Chris Bryant on Daily Politics saying he couldn't look a constituent in the eye if he didn't back air strikes, and a terrorist act killed hundreds in London...
Maybe, but the fact is that the person likely to carry out such an attack is in London now, not Syria
trained in Syria.
or does the West London Shooting School have a hidden chamber?
Perhaps his greatest achievement was keeping Britain out of the Vietnam War.
Interesting you should raise that at this juncture.
One of the key reasons being advanced as to why we should get involved militarily in Syria is because our ally, France, has asked for our support. We must, so the argument goes, show that we are a reliable ally. So war it is.
However, when 50 or so years ago another ally asked, damn near begged, for our support, even token support ("Just one battalion of the Black Watch") in another war we told them to feck off. That refusal to help an ally is seen, by some, as a jolly good thing to have done.
Maybe, just maybe, the 'Light-blue' should have really moved Oz a few thousand klicks East. How are those F-111Ks anyhaps...?
That is very naughty, Mr Thoughts. Furthermore, I am not going to rise to the bait - I am fed up with getting attacked by the Crab Air supporters club.
Chris Bryant on Daily Politics saying he couldn't look a constituent in the eye if he didn't back air strikes, and a terrorist act killed hundreds in London...
Maybe, but the fact is that the person likely to carry out such an attack is in London now, not Syria
But he may be being trained, financed and resourced through ISIS in Syria, controlled from ISIS in Syria, told when to go out into the streets and bomb and shoot and behead through ISIS from Syria...
His replacements may be prevented by air strikes.
Yes, true... I don't have anti EU type zeal against air strikes, but I just have a feeling that even if we destroyed ISIS in Syria and Iraq, we'd still get terrorist acts like Paris, Tunisia etc, maybe more of them.
Also, wouldn't we almost certainly kill innocent Syrians in the process? Or are our bombs so precise as to only take out the baddies?
Perhaps his greatest achievement was keeping Britain out of the Vietnam War.
Interesting you should raise that at this juncture.
One of the key reasons being advanced as to why we should get involved militarily in Syria is because our ally, France, has asked for our support. We must, so the argument goes, show that we are a reliable ally. So war it is.
However, when 50 or so years ago another ally asked, damn near begged, for our support, even token support ("Just one battalion of the Black Watch") in another war we told them to feck off. That refusal to help an ally is seen, by some, as a jolly good thing to have done.
If the Viet Cong had just bombed Paris, threatened London, and were sponsoring terrorism throughout the world, then the answer would have been different.
...
By the way, I only noticed the change to your avatar yesterday. My sincere commiserations on your loss.
@jantalipinski: It's a nonsense in every sense; sampling, question wording, analysis, time, quality. Everything. Embarrassing
@AGKD123: Just to add to this, it's garbage. Total, complete, utter garbage. Look up "voodoo poll" and that's what it is https://t.co/i8mc2rr9cv
I think one consequence of the polling failure in May and of the likely plunge in Labour's and Corbyn's polling is that we'll get more voodoo (justified by "but the professionals got it wrong"). We'll also see more polling truthers doing stuff like removing weighting and turnout filters from polls and using the raw numbers.
You could maybe do a thread on types of illogical bollocks one can do with polls.
Chris Bryant on Daily Politics saying he couldn't look a constituent in the eye if he didn't back air strikes, and a terrorist act killed hundreds in London...
Maybe, but the fact is that the person likely to carry out such an attack is in London now, not Syria
trained in Syria.
or does the West London Shooting School have a hidden chamber?
Generally speaking, the worst rulers of the twentieth century were people of high intelligence. That goes for their propagandists and cheerleaders.
The top three worst rulers of the 20th century were Mao, Hitler and Stalin. Were they men of great intelligence?
It was Christopher Hitchens who described the contrast between the "ironic" mind and the "literal" mind - as in the below quote.
"Our weapons are the ironic mind against the literal: the open mind against the credulous; the courageous pursuit of truth against the fearful and abject forces who would set limits to investigation (and who stupidly claim that we already have all the truth we need). Perhaps above all, we affirm life over the cults of death and human sacrifice and are afraid, not of inevitable death, but rather of a human life that is cramped and distorted by the pathetic need to offer mindless adulation, or the dismal belief that the laws of nature respond to wailings and incantations.”
I think that literal minds can be intelligent and that, lacking doubt or curiosity or scepticism, it is very easy for them to be effective and ruthless. Mao, Hitler and Stalin are examples of cunning, ruthless and intelligent literalists. They were supported and cheerleaded by people who did not think of themselves as literal (e.g. Sartre and Communism) but who, despite their intelligence, were unable or unwilling to see or describe what was in front of their noses. Faith trumped evidence; faith trumped morality.
It is another irony of history that those who see established religion (particularly Western religions) as wicked are often the most enthusiastic supporters of and greatest believers in fundamentally immoral or amoral Manichean movements and belief systems.
Chris Bryant on Daily Politics saying he couldn't look a constituent in the eye if he didn't back air strikes, and a terrorist act killed hundreds in London...
Maybe, but the fact is that the person likely to carry out such an attack is in London now, not Syria
trained in Syria.
or does the West London Shooting School have a hidden chamber?
I would've thought a lot of it is done online
You cannot train online to become a terrorist of the type that we are seeing in Europe.
Chris Bryant on Daily Politics saying he couldn't look a constituent in the eye if he didn't back air strikes, and a terrorist act killed hundreds in London...
Maybe, but the fact is that the person likely to carry out such an attack is in London now, not Syria
But he may be being trained, financed and resourced through ISIS in Syria, controlled from ISIS in Syria, told when to go out into the streets and bomb and shoot and behead through ISIS from Syria...
His replacements may be prevented by air strikes.
Yes, true... I don't have anti EU type zeal against air strikes, but I just have a feeling that even if we destroyed ISIS in Syria and Iraq, we'd still get terrorist acts like Paris, Tunisia etc, maybe more of them.
Also, wouldn't we almost certainly kill innocent Syrians in the process? Or are our bombs so precise as to only take out the baddies?
Many of these decisions are not clear-cut. They are 51-49 options. I just take the view that in this instance the 51% choice - the one that gives greatest benefit to the greatest number of UK citizens - is by putting our best hi-tech resources into helping to atomise ISIS.
Chris Bryant on Daily Politics saying he couldn't look a constituent in the eye if he didn't back air strikes, and a terrorist act killed hundreds in London...
Maybe, but the fact is that the person likely to carry out such an attack is in London now, not Syria
trained in Syria.
or does the West London Shooting School have a hidden chamber?
@BBCWorldatOne · 4m4 minutes ago Labour NEC rep Pete Willsman on David Cameron's Syria proposals: "It is against party policy as agreed at Brighton in the emergency motion"
@BBCWorldatOne · 3m3 minutes ago Lab NEC rep Pete Willsman on Syria: "The conference is the sovereign body of the party. The PLP should be following the conference policy"
@BBCWorldatOne · 2m2 minutes ago Lab NEC rep Pete Willsman on Syria: "Jeremy should insist on a 3 line whip & every Labour MP shld follow the decision of the Lab conference"
@BBCWorldatOne · 1m1 minute ago "If they don't then that's up to them & it will show they have no respect for the Labour Party conference," NEC rep Pete Willsman adds #wato
Chris Bryant on Daily Politics saying he couldn't look a constituent in the eye if he didn't back air strikes, and a terrorist act killed hundreds in London...
Maybe, but the fact is that the person likely to carry out such an attack is in London now, not Syria
trained in Syria.
or does the West London Shooting School have a hidden chamber?
I would've thought a lot of it is done online
You cannot train online to become a terrorist of the type that we are seeing in Europe.
The United Kingdom is the undisputed World Champion of wars.
We'll spank ISIS back into the Stone Age.
We are 3 and 0 in world wars if you count the Napeolonic kerfuffle as WW0. Is it just a clean-sweep in group stage though?
Unofficially amongst military historians the 7 Years War is counted as the first proper World War. Europe, Africa, The Caribbean, Canada and India as well as numerous smaller places.
We won that one as well.
I nearly included the Seven Years War. As well as global scope it also had very long-lasting consequences. On the other hand I think that when we use the term "world war" there is also the idea of mobilising all the resources of a nation, of nationalist ideology and of a remorseless war that ends in the collapse of the losing side and reorganisation of their home state by the victors. As I understand it, those elements are not there in the Seven Years War but are to some extent in Napoleonic France. But we could certainly see the Seven Years War as WW-1.
And we did win it, indeed, although that verdict was partially reversed by the misunderstanding with the American colonies.
In terms of total war, the Thirty Years War was more intense than the Seven Years War but its geographic scope was much more limited. Even so, I'd be inclined to view 1756-63 as the first of four truly global conflicts.
Chris Bryant on Daily Politics saying he couldn't look a constituent in the eye if he didn't back air strikes, and a terrorist act killed hundreds in London...
Maybe, but the fact is that the person likely to carry out such an attack is in London now, not Syria
But he may be being trained, financed and resourced through ISIS in Syria, controlled from ISIS in Syria, told when to go out into the streets and bomb and shoot and behead through ISIS from Syria...
His replacements may be prevented by air strikes.
Yes, true... I don't have anti EU type zeal against air strikes, but I just have a feeling that even if we destroyed ISIS in Syria and Iraq, we'd still get terrorist acts like Paris, Tunisia etc, maybe more of them.
Also, wouldn't we almost certainly kill innocent Syrians in the process? Or are our bombs so precise as to only take out the baddies?
Our bombs/missiles can be very precisely targeted, accurate to within a few feet. Of course if the intelligence that gives the targeting information is awry, well then we know what happens. Either the UK accepts that it will cause civilian casualties or it doesn't bomb because mistakes will happen in war and, anyway, who is to say who is riding in the cab of that Toyota Pick-up truck.
If MPs are not comfortable with people getting killed then they should vote against war.
@BBCWorldatOne · 4m4 minutes ago Labour NEC rep Pete Willsman on David Cameron's Syria proposals: "It is against party policy as agreed at Brighton in the emergency motion"
@BBCWorldatOne · 3m3 minutes ago Lab NEC rep Pete Willsman on Syria: "The conference is the sovereign body of the party. The PLP should be following the conference policy"
@BBCWorldatOne · 2m2 minutes ago Lab NEC rep Pete Willsman on Syria: "Jeremy should insist on a 3 line whip & every Labour MP shld follow the decision of the Lab conference"
@BBCWorldatOne · 1m1 minute ago "If they don't then that's up to them & it will show they have no respect for the Labour Party conference," NEC rep Pete Willsman adds #wato
Didn't another NEC rep say the opposite this morning? That the conditions had been met?
"In summary, the poll shows the depth and breadth of opposition to Corbyn as Labour leader and the policies and issues he represents. The party is winning tenuous support from former Lib Dems and Greens because of Corbyn, while simultaneously losing support from voters who best reflect public opinion. In so doing it is choosing to represent a dwindling section of the electorate that not only does not reflect the breadth of public opinion but is blissfully unconcerned by it.
Should Corbyn fall on his sword it is more than likely those voters who have recently attached themselves to the party will drift away again, leaving Labour with the 68% it has retained from May. By that point it will have so alienated itself from public opinion as to be considered unelectable by those voters who would quite like a bit of economic security and competence. The third of voters it has lost may well choose to permanently close the door on any return. All of which slowly and inexorably sends a great political institution towards its unfortunate but inevitable death."
Question: What would be the consequences of Russia dropping a nuke or two on the largest ISIS strongholds? Aside from the stock markets dropping 80% in an hour.
I'm not sure it would escalate into nuclear strikes between other countries, but I'm at a loss as to how it would go. "EU sanctions" seems rather inadequate...
Generally speaking, the worst rulers of the twentieth century were people of high intelligence. That goes for their propagandists and cheerleaders.
The top three worst rulers of the 20th century were Mao, Hitler and Stalin. Were they men of great intelligence?
It was Christopher Hitchens who described the contrast between the "ironic" mind and the "literal" mind - as in the below quote.
"Our weapons are the ironic mind against the literal: the open mind against the credulous; the courageous pursuit of truth against the fearful and abject forces who would set limits to investigation (and who stupidly claim that we already have all the truth we need). Perhaps above all, we affirm life over the cults of death and human sacrifice and are afraid, not of inevitable death, but rather of a human life that is cramped and distorted by the pathetic need to offer mindless adulation, or the dismal belief that the laws of nature respond to wailings and incantations.”
I think that literal minds can be intelligent and that, lacking doubt or curiosity or scepticism, it is very easy for them to be effective and ruthless. Mao, Hitler and Stalin are examples of cunning, ruthless and intelligent literalists. They were supported and cheerleaded by people who did not think of themselves as literal (e.g. Sartre and Communism) but who, despite their intelligence, were unable or unwilling to see or describe what was in front of their noses. Faith trumped evidence; faith trumped morality.
It is another irony of history that those who see established religion (particularly Western religions) as wicked are often the most enthusiastic supporters of and greatest believers in fundamentally immoral or amoral Manichean movements and belief systems.
Thanks for this - great words. This is why I could never be a politician. I'm too curious, questioning and reflexively resistant to discipline to ever follow a party line.
Chris Bryant on Daily Politics saying he couldn't look a constituent in the eye if he didn't back air strikes, and a terrorist act killed hundreds in London...
Maybe, but the fact is that the person likely to carry out such an attack is in London now, not Syria
trained in Syria.
or does the West London Shooting School have a hidden chamber?
I would've thought a lot of it is done online
You cannot train online to become a terrorist of the type that we are seeing in Europe.
I don't wish to appear flippant but training to blow yourself up seems odd. I can't begin to imagine the brainwashing that takes place.
Question: What would be the consequences of Russia dropping a nuke or two on the largest ISIS strongholds? Aside from the stock markets dropping 80% in an hour.
Question: What would be the consequences of Russia dropping a nuke or two on the largest ISIS strongholds? Aside from the stock markets dropping 80% in an hour.
@BBCWorldatOne · 4m4 minutes ago Labour NEC rep Pete Willsman on David Cameron's Syria proposals: "It is against party policy as agreed at Brighton in the emergency motion"
@BBCWorldatOne · 3m3 minutes ago Lab NEC rep Pete Willsman on Syria: "The conference is the sovereign body of the party. The PLP should be following the conference policy"
@BBCWorldatOne · 2m2 minutes ago Lab NEC rep Pete Willsman on Syria: "Jeremy should insist on a 3 line whip & every Labour MP shld follow the decision of the Lab conference"
@BBCWorldatOne · 1m1 minute ago "If they don't then that's up to them & it will show they have no respect for the Labour Party conference," NEC rep Pete Willsman adds #wato
Didn't another NEC rep say the opposite this morning? That the conditions had been met?
And any conference policy of this nature is going to be superseded by events that fundamentally change the conditions that were prevailing at the time of the vote.
I would say that events have moved on post-Paris to make any vote taken back in September utterly meaningless
Question: What would be the consequences of Russia dropping a nuke or two on the largest ISIS strongholds? Aside from the stock markets dropping 80% in an hour.
Tens of thousands dying would be one consequence.
Tens of thousands are already dying in IS territory. Anyway, I'm talking about geopolitical consequences, not the no-doubt-hideous impact at ground zero.
The United Kingdom is the undisputed World Champion of wars.
We'll spank ISIS back into the Stone Age.
We are 3 and 0 in world wars if you count the Napeolonic kerfuffle as WW0. Is it just a clean-sweep in group stage though?
Unofficially amongst military historians the 7 Years War is counted as the first proper World War. Europe, Africa, The Caribbean, Canada and India as well as numerous smaller places.
We won that one as well.
I nearly included the Seven Years War. As well as global scope it also had very long-lasting consequences. On the other hand I think that when we use the term "world war" there is also the idea of mobilising all the resources of a nation, of nationalist ideology and of a remorseless war that ends in the collapse of the losing side and reorganisation of their home state by the victors. As I understand it, those elements are not there in the Seven Years War but are to some extent in Napoleonic France. But we could certainly see the Seven Years War as WW-1.
And we did win it, indeed, although that verdict was partially reversed by the misunderstanding with the American colonies.
In terms of total war, the Thirty Years War was more intense than the Seven Years War but its geographic scope was much more limited. Even so, I'd be inclined to view 1756-63 as the first of four truly global conflicts.
Bobbitt's concept of "Epochal" or Long War (1914-1990) makes a lot of sense to me.
Question: What would be the consequences of Russia dropping a nuke or two on the largest ISIS strongholds? Aside from the stock markets dropping 80% in an hour.
It'd send a clear message.
To Assad, certainly.
Y'know that chemical weapon stuff that we got all hot under the collar about a couple of years ago?
Our bombs/missiles can be very precisely targeted, accurate to within a few feet. Of course if the intelligence that gives the targeting information is awry, well then we know what happens. Either the UK accepts that it will cause civilian casualties or it doesn't bomb because mistakes will happen in war and, anyway, who is to say who is riding in the cab of that Toyota Pick-up truck.
If MPs are not comfortable with people getting killed then they should vote against war.
And as their situation deteriorates further, ISIS may well use women and children as human shields.
We have to accept all this, bearing in mind that the alternative is worse, as the many victims of ISIS already demonstrate. It is not a decision to be taken lightly, but one that should be taken with our eyes open.
Shutting our eyes and pretending that the problem will go away may well be more 'comfortable' for some MPs, but is the most irresponsible of all attitudes.
Question: What would be the consequences of Russia dropping a nuke or two on the largest ISIS strongholds? Aside from the stock markets dropping 80% in an hour.
It'd send a clear message.
To Assad, certainly.
Y'know that chemical weapon stuff that we got all hot under the collar about a couple of years ago?
Yeah, don't worry about that any more, mate.
Load up the mustard gas.
I'm not sure the Russians ever got hot under the collar about Assad's treatment of his own people.
Chris Bryant on Daily Politics saying he couldn't look a constituent in the eye if he didn't back air strikes, and a terrorist act killed hundreds in London...
Maybe, but the fact is that the person likely to carry out such an attack is in London now, not Syria
trained in Syria.
or does the West London Shooting School have a hidden chamber?
I would've thought a lot of it is done online
You cannot train online to become a terrorist of the type that we are seeing in Europe.
I don't wish to appear flippant but training to blow yourself up seems odd. I can't begin to imagine the brainwashing that takes place.
This is a very good, if depressing and frustrating (from an SF perspective) read.
Chris Bryant on Daily Politics saying he couldn't look a constituent in the eye if he didn't back air strikes, and a terrorist act killed hundreds in London...
Maybe, but the fact is that the person likely to carry out such an attack is in London now, not Syria
trained in Syria.
or does the West London Shooting School have a hidden chamber?
I would've thought a lot of it is done online
You cannot train online to become a terrorist of the type that we are seeing in Europe.
I don't wish to appear flippant but training to blow yourself up seems odd. I can't begin to imagine the brainwashing that takes place.
Mr. 63, Billy Connolly's take of the school for suicide bombers:
Instructor: "Watch carefully, boys, because i am only going to show you this once..."
Even the censored version on UTube (yes, UTube censored a sketch taking the piss out of suicide bombers, didn't want to risk causing offense, I suppose) is still worth watching.
As to the brain-washing that takes place, I did some work on that aspect in the ME some years ago and can say that the bastards who do the conditioning have to get hold of the right subject to start with (bit like stage hypnotists, whose techniques are similar). What goes into making a suitable subject starts from the Mosques and the Madrassa schools.
Chris Bryant on Daily Politics saying he couldn't look a constituent in the eye if he didn't back air strikes, and a terrorist act killed hundreds in London...
Maybe, but the fact is that the person likely to carry out such an attack is in London now, not Syria
trained in Syria.
or does the West London Shooting School have a hidden chamber?
I would've thought a lot of it is done online
You cannot train online to become a terrorist of the type that we are seeing in Europe.
I don't wish to appear flippant but training to blow yourself up seems odd. I can't begin to imagine the brainwashing that takes place.
This is a very good, if depressing and frustrating (from an SF perspective) read.
To precis, they take a number (say 30) boys and young men, who as you might expect are the most vulnerable, low-level criminality, abandoned to madrassahs, orphans, etc and of those, a dozen do not run away of their own accord nor do their parents come to get them.
Those dozen are then indoctrinated, again as you would expect, and told that the greater good is in giving their life for the cause.
Even though they are scared and continue to question this, they are too caught up in the very slick process and indoctrination that culminates in them carrying out the attacks.
Mr Pong I'm glad I've found you, I'm hoping to back UKIP to increase their % in Oldham, what price are you offering?
See my reply last night.
Sorry, what was it?
I've never offered you a bet on UKIP vote share %
I originally suggested a bet on whether UKIP will get more than the 8892 votes they did back in May. If you want to bet on that basis, we can talk odds and stakes.
Perhaps his greatest achievement was keeping Britain out of the Vietnam War.
Interesting you should raise that at this juncture.
One of the key reasons being advanced as to why we should get involved militarily in Syria is because our ally, France, has asked for our support. We must, so the argument goes, show that we are a reliable ally. So war it is.
However, when 50 or so years ago another ally asked, damn near begged, for our support, even token support ("Just one battalion of the Black Watch") in another war we told them to feck off. That refusal to help an ally is seen, by some, as a jolly good thing to have done.
But surely would counter that by arguing that our ally was the aggressor in Vietnam and actually the enemy of self determination in that terrible conflict , having intervened- for geopolitical reasons - to prop up a corrupt regime in South Vietnam.
"We need a comprehensive and coherent strategy coordinated through the United Nations to defeat ISIL/Daesh."
She may as well say "do nothing".
I don't get all this stuff from Corbynistas on the UN. Here is the wording of the UN resolution on ISIS:
"The Security Council determined today that the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant/Sham (ISIL/ISIS) constituted an “unprecedented” threat to international peace and security, calling upon Member States with the requisite capacity to take “all necessary measures” to prevent and suppress its terrorist acts on territory under its control in Syria and Iraq."
How much more do Labour want?
As I said on the previous thread, the focus on UN resolutions is disingenuous chaff used by people who do not want to have air strikes on IS at all.
Mr Pong I'm glad I've found you, I'm hoping to back UKIP to increase their % in Oldham, what price are you offering?
See my reply last night.
Sorry, what was it?
I've never offered you a bet on UKIP vote share %
I originally suggested a bet on whether UKIP will get more than the 8892 votes they did back in May. If you want to bet on that basis, we can talk odds and stakes.
Ye?
Subject to odds I'll bet on anything - what price they beat 8892?
@patrickwintour: Corbyn to offer his MPs free vote on Syria but to say party policy is to oppose. Will call on Cameron to delay vote to respond to MPs doubts
@patrickwintour: Corbyn will stress he opposes air strikes. Puts ball back in Cameron court. Will PM have a majority ?
Patrick Wintour Corbyn to offer his MPs free vote on Syria but to say party policy is to oppose. Will call on Cameron to delay vote to respond to MPs doubts
@patrickwintour: Corbyn to offer his MPs free vote on Syria but to say party policy is to oppose. Will call on Cameron to delay vote to respond to MPs doubts
Even though they are scared and continue to question this, they are too caught up in the very slick process and indoctrination that culminates in them carrying out the attacks.
there's a fair amount of information about Japanese kamikaze pilots. it might give some indication how people can get into that situation (divorced from the Islam aspect).
@patrickwintour: Corbyn to offer his MPs free vote on Syria but to say party policy is to oppose. Will call on Cameron to delay vote to respond to MPs doubts
@patrickwintour: Corbyn will stress he opposes air strikes. Puts ball back in Cameron court. Will PM have a majority ?
Our bombs/missiles can be very precisely targeted, accurate to within a few feet. Of course if the intelligence that gives the targeting information is awry, well then we know what happens. Either the UK accepts that it will cause civilian casualties or it doesn't bomb because mistakes will happen in war and, anyway, who is to say who is riding in the cab of that Toyota Pick-up truck.
If MPs are not comfortable with people getting killed then they should vote against war.
And as their situation deteriorates further, ISIS may well use women and children as human shields.
We have to accept all this, bearing in mind that the alternative is worse, as the many victims of ISIS already demonstrate. It is not a decision to be taken lightly, but one that should be taken with our eyes open.
Shutting our eyes and pretending that the problem will go away may well be more 'comfortable' for some MPs, but is the most irresponsible of all attitudes.
I agree, Mr. N, but the idea that war can be surgical, only the bad guys die, has gained currency in recent years and it is tosh. As you say let them make their decision with their eyes open and let us have some reasonable rules of engagement but, please, let us not have any handwringing when a "wedding" get gets bombed.
If we go into this war in Syria then let us go in intending to win and prepared to commit the resources and take the bad PR when it comes. Otherwise we would be best to stay out.
Of course, that rather depends on HMG deciding what "win" means and there is no sign of them doing that at present. Without knowing what you want to achieve there is no chance of formulating a strategy to achieve it and no hope of knowing what resources you need to commit. But never mind we shall show solidarity with the French for a few years and the Crabs will be pleased to play with their Tonka Toys dropping things on people.
Shutting your eyes and pretending the problem will go away is not unique to one point of view.
Question: What would be the consequences of Russia dropping a nuke or two on the largest ISIS strongholds? Aside from the stock markets dropping 80% in an hour.
It'd send a clear message.
Well, it would probably make any Russian worldwide an immediate target for retribution. And in the minds of ISIS supporters justify a tit for tat attack on Russia itself, if they ever got their hands on a weapon.
And the collateral damage would only serve to recruit moderates to the terrorists cause.
@patrickwintour: Corbyn to offer his MPs free vote on Syria but to say party policy is to oppose. Will call on Cameron to delay vote to respond to MPs doubts
"Will call on Cameron to delay vote to respond to MPs doubts"
Wasn't that what the long debate last week was for?
In theory a free vote should mean the estimate of 60 Labour MPs in favour that Rentoul came up with should increase. But that would be supposing that their vote had anything to do with the civil war in Syria rather than the Labour party.
Question: What would be the consequences of Russia dropping a nuke or two on the largest ISIS strongholds? Aside from the stock markets dropping 80% in an hour.
It'd send a clear message.
Well, it would probably make any Russian worldwide an immediate target for retribution. And in the minds of ISIS supporters justify a tit for tat attack on Russia itself, if they ever got their hands on a weapon.
considering Syria ain't that big, you'd probably have a fair few unhappy Israeli's what with the contamination etc. unless nukes have got as surgical as airstrikes have in the past few years
Chris Bryant on Daily Politics saying he couldn't look a constituent in the eye if he didn't back air strikes, and a terrorist act killed hundreds in London...
Maybe, but the fact is that the person likely to carry out such an attack is in London now, not Syria
trained in Syria.
or does the West London Shooting School have a hidden chamber?
I would've thought a lot of it is done online
You cannot train online to become a terrorist of the type that we are seeing in Europe.
I don't wish to appear flippant but training to blow yourself up seems odd. I can't begin to imagine the brainwashing that takes place.
This is a very good, if depressing and frustrating (from an SF perspective) read.
To precis, they take a number (say 30) boys and young men, who as you might expect are the most vulnerable, low-level criminality, abandoned to madrassahs, orphans, etc and of those, a dozen do not run away of their own accord nor do their parents come to get them.
Those dozen are then indoctrinated, again as you would expect, and told that the greater good is in giving their life for the cause.
Even though they are scared and continue to question this, they are too caught up in the very slick process and indoctrination that culminates in them carrying out the attacks.
Maybe that's what happens in some cases. But many of those who have chosen to attack the West come from comfortable backgrounds - like the 9/11terrorists, the doctors who tried to attack Glasgow airport, the university students who murdered Lee Rigby.
Patrick Wintour Corbyn to offer his MPs free vote on Syria but to say party policy is to oppose. Will call on Cameron to delay vote to respond to MPs doubts
@patrickwintour: Corbyn to offer his MPs free vote on Syria but to say party policy is to oppose. Will call on Cameron to delay vote to respond to MPs doubts
"Will call on Cameron to delay vote to respond to MPs doubts"
Wasn't that what the long debate last week was for?
Corbyn isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
@patrickwintour: Corbyn to offer his MPs free vote on Syria but to say party policy is to oppose. Will call on Cameron to delay vote to respond to MPs doubts
"Will call on Cameron to delay vote to respond to MPs doubts"
Wasn't that what the long debate last week was for?
Corbyn isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
Didn't get those 2 E's at A-Level for nothing...God imagine him on the world stage, he would get eaten for breakfast.
@patrickwintour: Corbyn to offer his MPs free vote on Syria but to say party policy is to oppose. Will call on Cameron to delay vote to respond to MPs doubts
"Will call on Cameron to delay vote to respond to MPs doubts"
Wasn't that what the long debate last week was for?
basically that "education" chart confirms what seems intuitively obvious - the younger you are (i.e. still at school/college) , the less cynical (and, due to inexperience of life, the more credulous) you are and the more you believe that Corbyn can deliver better politics and a better society. And that's why they behave so appallingly to anyone who contradicts them - they're adolescents and they react like adolescents when challenged i.e. completely over the top and out of all proportion.
It's both frustrating and sad. Because we definitely need better politics and a better society. But Corbyn has been in politics all his adult life and he seems more interested in abstract theory than he is in actually delivering anything for anyone that makes any difference or improvement. Anyone know what he is like as a constittuency MP? Is he diligent and helpful? Or do "causes" matter more to him than individual constituents?
Won't the Labour Shadow Cabinet look a bit isolated if the vast majority of Labour MPs vote against air strikes? The option to 'delay' sounds like the perfect opportunity for a number of them to back out of a decision.
Patrick Wintour Corbyn to offer his MPs free vote on Syria but to say party policy is to oppose. Will call on Cameron to delay vote to respond to MPs doubts
More buggering about.
Gives Cameron an excuse to go and ahead and bomb anyway, on the basis that the Opposition can't be taken seriously anymore.
Pulpstar Posts: Too many... November 29 Looks like Labour will have a "free" vote on Syria.
No one believes more firmly than Comrade Corbyn that all MPs are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?
Patrick Wintour Corbyn to offer his MPs free vote on Syria but to say party policy is to oppose. Will call on Cameron to delay vote to respond to MPs doubts
More buggering about.
Cameron needs to get this vote done as soon as possible,
Patrick Wintour Corbyn to offer his MPs free vote on Syria but to say party policy is to oppose. Will call on Cameron to delay vote to respond to MPs doubts
More buggering about.
Cameron needs to get this vote done as soon as possible,
Jeremy Corbyn seems to have played this pretty well to me. He's made his position abundantly clear on a subject where he will have the support of the majority of party members against MPs and shadow cabinet members. He has strengthened the case for transferring more power into the hands of the membership, which is his top priority right now.
I see Corbyn's highly paid Mao-ist spin doctor is having another cracking day. Your free vote on, your free vote off, your free vote on, your free vote off, and shake it all about and have a not totally free vote...
basically that "education" chart confirms what seems intuitively obvious - the younger you are (i.e. still at school/college) , the less cynical (and, due to inexperience of life, the more credulous) you are and the more you believe that Corbyn can deliver better politics and a better society. And that's why they behave so appallingly to anyone who contradicts them - they're adolescents and they react like adolescents when challenged i.e. completely over the top and out of all proportion.
It's both frustrating and sad. Because we definitely need better politics and a better society. But Corbyn has been in politics all his adult life and he seems more interested in abstract theory than he is in actually delivering anything for anyone that makes any difference or improvement. Anyone know what he is like as a constittuency MP? Is he diligent and helpful? Or do "causes" matter more to him than individual constituents?
Andrew Lansley of all people recently said that Corbyn was a good constituency MP. He apparently helped Lansley's wife in relation to some medical training issue.
Patrick Wintour Corbyn to offer his MPs free vote on Syria but to say party policy is to oppose. Will call on Cameron to delay vote to respond to MPs doubts
More buggering about.
Cameron needs to get this vote done as soon as possible,
It's very clear that Corbyn's more interested in playing games with internal party politics than being a serious Opposition.
@patrickwintour: Corbyn to offer his MPs free vote on Syria but to say party policy is to oppose. Will call on Cameron to delay vote to respond to MPs doubts
@patrickwintour: Corbyn will stress he opposes air strikes. Puts ball back in Cameron court. Will PM have a majority ?
This is either monumentally dim or monumentally clever.
@patrickwintour: Corbyn to offer his MPs free vote on Syria but to say party policy is to oppose. Will call on Cameron to delay vote to respond to MPs doubts
"Will call on Cameron to delay vote to respond to MPs doubts"
Wasn't that what the long debate last week was for?
Jeremy Corbyn seems to have played this pretty well to me. He's made his position abundantly clear on a subject where he will have the support of the majority of party members against MPs and shadow cabinet members. He has strengthened the case for transferring more power into the hands of the membership, which is his top priority right now.
But you simply cannot run a meaningful political party run by the membership. Any party like that would be utterly slaughtered at a GE.
Completely off topic but this is one of the better political jokes I have seen recently (hat tip Guido)
Sadiq Khan does stand up…
“I’m the son of a bus driver. I used to love that line… then Sajid fucking Javid came along. You wait for years for the son of a Muslim bus driver to turn up and two come along at once.”
Jeremy Corbyn seems to have played this pretty well to me. He's made his position abundantly clear on a subject where he will have the support of the majority of party members against MPs and shadow cabinet members. He has strengthened the case for transferring more power into the hands of the membership, which is his top priority right now.
I tend to agree. A lot will now turn on whether there is a clear majority in the Shadow Cabinet willing to vote against this unwhipped party line. If he gets a majority his position will be considerably strengthened.
Jeremy Corbyn seems to have played this pretty well to me. He's made his position abundantly clear on a subject where he will have the support of the majority of party members against MPs and shadow cabinet members. He has strengthened the case for transferring more power into the hands of the membership, which is his top priority right now.
It is the MPs who represent the voters, not the membership
Without the Commons, who is Corbyn actually leading? No-one with any mandate or real authority.
Corbyn has not played this well at all. Not in terms of securing the future of Labour as political force.
He has very probably lit the blue touch paper that will blow it up completely.
Jeremy Corbyn seems to have played this pretty well to me. He's made his position abundantly clear on a subject where he will have the support of the majority of party members against MPs and shadow cabinet members. He has strengthened the case for transferring more power into the hands of the membership, which is his top priority right now.
But you simply cannot run a meaningful political party run by the membership. Any party like that would be utterly slaughtered at a GE.
The plan is roughly as follows:
1) marginalise MPs by means of the membership 2) replace MPs with more loyal leftwingers via the membership 3) retake power back to the shadow cabinet once MPs are reliable enough
That probably won't be complete in this Parliament, admittedly. But gaining control of the party for the left is the priority for now.
Jeremy Corbyn seems to have played this pretty well to me. He's made his position abundantly clear on a subject where he will have the support of the majority of party members against MPs and shadow cabinet members. He has strengthened the case for transferring more power into the hands of the membership, which is his top priority right now.
Just remember this a prelude to an even bigger clusterfuck, the Trident vote
Jeremy Corbyn seems to have played this pretty well to me. He's made his position abundantly clear on a subject where he will have the support of the majority of party members against MPs and shadow cabinet members. He has strengthened the case for transferring more power into the hands of the membership, which is his top priority right now.
But you simply cannot run a meaningful political party run by the membership. Any party like that would be utterly slaughtered at a GE.
Well, if you are a Socialist groupuscule, convinced of the rightness of your cause, of course you can believe that 250,000 people can run a party how they wish, regardless of the wishes of 9 million voters.
It's the very essence of such people to believe that the elect few know better than the ignorant many.
Jeremy Corbyn seems to have played this pretty well to me. He's made his position abundantly clear on a subject where he will have the support of the majority of party members against MPs and shadow cabinet members. He has strengthened the case for transferring more power into the hands of the membership, which is his top priority right now.
But you simply cannot run a meaningful political party run by the membership. Any party like that would be utterly slaughtered at a GE.
The plan is roughly as follows:
1) marginalise MPs by means of the membership 2) replace MPs with more loyal leftwingers via the membership 3) retake power back to the shadow cabinet once MPs are reliable enough
That probably won't be complete in this Parliament, admittedly. But gaining control of the party for the left is the priority for now.
Maybe, but they can write off an election or two whilst that happens.
And they then run the risk of an alternative UKIP completely ursping them.
You're right though, this is about the future of the labour party, not the future government of the UK.
Comments
or does the West London Shooting School have a hidden chamber?
Also, wouldn't we almost certainly kill innocent Syrians in the process? Or are our bombs so precise as to only take out the baddies?
You could maybe do a thread on types of illogical bollocks one can do with polls.
"Our weapons are the ironic mind against the literal: the open mind against the credulous; the courageous pursuit of truth against the fearful and abject forces who would set limits to investigation (and who stupidly claim that we already have all the truth we need). Perhaps above all, we affirm life over the cults of death and human sacrifice and are afraid, not of inevitable death, but rather of a human life that is cramped and distorted by the pathetic need to offer mindless adulation, or the dismal belief that the laws of nature respond to wailings and incantations.”
I think that literal minds can be intelligent and that, lacking doubt or curiosity or scepticism, it is very easy for them to be effective and ruthless. Mao, Hitler and Stalin are examples of cunning, ruthless and intelligent literalists. They were supported and cheerleaded by people who did not think of themselves as literal (e.g. Sartre and Communism) but who, despite their intelligence, were unable or unwilling to see or describe what was in front of their noses. Faith trumped evidence; faith trumped morality.
It is another irony of history that those who see established religion (particularly Western religions) as wicked are often the most enthusiastic supporters of and greatest believers in fundamentally immoral or amoral Manichean movements and belief systems.
Labour NEC rep Pete Willsman on David Cameron's Syria proposals: "It is against party policy as agreed at Brighton in the emergency motion"
@BBCWorldatOne · 3m3 minutes ago
Lab NEC rep Pete Willsman on Syria: "The conference is the sovereign body of the party. The PLP should be following the conference policy"
@BBCWorldatOne · 2m2 minutes ago
Lab NEC rep Pete Willsman on Syria: "Jeremy should insist on a 3 line whip & every Labour MP shld follow the decision of the Lab conference"
@BBCWorldatOne · 1m1 minute ago
"If they don't then that's up to them & it will show they have no respect for the Labour Party conference," NEC rep Pete Willsman adds #wato
We'll have to wait and see what happens.
If MPs are not comfortable with people getting killed then they should vote against war.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/datablog/2015/nov/30/labour-losing-touch-public-opinion-research-suggests?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet
"In summary, the poll shows the depth and breadth of opposition to Corbyn as Labour leader and the policies and issues he represents. The party is winning tenuous support from former Lib Dems and Greens because of Corbyn, while simultaneously losing support from voters who best reflect public opinion. In so doing it is choosing to represent a dwindling section of the electorate that not only does not reflect the breadth of public opinion but is blissfully unconcerned by it.
Should Corbyn fall on his sword it is more than likely those voters who have recently attached themselves to the party will drift away again, leaving Labour with the 68% it has retained from May. By that point it will have so alienated itself from public opinion as to be considered unelectable by those voters who would quite like a bit of economic security and competence. The third of voters it has lost may well choose to permanently close the door on any return. All of which slowly and inexorably sends a great political institution towards its unfortunate but inevitable death."
I'm not sure it would escalate into nuclear strikes between other countries, but I'm at a loss as to how it would go. "EU sanctions" seems rather inadequate...
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/671321175549714432
I would say that events have moved on post-Paris to make any vote taken back in September utterly meaningless
Conspiracy Theorists will be demanding checks for umbrella-related puncture marks...
Y'know that chemical weapon stuff that we got all hot under the collar about a couple of years ago?
Yeah, don't worry about that any more, mate.
Load up the mustard gas.
We have to accept all this, bearing in mind that the alternative is worse, as the many victims of ISIS already demonstrate. It is not a decision to be taken lightly, but one that should be taken with our eyes open.
Shutting our eyes and pretending that the problem will go away may well be more 'comfortable' for some MPs, but is the most irresponsible of all attitudes.
amazon.co.uk/Siege-Trapped-Inside-Hotel-Hide/dp/0670922595/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1448891416&sr=8-1&keywords=Siege+run+or+hide
Instructor: "Watch carefully, boys, because i am only going to show you this once..."
Even the censored version on UTube (yes, UTube censored a sketch taking the piss out of suicide bombers, didn't want to risk causing offense, I suppose) is still worth watching.
As to the brain-washing that takes place, I did some work on that aspect in the ME some years ago and can say that the bastards who do the conditioning have to get hold of the right subject to start with (bit like stage hypnotists, whose techniques are similar). What goes into making a suitable subject starts from the Mosques and the Madrassa schools.
Those dozen are then indoctrinated, again as you would expect, and told that the greater good is in giving their life for the cause.
Even though they are scared and continue to question this, they are too caught up in the very slick process and indoctrination that culminates in them carrying out the attacks.
I originally suggested a bet on whether UKIP will get more than the 8892 votes they did back in May. If you want to bet on that basis, we can talk odds and stakes.
Ye?
@patrickwintour: Corbyn will stress he opposes air strikes. Puts ball back in Cameron court. Will PM have a majority ?
Corbyn to offer his MPs free vote on Syria but to say party policy is to oppose. Will call on Cameron to delay vote to respond to MPs doubts
If we go into this war in Syria then let us go in intending to win and prepared to commit the resources and take the bad PR when it comes. Otherwise we would be best to stay out.
Of course, that rather depends on HMG deciding what "win" means and there is no sign of them doing that at present. Without knowing what you want to achieve there is no chance of formulating a strategy to achieve it and no hope of knowing what resources you need to commit. But never mind we shall show solidarity with the French for a few years and the Crabs will be pleased to play with their Tonka Toys dropping things on people.
Shutting your eyes and pretending the problem will go away is not unique to one point of view.
And the collateral damage would only serve to recruit moderates to the terrorists cause.
Wasn't that what the long debate last week was for?
By the sounds of it, the Labour Party will have a position but will not ask the Parliamentary Labour Party or Shadow Cabinet to support it.
http://order-order.com/2015/11/30/more-on-that-corbynista-voodoo-poll/
And that's why they behave so appallingly to anyone who contradicts them - they're adolescents and they react like adolescents when challenged i.e. completely over the top and out of all proportion.
It's both frustrating and sad. Because we definitely need better politics and a better society. But Corbyn has been in politics all his adult life and he seems more interested in abstract theory than he is in actually delivering anything for anyone that makes any difference or improvement. Anyone know what he is like as a constittuency MP? Is he diligent and helpful? Or do "causes" matter more to him than individual constituents?
Free vote for MPs plus "strong anti-bombing" party position sounds like Corbynists are building a de-selection argument for rebels.
November 29
Looks like Labour will have a "free" vote on Syria.
No one believes more firmly than Comrade Corbyn that all MPs are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?
LATEST: Seems Corbyn might go for a whipped vote with a suspension of Shadow Cabinet responsibility. So like a free vote. But not.
eerrrr what??
@chrisshipitv: LATEST: Seems Corbyn might go for a whipped vote with a suspension of Shadow Cabinet responsibility. So like a free vote. But not.
This is either monumentally dim or monumentally clever.
Guido is told by a source inside Labour HQ that the counting was done by the new digital chief, Ben Soffa
http://order-order.com/2015/11/30/more-on-that-corbynista-voodoo-poll/
No stink there.
Oh, right, as you were.
Sadiq Khan does stand up…
“I’m the son of a bus driver. I used to love that line… then Sajid fucking Javid came along. You wait for years for the son of a Muslim bus driver to turn up and two come along at once.”
FFS, how could they cock this up even worse than they already have?
Without the Commons, who is Corbyn actually leading? No-one with any mandate or real authority.
Corbyn has not played this well at all. Not in terms of securing the future of Labour as political force.
He has very probably lit the blue touch paper that will blow it up completely.
1) marginalise MPs by means of the membership
2) replace MPs with more loyal leftwingers via the membership
3) retake power back to the shadow cabinet once MPs are reliable enough
That probably won't be complete in this Parliament, admittedly. But gaining control of the party for the left is the priority for now.
It's the very essence of such people to believe that the elect few know better than the ignorant many.
History tells us that Communists naturally tend towards rule by 'the party' over any other group.
And they then run the risk of an alternative UKIP completely ursping them.
You're right though, this is about the future of the labour party, not the future government of the UK.
@TristramHuntMP: Beyond excited that #StokeOnTrent is finally going to get a @PizzaExpress http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/PizzaExpress-open-Stoke-Trent-branch/story-28267828-detail/story.html …