DrJ - Member
@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.
Of course you don't understand ... of course not. 😆
You are too high up in the cloud that requires everyone to speak in the "Dr" way? Such is the elitist views that see themselves as the high and mighty that with rights to brush other aside because they called themselves "Dr".
... ya, such narrow views of the world but I must give it to you for being able to twist words.
A bit like me mates who insist on being called "Dr" because they got PhDs ... ya, they have and some are even Professors! I called them matey!
What Dr are you? Bear in mind most are positivist on STW who are unable to comprehend beyond the confined ... ya, please don't interpret that coz you might just confused yourself.
When did I say you're a DJ? I am just asking if you were one? You did not answer so I made the assumption but waiting for your confirmation ...
Besides you never answered whether you are a "real Dr" or the assumed ones so what's with playing the "victim"?
piemonster - Member
I'm not sure I'm alone in that.
You're not, rambling gobbledygook best sums it up.
Here comes the cavalry ... 😆
What's up piemonster?
Are you a "Dr" too?
🙄
So, Benn was against action without a plan and UN support - then when there was a plan and UN support he backed action
Not just that, but UN support (which he hadn't empasised before) and Cameron's 70,000 ghost army were sufficient to provoke a 180 degrees turn within a few days, from saying that peace talks have to come before addressing the ISIS issue, to ranting about bizarre analogies with the Spanish Civil War.
Remarkable.
@jamba, i don't disagree with you on a long term war, however i am some what sceptical that they will be crushed, i think if recent history teaches us anything then it is that they will morph into another organization that may not have tanks/troops etc. on the ground as they do now but will be a loosely affiliated bunch of nut cases carrying out global jihad. Unfortunately i believe we are just repeating the same old mistakes over and over.
UN support (which he hadn't empasised before)
14th November:
[i]Mr Benn said Labour would only consider backing air strikes in Syria if Mr Cameron had the support of the United Nations[/i]
rambling gobbledygook best sums it up
Aye amazed anyone reads it let alone attempts to engage with it
I personally think there has been quicker progress than I expected
Careful now you almost showed yourself to be wrong .
Bazz - Member
Unfortunately i believe we are just repeating the same old mistakes over and over.
Until such time as there is a magic solution I am afraid that is how the world works i.e. if the conflict is not started by this group then it would be by another group ...
Sitting out and waiting for the conflict to solve itself may not work well for many.
You are caught between a rock and a hard place ...
Assad should stay simple.
Junkyard - lazarus
rambling gobbledygook best sums it up
Aye amazed anyone reads it let alone attempts to engage with it
What's up Junkyard? My first response to you in 2016. 😛
Tempted to say "What's up Doc?" but you are not a "Dr or Doc" and I might get sued by Looney Tunes. 😮
Just to let you know you are wrong Junkyard. 😆
"Though lack of United Nations approval at the time was not the main argument that Mr Benn made against bombing Isis in Syria, he did say Labour would only support an extension of air strikes if it had been granted."
As I said, he did not emphasise UN support so it is strange that it provoked such a volte face.
1yr Anniversary cover for Charlie Ebdo published, rememberence events at Charlie Ebdo, Jewish supermarket and the site of the shooting of the policewoman (just round the corner from a Jewish school the intended target).
@bazz yes I agree its likely some elements of the extremists will morph into something else. I think this is a many generational conflict, the longer the oil price stays low tensions will rise as the better off Middle East nations start to feel real financial pain and public spending is cut.
- if you read the article I linked, Bataclan pre-dates his opposition to bombing:
DrJ, Ninfan explains my reference for you plus I imagine Benn was one pf the many MPs who listened to his constituents and local party members before voting and not just the shouty campaigners and Twitter trolls.
Do you believe the spin you write
I genuinely laughed at that rousing support for him and your tabloid dig...you missed out terrorist sympathisers though so I am disapoint.
Its now become jambyfacts delivered like a tabloid headline writer
1/70th of the number of moderate fighters waiting in the wings to deliver long and lasting peace once we've finished sorting things out from the sky.
@jamba - ninfan does not mention Bataclan. You are the only one here who claims Mr Benn travelled in time and gave his first interview BEFORE Bataclan. 100% jamba.
Paris attacks were on 13th November, beginning at gone nine at night - IOS interview was published on Sunday 14th November, it's impossible for any of us to know which of those comments were made before or after the attack or its seriousness were known, as its usual for such an interview to be done in advance.
The first captured web version of the interview is at [url= https://web.archive.org/web/20151114223715/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hilary-benn-shadow-foreign-secretary-says-labour-wont-back-air-strikes-on-syria-a6734651.html ]22.37[/url] on the evening of the fourteenth. I don't have a paper copy of the newspaper to compare and see if the Paris comments were added as additional comment afterwards, but it would seem literally remarkable if the interview was completed and taken to print in the very few hours between the attack and the publication of the Sunday paper the next morning.
Your detective work is not necessary since in his interview he specifically refers to Bataclan. The sequence of events is clearly
1 Bataclan
2 Benn against bombing
3 Benn for 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."
As I [i]already[/i] pointed out, you (and I) don't know the chronology of interviews, comments or when they were added.
It's likely that they interviewed earlier in the week, and then asked if he had any further comment in the aftermath of the attacks, it's also possible that the comments including reference to The Paris attacks were added to the initial interview later. My experience of Sunday newspapers is that the bulk of the work is done during the week,
Benns interview was perfectly clear in mentioning both a proper plan and UN approval in order to give support to any attacks, both of those prerequisites were fulfilled in the intervening two weeks before the vote and speech.
Even you admit this, but have decided to play Angels on pinheads by pretending that Benn did not "emphasise" UN involvement enough in the third hand report of a conversation neither of us were present at, so can't know how much weight he placed on it.
Of course, it's interesting how much faith you place in the entire accuracy of a newspaper report regards Benn, whilst at the same time attacking newspapers for their innacurate analysis of anything regarding Corbyn
That's a lot of words to obscure the essential point that Benn referred to the Paris attacks in his interview.
Of course the Indie could have made the whole thing up, or maybe by "Paris attacks" he actually meant the poorly tummy he got after eating a dodgy steak tartare. Anything is possible if it has to be shoe-horned into your pre-formed conclusions.
Benns interview was perfectly clear in mentioning both a proper plan and UN approval in order to give support to any attacks
The later just given as a sentence with no quote and to be very clear - hell you even quoted it- that was to consider supporting it.
He only got one of those for his remarkably quick - though as jamby wisely notes immensely principled and honourable not to mention laudable and democratic- volte face
From the BBC
[i]Analysis by Laura Kuenssberg
Don't forget, Jeremy Corbyn built his own career by being a serial rebel, voting against his party leader again and again and again.
For him to call for message discipline from the outset might have seemed ludicrous. And given the lack of support he had among Labour MPs, he was determined to try to build a team from all parts of the party to give him credibility in Westminster.
So now, just four months on, if he embarks on dramatic changes, sacks those who have publicly disagreed with him, like the shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn, there's a danger it looks like when his own authority is challenged he just can't take it.[/i]
I'd much prefer this thread if it had a "jambalaya only" filter. Congrats on getting through the 1000 posts of echo chamber handwringing barrier, y'all.
Don't forget, Jeremy Corbyn built his own career by being a serial rebel, voting against his party leader again and again and again.
The obvious difference being, duuuh, that Corbyn was never a shadow cabinet member.
Michael Dugher sacked from the shadow cabinet has received many commendations from other senior members of the shadow cabinet including Andy Bunham. Here is what Dugher had to say about Stop the War
[i]I think it might be quite useful if [Corbyn] went along to [the Stop the War Coalition’s Christmas event] because he can have a word with them as their former chairman and say to them ‘stop the intimidation, stop the abuse and stop the talk of deselections and going after Labour MPs who voted in a way they didn’t approve of’ ... What you’ve got to remember about a lot of these people in Stop the War is that they think the wrong people won the cold war. To say I might have a slightly world view is an understatement. Communism in a modern setting doesn’t have a lot of appeal to me[/i]
Nope, I still ain't going to vote Labour as they ain't no good to me anymore whether they fighting the war or not. I ain't voting for the advocates of EU ZM superstate regardless of who they are. 🙄
Not even Benn can win my vote ...
Euro-skeptic? I am more like ZM-skeptic 😆
Vote out of EU zombie maggots'(ZM) grips before it's too late.
Jambalaya now writing in defence of a close ally of Gordon Brown.... 😀
kimbers - Member
Jambalaya now writing in defence of a close ally of Gordon Brown....
Or Labour supporters (not referring to Jambalaya) are glad or as they think they are in the headline news again to improve on their profile ... now by saying that democracy prevails in Labour in the form of Benn and JC(not Jesus Christ). 😆
thanks jamby i was not certain why he sacked him now i know why
It only needed terrorist sympathiser in that but I suppose communism will do for the tabloid slur.
@chewk - genuinely curious - what's your political ideology/stance? If that's too open for a public forum you need not reply...I'm asking cos of the reference you made to positivists a while back....
[img] 
[/img]
obviously, best not bomb this place, it being in Syria and all.
jambalayaour 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
If there is an inverse relationship between the number of times the UK's support is called upon and the strength of ISIL, then here's some great news: a Freedom of Information request has established that precisely zero Islamic State fighters have been killed by Brimstone missiles - you know, the ones that were absolutely essentially to destroying IS. See p.11 of this week's Private Eye.