Answer yes or no to the RAF bombing Syria this coming week.
Interesting debate in the House/
Comments from well briefed MPs
1. We ignore the lessons of Libya at our peril. Shambles prevails.
2. In Syria, the are far too many aircraft chasing far too few targets.
Given that co-ordination in that area is non-existent, I still think the UK should stay out of it. What will we achieve?
Finally, in the Suez crisis, CDS stated. "Yes Prime Minister, we can take Cairo, but then what?'. He got no answer. Given that in Syria there are countless rebel groups, what will they do if Assad is deposed and ISIL vanquished?
Comments from well briefed MPs
1. We ignore the lessons of Libya at our peril. Shambles prevails.
2. In Syria, the are far too many aircraft chasing far too few targets.
Given that co-ordination in that area is non-existent, I still think the UK should stay out of it. What will we achieve?
Finally, in the Suez crisis, CDS stated. "Yes Prime Minister, we can take Cairo, but then what?'. He got no answer. Given that in Syria there are countless rebel groups, what will they do if Assad is deposed and ISIL vanquished?
Last edited by sharpend; 2nd Dec 2015 at 14:28.
glad rag,
Get over your self! It was one intervention and an agreement, barely interrupted the flow of the debate!
As to it being a farce compared to the "words of wisdom above"...
Those words were spoken by a Monarch who retains full executive and legislative powers and doesn't have to strive to win a debate in his 'Parliament' because he personally appoints 75 of the MP's, the Prime Minister and the entire Cabinet!
Get over your self! It was one intervention and an agreement, barely interrupted the flow of the debate!
As to it being a farce compared to the "words of wisdom above"...
Those words were spoken by a Monarch who retains full executive and legislative powers and doesn't have to strive to win a debate in his 'Parliament' because he personally appoints 75 of the MP's, the Prime Minister and the entire Cabinet!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glad rag,
Get over your self! It was one intervention and an agreement, barely interrupted the flow of the debate!
As to it being a farce compared to the "words of wisdom above"...
Those words were spoken by a Monarch who retains full executive and legislative powers and doesn't have to strive to win a debate in his 'Parliament' because he personally appoints 75 of the MP's, the Prime Minister and the entire Cabinet!
Get over your self! It was one intervention and an agreement, barely interrupted the flow of the debate!
As to it being a farce compared to the "words of wisdom above"...
Those words were spoken by a Monarch who retains full executive and legislative powers and doesn't have to strive to win a debate in his 'Parliament' because he personally appoints 75 of the MP's, the Prime Minister and the entire Cabinet!
I'd rather you took on board what he said than the drivel the majority those self grooming peacocks spout!
Glad rag,
Afraid I rather prefer a democracy to a Monarchical dictatorship, and I don't see any self grooming peacocks spouting anything, I see a well informed sensible debate about an amazingly complex situation that is a credit to our democracy.
Afraid I rather prefer a democracy to a Monarchical dictatorship, and I don't see any self grooming peacocks spouting anything, I see a well informed sensible debate about an amazingly complex situation that is a credit to our democracy.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=pr00ne;9198460]Glad rag,
Afraid I rather prefer a democracy to a Monarchical dictatorship, and I don't see any self grooming peacocks spouting anything, I see a well informed sensible debate about an amazingly complex situation that is a credit to our democracy.[/QUOTE ]
Democracy? Now you are having a laugh.
Go introduce proportional representation and come back to me and we'll talk about democratic representation...
Afraid I rather prefer a democracy to a Monarchical dictatorship, and I don't see any self grooming peacocks spouting anything, I see a well informed sensible debate about an amazingly complex situation that is a credit to our democracy.[/QUOTE ]
Democracy? Now you are having a laugh.
Go introduce proportional representation and come back to me and we'll talk about democratic representation...
glad rag.
No thanks. Happy with first past the post.
And perfectly happy with our democracy, try spending some time in the middle east if you think it so bad here.
No thanks. Happy with first past the post.
And perfectly happy with our democracy, try spending some time in the middle east if you think it so bad here.
Quote:
" ... now debating on how to call isis the "correct" name.
What a farce compared to the words of wisdom ^^^^^^^above^^^^^^^ "
I sympathise, but disagree. The term ISIL unnecessarily dignifies these genocidal barbarians that usurp an Abrahamic religion by styling themselves "Islamic State". Even more unfortunate is that the BBC has constantly parroted the latter unqualified, despite the wishes of our sovereign parliament.
Although "Daesh" is an Arabic abbreviation for "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant", as is ISIL (see the words of HM King Abdullah II in the Daily Telegraph piece quoted by WE Branch Fanatic, above), as an acronym it is said to have pejorative connotations to Arabic speakers that make it an anathema to its leaders.
For an explanation, see here.
" ... now debating on how to call isis the "correct" name.
What a farce compared to the words of wisdom ^^^^^^^above^^^^^^^ "
I sympathise, but disagree. The term ISIL unnecessarily dignifies these genocidal barbarians that usurp an Abrahamic religion by styling themselves "Islamic State". Even more unfortunate is that the BBC has constantly parroted the latter unqualified, despite the wishes of our sovereign parliament.
Although "Daesh" is an Arabic abbreviation for "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant", as is ISIL (see the words of HM King Abdullah II in the Daily Telegraph piece quoted by WE Branch Fanatic, above), as an acronym it is said to have pejorative connotations to Arabic speakers that make it an anathema to its leaders.
For an explanation, see here.
The Debate
A fascinating debate in the House today. Jeremy Corbin was rubbish and read totally from notes, possibly prepared for him. Evette Cooper was absolutely brilliant, and totally unscripted. Caroline Lucas appeared very passionate, but had little idea. The Chair of the Commons Defence Committee (a Tory) was against bombing, staying it would do little good. Most ex senior heads of our armed forces agree that air strikes would have little effect, but boots on the ground were essential. However, they had no idea where they would come from. So I expect a yes vote tonight, but I'll watch this space in the next few months.
No.
There seems to be no plan just lets bomb IS.
No attempt to deal with the Nation states who are funders and suppliers of weapons to ISIL.
It appears to be a half backed populist campaign with little else from Dave.
There seems to be no plan just lets bomb IS.
No attempt to deal with the Nation states who are funders and suppliers of weapons to ISIL.
It appears to be a half backed populist campaign with little else from Dave.
While on balance I support air strikes, I feel the biggest weakness in our strategy is our refusal to confront properly the connection between ISIL's ideology and the state-sponsored Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia, one of our principal 'allies' in the region. The honourable member for Henley raised this in Parliament during Monday night's debate on Britain's role in the Middle East:
Sadly his comments have not been picked up upon in any significant fashion, and I suspect that the Minister's letter will tell him to STFU lest we lose any juicy arms contracts. I fear that using the term "Da'esh" just serves further to obscure the linkage between ISIL and the religious doctrine being spread around the world with Saudi funding. This is the core issue which will have to be confronted eventually in order to stabilise and secure Western societies, and we will need the public's full understanding as we pay the economic price for doing so. Saying ISIL in Arabic doesn't remove any reference to Islam or statehood - it just tries to hide it from us, as if we are children being shielded from the truth about Santa Claus. I was very disappointed to hear the PM and successive MPs lining up to subscribe to this intellectually-bankrupt practice during this afternoon's debate. Sam Leith, and more brutally Rod Liddle have it about right in the Spectator blogs tonight.
To suggest that the existence of Israel is at the root of the entire middle east’s turbulence today is to overlook the sectarian divisions in the region that have existed for centuries. It also ignores the large part played by certain countries, most notably Saudi Arabia, that have spent billions to fund the toxic and destructive spread of Wahabist ideology across Muslim communities worldwide. It is imperative that Britain and the whole civilised world does whatever is necessary to combat that ideology and stop its spread. We need to put pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop exporting its radical ideology worldwide, despite our geopolitical alliances. I ask the Minister perhaps to write to me in reply to the question of what steps the Government will take to ensure that the Wahabist ideology does not spread further across the middle east.
Go ahead, bomb Daesh in Syria if it at least to only to get rid of a few more of the murdering b******s. However, what's the plan to neutralise the sympathisers and activists in Leeds, Luton, Birmingham and a dozen other cities in the UK who will no doubt rise up to avenge their 'brothers'?
Easy Street,
Are we more likely to win the hearts and minds of practising or secular Muslims in this country by constantly linking the name of their ancient religion and culture with a barbarian death-cult, whose followers allegedly threaten to cut out our tongues if we refer to them as Da'esh?
Are we more likely to win the hearts and minds of practising or secular Muslims in this country by constantly linking the name of their ancient religion and culture with a barbarian death-cult, whose followers allegedly threaten to cut out our tongues if we refer to them as Da'esh?
What could a western country do to effectively "combat the Wahabist ideology" of Saudi Arabia? Is it possible to win the hearts and minds of the Saudi's? Is this the choice - fight ISIL or fight some ideology?
Even if it could be done, and I don't think it really can over the long run, it is not a choice taken instead of attacking ISIL in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere, but in addition to it. They wantonly kill civilians, practically without regard to their religious beliefs, - they are thugs, bullies, enemies of justice and freedom wherever it is found. They should be destroyed if possible, but fought even if they can't. It is simple self-defense - whether their atrocities are carried out in Paris, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq or anywhere else.
May the good guys win.
Even if it could be done, and I don't think it really can over the long run, it is not a choice taken instead of attacking ISIL in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere, but in addition to it. They wantonly kill civilians, practically without regard to their religious beliefs, - they are thugs, bullies, enemies of justice and freedom wherever it is found. They should be destroyed if possible, but fought even if they can't. It is simple self-defense - whether their atrocities are carried out in Paris, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq or anywhere else.
May the good guys win.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they vote "yes" in an hours time or so, then we lose control of our own self made situation. We will be relying on others to win this war-hundreds of warring disparate groups who are fighting ISIS and fighting the Syrian Government in Syria and in Iraq: who incidentally all collectively and actually hate us anyway.
1.Bombing wont make the UK safer - the opposite will occur for the ordinary people in our streets.
2.Limited bombing campaign from the RAF with < 20 aircraft/drones wont defeat the many and opposing groups.
3.We haven't got a partner fighting with us on the ground. (The 70k worth of undercover anti-whoever paramilitaries -not true)
4.We will hopefully never commit the limited UK troops we still have to a ground war. Public will never agree to it. It would be an autocratic decision to do so and the end of true democracy here, I deeply fear this. And yet the failure of the air war may force this action.
5. Russia and her own agenda.
6. If France suffers another ISIL atrocity their Government may fall. May withdraw from the air campaign. Not impossible to vision.
7. Highly likely we will suffer viscous reprisals from terrorist groups already here - they wont necessarily use firearms to achieve an attack. Our civilian defences, our civilian police and other agencies can not cope with the threat. This attack will put a tremendous strain on the UK Govt. which ISL can exploit for the cost of a few martyrs, not millions of pounds worth of £ weaponry.
Stopping there. It makes no sense to gamble and enter a war for such a limited return. Gamblers are often well meaning mugs, but generally, on average they lose.
But I deeply resent the way Cameron, our own PM, describe anyone who may vote against or speak against this war as a terrorist sympathiser. Who, moi?
I'd quote the very evil Nazi Goering and what can bring a nation, any nation into a war but I cant be ******.
I rarely pray, but I am tonight.
Sorry racedo I lost count of the score, but I think we lost.
1.Bombing wont make the UK safer - the opposite will occur for the ordinary people in our streets.
2.Limited bombing campaign from the RAF with < 20 aircraft/drones wont defeat the many and opposing groups.
3.We haven't got a partner fighting with us on the ground. (The 70k worth of undercover anti-whoever paramilitaries -not true)
4.We will hopefully never commit the limited UK troops we still have to a ground war. Public will never agree to it. It would be an autocratic decision to do so and the end of true democracy here, I deeply fear this. And yet the failure of the air war may force this action.
5. Russia and her own agenda.
6. If France suffers another ISIL atrocity their Government may fall. May withdraw from the air campaign. Not impossible to vision.
7. Highly likely we will suffer viscous reprisals from terrorist groups already here - they wont necessarily use firearms to achieve an attack. Our civilian defences, our civilian police and other agencies can not cope with the threat. This attack will put a tremendous strain on the UK Govt. which ISL can exploit for the cost of a few martyrs, not millions of pounds worth of £ weaponry.
Stopping there. It makes no sense to gamble and enter a war for such a limited return. Gamblers are often well meaning mugs, but generally, on average they lose.
But I deeply resent the way Cameron, our own PM, describe anyone who may vote against or speak against this war as a terrorist sympathiser. Who, moi?
I'd quote the very evil Nazi Goering and what can bring a nation, any nation into a war but I cant be ******.
I rarely pray, but I am tonight.
Sorry racedo I lost count of the score, but I think we lost.
Not like the Intel services don't have it all, they keep and use as required.
You only lose if you say yes or no, racedo. So a nope keeps you in with a chance. You did so nope didn't you? Where's the bloody man with the gong?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irg29je8G8k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irg29je8G8k
Originally Posted by GlobalNav
What could a western country do to effectively "combat the Wahabist ideology" of Saudi Arabia? Is it possible to win the hearts and minds of the Saudi's?
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
Are we more likely to win the hearts and minds of practising or secular Muslims in this country by constantly linking the name of their ancient religion and culture with a barbarian death-cult
Secondly, as I keep saying, saying "Da'esh" does NOT remove any references to Islam or statehood. It just obscures them in a foreign-language abbreviation, reducing the explanatory power needed for the purpose outlined above yet without losing any of their actual meaning. It treats us like fools who snigger at the thought of rude-sounding foreign words whilst paying no heed to their true meaning. As such it is the politics of the student union, or perhaps even the playground, when what is needed is bold and visionary leadership through a battle of ideas.
Well the vote has been taken and let bombing commence. Mind you, a fat lot of good it will do, but I suppose it will be of more value to our boys than bombing Garve Island.
Some great speeches and one that really impressed me was the one from the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Hilary Benn. Absolutely first class. I suppose it swayed my vote, but purely on political rather than military grounds.
Now we just have to find some chaps to fill those 'boots on the ground'.
Some great speeches and one that really impressed me was the one from the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Hilary Benn. Absolutely first class. I suppose it swayed my vote, but purely on political rather than military grounds.
Now we just have to find some chaps to fill those 'boots on the ground'.