Corbyn's spot on in Syria. Between the Turks, the Russians, Assad, Assad militia, Assad's regular army, Iran, Hezbollah, Islamist Anti Assad freedom fighters, the Kurds, Americans and French and of course Isis- all warring factions and driving the country into utter devastation, I don't quite understand what contribution the use of our six bombers would add to this carnage.
After our input into Libya which resulted in a failed state at Europe's door, a flood of weapons into Africa feeding Boko Haram, illegal poaching and crime, aswell as the creation of a migrant corridor into Italy, Cameron's hardly got a reliable reputation in his foreign policy endeavours.
Having spent his whole political life doing his own thing in his 67th year he's not going to change. He doesn't have a clue what being a party leader is all about.
Whether Corbyn goes or the party disintegrates is the question. I'd say it's too close to call. It's a pity because in this instance I prefer his solution to those who want to bomb without a plan that makes sense
We need a proper plan in Syria, one which doesn't involve removing Assad and dismantling the existing state. The plan from yesterday seems to have realised the mistakes from Iraq and Libya, but it doesn't take into account 4 years of Assad being at loggerheads with the so-called "moderate" opposition. The only way to stabilise Syria would be to wipe out all of the Islamist groups including ISIS, the Turkmen, al-Nusra, Islamic Conquest and others, put a few token FSA leaders into the Assad government and tell them to keep quiet while western aid budgets rebuild Syrian infrastructure. I'm not sure that is on the table, however, it has become clear that ISIS are a threat to us and our way of life, we can't sit on the sidelines while other nations defend our interests.
Are the Turkmen fighters Islamist?
Yes.
Evidence, please. Note 'Muslim' != 'Islamist'
Probably the best answer is 'who knows?'. At present, they arguably have a tactical interest in not directly fighting against ISIL having seen the fate of the FSA. Whether a tolerance for Islamist-inclined individuals would survive were they to establish their own enclave is another matter and an open question to which all we can reasonably say is that it might.
On a similar note, while 'Muslim' does not by any means equal 'Islamist', nor are all shades of Islamist equal.
Regarding the suggestions below that tim may be more right wing than previously thought... nonsense, he couldn't have been clearer that he considers the defeat of the Tories to be more important than everything else... he is angry, very angry, that the Labour Party no longer shares his priorities
"Salmond is probably one of those strange and vain creatures with a mirror on the ceiling above his bed."
Obviously owned my flat on Old Compton St before me. It had a mirror on the ceiling and a hole in the floor revealing the well known peep show "Pussy Galore". Needless to say not being a Lib Dem I got the builders in PDQ
A friend of mine made a similar discovery in his flat. Removed a mirror mounted on hinges in one bathroom, to discover a window with a view of his other bathroom next door, through a 2 way mirror. The suspicion is that it may been installed for the purposes of blackmail by previous owners.
There are no tricky questions here, only thickos unable to read the exam paper.
the tricky question would seem to be how do you not leave Al Qaeda in charge if you win an air campaign against IS?
Back Assad.
The Middle East is a mile away from democracy, we need brutal secular(ish) strongmen in place. It's either them or the terrorists.
sounds more realistic than backing "moderates", at least
Whilst I support the principle of bombing IS, and I feel it is an imperative to do so... (we should be doing this as a NATO action as IS have attacked France), I fear Dave and Obama are wildly optimistic regarding "post conflict planning" there.
Corbyn's spot on in Syria. Between the Turks, the Russians, Assad, Assad militia, Assad's regular army, Iran, Hezbollah, Islamist Anti Assad freedom fighters, the Kurds, Americans and French and of course Isis- all warring factions and driving the country into utter devastation, I don't quite understand what contribution the use of our six bombers would add to this carnage.
After our input into Libya which resulted in a failed state at Europe's door, a flood of weapons into Africa feeding Boko Haram, illegal poaching and crime, aswell as the creation of a migrant corridor into Italy, Cameron's hardly got a reliable reputation in his foreign policy endeavours.
Having spent his whole political life doing his own thing in his 67th year he's not going to change. He doesn't have a clue what being a party leader is all about.
Whether Corbyn goes or the party disintegrates is the question. I'd say it's too close to call. It's a pity because in this instance I prefer his solution to those who want to bomb without a plan that makes sense
How should we respond to the French request for our assistance? We can, of course, refuse, but it would be a pretty huge rebuff.
Moreover, we need British defence capabilities to win this war. The Royal Air Force is already in action over Iraq. Its involvement over Syria would make a practical difference. The RAF has significant capabilities for precision airstrikes, aerial reconnaissance and air-to-air refuelling support. On a daily basis, its Tornado aircraft and unmanned drones are causing very severe damage to Isis in Iraq. The use of these capabilities over Syria would put additional and extreme pressure on the Isis terror network.
Of course it is not a slam-dunk argument for going to war that our allies are asking us to, but I think we need to take the French request very seriously. Are we going to stand aside from a concerted international attempt to destroy the IS proto-state and limit our contribution to the singing of anthems?
Corbyn's spot on in Syria. Between the Turks, the Russians, Assad, Assad militia, Assad's regular army, Iran, Hezbollah, Islamist Anti Assad freedom fighters, the Kurds, Americans and French and of course Isis- all warring factions and driving the country into utter devastation, I don't quite understand what contribution the use of our six bombers would add to this carnage.
After our input into Libya which resulted in a failed state at Europe's door, a flood of weapons into Africa feeding Boko Haram, illegal poaching and crime, aswell as the creation of a migrant corridor into Italy, Cameron's hardly got a reliable reputation in his foreign policy endeavours.
Having spent his whole political life doing his own thing in his 67th year he's not going to change. He doesn't have a clue what being a party leader is all about.
Whether Corbyn goes or the party disintegrates is the question. I'd say it's too close to call. It's a pity because in this instance I prefer his solution to those who want to bomb without a plan that makes sense
We need a proper plan in Syria, one which doesn't involve removing Assad and dismantling the existing state. The plan from yesterday seems to have realised the mistakes from Iraq and Libya, but it doesn't take into account 4 years of Assad being at loggerheads with the so-called "moderate" opposition. The only way to stabilise Syria would be to wipe out all of the Islamist groups including ISIS, the Turkmen, al-Nusra, Islamic Conquest and others, put a few token FSA leaders into the Assad government and tell them to keep quiet while western aid budgets rebuild Syrian infrastructure. I'm not sure that is on the table, however, it has become clear that ISIS are a threat to us and our way of life, we can't sit on the sidelines while other nations defend our interests.
I'd suggest your dislike (or hatred) of Turkey is getting the better of your usual good judgement. There's many good reasons to criticise Turkey and especially Erdogan, but now you're just being silly.
There are no tricky questions here, only thickos unable to read the exam paper.
the tricky question would seem to be how do you not leave Al Qaeda in charge if you win an air campaign against IS?
Back Assad.
The Middle East is a mile away from democracy, we need brutal secular(ish) strongmen in place. It's either them or the terrorists.
sounds more realistic than backing "moderates", at least
Whilst I support the principle of bombing IS, and I feel it is an imperative to do so... (we should be doing this as a NATO action as IS have attacked France), I fear Dave and Obama are wildly optimistic regarding "post conflict planning" there.
Incredibly so. There is only one clear path to a stable Syria (one to which we could send all the refugees back) and it does require us to eliminate all Islamist opposition to Assad and install a few "moderates" to his government and start an election countdown clock in which Assad must be allowed to stand with heavy international oversight.
Am I the only one hoping for some good news for Labour to come up? Quite apart from the need for a decent opposition, it is just getting a bit boring at the moment. Perhaps McDonnell could go on holiday for 2 weeks or something to limit the damage for a time at least.
There are no tricky questions here, only thickos unable to read the exam paper.
the tricky question would seem to be how do you not leave Al Qaeda in charge if you win an air campaign against IS?
Back Assad.
The Middle East is a mile away from democracy, we need brutal secular(ish) strongmen in place. It's either them or the terrorists.
sounds more realistic than backing "moderates", at least
Whilst I support the principle of bombing IS, and I feel it is an imperative to do so... (we should be doing this as a NATO action as IS have attacked France), I fear Dave and Obama are wildly optimistic regarding "post conflict planning" there.
As we're already doing it in Iraq I guess we might as well extend it if only through solidarity with France. But I hope to god that someone is doing the hard thinking/planning on this
I've said all along that Corbyn is actually good for the Labour party. He's going to destroy it in it's current form, and I think something far more electable will come out of it.
Sure we should bomb the bastards in Syria. But we do need a coherent strategy overall in the WoT. And that means we need to recognise and admit who our real enemies are. As a starter for 10 I'd put these on the list: 1. Active IS fighters - bit of a no brainer 2. The IS support community - for example nobody goes to Raqqa unless they have a basically evil intent. All the 'Jihadi wives', fellow travellers - the lot - are legitimate military targets 3. Saudi Arabia - they fund fundamental Wahhabi Islamism on a huge scale. Yet the west sells tham military kit and pretends they are not what they are. Insane. 4. Qatar - Awash in LNG money and funding and promoting our enemies. Deeply unpleasant and corrupt (not just football!). Yet, as per Saudi Arabia, we shamefully pretend otherwise. 5. Turkey - They protect and support IS. They buy their oil, and thus fund them too. They actively thwart the Kurds in their fight against IS. During the minute's silence for Paris a recent Turkish football crowd at an international game spent the whole minute shouting Allahu Akbar at the top of their voices. We should see them for what they are too. Muslims whose heart is not with us. Or their money. Or their army. WTF are they doing in NATO?
So...I fear we'll not man up to the job we actually face against an unrelenting, un-negotiable-with, unfeeling, medieval monster. Let's smash the monster - not just its outer tentacles.
Would you bomb Mecca?
Is Patrick saying that the Turkish government is supporting the same terrorist movement that has only recently blown up 100 people in its own capital city? That it is in effect paying terrorists to kill its own citizens?
Mr. Royale, when I was doing Religious Studies (which often veered off into unrelated but interesting areas), 'mankind' was deemed by some, the teacher stated, to be sexist. why 'huMANkind' was seen to be better was beyond me.
F1: Raikkonen had a brief MGU-K issue. Worth perhaps remembering in case it flares up during the race.
But JackW- our enemy, ISIS, do not want us to do nothing. Why do they commit these atrocities? They want us to do something, they really want Kafir countries to bomb them. Bombing them fuels their JIHAD, drives up recruitment and funds, and spreads this damned horrible ideology better than any other strategy they could use. Bombing them, or better even still invading them, is what they want.
Corbyn's spot on in Syria. Between the Turks, the Russians, Assad, Assad militia, Assad's regular army, Iran, Hezbollah, Islamist Anti Assad freedom fighters, the Kurds, Americans and French and of course Isis- all warring factions and driving the country into utter devastation, I don't quite understand what contribution the use of our six bombers would add to this carnage.
After our input into Libya which resulted in a failed state at Europe's door, a flood of weapons into Africa feeding Boko Haram, illegal poaching and crime, aswell as the creation of a migrant corridor into Italy, Cameron's hardly got a reliable reputation in his foreign policy endeavours.
Having spent his whole political life doing his own thing in his 67th year he's not going to change. He doesn't have a clue what being a party leader is all about.
Whether Corbyn goes or the party disintegrates is the question. I'd say it's too close to call. It's a pity because in this instance I prefer his solution to those who want to bomb without a plan that makes sense
There are no easy or risk free options here.
Either the UK contributes militarily to the efforts to defeat ISIS in Syria or we rely on others to take the full burden whilst our citizens are beheaded in the middle east or murdered in overseas tourist attractions like Tunisia and potentially face a Paris like outrage in the UK.
In my view the do nothing situation in Syria is the worst of several extremely unenviable prospects.
Labour aren't so much jumping the shark or nuking the fridge, as putting the shark in the fridge and then nuking it whilst the Fonz water-skis over the mushroom cloud.
I wonder if it's possible to read too much into the cancellation of Corbyn's visit. If any other party leader cancelled a visit to a seat they were defending you'd say that was evidence they expected to lose but with Corbyn it could be anything. Maybe the date clashed with the Friends of Hamas Bring & Buy Sale.
Corbyn's spot on in Syria. Between the Turks, the Russians, Assad, Assad militia, Assad's regular army, Iran, Hezbollah, Islamist Anti Assad freedom fighters, the Kurds, Americans and French and of course Isis- all warring factions and driving the country into utter devastation, I don't quite understand what contribution the use of our six bombers would add to this carnage.
After our input into Libya which resulted in a failed state at Europe's door, a flood of weapons into Africa feeding Boko Haram, illegal poaching and crime, aswell as the creation of a migrant corridor into Italy, Cameron's hardly got a reliable reputation in his foreign policy endeavours.
Having spent his whole political life doing his own thing in his 67th year he's not going to change. He doesn't have a clue what being a party leader is all about.
Whether Corbyn goes or the party disintegrates is the question. I'd say it's too close to call. It's a pity because in this instance I prefer his solution to those who want to bomb without a plan that makes sense
How should we respond to the French request for our assistance? We can, of course, refuse, but it would be a pretty huge rebuff.
Moreover, we need British defence capabilities to win this war. The Royal Air Force is already in action over Iraq. Its involvement over Syria would make a practical difference. The RAF has significant capabilities for precision airstrikes, aerial reconnaissance and air-to-air refuelling support. On a daily basis, its Tornado aircraft and unmanned drones are causing very severe damage to Isis in Iraq. The use of these capabilities over Syria would put additional and extreme pressure on the Isis terror network.
Of course it is not a slam-dunk argument for going to war that our allies are asking us to, but I think we need to take the French request very seriously. Are we going to stand aside from a concerted international attempt to destroy the IS proto-state and limit our contribution to the singing of anthems?
No, just because our allies are doing it does not make it a good reason in itself.
What I have yet to hear is why it is appropriate to degrade Daesh in Iraq, but not in Syria - and Cameron made very clear yesterday - this is about ISIS......we need to finish that job and expunge the caliphate. After that - who knows - but "doing nothing" is almost certainly worse than standing idly by.....
Corbyn's spot on in Syria. Between the Turks, the Russians, Assad, Assad militia, Assad's regular army, Iran, Hezbollah, Islamist Anti Assad freedom fighters, the Kurds, Americans and French and of course Isis- all warring factions and driving the country into utter devastation, I don't quite understand what contribution the use of our six bombers would add to this carnage.
After our input into Libya which resulted in a failed state at Europe's door, a flood of weapons into Africa feeding Boko Haram, illegal poaching and crime, aswell as the creation of a migrant corridor into Italy, Cameron's hardly got a reliable reputation in his foreign policy endeavours.
Having spent his whole political life doing his own thing in his 67th year he's not going to change. He doesn't have a clue what being a party leader is all about.
Whether Corbyn goes or the party disintegrates is the question. I'd say it's too close to call. It's a pity because in this instance I prefer his solution to those who want to bomb without a plan that makes sense
We need a proper plan in Syria, one which doesn't involve removing Assad and dismantling the existing state. The plan from yesterday seems to have realised the mistakes from Iraq and Libya, but it doesn't take into account 4 years of Assad being at loggerheads with the so-called "moderate" opposition. The only way to stabilise Syria would be to wipe out all of the Islamist groups including ISIS, the Turkmen, al-Nusra, Islamic Conquest and others, put a few token FSA leaders into the Assad government and tell them to keep quiet while western aid budgets rebuild Syrian infrastructure. I'm not sure that is on the table, however, it has become clear that ISIS are a threat to us and our way of life, we can't sit on the sidelines while other nations defend our interests.
I'd suggest your dislike (or hatred) of Turkey is getting the better of your usual good judgement. There's many good reasons to criticise Turkey and especially Erdogan, but now you're just being silly.
They are the same group. I suggest you actually read the Wiki you linked.
@KerryMP: Shouldn't say fishermen but "fishers" sounds wrong as a gender neutral alternative?
Chairmen is another one.
Why does this shit matter? No-one complains about human.
Happy to agree with you there. Actually I think 'man' is a gender neutral suffix, but I cannot be bothered to go a dig up my past links to to that subject to get at the original male prefix. Does it have an Anglo Saxon root? Cannot remember.
Am I the only one hoping for some good news for Labour to come up? Quite apart from the need for a decent opposition, it is just getting a bit boring at the moment. Perhaps McDonnell could go on holiday for 2 weeks or something to limit the damage for a time at least.
Mr. Tyson, Daesh want to spread the idea of Islam versus The Rest.
However, if Daesh lose their land, that is the worst thing that could happen for them because they become losers, and therefore less attractive to maniacs.
Erdogan's priority is keeping the Kurds in check. Neither the Kurds nor Turkey pose an existential threat to the UK, that is a dispute (Unlike Daesh) where diplomacy really must be the correct course.
Keeping Turkey in the NATO tent is probably correct too, but making it very clear to them that it is a DEFENCE, not an adventurism alliance.
But JackW- our enemy, ISIS, do not want us to do nothing. Why do they commit these atrocities? They want us to do something, they really want Kafir countries to bomb them. Bombing them fuels their JIHAD, drives up recruitment and funds, and spreads this damned horrible ideology better than any other strategy they could use. Bombing them, or better even still invading them, is what they want.
Corbyn's spot on in Syria. Between the Turks, the Russians, Assad, Assad militia, Assad's regular army, Iran, Hezbollah, Islamist Anti Assad freedom fighters, the Kurds, Americans and French and of course Isis- all warring factions and driving the country into utter devastation, I don't quite understand what contribution the use of our six bombers would add to this carnage.
After our input into Libya which resulted in a failed state at Europe's door, a flood of weapons into Africa feeding Boko Haram, illegal poaching and crime, aswell as the creation of a migrant corridor into Italy, Cameron's hardly got a reliable reputation in his foreign policy endeavours.
Having spent his whole political life doing his own thing in his 67th year he's not going to change. He doesn't have a clue what being a party leader is all about.
Whether Corbyn goes or the party disintegrates is the question. I'd say it's too close to call. It's a pity because in this instance I prefer his solution to those who want to bomb without a plan that makes sense
There are no easy or risk free options here.
Either the UK contributes militarily to the efforts to defeat ISIS in Syria or we rely on others to take the full burden whilst our citizens are beheaded in the middle east or murdered in overseas tourist attractions like Tunisia and potentially face a Paris like outrage in the UK.
In my view the do nothing situation in Syria is the worst of several extremely unenviable prospects.
I think IS really don't want a *successful* military campaign against them. Their mystique is bound up with actually controlling territory, which allows them to claim that they have reestablished the Caliphate.
F1: minor thing, but the red is missing from the Williams' livery on Massa's car. I wonder if that's due to Martini not being necessarily a good fit for the culture of Abu Dhabi.
About 2,000 Turkmen are thought to be fighting forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as part of the rebel Free Syrian Army, according to Abdurrahman Mustafa, head of the Syrian Turkmen Assembly in Ankara. Turkey supports the FSA in its efforts to topple Assad, who has been bolstered by Russia’s military intervention on his behalf. QUICKTAKE Turkey's Continental Divide Turkmen are also combating the Islamic State group in Syria, and are said to be poised for a ground offensive to retake strategic crossings on the Turkish-Syrian frontier. The majority of Turkmen are moderate Sunni, though some are said to be close to al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda’s local affiliate in Syria. Last weekend marked an escalation in the conflict for Turkmen, with 1,500 of them fleeing to the Turkish border on Sunday amid Russian air raids in the northwest of Syria. Turkey’s Foreign Ministry summoned the Russian ambassador and said that bombing Turkmen villages isn’t part of the fight against terrorism and should cease, according to reports. A Turkmen commander told local news agencies that his people were facing “a human tragedy.”
Erdogan's priority is keeping the Kurds in check. Neither the Kurds nor Turkey pose an existential threat to the UK, that is a dispute (Unlike Daesh) where diplomacy really must be the correct course.
Keeping Turkey in the NATO tent is probably correct too, but making it very clear to them that it is a DEFENCE, not an adventurism alliance.
If Erdogan keeps funding al-Nusra and his pet Turkmen then how is it possible for us to keep Turkey in NATO? They are funding jihadists who want to destroy us and our way of life. If Turkey cuts off the funding and stops allowing ISIS oil to be sold under the radar in their markets then sure, keep them in NATO, but right now they are absolutely working against the interests of the majority of NATO nations and trying to drag us into a conflict with Russia who have been bombing al-Nusra and the TIP both of which have been armed and funded by Erdogan.
There are no tricky questions here, only thickos unable to read the exam paper.
the tricky question would seem to be how do you not leave Al Qaeda in charge if you win an air campaign against IS?
Back Assad.
The Middle East is a mile away from democracy, we need brutal secular(ish) strongmen in place. It's either them or the terrorists.
sounds more realistic than backing "moderates", at least
Whilst I support the principle of bombing IS, and I feel it is an imperative to do so... (we should be doing this as a NATO action as IS have attacked France), I fear Dave and Obama are wildly optimistic regarding "post conflict planning" there.
As we're already doing it in Iraq I guess we might as well extend it if only through solidarity with France. But I hope to god that someone is doing the hard thinking/planning on this
Yes, but all plans go wrong. Obvious I know, but that should not stop us having 'a' plan and getting on with it and adapting as we go. Being a group of countries makes it more difficult as we may end up with several plans... Simply worrying about an outcome should not stop you aiming to achieve it once you set it against the consequences of doing nothing.
This vote on bombing 'Syria' is quite different from the one in 2013. Then we wished to support rebels against Assad who was carpet bombing and gassing civilians. We are proposing to bomb ISIS whose evil flourished because we did not support those legitimate rebels in the first place.
Some sort of 'realpolitik' will have to come out of what we must hope is a post ISIS age.
Erdogan's priority is keeping the Kurds in check. Neither the Kurds nor Turkey pose an existential threat to the UK, that is a dispute (Unlike Daesh) where diplomacy really must be the correct course.
Keeping Turkey in the NATO tent is probably correct too, but making it very clear to them that it is a DEFENCE, not an adventurism alliance.
If Erdogan keeps funding al-Nusra and his pet Turkmen then how is it possible for us to keep Turkey in NATO? They are funding jihadists who want to destroy us and our way of life. If Turkey cuts off the funding and stops allowing ISIS oil to be sold under the radar in their markets then sure, keep them in NATO, but right now they are absolutely working against the interests of the majority of NATO nations and trying to drag us into a conflict with Russia who have been bombing al-Nusra and the TIP both of which have been armed and funded by Erdogan.
Youi need to have a care on your attacks on Salmond. They look like rebounding rather badly. For a start he was in his place at FMQs in the Scottish Parliament during the Syria statement as you very well know.
What I know from the Paliamentary Bulletin was that the Scottish Parliament war memorial reception for veterans and armed forces which Salmond was hosting was not an evening reception but straight after decision time at 5pm. They all had their picture taken beside the newly restored Caledonian Memorial. Lots of MSPS and Ministers pictured but only ONE ie ONE in total from Labour, Tory and Liberal combined.
So the rest of the unionist MSPs who attacked Salmond for not being in London could not be bothered to walk 50 yards ie 50 yards to honour the fallen from previous conflict!
Corbyn's spot on in Syria. Between the Turks, the Russians, Assad, Assad militia, Assad's regular army, Iran, Hezbollah, Islamist Anti Assad freedom fighters, the Kurds, Americans and French and of course Isis- all warring factions and driving the country into utter devastation, I don't quite understand what contribution the use of our six bombers would add to this carnage.
After our input into Libya which resulted in a failed state at Europe's door, a flood of weapons into Africa feeding Boko Haram, illegal poaching and crime, aswell as the creation of a migrant corridor into Italy, Cameron's hardly got a reliable reputation in his foreign policy endeavours.
Having spent his whole political life doing his own thing in his 67th year he's not going to change. He doesn't have a clue what being a party leader is all about.
Whether Corbyn goes or the party disintegrates is the question. I'd say it's too close to call. It's a pity because in this instance I prefer his solution to those who want to bomb without a plan that makes sense
How should we respond to the French request for our assistance? We can, of course, refuse, but it would be a pretty huge rebuff.
Moreover, we need British defence capabilities to win this war. The Royal Air Force is already in action over Iraq. Its involvement over Syria would make a practical difference. The RAF has significant capabilities for precision airstrikes, aerial reconnaissance and air-to-air refuelling support. On a daily basis, its Tornado aircraft and unmanned drones are causing very severe damage to Isis in Iraq. The use of these capabilities over Syria would put additional and extreme pressure on the Isis terror network.
Of course it is not a slam-dunk argument for going to war that our allies are asking us to, but I think we need to take the French request very seriously. Are we going to stand aside from a concerted international attempt to destroy the IS proto-state and limit our contribution to the singing of anthems?
I do not think we should stand aside, and really all we should be doing is telling parliament not asking it.
Last week was nowhere close to the worst week in Labour's history. This week has surpassed it in so many ways. To incompetence has been added a suite of new qualities.
Not just evasion but deception. Not mere stupidity but malice. Not only misjudgement but the celebration of mass murderers. Labour's performance this week has been so grotesque that each day has been more damaging than the whole of last week. Not just that – there has been a crescendo of craziness. Every day has been twice as bad as the day before – it has been a true tour de force. In one way, all one can do is rise to one's feet shouting "Bravo! Author, Author!"
Doesn't seem the media are very interested in the Times revelations about McMao. Imagine if a major politician was have found to have stood up and espoused support for ISIS....
Ruth's crowdfunder is still open for any PBers wishing to put a bit money behind the Scottish Tory surge. Largest donation to date was £1,000 from Louise Mench:
Erdogan's priority is keeping the Kurds in check. Neither the Kurds nor Turkey pose an existential threat to the UK, that is a dispute (Unlike Daesh) where diplomacy really must be the correct course.
Keeping Turkey in the NATO tent is probably correct too, but making it very clear to them that it is a DEFENCE, not an adventurism alliance.
If Erdogan keeps funding al-Nusra and his pet Turkmen then how is it possible for us to keep Turkey in NATO? They are funding jihadists who want to destroy us and our way of life. If Turkey cuts off the funding and stops allowing ISIS oil to be sold under the radar in their markets then sure, keep them in NATO, but right now they are absolutely working against the interests of the majority of NATO nations and trying to drag us into a conflict with Russia who have been bombing al-Nusra and the TIP both of which have been armed and funded by Erdogan.
Time for your tinfoil hat.
Time for you to get real about Turkey's despicable role in this. Your blind defence of Turkey is just become sad and desperate. Erdogan has turned a secular and relatively peaceful nation into one that supports and exports terror. It is a sad decline, one which you must come to terms with.
"Salmond is probably one of those strange and vain creatures with a mirror on the ceiling above his bed."
Obviously owned my flat on Old Compton St before me. It had a mirror on the ceiling and a hole in the floor revealing the well known peep show "Pussy Galore". Needless to say not being a Lib Dem I got the builders in PDQ
A friend of mine made a similar discovery in his flat. Removed a mirror mounted on hinges in one bathroom, to discover a window with a view of his other bathroom next door, through a 2 way mirror. The suspicion is that it may been installed for the purposes of blackmail by previous owners.
Are we really to believe this? '2 way mirrors' -- which rely in specific lighting conditions I believe? - and in steamed up bathrooms? And then you sell up and leave them there??
Regarding the suggestions below that tim may be more right wing than previously thought... nonsense, he couldn't have been clearer that he considers the defeat of the Tories to be more important than everything else... he is angry, very angry, that the Labour Party no longer shares his priorities
Tim does have issues. I thought he had a family to focus on?
"Salmond is probably one of those strange and vain creatures with a mirror on the ceiling above his bed."
Obviously owned my flat on Old Compton St before me. It had a mirror on the ceiling and a hole in the floor revealing the well known peep show "Pussy Galore". Needless to say not being a Lib Dem I got the builders in PDQ
A friend of mine made a similar discovery in his flat. Removed a mirror mounted on hinges in one bathroom, to discover a window with a view of his other bathroom next door, through a 2 way mirror. The suspicion is that it may been installed for the purposes of blackmail by previous owners.
Are we really to believe this? '2 way mirrors' -- which rely in specific lighting conditions I believe? - and in steamed up bathrooms? And then you sell up and leave them there??
A friend of mine was looking into the toilet in his flat. He noticed a chink of light in the U bend. On closer inspection and by removing the bowl, he discovered a small periscope and evidence of scuba diving gear in the soil pipe.
Strikes me that Labour may well be losing the right on vote if a whole bunch of the shadow cabinet push for war. Meanwhile losing the WWC with Corbyn's actions.
Those immigration numbers will surely have boosted UKIP too.
Yes. If there is money to be made from the war (or a need for goods), some people will do so, whoever they have to deal with.
The one thing people are missing in all this is like many civil wars, there are many groups, including small ones, fighting. Some form up into firm alliances, but still keep overall control of their fighters. Other form into loose alliances, fight a joint enemy, and then a few months later that loose alliance will be broken and they're fighting each other.
IS, the Kurds and the regime are the three main groups, although in some cases other groups have joined and left these, and fighters apparently frequently move between al Nusra and IS.
It's one reason I don't hold out much hope for peace talks (though I hope I'm wrong) - as well as IS's aims being counter to civilisation's, there are too many other groups who would have top be persuaded to lay down arms.
But JackW- our enemy, ISIS, do not want us to do nothing. Why do they commit these atrocities? They want us to do something, they really want Kafir countries to bomb them. Bombing them fuels their JIHAD, drives up recruitment and funds, and spreads this damned horrible ideology better than any other strategy they could use. Bombing them, or better even still invading them, is what they want.
Corbyn's spot on in Syria. Between the Turks, the Russians, Assad, Assad militia, Assad's regular army, Iran, Hezbollah, Islamist Anti Assad freedom fighters, the Kurds, Americans and French and of course Isis- all warring factions and driving the country into utter devastation, I don't quite understand what contribution the use of our six bombers would add to this carnage.
After our input into Libya which resulted in a failed state at Europe's door, a flood of weapons into Africa feeding Boko Haram, illegal poaching and crime, aswell as the creation of a migrant corridor into Italy, Cameron's hardly got a reliable reputation in his foreign policy endeavours.
Having spent his whole political life doing his own thing in his 67th year he's not going to change. He doesn't have a clue what being a party leader is all about.
Whether Corbyn goes or the party disintegrates is the question. I'd say it's too close to call. It's a pity because in this instance I prefer his solution to those who want to bomb without a plan that makes sense
There are no easy or risk free options here.
Either the UK contributes militarily to the efforts to defeat ISIS in Syria or we rely on others to take the full burden whilst our citizens are beheaded in the middle east or murdered in overseas tourist attractions like Tunisia and potentially face a Paris like outrage in the UK.
In my view the do nothing situation in Syria is the worst of several extremely unenviable prospects.
It's a possiblity, but just because an opponent wants something doesn't necessarily mean giving it to them will achieve the result they think it will, and given the breadth of their reach and influence already, the legitimacy their present situation affords them, confronting them may, on balance, be worth the risk. Doing nothing doesn't prevent the spread of their ideology it would seen, they can just go back to historical crimes of ours. They still call us crusaders for christ's sake.
I'm still not sold on how the UK contributing will actuall help in a substantive way, but I'm much more sanguine about the possibility now.
But JackW- our enemy, ISIS, do not want us to do nothing. Why do they commit these atrocities? They want us to do something, they really want Kafir countries to bomb them. Bombing them fuels their JIHAD, drives up recruitment and funds, and spreads this damned horrible ideology better than any other strategy they could use. Bombing them, or better even still invading them, is what they want.
Corbyn's spot on in Syria. Between the Turks, the Russians, Assad, Assad militia, Assad's regular army, Iran, Hezbollah, Islamist Anti Assad freedom fighters, the Kurds, Americans and French and of course Isis- all warring factions and driving the country into utter devastation, I don't quite understand what contribution the use of our six bombers would add to this carnage.
After our input into Libya which resulted in a failed state at Europe's door, a flood of weapons into Africa feeding Boko Haram, illegal poaching and crime, aswell as the creation of a migrant corridor into Italy, Cameron's hardly got a reliable reputation in his foreign policy endeavours.
Having spent his whole political life doing his own thing in his 67th year he's not going to change. He doesn't have a clue what being a party leader is all about.
Whether Corbyn goes or the party disintegrates is the question. I'd say it's too close to call. It's a pity because in this instance I prefer his solution to those who want to bomb without a plan that makes sense
There are no easy or risk free options here.
Either the UK contributes militarily to the efforts to defeat ISIS in Syria or we rely on others to take the full burden whilst our citizens are beheaded in the middle east or murdered in overseas tourist attractions like Tunisia and potentially face a Paris like outrage in the UK.
In my view the do nothing situation in Syria is the worst of several extremely unenviable prospects.
I think IS really don't want a *successful* military campaign against them. Their mystique is bound up with actually controlling territory, which allows them to claim that they have reestablished the Caliphate.
Bombing alone cannot take territory from ISIS,you need bots on the ground. Our proxies in syria are uncertain and in many cases unpalatable. The only viable troop deployment strategy, through Iraq, just highlights how secterianly awful Iraq is and what a failure we left behind there.
Erdogan's priority is keeping the Kurds in check. Neither the Kurds nor Turkey pose an existential threat to the UK, that is a dispute (Unlike Daesh) where diplomacy really must be the correct course.
Keeping Turkey in the NATO tent is probably correct too, but making it very clear to them that it is a DEFENCE, not an adventurism alliance.
If Erdogan keeps funding al-Nusra and his pet Turkmen then how is it possible for us to keep Turkey in NATO? They are funding jihadists who want to destroy us and our way of life. If Turkey cuts off the funding and stops allowing ISIS oil to be sold under the radar in their markets then sure, keep them in NATO, but right now they are absolutely working against the interests of the majority of NATO nations and trying to drag us into a conflict with Russia who have been bombing al-Nusra and the TIP both of which have been armed and funded by Erdogan.
Time for your tinfoil hat.
Time for you to get real about Turkey's despicable role in this. Your blind defence of Turkey is just become sad and desperate. Erdogan has turned a secular and relatively peaceful nation into one that supports and exports terror. It is a sad decline, one which you must come to terms with.
I'm not blindly defending Turkey. You seem not to have noticed me criticise them many times in the past, and I've repeatedly said he's taking the country in the wrong direction. Anyone that tries to control the media as he is should not be in charge of a country. And yes, that goes for Assad and Putin too.
It's just that I don't agree with your apparent blind hatred of it, which has virtually no basis in fact or knowledge.
You are starting from a stated position where you believe that Erdogan wants a new Ottoman Empire. As much as I may dislike the man, that's rubbish, as I've shown in the past. You are willing to pick up on anything that confirms that world view, hence your mistake earlier.
People tipping Ruth Davidson as next Tory leader probably thought Scott Walker was a lock for the Republican nomination
People tipping Ruth Davidson need to answer the question 'how?'
She's a capable politician but at the moment she's very untested. She's done a decent job just about holding the defence against the SNP and may yet advance to the Leader of the Opposition in Scotland, which would be in one sense a huge result, though in another, it'd be simply a return to the pre-1997 position (i.e. LotO(S), but to the SNP rather than Labour). To go from leading (at present) the third party in Scotland to PM of the UK is a huge jump. And it still ignores the political logistics: she's not an MP and for Westminster-centric parties, that is a prerequisite to run.
What happens if neither the "moderate" opposition, nor the Assad regime actually WANT to control Raqqa any more as they deem it to be far more use of resource than its worth.
Just a thought, but Syria may actually be worse than I'd previously considered.
Regarding the suggestions below that tim may be more right wing than previously thought... nonsense, he couldn't have been clearer that he considers the defeat of the Tories to be more important than everything else... he is angry, very angry, that the Labour Party no longer shares his priorities
Tim does have issues. I thought he had a family to focus on?
Am I the only one hoping for some good news for Labour to come up? Quite apart from the need for a decent opposition, it is just getting a bit boring at the moment. Perhaps McDonnell could go on holiday for 2 weeks or something to limit the damage for a time at least.
What happens if neither the "moderate" opposition, nor the Assad regime actually WANT to control Raqqa any more as they deem it to be far more use of resource than its worth.
Just a thought, but Syria may actually be worse than I'd previously considered.
Assad doesn't have the strength to take it, even if he wanted. As Yokel's pointed out in the past, he's desperately short of men, and the Iranian and Hezbollah units are helping secure the territory he has.
When I lived in Croydon, we unscrewed a large mirror and a bunch of extremist leaflets fell to the floor. All in Arabic and bloodthirsty drawings. This was on 1986.
The previous tenants were unremarkable apparently...
"Salmond is probably one of those strange and vain creatures with a mirror on the ceiling above his bed."
Obviously owned my flat on Old Compton St before me. It had a mirror on the ceiling and a hole in the floor revealing the well known peep show "Pussy Galore". Needless to say not being a Lib Dem I got the builders in PDQ
A friend of mine made a similar discovery in his flat. Removed a mirror mounted on hinges in one bathroom, to discover a window with a view of his other bathroom next door, through a 2 way mirror. The suspicion is that it may been installed for the purposes of blackmail by previous owners.
Are we really to believe this? '2 way mirrors' -- which rely in specific lighting conditions I believe? - and in steamed up bathrooms? And then you sell up and leave them there??
A friend of mine was looking into the toilet in his flat. He noticed a chink of light in the U bend. On closer inspection and by removing the bowl, he discovered a small periscope and evidence of scuba diving gear in the soil pipe.
@johnmcdonnellMP: On Syria, can everyone calm down.We're all simply working through the issues & coming to final decision.Don't mistake democracy for division
Bombing alone cannot take territory from ISIS,you need bots on the ground.
BOTs on the ground you say, are you privy to information about the American military that we aren't? ;-)
I spotted the typo before I posted but left it in for the connoisseurs of sci-fi.
Sadly/fortunately the current state of ground based military robots is hilariously rubbish.
I wonder how much money has been pumped into trying to make them work - military people like cool things just like the rest of us I imagine, and the appeal of ground based robots is alluring, no doubt.
Regarding the suggestions below that tim may be more right wing than previously thought... nonsense, he couldn't have been clearer that he considers the defeat of the Tories to be more important than everything else... he is angry, very angry, that the Labour Party no longer shares his priorities
Tim does have issues. I thought he had a family to focus on?
"Salmond is probably one of those strange and vain creatures with a mirror on the ceiling above his bed."
Obviously owned my flat on Old Compton St before me. It had a mirror on the ceiling and a hole in the floor revealing the well known peep show "Pussy Galore". Needless to say not being a Lib Dem I got the builders in PDQ
A friend of mine made a similar discovery in his flat. Removed a mirror mounted on hinges in one bathroom, to discover a window with a view of his other bathroom next door, through a 2 way mirror. The suspicion is that it may been installed for the purposes of blackmail by previous owners.
Are we really to believe this? '2 way mirrors' -- which rely in specific lighting conditions I believe? - and in steamed up bathrooms? And then you sell up and leave them there??
Yup. Saw it.
It's more believable than the fantasy army of 70,000 that will rise up and take Syria.
People tipping Ruth Davidson as next Tory leader probably thought Scott Walker was a lock for the Republican nomination
I can't see past George, Javid or May at the moment. Won't be Boris or Ruth.
There's no prospect of Ruth becoming an MP is there?
I think Boris will struggle to get into the final two.
I see May as holding the advantage over Osborne as she will be able to pose as more of a true Conservative / get back to our roots candidate. Osborne will be continuity with reduced voter appeal. Also, won't the mere prospect of a stern-faced female leader send a shiver of excitement up the grassroots Tory spine?
Not sure about Javid as in I don't really get why he's in the frame.
Erdogan's priority is keeping the Kurds in check. Neither the Kurds nor Turkey pose an existential threat to the UK, that is a dispute (Unlike Daesh) where diplomacy really must be the correct course.
Keeping Turkey in the NATO tent is probably correct too, but making it very clear to them that it is a DEFENCE, not an adventurism alliance.
If Erdogan keeps funding al-Nusra and his pet Turkmen then how is it possible for us to keep Turkey in NATO? They are funding jihadists who want to destroy us and our way of life. If Turkey cuts off the funding and stops allowing ISIS oil to be sold under the radar in their markets then sure, keep them in NATO, but right now they are absolutely working against the interests of the majority of NATO nations and trying to drag us into a conflict with Russia who have been bombing al-Nusra and the TIP both of which have been armed and funded by Erdogan.
The whole of NATO is supporting Al Nusra, do try to keep up.
People tipping Ruth Davidson as next Tory leader probably thought Scott Walker was a lock for the Republican nomination
People tipping Ruth Davidson need to answer the question 'how?'
She's a capable politician but at the moment she's very untested. She's done a decent job just about holding the defence against the SNP and may yet advance to the Leader of the Opposition in Scotland, which would be in one sense a huge result, though in another, it'd be simply a return to the pre-1997 position (i.e. LotO(S), but to the SNP rather than Labour). To go from leading (at present) the third party in Scotland to PM of the UK is a huge jump. And it still ignores the political logistics: she's not an MP and for Westminster-centric parties, that is a prerequisite to run.
@johnmcdonnellMP: On Syria, can everyone calm down.We're all simply working through the issues & coming to final decision.Don't mistake democracy for division
Is John McDonnell for real?
He really is an apologist for some of the worst terrorists and mass murderers in history. So yes, he is sadly for real.
Deluded and dangerous - but he does appear to actually believe the bile that he spouts.
@johnmcdonnellMP: On Syria, can everyone calm down.We're all simply working through the issues & coming to final decision.Don't mistake democracy for division
Is John McDonnell for real?
I think the Syria vote is far too important to make a political point on actually, no matter which side you're on. But all sides in Labour seem to be doing their best to make it about internal party politics.
MOST Scots believe the country will be independent by 2025, according to a new poll.
The Ipsos MORI survey found that 54 per cent of those questioned think it is likely that Scotland will become independent within 10 years, with 44 per cent thinking it unlikely. Two per cent said they did now know.
Mr. Tyson, Daesh want to spread the idea of Islam versus The Rest.
However, if Daesh lose their land, that is the worst thing that could happen for them because they become losers, and therefore less attractive to maniacs.
They would also lose a very significant source of funding.
@johnmcdonnellMP: On Syria, can everyone calm down.We're all simply working through the issues & coming to final decision.Don't mistake democracy for division
Is John McDonnell for real?
I think the Syria vote is far too important to make a political point on actually, no matter which side you're on. But all sides in Labour seem to be doing their best to make it about internal party politics.
Corbyn's letter to the PLP is absolute proof that there is no 'working through' of issues. He has made his decision and it comes down to trying to bully and threaten his colleagues into falling into line.
There is nothing democratic about Corbyn and McDonnell's way of working.
When I lived in Croydon, we unscrewed a large mirror and a bunch of extremist leaflets fell to the floor. All in Arabic and bloodthirsty drawings. This was on 1986.
The previous tenants were unremarkable apparently...
"Salmond is probably one of those strange and vain creatures with a mirror on the ceiling above his bed."
Obviously owned my flat on Old Compton St before me. It had a mirror on the ceiling and a hole in the floor revealing the well known peep show "Pussy Galore". Needless to say not being a Lib Dem I got the builders in PDQ
A friend of mine made a similar discovery in his flat. Removed a mirror mounted on hinges in one bathroom, to discover a window with a view of his other bathroom next door, through a 2 way mirror. The suspicion is that it may been installed for the purposes of blackmail by previous owners.
Are we really to believe this? '2 way mirrors' -- which rely in specific lighting conditions I believe? - and in steamed up bathrooms? And then you sell up and leave them there??
A friend of mine was looking into the toilet in his flat. He noticed a chink of light in the U bend. On closer inspection and by removing the bowl, he discovered a small periscope and evidence of scuba diving gear in the soil pipe.
I found a couple of old Fiestas and Razzle magazines stuffed behind the hot water tank once, I think they were my elder brother's, though!
People tipping Ruth Davidson as next Tory leader probably thought Scott Walker was a lock for the Republican nomination
I can't see past George, Javid or May at the moment. Won't be Boris or Ruth.
There's no prospect of Ruth becoming an MP is there?
I think Boris will struggle to get into the final two.
I see May as holding the advantage over Osborne as she will be able to pose as more of a true Conservative / get back to our roots candidate. Osborne will be continuity with reduced voter appeal. Also, won't the mere prospect of a stern-faced female leader send a shiver of excitement up the grassroots Tory spine?
Not sure about Javid as in I don't really get why he's in the frame.
He's the Osborne candidate with a better backstory than Osborne, if Osborne himself does not run, is how I think the theory goes. Needs to get his name out there in the next few years, I'd say.
People tipping Ruth Davidson as next Tory leader probably thought Scott Walker was a lock for the Republican nomination
People tipping Ruth Davidson need to answer the question 'how?'
She's a capable politician but at the moment she's very untested. She's done a decent job just about holding the defence against the SNP and may yet advance to the Leader of the Opposition in Scotland, which would be in one sense a huge result, though in another, it'd be simply a return to the pre-1997 position (i.e. LotO(S), but to the SNP rather than Labour). To go from leading (at present) the third party in Scotland to PM of the UK is a huge jump. And it still ignores the political logistics: she's not an MP and for Westminster-centric parties, that is a prerequisite to run.
She also needs to develop some constituency electoral chops; the highest personal vote Davidson has received is 7.5%. Perhaps the Mensch money will help propel her into double figures.
Of course if Ruth carpetbags some southern Westminster safe seat, that's the SCons consigned to another few decades of withering on the vine.
Comments
On a similar note, while 'Muslim' does not by any means equal 'Islamist', nor are all shades of Islamist equal.
That was MikeK with his '102'. I think he mistyped '1 or 2'.Of course it is not a slam-dunk argument for going to war that our allies are asking us to, but I think we need to take the French request very seriously. Are we going to stand aside from a concerted international attempt to destroy the IS proto-state and limit our contribution to the singing of anthems?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Turkestan_Islamic_Movement
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-24757974
I'd suggest your dislike (or hatred) of Turkey is getting the better of your usual good judgement. There's many good reasons to criticise Turkey and especially Erdogan, but now you're just being silly.
Why does this shit matter? No-one complains about human.
F1: Raikkonen had a brief MGU-K issue. Worth perhaps remembering in case it flares up during the race.
What I have yet to hear is why it is appropriate to degrade Daesh in Iraq, but not in Syria - and Cameron made very clear yesterday - this is about ISIS......we need to finish that job and expunge the caliphate. After that - who knows - but "doing nothing" is almost certainly worse than standing idly by.....
Actually I think 'man' is a gender neutral suffix, but I cannot be bothered to go a dig up my past links to to that subject to get at the original male prefix. Does it have an Anglo Saxon root? Cannot remember.
‘All Cabinet on IRA hit list’ https://t.co/sOZFXu1FbQ
However, if Daesh lose their land, that is the worst thing that could happen for them because they become losers, and therefore less attractive to maniacs.
https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/british/specials/labour-party-specials/221304100/
Who is off first?
Keeping Turkey in the NATO tent is probably correct too, but making it very clear to them that it is a DEFENCE, not an adventurism alliance.
http://lustigletter.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/syria-why-i-am-reluctant-bomber.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Turkmen_Brigades http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-24/who-are-the-turkmen-fighters-in-control-of-russia-jet-crash-site
https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/former-labour-ministers-call-jeremy-corbyn-resign
Simply worrying about an outcome should not stop you aiming to achieve it once you set it against the consequences of doing nothing.
This vote on bombing 'Syria' is quite different from the one in 2013. Then we wished to support rebels against Assad who was carpet bombing and gassing civilians. We are proposing to bomb ISIS whose evil flourished because we did not support those legitimate rebels in the first place.
Some sort of 'realpolitik' will have to come out of what we must hope is a post ISIS age.
She forgets that MPs were elected by voters - and their primary duty is to represent their constituents.
Youi need to have a care on your attacks on Salmond. They look like rebounding rather badly. For a start he was in his place at FMQs in the Scottish Parliament during the Syria statement as you very well know.
What I know from the Paliamentary Bulletin was that the Scottish Parliament war memorial reception for veterans and armed forces which Salmond was hosting was not an evening reception but straight after decision time at 5pm. They all had their picture taken beside the newly restored Caledonian Memorial. Lots of MSPS and Ministers pictured but only ONE ie ONE in total from Labour, Tory and Liberal combined.
So the rest of the unionist MSPs who attacked Salmond for not being in London could not be bothered to walk 50 yards ie 50 yards to honour the fallen from previous conflict!
Edit: found it http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-says-syria-is-buying-oil-from-islamic-state-1448471418
http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/ruth-davidson-for-edinburgh-central/backers/?
And then you sell up and leave them there??
https://thestack.com/security/2015/11/26/uk-prisons-to-crack-down-on-inmate-internet-and-mobile-phone-use/
Those immigration numbers will surely have boosted UKIP too.
The one thing people are missing in all this is like many civil wars, there are many groups, including small ones, fighting. Some form up into firm alliances, but still keep overall control of their fighters. Other form into loose alliances, fight a joint enemy, and then a few months later that loose alliance will be broken and they're fighting each other.
IS, the Kurds and the regime are the three main groups, although in some cases other groups have joined and left these, and fighters apparently frequently move between al Nusra and IS.
It's one reason I don't hold out much hope for peace talks (though I hope I'm wrong) - as well as IS's aims being counter to civilisation's, there are too many other groups who would have top be persuaded to lay down arms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-rebel_conflict_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War
https://twitter.com/majorsrise/status/670162664719450112
Having said that, many on that list will probably cling on to the greasy pole for as long as they possibly can.
Particularly Bryant.
"The Labour Party is basically dead at this point. "
I think 'resting' is more accurate
I'm still not sold on how the UK contributing will actuall help in a substantive way, but I'm much more sanguine about the possibility now.
It's just that I don't agree with your apparent blind hatred of it, which has virtually no basis in fact or knowledge.
You are starting from a stated position where you believe that Erdogan wants a new Ottoman Empire. As much as I may dislike the man, that's rubbish, as I've shown in the past. You are willing to pick up on anything that confirms that world view, hence your mistake earlier.
She's a capable politician but at the moment she's very untested. She's done a decent job just about holding the defence against the SNP and may yet advance to the Leader of the Opposition in Scotland, which would be in one sense a huge result, though in another, it'd be simply a return to the pre-1997 position (i.e. LotO(S), but to the SNP rather than Labour). To go from leading (at present) the third party in Scotland to PM of the UK is a huge jump. And it still ignores the political logistics: she's not an MP and for Westminster-centric parties, that is a prerequisite to run.
What happens if neither the "moderate" opposition, nor the Assad regime actually WANT to control Raqqa any more as they deem it to be far more use of resource than its worth.
Just a thought, but Syria may actually be worse than I'd previously considered.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34934781
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/12018804/Alex-Salmond-unveils-portrait-as-he-misses-Syria-debate.html
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/763334/if-salmond-was-chocolate-hed-eat-himself-says-labour-after-gordon-mp-unveils-portrait/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/alex-salmond-unveils-portrait-of-himself-at-the-scottish-national-gallery-while-parliament-debates-a6749806.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3335285/Go-war-m-going-art-gallery-says-Alex-Salmond-misses-debate-Syria-airstrikes-unveil-painting-HIMSELF.html
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/alex-salmond-misses-the-syria-statement-but-finds-time-to-unveil-his-portrait/
On the bright side...Russia Today:
https://www.rt.com/uk/323566-salmond-skips-syria-debate/
Sadly/fortunately the current state of ground based military robots is hilariously rubbish.
The previous tenants were unremarkable apparently...
Is John McDonnell for real?
Imagine an army of robots getting hacked.
Quite surprised terrorists haven't used drones yet.
It's more believable than the fantasy army of 70,000 that will rise up and take Syria.
I think Boris will struggle to get into the final two.
I see May as holding the advantage over Osborne as she will be able to pose as more of a true Conservative / get back to our roots candidate. Osborne will be continuity with reduced voter appeal. Also, won't the mere prospect of a stern-faced female leader send a shiver of excitement up the grassroots Tory spine?
Not sure about Javid as in I don't really get why he's in the frame.
Deluded and dangerous - but he does appear to actually believe the bile that he spouts.
Oldham West & Royton by-election
Majority betting
11/8 Lab Majority Over 2000
7/4 Lab Majority Under 2000
11/4 UKIP Majority Under 2000
10/1 UKIP Majority Over 2000
MOST Scots believe the country will be independent by 2025, according to a new poll.
The Ipsos MORI survey found that 54 per cent of those questioned think it is likely that Scotland will become independent within 10 years, with 44 per cent thinking it unlikely. Two per cent said they did now know.
There is nothing democratic about Corbyn and McDonnell's way of working.
Of course if Ruth carpetbags some southern Westminster safe seat, that's the SCons consigned to another few decades of withering on the vine.