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.
"An offer of immunity from prosecution in exchange for exile from Syria might be one option?"
That's what I was suggesting two years ago. Think of all the lives that could have been saved if we'd tried it rather than just actively doing nothing.
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).
Well the relevant balance of forces in the battlefield is roughly:
ISIS 100 thousand troops (30 in Syria, 70 in Iraq), Assad 50 thousand, FSA 20 thousand (10 in the north, 10 in the south), Al Qaeda 20 thousand (mostly north), Kurds 40 thousand (10 in Syria, 30 in Iraq), Iraq 80 thousand, Hezbollah 2 thousand, Iran 5 thousand, Russia 1 thousand.
The real problem is infantry, you can have superior equipment but you need a good infantry support to take out what is most militias, only ISIS has both superior numbers of well trained troops and superior equipment.
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.
To me, that is a sign of a person who has never had executive authority. Lacking such experience, he seems to deem sins of commission worse than sins of omission. Of course, to a leader, the latter are every bit as bad as the former.
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.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's the way it works. It's an excuse, but excuses are all Islamic terrorists have had from well before 9/11.
If we do not bomb, they'll just find something else as an excuse.
Good afternoon all. You make an excellent point. We keep looking at Salafism as if it's somehow related to Western concepts - tit for tat, revenge and reprisal. Whereas the creed compels believers to make war on the infidel. We're an offence just by existing - we have to either convert or die. I doubt we'll ever comprehend.
Indeed. The Yazidis did not give ISIS any reason save their mere existence to perpetrate horrors upon them. Did not save them though.
I think I'll buy a copy.. There are several Labour MP's who lost their seats that are worth reminiscing over regularly and Mark Reckless the TPD... and Paddy Pantsdown promising to eat his underpants, and the hilarity of Dave having prepared a resignation speech and Ed a victory one. The evisceration of the pollsters is well worth reading too.. All in all a great GE for so many reasons.
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.
You don't think teeth are bone now?
That explains why the mineral phosphorus chilates the boney parts of the precious bodily fluids in a revered haggis-tooth, if I have understood you correctly.
Re "blowback"; Mohammed Siddique Khan, the leader of the 7/7 murderers was training with explosives in a camp in Pakistan in 2001. Of course, he cited Iraq in his propaganda video. As cyclefree says, pretext v cause.
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).
Well the relevant balance of forces in the battlefield is roughly:
ISIS 100 thousand troops (30 in Syria, 70 in Iraq), Assad 50 thousand, FSA 20 thousand (10 in the north, 10 in the south), Al Qaeda 20 thousand (mostly north), Kurds 40 thousand (10 in Syria, 30 in Iraq), Iraq 80 thousand, Hezbollah 2 thousand, Iran 5 thousand, Russia 1 thousand.
The real problem is infantry, you can have superior equipment but you need a good infantry support to take out what is most militias, only ISIS has both superior numbers of well trained troops and superior equipment.
The CIA say ISIS have about 30,000 fighters. And the US Airforce is busy killing a lot of them. I read that a lot of them are reluctant conscripts.
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.
You don't think teeth are bone now?
That explains why the mineral phosphorus chilates the boney parts of the precious bodily fluids in a revered haggis-tooth, if I have understood you correctly.
It won't if the individual is wearing a tin foil hat as the free electrons are refocussed into the saliva.
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.
To me, that is a sign of a person who has never had executive authority. Lacking such experience, he seems to deem sins of commission worse than sins of omission. Of course, to a leader, the latter are every bit as bad as the former.
I'm not sure that Corybn has any clue about what is going on or the real consequences of his opinions and actions. He seems supremely dim to me.
Evening Standard reports the Stop the War Coalition is to protest outside Labour HQ tonight over the party's decision to allow a free vote on airstrikes in Syria
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.
To me, that is a sign of a person who has never had executive authority. Lacking such experience, he seems to deem sins of commission worse than sins of omission. Of course, to a leader, the latter are every bit as bad as the former.
I'm not sure that Corybn has any clue about what is going on or the real consequences of his opinions and actions. He seems supremely dim to me.
I'm getting flashbacks to the 'Ed is Crap, no Ed is Dangerous' moment we went through briefly in the last parliament. Some people seem to think Corbyn is clueless, others think he is diabolical. We shall see. I hope he doesn't prove a secret genius who has called everything right.
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.
A solution involving democratic elections with Assad exiled in Russia would seem to be the starting point. How that democracy would be constituted is another matter.
"too many moderate party figures who should know better are going round telling people how they “cannot bring themselves” to vote for Sadiq Khan as London mayor next year or even how they want Ukip to win the Oldham by-election. They say such sacrifices are necessary to hasten Corbyn’s demise. But in this, as with their sense of frustrated entitlement, they are beginning to resemble 1980s-era Trots who wanted unemployment to rise so they could get their revolution.
They will not win back the Labour party this way. The next time you hear someone complaining about entryism or the influx of new members, ask them how many they have signed up recently or whether they have yet registered a supporter? I’ve tried. The answer is usually “none”. Instead, modernisers appear to be indulging in “exitism”, as thousands flee the Labour party and reduce their influence still further.
It was they who have always lectured the party about how “the road to renewal offers no shortcuts”. So they should learn from Corbyn’s success in attracting new members, make a principled case for their progressive politics, dare to be best and boldest with new ideas on tackling inequality and security, plant their flag in the wide open spaces of the soft left where Tony Blair and Gordon Brown started out, stop sneering at other people’s idealism, and show they are ready to deal with the Labour party as it is rather than as they would wish it to be. There may come a time when a leadership challenge is needed and sustainable, but not until they have rebuilt their ideas and their organisation."
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.
To me, that is a sign of a person who has never had executive authority. Lacking such experience, he seems to deem sins of commission worse than sins of omission. Of course, to a leader, the latter are every bit as bad as the former.
I'm not sure that Corybn has any clue about what is going on or the real consequences of his opinions and actions. He seems supremely dim to me.
I'm getting flashbacks to the 'Ed is Crap, no Ed is Dangerous' moment we went through briefly in the last parliament. Some people seem to think Corbyn is clueless, others think he is diabolical. We shall see. I hope he doesn't prove a secret genius who has called everything right.
In my view, anyone who is against fighting in Syria will be proved a genius.. unless the bombing campaign aligns itself with local ground forces.
Since ISIL are supported by Turkey and Saudi, my money is on those against to be proven right.
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.
To me, that is a sign of a person who has never had executive authority. Lacking such experience, he seems to deem sins of commission worse than sins of omission. Of course, to a leader, the latter are every bit as bad as the former.
I'm not sure that Corybn has any clue about what is going on or the real consequences of his opinions and actions. He seems supremely dim to me.
I'm getting flashbacks to the 'Ed is Crap, no Ed is Dangerous' moment we went through briefly in the last parliament. Some people seem to think Corbyn is clueless, others think he is diabolical. We shall see. I hope he doesn't prove a secret genius who has called everything right.
In my view, anyone who is against fighting in Syria will be proved a genius.. unless the bombing campaign aligns itself with local ground forces.
Since ISIL are supported by Turkey and Saudi, my money is on those against to be proven right.
There are reasons to be against, and to be wary, that being one - a problem has been politicians clearly either always for or always against presenting otherwise to try to appear more reasonable and not predetermined, when they clearly are, and people in those situations will only ever be right by accident. I don't mind if Corbyn is right by accident on this particular issue, though I will be concerned if I have read the world so wrong as to see that he is right on enough other issues as to be electorally successful.
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.
To me, that is a sign of a person who has never had executive authority. Lacking such experience, he seems to deem sins of commission worse than sins of omission. Of course, to a leader, the latter are every bit as bad as the former.
I'm not sure that Corybn has any clue about what is going on or the real consequences of his opinions and actions. He seems supremely dim to me.
I'm getting flashbacks to the 'Ed is Crap, no Ed is Dangerous' moment we went through briefly in the last parliament. Some people seem to think Corbyn is clueless, others think he is diabolical. We shall see. I hope he doesn't prove a secret genius who has called everything right.
In my view, anyone who is against fighting in Syria will be proved a genius.. unless the bombing campaign aligns itself with local ground forces.
Since ISIL are supported by Turkey and Saudi, my money is on those against to be proven right.
Saudi and Turkey both now have planes bombing ISIS now both nations fund the FSA who would be needed to conduct a ground war v ISIS in Sunni Syria
OT Interesting investigation into Yeshivas. Basically Ultra Orthodox Jews do not believe in secular education beyond the age of 16 (or in many ways before) and university is not considered feasable for reasons of the necessity of mixing with both gentiles and the opposite sex.
The government finally have been forced to take an interest so they don't appear to be prejudiced against Islamic schools which in many ways are less extreme in a secular society.
"too many moderate party figures who should know better are going round telling people how they “cannot bring themselves” to vote for Sadiq Khan as London mayor next year or even how they want Ukip to win the Oldham by-election. They say such sacrifices are necessary to hasten Corbyn’s demise. But in this, as with their sense of frustrated entitlement, they are beginning to resemble 1980s-era Trots who wanted unemployment to rise so they could get their revolution.
They will not win back the Labour party this way. The next time you hear someone complaining about entryism or the influx of new members, ask them how many they have signed up recently or whether they have yet registered a supporter? I’ve tried. The answer is usually “none”. Instead, modernisers appear to be indulging in “exitism”, as thousands flee the Labour party and reduce their influence still further.
It was they who have always lectured the party about how “the road to renewal offers no shortcuts”. So they should learn from Corbyn’s success in attracting new members, make a principled case for their progressive politics, dare to be best and boldest with new ideas on tackling inequality and security, plant their flag in the wide open spaces of the soft left where Tony Blair and Gordon Brown started out, stop sneering at other people’s idealism, and show they are ready to deal with the Labour party as it is rather than as they would wish it to be. There may come a time when a leadership challenge is needed and sustainable, but not until they have rebuilt their ideas and their organisation."
And I repeat, they are wasting their time. We (they) already have the stop the war party we already have Momentum. Corbyn is already leader and is changing the rules and repainting the lines on the playing field. This is not the leadership (like say Kinnock) resisting 'entryism' - its already happened and the leadership is encouraging it. Labour are stuffed. The longer those classed as moderates wait before operating a their own anti Corbyn party in parliament the sooner they will be bypassed.
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.
To me, that is a sign of a person who has never had executive authority. Lacking such experience, he seems to deem sins of commission worse than sins of omission. Of course, to a leader, the latter are every bit as bad as the former.
I'm not sure that Corybn has any clue about what is going on or the real consequences of his opinions and actions. He seems supremely dim to me.
I'm getting flashbacks to the 'Ed is Crap, no Ed is Dangerous' moment we went through briefly in the last parliament. Some people seem to think Corbyn is clueless, others think he is diabolical. We shall see. I hope he doesn't prove a secret genius who has called everything right.
In my view, anyone who is against fighting in Syria will be proved a genius.. unless the bombing campaign aligns itself with local ground forces.
Since ISIL are supported by Turkey and Saudi, my money is on those against to be proven right.
Whether it works or not is not necessarily the same as it being right or wrong. Doing nothing could be as wrong or more wrong than doing something that didn't ultimately deliver as much as was hoped. Not that it's an either or - indeed, as you say, a bombing campaign makes most sense in the context of a ground forces strategy aligned to a diplomatic and political strategy.
OT Interesting investigation into Yeshivas. Basically Ultra Orthodox Jews do not believe in secular education beyond the age of 16 (or in many ways before) and university is not considered feasable for reasons of the necessity of mixing with both gentiles and the opposite sex.
The government finally have been forced to take an interest so they don't appear to be prejudiced against Islamic schools which in many ways are less extreme in a secular society.
Do they teach the Yeshivas to become suicide bombers?
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.
To me, that is a sign of a person who has never had executive authority. Lacking such experience, he seems to deem sins of commission worse than sins of omission. Of course, to a leader, the latter are every bit as bad as the former.
I'm not sure that Corybn has any clue about what is going on or the real consequences of his opinions and actions. He seems supremely dim to me.
I'm getting flashbacks to the 'Ed is Crap, no Ed is Dangerous' moment we went through briefly in the last parliament. Some people seem to think Corbyn is clueless, others think he is diabolical. We shall see. I hope he doesn't prove a secret genius who has called everything right.
In my view, anyone who is against fighting in Syria will be proved a genius.. unless the bombing campaign aligns itself with local ground forces.
Since ISIL are supported by Turkey and Saudi, my money is on those against to be proven right.
What would you do? Or are you one of these people who have opinions safe in the knowledge that they will never have to make a decision?
Bombing IS is to interdict and degrade them. It is also a big old warning sign to anyone who fancies heading over to them to learn how to blow us up.
While they export terror to the rest of the globe the rest of the globe should take action against them. It matters not who is on their side, what matters is that they feel they cannot operate freely on their newly-acquired home turf and that enough of our bombs fall onto their heads.
The Jarvis piece does seem pretty well written, and opens strongly with the point that, whatever action we do or do not take, those who wish us harm will still desire us harm. It does require us to consider whether we must do something just to do something, or if the proposed strategy is going to be actually effective, and if not people should not support action, but I think Jarvis has it right that, realistically, IS cannot be defeated without targeting them directly. Not that could be criticised as not doing enough, ground troops and all that, but merely arguing against action on the grounds of wanting peace without any realistic recognition that direct action needs to be taken to get to the peace table, is a distraction.
On balance I'm considering that I don't know that further strikes will make things any worse, though the wider strategy needs to improve markedly if it is to be effective.
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 am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
That said, the Golden Rule, which is close to equality but not the same thing - a sadist and a masochist might have very different ideas of what application of the rule means - does seem pretty universal, as is the need from some form of higher power (and for Western atheists I would argue that science and evolution fit that bill).
Interesting figures in the prediction competition with nearly two hundred entries in. About a 5:2 split for Labour to win, with the average win for both Labour and UKIP respectively predicted at 6%. Those going for UKIP, perhaps unsurprisingly, have Con, LD and Green all lower, presumably on the basis of more tactical voting.
Michael Crick reporting on Stop the War march of almost 1,000 protestors passed CCHQ and Labour HQ sees George Galloway walk past behind him, anger from many apparently at those Labour MPs planning to vote for strikes
Michael Crick reporting on Stop the War march of almost 1,000 protestors passed CCHQ and Labour HQ sees George Galloway walk past behind him, anger from many apparently at those Labour MPs planning to vote for strikes
Even Corbyn and McDonnell worry that the killer charge that Labour loves Britain’s enemies more than it loves Britain may resonate with the British electorate. They are preparing a string of admirable initiatives to show that they care about security. The Labour leadership will launch a national campaign to protect the interests of sick veterans back from war. It proposes to highlight new ways of protecting women from rape, and of protecting Parliament itself from terrorist attack.
All worthy proposals, as I said. And all useless, as Corbyn’s aides know. When I asked one what vote she expected her new model Labour party would get at a general election, she said it would be as low as 20 or even 15 per cent.
Michael Crick reporting on Stop the War march of almost 1,000 protestors passed CCHQ and Labour HQ sees George Galloway walk past behind him, anger from many apparently at those Labour MPs planning to vote for strikes
The left don't like democracy, it would seem.
Yes despite polls showing backing for airstrikes from the public
Lib Dems to vote for WAR... where is Chris Morris when you need him
Well, the Lib Dems are terribly keen on the United Nations and they have probably, as I have just done, read Resolution 2249. I find hard to see how anyone who holds up the concept of the UN could vote against getting involved militarily in Syria. So good for the LIB dems staying true to their principles.
Personally, I think we are making a mistake but given the content of the UN resolution, the fact that the French have asked us for combat help and the wording of HMG's motion to be put before the Commons on what grounds could an MP vote against?
I see the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has voted to reject bombing, saying they don't think that Cameron has made a sufficient case. Critics seem focused on the "70,000 moderates" claim.
Ironically I suspect that some Labour MPs are probably now intellectually persuaded that bombing is on balance a mistake, but reluctant to be pushed around by hassling emails - I remember it as a factor in the Iraq vote, as some MPs reacted against the vehemence of the crowds outside.
Critics seem focused on the "70,000 moderates" claim..
I'm not in a position to judge the full evidence, as most people aren't, but that claim was so out of kilter with what we have come to expect to hear, that it could be an underestimate and a lot of people would not believe it.
The Jarvis piece does seem pretty well written, and opens strongly with the point that, whatever action we do or do not take, those who wish us harm will still desire us harm. It does require us to consider whether we must do something just to do something, or if the proposed strategy is going to be actually effective, and if not people should not support action, but I think Jarvis has it right that, realistically, IS cannot be defeated without targeting them directly. Not that could be criticised as not doing enough, ground troops and all that, but merely arguing against action on the grounds of wanting peace without any realistic recognition that direct action needs to be taken to get to the peace table, is a distraction.
On balance I'm considering that I don't know that further strikes will make things any worse, though the wider strategy needs to improve markedly if it is to be effective.
This piece by J Powell seems highly reasonable to me. We need military action, but be open to some kind of negotiation in the long run. "Quiet channels" as he calls them. Personally I can't see what the terms of any negotiation would be, but I respect the opinion of someone who has been there and done it.
What he doesn't say, but I humbly offer as an idea, is that military action removes some of the leaders of ISIS, and then the lower ranks realise that they need to talk. Seems far-fetched at the moment, but who knows?
I see election_data has seemingly resigned from the party. Along with the old NUS president. Labour in real danger of lolsing a lot of moderate members now.
I see election_data has seemingly resigned from the party. Along with the old NUS president. Labour in real danger of lolsing a lot of moderate members now.
Not often you hear a senior NUS member described as moderate, even if they are.
I see the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has voted to reject bombing, saying they don't think that Cameron has made a sufficient case. Critics seem focused on the "70,000 moderates" claim.
Ironically I suspect that some Labour MPs are probably now intellectually persuaded that bombing is on balance a mistake, but reluctant to be pushed around by hassling emails - I remember it as a factor in the Iraq vote, as some MPs reacted against the vehemence of the crowds outside.
It was NOT Cameron's claim. It was the JIC assessment.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
I see the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has voted to reject bombing, saying they don't think that Cameron has made a sufficient case. Critics seem focused on the "70,000 moderates" claim.
Ironically I suspect that some Labour MPs are probably now intellectually persuaded that bombing is on balance a mistake, but reluctant to be pushed around by hassling emails - I remember it as a factor in the Iraq vote, as some MPs reacted against the vehemence of the crowds outside.
dear God so Labour MPs will vote for something they don't believe in; what, because of some emails?
I see election_data has seemingly resigned from the party. Along with the old NUS president. Labour in real danger of lolsing a lot of moderate members now.
Not often you hear a senior NUS member described as moderate, even if they are.
Quite. This is not the stage that moderates leave. They already have.
This is the stage where activists leave. And where proselytisers and 'never voted for anyone but Labour' desert. This, in short m, is when the wwc abandon ship.
I'm with Dair on this. Labour is gone. Time to move on.
I see election_data has seemingly resigned from the party. Along with the old NUS president. Labour in real danger of lolsing a lot of moderate members now.
Not often you hear a senior NUS member described as moderate, even if they are.
Quite. In the context of Jeremy Corbyns Labour Party .....
The Jarvis piece does seem pretty well written, and opens strongly with the point that, whatever action we do or do not take, those who wish us harm will still desire us harm. It does require us to consider whether we must do something just to do something, or if the proposed strategy is going to be actually effective, and if not people should not support action, but I think Jarvis has it right that, realistically, IS cannot be defeated without targeting them directly. Not that could be criticised as not doing enough, ground troops and all that, but merely arguing against action on the grounds of wanting peace without any realistic recognition that direct action needs to be taken to get to the peace table, is a distraction.
On balance I'm considering that I don't know that further strikes will make things any worse, though the wider strategy needs to improve markedly if it is to be effective.
This piece by J Powell seems highly reasonable to me. We need military action, but be open to some kind of negotiation in the long run. "Quiet channels" as he calls them. Personally I can't see what the terms of any negotiation would be, but I respect the opinion of someone who has been there and done it.
What he doesn't say, but I humbly offer as an idea, is that military action removes some of the leaders of ISIS, and then the lower ranks realise that they need to talk. Seems far-fetched at the moment, but who knows?
Re the quiet channels, I think we have to analyze how we got here and who had to support - openly or tacitly - ISIS for them to be able to gain traction so quickly.
In essence, the Sunni tribes, seeing their power within the Iraqi government being diminished and their leaders there being targeted by the Shia government, saw ISIS much as the generals saw Hitler, as useful idiots they could control in order to redress the wrongs done to them. Like the generals, they lost control of the beast.
But that little history gives you some idea of whom might be the interlocutors in a negotiated settlement. Not ISIS, but the tribes. Tribes have a history of changing sides. The key is to make the offered option more attractive than the current situation and way better than what they railed against in the first place.
Don't forget the melt-down at the end of the last proper ice age - sea levels c.12,000 BC were roughly 300 feet (100 metres) LOWER than they are today. Must have been all those coal-fires burnt by stone-age humans
-------------------------
Precession !
I should make clear that humans can add to this by their own actions.
I see the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has voted to reject bombing, saying they don't think that Cameron has made a sufficient case. Critics seem focused on the "70,000 moderates" claim.
Ironically I suspect that some Labour MPs are probably now intellectually persuaded that bombing is on balance a mistake, but reluctant to be pushed around by hassling emails - I remember it as a factor in the Iraq vote, as some MPs reacted against the vehemence of the crowds outside.
It was NOT Cameron's claim. It was the JIC assessment.
Given past experience of JIC assessments that have been made public in order to promote a particular course of action, I am not sure that is a recommendation of a promise of accuracy.
I see election_data has seemingly resigned from the party. Along with the old NUS president. Labour in real danger of lolsing a lot of moderate members now.
Not often you hear a senior NUS member described as moderate, even if they are.
Labour is gone.
I'll believe that when I see it. And if it is true, I hope someone else rises in its place - people incorrectly have complained about inevitably falling turnout and disengagement (it isn't as high as it used to be, but it has gone up 3 elections in a row, albeit marginally last time), but if another party did not rise as Labour fell, presumably it would be because of a huge rise in DNV,
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
In some locations, changing religion is the same as committing suicide.
In theory, what you say should be true. But equality is not something you are born with either. We in the West from affluent or middle class backgrounds might think of it as an innate right, but it is certainly not something we are born with. It is something that society must agree to and defend.
I see the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has voted to reject bombing, saying they don't think that Cameron has made a sufficient case. Critics seem focused on the "70,000 moderates" claim.
Ironically I suspect that some Labour MPs are probably now intellectually persuaded that bombing is on balance a mistake, but reluctant to be pushed around by hassling emails - I remember it as a factor in the Iraq vote, as some MPs reacted against the vehemence of the crowds outside.
It was NOT Cameron's claim. It was the JIC assessment.
Given past experience of JIC assessments that have been made public in order to promote a particular course of action, I am not sure that is a recommendation of a promise of accuracy.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
Mrs. C., you can say things like that on here where you are among friends but, unless it has all changed recently, do not, I beg of you, express such views in a public sector organisation. People have been disciplined for less, refused promotion or denied a contract.
In the wonderful world of Diversity no culture is to be regarded as being better or worse than any other, and cultural practices cannot be challenged. People must not be treated equally but according to their needs and such needs are informed by their cultural background.
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.
To me, that is a sign of a person who has never had executive authority. Lacking such experience, he seems to deem sins of commission worse than sins of omission. Of course, to a leader, the latter are every bit as bad as the former.
Not just to a leader. To anyone who has ever had to any sort of job involving judgment.
"For evil to triumph, it is enough for good men to do nothing."
I'm not at all sure that Corbyn is a good man. But even if he were he wants to do nothing and is prepared therefore to let evil triumph. He is more concerned about keeping his hands clean even if that means that others drown in blood. It is a deeply immoral position.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
There I beg to differ, and I think it shows how we lack imagination in Western societies. We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated.
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
We haven't had a vote in Parliament like this since the Lib Dems got themselves in all kinds of contortions over student fees. That isn't an encouraging precedent for Labour.
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.
To me, that is a sign of a person who has never had executive authority. Lacking such experience, he seems to deem sins of commission worse than sins of omission. Of course, to a leader, the latter are every bit as bad as the former.
Not just to a leader. To anyone who has ever had to any sort of job involving judgment.
"For evil to triumph, it is enough for good men to do nothing."
I'm not at all sure that Corbyn is a good man. But even if he were he wants to do nothing and is prepared therefore to let evil triumph. He is more concerned about keeping his hands clean even if that means that others drown in blood. It is a deeply immoral position. Agree 100%
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
There I beg to differ, and I think it shows how we lack imagination in Western societies. We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated.
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
" We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated."
Well said Sean, I couldn't agree more.
Watching the way "progressives" patronise other races and nations is pure cringe
I see election_data has seemingly resigned from the party. Along with the old NUS president. Labour in real danger of lolsing a lot of moderate members now.
Not often you hear a senior NUS member described as moderate, even if they are.
Labour is gone.
I'll believe that when I see it. And if it is true, I hope someone else rises in its place - people incorrectly have complained about inevitably falling turnout and disengagement (it isn't as high as it used to be, but it has gone up 3 elections in a row, albeit marginally last time), but if another party did not rise as Labour fell, presumably it would be because of a huge rise in DNV,
DNV is not a bad sign, generally. It means people are broadly happy with their lot. And don't see a need to be actively for or against something.
Higher engagement arguably means stronger political division.
We haven't had a vote in Parliament like this since the Lib Dems got themselves in all kinds of contortions over student fees. That isn't an encouraging precedent for Labour.
I'll give you 6/4 Greens bt Libs in Oldham if you like?
At what point is the "Stop the War" coalition required to answer the point that multinational military action cannot be "stopped" by the unilateral decision of the UK Government?
At what point is the "Stop the War" coalition required to answer the point that multinational military action cannot be "stopped" by the unilateral decision of the UK Government?
Probably about the same time they actually define which war they realise that they were defunct as soon as the war started.
At what point is the "Stop the War" coalition required to answer the point that multinational military action cannot be "stopped" by the unilateral decision of the UK Government?
We haven't had a vote in Parliament like this since the Lib Dems got themselves in all kinds of contortions over student fees. That isn't an encouraging precedent for Labour.
So you reckon Labour will lose 85% of their MPs next time around?
Cameron's "terrorist sympathiser" remark... it implies anyone who doesn't follow his lead is one in my eyes... whether to bomb Syria, which will result in innocent, non ISIS Syrians dying, is a sensitive subject that doesn't need bullying from the PM
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
There I beg to differ, and I think it shows how we lack imagination in Western societies. We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated.
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
Indeed, try to tell a Pakistani apostate that he has a free choice to change religion.
Tell a slave in Mauritania that he was born equal. Tell a woman in Saudi Arabia that she was born equal. Tell a gay man in Uganda or Iran that he was born equal. Tell a leper in Yemen that she is equal.
Comments
That's what I was suggesting two years ago. Think of all the lives that could have been saved if we'd tried it rather than just actively doing nothing.
ISIS 100 thousand troops (30 in Syria, 70 in Iraq), Assad 50 thousand, FSA 20 thousand (10 in the north, 10 in the south), Al Qaeda 20 thousand (mostly north), Kurds 40 thousand (10 in Syria, 30 in Iraq), Iraq 80 thousand, Hezbollah 2 thousand, Iran 5 thousand, Russia 1 thousand.
The real problem is infantry, you can have superior equipment but you need a good infantry support to take out what is most militias, only ISIS has both superior numbers of well trained troops and superior equipment.
To me, that is a sign of a person who has never had executive authority. Lacking such experience, he seems to deem sins of commission worse than sins of omission. Of course, to a leader, the latter are every bit as bad as the former.
Indeed. The Yazidis did not give ISIS any reason save their mere existence to perpetrate horrors upon them. Did not save them though.
@john_zims referred to @NickPalmer as "a man for all seasons" and I disagreed. More was wrong, but he was principled.
I'm not sure that Corybn has any clue about what is going on or the real consequences of his opinions and actions. He seems supremely dim to me.
@paulwaugh · 26m26 minutes ago
Possibly the best summary of party mood from one Labour MP: "Every day is like opening an advent calendar of shit".
I'm getting flashbacks to the 'Ed is Crap, no Ed is Dangerous' moment we went through briefly in the last parliament. Some people seem to think Corbyn is clueless, others think he is diabolical. We shall see. I hope he doesn't prove a secret genius who has called everything right.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/30/labour-moderates-syria-vote-party-politics
"too many moderate party figures who should know better are going round telling people how they “cannot bring themselves” to vote for Sadiq Khan as London mayor next year or even how they want Ukip to win the Oldham by-election. They say such sacrifices are necessary to hasten Corbyn’s demise. But in this, as with their sense of frustrated entitlement, they are beginning to resemble 1980s-era Trots who wanted unemployment to rise so they could get their revolution.
They will not win back the Labour party this way. The next time you hear someone complaining about entryism or the influx of new members, ask them how many they have signed up recently or whether they have yet registered a supporter? I’ve tried. The answer is usually “none”. Instead, modernisers appear to be indulging in “exitism”, as thousands flee the Labour party and reduce their influence still further.
It was they who have always lectured the party about how “the road to renewal offers no shortcuts”. So they should learn from Corbyn’s success in attracting new members, make a principled case for their progressive politics, dare to be best and boldest with new ideas on tackling inequality and security, plant their flag in the wide open spaces of the soft left where Tony Blair and Gordon Brown started out, stop sneering at other people’s idealism, and show they are ready to deal with the Labour party as it is rather than as they would wish it to be. There may come a time when a leadership challenge is needed and sustainable, but not until they have rebuilt their ideas and their organisation."
In my view, anyone who is against fighting in Syria will be proved a genius.. unless the bombing campaign aligns itself with local ground forces.
Since ISIL are supported by Turkey and Saudi, my money is on those against to be proven right.
Since ISIL are supported by Turkey and Saudi, my money is on those against to be proven right.
There are reasons to be against, and to be wary, that being one - a problem has been politicians clearly either always for or always against presenting otherwise to try to appear more reasonable and not predetermined, when they clearly are, and people in those situations will only ever be right by accident. I don't mind if Corbyn is right by accident on this particular issue, though I will be concerned if I have read the world so wrong as to see that he is right on enough other issues as to be electorally successful.
Since ISIL are supported by Turkey and Saudi, my money is on those against to be proven right.
Saudi and Turkey both now have planes bombing ISIS now both nations fund the FSA who would be needed to conduct a ground war v ISIS in Sunni Syria
The government finally have been forced to take an interest so they don't appear to be prejudiced against Islamic schools which in many ways are less extreme in a secular society.
Labour are stuffed. The longer those classed as moderates wait before operating a their own anti Corbyn party in parliament the sooner they will be bypassed.
Since ISIL are supported by Turkey and Saudi, my money is on those against to be proven right.
Whether it works or not is not necessarily the same as it being right or wrong. Doing nothing could be as wrong or more wrong than doing something that didn't ultimately deliver as much as was hoped. Not that it's an either or - indeed, as you say, a bombing campaign makes most sense in the context of a ground forces strategy aligned to a diplomatic and political strategy.
Since ISIL are supported by Turkey and Saudi, my money is on those against to be proven right.
What would you do? Or are you one of these people who have opinions safe in the knowledge that they will never have to make a decision?
Bombing IS is to interdict and degrade them. It is also a big old warning sign to anyone who fancies heading over to them to learn how to blow us up.
While they export terror to the rest of the globe the rest of the globe should take action against them. It matters not who is on their side, what matters is that they feel they cannot operate freely on their newly-acquired home turf and that enough of our bombs fall onto their heads.
On balance I'm considering that I don't know that further strikes will make things any worse, though the wider strategy needs to improve markedly if it is to be effective.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
That said, the Golden Rule, which is close to equality but not the same thing - a sadist and a masochist might have very different ideas of what application of the rule means
What a brilliant programme.
Personally, I think we are making a mistake but given the content of the UN resolution, the fact that the French have asked us for combat help and the wording of HMG's motion to be put before the Commons on what grounds could an MP vote against?
Ironically I suspect that some Labour MPs are probably now intellectually persuaded that bombing is on balance a mistake, but reluctant to be pushed around by hassling emails - I remember it as a factor in the Iraq vote, as some MPs reacted against the vehemence of the crowds outside.
What he doesn't say, but I humbly offer as an idea, is that military action removes some of the leaders of ISIS, and then the lower ranks realise that they need to talk. Seems far-fetched at the moment, but who knows?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/01/talk-to-isis-jihadis-ira-negotiate-military-political-solution
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
This is the stage where activists leave. And where proselytisers and 'never voted for anyone but Labour' desert. This, in short m, is when the wwc abandon ship.
I'm with Dair on this. Labour is gone. Time to move on.
The point that is consciously avoided is the failure of non-intervention. If it had been a success, this debate would not be happening now.
In essence, the Sunni tribes, seeing their power within the Iraqi government being diminished and their leaders there being targeted by the Shia government, saw ISIS much as the generals saw Hitler, as useful idiots they could control in order to redress the wrongs done to them. Like the generals, they lost control of the beast.
But that little history gives you some idea of whom might be the interlocutors in a negotiated settlement. Not ISIS, but the tribes. Tribes have a history of changing sides. The key is to make the offered option more attractive than the current situation and way better than what they railed against in the first place.
Precession !
I should make clear that humans can add to this by their own actions.
http://iceagenow.info/2012/02/natural-tilts-earths-axis-ice-ages-harvard-geophysicist/
In theory, what you say should be true. But equality is not something you are born with either. We in the West from affluent or middle class backgrounds might think of it as an innate right, but it is certainly not something we are born with. It is something that society must agree to and defend.
In the wonderful world of Diversity no culture is to be regarded as being better or worse than any other, and cultural practices cannot be challenged. People must not be treated equally but according to their needs and such needs are informed by their cultural background.
Not just to a leader. To anyone who has ever had to any sort of job involving judgment.
"For evil to triumph, it is enough for good men to do nothing."
I'm not at all sure that Corbyn is a good man. But even if he were he wants to do nothing and is prepared therefore to let evil triumph. He is more concerned about keeping his hands clean even if that means that others drown in blood. It is a deeply immoral position.
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
"For evil to triumph, it is enough for good men to do nothing."
I'm not at all sure that Corbyn is a good man. But even if he were he wants to do nothing and is prepared therefore to let evil triumph. He is more concerned about keeping his hands clean even if that means that others drown in blood. It is a deeply immoral position.
Agree 100%
PS Good Burkean quote for a Bristol alumn
@bbclaurak: Lab HQ denies any aggressive operations tonight - things seem to be getting pretty brutal on all sides tho
Well said Sean, I couldn't agree more.
Watching the way "progressives" patronise other races and nations is pure cringe
Higher engagement arguably means stronger political division.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVKoaRLWcAAdUWl.jpg
Tell a slave in Mauritania that he was born equal.
Tell a woman in Saudi Arabia that she was born equal.
Tell a gay man in Uganda or Iran that he was born equal.
Tell a leper in Yemen that she is equal.
I know what their responses would be.