out. It's been a failure. That's why the thing is being discussed again.

    We have no way of knowing whether the alternative path would have been more successful; we just know non-intervention has failed.

  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    edited November 2015
    Alistair said:

    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


    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 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.
    Seems to me most ISIS attacks have been carried out by people from the country they attack, not the Syrians we are about to bomb.

    The problem is mass immigration leading to ghettoization, leading to segregated societies, leading to terrorism. Utterly predictable mistakes made and compounded by every government from 1968 to the present day, when immigration figures are at an all time high

    The problem will not go away until we somehow decrease the amount of muslims in the country. As most were born here and are notionally as English as anyone else, the only way to do that is to disallow Islamic churches, dress and traditions and hope they buy into western values and disavow Islam, or go elsewhere

    Maybe it will hurt the feelings of some British Muslims, but Syrian Muslims are going to get killed if we go down the other route
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,844
    watford30 said:

    Chris_A said:

    Probably as successful as the "efficiency savings" at HMRC will be at raising revenue

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34933962

    Genius. Still, HMG is only £70 million down on the deal, and all the naughty drivers get a letter.
    2 things I agree with in one day.

    This can't last!!
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    HPG Hindsight is a wonderful gift..
  • glwglw Posts: 4,236

    Scott_P said:

    @DPJHodges: On last week's Question Time Andy Burnham said we'd need a UN resolution for him to back Syria action. We get one. He opposes Syria action.

    They don't call him Andy Flip Flop for nothing.
    Hmmm maybe Labour didn't choose the worst option.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,238
    edited November 2015

    TOPPING 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.
    Apart from what the Islington & District Stop the War Branch (Upper St faction) says, do you have any idea what the Islamists want?

    Do you have any idea what Wahhab, Qutb, Azzam, Faraj, Bin Laden and on and on and on actually want?

    I am a long way from saying that every Muslim is an Islamist but every Islamist, notably the ones named above, want something that would shock and revolt you down to your pure, untrammeled, idealistic left wing core.
    Yes I agree 100%

    If you know how to get rid of them I am all ears
    You don't sit cowering in London hoping it will all go away.

    There is simply not the political or public will to put the necessary 400,000 troops on the ground. So bombing will have to do to show their actions are not without consequence.

    Be clear - Iraq? Cataclysmically wrong-headed. Afghan? I understand 1st time round, 2006? Nope. Libya? No.

    But this is different BJO. This is no rules. Saddam had rules, the Taliban had rules, Qaddafi had rules. IS have none. In a world of least dreadful alternatives, bombing IS to show we want to inhibit and interdict them, is the least of least dreadful alternatives.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    BJO If you think there will be no future attacks in the UK from Isis nutjobs..whether we bomb them or not..means you are a total fool..they are here and they will attack..not if..but when..
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,844

    This has been a fascinating discussion on here tonight.
    While the Arab strongmen of Saddam, Gadaffi and Assad may be utter vile scumbags.
    It would have been better to have kept them in place and tried to curb their worst excesses, Benghazi etc. As the alternatives are sooo much worse.

    Chestnut doesn't agree.

    Apparently such a rapid deterioration might have happened anyway!!
  • glwglw Posts: 4,236

    Paraphrasing. Turns likleyhood of attack from within from pretty likely to certain.

    7 terrorist attacks have been disrupted this year. It's highly likely that IS have already tried to attack us at home.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,441
    @georgeeaton: Even before Labour's disaster movie has finished they've commissioned the sequel: Trident.
  • tyson said:

    Listen anyone with remotely half a brain cell does not want to immerse themselves in the Syrian conflict if they can bloody well stay out. It is the most complicated conflict imaginable. Between Assad, the Kurds, The Turks, Iran, Hezbollah, the Islamist freedom fighters, ISIS, and now the Russians, and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all...what the fuck do we want to get our name on this roll call of utter nihilism between warring factions. Grow up people.

    The fatal problem with that otherwise sensible viewpoint is that we are already immersed in it - ISIS are coming to attack us, whether we like it or not. And that's without even considering the impact of the refugee crisis.
  • tysontyson Posts: 4,388
    It would be really quite nice to be as stupid as you are.

    I think BJO is correct .. we must not bomb ISIS..We must step back from trying to stop their barbaric and savage sweep across the Middle Eastern countries..executing,torturing and raping as they go...because if we say stop or even dare to stop them they might turn their beady bloodlust eyes in our direction..again..and we are all sacred shitless of that happening..best to do nowt and they might just leave us alone....ooeerr

  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,208
    There is a strange, indeed farcical parallel between what is happening to Islam with ISIS (we alone are true to Islam, all others are non-believers) and what is happening to the Labour party with the left wing (we alone are true Labour, all others are Tories).
    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    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.

    Surely their narrative is more subtle than that? After all, they're killing orders of magnitude more Muslims than Christians.

    Some of what we are seeing is a battle for the 'soul' of Islam, and one that has soured the religion almost since the prophet's death. They want their version of Islam to be dominant, and many see Muslims who disagree as worse than Christians. It even transcends the Sunni and Shia split.

    Apparently they also really hate apostate Muslims who have adopted western ways. If I remember correctly, one of their arguments to persuade people to move to their 'caliphate' is that it is impossible to be a true Muslim in the west. The only place you can be is in the caliphate, so you must move there.

    For this reason, I wonder if an ISIS-inspired atrocity might occur in a mosque in this country.
    In ISIS's version of reality ISIS's version of Islam is the only true Islam. Muslims who don't subscribe to their death cult views are lumped in with the Crusaders.

    EDIT: Indeed they have a series of videos for Syrian refugees asking, demanding and cajoling thme to come to the Caliphate rather than the West where they will be forced or paid to covert to Christianity, beaten etc.
  • HPG Hindsight is a wonderful gift..

    I'm not claiming hindsight. We are where we are.
    So, the sensible solution (IMV) is to keep Assad in place, with a suitable Kurdish enclave in the North.
    And to make sure he knows that if he does anything daft like using CW again, we will bomb the bejesus out of him.
    And not to encourage the overthrow of any other Arab strongmen again.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    I never believed that I would see this on the front page of the FT:
    Refugees "Stem flow of migrants to EU or risk fate of the Roman empire"

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUw8O5wWEAAd5Uj.jpg


    Those guys where super pro-immigrant.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,844
    edited November 2015
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING 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.
    Apart from what the Islington & District Stop the War Branch (Upper St faction) says, do you have any idea what the Islamists want?

    Do you have any idea what Wahhab, Qutb, Azzam, Faraj, Bin Laden and on and on and on actually want?

    I am a long way from saying that every Muslim is an Islamist but every Islamist, notably the ones named above, want something that would shock and revolt you down to your pure, untrammeled, idealistic left wing core.
    Yes I agree 100%

    If you know how to get rid of them I am all ears
    You don't sit cowering in London hoping it will all go away.

    There is simply not the political or public will to put the necessary 400,000 troops on the ground. So bombing will have to do to show their actions are not without consequence.

    Be clear - Iraq? Cataclysmically wrong-headed. Afghan? I understand 1st time round, 2006? Nope. Libya? No.

    But this is different BJO. This is no rules. Saddam had rules, the Taliban had rules, Qaddafi had rules. IS have none. In a world of least dreadful alternatives, bombing IS to show we want to inhibit and interdict them, is the least of least dreadful alternatives.
    What the consequence of being a member of IS is death.

    That will cut out the middleman I suppose.

    I just think will create tens of thousands of new Suicide Bombers from those already in the non muslim countries.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Saddam's CV included gassing Kurds, firing Scuds at Israel, war with Iran, invading Kuwait.

    The probability of him sitting back at home and spending his time listening to Val Doonican records seems pretty low.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,238
    edited November 2015
    AnneJGP said:

    There is a strange, indeed farcical parallel between what is happening to Islam with ISIS (we alone are true to Islam, all others are non-believers) and what is happening to the Labour party with the left wing (we alone are true Labour, all others are Tories).

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    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.

    Surely their narrative is more subtle than that? After all, they're killing orders of magnitude more Muslims than Christians.

    Some of what we are seeing is a battle for the 'soul' of Islam, and one that has soured the religion almost since the prophet's death. They want their version of Islam to be dominant, and many see Muslims who disagree as worse than Christians. It even transcends the Sunni and Shia split.

    Apparently they also really hate apostate Muslims who have adopted western ways. If I remember correctly, one of their arguments to persuade people to move to their 'caliphate' is that it is impossible to be a true Muslim in the west. The only place you can be is in the caliphate, so you must move there.

    For this reason, I wonder if an ISIS-inspired atrocity might occur in a mosque in this country.
    In ISIS's version of reality ISIS's version of Islam is the only true Islam. Muslims who don't subscribe to their death cult views are lumped in with the Crusaders.

    EDIT: Indeed they have a series of videos for Syrian refugees asking, demanding and cajoling thme to come to the Caliphate rather than the West where they will be forced or paid to covert to Christianity, beaten etc.
    Amazingly, because it smacks of something akin to Godwin's law, and hence I was reluctant to mention it, there is absolutely a parallel. It has struck me also of late.

    Jezza is fighting against the Jahiliyya.
  • In ISIS world, all Muslim's are most certainly not alike. Not just the ones they don't class as Muslims, but they class those from Africa and Asia as tainted / inferior Muslims. Arabs, or those of Arab descent, are the only true Muslims.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Artist said:

    I'm not sure this split with Corbyn will enhance Benn's leadership prospects, if the majority of Labour membership don't support air strikes, they're not going to look favourably on Benn effectively backing Cameron over Corbyn on this issue. Also if things go wrong in Syria after the vote is won, Benn is done for.

    I agree, Benn is done for.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited November 2015
    Tyson ..even stupidity is seemingly well beyond your abilities.....
  • 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.
    Agree.

    And those "we won't make a difference" arguers don't appreciate the difference between Russian dumb bombs and British smart ones - the French in particular are keen for us to join in - Daesh needs decapitating - we can help minimising collateral damage.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,844
    In other news Net Immigration reaches record levels today.

    Great
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    glw said:

    Paraphrasing. Turns likleyhood of attack from within from pretty likely to certain.

    7 terrorist attacks have been disrupted this year. It's highly likely that IS have already tried to attack us at home.
    And you know this for sure?

  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited November 2015
    chestnut said:

    Saddam's CV included gassing Kurds, firing Scuds at Israel, war with Iran, invading Kuwait.

    The probability of him sitting back at home and spending his time listening to Val Doonican records seems pretty low.

    He didn't do a single thing from 1991 till 2003.
    We actually supported and encouraged the gassing of the kurds and the war with Iran.
  • Do we believe that Labour shadow cabinet will really discover a backbone? Or lots of muttering and in the end they bend over and take it from Jahadi Jez and McMao.
  • New Thread New Thread
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,420
    Artist said:

    I'm not sure this split with Corbyn will enhance Benn's leadership prospects, if the majority of Labour membership don't support air strikes, they're not going to look favourably on Benn effectively backing Cameron over Corbyn on this issue. Also if things go wrong in Syria after the vote is won, Benn is done for.

    Benn has said he only supports airstrikes with the UN's approval and other potential replacements would be more hawklike than him, he would, of course, only become leader unopposed as Michael Howard was, the membership would not be consulted
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    tyson said:

    Listen anyone with remotely half a brain cell does not want to immerse themselves in the Syrian conflict if they can bloody well stay out. It is the most complicated conflict imaginable. Between Assad, the Kurds, The Turks, Iran, Hezbollah, the Islamist freedom fighters, ISIS, and now the Russians, and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all...what the fuck do we want to get our name on this roll call of utter nihilism between warring factions. Grow up people.

    Scott_P said:

    @DPJHodges: On last week's Question Time Andy Burnham said we'd need a UN resolution for him to back Syria action. We get one. He opposes Syria action.

    They don't call him Andy Flip Flop for nothing.
    Cameron has gone loco. Just like Blair.
  • tysontyson Posts: 4,388
    The main risk we have from ISIS is from it's allure to 2nd generation, alienated, male, nationalised Muslims, living in Brussels, or Paris, or London, Bradford or wherever being taken in by this very seductive, ideology.

    Bombing Syria is about as helpful as making chocolate teapots.

    tyson said:

    Listen anyone with remotely half a brain cell does not want to immerse themselves in the Syrian conflict if they can bloody well stay out. It is the most complicated conflict imaginable. Between Assad, the Kurds, The Turks, Iran, Hezbollah, the Islamist freedom fighters, ISIS, and now the Russians, and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all...what the fuck do we want to get our name on this roll call of utter nihilism between warring factions. Grow up people.

    The fatal problem with that otherwise sensible viewpoint is that we are already immersed in it - ISIS are coming to attack us, whether we like it or not. And that's without even considering the impact of the refugee crisis.

  • 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.
    You never have an alternative reality to compare anything to. You compare it to the past. That's what getting worse means.

    Libya is now a totally failed state. Life under Gaddafi (for all he was a sick bastard) is a cherished memory of normality. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/three-years-after-gaddafi-libya-is-imploding-into-chaos-and-violence-9194697.html

    Rather an unusual definition of success.
  • glwglw Posts: 4,236
    watford30 said:

    glw said:

    Paraphrasing. Turns likleyhood of attack from within from pretty likely to certain.

    7 terrorist attacks have been disrupted this year. It's highly likely that IS have already tried to attack us at home.
    And you know this for sure?

    If none of those plots were by IS supporters, we have an even bigger problem on our hands.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,366
    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    Saddam's CV included gassing Kurds, firing Scuds at Israel, war with Iran, invading Kuwait.

    The probability of him sitting back at home and spending his time listening to Val Doonican records seems pretty low.

    He didn't do a single thing from 1991 till 2003.
    We actually supported and encouraged the gassing of the kurds and the war with Iran.
    Well apart from the systematic and continuous harassment/attacks of the Marsh Arabs including massive scale engineering works to destroy their homeland.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,238

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING 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.



    We did nothing, yet it still happened.

    Eighteen years


    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.
    Apart from what the Islington & District Stop the War Branch (Upper St faction) says, do you have any idea what the Islamists want?

    Do you have any idea what Wahhab, Qutb, Azzam, Faraj, Bin Laden and on and on and on actually want?

    I am a long way from saying that every Muslim is an Islamist but every Islamist, notably the ones named above, want something that would shock and revolt you down to your pure, untrammeled, idealistic left wing core.
    Yes I agree 100%

    If you know how to get rid of them I am all ears
    You don't sit cowering in London hoping it will all go away.

    There is simply not the political or public will to put the necessary 400,000 troops on the ground. So bombing will have to do to show their actions are not without consequence.

    Be clear - Iraq? Cataclysmically wrong-headed. Afghan? I understand 1st time round, 2006? Nope. Libya? No.

    But this is different BJO. This is no rules. Saddam had rules, the Taliban had rules, Qaddafi had rules. IS have none. In a world of least dreadful alternatives, bombing IS to show we want to inhibit and interdict them, is the least of least dreadful alternatives.
    What the consequence of being a member of IS is death.

    That will cut out the middleman I suppose.

    I just think will create tens of thousands of new Suicide Bombers from those already in the non muslim countries.
    You really think we are at the "don't provoke them, they'll get angry" phase?

    Dear god we are well beyond that. Seriously.

    Plus, if the thought occurs to a _potential_ suicide bomber that if he heads off to Syria to fulfil his destiny he might well get blown to smithereens and hence decides not to go....well that is (10,000 - 1) and surely a good thing?
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,825

    I think BJO is correct .. we must not bomb ISIS..We must step back from trying to stop their barbaric and savage sweep across the Middle Eastern countries..executing,torturing and raping as they go...because if we say stop or even dare to stop them they might turn their beady bloodlust eyes in our direction..again..and we are all sacred shitless of that happening..best to do nowt and they might just leave us alone....ooeerr

    Incredibly one of the posts I agree with most is from Watford 30

    Paraphrasing. Turns likleyhood of attack from within from pretty likely to certain.
    Yes, you need the domestic attacks to galvanise the outrage that will defeat ISIS in the West. They have to be defeated in the EU West before we can win in the middle east.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,420
    New GOP national primary poll has Trump beating Rubio head to head

    Yougov

    Donald Trump 60% -vs- Ben Carson 40%
    Donald Trump 57% -vs- Marco Rubio 43%
    Donald Trump 57% -vs- Ted Cruz 43%
    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/11/25/new-poll-donald-trump-leads-nationally-and-easily-beats-cruz-rubio-and-carson-in-head-to-head-matchups/

    Morning Consult

    Trump 38%
    Carson 15%
    Cruz 7%
    Bush 6%
    Rubio 6%
    http://morningconsult.com/2015/11/morning-consult-campaigns-sponsored-by-bring-the-vote-home-poll-update-bernie-sanders-rock-star/


  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,913
    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    Saddam's CV included gassing Kurds, firing Scuds at Israel, war with Iran, invading Kuwait.

    The probability of him sitting back at home and spending his time listening to Val Doonican records seems pretty low.

    He didn't do a single thing from 1991 till 2003.
    We actually supported and encouraged the gassing of the kurds and the war with Iran.
    I think there's a good argument that the west turning a blind eye to Saddam's use of gas against Iran over several years, and against the Kurds, was a significant contributory factor to the mess we find ourselves in now.

    If we had dropped support for him when he first used gas, the Iran - Iraq war would probably still have ended in the stalemate it did. But Hussein would have been weakened, and he would not have been emboldened in his Kuwait venture, and GW1 would not have happened. We would not have built up more of a military presence in Saudi, and one of al Qaeda's original complaints would have been somewhat reduced.

    Then again, perhaps it would all have happened by a different route with different countries.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited November 2015
    Sometimes in life, and war, there are no good choices; just a choice between several bad ones.

    The RAF are flying past IS held Syria to bomb IS held Iraq which seems absurd. IS do not respect that line in the sand. In their eyes we are already bombing them, so the risk of them attacking us is unchanged. Not that we should fear such scumbags anyway.

    Bombing is not a resolution though, and likely to create more refugees. Also no thought as to what happens next, we should learn from past errors and start those plans now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,420
    Speedy said:

    Artist said:

    I'm not sure this split with Corbyn will enhance Benn's leadership prospects, if the majority of Labour membership don't support air strikes, they're not going to look favourably on Benn effectively backing Cameron over Corbyn on this issue. Also if things go wrong in Syria after the vote is won, Benn is done for.

    I agree, Benn is done for.
    Utter rubbish, he remains the only viable alternative and the majority of the public and even 49% of Labour voters back airstrikes
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited November 2015

    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    Saddam's CV included gassing Kurds, firing Scuds at Israel, war with Iran, invading Kuwait.

    The probability of him sitting back at home and spending his time listening to Val Doonican records seems pretty low.

    He didn't do a single thing from 1991 till 2003.
    We actually supported and encouraged the gassing of the kurds and the war with Iran.
    I think there's a good argument that the west turning a blind eye to Saddam's use of gas against Iran over several years, and against the Kurds, was a significant contributory factor to the mess we find ourselves in now.

    If we had dropped support for him when he first used gas, the Iran - Iraq war would probably still have ended in the stalemate it did. But Hussein would have been weakened, and he would not have been emboldened in his Kuwait venture, and GW1 would not have happened. We would not have built up more of a military presence in Saudi, and one of al Qaeda's original complaints would have been somewhat reduced.

    Then again, perhaps it would all have happened by a different route with different countries.
    JJ am I right in thinking you an engineer?, If so PB may need to take cover:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/17/this-is-the-group-thats-surprisingly-prone-to-violent-extremism/?postshare=8191448546733958&tid=ss_tw
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,913

    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    Saddam's CV included gassing Kurds, firing Scuds at Israel, war with Iran, invading Kuwait.

    The probability of him sitting back at home and spending his time listening to Val Doonican records seems pretty low.

    He didn't do a single thing from 1991 till 2003.
    We actually supported and encouraged the gassing of the kurds and the war with Iran.
    I think there's a good argument that the west turning a blind eye to Saddam's use of gas against Iran over several years, and against the Kurds, was a significant contributory factor to the mess we find ourselves in now.

    If we had dropped support for him when he first used gas, the Iran - Iraq war would probably still have ended in the stalemate it did. But Hussein would have been weakened, and he would not have been emboldened in his Kuwait venture, and GW1 would not have happened. We would not have built up more of a military presence in Saudi, and one of al Qaeda's original complaints would have been somewhat reduced.

    Then again, perhaps it would all have happened by a different route with different countries.
    JJ am I right in thinking you an engineer?, If so PB may need to take cover:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/17/this-is-the-group-thats-surprisingly-prone-to-violent-extremism/?postshare=8191448546733958&tid=ss_tw
    I'm technically a house-husband at the moment, but yes, I was an engineer.

    And it's been noted before - for instance I think the 9/11 ringleader had trained as an engineer.

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/11/theres-a-good-reason-why-so-many-terrorists-are-engineers/
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/05/brain-food-terrorists-engineering

    Thought PB is safe from me. As some may have noted, I believe more in greys than black and white. I'm an analogue man working in a digital world. ;)
  • tyson said:

    Listen anyone with remotely half a brain cell does not want to immerse themselves in the Syrian conflict if they can bloody well stay out. It is the most complicated conflict imaginable. Between Assad, the Kurds, The Turks, Iran, Hezbollah, the Islamist freedom fighters, ISIS, and now the Russians, and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all...what the fuck do we want to get our name on this roll call of utter nihilism between warring factions. Grow up people.

    The fatal problem with that otherwise sensible viewpoint is that we are already immersed in it - ISIS are coming to attack us, whether we like it or not. And that's without even considering the impact of the refugee crisis.
    Correct.
    In another post you criticise the invasion of Iraq. That may be moot but there is an argument to say it is true, but leaving aside WMD and the USAs desire to install democracy - if all that had been set aside, we could have probably contained any threat from Saddam by air power. We already had an extensive no fly zone to protect those rebels and it could have been intensified.
    And of course what was proposed a few years ago was such a campaign to support Syrian Rebels. Labour played politics rather than statecraft
    Since then we have seen the rise of ISIS and their de facto country. Again we have an opportunity to use air power to defeat ISIS and support rebels. But again we see the same voices mouthing the same arguments to try to stop it. Its a 3 time loser argument. We should play our part in eliminating ISIS and we should put our say forward in determining how the future is shaped and not leave it to France Russia and the USA.
This discussion has been closed.