Thats gonna keep us busy.
Are we bombing them because they are brown?
Don't think so. After all some of us are brown too.
The Peshmerga/Kurds say they could not have held Kobani or liberated Sinjar without airstrikes and in fact they wanted more and a faster coalition approval process. Journalist also noted that IS could no longer move around freely in convoys.
It's a problem. I'm broadly anti air strikes. But it isn't simple. Most people would support an air strike to help an individual town of Shias/Yazidis protect themselves from Sunni(ISIS) attack. Most people would not support air strikes to help Shia's over run a Sunni town and wreak revenge.
Also as an aside he mentioned that the Turks seem more concerned with the Kurds and PKK than IS and Kurds believe the Turks are supporting/turning a blind eye towards IS
That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Not many people will need reminding that Turks are mostly Sunni, they are much more at risk from Kurds who they've been fighting for years than they are from Sunnis.
You're barking up the wrong tree. Kurds are mostly Sunni too.
The Turkish-Kurdish tension isn't about religion, it's about land (and money, and jobs, and language).
.... But it isn't simple. ...
Finally.
You're barking up the wrong tree. Kurds are mostly Sunni too.
The Turkish-Kurdish tension isn't about religion, it's about land (and money, and jobs, and language).
Thanks I didn't know Kurds were Sunni. But Religion/tribe/ethnicity, whatever. According to Wikipedia Kurds are ethnically distinct from Turks and whatever we call Iraqi/Syrian Sunnis. I can well imagine ISIS might not consider them their own and Turkey have been at war with them for years.
...for whatever reason Turkey are less bothered by ISIS than they are by Kurds, and they probably have reasons that seem good to them. And we're supposed to be on Turkey's side.
Finally.
Excellent, both sides think I'm wrong. I'm a proper centerist.
britians got it's mojo back
what a prick.
Excellent, both sides think I'm wrong. I'm a proper centerist.
You're in trouble. This place is like US prison, you have to be in a gang to survive.
You're in trouble. This place is like US prison, you have to be in a gang to survive.
😀
Was the Paris one?No, they were all French or Belgian citizens
Many (all?) of whom had travelled to Syria to train/fight with IS and returned to carry out the attacks including by posing as refugees to gain entry to Europe
Many (all?) of whom had travelled to Syria to train/fight with IS and returned to carry out the attacks including by posing as refugees to gain entry to Europe
Right. So ISIL in Syria is a direct threat to the UK. The argument that the 7 stopped UK attacks were not planned in Syria (so there is no "direct threat") is irrelevant, because the Paris one was.
[i]Many (all?) of whom had travelled to Syria to train/fight with IS[/i]
One was known to have definitely been to Syria, and trained with IS, 2 others 'may' have been to Syria via Turkey, the Turks have them coming in but not going out, which suggests they crossed the porous border.
The others? : no
Right. So ISIL in Syria is a direct threat to the UK. The argument that the 7 stopped UK attacks were not planned in Syria (so there is no "direct threat") is irrelevant, because the Paris one was.
Yes, bombing an entirely different country because some of our own citizens are a bit stupid, makes entirely good sense...
Third Bataclan attacker now identified, originally from Strasbourg but travelled to fight in Syria before returning to carry out the attacks.
Ceasefire agreed in Homs with city returning to government control
Ceasefire agreed in Homs with city returning to government control
The Citizens of Syria still think that Assad is the real danger, so I imagine they won't be massively happy about it.
Interesting piece of what we bring to the operation against Daesh
[url= https://news.vice.com/article/a-little-bombing-a-lot-of-surveillance-what-britain-brings-to-the-syria-air-war ]What Britain brings: A little bombing, a lot of surveillance[/url]
oh - judging from some of the comments here I thought it was more like: http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/bombercommandthethousandbomberraids3031may.cfm
Lucy Allan MP of the fake death threats email discussed above: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tories-rocked-by-new-bullying-storm-as-mp-lucy-allan-accused-of-vicious-abuse-of-sick-staff-member-a3139526.html
So apparently rumours are rife that Hilary Benn is to be sacked following his speech imploring labour MPs to vote for air strikes. Suits me, I thought it was a cynical and manipulative attempt to unseat Corbyn, and that putting petty party politics before matters of national importance and life and death was a pretty immoral move.
Not a massive surprise.
So it wasn't a free vote then?
You can't accuse Benn of playing party politics after Corbyn made it a free vote - There seems to be little point in announcing a free vote then effectively whipping it ex post-facto because it revealed Corbyns own weak grip on the leadership.
(Though at the same time, I hope he does sack him, as it will divide the party into two camps for the duration)
Yup, looks like Benn will be taking a few years out of front line politics:
Corbyn has little choice, whatever anyone claims, the leader has to have a front bench he agrees with on big issues.
Tories will have similar problems albeit over one issue - Europe.
What is it that you've got against the left again ninfan?
You seem like a pretty clued up guy so I'm guessing you have some rock solid reasons for your right wing stance..
Or is it just that the tories are your 'team' and you'll blindly defend them to the end?
@Yunki - A complete opposition to the unnecessary growth of state intervention in private life and its associated suppression of freedom, which IMO should absolutely be of the minimum possible level to maintain (the social construct which we call) society, and a belief that freedom and choice is always better than diktat. IMO this disagreement applies as much to the 'patrician' side of the Conservative party (which I don't believe is right wing, certainly not in a libertarian sense) as the Labour party,
On balance I strongly, strongly believe that history tells us that through their commitment to collectivism 'the political left' are worse for this, and point to what happened under Blair (e.g. 90 days detention without trial, increasing restrictions on freedom of speech etc.) as being prime examples of creeping restrictions on personal freedom under the justification of 'the benefit of wider society' . This also defines how state intervention on a personal scale (eg. the state deciding that you cannot smoke dope or take E, in the face of clear scientific evidence of minimal personal harm, let alone wider harm - an argument that subsequently extends in a similar way to the effects of smoking cigarettes, and whether restrictions on smoking in pubs should be a matter of choice by landlord and customer, relying on free-market principles, rather than the state) can only lead us down one path, and ultimately leads to the moral justification of state intervention on a wider scale (bombing and invading countries to overthrow their leader).
Benn's speech was appaling and he should be sacked for that alone. He conveniently missed out the most recent army inventions (Iraq etc) which are the most similar to Syria and spoke about Hitler etc which has far less similarity to the Syrian stuff...Shocking display of bullshit baffling brains....
Yunki - A complete opposition to the unnecessary growth of state intervention in private life and its associated suppression of freedom, which IMO should absolutely be of the minimum possible level to maintain (the social construct which we call) society, and a belief that freedom and choice is always better than diktat. IMO this disagreement applies as much to the 'patrician' side of the Conservative party (which I don't believe is ri
You don't set people free by chaining them to the state.
Shame no political party of any colour, in any parliement, seems to want to do anything other than keep the poor poor and/or dependent on the state.
You can't accuse Benn of playing party politics after Corbyn made it a free vote - There seems to be little point in announcing a free vote then effectively whipping it ex post-facto because it revealed Corbyns own weak grip on the leadership.
Are you suggesting Corbyn is the only leader in politics to remove those who disagree with him from key positions?
Its hardly a novel approach from a leader in any position is it?
As for your sensible post i think the freedom from state intervention in personal/private matters is more libertarian v authoritarian and splits the typical political divide and I am a very libertarian person. dave davies and Benn [ tony] agreed on much about personal freedom for example.
Where the left right matters is in whether you thing the state should intervene to help people and whether this approach can work.
There are merits to each approach, Its true if the state intervened to the extent it gave us all 1 k a lot fewer of us would work However everyone, at many points, needs the help that can only come from state intervention be it healthcare, education, enough coppers etc
IMHO the state should help all citizens you probably think we should help ourselves and the state should leave us alone.
You only need to look at history to see how the lot of the average person was before massive state intervention and machinery. The state is the natural response to "freedom". Its really only worth debating how much state.
It's all starting to look a little pointless to me this argument, apparently since the vote the RAF have carried out just 4 air strikes in Syria. I can't see us needing those "70,000" any time soon at this rate.
Benn's speech was an oitstanding display putting accross his firmly heald belief that airstrikes where the correct way forward. It had absolutely nothing to do with political posturing and trying to unseat Corbyn. Corbyn is a protest politician voting against his own party over 500 times. Now the boot is on the other foot he doesn't like it one bit. His comrade Diane Abbott showed us what their version of democracy looks like when she refused to allow a Syrian to speak in favour of air strikes at a Stop The War meeting she chaired at Westminster. The reshuffle is a desperate act, its seems increasingly unlikely he won't make it to the Scottish elections in May (my original belief), the SNP are going to up the temperature and Corbyn will be spending most of his time trying to combat their critisms.
Daesh is being pushed back increasingly quickly as airstrikes in Iraq and Syria really start to bite, it is the Russians, Americans and French who are doing the most. Our support is there if required and the fact we are not being called upon to deploy our weaponry is a signal that Daesh have gone to ground, without the ability to move freely they cannot respond to attacks on their positions and are unable to mount any effective attacks of their own.
Benn's speech was an oitstanding display putting accross his firmly heald belief that airstrikes where the correct way forward.
Pffft!! Just 2 weeks before he had a firmly held belief that bombing was NOT the way forward!!
are unable to mount any effective attacks of their own.
Except the counter attacks in Ramadi and the attack last night on an Iraqi military camp near Tikrit that is.
I think that the truth is more that in an effort to avoid civilian casualties (a good thing imo) air strikes are proving to of limited benefit as IS are hiding amongst the population.
Now don't get me wrong, IS are no longer sweeping across Syria and Iraq as once they were, but apart from pushing them away from Kurdish territory (mostly the Kurds efforts there) and the liberation of Ramadi (though not out of woods there I fear) all we seem to be doing is containing them, this is not what Cameron claimed plan (if you can call it that) was supposed to do.
jambalaya - MemberBenn's speech was an oitstanding display putting accross his firmly heald belief
Good one.
I really cannot see anything leadership quality in Diane Abbott and why people see her as leader I don't know. I think they voted for the party rather than the person but get her instead ...
This woman is a joke but given her the power she will play jokes on the people ...
JC(not Jesus Christ) is just a typical character that is so determined to get his way he would side those that support him. Very sneaky character ... ya, I see you coming ... 😆
I really cannot see anything leadership quality in Diane Abbott and why people see her as leader I don't know
Which people?
So you still hate Corbyn and you still make simple errors.
A very very tabloid/fox news post jamby
A very very tabloid/fox news post jamby
100% jamba
Benn's speech was an oitstanding display putting accross his firmly heald belief that airstrikes where the correct way forward.
Pffft!! Just 2 weeks before he had a firmly held belief that bombing was NOT the way forward!!
Jambafact, innit
DrJ - Member
I really cannot see anything leadership quality in Diane Abbott and why people see her as leader I don't know
Which people?
Those voted her as their MP ... do you need me to narrow down the sample side for you or do you need some sort of statistical proof? How about reference to peer reviewed journals?
FFS! What use is your "Dr" if you cannot even comprehend a layperson?
What Dr are you btw?
edit: I assume you are a true 'Dr' rather than the DJ type "Dr" but if you are the latter then just assume there are plenty of shite music out there nowadays ...
if you cannot even comprehend a layperson?
It's true I have some difficulty comprehending you. I'm not sure I'm alone in that.
As for Diane Abbott, she is a Cambridge graduate despite humble origins, and was the first black woman to be elected as an MP. She has been an MP since 1987, being re-elected many times, so maybe her constituents know something you don't?
@bazz this is a long term war, many years. IS will be crushed by the Syrians, Iranians, Russians and Kurds on fhe ground. I don't think for a second Cameron or anyone else made and representations they'd be major results after just a few weeks. I personally think there has been quicker progress than I expected. The Russian bombing of the tankers near the Turkish border has really put a big dampner on the IS trade with Turkey, thats probably more strategically significant than anything else which has happened in Syria (vs Iraq).
@DrJ Paris / Bataclan changed a lot for many people, not me as my views where already established but for many. The Bataclan was Europe's 9/11.
Pffft!! Just 2 weeks before he had a firmly held belief that bombing was NOT the way forward!!
So, Benn was against action without a plan and UN support - then when there was a plan and UN support he backed action
Shocking behaviour!
Which people?
The people who voted for her as leader of the Labour Party in 2010?
DrJ - Member
if you cannot even comprehend a layperson?
It's true I have some difficulty comprehending you. I'm not sure I'm alone in that.
That's not a good response from a Dr with such speculative response innit? Not very different to mine if I can say so.
Well you would use the STW sample population to justify your views (you are not alone etc) but then I would just the voters that voted for Diane Abbot ... question is what makes your sample population more valid than mine?
Two ways to interpret your response ...
i) In the same click etc ...
ii) Deliberate to confuse/reject etc ...
(Edit: FFS! Why am I having to justify sample size and research related shite about politicians I don't know ... must be the warm weather in the Toon)
As for Diane Abbott, she is a Cambridge graduate despite humble origins, and was the first black woman to be elected as an MP. She has been an MP since 1987, being re-elected many times, so maybe her constituents know something you don't?
Crikey ... Really? A response like this from a Dr? 😆 You're DJ related Dr aren't you? Like the Dr Fox bloke innit?
In the Far East we have politicians so extreme you would have thought they were ZMs but guess where they graduated from? Yeap! Cambridge, Oxford and top 5 UK Univs ... We could not believe that when we were told the first time.
Oh ya ... they are all brown in skin colour believing in other religions/ideologies and constantly got elected into power even when they openly threaten certain population. Ya, all humble origins etc ... all the disadvantages you can think off they got them all. But given them the power that's another story ... they evolved into ZMs.
@DrJ Paris / Bataclan changed a lot for many people, not me as my views where already established but for many. The Bataclan was Europe's 9/11.
More jambabollocks - if you read the article I linked, Bataclan pre-dates his opposition to bombing:
"In the previous interview, given to the Independent on Sunday, Mr Benn had said the Paris attacks the previous Friday meant it was “even more important that we bring the Syrian civil war to an end” before considering strikes on Isis."
@chewy - I have no clue what the hell you are talkng about. Apparently that is because I am a disc jockey, or something of the sort. Whatever - it reminds me why I blocked you on Chrome.
I'm not sure I'm alone in that.
You're not, rambling gobbledygook best sums it up.