The fact that the public still backs airstrikes by a 17% margin, 48% to 31%, suggests that they are pretty convinced of the case but want to be certain it will be supporting forces on the ground. The fact Labour voters are opposed though suggests Corbyn is right to speak and vote against airstrikes though even if he allows his MPs a free vote
The public are like sheep and change with the wind. They have no clue about it and most don't care about people far away or are scared with all the talk about the baddies coming to blow them up. We will see what the sheep think when we are sucked in and the body bags are coming back on a daily basis.
Me: "I certainly 'allow' your opinion - all opinions should be heard and expressed in a democracy; I just disagree with it. (For what it's worth, ISIS wouldn't allow your opinion: as a woman, you wouldn't be allowed an opinion at all). This is not about revenge on the part of ISIS or the West - ISIS and other groups like them want to destroy the West: they hate what we stand for and hate even more the success and power that comes with it. They will never stop while they have the chance; there is no reasoning with them. If there were a political route to peace I would be more than happy to take it but I'd challenge anyone to suggest how it could be done when all the evidence is that they don't want it. On your points, when was ISIS created when we bombed their homes and families? They came first - to the extent that the West has been involved, that came after. Ireland came to peace when the IRA recognised that they could not win the war through violence and the UK government was prepared to enter talks without preconditions; there is no parallel in Syria: no side is prepared to enter talks without the other surrendering. It's always a tragedy when innocent people lose their lives but that is already happening now at the hands of ISIS and other groups; our not being involved won't stop it. Getting involved in WWII resulted in millions of innocent people dying but it was still the right decision. Hitler could not have been stopped any other way and the same is true in Syria. In fact, the crucial distinction is that the West does *not* murder innocent families, unlike ISIS and their followers; the military go out of their way to try to avoid killing innocents and certainly (snip)
Her: "I hear you David Herdson and can tell your passionate about your views. I feel hate and violence breeds more of it. I hope another way becomes clear. xx"
Without violence from us the Yazidi would have been exterminated in Iraq.
Certainly the Iraq War - and even more, the post-Iraq War mistakes - have a lot to answer for. However, from Afghanistan to Yemen to Somalia to Syria to Libya, Islamist fighters have looked for failed muslim countries in which to base insurgencies. Had the Iraq war not taken place, events would have panned out differently but the Arab Spring may well have come about anyway and Syria would still have been a failed state attracting Islamist crusaders.
Well done David. That's one of the most civilised (and respectful) political conversations on Facebook on politics I've seen.
Your points are very well made. I agree entirely that ISIS are modern day Nazis.
Those who wish to ignore them hoping that they go away are modern day appeasers.
Mr. 63, it'd only take one captured soldier for Daesh to have a PR coup, as well as to inflict tremendous suffering on one of our men. That might redouble our resolve, or make it crumble.
That, along with being haunted by the ghost of Iraq, is what puts people off, I think.
As I said last night this vote is being ridiculously oversold. We are already bombing Daesh, have been for over a year. We are talking about extending the field of our very modest operations across a boundary our enemy does not recognise. Our proposal to do so is backed by a unanimous UN resolution and is already being done by our allies. If this was the scope of the proposal it is barely worth talking about.
The reality is that Corbyn's opposition is not to this utterly trivial step but to our armed intervention in total. He thinks we can negotiate and reason with these people and that this is a better solution than trying to destroy them. Events have not moved in his favour in recent times.
When this is approved today we will start to bomb targets in Syria. By Christmas the number of bombs dropped in Syria on our very tight rules of engagement may well have reached double figures although my guess is that might be a close
We really need to get over ourselves. The world is not waiting with bated breath on our deliberations on this. We are making ourselves look more than just a bit silly.
It is clearly the next step on a slippery slope to British ground forces getting involved in a Syrian Civil war. That is what should be being debated. Are we really committed to getting involved, or are we just going to whack the wasps nest a few times then turn tail and run, like we did in Iraq, Helmand and Libya?
An Iraqi friend told me an interesting old Iraqi saying "It is better to be an enemy of the British than their friend. They buy their enemies and sell their friends". Sadly this is all too true.
We are doing the same thing in Iraq right now, and have been for quite a while. No ground element apart from some members of the Hereford Hunting club. Incidentally, did you know that McIRA wanted to abolish the SAS as well as MI5?
Yes I do know that, but this is a significant escalation and expansion of our role in the conflict.
If we are serious about defeating IS and fellow travellers like Boko Haram and Al Shabaab then we need to accept that it is going to be costly in terms of both lives and money, and that there is likely to be a lot of civillian casualties. There always are in assymetric warfare. A few bombs from 2 extra Tornados is neither here nor there. You don't tackle a rabid dog with a peashooter.
We should be resolute and forceful in our defence of liberal democracy against Islamo-facists, but we should not delude ourselves that it will be easy or cheap.
Can you refer to me when Cameron or any other minister said the action would be easy or cheap?
I think we've had enough of these air strikes in the Middle East. Cameron's Blair-like enthusiasm for violence rather than diplomacy in foreign affairs is a stain on his reputation.
Ridiculous. What is your negotiation strategy for dealing with ISIS?
Only a couple of years back imbecile Cameron was planning on siding with ISIS to oust Assad. Dave's a clown on the global stage.
Ah, I see. This is all about your dislike of Cameron.
I note you have nothing to offer on a negotiation strategy to defeat ISIS.
What I don't get about the air strikes is that the Russians, Americans, French and Syrians etc have been bombing the place to bits for ages, so what difference will a few of our bombs make? Do we know of new ISIS targets that others aren't aware of?
Or is Cameron getting the parliamentary nod so that we can get involved if necessary? To show we are a fully paid-up member of the huge coalition against ISIS?
I can't see how in reality our involvement is going to lead to much more suffering on the ground. After all, if there is an obvious target out there to be hit, I'd guess the Americans have already hit it.
The explanation is Cameron's vanity. He wants to be a player. Parliament should put a stop to his gross egotistical urges.
What I don't get about the air strikes is that the Russians, Americans, French and Syrians etc have been bombing the place to bits for ages, so what difference will a few of our bombs make? Do we know of new ISIS targets that others aren't aware of?
Or is Cameron getting the parliamentary nod so that we can get involved if necessary? To show we are a fully paid-up member of the huge coalition against ISIS?
I can't see how in reality our involvement is going to lead to much more suffering on the ground. After all, if there is an obvious target out there to be hit, I'd guess the Americans have already hit it.
The explanation is Cameron's vanity. He wants to be a player. Parliament should put a stop to his gross egotistical urges.
I'm going to assume that no right minded person wants ISIS to persist, so, what is your plan for:
a) removing ISIS from controlling land in the middle east b) preventing it being a draw to extremists from around the world c) preventing others from setting up similar horrific regimes in other failed states
I can't stand the hypocritical naysaying - which is just as egotistical.
1) What threat do ISIS pose to: a) their locality, b) the UK, c) the world 2) For the above, in a) the short term, and b) the long term.
Hopefully the Parliamentary debate will enlighten us.
Hopefully.
There is little chance of the parliamentary debate bringing up new information that is not in the public domain. ISIS's long-term objectives are well known. Their short-term tactics of terrorist attacks and attracting incomers to their 'state' are also well known.
Mr. 63, it'd only take one captured soldier for Daesh to have a PR coup, as well as to inflict tremendous suffering on one of our men. That might redouble our resolve, or make it crumble.
That, along with being haunted by the ghost of Iraq, is what puts people off, I think.
Point taken but troops are aware of and prepared to take that risk. Its an incredibly complicated scenario, I'm all for action but I'm against bombing on its own, there must be a ground plan.
The only thing I have against Laura Kuenssberg is that her surname is ridiculously hard to spell.
Other than that she is the best political correspondent the BBC has had for a long time asking intelligent, penetrating questions of all the participants, not letting herself be fobbed off and making clear and useful summaries to camera. All whilst avoiding the gratuitous rudeness of the male macho school of journalism. A real step up for the BBC.
As I said last night this vote is being ridiculously oversold. We are already bombing Daesh, have been for over a year. We are talking about extending the field of our very modest operations across a boundary our enemy does not recognise. Our proposal to do so is backed by a unanimous UN resolution and is already being done by our allies. If this was the scope of the proposal it is barely worth talking about.
The reality is that Corbyn's opposition is not to this utterly trivial step but to our armed intervention in total. He thinks we can negotiate and reason with these people and that this is a better solution than trying to destroy them. Events have not moved in his favour in recent times.
When this is approved today we will start to bomb targets in Syria. By Christmas the number of bombs dropped in Syria on our very tight rules of engagement may well have reached double figures although my guess is that might be a close
We really need to get over ourselves. The world is not waiting with bated breath on our deliberations on this. We are making ourselves look more than just a bit silly.
It is clearly the next step on a slippery slope to British ground forces getting involved in a Syrian Civil war. That is what should be being debated. Are we really committed to getting involved, or are we just going to whack the wasps nest a few times then turn tail and run, like we did in Iraq, Helmand and Libya?
An Iraqi friend told me an interesting old Iraqi saying "It is better to be an enemy of the British than their friend. They buy their enemies and sell their friends". Sadly this is all too true.
We are doing the same thing in Iraq right now, and have been for quite a while. No ground element apart from some members of the Hereford Hunting club. Incidentally, did you know that McIRA wanted to abolish the SAS as well as MI5?
Yes I do know that, but this is a significant escalation and expansion of our role in the conflict.
If we are serious about defeating IS and fellow travellers like Boko Haram and Al Shabaab then we need to accept that it is going to be costly in terms of both lives and money, and that there is likely to be a lot of civillian casualties. There always are in assymetric warfare. A few bombs from 2 extra Tornados is neither here nor there. You don't tackle a rabid dog with a peashooter.
We should be resolute and forceful in our defence of liberal democracy against Islamo-facists, but we should not delude ourselves that it will be easy or cheap.
But we can't even convince the leader of the opposition to try anything.
The fact that the public still backs airstrikes by a 17% margin, 48% to 31%, suggests that they are pretty convinced of the case but want to be certain it will be supporting forces on the ground. The fact Labour voters are opposed though suggests Corbyn is right to speak and vote against airstrikes though even if he allows his MPs a free vote
The public are like sheep and change with the wind. They have no clue about it and most don't care about people far away or are scared with all the talk about the baddies coming to blow them up. We will see what the sheep think when we are sucked in and the body bags are coming back on a daily basis.
There will be no UK ground forces though beyond special forces so there are unlikely to be many body bags, the FSA and the Kurds will be the ones fighting ISIS on the ground
I read a comment by Southam Observer yesterday about the mood in Brussels. I can say that here near Nice (Only France's 7th city) it's similar. Much tighter security with bag searches everywhere museums and galleries not allowing people in wth backpacks police on street corners etc. It's difficult seeing things returning to normal anytime soon -or maybe anytime. Remembering what happened to air travel.
What happens when there's another outrage in London? I wonder whether the reaction to Charlie Hebdo hasn't turned various local issues into something approaching all out war. Was it wise to have the march in Paris with all world leaders (including Netanyahu hated in the Middle East as much as Saddam would have been in London) declaring WAR against ISIS?
Many countries have now faced terrorist outrages and all civilized people want to show solidarity but when you declare WAR this becomes something far more far reaching and with very unpredictable consequences.
Just for the record - and because I don't think it is right to criticise after the event if you have not made your position clear before hand - personally I think the UK getting involved in bombing in Syria is a mistake.
This is not to say it is not legally correct since the UN sanction for bombing seems clear to me. Nor is it to question the motives, honesty or morals of those advocating bombing. Cameron appears to have been as open as he possibly can on this issue and I don't see a Blairite stitchup underway.
But in the end it comes own to whether or not it will make things better or worse in the Middle East and in Europe. I believe that it will make things very much worse.
I don't claim to know what exactly we, as a world community, should be doing to sort this out but I have no faith that doing what we have done previously - which has led to such chaos in at least 3 countries - is going to be any more successful this time.
And I truly hope that in a year or 18 months time those on here who support the bombing will be in a position to point out how wrong I was to oppose it.
Certainly the Iraq War - and even more, the post-Iraq War mistakes - have a lot to answer for. However, from Afghanistan to Yemen to Somalia to Syria to Libya, Islamist fighters have looked for failed muslim countries in which to base insurgencies. Had the Iraq war not taken place, events would have panned out differently but the Arab Spring may well have come about anyway and Syria would still have been a failed state attracting Islamist crusaders.
Well done David. That's one of the most civilised (and respectful) political conversations on Facebook on politics I've seen.
Your points are very well made. I agree entirely that ISIS are modern day Nazis.
Those who wish to ignore them hoping that they go away are modern day appeasers.
I don't want to ignore ISIS. I want to tackle them effectively. My main concern about the current proposals is that they seem ill thought through. I'm not opposed in principle to military action.
It's not a straightforward decision, but the claims that somehow bombing in Syria is "starting a war" is ludicrous. We're already bombing Iraq and the border is just another patch of sand to Isis.
To be consistent, we should bomb Isis wherever they are, or not at all. The situation in Syria is fluid and next year, it could be different. But Isis won't be different, we'll still be at war with them..
Today will be a great day for the Lib Dem unders bet.
There is a pro war centre-left vote but I reckon it is tiny. The pro war Labour defectors will not turn out for Labour or the Lib Dems, but head to UKIP.
Are UKIP pro war?
Farage is against it. I have not seen much on Carswell but know he opposed the bombing of Assad back in 2013.
Turkey now demanding £2.1 billion each year as well as visa-free access to the EU and eventually full membership.
By demanding more money & threatening to flood the EU with more migrants, Erdogan is trying to hold us to ransom.
================================================
But who'd of thunk it ?...a gang of Turkish rug merchants trying to take advantage of us ?
THIS was just SOOOOOOOOOO predictable ; indeed , this is just a modern day Turkish DANEGELD whereby the ransom / protection racket is increased each year as the crises worsens
The Turks will turn down/ turn up the flow of migrants/refugees opportunistically as they see fit
We are in the midst of a major historical event ; the greatest mass migration since WW2 and it's clearly going to get worse in the spring as word has gotten out that the EU is a ''soft touch'' that lacks the will to enforce its' borders ; that idiot Angela Merkel has triggered an avalanche !
The developing world has many disadvantages but have one clear decisive advantage ; they have the POPULATION BOMB b and are certain to use it against us when they sense weakness !
Mr. Tyndall, the idea of a 'legal' war always baffles me.
Would one get sued by the losing side if one declared an illegal war and won it?
I use the description of legality in terms of the treaties we have signed up to including those involving the UN. It seems to me that having signed treaties regarding the conduct of international relations we are honour bound - and I would assume legally bound - to abide by them.
Of course this is just perception on my part as I certainly couldn't argue a strict legal case.
Mr. P, rarely tweet about politics (too complicated a subject for 140 character snippets), but RTed that. It's disgraceful behaviour. A few more steps and we're into the realm of Milo and Clodius.
Hard to see how a few extra bombs in Syria will make things better.
But equally if not more hard to work out what the right thing to do is, it's a mess. Wringing our hands and doing nothing seems like a poor choice, but is it the least poor option? We will never know without being able to go back in time and do it differently
FWIW I would trust Cameron;s judgement over Corbyn's, or Blair's for that matter.
Last weeks dispatches showed undercover footage of women in East London who were holding meetings promoting the Islamic State and Jihad. They were in contact with known Islamic fundamentalists here as well as "brothers" in Syria and Iraq and included women known to have been members of banned organisations.
Have any of them been arrested? How many more are there?
Its all on film, I would like to think something has been done
Turkey now demanding £2.1 billion each year as well as visa-free access to the EU and eventually full membership.
By demanding more money & threatening to flood the EU with more migrants, Erdogan is trying to hold us to ransom.
================================================
But who'd of thunk it ?...a gang of Turkish rug merchants trying to take advantage of us ?
THIS was just SOOOOOOOOOO predictable ; indeed , this is just a modern day Turkish DANEGELD whereby the ransom / protection racket is increased each year as the crises worsens
The Turks will turn down/ turn up the flow of migrants/refugees opportunistically as they see fit
We are in the midst of a major historical event ; the greatest mass migration since WW2 and it's clearly going to get worse in the spring as word has gotten out that the EU is a ''soft touch'' that lacks the will to enforce its' borders ; that idiot Angela Merkel has triggered an avalanche !
The developing world has many disadvantages but have one clear decisive advantage ; they have the POPULATION BOMB b and are certain to use it against us when they sense weakness !
Mr Cromwell I had a discussion on here recently after pointing out that Cameron wants Turkey to join the EU, he says Turkey is "vital" to our economy.
Unsurprisingly some tories on here defended his ridiculous stance.
Mr. Cromwell, Merkel's rapidly flushing her legacy down the toilet. Supinely throwing money at the Turks months after the most moronic foreign policy since Byzantium picked a fight with the Seljuk Empire (which wanted peace), only to lose a strategically crucial battle at Manzikert.
Mr. Tyndall, thanks for that informative answer. It seems crackers to me.
I don't claim to know what exactly we, as a world community, should be doing to sort this out but I have no faith that doing what we have done previously - which has led to such chaos in at least 3 countries - is going to be any more successful this time.
Is it not in chaos already? We didn't intervene in 2013 (thankfully, in my opinion), and it still descended into chaos. It's easy to look at Iraq and Libya and think because we intervened those countries descended into civil war. In my opinion, Syria shows that it can happen without Western military intervention.
That said, we have little idea about what we actually want to happen - it's all very messy.
Last weeks dispatches showed undercover footage of women in East London who were holding meetings promoting the Islamic State and Jihad. They were in contact with known Islamic fundamentalists here as well as "brothers" in Syria and Iraq and included women known to have been members of banned organisations.
Have any of them been arrested? How many more are there?
Its all on film, I would like to think something has been done
1) What crimes have they committed? Something to do with encouraging terrorism perhaps? 2) It may take time for the authorities to gather more / enough information to make a conviction likely. Is such filming admissible?
Turkey now demanding £2.1 billion each year as well as visa-free access to the EU and eventually full membership.
By demanding more money & threatening to flood the EU with more migrants, Erdogan is trying to hold us to ransom.
================================================
But who'd of thunk it ?...a gang of Turkish rug merchants trying to take advantage of us ?
THIS was just SOOOOOOOOOO predictable ; indeed , this is just a modern day Turkish DANEGELD whereby the ransom / protection racket is increased each year as the crises worsens
The Turks will turn down/ turn up the flow of migrants/refugees opportunistically as they see fit
We are in the midst of a major historical event ; the greatest mass migration since WW2 and it's clearly going to get worse in the spring as word has gotten out that the EU is a ''soft touch'' that lacks the will to enforce its' borders ; that idiot Angela Merkel has triggered an avalanche !
The developing world has many disadvantages but have one clear decisive advantage ; they have the POPULATION BOMB b and are certain to use it against us when they sense weakness !
Where does Farage's view above stand with the fact that Turkey's been keeping up to two million refugees within its borders for about four years, with virtually no thanks and very little help from the international community?
How long do you expect them to keep it up for, especially without help?
Last weeks dispatches showed undercover footage of women in East London who were holding meetings promoting the Islamic State and Jihad. They were in contact with known Islamic fundamentalists here as well as "brothers" in Syria and Iraq and included women known to have been members of banned organisations.
Have any of them been arrested? How many more are there?
Its all on film, I would like to think something has been done
1) What crimes have they committed? Something to do with encouraging terrorism perhaps? 2) It may take time for the authorities to gather more / enough information to make a conviction likely. Is such filming admissible?
Or alternatively, they are doing nothing.
I don't know if it is a crime or not to promote jihad and give speeches that say western democracy should be overthrown in favour of an Islamic Caliphate, but Id say its worth asking them a few questions, especially as they are knocking around with known Islamic fundamentalists.
It is extraordinary that the stand-out female Labour MP of her generation should be top of the hit-list. Nick Cohen's What's Left is very illuminating on the sexism of the hard left.
Mr. P, rarely tweet about politics (too complicated a subject for 140 character snippets), but RTed that. It's disgraceful behaviour. A few more steps and we're into the realm of Milo and Clodius.
Mary Riddel in DT. A very fine writer, even if you don't always agree with her. Only she could have written (on Benn's rising stock):
"It is no disrespect to the admirable Hilary Benn to say that many MPs are so desperate for regime change that if Mr Potato Head were to address a party gathering, they might discern a tuberous Roosevelt in their midst."
Wasn't taking the mick btw, I am a fan of Jacob Rees-Mogg, and if that's a real account I will follow him, but I assumed it was a parody.. or is it a useful one to follow despite being a parody?
Mary Riddel in DT. A very fine writer, even if you don't always agree with her. Only she could have written (on Benn's rising stock):
"It is no disrespect to the admirable Hilary Benn to say that many MPs are so desperate for regime change that if Mr Potato Head were to address a party gathering, they might discern a tuberous Roosevelt in their midst."
It is extraordinary that the stand-out female Labour MP of her generation should be top of the hit-list. Nick Cohen's What's Left is very illuminating on the sexism of the hard left.
Corbyn's creatures have emerged from the dark, slimy places where they've been hiding. Nice innit.
When will decent Labour supporters and MP's find the guts to actually stand up and take him, and his acolytes, on, rather than merely Tweet about doing something?
Wasn't taking the mick btw, I am a fan of Jacob Rees-Mogg, and if that's a real account I will follow him, but I assumed it was a parody.. or is it a useful one to follow despite being a parody?
@BBCNormanS: Team Corbyn say it up to National Executive Committee to decide whether activists abusing Labour MPs on twitter shd be expelled #SyriaVote
As I said last night this vote is being ridiculously oversold. We are already bombing Daesh, have been for over a year. We are talking about extending the field of our very modest operations across a boundary our enemy does not recognise. Our proposal to do so is backed by a unanimous UN resolution and is already being done by our allies. If this was the scope of the proposal it is barely worth talking about.
The reality is that Corbyn's opposition is not to this utterly trivial step but to our armed intervention in total. He thinks we can negotiate and reason with these people and that this is a better solution than trying to destroy them. Events have not moved in his favour in recent times.
When this is approved today we will start to bomb targets in Syria. By Christmas the number of bombs dropped in Syria on our very tight rules of engagement may well have reached double figures although my guess is that might be a close
We really need to get over ourselves. The world is not waiting with bated breath on our deliberations on this. We are making ourselves look more than just a bit silly.
It is clearly the next step on a slippery
We are doing the same thing in Iraq right now, and have been for quite a while. No ground element apart from some members of the Hereford Hunting club. Incidentally, did you know that McIRA wanted to abolish the SAS as well as MI5?
Yes I do know that, but this is a significant escalation and expansion of our role in the conflict.
If we are serious about defeating IS and fellow travellers like Boko Haram and Al Shabaab then we need to accept that it is going to be costly in terms of both lives and money, and that there is likely to be a lot of civillian casualties. There always are in assymetric warfare. A few bombs from 2 extra Tornados is neither here nor there. You don't tackle a rabid dog with a peashooter.
We should be resolute and forceful in our defence of liberal democracy against Islamo-facists, but we should not delude ourselves that it will be easy or cheap.
Can you refer to me when Cameron or any other minister said the action would be easy or cheap?
I would suggest the evidence was in the autumn statement. A bit of money for spies and special forces. If the government was serious it would be expanding the army and RAF, buying ground attack helicopters and ground attack aircraft. I would like a 100 drones over IsIS land with a missle attack on every IS checkpoint or mobile vehicle, night and day. Make their lives a misery, and short.
For people that live or work in or close to London, would you say bombing Syria will make you feel safer in the capital over the next month or so?
It would make no difference to me either way in the next month. London is clearly going to be a highly attractive target to ISIS with or without bombing raids. The bit of London I live in, Shoreditch, is like St Denis a place where people come out to play. I'm under no illusions that my area could easily be a target for attack in the near future. But like everyone else, all I can do is keep living my life the way I want to live it.
I think we've had enough of these air strikes in the Middle East. Cameron's Blair-like enthusiasm for violence rather than diplomacy in foreign affairs is a stain on his reputation.
Ridiculous. What is your negotiation strategy for dealing with ISIS?
Not half as stupid as yours, what is your plan for not killing civilians, you going to ask ISIS to wear red hats or something. Halfwits sitting in their armchair slavering to drop bombs from the sky indiscriminately is as stupid as you get.
You seem to love the word "indiscriminate". Also "slavering". Could you please try something new?
What is you evidence for the above, by the way? There is quite a lot of evidence the other way - the amount of ordnance dropped per sortie in Iraq directly contradicts the idea that the RAF is carpet bombing.
Unlike you who just like to hear yourself , could you try something intelligent. Another halfwit that believes any rubbish the Tories or MOD throw out , just keep up the Baaa Baaa Baaa Bommmmb
If bonnie Scotland was a leading advocate of doing what's necessary to defeat ISIS, I somehow doubt your dickhead dial would be turned up to eleven this morning.
Humour me: what's your 'intelligent' strategy for dealing with ISIS?
The Scottish Government could hold a concert for peace, 'Daesh in the Park', and bung the billionaire terrorist organisation a £150K grant towards their expenses.
@PippaCrerar: Mayor turns sights on @ken4london et al for "infelicitous choice of language that seems to confer not only legitimacy but also... 1/2
@PippaCrerar: 2/2 "...to excuse the actions of people who have murdered people in this city". Accuses Ken of using lang of terrorists & playing their game
Stella was the best candidate in the Deputy Leadership. Would make an excellent post-Corbyn leader, and this experience could bring out the Neil Kinnock Militant moment that is needed.
Turkey now demanding £2.1 billion each year as well as visa-free access to the EU and eventually full membership.
By demanding more money & threatening to flood the EU with more migrants, Erdogan is trying to hold us to ransom.
================================================
But who'd of thunk it ?...a gang of Turkish rug merchants trying to take advantage of us ?
THIS was just SOOOOOOOOOO predictable ; indeed , this is just a modern day Turkish DANEGELD whereby the ransom / protection racket is increased each year as the crises worsens
The Turks will turn down/ turn up the flow of migrants/refugees opportunistically as they see fit
We are in the midst of a major historical event ; the greatest mass migration since WW2 and it's clearly going to get worse in the spring as word has gotten out that the EU is a ''soft touch'' that lacks the will to enforce its' borders ; that idiot Angela Merkel has triggered an avalanche !
The developing world has many disadvantages but have one clear decisive advantage ; they have the POPULATION BOMB b and are certain to use it against us when they sense weakness !
Mr Cromwell I had a discussion on here recently after pointing out that Cameron wants Turkey to join the EU, he says Turkey is "vital" to our economy.
Unsurprisingly some tories on here defended his ridiculous stance.
Cameron has previously said that Turkey should be admitted to the EU. I have assumed that he said it, some time ago, just to appease Turkey for God-knows-what reason. But he will have known that France would oppose it vigorously. Futhermore, Cam has said that any new nation joining the EU should have a GDP equal to a significant percentage of the EU average. Therefore all smoke and mirrors. I would be surprised if he actually said that Turkey is vital to the UK economy. If he actually believes that, time to get a new leader.
"at that time there was more of a "moderate" FSA than there is today and Assad was just thought to have used chemical weapons on his enemies......."
A much better description than those who declare outrage that he used them ON HIS OWN PEOPLE! Using 'own people' to describe country boundaries in the Middle East is silly and anyway it's either wrong or not whoever he's using these weapons on......
I wonder though having seen the butchery of Assad's opponents (not least 120 beheaded Syrian soldiers) that perhaps he understood well before the pontificators in the 'WEST' what he was up against? We're now all aware of what these Jihadists are capable of so why do we continue to wonder why Assad didn't do the decent thing and fight these barbarians using queensberry rules
For people that live or work in or close to London, would you say bombing Syria will make you feel safer in the capital over the next month or so?
It would make no difference to me either way in the next month. London is clearly going to be a highly attractive target to ISIS with or without bombing raids. The bit of London I live in, Shoreditch, is like St Denis a place where people come out to play. I'm under no illusions that my area could easily be a target for attack in the near future. But like everyone else, all I can do is keep living my life the way I want to live it.
It's all any of us can do. Also, we shouldn't assume attacks will be limited to the capital city. Were I a terrorist I would not the population to know that they were safe outside London.
Obviously it is no more possible to negotiate with Al Baghdadi as it was with the Nazis, but there may well be an IS Von Stauffenberg out there. All terrorists need supporters, and the art of counter insurgency is to chip away at that support either by violence or by accommodation, thereby denying the crocodiles any water to swim in.
Turkey now demanding £2.1 billion each year as well as visa-free access to the EU and eventually full membership.
By demanding more money & threatening to flood the EU with more migrants, Erdogan is trying to hold us to ransom.
================================================
But who'd of thunk it ?...a gang of Turkish rug merchants trying to take advantage of us ?
THIS was just SOOOOOOOOOO predictable ; indeed , this is just a modern day Turkish DANEGELD whereby the ransom / protection racket is increased each year as the crises worsens
The Turks will turn down/ turn up the flow of migrants/refugees opportunistically as they see fit
We are in the midst of a major historical event ; the greatest mass migration since WW2 and it's clearly going to get worse in the spring as word has gotten out that the EU is a ''soft touch'' that lacks the will to enforce its' borders ; that idiot Angela Merkel has triggered an avalanche !
The developing world has many disadvantages but have one clear decisive advantage ; they have the POPULATION BOMB b and are certain to use it against us when they sense weakness !
Mr Cromwell I had a discussion on here recently after pointing out that Cameron wants Turkey to join the EU, he says Turkey is "vital" to our economy.
Unsurprisingly some tories on here defended his ridiculous stance.
Cameron has previously said that Turkey should be admitted to the EU. I have assumed that he said it, some time ago, just to appease Turkey for God-knows-what reason. But he will have known that France would oppose it vigorously. Futhermore, Cam has said that any new nation joining the EU should have a GDP equal to a significant percentage of the EU average. Therefore all smoke and mirrors. I would be surprised if he actually said that Turkey is vital to the UK economy. If he actually believes that, time to get a new leader.
Turkey is a fast growing, young nation. Trade with it is pretty vital, but it should certainly not join the EU.
For people that live or work in or close to London, would you say bombing Syria will make you feel safer in the capital over the next month or so?
It would make no difference to me either way in the next month. London is clearly going to be a highly attractive target to ISIS with or without bombing raids. The bit of London I live in, Shoreditch, is like St Denis a place where people come out to play. I'm under no illusions that my area could easily be a target for attack in the near future. But like everyone else, all I can do is keep living my life the way I want to live it.
It's all any of us can do. Also, we shouldn't assume attacks will be limited to the capital city. Were I a terrorist I would not the population to know that they were safe outside London.
As horrible as it ounds I can well see the next atrocity being in Birmingham or Manchester.
Turkey now demanding £2.1 billion each year as well as visa-free access to the EU and eventually full membership.
By demanding more money & threatening to flood the EU with more migrants, Erdogan is trying to hold us to ransom.
================================================
But who'd of thunk it ?...a gang of Turkish rug merchants trying to take advantage of us ?
THIS was just SOOOOOOOOOO predictable ; indeed , this is just a modern day Turkish DANEGELD whereby the ransom / protection racket is increased each year as the crises worsens
The Turks will turn down/ turn up the flow of migrants/refugees opportunistically as they see fit
We are in the midst of a major historical event ; the greatest mass migration since WW2 and it's clearly going to get worse in the spring as word has gotten out that the EU is a ''soft touch'' that lacks the will to enforce its' borders ; that idiot Angela Merkel has triggered an avalanche !
The developing world has many disadvantages but have one clear decisive advantage ; they have the POPULATION BOMB b and are certain to use it against us when they sense weakness !
Where does Farage's view above stand with the fact that Turkey's been keeping up to two million refugees within its borders for about four years, with virtually no thanks and very little help from the international community?
How long do you expect them to keep it up for, especially without help?
Thus speaks #JosiasFezJessop who is now morphing into a Turkey himself. Will be prime and ready for Christmas.
Obviously it is no more possible to negotiate with Al Baghdadi as it was with the Nazis, but there may well be an IS Von Stauffenberg out there. All terrorists need supporters, and the art of counter insurgency is to chip away at that support either by violence or by accommodation, thereby denying the crocodiles any water to swim in.
Naivete of the very highest order - the mindset of this group is not one for any compromise.
Stella was the best candidate in the Deputy Leadership. Would make an excellent post-Corbyn leader, and this experience could bring out the Neil Kinnock Militant moment that is needed.
For people that live or work in or close to London, would you say bombing Syria will make you feel safer in the capital over the next month or so?
It would make no difference to me either way in the next month. London is clearly going to be a highly attractive target to ISIS with or without bombing raids. The bit of London I live in, Shoreditch, is like St Denis a place where people come out to play. I'm under no illusions that my area could easily be a target for attack in the near future. But like everyone else, all I can do is keep living my life the way I want to live it.
I guess if I lived in the centre as you do, I wouldn't be that nervous, but as someone who lives and works right on the outskirts of London, and I wouldn't really call it London to be honest, I must say I'm not that fussed about hopping on the train into town at the mo, esp as I have to go via Newham and Tower Hamlets
Stella was the best candidate in the Deputy Leadership. Would make an excellent post-Corbyn leader, and this experience could bring out the Neil Kinnock Militant moment that is needed.
Turkey now demanding £2.1 billion each year as well as visa-free access to the EU and eventually full membership.
By demanding more money & threatening to flood the EU with more migrants, Erdogan is trying to hold us to ransom.
================================================
But who'd of thunk it ?...a gang of Turkish rug merchants trying to take advantage of us ?
THIS was just SOOOOOOOOOO predictable ; indeed , this is just a modern day Turkish DANEGELD whereby the ransom / protection racket is increased each year as the crises worsens
The Turks will turn down/ turn up the flow of migrants/refugees opportunistically as they see fit
We are in the midst of a major historical event ; the greatest mass migration since WW2 and it's clearly going to get worse in the spring as word has gotten out that the EU is a ''soft touch'' that lacks the will to enforce its' borders ; that idiot Angela Merkel has triggered an avalanche !
The developing world has many disadvantages but have one clear decisive advantage ; they have the POPULATION BOMB b and are certain to use it against us when they sense weakness !
Mr Cromwell I had a discussion on here recently after pointing out that Cameron wants Turkey to join the EU, he says Turkey is "vital" to our economy.
Unsurprisingly some tories on here defended his ridiculous stance.
Cameron has previously said that Turkey should be admitted to the EU. I have assumed that he said it, some time ago, just to appease Turkey for God-knows-what reason. But he will have known that France would oppose it vigorously. Futhermore, Cam has said that any new nation joining the EU should have a GDP equal to a significant percentage of the EU average. Therefore all smoke and mirrors. I would be surprised if he actually said that Turkey is vital to the UK economy. If he actually believes that, time to get a new leader.
Perdix,
making no comment on whether he is right or wrong but yes he did say that.
"vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital for our diplomacy".
For people that live or work in or close to London, would you say bombing Syria will make you feel safer in the capital over the next month or so?
It would make no difference to me either way in the next month. London is clearly going to be a highly attractive target to ISIS with or without bombing raids. The bit of London I live in, Shoreditch, is like St Denis a place where people come out to play. I'm under no illusions that my area could easily be a target for attack in the near future. But like everyone else, all I can do is keep living my life the way I want to live it.
It's all any of us can do. Also, we shouldn't assume attacks will be limited to the capital city. Were I a terrorist I would not the population to know that they were safe outside London.
As horrible as it ounds I can well see the next atrocity being in Birmingham or Manchester.
I'm afraid it's like awarding Olympic cities. Birmingham and Manchester don't really register in such considerations on a world stage.
In fact, the list of Olympic host cities might well make a useful heat map of the cities most at risk.
Cameron has previously said that Turkey should be admitted to the EU. I have assumed that he said it, some time ago, just to appease Turkey for God-knows-what reason. But he will have known that France would oppose it vigorously. Futhermore, Cam has said that any new nation joining the EU should have a GDP equal to a significant percentage of the EU average. Therefore all smoke and mirrors. I would be surprised if he actually said that Turkey is vital to the UK economy. If he actually believes that, time to get a new leader.
As has been mentioned previously, the chance of the EU disintegrating must be at least two orders of magnitude greater than the chance of Turkey joining.
1. No Greek or Cypriot politician would be re-elected if they signed an accession treaty with Turkey. It would be electoral suicide. This alone guarantees Turkey will not (while Northern Cyprus has not been resolved, at least) join the EU.
2. EU membership isn't popular in Turkey. The polls show a majority opposed to joining.
3. The required changes to Turkish law would be utterly unacceptable to Erdogan (or to any other Turkish leader).
Stella was the best candidate in the Deputy Leadership. Would make an excellent post-Corbyn leader, and this experience could bring out the Neil Kinnock Militant moment that is needed.
Doesn't have the easy-going charm of Tom Watson.
Plus she is utterly crap
"If you don't like Gay marriage, just don't marry a man!!"
Chortle chortle pleased w herself
When she called for page3 to be scrapped, I asked her why she didn't just not become a page 3 girl/ look at page 3...
As I said last night this vote is being ridiculously oversold. We are already bombing Daesh, have been for over a year. We are talking about extending the field of our very modest operations across a boundary our enemy does not recognise. Our proposal to do so is backed by a unanimous UN resolution and is already being done by our allies. If this was the scope of the proposal it is barely worth talking about.
The reality is that Corbyn's opposition is not to this utterly trivial step but to our armed intervention in total. He thinks we can negotiate and reason with these people and that this is a better solution than trying to destroy them. Events have not moved in his favour in recent times.
When this is approved today we will start to bomb targets in Syria. By Christmas the number of bombs dropped in Syria on our very tight rules of engagement may well have reached double figures although my guess is that might be a close
We really need to get over ourselves. The world is not waiting with bated breath on our deliberations on this. We are making ourselves look more than just a bit silly.
It is clearly the next step on a slippery
We are doing the same thing in Iraq right now, and have been for quite a while. No ground element apart from some members of the Hereford Hunting club. Incidentally, did you know that McIRA wanted to abolish the SAS as well as MI5?
Yes I do know that, but this is a significant escalation and expansion of our role in the conflict.
If we are serious about defeating IS and fellow travellers like Boko Haram and Al Shabaab then we need to accept that it is going to be costly in terms of both lives and money, and that there is likely to be a lot of civillian casualties. There always are in assymetric warfare. A few bombs from 2 extra Tornados is neither here nor there. You don't tackle a rabid dog with a peashooter.
We should be resolute and forceful in our defence of liberal democracy against Islamo-facists, but we should not delude ourselves that it will be easy or cheap.
Can you refer to me when Cameron or any other minister said the action would be easy or cheap?
I would suggest the evidence was in the autumn statement. A bit of money for spies and special forces. If the government was serious it would be expanding the army and RAF, buying ground attack helicopters and ground attack aircraft. I would like a 100 drones over IsIS land with a missle attack on every IS checkpoint or mobile vehicle, night and day. Make their lives a misery, and short.
Turkey now demanding £2.1 billion each year as well as visa-free access to the EU and eventually full membership.
By demanding more money & threatening to flood the EU with more migrants, Erdogan is trying to hold us to ransom.
================================================
But who'd of thunk it ?...a gang of Turkish rug merchants trying to take advantage of us ?
THIS was just SOOOOOOOOOO predictable ; indeed , this is just a modern day Turkish DANEGELD whereby the ransom / protection racket is increased each year as the crises worsens
The Turks will turn down/ turn up the flow of migrants/refugees opportunistically as they see fit
We are in the midst of a major historical event ; the greatest mass migration since WW2 and it's clearly going to get worse in the spring as word has gotten out that the EU is a ''soft touch'' that lacks the will to enforce its' borders ; that idiot Angela Merkel has triggered an avalanche !
The developing world has many disadvantages but have one clear decisive advantage ; they have the POPULATION BOMB b and are certain to use it against us when they sense weakness !
Where does Farage's view above stand with the fact that Turkey's been keeping up to two million refugees within its borders for about four years, with virtually no thanks and very little help from the international community?
How long do you expect them to keep it up for, especially without help?
The majority of so called ''refugees'' are not coming from Turkish camps ; they are opportunistically coming direct from Syria or simply coming from other countries such as Iraq , Afghanistan , Maghreb and West Africa
Turkish Airlines is the biggest carrier in Africa ; anyone in Africa who can afford an air ticket and the small price of a ''visa'' can simply fly direct to Turkey and then jump the border into Greece ...Turkey could end this by raising the price of their visa but they will not because they are opportunistic blackmailers who sense weakness in the EU ; indeed , they have a dangerous contempt for the affluent , feminised quasi homosexual West
''By the pricking of my thumbs something wicked this way comes '' ?
As I said last night this vote is being ridiculously oversold. We are already bombing Daesh, have been for over a year. We are talking about extending the field of our very modest operations across a boundary our enemy does not recognise. Our proposal to do so is backed by a unanimous UN resolution and is already being done by our allies. If this was the scope of the proposal it is barely worth talking about.
The reality is that Corbyn's opposition is not to this utterly trivial step but to our armed intervention in total. He thinks we can negotiate and reason with these people and that this is a better solution than trying to destroy them. Events have not moved in his favour in recent times.
When this is approved today we will start to bomb targets in Syria. By Christmas the number of bombs dropped in Syria on our very tight rules of engagement may well have reached double figures although my guess is that might be a close
We really need to get over ourselves. The world is not waiting with bated breath on our deliberations on this. We are making ourselves look more than just a bit silly.
It is clearly the next step on a slippery
We are doing the same thing in Iraq right now, and have been for quite a while. No ground element apart from some members of the Hereford Hunting club. Incidentally, did you know that McIRA wanted to abolish the SAS as well as MI5?
Yes I do know that, but this is a significant escalation and expansion of our role in the conflict.
If we are serious about defeating IS and fellow travellers like Boko Haram and
We should be resolute and forceful in our defence of liberal democracy against Islamo-facists, but we should not delude ourselves that it will be easy or cheap.
Can you refer to me when Cameron or any other minister said the action would be easy or cheap?
I would suggest the evidence was in the autumn statement. A bit of money for spies and special forces. If the government was serious it would be expanding the army and RAF, buying ground attack helicopters and ground attack aircraft. I would like a 100 drones over IsIS land with a missle attack on every IS checkpoint or mobile vehicle, night and day. Make their lives a misery, and short.
So you can't. Glad we cleared that up.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Bombs and planes are not cheap. The Autumn statement does not give the RAF what they need to do more than a token effort. Symbolic acts matter, but are only symbols, and that is what is being debated today.
Mr. 63, not sure if they're still doing it, but Daesh used to (at least for the cameras/PR) put caged prisoners on the rooftops of potential air strike targets.
Exactly my point, the shots of schools and hospitals will be all over the BBC.
Let's not pretend we can bomb anywhere without civilian casualties, to me the only solution is troops, plenty of them, taking ISIS camps. Our soldiers are absolutely up for it and it would terrify ISIS without the propaganda opportunities.
There would be plenty of propaganda opportunities with ground troops too.
For people that live or work in or close to London, would you say bombing Syria will make you feel safer in the capital over the next month or so?
You think we were safe before?
Also do you think it's right that our actions or otherwise are dictated by fear?
I don't think we were safe before, no
But the question is "will we be safer or less safe if we bomb Syria"?
It's not about fear, the governments job is to protect it's population, and so if bombing Syria increases the risk of an attack here, even if we were at risk before, then they are not doing their job
Maybe it will make us safer, I am not closed minded about it, but it makes me feel less safe
For people that live or work in or close to London, would you say bombing Syria will make you feel safer in the capital over the next month or so?
It would make no difference to me either way in the next month. London is clearly going to be a highly attractive target to ISIS with or without bombing raids. The bit of London I live in, Shoreditch, is like St Denis a place where people come out to play. I'm under no illusions that my area could easily be a target for attack in the near future. But like everyone else, all I can do is keep living my life the way I want to live it.
It's all any of us can do. Also, we shouldn't assume attacks will be limited to the capital city. Were I a terrorist I would not the population to know that they were safe outside London.
As horrible as it ounds I can well see the next atrocity being in Birmingham or Manchester.
I'm afraid it's like awarding Olympic cities. Birmingham and Manchester don't really register in such considerations on a world stage.
In fact, the list of Olympic host cities might well make a useful heat map of the cities most at risk.
As much as it pains me to say this, Manchester United makes Manchester a city on the world stage.
There's a lot more armed coppers in Manchester city centre than ever before.
For people that live or work in or close to London, would you say bombing Syria will make you feel safer in the capital over the next month or so?
It would make no difference to me either way in the next month. London is clearly going to be a highly attractive target to ISIS with or without bombing raids. The bit of London I live in, Shoreditch, is like St Denis a place where people come out to play. I'm under no illusions that my area could easily be a target for attack in the near future. But like everyone else, all I can do is keep living my life the way I want to live it.
It's all any of us can do. Also, we shouldn't assume attacks will be limited to the capital city. Were I a terrorist I would not the population to know that they were safe outside London.
As horrible as it ounds I can well see the next atrocity being in Birmingham or Manchester.
Both have been in the past, thanks to Terrorist Sympathiser Corbyn's mates in the IRA Sinn Fein.....
Obviously it is no more possible to negotiate with Al Baghdadi as it was with the Nazis, but there may well be an IS Von Stauffenberg out there. All terrorists need supporters, and the art of counter insurgency is to chip away at that support either by violence or by accommodation, thereby denying the crocodiles any water to swim in.
Naivete of the very highest order - the mindset of this group is not one for any compromise.
IS itself will not compromise, but some of its support is softer and can be turned. IS have executed Sunni tribal leaders for being fairweather supporters recently.
For people that live or work in or close to London, would you say bombing Syria will make you feel safer in the capital over the next month or so?
You think we were safe before?
Also do you think it's right that our actions or otherwise are dictated by fear?
I don't think we were safe before, no
But the question is "will we be safer or less safe if we bomb Syria"?
It's not about fear, the governments job is to protect it's population, and so if bombing Syria increases the risk of an attack here, even if we were at risk before, then they are not doing their job
Maybe it will make us safer, I am not closed minded about it, but it makes me feel less safe
But droning Jihadi John has arguably made us safer.
The evidence is becoming overwhelming that Assad's ruthlessness was borne from understanding his enemy. He would have seen what happened in Iraq and Lybia and realized he was between the devil and the deep blue sea and acted accordingy.
Comments
Your points are very well made. I agree entirely that ISIS are modern day Nazis.
Those who wish to ignore them hoping that they go away are modern day appeasers.
That, along with being haunted by the ghost of Iraq, is what puts people off, I think.
I note you have nothing to offer on a negotiation strategy to defeat ISIS.
a) removing ISIS from controlling land in the middle east
b) preventing it being a draw to extremists from around the world
c) preventing others from setting up similar horrific regimes in other failed states
I can't stand the hypocritical naysaying - which is just as egotistical.
Burgon on the otherhand was interesting - he kept saying he wasn't a pacifist and really reminded me of Gordon Brown in wibble mode.
What happens when there's another outrage in London? I wonder whether the reaction to Charlie Hebdo hasn't turned various local issues into something approaching all out war. Was it wise to have the march in Paris with all world leaders (including Netanyahu hated in the Middle East as much as Saddam would have been in London) declaring WAR against ISIS?
Many countries have now faced terrorist outrages and all civilized people want to show solidarity but when you declare WAR this becomes something far more far reaching and with very unpredictable consequences.
This is not to say it is not legally correct since the UN sanction for bombing seems clear to me. Nor is it to question the motives, honesty or morals of those advocating bombing. Cameron appears to have been as open as he possibly can on this issue and I don't see a Blairite stitchup underway.
But in the end it comes own to whether or not it will make things better or worse in the Middle East and in Europe. I believe that it will make things very much worse.
I don't claim to know what exactly we, as a world community, should be doing to sort this out but I have no faith that doing what we have done previously - which has led to such chaos in at least 3 countries - is going to be any more successful this time.
And I truly hope that in a year or 18 months time those on here who support the bombing will be in a position to point out how wrong I was to oppose it.
Would one get sued by the losing side if one declared an illegal war and won it?
Turkey now demanding £2.1 billion each year as well as visa-free access to the EU and eventually full membership.
By demanding more money & threatening to flood the EU with more migrants, Erdogan is trying to hold us to ransom.
================================================
But who'd of thunk it ?...a gang of Turkish rug merchants trying to take advantage of us ?
THIS was just SOOOOOOOOOO predictable ; indeed , this is just a modern day Turkish DANEGELD whereby the ransom / protection racket is increased each year as the crises worsens
The Turks will turn down/ turn up the flow of migrants/refugees opportunistically as they see fit
We are in the midst of a major historical event ; the greatest mass migration since WW2 and it's clearly going to get worse in the spring as word has gotten out that the EU is a ''soft touch'' that lacks the will to enforce its' borders ; that idiot Angela Merkel has triggered an avalanche !
The developing world has many disadvantages but have one clear decisive advantage ; they have the POPULATION BOMB b and are certain to use it against us when they sense weakness !
Of course this is just perception on my part as I certainly couldn't argue a strict legal case.
He's also doing his level best to clamber down to third with C2DE, 60+ and in Scotland.
And his personal levels of approval among people aged 40 or above are <20%.
What a guy!!
But equally if not more hard to work out what the right thing to do is, it's a mess. Wringing our hands and doing nothing seems like a poor choice, but is it the least poor option? We will never know without being able to go back in time and do it differently
FWIW I would trust Cameron;s judgement over Corbyn's, or Blair's for that matter.
Have any of them been arrested? How many more are there?
Its all on film, I would like to think something has been done
Unsurprisingly some tories on here defended his ridiculous stance.
Mr. Tyndall, thanks for that informative answer. It seems crackers to me.
That said, we have little idea about what we actually want to happen - it's all very messy.
2) It may take time for the authorities to gather more / enough information to make a conviction likely. Is such filming admissible?
Or alternatively, they are doing nothing.
https://t.co/GRNsoJAEew https://t.co/T7F5Vx0KqT
How long do you expect them to keep it up for, especially without help?
The programme is probably still available on 4od
http://metro.co.uk/2015/11/24/cell-of-uk-female-extremists-filmed-encouraging-young-girls-to-join-isis-in-syria-5522224/
EDIT: Here it is
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/isis-the-british-women-supporters-unveiled
There was a hint dropped the other day that one of the attacks disrupted in the UK was of a similar type.
Re: Farron’s bold decision to support Syrian bombing – was it backed by the LD decision-making committee, or an arbitrary decision by Farron ?
"It is no disrespect to the admirable Hilary Benn to say that many MPs are so desperate for regime change that if Mr Potato Head were to address a party gathering, they might discern a tuberous Roosevelt in their midst."
Be aware and accept the reality, or hide under the bed.
When will decent Labour supporters and MP's find the guts to actually stand up and take him, and his acolytes, on, rather than merely Tweet about doing something?
http://aranews.net/2015/10/isis-throws-two-iraqi-men-off-a-roof-for-being-gay/
A new party might but stick a fork in the red rose and turn off the lights.
@PippaCrerar: 2/2 "...to excuse the actions of people who have murdered people in this city". Accuses Ken of using lang of terrorists & playing their game
"at that time there was more of a "moderate" FSA than there is today and Assad was just thought to have used chemical weapons on his enemies......."
A much better description than those who declare outrage that he used them ON HIS OWN PEOPLE! Using 'own people' to describe country boundaries in the Middle East is silly and anyway it's either wrong or not whoever he's using these weapons on......
I wonder though having seen the butchery of Assad's opponents (not least 120 beheaded Syrian soldiers) that perhaps he understood well before the pontificators in the 'WEST' what he was up against? We're now all aware of what these Jihadists are capable of so why do we continue to wonder why Assad didn't do the decent thing and fight these barbarians using queensberry rules
Is Clive Lewis the new young lefty to replace JC's generation? He's got the charm for sure.
Unfortunately that's not possible as Chilcott after several years has still not reported. That is a scandal in itself.
making no comment on whether he is right or wrong but yes he did say that.
"vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital for our diplomacy".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html
In fact, the list of Olympic host cities might well make a useful heat map of the cities most at risk.
1. No Greek or Cypriot politician would be re-elected if they signed an accession treaty with Turkey. It would be electoral suicide. This alone guarantees Turkey will not (while Northern Cyprus has not been resolved, at least) join the EU.
2. EU membership isn't popular in Turkey. The polls show a majority opposed to joining.
3. The required changes to Turkish law would be utterly unacceptable to Erdogan (or to any other Turkish leader).
Also do you think it's right that our actions or otherwise are dictated by fear?
https://twitter.com/spectator/status/671987599171559425
"If you don't like Gay marriage, just don't marry a man!!"
Chortle chortle pleased w herself
When she called for page3 to be scrapped, I asked her why she didn't just not become a page 3 girl/ look at page 3...
tumbleweed
Met police say arrests "part of an ongoing proactive investigation concerning individuals in the Luton area."
The majority of so called ''refugees'' are not coming from Turkish camps ; they are opportunistically coming direct from Syria or simply coming from other countries such as Iraq , Afghanistan , Maghreb and West Africa
Turkish Airlines is the biggest carrier in Africa ; anyone in Africa who can afford an air ticket and the small price of a ''visa'' can simply fly direct to Turkey and then jump the border into Greece ...Turkey could end this by raising the price of their visa but they will not because they are opportunistic blackmailers who sense weakness in the EU ; indeed , they have a dangerous contempt for the affluent , feminised quasi homosexual West
''By the pricking of my thumbs something wicked this way comes '' ?
On the second day of Christmas my true love sent to me, two turtle doves and a partridge in a pear tree.
Ate them.
......I suspect voters will treat it literally......
But the question is "will we be safer or less safe if we bomb Syria"?
It's not about fear, the governments job is to protect it's population, and so if bombing Syria increases the risk of an attack here, even if we were at risk before, then they are not doing their job
Maybe it will make us safer, I am not closed minded about it, but it makes me feel less safe
There's a lot more armed coppers in Manchester city centre than ever before.
Counter insurgency requires undermining of IS.
"These are the people some think we should negotiate with:
http://aranews.net/2015/10/isis-throws-two-iraqi-men-off-a-roof-for-being-gay/"
The evidence is becoming overwhelming that Assad's ruthlessness was borne from understanding his enemy. He would have seen what happened in Iraq and Lybia and realized he was between the devil and the deep blue sea and acted accordingy.
And who can blame him?
(Very disturbing clip)