The other night I posted that there was some finger pointing within the regime over who had done what as regards the alleged chemical weapons attack and some were denying that they had anything to do with it.
US media is reporting just today that one of the strongest intelligence intercepts in US hands is communications between senior Syrian senior officials after the event demanding to know how a chemical weapons attack ended up killing so many people.
Suggests that the information posted the other night was possibly correct.
I can't believe Ed now has shadow ministers resigning because they think he's a warmonger. What a mess! And last night's shenanigans were all aimed at keeping Ed in with the piecenik crowd. Ed's under fire from all sides. It's a complete Labour cock up.
Absolute madness and really quite stressful that our government could be so stupid to get involved with this war. Cameron deserves to suffer for so badly misreading the national mood. It's Obama's hole - let him dig himself out of it.
FPT Fitalass. Maher doesn't necessarily have control of the chemical stockpile, its the airforce that holds it and controls it. Whether the Assad name carries some kind of weight that he can go demand it I have no idea if the info I posted below is correct then its possible it wasnt quite expected to be as big a hit as it was.
Pointing the finger at one of Assad's key ground strike forces is possibly based in truth but its also convenient as any retaliatory strike is possibly going to hit 'those units responsible'.
norman smith @BBCNormanS Tory Edward Leigh says he does not believe PM will ever hold crucial second vote on #syria cos he knows cannot win it
I both expect and hope that Cameron will not need to hold a second vote.
But the reason for him not doing so will be that Hague has succeeded in his diplomatic goals. It will not be for lack of parliamentary support for authorising military intervention.
If Ed has his shadow ministers resigning after last night's 'blinder' what's going to happen when he signs up to military action when the UN reports? Labour is in tailspin. Surely Ed has to reject all interventionism now. If he doesn't then the PLP will explode in his face. Ed's in more trouble than even I thought possible.
I watched Cameron and Milliband open the debate today.
Cameron was very accomplished in his delivery, but would not address Ian Martin point from the Telegraph.
"Cameron says" he simply wants to deter Assad from using this stuff in future. But that is simply not credible. Bombing the regime would obviously be interpreted by Syria and its allies as a change in the status of our involvement"
Milliband was very nervous to start maybe understandbly, when the debate is taking your country in to war. However he did not state his case, as succintly as Ian Martin and he needed to for the sake of all the people , who need an opposition to hold the government to account.
Surbiton, I see from the previous thread you still haven't worked out that there are multiple varieties, of Harrier with differing capabilities. Still it appears at least one other person, in the form of Geoff Hoon, was equally ill informed.
Ed did his damnedest to appease the anti-war brigade in his own party and what happens? He gets shadow ministers resigning because they say they consider him a warmonger. Is this really about Syria or is something more sinister going on for Ed?
"If Ed has his shadow ministers resigning after last night's 'blinder' what's going to happen when he signs up to military action when the UN reports? Labour is in tailspin. Surely Ed has to reject all interventionism now. If he doesn't then the PLP will explode in his face. Ed's in more trouble than even I thought possible."
ahaha ! Priceless. The worst day for David Cameron since the election and it's Labour who's in a tailspin.
The Labour leader made it clear he was not opposed to action in principle but wanted more time and better arguments before his MPs would give the coalition their backing.
He has no case, which is why he was unable to state it.
He is prepared to support action, maybe, at some point, or not.
Swift? Decisive? Weak, weak, weak...
Scott selective quoting I see he has a case its the same as Ian Martin`s.
The full quote is here.
However he did not state his case, as succintly as Ian Martin and he needed to for the sake of all the people , who need an opposition to hold the government to account.
Well it looks increasingly like Ed's refusal to take "Yes" for an answer will prevent the UK from acting on this, the first time WMD have been seriously used in the 21st century. Tomorrow will be chaos, but the real story will be what our European allies and the US think of us.
France to America: "The Brits are no longer with us. They say there's just too much evidence that the WMDs exist this time."
The Labour leader made it clear he was not opposed to action in principle but wanted more time and better arguments before his MPs would give the coalition their backing.
Flip, flop, dither, blather.
Can you pin the tail on this donkey, Surby?
ضعيف، ضعيف، ضعيف
Are you talking about Prime Minister Miliband in such rude manner, Avery ? Have you also been to the Craig Oliver School of Manners ?
Who needs an aircraft carrier when you have an RAF base in Cyprus?
True Akrotiri, does have the advantage of being local and unsinkable. But the discussion in this case revolves around surbitons remedial education requirements.
The Labour leader made it clear he was not opposed to action in principle but wanted more time and better arguments before his MPs would give the coalition their backing.
The 'full' quote does not contain Ed's case, he has no case and was therefore unable to state it
Scott this is about going to war not your tweets.
Can I as you one question do you agree with Ian Martin comment below in your own words please.
"Cameron says" he simply wants to deter Assad from using this stuff in future. But that is simply not credible. Bombing the regime would obviously be interpreted by Syria and its allies as a change in the status of our involvement"
Jim Fitzpatrick has seen what the smarter posters on here noticed yesterday: that there isn't a fag paper's width of difference between Cameron and Miliband's position. Ed was foolish to allow that charade about humiliating Dave and calling all the shots to get out of control last night. It merely invited scrutiny, and has left Ed hopelessly exposed.
Voting's at 10pm, right? What time is the result expected?
In unrelated news, Amazon now wants more tax info (to satisfy US authorities) and won't sell books of authors who don't provide it. Not had a look at the 'interview' they want to do but I'm irked by the encroaching tentacles of the IRS.
Wee Dougie Differences are (1) they want compelling evidence that Assad is responsible. Not sure what that means. (2) they want a vote on the UN weapon inspectors report. Vote on what? (3) they want further consideration given to consequences for neighbours. Not sure how. (4) authorisation of force is time limited.
A lot clearer in fairness than Ed was earlier but still asking a lot more questions than it answers. We could argue about what each of these steps means forever. The sons of Brown remember the 5 tests for the Euro.
The Russian convened meeting of the five permanent members of the UNSC didn't get very far.
UNITED NATIONS — A meeting of the U.N. Security Council's permanent members ended quickly Thursday with no sign of progress on an agreement over Syria's crisis.
The meeting Thursday afternoon started breaking up after less than an hour, with the ambassadors of China, France, Britain, Russia and the United States steadily walking out.
It was the second time in two days that the five Security Council powers came out of a meeting on Syria with no progress. On Wednesday, the five countries met to discuss a resolution proposed by Britain to authorize the use of military force against Syria in retaliation for an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds near Damascus.
Russia remains firmly opposed to such action, saying there is no evidence the Syrian regime was responsible for the attack, as the U.S. and its allies contend.
British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant looked grim as he walk past reporters Thursday, saying "no comment." The other ambassadors also did not speak to reporters.
A Western diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were private, said Russia called Thursday's meeting. Russia's U.N. mission refused to comment.
Who needs an aircraft carrier when you have an RAF base in Cyprus?
True Akrotiri, does have the advantage of being local and unsinkable. But the discussion in this case revolves around surbitons remedial education requirements.
Using Cyprus as a base reminds me of when the Royal Navy's CVA-01 aircraft carrier was cancelled in 1963. To prove the case that land-based aircraft were better than a carrier, the RAF moved Australia 600 nautical miles so it was in range of the TSR-2 ...
Allegedly, of course. :-)
Such a shame that the TSR-2 was cancelled as well.
Who needs an aircraft carrier when you have an RAF base in Cyprus?
True Akrotiri, does have the advantage of being local and unsinkable. But the discussion in this case revolves around surbitons remedial education requirements.
Who needs an aircraft carrier when you have an RAF base in Cyprus?
True Akrotiri, does have the advantage of being local and unsinkable. But the discussion in this case revolves around surbitons remedial education requirements.
Using Cyprus as a base reminds me of when the Royal Navy's CVA-01 aircraft carrier was cancelled in 1963. To prove the case that land-based aircraft were better than a carrier, the RAF moved Australia 600 nautical miles so it was in range of the TSR-2 ...
Allegedly, of course. :-)
Such a shame that the TSR-2 was cancelled as well.
Who needs an aircraft carrier when you have an RAF base in Cyprus?
True Akrotiri, does have the advantage of being local and unsinkable. But the discussion in this case revolves around surbitons remedial education requirements.
Who needs an aircraft carrier when you have an RAF base in Cyprus?
True Akrotiri, does have the advantage of being local and unsinkable. But the discussion in this case revolves around surbitons remedial education requirements.
Using Cyprus as a base reminds me of when the Royal Navy's CVA-01 aircraft carrier was cancelled in 1963. To prove the case that land-based aircraft were better than a carrier, the RAF moved Australia 600 nautical miles so it was in range of the TSR-2 ...
Allegedly, of course. :-)
Such a shame that the TSR-2 was cancelled as well.
Yes wouldn't be like the crabs to be less than honest to support their toys, think Typhoons and harrier.
People should never underestimate inter-service rivalry. Whenever you hear a pronouncement on the Navy by a RAF Air Chief Marshal, or the Navy by an army General, always remember they're looking after their own service first.
This is getting way off-topic, but I've no military background and always wondered why the RAF were referred to as 'crabs', particularly by the navy crowd. So I just looked it up:
I still haven't heard any PB Tories cheering on this good news
@jdportes: Rise in immigration: bad news for govts absurd net migration target is good news for economy: http://t.co/Cq33E7naDO
tim
This is the third time you have posted this statistic.
You really must research the original ONS report before relying on secondary sources.
Here are the first three bullet points from the ONS report's "Key Findings":
• Latest provisional data show that there was a net flow of 176,000 Long-Term migrants to the UK in the year ending December 2012. This is lower than the estimate of 215,000 in the year to December 2011, but it is not a statistically significant fall.
• 497,000 people immigrated to the UK in the year ending December 2012, which is a statistically significant decline from the 566,000 who immigrated during the previous year. This decrease has caused the fall in net migration.
• 321,000 emigrants left the UK in the year ending December 2012, which is a statistically significant decrease from the 351,000 who emigrated during the previous year. [My bolding]
I hope they vote to stay out of it. I'm very sorry about everyone & anyone caught up in any kind of violence wherever they may be. But we've intervened in too many places without improving the lot of man-and-woman-kind in any of them, as far as I can see.
I think we just have to accept we can't hold back the rising tide of violence world-wide.
So Clegg "today has seen the house at its best" has it? And despite people saying and thinking what they sincerely believe they're then expected to be whipped to support something which they don't believe. What utter crap.
There is a chance of course that both the amendment and the motion are defeated. Some tories will not support the motion but I don't see them supporting the amendment either.
That's why it's such an idiotic pledge, Cameron can fail to meet his own pledge because not enough people are leaving the country. Amazingly stupid to set such a parameter to be judged by don't you think?
Get UK unemployment below 5% and I would support free movement of labour.
There are plenty of nations willing to give political cover There is a supporting regional base infrastructure Congress leans in favour, which is what tonight's briefing is about
Anyone who uses the expression "WMDs" is either a propagandist or a buffoon. Chemical weapons are no more or less bad than other mundane weapons. Nuclear weapons are utterly catastrophic and could put an end to civilisatio nin the northern hemisphere. There is no honest reason to lump the two together: it's only done to give Western leaders an excuse to get their war on.
TSR2 was a brilliant piece of kit, a low level bomber, designed as a mouse and via committee, built as an elephant. Once the USSR had built look down radar and the planes to fly it, the TSR2 was redundant.
Funny thing was, the Buccaneer was far superior and walloped the USAF in exercises in Arizona and Utah.
Who needs an aircraft carrier when you have an RAF base in Cyprus?
True Akrotiri, does have the advantage of being local and unsinkable. But the discussion in this case revolves around surbitons remedial education requirements.
Using Cyprus as a base reminds me of when the Royal Navy's CVA-01 aircraft carrier was cancelled in 1963. To prove the case that land-based aircraft were better than a carrier, the RAF moved Australia 600 nautical miles so it was in range of the TSR-2 ...
Allegedly, of course. :-)
Such a shame that the TSR-2 was cancelled as well.
Anyone who uses the expression "WMDs" is either a propagandist or a buffoon. Chemical weapons are no more or less bad than other mundane weapons. Nuclear weapons are utterly catastrophic and could put an end to civilisatio nin the northern hemisphere. There is no honest reason to lump the two together: it's only done to give Western leaders an excuse to get their war on.
@BBCNormanS: Labour motion on #syria defeated by 112 votes. Seems a number of Labour MPs did not turn up and/or support their motion.
Ed better hope that they were just trapped in the lavatory. If, like Fitzpatrick, they've concluded that Ed's a warmonger and mini-Cameron then Ed could be in serious trouble.
Anyone who uses the expression "WMDs" is either a propagandist or a buffoon. Chemical weapons are no more or less bad than other mundane weapons. Nuclear weapons are utterly catastrophic and could put an end to civilisatio nin the northern hemisphere. There is no honest reason to lump the two together: it's only done to give Western leaders an excuse to get their war on.
I don't agree. You also missed a third: biological. The term 'NBC' refers to Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons, and all three are generally seen as WMD's.
It is worth remembering before we pile on too hard to Ed that Cameron may well not carry 100% of his MPs either. Given Ed's motion was entirely optional though, it does seem a tad foolish to have gone through with it given this.
Anyone who uses the expression "WMDs" is either a propagandist or a buffoon. Chemical weapons are no more or less bad than other mundane weapons. Nuclear weapons are utterly catastrophic and could put an end to civilisatio nin the northern hemisphere. There is no honest reason to lump the two together: it's only done to give Western leaders an excuse to get their war on.
I don't agree. You also missed a third: biological. The term 'NBC' refers to Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons, and all three are generally seen as WMD's.
I'm quite familiar with NBC, thank you, but biological weapons are pretty much an irrelevance these days. WMD is just a term used to pretend that sarin and VX are super-duper scary, requiring extreme reactions. It's all bollocks, perpetrated by the cynical to gull the ignorant.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p006vm6j
Joanna Gosling's husband in hot water.
http://labourlist.org/2013/08/shadow-minister-resigns-from-labour-front-bench-over-syria-vote/
Anyone know what Jim's stance is?
The other night I posted that there was some finger pointing within the regime over who had done what as regards the alleged chemical weapons attack and some were denying that they had anything to do with it.
US media is reporting just today that one of the strongest intelligence intercepts in US hands is communications between senior Syrian senior officials after the event demanding to know how a chemical weapons attack ended up killing so many people.
Suggests that the information posted the other night was possibly correct.
Pointing the finger at one of Assad's key ground strike forces is possibly based in truth but its also convenient as any retaliatory strike is possibly going to hit 'those units responsible'.
norman smith @BBCNormanS
Tory Edward Leigh says he does not believe PM will ever hold crucial second vote on #syria cos he knows cannot win it
I both expect and hope that Cameron will not need to hold a second vote.
But the reason for him not doing so will be that Hague has succeeded in his diplomatic goals. It will not be for lack of parliamentary support for authorising military intervention.
Cameron was very accomplished in his delivery, but would not address Ian Martin point from the Telegraph.
"Cameron says" he simply wants to deter Assad from using this stuff in future. But that is simply not credible. Bombing the regime would obviously be interpreted by Syria and its allies as a change in the status of our involvement"
Milliband was very nervous to start maybe understandbly, when the debate is taking your country in to war.
However he did not state his case, as succintly as Ian Martin and he needed to for the sake of all the people , who need an opposition to hold the government to account.
He is prepared to support action, maybe, at some point, or not.
Swift? Decisive? Weak, weak, weak...
It is Cameron's job to make the case for war. He cannot do it! Even your own MPs see this.
ahaha ! Priceless. The worst day for David Cameron since the election and it's Labour who's in a tailspin.
Flip, flop, dither, blather.
Can you pin the tail on this donkey, Surby?
ضعيف، ضعيف، ضعيف
The full quote is here.
However he did not state his case, as succintly as Ian Martin and he needed to for the sake of all the people , who need an opposition to hold the government to account.
France to America: "The Brits are no longer with us. They say there's just too much evidence that the WMDs exist this time."
Better check the logic quick.
Scott doesn't have much else to do with his life. Deep down he knows this.
The 'full' quote does not contain Ed's case, he has no case and was therefore unable to state it
Can I as you one question do you agree with Ian Martin comment below in your own words please.
"Cameron says" he simply wants to deter Assad from using this stuff in future. But that is simply not credible. Bombing the regime would obviously be interpreted by Syria and its allies as a change in the status of our involvement"
In unrelated news, Amazon now wants more tax info (to satisfy US authorities) and won't sell books of authors who don't provide it. Not had a look at the 'interview' they want to do but I'm irked by the encroaching tentacles of the IRS.
Differences are
(1) they want compelling evidence that Assad is responsible. Not sure what that means.
(2) they want a vote on the UN weapon inspectors report. Vote on what?
(3) they want further consideration given to consequences for neighbours. Not sure how.
(4) authorisation of force is time limited.
A lot clearer in fairness than Ed was earlier but still asking a lot more questions than it answers. We could argue about what each of these steps means forever. The sons of Brown remember the 5 tests for the Euro.
What reaction do you want from me?
I posted the results of the ballot when they were announced.
The Russian convened meeting of the five permanent members of the UNSC didn't get very far.
UNITED NATIONS — A meeting of the U.N. Security Council's permanent members ended quickly Thursday with no sign of progress on an agreement over Syria's crisis.
The meeting Thursday afternoon started breaking up after less than an hour, with the ambassadors of China, France, Britain, Russia and the United States steadily walking out.
It was the second time in two days that the five Security Council powers came out of a meeting on Syria with no progress. On Wednesday, the five countries met to discuss a resolution proposed by Britain to authorize the use of military force against Syria in retaliation for an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds near Damascus.
Russia remains firmly opposed to such action, saying there is no evidence the Syrian regime was responsible for the attack, as the U.S. and its allies contend.
British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant looked grim as he walk past reporters Thursday, saying "no comment." The other ambassadors also did not speak to reporters.
A Western diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were private, said Russia called Thursday's meeting. Russia's U.N. mission refused to comment.
All we can say is that at least they met!
Allegedly, of course. :-)
Such a shame that the TSR-2 was cancelled as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVA-01
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cva01.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10275129/Shadow-Minister-resigns-over-Syria-vote.html
Copper bottomed shit.,
This is getting way off-topic, but I've no military background and always wondered why the RAF were referred to as 'crabs', particularly by the navy crowd. So I just looked it up:
http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/The_Royal_Air_Force#Origins_of_.27Crab.27
Anyone got any steer as to how this is likely to go?
I still haven't heard any PB Tories cheering on this good news
@jdportes: Rise in immigration: bad news for govts absurd net migration target is good news for economy: http://t.co/Cq33E7naDO
tim
This is the third time you have posted this statistic.
You really must research the original ONS report before relying on secondary sources.
Here are the first three bullet points from the ONS report's "Key Findings":
• Latest provisional data show that there was a net flow of 176,000 Long-Term migrants to the UK in the year ending December 2012. This is lower than the estimate of 215,000 in the year to December 2011, but it is not a statistically significant fall.
• 497,000 people immigrated to the UK in the year ending December 2012, which is a statistically significant decline from the 566,000 who immigrated during the previous year. This decrease has caused the fall in net migration.
• 321,000 emigrants left the UK in the year ending December 2012, which is a statistically significant decrease from the 351,000 who emigrated during the previous year. [My bolding]
Do your homework, tim, do your homework.
I think we just have to accept we can't hold back the rising tide of violence world-wide.
Now that would be a mess.
That is the key issue.
Ayes - 220
Noes - 332
The Noes have it
Ayes 220 Noes 322
The Noes have it. The Noes have it.
Ed plays a blunder.
Not even close. Where are the Labour MPs?
Edit so that is 38 Labour MPs + whatever hangers on voted for this amendment who did not support Miliband. Wow.
There are plenty of nations willing to give political cover
There is a supporting regional base infrastructure
Congress leans in favour, which is what tonight's briefing is about
Two are in place.
Funny thing was, the Buccaneer was far superior and walloped the USAF in exercises in Arizona and Utah.
Not good for Ed M in the grauniad.
220 votes for Labour amendment suggests at least 37 of the party's MPs did not vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_(nerve_agent)
The Americans realised that chemicals such as VX could be so incredibly dangerous and effective that they swapped their thermo-nuclear knowledge for details of VX with the British:
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/06/vx-sarin-tabun-nerve-weapon-podcast
Only 220 out of 257 Labour MPs back their own motion suggests number beleive Ed Miliband shd have gone further in ruling out military action
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Definitions_of_the_term
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/108951/chemical-weapon/274179/Weapons-of-mass-destruction
Swift. Decisive.
@GdnPolitics: Syria divisions laid bare as Tories savage Ed Miliband http://t.co/AKC1Atnd8s
Ayes - 272
Noes - 285
The Noes have it