Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Undefined discussion subject.

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited November 2015 in General
«134

Comments

  • Indeed he does.
  • Second! Like Labour in Oldham
  • Might be some easy money to be had on BetFair's "Corbyn to go before next GE" market. Currently 1.2 with £75 on the table.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Blimey! Will this day prove to be a record in threads. Keep 'em coming, TSE. ;)
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,300
    @JamieRoss7: After a tough few days, some good news for Corbyn as he's endorsed by David Icke. https://t.co/uXwpj21Buk
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,033

    Might be some easy money to be had on BetFair's "Corbyn to go before next GE" market. Currently 1.2 with £75 on the table.

    That looks like a horrible bet to me.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Scott_P said:

    @JamieRoss7: After a tough few days, some good news for Corbyn as he's endorsed by David Icke. https://t.co/uXwpj21Buk

    Who the heck is Icke?
  • I found Steve Richards final paragraphs rather cryptic. Is he saying MPs who vote for war may face oblivion because of the left in their own local parties or because the voters will decide at a later point that it was a disaster to bomb ISIS?
  • MikeK said:

    Blimey! Will this day prove to be a record in threads. Keep 'em coming, TSE. ;)

    My record is seven threads in eight hours.
  • MikeK said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JamieRoss7: After a tough few days, some good news for Corbyn as he's endorsed by David Icke. https://t.co/uXwpj21Buk

    Who the heck is Icke?
    He makes a very tidy living by all accounts presenting shows at which he explains how the world is run by alien lizards. Before this he had a period as the 'son of god' and prior to that was involved briefly with the Green Party. A long long time ago he was a professional goal keeper.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Might be some easy money to be had on BetFair's "Corbyn to go before next GE" market. Currently 1.2 with £75 on the table.

    That looks like a horrible bet to me.
    Agreed.

    Shadsy's Evens on at least one Shad Cab resignation by 1st Dec looks good, IMO.
  • Just what Labour needs

    Why I am stepping down from Left Unity to join Labour. The former principal speaker of Left Unity on why it would be irresponsible not to support Jeremy Corbyn

    http://bit.ly/1QKNhNy
  • Pulpstar said:

    Might be some easy money to be had on BetFair's "Corbyn to go before next GE" market. Currently 1.2 with £75 on the table.

    That looks like a horrible bet to me.
    I dunno - one might have the money by xmas :-)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,263
    edited November 2015

    Pulpstar said:

    Might be some easy money to be had on BetFair's "Corbyn to go before next GE" market. Currently 1.2 with £75 on the table.

    That looks like a horrible bet to me.
    Agreed.

    Shadsy's Evens on at least one Shad Cab resignation by 1st Dec looks good, IMO.
    Link bitte

    Edit: Is ok, found it
  • Pulpstar said:

    Might be some easy money to be had on BetFair's "Corbyn to go before next GE" market. Currently 1.2 with £75 on the table.

    That looks like a horrible bet to me.
    Agreed.

    Shadsy's Evens on at least one Shad Cab resignation by 1st Dec looks good, IMO.
    Link bitte
    https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/british/specials/labour-party-specials/221304100/
  • Pulpstar said:

    Might be some easy money to be had on BetFair's "Corbyn to go before next GE" market. Currently 1.2 with £75 on the table.

    That looks like a horrible bet to me.
    Agreed.

    Shadsy's Evens on at least one Shad Cab resignation by 1st Dec looks good, IMO.
    Link bitte
    https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/british/specials/labour-party-specials/221304100/
    That's Tuesday! So basically Monday night then. Does 1st Dec itself count?
  • Just what Labour needs

    Why I am stepping down from Left Unity to join Labour. The former principal speaker of Left Unity on why it would be irresponsible not to support Jeremy Corbyn

    http://bit.ly/1QKNhNy

    He's a bit late to the party, as it were. What took him so long?
  • Pulpstar said:

    Might be some easy money to be had on BetFair's "Corbyn to go before next GE" market. Currently 1.2 with £75 on the table.

    That looks like a horrible bet to me.
    Agreed.

    Shadsy's Evens on at least one Shad Cab resignation by 1st Dec looks good, IMO.
    Link bitte
    https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/british/specials/labour-party-specials/221304100/
    Ta
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited November 2015
    Really? Ex BBC snooker commentator who declared he was Jesus on Wogan, and then set up a conspiracy cult where we're ruled by shape-shifting lizards...

    He holds huge rallies too. http://www.davidicke.com/
    MikeK said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JamieRoss7: After a tough few days, some good news for Corbyn as he's endorsed by David Icke. https://t.co/uXwpj21Buk

    Who the heck is Icke?
  • Pulpstar said:

    Might be some easy money to be had on BetFair's "Corbyn to go before next GE" market. Currently 1.2 with £75 on the table.

    That looks like a horrible bet to me.
    Agreed.

    Shadsy's Evens on at least one Shad Cab resignation by 1st Dec looks good, IMO.
    Link bitte
    https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/british/specials/labour-party-specials/221304100/
    That's Tuesday! So basically Monday night then. Does 1st Dec itself count?
    I imagine not - it's 'before 1st Dec'
  • Indeed he does.

    Its another shabby article from Mr Brind. You would think Cameron was proposing the Charge of the Light Brigade instead of joining a UN authorised international coalition bombing campaign against ISIS terrorists based over the Syrian border. Perhaps he can suggest how that differs from attacking ISIS on the Iraq side of the border as we are at the moment?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,300
    @JohnRentoul: And another obituary for Labour, from @NoraMulready https://t.co/UDjhdZLVMW
  • Pulpstar said:

    Might be some easy money to be had on BetFair's "Corbyn to go before next GE" market. Currently 1.2 with £75 on the table.

    That looks like a horrible bet to me.
    Agreed.

    Shadsy's Evens on at least one Shad Cab resignation by 1st Dec looks good, IMO.
    Link bitte
    https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/british/specials/labour-party-specials/221304100/
    That's Tuesday! So basically Monday night then. Does 1st Dec itself count?
    says 'before 1st Dec' - so I guess up to midnight on 30th
  • Scott_P said:

    @JohnRentoul: And another obituary for Labour, from @NoraMulready https://t.co/UDjhdZLVMW

    "But the door has been opened to a sea of Hard Left fantasists and life-long political conspiracy theorists who – whatever the act, whatever the battle, the West is always to blame. They’re feasting like political vultures on the true party of the people. Jeremy Corbyn was given a mandate to lead, he was not given a mandate to destroy the Labour Party."

    Pure popcorn.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Might be some easy money to be had on BetFair's "Corbyn to go before next GE" market. Currently 1.2 with £75 on the table.

    That looks like a horrible bet to me.
    Agreed.

    Shadsy's Evens on at least one Shad Cab resignation by 1st Dec looks good, IMO.
    Link bitte
    https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/british/specials/labour-party-specials/221304100/
    That's Tuesday! So basically Monday night then. Does 1st Dec itself count?
    says 'before 1st Dec' - so I guess up to midnight on 30th

    Pulpstar said:

    Might be some easy money to be had on BetFair's "Corbyn to go before next GE" market. Currently 1.2 with £75 on the table.

    That looks like a horrible bet to me.
    Agreed.

    Shadsy's Evens on at least one Shad Cab resignation by 1st Dec looks good, IMO.
    Link bitte
    https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/british/specials/labour-party-specials/221304100/
    That's Tuesday! So basically Monday night then. Does 1st Dec itself count?
    I imagine not - it's 'before 1st Dec'
    So literally Monday night. Probably the difference between the ShadCab meeting, which is on Monday (not sure what time) and the late editions...
  • KingaKinga Posts: 59
    Opposition requires more than simply "I will not do what you want to do". It also needs "we should do this instead". Have we had a single concrete suggestion from Jeremy Corbyn on how the current threat from ISIS should be confronted?
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,303
    Kinga said:

    Opposition requires more than simply "I will not do what you want to do". It also needs "we should do this instead". Have we had a single concrete suggestion from Jeremy Corbyn on how the current threat from ISIS should be confronted?

    Invite them around for a cup of tea.
  • Really? Ex BBC snooker commentator who declared he was Jesus on Wogan, and then set up a conspiracy cult where we're ruled by shape-shifting lizards...

    He holds huge rallies too. http://www.davidicke.com/

    MikeK said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JamieRoss7: After a tough few days, some good news for Corbyn as he's endorsed by David Icke. https://t.co/uXwpj21Buk

    Who the heck is Icke?
    Coventry City goalkeeper, wasn't he, and not only snooker, he was pretty big in sports commentary at the time. I think he said "Son of God" rather than Jesus, but perhaps that's a moot point.

    Having said that, he was publicly going for Saville before a lot of others

    (Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day, as yer man says)
  • Just what Labour needs

    Why I am stepping down from Left Unity to join Labour. The former principal speaker of Left Unity on why it would be irresponsible not to support Jeremy Corbyn

    http://bit.ly/1QKNhNy

    He's a bit late to the party, as it were. What took him so long?
    I reckon it was John McDonnell's comments on the IRA last night that made him switch
  • Kinga said:

    Opposition requires more than simply "I will not do what you want to do". It also needs "we should do this instead". Have we had a single concrete suggestion from Jeremy Corbyn on how the current threat from ISIS should be confronted?

    Arrest them?
  • Scott_P said:

    @JohnRentoul: And another obituary for Labour, from @NoraMulready https://t.co/UDjhdZLVMW

    Nora writes some good stuff, but her nonsensical shroud-waving in the first paragraph is part of the problem. Ed tried that for 5 years: the British people called his bluff but the Labour membership bought it, hence the current situation.
  • Indeed he does.

    Its another shabby article from Mr Brind. You would think Cameron was proposing the Charge of the Light Brigade instead of joining a UN authorised international coalition bombing campaign against ISIS terrorists based over the Syrian border. Perhaps he can suggest how that differs from attacking ISIS on the Iraq side of the border as we are at the moment?
    I have some sympathy with Don on this one. I'm still unsure of what the government's objective is in Syria. OK, defeat ISIL. Then what? Who does it actually want to win they Syrian war and how does it intend to help bring that about? The best that can be said for airstrikes is that it keeps us at the table with those who are in a position to determine Syria's fate.
  • Off-topic, Yorkshire winning the Davis Cup so far.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited November 2015
    His cult also had to wear turquoise.

    My favourite intv of his re shape-shifting lizards is just so WTF - you have to stick with it for the full experience. "The Reptilian Manipulation of Humanity"

    Really? Ex BBC snooker commentator who declared he was Jesus on Wogan, and then set up a conspiracy cult where we're ruled by shape-shifting lizards...

    He holds huge rallies too. http://www.davidicke.com/

    MikeK said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JamieRoss7: After a tough few days, some good news for Corbyn as he's endorsed by David Icke. https://t.co/uXwpj21Buk

    Who the heck is Icke?
    Coventry City goalkeeper, wasn't he, and not only snooker, he was pretty big in sports commentary at the time. I think he said "Son of God" rather than Jesus, but perhaps that's a moot point.

    Having said that, he was publicly going for Saville before a lot of others

    (Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day, as yer man says)
  • I have some sympathy with Don on this one. I'm still unsure of what the government's objective is in Syria. OK, defeat ISIL. Then what?

    Why does it need a 'then what'? Our objective is not to decide Syria's future, but to defeat, or at least significantly degrade, a quasi-state which is attacking us and our closest allies.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    edited November 2015
    This article is close to my own thoughts while listening to the debate yesterday. There were good points raised in opposition to Cameron and an emerging view that the availability of ground forces is doubtful. But none of this came from Corbyn whose contribution was so predictable - a litany of mumbled questions - that he didn't actually participate in the debate at all. It's saying something that Dennis Skinner's contribution was more on point.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,300

    Why does it need a 'then what'? Our objective is not to decide Syria's future, but to defeat, or at least significantly degrade, a quasi-state which is attacking us and our closest allies.

    If we defeat that terrible Mr Hitler, our friend and ally Mr Stalin might take over half of Germany. Better wait for the V2s to drop...
  • His cult also had to wear turquoise.

    My favourite intv of his re shape-shifting lizards is just so WTF - you have to stick with it for the full experience. "The Reptilian Manipulation of Humanity"

    Really? Ex BBC snooker commentator who declared he was Jesus on Wogan, and then set up a conspiracy cult where we're ruled by shape-shifting lizards...

    He holds huge rallies too. http://www.davidicke.com/

    MikeK said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JamieRoss7: After a tough few days, some good news for Corbyn as he's endorsed by David Icke. https://t.co/uXwpj21Buk

    Who the heck is Icke?
    Coventry City goalkeeper, wasn't he, and not only snooker, he was pretty big in sports commentary at the time. I think he said "Son of God" rather than Jesus, but perhaps that's a moot point.

    Having said that, he was publicly going for Saville before a lot of others

    (Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day, as yer man says)
    He outed Saville as a necrophiliac when he was still alive, and long before anyone else did
  • Who keeps banning iSam? What is he supposed to have done this time?

    Free the Essex one!
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,542

    I have some sympathy with Don on this one. I'm still unsure of what the government's objective is in Syria. OK, defeat ISIL. Then what?

    Why does it need a 'then what'? Our objective is not to decide Syria's future, but to defeat, or at least significantly degrade, a quasi-state which is attacking us and our closest allies.
    Absolutely. We have a duty to protect our nation from the threat of an evil terrorist cult. That is the primary focus. A failure to act will see death on our streets.

    Yes, we should be involved in rebuilding, but we have to act first to in order to protect the UK from the threat that ISIS (or whatever we are supposed to call it) poses.
  • I have some sympathy with Don on this one. I'm still unsure of what the government's objective is in Syria. OK, defeat ISIL. Then what?

    Why does it need a 'then what'? Our objective is not to decide Syria's future, but to defeat, or at least significantly degrade, a quasi-state which is attacking us and our closest allies.
    I may be mistaken, but I don't think war against the Nazis was debated on the basis of "we don't have a post war plan".
  • His cult also had to wear turquoise.

    My favourite intv of his re shape-shifting lizards is just so WTF - you have to stick with it for the full experience. "The Reptilian Manipulation of Humanity"

    fantastic. literally. I like that the "full story" only takes 10 mins.

    I couldn't get past the first couple though. for all people say that grammar schools are great, his total misunderstanding of electromagnetic waves tells a lot (assuming he is a grammar school boy)
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,219
    edited November 2015
    A poor article if it has to rely on the likes of Julian Lewis to sustain the argument. The problem Brind shares with the likes of Abbott is the failure to have listened with care to Cameron's case as presented in the H/C. It was supremely under-stated in every respect and yet the case remains compelling for all he makes it clear will be limited and quite slow, progress. But the Corbynistas - and here they reflect too well the great mass of the Labour party on domestic issues - have only one response and that is to reject. Rather like the party on welfare changes - no, no , no and therefore spend, spend, spend. No doubt the party will survive this and several more skirmishes over the next few years but I think increasingly the voters will simply ignore them and move on.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I'm not sure that getting one baddie on the conspiracy spectrum really vindicates him.

    Alex Jones says the occasional sensible thing, but the other 98% is barking.

    His cult also had to wear turquoise.

    My favourite intv of his re shape-shifting lizards is just so WTF - you have to stick with it for the full experience. "The Reptilian Manipulation of Humanity"

    Really? Ex BBC snooker commentator who declared he was Jesus on Wogan, and then set up a conspiracy cult where we're ruled by shape-shifting lizards...

    He holds huge rallies too. http://www.davidicke.com/

    MikeK said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JamieRoss7: After a tough few days, some good news for Corbyn as he's endorsed by David Icke. https://t.co/uXwpj21Buk

    Who the heck is Icke?
    Coventry City goalkeeper, wasn't he, and not only snooker, he was pretty big in sports commentary at the time. I think he said "Son of God" rather than Jesus, but perhaps that's a moot point.

    Having said that, he was publicly going for Saville before a lot of others

    (Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day, as yer man says)
    He outed Saville as a necrophiliac when he was still alive, and long before anyone else did
  • I have some sympathy with Don on this one. I'm still unsure of what the government's objective is in Syria. OK, defeat ISIL. Then what?

    Why does it need a 'then what'? Our objective is not to decide Syria's future, but to defeat, or at least significantly degrade, a quasi-state which is attacking us and our closest allies.
    Absolutely. We have a duty to protect our nation from the threat of an evil terrorist cult. That is the primary focus. A failure to act will see death on our streets.

    Yes, we should be involved in rebuilding, but we have to act first to in order to protect the UK from the threat that ISIS (or whatever we are supposed to call it) poses.
    Indeed. The question is whether half a dozen RAF Tornados aiming at Syria rather than Iraq will advance that agenda one iota. The only boots on the ground are Kurdish and there we run into Turkish sensitivities.
  • His cult also had to wear turquoise.

    My favourite intv of his re shape-shifting lizards is just so WTF - you have to stick with it for the full experience. "The Reptilian Manipulation of Humanity"

    Really? Ex BBC snooker commentator who declared he was Jesus on Wogan, and then set up a conspiracy cult where we're ruled by shape-shifting lizards...

    He holds huge rallies too. http://www.davidicke.com/

    MikeK said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JamieRoss7: After a tough few days, some good news for Corbyn as he's endorsed by David Icke. https://t.co/uXwpj21Buk

    Who the heck is Icke?
    Coventry City goalkeeper, wasn't he, and not only snooker, he was pretty big in sports commentary at the time. I think he said "Son of God" rather than Jesus, but perhaps that's a moot point.

    Having said that, he was publicly going for Saville before a lot of others

    (Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day, as yer man says)
    He outed Saville as a necrophiliac when he was still alive, and long before anyone else did
    he has said some fascinating things about establishment child abuse,as you say. was saville a necrophiliac, infact? or was that story part of his cover?
  • Absolutely. We have a duty to protect our nation from the threat of an evil terrorist cult. That is the primary focus. A failure to act will see death on our streets.

    Yes, we should be involved in rebuilding, but we have to act first to in order to protect the UK from the threat that ISIS (or whatever we are supposed to call it) poses.

    What's more, when it comes to the rebuilding, it's not clear that the UK should or could be particularly involved, except as part of an international aid effort if we ever get to that stage. The days when a British government could sit in London and impose solutions on countries far away are long gone.
  • I have some sympathy with Don on this one. I'm still unsure of what the government's objective is in Syria. OK, defeat ISIL. Then what?

    Why does it need a 'then what'? Our objective is not to decide Syria's future, but to defeat, or at least significantly degrade, a quasi-state which is attacking us and our closest allies.
    I may be mistaken, but I don't think war against the Nazis was debated on the basis of "we don't have a post war plan".
    Half the Establishment (and Cabinet) was opposed to war with the Nazis. Maybe one of the pb historians knows if post-war planning was one of the grounds.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    edited November 2015

    I'm not sure that getting one baddie on the conspiracy spectrum really vindicates him.

    Alex Jones says the occasional sensible thing, but the other 98% is barking.

    His cult also had to wear turquoise.

    My favourite intv of his re shape-shifting lizards is just so WTF - you have to stick with it for the full experience. "The Reptilian Manipulation of Humanity"

    Really? Ex BBC snooker commentator who declared he was Jesus on Wogan, and then set up a conspiracy cult where we're ruled by shape-shifting lizards...

    He holds huge rallies too. http://www.davidicke.com/

    MikeK said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JamieRoss7: After a tough few days, some good news for Corbyn as he's endorsed by David Icke. https://t.co/uXwpj21Buk

    Who the heck is Icke?
    Coventry City goalkeeper, wasn't he, and not only snooker, he was pretty big in sports commentary at the time. I think he said "Son of God" rather than Jesus, but perhaps that's a moot point.

    Having said that, he was publicly going for Saville before a lot of others

    (Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day, as yer man says)
    He outed Saville as a necrophiliac when he was still alive, and long before anyone else did
    Popbitch named Rolf Harris years ago, something which I and everyone else thought was ludicrous at the time
  • Scott_P said:

    Why does it need a 'then what'? Our objective is not to decide Syria's future, but to defeat, or at least significantly degrade, a quasi-state which is attacking us and our closest allies.

    If we defeat that terrible Mr Hitler, our friend and ally Mr Stalin might take over half of Germany. Better wait for the V2s to drop...
    we've been in plenty of other wars since that one. why pick that one as an example?
  • I have some sympathy with Don on this one. I'm still unsure of what the government's objective is in Syria. OK, defeat ISIL. Then what?

    Why does it need a 'then what'? Our objective is not to decide Syria's future, but to defeat, or at least significantly degrade, a quasi-state which is attacking us and our closest allies.
    Two main reasons. Firstly, if you want to defeat ISIL as a first priority then you need to decide who it's acceptable to ally with inside Syria now and who it's not - and to build a military strategy on that basis. Determining who we ally with will of itself play a big part in the 'then what'. Given that's the case, we ought to have an eye for the question.

    Secondly, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya (and Somalia and others) indicate that if you leave a vacuum then extremists will exploit it. It is not ISIL as such that is the problem; it is the instability in which ISIL has thrived. The solution is not to defeat one bunch of terrorists with the risk that another lot will simply take their place; it is to establish an end to the instability so that none can operate there.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626
    I can see the sense in this - it captures my biggest worry about Corbyn, that he is not a doubter, about anything, without ignoring that there are still real concerns out there about the best course of action.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,470
    edited November 2015

    Absolutely. We have a duty to protect our nation from the threat of an evil terrorist cult. That is the primary focus. A failure to act will see death on our streets.

    Yes, we should be involved in rebuilding, but we have to act first to in order to protect the UK from the threat that ISIS (or whatever we are supposed to call it) poses.

    What's more, when it comes to the rebuilding, it's not clear that the UK should or could be particularly involved, except as part of an international aid effort if we ever get to that stage. The days when a British government could sit in London and impose solutions on countries far away are long gone.
    This is sadly the classic cry wolf situation. Iraq 2003 we shouldn't have, Afghan 2006 we probably shouldn't have, Libya we shouldn't have. Of these perhaps vaguely Afghan/AQ you could say there was an analagous threat. Otherwise it was good old-fashioned western meddling.

    Syria, however, and IS operating from there/Iraq, does really pose a threat to us apart from them being, to adopt the @Cyclefree vernacular, a bunch of c**ts.
  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806

    Indeed he does.

    Its another shabby article from Mr Brind. You would think Cameron was proposing the Charge of the Light Brigade instead of joining a UN authorised international coalition bombing campaign against ISIS terrorists based over the Syrian border. Perhaps he can suggest how that differs from attacking ISIS on the Iraq side of the border as we are at the moment?
    I have some sympathy with Don on this one. I'm still unsure of what the government's objective is in Syria. OK, defeat ISIL. Then what? Who does it actually want to win they Syrian war and how does it intend to help bring that about? The best that can be said for airstrikes is that it keeps us at the table with those who are in a position to determine Syria's fate.
    Surely the idea should be that we exterminate all IS members before they exterminate us.

  • Absolutely. We have a duty to protect our nation from the threat of an evil terrorist cult. That is the primary focus. A failure to act will see death on our streets.

    Yes, we should be involved in rebuilding, but we have to act first to in order to protect the UK from the threat that ISIS (or whatever we are supposed to call it) poses.

    What's more, when it comes to the rebuilding, it's not clear that the UK should or could be particularly involved, except as part of an international aid effort if we ever get to that stage. The days when a British government could sit in London and impose solutions on countries far away are long gone.
    Exactly. – The Islamic State is the target, not Syria’s infrastructure and the toppling of it’s government. If it were the case then yes, we would have a duty of responsibility, but it is not.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,695
    Kinga said:

    Opposition requires more than simply "I will not do what you want to do". It also needs "we should do this instead". Have we had a single concrete suggestion from Jeremy Corbyn on how the current threat from ISIS should be confronted?

    What makes you think Corbyn thinks IS is a threat to be confronted?

    He wants to do nothing because:-

    1. He thinks the only reason they exist is because of what we've done so if we do nothing they won't do anything bad to us or will vanish.
    2. He doesn't really think they are all that bad. Or not as bad as the evil West/USA/Britain/Israel etc. If you've swallowed the gnats of the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah etc why really would you strain at the camel of IS?
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Pithy, and yup that's the point.
    perdix said:

    Indeed he does.

    Its another shabby article from Mr Brind. You would think Cameron was proposing the Charge of the Light Brigade instead of joining a UN authorised international coalition bombing campaign against ISIS terrorists based over the Syrian border. Perhaps he can suggest how that differs from attacking ISIS on the Iraq side of the border as we are at the moment?
    I have some sympathy with Don on this one. I'm still unsure of what the government's objective is in Syria. OK, defeat ISIL. Then what? Who does it actually want to win they Syrian war and how does it intend to help bring that about? The best that can be said for airstrikes is that it keeps us at the table with those who are in a position to determine Syria's fate.
    Surely the idea should be that we exterminate all IS members before they exterminate us.



  • Exactly. – The Islamic State is the target, not Syria’s infrastructure and the toppling of it’s government. If it were the case then yes, we would have a duty of responsibility, but it is not.

    But the two are connected. IS infrastrucure is Syrian infrastructure (partly)
  • Secondly, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya (and Somalia and others) indicate that if you leave a vacuum then extremists will exploit it. It is not ISIL as such that is the problem; it is the instability in which ISIL has thrived. The solution is not to defeat one bunch of terrorists with the risk that another lot will simply take their place; it is to establish an end to the instability so that none can operate there.

    All that is true, but it's not a justification for not acting. We have a current, dangerous, and immediate threat. The argument that, if we deal with it, some different hypothetical threat might emerge from the chaos makes no sense, especially since the chaos is already there. It's not as though doing nothing is going to bring stability.

    Of course we're not going to kill off this monster completely, but hopefully we can wound it to the extent that it will find it harder to do us direct harm.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 691
    The core question is do we need coherence at this stage? An escalation in air strikes WILL result in IS losses to whatever forces happen to be around and if that is enough to progressively degrade their ability to plan and coordinate attacks on European soil, as drone strikes have done to Al-Qaeda, then there is case that we can proceed further without that clarity. Without solving the ground situation we will lose any opportunity there might be to make any of the people living there feel genuinely liberated, which must be where we ultimately want to be when we take action. However, this is a time and place where it will take quite a lot to make the situation worse.

    Of course, IS have been put under time pressure by air strikes in Syria/Iraq and are trying to establish strength very quickly elsewhere to more outposts than the international community or national governments can deal with. Attacks in Europe are not a central aim, rather they are great big neon advertising hoardings calling jihadis to arms under the IS banner across the middle east while they are capable. We may call them names like death cult etc, but imho not to see that many IS leaders are absolutely focussed on the more classic and prosaic aims of wresting power and control from the current crop of Arab autocrats, be they religious royalists or secular dictators, is a mistake.

    If we lack speed, IS will be more established in more places, and removing them from Syria/Iraq will have less effect. The can for clarity in a post IS Syria/Iraq can be kicked down the road, the can for dealing with IS cannot be - not only for Western security, but for any (very) long-term ideal of securing a better Middle East.
  • hopefully we can wound it

    Is that really a coherent military strategy?

    The other threats are not exactly hypothetical either, are they?

    I'm not actually that concerned about this vote, if we're bombing in iraq already then it hardly matters. but surely we need an objective?
  • Pro_Rata said:

    The core question is do we need coherence at this stage? An escalation in air strikes WILL result in IS losses to whatever forces happen to be around and if that is enough to progressively degrade their ability to plan and coordinate attacks on European soil, as drone strikes have done to Al-Qaeda, then there is case that we can proceed further without that clarity. Without solving the ground situation we will lose any opportunity there might be to make any of the people living there feel genuinely liberated, which must be where we ultimately want to be when we take action. However, this is a time and place where it will take quite a lot to make the situation worse.

    Of course, IS have been put under time pressure by air strikes in Syria/Iraq and are trying to establish strength very quickly elsewhere to more outposts than the international community or national governments can deal with. Attacks in Europe are not a central aim, rather they are great big neon advertising hoardings calling jihadis to arms under the IS banner across the middle east while they are capable. We may call them names like death cult etc, but imho not to see that many IS leaders are absolutely focussed on the more classic and prosaic aims of wresting power and control from the current crop of Arab autocrats, be they religious royalists or secular dictators, is a mistake.

    If we lack speed, IS will be more established in more places, and removing them from Syria/Iraq will have less effect. The can for clarity in a post IS Syria/Iraq can be kicked down the road, the can for dealing with IS cannot be - not only for Western security, but for any (very) long-term ideal of securing a better Middle East.

    lob in a few bombs cause it probably can't make things much worse?
  • Secondly, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya (and Somalia and others) indicate that if you leave a vacuum then extremists will exploit it. It is not ISIL as such that is the problem; it is the instability in which ISIL has thrived. The solution is not to defeat one bunch of terrorists with the risk that another lot will simply take their place; it is to establish an end to the instability so that none can operate there.

    All that is true, but it's not a justification for not acting. We have a current, dangerous, and immediate threat. The argument that, if we deal with it, some different hypothetical threat might emerge from the chaos makes no sense, especially since the chaos is already there. It's not as though doing nothing is going to bring stability.

    Of course we're not going to kill off this monster completely, but hopefully we can wound it to the extent that it will find it harder to do us direct harm.
    I don't dispute that and were I in parliament, I'm not sure how I'd vote other than that I wouldn't abstain. ISIL does need dealing with but it needs dealing with in a way that solves the problem permanently and that is as much a political solution as a military one. On balance, I'd probably favour joining the UN-sanctioned coalition in Syria but I would be far happier were there a coherent overall strategy which at the moment I don't think there is.

    I do have to pick you up on the politician's fallacy in your first sentence: simply because doing nothing won't bring stability (or at least, it leaves it to chance and others), it doesn't follow that dropping bombs will either. ISIL will be most likely defeated by putting together ground and air power capable of doing so, which is what we should be doing diplomatically if that is our first priority in Syria.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,300
    In other news...

    @PSbook: 'Missing cash' MP: 'four-figure sum' not declared to Electoral Commission or Parliament https://t.co/88ttkZXhMq https://t.co/sy4y37jnW7
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 691

    Pro_Rata said:

    The core question is do we need coherence at this stage? An escalation in air strikes WILL result in IS losses to whatever forces happen to be around and if that is enough to progressively degrade their ability to plan and coordinate attacks on European soil, as drone strikes have done to Al-Qaeda, then there is case that we can proceed further without that clarity. Without solving the ground situation we will lose any opportunity there might be to make any of the people living there feel genuinely liberated, which must be where we ultimately want to be when we take action. However, this is a time and place where it will take quite a lot to make the situation worse.

    Of course, IS have been put under time pressure by air strikes in Syria/Iraq and are trying to establish strength very quickly elsewhere to more outposts than the international community or national governments can deal with. Attacks in Europe are not a central aim, rather they are great big neon advertising hoardings calling jihadis to arms under the IS banner across the middle east while they are capable. We may call them names like death cult etc, but imho not to see that many IS leaders are absolutely focussed on the more classic and prosaic aims of wresting power and control from the current crop of Arab autocrats, be they religious royalists or secular dictators, is a mistake.

    If we lack speed, IS will be more established in more places, and removing them from Syria/Iraq will have less effect. The can for clarity in a post IS Syria/Iraq can be kicked down the road, the can for dealing with IS cannot be - not only for Western security, but for any (very) long-term ideal of securing a better Middle East.

    lob in a few bombs cause it probably can't make things much worse?
    Lob in a few MORE bombs, because it will help degrade IS more quickly. The fact it can't make things much worse merely downweights the counter argument.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626

    Secondly, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya (and Somalia and others) indicate that if you leave a vacuum then extremists will exploit it. It is not ISIL as such that is the problem; it is the instability in which ISIL has thrived. The solution is not to defeat one bunch of terrorists with the risk that another lot will simply take their place; it is to establish an end to the instability so that none can operate there.

    All that is true, but it's not a justification for not acting. We have a current, dangerous, and immediate threat. The argument that, if we deal with it, some different hypothetical threat might emerge from the chaos makes no sense, especially since the chaos is already there. It's not as though doing nothing is going to bring stability.

    Of course we're not going to kill off this monster completely, but hopefully we can wound it to the extent that it will find it harder to do us direct harm.
    I can see the logic in that. I am still reluctant and hesitant, but at some point the danger of the present situation will override fear of potential future consequences, even if dealing with the former will cause more of the latter. Sometimes that is necessary. Is this one of those times? A year ago I didn't think so, I thought acting would make things worse than not acting. Now, that is harder to believe, even if acting, in some fashion, will hardly make things great.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Couldn't we just drop Corbyn, McIRA and Abbot on ISIS?
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,303

    Couldn't we just drop Corbyn, McIRA and Abbot on ISIS?

    I suspect that's against the Geneva Convention.

    Even ISIS don't deserve that.

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,070
    edited November 2015

    I do have to pick you up on the politician's fallacy in your first sentence: simply because doing nothing won't bring stability (or at least, it leaves it to chance and others), it doesn't follow that dropping bombs will either.

    We're not, primarily, trying to bring stability. That would be nice, of course - not least for the local population - but the test of success isn't whether we bring stability, it's whether we degrade the capability of ISIS to do harm to us and our close allies. Given that ISIS-controlled territory in Syria is currently being used as a base for financing, inspiring, planning, arming and glorifying terrorist attacks on us, as well as for recruiting and training youngsters to carry out the attacks, it's a simple act of self-defence to disrupt them. The alternative course of action, or rather inaction, is that we simply ignore it and let them get on with it, getting ever more bold and dangerous as they do so.

    If it were 'just' a local civil war I would not want to get involved. But it's not, it's a quasi-state engaged in direct attack on us.
  • KingaKinga Posts: 59
    Cyclefree said:

    Kinga said:

    Opposition requires more than simply "I will not do what you want to do". It also needs "we should do this instead". Have we had a single concrete suggestion from Jeremy Corbyn on how the current threat from ISIS should be confronted?

    What makes you think Corbyn thinks IS is a threat to be confronted?

    He wants to do nothing because:-

    1. He thinks the only reason they exist is because of what we've done so if we do nothing they won't do anything bad to us or will vanish.
    2. He doesn't really think they are all that bad. Or not as bad as the evil West/USA/Britain/Israel etc. If you've swallowed the gnats of the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah etc why really would you strain at the camel of IS?
    Yesterday Corbyn called the Paris attacks "despicable and horrific" and agreed that the first priority was the security of people in this country.

    In the absence of confrontation with ISIS (and given we already attack them in Iraq so we are arguing about geography) how does he propose to meet that priority?
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,488

    Who keeps banning iSam? What is he supposed to have done this time?

    Free the Essex one!

    Again?

    Obviously time behind bars does not deter further misbehavior :-)
  • Pro_Rata said:


    Lob in a few MORE bombs, because it will help degrade IS more quickly. The fact it can't make things much worse merely downweights the counter argument.

    is bombing actually degrading them though? anyway, David Herdson is being far more eloquent and saying more or less what I want to, so I'll say good night.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,949
    Don't agree with Cameron
    Don't agree with Corbyn

    Bugger.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    perdix said:

    Indeed he does.

    Its another shabby article from Mr Brind. You would think Cameron was proposing the Charge of the Light Brigade instead of joining a UN authorised international coalition bombing campaign against ISIS terrorists based over the Syrian border. Perhaps he can suggest how that differs from attacking ISIS on the Iraq side of the border as we are at the moment?
    I have some sympathy with Don on this one. I'm still unsure of what the government's objective is in Syria. OK, defeat ISIL. Then what? Who does it actually want to win they Syrian war and how does it intend to help bring that about? The best that can be said for airstrikes is that it keeps us at the table with those who are in a position to determine Syria's fate.
    Surely the idea should be that we exterminate all IS members before they exterminate us.

    When do we start bombing Leeds?
  • Genuine query -- given the RAF is already attacking ISIL in Iraq, is the Syrian proposal to bomb ISIL in both countries, flying twice as many missions as now, or is it to fly the same number of missions but with new targets?
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    The IRA fixed central Manchester according to McDonnell.
    watford30 said:

    perdix said:

    Indeed he does.

    Its another shabby article from Mr Brind. You would think Cameron was proposing the Charge of the Light Brigade instead of joining a UN authorised international coalition bombing campaign against ISIS terrorists based over the Syrian border. Perhaps he can suggest how that differs from attacking ISIS on the Iraq side of the border as we are at the moment?
    I have some sympathy with Don on this one. I'm still unsure of what the government's objective is in Syria. OK, defeat ISIL. Then what? Who does it actually want to win they Syrian war and how does it intend to help bring that about? The best that can be said for airstrikes is that it keeps us at the table with those who are in a position to determine Syria's fate.
    Surely the idea should be that we exterminate all IS members before they exterminate us.

    When do we start bombing Leeds?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,695
    Jonathan said:

    Don't agree with Cameron
    Don't agree with Corbyn

    Bugger.

    Ah, but you now have Mao to guide you..... :)
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 691

    Pro_Rata said:


    Lob in a few MORE bombs, because it will help degrade IS more quickly. The fact it can't make things much worse merely downweights the counter argument.

    is bombing actually degrading them though? anyway, David Herdson is being far more eloquent and saying more or less what I want to, so I'll say good night.
    Well, goodnight to you too. Rhetorically - do you think air strikes are not degrading IS then? As I say, air strikes have certainly degraded Al-Qaeda's ability to operate over the years by picking out individuals and I do not see why that should not also be somewhat effective in the IS statelet.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626
    Jonathan said:

    Don't agree with Cameron
    Don't agree with Corbyn

    Bugger.

    There's always Farron.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 6,934
    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Don't agree with Cameron
    Don't agree with Corbyn

    Bugger.

    There's always Farron.
    Funny again ;-)
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,949
    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Don't agree with Cameron
    Don't agree with Corbyn

    Bugger.

    There's always Farron.
    Who?
  • We've heard a lot about how ludicrous it is that we can only attack ISIS in Iraq, not Syria, but is it really? The US and France (and Russia much more so of course) are attacking them in both countries - would it not be far more sensible to simply up our commitment and resource in Iraq, and fly more sorties there, with our allies doing a bit less there and a bit more in Syria? In practical and resource terms that would surely work better than another country joining the Syria air scrum.
  • kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Don't agree with Cameron
    Don't agree with Corbyn

    Bugger.

    There's always FarrAGE.
    Fixed. ;)
  • Couldn't we just drop Corbyn, McIRA and Abbot on ISIS?

    Abbot would cause too many civilian casualities.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 6,934

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Don't agree with Cameron
    Don't agree with Corbyn

    Bugger.

    There's always FarrAGE.
    Fixed. ;)
    The way things are going with our leaders of our political parties,Farage looking the one left who looks respectable ;-)
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,300
    @JamesTapsfield: NEC has issued Corbyn aide Andrew Fisher with warning over tweet supporting rival party and lifted his suspension, Labour says
  • I do have to pick you up on the politician's fallacy in your first sentence: simply because doing nothing won't bring stability (or at least, it leaves it to chance and others), it doesn't follow that dropping bombs will either.

    We're not, primarily, trying to bring stability. That would be nice, of course - not least for the local population - but the test of success isn't whether we bring stability, it's whether we degrade the capability of ISIS to do harm to us and our close allies. Given that ISIS-controlled territory in Syria is currently being used as a base for financing, inspiring, planning, arming and glorifying terrorist attacks on us, as well as for recruiting and training youngsters to carry out the attacks, it's a simple act of self-defence to disrupt them. The alternative course of action, or rather inaction, is that we simply ignore it and let them get on with it, getting ever more bold and dangerous as they do so.

    If it were 'just' a local civil war I would not want to get involved. But it's not, it's a quasi-state engaged in direct attack on us.
    I'd regard bringing stability and degrading the threat from ISIL as being closely akin, except that the former is probably necessary for the latter, while the reverse doesn't hold. But we should learn from the Al Qaida lesson that it is not enough to simply go after one organisation; while the ideology exists, we have to forestall others from springing up into their place which is what will happen if we focus excessively simply on ISIL.

    None of which is to say that we shouldn't get involved in Syria; we should. As you say, there is a potent and current threat to Britain's national security. But we should only do so once we work out how to counter that threat in the long- as well as the short-term.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Don't agree with Cameron
    Don't agree with Corbyn

    Bugger.

    There's always FarrAGE.
    Fixed. ;)
    He was next on my list, honest.

    Couldn't remember the Green party leader though.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,695
    Kinga said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Kinga said:

    Opposition requires more than simply "I will not do what you want to do". It also needs "we should do this instead". Have we had a single concrete suggestion from Jeremy Corbyn on how the current threat from ISIS should be confronted?

    What makes you think Corbyn thinks IS is a threat to be confronted?

    He wants to do nothing because:-

    1. He thinks the only reason they exist is because of what we've done so if we do nothing they won't do anything bad to us or will vanish.
    2. He doesn't really think they are all that bad. Or not as bad as the evil West/USA/Britain/Israel etc. If you've swallowed the gnats of the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah etc why really would you strain at the camel of IS?
    Yesterday Corbyn called the Paris attacks "despicable and horrific" and agreed that the first priority was the security of people in this country.

    In the absence of confrontation with ISIS (and given we already attack them in Iraq so we are arguing about geography) how does he propose to meet that priority?
    You see, based on what Corbyn has said, in the recent and more distant past, I just don't believe him when he says that "the first priority was the security of people in this country." I don't believe that he really believes that or that he is prepared to come up with any proposals to achieve such security beyond, effectively, appeasement and surrender.

    I don't think the case for bombing IS in Syria is quite as slam dunk as some might think. But Corbyn and his allies are not the people to make that case or ask the questions which need to be asked because, as far as I'm concerned, they are acting in bad faith. They do not believe in any military action against anyone who harms us or threatens to harm us because fundamentally they think that we, somehow, asked for it. So they are against any use of force even when that might increase our security.

    And since that is their automatic position - being against the use of force in any and all circumstances, regardless of the casus belli and regardless of the outcomes - they are in absolutely no position to make the case against this particular use of armed force now. Nor to claim vindication if there is an attack on us by the very same people we seek to stop attacking us.

    The fact that this is leading to a kerfuffle within the Labour party is amusing. The fact that it means that there is not the proper scrutiny of a significant decision by the government, possibly the most significant decision any government ever has to take, is deeply damaging and alarming.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Shocked not

    Ross Hawking
    The Labour NEC has issued Corbyn's aide Andrew Fisher with a warning over tweet backing another party and lifted his suspension as member
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Breaking: Fire Brigades Union votes overwhelmingly to reaffiliate to Labour.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,899
    Edward Hardy ‏@EdwardTHardy 31s31 seconds ago
    Great performance by Sarpech, at least it would have been if he hadn't left his jockey at one of the first fences.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,300
    @rosschawkins: Matt Wrack, FBU gen sec: "Firefighters recognise that the Labour party has changed for the better since the election of Jeremy Corbyn
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,899
    Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 22s22 seconds ago
    Labour spokesman confirms @andrewfisher9 has had his suspension from the party lifted by the NEC.

    Popcorn.
  • ToryJim said:
    He will settle for Dorneywood
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,300
    @NicoHines: Momentum urging supporters to call the @labourwhips office to complain to Rosie Winterton about MPs standing up to Jeremy Corbyn.
This discussion has been closed.