politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Commons might be about to vote for Syrian air strikes b
Comments
-
The spineless nature of the PLP has been on show for years now. They wouldn't stand up and get rid of Brown, they wouldn't stand up and get rid of Ed...felix said:I see Dan Jarvis is now prevaricating - will only support the govt if a convincing case is made. I have one question who took all the cojones off the Labour party? surely Ed B wasn't it!
0 -
Persia was a huge oil producer and would certainly have transformed the German war effort if they could have captured and held it. But to be honest that was always going to be a huge ask and without Turkish involvement in the war would have resulted in such extended and exposed supply lines very close to active operational fronts that it would probably have been impractical.Sean_F said:
I honestly don't know enough. How big were Iraq, Iran, and the Gulf as oil producers at this stage?TheScreamingEagles said:
Thanks. Getting the oil in Middle East was key.Sean_F said:
Well, at some point, a showdown between the Soviet Union and Germany was inevitable, but not in 1941.TheScreamingEagles said:
How would have World War II panned out if Hitler hadn't launched Barbarossa?Sean_F said:IMHO there was a significant opportunity cost to the Germans from allied bombing. Resources had to be devoted to defence against bombing that could have been better used elsewhere.
I remember one of the German interviewees on the World at War describing the bombing as "a third front."
Hitler would presumably have concentrated his efforts in the Middle East in the meantime. It's hard to see how we could have stopped him, had he put sufficient resources in. Egypt must have fallen, followed by Palestine/Transjordan and Iraq. Persia would have become a German satellite state.
That's when I see the showdown with the Soviet Union, with the Soviets attacking. There's surely no way that Stalin would have tolerated the Germans flanking Russia to the South as well as to the West.
the Anglo Soviet invasion of Iran happened because of Barbarossa didn't it ?0 -
Interesting piece on South Korean history:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-349608780 -
Imagine what would happen if the U S A announced that it would no longer enforce its 2000 mile border with Mexico ?
It would trigger an avalanche of migrants from not only Mexico but from all countries in central and south America ...tens of millions in fact .....this is what is going to happen in Europe !.....this is a collective Darwin Award for a Europe incapable of defending itself0 -
Iran/Persia was very big, but the others were not. The big prize (for the Germans) was to capture the oil fields in the Caucuses (Baku, etc).Sean_F said:
I honestly don't know enough. How big were Iraq, Iran, and the Gulf as oil producers at this stage?TheScreamingEagles said:
Thanks. Getting the oil in Middle East was key.Sean_F said:
Well, at some point, a showdown between the Soviet Union and Germany was inevitable, but not in 1941.TheScreamingEagles said:
How would have World War II panned out if Hitler hadn't launched Barbarossa?Sean_F said:IMHO there was a significant opportunity cost to the Germans from allied bombing. Resources had to be devoted to defence against bombing that could have been better used elsewhere.
I remember one of the German interviewees on the World at War describing the bombing as "a third front."
Hitler would presumably have concentrated his efforts in the Middle East in the meantime. It's hard to see how we could have stopped him, had he put sufficient resources in. Egypt must have fallen, followed by Palestine/Transjordan and Iraq. Persia would have become a German satellite state.
That's when I see the showdown with the Soviet Union, with the Soviets attacking. There's surely no way that Stalin would have tolerated the Germans flanking Russia to the South as well as to the West.
the Anglo Soviet invasion of Iran happened because of Barbarossa didn't it ?0 -
The King in 1939 was of German descent, didn't make him a Nazi supporter. Same goes for the British Muslims. Undeniably there are some IS sympathisers but many are actively hostile to IS.isam said:
If there were as many Germans in England in 1939 as there are Muslims now, I think it would have been more difficultrcs1000 said:
The problem with that argument is that is results in constant appeasement and inaction. When would we have stood up the Nazis? Warsaw, Paris or Watford Gap Service Station?isam said:
I don't think we were safe before, noFloater said:
You think we were safe before?isam said: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?
Also do you think it's right that our actions or otherwise are dictated by fear?
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
A bigger problem with bombing Syria must be that - on its own - it will do little more than convert a few more of the local population into true Jihadis and kill a bunch of civilians.
Just as ISIS bombing us doesn't make us think "You know what! Let's get out of the Middle East", I suspect us bombing ISIS won't make them think "You know what! Let's stop our war on the West."
Bombing on its own is an irritant. It couldn't topple Nazi Germany. It couldn't win the war in Vietnam. I doubt it will be particularly effective here. Destroying ISIS probably requires boots o the ground, and a commitment from a wide range of countries to spend 25 years building up secular civil society in the region post an invasion. Are we up for that? Probably not. Yet, that is what is realistically required. Otherwise, we're beating our chest and making a big noise, but doing relatively little to stop ISIS.
I am just asking questions that give me pause for thought... instinctively I think we should wipe them out.. but I don't trust my instincts!
I get a feeling of our bombing being akin to pressing a switch that detonates a load of bombs that have been planted over here, but that's prob just being melodramatic0 -
There is a book called What If that explores that scenario, and other counterhistoriesRichard_Tyndall said:
Persia was a huge oil producer and would certainly have transformed the German war effort if they could have captured and held it. But to be honest that was always going to be a huge ask and without Turkish involvement in the war would have resulted in such extended and exposed supply lines very close to active operational fronts that it would probably have been impractical.Sean_F said:
I honestly don't know enough. How big were Iraq, Iran, and the Gulf as oil producers at this stage?TheScreamingEagles said:
Thanks. Getting the oil in Middle East was key.Sean_F said:
Well, at some point, a showdown between the Soviet Union and Germany was inevitable, but not in 1941.TheScreamingEagles said:
How would have World War II panned out if Hitler hadn't launched Barbarossa?Sean_F said:IMHO there was a significant opportunity cost to the Germans from allied bombing. Resources had to be devoted to defence against bombing that could have been better used elsewhere.
I remember one of the German interviewees on the World at War describing the bombing as "a third front."
Hitler would presumably have concentrated his efforts in the Middle East in the meantime. It's hard to see how we could have stopped him, had he put sufficient resources in. Egypt must have fallen, followed by Palestine/Transjordan and Iraq. Persia would have become a German satellite state.
That's when I see the showdown with the Soviet Union, with the Soviets attacking. There's surely no way that Stalin would have tolerated the Germans flanking Russia to the South as well as to the West.
the Anglo Soviet invasion of Iran happened because of Barbarossa didn't it ?0 -
I take it that you don't actually have a counter-argument for what I said? How would you have felt if Turkey had refused to take on those two million refugees and just shoved them to the nearest border four years ago?MikeK said:
Thus speaks #JosiasFezJessop who is now morphing into a Turkey himself. Will be prime and ready for Christmas.JosiasJessop said:
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?Cromwell said:NIGEL FARAGE TWEETS .......
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 !
How long do you expect them to keep it up for, especially without help?
That's what people appear to be accusing them of doing, yet they did not do it. Instead, they have struggled to cope with the burden.
I would have thought you might want to thank them for that, however reluctantly.0 -
I remember thinking mid 2005 it's just going to be like the 70s and 80s all over again.Sean_F said:
The current decade looks like it will be bloodier than the previous decade, but certainly down on the Seventies and Eighties.TheScreamingEagles said:
https://twitter.com/paul1kirby/status/671052009051709440SeanT said:
"Massively lower levels of terrorist activity in Europe now"rcs1000 said:
According to Wikipedia, there were 10,000 bomb attacks during the Troubles.SeanT said:
Specious. How many Catholics lived in the British Isles in 1970? Many millions? How many of them successfully initiated terror attacks on the UK in the following decades? A few dozen?
Yet they killed thousands, provoked intense civil strife, and turned a part of the U.K. into a police state. That's because the few dozen hardcore killers were surrounded by many thousands of supporters, who were in turn were protected by, and could draw upon, a significant proportion of the Irish Catholic population who extended them a level of sympathy and tolerance.
The analogy with Islamism is precise. Except Islamism is much more dangerous because the Muslim population is so much larger and the Islamists have no political goal that can be negotiated, they want us dead.
10,000.
As an aside, have you looked into the amount of people killed by terrorist incidents in the 1970s and 1980s in Europe by the Action Directe, Baader Meinhof gangs, and the like.
They are an order of magnitude greater than the number of people killed in Europe by Islamic terrorists, and over a similar time horizon.
My point is this: there will always be nutters (whether Islamic, Communist, Anarchist or Nationalistic) who commit atrocities and kill thousands of people. We should fight these people with all the resources we have, up to and including invasion of countries. But we should not claim that "this time is different", when there is - in fact - massively lower levels of terrorist activity in Europe than there was say 30 years ago.
I am starting to wonder if you are actively, significantly stupid. In the way some clearly intelligent people often are (think Oliver Letwin). The idea we are now enjoying unusually lower levels of terror in Europe is of an accord with your notion that bombing the shit out of Germany increased their tank production and made them yodel with happiness in the streets of Berlin0 -
Your original post was a classic example of Reductio ad absurdum. A form of logical fallacy you seem to delight in. As such it was dishonest and stupid and seems to reflect your general disdain for anyone who happens to disagree with you.Richard_Nabavi said:
As I pointed out in my original, polite and substantive post, you were misrepresenting the argument in favour of extending the bombing by saying it by itself wouldn't work to 'defeat' ISIS, a claim which no-one has made.Richard_Tyndall said:If your engagement consists of misrepresenting people's positions - something that seems to be your normal way of dealing with those who disagree with you - then it is probably better if you do not engage. You only make yourself look stupid.
The difference is that I argue my points without automatically falling back of barmy accusations of dishonesty in those who disagree with me, something you don't seem to be able to manage.0 -
What is different is surely the type of terrorism. In the 70s and 80s it was mostly small separatist and political factions, internal to the countries affected. Not a quasi-state seeking to wage war on us. And I am not sure "in Europe" is the determiner when it has been rightly pointed out how many are being killed in the Middle East, Pakistan etcTheScreamingEagles said:
https://twitter.com/paul1kirby/status/671052009051709440SeanT said:
"Massively lower levels of terrorist activity in Europe now"rcs1000 said:
According to Wikipedia, there were 10,000 bomb attacks during the Troubles.SeanT said:
Specious. How many Catholics lived in the British Isles in 1970? Many millions? How many of them successfully initiated terror attacks on the UK in the following decades? A few dozen?
Yet they killed thousands, provoked intense civil strife, and turned a part of the U.K. into a police state. That's because the few dozen hardcore killers were surrounded by many thousands of supporters, who were in turn were protected by, and could draw upon, a significant proportion of the Irish Catholic population who extended them a level of sympathy and tolerance.
The analogy with Islamism is precise. Except Islamism is much more dangerous because the Muslim population is so much larger and the Islamists have no political goal that can be negotiated, they want us dead.
10,000.
As an aside, have you looked into the amount of people killed by terrorist incidents in the 1970s and 1980s in Europe by the Action Directe, Baader Meinhof gangs, and the like.
They are an order of magnitude greater than the number of people killed in Europe by Islamic terrorists, and over a similar time horizon.
My point is this: there will always be nutters (whether Islamic, Communist, Anarchist or Nationalistic) who commit atrocities and kill thousands of people. We should fight these people with all the resources we have, up to and including invasion of countries. But we should not claim that "this time is different", when there is - in fact - massively lower levels of terrorist activity in Europe than there was say 30 years ago.
I am starting to wonder if you are actively, significantly stupid. In the way some clearly intelligent people often are (think Oliver Letwin). The idea we are now enjoying unusually lower levels of terror in Europe is of an accord with your notion that bombing the shit out of Germany increased their tank production and made them yodel with happiness in the streets of Berlin0 -
Maybe we should ban socialism and general left-wingery as a dangerous, violent movement known to kill innocents in large numbers?rcs1000 said:
Forget about "national liberation movements" (like ETA or the IRA, etc), and go and look up the number of people killed by the Red Brigades, Red Army Faction, etc. I was shocked when I read up about them a few years ago. Between the various Left Wing groups in Europe, thousands of people were killed, including the former Italian prime minister.
Twenty years of terrorism, and thousands of people killed. By a crazy ideology.
0 -
Of course, and I am not saying that all British Muslims are supporters IS, never did, never have... but if 13-14% of Londoners were German in 1939 it would have made the War v different that's all I am sayingfoxinsoxuk said:
The King in 1939 was of German descent, didn't make him a Nazi supporter. Same goes for the British Muslims. Undeniably there are some IS sympathisers but many are actively hostile to IS.isam said:
If there were as many Germans in England in 1939 as there are Muslims now, I think it would have been more difficultrcs1000 said:
The problem with that argument is that is results in constant appeasement and inaction. When would we have stood up the Nazis? Warsaw, Paris or Watford Gap Service Station?isam said:
I don't think we were safe before, noFloater said:
You think we were safe before?isam said: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?
Also do you think it's right that our actions or otherwise are dictated by fear?
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
A bigger problem with bombing Syria must be that - on its own - it will do little more than convert a few more of the local population into true Jihadis and kill a bunch of civilians.
Just as ISIS bombing us doesn't make us think "You know what! Let's get out of the Middle East", I suspect us bombing ISIS won't make them think "You know what! Let's stop our war on the West."
.
I am just asking questions that give me pause for thought... instinctively I think we should wipe them out.. but I don't trust my instincts!
I get a feeling of our bombing being akin to pressing a switch that detonates a load of bombs that have been planted over here, but that's prob just being melodramatic
Non Nazi supporting Germans in London would not have been comfortable with us bombing Germany (inc the non Nazis living there)
0 -
Mr. Song, so sceptics are not even allowed to have their scepticism acknowledge? It's a non-view?
On Jarvis: don't know huge amounts about him, but surprised he's apparently gone wobbly.
Perhaps the Commons will vote No after all.0 -
Worldwide, the 2010's have certainly been bloodier than the 2000s, so some of that is bound to spill into Europe.TheScreamingEagles said:
I remember thinking mid 2005 it's just going to be like the 70s and 80s all over again.Sean_F said:
The current decade looks like it will be bloodier than the previous decade, but certainly down on the Seventies and Eighties.TheScreamingEagles said:
https://twitter.com/paul1kirby/status/671052009051709440SeanT said:
"Massively lower levels of terrorist activity in Europe now"rcs1000 said:
According to Wikipedia, there were 10,000 bomb attacks during the Troubles.SeanT said:
Specious. How many Catholics lived in the British Isles in 1970? Many millions? How many of them successfully initiated terror attacks on the UK in the following decades? A few dozen?
Yet they killed thousands, provoked intense civil strife, and turned a part of the U.K. into a police state. That's because the few dozen hardcore killers were surrounded by many thousands of supporters, who were in turn were protected by, and could draw upon, a significant proportion of the Irish Catholic population who extended them a level of sympathy and tolerance.
The analogy with Islamism is precise. Except Islamism is much more dangerous because the Muslim population is so much larger and the Islamists have no political goal that can be negotiated, they want us dead.
10,000.
As an aside, have you looked into the amount of people killed by terrorist incidents in the 1970s and 1980s in Europe by the Action Directe, Baader Meinhof gangs, and the like.
They are an order of magnitude greater than the number of people killed in Europe by Islamic terrorists, and over a similar time horizon.
My point is this: there will always be nutters (whether Islamic, Communist, Anarchist or Nationalistic) who commit atrocities and kill thousands of people. We should fight these people with all the resources we have, up to and including invasion of countries. But we should not claim that "this time is different", when there is - in fact - massively lower levels of terrorist activity in Europe than there was say 30 years ago.
I am starting to wonder if you are actively, significantly stupid. In the way some clearly intelligent people often are (think Oliver Letwin). The idea we are now enjoying unusually lower levels of terror in Europe is of an accord with your notion that bombing the shit out of Germany increased their tank production and made them yodel with happiness in the streets of Berlin0 -
On topic
I cannot see the point of airstrikes. Even if they managed to kill 7,000 IS people and miss all the civilians then you would only have got about 10% of IS. The actual result will be less impressive with higher "collateral damage". An impressive flexing of the military muscle with little useful outcome.
What I would rather see is finding ways to massively disrupt or compromise IS's communications. Without effective communications or with compromised security, the effectiveness of IS would be massively reduced. We could probably have far more effect through this route.
Maybe Jame Bond should stop chasing SPECTRE and get back to work.0 -
He certainly has the Livingstonian ability to blame the victims for the actions of the terrorists - see his comment after Monday's PLP meeting, heard on the Today programme yesterday morning. And this quality seems essential in today's New Kinder Labour.Scrapheap_as_was said:I see the DD party is out and about again.
Is Clive Lewis the new young lefty to replace JC's generation? He's got the charm for sure.0 -
Mr. Cromwell, saw on the Sky ticker that Viktor Orban, PM of Hungary [I think], reckons there's a semi-secret deal for about half a million Syrian to be relocated from Turkey to the EU.
Personally, I'd rather the EU kept £2bn than pay for the privilege of a second exodus.
It's also transparent and alarming that the EU's foreign and economic policies appear to be mere extensions of Germany's.0 -
FFS you two - get a room!Richard_Tyndall said:
Your original post was a classic example of Reductio ad absurdum. A form of logical fallacy you seem to delight in. As such it was dishonest and stupid and seems to reflect your general disdain for anyone who happens to disagree with you.Richard_Nabavi said:
As I pointed out in my original, polite and substantive post, you were misrepresenting the argument in favour of extending the bombing by saying it by itself wouldn't work to 'defeat' ISIS, a claim which no-one has made.Richard_Tyndall said:If your engagement consists of misrepresenting people's positions - something that seems to be your normal way of dealing with those who disagree with you - then it is probably better if you do not engage. You only make yourself look stupid.
The difference is that I argue my points without automatically falling back of barmy accusations of dishonesty in those who disagree with me, something you don't seem to be able to manage.0 -
The Red Brigades were an especially nasty bunch. When one industrialist quibbled over the ransom demand for his daughter, they sent him a lengthy film of her being raped and tortured to death.rcs1000 said:
Again, you are ignorant.SeanT said:
"Massively lower levels of terrorist activity in Europe now"rcs1000 said:
According to Wikipedia, there were 10,000 bomb attacks during the Troubles.SeanT said:
Specious. How many Catholics lived in the British Isles in 1970? Many millions? How many of them successfully initiated terror attacks on the UK in the following decades? A few dozen?
Yet they killed thousands, provoked intense civil strife, and turned a part of the U.K. into a police state. That's because the few dozen hardcore killers were surrounded by many thousands of supporters, who were in turn were protected by, and could draw upon, a significant proportion of the Irish Catholic population who extended them a level of sympathy and tolerance.
The analogy with Islamism is precise. Except Islamism is much more dangerous because the Muslim population is so much larger and the Islamists have no political goal that can be negotiated, they want us dead.
10,000.
.
I am starting to wonder if you are actively, significantly stupid. In the way some clearly intelligent people often are (think Oliver Letwin). The idea we are now enjoying unusually lower levels of terror in Europe is of an accord with your notion that bombing the shit out of Germany increased their tank production and made them yodel with happiness in the streets of Berlin
Forget about "national liberation movements" (like ETA or the IRA, etc), and go and look up the number of people killed by the Red Brigades, Red Army Faction, etc. I was shocked when I read up about them a few years ago. Between the various Left Wing groups in Europe, thousands of people were killed, including the former Italian prime minister.
Twenty years of terrorism, and thousands of people killed. By a crazy ideology.
Are you noticing the similarities, or are you too thick?0 -
Better than someone who backs 20 5/1 bets and then is proud of their win ...isam said:
If Cam has a bet I reckon he is an arber or someone who backs 5 20/1 shots in a race and when one wins says "I backed a 20/1 winner!"Scott_P said:@BBCNormanS: I understand PM will stress in Commons debate that he respects sincere views of those who oppose airstrikes #terroristsympathiser #syriavote
0 -
Clearly you didn't read it. My original post was an explanation that the goal of extending the bombing was to contain, degrade and disrupt ISIS in order to prevent it expanding and consolidating its quasi state. Quite how you manage to distort that into reductio ad absurdum is baffling.Richard_Tyndall said:Your original post was a classic example of Reductio ad absurdum.
Anyway, enough. As I said, you are not worth engaging with.0 -
Not something to boast about if I want to keep friends but I have been within two miles of four separate bombings. Three of which I heard clearly.0
-
Yep. Just for comparison using the figures that Madasafish kindly posted earlier, Persian oil production just prior to the start of WW2 was about 10.5 million barrels a day. By comparison Romanian oil production at the same time was about 175,000 barrels a day so it is clear how important Persia was to the German efforts if they could exploit it.rcs1000 said:
Iran/Persia was very big, but the others were not. The big prize (for the Germans) was to capture the oil fields in the Caucuses (Baku, etc).Sean_F said:
I honestly don't know enough. How big were Iraq, Iran, and the Gulf as oil producers at this stage?TheScreamingEagles said:
Thanks. Getting the oil in Middle East was key.Sean_F said:
Well, at some point, a showdown between the Soviet Union and Germany was inevitable, but not in 1941.TheScreamingEagles said:
How would have World War II panned out if Hitler hadn't launched Barbarossa?Sean_F said:IMHO there was a significant opportunity cost to the Germans from allied bombing. Resources had to be devoted to defence against bombing that could have been better used elsewhere.
I remember one of the German interviewees on the World at War describing the bombing as "a third front."
Hitler would presumably have concentrated his efforts in the Middle East in the meantime. It's hard to see how we could have stopped him, had he put sufficient resources in. Egypt must have fallen, followed by Palestine/Transjordan and Iraq. Persia would have become a German satellite state.
That's when I see the showdown with the Soviet Union, with the Soviets attacking. There's surely no way that Stalin would have tolerated the Germans flanking Russia to the South as well as to the West.
the Anglo Soviet invasion of Iran happened because of Barbarossa didn't it ?
By comparison the Caspian Sea/Baku production in 1940 was 475,000 barrels a day. So still less than 5% of that of Persia.0 -
If that happens there will be more blood spilt - but on the floor of the Commons! Another side effect would that no PM would attempt to get a resolution for military action passed in the House again. De facto victory for CorbynMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Song, so sceptics are not even allowed to have their scepticism acknowledge? It's a non-view?
On Jarvis: don't know huge amounts about him, but surprised he's apparently gone wobbly.
Perhaps the Commons will vote No after all.0 -
@MattChorley: Labour source suggests Cameron's 'crass' comment on terrorist sympathisers is hardening Labour SUPPORT for airstrikes up to 40 MPs0
-
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh
Word is David Cameron will early in his Syria statement clarify his "terrorist sympathisers" quote, in bid to reassure his own and Lab MPs
As predicted - I will be very intrigued to see what form this clarification takes!0 -
Mr. Thompson, quite.
I'd be very happy with getting 20% of 20/1 shots right.
Mr. F, sounds almost like a modern day Jacquerie.0 -
I was 400 yards away from the Hyde Park bombing, something I will never forgetRoger said:Not something to boast about if I want to keep friends but I have been within two miles of four separate bombings. Three of which I heard clearly.
0 -
It does amuse me that you keep saying I am not worth engaging with and then you are the one who pops up to comment on my postings.Richard_Nabavi said:
Clearly you didn't read it. My original post was an explanation that the goal of extending the bombing was to contain, degrade and disrupt ISIS in order to prevent it expanding and consolidating its quasi state. Quite how you manage to distort that into reductio ad absurdum is baffling.Richard_Tyndall said:Your original post was a classic example of Reductio ad absurdum.
Anyway, enough. As I said, you are not worth engaging with.0 -
You've read The Prize, I assume.Richard_Tyndall said:
Yep. Just for comparison using the figures that Madasafish kindly posted earlier, Persian oil production just prior to the start of WW2 was about 10.5 million barrels a day. By comparison Romanian oil production at the same time was about 175,000 barrels a day so it is clear how important Persia was to the German efforts if they could exploit it.rcs1000 said:
Iran/Persia was very big, but the others were not. The big prize (for the Germans) was to capture the oil fields in the Caucuses (Baku, etc).Sean_F said:
I honestly don't know enough. How big were Iraq, Iran, and the Gulf as oil producers at this stage?TheScreamingEagles said:
Thanks. Getting the oil in Middle East was key.Sean_F said:
Well, at some point, a showdown between the Soviet Union and Germany was inevitable, but not in 1941.TheScreamingEagles said:
How would have World War II panned out if Hitler hadn't launched Barbarossa?Sean_F said:IMHO there was a significant opportunity cost to the Germans from allied bombing. Resources had to be devoted to defence against bombing that could have been better used elsewhere.
I remember one of the German interviewees on the World at War describing the bombing as "a third front."
Hitler would presumably have concentrated his efforts in the Middle East in the meantime. It's hard to see how we could have stopped him, had he put sufficient resources in. Egypt must have fallen, followed by Palestine/Transjordan and Iraq. Persia would have become a German satellite state.
That's when I see the showdown with the Soviet Union, with the Soviets attacking. There's surely no way that Stalin would have tolerated the Germans flanking Russia to the South as well as to the West.
the Anglo Soviet invasion of Iran happened because of Barbarossa didn't it ?
By comparison the Caspian Sea/Baku production in 1940 was 475,000 barrels a day. So still less than 5% of that of Persia.
If you haven't, you must. It's a staggeringly awesome history of oil.
(And everyone else should read it too. Including SeanT.)0 -
Well that is certainly true!Philip_Thompson said:
Better than someone who backs 20 5/1 bets and then is proud of their win ...isam said:
If Cam has a bet I reckon he is an arber or someone who backs 5 20/1 shots in a race and when one wins says "I backed a 20/1 winner!"Scott_P said:@BBCNormanS: I understand PM will stress in Commons debate that he respects sincere views of those who oppose airstrikes #terroristsympathiser #syriavote
0 -
@nicholaswatt: Looks like @LeaveEUOfficial has removed video from @YouTube which said @David_Cameron wd rather bomb Isis than feed his children0
-
I'm sure some of the PM's colleagues must feel like wringing his neck after those comments, it has totally dominated the media this morning. He is lucky this vote is taking place today because you can feel support for air-strikes falling. The BBC seem to have been particularly helpful in this regard.
I do think this tweeting and texting by MPs' of comments made in PRIVATE meetings is really demeaning politics. Their favoured journalists on the receiving end, love it of course, it saves them doing an actual journalism, and allows them to claim they got "the scoop." You can guarantee that as soon as an MP has made a speech, or made an intervention, in Parliament today, they will be on their phones seeing what the reaction to their speech. It is all very self-serving and very damaging in the long run.0 -
And 9/11, of course.JohnLilburne said:What is different is surely the type of terrorism. In the 70s and 80s it was mostly small separatist and political factions, internal to the countries affected. Not a quasi-state seeking to wage war on us. And I am not sure "in Europe" is the determiner when it has been rightly pointed out how many are being killed in the Middle East, Pakistan etc
The comparisons with the past are useful in terms of keeping a sense of perspective, but obviously there are big differences between the nature of the terrorism carried out by (say) the IRA, the Red Brigades, and Islamists. We need to adjust our response in the light of the nature of the current threats, which are undoubtedly serious and growing.0 -
It's amazing how quickly the memory of "Red" terrorism in Europe has faded.Sean_F said:
The Red Brigades were an especially nasty bunch. When one industrialist quibbled over the ransom demand for his daughter, they sent him a lengthy film of her being raped and tortured to death.rcs1000 said:
Again, you are ignorant.SeanT said:
"Massively lower levels of terrorist activity in Europe now"rcs1000 said:
According to Wikipedia, there were 10,000 bomb attacks during the Troubles.SeanT said:
Specious. How many Catholics lived in the British Isles in 1970? Many millions? How many of them successfully initiated terror attacks on the UK in the following decades? A few dozen?
Yet they killed thousands, provoked intense civil strife, and turned a part of the U.K. into a police state. That's because the few dozen hardcore killers were surrounded by many thousands of supporters, who were in turn were protected by, and could draw upon, a significant proportion of the Irish Catholic population who extended them a level of sympathy and tolerance.
The analogy with Islamism is precise. Except Islamism is much more dangerous because the Muslim population is so much larger and the Islamists have no political goal that can be negotiated, they want us dead.
10,000.
.
I am starting to wonder if you are actively, significantly stupid. In the way some clearly intelligent people often are (think Oliver Letwin). The idea we are now enjoying unusually lower levels of terror in Europe is of an accord with your notion that bombing the shit out of Germany increased their tank production and made them yodel with happiness in the streets of Berlin
Forget about "national liberation movements" (like ETA or the IRA, etc), and go and look up the number of people killed by the Red Brigades, Red Army Faction, etc. I was shocked when I read up about them a few years ago. Between the various Left Wing groups in Europe, thousands of people were killed, including the former Italian prime minister.
Twenty years of terrorism, and thousands of people killed. By a crazy ideology.
Are you noticing the similarities, or are you too thick?0 -
'Give us more cops - not a £193k website' say community leaders
http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/officers-200k-website/story-28278039-detail/story.html
In this day and age with the maturity of the likes of Wordpress, how anybody spends £200k on a standard website is beyond me.0 -
You need to separate two different things: Syrian / Iraqi refugees and migrants, as the causes and solutions are very different.Cromwell said: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 '' ?
Firstly, Syrian refugees. For the last four years they have been travelling to neighbouring countries, apparently in the hope they would soon be able to go home. As time has gone on, it's becoming clear that will not be happening anytime soon. Apparently many are settled in the camps or in homes around Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan et al. But new refugees look at the pressure in the camps and want to move on to somewhere more settled and permanent. You would too, if you were in their situation.
As for the second issue: vast numbers of African migrants do not even have contact with Turkey, as many routes refugees migrants are taking do not enter it:The refugees entering from African countries are reaching the EU mostly through Italy (121,500 arrivals by sea in 2015) and Spain (1,953 arrivals by sea). Once they arrive in Italy, many apply for asylum there, but some try to cross into France. From there, many attempt the perilous crossing of the Eurotunnel into the United Kingdom.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/map-of-europe-refugee-crisis-2015-9?r=US&IR=T
Is people flying into Turkey really as big a problem as you state? Do you have evidence?0 -
Yep.rcs1000 said:
You've read The Prize, I assume.Richard_Tyndall said:
Yep. Just for comparison using the figures that Madasafish kindly posted earlier, Persian oil production just prior to the start of WW2 was about 10.5 million barrels a day. By comparison Romanian oil production at the same time was about 175,000 barrels a day so it is clear how important Persia was to the German efforts if they could exploit it.rcs1000 said:
Iran/Persia was very big, but the others were not. The big prize (for the Germans) was to capture the oil fields in the Caucuses (Baku, etc).Sean_F said:
I honestly don't know enough. How big were Iraq, Iran, and the Gulf as oil producers at this stage?TheScreamingEagles said:
Thanks. Getting the oil in Middle East was key.Sean_F said:
Well, at some point, a showdown between the Soviet Union and Germany was inevitable, but not in 1941.TheScreamingEagles said:
How would have World War II panned out if Hitler hadn't launched Barbarossa?Sean_F said:IMHO there was a significant opportunity cost to the Germans from allied bombing. Resources had to be devoted to defence against bombing that could have been better used elsewhere.
I remember one of the German interviewees on the World at War describing the bombing as "a third front."
Hitler would presumably have concentrated his efforts in the Middle East in the meantime. It's hard to see how we could have stopped him, had he put sufficient resources in. Egypt must have fallen, followed by Palestine/Transjordan and Iraq. Persia would have become a German satellite state.
That's when I see the showdown with the Soviet Union, with the Soviets attacking. There's surely no way that Stalin would have tolerated the Germans flanking Russia to the South as well as to the West.
the Anglo Soviet invasion of Iran happened because of Barbarossa didn't it ?
By comparison the Caspian Sea/Baku production in 1940 was 475,000 barrels a day. So still less than 5% of that of Persia.
If you haven't, you must. It's a staggeringly awesome history of oil.
(And everyone else should read it too. Including SeanT.)
Baku is one of the most fascinating cities in the world for me. Historically it has been the cause of all manner of strife and in WW1 was the cause of two of the strangest incidents of the war - the creation of the British Caspian Sea fleet and a particularly nasty battle between Germans and Turks on the borders of Georgia (even though they were allies) when both were attempting to seize the city and its oil supplies.0 -
.0
-
Mr. Tyndall, there's an F1 race in Baku next year.0
-
Not seen it but not only is that utterly stupid and crass, it doesn't even make sense.Scott_P said:@nicholaswatt: Looks like @LeaveEUOfficial has removed video from @YouTube which said @David_Cameron wd rather bomb Isis than feed his children
0 -
hear hearRichard_Tyndall said:
Not seen it but not only is that utterly stupid and crass, it doesn't even make sense.Scott_P said:@nicholaswatt: Looks like @LeaveEUOfficial has removed video from @YouTube which said @David_Cameron wd rather bomb Isis than feed his children
0 -
A friend of mine is a very senior lawyer at BP, and she spent six months in Baku and loved it. (She then spent six months in the Green Zone in Iraq, and didn't like that so much.)Richard_Tyndall said:
Yep.
Baku is one of the most fascinating cities in the world for me. Historically it has been the cause of all manner of strife and in WW1 was the cause of two of the strangest incidents of the war - the creation of the British Caspian Sea fleet and a particularly nasty battle between Germans and Turks on the borders of Georgia (even though they were allies) when both were attempting to seize the city and its oil supplies.
I've never been, but I'll add it to my travel wish list.
(There was an excellent book on the post Soviet oil industry in the Caucuses that I read, and I'm trying to remember the title. You'd really enjoy that as well.)0 -
You must be able to make a decent book out of that!SeanT said:
Pah. I was held hostage, at gunpoint, by Hezbollah, in a Lebanese town which was simultaneously being bombed, shelled and strafed by the Israelis. I felt bombs land and heard people scream and die.nigel4england said:
I was 400 yards away from the Hyde Park bombing, something I will never forgetRoger said:Not something to boast about if I want to keep friends but I have been within two miles of four separate bombings. Three of which I heard clearly.
I win.0 -
To be fair, Sean. Wherever you go there are people trying to kill you.SeanT said:
Pah. I was held hostage, at gunpoint, by Hezbollah, in a Lebanese town which was simultaneously being bombed, shelled and strafed by the Israelis. I felt bombs land and heard people scream and die.nigel4england said:
I was 400 yards away from the Hyde Park bombing, something I will never forgetRoger said:Not something to boast about if I want to keep friends but I have been within two miles of four separate bombings. Three of which I heard clearly.
I win.0 -
Wishart really is dullard blowhard.0
-
Chris Bryant and Pete Wishart speak in favour of unrestricted windbaggery0
-
Interesting list of apologists for the Red Brigades, of course.rcs1000 said:
It's amazing how quickly the memory of "Red" terrorism in Europe has faded.Sean_F said:
The Red Brigades were an especially nasty bunch. When one industrialist quibbled over the ransom demand for his daughter, they sent him a lengthy film of her being raped and tortured to death.rcs1000 said:
Again, you are ignorant.SeanT said:
"Massively lower levels of terrorist activity in Europe now"rcs1000 said:
According to Wikipedia, there were 10,000 bomb attacks during the Troubles.SeanT said:
Specious. How many Catholics lived in the British Isles in 1970? Many millions? How many of them successfully initiated terror attacks on the UK in the following decades? A few dozen?
Yet they killed thousands, provoked intense civil strife, and turned a part of the U.K. into a police state. That's because the few dozen hardcore killers were surrounded by many thousands of supporters, who were in turn were protected by, and could draw upon, a significant proportion of the Irish Catholic population who extended them a level of sympathy and tolerance.
The analogy with Islamism is precise. Except Islamism is much more dangerous because the Muslim population is so much larger and the Islamists have no political goal that can be negotiated, they want us dead.
10,000.
.
I am starting to wonder if you are actively, significantly stupid. In the way some clearly intelligent people often are (think Oliver Letwin). The idea we are now enjoying unusually lower levels of terror in Europe is of an accord with your notion that bombing the shit out of Germany increased their tank production and made them yodel with happiness in the streets of Berlin
Forget about "national liberation movements" (like ETA or the IRA, etc), and go and look up the number of people killed by the Red Brigades, Red Army Faction, etc. I was shocked when I read up about them a few years ago. Between the various Left Wing groups in Europe, thousands of people were killed, including the former Italian prime minister.
Twenty years of terrorism, and thousands of people killed. By a crazy ideology.
Are you noticing the similarities, or are you too thick?
Strangely the same people who though the "Armed Struggle of The People" that got all bent out of shape when the Peruvian government used the Little Red Book, going the other way, as it were. They armed the Ronda Campesina - the local militias that people had formed to protect themselves and told them that there was no bag limit on Senderos.0 -
On the question of if Londoners are safe from a terrorist attack or what the risks are, I'm reminded of air travel. Overall travel by air is the safest means of transport you are far more likely to die in a car crash than an air accident. But every accident involving planes is global news while car fatalities are more likely to reach only the local traffic report if anything.
Same with terrorism. The risks of Islamic terrorism so far over the last 15 years in Europe are tiny and pale into insignificance not just against previous terrorism but more routine murders and car accidents etc. The difference is one terrorist killing is high profile news but that alone doesn't mean it is more likely in reality.0 -
I did spend the night sleeping on the floor of Beirut airport back in the late 1980s being woken up every hour or so by local troops whilst someone was shelling the end of the runway. Not quite on your level but still one of the more exciting episodes of my life.SeanT said:
Pah. I was held hostage, at gunpoint, by Hezbollah, in a Lebanese town which was simultaneously being bombed, shelled and strafed by the Israelis. I felt bombs land and heard people scream and die.nigel4england said:
I was 400 yards away from the Hyde Park bombing, something I will never forgetRoger said:Not something to boast about if I want to keep friends but I have been within two miles of four separate bombings. Three of which I heard clearly.
I win.0 -
Well we know Christ Bryant is a natural at that...JohnLilburne said:Chris Bryant and Pete Wishart speak in favour of unrestricted windbaggery
0 -
"Millions of Jihadis are Waiting to Kill You"rcs1000 said:
To be fair, Sean. Wherever you go there are people trying to kill you.SeanT said:
Pah. I was held hostage, at gunpoint, by Hezbollah, in a Lebanese town which was simultaneously being bombed, shelled and strafed by the Israelis. I felt bombs land and heard people scream and die.nigel4england said:
I was 400 yards away from the Hyde Park bombing, something I will never forgetRoger said:Not something to boast about if I want to keep friends but I have been within two miles of four separate bombings. Three of which I heard clearly.
I win.0 -
WTF????
Is Sion Simon advising them?Scott_P said:@nicholaswatt: Looks like @LeaveEUOfficial has removed video from @YouTube which said @David_Cameron wd rather bomb Isis than feed his children
0 -
Has he dressed suitably for the occasion ?FrancisUrquhart said:
Well we know Christ Bryant is a natural at that...JohnLilburne said:Chris Bryant and Pete Wishart speak in favour of unrestricted windbaggery
0 -
LOL!SeanT said:Autocorrect just tried to change Hezbollah to "Jezbollah". O Tempora, O Mores
0 -
Why should you avoid Ukrainian Y-fronts?Pulpstar said:
Has he dressed suitably for the occasion ?FrancisUrquhart said:
Well we know Christ Bryant is a natural at that...JohnLilburne said:Chris Bryant and Pete Wishart speak in favour of unrestricted windbaggery
Chernobyl fallout.0 -
I would be tempted to vote against the motion on the grounds that Cameron seems to think that ISIL is a plural noun.0
-
@DPJHodges: John Woodock says he will not be influenced by threats form his own despatch box.
@JGForsyth: Corbyn turns around and shoots John Woodcock a look of disgust after his intervention0 -
They're all terrified of intimidation and the threats of deselection from Momentum.FrancisUrquhart said:
The spineless nature of the PLP has been on show for years now. They wouldn't stand up and get rid of Brown, they wouldn't stand up and get rid of Ed...felix said:I see Dan Jarvis is now prevaricating - will only support the govt if a convincing case is made. I have one question who took all the cojones off the Labour party? surely Ed B wasn't it!
0 -
Salmond now grandstanding and wasting time.0
-
Jeremy Corbyn sent a tweet out two minutes ago. Is he on his smartphone there on the front bench ? (Not got it on)0
-
I thought the government were now insisting they must be now called Daesh at all times?JohnLilburne said:I would be tempted to vote against the motion on the grounds that Cameron seems to think that ISIL is a plural noun.
0 -
You think he controls his own twitter?Pulpstar said:Jeremy Corbyn sent a tweet out two minutes ago. Is he on his smartphone there on the front bench ? (Not got it on)
0 -
Tissue_Price said:
Why should you avoid Ukrainian Y-fronts?Pulpstar said:
Has he dressed suitably for the occasion ?FrancisUrquhart said:
Well we know Christ Bryant is a natural at that...JohnLilburne said:Chris Bryant and Pete Wishart speak in favour of unrestricted windbaggery
Chernobyl fallout.0 -
I remember when Douglas Carswell started his blog some of the more comic brand of lefty were asking how he was funding it....FrancisUrquhart said:'Give us more cops - not a £193k website' say community leaders
http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/officers-200k-website/story-28278039-detail/story.html
In this day and age with the maturity of the likes of Wordpress, how anybody spends £200k on a standard website is beyond me.0 -
-
Blocking roads and harassing neighbours who are as inconvenienced as the MPs if there are noisy crowds outsider their home can amount to offences. The police should take action to stop such offences happening.Plato_Says said:FFS
Harry Cole
Mark Serwotka said of targeting MPs homes: "We would like to see more of this kind of community campaigning, linking up with unions"0 -
What's wrong with that? That is 8 planes not 8 munitions.FrancisUrquhart said:0 -
Mr. Lilburne, but if we destroy Daesh, you diminish the chances of the bad grammar being used in reference to them being repeated.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), with Balls unable to withstand the disapproval of Morris Dancer, Salmond's lost his sole rival for the title of Most Irritating MP.0 -
The US-Mexican border is notoriously porous, and they've mostly given up on building 'the fence' to stop it. God forbid, if there were to be a humanitarian disaster in Mexico then they'd be swamped.Cromwell said:Imagine what would happen if the U S A announced that it would no longer enforce its 2000 mile border with Mexico ?
It would trigger an avalanche of migrants from not only Mexico but from all countries in central and south America ...tens of millions in fact .....this is what is going to happen in Europe !.....this is a collective Darwin Award for a Europe incapable of defending itself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico–United_States_border#Mexico.E2.80.93United_States_barrier
http://theweek.com/articles/466628/what-take-secure-usmexico-border
Turkey's border with Syria is 500 miles, and with Iraq 200. Much of that terrain is mountainous and hard to monitor, and some of it is in Kurdish territory, where the Turkish government is seen with distrust, to say the least.
As an aside, I once saw figures for how many troops would be needed to 'secure' the US-Mexico border. It was greater than the US's standing army as the strength would be required in depth ...
Time for some sums: the US army has 541,000 men, both enlisted and officers (1). The length of the border is 1,933 miles (2). Dividing the former by the latter, then you would have 279 men per mile, or one every six yards. Except there will need to be shifts, so you can triple that, and it assumes that everyone is available and on the front line.
Obviously technology and barriers can help, but it shows in the case of an 'invasion', the US army would be stretched thinly.
"Closing the border" is easy to say, much harder to do.
(1): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces#Personnel_in_each_service
(2): https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21729.pdf0 -
How is that titan of the left, Liz Mckinnes voting btw ?
“Tonight people gave their backing to Ed Miliband’s plans for an NHS. For an NHS with the time to care and they say to David Cameron, keep your mitts off of our National Health Service !"0 -
Since we name our planes after weather, perhaps we can have some Misty Fogs and Light Rains available too.FrancisUrquhart said:
0 -
It would be nice to be genuine pacifist (not a selective one like Jezza) but there is that urge to do a bit of smiting. I assume the aim of the bombing in Syria is to (a) degrade IS (b) selectively smite their leadership (c) show solidarity with the Frogs.
If so, I'd generally be in favour, but boots on the ground is a problem. Happy to support the Kurds, but even here, there will be after effects. Turkey won't be happy, but have we forgiven them for Armenia yet?0 -
It's Terrorism.Cyclefree said:
Blocking roads and harassing neighbours who are as inconvenienced as the MPs if there are noisy crowds outsider their home can amount to offences. The police should take action to stop such offences happening.Plato_Says said:FFS
Harry Cole
Mark Serwotka said of targeting MPs homes: "We would like to see more of this kind of community campaigning, linking up with unions"
'the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.'0 -
The mexican drug war is the deadliest present conflict outside the current fundamentalist Islam ones.JosiasJessop said:
The US-Mexican border is notoriously porous, and they've mostly given up on building 'the fence' to stop it. God forbid, if there were to be a humanitarian disaster in Mexico then they'd be swamped.Cromwell said:Imagine what would happen if the U S A announced that it would no longer enforce its 2000 mile border with Mexico ?
It would trigger an avalanche of migrants from not only Mexico but from all countries in central and south America ...tens of millions in fact .....this is what is going to happen in Europe !.....this is a collective Darwin Award for a Europe incapable of defending itself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico–United_States_border#Mexico.E2.80.93United_States_barrier
http://theweek.com/articles/466628/what-take-secure-usmexico-border
Turkey's border with Syria is 500 miles, and with Iraq 200. Much of that terrain is mountainous and hard to monitor, and some of it is in Kurdish territory, where the Turkish government is seen with distrust, to say the least.
As an aside, I once saw figures for how many troops would be needed to 'secure' the US-Mexico border. It was greater than the US's standing army as the strength would be required in depth ...
Time for some sums: the US army has 541,000 men, both enlisted and officers (1). The length of the border is 1,933 miles (2). Dividing the former by the latter, then you would have 279 men per mile, or one every six yards. Except there will need to be shifts, so you can triple that, and it assumes that everyone is available and on the front line.
Obviously technology and barriers can help, but it shows in the case of an 'invasion', the US army would be stretched thinly.
"Closing the border" is easy to say, much harder to do.
(1): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces#Personnel_in_each_service
(2): https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21729.pdf0 -
Think contribution to standing air patrol to provide CAS for targets designated by special forces on the ground. That is how they killed off the expansion of the Daesh in Iraq - every time they form up for an attack, they loose their tanks, artillery and other heavy weapons. Which turns their attacks into Banzai charges.Philip_Thompson said:
What's wrong with that? That is 8 planes not 8 munitions.FrancisUrquhart said:
The real question is whether there will be an attempt to collapse their fun little state and just accept what will happen next...0 -
Emily Thornberry's intervention was embarrassing, I hope she gets deselected first. Like a screaming little child who has lost their temper.0
-
Michael Deacon @MichaelPDeacon
And another Labour MP demands an apology. Maybe we will need a two-day debate after all. The second day can be about Syria0 -
Labour seriously rattled by the Prime Ministers's words last night.
Terrorist sympathisers.0 -
Some MPs priorities being highlighted here - embarrassing themselves.0
-
@DPJHodges: Labour MPs have to stop playing games now. Do they care about war and peace or do they care about being called names.0
-
I'm not sure continually bringing up 'Terrorist Sympathisers' by Labour MPs is entirely wise given their leader......0
-
And that is why the Sturgeon is on the critically endangered list. Cheap caviar kids; just don't do it!SeanT said:
Baku is magnificently interesting. Went about 15 years ago. It's so intriguing I'd actually pay to go back, rather than wait for a travel writing gig. The pollution is absurd and the women are staggeringly beautiful. The history is mindboggling and the drinking is profound. Ace baklava.rcs1000 said:
A friend of mine is a very senior lawyer at BP, and she spent six months in Baku and loved it. (She then spent six months in the Green Zone in Iraq, and didn't like that so much.)Richard_Tyndall said:
Yep.
Baku is one of the most fascinating cities in the world for me. Historically it has been the cause of all manner of strife and in WW1 was the cause of two of the strangest incidents of the war - the creation of the British Caspian Sea fleet and a particularly nasty battle between Germans and Turks on the borders of Georgia (even though they were allies) when both were attempting to seize the city and its oil supplies.
I've never been, but I'll add it to my travel wish list.
(There was an excellent book on the post Soviet oil industry in the Caucuses that I read, and I'm trying to remember the title. You'd really enjoy that as well.)
I also bought a big fat glorious kilo gram of wonderful black market caviar, in the old market, for about 50p0 -
I'm not sure why calling ISIL Daesh is some sort of improvement. Daesh is simply the Arabic acronym for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.0
-
What is the number of British planes available for Syria? The above numbers look pretty pathetic to me.MarkHopkins said:
Since we name our planes after weather, perhaps we can have some Misty Fogs and Light Rains available too.FrancisUrquhart said:0 -
Cameron's defence cuts haven't helped. But the big problem is can Syria and Iraq survive as states?
As for the attributed remarks from Cameron, playground posturing, but Labour & SNP need to focus on principled opposition or support for the motion.0 -
Mr. T, don't forget that pundits are paid to be interesting/provoke a reaction from readers and viewers.
That's one of the reasons pb.com is a valuable resource, because kudos is attached more to people who have a history of being right (especially bucking the trend) than those who try and incite reactions.
For those wondering, not started the F1 2015 review yet. The overall result was modestly green, which is a bit soft but better than red.0 -
Burgon was rattled enough to claim not to be a *pacifist* on Sky this morning - he felt it necessary to mention it twice, unprompted.MarqueeMark said:
Labour seriously rattled by the Prime Ministers's words last night.
Terrorist sympathisers.0 -
@MrHarryCole: In Oldham. Heard the term "terrorist sympathiser" from more people than the PM since I've been here.0
-
@LarryAdamSmith: Is anyone familiar with the term 'dead cat'?0
-
@Maomentum_: I am so angry about the 'terrorist sympathiser' slur, and on a related issue, bombing.0
-
102.MikeK said:
What is the number of British planes available for Syria? The above numbers look pretty pathetic to me.MarkHopkins said:
Since we name our planes after weather, perhaps we can have some Misty Fogs and Light Rains available too.FrancisUrquhart said:0 -
@PippaCrerar: Comes a point when MPs (7 so far), pissed off though they may rightly be, need to stop calling for apology. Debate not about their feelings.0
-
So have I: it was the two bombs the IRA let off on the night of the 1992 election. One was in the City of London - near my then office, where I was working later - and the second was on the Brent Cross flyover later that night shortly after I got home. I remember the windows shaking as we heard the bomb.Roger said:Not something to boast about if I want to keep friends but I have been within two miles of four separate bombings. Three of which I heard clearly.
Corbyn and McDonnell's support for the IRA is gut-wrenching, frankly.
0 -
Dead cat bounce?Scott_P said:@LarryAdamSmith: Is anyone familiar with the term 'dead cat'?
0
