Labour was born as a movement of the industrial working class. The clue is in the name. But this class does not exist anymore and most of the battles that Labour fought on its behalf have been won. The first thing Labour needs to do is accept that the party as was can never be again and that the British people have moved on: they do not want or relate to a mass, class-based movement.
We live in a mobile, interconnected world which has largely been created by capitalism. Labour needs to accept that. But that does not mean that a centre-left voice in Britain and elsewhere is not absolutely essential. Inequality is still rife, there is a large group of people who are left behind despite working hard and doing the right thing, the UK's existence is under serious threat, there is a housing crisis, the private sector is deemed to have all the answers despite its often lamentable performance while the public sector is demonised, and so on. Just because the ambitions are never going to be what they were 100 or 50 years ago, that does not mean that the left should give up and leave it all to the Tories. They want the same thing as all other parties - the best outcomes for the most people - but I just do not believe that the solutions they suggest are going to work. I base that on experience (my own and that of others I know) and on observation.
Beyond his friends, the problem with Corbyn is that he gives no impression of having engaged with how the world has developed. He lives in a comfort zone of views that essentially remain the ones he was spouting in the 70s and 80s, when the world was a very different place. Because of this, he will never be able to relate to the country as it is and so he will never be able to deliver a Labour government. Thus, he is not only an immoral choice of leader, he is also a politically very foolish one - if, that is, the Labour party does ever want to make a practical and positive difference to people's lives anymore.
Not convinced that Labour really are finished if they elect Corbyn. When IDS / Howard were in charge of the Tories I'm sure the road back to power looked distant and hard. But every Government gets tired sooner or later, and our electoral system makes it nigh impossible for any party other than the main opposition to form a realistic alternative.
Having said that, the real risk to Labour is losing good activists. I've seen the likes of Southam Observer and Apocalypse muse on here about giving the Lib Dems another look. I'm sure both would be welcome (more than that - from what I've seen on here we'd be a stronger and wiser party with people like them on board) and if this is indicative of serious numbers, that'll make the Labour recovery harder, when sanity in Westminster is restored.
The sane wing of the party needs to do the hard thinking they've failed to do in the last few years so that they can produce a social democratic left of centre story that speaks to the society of today and tomorrow not that of 70 or more years ago.
They've utterly failed to do this and muttering about being pro-aspiration is not even a start.
They might start by asking themselves "What is the point of a left of a centre party?" "What is it for?" "What does it / what should it stand for?" And "What does that mean for the sort of policies we might want to present to the British people?"
Until they do that, no amount of telegenic candidates with good back stories is going to help them, IMO.
Leaving aside the more pejorative bits, this is something I broadly agree with. I voted Corbyn because he offers a concept of change that I don't necessarily agree with in every detail but which seems to me attractive and coherent enough to be a challenging alternative to the Government, presented in an engagingly mild way. I didn't feel that the other candidates were offering that (nor, to be frank, did Ed). I'm bored with campaigning on the basis of "Vote for us to keep the Tories out" - and ultimately I think it's a formula for losing.
I supported Blair on the same sort of conditional basis. If the centre-left is to revive, it needs to offer ideals, coherence and a plausible road map of how to get from where we are. Otherwise, the centre-left will opt for the further left, as we're probably doing this week.
Why do you think, then, that this hasn't been done by the centre left? Loss of nerve? Loss of faith? Or just not the right people around?
Labour seem obsessed with categories, the left, the centre left, the Blairites, the Brownites etc etc. They have become a group of people where the factions loathe each other, Cooper dropped her guard last week and the contempt for Corbyn was there for all to see, it was hard to believe they represented the same party.
A split into 2 or even 3 new parties seems inevitable, you can sense large swathes of Labour willing Corbyn to fail spectacularly.
It won't split because of that horrible FPTP. If there was PR or even AV, then Yes ! The Tories would also split. There is very little similarity between Nadine Dorries and David Cameron.
Fair points but I don't see dozens of tory MPs that have the contempt for Cameron that the labour equivalent have for Corbyn, plenty of tory MPs would be out of a job if it wasn't for Cameron, the opposite is potentially true of Corbyn.
Mr. Dair, then we must part ways entirely [when they're outside the UK].
If the choice of what to do about men encouraging and orchestrating terrorism in the UK is 1) do nothing and 2) kill them, I'm more than happy for them to be killed.
So where is your advocacy for War against Saudi Arabia?
Do exactly what we are doing to ISIS ? Wait a minute, they have oil.
But we are not a bunch of hypocrites, are we ? No, never.
Wage war, you mean?
Who do you think would replace the House of Saud, awful as they are?
The United Kingdom put the House of Saud in place, deliberately.
The Untied States entered into an accord to ensure the House of Saud survived post WW2, deliberately.
The House of Saud appear to have direct involvement in Al Qaeda and ISIS.
No, we did not. The House of Saud took power in Riyadh through military force that had nothing to do with us. They then invaded the British-aligned Hashemite Kingdom of the Hejaz to form the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I don't know where you are getting your information from.
Labour was born as a movement of the industrial working class. The clue is in the name. But this class does not exist anymore and most of the battles that Labour fought on its behalf have been won. The first thing Labour needs to do is accept that the party as was can never be again and that the British people have moved on: they do not want or relate to a mass, class-based movement.
We live in a mobile, interconnected world which has largely been created by capitalism. Labour needs to accept that. But that does not mean that a centre-left voice in Britain and elsewhere is not absolutely essential. Inequality is still rife, there is a large group of people who are left behind despite working hard and doing the right thing, the UK's existence is under serious threat, there is a housing crisis, the private sector is deemed to have all the answers despite its often lamentable performance while the public sector is demonised, and so on. Just because the ambitions are never going to be what they were 100 or 50 years ago, that does not mean that the left should give up and leave it all to the Tories. They want the same thing as all other parties - the best outcomes for the most people - but I just do not believe that the solutions they suggest are going to work. I base that on experience (my own and that of others I know) and on observation.
Beyond his friends, the problem with Corbyn is that he gives no impression of having engaged with how the world has developed. He lives in a comfort zone of views that essentially remain the ones he was spouting in the 70s and 80s, when the world was a very different place. Because of this, he will never be able to relate to the country as it is and so he will never be able to deliver a Labour government. Thus, he is not only an immoral choice of leader, he is also a politically very foolish one - if, that is, the Labour party does ever want to make a practical and positive difference to people's lives anymore.
Mr. Dair, in Saudi Arabia, it's possible to arrest people. That option doesn't exist in ISIS-controlled territory.
Where possible to arrest people, that's my preference. If it's impossible and the choice is do nothing or remove a threat to the UK, I whole-heartedly support removing the threat.
Does anyone disagree that if there were any legal doubt about the killing of these two men, then the only difference would be the lack of the Commons announcement by the PM?
Labour was born as a movement of the industrial working class. The clue is in the name. But this class does not exist anymore and most of the battles that Labour fought on its behalf have been won. The first thing Labour needs to do is accept that the party as was can never be again and that the British people have moved on: they do not want or relate to a mass, class-based movement.
We live in a mobile, interconnected world which has largely been created by capitalism. Labour needs to accept that. But that does not mean that a centre-left voice in Britain and elsewhere is not absolutely essential. Inequality is still rife, there is a large group of people who are left behind despite working hard and doing the right thing, the UK's existence is under serious threat, there is a housing crisis, the private sector is deemed to have all the answers despite its often lamentable performance while the public sector is demonised, and so on. Just because the ambitions are never going to be what they were 100 or 50 years ago, that does not mean that the left should give up and leave it all to the Tories. They want the same thing as all other parties - the best outcomes for the most people - but I just do not believe that the solutions they suggest are going to work. I base that on experience (my own and that of others I know) and on observation.
Beyond his friends, the problem with Corbyn is that he gives no impression of having engaged with how the world has developed. He lives in a comfort zone of views that essentially remain the ones he was spouting in the 70s and 80s, when the world was a very different place. Because of this, he will never be able to relate to the country as it is and so he will never be able to deliver a Labour government. Thus, he is not only an immoral choice of leader, he is also a politically very foolish one - if, that is, the Labour party does ever want to make a practical and positive difference to people's lives anymore.
Excellent, especially the last line. I honestly believe Blair, Mandelson and Campbell had zero interest in ordinary people's lives, simply their own careers. They have left a void where outside of labour they are loathed and within the different factions loathe each other. No principles, no unity, no raison d'etre beyond a visceral hatred of the conservative party.
@RCS - Let's say the Independence bunch get the 68 seats in the legislature required on 42% of the vote. To declare UDI - and cast themselves outside the EU, without a currency, with the vast bulk of their trade being with Spain, with no clear separation of assets, without an army - would be extraordinary. Should Junts pel Sí win the election on 26 September, they will demand independence talks with the central government. I believe that the Spanish government will say that they are willing to talk following a referendum to be held in 2017. It will be a traditional "kicking the can down the road" solution. And I believe that JPS - with only a marginal, and sub 50%, mandate - will have to accept it.
No Spanish government of any political make-up will ever agree to an independence referendum in Catalonia. It would be illegal to do so. The Spanish constitution states that the Spanish people as a whole are sovereign in all of Spain and only they can change its borders.
If they get an overall majority Junts pel Si will initiate the independence process and that will, of course, involve demanding talks about ensuring a smooth transition. They will be rebuffed. If they have a majority they will carry on and declare independence with eighteen months, as they have promised. And they will be ignored. But it will not end the uncertainty or the stand-off. That will only happen with changes of government in Madrid and Barcelona.
Mr. Dair, in Saudi Arabia, it's possible to arrest people. That option doesn't exist in ISIS-controlled territory.
Where possible to arrest people, that's my preference. If it's impossible and the choice is do nothing or remove a threat to the UK, I whole-heartedly support removing the threat.
Then you need a declaration of War against Islamic State to justify the killings you demand. Without that, it is an illegal action.
Anyone - ANYONE - who joins ISIS is a legitimate target for drone attacks. If we can't arrest them, we should kill them.
If you need convincing, check this recent ISIS vid (be warned: it is horrifying even by their standards). Sometimes we DO need to see these things to realize what we are confronting. ISIS are intent on genocide, and they glory in it.
I live up here in the north east of England about 1 mile from Tony Blair's former house and it's clear to me that most of the Labour'' tribal voters ''here support Corbyn ..they don't view politics in a analytical way of Left /Right on the political spectrum but see it in an emotional way like a quasi religion ; hence , when Corbyn talks in platitudes about socialism he chimes and connects with them like a preacher man ....I have given up trying to talk sense to them as you cannot reason people out of a position they arrived at through emotion ...they think Corbyn is an austere, saintly , Gandhi-like figure
I was at the Dun Cow in Sedgefield the day before Blair and Bush turned up. The security check was hilarious.
Mr. Dair, in Saudi Arabia, it's possible to arrest people. That option doesn't exist in ISIS-controlled territory.
Where possible to arrest people, that's my preference. If it's impossible and the choice is do nothing or remove a threat to the UK, I whole-heartedly support removing the threat.
Then you need a declaration of War against Islamic State to justify the killings you demand. Without that, it is an illegal action.
As they aren't recognised by any serious body as a state then er you are wrong.
But then your party released a mass murdering terrorist because he had a sore bottom - so I can see why you aren't in favour of firm action.
Mr. Dair, in Saudi Arabia, it's possible to arrest people. That option doesn't exist in ISIS-controlled territory.
Where possible to arrest people, that's my preference. If it's impossible and the choice is do nothing or remove a threat to the UK, I whole-heartedly support removing the threat.
Then you need a declaration of War against Islamic State to justify the killings you demand. Without that, it is an illegal action.
We would have to build big prisoner of war fences around a 1/3 of our northern cities. Have no illusions where many of the people there have their loyalties.
I don't know why our government's go through these pretexts. The position is simple. They killed him first, answering questions later. When did the AG give his advice: before or after the killing ? If afterwards, then the Defence Secretary carried out an action, the legality of which he was not aware of at the time. It will then be argued that there was "imminent and present danger", so he could not wait for the advice. So, Khan had plans and the government knew of the attacks ? It won't do, if there was no time to consult the AG if Khan was going to attack in the "future". Finally, I heard Lord Carlisle on the radio [ Blair's arse-licker , now Cameron's. He said the PM was accountable to Parliament for this. So he will publish the details ? No, he can't be transparent. So, how will he be accountable ? Blair is still walking the streets, a free man !
Its you that is the nasty bigoted traitor to your country. Why not make yourself a refugee and migrate to the Crimea? You will at least be amongst friends.
Mr. Dair, in Saudi Arabia, it's possible to arrest people. That option doesn't exist in ISIS-controlled territory.
Where possible to arrest people, that's my preference. If it's impossible and the choice is do nothing or remove a threat to the UK, I whole-heartedly support removing the threat.
Then you need a declaration of War against Islamic State to justify the killings you demand. Without that, it is an illegal action.
As they aren't recognised by any serious body as a state then er you are wrong.
But then your party released a mass murdering terrorist because he had a sore bottom - so I can see why you aren't in favour of firm action.
Labour was born as a movement of the industrial working class. The clue is in the name. But this class does not exist anymore and most of the battles that Labour fought on its behalf have been won. The first thing Labour needs to do is accept that the party as was can never be again and that the British people have moved on: they do not want or relate to a mass, class-based movement.
We live in a mobile, interconnected world which has largely been created by capitalism. Labour needs to accept that. But that does not mean that a centre-left voice in Britain and elsewhere is not absolutely essential. Inequality is still rife, there is a large group of people who are left behind despite working hard and doing the right thing, the UK's existence is under serious threat, there is a housing crisis, the private sector is deemed to have all the answers despite its often lamentable performance while the public sector is demonised, and so on. Just because the ambitions are never going to be what they were 100 or 50 years ago, that does not mean that the left should give up and leave it all to the Tories. They want the same thing as all other parties - the best outcomes for the most people - but I just do not believe that the solutions they suggest are going to work. I base that on experience (my own and that of others I know) and on observation.
Beyond his friends, the problem with Corbyn is that he gives no impression of having engaged with how the world has developed. He lives in a comfort zone of views that essentially remain the ones he was spouting in the 70s and 80s, when the world was a very different place. Because of this, he will never be able to relate to the country as it is and so he will never be able to deliver a Labour government. Thus, he is not only an immoral choice of leader, he is also a politically very foolish one - if, that is, the Labour party does ever want to make a practical and positive difference to people's lives anymore.
An excellent post, SO.
I think this - "there is a large group of people who are left behind despite working hard and doing the right thing" - goes to the heart of it.
These are the people for whom Labour should speak. And they haven't been for a long time. They have given the impression that if you work hard and do the right thing, you are either a mug or someone to be mugged in order to give to people who do neither.
That has allowed the Tories to try and claim this space for themselves.
The Labour party could do no better than read your post and start there.
Anyone - ANYONE - who joins ISIS is a legitimate target for drone attacks. If we can't arrest them, we should kill them.
If you need convincing, check this recent ISIS vid (be warned: it is horrifying even by their standards). Sometimes we DO need to see these things to realize what we are confronting. ISIS are intent on genocide, and they glory in it.
Whether we like it or not, there is only one way to deal with them.
The bit in the film where they make piles of living bodies, in preparation for mass execution, proves to me that ISIS are not just like the Nazis, they are surely and directly INSPIRED by the Nazis, right down to the creepy use of black flags and uniforms.
And people wish to give them due process. FFS.
Due process?
It looks as if many want to give them a chance to escape, whilst Parliament holds a debate.
Excellent, especially the last line. I honestly believe Blair, Mandelson and Campbell had zero interest in ordinary people's lives, simply their own careers. They have left a void where outside of labour they are loathed and within the different factions loathe each other. No principles, no unity, no raison d'etre beyond a visceral hatred of the conservative party.
I disagree. All three - Blair, Mandy, Campbell - sincerely believed that they were doing the right thing for the British people and nation. The fact that all three were also serpentine, devious careerists, does not invalidate that.
I also quite like Mandelson. He'd have made an excellent Labour prime minister: better than Blair or Brown. Ruthless, cunning, smart, perceptive. Exactly the kind of clever bastard that should be running the country.
Mmmmh sacked twice as a minister, dishonest and duplicitous beyond doubt, I rest my case about why labour are f****d as a result of the trio I mention, most especially Mandelson.
Anyone - ANYONE - who joins ISIS is a legitimate target for drone attacks. If we can't arrest them, we should kill them.
If you need convincing, check this recent ISIS vid (be warned: it is horrifying even by their standards). Sometimes we DO need to see these things to realize what we are confronting. ISIS are intent on genocide, and they glory in it.
Whether we like it or not, there is only one way to deal with them.
The bit in the film where they make piles of living bodies, in preparation for mass execution, proves to me that ISIS are not just like the Nazis, they are surely and directly INSPIRED by the Nazis, right down to the creepy use of black flags and uniforms.
And people wish to give them due process. FFS.
The Nazis were given due process.
The entire justification for which was to demonstrate that we were the good guys.
Your attitude to the entire debate just demonstrates how completely and totally ISIS have been victorious over you.
@JoeMurphyLondon: Sources tell @EveningStandard that around 10 terrorists are on list to be legally targeted. Jihadi John understood to be highest priority
Labour was born as a movement of the industrial working class. The clue is in the name. But this class does not exist anymore and most of the battles that Labour fought on its behalf have been won. The first thing Labour needs to do is accept that the party as was can never be again and that the British people have moved on: they do not want or relate to a mass, class-based movement.
We live in a mobile, interconnected world which has largely been created by capitalism. Labour needs to accept that. But that does not mean that a centre-left voice in Britain and elsewhere is not absolutely essential. Inequality is still rife, there is a large group of people who are left behind despite working hard and doing the right thing, the UK's existence is under serious threat, there is a housing crisis, the private sector is deemed to have all the answers despite its often lamentable performance while the public sector is demonised, and so on. Just because the ambitions are never going to be what they were 100 or 50 years ago, that does not mean that the left should give up and leave it all to the Tories. They want the same thing as all other parties - the best outcomes for the most people - but I just do not believe that the solutions they suggest are going to work. I base that on experience (my own and that of others I know) and on observation.
Beyond his friends, the problem with Corbyn is that he gives no impression of having engaged with how the world has developed. He lives in a comfort zone of views that essentially remain the ones he was spouting in the 70s and 80s, when the world was a very different place. Because of this, he will never be able to relate to the country as it is and so he will never be able to deliver a Labour government. Thus, he is not only an immoral choice of leader, he is also a politically very foolish one - if, that is, the Labour party does ever want to make a practical and positive difference to people's lives anymore.
An excellent post, SO.
I think this - "there is a large group of people who are left behind despite working hard and doing the right thing" - goes to the heart of it.
These are the people for whom Labour should speak. And they haven't been for a long time. They have given the impression that if you work hard and do the right thing, you are either a mug or someone to be mugged in order to give to people who do neither.
That has allowed the Tories to try and claim this space for themselves.
The Labour party could do no better than read your post and start there.
Also Labour forgot to tell people that in order to get the support you have to work hard and do the right thing - not just be poor.
@RCS - I agree with you totally about the sheer stupidity of UDI. But that is the position the parties of Junts pel Si have engineered themselves into. And although support for separation is declining, those who do support it are vocal, dominate the media and have a track record of taking to the streets. To secure the overall majority and then not to proceed would provoke a furious reaction from Junts voters and would immediately lead to its break-up: ERC is totally uncompromising and Mas has made himself its prisoner.
I was listening to some Scottish loon on R5L just now and switched off. Drone attacks cause the Syrian refugees or some such nonsense. I suspect most of the refugees would be happy with a couple of ISIS nutters being terminated.
I worry that the split between media people and normal people is widening. What they fail to realise is that most people consider us to be on a war footing with IS. Once that has happened, opinions harden.
In 1933, the Oxford union passed a motion that "that this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country." Come 1939, they joined up.
There was a passionate debate before the Falklands action, but once it began, there was overwhelming support.
We've reached that tipping point with IS but the media bubble don't want to see it.
Anyone - ANYONE - who joins ISIS is a legitimate target for drone attacks. If we can't arrest them, we should kill them.
If you need convincing, check this recent ISIS vid (be warned: it is horrifying even by their standards). Sometimes we DO need to see these things to realize what we are confronting. ISIS are intent on genocide, and they glory in it.
Whether we like it or not, there is only one way to deal with them.
The bit in the film where they make piles of living bodies, in preparation for mass execution, proves to me that ISIS are not just like the Nazis, they are surely and directly INSPIRED by the Nazis, right down to the creepy use of black flags and uniforms.
And people wish to give them due process. FFS.
The Nazis were given due process.
Only after the war had finished - and only to those that had survived.
The sane wing of the party needs to do the hard thinking they've failed to do in the last few years so that they can produce a social democratic left of centre story that speaks to the society of today and tomorrow not that of 70 or more years ago.
They've utterly failed to do this and muttering about being pro-aspiration is not even a start.
They might start by asking themselves "What is the point of a left of a centre party?" "What is it for?" "What does it / what should it stand for?" And "What does that mean for the sort of policies we might want to present to the British people?"
Until they do that, no amount of telegenic candidates with good back stories is going to help them, IMO.
I voted Corbyn because he offers a concept of change that I don't necessarily agree with in every detail but which seems to me attractive and coherent enough to be a challenging alternative to the Government, presented in an engagingly mild way.
What an utter and complete mindless fool you are. Its hard to believe you have a mind. No wonder every time the nation votes in a Labour govt it leaves the country in a mess.
And since when did the country last vote in labour govts? Atlee Wilson Blair Note that? What do they have in common? They were all on the centre right of their party, all in effect denying every aspect of what Corbyn stands for. All committed to fighting left wing nutjob lunacy.
The sane wing of the party needs to do the hard thinking they've failed to do in the last few years so that they can produce a social democratic left of centre story that speaks to the society of today and tomorrow not that of 70 or more years ago.
They've utterly failed to do this and muttering about being pro-aspiration is not even a start.
They might start by asking themselves "What is the point of a left of a centre party?" "What is it for?" "What does it / what should it stand for?" And "What does that mean for the sort of policies we might want to present to the British people?"
Until they do that, no amount of telegenic candidates with good back stories is going to help them, IMO.
I voted Corbyn because he offers a concept of change that I don't necessarily agree with in every detail but which seems to me attractive and coherent enough to be a challenging alternative to the Government, presented in an engagingly mild way.
What an utter and complete mindless fool you are. Its hard to believe you have a mind. No wonder every time the nation votes in a Labour govt it leaves the country in a mess.
And since when did the country last vote in labour govts? Atlee Wilson Blair Note that? What do they have in common? They were all on the centre right of their party, all in effect denying every aspect of what Corbyn stands for. All committed to fighting left wing nutjob lunacy.
It would be interesting to know the bits Nick doesn't agree with "in every detail". I suspect they may turn out to be pretty fundamental on analysis.
Anyone - ANYONE - who joins ISIS is a legitimate target for drone attacks. If we can't arrest them, we should kill them.
If you need convincing, check this recent ISIS vid (be warned: it is horrifying even by their standards). Sometimes we DO need to see these things to realize what we are confronting. ISIS are intent on genocide, and they glory in it.
Whether we like it or not, there is only one way to deal with them.
The bit in the film where they make piles of living bodies, in preparation for mass execution, proves to me that ISIS are not just like the Nazis, they are surely and directly INSPIRED by the Nazis, right down to the creepy use of black flags and uniforms.
And people wish to give them due process. FFS.
The Nazis were given due process.
The entire justification for which was to demonstrate that we were the good guys.
Your attitude to the entire debate just demonstrates how completely and totally ISIS have been victorious over you.
Must have forgotten the bit where the City of Hamburg was put on trial, found guilty, and then given a jail sentence in Wormwood Scrubs, rather than bombed into flinders.
Anyone - ANYONE - who joins ISIS is a legitimate target for drone attacks. If we can't arrest them, we should kill them.
If you need convincing, check this recent ISIS vid (be warned: it is horrifying even by their standards). Sometimes we DO need to see these things to realize what we are confronting. ISIS are intent on genocide, and they glory in it.
Whether we like it or not, there is only one way to deal with them.
The bit in the film where they make piles of living bodies, in preparation for mass execution, proves to me that ISIS are not just like the Nazis, they are surely and directly INSPIRED by the Nazis, right down to the creepy use of black flags and uniforms.
And people wish to give them due process. FFS.
The Nazis were given due process.
The entire justification for which was to demonstrate that we were the good guys.
Your attitude to the entire debate just demonstrates how completely and totally ISIS have been victorious over you.
Must have forgotten the bit where the City of Hamburg was put on trial, found guilty, and then given a jail sentence in Wormwood Scrubs, rather than bombed into flinders.
But, a big but, a state of war existed between UK and Germany. At which point its Geneva convention rules, but otherwise away we go.
I'm not necessarily totally up-to-speed with the situation, but as far as I'm aware we have not declared war on ISIL or whatever.
Anyone - ANYONE - who joins ISIS is a legitimate target for drone attacks. If we can't arrest them, we should kill them.
If you need convincing, check this recent ISIS vid (be warned: it is horrifying even by their standards). Sometimes we DO need to see these things to realize what we are confronting. ISIS are intent on genocide, and they glory in it.
Whether we like it or not, there is only one way to deal with them.
The bit in the film where they make piles of living bodies, in preparation for mass execution, proves to me that ISIS are not just like the Nazis, they are surely and directly INSPIRED by the Nazis, right down to the creepy use of black flags and uniforms.
And people wish to give them due process. FFS.
The Nazis were given due process.
The entire justification for which was to demonstrate that we were the good guys.
Your attitude to the entire debate just demonstrates how completely and totally ISIS have been victorious over you.
Must have forgotten the bit where the City of Hamburg was put on trial, found guilty, and then given a jail sentence in Wormwood Scrubs, rather than bombed into flinders.
Anyone - ANYONE - who joins ISIS is a legitimate target for drone attacks. If we can't arrest them, we should kill them.
If you need convincing, check this recent ISIS vid (be warned: it is horrifying even by their standards). Sometimes we DO need to see these things to realize what we are confronting. ISIS are intent on genocide, and they glory in it.
Whether we like it or not, there is only one way to deal with them.
The bit in the film where they make piles of living bodies, in preparation for mass execution, proves to me that ISIS are not just like the Nazis, they are surely and directly INSPIRED by the Nazis, right down to the creepy use of black flags and uniforms.
And people wish to give them due process. FFS.
The Nazis were given due process.
The entire justification for which was to demonstrate that we were the good guys.
Your attitude to the entire debate just demonstrates how completely and totally ISIS have been victorious over you.
Must have forgotten the bit where the City of Hamburg was put on trial, found guilty, and then given a jail sentence in Wormwood Scrubs, rather than bombed into flinders.
I do love unintentional irony.
Your drooling really has reached peak Idiot.
There's nothing to argue against, just one of the most ridiculous, vacuous posts imaginable -
He wrote Must have forgotten the bit where the City of Hamburg was put on trial, found guilty, and then given a jail sentence in Wormwood Scrubs, rather than bombed into flinders.
Does it really need pointed out he is describing an atrocity and war crime, that Hamburg isn't a Nazi and most of the population were not Nazis or that there was an actual declared war.
I would like to take this drone incident at face value. Unfortunately, the long history of British governments being economical with the truth (google Death on the Rock, for example), makes me worry. That worry may not be justified. But I would be happier if the Intelligence Select Committee were able to give the matter the once over.
In the case of these two people, they appear to have been British citizens. What if they were Saudis and the Saudi government didn't agree with what happened? What if the drone had taken out a wedding party by mistake, as in Afghanistan? The scope for disaster is worrying, and I worry. I want some reassurance that proper thought and control has gone into this and we aren't at the mercy of a few gung-ho armchair warriors.
Some people on here are very sure of their position and shrug off doubts. I would be very worried if they were in charge of the country. I feel happier having a government that agonises about killing people than I would with a government that turned to killing as their first option.
You are all entitled to disagree with me. You are all entitled to think I am an idiot and tell me you are glad I'm not in charge of the country. But I am equally entitled to think the same of you.
I agree much of what you say.
I think your proposal though of the ISC giving it the "once over" is totally wrong though: parliament should be about principles not about operational decisions. (That doesn't mean they shouldn't discuss and agree the criteria on which such decisions can be taken in future and to monitor compliance after the event)
I think it's pretty unfair, however, to imply that the government didn't think through this properly, weren't controlled in their decision making and are, in fact, "gung-ho armchair warriors". It's absolutely clear - and Cameron has said so himself - that they take these matters very very seriously.
Anyone - ANYONE - who joins ISIS is a legitimate target for drone attacks. If we can't arrest them, we should kill them.
If you need convincing, check this recent ISIS vid (be warned: it is horrifying even by their standards). Sometimes we DO need to see these things to realize what we are confronting. ISIS are intent on genocide, and they glory in it.
Whether we like it or not, there is only one way to deal with them.
The bit in the film where they make piles of living bodies, in preparation for mass execution, proves to me that ISIS are not just like the Nazis, they are surely and directly INSPIRED by the Nazis, right down to the creepy use of black flags and uniforms.
And people wish to give them due process. FFS.
The Nazis were given due process.
The entire justification for which was to demonstrate that we were the good guys.
Your attitude to the entire debate just demonstrates how completely and totally ISIS have been victorious over you.
They were given due process when we had them in custody, not when they were live threats. You think if we had had a chance to kill Hitler with a sniper during the war we wouldn't have taken it?
Anyone - ANYONE - who joins ISIS is a legitimate target for drone attacks. If we can't arrest them, we should kill them.
If you need convincing, check this recent ISIS vid (be warned: it is horrifying even by their standards). Sometimes we DO need to see these things to realize what we are confronting. ISIS are intent on genocide, and they glory in it.
Whether we like it or not, there is only one way to deal with them.
The bit in the film where they make piles of living bodies, in preparation for mass execution, proves to me that ISIS are not just like the Nazis, they are surely and directly INSPIRED by the Nazis, right down to the creepy use of black flags and uniforms.
And people wish to give them due process. FFS.
The Nazis were given due process.
The entire justification for which was to demonstrate that we were the good guys.
Your attitude to the entire debate just demonstrates how completely and totally ISIS have been victorious over you.
They were given due process once they had been beaten and surrendered.
This isn't a sticky wicket you are on Dair; you are sinking in a desperate quagmire.
Anyone - ANYONE - who joins ISIS is a legitimate target for drone attacks. If we can't arrest them, we should kill them.
If you need convincing, check this recent ISIS vid (be warned: it is horrifying even by their standards). Sometimes we DO need to see these things to realize what we are confronting. ISIS are intent on genocide, and they glory in it.
Whether we like it or not, there is only one way to deal with them.
The bit in the film where they make piles of living bodies, in preparation for mass execution, proves to me that ISIS are not just like the Nazis, they are surely and directly INSPIRED by the Nazis, right down to the creepy use of black flags and uniforms.
And people wish to give them due process. FFS.
The Nazis were given due process.
The entire justification for which was to demonstrate that we were the good guys.
Your attitude to the entire debate just demonstrates how completely and totally ISIS have been victorious over you.
Must have forgotten the bit where the City of Hamburg was put on trial, found guilty, and then given a jail sentence in Wormwood Scrubs, rather than bombed into flinders.
I do love unintentional irony.
Your drooling really has reached peak Idiot.
There's nothing to argue against, just one of the most ridiculous, vacuous posts imaginable -
He wrote Must have forgotten the bit where the City of Hamburg was put on trial, found guilty, and then given a jail sentence in Wormwood Scrubs, rather than bombed into flinders.
Does it really need pointed out he is describing an atrocity and war crime, that Hamburg isn't a Nazi and most of the population were not Nazis.
It's inane drool.
I think it does need pointing out.
We're consistently getting these idiots come on the site claiming to represent all of Scotland on 45% of the vote.
Anyone - ANYONE - who joins ISIS is a legitimate target for drone attacks. If we can't arrest them, we should kill them.
If you need convincing, check this recent ISIS vid (be warned: it is horrifying even by their standards). Sometimes we DO need to see these things to realize what we are confronting. ISIS are intent on genocide, and they glory in it.
Whether we like it or not, there is only one way to deal with them.
The bit in the film where they make piles of living bodies, in preparation for mass execution, proves to me that ISIS are not just like the Nazis, they are surely and directly INSPIRED by the Nazis, right down to the creepy use of black flags and uniforms.
And people wish to give them due process. FFS.
The Nazis were given due process.
The entire justification for which was to demonstrate that we were the good guys.
Your attitude to the entire debate just demonstrates how completely and totally ISIS have been victorious over you.
Must have forgotten the bit where the City of Hamburg was put on trial, found guilty, and then given a jail sentence in Wormwood Scrubs, rather than bombed into flinders.
I do love unintentional irony.
Your drooling really has reached peak Idiot.
There's nothing to argue against, just one of the most ridiculous, vacuous posts imaginable -
He wrote Must have forgotten the bit where the City of Hamburg was put on trial, found guilty, and then given a jail sentence in Wormwood Scrubs, rather than bombed into flinders.
Does it really need pointed out he is describing an atrocity and war crime, that Hamburg isn't a Nazi and most of the population were not Nazis or that there was an actual declared war.
Labour was born as a movement of the industrial working class. The clue is in the name. But this class does not exist anymore and most of the battles that Labour fought on its behalf have been won. We live in a mobile, interconnected world which has largely been created by capitalism. Labour needs to accept that. But that does not mean that a centre-left voice in Britain and elsewhere is not absolutely essential. Inequality is still rife, there is a large group of people who are left behind despite working hard and doing the right thing, the UK's existence is under serious threat, there is a housing crisis, the private sector is deemed to have all the answers despite its often lamentable performance while the public sector is demonised, and so on. Just because the ambitions are never going to be what they were 100 or 50 years ago, that does not mean that the left should give up and leave it all to the Tories. They want the same thing as all other parties - the best outcomes for the most people - but I just do not believe that the solutions they suggest are going to work. I base that on experience (my own and that of others I know) and on observation.
Beyond his friends, the problem with Corbyn is that he gives no impression of having engaged with how the world has developed. He lives in a comfort zone of views that essentially remain the ones he was spouting in the 70s and 80s, when the world was a very different place. Because of this, he will never be able to relate to the country as it is and so he will never be able to deliver a Labour government. Thus, he is not only an immoral choice of leader, he is also a politically very foolish one - if, that is, the Labour party does ever want to make a practical and positive difference to people's lives anymore.
An excellent post, SO.
I think this - "there is a large group of people who are left behind despite working hard and doing the right thing" - goes to the heart of it.
These are the people for whom Labour should speak. And they haven't been for a long time. They have given the impression that if you work hard and do the right thing, you are either a mug or someone to be mugged in order to give to people who do neither.
That has allowed the Tories to try and claim this space for themselves.
The Labour party could do no better than read your post and start there.
Labour have conceded the hard working lower middle classes to the Tories and UKIP, these are the voters they need to win back to get a Parliamentary majority.
Metropolitan Labour under Ed gave the impression of being the party of the not-working clas and anti business, this attitude has to change before I'll ever vote for them again.
Isis = Nazi Whether we like it or not, there is only one way to deal with them.
The bit in the film where they make piles of living bodies, in preparation for mass execution, proves to me that ISIS are not just like the Nazis, they are surely and directly INSPIRED by the Nazis, right down to the creepy use of black flags and uniforms. And people wish to give them due process. FFS.
The Nazis were given due process. The entire justification for which was to demonstrate that we were the good guys. Your attitude to the entire debate just demonstrates how completely and totally ISIS have been victorious over you.
They were given due process once they had been beaten and surrendered. This isn't a sticky wicket you are on Dair; you are sinking in a desperate quagmire.
Correct. And what due process was given to all the people we bombed. It goes further than that - what due process was given to all the French who died when we bombed and shelled targets in France?
They were given due process when we had them in custody, not when they were live threats. You think if we had had a chance to kill Hitler with a sniper during the war we wouldn't have taken it?
There were loads of plots to kill Hitler, IIRC Roger Moorhouse's book says there were at least 40 odd from when Hitler first rose to prominence, but in the end it was concluded he would do more damage to the German war effort left alive and the plots tailed off towards the end of the war.
You think if we had had a chance to kill Hitler with a sniper during the war we wouldn't have taken it?
No, apparently.
'There had been some resistance to the assassination plan, particularly from the deputy head of SOE's German Directorate, Lt Col Ronald Thornley. However, his superior, Sir Gerald Templer, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill supported the plan. The two-man team was to be parachuted in and sheltered with Heidentaler, after which they could make the approach to the killing zone disguised as German mountain troops.
The plan was submitted in November 1944, but was never carried out because controversy remained over whether it was actually a good idea to kill Hitler: he was by then considered to be such a poor strategist that it was believed whoever replaced him would probably do a better job of fighting the allies. Thornley also argued that Germany was almost defeated and, if Hitler were assassinated, he would become a martyr to some Germans, and possibly give rise to a myth that Germany might have won if Hitler had survived. Since the idea was not only to defeat Germany but to destroy Nazism in general, that would have been a highly undesirable development. However, there were strong advocates on both sides, and the plan never became operational simply because no actual decision was reached. In any case, Hitler left the Berghof for the last time on 14 July 1944, never to return, and committed suicide in Berlin on 30 April 1945, a few days before the war in Europe ended.'
I'm genuinely torn on this issue. On the one hand, I am not upset that ISIS has lost two fighters - their deaths will no doubt save other's lives. On the other hand, bad precedents are always set when the situation appears to demand it. Who could possibly argue against euthanasia in the face of someone dying of a slow, debilitating illness? But if you make it law, it won't be long before everyone's granny is being encouraged to shuffle off this mortal coil to free up social housing. The same goes for this - ISIS are world hate figures, that's their purpose. No-one objects to their being killed by drone, but what about those who follow? The next stage could well be these things operating on British soil as they do in the US.
They were given due process when we had them in custody, not when they were live threats. You think if we had had a chance to kill Hitler with a sniper during the war we wouldn't have taken it?
There were loads of plots to kill Hitler, IIRC Roger Moorhouse's book says there were at least 40 odd from when Hitler first rose to prominence, but in the end it was concluded he would do more damage to the German war effort left alive and the plots tailed off towards the end of the war.
They were almost all German based. Foxley was the only British one.
Not convinced that Labour really are finished if they elect Corbyn. When IDS / Howard were in charge of the Tories I'm sure the road back to power looked distant and hard. But every Government gets tired sooner or later, and our electoral system makes it nigh impossible for any party other than the main opposition to form a realistic alternative.
------------------
But its not the same is it ?...IDS and the Tories never came close to bankrupting the UK like the ''socialist '' LP did in the 1970s ......the electorate who lived through that awful decade have very good reasons to fear Corbynism , indeed they would be witless not to
I well remember those times up here in Co Durham , it was in some ways like growing up in Poland or East Germany before the fall of the iron curtain ..the economic stagnation and decay , the bleak pessimism and stifling working class attitudes , the narrowness of mind and class envy , the Union thuggishness and blatant intimidation during the miner's strike , the HATE for Thatcher that exists even after she has gone ....who , WHO in their right mind would want a return to that under a two dimensional , quasi Marxist like Jeremy Corbyn
They were given due process when we had them in custody, not when they were live threats. You think if we had had a chance to kill Hitler with a sniper during the war we wouldn't have taken it?
There were loads of plots to kill Hitler, IIRC Roger Moorhouse's book says there were at least 40 odd from when Hitler first rose to prominence, but in the end it was concluded he would do more damage to the German war effort left alive and the plots tailed off towards the end of the war.
It boggles this needs to be pointed out but I guess there's too much turnipacy at the moment.
There was, under the Geneva Convention a state of war. Assasinations of military personal are not extra-judicial killing in those circumstances.
Engaging ISIS targets in Syria does not fulfil this requirement. There is no formal declaration of war with ISIS, ISIS have not invaded sovereign territory of the Crown, there has been no request by the Syrian government for assistance with a "police action" as framed by the convention (as opposed to Iraq where there is).
I'm genuinely torn on this issue. On the one hand, I am not upset that ISIS has lost two fighters - their deaths will no doubt save other's lives. On the other hand, bad precedents are always set when the situation appears to demand it. Who could possibly argue against euthanasia in the face of someone dying of a slow, debilitating illness? But if you make it law, it won't be long before everyone's granny is being encouraged to shuffle off this mortal coil to free up social housing. The same goes for this - ISIS are world hate figures, that's their purpose. No-one objects to their being killed by drone, but what about those who follow? The next stage could well be these things operating on British soil as they do in the US.
Labour was born as a movement of the industrial working class. The clue is in the name. But this class does not exist anymore and most of the battles that Labour fought on its behalf have been won. The first thing Labour needs to do is accept that the party as was can never be again and that the British people have moved on: they do not want or relate to a mass, class-based movement.
We live in a mobile, interconnected world which has largely been created by capitalism. Labour needs to accept that. But that does not mean that a centre-left voice in Britain and elsewhere is not absolutely essential. Inequality is still rife, there is a large group of people who are left behind despite working hard and doing the right thing, the UK's existence is under serious threat, there is a housing crisis, the private sector is deemed to have all the answers despite its often lamentable performance while the public sector is demonised, and so on. Just because the ambitions are never going to be what they were 100 or 50 years ago, that does not mean that the left should give up and leave it all to the Tories. They want the same thing as all other parties - the best outcomes for the most people - but I just do not believe that the solutions they suggest are going to work. I base that on experience (my own and that of others I know) and on observation.
Beyond his friends, the problem with Corbyn is that he gives no impression of having engaged with how the world has developed. He lives in a comfort zone of views that essentially remain the ones he was spouting in the 70s and 80s, when the world was a very different place. Because of this, he will never be able to relate to the country as it is and so he will never be able to deliver a Labour government. Thus, he is not only an immoral choice of leader, he is also a politically very foolish one - if, that is, the Labour party does ever want to make a practical and positive difference to people's lives anymore.
Which of Corbyn's policies do you disagree with? It seems to me he is suggesting a very mild form of social democracy similar to the kinds of policies your heroes in the SDP stood on.
Anyone - ANYONE - who joins ISIS is a legitimate target for drone attacks. If we can't arrest them, we should kill them.
If you need convincing, check this recent ISIS vid (be warned: it is horrifying even by their standards). Sometimes we DO need to see these things to realize what we are confronting. ISIS are intent on genocide, and they glory in it.
Whether we like it or not, there is only one way to deal with them.
The bit in the film where they make piles of living bodies, in preparation for mass execution, proves to me that ISIS are not just like the Nazis, they are surely and directly INSPIRED by the Nazis, right down to the creepy use of black flags and uniforms.
And people wish to give them due process. FFS.
The Nazis were given due process.
The entire justification for which was to demonstrate that we were the good guys.
Your attitude to the entire debate just demonstrates how completely and totally ISIS have been victorious over you.
Must have forgotten the bit where the City of Hamburg was put on trial, found guilty, and then given a jail sentence in Wormwood Scrubs, rather than bombed into flinders.
I do love unintentional irony.
Your drooling really has reached peak Idiot.
There's nothing to argue against, just one of the most ridiculous, vacuous posts imaginable -
He wrote Must have forgotten the bit where the City of Hamburg was put on trial, found guilty, and then given a jail sentence in Wormwood Scrubs, rather than bombed into flinders.
Does it really need pointed out he is describing an atrocity and war crime, that Hamburg isn't a Nazi and most of the population were not Nazis or that there was an actual declared war.
It's inane drool.
It was not a war crime. Thousands of civilians were killed in the Dambusters raid. Was that an atrocity, a war crime?? Huge numbers of aircrew died fighting to beat the Nazis, fighting to destroy their ability to wage war. I went to a memorial service this very weekend commemorating 851 of them from one squadron alone who died. But then you are a thick nasty piece of work. You are the one demanding due process and suggesting putting nazis on trial as an example. But since your brain has the consistency of cheese I think we can ignore the flaws in your logic. If you do not think there is a war on when terrorists are plotting huge atrocities against us then you are beyond pity.
You think if we had had a chance to kill Hitler with a sniper during the war we wouldn't have taken it?
No, apparently.
'There had been some resistance to the assassination plan, particularly from the deputy head of SOE's German Directorate, Lt Col Ronald Thornley. However, his superior, Sir Gerald Templer, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill supported the plan. The two-man team was to be parachuted in and sheltered with Heidentaler, after which they could make the approach to the killing zone disguised as German mountain troops.
The plan was submitted in November 1944, but was never carried out because controversy remained over whether it was actually a good idea to kill Hitler: he was by then considered to be such a poor strategist that it was believed whoever replaced him would probably do a better job of fighting the allies. Thornley also argued that Germany was almost defeated and, if Hitler were assassinated, he would become a martyr to some Germans, and possibly give rise to a myth that Germany might have won if Hitler had survived. Since the idea was not only to defeat Germany but to destroy Nazism in general, that would have been a highly undesirable development. However, there were strong advocates on both sides, and the plan never became operational simply because no actual decision was reached. In any case, Hitler left the Berghof for the last time on 14 July 1944, never to return, and committed suicide in Berlin on 30 April 1945, a few days before the war in Europe ended.'
Clearly it would have been a GOOD idea to assassinate Hitler, without trial, at any point before about 1944. Arguably, if you could time travel, it would have been a good idea to kill him in his cradle. Indeed you can make a decent moral case for killing his mother as a young girl.
I remember having this argument in Morality Lectures when I did my Philosophy Degree at UCL. Feelings ran quite high. IIRC the vague consensus was that assassinating him as an adult would be fine, but there was something wrong about killing him as a baby (and, besides, time travel is impossible)
There is a film out at the moment called 13 minutes about an assassination attempt on Hitler (by a German)
They were given due process when we had them in custody, not when they were live threats. You think if we had had a chance to kill Hitler with a sniper during the war we wouldn't have taken it?
There were loads of plots to kill Hitler, IIRC Roger Moorhouse's book says there were at least 40 odd from when Hitler first rose to prominence, but in the end it was concluded he would do more damage to the German war effort left alive and the plots tailed off towards the end of the war.
It boggles this needs to be pointed out but I guess there's too much turnipacy at the moment.
There was, under the Geneva Convention a state of war. Assasinations of military personal are not extra-judicial killing in those circumstances.
Engaging ISIS targets in Syria does not fulfil this requirement. There is no formal declaration of war with ISIS, ISIS have not invaded sovereign territory of the Crown, there has been no request by the Syrian government for assistance with a "police action" as framed by the convention (as opposed to Iraq where there is).
But ISIS isn't a country. Not a recognised state.
We didn't declare war before operation Flavius - and that was a good day at the office.
I'm genuinely torn on this issue. On the one hand, I am not upset that ISIS has lost two fighters - their deaths will no doubt save other's lives. On the other hand, bad precedents are always set when the situation appears to demand it. Who could possibly argue against euthanasia in the face of someone dying of a slow, debilitating illness? But if you make it law, it won't be long before everyone's granny is being encouraged to shuffle off this mortal coil to free up social housing. The same goes for this - ISIS are world hate figures, that's their purpose. No-one objects to their being killed by drone, but what about those who follow? The next stage could well be these things operating on British soil as they do in the US.
Drone strikes in Barcelona!
Noooooo!!!!! That will give them the excuse never to finish building Gaudi's cathedral!
It boggles this needs to be pointed out but I guess there's too much turnipacy at the moment.
There was, under the Geneva Convention a state of war. Assasinations of military personal are not extra-judicial killing in those circumstances.
Engaging ISIS targets in Syria does not fulfil this requirement. There is no formal declaration of war with ISIS, ISIS have not invaded sovereign territory of the Crown, there has been no request by the Syrian government for assistance with a "police action" as framed by the convention (as opposed to Iraq where there is).
You seem to have missed that the government is arguing it was "self defence". They don't need to declare war if that is the case.
I'm genuinely torn on this issue. On the one hand, I am not upset that ISIS has lost two fighters - their deaths will no doubt save other's lives. On the other hand, bad precedents are always set when the situation appears to demand it. Who could possibly argue against euthanasia in the face of someone dying of a slow, debilitating illness? But if you make it law, it won't be long before everyone's granny is being encouraged to shuffle off this mortal coil to free up social housing. The same goes for this - ISIS are world hate figures, that's their purpose. No-one objects to their being killed by drone, but what about those who follow? The next stage could well be these things operating on British soil as they do in the US.
Drone strikes in Barcelona!
Or in the constituency of the 'The Most Dangerous Woman in Britain'.
Anyone - ANYONE - who joins ISIS is a legitimate target for drone attacks. If we can't arrest them, we should kill them.
If you need convincing, check this recent ISIS vid (be warned: it is horrifying even by their standards). Sometimes we DO need to see these things to realize what we are confronting. ISIS are intent on genocide, and they glory in it.
Whether we like it or not, there is only one way to deal with them.
The bit in the film where they make piles of living bodies, in preparation for mass execution, proves to me that ISIS are not just like the Nazis, they are surely and directly INSPIRED by the Nazis, right down to the creepy use of black flags and uniforms.
And people wish to give them due process. FFS.
The Nazis were given due process.
The entire justification for which was to demonstrate that we were the good guys.
Your attitude to the entire debate just demonstrates how completely and totally ISIS have been victorious over you.
Of course they were. Unconditional surrender and their country flattened. The Allies recognised the Nazis for the evil they were and would - in the end - have no truck with it, no appeasement, no surrender, just a fight to the death. Victory at all costs, as someone said.
IS in particular (and Islamic extremism more generally) is of a similar order and will equally need to be eliminated, once we've got past all the delusional fools, appeasers and fellow travellers.
Christ, SO really is the most hysterical and nonsensical of a really mental bunch here, and he is not even supposedly a PB Tory.
SO is the sane wing of the Labour party. I could actually vote for Labour under a Southam leadership. Hopefully, you'll vote Corbyn in. Things will get really messy, and then the type of party advocated by the likes of Southam will emerge, phoenix-like from the wreckage, and there will be a decent opposition to the Tories.
Indeed - and one of the sanest, most thoughtful and nicest posters here.
Thanks for the comedy link. This is a classic ... "This is just a step away from using drones against Yes supporters in the fight for an independent Scotland."
Don't worry, Mr Dair, I'm sure that bird circling you is probably a pigeon.
It was not a war crime. Thousands of civilians were killed in the Dambusters raid. Was that an atrocity, a war crime?? Huge numbers of aircrew died fighting to beat the Nazis, fighting to destroy their ability to wage war. I went to a memorial service this very weekend commemorating 851 of them from one squadron alone who died. But then you are a thick nasty piece of work. You are the one demanding due process and suggesting putting nazis on trial as an example. But since your brain has the consistency of cheese I think we can ignore the flaws in your logic. If you do not think there is a war on when terrorists are plotting huge atrocities against us then you are beyond pity.
There's a lot of debate about what was and wasn't a war crime. The carpet bombings of German cities is the most obvious example and there's plenty of support for this being a war crime during WW2.
The Dambusters Raid is a war crime TODAY as a specific addition was made to the destruction of dams. Like carpet bombing, whether it was a war crime in 1943 is still debated.
I don't think Hitler died during the war - those photographs of him as an old man in Brazil convince me. Perhaps I should not be so easily convinced, but there is just something about the slope of the shoulders, the chin, and the not very nice way he has his arm around his black girlfriend, that I think is too subtle to be fake. I think a fake would have tried to offer more clues.
The SNPee are the cadaverous corpse of the 1970s LP resurrected from the grave by the lightening bolt of nationalism ...they combine the worst of the 1970s LP with the exclusiveness of tribal nationalism ...a truly toxic brew ...the type of political munchkins up in Scotland who voted for something as gormless as ''independence '' are the same type as those down here in England who are currently involved with ''corbynmania ''
The sane wing of the party needs to do the hard thinking they've failed to do in the last few years so that they can produce a social democratic left of centre story that speaks to the society of today and tomorrow not that of 70 or more years ago.
They've utterly failed to do this and muttering about being pro-aspiration is not even a start.
They might start by asking themselves "What is the point of a left of a centre party?" "What is it for?" "What does it / what should it stand for?" And "What does that mean for the sort of policies we might want to present to the British people?"
Until they do that, no amount of telegenic candidates with good back stories is going to help them, IMO.
I voted Corbyn because he offers a concept of change that I don't necessarily agree with in every detail but which seems to me attractive and coherent enough to be a challenging alternative to the Government, presented in an engagingly mild way.
What an utter and complete mindless fool you are. Its hard to believe you have a mind. No wonder every time the nation votes in a Labour govt it leaves the country in a mess.
And since when did the country last vote in labour govts? Atlee Wilson Blair Note that? What do they have in common? They were all on the centre right of their party, all in effect denying every aspect of what Corbyn stands for. All committed to fighting left wing nutjob lunacy.
You missed out MacDonald; but neither MacDonald (before forming Nat Labour), nor Attlee nor Wilson x2 ever seen as on the right of their party, more mainstream. They may have been thought to be rightwing in government, but much of that was pragmatism.
Corbyn has certainly never been mainstream Labour.
They were given due process when we had them in custody, not when they were live threats. You think if we had had a chance to kill Hitler with a sniper during the war we wouldn't have taken it?
There were loads of plots to kill Hitler, IIRC Roger Moorhouse's book says there were at least 40 odd from when Hitler first rose to prominence, but in the end it was concluded he would do more damage to the German war effort left alive and the plots tailed off towards the end of the war.
It boggles this needs to be pointed out but I guess there's too much turnipacy at the moment.
There was, under the Geneva Convention a state of war. Assasinations of military personal are not extra-judicial killing in those circumstances.
Engaging ISIS targets in Syria does not fulfil this requirement. There is no formal declaration of war with ISIS, ISIS have not invaded sovereign territory of the Crown, there has been no request by the Syrian government for assistance with a "police action" as framed by the convention (as opposed to Iraq where there is).
But ISIS isn't a country. Not a recognised state.
We didn't declare war before operation Flavius - and that was a good day at the office.
ISIS has all the appearances of a state as required by the Geneva Convention.
As for the IRA are concerned, they are an internal matter and are irrelevant as far as the Geneva Convention is concerned.
I supported Blair on the same sort of conditional basis. If the centre-left is to revive, it needs to offer ideals, coherence and a plausible road map of how to get from where we are. Otherwise, the centre-left will opt for the further left, as we're probably doing this week.
Why do you think, then, that this hasn't been done by the centre left? Loss of nerve? Loss of faith? Or just not the right people around?
I think it's intellectually difficult. It's evident that Soviet-style state control of everything doesn't work and has unpleasant side-effects. It's evident that globalised free markets lead to consequences that most people aren't too happy with. How to fashion an alternative that works in one country without mass capital flight is genuinely challenging, and I'm not sure that social democrats have successfully done it anywhere, though Scandinavia has a reasonable pragmatic attempt.
Blair and Brown had a shot at it - essentially accepting free markets while focusing on a liberalised equal-opportunity society and help for low-income workers through tax credits. For my taste they were too addicted to low taxation and minimal regulation, but as a concept it's better than nothing. I approve of Corbyn's rejection of the current squeeze on low incomes and anti-migrant hysteria, and think he's broadly right to reject budget-balancing zealotry of the kind espoused - though not always practiced - by Osborne. And I'd like to live in the more equal and mutually supportive society that he envisages, even if I have doubts about achievability. In the absence of a clear alternative, I'll go for that, without buyer's remorse: at least it provides a counterweight.
And however much Flightpath (who bafflingly seems literally incapable of saying anything without personal abuse - "What the weather forecast for tomorrow?" "It's partly sunny, you moron") may foam, that's a fairly normal left-of-centre position.
Incidentally, there's an analysis by Luke Akehurst, a Cooper supporter, of the race here:
It boggles this needs to be pointed out but I guess there's too much turnipacy at the moment.
There was, under the Geneva Convention a state of war. Assasinations of military personal are not extra-judicial killing in those circumstances.
Engaging ISIS targets in Syria does not fulfil this requirement. There is no formal declaration of war with ISIS, ISIS have not invaded sovereign territory of the Crown, there has been no request by the Syrian government for assistance with a "police action" as framed by the convention (as opposed to Iraq where there is).
You seem to have missed that the government is arguing it was "self defence". They don't need to declare war if that is the case.
It seems to be just as spurious an argument.
I would love to see the argument that a couple of nutjobs in a landrover in Syria constitute a Clear and Present Danger to the United Kingdom. I'm sure SeanT will try and spew one out.
It was not a war crime. Thousands of civilians were killed in the Dambusters raid. Was that an atrocity, a war crime?? Huge numbers of aircrew died fighting to beat the Nazis, fighting to destroy their ability to wage war. I went to a memorial service this very weekend commemorating 851 of them from one squadron alone who died. But then you are a thick nasty piece of work. You are the one demanding due process and suggesting putting nazis on trial as an example. But since your brain has the consistency of cheese I think we can ignore the flaws in your logic. If you do not think there is a war on when terrorists are plotting huge atrocities against us then you are beyond pity.
There's a lot of debate about what was and wasn't a war crime. The carpet bombings of German cities is the most obvious example and there's plenty of support for this being a war crime during WW2.
The Dambusters Raid is a war crime TODAY as a specific addition was made to the destruction of dams. Like carpet bombing, whether it was a war crime in 1943 is still debated.
It boggles this needs to be pointed out but I guess there's too much turnipacy at the moment.
There was, under the Geneva Convention a state of war. Assasinations of military personal are not extra-judicial killing in those circumstances.
Engaging ISIS targets in Syria does not fulfil this requirement. There is no formal declaration of war with ISIS, ISIS have not invaded sovereign territory of the Crown, there has been no request by the Syrian government for assistance with a "police action" as framed by the convention (as opposed to Iraq where there is).
You seem to have missed that the government is arguing it was "self defence". They don't need to declare war if that is the case.
It seems to be just as spurious an argument.
I would love to see the argument that a couple of nutjobs in a landrover in Syria constitute a Clear and Present Danger to the United Kingdom. I'm sure SeanT will try and spew one out.
I think naive is not strong enough to describe your approach.
Carmichael election hearing now into its 2nd day. Are there any m'learned friends on here with a view on events so far? From my dips into the presentations I find the petitioners QC Mitchell more effective than Carmichael's, but is that style or substance?
The SNPee are the cadaverous corpse of the 1970s LP resurrected from the grave by the lightening bolt of nationalism ...they combine the worst of the 1970s LP with the exclusiveness of tribal nationalism ...a truly toxic brew ...the type of political munchkins up in Scotland who voted for something as gormless as ''independence '' are the same type as those down here in England who are currently involved with ''corbynmania ''
You should probably try and puke up the dictionary that you've swallowed & so incompletely digested. Orotund verbosity doesn't compensate for bad writing.
It boggles this needs to be pointed out but I guess there's too much turnipacy at the moment.
There was, under the Geneva Convention a state of war. Assasinations of military personal are not extra-judicial killing in those circumstances.
Engaging ISIS targets in Syria does not fulfil this requirement. There is no formal declaration of war with ISIS, ISIS have not invaded sovereign territory of the Crown, there has been no request by the Syrian government for assistance with a "police action" as framed by the convention (as opposed to Iraq where there is).
You seem to have missed that the government is arguing it was "self defence". They don't need to declare war if that is the case.
It seems to be just as spurious an argument.
I would love to see the argument that a couple of nutjobs in a landrover in Syria constitute a Clear and Present Danger to the United Kingdom. I'm sure SeanT will try and spew one out.
After 9/11 it's evidently clear how some nutjobs on the other side of the world pose a danger to Western civilians. And ISIS have far more resources at their disposal than al-Qaeda.
You think if we had had a chance to kill Hitler with a sniper during the war we wouldn't have taken it?
No, apparently.
'There had been some resistance to the assassination plan, particularly from the deputy head of SOE's German Directorate, Lt Col Ronald Thornley. However, his superior, Sir Gerald Templer, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill supported the plan. The two-man team was to be parachuted in and sheltered with Heidentaler, after which they could make the approach to the killing zone disguised as German mountain troops.
The plan was submitted in November 1944, but was never carried out because controversy remained over whether it was actually a good idea to kill Hitler: he was by then considered to be such a poor strategist that it was believed whoever replaced him would probably do a better job of fighting the allies. Thornley also argued that Germany was almost defeated and, if Hitler were assassinated, he would become a martyr to some Germans, and possibly give rise to a myth that Germany might have won if Hitler had survived. Since the idea was not only to defeat Germany but to destroy Nazism in general, that would have been a highly undesirable development. However, there were strong advocates on both sides, and the plan never became operational simply because no actual decision was reached. In any case, Hitler left the Berghof for the last time on 14 July 1944, never to return, and committed suicide in Berlin on 30 April 1945, a few days before the war in Europe ended.'
Clearly it would have been a GOOD idea to assassinate Hitler, without trial, at any point before about 1944. Arguably, if you could time travel, it would have been a good idea to kill him in his cradle. Indeed you can make a decent moral case for killing his mother as a young girl.
I remember having this argument in Morality Lectures when I did my Philosophy Degree at UCL. Feelings ran quite high. IIRC the vague consensus was that assassinating him as an adult would be fine, but there was something wrong about killing him as a baby (and, besides, time travel is impossible)
There is a film out at the moment called 13 minutes about an assassination attempt on Hitler (by a German)
I feel Valkyrie (2008) was good, though critical reaction was mixed.
The sane wing of the party needs to do the hard thinking they've failed to do in the last few years so that they can produce a social democratic left of centre story that speaks to the society of today and tomorrow not that of 70 or more years ago.
They've utterly failed to do this and muttering about being pro-aspiration is not even a start.
They might start by asking themselves "What is the point of a left of a centre party?" "What is it for?" "What does it / what should it stand for?" And "What does that mean for the sort of policies we might want to present to the British people?"
Until they do that, no amount of telegenic candidates with good back stories is going to help them, IMO.
I voted Corbyn because he offers a concept of change that I don't necessarily agree with in every detail but which seems to me attractive and coherent enough to be a challenging alternative to the Government, presented in an engagingly mild way.
What an utter and complete mindless fool you are. Its hard to believe you have a mind. No wonder every time the nation votes in a Labour govt it leaves the country in a mess.
And since when did the country last vote in labour govts? Atlee Wilson Blair Note that? What do they have in common? They were all on the centre right of their party, all in effect denying every aspect of what Corbyn stands for. All committed to fighting left wing nutjob lunacy.
Wilson and Attlee were most certainly not on the centre right of the party; Wilson was on the soft left and in fact was the left-wing challenger to Gaitskell in 1960. He wasn't a man of the radical left by any means but he was left-wing enough to prevent any left-wing challenge to his leadership even after the 1970 defeat and pragmatic enough to prevent any from the right. Attlee wasn't particularly a part of any faction but acted as an inoffensive unifying figure (something which the likes of the left-wing firebrand Bevan or a right-wing bruiser like Bevin could not have done), though he did once state that he wished to govern from the 'centre-left', though whether he meant the centre-left of the party or of the country is a matter of dispute. Blair was to the right of the Labour centre-right - that phrase is probably more suitable for Brown and his allies (who turned out to be, ironically, a considerably bigger problem for Blair than the hard left).
On topic, there is no point in waiting for Corbyn to win and masterminding a clandestine post election coup, when you can mastermind a clandestine a pre-election coup, and simply fiddle the result. If anyone is going to try and get rid of Corbyn, they'll do it now - only being Labour they'll probably make a huge hash up of it.
You think if we had had a chance to kill Hitler with a sniper during the war we wouldn't have taken it?
No, apparently.
'There had been some resistance to the assassination plan, particularly from the deputy head of SOE's German Directorate, Lt Col Ronald Thornley. However, his superior, Sir Gerald Templer, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill supported the plan. The two-man team was to be parachuted in and sheltered with Heidentaler, after which they could make the approach to the killing zone disguised as German mountain troops.
The plan was submitted in November 1944, but was never carried out because controversy remained over whether it was actually a good idea to kill Hitler: he was by then considered to be such a poor strategist that it was believed whoever replaced him would probably do a better job of fighting the allies. Thornley also argued that Germany was almost defeated and, if Hitler were assassinated, he would become a martyr to some Germans, and possibly give rise to a myth that Germany might have won if Hitler had survived. Since the idea was not only to defeat Germany but to destroy Nazism in general, that would have been a highly undesirable development. However, there were strong advocates on both sides, and the plan never became operational simply because no actual decision was reached. In any case, Hitler left the Berghof for the last time on 14 July 1944, never to return, and committed suicide in Berlin on 30 April 1945, a few days before the war in Europe ended.'
Clearly it would have been a GOOD idea to assassinate Hitler, without trial, at any point before about 1944. Arguably, if you could time travel, it would have been a good idea to kill him in his cradle. Indeed you can make a decent moral case for killing his mother as a young girl.
I remember having this argument in Morality Lectures when I did my Philosophy Degree at UCL. Feelings ran quite high. IIRC the vague consensus was that assassinating him as an adult would be fine, but there was something wrong about killing him as a baby (and, besides, time travel is impossible)
Time travel FORWARDS is theoretically possible, but never BACKWARDS!
I don't think Hitler died during the war - those photographs of him as an old man in Brazil convince me. Perhaps I should not be so easily convinced, but there is just something about the slope of the shoulders, the chin, and the not very nice way he has his arm around his black girlfriend, that I think is too subtle to be fake. I think a fake would have tried to offer more clues.
I haven't the words. Hitler was a gibbering Parkinson's wreck in the 1940s - how would he have survivied for that long in Brazil?
It was not a war crime. Thousands of civilians were killed in the Dambusters raid. Was that an atrocity, a war crime?? Huge numbers of aircrew died fighting to beat the Nazis, fighting to destroy their ability to wage war. I went to a memorial service this very weekend commemorating 851 of them from one squadron alone who died. But then you are a thick nasty piece of work. You are the one demanding due process and suggesting putting nazis on trial as an example. But since your brain has the consistency of cheese I think we can ignore the flaws in your logic. If you do not think there is a war on when terrorists are plotting huge atrocities against us then you are beyond pity.
There's a lot of debate about what was and wasn't a war crime. The carpet bombings of German cities is the most obvious example and there's plenty of support for this being a war crime during WW2.
The Dambusters Raid is a war crime TODAY as a specific addition was made to the destruction of dams. Like carpet bombing, whether it was a war crime in 1943 is still debated.
I don't think Hitler died during the war - those photographs of him as an old man in Brazil convince me. Perhaps I should not be so easily convinced, but there is just something about the slope of the shoulders, the chin, and the not very nice way he has his arm around his black girlfriend, that I think is too subtle to be fake. I think a fake would have tried to offer more clues.
I haven't the words. Hitler was a gibbering Parkinson's wreck in the 1940s - how would he have survivied for that long in Brazil?
Long enough to plot the false flag attack on the Twin Towers with the Israelis, or something equally batty.
I don't think Hitler died during the war - those photographs of him as an old man in Brazil convince me. Perhaps I should not be so easily convinced, but there is just something about the slope of the shoulders, the chin, and the not very nice way he has his arm around his black girlfriend, that I think is too subtle to be fake. I think a fake would have tried to offer more clues.
I haven't the words. Hitler was a gibbering Parkinson's wreck in the 1940s - how would he have survivied for that long in Brazil?
Anyone - ANYONE - who joins ISIS is a legitimate target for drone attacks. If we can't arrest them, we should kill them.
If you need convincing, check this recent ISIS vid (be warned: it is horrifying even by their standards). Sometimes we DO need to see these things to realize what we are confronting. ISIS are intent on genocide, and they glory in it.
Whether we like it or not, there is only one way to deal with them.
The bit in the film where they make piles of living bodies, in preparation for mass execution, proves to me that ISIS are not just like the Nazis, they are surely and directly INSPIRED by the Nazis, right down to the creepy use of black flags and uniforms.
And people wish to give them due process. FFS.
The Nazis were given due process.
The entire justification for which was to demonstrate that we were the good guys.
Your attitude to the entire debate just demonstrates how completely and totally ISIS have been victorious over you.
Must have forgotten the bit where the City of Hamburg was put on trial, found guilty, and then given a jail sentence in Wormwood Scrubs, rather than bombed into flinders.
But, a big but, a state of war existed between UK and Germany. At which point its Geneva convention rules, but otherwise away we go.
I'm not necessarily totally up-to-speed with the situation, but as far as I'm aware we have not declared war on ISIL or whatever.
Do you think that IS would abide by the Geneva Convention? Or any international law, come to that?
Labour was born as a movement of the industrial working class. The clue is in the name. But this class does not exist anymore and most of the battles that Labour fought on its behalf have been won. The first thing Labour needs to do is accept that the party as was can never be again and that the British people have moved on: they do not want or relate to a mass, class-based movement.
We live in a mobile, interconnected world which has largely been created by capitalism. Labour needs to accept that. But that does not mean that a centre-left voice in Britain and elsewhere is not absolutely essential. Inequality is still rife, there is a large group of people who are left behind despite working hard and doing the right thing, the UK's existence is under serious threat, there is a housing crisis, the private sector is deemed to have all the answers despite its often lamentable performance while the public sector is demonised, and so on. Just because the ambitions are never going to be what they were 100 or 50 years ago, that does not mean that the left should give up and leave it all to the Tories. They want the same thing as all other parties - the best outcomes for the most people - but I just do not believe that the solutions they suggest are going to work. I base that on experience (my own and that of others I know) and on observation.
Beyond his friends, the problem with Corbyn is that he gives no impression of having engaged with how the world has developed. He lives in a comfort zone of views that essentially remain the ones he was spouting in the 70s and 80s, when the world was a very different place. Because of this, he will never be able to relate to the country as it is and so he will never be able to deliver a Labour government. Thus, he is not only an immoral choice of leader, he is also a politically very foolish one - if, that is, the Labour party does ever want to make a practical and positive difference to people's lives anymore.
And as for Heydrich, Reginald Paget KC, MP rather let the cat out of the bag when he wrote:-
"Partisans often deliberately provoke reprisals in order that hatred of the occupier may be intensified and more people may be induced to resist. This was our general idea when we flew in a party to murder Heydrich in Czechoslovakia. The main Czech resistance movement was the direct result of the consequent SS reprisals."
Comments
Is there a chance that he might get out 5-10% of the voters who are on the electoral register but never vote ?
I am not talking about those who are not on the register.
The Untied States entered into an accord to ensure the House of Saud survived post WW2, deliberately.
The House of Saud appear to have direct involvement in Al Qaeda and ISIS.
We live in a mobile, interconnected world which has largely been created by capitalism. Labour needs to accept that. But that does not mean that a centre-left voice in Britain and elsewhere is not absolutely essential. Inequality is still rife, there is a large group of people who are left behind despite working hard and doing the right thing, the UK's existence is under serious threat, there is a housing crisis, the private sector is deemed to have all the answers despite its often lamentable performance while the public sector is demonised, and so on. Just because the ambitions are never going to be what they were 100 or 50 years ago, that does not mean that the left should give up and leave it all to the Tories. They want the same thing as all other parties - the best outcomes for the most people - but I just do not believe that the solutions they suggest are going to work. I base that on experience (my own and that of others I know) and on observation.
Beyond his friends, the problem with Corbyn is that he gives no impression of having engaged with how the world has developed. He lives in a comfort zone of views that essentially remain the ones he was spouting in the 70s and 80s, when the world was a very different place. Because of this, he will never be able to relate to the country as it is and so he will never be able to deliver a Labour government. Thus, he is not only an immoral choice of leader, he is also a politically very foolish one - if, that is, the Labour party does ever want to make a practical and positive difference to people's lives anymore.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-34183733
Did he ever speak up about IRA abductions?
BTW, this statement is merely to point out SeanT's usual nutjob logic and not a direct comparison between ISIS and the Continental Congress.
Having said that, the real risk to Labour is losing good activists. I've seen the likes of Southam Observer and Apocalypse muse on here about giving the Lib Dems another look. I'm sure both would be welcome (more than that - from what I've seen on here we'd be a stronger and wiser party with people like them on board) and if this is indicative of serious numbers, that'll make the Labour recovery harder, when sanity in Westminster is restored.
That is where this is all coming from.
Where possible to arrest people, that's my preference. If it's impossible and the choice is do nothing or remove a threat to the UK, I whole-heartedly support removing the threat.
Should Junts pel Sí win the election on 26 September, they will demand independence talks with the central government. I believe that the Spanish government will say that they are willing to talk following a referendum to be held in 2017. It will be a traditional "kicking the can down the road" solution. And I believe that JPS - with only a marginal, and sub 50%, mandate - will have to accept it.
No Spanish government of any political make-up will ever agree to an independence referendum in Catalonia. It would be illegal to do so. The Spanish constitution states that the Spanish people as a whole are sovereign in all of Spain and only they can change its borders.
If they get an overall majority Junts pel Si will initiate the independence process and that will, of course, involve demanding talks about ensuring a smooth transition. They will be rebuffed. If they have a majority they will carry on and declare independence with eighteen months, as they have promised. And they will be ignored. But it will not end the uncertainty or the stand-off. That will only happen with changes of government in Madrid and Barcelona.
Isis = Nazi
Whether we like it or not, there is only one way to deal with them.
There was no declaration of war in the Falklands. Do you think that was illegal?
But then your party released a mass murdering terrorist because he had a sore bottom - so I can see why you aren't in favour of firm action.
I think this - "there is a large group of people who are left behind despite working hard and doing the right thing" - goes to the heart of it.
These are the people for whom Labour should speak. And they haven't been for a long time. They have given the impression that if you work hard and do the right thing, you are either a mug or someone to be mugged in order to give to people who do neither.
That has allowed the Tories to try and claim this space for themselves.
The Labour party could do no better than read your post and start there.
It looks as if many want to give them a chance to escape, whilst Parliament holds a debate.
The Corbynistas would probably tip them off.
Excellent, especially the last line. I honestly believe Blair, Mandelson and Campbell had zero interest in ordinary people's lives, simply their own careers. They have left a void where outside of labour they are loathed and within the different factions loathe each other. No principles, no unity, no raison d'etre beyond a visceral hatred of the conservative party.
I disagree. All three - Blair, Mandy, Campbell - sincerely believed that they were doing the right thing for the British people and nation. The fact that all three were also serpentine, devious careerists, does not invalidate that.
I also quite like Mandelson. He'd have made an excellent Labour prime minister: better than Blair or Brown. Ruthless, cunning, smart, perceptive. Exactly the kind of clever bastard that should be running the country.
Mmmmh sacked twice as a minister, dishonest and duplicitous beyond doubt, I rest my case about why labour are f****d as a result of the trio I mention, most especially Mandelson.
The entire justification for which was to demonstrate that we were the good guys.
Your attitude to the entire debate just demonstrates how completely and totally ISIS have been victorious over you.
http://www.iom.int/news/migrants-refugees-continue-stream-greece-italy
3000 a day into Serbia
http://inserbia.info/today/2015/09/up-to-3000-migrants-enter-serbia-daily/
I worry that the split between media people and normal people is widening. What they fail to realise is that most people consider us to be on a war footing with IS. Once that has happened, opinions harden.
In 1933, the Oxford union passed a motion that "that this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country." Come 1939, they joined up.
There was a passionate debate before the Falklands action, but once it began, there was overwhelming support.
We've reached that tipping point with IS but the media bubble don't want to see it.
And since when did the country last vote in labour govts?
Atlee
Wilson
Blair
Note that? What do they have in common? They were all on the centre right of their party, all in effect denying every aspect of what Corbyn stands for. All committed to fighting left wing nutjob lunacy.
Your drooling really has reached peak Idiot.
I'm not necessarily totally up-to-speed with the situation, but as far as I'm aware we have not declared war on ISIL or whatever.
He wrote Must have forgotten the bit where the City of Hamburg was put on trial, found guilty, and then given a jail sentence in Wormwood Scrubs, rather than bombed into flinders.
Does it really need pointed out he is describing an atrocity and war crime, that Hamburg isn't a Nazi and most of the population were not Nazis or that there was an actual declared war.
It's inane drool.
I think your proposal though of the ISC giving it the "once over" is totally wrong though: parliament should be about principles not about operational decisions. (That doesn't mean they shouldn't discuss and agree the criteria on which such decisions can be taken in future and to monitor compliance after the event)
I think it's pretty unfair, however, to imply that the government didn't think through this properly, weren't controlled in their decision making and are, in fact, "gung-ho armchair warriors". It's absolutely clear - and Cameron has said so himself - that they take these matters very very seriously.
This isn't a sticky wicket you are on Dair; you are sinking in a desperate quagmire.
We're consistently getting these idiots come on the site claiming to represent all of Scotland on 45% of the vote.
Labour have conceded the hard working lower middle classes to the Tories and UKIP, these are the voters they need to win back to get a Parliamentary majority.
Metropolitan Labour under Ed gave the impression of being the party of the not-working clas and anti business, this attitude has to change before I'll ever vote for them again.
Sky is packed with them all grandstanding.
SeanT is quite correct in his assertions.
https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/pay-me-forty-quid-and-i-ll-tell-you
'There had been some resistance to the assassination plan, particularly from the deputy head of SOE's German Directorate, Lt Col Ronald Thornley. However, his superior, Sir Gerald Templer, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill supported the plan. The two-man team was to be parachuted in and sheltered with Heidentaler, after which they could make the approach to the killing zone disguised as German mountain troops.
The plan was submitted in November 1944, but was never carried out because controversy remained over whether it was actually a good idea to kill Hitler: he was by then considered to be such a poor strategist that it was believed whoever replaced him would probably do a better job of fighting the allies. Thornley also argued that Germany was almost defeated and, if Hitler were assassinated, he would become a martyr to some Germans, and possibly give rise to a myth that Germany might have won if Hitler had survived. Since the idea was not only to defeat Germany but to destroy Nazism in general, that would have been a highly undesirable development. However, there were strong advocates on both sides, and the plan never became operational simply because no actual decision was reached. In any case, Hitler left the Berghof for the last time on 14 July 1944, never to return, and committed suicide in Berlin on 30 April 1945, a few days before the war in Europe ended.'
http://tinyurl.com/q77klfh
There was, under the Geneva Convention a state of war. Assasinations of military personal are not extra-judicial killing in those circumstances.
Engaging ISIS targets in Syria does not fulfil this requirement. There is no formal declaration of war with ISIS, ISIS have not invaded sovereign territory of the Crown, there has been no request by the Syrian government for assistance with a "police action" as framed by the convention (as opposed to Iraq where there is).
Huge numbers of aircrew died fighting to beat the Nazis, fighting to destroy their ability to wage war. I went to a memorial service this very weekend commemorating 851 of them from one squadron alone who died. But then you are a thick nasty piece of work.
You are the one demanding due process and suggesting putting nazis on trial as an example. But since your brain has the consistency of cheese I think we can ignore the flaws in your logic. If you do not think there is a war on when terrorists are plotting huge atrocities against us then you are beyond pity.
We didn't declare war before operation Flavius - and that was a good day at the office.
Dr. Brian Spoliver
@BrianSpanner1
If this was from a comedy show it would win a BAFTA.
He is deadly serious though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=76&v=vjjYqPXUwoY …
IS in particular (and Islamic extremism more generally) is of a similar order and will equally need to be eliminated, once we've got past all the delusional fools, appeasers and fellow travellers.
Thanks for the comedy link. This is a classic ... "This is just a step away from using drones against Yes supporters in the fight for an independent Scotland."
Don't worry, Mr Dair, I'm sure that bird circling you is probably a pigeon.
The Dambusters Raid is a war crime TODAY as a specific addition was made to the destruction of dams. Like carpet bombing, whether it was a war crime in 1943 is still debated.
Corbyn has certainly never been mainstream Labour.
As for the IRA are concerned, they are an internal matter and are irrelevant as far as the Geneva Convention is concerned.
Blair and Brown had a shot at it - essentially accepting free markets while focusing on a liberalised equal-opportunity society and help for low-income workers through tax credits. For my taste they were too addicted to low taxation and minimal regulation, but as a concept it's better than nothing. I approve of Corbyn's rejection of the current squeeze on low incomes and anti-migrant hysteria, and think he's broadly right to reject budget-balancing zealotry of the kind espoused - though not always practiced - by Osborne. And I'd like to live in the more equal and mutually supportive society that he envisages, even if I have doubts about achievability. In the absence of a clear alternative, I'll go for that, without buyer's remorse: at least it provides a counterweight.
And however much Flightpath (who bafflingly seems literally incapable of saying anything without personal abuse - "What the weather forecast for tomorrow?" "It's partly sunny, you moron") may foam, that's a fairly normal left-of-centre position.
Incidentally, there's an analysis by Luke Akehurst, a Cooper supporter, of the race here:
http://labourlist.org/2015/09/the-leadership-result-is-going-to-be-closer-than-you-think/
I would love to see the argument that a couple of nutjobs in a landrover in Syria constitute a Clear and Present Danger to the United Kingdom. I'm sure SeanT will try and spew one out.
But apart from that, brilliant post, Southam!
"Partisans often deliberately provoke reprisals in order that hatred of the occupier may be
intensified and more people may be induced to resist. This was our general idea when we flew in a party to murder Heydrich in Czechoslovakia. The main Czech resistance movement was the direct result of the consequent SS reprisals."
Interesting he used the word 'murder'.