Mr. Town, couldn't the opposite be argued? If we'd supported the FSA more* then they may well have toppled Assad and Syria would be in a better state than it is today**.
*Not saying we should've, merely that we could've.
**I am aware the recent history of Western intervention in the Middle East has not been an unmitigated success.
***What on earth makes you think it would be in a better state? Nato aligned perhaps. But that's another issue. Where would you like your ticket to, Libya before or Libya now?
You fly to hit Iraq out of Jordan, Oman. Saudi Arabia, Turkey before you'd go overfly Syria.
The French and US already have air assets in Jordan.
Syria's air defence system has more holes in it than you can count and has done for about 18-24 months. There would little issue in Western airforces if they really had to go that way but its a last resort.
Drones are designed to operate in non permissive environments but have severe limitations, not least weapons load. The environment is largely permissive and requires a heavier loiter and strike load if its going to be done right.
A further question is how would bombing ISIS positions help these refugees in the mountains? At best it could stop further expansion, but it could not get them home.
I would be very happy for the ISIS fighters to be destroyed, but that will take more than a few long range bombing forays.
ISIS are only going to be defeated if they lose their powerbase in East Syria (which probably means assisting Assad get it back) and with the Kurds taking Mosul and vicinity.
We should provide humanitarian aid, and perhaps accept refugees for permanent settlement, particularly the persecuted religious minorities.
How in God's name do those persecuted minority people get from a mountain in Northern Iraq to a place where they can gain passage to England? Come on, Doc, I know you don't like violence but lets have some sense in this discussion. If we really want to help those people then we are going to have to rain death and destruction on those that are persecuting them.
HL, you are beginning to sound like an Israeli!
The kurds now have a road link to these people, but where do they go now?
The whole region is increasingly unsafe. A million Iraqi Christians have left in the last decade or so, mostly to Syria and Lebanon.
Sorry, Doc, but I think this is now an issue of war. Does that make me an Israeli? The solution is not to allow ISIS, or whatever they are calling themselves this week, to succeed in their ethnic cleansing by taking the persecuted into the UK as refugees. The people doing the persecuting need to be stopped and turned back allowing the victims to go home.
We should do what we can to help those facing genocide and persecution in Iraq and damn the Muslim vote here, if that really is the cynical calculation by parties here.
Are Labour and the Lib Dems really going to say that we should do nothing to help people such as the Yazidis and Iraqi Christians because Muslims here would be upset at the thought that we're trying to stop barbarism by their co-religionists against such people? Are they really prepared to turn a blind eye to such crimes if it helps get the votes of people who either see nothing wrong with this behaviour or aren't too fussed because it's happening to non-Muslims or (some of them) are happy to go out and join them?
I certainly would never vote for such a party.
I can guarantee to you that Ed has had discussions with his advisers over this and being seen to eat a bacon sandwich is all part of a concerted effort to shed his Jewish heritage in the eyes of Muslim voters. 2015 is going to be a tight election, whatever the polls say right now it could go either way with the Tories and Labour in with a chance of being the largest party. Labour can't afford to have the Muslim vote split by Respect/Galloway and the Lib Dems (if they decide to sit out any vote on military action in Iraq). Ed's advisers are not stupid, they know if he comes out and supports military intervention in Iraq against Muslims in favour of Christians it will play badly with their Islamic voter base. Have a read of Dougie's article in the Telegraph, it is all about "speaking out" and no words are given to the US intervention or he prospect of the UK joining said intervention.
IOS stated on the previous thread that the Tories need to get real on winning minority votes which means following Warsi's words of backing off on anti-extremist rhetoric and withdrawing unqualified support of Israel. Something Labour have already done.
If you're right about Labour's attitude are we now entitled to assume that Muslims here are in favour of what is being done to Christians and others? Because that is the consequence of what you're saying - that Muslim voters would never support a party that took action to protect people slaughtered by Muslims.
And where does such an attitude of appeasement lead? What are the implications for this country? If the government won't take steps to provide what help it can to those who are victims of war crimes because the perpetrators are Muslim, why should someone here be confident that it will take steps to protect a victim of Muslim crimes here? After all, taking such action might play badly with those same voters.
This is appeasement of violence. It should have no place in British politics.
All those people in the Stop the War marches these last few weekends in London, they're now busy organising marches against what IS is doing and against the vicious attacks on Iraq's minorities, aren't they?
In your dreams. A thousand Palestinians killed over weeks are worth a protest from lefties but not thousands a day killed by a Muslim sect.
We should do what we can to help those facing genocide and persecution in Iraq and damn the Muslim vote here, if that really is the cynical calculation by parties here.
Are Labour and the Lib Dems really going to say that we should do nothing to help people such as the Yazidis and Iraqi Christians because Muslims here would be upset at the thought that we're trying to stop barbarism by their co-religionists against such people? Are they really prepared to turn a blind eye to such crimes if it helps get the votes of people who either see nothing wrong with this behaviour or aren't too fussed because it's happening to non-Muslims or (some of them) are happy to go out and join them?
We are seeing the reality of what an Islamic state looks like and what it does and I do not want any political party here courting the votes of people who support such barbaric behaviour. I certainly would never vote for such a party.
Surely, most Muslims in the UK do not support ISIL or anything they are doing. Max and Cyclefree are right. the Government should act on this. It will probably offend many fewer Muslims than one might expect. Remeber that ISIL would cheerfully slaughter all Shiites as well...
Maybe not, but you can bet that Respect/Galloway will push the idea that Labour support (if there is a vote and they vote in favour) bombing Muslims to protect non-Muslims. Regardless of the realities that message will get through to a lot of Labour's Islamic voter base and their vote will split and they could lose a hatful of seats to the Lib Dems and Tories through the middle.
I'd think the Americans would know all too well how to countermeasure their own SAMs. The US supply of air-defence weaponry to Iraq has been limited. The bigger load of dangerous kit that ISIL/ISIS has is actually Russian/Soviet/facsimile made ex Iraqi army gear, that is artillery, rocket launchers and armour.
Contrary to what seems to be popular perception brought about by a few photos on the Internet of ISIS controlled Humvees, the Iraqi army still uses considerable amounts of ex-Soviet heavy kit that was holdover from the Saddam era or bought in because it was compatible with those previous stocks.
As regards how you get the refugees back home, there are already counter offensive moves underway under the cloak of US air support to regain this territory.
The other thing that few seem aware of is that ISIS are now engaged in conventional manouvere warfare and they are stretched in terms of occupying the space gained. Therefore front lines are still fluid and gains tenuous within much of Kurdistan. Thus the time to counter is now.
"I'd think the Americans would know all too well how to countermeasure their own SAMs."
Sure but do the RAF.
Yes. The only US SAMs likely in play are Stingers. The British also have Stingers.
Mr. 1983, Syria was then and is now locked in a bloody civil war. If Assad had won a crushing victory *or* the FSA had the country would be more stable and ISIS may not have been able to flourish there.
Dave needs to call his bluff, not just for political reasons but because ISIL needs to be pushed back so the Iraqi minorities can be protected from their evil. It is the right thing to do and Dave is weak.
The problem is, I'm not sure that he can get the support from Clegg & the LibDems to even bring this forward.
Could you really make a proposal this critical without consensus in the government / breaking the Coalition?
I know this is a radical idea, and not one that is likely to find favour in today's Conservative Party, but maybe the PM should just stand up in Parliament and say what he believes the UK should do. If the other parties, or indeed his own party, disagree they can vote him down and we can have a general election.
Is the idea that a prime minister should actually have principles and values that he or she is prepared to articulate and stand by, even if it means losing the baubles of office, really so out of date?
The PM is the prime Minister in the Government.
I agree that the Government should say up and say what they believe in, even if it means a defeat in the Commons.
I'm not sure that it would be right for Cameron to do so independent of Cabinet.
Hence my point about breaking the Coalition - I could be persuaded that it is the right thing to do, but I think it is inappropriate for Cameron to act independently
The Tories in the Cabinet could easily be convinced. Both Fallon and Hammond are hawkish, so I'm sure they would itching to get involved.
The Tories took many years to be convinced of the need for military intervention in Bosnia to protect the moslem population there from mass murder.
from Sky- AFP - Officials say Kurdish troops have retaken first towns since US strikes
Near their own turf the Kurds don't need much help.
For want of a better word - Invalid
Your own post proves it. Half a dozen US air strikes and they took back the two towns near Irbil that started the panic.
Oh, I don't know - I'd have thought half a dozen US air strikes counts as quite a lot of help.
Sorry - I'm not great at high politics.
In fact - I'm not sure if they ever really touched on it at the OU. Leftie bastards - keeping me in ignorance.
Well we disagree on definitions but the end result is the same. I think that scale of help is all the Kurds need to defend their turf (edit: and that) gives refugees a safe haven to run to.
All those people in the Stop the War marches these last few weekends in London, they're now busy organising marches against what IS is doing and against the vicious attacks on Iraq's minorities, aren't they?
In your dreams. A thousand Palestinians killed over weeks are worth a protest from lefties but not thousands a day killed by a Muslim sect.
I was being sarcastic as you know. The moral squalor of those who protest only against what the West does but turns a blind eye to the crimes of those it supports or who are anti-Western is nauseating and has been around - and well described by Orwell amongst others - for decades.
We should do what we can to help those facing genocide and persecution in Iraq and damn the Muslim vote here, if that really is the cynical calculation by parties here.
Are Labour and the Lib Dems really going to say that we should do nothing to help people such as the Yazidis and Iraqi Christians because Muslims here would be upset at the thought that we're trying to stop barbarism by their co-religionists against such people? Are they really prepared to turn a blind eye to such crimes if it helps get the votes of people who either see nothing wrong with this behaviour or aren't too fussed because it's happening to non-Muslims or (some of them) are happy to go out and join them?
We are seeing the reality of what an Islamic state looks like and what it does and I do not want any political party here courting the votes of people who support such barbaric behaviour. I certainly would never vote for such a party.
Surely, most Muslims in the UK do not support ISIL or anything they are doing. Max and Cyclefree are right. the Government should act on this. It will probably offend many fewer Muslims than one might expect. Remeber that ISIL would cheerfully slaughter all Shiites as well...
Maybe not, but you can bet that Respect/Galloway will push the idea that Labour support (if there is a vote and they vote in favour) bombing Muslims to protect non-Muslims. Regardless of the realities that message will get through to a lot of Labour's Islamic voter base and their vote will split and they could lose a hatful of seats to the Lib Dems and Tories through the middle.
We should do what we can to help those facing genocide and persecution in Iraq and damn the Muslim vote here, if that really is the cynical calculation by parties here.
Are Labour and the Lib Dems really going to say that we should do nothing to help people such as the Yazidis and Iraqi Christians because Muslims here would be upset at the thought that we're trying to stop barbarism by their co-religionists against such people? Are they really prepared to turn a blind eye to such crimes if it helps get the votes of people who either see nothing wrong with this behaviour or aren't too fussed because it's happening to non-Muslims or (some of them) are happy to go out and join them?
We are seeing the reality of what an Islamic state looks like and what it does and I do not want any political party here courting the votes of people who support such barbaric behaviour. I certainly would never vote for such a party.
Surely, most Muslims in the UK do not support ISIL or anything they are doing. Max and Cyclefree are right. the Government should act on this. It will probably offend many fewer Muslims than one might expect. Remeber that ISIL would cheerfully slaughter all Shiites as well...
"I can guarantee to you that Ed has had discussions with his advisers over this and being seen to eat a bacon sandwich is all part of a concerted effort to shed his Jewish heritage in the eyes of Muslim voters."
Spot on. Muslims are well-known for their love of bacon and other pork-based products.
Don't be purposefully obtuse SO, you know exactly what I mean. Ed eating bacon proves that he is not a practising Jew which will reassure Labour's Muslim voters over Israel, his latter stance of withdrawing unqualified support of Israel is also part of defusing his Jewish heritage. Britain must stand behind Israel, it is the front line in the fight against extremism, to call for an arms embargo is a withdrawal of support and it will play well with Muslim voters worried about Ed's Jewish heritage. Whether or not Muslim's eat bacon is irrelevant, seeing a Jewish-born person do so is enough for them to think he is not a proper Jew.
Dave needs to call his bluff, not just for political reasons but because ISIL needs to be pushed back so the Iraqi minorities can be protected from their evil. It is the right thing to do and Dave is weak.
The problem is, I'm not sure that he can get the support from Clegg & the LibDems to even bring this forward.
Could you really make a proposal this critical without consensus in the government / breaking the Coalition?
I know this is a radical idea, and not one that is likely to find favour in today's Conservative Party, but maybe the PM should just stand up in Parliament and say what he believes the UK should do. If the other parties, or indeed his own party, disagree they can vote him down and we can have a general election.
Is the idea that a prime minister should actually have principles and values that he or she is prepared to articulate and stand by, even if it means losing the baubles of office, really so out of date?
The PM is the prime Minister in the Government.
I agree that the Government should say up and say what they believe in, even if it means a defeat in the Commons.
I'm not sure that it would be right for Cameron to do so independent of Cabinet.
Hence my point about breaking the Coalition - I could be persuaded that it is the right thing to do, but I think it is inappropriate for Cameron to act independently
The Tories in the Cabinet could easily be convinced. Both Fallon and Hammond are hawkish, so I'm sure they would itching to get involved.
The Tories took many years to be convinced of the need for military intervention in Bosnia to protect the moslem population there from mass murder.
Yes - that was their unfinest hour. Not only did they refuse to do anything to help but they even refused the Bosnian Muslims the arms to let them defend themselves. A disgrace.
All those people in the Stop the War marches these last few weekends in London, they're now busy organising marches against what IS is doing and against the vicious attacks on Iraq's minorities, aren't they?
In your dreams. A thousand Palestinians killed over weeks are worth a protest from lefties but not thousands a day killed by a Muslim sect.
I was being sarcastic as you know. The moral squalor of those who protest only against what the West does but turns a blind eye to the crimes of those it supports or who are anti-Western is nauseating and has been around - and well described by Orwell amongst others - for decades.
Yes, no-one seems to be protesting against the actions of the muslim sect.
"I can guarantee to you that Ed has had discussions with his advisers over this and being seen to eat a bacon sandwich is all part of a concerted effort to shed his Jewish heritage in the eyes of Muslim voters."
Spot on. Muslims are well-known for their love of bacon and other pork-based products.
Don't be purposefully obtuse SO, you know exactly what I mean. Ed eating bacon proves that he is not a practising Jew which will reassure Labour's Muslim voters over Israel, his latter stance of withdrawing unqualified support of Israel is also part of defusing his Jewish heritage. Britain must stand behind Israel, it is the front line in the fight against extremism, to call for an arms embargo is a withdrawal of support and it will play well with Muslim voters worried about Ed's Jewish heritage. Whether or not Muslim's eat bacon is irrelevant, seeing a Jewish-born person do so is enough for them to think he is not a proper Jew.
He has not withdrawn unqualified support from Israel and he has never been shy about talking up his Jewish heritage. He has made clear time and again that he is an atheist. I understand that you do not like Ed Miliband, but making things up about him really isn't very impressive.
We should do what we can to help those facing genocide and persecution in Iraq and damn the Muslim vote here, if that really is the cynical calculation by parties here.
Are Labour and the Lib Dems really going to say that we should do nothing to help people such as the Yazidis and Iraqi Christians because Muslims here would be upset at the thought that we're trying to stop barbarism by their co-religionists against such people? Are they really prepared to turn a blind eye to such crimes if it helps get the votes of people who either see nothing wrong with this behaviour or aren't too fussed because it's happening to non-Muslims or (some of them) are happy to go out and join them?
We are seeing the reality of what an Islamic state looks like and what it does and I do not want any political party here courting the votes of people who support such barbaric behaviour. I certainly would never vote for such a party.
Surely, most Muslims in the UK do not support ISIL or anything they are doing. Max and Cyclefree are right. the Government should act on this. It will probably offend many fewer Muslims than one might expect. Remeber that ISIL would cheerfully slaughter all Shiites as well...
Maybe not, but you can bet that Respect/Galloway will push the idea that Labour support (if there is a vote and they vote in favour) bombing Muslims to protect non-Muslims. Regardless of the realities that message will get through to a lot of Labour's Islamic voter base and their vote will split and they could lose a hatful of seats to the Lib Dems and Tories through the middle.
One of the problems of all politics at the moment is that principles have been overtaken by political expediency. What the Government, and the Labour Party both seem to miss is that voters would respect leadership that acts from time to time because something is right. Pandering to an imagined bloc Muslim vote and trying to appease Galloway and his cronies, as well as the voiceferous (and not necessarily representative) fundementalist Muslim "community representatives" is not going to raise the image of politics from the gutter where it currently lies
As all Government debt is issued (or backed) by the UK (an entity that will continue to exist whatever happens in September), surely there was never a possibility of Scotland directly assuming any part of the debt. Does anyone know what happened when the Irish Free State left the UK? Would Scotland have to issue its own debt to pay off part of the UK's?
Does anyone know what happened when the Irish Free State left the UK? Would Scotland have to issue its own debt to pay off part of the UK's?
Article 5 of the "Anglo-Irish Treaty" of December 1921 provided that the Irish Free State would assume liability for the public debt of the United Kingdom 'in such proportion as may be fair and equitable'. The State was unable to pay the debt, and it was pardoned, partly in return for the boundary commission recommending no changes to the border between Northern Ireland and the Free State in 1925.
He has not withdrawn unqualified support from Israel and he has never been shy about talking up his Jewish heritage. He has made clear time and again that he is an atheist. I understand that you do not like Ed Miliband, but making things up about him really isn't very impressive.
You have chosen denial. That's your choice. Labour are readying themselves for a tight election and this is all part of their election footing to ensure they retain their Muslim voter base. Ed working to shed his Jewish heritage is an important part of that. Whether or not you think so is irrelevant. Ed saying he is an atheist proves nothing, eating very un-Kosher bacon and withdrawing support for Israel does. There is a pattern emerging, if you choose to ignore it more fool you.
All those people in the Stop the War marches these last few weekends in London, they're now busy organising marches against what IS is doing and against the vicious attacks on Iraq's minorities, aren't they?
In your dreams. A thousand Palestinians killed over weeks are worth a protest from lefties but not thousands a day killed by a Muslim sect.
I was being sarcastic as you know. The moral squalor of those who protest only against what the West does but turns a blind eye to the crimes of those it supports or who are anti-Western is nauseating and has been around - and well described by Orwell amongst others - for decades.
Yes, no-one seems to be protesting against the actions of the muslim sect.
I live in London and work in London. I saw the stop Israel protest, but have yet to see any kind of stop ISIL protest. There was one in Germany and a bunch of Islamist thugs turned up and started fighting with them.
All those people in the Stop the War marches these last few weekends in London, they're now busy organising marches against what IS is doing and against the vicious attacks on Iraq's minorities, aren't they?
In your dreams. A thousand Palestinians killed over weeks are worth a protest from lefties but not thousands a day killed by a Muslim sect.
I was being sarcastic as you know. The moral squalor of those who protest only against what the West does but turns a blind eye to the crimes of those it supports or who are anti-Western is nauseating and has been around - and well described by Orwell amongst others - for decades.
We all overlooked Ed Miliband this past week berating the Govt over the murders of Christians in Iraq by ISIS. Can someone please help provide a link?
All those people in the Stop the War marches these last few weekends in London, they're now busy organising marches against what IS is doing and against the vicious attacks on Iraq's minorities, aren't they?
In your dreams. A thousand Palestinians killed over weeks are worth a protest from lefties but not thousands a day killed by a Muslim sect.
I was being sarcastic as you know. The moral squalor of those who protest only against what the West does but turns a blind eye to the crimes of those it supports or who are anti-Western is nauseating and has been around - and well described by Orwell amongst others - for decades.
We all overlooked Ed Miliband this past week berating the Govt over the murders of Christians in Iraq by ISIS. Can someone please help provide a link?
Err, that was Gaza wasn't it?? And Warsi followed??
Sorry - I've not hacked into timetable/diary/thimamidjige whatever it's called.
All those people in the Stop the War marches these last few weekends in London, they're now busy organising marches against what IS is doing and against the vicious attacks on Iraq's minorities, aren't they?
I In your dreams. A thousand Palestinians killed over weeks are worth a protest from lefties but not thousands a day killed by a Muslim sect.
This is a ridiculous comparison. Israel is a state, an ally and a country to which we export weapons. Isis is a bunch of psychopaths. We have no influence with Isis, no pull we can exert, no moral support we can withdraw. If you want a real discrepancy, think about what the Western response would be if Syria or Iran or Russia launched something similar. HMG has seen fit to declare Russia an adversary over its support of rebels in Dontesk, but not a peep of condemnation from us over Israel's activities. That is the true face of hypocrisy.
"I can guarantee to you that Ed has had discussions with his advisers over this and being seen to eat a bacon sandwich is all part of a concerted effort to shed his Jewish heritage in the eyes of Muslim voters."
Spot on. Muslims are well-known for their love of bacon and other pork-based products.
Don't be purposefully obtuse SO, you know exactly what I mean. Ed eating bacon proves that he is not a practising Jew which will reassure Labour's Muslim voters over Israel, his latter stance of withdrawing unqualified support of Israel is also part of defusing his Jewish heritage. Britain must stand behind Israel, it is the front line in the fight against extremism, to call for an arms embargo is a withdrawal of support and it will play well with Muslim voters worried about Ed's Jewish heritage. Whether or not Muslim's eat bacon is irrelevant, seeing a Jewish-born person do so is enough for them to think he is not a proper Jew.
He has not withdrawn unqualified support from Israel and he has never been shy about talking up his Jewish heritage. He has made clear time and again that he is an atheist. I understand that you do not like Ed Miliband, but making things up about him really isn't very impressive.
You have chosen denial. That's your choice. Labour are readying themselves for a tight election and this is all part of their election footing to ensure they retain their Muslim voter base. Ed working to shed his Jewish heritage is an important part of that. Whether or not you think so is irrelevant. Ed saying he is an atheist proves nothing, eating very un-Kosher bacon and withdrawing support for Israel does. There is a pattern emerging, if you choose to ignore it more fool you.
You have accused Ed Miliband of eating a bacon sandwich to appease Muslim voters. You now say that he is seeking to shed his Jewish heritage. That is not only ridiculous, it is a smear of the worst kind - as was your previous claim that he supports Hamas. You have provided not a shred of evidence to back up any of your assertions. There is no pattern. All that exists here is your oft-stated dislike of Ed Miliband and your desire to paint him in the worst possible light. I think that is rather shameful. to be honest. But each to his own.
All those people in the Stop the War marches these last few weekends in London, they're now busy organising marches against what IS is doing and against the vicious attacks on Iraq's minorities, aren't they?
I In your dreams. A thousand Palestinians killed over weeks are worth a protest from lefties but not thousands a day killed by a Muslim sect.
This is a ridiculous comparison. Israel is a state, an ally and a country to which we export weapons. Isis is a bunch of psychopaths. We have no influence with Isis, no pull we can exert, no moral support we can withdraw. If you want a real discrepancy, think about what the Western response would be if Syria or Iran or Russia launched something similar. HMG has seen fit to declare Russia an adversary over its support of rebels in Dontesk, but not a peep of condemnation from us over Israel's activities. That is the true face of hypocrisy.
That is not true, our government has expressed concern over Israels actions several times (including the PMs response to Warsi) directly and through the EU stance.
The Assad regime both Bashar and his late Da have supported Jihadi groups to a greater or lesser extent for 30 years. Links with ISIL and Syrian intelligence goes back to the aftermath of invasion of Iraq.
Assad used the Jihadi threat as a very useful tool before they actually appeared on the scene.
Assad's Shia friends in Iraq happily let the Sunni radicals (read ISIL) troupe over the border to fight in Syria as a handy way of getting them off their patch only to be bittem on the arse later.
ISIL have never fought the Assad regime with the aim of toppling Assad in the same way the other insurgent groups have. Instead it has focussed on carving out some territory, mainly in the north and east of the country.
ISIS has clashed almost as often with other insurgent groups as it has done with Assads forces.
In addition:
Al Qaeda labelled ISIL as damaging the fight against Assad.
ISIS has smuggled and provided oil to Assad's regime via its long held control of elements production and distribution assets in parts of Iraq.
This is not some clear cut story on Assad vs ISIL. Never has been.
All those people in the Stop the War marches these last few weekends in London, they're now busy organising marches against what IS is doing and against the vicious attacks on Iraq's minorities, aren't they?
I In your dreams. A thousand Palestinians killed over weeks are worth a protest from lefties but not thousands a day killed by a Muslim sect.
This is a ridiculous comparison. Israel is a state, an ally and a country to which we export weapons. Isis is a bunch of psychopaths. We have no influence with Isis, no pull we can exert, no moral support we can withdraw. If you want a real discrepancy, think about what the Western response would be if Syria or Iran or Russia launched something similar. HMG has seen fit to declare Russia an adversary over its support of rebels in Dontesk, but not a peep of condemnation from us over Israel's activities. That is the true face of hypocrisy.
That is not true, our government has expressed concern over Israels actions several times (including the PMs response to Warsi) directly and through the EU stance.
I stand corrected. I look forward to sanctions, calls for regime change and the funding of an armed insurgency.
I'm not too sure what it means but I think the renaming of ISIS/ISIL to "The Islamic State" is bad for someone or something or other.
"The Islamic State" is now unambiguously the enemy. Shame they didn't call it "The Islamist (Sunni) State" because "The Islamic State" sounds too much like good ordinary Islam which we all love and respect, rather than Islamism, which we are told is evil incarnate.
You have accused Ed Miliband of eating a bacon sandwich to appease Muslim voters. You now say that he is seeking to shed his Jewish heritage. That is not only ridiculous, it is a smear of the worst kind - as was your previous claim that he supports Hamas. You have provided not a shred of evidence to back up any of your assertions. There is no pattern. All that exists here is your oft-stated dislike of Ed Miliband and your desire to paint him in the worst possible light. I think that is rather shameful. to be honest. But each to his own.
If Labour were to vote against military action in Iraq to protect minorities, then what? If the opposite happens I will be happy to admit I am wrong about Ed. Sadly I just don't see Labour voting in favour of military action, abstention or against is more likely. Labour can't have the Muslim vote split by Respect/Galloway in a tight election.
I mean who else calls in photographers to look like a complete prat eating a bacon sandwich and then get lampooned like a chump. There is no upside to that kind of masochism other than trying to prove he is not Jewish.
As for Hamas, I outlined on the previous thread that calling for an arms embargo and for Israel to lay down their arms opposes Israel and supports Hamas. Again, if you can't see that then more fool you.
Fighting Islamic extremists like Hamas, ISIL, Boko Haram, Al-Qaida and countless other groups is the number one priority for western nations. Israel is on the front line of that fight, calling for an arms embargo only seeks to support the very extremists we must see destroyed.
"I can guarantee to you that Ed has had discussions with his advisers over this and being seen to eat a bacon sandwich is all part of a concerted effort to shed his Jewish heritage in the eyes of Muslim voters."
Spot on. Muslims are well-known for their love of bacon and other pork-based products.
Don't be purposefully obtuse SO, you know exactly what I mean. Ed eating bacon proves that he is not a practising Jew which will reassure Labour's Muslim voters over Israel, his latter stance of withdrawing unqualified support of Israel is also part of defusing his Jewish heritage. Britain must stand behind Israel, it is the front line in the fight against extremism, to call for an arms embargo is a withdrawal of support and it will play well with Muslim voters worried about Ed's Jewish heritage. Whether or not Muslim's eat bacon is irrelevant, seeing a Jewish-born person do so is enough for them to think he is not a proper Jew.
He has not withdrawn unqualified support from Israel and he has never been shy about talking up his Jewish heritage. He has made clear time and again that he is an atheist. I understand that you do not like Ed Miliband, but making things up about him really isn't very impressive.
You have chosen denial. That's your choice. Labour are readying themselves for a tight election and this is all part of their election footing to ensure they retain their Muslim voter base. Ed working to shed his Jewish heritage is an important part of that. Whether or not you think so is irrelevant. Ed saying he is an atheist proves nothing, eating very un-Kosher bacon and withdrawing support for Israel does. There is a pattern emerging, if you choose to ignore it more fool you.
You have accused Ed Miliband of eating a bacon sandwich to appease Muslim voters. You now say that he is seeking to shed his Jewish heritage. That is not only ridiculous, it is a smear of the worst kind - as was your previous claim that he supports Hamas. You have provided not a shred of evidence to back up any of your assertions. There is no pattern. All that exists here is your oft-stated dislike of Ed Miliband and your desire to paint him in the worst possible light. I think that is rather shameful. to be honest. But each to his own.
Unless Ed Miliband has taken on Chris Morris as an advisor, I'm also not convinced Max is right about his strategy to pander to Muslims by eating bacon while saying he's a zionist.
You have accused Ed Miliband of eating a bacon sandwich to appease Muslim voters. You now say that he is seeking to shed his Jewish heritage. That is not only ridiculous, it is a smear of the worst kind - as was your previous claim that he supports Hamas. You have provided not a shred of evidence to back up any of your assertions. There is no pattern. All that exists here is your oft-stated dislike of Ed Miliband and your desire to paint him in the worst possible light. I think that is rather shameful. to be honest. But each to his own.
If Labour were to vote against military action in Iraq to protect minorities, then what? If the opposite happens I will be happy to admit I am wrong about Ed. Sadly I just don't see Labour voting in favour of military action, abstention or against is more likely. Labour can't have the Muslim vote split by Respect/Galloway in a tight election.
I mean who else calls in photographers to look like a complete prat eating a bacon sandwich and then get lampooned like a chump. There is no upside to that kind of masochism other than trying to prove he is not Jewish.
As for Hamas, I outlined on the previous thread that calling for an arms embargo and for Israel to lay down their arms opposes Israel and supports Hamas. Again, if you can't see that then more fool you.
Fighting Islamic extremists like Hamas, ISIL, Boko Haram, Al-Qaida and countless other groups is the number one priority for western nations. Israel is on the front line of that fight, calling for an arms embargo only seeks to support the very extremists we must see destroyed.
Let's see if there is a vote, shall we?
If you seriously believe that the only reason a politician might have his photo taken eating a bacon sandwich is to appease Muslim voters then I am afraid you are rather naïve.
More fool you for believing that killing hundreds of women and children is in any way going to diminish the terrorist threat faced by Israel and countries like the UK which, quite rightly, support its right to exist and to flourish.
I wonder if the Obama people are really going to give her a clear run. If not, who's their candidate? Warren? Biden? Biden, with Warren as the attack dog?
"I can guarantee to you that Ed has had discussions with his advisers over this and being seen to eat a bacon sandwich is all part of a concerted effort to shed his Jewish heritage in the eyes of Muslim voters."
Spot on. Muslims are well-known for their love of bacon and other pork-based products.
He has not withdrawn unqualified support from Israel and he has never been shy about talking up his Jewish heritage. He has made clear time and again that he is an atheist. I understand that you do not like Ed Miliband, but making things up about him really isn't very impressive.
You have chosen denial. That's your choice. Labour are readying themselves for a tight election and this is all part of their election footing to ensure they retain their Muslim voter base. Ed working to shed his Jewish heritage is an important part of that. Whether or not you think so is irrelevant. Ed saying he is an atheist proves nothing, eating very un-Kosher bacon and withdrawing support for Israel does. There is a pattern emerging, if you choose to ignore it more fool you.
You have accused Ed Miliband of eating a bacon sandwich to appease Muslim voters. You now say that he is seeking to shed his Jewish heritage. That is not only ridiculous, it is a smear of the worst kind - as was your previous claim that he supports Hamas. You have provided not a shred of evidence to back up any of your assertions. There is no pattern. All that exists here is your oft-stated dislike of Ed Miliband and your desire to paint him in the worst possible light. I think that is rather shameful. to be honest. But each to his own.
Unless Ed Miliband has taken on Chris Morris as an advisor, I'm also not convinced Max is right about his strategy to pander to Muslims by eating bacon while saying he's a zionist.
Ed MIliband is Jewish (despite SO's contention that a Jew can say "I'm not a Jew" [answer: he can't]).
As such he is in all kinds of trouble with the current Israel/Gaza situation. He must strike just the right balance so as not to invite charges that he is pro-Israel being Jewish. He I'm sure is viewed with suspicion by those anti-Israelers just for being Jewish. For Jewish voters, as a Jew, he will probably get much of a free pass on whatever he says as they might also realise that he is in a corner.
"I can guarantee to you that Ed has had discussions with his advisers over this and being seen to eat a bacon sandwich is all part of a concerted effort to shed his Jewish heritage in the eyes of Muslim voters."
Spot on. Muslims are well-known for their love of bacon and other pork-based products.
Don't be purposefully obtuse SO, you know exactly what I mean. Ed eating bacon proves that he is not a practising Jew which will reassure Labour's Muslim voters over Israel, his latter stance of withdrawing unqualified support of Israel is also part of defusing his Jewish heritage. Britain must stand behind Israel, it is the front line in the fight against extremism, to call for an arms embargo is a withdrawal of support and it will play well with Muslim voters worried about Ed's Jewish heritage. Whether or not Muslim's eat bacon is irrelevant, seeing a Jewish-born person do so is enough for them to think he is not a proper Jew.
He has not withdrawn unqualified support from Israel and he has never been shy about talking up his Jewish heritage. He has made clear time and again that he is an atheist. I understand that you do not like Ed Miliband, but making things up about him really isn't very impressive.
You have chosen denial. That's your choice. Labour are readying themselves for a tight election and this is all part of their election footing to ensure they retain their Muslim voter base. Ed working to shed his Jewish heritage is an important part of that. Whether or not you think so is irrelevant. Ed saying he is an atheist proves nothing, eating very un-Kosher bacon and withdrawing support for Israel does. There is a pattern emerging, if you choose to ignore it more fool you.
You have accused Ed Miliband of eating a bacon sandwich to appease Muslim voters. You now say that he is seeking to shed his Jewish heritage. That is not only ridiculous, it is a smear of the worst kind - as was your previous claim that he supports Hamas. You have provided not a shred of evidence to back up any of your assertions. There is no pattern. All that exists here is your oft-stated dislike of Ed Miliband and your desire to paint him in the worst possible light. I think that is rather shameful. to be honest. But each to his own.
Unless Ed Miliband has taken on Chris Morris as an advisor, I'm also not convinced Max is right about his strategy to pander to Muslims by eating bacon while saying he's a zionist.
Didn't he say he was a zionist in a private meeting which was leaked to embarass him?
(Not 100% sure i'm remembering that right but i think that was the case.)
I mean who else calls in photographers to look like a complete prat eating a bacon sandwich and then get lampooned like a chump. There is no upside to that kind of masochism other than trying to prove he is not Jewish.
If it was the one event you might be able to pull together a (weak) case.
But with Swindon Radio and Poppygate, the evidence points to the fact that his office is staffed by a bunch of numpties who don't know their arse from their elbows. So unlikely they would be able to develop and execute as cunning a plan as you suggest
"I can guarantee to you that Ed has had discussions with his advisers over this and being seen to eat a bacon sandwich is all part of a concerted effort to shed his Jewish heritage in the eyes of Muslim voters."
Spot on. Muslims are well-known for their love of bacon and other pork-based products.
He has not withdrawn unqualified support from Israel and he has never been shy about talking up his Jewish heritage. He has made clear time and again that he is an atheist. I understand that you do not like Ed Miliband, but making things up about him really isn't very impressive.
You have chosen denial. That's your choice. Labour are readying themselves for a tight election and this is all part of their election footing to ensure they retain their Muslim voter base. Ed working to shed his Jewish heritage is an important part of that. Whether or not you think so is irrelevant. Ed saying he is an atheist proves nothing, eating very un-Kosher bacon and withdrawing support for Israel does. There is a pattern emerging, if you choose to ignore it more fool you.
You have accused Ed Miliband of eating a bacon sandwich to appease Muslim voters. You now say that he is seeking to shed his Jewish heritage. That is not only ridiculous, it is a smear of the worst kind - as was your previous claim that he supports Hamas. You have provided not a shred of evidence to back up any of your assertions. There is no pattern. All that exists here is your oft-stated dislike of Ed Miliband and your desire to paint him in the worst possible light. I think that is rather shameful. to be honest. But each to his own.
Unless Ed Miliband has taken on Chris Morris as an advisor, I'm also not convinced Max is right about his strategy to pander to Muslims by eating bacon while saying he's a zionist.
Ed MIliband is Jewish (despite SO's contention that a Jew can say "I'm not a Jew" [answer: he can't]).
As such he is in all kinds of trouble with the current Israel/Gaza situation. He must strike just the right balance so as not to invite charges that he is pro-Israel being Jewish. He I'm sure is viewed with suspicion by those anti-Israelers just for being Jewish. For Jewish voters, as a Jew, he will probably get much of a free pass on whatever he says as they might also realise that he is in a corner.
I'm not too sure what it means but I think the renaming of ISIS/ISIL to "The Islamic State" is bad for someone or something or other.
"The Islamic State" is now unambiguously the enemy. Shame they didn't call it "The Islamist (Sunni) State" because "The Islamic State" sounds too much like good ordinary Islam which we all love and respect, rather than Islamism, which we are told is evil incarnate.
The chance of a genuine jihadist group calling itself something whose initials in English spelled an Egyptian goddess is zero. Hence the sudden switch in the media to "ISIL."
"I can guarantee to you that Ed has had discussions with his advisers over this and being seen to eat a bacon sandwich is all part of a concerted effort to shed his Jewish heritage in the eyes of Muslim voters."
Spot on. Muslims are well-known for their love of bacon and other pork-based products.
He has not withdrawn unqualified support from Israel and he has never been shy about talking up his Jewish heritage. He has made clear time and again that he is an atheist. I understand that you do not like Ed Miliband, but making things up about him really isn't very impressive.
You have chosen denial. That's your choice. Labour are readying themselves for a tight election and this is all part of their election footing to ensure they retain their Muslim voter base. Ed working to shed his Jewish heritage is an important part of that. Whether or not you think so is irrelevant. Ed saying he is an atheist proves nothing, eating very un-Kosher bacon and withdrawing support for Israel does. There is a pattern emerging, if you choose to ignore it more fool you.
You have accused Ed Miliband of eating a bacon sandwich to appease Muslim voters. You now say that he is seeking to shed his Jewish heritage. That is not only ridiculous, it is a smear of the worst kind - as was your previous claim that he supports Hamas. You have provided not a shred of evidence to back up any of your assertions. There is no pattern. All that exists here is your oft-stated dislike of Ed Miliband and your desire to paint him in the worst possible light. I think that is rather shameful. to be honest. But each to his own.
Unless Ed Miliband has taken on Chris Morris as an advisor, I'm also not convinced Max is right about his strategy to pander to Muslims by eating bacon while saying he's a zionist.
Didn't he say he was a zionist in a private meeting which was leaked to embarass him?
(Not 100% sure i'm remembering that right but i think that was the case.)
Ed M is following his predecessors Didn't Blair describe himself as a Socialist when he was on manoeuvres to be EU president?
That sentence that you quoted is just crying out for a "But"...
There is not one.
The speech ends thus:
I want you to know that if I become Prime Minister in less than a year’s time, I will be proud to do so as a friend of Israel, a Jew and, most of all, someone who feels so proud to be part of the community gathered here today.
Unquestionably a pitch for the anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli Muslim vote, I am sure we all agree. .
The Assad regime both Bashar and his late Da have supported Jihadi groups to a greater or lesser extent for 30 years. Links with ISIL and Syrian intelligence goes back to the aftermath of invasion of Iraq.
Assad used the Jihadi threat as a very useful tool before they actually appeared on the scene.
Assad's Shia friends in Iraq happily let the Sunni radicals (read ISIL) troupe over the border to fight in Syria as a handy way of getting them off their patch only to be bittem on the arse later.
ISIL have never fought the Assad regime with the aim of toppling Assad in the same way the other insurgent groups have. Instead it has focussed on carving out some territory, mainly in the north and east of the country.
ISIS has clashed almost as often with other insurgent groups as it has done with Assads forces.
In addition:
Al Qaeda labelled ISIL as damaging the fight against Assad.
ISIS has smuggled and provided oil to Assad's regime via its long held control of elements production and distribution assets in parts of Iraq.
This is not some clear cut story on Assad vs ISIL. Never has been.
That may well have been true in the past (I think pretty much everyone neighbouring Iraq has had a hand in creating Isis at some time or other) but recently Isis have been taking over the Syrian oil and gas fields and beheading lots of Syrian soldiers.
The Assad regime both Bashar and his late Da have supported Jihadi groups to a greater or lesser extent for 30 years. Links with ISIL and Syrian intelligence goes back to the aftermath of invasion of Iraq.
Assad used the Jihadi threat as a very useful tool before they actually appeared on the scene.
Assad's Shia friends in Iraq happily let the Sunni radicals (read ISIL) troupe over the border to fight in Syria as a handy way of getting them off their patch only to be bittem on the arse later.
ISIL have never fought the Assad regime with the aim of toppling Assad in the same way the other insurgent groups have. Instead it has focussed on carving out some territory, mainly in the north and east of the country.
ISIS has clashed almost as often with other insurgent groups as it has done with Assads forces.
In addition:
Al Qaeda labelled ISIL as damaging the fight against Assad.
ISIS has smuggled and provided oil to Assad's regime via its long held control of elements production and distribution assets in parts of Iraq.
This is not some clear cut story on Assad vs ISIL. Never has been.
That may well have been true in the past (I think pretty much everyone neighbouring Iraq has had a hand in creating Isis at some time or other) but recently Isis have been taking over the Syrian oil and gas fields and beheading lots of Syrian soldiers.
"I can guarantee to you that Ed has had discussions with his advisers over this and being seen to eat a bacon sandwich is all part of a concerted effort to shed his Jewish heritage in the eyes of Muslim voters."
Spot on. Muslims are well-known for their love of bacon and other pork-based products.
He has not withdrawn unqualified support from Israel and he has never been shy about talking up his Jewish heritage. He has made clear time and again that he is an atheist. I understand that you do not like Ed Miliband, but making things up about him really isn't very impressive.
You have accused Ed Miliband of eating a bacon sandwich to appease Muslim voters. You now say that he is seeking to shed his Jewish heritage. That is not only ridiculous, it is a smear of the worst kind - as was your previous claim that he supports Hamas. You have provided not a shred of evidence to back up any of your assertions. There is no pattern. All that exists here is your oft-stated dislike of Ed Miliband and your desire to paint him in the worst possible light. I think that is rather shameful. to be honest. But each to his own.
Unless Ed Miliband has taken on Chris Morris as an advisor, I'm also not convinced Max is right about his strategy to pander to Muslims by eating bacon while saying he's a zionist.
Ed MIliband is Jewish (despite SO's contention that a Jew can say "I'm not a Jew" [answer: he can't]).
As such he is in all kinds of trouble with the current Israel/Gaza situation. He must strike just the right balance so as not to invite charges that he is pro-Israel being Jewish. He I'm sure is viewed with suspicion by those anti-Israelers just for being Jewish. For Jewish voters, as a Jew, he will probably get much of a free pass on whatever he says as they might also realise that he is in a corner.
I have never said a Jew can say he is not a Jew.
Apologies I forget the quote but I'm pretty sure it went something along the lines of: "he said he was an atheist, ergo he is not Jewish, he is an atheist". My point, which was clumsily made, was that he is/was a Jew and no amount of protesting/denial could alter that fact certainly in the eyes of his "enemies".
Apologies if I mis-read or mis-remembered your point. Or in fact completely misunderstood it which seems much more likely.
The Assad regime both Bashar and his late Da have supported Jihadi groups to a greater or lesser extent for 30 years. Links with ISIL and Syrian intelligence goes back to the aftermath of invasion of Iraq.
Assad used the Jihadi threat as a very useful tool before they actually appeared on the scene.
Assad's Shia friends in Iraq happily let the Sunni radicals (read ISIL) troupe over the border to fight in Syria as a handy way of getting them off their patch only to be bittem on the arse later.
ISIL have never fought the Assad regime with the aim of toppling Assad in the same way the other insurgent groups have. Instead it has focussed on carving out some territory, mainly in the north and east of the country.
ISIS has clashed almost as often with other insurgent groups as it has done with Assads forces.
In addition:
Al Qaeda labelled ISIL as damaging the fight against Assad.
ISIS has smuggled and provided oil to Assad's regime via its long held control of elements production and distribution assets in parts of Iraq.
This is not some clear cut story on Assad vs ISIL. Never has been.
That may well have been true in the past (I think pretty much everyone neighbouring Iraq has had a hand in creating Isis at some time or other) but recently Isis have been taking over the Syrian oil and gas fields and beheading lots of Syrian soldiers.
No argument there, if you help create these organisations then you can't complain about blowback but my point is he doesn't seem to be controlling them now.
The simplest explanation is they were created by a lot of outside forces but have now gone wild but if they are being controlled or at least influenced by an outside power then you could narrow down the list of possibilities by looking at who and where they're attacking - which currently would seem to rule out Assad.
What is happening in Iraq is as clear a case of genocide (and massive, ongoing war crimes) there has been since Rwanda. It is ALSO happening partly because of us and our monstrous error in invading Iraq under Bush and Blair.
We have no moral choice. We have to give massive humanitarian aid, and we have to bomb Isis into tiny bloody pieces, day after day after day.
The moment of reckoning has arrived. Do we finally confront the evil of Islamism or do we flunk it and say Islamonazism is tickety-boo. We can't duck this any more.
Bloody Hell Sean is it the air in Primrose Hill that's spurring you on to be such a moral crusader?
That sentence that you quoted is just crying out for a "But"...
There is not one.
The speech ends thus:
I want you to know that if I become Prime Minister in less than a year’s time, I will be proud to do so as a friend of Israel, a Jew and, most of all, someone who feels so proud to be part of the community gathered here today.
Unquestionably a pitch for the anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli Muslim vote, I am sure we all agree. .
How widely reported, though?
As always, I suspect the media isn't that interested in speeches to the Labour friends of Israel
What is happening in Iraq is as clear a case of genocide (and massive, ongoing war crimes) there has been since Rwanda. It is ALSO happening partly because of us and our monstrous error in invading Iraq under Bush and Blair.
We have no moral choice. We have to give massive humanitarian aid, and we have to bomb Isis into tiny bloody pieces, day after day after day.
The moment of reckoning has arrived. Do we finally confront the evil of Islamism or do we flunk it and say Islamonazism is tickety-boo. We can't duck this any more.
I agree, Mr. T., now go write a piece for the Telegraph saying that and let us know how you get on.
The Assad regime both Bashar and his late Da have supported Jihadi groups to a greater or lesser extent for 30 years. Links with ISIL and Syrian intelligence goes back to the aftermath of invasion of Iraq.
Assad used the Jihadi threat as a very useful tool before they actually appeared on the scene.
Assad's Shia friends in Iraq happily let the Sunni radicals (read ISIL) troupe over the border to fight in Syria as a handy way of getting them off their patch only to be bittem on the arse later.
ISIL have never fought the Assad regime with the aim of toppling Assad in the same way the other insurgent groups have. Instead it has focussed on carving out some territory, mainly in the north and east of the country.
ISIS has clashed almost as often with other insurgent groups as it has done with Assads forces.
In addition:
Al Qaeda labelled ISIL as damaging the fight against Assad.
ISIS has smuggled and provided oil to Assad's regime via its long held control of elements production and distribution assets in parts of Iraq.
This is not some clear cut story on Assad vs ISIL. Never has been.
No evidence for your so called historical fact I notice.
@Topping - I said there was no need for EdM to prove he is not a practising Jew by eating a bacon sandwich as he has said repeatedly that he is an atheist.
The Assad regime both Bashar and his late Da have supported Jihadi groups to a greater or lesser extent for 30 years. Links with ISIL and Syrian intelligence goes back to the aftermath of invasion of Iraq.
Assad used the Jihadi threat as a very useful tool before they actually appeared on the scene.
Assad's Shia friends in Iraq happily let the Sunni radicals (read ISIL) troupe over the border to fight in Syria as a handy way of getting them off their patch only to be bittem on the arse later.
ISIL have never fought the Assad regime with the aim of toppling Assad in the same way the other insurgent groups have. Instead it has focussed on carving out some territory, mainly in the north and east of the country.
ISIS has clashed almost as often with other insurgent groups as it has done with Assads forces.
In addition:
Al Qaeda labelled ISIL as damaging the fight against Assad.
ISIS has smuggled and provided oil to Assad's regime via its long held control of elements production and distribution assets in parts of Iraq.
This is not some clear cut story on Assad vs ISIL. Never has been.
No evidence for your so called historical fact I notice.
What do you want an academic treatise? Go look it up. There is nothing there new or revelatory.
Alternatively you tell me which of the above are absolutely incorrect.
I'm not too sure what it means but I think the renaming of ISIS/ISIL to "The Islamic State" is bad for someone or something or other.
"The Islamic State" is now unambiguously the enemy. Shame they didn't call it "The Islamist (Sunni) State" because "The Islamic State" sounds too much like good ordinary Islam which we all love and respect, rather than Islamism, which we are told is evil incarnate.
The chance of a genuine jihadist group calling itself something whose initials in English spelled an Egyptian goddess is zero. Hence the sudden switch in the media to "ISIL."
That sentence that you quoted is just crying out for a "But"...
There is not one.
The speech ends thus:
I want you to know that if I become Prime Minister in less than a year’s time, I will be proud to do so as a friend of Israel, a Jew and, most of all, someone who feels so proud to be part of the community gathered here today.
Unquestionably a pitch for the anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli Muslim vote, I am sure we all agree. .
How widely reported, though?
As always, I suspect the media isn't that interested in speeches to the Labour friends of Israel
That's not the issue. MaxPB was accusing EdM of repudiating his Jewish heritage, of supporting Hamas and of withdrawing support for Israel.
@Topping - I said there was no need for EdM to prove he is not a practising Jew by eating a bacon sandwich as he has said repeatedly that he is an atheist.
whoa did I get the wrong end of the stick on that exchange, then.
@Topping - I said there was no need for EdM to prove he is not a practising Jew by eating a bacon sandwich as he has said repeatedly that he is an atheist.
whoa did I get the wrong end of the stick on that exchange, then.
Don't drink and PB. A golden rule.
In your defence the claim that SO is responding to is quite surreal, even for PB on a weekend.
"More fool you for believing that killing hundreds of women and children is in any way going to diminish the terrorist threat faced by Israel and countries like the UK which, quite rightly, support its right to exist and to flourish."
An interesting discussion. I think the problem with IS is their seeming desire to slaughter all and everyone in their Caliphate who doesn't correspond to their own version of Islam. The Yazidis seem fairly innocuous - they're not even firing rockets at anyone - but that doesn't matter.
We can sit on our hands and do nothing and hope the US grandstanding is effective. Or we can go down Sean T's route. Even Napalm would be permitted under UN rules (if used to protect civilians) although the ground isn't useful and the planes may need to fly low. But cremating the vanguard might make them back off temporarily.
We're partially responsible (thank you, Tony), so it's more difficult to wash our hands and take the easy way out.
If I have got this straight, we have a quote of Miliband saying he is proud to be a Jew and we have Miliband saying he is an atheist and a film of him eating a bacon sandwich.. Why all the fuss, he is just a politician who will do anything, say anything in the pursuit of power. For goodness sake he is just a rich, lying hypocritical, scumbag the same as most of the members of the House of Commons.
I'm trying to work out which caricature Tories will finally focus on for Ed Miliband because at the moment it is terribly conflicted.On the one hand we have Red Ed,the son of a dangerous Marxist,somewhere between Stalin and Hugo Chavez, and then too we have Ed as the 6 stone weakling getting sand kicked in his face by bullying foreigners.It is clear he cannot be both.Unless the Tories which caricature to go for,the message is lost in confusion and all the Tories have to fall back on is the way Ed eats a bacon sandwich.Pathetic.
"More fool you for believing that killing hundreds of women and children is in any way going to diminish the terrorist threat faced by Israel and countries like the UK which, quite rightly, support its right to exist and to flourish."
An interesting discussion. I think the problem with IS is their seeming desire to slaughter all and everyone in their Caliphate who doesn't correspond to their own version of Islam. The Yazidis seem fairly innocuous - they're not even firing rockets at anyone - but that doesn't matter.
We can sit on our hands and do nothing and hope the US grandstanding is effective. Or we can go down Sean T's route. Even Napalm would be permitted under UN rules (if used to protect civilians) although the ground isn't useful and the planes may need to fly low. But cremating the vanguard might make them back off temporarily.
We're partially responsible (thank you, Tony), so it's more difficult to wash our hands and take the easy way out.
The question I ask myself (and although a true blue Tory I nevertheless am a TB fan, on behalf of the Labour Party, who seem to detest the only leader they had who lead them to so many election wins but I digress)...
...wouldn't the same thing have happened should Saddam have died last week of old age/heart attack/impact by Baghdad bus?
All those people in the Stop the War marches these last few weekends in London, they're now busy organising marches against what IS is doing and against the vicious attacks on Iraq's minorities, aren't they?
I In your dreams. A thousand Palestinians killed over weeks are worth a protest from lefties but not thousands a day killed by a Muslim sect.
This is a ridiculous comparison. Israel is a state, an ally and a country to which we export weapons. Isis is a bunch of psychopaths. We have no influence with Isis, no pull we can exert, no moral support we can withdraw. If you want a real discrepancy, think about what the Western response would be if Syria or Iran or Russia launched something similar. HMG has seen fit to declare Russia an adversary over its support of rebels in Dontesk, but not a peep of condemnation from us over Israel's activities. That is the true face of hypocrisy.
That is not true, our government has expressed concern over Israels actions several times (including the PMs response to Warsi) directly and through the EU stance.
I stand corrected. I look forward to sanctions, calls for regime change and the funding of an armed insurgency.
There is a broad range of possible actions between condemnation and arming insurgents.
Everybody here seems a bit trigger happy. It is 1914 all over again, we do not need to get involved in every conflict on the surface of the globe! Humanitarian aid and a resettlement plan for refugees is as far as we should go. There are plenty of other forces like the Kurds who can do the fighting on the ground.
We need to look as our own Islamists, not other countries. Dave Cameron was mocked for saying returning Islamist fighters were our greatest threat. That statement is not being mocked now.
If I have got this straight, we have a quote of Miliband saying he is proud to be a Jew and we have Miliband saying he is an atheist and a film of him eating a bacon sandwich.. Why all the fuss, he is just a politician who will do anything, say anything in the pursuit of power. For goodness sake he is just a rich, lying hypocritical, scumbag the same as most of the members of the House of Commons.
"More fool you for believing that killing hundreds of women and children is in any way going to diminish the terrorist threat faced by Israel and countries like the UK which, quite rightly, support its right to exist and to flourish."
An interesting discussion. I think the problem with IS is their seeming desire to slaughter all and everyone in their Caliphate who doesn't correspond to their own version of Islam. The Yazidis seem fairly innocuous - they're not even firing rockets at anyone - but that doesn't matter.
We can sit on our hands and do nothing and hope the US grandstanding is effective. Or we can go down Sean T's route. Even Napalm would be permitted under UN rules (if used to protect civilians) although the ground isn't useful and the planes may need to fly low. But cremating the vanguard might make them back off temporarily.
We're partially responsible (thank you, Tony), so it's more difficult to wash our hands and take the easy way out.
The question I ask myself (and although a true blue Tory I nevertheless am a TB fan, on behalf of the Labour Party, who seem to detest the only leader they had who lead them to so many election wins but I digress)...
...wouldn't the same thing have happened should Saddam have died last week of old age/heart attack/impact by Baghdad bus?
Yokel? What's your view also?
All dictatorships whether elected or otherwise imposed go eventually. If there is no succession path that is agreed then every single old schism previously suppressed will come out.
Dave needs to call his bluff, not just for political reasons but because ISIL needs to be pushed back so the Iraqi minorities can be protected from their evil. It is the right thing to do and Dave is weak.
The problem is, I'm not sure that he can get the support from Clegg & the LibDems to even bring this forward.
Could you really make a proposal this critical without consensus in the government / breaking the Coalition?
Is the idea that a prime minister should actually have principles and values that he or she is prepared to articulate and stand by, even if it means losing the baubles of office, really so out of date?
The PM is the prime Minister in the Government.
I agree that the Government should say up and say what they believe in, even if it means a defeat in the Commons.
I'm not sure that it would be right for Cameron to do so independent of Cabinet.
Hence my point about breaking the Coalition - I could be persuaded that it is the right thing to do, but I think it is inappropriate for Cameron to act independently
The Tories in the Cabinet could easily be convinced. Both Fallon and Hammond are hawkish, so I'm sure they would itching to get involved.
I suspect so - although I doubt anyone is "itching" to get involved. In my experience, foreign office ministers in particular - but all Cabinet Ministers - take this sort of thing incredibly seriously. (As an aside, I think that Warsi's resignation indicates the thinking among ministers as a whole, perhaps more than Cameron)
But the issue is the LibDems - you've seen Clegg's weasel words already, and there is a strong "Ward" tendency within the party as well.
I know you shouldn't think about matters in these terms, but it would be interesting to see what a split on war/peace would do - could it enable the LibDems to reclaim the anti-Iraq vote from Labour - or force Ed Miliband to take an anti-war position? (which might actually be popular)
'Cleggs weasel words' Yes, another indicator as to what a waste of space he really is. I was prepared to give his a fair run as someone in govt but he has disappointed. But then again he is a prisoner of the libdem pacifists. Its just another indicator showing how they cannot make decisions when faced with choices. The left fundamentally do not like the west the west they are a part of. Any anti west faction gets their vote.
Air strikes probably won't be able to keep ISIS at bay forever. So Obama will have to decide whether to send in ground troops and break his main election promise, or allow the fanatics to take over the whole of northern Iraq. Horrible choice.
What is happening in Iraq is as clear a case of genocide (and massive, ongoing war crimes) there has been since Rwanda. It is ALSO happening partly because of us and our monstrous error in invading Iraq under Bush and Blair.
We have no moral choice. We have to give massive humanitarian aid, and we have to bomb Isis into tiny bloody pieces, day after day after day.
The moment of reckoning has arrived. Do we finally confront the evil of Islamism or do we flunk it and say Islamonazism is tickety-boo. We can't duck this any more.
Bloody Hell Sean is it the air in Primrose Hill that's spurring you on to be such a moral crusader?
Isis is the purest example of human evil in global politics since the Khmer Rouge, and, before them, Hitler.
If we don't confront Isis (who we helped create) then we might as well fold our tents and go home: the West as a notion, as a citadel of ideals, will be finished.
But we also need to confront Islamism at home, and in our Mid East "allies", much more aggressively. How have we allowed Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia to finance these scumbags?
We have to say: Enough.
At the same time we need to pressure Israel, so that we look like an honest broker. Stop Building F*cking Settlements, or Western support will be withdrawn.
What are the chances of all these things happening? About zero. But let's start, at least, with tackling Isis. We have the hardware - use it.
LRA?
Should we send in the troops there also? Or is that all ok down there in sub-saharan Africa?
(and sorry I am about to start a session of Fargo which, despite Martin Freeman's American accent, is very compelling so I'm not going to be able to answer for a bit).
My point is that why are we focusing on these events in the Middle East in terms of human suffering. Is it just more convenient or are events in eg. SSA too out of reach and not comprehensible? Where was the "Stop Joseph Kony" march route this weekend?
Air strikes probably won't be able to keep ISIS at bay forever. So Obama will have to decide whether to send in ground troops and break his main election promise, or allow the fanatics to take over the whole of northern Iraq. Horrible choice.
Isis have already taken over the Sunni bits. Secret squirrels embedded with the Kurds spotting for airstrikes to break up any attacks would be enough to defend the Kurdish areas. If Isis are restricted to the Sunni areas with no infidels to kill they'll start crucifying the local Sunnis for having a mincy walk or suspiciously well-groomed beard and the tribes will turn on them again like they did with AQ.
Personally, I was just musing. The problem with getting involved (apart from our own casualties) is the "collateral damage". If we dropped munitions on everyone waving a black IS flag, we might end up taking out an East London council estate.
As has been said, a horrible choice what ever we do. Best of luck Obama
How have we allowed Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia to finance these scumbags?
This is the problem, isn't it? It didn't happen by accident. The said scumbags were financed with the tacit agreement, and sometimes the active participation, of the governments that are now supposed to be intervening to stop them.
Even if there's an ideal set of policies that would do more good than harm, is there any evidence that the governments of the US and the UK are actually willing and able to follow them? It may be that the voters are unable to enforce "intervene, but don't arm genocidal scumbags", and the best they can hold their governments to is "stay out of foreign wars in parts of the world that we don't understand, and that we wouldn't have heard of at all if we hadn't happened to read The Genesis Secret".
Dave needs to call his bluff, not just for political reasons but because ISIL needs to be pushed back so the Iraqi minorities can be protected from their evil. It is the right thing to do and Dave is weak.
Could you really make a proposal this critical without consensus in the government / breaking the Coalition?
Is the idea that a prime minister should actually have principles and values that he or she is prepared to articulate and stand by, even if it means losing the baubles of office, really so out of date?
The PM is the prime Minister in the Government.
I agree that the Government should say up and say what they believe in, even if it means a defeat in the Commons.
I'm not sure that it would be right for Cameron to do so independent of Cabinet.
Hence my point about breaking the Coalition - I could be persuaded that it is the right thing to do, but I think it is inappropriate for Cameron to act independently
The Tories in the Cabinet could easily be convinced. Both Fallon and Hammond are hawkish, so I'm sure they would itching to get involved.
I suspect so - although I doubt anyone is "itching" to get involved. In my experience, foreign office ministers in particular - but all Cabinet Ministers - take this sort of thing incredibly seriously. (As an aside, I think that Warsi's resignation indicates the thinking among ministers as a whole, perhaps more than Cameron)
But the issue is the LibDems - you've seen Clegg's weasel words already, and there is a strong "Ward" tendency within the party as well.
I know you shouldn't think about matters in these terms, but it would be interesting to see what a split on war/peace would do - could it enable the LibDems to reclaim the anti-Iraq vote from Labour - or force Ed Miliband to take an anti-war position? (which might actually be popular)
'Cleggs weasel words' Yes, another indicator as to what a waste of space he really is. I was prepared to give his a fair run as someone in govt but he has disappointed. But then again he is a prisoner of the libdem pacifists. Its just another indicator showing how they cannot make decisions when faced with choices. The left fundamentally do not like the west the west they are a part of. Any anti west faction gets their vote.
So was the Lib Dem opposition to the Iraq war right or wrong?
Was Tony Blair's and George Bush's idea of regime change in Iraq right or wrong?
Was the Cameron/Sarcozy idea to bring down Gadaffi right or wrong?
Air strikes probably won't be able to keep ISIS at bay forever. So Obama will have to decide whether to send in ground troops and break his main election promise, or allow the fanatics to take over the whole of northern Iraq. Horrible choice.
That's a specific military claim - anyone know if it's right? We're not talking about keeping ISIS out of areas where they have a lot of support on the ground, we're talking about what IIUC seem to be fairly conventional military campaigns to take over areas where most people don't want them.
What is happening in Iraq is as clear a case of genocide (and massive, ongoing war crimes) there has been since Rwanda. It is ALSO happening partly because of us and our monstrous error in invading Iraq under Bush and Blair.
We have no moral choice. We have to give massive humanitarian aid, and we have to bomb Isis into tiny bloody pieces, day after day after day.
The moment of reckoning has arrived. Do we finally confront the evil of Islamism or do we flunk it and say Islamonazism is tickety-boo. We can't duck this any more.
Bloody Hell Sean is it the air in Primrose Hill that's spurring you on to be such a moral crusader?
Isis is the purest example of human evil in global politics since the Khmer Rouge, and, before them, Hitler.
If we don't confront Isis (who we helped create) then we might as well fold our tents and go home: the West as a notion, as a citadel of ideals, will be finished.
But we also need to confront Islamism at home, and in our Mid East "allies", much more aggressively. How have we allowed Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia to finance these scumbags?
We have to say: Enough.
At the same time we need to pressure Israel, so that we look like an honest broker. Stop Building F*cking Settlements, or Western support will be withdrawn.
What are the chances of all these things happening? About zero. But let's start, at least, with tackling Isis. We have the hardware - use it.
The problem is we do have the hardware but won't use it fully. Air-strikes do not pacify a territory, successful occupation and effective political control do. At some point we can't outsource the grunt on the ground, at least during the combat phase and as usual Western politicians refuse to tell the public the reality. You want to defeat an enemy that is light and mobile you have to go fight them on the floor and then hold the ground because absolute destruction in a conventional military sense does not exist.
This may mean a small ground level commitment, it may mean a larger one but to make this thing work fully, significantly and sustained manner you are likely to have to commit. The forces on the ground that the West can ally with, the Kurds and the Iraqi military have proven not too brilliant. The Peshmerga are useful but have often needed active Western support whether through air cover or on the ground support for example.
As for the Iraqi army and the Syrian army for that matter both are messed up rightly with barely a fraction capable of reliably carrying out long term and combined arms operations. They themselves are increasingly influenced and sustained by militias that are at best semi autonomous and at worst very much their own entities.
How have we allowed Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia to finance these scumbags?
This is the problem, isn't it? It didn't happen by accident. The said scumbags were financed with the tacit agreement, and sometimes the active participation, of the governments that are now supposed to be intervening to stop them.
Even if there's an ideal set of policies that would do more good than harm, is there any evidence that the governments of the US and the UK are actually willing and able to follow them? It may be that the voters are unable to enforce "intervene, but don't arm genocidal scumbags", and the best they can hold their governments to is "stay out of foreign wars in parts of the world that we don't understand, and that we wouldn't have heard of at all if we hadn't happened to read The Genesis Secret".
"and the best they can hold their governments to is "stay out of foreign wars in parts of the world that we don't understand"
That's a valid argument imo. It may well be impossible for a public to do anything more fine-tuned than a blanket "no intervention" line. Trouble is if there's people who want interventions in a region for some reason and they're prepared to torture toddlers on live telly to get it then eventually the public will crack.
The Assad regime both Bashar and his late Da have supported Jihadi groups to a greater or lesser extent for 30 years. Links with ISIL and Syrian intelligence goes back to the aftermath of invasion of Iraq.
Assad used the Jihadi threat as a very useful tool before they actually appeared on the scene.
Assad's Shia friends in Iraq happily let the Sunni radicals (read ISIL) troupe over the border to fight in Syria as a handy way of getting them off their patch only to be bittem on the arse later.
ISIL have never fought the Assad regime with the aim of toppling Assad in the same way the other insurgent groups have. Instead it has focussed on carving out some territory, mainly in the north and east of the country.
ISIS has clashed almost as often with other insurgent groups as it has done with Assads forces.
In addition:
Al Qaeda labelled ISIL as damaging the fight against Assad.
ISIS has smuggled and provided oil to Assad's regime via its long held control of elements production and distribution assets in parts of Iraq.
This is not some clear cut story on Assad vs ISIL. Never has been.
No evidence for your so called historical fact I notice.
What do you want an academic treatise? Go look it up. There is nothing there new or revelatory.
Alternatively you tell me which of the above are absolutely incorrect.
What I wanted was a shred of evidentiary support for a hypothesis that seems to me to be purely a flimsy attempt to muddy the waters, and absurdly blame that nasty Mr Assad for something which we ourselves have been complicit in creating.
AndyJS What needs to happen is the US should combine airstrikes with supplies of hardware and arms to Kurdish fighters on the ground. In the last 24 hours the Kurds have apparently retaken 2 towns. Maliki must also go and be replaced with a leader more willing to reach out and have an inclusive government made up not only of Shias but Kurds and Sunnis too
All those people in the Stop the War marches these last few weekends in London, they're now busy organising marches against what IS is doing and against the vicious attacks on Iraq's minorities, aren't they?
I In your dreams. A thousand Palestinians killed over weeks are worth a protest from lefties but not thousands a day killed by a Muslim sect.
This is a ridiculous comparison. Israel is a state, an ally and a country to which we export weapons. Isis is a bunch of psychopaths. We have no influence with Isis, no pull we can exert, no moral support we can withdraw. If you want a real discrepancy, think about what the Western response would be if Syria or Iran or Russia launched something similar. HMG has seen fit to declare Russia an adversary over its support of rebels in Dontesk, but not a peep of condemnation from us over Israel's activities. That is the true face of hypocrisy.
That is not true, our government has expressed concern over Israels actions several times (including the PMs response to Warsi) directly and through the EU stance.
I stand corrected. I look forward to sanctions, calls for regime change and the funding of an armed insurgency.
There is a broad range of possible actions between condemnation and arming insurgents.
Everybody here seems a bit trigger happy. It is 1914 all over again, we do not need to get involved in every conflict on the surface of the globe! Humanitarian aid and a resettlement plan for refugees is as far as we should go. There are plenty of other forces like the Kurds who can do the fighting on the ground.
We need to look as our own Islamists, not other countries. Dave Cameron was mocked for saying returning Islamist fighters were our greatest threat. That statement is not being mocked now.
This was sarcasm. I was contrasting the reactions of 'The West' when one of its strategic opponents is implicated in a humanitarian catastrophe, and what happens when one of its key allies is implicated in one. It's almost as startlingly divergent as what happens when the US shoots down a passenger jet, and when Russia is accused of shooting one down.
What is happening in Iraq is as clear a case of genocide (and massive, ongoing war crimes) there has been since Rwanda. It is ALSO happening partly because of us and our monstrous error in invading Iraq under Bush and Blair.
We have no moral choice. We have to give massive humanitarian aid, and we have to bomb Isis into tiny bloody pieces, day after day after day.
The moment of reckoning has arrived. Do we finally confront the evil of Islamism or do we flunk it and say Islamonazism is tickety-boo. We can't duck this any more.
Bloody Hell Sean is it the air in Primrose Hill that's spurring you on to be such a moral crusader?
Isis is the purest example of human evil in global politics since the Khmer Rouge, and, before them, Hitler.
If we don't confront Isis (who we helped create) then we might as well fold our tents and go home: the West as a notion, as a citadel of ideals, will be finished.
But we also need to confront Islamism at home, and in our Mid East "allies", much more aggressively. How have we allowed Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia to finance these scumbags?
We have to say: Enough.
At the same time we need to pressure Israel, so that we look like an honest broker. Stop Building F*cking Settlements, or Western support will be withdrawn.
What are the chances of all these things happening? About zero. But let's start, at least, with tackling Isis. We have the hardware - use it.
The long term answer lies in the tribes.
That would be handy. No annoying 'countries' with armies and things that think they can decide what happens to all the oil.
The Assad regime both Bashar and his late Da have supported Jihadi groups to a greater or lesser extent for 30 years. Links with ISIL and Syrian intelligence goes back to the aftermath of invasion of Iraq.
Assad used the Jihadi threat as a very useful tool before they actually appeared on the scene.
Assad's Shia friends in Iraq happily let the Sunni radicals (read ISIL) troupe over the border to fight in Syria as a handy way of getting them off their patch only to be bittem on the arse later.
ISIL have never fought the Assad regime with the aim of toppling Assad in the same way the other insurgent groups have. Instead it has focussed on carving out some territory, mainly in the north and east of the country.
ISIS has clashed almost as often with other insurgent groups as it has done with Assads forces.
In addition:
Al Qaeda labelled ISIL as damaging the fight against Assad.
ISIS has smuggled and provided oil to Assad's regime via its long held control of elements production and distribution assets in parts of Iraq.
This is not some clear cut story on Assad vs ISIL. Never has been.
No evidence for your so called historical fact I notice.
What do you want an academic treatise? Go look it up. There is nothing there new or revelatory.
Alternatively you tell me which of the above are absolutely incorrect.
What I wanted was a shred of evidentiary support for a hypothesis that seems to me to be purely a flimsy attempt to muddy the waters, and absurdly blame that nasty Mr Assad for something which we ourselves have been complicit in creating.
I did not suggest that Assad created ISIS. I suggested his intelligence services had links with them and hos government has done trade. I'll take the French Foreign Minister for example over yourself. I'll take Middle East experts such as the Jamestown Foundation or the Institute for the Study of War over you.
Secondly go look up that ISIS have clashed repeatedly with other insurgent groups in Syria. There is no revelation in this. .
Thirdly, ISIS biggest single source of income today is believed to be their own activities.
The Assad regime both Bashar and his late Da have supported Jihadi groups to a greater or lesser extent for 30 years. Links with ISIL and Syrian intelligence goes back to the aftermath of invasion of Iraq.
Assad used the Jihadi threat as a very useful tool before they actually appeared on the scene.
Assad's Shia friends in Iraq happily let the Sunni radicals (read ISIL) troupe over the border to fight in Syria as a handy way of getting them off their patch only to be bittem on the arse later.
ISIL have never fought the Assad regime with the aim of toppling Assad in the same way the other insurgent groups have. Instead it has focussed on carving out some territory, mainly in the north and east of the country.
ISIS has clashed almost as often with other insurgent groups as it has done with Assads forces.
In addition:
Al Qaeda labelled ISIL as damaging the fight against Assad.
ISIS has smuggled and provided oil to Assad's regime via its long held control of elements production and distribution assets in parts of Iraq.
This is not some clear cut story on Assad vs ISIL. Never has been.
No evidence for your so called historical fact I notice.
What do you want an academic treatise? Go look it up. There is nothing there new or revelatory.
Alternatively you tell me which of the above are absolutely incorrect.
Y0kel has a habit of musing about the world without quoting any sources, academic or otherwise.
Some good news - half the Yazidis have been rescued from the mountain, thanks to Kurdish rebels, US air strikes, and (though the article doesn't get this specific) my original blog for the Telegraph.
But here if you fancy a few links randomly from the Internet. None of which again are new and are reporting it onward from much the same open sources as I got it from in the 1st place.
Wow, maxpb's bizarre paranoid theories are really something to behold. As are the indignant responses from other PB Tories at non-existent labour policies that are only the product of a deranged (is there any other kind?) right wing mind. Glad someone pointed out the patently obvious rebuttal as to why 'lefties' are protesting the murderous actions of an allied state and trading partner fully supported by our own government but not a ragtag band of murderous terrorist psychopaths who aren't supported overtly by anybody (though no douby covertly supported by one or more of some usual suspects, let's face it). You're an odd bunch, for people who clear have some intelligence.
But here if you fancy a few links randomly from the Internet. None of which again are new and are reporting it onward from much the same open sources as I got it from in the 1st place.
The Assad regime both Bashar and his late Da have supported Jihadi groups to a greater or lesser extent for 30 years. Links with ISIL and Syrian intelligence goes back to the aftermath of invasion of Iraq.
Assad used the Jihadi threat as a very useful tool before they actually appeared on the scene.
Assad's Shia friends in Iraq happily let the Sunni radicals (read ISIL) troupe over the border to fight in Syria as a handy way of getting them off their patch only to be bittem on the arse later.
ISIL have never fought the Assad regime with the aim of toppling Assad in the same way the other insurgent groups have. Instead it has focussed on carving out some territory, mainly in the north and east of the country.
ISIS has clashed almost as often with other insurgent groups as it has done with Assads forces.
In addition:
Al Qaeda labelled ISIL as damaging the fight against Assad.
ISIS has smuggled and provided oil to Assad's regime via its long held control of elements production and distribution assets in parts of Iraq.
This is not some clear cut story on Assad vs ISIL. Never has been.
No evidence for your so called historical fact I notice.
What do you want an academic treatise? Go look it up. There is nothing there new or revelatory.
Alternatively you tell me which of the above are absolutely incorrect.
Y0kel has a habit of musing about the world without quoting any sources, academic or otherwise.
Sunil you are the genius who failed to comprehend that in Northern Ireland that the Catholic Protestant mix in the Census didn't relate a) to the current voting population and b) relate to their basic politics on the Union.
Worse you've had involvement in accumulating and studying figures related to elections in NI and didnt even get those fundamental facts.
Some good news - half the Yazidis have been rescued from the mountain, thanks to Kurdish rebels, US air strikes, and (though the article doesn't get this specific) my original blog for the Telegraph.
The Assad regime both Bashar and his late Da have supported Jihadi groups to a greater or lesser extent for 30 years. Links with ISIL and Syrian intelligence goes back to the aftermath of invasion of Iraq.
Assad used the Jihadi threat as a very useful tool before they actually appeared on the scene.
Assad's Shia friends in Iraq happily let the Sunni radicals (read ISIL) troupe over the border to fight in Syria as a handy way of getting them off their patch only to be bittem on the arse later.
ISIL have never fought the Assad regime with the aim of toppling Assad in the same way the other insurgent groups have. Instead it has focussed on carving out some territory, mainly in the north and east of the country.
ISIS has clashed almost as often with other insurgent groups as it has done with Assads forces.
In addition:
Al Qaeda labelled ISIL as damaging the fight against Assad.
ISIS has smuggled and provided oil to Assad's regime via its long held control of elements production and distribution assets in parts of Iraq.
This is not some clear cut story on Assad vs ISIL. Never has been.
No evidence for your so called historical fact I notice.
What do you want an academic treatise? Go look it up. There is nothing there new or revelatory.
Alternatively you tell me which of the above are absolutely incorrect.
Y0kel has a habit of musing about the world without quoting any sources, academic or otherwise.
Sunil you are the genius who failed to comprehend that in Northern Ireland that the Catholic Protestant mix in the Census didn't relate a) to the current voting population and b) relate to their basic politics on the Union.
Worse you've had involvement in accumulating and studying figures related to elections in NI and didnt even get those fundamental facts.
Huzzah! So you CAN post links to verifiable sources after all! Keep up the good work!
AndyJS What needs to happen is the US should combine airstrikes with supplies of hardware and arms to Kurdish fighters on the ground. In the last 24 hours the Kurds have apparently retaken 2 towns. Maliki must also go and be replaced with a leader more willing to reach out and have an inclusive government made up not only of Shias but Kurds and Sunnis too
HYUFD
The ISIS spearhead is stretched but its effect is as much terror rather than numbers. That the Peshmerga have got their quick wins in counter attacks and its critical to their morale, is not surprising. That the West are getting their diplomats and some of the suit wearing intelligence guys out of Irbil tells you all you need to know that its not turning quite yet.
You have accused Ed Miliband of eating a bacon sandwich to appease Muslim voters. You now say that he is seeking to shed his Jewish heritage. That is not only ridiculous, it is a smear of the worst kind - as was your previous claim that he supports Hamas. You have provided not a shred of evidence to back up any of your assertions. There is no pattern. All that exists here is your oft-stated dislike of Ed Miliband and your desire to paint him in the worst possible light. I think that is rather shameful. to be honest. But each to his own.
Unless Ed Miliband has taken on Chris Morris as an advisor, I'm also not convinced Max is right about his strategy to pander to Muslims by eating bacon while saying he's a zionist.
Ed MIliband is Jewish (despite SO's contention that a Jew can say "I'm not a Jew" [answer: he can't]).
As such he is in all kinds of trouble with the current Israel/Gaza situation. He must strike just the right balance so as not to invite charges that he is pro-Israel being Jewish. He I'm sure is viewed with suspicion by those anti-Israelers just for being Jewish. For Jewish voters, as a Jew, he will probably get much of a free pass on whatever he says as they might also realise that he is in a corner.
--------------------------------------------------------- Such a palaver today on the eternal question of "Who's a Jew". A question even Jews cannot answer anymore.
Let me state for the record that Jews have been leaving and renouncing their religion for going on 5,000 years, St Paul was such a one.
So 1. Jews can and do leave their religion.
2. Many former Jews are now atheists, however there are very few that will convert outright to another religion, I have found.
3. Those Jews that still practice the religion are now becoming ever more religious. They become Hasidim in a greater or lesser form and divorce themselves from the gentile world as far as possible.
4. The bulk of British Jewry practice a form of reform Judaism. (means they don't keep to the kosher dietary laws)
When I was a boy the number of British Jews numbered 480K give or take a thousand. The total now is about 220K, although the Hasid component are now having many more children.
Trouble starts when there is a wave of anti-semitism about, as now, those Jews that renounced or left the religion are still classed as Jews by the bigots and Jew haters in the general population.
So is Red Ed a Jew? No, though many, perhaps the majority will not believe this.
Comments
P.S. You owe me a message on the diplomacy board.
If you're right about Labour's attitude are we now entitled to assume that Muslims here are in favour of what is being done to Christians and others? Because that is the consequence of what you're saying - that Muslim voters would never support a party that took action to protect people slaughtered by Muslims.
And where does such an attitude of appeasement lead? What are the implications for this country? If the government won't take steps to provide what help it can to those who are victims of war crimes because the perpetrators are Muslim, why should someone here be confident that it will take steps to protect a victim of Muslim crimes here? After all, taking such action might play badly with those same voters.
This is appeasement of violence. It should have no place in British politics.
Also, I cunningly used the word 'may'.
http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/muslims-will-not-compromise-on-the-khilafah
Deport them and give their homes to the Yezedi. Then both can be happy.
I've a thought about this issue.
As all Government debt is issued (or backed) by the UK (an entity that will continue to exist whatever happens in September), surely there was never a possibility of Scotland directly assuming any part of the debt. Does anyone know what happened when the Irish Free State left the UK? Would Scotland have to issue its own debt to pay off part of the UK's?
Sorry - I've not hacked into timetable/diary/thimamidjige whatever it's called.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/liblink-tessa-munt-why-im-boycotting-israeli-goods-and-services-41999.html
The Assad regime both Bashar and his late Da have supported Jihadi groups to a greater or lesser extent for 30 years. Links with ISIL and Syrian intelligence goes back to the aftermath of invasion of Iraq.
Assad used the Jihadi threat as a very useful tool before they actually appeared on the scene.
Assad's Shia friends in Iraq happily let the Sunni radicals (read ISIL) troupe over the border to fight in Syria as a handy way of getting them off their patch only to be bittem on the arse later.
ISIL have never fought the Assad regime with the aim of toppling Assad in the same way the other insurgent groups have. Instead it has focussed on carving out some territory, mainly in the north and east of the country.
ISIS has clashed almost as often with other insurgent groups as it has done with Assads forces.
In addition:
Al Qaeda labelled ISIL as damaging the fight against Assad.
ISIS has smuggled and provided oil to Assad's regime via its long held control of elements production and distribution assets in parts of Iraq.
This is not some clear cut story on Assad vs ISIL. Never has been.
Heh - there could even be a march about it.
As Ukraine proves - boring protests make the best protests.
"The Islamic State" is now unambiguously the enemy. Shame they didn't call it "The Islamist (Sunni) State" because "The Islamic State" sounds too much like good ordinary Islam which we all love and respect, rather than Islamism, which we are told is evil incarnate.
I mean who else calls in photographers to look like a complete prat eating a bacon sandwich and then get lampooned like a chump. There is no upside to that kind of masochism other than trying to prove he is not Jewish.
As for Hamas, I outlined on the previous thread that calling for an arms embargo and for Israel to lay down their arms opposes Israel and supports Hamas. Again, if you can't see that then more fool you.
Fighting Islamic extremists like Hamas, ISIL, Boko Haram, Al-Qaida and countless other groups is the number one priority for western nations. Israel is on the front line of that fight, calling for an arms embargo only seeks to support the very extremists we must see destroyed.
If you seriously believe that the only reason a politician might have his photo taken eating a bacon sandwich is to appease Muslim voters then I am afraid you are rather naïve.
More fool you for believing that killing hundreds of women and children is in any way going to diminish the terrorist threat faced by Israel and countries like the UK which, quite rightly, support its right to exist and to flourish.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/barack-obama-rebukes-syrian-fantasy-109890.html
I wonder if the Obama people are really going to give her a clear run. If not, who's their candidate? Warren? Biden? Biden, with Warren as the attack dog?
As such he is in all kinds of trouble with the current Israel/Gaza situation. He must strike just the right balance so as not to invite charges that he is pro-Israel being Jewish. He I'm sure is viewed with suspicion by those anti-Israelers just for being Jewish. For Jewish voters, as a Jew, he will probably get much of a free pass on whatever he says as they might also realise that he is in a corner.
(Not 100% sure i'm remembering that right but i think that was the case.)
"Israel has special meaning for me and a special place in my heart"
http://press.labour.org.uk/post/89056233474/ed-miliband-speech-to-labour-friends-of-israel
But with Swindon Radio and Poppygate, the evidence points to the fact that his office is staffed by a bunch of numpties who don't know their arse from their elbows. So unlikely they would be able to develop and execute as cunning a plan as you suggest
Didn't Blair describe himself as a Socialist when he was on manoeuvres to be EU president?
The speech ends thus:
I want you to know that if I become Prime Minister in less than a year’s time, I will be proud to do so as a friend of Israel, a Jew and, most of all, someone who feels so proud to be part of the community gathered here today.
Unquestionably a pitch for the anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli Muslim vote, I am sure we all agree. .
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/07/us-syria-crisis-raqqa-idUSKBN0G70TI20140807
Apologies if I mis-read or mis-remembered your point. Or in fact completely misunderstood it which seems much more likely.
The simplest explanation is they were created by a lot of outside forces but have now gone wild but if they are being controlled or at least influenced by an outside power then you could narrow down the list of possibilities by looking at who and where they're attacking - which currently would seem to rule out Assad.
As always, I suspect the media isn't that interested in speeches to the Labour friends of Israel
Alternatively you tell me which of the above are absolutely incorrect.
Don't drink and PB. A golden rule.
"More fool you for believing that killing hundreds of women and children is in any way going to diminish the terrorist threat faced by Israel and countries like the UK which, quite rightly, support its right to exist and to flourish."
An interesting discussion. I think the problem with IS is their seeming desire to slaughter all and everyone in their Caliphate who doesn't correspond to their own version of Islam. The Yazidis seem fairly innocuous - they're not even firing rockets at anyone - but that doesn't matter.
We can sit on our hands and do nothing and hope the US grandstanding is effective. Or we can go down Sean T's route. Even Napalm would be permitted under UN rules (if used to protect civilians) although the ground isn't useful and the planes may need to fly low. But cremating the vanguard might make them back off temporarily.
We're partially responsible (thank you, Tony), so it's more difficult to wash our hands and take the easy way out.
(not convinced on the bacon butty part though)
...wouldn't the same thing have happened should Saddam have died last week of old age/heart attack/impact by Baghdad bus?
Yokel? What's your view also?
Everybody here seems a bit trigger happy. It is 1914 all over again, we do not need to get involved in every conflict on the surface of the globe! Humanitarian aid and a resettlement plan for refugees is as far as we should go. There are plenty of other forces like the Kurds who can do the fighting on the ground.
We need to look as our own Islamists, not other countries. Dave Cameron was mocked for saying returning Islamist fighters were our greatest threat. That statement is not being mocked now.
Should we send in the troops there also? Or is that all ok down there in sub-saharan Africa?
(and sorry I am about to start a session of Fargo which, despite Martin Freeman's American accent, is very compelling so I'm not going to be able to answer for a bit).
My point is that why are we focusing on these events in the Middle East in terms of human suffering. Is it just more convenient or are events in eg. SSA too out of reach and not comprehensible? Where was the "Stop Joseph Kony" march route this weekend?
I mean why the focus on Israel?
*innocent face*
"Everybody here seems a bit trigger happy."
Personally, I was just musing. The problem with getting involved (apart from our own casualties) is the "collateral damage". If we dropped munitions on everyone waving a black IS flag, we might end up taking out an East London council estate.
As has been said, a horrible choice what ever we do. Best of luck Obama
Even if there's an ideal set of policies that would do more good than harm, is there any evidence that the governments of the US and the UK are actually willing and able to follow them? It may be that the voters are unable to enforce "intervene, but don't arm genocidal scumbags", and the best they can hold their governments to is "stay out of foreign wars in parts of the world that we don't understand, and that we wouldn't have heard of at all if we hadn't happened to read The Genesis Secret".
So was the Lib Dem opposition to the Iraq war right or wrong?
Was Tony Blair's and George Bush's idea of regime change in Iraq right or wrong?
Was the Cameron/Sarcozy idea to bring down Gadaffi right or wrong?
This may mean a small ground level commitment, it may mean a larger one but to make this thing work fully, significantly and sustained manner you are likely to have to commit. The forces on the ground that the West can ally with, the Kurds and the Iraqi military have proven not too brilliant. The Peshmerga are useful but have often needed active Western support whether through air cover or on the ground support for example.
As for the Iraqi army and the Syrian army for that matter both are messed up rightly with barely a fraction capable of reliably carrying out long term and combined arms operations. They themselves are increasingly influenced and sustained by militias that are at best semi autonomous and at worst very much their own entities.
The long term answer lies in the tribes.
That's a valid argument imo. It may well be impossible for a public to do anything more fine-tuned than a blanket "no intervention" line. Trouble is if there's people who want interventions in a region for some reason and they're prepared to torture toddlers on live telly to get it then eventually the public will crack.
It is totally obvious from where ISIS springs, it springs from Saudi Arabia, where virtually all Islamist terrorism comes from. Here is an explanation of that fact, with supporting evidence. http://nsnbc.me/2014/06/15/isis-unveiled-identity-insurgency-syria-iraq/
(EDIT - (cus apparently that's the new idiot rules), I was re-reading a bit) A lot of C*s about on here today.
At least Malcy keeps some sort of line of consistency.
EDIT2 - Not long till Today Programme I guess
Secondly go look up that ISIS have clashed repeatedly with other insurgent groups in Syria. There is no revelation in this. .
Thirdly, ISIS biggest single source of income today is believed to be their own activities.
These events are changing the game here in Britain, but a rash emotional misstep could be extremely costly.
Look at UKIP. They are silent. They will exploit this, of course, but the question is, how?
Absolute crap - the conventions of Syria will have gone unnoticed by the great british public.
They want to whine about Gaza - and are, rightly, scared of the muslim nutters that are Isis.
This has been the case for weeks.
Obi-wan is following Team PBs lead - nobody cares - we should be thankful.
and are reporting it onward from much the same open sources as I got it from in the 1st place.
http://www.channel4.com/news/is-assad-isis-rebel-forces-iraq-syria
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10585391/Syrias-Assad-accused-of-boosting-al-Qaeda-with-secret-oil-deals.html
http://world.time.com/2014/01/27/syria-assad-geneva-al-qaeda/
Glad someone pointed out the patently obvious rebuttal as to why 'lefties' are protesting the murderous actions of an allied state and trading partner fully supported by our own government but not a ragtag band of murderous terrorist psychopaths who aren't supported overtly by anybody (though no douby covertly supported by one or more of some usual suspects, let's face it).
You're an odd bunch, for people who clear have some intelligence.
Keep up the good work!
How are things in E. Belfast, BTW?
?????
I am trying to make some sense of your post, failing completely!
Worse you've had involvement in accumulating and studying figures related to elections in NI and didnt even get those fundamental facts.
Sorry, if the injoke is too SURREAL for some people
Keep up the good work!
How are things in E. Belfast, BTW?
The ISIS spearhead is stretched but its effect is as much terror rather than numbers. That the Peshmerga have got their quick wins in counter attacks and its critical to their morale, is not surprising. That the West are getting their diplomats and some of the suit wearing intelligence guys out of Irbil tells you all you need to know that its not turning quite yet.
You have accused Ed Miliband of eating a bacon sandwich to appease Muslim voters. You now say that he is seeking to shed his Jewish heritage. That is not only ridiculous, it is a smear of the worst kind - as was your previous claim that he supports Hamas. You have provided not a shred of evidence to back up any of your assertions. There is no pattern. All that exists here is your oft-stated dislike of Ed Miliband and your desire to paint him in the worst possible light. I think that is rather shameful. to be honest. But each to his own.
Unless Ed Miliband has taken on Chris Morris as an advisor, I'm also not convinced Max is right about his strategy to pander to Muslims by eating bacon while saying he's a zionist.
Ed MIliband is Jewish (despite SO's contention that a Jew can say "I'm not a Jew" [answer: he can't]).
As such he is in all kinds of trouble with the current Israel/Gaza situation. He must strike just the right balance so as not to invite charges that he is pro-Israel being Jewish. He I'm sure is viewed with suspicion by those anti-Israelers just for being Jewish. For Jewish voters, as a Jew, he will probably get much of a free pass on whatever he says as they might also realise that he is in a corner.
---------------------------------------------------------
Such a palaver today on the eternal question of "Who's a Jew". A question even Jews cannot answer anymore.
Let me state for the record that Jews have been leaving and renouncing their religion for going on 5,000 years, St Paul was such a one.
So 1. Jews can and do leave their religion.
2. Many former Jews are now atheists, however there are very few that will convert outright to another religion, I have found.
3. Those Jews that still practice the religion are now becoming ever more religious. They become Hasidim in a greater or lesser form and divorce themselves from the gentile world as far as possible.
4. The bulk of British Jewry practice a form of reform Judaism. (means they don't keep to the kosher dietary laws)
When I was a boy the number of British Jews numbered 480K give or take a thousand.
The total now is about 220K, although the Hasid component are now having many more children.
Trouble starts when there is a wave of anti-semitism about, as now, those Jews that renounced or left the religion are still classed as Jews by the bigots and Jew haters in the general population.
So is Red Ed a Jew? No, though many, perhaps the majority will not believe this.