Jeremy Corbyn and Hilary Benn are now in open conflict over Syrian air strikes.
In a dramatic intervention on BBC Radio earlier today, Mr Corbyn singled out Mr Benn - who supports air strikes - and said that meant killing innocent people.
I think that Benn is setting himself up for a coronation. What other senior Labour figure has shown any form of leadership? If Corbyn goes then there is only one obvious successor.
Why will the Corbynite membership vote for someone who they can see is destabilising Corbyn? Look left, but loyal.
NB also I suspect voting against the Government on this will be a sine qua non for the next leader. Bet accordingly when the division lists come out.
Exactly. This isn't about Syria anymore.
Two wars are about to be declared, and only one of them is in Syria. I can't see a way back for Labour from this split for a very long time, not so much because of the nature of it (war and peace etc), but the appalling behaviour of the Corbyn crowd. If it's a free vote, a difficult vote, a vote of conscience, then people should be left to quietly make their minds up.
Looking forward to the next Labour canvasser who knocks on my door.
Jeremy Corbyn and Hilary Benn are now in open conflict over Syrian air strikes.
In a dramatic intervention on BBC Radio earlier today, Mr Corbyn singled out Mr Benn - who supports air strikes - and said that meant killing innocent people.
I think that Benn is setting himself up for a coronation. What other senior Labour figure has shown any form of leadership? If Corbyn goes then there is only one obvious successor.
Why will the Corbynite membership vote for someone who they can see is destabilising Corbyn? Look left, but loyal.
That is a good point and it highlights the problem. Looked at that way Benn and Corbyn act as two centres around which the party can split. Benn is the de facto leader of the moderates and Corbyn gets the communists & hard-liners.
Number of Labour MPs voting for bombing likely to be 30-40. Source says: "Many are facing appalling intimidation from the anti-war brigade." 3:41 PM - 1 Dec 2015
People in favour of peace using intimidation. No - surely not!
I wonder whether there's a chance that the vote will not go ahead or might be lost. Still, Labour will be pleased and they will have a message at last: Labour - the terrorists's friend.
The vote won't be lost. Tory rebels are now in single figures. DUP/UUP will vote strongly for. I think the Government will have 320 votes (pairing excepted) before it even gets out the door.
They only then need 5 more from LDs/Labour to win it.
If 75 Labour MPs + all the LDs voted for it (with almost all Tory MPs present) then the Government could get to 400+ in favour.
What is going on? I see it as evidence of two deep cleavages in British and Western politics. The first is the gulf between instrumental and expressive politics. The former involves winning elections in order to wield power and change things. The latter involves seeking fulfilment and personal satisfaction by interacting with symbols, attending events, declaring positions—in short, signalling things about oneself. With the decline of mass classes and monolithic ideologies it has become increasingly hard to combine the two sorts of politics.
In any logical political system, the answer would be for the Labour Party to split. It is increasingly two parties: a moderate, instrumental one and a hard-left, expressive one. They could exist much more happily, perhaps even more harmoniously, were they organisationally separate. Yet they are forced together like a couple that wants to separate but cannot afford two flats.
@AngusRobertson: Breaking News: Cross-party amendment against UK bombing in Syria tabled with support of MPs from Tories, Labour, SNP, Plaid, SDLP & Greens
Jeremy Corbyn and Hilary Benn are now in open conflict over Syrian air strikes.
In a dramatic intervention on BBC Radio earlier today, Mr Corbyn singled out Mr Benn - who supports air strikes - and said that meant killing innocent people.
Corbyn seems more bothered about killing innocent people in Syria than about innocent people being murdered here.
Completely unfair comment.
Can you really not see the link between killing innocent people and the growth in people willing to kill innocents here.
How many wars have you already supported that have made matters worse like (Libya?)
Remind me how many people Boko Haram - another evil Islamic sect - have killed. Thousands. 6k last 12 months I believe.
Lots more of them./.. All Islamic , all terrorist In all continents except Australia.
Following a conversation IRL, I'm finding it hard to discover if the Paris attackers were using encrypted communications. Some sources say they were, then later ones say they were not.
Jeremy Corbyn and Hilary Benn are now in open conflict over Syrian air strikes.
In a dramatic intervention on BBC Radio earlier today, Mr Corbyn singled out Mr Benn - who supports air strikes - and said that meant killing innocent people.
Corbyn seems more bothered about killing innocent people in Syria than about innocent people being murdered here.
Completely unfair comment.
Can you really not see the link between killing innocent people and the growth in people willing to kill innocents here.
How many wars have you already supported that have made matters worse like (Libya?)
No, it is not an unfair comment. First you do not know what my position on the wars have been and in relation to this one I have expressed a number of reservations. I don't think that the case for bombing is as slam dunk as some might think.
But the war has been started by the terrorists, some considerable time ago, and unlike Corbyn and people who think like him I put the blame for terrorism squarely on the shoulders of those who decide to carry out such acts not on the victims.
I accept - and have said in previous posts - that this may result in an increase in the short-term risks but that may be necessary to get rid of the problem in the long-term.
The problem with the Corbyn position (which I assume is shared by you) is that they cannot see the difference between a pretext and a cause, they ignore the underlying causes and the explicitly expansionist, totalitarian and genocidal aims of the Islamist ideology and, seeing the guilt-ridden, credulous and gullible morons who think that anything Western is bad, the terrorists couch their statements in ways calculated to make idiots like Livingstone and others fall for the repulsive nonsense that the victims and those who seek to defend themselves are to blame for the acts of the aggressors. The Labour Party is acting like the Islamists' "useful idiots" (copyright: Lenin). Their policy is one of surrender. Not peace - unless they mean the peace of the graveyard.
This is not the first comment Corbyn has made which suggests that he simply does not care about protecting British citizens.
The truth is not unfair. But it may hurt. Tough. Labour have made their choice. And they will have to live with it. Not bleat like a four year old about life being "unfair".
@paulwaugh: In i/view with @bbclaurak , JCorbyn: I would 'look at' halting RAF strikes in Iraq. Wd also urge US/France to find political solutn to Syria
The lady making a fool of herself on twitter about the security briefing...Corbyn's Shadow Digital Minister and a close friend of Tom Watson. Another over-promoted genius.
@AngusRobertson: Breaking News: Cross-party amendment against UK bombing in Syria tabled with support of MPs from Tories, Labour, SNP, Plaid, SDLP & Greens
So that's 63 Green-SDLP-SNP-PC MPs if they all vote (including those SNP who've had the whip withdrawn) and even with 20 Tory rebels and 210 Labour MPs all staying "loyal" - and voting actively against - that makes it only 293 votes in opposition to 320 in favour - pairing and abstentions excepted.
Jeremy Corbyn and Hilary Benn are now in open conflict over Syrian air strikes.
In a dramatic intervention on BBC Radio earlier today, Mr Corbyn singled out Mr Benn - who supports air strikes - and said that meant killing innocent people.
I think that Benn is setting himself up for a coronation. What other senior Labour figure has shown any form of leadership? If Corbyn goes then there is only one obvious successor.
Why will the Corbynite membership vote for someone who they can see is destabilising Corbyn? Look left, but loyal.
NB also I suspect voting against the Government on this will be a sine qua non for the next leader. Bet accordingly when the division lists come out.
Exactly. This isn't about Syria anymore.
You mean, only MPs who vote against the government/airstrikes will be next leader?
@paulwaugh: In i/view with @bbclaurak , JCorbyn: I would 'look at' halting RAF strikes in Iraq. Wd also urge US/France to find political solutn to Syria
Would he urge Russia, Iran and Turkey to also find a political solution?
@paulwaugh: In i/view with @bbclaurak , JCorbyn: I would 'look at' halting RAF strikes in Iraq. Wd also urge US/France to find political solutn to Syria
Instead he would use the RAF to drop balloons and silly string.
Told John Baron has forced a vote in Foreign Affairs Committee 4,3 against strikes. Awkward for Cameron.
Thats only 7 of 11 members?
Yes. And what's this about being 'told'? Does the Committee not publish any vote? Baron is just a mouthpiece of David Davis and is only interested in what he can do to hinder anything Cameron does. He is a rabid anti EU quasi kipper. With the brain power to match. It's thanks to his parliamentary shenanigans that ISIS was allowed to rise and defeat the other anti Assad rebels.
@AngusRobertson: Breaking News: Cross-party amendment against UK bombing in Syria tabled with support of MPs from Tories, Labour, SNP, Plaid, SDLP & Greens
So that's 63 Green-SDLP-SNP-PC MPs if they all vote (including those SNP who've had the whip withdrawn) and even with 20 Tory rebels and 210 Labour MPs all staying "loyal" - and voting actively against - that makes it only 293 votes in opposition to 320 in favour - pairing and abstentions excepted.
Against will lose.
I wonder if Cameron and the government would want it more definitive than that.
@paulwaugh: In i/view with @bbclaurak , JCorbyn: I would 'look at' halting RAF strikes in Iraq. Wd also urge US/France to find political solutn to Syria
Corbyn in favour of continued beheadings, genocide, terrorism, persecution of gays, non-muslims etc.
@paulwaugh: In i/view with @bbclaurak , JCorbyn: I would 'look at' halting RAF strikes in Iraq. Wd also urge US/France to find political solutn to Syria
A political solution is being looked at with regards to Syria though:
Corbyn is the man who sits in a casualty department, confronted by a doctor telling him that a loved one needs to be operated on to stay alive, but knowing that there is risk of irreparable damage to the loved one from the operation.
Given the choice he asks the doctor to come back with a homeopathic solution.
@paulwaugh: In i/view with @bbclaurak , JCorbyn: I would 'look at' halting RAF strikes in Iraq. Wd also urge US/France to find political solutn to Syria
Corbyn in favour of continued beheadings, genocide, terrorism, persecution of gays, non-muslims etc.
So is John Baron. Perhaps he should cross the floor and become Corbyn's shadow foreign secretary.
I wouldn't characterise it in these terms but Hopi Sen has highlighted an important aspect of what's going on in Labour with the Syria vote:
Hopi Sen @hopisen · 44m44 minutes ago Since nobody seems to have written it, couple of tweets on why what Corbyn team are trying to do on Syria vote is nasty dirty politics..
Hopi Sen @hopisen · 41m41 minutes ago A free vote is an agreement to disagree. No punishments follow, no disloyalty, a promise from leadership that they accept MPs own choices..
Hopi Sen @hopisen · 38m38 minutes ago To have a free vote, MPs have to have faith that to disagree on this issue is not seen as breach of trust or betrayal of loyalty.
Hopi Sen @hopisen · 36m36 minutes ago But what Corbyn is doing is something entirely different. He is offering a poisoned free vote. MPs are technically unwhipped but know..
Hopi Sen @hopisen · 35m35 minutes ago That from the leader there is no "agreement to disagree". He will not whip his agenda through Rosie W, but through Milne, the NEC & momentum
Hopi Sen @hopisen · 32m32 minutes ago So Corbyn isn't offering MPs a truce, or accepting different views. He's saying he won't punish dissent by whips, but by other means.
Hopi Sen @hopisen · 30m30 minutes ago Corbyn's not offering MPs a free vote. He's inviting them to rebel in the knowledge he'll use a different sort of whip if they do.
Hopi Sen @hopisen · 5m5 minutes ago Another way to explain it: Under Corbyn, Rosie Winterton is "dignified" chief whip, but real whips are Milne, Lansman, Willsman, Fisher etc
We keep hearing that Team Corbyn doesn't do nasty politics, its all about kinder gentler politics. The evidence so far is quite the opposite. Stuffing placemen, putting in place the chance to knee-cap dissenting voices by hard left grass roots operation, etc etc etc. This "free vote" is just another example.
Just think what would be in store for the rest of us if that shower of c*nts ever took full control of Government in this country.
"The people have spoken, we don't need to ask them again"
Corbyn is the man who sits in a casualty department, confronted by a doctor telling him that a loved one needs to be operated on to stay alive, but knowing that there is risk of irreparable damage to the loved one from the operation.
Given the choice he asks the doctor to come back with a homeopathic solution.
You missed the bit where he asks the doctors to form an expert panel and discuss the situation and report back on their findings and that they would go with that....but before they can report back, he texts from the car on the way home not to go with the operation.
@AngusRobertson: Breaking News: Cross-party amendment against UK bombing in Syria tabled with support of MPs from Tories, Labour, SNP, Plaid, SDLP & Greens
So that's 63 Green-SDLP-SNP-PC MPs if they all vote (including those SNP who've had the whip withdrawn) and even with 20 Tory rebels and 210 Labour MPs all staying "loyal" - and voting actively against - that makes it only 293 votes in opposition to 320 in favour - pairing and abstentions excepted.
Against will lose.
I wonder if Cameron and the government would want it more definitive than that.
Well yes but if you were them would you not be totally fed up with all the crass ignorant politicking going on over all this by a rag tag and bobtail bunch of totally disreputable buffoons?
Very pleased to see that the last Labour MP staning in Scotland is voting not to bomb. All this Corbyn pacifist stuff has obfuscated the main question;
Without an objective the bombing will almost certainly prove counter productive. We either support a potential government against ALL the rebels -which mens Assad-or we stay out. It's as simple as that
@paulwaugh: In i/view with @bbclaurak , JCorbyn: I would 'look at' halting RAF strikes in Iraq. Wd also urge US/France to find political solutn to Syria
Would he urge Russia, Iran and Turkey to also find a political solution?
Without an objective the bombing will almost certainly prove counter productive. We either support a potential government against ALL the rebels -which mens Assad-or we stay out. It's as simple as that
Why's it as simple as that?
There's only one group of rebels which is attacking us and our close allies. That is the key point which the antis (the sane ones I mean, not Corbyn and his henchmen) seem to have missed.
Jeremy Corbyn and Hilary Benn are now in open conflict over Syrian air strikes.
In a dramatic intervention on BBC Radio earlier today, Mr Corbyn singled out Mr Benn - who supports air strikes - and said that meant killing innocent people.
I think that Benn is setting himself up for a coronation. What other senior Labour figure has shown any form of leadership? If Corbyn goes then there is only one obvious successor.
Why will the Corbynite membership vote for someone who they can see is destabilising Corbyn? Look left, but loyal.
NB also I suspect voting against the Government on this will be a sine qua non for the next leader. Bet accordingly when the division lists come out.
Exactly. This isn't about Syria anymore.
You mean, only MPs who vote against the government/airstrikes will be next leader?
Well that would be the case anyway. The next leader will be some Corbynista elected after 2020 anyway. No one in the current PLP will be the next leader. We can expect serious changes to the Labour constitution anyway I would have thought by 2020 .
No doubt if he had told his audience that gender discrimination of this type is not allowed in Britain they would refuse to vote for him. Far better to throw womens' rights under the bus and get some votes in.
From events like this, I can only believe that Corbyn does not give a s**t about gender equality.
My point, and I don't regret the source I used to illustrate it, was that there are clear reasons to suppose that this NGO is a legitimate target for an airstrike within Syria, as opposed to the 'NGO bread bakery' story which makes it appear that Putin just bombed the local Oxfam shop.
Those who take something from my posting words to that affect will have done so, and I'm glad to have added some nuance to their view of the event. Whether you exhuming this, trumpeting 'Alex Jones' every post, and trying to make me look bad will have added much to the debate is up to you to decide.
Someone complaining about me using Wikipedia, when you use PrisonPlanet without verification, is quite delicious. BTW, that was not the only place I checked. I also suggest you read the talk in wiki about it as well - sometimes (although far from always) more enlightening than the actual article.
As for your source: it shows that the German and Turkish IHH's are two different organisations. Well done. And note that has nothing to do with your original claim about the Netherlands. A very poor attempt at diversion.
So what we have is that it was not banned in the Netherlands, as you claimed after reading a conspiracy-theory website. Neither was it banned in Germany.
There are 'clear reasons' for the attack in your conspiracy-theorist mind. Alternatively, it might just have been a bakery giving bread charitably to people who need it. You cannot know. I cannot know. But as usual, you cluelessly back Putin.
Thanks for showing once again that your self-satisfied checks for sources are so much bunkum. The only thing that people should take from your words are that you are a clueless tinfoil-hatter. 'Teeth are bone', 'The Olympic was swapped for the Titanic', and many more.
I hope I don't have long to wait for the next: I need a laugh.
Your attitude is rather sad - you of all people I would have thought would be interested in a diet that historically made the Scottish population so healthy. Haggis (nutrient rich organ meats - a common theme), soaked oats (as I described), turnips - all very much part of the Weston A Price school of thought. Far healthier than England's contemporary diet of wheat (albeit that all bread was soaked in those days).
That's a lovely story that's completely ruined by the reality of the Scottish diet being grossly inferior and Scotland constantly teetering on the edge of famine due to the lack of arable land.
This situation was only remedied by the introduction of the potato and the creation of a sufficiently awesome subsoil plow which was as late as the start of the nineteenth century, and high energy density grains.
Starvation has nothing to do with it. It has to do with foods that were widely adopted and revered because they promoted good health.
@paulwaugh: In i/view with @bbclaurak , JCorbyn: I would 'look at' halting RAF strikes in Iraq. Wd also urge US/France to find political solutn to Syria
Corbyn in favour of continued beheadings, genocide, terrorism, persecution of gays, non-muslims etc.
I think corbyn should stay off the television. I also think it's extremely nasty the way he's intimidating and bullying MPs against his line by using the. 'Nowhere to hide' line and the not so subtle momentum movement. This is not the action of a dignified leader.
Without an objective the bombing will almost certainly prove counter productive. We either support a potential government against ALL the rebels -which mens Assad-or we stay out. It's as simple as that
Why's it as simple as that?
There's only one group of rebels which is attacking us and our close allies. That is the key point which the antis (the sane ones I mean, not Corbyn and his henchmen) seem to have missed.
It is a necessary first step in eliminating ISIS and then pursuing a policy of ending the Syrian civil war. It's not an issue that should require a vote in parliament even, never mind be opposed by the labour party. It is in support of a UN resolution as part of a 60 nation coalition and an extension of our current bombing operation in Iraq.
No doubt if he had told his audience that gender discrimination of this type is not allowed in Britain they would refuse to vote for him. Far better to throw womens' rights under the bus and get some votes in.
From events like this, I can only believe that Corbyn does not give a s**t about gender equality.
What seems odd to me, is the silence from prominent women involved in politics. It hardly looks like empowering women.
Perhaps they need to follow the example of Margaret Hilda Thatcher.
What is extraordinary is the amount of political energy and discussion going into such a trivial decision. A handful of aircraft will fly a tiny number of sorties against an enemy we are already attacking on the other side of a border that the enemy don't recognise exists. If we were actually "going to war" how long would we need to decide? A couple of decades?
Without an objective the bombing will almost certainly prove counter productive. We either support a potential government against ALL the rebels -which mens Assad-or we stay out. It's as simple as that
Let's say that's what we do, and support an Assad government. Leaving aside any moral issues of backing him, there are practical ones.
For instance, what happens after any victory (if indeed that is an avenue for one)? Assad's forces are depleted, and the only reason he's holding onto the territory he has is because of help on the ground from Hezbollah and Iranian units. How can he hold onto the rest of the country?
We need as many groups as possible on the ground to form a coalition, not just Assad's forces.
What is extraordinary is the amount of political energy and discussion going into such a trivial decision. A handful of aircraft will fly a tiny number of sorties against an enemy we are already attacking on the other side of a border that the enemy don't recognise exists. If we were actually "going to war" how long would we need to decide? A couple of decades?
You can thank peacenik labour, but also the few nutjobs on the Tory back benches as well.
@paulwaugh: In i/view with @bbclaurak , JCorbyn: I would 'look at' halting RAF strikes in Iraq. Wd also urge US/France to find political solutn to Syria
Instead he would use the RAF to drop balloons and silly string.
Nicola Sturgeon's response to David Cameron is polite and reasoned though I don't agree with her. She is a class act when compared to Corbyn and his stop the war mob and momentum who are intimidating labour mp's and even trolling Mike Gapes who is in hospital. It is appalling and unacceptable in a modern democracy
As of September 2015: the government held 25–30% of Syria[13][14] (66% of the population); ISIL-held territory constituted 45% of Syria[14] (10–15% of the population); 20–25% controlled by rebel groups (including the al-Nusra front); 5–10% held by the Kurds[15]
Mr. NorthWales, without commenting on Sturgeon, Ed Miliband was a class act compared to Corbyn.
The problem for Labour is they appear to lack the will (and the means, within the party) to axe Corbyn as he mindlessly poisons their prospects for years to come.
A de facto diarchy, as I suggested previously, or a straight split may be the only way out for them.
No doubt if he had told his audience that gender discrimination of this type is not allowed in Britain they would refuse to vote for him. Far better to throw womens' rights under the bus and get some votes in.
From events like this, I can only believe that Corbyn does not give a s**t about gender equality.
What seems odd to me, is the silence from prominent women involved in politics. It hardly looks like empowering women.
The obviously lack the balls to speak up....
Seriously though, feminism means equality, that women should not be treated worse than men just because they are women.
Religion, OTOH, is a choice. Culture is a creation of people. Neither culture nor religion should be placed ahead of something as fundamental as a treating human beings equally.
I hope I don't have long to wait for the next: I need a laugh.
You certainly need something - something beyond developing unhealthy obsessions with people on a message board.
You might be quite a nice person, I've no real way of knowing, but my posts clearly bring out something quite ugly in you, possibly because I don't back down - I've noticed you getting into very protracted and rather pointless arguments with other posters too.
Logging on first thing and having odd 'smiley emoticon' passive aggressive posts from you asking me to look at your posts from last night because you think you've got some 'zinger' for me, is frankly creepy. I seem to remember you might be a house husband? Either that or you have a very tolerant employer. I frankly have neither the time nor the energy.
It's a little melodramatic of me to 'announce' this, but I'll ignore your posts in future - whether you ignore mine or not is obviously up to you.
I do not, and I am right. Teeth are not bones, but they are part of the skeletal system:
The human bones and teeth are one of the most similar yet different structures within our body. They are both made of living and non-living materials, and both are replaced at some point. However, they have different specialized cells, compositions of calcium and phosphorus, different functions, and different kinds of cells.
What is extraordinary is the amount of political energy and discussion going into such a trivial decision. A handful of aircraft will fly a tiny number of sorties against an enemy we are already attacking on the other side of a border that the enemy don't recognise exists. If we were actually "going to war" how long would we need to decide? A couple of decades?
You can thank peacenik labour, but also the few nutjobs on the Tory back benches as well.
I think it's part of our culture and post-Iraq not so surprising. There is an air of unreality about it though, like (with hindsight) some of the debates in the 30s. I think this debate will look very odd from 20 years hence.
What is going on? I see it as evidence of two deep cleavages in British and Western politics. The first is the gulf between instrumental and expressive politics. The former involves winning elections in order to wield power and change things. The latter involves seeking fulfilment and personal satisfaction by interacting with symbols, attending events, declaring positions—in short, signalling things about oneself. With the decline of mass classes and monolithic ideologies it has become increasingly hard to combine the two sorts of politics.
In any logical political system, the answer would be for the Labour Party to split. It is increasingly two parties: a moderate, instrumental one and a hard-left, expressive one. They could exist much more happily, perhaps even more harmoniously, were they organisationally separate. Yet they are forced together like a couple that wants to separate but cannot afford two flats.
Paul Berman made much the same point in his book "Terror and Liberalism" published in 2004. A short book, well written and very well worth reading.
He describes the anti-war Socialists in 1930s France, some of whom ended up supporting Petain.
"They had begun as defenders of liberal values and human rights, and they evolved into defenders of bigotry, tyranny, superstition and mass murder. They were democratic leftists who, through the miraculous workings of the slippery slope and a naive faith in the rationalism of all things, ended as fascists.
Long ago, you say? Not so long ago."
Remind you of anyone?
He points out that too many liberals do not understand liberalism as"the advocacy of freedom, rationality, progress and the acceptance of uncertainty". They see it as a blind faith in a predetermined future, as " a fantasy of a strictly rational world, liberalism as denial".
And so too many refuse to believe that people can enlist in or support a political movement whose animating principles are paranoid conspiracy theories, blood-curdling hatreds, medieval superstitions and the lure of murder.
Hence the grotesquerie of thinking that one should negotiate with IS rather than crush them.
A security response drill meant I almost missed an exam once (had to get two buses to reach it, and they were evacuating the bus station as I arrived for the second).
@AngusRobertson: Breaking News: Cross-party amendment against UK bombing in Syria tabled with support of MPs from Tories, Labour, SNP, Plaid, SDLP & Greens
So that's 63 Green-SDLP-SNP-PC MPs if they all vote (including those SNP who've had the whip withdrawn) and even with 20 Tory rebels and 210 Labour MPs all staying "loyal" - and voting actively against - that makes it only 293 votes in opposition to 320 in favour - pairing and abstentions excepted.
Against will lose.
I wonder if Cameron and the government would want it more definitive than that.
As of September 2015: the government held 25–30% of Syria[13][14] (66% of the population); ISIL-held territory constituted 45% of Syria[14] (10–15% of the population); 20–25% controlled by rebel groups (including the al-Nusra front); 5–10% held by the Kurds[15]
Genuine question: are those population figures current (or as current as feasible), or pre-civil war? If the latter then there are probably skewed heavily now away from certain areas (e.g. ISIS) due to deaths and population movements (i.e. refugees).
At least four million of the pre-war population of 22/23 million are in neighbouring countries, and there has been a great deal of displacement internally as well.
In which case I'd expect the Kurds and Assad/Iran to control more of the population than that figure shows.
But worry not, my Labour comrades – John McDonnell is on the case. He told a meeting in the constituency last week that Ukip is an “evil force” in British politics.
The Labour Shadow Chancellor, advocate of medals for the IRA, calls UKIP 'evil'.
@paulwaugh: In i/view with @bbclaurak , JCorbyn: I would 'look at' halting RAF strikes in Iraq. Wd also urge US/France to find political solutn to Syria
Instead he would use the RAF to drop balloons and silly string.
Send Corbyn out to Syria to negotiate.
Has Corbyn actually read anything about ISIS? He seems to have absolutely no idea what he is talking about. There is no peace process for ISIS. There is no negotiated settlement. They want an apocalyptic battle to end all battles in which everyone dies, preferably in Dabiq.
As of September 2015: the government held 25–30% of Syria[13][14] (66% of the population); ISIL-held territory constituted 45% of Syria[14] (10–15% of the population); 20–25% controlled by rebel groups (including the al-Nusra front); 5–10% held by the Kurds[15]
Genuine question: are those population figures current (or as current as feasible), or pre-civil war? If the latter then there are probably skewed heavily now away from certain areas (e.g. ISIS) due to deaths and population movements (i.e. refugees).
At least four million of the pre-war population of 22/23 million are in neighbouring countries, and there has been a great deal of displacement internally as well.
In which case I'd expect the Kurds and Assad/Iran to control more of the population than that figure shows.
"The objective is very simple. Kill all members of IS."
That would involve bombing London Paris Brussels and dozens of other cities many of us live in. It is the perfect example of trying to nail a blancmange to a wall.
I posted earlier that all large shops and shopping centres here in Nice are searching everyone as they enter. I've just gone to the modern art gallery and they're not even allowing anyone to enter who is wearing a backpack (however small). I had the place to myself.
It's becoming obvious someone needs a strategy because as things stand they are quickly making us change the way we live
"The objective is very simple. Kill all members of IS."
That would involve bombing London Paris Brussels and dozens of other cities many of us live in. It is the perfect example of trying to nail a blancmange to a wall.
I posted earlier that all large shops and shopping centres here in Nice are searching everyone as they enter. I've just gone to the modern art gallery and they're not even allowing anyone to enter who is wearing a backpack (however small). I had the place to myself.
It's becoming obvious someone needs a strategy because as things stand they are quickly making us change the way we live
Imo the point is to destroy the 'S' part of IS. We need to prevent it securing state-like resources with which it might well be able to acquire a nuclear weapon. I think nuclear terrorism is the real threat, the thing we mustn't lose sight of. We can bear Paris-like attacks, hideous as they are. We can't bear a nuclear attack. Sure IS will still have many sympathisers (though the loss of its territory may discourage some as it won't be able to pose as a Caliphate any more). And the ideology will remain, perhaps for centuries.
A security response drill meant I almost missed an exam once (had to get two buses to reach it, and they were evacuating the bus station as I arrived for the second).
Thankfully yes although I was delivering a training session at the time not quite as dramatic as your exam story. The police basically taped off the whole of Portland Place because of a suspicious van though luckily it turned out to be nothing
"The objective is very simple. Kill all members of IS."
That would involve bombing London Paris Brussels and dozens of other cities many of us live in. It is the perfect example of trying to nail a blancmange to a wall.
We will presumably try to arrest those living here, but in extremis we will kill them as well, just as French security forces have done in France.
But lets not kid ourselves that we can negotiate with the rapists, crucifiers, slavers, bombers, torturers, beheaders, and so on that make up IS. They are not the terrorist arm of an otherwise rational political cause, they are hell-bent on bringing about the apocalypse.
So I see Syria is all settled then. I read Mr Corbyn has said France and the USA should put their efforts into a peaceful solution, so that's that. I don't know why it's so hard sometimes.
As of September 2015: the government held 25–30% of Syria[13][14] (66% of the population); ISIL-held territory constituted 45% of Syria[14] (10–15% of the population); 20–25% controlled by rebel groups (including the al-Nusra front); 5–10% held by the Kurds[15]
Genuine question: are those population figures current (or as current as feasible), or pre-civil war? If the latter then there are probably skewed heavily now away from certain areas (e.g. ISIS) due to deaths and population movements (i.e. refugees).
At least four million of the pre-war population of 22/23 million are in neighbouring countries, and there has been a great deal of displacement internally as well.
In which case I'd expect the Kurds and Assad/Iran to control more of the population than that figure shows.
IS being pushed back in Iraq, where the situation is alot simpler than Syria.
Indeed. The Iraqi and Iranian units have been working relatively well together. But ISIS have fought back before. Iraq recaptured Tirkit from ISIS, and a month later ISIS captured Ramadi from the government (Ramadi is apparently encircled by government forces now).
So I see Syria is all settled then. I read Mr Corbyn has said France and the USA should put their efforts into a peaceful solution, so that's that. I don't know why it's so hard sometimes.
Well according to the Vienna accords a ceasefire will commence Jan. 1st between Assad and the Rebels that are on good terms with the west.
"The objective is very simple. Kill all members of IS."
That would involve bombing London Paris Brussels and dozens of other cities many of us live in. It is the perfect example of trying to nail a blancmange to a wall.
We will presumably try to arrest those living here, but in extremis we will kill them as well, just as French security forces have done in France.
But lets not kid ourselves that we can negotiate with the rapists, crucifiers, slavers, bombers, torturers, beheaders, and so on that make up IS. They are not the terrorist arm of an otherwise rational political cause, they are hell-bent on bringing about the apocalypse.
And there are roughly 400 of them and members of similar groups that have come back to the UK and are enjoying mum's cooking again wihout let or hindrance. How do you square that circle?
Without an objective the bombing will almost certainly prove counter productive. We either support a potential government against ALL the rebels -which mens Assad-or we stay out. It's as simple as that
Let's say that's what we do, and support an Assad government. Leaving aside any moral issues of backing him, there are practical ones.
For instance, what happens after any victory (if indeed that is an avenue for one)? Assad's forces are depleted, and the only reason he's holding onto the territory he has is because of help on the ground from Hezbollah and Iranian units. How can he hold onto the rest of the country?
We need as many groups as possible on the ground to form a coalition, not just Assad's forces.
I agree with that but by the same token, it seems impossible not to include him for now if there's going to be a peaceful settlement. An offer of immunity from prosecution in exchange for exile from Syria might be one option? I don't much like it but if he's going to be induced to leave there has to be some carrot and now seems a good time to strike such a deal, when he's weak and needs help.
And there are roughly 400 of them and members of similar groups that have come back to the UK and are enjoying mum's cooking again wihout let or hindrance. How do you square that circle?
Keep doing what we are already doing, keep a close eye on them and if they do anything that breaks the law then arrest and prosecute them.
Comments
Two wars are about to be declared, and only one of them is in Syria. I can't see a way back for Labour from this split for a very long time, not so much because of the nature of it (war and peace etc), but the appalling behaviour of the Corbyn crowd. If it's a free vote, a difficult vote, a vote of conscience, then people should be left to quietly make their minds up.
Looking forward to the next Labour canvasser who knocks on my door.
New "New Labour"?
and Unreal Labour.
I wonder whether there's a chance that the vote will not go ahead or might be lost. Still, Labour will be pleased and they will have a message at last: Labour - the terrorists's friend.
The vote won't be lost. Tory rebels are now in single figures. DUP/UUP will vote strongly for. I think the Government will have 320 votes (pairing excepted) before it even gets out the door.
They only then need 5 more from LDs/Labour to win it.
If 75 Labour MPs + all the LDs voted for it (with almost all Tory MPs present) then the Government could get to 400+ in favour.
I suspect that's what Cameron would like.
Can you really not see the link between killing innocent people and the growth in people willing to kill innocents here.
How many wars have you already supported that have made matters worse like (Libya?)
Remind me how many people Boko Haram - another evil Islamic sect - have killed. Thousands. 6k last 12 months I believe.
Lots more of them./.. All Islamic , all terrorist In all continents except Australia.
Following a conversation IRL, I'm finding it hard to discover if the Paris attackers were using encrypted communications. Some sources say they were, then later ones say they were not.
Has anyone seen any recent information on this?
Can you really not see the link between killing innocent people and the growth in people willing to kill innocents here.
How many wars have you already supported that have made matters worse like (Libya?)
No, it is not an unfair comment. First you do not know what my position on the wars have been and in relation to this one I have expressed a number of reservations. I don't think that the case for bombing is as slam dunk as some might think.
But the war has been started by the terrorists, some considerable time ago, and unlike Corbyn and people who think like him I put the blame for terrorism squarely on the shoulders of those who decide to carry out such acts not on the victims.
I accept - and have said in previous posts - that this may result in an increase in the short-term risks but that may be necessary to get rid of the problem in the long-term.
The problem with the Corbyn position (which I assume is shared by you) is that they cannot see the difference between a pretext and a cause, they ignore the underlying causes and the explicitly expansionist, totalitarian and genocidal aims of the Islamist ideology and, seeing the guilt-ridden, credulous and gullible morons who think that anything Western is bad, the terrorists couch their statements in ways calculated to make idiots like Livingstone and others fall for the repulsive nonsense that the victims and those who seek to defend themselves are to blame for the acts of the aggressors. The Labour Party is acting like the Islamists' "useful idiots" (copyright: Lenin). Their policy is one of surrender. Not peace - unless they mean the peace of the graveyard.
This is not the first comment Corbyn has made which suggests that he simply does not care about protecting British citizens.
The truth is not unfair. But it may hurt. Tough. Labour have made their choice. And they will have to live with it. Not bleat like a four year old about life being "unfair".
https://twitter.com/Death2RapeGangs/status/671730448716967937
...........and weep.
Against will lose.
You mean, only MPs who vote against the government/airstrikes will be next leader?
Henry Zeffman @hzeffman
Dan Jarvis is voting for airstrikes tomorrow
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/12/case-action-against-isil-syria-outweighs-case-inaction
Baron is just a mouthpiece of David Davis and is only interested in what he can do to hinder anything Cameron does. He is a rabid anti EU quasi kipper. With the brain power to match.
It's thanks to his parliamentary shenanigans that ISIS was allowed to rise and defeat the other anti Assad rebels.
@election_data Momentum in Rotherham say Labour MPs are "parasites...who've never done a day's work in their lives": #newpolitics
Why are they allowed to take their phones into these meetings away, surely they should be banned?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/12/case-action-against-isil-syria-outweighs-case-inaction
Article on why he is voting for the intervention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_peace_talks_in_Vienna
It absolubtely can not include fundamentalist Islam though. These people are beyond reason.
Given the choice he asks the doctor to come back with a homeopathic solution.
I guess that means he's toast as far as the entryists are concerned, of course. But then, he probably was anyway.
What next? Stalin-like purges of the politically impure?
http://order-order.com/2015/12/01/pictures-emerge-of-corbyn-attending-segregated-rally/
How does Corbyn explain this to the feminists?
Without an objective the bombing will almost certainly prove counter productive. We either support a potential government against ALL the rebels -which mens Assad-or we stay out. It's as simple as that
There's only one group of rebels which is attacking us and our close allies. That is the key point which the antis (the sane ones I mean, not Corbyn and his henchmen) seem to have missed.
Well that would be the case anyway. The next leader will be some Corbynista elected after 2020 anyway. No one in the current PLP will be the next leader. We can expect serious changes to the Labour constitution anyway I would have thought by 2020 .
From events like this, I can only believe that Corbyn does not give a s**t about gender equality.
'Can you really not see the link between killing innocent people and the growth in people willing to kill innocents here.'
So we are ok if we only bomb ISIS territory in Iraq but not ok if we bomb ISIS territory in Syria ?
Maybe you can explain the link between hundreds of Yazardi women being murdered, raped & enslaved by ISIS.
Can't recall these women killing anyone ?
Perhaps they need to follow the example of Margaret Hilda Thatcher.
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-12-01/thatcher-named-most-influential-woman-of-all-time/
For instance, what happens after any victory (if indeed that is an avenue for one)? Assad's forces are depleted, and the only reason he's holding onto the territory he has is because of help on the ground from Hezbollah and Iranian units. How can he hold onto the rest of the country?
We need as many groups as possible on the ground to form a coalition, not just Assad's forces.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/12/case-action-against-isil-syria-outweighs-case-inaction
As of September 2015: the government held 25–30% of Syria[13][14] (66% of the population); ISIL-held territory constituted 45% of Syria[14] (10–15% of the population); 20–25% controlled by rebel groups (including the al-Nusra front); 5–10% held by the Kurds[15]
The problem for Labour is they appear to lack the will (and the means, within the party) to axe Corbyn as he mindlessly poisons their prospects for years to come.
A de facto diarchy, as I suggested previously, or a straight split may be the only way out for them.
Seriously though, feminism means equality, that women should not be treated worse than men just because they are women.
Religion, OTOH, is a choice. Culture is a creation of people. Neither culture nor religion should be placed ahead of something as fundamental as a treating human beings equally.
You might be quite a nice person, I've no real way of knowing, but my posts clearly bring out something quite ugly in you, possibly because I don't back down - I've noticed you getting into very protracted and rather pointless arguments with other posters too.
Logging on first thing and having odd 'smiley emoticon' passive aggressive posts from you asking me to look at your posts from last night because you think you've got some 'zinger' for me, is frankly creepy. I seem to remember you might be a house husband? Either that or you have a very tolerant employer. I frankly have neither the time nor the energy.
It's a little melodramatic of me to 'announce' this, but I'll ignore your posts in future - whether you ignore mine or not is obviously up to you.
There's nowhere to hide from Uncle Jez.
And as you don't like Wikipedia:
http://www.livescience.com/33130-why-are-teeth-not-considered-bones.html
There is even a website devoted to the question:
http://www.areteethbones.com/
I daresay Prisonplanet and Alex Jones'll say they're the same, and part of an American plot to control us all ...
Paul Berman made much the same point in his book "Terror and Liberalism" published in 2004. A short book, well written and very well worth reading.
He describes the anti-war Socialists in 1930s France, some of whom ended up supporting Petain.
"They had begun as defenders of liberal values and human rights, and they evolved into defenders of bigotry, tyranny, superstition and mass murder. They were democratic leftists who, through the miraculous workings of the slippery slope and a naive faith in the rationalism of all things, ended as fascists.
Long ago, you say? Not so long ago."
Remind you of anyone?
He points out that too many liberals do not understand liberalism as"the advocacy of freedom, rationality, progress and the acceptance of uncertainty". They see it as a blind faith in a predetermined future, as " a fantasy of a strictly rational world, liberalism as denial".
And so too many refuse to believe that people can enlist in or support a political movement whose animating principles are paranoid conspiracy theories, blood-curdling hatreds, medieval superstitions and the lure of murder.
Hence the grotesquerie of thinking that one should negotiate with IS rather than crush them.
A security response drill meant I almost missed an exam once (had to get two buses to reach it, and they were evacuating the bus station as I arrived for the second).
Matched: GBP 1
After extensive research I can confirm that the offending bets were placed on [drum roll]... Nick Clegg.
At least four million of the pre-war population of 22/23 million are in neighbouring countries, and there has been a great deal of displacement internally as well.
In which case I'd expect the Kurds and Assad/Iran to control more of the population than that figure shows.
Has that been used in Oldham?
Current as feasible !
IS being pushed back in Iraq, where the situation is alot simpler than Syria.
"The objective is very simple. Kill all members of IS."
That would involve bombing London Paris Brussels and dozens of other cities many of us live in. It is the perfect example of trying to nail a blancmange to a wall.
I posted earlier that all large shops and shopping centres here in Nice are searching everyone as they enter. I've just gone to the modern art gallery and they're not even allowing anyone to enter who is wearing a backpack (however small). I had the place to myself.
It's becoming obvious someone needs a strategy because as things stand they are quickly making us change the way we live
I'm a Lib Dem. Why would I want to be reminded about the 2015 General Election.
Labour 50
UKIP 30
Majority 2000 on 20% Turnout.
Off Topic:
I bring you tomorrow's SUN headline: "Leonardo DiCaprio Raped by Bear"
http://drudgereport.com/now3.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3341375/Leonardo-DiCaprio-raped-bear-TWICE-new-film-Revenant-actor-looks-poised-finally-achieve-Oscar-glory.html
What people do to be famous.
But lets not kid ourselves that we can negotiate with the rapists, crucifiers, slavers, bombers, torturers, beheaders, and so on that make up IS. They are not the terrorist arm of an otherwise rational political cause, they are hell-bent on bringing about the apocalypse.
Germans to provide military support to France after French request.