@FrancisUrquhart ISIS have at their heart a belief in a forth coming apocalypse, granted, a few of them might not have the same degree of certainty about "when and if" but it does give you an insight about what you are dealing with.
If we did nuke (say) a Syrian town and kill hundreds of ISIS fighters at one presumably they'd all be martyrs. Will there be enough virgins waiting for them on the other side?
@FrancisUrquhart ISIS have at their heart a belief in a forth coming apocalypse, granted, a few of them might not have the same degree of certainty about "when and if" but it does give you an insight about what you are dealing with.
If we did nuke (say) a Syrian town and kill hundreds of ISIS fighters at one presumably they'd all be martyrs. Will there be enough virgins waiting for them on the other side?
I'd imagine the nuke would have a side effect of providing heaven with quite a few virgins, though perhaps not in the numbers required.
@JamesRDennison: @TSEofPB actually they've changed since i put the graphs together a few days ago, will put up a new version
Bristol West seems precisely the sort of seat to my mind where the Lib Dems will suffer a swing greater than UNS in England, as they simply must in some places.
Does anyone know where the polls behind these bar charts are from?
James Dennison @JamesRDennison · 20m20 minutes ago Latest polls in 3 Green targets - GP to put all resources in Brstol W - odds against them bt momentum w them #gpconf
@FrancisUrquhart ISIS have at their heart a belief in a forth coming apocalypse, granted, a few of them might not have the same degree of certainty about "when and if" but it does give you an insight about what you are dealing with.
If we did nuke (say) a Syrian town and kill hundreds of ISIS fighters at one presumably they'd all be martyrs. Will there be enough virgins waiting for them on the other side?
As a special incentive to join up, ISIS are apparently offering white virgins.
The other thing to bear in mind with Bristol West is that the Greens have an SNP size member base relative to the population there. (2000 members iirc) - so they should be able to unleash an SNP size ground game on the constituency.
If Dave can play the broadcasters so brilliantly just imagine the world of hurt he's going to inflict on Ed in this debate.
Er, right.
I think this is an avoidable disaster for Cameron.
He's acting as if the Tories are leading in the polls. But they're still behind and this arrogance reminds voters why they put the Tories behind Labour.
Actually I reckon ISIS DO give a hoot about deterrence. They are seriously trying to establish a caliphate in the Middle East. If we nuked all their major cities (Raqqa, Mosul, etc) that would become impossible, as the places would be irradiated for centuries. ISIS would be effectively wiped out.
The fact that they attract lots of nutters, and do apparently crazy things, does not mean the entire organisation of ISIS is insane. The ISIS leaders want ISIS to survive and prosper.
Note how they have carefully avoided attacking any serious players in their region - i.e. those certain to respond with overwhelming force, such as Turkey and Israel.
It is a bit depressing that segments of the western world seem to care more about 5,000 year old ruins than they care about 21st century people being raped, enslaved, tortured and killed in the most vile ways imaginable.
It is possible - indeed proper - to care about BOTH, quite passionately. What you airily dismiss as "5,000 year old ruins" is the cultural memory of an entire people: the Assyrians.
How would British people feel if ISIS destroyed all our cathedrals, stone circles, palaces, and museums, and then torched the British Library with all its contents?
Homicidal rage would be a common reaction.
Don't get me wrong - it's an act of barbarous vandalism. But we have to care about what is being done to the living far more than the remains of the long-dead.
After the Civil War, every church was whitewashed to remove the pictures and as many statues to saints were destroyed as possible. We can only guess at what cultural treasures we lost then from the odd chance find when the whitewash is peeled off. The story goes that the Chinese Ambassador visited Peterborough, saw the front of the cathedral with all the decapitated statues and said "ah, you too have had a Cultural Revolution". So this experience is not completely unknown in Britain.
Correct. The fact that it happened here between the middle ages and the 17th century perhaps suggests that this sort of thing is inevitable as societies and their fault lines evolve. However if you the pro rata the accompanying loss of life in all those wars to now then the figures will be really horrendous. The barbarity not much different. So of course we have suffered and learned from it. Our desire to stop the equivalent suffering now is I think quite noble. The fact that history tells all of us what happened and still happens makes the events of today even less acceptable.
Actually I reckon ISIS DO give a hoot about deterrence. They are seriously trying to establish a caliphate in the Middle East. If we nuked all their major cities (Raqqa, Mosul, etc) that would become impossible, as the places would be irradiated for centuries. ISIS would be effectively wiped out.
The fact that they attract lots of nutters, and do apparently crazy things, does not mean the entire organisation of ISIS is insane. The ISIS leaders want ISIS to survive and prosper.
Note how they have carefully avoided attacking any serious players in their region - i.e. those certain to respond with overwhelming force, such as Turkey and Israel.
There was a very good article that somebody on here posted a link to a few days ago. Basically, you have to think ISIS are following the most literal interruption of the Koran and to form state that observes all of it. Unlike AQ, ISIS have to have their state, otherwise a lot of what they are driving for is lost.
That isn't to say the nutters wont then go onto try and blow up western stuff etc, but the thing that drives ISIS in the way it does at the moment is having his calilphate, where in their eyes everything is perfectly Islamic.
Yes. They are completely serious about establishing a functioning and pure Islamic State, as ordained - they believe - by the Koran. The fact that such a thing is incompatible with the way the rest of the world functions does not bother them, as the Koran is flawless; it's the rest of the world which is wrong, and full of kuffars.
The other thing to bear in mind with Bristol West is that the Greens have an SNP size member base relative to the population there. (2000 members iirc) - so they should be able to unleash an SNP size ground game on the constituency.
It's also a top 3 priority seat that's not difficult to get to from other areas with large membership numbers and experienced activists. I have no idea how that website is coming up with the forecasts it has but I'm not complaining about the numbers they are producing.
@FrancisUrquhart ISIS have at their heart a belief in a forth coming apocalypse, granted, a few of them might not have the same degree of certainty about "when and if" but it does give you an insight about what you are dealing with.
If we did nuke (say) a Syrian town and kill hundreds of ISIS fighters at one presumably they'd all be martyrs. Will there be enough virgins waiting for them on the other side?
I heard the other day that Manchester was the first nuclear free zone in the UK. If only they had realised what a style icon they were turning down
London was expected to be devastated by two to four bombs of up to five megatons each exploding over the city. Glasgow, Birmingham and Manchester were each said to be in line for one or two "airbursts" of up to five megatons.
and scare yourself about how big the blast radius is, 5mt on Big Ben for example would reach Watford with the thermal radiation flash.
More important, go to Moscow and see how little damage a 100kt W76 actually does to a country the size of Russia. We have 32 available and 64 max even with extra missiles we only have around 120 warheads.
That's not a lot of damage. It is not even viable as a "deterent".
One dropped on the centre of Moscow appears to kill a quarter of a million people. Might put me off a bit.
That would not be in line with Russian military history. The phrase "Acceptable Casualties" could have been invented there.
40 warheads+, upwards of 10 million dead, and 30-40 million injured or dying. Not even Russia would consider that acceptable.
The UK has the ability to launch a maximum of 32 missiles at any enemy.
Which have multiple warheads. The current best guestimate is about 160.....of 80-100 kilotons.
One of which would kill a quarter of a million Muscovites and injure over a million.....
I heard the other day that Manchester was the first nuclear free zone in the UK. If only they had realised what a style icon they were turning down
London was expected to be devastated by two to four bombs of up to five megatons each exploding over the city. Glasgow, Birmingham and Manchester were each said to be in line for one or two "airbursts" of up to five megatons.
and scare yourself about how big the blast radius is, 5mt on Big Ben for example would reach Watford with the thermal radiation flash.
More important, go to Moscow and see how little damage a 100kt W76 actually does to a country the size of Russia. We have 32 available and 64 max even with extra missiles we only have around 120 warheads.
That's not a lot of damage. It is not even viable as a "deterent".
One dropped on the centre of Moscow appears to kill a quarter of a million people. Might put me off a bit.
That would not be in line with Russian military history. The phrase "Acceptable Casualties" could have been invented there.
40 warheads+, upwards of 10 million dead, and 30-40 million injured or dying. Not even Russia would consider that acceptable.
The UK has the ability to launch a maximum of 32 missiles at any enemy.
Which have multiple warheads. The current best guestimate is about 160.....of 80-100 kilotons.
One of which would kill a quarter of a million Muscovites and injure over a million.....
Dair.. Russia is not the prime Nuclear concern..nutters in the new caliphate are the ones to watch. And they really do not have any concern about how many innocents,on either side, go down
So if Islamist nutters detonate a dirty bomb or suitcase nuke in London, where do you target the response?
Nuclear materials have a specific 'signature' which would enable the original source of manufacture to be determined. After that who knows...
All that would tell is is where they bought or stole their nuclear materials from, which would probably something spirited away from the border regions of the former soviet union, or something that got lost, apparently the US has managed to lose 8 or so nuclear weapons since it started making them.
The US ones were lost in accidents, and they've invested a lot of time and money in looking for them.
@FrancisUrquhart ISIS have at their heart a belief in a forth coming apocalypse, granted, a few of them might not have the same degree of certainty about "when and if" but it does give you an insight about what you are dealing with.
If we did nuke (say) a Syrian town and kill hundreds of ISIS fighters at one presumably they'd all be martyrs. Will there be enough virgins waiting for them on the other side?
The virgins may not necessarily be:-
(a) female (b) human.
(b) would wipe a smile off a few faces.
Imagine a group of young male baboons or chimpanzees who've been denied the opportunity to have sex by the Alpha Male.
The other thing to bear in mind with Bristol West is that the Greens have an SNP size member base relative to the population there. (2000 members iirc) - so they should be able to unleash an SNP size ground game on the constituency.
It's also a top 3 priority seat that's not difficult to get to from other areas with large membership numbers and experienced activists. I have no idea how that website is coming up with the forecasts it has but I'm not complaining about the numbers they are producing.
Evens Lib Dem 12-5 Labour 4-1 Greens
One or more of those prices simply MUST be value.
Probably 4-1 Green seeing as it's Coral, but 12-5 Labour isn't too bad at all either I reckon.
ISIS are playing a clever game, I think if they aren't stopped they'll go for Istanbul and Rome. But probably not before 2040 or so.
Odds on Lampedusa becoming part of the caliphate before 2025 ?
I reckon they will self destruct, just like the Khmer Rouge, who they most closely resemble. Recall that the KR ended up slaughtering each other in a paranoid spiral: the torture garden of Tuol Sleng was reserved for KR cadres suspected of spying and "bourgeois thinking". 22,000 were executed there.
However 2m Cambodians had to die over several years, before Angkar imploded.
The question is how long the Mid East must suffer, and how many people must die, before ISIS reach their inevitable singularity. Could be half a decade. Could be a year.
They will be unrecognizable by November Was the analysis I heard.
The other thing to bear in mind with Bristol West is that the Greens have an SNP size member base relative to the population there. (2000 members iirc) - so they should be able to unleash an SNP size ground game on the constituency.
It's also a top 3 priority seat that's not difficult to get to from other areas with large membership numbers and experienced activists. I have no idea how that website is coming up with the forecasts it has but I'm not complaining about the numbers they are producing.
Evens Lib Dem 12-5 Labour 4-1 Greens
One or more of those prices simply MUST be value.
Probably 4-1 Green seeing as it's Coral, but 12-5 Labour isn't too bad at all either I reckon.
The other thing to bear in mind with Bristol West is that the Greens have an SNP size member base relative to the population there. (2000 members iirc) - so they should be able to unleash an SNP size ground game on the constituency.
It's also a top 3 priority seat that's not difficult to get to from other areas with large membership numbers and experienced activists. I have no idea how that website is coming up with the forecasts it has but I'm not complaining about the numbers they are producing.
Evens Lib Dem 12-5 Labour 4-1 Greens
One or more of those prices simply MUST be value.
Probably 4-1 Green seeing as it's Coral, but 12-5 Labour isn't too bad at all either I reckon.
Hmm maybe its just right?
2.4 3.4 0.294117647 4 5 0.2 1 2 0.5
0.994117647
Nah, there is at least 0.5% in there somewhere. And I'm not tempted by Conservatives at 125-1.
@Pong Not if you go into almost any pub. You will meet several people who claim they never lose on the fruit machines, and oddly, you meet very few gamblers who tell you about the losses they have made over the years.
Strangely enough, when you work in the industry you find most people only talk about the losers and near misses they've had.. its a bit muggy to talk about your winners, as everyones a winner
Walked to the pub years ago after work one evening with a Horse Racing trader who told me about six pieces of incredible bad luck he had that months punting that made me think he might have gone skint until he finished of with "record month mind..."
Ha!
If you're the sort of gambler who pats himself on the back for a good value loser & excoriates himself for a poor value winner then i'll pay attention to your tips.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
NATO - Article 5
Indeed.
So no need for Trident 2 at all and no need to retain Trident 1.
You are going to rely on America for our ultimate defence?
What happens if they decide its not in their national interest to defend us (especially if it risks nuclear fire on their population centers?
They won't be when the first serviceman appears on You Tube burning in a cage, or being disembowelled or whatever else those backward savages can conjure up.
In the middle ages they used to debate whether God could make something so heavy he couldn't lift it, a Yes or No answer equally suggesting God could not be omnipotent.
I don't know what the right answer to that question was agreed to be, but if God can't create an infinity of virgins, then arguably he's not in fact God and you're not in heaven at all.
Any purported God who informed a newly arrived dead martyr, tripedal with decades of thwarted lust, that heaven was out of stock of virgins, would probably find the bombings and beheadings continued in paradise until Jihadi John finally got his leg over.
For once Sean T is on the money. The records and artefacts of human history are of precious, irreplaceable importance to humanity as a whole and for perpetuity and are clearly more important than current individual lives, which are all too temporary even in the best case scenario. I'd sacrifice my own life to save an ancient city if I could.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
NATO - Article 5
Indeed.
So no need for Trident 2 at all and no need to retain Trident 1.
Tell the French. Your obsession with nuclear weapons tells us why the SNP gets the lefty votes it does. They believe they can dictate the UK's defense policy. Decades of lefty/CND cretinism achieved nothing. But sneak in via the SNP and they believe they can achieve the ideals of CND after all. The rest of Scotland needs to wake up.
@FrancisUrquhart ISIS have at their heart a belief in a forth coming apocalypse, granted, a few of them might not have the same degree of certainty about "when and if" but it does give you an insight about what you are dealing with.
If we did nuke (say) a Syrian town and kill hundreds of ISIS fighters at one presumably they'd all be martyrs. Will there be enough virgins waiting for them on the other side?
In summary, the article states that they're a Salafi apocalyptic cult with certain conditions that have to happen for their apocalypse to come about, the most important one there being a caliphate, which of course requires there to be a state which abides by an extremely brutal version of Sharia (one of the requirements for being a caliph is controlling land). They have an obsession with a place in Syria called Dabiq, where they expect to defeat 'Rome', which could mean Western armies or Turkey as the modern day Byzantine empire. After defeating Rome, the Caliphate will grow, before an antichrist wipes everyone out except 5,000. Jesus then will come an save them.
So nuclear weapons probably aren't much of a deterrent, as they expect to be wiped out at some point - but taking away the land that they control before they get their big battle, which legitimises Baghdadi as a 'Caliph', would completely undermine their hold and appeal on a lot of these Muslims, as he and Islamic Stae would no longer have the religious legitimacy that it has under certain apocalyptic interpretations of Islam. It's a bit like one of those mad Christian end of the world cults that's identified modern events with the words of Revelations, on a massive scale and with endless coverage reaffirming its message.
It's also probably why these CAGE chappies and apologists seem so strange - they're not the bile filled 'death to the west' types we've come to expect, but are perhaps more akin to those hitherto reasonable individuals who saw the Nazis rise to power and attempted to intellectually justify it due to an almost messianic belief in some kind of higher mission.
Not that mass immigration leads to a segregated society or anything but here is a terrorist supporting, sharia law craving, democracy hating, jihadist sympathiser launching the Muslim manifesto in the HofC
@Pong Not if you go into almost any pub. You will meet several people who claim they never lose on the fruit machines, and oddly, you meet very few gamblers who tell you about the losses they have made over the years.
Fruit machines with their 78% RTP
Somewhat ironically, fruities are beatable [but you're never going to get very rich, and certainly not at 78%] by people who know what they're doing, as they are quasi-fixed - i.e. the machine decides whether it is time to pay you or not. Some machines also subtly advertise their willingness to pay via lights etc. Essentially mugs play at a 55% RTP and shrewdies play at 101%.
Hence their categorisation as "Amusement With Prizes". Likewise quiz machines ("Skill With Prizes") also decide whether or not to pay you. You'll know they don't want to pay when the ask whether the population of Nauru is (a) 9,122 (b) 9,222 or (c) 9,322.
Whereas FOBT's [or online slots] are genuinely random, and much better value for the regular punters [on any given spin] with 90%+ returns (97%+ on roulette). But they're unbeatable.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
NATO - Article 5
Indeed.
So no need for Trident 2 at all and no need to retain Trident 1.
You are going to rely on America for our ultimate defence?
What happens if they decide its not in their national interest to defend us (especially if it risks nuclear fire on their population centers?
All the other countries of the world seem to be OK with not having the sort of nuclear weapons than can devastate whole countries. Is it just Russia, USA and UK that need a mega-armoury of nuclear weapons? Could we be satisfied with just a few of these toys say as many as Pakistan, India, Israel and a few morte than Noth Korea ?
Broadcasters write whiny pleading letter to Craig Oliver...
Desperate hours.
Terrified of lost ratings and advertising revenues ... err ... the affront to our traditional democratic values and process (well, those established long ago in 2010).
@Pong Not if you go into almost any pub. You will meet several people who claim they never lose on the fruit machines, and oddly, you meet very few gamblers who tell you about the losses they have made over the years.
Strangely enough, when you work in the industry you find most people only talk about the losers and near misses they've had.. its a bit muggy to talk about your winners, as everyones a winner
Walked to the pub years ago after work one evening with a Horse Racing trader who told me about six pieces of incredible bad luck he had that months punting that made me think he might have gone skint until he finished of with "record month mind..."
Ha!
If you're the sort of gambler who pats himself on the back for a good value loser & excoriates himself for a poor value winner then i'll pay attention to your tips.
They won't be when the first serviceman appears on You Tube burning in a cage, or being disembowelled or whatever else those backward savages can conjure up.
Americans already know that this is bound to happen if there is a ground war, yet they still want intervention. The Yanks are grittier than you allow.
Incidentally, the British went to war against Nazi Germany in the belief that Hitler would quickly gas London killing millions.
Atrocities tend to harden the resolve of those who are on the receiving end.
Broadcasters write whiny pleading letter to Craig Oliver...
Desperate hours.
Terrified of lost ratings and advertising revenues ... err ... the affront to our traditional democratic values and process (well, those established long ago in 2010).
"Ready to change the dates - but please please can we have the head to head one with Ed "
I can see public opinion shifting the other way very quickly (cf; Somalia '93)
Yes I agree to that; it could probably shift quite easily the other way again when we started killing every one of them we could and destroying and laying waste the infrastructure (and quite probably its people) that supports them. 'sending troops to fight' and waging 'war' are two quite different things. Which one do you think we would support. Fighting mad fanatics is no easy thing and supporting the same is no job for faint hearts.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
NATO - Article 5
Indeed.
So no need for Trident 2 at all and no need to retain Trident 1.
You are going to rely on America for our ultimate defence?
What happens if they decide its not in their national interest to defend us (especially if it risks nuclear fire on their population centers?
All the other countries of the world seem to be OK with not having the sort of nuclear weapons than can devastate whole countries. Is it just Russia, USA and UK that need a mega-armoury of nuclear weapons? Could we be satisfied with just a few of these toys say as many as Pakistan, India, Israel and a few morte than Noth Korea ?
In practice, if one's a member of a nuclear-armed alliance, one's a nuclear power.
Even as a hardcore liberal pacifist lefty I'd be up for neutron bombing the whole caliphate if I could press the button now, the historical vandalism makes me so angry.
Mr. Hopkins, indeed, the idea that journalists should have the whip hand and be able to dictate the process of an electoral campaign is despicable and indefensible.
The media are acting like players in the game, rather than neutral observers.
Imagine there had to be 3 FA cup finals just so the broadcasters could have one each ?
Imagine the FA Cup holders refusing to play the following season unless they could avoid having to play any difficult ties they might lose
"No 10" "David Cameron" "will play No 1" "that's Nigel Farage..." "Everyone else has got to play him too or I wont participate" "OK" "...and its got to be over two legs" "OK" "in a round robin format" "But you were in favour of the old format last season Mr Cameron???" "yes but I am scared of losing now"
Of course this is already being spun by those wll disposed to the Conservative side as some kind of "triumph" for Cameron. Doesn't read like that to me - he'll be the one looking at an empty chair for two evenings and the broadcasters aren't caving in.
The other possibility is Cameron will give in - no doubt that will also be presented as a triumph.
BREAKING NEWS The broadcasters - which include BBC, ITV, Sky and Channel 4 - have released a joint statement regarding the TV election debates. They have said that the debates will go ahead as planned, in the same format as originally proposed, and they have asked the prime minster to reconsider his position. The broadcasters intend to forge ahead with plans for three debates to take place on 2 April ITV 16 April BBC and 30 April (Sky News and Channel 4).
They won't be when the first serviceman appears on You Tube burning in a cage, or being disembowelled or whatever else those backward savages can conjure up.
Americans already know that this is bound to happen if there is a ground war, yet they still want intervention. The Yanks are grittier than you allow.
Most of them only know 'Hollywood Death' where someone who's been shot simply falls to the ground quietly, not Private Jimmy Doe screaming himself hoarse as he's skinned alive or worse, by nutters from the Middle Ages.
Of course this is already being spun by those wll disposed to the Conservative side as some kind of "triumph" for Cameron. Doesn't read like that to me - he'll be the one looking at an empty chair for two evenings and the broadcasters aren't caving in.
The other possibility is Cameron will give in - no doubt that will also be presented as a triumph.
I doubt that the ratings for An Evening With Ed Miliband are likely to be particularly stellar on 30 April, even with election fever upon the nation.
You have to admire the bravery of the BBC executives. If the election result goes the wrong way for them now, the Charter renewal next year looks very dicey indeed.
In summary, the article states that they're a Salafi apocalyptic cult with certain conditions that have to happen for their apocalypse to come about, the most important one there being a caliphate, which of course requires there to be a state which abides by an extremely brutal version of Sharia (one of the requirements for being a caliph is controlling land). They have an obsession with a place in Syria called Dabiq, where they expect to defeat 'Rome', which could mean Western armies or Turkey as the modern day Byzantine empire. After defeating Rome, the Caliphate will grow, before an antichrist wipes everyone out except 5,000. Jesus then will come an save them.
So nuclear weapons probably aren't much of a deterrent, as they expect to be wiped out at some point - but taking away the land that they control before they get their big battle, which legitimises Baghdadi as a 'Caliph', would completely undermine their hold and appeal on a lot of these Muslims, as he and Islamic Stae would no longer have the religious legitimacy that it has under certain apocalyptic interpretations of Islam. It's a bit like one of those mad Christian end of the world cults that's identified modern events with the words of Revelations, on a massive scale and with endless coverage reaffirming its message.
It's also probably why these CAGE chappies and apologists seem so strange - they're not the bile filled 'death to the west' types we've come to expect, but are perhaps more akin to those hitherto reasonable individuals who saw the Nazis rise to power and attempted to intellectually justify it due to an almost messianic belief in some kind of higher mission.
They had a guy on R5 earlier who had been imprisoned for his incitement to violence against the West and was saying that de-radicalization program were a waste of time. However, we was really revealing was when asked how does he see himself, does he think he is British etc...he said I am a Muslim, first and last, I am a British citizen by birth, and will remain one UNTIL THERE IS OPPORTUNITY TO BE SOMETHING ELSE.
Basically he wants a pure Islamic entity to exist and to be a citizen of that and only that state.
David John Willingham Liberal Democrat 3809 David Ian Jepson The Labour Party Candidate 1548 Graham Woodruff The Green Party 1070 David Thomas Harrison Lewis The Conservative Party Candidate 987
Bishopston ward 2014:
Tim Malnick Green Party 2246 Eileen Means Labour Party Candidate 1168 Barry John Cash Liberal Democrat 757 Owen James Evans The Conservative Party Candidate 511 Martin James Saddington Trade Unionists and Socialists Against Cuts 65
Mr. Stodge, there's an off-chance that might happen.
Let's suppose neither side backs down, the dates don't shift and we get two six-man debates (Cameron at neither). And they're rubbish. 90 minutes, 6 leaders, 15 minutes each, including opening and closing statements. Plaid and the SNP are of no real interest to most viewers, the Greens are a bonkers minority, Miliband can't really attack Cameron beyond 'he's not here' and Clegg becomes the lightning rod for dissatisfaction [which may help him as he becomes the Government's representative and he's fairly good at debates].
If it looks like six squabbling idiots, then there may be a view that Cameron was better off out of it.
They won't be when the first serviceman appears on You Tube burning in a cage, or being disembowelled or whatever else those backward savages can conjure up.
Americans already know that this is bound to happen if there is a ground war, yet they still want intervention. The Yanks are grittier than you allow.
Most of them only know 'Hollywood Death' where someone who's been shot simply falls to the ground quietly, not Private Jimmy Doe screaming himself hoarse as he's skinned alive or worse, by nutters from the Middle Ages.
These days, on-screen deaths can be pretty gruesome.
All the other countries of the world seem to be OK with not having the sort of nuclear weapons than can devastate whole countries. Is it just Russia, USA and UK that need a mega-armoury of nuclear weapons? Could we be satisfied with just a few of these toys say as many as Pakistan, India, Israel and a few morte than Noth Korea ?
The UK doesn't have a "mega-armoury of nuclear weapons", that is thousands like Russia and the US
The UK (225) has fewer than France (around 300), and about the same as China and Israel (250 or so), and more than India and Pakistan (around 100).
Of course this is already being spun by those wll disposed to the Conservative side as some kind of "triumph" for Cameron. Doesn't read like that to me - he'll be the one looking at an empty chair for two evenings and the broadcasters aren't caving in.
The other possibility is Cameron will give in - no doubt that will also be presented as a triumph.
I doubt that the ratings for An Evening With Ed Miliband are likely to be particularly stellar on 30 April, even with election fever upon the nation.
You have to admire the bravery of the BBC executives. If the election result goes the wrong way for them now, the Charter renewal next year looks very dicey indeed.
Conservative Party and BBC in a final battle to death?
Even if ITV go ahead, what would be to stop the other two broadcasters holding their debates and empty chairing David Cameron? The second debate would be the easiest to go ahead here as they could just use the other six. The one-on-one could go ahead with either Nick Clegg or Nigel Farage or both being invited in Cameron's stead.
I fear the Conservatives have dramatically overplayed their hand here. We were in a winning position when we got the 7-7-2 format. Both UKIP and the Lib Dems were downplayed to being as minor as Plaid Cymru, and the Greens were in every debate that UKIP were. The final one-on-one played to the Conservatives' argument that this was an Ed versus David choice and third party votes were wasted.
Now we are in serious danger of pushing things too far. If an invite for the third debate goes out to the other major parties, as designated by Ofcom, then they won't be able to be rescinded. And this after weeks of David Cameron looking 'frit', to use Maggie's turn of phrase. That will turn a victory into a bad defeat. And for what purpose? To avoid Ed Miliband? It seems a completely unnecessary risk.
Of course, with the broadcasters sticking to the original dates they'd planned, David Cameron can now duck out of all three debates (and presumably will).
Mr. Stodge, there's an off-chance that might happen.
Let's suppose neither side backs down, the dates don't shift and we get two six-man debates (Cameron at neither). And they're rubbish. 90 minutes, 6 leaders, 15 minutes each, including opening and closing statements. Plaid and the SNP are of no real interest to most viewers, the Greens are a bonkers minority, Miliband can't really attack Cameron beyond 'he's not here' and Clegg becomes the lightning rod for dissatisfaction [which may help him as he becomes the Government's representative and he's fairly good at debates].
If it looks like six squabbling idiots, then there may be a view that Cameron was better off out of it.
"Meanwhile on a campaign stop at Marginalville, West Midlands, the prime minister gave a speech discussing the income tax cuts announced in the budget and said he was focussing on the important business of running the country...."
Of course, with the broadcasters sticking to the original dates they'd planned, David Cameron can now duck out of all three debates (and presumably will).
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul - One word in defence of Cameron. He said from the start he wanted TV debates before short campaign. Broadcasters simply ignored him.
I've alread come up with the solution. If David Cameron refuses to debate, the broadcasters just get the actor in the chicken suit to stand in for him.
Even if ITV go ahead, what would be to stop the other two broadcasters holding their debates and empty chairing David Cameron? The second debate would be the easiest to go ahead here as they could just use the other six. The one-on-one could go ahead with either Nick Clegg or Nigel Farage or both being invited in Cameron's stead.
I fear the Conservatives have dramatically overplayed their hand here. We were in a winning position when we got the 7-7-2 format. Both UKIP and the Lib Dems were downplayed to being as minor as Plaid Cymru, and the Greens were in every debate that UKIP were. The final one-on-one played to the Conservatives' argument that this was an Ed versus David choice and third party votes were wasted.
Now we are in serious danger of pushing things too far. If an invite for the third debate goes out to the other major parties, as designated by Ofcom, then they won't be able to be rescinded. And this after weeks of David Cameron looking 'frit', to use Maggie's turn of phrase. That will turn a victory into a bad defeat. And for what purpose? To avoid Ed Miliband? It seems a completely unnecessary risk.
@coolagorna here's what PB said about Galloway after he was attacked;
Alanbrooke “Yes the current silences of the british Parliament are curious.
The attack on GG was plain thuggery, yet no-one speaks.”
Socrates “I was hoping this would come up at some point. Galloway is a loathsome man, but attacking one's political opponents is absolutely disgusting. Given that Galloway is probably a Muslim, and people know he fights for a Muslim-dominated party, it's quite likely this is a hate crime.”
Josias Jessop “I hope whoever did it is prosecuted. If not for the alleged assault, then for the heinous crime of making me have a modicum of sympathy for Galloway.
I mean, it's much easier to dislike the guy and everything he stands for if he isn't getting beaten up on the street.”
MonikerDiCanio
“First Murphy and now Galloway physically assaulted by political extremists. Dark days for democracy and free speech.”
(to which the ever charming Malco G replied “LOL, drama queen” and “ I care not a jot for Galloway who incites people with his lies and so has contributed to his own downfall.”)
Morris Dancer
“I dislike Galloway rather a lot. That said, physically assaulting people, whether private individuals or those in the public eye, for expressing an opinion is unacceptable.”
(To which Malco partially redeemed himself by replying “Morning MD, yes even though he is not very nice and upsets lots of people it is not acceptable to be beating people up for any reason.”)
If you can find any comments that condoned the attack, please do share them.
Funny that Ed and Tony had a quiet chat and then we get this announcement....R5 was going massive on NHS AGAIN, it is a daily thing now (but don't mention Labour running Welsh NHS)..again funny that.
But Cameron has a big decision now of his own making, does he blink? I also wonder what the hell that Oliver does and does he have a brain, he seems to have totally misjudged how this will play out and he is supposedly the inside man to how the likes of the BBC will play things.
Of course, with the broadcasters sticking to the original dates they'd planned, David Cameron can now duck out of all three debates (and presumably will).
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul - One word in defence of Cameron. He said from the start he wanted TV debates before short campaign. Broadcasters simply ignored him.
Before the manifestos are published!!
How can anyone argue Cameron has been consistent
Cameron has been as consistent as a Lord Ashcroft Randomly Generated election result
Comments
(a) female
(b) human.
Really???
Or is it our sort of arrogance is ok?
The fact that it happened here between the middle ages and the 17th century perhaps suggests that this sort of thing is inevitable as societies and their fault lines evolve.
However if you the pro rata the accompanying loss of life in all those wars to now then the figures will be really horrendous. The barbarity not much different. So of course we have suffered and learned from it. Our desire to stop the equivalent suffering now is I think quite noble. The fact that history tells all of us what happened and still happens makes the events of today even less acceptable.
One of which would kill a quarter of a million Muscovites and injure over a million.....
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Fortunately (For us) the USA has 8000.
12-5 Labour
4-1 Greens
One or more of those prices simply MUST be value.
Probably 4-1 Green seeing as it's Coral, but 12-5 Labour isn't too bad at all either I reckon.
I'm laying the yellow peril here anyway.
4 5 0.2
1 2 0.5
0.994117647
Nah, there is at least 0.5% in there somewhere. And I'm not tempted by Conservatives at 125-1.
If you're the sort of gambler who pats himself on the back for a good value loser & excoriates himself for a poor value winner then i'll pay attention to your tips.
Just winning a bet don't make you smart
Yesterday SNP 42 Lab 33
Today SNP 35 Lab 29
What happens if they decide its not in their national interest to defend us (especially if it risks nuclear fire on their population centers?
I don't know what the right answer to that question was agreed to be, but if God can't create an infinity of virgins, then arguably he's not in fact God and you're not in heaven at all.
Any purported God who informed a newly arrived dead martyr, tripedal with decades of thwarted lust, that heaven was out of stock of virgins, would probably find the bombings and beheadings continued in paradise until Jihadi John finally got his leg over.
The records and artefacts of human history are of precious, irreplaceable importance to humanity as a whole and for perpetuity and are clearly more important than current individual lives, which are all too temporary even in the best case scenario. I'd sacrifice my own life to save an ancient city if I could.
I can see public opinion shifting the other way very quickly (cf; Somalia '93)
I could probably sacrifice your life to save one as well.
Desperate hours.
Your obsession with nuclear weapons tells us why the SNP gets the lefty votes it does. They believe they can dictate the UK's defense policy. Decades of lefty/CND cretinism achieved nothing. But sneak in via the SNP and they believe they can achieve the ideals of CND after all.
The rest of Scotland needs to wake up.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31771198
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
In summary, the article states that they're a Salafi apocalyptic cult with certain conditions that have to happen for their apocalypse to come about, the most important one there being a caliphate, which of course requires there to be a state which abides by an extremely brutal version of Sharia (one of the requirements for being a caliph is controlling land). They have an obsession with a place in Syria called Dabiq, where they expect to defeat 'Rome', which could mean Western armies or Turkey as the modern day Byzantine empire. After defeating Rome, the Caliphate will grow, before an antichrist wipes everyone out except 5,000. Jesus then will come an save them.
So nuclear weapons probably aren't much of a deterrent, as they expect to be wiped out at some point - but taking away the land that they control before they get their big battle, which legitimises Baghdadi as a 'Caliph', would completely undermine their hold and appeal on a lot of these Muslims, as he and Islamic Stae would no longer have the religious legitimacy that it has under certain apocalyptic interpretations of Islam. It's a bit like one of those mad Christian end of the world cults that's identified modern events with the words of Revelations, on a massive scale and with endless coverage reaffirming its message.
It's also probably why these CAGE chappies and apologists seem so strange - they're not the bile filled 'death to the west' types we've come to expect, but are perhaps more akin to those hitherto reasonable individuals who saw the Nazis rise to power and attempted to intellectually justify it due to an almost messianic belief in some kind of higher mission.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/03/06/islamist-sympathiser-launches-muslim-manifesto-in-british-parliament/
Hence their categorisation as "Amusement With Prizes". Likewise quiz machines ("Skill With Prizes") also decide whether or not to pay you. You'll know they don't want to pay when the ask whether the population of Nauru is (a) 9,122 (b) 9,222 or (c) 9,322.
Whereas FOBT's [or online slots] are genuinely random, and much better value for the regular punters [on any given spin] with 90%+ returns (97%+ on roulette). But they're unbeatable.
Could we be satisfied with just a few of these toys say as many as Pakistan, India, Israel and a few morte than Noth Korea ?
He said earlier he might vote Green in Lewisham Deptford!
Every other party united in agreement both right and left condemning him
Cameron totally isolated and looking more foolish by the day
Only PB muppets think this is "leadership"
The TV debates went ahead last time because all the politicians agreed to them.
The idea that the broadcasters are going to force them on the leaders, by the threat of empty-chairing, seems an affront to democracy.
Ah yes because he's the only show in town for these debates.
Mr. Hopkins, indeed, the idea that journalists should have the whip hand and be able to dictate the process of an electoral campaign is despicable and indefensible.
The media are acting like players in the game, rather than neutral observers.
"No 10"
"David Cameron"
"will play No 1"
"that's Nigel Farage..."
"Everyone else has got to play him too or I wont participate"
"OK"
"...and its got to be over two legs"
"OK"
"in a round robin format"
"But you were in favour of the old format last season Mr Cameron???"
"yes but I am scared of losing now"
Politicians who refuse to take part are more of an affront to democracy than the broadcasters
The other possibility is Cameron will give in - no doubt that will also be presented as a triumph.
The broadcasters - which include BBC, ITV, Sky and Channel 4 - have released a joint statement regarding the TV election debates. They have said that the debates will go ahead as planned, in the same format as originally proposed, and they have asked the prime minster to reconsider his position. The broadcasters intend to forge ahead with plans for three debates to take place on 2 April ITV 16 April BBC and 30 April (Sky News and Channel 4).
You have to admire the bravery of the BBC executives. If the election result goes the wrong way for them now, the Charter renewal next year looks very dicey indeed.
Basically he wants a pure Islamic entity to exist and to be a citizen of that and only that state.
LD 6275
Lab 5342
Green 7331
Bishopston ward 2010:
David John Willingham Liberal Democrat 3809
David Ian Jepson The Labour Party Candidate 1548
Graham Woodruff The Green Party 1070
David Thomas Harrison Lewis The Conservative Party Candidate 987
Bishopston ward 2014:
Tim Malnick Green Party 2246
Eileen Means Labour Party Candidate 1168
Barry John Cash Liberal Democrat 757
Owen James Evans The Conservative Party Candidate 511
Martin James Saddington Trade Unionists and Socialists Against Cuts 65
Let's suppose neither side backs down, the dates don't shift and we get two six-man debates (Cameron at neither). And they're rubbish. 90 minutes, 6 leaders, 15 minutes each, including opening and closing statements. Plaid and the SNP are of no real interest to most viewers, the Greens are a bonkers minority, Miliband can't really attack Cameron beyond 'he's not here' and Clegg becomes the lightning rod for dissatisfaction [which may help him as he becomes the Government's representative and he's fairly good at debates].
If it looks like six squabbling idiots, then there may be a view that Cameron was better off out of it.
The UK (225) has fewer than France (around 300), and about the same as China and Israel (250 or so), and more than India and Pakistan (around 100).
#EndGame
I fear the Conservatives have dramatically overplayed their hand here. We were in a winning position when we got the 7-7-2 format. Both UKIP and the Lib Dems were downplayed to being as minor as Plaid Cymru, and the Greens were in every debate that UKIP were. The final one-on-one played to the Conservatives' argument that this was an Ed versus David choice and third party votes were wasted.
Now we are in serious danger of pushing things too far. If an invite for the third debate goes out to the other major parties, as designated by Ofcom, then they won't be able to be rescinded. And this after weeks of David Cameron looking 'frit', to use Maggie's turn of phrase. That will turn a victory into a bad defeat. And for what purpose? To avoid Ed Miliband? It seems a completely unnecessary risk.
1 party leader wants to opt out as he has no record to defend (currently 33% of the electorate plan to vote for that party)
It is clear what should happen apart from to PB Tory apologists for Cowardly Cameron
Etc etc..
I'm not a member of Cage, old bean.
I've also been against the debates for the last five years, since the initial set of pantomimes were hosted during the 2010 campaign.
I agree with every word of your post
Anyone remember how angry Miliband used to get about the perceived influence of Murdoch, or is that somehow 'different'?
It also has a political implication beyond that, suggesting that a UK General Election debate doesn't need to bother with Northern Ireland.
Alanbrooke
“Yes the current silences of the british Parliament are curious.
The attack on GG was plain thuggery, yet no-one speaks.”
Socrates
“I was hoping this would come up at some point. Galloway is a loathsome man, but attacking one's political opponents is absolutely disgusting. Given that Galloway is probably a Muslim, and people know he fights for a Muslim-dominated party, it's quite likely this is a hate crime.”
Josias Jessop
“I hope whoever did it is prosecuted. If not for the alleged assault, then for the heinous crime of making me have a modicum of sympathy for Galloway.
I mean, it's much easier to dislike the guy and everything he stands for if he isn't getting beaten up on the street.”
MonikerDiCanio
“First Murphy and now Galloway physically assaulted by political extremists. Dark days for democracy and free speech.”
(to which the ever charming Malco G replied “LOL, drama queen” and “ I care not a jot for Galloway who incites people with his lies and so has contributed to his own downfall.”)
Morris Dancer
“I dislike Galloway rather a lot. That said, physically assaulting people, whether private individuals or those in the public eye, for expressing an opinion is unacceptable.”
(To which Malco partially redeemed himself by replying “Morning MD, yes even though he is not very nice and upsets lots of people it is not acceptable to be beating people up for any reason.”)
If you can find any comments that condoned the attack, please do share them.
Who would have thunk it!
But Cameron has a big decision now of his own making, does he blink? I also wonder what the hell that Oliver does and does he have a brain, he seems to have totally misjudged how this will play out and he is supposedly the inside man to how the likes of the BBC will play things.
He has to stick to his guns and hope the 2015 debates finish up being as insignificant as the 2010 debates were.
How can anyone argue Cameron has been consistent
Cameron has been as consistent as a Lord Ashcroft Randomly Generated election result
Presumably the Tories are better off brazening it out from here rather than folding.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XpsuxkH2TDyhFasSxCIE5FV3VjUeJHL4BJpHrPT4PX0/edit?usp=sharing