I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
There I beg to differ, and I think it shows how we lack imagination in Western societies. We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated.
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
" We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated."
Well said Sean, I couldn't agree more.
Watching the way "progressives" patronise other races and nations is pure cringe
It certainly can be. I think a lot of people really think history and human progress is an inevitable path toward some liberal ideal, but it really is not, and though I am in no way religious myself, religious identity, and often intolerance of the religious identities of others, has been a key if not key factor for large parts of human history. The rise of nationalism competed with it, but religion is still king in many places, and they don't always respond in an 'enlightened' way that we might prefer.
I see election_data has seemingly resigned from the party. Along with the old NUS president. Labour in real danger of lolsing a lot of moderate members now.
Re "blowback"; Mohammed Siddique Khan, the leader of the 7/7 murderers was training with explosives in a camp in Pakistan in 2001. Of course, he cited Iraq in his propaganda video. As cyclefree says, pretext v cause.
He cited Iraq because he knew that it would trigger exactly the reaction we have seen from Pavlov's dogs. The Islamists understand that the Western world can be put under pressure if our "guilt" buttons are pressed.
So we get the:- - "it's your fault because of your colonial interference after WW1" button; - followed by the "it's your fault because Israel was created" button; - followed by the "we are the new Jews of Europe" button (a particularly revolting and inapposite one given how much anti-Semitism there is within the Islamists and how much they target Jews for their murderous hatred),; - occasionally the "we will face a Holocaust of Muslims" button is used. - Then there is the "it's your fault because your societies don't treat our youth with respect/too much Islamophobia/we're being picked on by the authorities" button; - The "we're offended by what you've said about Islam/Mohammed" button is a perennial favourite. - And finally the "you shouldn't have invaded this or that country or done this or that to some Muslim group somewhere" button. Curiously, this always always ignores the efforts which the West eventually put in to help the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo and always always ignores the fact that fellow Muslims were usually the ones killing other Muslims and/or not providing any help. It also ignores those countries which have been attacked which have done none of these things: Bali, Kenya, Nigeria, for instance.
I may have missed some out. It's hard to keep up. All disingenuous chaff designed to obscure the fact that militant Islam has been on the march against Western values and principles for the best part of four decades.
We haven't had a vote in Parliament like this since the Lib Dems got themselves in all kinds of contortions over student fees. That isn't an encouraging precedent for Labour.
I'll give you 6/4 Greens bt Libs in Oldham if you like?
I'm hesitating but I think I'll pass at those odds.
I see election_data has seemingly resigned from the party. Along with the old NUS president. Labour in real danger of lolsing a lot of moderate members now.
In Brussels. It's spooky and so quiet - like after snow has fallen. I walked form the station to my hotel and the only people I saw were soldiers and small groups of North African/Arabic looking young men - walking in fours or fives, almost as if daring someone to get an itchy trigger (though I am sure that is me over-imagining). At the hotel itself I was greeted like a long lost son and given an immediate upgrade to a suite. There's no-one here. It's actually pretty oppressive. I don't know if it's just my part of the city like this or the whole place. But if it is everywhere they can't go on like it for too much longer. It will send people mad.
I'm absolutely shocked to find out that David Davis is voting against the government tomorrow.
Shocked I tell you.
He's the andy burnham of the tory party. used to have something about him but now not so much. mind you at this rate, he could become the blue JC in terms of rebellions so perhaps still thinks he could land the leadership too??
Some very sad comments in the thread below. A truly toxic environment to discuss military action.
Neither side of this debate is "deeply immoral". There are deeply immoral people in Syria however. What we do about it is the question and the decision is not clear cut.
Cameron's "terrorist sympathiser" remark... it implies anyone who doesn't follow his lead is one in my eyes... whether to bomb Syria, which will result in innocent, non ISIS Syrians dying, is a sensitive subject that doesn't need bullying from the PM
There are plenty of reasons that someone might call Corbyn a "terrorist sympathiser" aside from this latest situation.
I'm absolutely shocked to find out that David Davis is voting against the government tomorrow.
Shocked I tell you.
He's the andy burnham of the tory party. used to have something about him but now not so much. mind you at this rate, he could become the blue JC in terms of rebellions so perhaps still thinks he could land the leadership too??
@PolhomeEditor: Labour frontbencher on "intimidation" of pro-war MPs: "The leadership's deliberately stoking it up. It's appalling." https://t.co/7Spk9C0vYN
That article continues: Obama also hinted at US frustration over [Turkey's] inability to seal a border used by Isis to smuggle reinforcements and supplies into Syria.
“There are about 98 kilometres that are still used as a transit point for foreign fighters [and] Isil shipping out fuel for sale that helps finance their terrorist activities,” said Obama.
Have any other world leaders made the same allegation recently?
Cameron's "terrorist sympathiser" remark... it implies anyone who doesn't follow his lead is one in my eyes... whether to bomb Syria, which will result in innocent, non ISIS Syrians dying, is a sensitive subject that doesn't need bullying from the PM
It really is vile. I can't watch it. It's the same as his attitude to the 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists' of UKIP, or his vow before the UN to combat 'non-violent extremists' (people who don't disagree with his world view essentially) as well as violent ones - Cameron (on the advice of his American managers) has deliberately polarised the political debate and made it ok to hate those who disagree with his agenda. It's chilling, incredibly un-British, and those 'Cameron-sympathisers' who support him should beware of the day when something they believe or hold dear puts them on the wrong side of it.
Cameron's "terrorist sympathiser" remark... it implies anyone who doesn't follow his lead is one in my eyes... whether to bomb Syria, which will result in innocent, non ISIS Syrians dying, is a sensitive subject that doesn't need bullying from the PM
There are plenty of reasons that someone might call Corbyn a "terrorist sympathiser" aside from this latest situation.
I'm not sure it's helpful though.
Yeah I think he is a bit of a terrorist sympathiser!
But by saying that, Cameron is inferring that anyone that decides they cant bring themselves to vote to bomb is a terrorist sympathiser also, the way I read it anyway.
Re "blowback"; Mohammed Siddique Khan, the leader of the 7/7 murderers was training with explosives in a camp in Pakistan in 2001. Of course, he cited Iraq in his propaganda video. As cyclefree says, pretext v cause.
He cited Iraq because he knew that it would trigger exactly the reaction we have seen from Pavlov's dogs. The Islamists understand that the Western world can be put under pressure if our "guilt" buttons are pressed.
So we get the:- - "it's your fault because of your colonial interference after WW1" button; - followed by the "it's your fault because Israel was created" button; - followed by the "we are the new Jews of Europe" button (a particularly revolting and inapposite one given how much anti-Semitism there is within the Islamists and how much they target Jews for their murderous hatred),; - occasionally the "we will face a Holocaust of Muslims" button is used. - Then there is the "it's your fault because your societies don't treat our youth with respect/too much Islamophobia/we're being picked on by the authorities" button; - The "we're offended by what you've said about Islam/Mohammed" button is a perennial favourite. - And finally the "you shouldn't have invaded this or that country or done this or that to some Muslim group somewhere" button. Curiously, this always always ignores the efforts which the West eventually put in to help the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo and always always ignores the fact that fellow Muslims were usually the ones killing other Muslims and/or not providing any help. It also ignores those countries which have been attacked which have done none of these things: Bali, Kenya, Nigeria, for instance.
I may have missed some out. It's hard to keep up. All disingenuous chaff designed to obscure the fact that militant Islam has been on the march against Western values and principles for the best part of four decades.
Not just Western values. Education used to be a key part of Islam, and not just of the Koran. Mathematics, astronomy, chemistry and medicine were all domains in which Islam led for a while. And yet now Boko Haram would prohibit much of what was, originally, an Islamic heritage simply because it is education.
As defeating ISIS from the air isn't feasible, we'll need 70,000 local allies to complete the job. One of our new "allies" - Jaysh Al-Islam - numbers around 25,000 fighters in and around Damascus:
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
There I beg to differ, and I think it shows how we lack imagination in Western societies. We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated.
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
Indeed, try to tell a Pakistani apostate that he has a free choice to change religion.
Tell a slave in Mauritania that he was born equal. Tell a woman in Saudi Arabia that she was born equal. Tell a gay man in Uganda or Iran that he was born equal. Tell a leper in Yemen that she is equal.
I know what their responses would be.
Fair enough, and personally I am not that bothered about how other cultures treat their people in their own lands. However, when people from cultures with those sort of attitudes come to live here in the UK then I do not think it unreasonable to ask them to leave their medieval belief systems about the rule of law and rights of individuals at the immigration desk.
He cited Iraq because he knew that it would trigger exactly the reaction we have seen from Pavlov's dogs. The Islamists understand that the Western world can be put under pressure if our "guilt" buttons are pressed.
So we get the:- - "it's your fault because of your colonial interference after WW1" button;
That one particularly pisses me off (though that is not to discount the import of the other excuses you list). I don't even disagree we and others caused or contributed to messes, but it's been a 100 godsdamned years. (and yes, I know we and others have still had interference, it doesn't excuse pinning all the blame on it, much like those still blaming colonialism, sorry, neo-colonialism, for all troubles decades after independence). It makes me go over all right wing, which upsets my socially lefty heart.
Besides which, the Sunni-Shia issue has been going on a lot longer than that and still causes problems.
Re "blowback"; Mohammed Siddique Khan, the leader of the 7/7 murderers was training with explosives in a camp in Pakistan in 2001. Of course, he cited Iraq in his propaganda video. As cyclefree says, pretext v cause.
He cited Iraq because he knew that it would trigger exactly the reaction we have seen from Pavlov's dogs. The Islamists understand that the Western world can be put under pressure if our "guilt" buttons are pressed.
So we get the:- - "it's your fault because of your colonial interference after WW1" button; - followed by the "it's your fault because Israel was created" button; - followed by the "we are the new Jews of Europe" button (a particularly revolting and inapposite one given how much anti-Semitism there is within the Islamists and how much they target Jews for their murderous hatred),; - occasionally the "we will face a Holocaust of Muslims" button is used. - Then there is the "it's your fault because your societies don't treat our youth with respect/too much Islamophobia/we're being picked on by the authorities" button; - The "we're offended by what you've said about Islam/Mohammed" button is a perennial favourite. - And finally the "you shouldn't have invaded this or that country or done this or that to some Muslim group somewhere" button. Curiously, this always always ignores the efforts which the West eventually put in to help the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo and always always ignores the fact that fellow Muslims were usually the ones killing other Muslims and/or not providing any help. It also ignores those countries which have been attacked which have done none of these things: Bali, Kenya, Nigeria, for instance.
I may have missed some out. It's hard to keep up. All disingenuous chaff designed to obscure the fact that militant Islam has been on the march against Western values and principles for the best part of four decades.
Not just Western values. Education used to be a key part of Islam, and not just of the Koran. Mathematics, astronomy, chemistry and medicine were all domains in which Islam led for a while. And yet now Boko Haram would prohibit much of what was, originally, an Islamic heritage simply because it is education.
Could it not be argued that Islam originated at a time when the Arab world was a pioneer in these domains, not that it was a key part of Islam?
A position that respects the UN, recognises the issue with Islamic terrorism and is genuinely europhile.
It's a long way back for them, but while the Greens and Corbyn Labour will be poisonous in many places as they squabble for the hard left, the soft left has to find a home.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
I'm absolutely shocked to find out that David Davis is voting against the government tomorrow.
Shocked I tell you.
He's the andy burnham of the tory party. used to have something about him but now not so much. mind you at this rate, he could become the blue JC in terms of rebellions so perhaps still thinks he could land the leadership too??
“You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers”
-David Cameron to backbenchers.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
That's fucking low from Cameron.
Inadvisable at the very least. Sometimes I think he forgets how tenuous his majority and wider position can be, and when he looks like scoring a win he overreacts.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
There I beg to differ, and I think it shows how we lack imagination in Western societies. We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated.
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
Indeed, try to tell a Pakistani apostate that he has a free choice to change religion.
Tell a slave in Mauritania that he was born equal. Tell a woman in Saudi Arabia that she was born equal. Tell a gay man in Uganda or Iran that he was born equal. Tell a leper in Yemen that she is equal.
I know what their responses would be.
Fair enough, and personally I am not that bothered about how other cultures treat their people in their own lands. However, when people from cultures with those sort of attitudes come to live here in the UK then I do not think it unreasonable to ask them to leave their medieval belief systems about the rule of law and rights of individuals at the immigration desk.
With you there. But what do with do with the second generation who become radicalized? Do we revoke their citizenship and send them back to their ancestral homes? It would almost certainly be illegal, but it might be effective.
with the Lib Dems reported to be supporting the Govt. on Syria, have we heard how the UKIP tranche of MPs have finally decided where to cast their block - and is it whipped?
Cameron's "terrorist sympathiser" remark... it implies anyone who doesn't follow his lead is one in my eyes... whether to bomb Syria, which will result in innocent, non ISIS Syrians dying, is a sensitive subject that doesn't need bullying from the PM
There are plenty of reasons that someone might call Corbyn a "terrorist sympathiser" aside from this latest situation.
I'm not sure it's helpful though.
Yeah I think he is a bit of a terrorist sympathiser!
But by saying that, Cameron is inferring that anyone that decides they cant bring themselves to vote to bomb is a terrorist sympathiser also, the way I read it anyway.
I thought he was just making an emotive appeal not to side with a terrorist sympathiser, not saying that anyone who did would become one.
Re "blowback"; Mohammed Siddique Khan, the leader of the 7/7 murderers was training with explosives in a camp in Pakistan in 2001. Of course, he cited Iraq in his propaganda video. As cyclefree says, pretext v cause.
He cited Iraq because he knew that it would trigger exactly the reaction we have seen from Pavlov's dogs. The Islamists understand that the Western world can be put under pressure if our "guilt" buttons are pressed.
So we get the:- - "it's your fault because of your colonial interference after WW1" button; - followed by the "it's your fault because Israel was created" button; - followed by the "we are the new Jews of Europe" button (a particularly revolting and inapposite one given how much anti-Semitism there is within the Islamists and how much they target Jews for their murderous hatred),; - occasionally the "we will face a Holocaust of Muslims" button is used. - Then there is the "it's your fault because your societies don't treat our youth with respect/too much Islamophobia/we're being picked on by the authorities" button; - The "we're offended by what you've said about Islam/Mohammed" button is a perennial favourite. - And finally the "you shouldn't have invaded this or that country or done this or that to some Muslim group somewhere" button. Curiously, this always always ignores the efforts which the West eventually put in to help the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo and always always ignores the fact that fellow Muslims were usually the ones killing other Muslims and/or not providing any help. It also ignores those countries which have been attacked which have done none of these things: Bali, Kenya, Nigeria, for instance.
I may have missed some out. It's hard to keep up. All disingenuous chaff designed to obscure the fact that militant Islam has been on the march against Western values and principles for the best part of four decades.
I totally agree with you in deploring militant Islam. So why do we want these people in charge of Syria? You, I and everyone here knows these moderate rebels are total nonsense. Why is our Government backing them? Would you like to live under that sort of regime?
Cameron's "terrorist sympathiser" remark... it implies anyone who doesn't follow his lead is one in my eyes... whether to bomb Syria, which will result in innocent, non ISIS Syrians dying, is a sensitive subject that doesn't need bullying from the PM
It really is vile. I can't watch it. It's the same as his attitude to the 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists' of UKIP, or his vow before the UN to combat 'non-violent extremists' (people who don't disagree with his world view essentially) as well as violent ones - Cameron (on the advice of his American managers) has deliberately polarised the political debate and made it ok to hate those who disagree with his agenda. It's chilling, incredibly un-British, and those 'Cameron-sympathisers' who support him should beware of the day when something they believe or hold dear puts them on the wrong side of it.
Cameron has many strengths and when he is good he is amazing, but he has an irritating character trait, he will say and do anything to get himself out of a spot, but doesn't seem to feel that any firm commitments and guarantees he gives are worth sticking his neck out for to achieve. Sometimes it's just a case of him not thinking through the consequences of saying something that, while at that moment might feel right, in the cold light of day, it might not seem a good idea.
Cameron's "terrorist sympathiser" remark... it implies anyone who doesn't follow his lead is one in my eyes... whether to bomb Syria, which will result in innocent, non ISIS Syrians dying, is a sensitive subject that doesn't need bullying from the PM
There are plenty of reasons that someone might call Corbyn a "terrorist sympathiser" aside from this latest situation.
I'm not sure it's helpful though.
Yeah I think he is a bit of a terrorist sympathiser!
But by saying that, Cameron is inferring that anyone that decides they cant bring themselves to vote to bomb is a terrorist sympathiser also, the way I read it anyway.
I thought he was just making an emotive appeal not to side with a terrorist sympathiser, not saying that anyone who did would become one.
To be honest it sounds like the kind of thing Farage would say, and I would wince but think "oh well he is just trying to get UKIP some publicity"
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
It is pretty straightforwardly that, even though the headline tries to distort.
I think there might be a few more Yes votes after that line. It is called sensible party management.
Maybe Corbyn could learn something from this method; rather than relying on his social medja followers to slag off his many opponents.
Cameron's "terrorist sympathiser" remark... it implies anyone who doesn't follow his lead is one in my eyes... whether to bomb Syria, which will result in innocent, non ISIS Syrians dying, is a sensitive subject that doesn't need bullying from the PM
It really is vile. I can't watch it. It's the same as his attitude to the 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists' of UKIP, or his vow before the UN to combat 'non-violent extremists' (people who don't disagree with his world view essentially) as well as violent ones - Cameron (on the advice of his American managers) has deliberately polarised the political debate and made it ok to hate those who disagree with his agenda. It's chilling, incredibly un-British, and those 'Cameron-sympathisers' who support him should beware of the day when something they believe or hold dear puts them on the wrong side of it.
Oh dear - there's a crocodile in the house and he's crying his eyes out.
“You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers”
-David Cameron to backbenchers.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
That's fucking low from Cameron.
Inadvisable at the very least. Sometimes I think he forgets how tenuous his majority and wider position can be, and when he looks like scoring a win he overreacts.
How depressing. Expect more from a prime-minister.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
@PolhomeEditor: Labour frontbencher on "intimidation" of pro-war MPs: "The leadership's deliberately stoking it up. It's appalling." https://t.co/7Spk9C0vYN
I can't develop that much sympathy for people in that position while they remain merely anonymous and briefing the media. Those who have already publicly taken stand, on whatever side, get my attention more.
I note that it says only 30-40 Lab MPs are expected to back the government Motion.
So what was all that fuss about Corbyn not having support within the PLP? That's a perfectly managable rebellion, if it was even formally a rebellion. Since I am not going to second guess someone's motivations and assume that if they support action they will vote for it, and if they do not they will not, I am to assume if the vote pans out that way that the majority of Labour MPs do reflect their party members and do support Corbyn, as he has maintained all along.
Has anyone considered that the vote tomorrow will not only split labour beyond repair but that a new model of socially democracy is conceived with a merger of the anti Corbynites in labour and the lib dems under Hilary Benn
Cameron's "terrorist sympathiser" remark... it implies anyone who doesn't follow his lead is one in my eyes... whether to bomb Syria, which will result in innocent, non ISIS Syrians dying, is a sensitive subject that doesn't need bullying from the PM
There are plenty of reasons that someone might call Corbyn a "terrorist sympathiser" aside from this latest situation.
I'm not sure it's helpful though.
Yeah I think he is a bit of a terrorist sympathiser!
But by saying that, Cameron is inferring that anyone that decides they cant bring themselves to vote to bomb is a terrorist sympathiser also, the way I read it anyway.
I thought he was just making an emotive appeal not to side with a terrorist sympathiser, not saying that anyone who did would become one.
To be honest it sounds like the kind of thing Farage would say, and I would wince but think "oh well he is just trying to get UKIP some publicity"
It is certainly pretty full-on and might suggest he's not entirely confident of the result?
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
There I beg to differ, and I think it shows how we lack imagination in Western societies. We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated.
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
" We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated."
Well said Sean, I couldn't agree more.
Watching the way "progressives" patronise other races and nations is pure cringe
It certainly can be. I think a lot of people really think history and human progress is an inevitable path toward some liberal ideal, but it really is not, and though I am in no way religious myself, religious identity, and often intolerance of the religious identities of others, has been a key if not key factor for large parts of human history. The rise of nationalism competed with it, but religion is still king in many places, and they don't always respond in an 'enlightened' way that we might prefer.
I'd point anyone who believes that way to 16th century Europe. Literacy exploded. Many of the greatest ever works of art, literature, and architecture were produced in that era.
And, this all went hand in hand with some of the most horrific violence that the world has ever witnessed.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
There I beg to differ, and I think it shows how we lack imagination in Western societies. We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated.
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
Indeed, try to tell a Pakistani apostate that he has a free choice to change religion.
Tell a slave in Mauritania that he was born equal. Tell a woman in Saudi Arabia that she was born equal. Tell a gay man in Uganda or Iran that he was born equal. Tell a leper in Yemen that she is equal.
I know what their responses would be.
Fair enough, and personally I am not that bothered about how other cultures treat their people in their own lands. However, when people from cultures with those sort of attitudes come to live here in the UK then I do not think it unreasonable to ask them to leave their medieval belief systems about the rule of law and rights of individuals at the immigration desk.
With you there. But what do with do with the second generation who become radicalized? Do we revoke their citizenship and send them back to their ancestral homes? It would almost certainly be illegal, but it might be effective.
What a person believes is his/her own business and nothing to do with the state. It is what they do that might become an issue. For radicalised second generations,as with everyone else, there are laws a plenty if they take their new beliefs into action. Those laws just need to be enforced and the state agencies need to get out of the cultural cringe they have been stuck in for most of the past twenty years.
@PolhomeEditor: Labour frontbencher on "intimidation" of pro-war MPs: "The leadership's deliberately stoking it up. It's appalling." https://t.co/7Spk9C0vYN
I can't develop that much sympathy for people in that position while they remain merely anonymous and briefing the media. Those who have already publicly taken stand, on whatever side, get my attention more.
I note that it says only 30-40 Lab MPs are expected to back the government Motion.
So what was all that fuss about Corbyn not having support within the PLP? That's a perfectly managable rebellion, if it was even formally a rebellion. Since I am not going to second guess someone's motivations and assume that if they support action they will vote for it, and if they do not they will not, I am to assume if the vote pans out that way that the majority of Labour MPs do reflect their party members and do support Corbyn, as he has maintained all along.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
Oh dear, back to logic school.
To follow through your Hitler example (the last resort of the desperate debater, usually). People who followed Hitler through a division lobby on an issue he took a stand on would be associating with him.
Cameron's "terrorist sympathiser" remark... it implies anyone who doesn't follow his lead is one in my eyes... whether to bomb Syria, which will result in innocent, non ISIS Syrians dying, is a sensitive subject that doesn't need bullying from the PM
It really is vile. I can't watch it. It's the same as his attitude to the 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists' of UKIP, or his vow before the UN to combat 'non-violent extremists' (people who don't disagree with his world view essentially) as well as violent ones - Cameron (on the advice of his American managers) has deliberately polarised the political debate and made it ok to hate those who disagree with his agenda. It's chilling, incredibly un-British, and those 'Cameron-sympathisers' who support him should beware of the day when something they believe or hold dear puts them on the wrong side of it.
Cameron has many strengths and when he is good he is amazing, but he has an irritating character trait, he will say and do anything to get himself out of a spot, but doesn't seem to feel that any firm commitments and guarantees he gives are worth sticking his neck out for to achieve. Sometimes it's just a case of him not thinking through the consequences of saying something that, while at that moment might feel right, in the cold light of day, it might not seem a good idea.
I grant you that personality is a factor, but he's had ample time to row back on some of these statements, and he never has. I don't expect you to see it how I do as we have totally different world views, but to me it bodes very ill.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
If Hitler were suggesting we shouldn't fight fascists it would be relevant.
That the terrorist sympathiser is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists is relevant.
If Corbyn doesn't want to be called a terrorist sympathiser maybe he should stop sympathising with terrorists?
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
There I beg to differ, and I think it shows how we lack imagination in Western societies. We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated.
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
" We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated."
Well said Sean, I couldn't agree more.
Watching the way "progressives" patronise other races and nations is pure cringe
False consciousness is a universal to them. The only reason we don't agree with them is because we is stupid, innit. It's that combination of smugness, hypocrisy and a utterly misplaced sense of moral superiority that puts me off - 'Never kissed a lefty'.
Has anyone considered that the vote tomorrow will not only split labour beyond repair but that a new model of socially democracy is conceived with a merger of the anti Corbynites in labour and the lib dems under Hilary Benn
Hmm, well, it *is* a bit of a surprise that the LDs have decided as they have. Would be a way back to relevance for them.
Just a point Cameron doesn't call Corbyn a terrorist terrorist sympathiser, he says "and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers”. Now I personally wouldn't use that language, I don't think it is necessary, but we don't know who exactly he was referring to. But are we saying that McMao didn't sympathise with the IRA? The Times reported he did.
If Benn closes the debate arguing in support of the Govt, and only a couple of dozen Labour MPs stand with him, he'll have to resign won't he? What happened to all the Shadow Cabinet malcontents? They can't expect backbenchers to make a stand if they aren't prepared to take advantage of the freedom they insisted on.
@PolhomeEditor: Labour frontbencher on "intimidation" of pro-war MPs: "The leadership's deliberately stoking it up. It's appalling." https://t.co/7Spk9C0vYN
I can't develop that much sympathy for people in that position while they remain merely anonymous and briefing the media. Those who have already publicly taken stand, on whatever side, get my attention more.
I note that it says only 30-40 Lab MPs are expected to back the government Motion.
So what was all that fuss about Corbyn not having support within the PLP? That's a perfectly managable rebellion, if it was even formally a rebellion. Since I am not going to second guess someone's motivations and assume that if they support action they will vote for it, and if they do not they will not, I am to assume if the vote pans out that way that the majority of Labour MPs do reflect their party members and do support Corbyn, as he has maintained all along.
Apparently Corbyn was right.
There may also be abstentions.
If they don't support the government action, for whatever reason (and there are several, even if some people like STW types don't care about any reasons), then surely that is support for Corbyn's position? If they cannot support because they would never support action, or they don't think it's the right action, there is not enough of a strategy or whatever, that is what Corbyn thinks isn't it? So in this instance would not an abstention be an endorsement of Corbyn?
This really does seem to have become a lot of hot air over very little. Cameron can get over the line with the NI Unionists overriding his rebels, but he is not, it appears, going to get a stonking great endorsement as either most Labour MPs vote against or abstain. So he gets his win, but not the win he wanted (perhaps this explains his over the top terrorist sympathiser comment), and Labour are not happy about their own division, but it remains managable, as before.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
There I beg to differ, and I think it shows how we lack imagination in Western societies. We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated.
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
Indeed, try to tell a Pakistani apostate that he has a free choice to change religion.
Tell a slave in Mauritania that he was born equal. Tell a woman in Saudi Arabia that she was born equal. Tell a gay man in Uganda or Iran that he was born equal. Tell a leper in Yemen that she is equal.
I know what their responses would be.
Fair enough, and personally I am not that bothered about how other cultures treat their people in their own lands. However, when people from cultures with those sort of attitudes come to live here in the UK then I do not think it unreasonable to ask them to leave their medieval belief systems about the rule of law and rights of individuals at the immigration desk.
Exactly so. It's not only not unreasonable. It should be required of anyone coming to this country. When in Rome.... and all that.
Given the toxic and personal nature of the debate, I am not confident that the Commons can come to the right decision tomorrow.
This would be tragic if it wasn't so dangerous.
It is hardly dangerous, we are already bombing and at war with ISIS. This merely extends the areas we are considered legally allowed to bomb. I consider it minor, hardly a declaration of war that needs to be 'stopped' as STWC might portray.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
If Hitler were suggesting we shouldn't fight fascists it would be relevant.
That the terrorist sympathiser is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists is relevant.
If Corbyn doesn't want to be called a terrorist sympathiser maybe he should stop sympathising with terrorists?
No it isn't; it's not any more relevant. Either fighting the fascists would be a good idea or it wouldn't. Hitler's view on it wouldn't and shouldn't inform anyone's decision - why would you let someone else make a decision like that for you, whether 'inverted' or not?
It is Cameron unjustifiably inciting groupthink in his MPs.
@DPJHodges: Why the outrage at PM terrorist sympathiser line. Corbyn and McDonnell have openly expressed sympathy with IRA and Hamas. Matter of record.
The LibDem position is presumably mainly based on the UN resolution. You can't spend all your time making a big song and dance about the importance of the UN if you then ignore it when it pretty explicitly urges action to be taken. And as a permanent member of the Security Council there is a responsibility to be at the forefront of that action.
@PolhomeEditor: Labour frontbencher on "intimidation" of pro-war MPs: "The leadership's deliberately stoking it up. It's appalling." https://t.co/7Spk9C0vYN
I can't develop that much sympathy for people in that position while they remain merely anonymous and briefing the media. Those who have already publicly taken stand, on whatever side, get my attention more.
I note that it says only 30-40 Lab MPs are expected to back the government Motion.
So what was all that fuss about Corbyn not having support within the PLP? That's a perfectly managable rebellion, if it was even formally a rebellion. Since I am not going to second guess someone's motivations and assume that if they support action they will vote for it, and if they do not they will not, I am to assume if the vote pans out that way that the majority of Labour MPs do reflect their party members and do support Corbyn, as he has maintained all along.
Apparently Corbyn was right.
There may also be abstentions.
If they don't support the government action, for whatever reason (and there are several, even if some people like STW types don't care about any reasons), then surely that is support for Corbyn's position? If they cannot support because they would never support action, or they don't think it's the right action, there is not enough of a strategy or whatever, that is what Corbyn thinks isn't it? So in this instance would not an abstention be an endorsement of Corbyn?
This really does seem to have become a lot of hot air over very little. Cameron can get over the line with the NI Unionists overriding his rebels, but he is not, it appears, going to get a stonking great endorsement as either most Labour MPs vote against or abstain. So he gets his win, but not the win he wanted (perhaps this explains his over the top terrorist sympathiser comment), and Labour are not happy about their own division, but it remains managable, as before.
I doubt that Cameron had ever expected a "stonking great endorsement".
Just a point Cameron doesn't call Corbyn a terrorist terrorist sympathiser, he says "and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers”. Now I personally wouldn't use that language, I don't think it is necessary, but we don't know who exactly he was referring to. But are we saying that McMao didn't sympathise with the IRA? The Times reported he did.
@PolhomeEditor: Labour frontbencher on "intimidation" of pro-war MPs: "The leadership's deliberately stoking it up. It's appalling." https://t.co/7Spk9C0vYN
I can't develop that much sympathy for people in that position while they remain merely anonymous and briefing the media. Those who have already publicly taken stand, on whatever side, get my attention more.
I note that it says only 30-40 Lab MPs are expected to back the government Motion.
So what was all that fuss about Corbyn not having support within the PLP? That's a perfectly managable rebellion, if it was even formally a rebellion. Since I am not going to second guess someone's motivations and assume that if they support action they will vote for it, and if they do not they will not, I am to assume if the vote pans out that way that the majority of Labour MPs do reflect their party members and do support Corbyn, as he has maintained all along.
Apparently Corbyn was right.
There may also be abstentions.
If they don't support the government action, for whatever reason (and there are several, even if some people like STW types don't care about any reasons), then surely that is support for Corbyn's position? If they cannot support because they would never support action, or they don't think it's the right action, there is not enough of a strategy or whatever, that is what Corbyn thinks isn't it? So in this instance would not an abstention be an endorsement of Corbyn?
This really does seem to have become a lot of hot air over very little. Cameron can get over the line with the NI Unionists overriding his rebels, but he is not, it appears, going to get a stonking great endorsement as either most Labour MPs vote against or abstain. So he gets his win, but not the win he wanted (perhaps this explains his over the top terrorist sympathiser comment), and Labour are not happy about their own division, but it remains managable, as before.
I doubt that Cameron had ever expected a "stonking great endorsement".
With previous reports of 70+ Lab MPs potentially voting with him, he wanted it though.
Yawn at Cameron's "terrorist sympathisers" comment.
There's a difference between saying "Western military intervention makes terrorist attacks justified" and "Western military intervention increases the risk of terrorist attacks". Any jihadi who wants to blow up innocent people is scum of the earth in my mind, and no matter how much they try and contort it in their own minds there is never any justification - but, nonetheless, we still should try and not make ourselves the target or give the jihadis propaganda coups by playing into their narrative that "the West" are out to get Muslims.
Which is not to say there should never be any military intervention -- if this proposed intervention gave a much higher chance of actually defeating ISIL, then I'd say it's worth incurring those aforementioned risks. But these air strikes seem like such a small thing, such a small gesture, with so little chance of success, that it doesn't seem worth it.
Politics is a nasty business. Labour have left themselves wide open to these kinds of attacks by allowing people like Corbyn and McDonnell to take control of their party.
Cameron is aiming to kneecap Labour over this issue and would be a useless politician if he missed this opportunity.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
Oh dear, back to logic school.
To follow through your Hitler example (the last resort of the desperate debater, usually). People who followed Hitler through a division lobby on an issue he took a stand on would be associating with him.
I used Hitler as an example of the most loathsome political figure imaginable, and yes, absolutely, you judge a vote on its merits, you vote in the interests of the British people. If Hitler happens to also be voting the right way, fine, that's one more vote. I can't believe anyone here is arguing otherwise. You'd vote for a bombing (or any other policy you felt was wrong and against the interests of the country) to avoid voting with someone disreputable?
Has anyone considered that the vote tomorrow will not only split labour beyond repair but that a new model of socially democracy is conceived with a merger of the anti Corbynites in labour and the lib dems under Hilary Benn
Hmm, well, it *is* a bit of a surprise that the LDs have decided as they have. Would be a way back to relevance for them.
Ask yourself; "what would Charles Kennedy have done?"
The last really honourable and principled leader the Centre Left had.
He cited Iraq because he knew that it would trigger exactly the reaction we have seen from Pavlov's dogs. The Islamists understand that the Western world can be put under pressure if our "guilt" buttons are pressed.
So we get the:- - "it's your fault because of your colonial interference after WW1" button; - followed by the "it's your fault because Israel was created" button; - followed by the "we are the new Jews of Europe" button (a particularly revolting and inapposite one given how much anti-Semitism there is within the Islamists and how much they target Jews for their murderous hatred),; - occasionally the "we will face a Holocaust of Muslims" button is used. - Then there is the "it's your fault because your societies don't treat our youth with respect/too much Islamophobia/we're being picked on by the authorities" button; - The "we're offended by what you've said about Islam/Mohammed" button is a perennial favourite. - And finally the "you shouldn't have invaded this or that country or done this or that to some Muslim group somewhere" button. Curiously, this always always ignores the efforts which the West eventually put in to help the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo and always always ignores the fact that fellow Muslims were usually the ones killing other Muslims and/or not providing any help. It also ignores those countries which have been attacked which have done none of these things: Bali, Kenya, Nigeria, for instance.
I may have missed some out. It's hard to keep up. All disingenuous chaff designed to obscure the fact that militant Islam has been on the march against Western values and principles for the best part of four decades.
I totally agree with you in deploring militant Islam. So why do we want these people in charge of Syria? You, I and everyone here knows these moderate rebels are total nonsense. Why is our Government backing them? Would you like to live under that sort of regime?
Certainly not. The "what next" after bombing question is one which I don't think has been satisfactorily answered and is one reason (BJO please note) why I'm not fully convinced that bombing is necessarily the answer. The long-term strategy appears to be missing.
What I am convinced of is that IS need to be pushed back, out of the territory they hold. They need to be denied space in those countries and elsewhere, anywhere they seek to find a haven. They need to lose, to be eliminated. The ideology needs attacking, here and abroad. How we eliminate IS from the lands they are in I am less certain about. But the do nothing / let's talk to them option is from Planet La-La.
Yawn at Cameron's "terrorist sympathisers" comment.
There's a difference between saying "Western military intervention makes terrorist attacks justified" and "Western military intervention increases the risk of terrorist attacks". Any jihadi who wants to blow up innocent people is scum of the earth in my mind, and no matter how much they try and contort it in their own minds there is never any justification - but, nonetheless, we still should try and not make ourselves the target or give the jihadis propaganda coups by playing into their narrative that "the West" are out to get Muslims.
Which is not to say there should never be any military intervention -- if this proposed intervention gave a much higher chance of actually defeating ISIL, then I'd say it's worth incurring those aforementioned risks. But these air strikes seem like such a small thing, such a small gesture, with so little chance of success, that it doesn't seem worth it.
It may surprise you to know that I'm against these proposed air strikes. We don't have the force projection anymore. Decades of poor defence procurement have made the UK a paper tiger. Air power has been overblown since the '30s. If we're not going to put troops in, it's just more (expensive) gesture politics.
Given the toxic and personal nature of the debate, I am not confident that the Commons can come to the right decision tomorrow.
This would be tragic if it wasn't so dangerous.
It is hardly dangerous, we are already bombing and at war with ISIS. This merely extends the areas we are considered legally allowed to bomb. I consider it minor, hardly a declaration of war that needs to be 'stopped' as STWC might portray.
As someone on here said the other day, rather than fly on past IS targets in Syria to strike IS targets in Iraq we will attack both in future.
Stephen Tall @stephentall 17s17 seconds ago Stephen Tall Retweeted Laura Kuenssberg Un-Prime Ministerial... and yet also, sadly, accurate. Stephen Tall added, Laura Kuenssberg @bbclaurak PM urged his MPs not to "walk through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers"
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
There I beg to differ, and I think it shows how we lack imagination in Western societies. We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated.
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
" We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated."
Well said Sean, I couldn't agree more.
Watching the way "progressives" patronise other races and nations is pure cringe
It certainly can be. I think a lot of people really think history and human progress is an inevitable path toward some liberal ideal, but it really is not, and though I am in no way religious myself, religious identity, and often intolerance of the religious identities of others, has been a key if not key factor for large parts of human history. The rise of nationalism competed with it, but religion is still king in many places, and they don't always respond in an 'enlightened' way that we might prefer.
I'd point anyone who believes that way to 16th century Europe. Literacy exploded. Many of the greatest ever works of art, literature, and architecture were produced in that era.
And, this all went hand in hand with some of the most horrific violence that the world has ever witnessed.
Yeah but whenever you get progress there's always likely to be a fightback to stop it. In a way it's what I'd like to believe about the Islamists. They can see the writing on the wall - the influence of the west is going to shatter the belief systems of their societies and they're desperate to stop it.
Yawn at Cameron's "terrorist sympathisers" comment.
There's a difference between saying "Western military intervention makes terrorist attacks justified" and "Western military intervention increases the risk of terrorist attacks". Any jihadi who wants to blow up innocent people is scum of the earth in my mind, and no matter how much they try and contort it in their own minds there is never any justification - but, nonetheless, we still should try and not make ourselves the target or give the jihadis propaganda coups by playing into their narrative that "the West" are out to get Muslims.
Which is not to say there should never be any military intervention -- if this proposed intervention gave a much higher chance of actually defeating ISIL, then I'd say it's worth incurring those aforementioned risks. But this seems like such a small thing, such a small gesture, with so little chance of success, that it doesn't seem worth it.
Taking action against ISIS doesn't "make ourselves the target". It might make ourselves "target of the month", because it suits ISIS if public opinion makes the link and puts pressure on their governments not to intervene. Ultimately it is not credible to think that ISIS are happier with western intervention than not. Their strategy is aimed at dividing the international opposition to their actions and ultimately give them free reign to expand in their immediate area of interest.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
If Hitler were suggesting we shouldn't fight fascists it would be relevant.
That the terrorist sympathiser is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists is relevant.
If Corbyn doesn't want to be called a terrorist sympathiser maybe he should stop sympathising with terrorists?
No it isn't; it's not any more relevant. Either fighting the fascists would be a good idea or it wouldn't. Hitler's view on it wouldn't and shouldn't inform anyone's decision - why would you let someone else make a decision like that for you, whether 'inverted' or not?
It is Cameron unjustifiably inciting groupthink in his MPs.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
If Hitler were suggesting we shouldn't fight fascists it would be relevant.
That the terrorist sympathiser is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists is relevant.
If Corbyn doesn't want to be called a terrorist sympathiser maybe he should stop sympathising with terrorists?
No it isn't; it's not any more relevant. Either fighting the fascists would be a good idea or it wouldn't. Hitler's view on it wouldn't and shouldn't inform anyone's decision - why would you let someone else make a decision like that for you, whether 'inverted' or not?
It is Cameron unjustifiably inciting groupthink in his MPs.
Sorry but you're absurd. So the Leader Of the Opposition isn't relevant? Good to know.
Opposition to fighting the terrorists is being led by terrorist sympathisers. Plural, McMao as well as Jezbollah and probably others (Milne isn't an MP). Of course the fact that terrorist sympathisers are trying to sympathise with terrorists is relevant.
I note you're not trying to pretend that Jeabollah and McMao aren't terrorist sympathisers. Just that the PM is supposed to ignore the elephant in the room.
@DPJHodges: Why the outrage at PM terrorist sympathiser line. Corbyn and McDonnell have openly expressed sympathy with IRA and Hamas. Matter of record.
Yawn at Cameron's "terrorist sympathisers" comment.
There's a difference between saying "Western military intervention makes terrorist attacks justified" and "Western military intervention increases the risk of terrorist attacks". Any jihadi who wants to blow up innocent people is scum of the earth in my mind, and no matter how much they try and contort it in their own minds there is never any justification - but, nonetheless, we still should try and not make ourselves the target or give the jihadis propaganda coups by playing into their narrative that "the West" are out to get Muslims.
Which is not to say there should never be any military intervention -- if this proposed intervention gave a much higher chance of actually defeating ISIL, then I'd say it's worth incurring those aforementioned risks. But this seems like such a small thing, such a small gesture, with so little chance of success, that it doesn't seem worth it.
Taking action against ISIS doesn't "make ourselves the target". It might make ourselves "target of the month", because it suits ISIS if public opinion makes the link and puts pressure on their governments not to intervene. Ultimately it is not credible to think that ISIS are happier with western intervention than not. Their strategy is aimed at dividing the international opposition to their actions and ultimately give them free reign to expand in their immediate area of interest.
In addition we are already a target as we are bombing them in Iraq - so the whole argument that it will increase our risk of terror attacks kind of falls flat.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
If Hitler were suggesting we shouldn't fight fascists it would be relevant.
That the terrorist sympathiser is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists is relevant.
If Corbyn doesn't want to be called a terrorist sympathiser maybe he should stop sympathising with terrorists?
No it isn't; it's not any more relevant. Either fighting the fascists would be a good idea or it wouldn't. Hitler's view on it wouldn't and shouldn't inform anyone's decision - why would you let someone else make a decision like that for you, whether 'inverted' or not?
It is Cameron unjustifiably inciting groupthink in his MPs.
Sorry but you're absurd. So the Leader Of the Opposition isn't relevant? Good to know.
Opposition to fighting the terrorists is being led by terrorist sympathisers. Plural, McMao as well as Jezbollah and probably others (Milne isn't an MP). Of course the fact that terrorist sympathisers are trying to sympathise with terrorists is relevant.
I note you're not trying to pretend that Jeabollah and McMao aren't terrorist sympathisers. Just that the PM is supposed to ignore the elephant in the room.
Re "blowback"; Mohammed Siddique Khan, the leader of the 7/7 murderers was training with explosives in a camp in Pakistan in 2001. Of course, he cited Iraq in his propaganda video. As cyclefree says, pretext v cause.
He cited Iraq because he knew that it would trigger exactly the reaction we have seen from Pavlov's dogs. The Islamists understand that the Western world can be put under pressure if our "guilt" buttons are pressed.
So we get the:- - "it's your fault because of your colonial interference after WW1" button; - followed by the "it's your fault because Israel was created" button; - followed by the "we are the new Jews of Europe" button (a particularly revolting and inapposite one given how much anti-Semitism there is within the Islamists and how much they target Jews for their murderous hatred),; - occasionally the "we will face a Holocaust of Muslims" button is used. - Then there is the "it's your fault because your societies don't treat our youth with respect/too much Islamophobia/we're being picked on by the authorities" button; - The "we're offended by what you've said about Islam/Mohammed" button is a perennial favourite. - And finally the "you shouldn't have invaded this or that country or done this or that to some Muslim group somewhere" button. Curiously, this always always ignores the efforts which the West eventually put in to help the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo and always always ignores the fact that fellow Muslims were usually the ones killing other Muslims and/or not providing any help. It also ignores those countries which have been attacked which have done none of these things: Bali, Kenya, Nigeria, for instance.
I may have missed some out. It's hard to keep up. All disingenuous chaff designed to obscure the fact that militant Islam has been on the march against Western values and principles for the best part of four decades.
Not just Western values. Education used to be a key part of Islam, and not just of the Koran. Mathematics, astronomy, chemistry and medicine were all domains in which Islam led for a while. And yet now Boko Haram would prohibit much of what was, originally, an Islamic heritage simply because it is education.
Could it not be argued that Islam originated at a time when the Arab world was a pioneer in these domains, not that it was a key part of Islam?
Could not be that Islam developed into a rigid doctrinal faith which inhibited free-thinking intellectuals possibly similar to the rigidities of the Roman Catholic faith which lost ground to the more questioning Protestant cultures?
Has anyone considered that the vote tomorrow will not only split labour beyond repair but that a new model of socially democracy is conceived with a merger of the anti Corbynites in labour and the lib dems under Hilary Benn
Hmm, well, it *is* a bit of a surprise that the LDs have decided as they have. Would be a way back to relevance for them.
Ask yourself; "what would Charles Kennedy have done?"
The last really honourable and principled leader the Centre Left had.
What would Charles Kennedy have done? If you believe his words at the time of the Iraq war, the key issue throughout was whether action was being taken multilaterally and with the backing of the UN. Well this proposed action is both. So logically he would have been in favour, wouldn't he?
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
If Hitler were suggesting we shouldn't fight fascists it would be relevant.
That the terrorist sympathiser is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists is relevant.
If Corbyn doesn't want to be called a terrorist sympathiser maybe he should stop sympathising with terrorists?
You have missed the point by as far as it is possible to miss it
Calling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser is probably accurate... saying "don't allay yourself with a bunch of terrorist sympathisers" to MP's that aren't sympathetic to terrorists in the least may be seen as trying to smear by association or make people vote your way by fear of smear
What a load of bollox this is turning into. Both major parties frothing at the mouth over allowing a couple of jets to open their bomb bay doors a little bit more to the left of a border that IS don't recognise? It's hardly total war, is it? It's gonna take a lot more than that to wipe out the Death Cult, and none of our leaders will have the cojones to sign up to what needs to be done, both abroad and at home. Anyway, apparently I'm now affiliated back with the Labour party. Deep joy.
What a load of bollox this is turning into. Both major parties frothing at the mouth over allowing a couple of jets to open their bomb bay doors a little bit more to the left of a border that IS don't recognise? It's hardly total war, is it? It's gonna take a lot more than that to wipe out the Death Cult, and none of our leaders will have the cojones to sign up to what needs to be done, both abroad and at home. Anyway, apparently I'm now affiliated back with the Labour party. Deep joy.
It is absolutely true that this issue has been blown out of all proportion. The Iraq war it is not.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
If Hitler were suggesting we shouldn't fight fascists it would be relevant.
That the terrorist sympathiser is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists is relevant.
If Corbyn doesn't want to be called a terrorist sympathiser maybe he should stop sympathising with terrorists?
No it isn't; it's not any more relevant. Either fighting the fascists would be a good idea or it wouldn't. Hitler's view on it wouldn't and shouldn't inform anyone's decision - why would you let someone else make a decision like that for you, whether 'inverted' or not?
It is Cameron unjustifiably inciting groupthink in his MPs.
Read the words he is reported in the article as using:
You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers
He is saying, don't associate with people like that. Not groupthink. Leadership.
Why should it make any difference to an MP that is not a terrorist sympathiser, but doesn't support air strikes, what motivates other people that vote with him or her?
It shouldn't make any, and it low to infer that they are part of a group of terrorist sympathisers just because they don't want to bomb Syria
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
If Hitler were suggesting we shouldn't fight fascists it would be relevant.
That the terrorist sympathiser is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists is relevant.
If Corbyn doesn't want to be called a terrorist sympathiser maybe he should stop sympathising with terrorists?
No it isn't; it's not any more relevant. Either fighting the fascists would be a good idea or it wouldn't. Hitler's view on it wouldn't and shouldn't inform anyone's decision - why would you let someone else make a decision like that for you, whether 'inverted' or not?
It is Cameron unjustifiably inciting groupthink in his MPs.
Sorry but you're absurd. So the Leader Of the Opposition isn't relevant? Good to know.
Opposition to fighting the terrorists is being led by terrorist sympathisers. Plural, McMao as well as Jezbollah and probably others (Milne isn't an MP). Of course the fact that terrorist sympathisers are trying to sympathise with terrorists is relevant.
I note you're not trying to pretend that Jeabollah and McMao aren't terrorist sympathisers. Just that the PM is supposed to ignore the elephant in the room.
Wasn't Cameron pro-apartheid at one time?
Being friends with SA and against sanctions doesn't make you pro apartheid. Maggie proved that.
Not sure Labour can take the high ground when it comes to smears about affiliations with objectionable groups.
Remember the whole EU party affiliation stuff, that got very low and nasty...and massively hypocritical. Labour affiliated with a left wing terrorist group no problem, Tories EU grouping contained a party with some people who liked to commemorate a Latvian unit of the Waffen SS, utter outrage.
If the Lib Dems and pro-intervention Labour MPs joined forces, would they be the LDLP (Liberal Democrat and Labour Party) or could they go Social Democrat and Labour Party (SDLP)?
The attraction of the latter is the NI connotation and that would leave the Corbyn Labour Party free to align with Sinn Fein.
Well, mea culpa. I cynically posted here that I didn't expect the LibDems to follow their principles. As you all know, the core of LibDem principles in these matters is that we should work with the UN and our EU friends.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
There I beg to differ, and I think it shows how we lack imagination in Western societies. We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated.
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
Indeed, try to tell a Pakistani apostate that he has a free choice to change religion.
Tell a slave in Mauritania that he was born equal. Tell a woman in Saudi Arabia that she was born equal. Tell a gay man in Uganda or Iran that he was born equal. Tell a leper in Yemen that she is equal.
I know what their responses would be.
Fair enough, and personally I am not that bothered about how other cultures treat their people in their own lands. However, when people from cultures with those sort of attitudes come to live here in the UK then I do not think it unreasonable to ask them to leave their medieval belief systems about the rule of law and rights of individuals at the immigration desk.
Pardon? You approve of slavery. of buying and selling other humans like a tin of beans as long as you cannot see it happening? Is that really what you are saying? Is it really OK for ISIS to throw gay men to their deaths because that is what they do over there?
Comments
Good luck to my close friends in @UKLabour , this is where I get off. Thanks for everything.
Shocked I tell you.
So we get the:-
- "it's your fault because of your colonial interference after WW1" button;
- followed by the "it's your fault because Israel was created" button;
- followed by the "we are the new Jews of Europe" button (a particularly revolting and inapposite one given how much anti-Semitism there is within the Islamists and how much they target Jews for their murderous hatred),;
- occasionally the "we will face a Holocaust of Muslims" button is used.
- Then there is the "it's your fault because your societies don't treat our youth with respect/too much Islamophobia/we're being picked on by the authorities" button;
- The "we're offended by what you've said about Islam/Mohammed" button is a perennial favourite.
- And finally the "you shouldn't have invaded this or that country or done this or that to some Muslim group somewhere" button. Curiously, this always always ignores the efforts which the West eventually put in to help the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo and always always ignores the fact that fellow Muslims were usually the ones killing other Muslims and/or not providing any help. It also ignores those countries which have been attacked which have done none of these things: Bali, Kenya, Nigeria, for instance.
I may have missed some out. It's hard to keep up. All disingenuous chaff designed to obscure the fact that militant Islam has been on the march against Western values and principles for the best part of four decades.
What is it with Labour and Syria? Wasn't it the first Syria vote that led to Dan Hodges resigning from the party? Granted he is not typical.
Neither side of this debate is "deeply immoral". There are deeply immoral people in Syria however. What we do about it is the question and the decision is not clear cut.
I'm not sure it's helpful though.
'This house resolves to support extended military action against ISIL to Syria, and to make David Davis First Secretary of State of Top Blokes'
“There are about 98 kilometres that are still used as a transit point for foreign fighters [and] Isil shipping out fuel for sale that helps finance their terrorist activities,” said Obama.
Have any other world leaders made the same allegation recently?
-David Cameron to backbenchers.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
That's fucking low from Cameron.
But by saying that, Cameron is inferring that anyone that decides they cant bring themselves to vote to bomb is a terrorist sympathiser also, the way I read it anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaysh_al-Islam
As far as I can tell this bunch appear to be just as bad as ISIS, their only redeeming feature is they're on our side (for now). Some recent coverage:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3145562/Rival-Syrian-terror-group-turns-tables-ISIS-fighters-releasing-slick-execution-video-executing-jihadis-dressed-orange-jumpsuits.html
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/11/01/Monitor-Syria-rebels-using-caged-captives-as-human-shields-.html
Besides which, the Sunni-Shia issue has been going on a lot longer than that and still causes problems.
It's a long way back for them, but while the Greens and Corbyn Labour will be poisonous in many places as they squabble for the hard left, the soft left has to find a home.
I think there might be a few more Yes votes after that line. It is called sensible party management.
Maybe Corbyn could learn something from this method; rather than relying on his social medja followers to slag off his many opponents.
I note that it says only 30-40 Lab MPs are expected to back the government Motion.
So what was all that fuss about Corbyn not having support within the PLP? That's a perfectly managable rebellion, if it was even formally a rebellion. Since I am not going to second guess someone's motivations and assume that if they support action they will vote for it, and if they do not they will not, I am to assume if the vote pans out that way that the majority of Labour MPs do reflect their party members and do support Corbyn, as he has maintained all along.
Apparently Corbyn was right.
And, this all went hand in hand with some of the most horrific violence that the world has ever witnessed.
To follow through your Hitler example (the last resort of the desperate debater, usually). People who followed Hitler through a division lobby on an issue he took a stand on would be associating with him.
That the terrorist sympathiser is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists is relevant.
If Corbyn doesn't want to be called a terrorist sympathiser maybe he should stop sympathising with terrorists?
This would be tragic if it wasn't so dangerous.
Imagine these Labour MPs and the Lib Dem ones coming to a broader accord.
The SDP - but starting with 78 MPs.
This really does seem to have become a lot of hot air over very little. Cameron can get over the line with the NI Unionists overriding his rebels, but he is not, it appears, going to get a stonking great endorsement as either most Labour MPs vote against or abstain. So he gets his win, but not the win he wanted (perhaps this explains his over the top terrorist sympathiser comment), and Labour are not happy about their own division, but it remains managable, as before.
It is Cameron unjustifiably inciting groupthink in his MPs.
I will have a bunch of grapes please.
How many grapes would you like sir
One
There's a difference between saying "Western military intervention makes terrorist attacks justified" and "Western military intervention increases the risk of terrorist attacks". Any jihadi who wants to blow up innocent people is scum of the earth in my mind, and no matter how much they try and contort it in their own minds there is never any justification - but, nonetheless, we still should try and not make ourselves the target or give the jihadis propaganda coups by playing into their narrative that "the West" are out to get Muslims.
Which is not to say there should never be any military intervention -- if this proposed intervention gave a much higher chance of actually defeating ISIL, then I'd say it's worth incurring those aforementioned risks. But these air strikes seem like such a small thing, such a small gesture, with so little chance of success, that it doesn't seem worth it.
Cameron is aiming to kneecap Labour over this issue and would be a useless politician if he missed this opportunity.
The last really honourable and principled leader the Centre Left had.
What I am convinced of is that IS need to be pushed back, out of the territory they hold. They need to be denied space in those countries and elsewhere, anywhere they seek to find a haven. They need to lose, to be eliminated. The ideology needs attacking, here and abroad. How we eliminate IS from the lands they are in I am less certain about. But the do nothing / let's talk to them option is from Planet La-La.
Stephen Tall @stephentall 17s17 seconds ago
Stephen Tall Retweeted Laura Kuenssberg
Un-Prime Ministerial... and yet also, sadly, accurate. Stephen Tall added,
Laura Kuenssberg @bbclaurak
PM urged his MPs not to "walk through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers"
Read the words he is reported in the article as using:
You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers
He is saying, don't associate with people like that. Not groupthink. Leadership.
Opposition to fighting the terrorists is being led by terrorist sympathisers. Plural, McMao as well as Jezbollah and probably others (Milne isn't an MP). Of course the fact that terrorist sympathisers are trying to sympathise with terrorists is relevant.
I note you're not trying to pretend that Jeabollah and McMao aren't terrorist sympathisers. Just that the PM is supposed to ignore the elephant in the room.
Calling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser is probably accurate... saying "don't allay yourself with a bunch of terrorist sympathisers" to MP's that aren't sympathetic to terrorists in the least may be seen as trying to smear by association or make people vote your way by fear of smear
It's gonna take a lot more than that to wipe out the Death Cult, and none of our leaders will have the cojones to sign up to what needs to be done, both abroad and at home.
Anyway, apparently I'm now affiliated back with the Labour party. Deep joy.
It shouldn't make any, and it low to infer that they are part of a group of terrorist sympathisers just because they don't want to bomb Syria
Remember the whole EU party affiliation stuff, that got very low and nasty...and massively hypocritical. Labour affiliated with a left wing terrorist group no problem, Tories EU grouping contained a party with some people who liked to commemorate a Latvian unit of the Waffen SS, utter outrage.
The attraction of the latter is the NI connotation and that would leave the Corbyn Labour Party free to align with Sinn Fein.
Looks like I was wrong. I apologise.