-
A couple of reasonable articles for and against from Labour MPs who've decided which way they're voting
I'm curious as to who puts together the briefings that the MPs get on these subjects. Obviously any element of bias there could translate into a significantly different vote.
-
No, that's just fucking daft.
If the drivers aren't already fully subscribed members of the "it's good to die for your caliphate" side of things, they could easily be a) under duress of a fate worse than death or b) illiterate. And propaganda doesn't have to be true anyway, any dead could still be held up as innocent civillians. Don't imagine for one minute that ISIS are above spin and/or lying.
Yes, you'll interrupt the funds but it won't stop them adding in another layer of operation between them and the smuggling.
Also, you're just pissing away a valuable resource while causing huge environmental damage to a region that we want to bring peace and stability to. How do you think that's going to end?
-
How did you get peace in Northern Ireland...not by bombing the shit out of it. (yes a broken analogy as the 'Ra is not a bunch of end time religious idiots but bear with me)
Troops on the ground, not overreacting, negotiation, building the place up economically and cutting off guns/money where you can.
And that's in a stable place and it's hard enough. Me thinks they can't be arsed to do the really, really hard work of rebuilding/stabilizing which needs lots of people but why not? Afghanistan, troops. Iraq, troops. ISIS, just...drop bombs? What?
Not to mention the political complexity of the SA not wanting the other Muslim brand (Sunni VS Shi'te) Russia mixing and wanting Assad back, Turkey playing both sides... But either do it properly or stay out. Just bombing is ballox, the only way to recreate peace is to stabilize and invest.
-
Is that one of those generic facebook grade warnings, 100% of which turn out to be utter mince while all actual terror attacks are usually completely unpredicted?
-
Yes I realise that. It's factual reporting. Just as when the BBC state the absolute truth when they report what Hunt says about the NHS (I'm not being sarcastic!). It is true he said those things about how the changes will improve healthcare. It is true that Cameron is sure he will win.
...
It still makes me sick, it's such a distortion of the wider picture, and self-fulfilling in terms of influencing opinion (not a clever response, I'm not very clever about media stuff). -
generic facebook grade warnings
Which probably puts it's on a par with the Home Office warnings, which are graded from "Attack imminent", to "Attack imminent, no we really mean it this time" to "Attack imminent, look over there, that was totally a terrorist attack" and "Attack imminent, what do you mean we didn't do anything about that attack that did actually just happen".
-
To be fair, unlike the facebook level warnings, the Home Office doesn't try and waste our time coming up with some tenuous copy and paste backstory that lets you know the warning is totes legit. You know, the ones which wrap up a selection of mates cousin down the pub, muslim boyfriend, white saviour, troubled conscience, christian peril tropes into one tasty package, you just can't resist.
I suspect the likes of Snopes and other debunkers can't even be arsed with his utter arse gravy anymore.
And even if there was a chance its true, what are you going to do? Lock yourself in your house staring at pictures of internet people you totally won't believe exist and sipping from your guaranteed terrorist proof Bear Grylls hydration system in a blind panic that your Asda delivery driver might have a bit of a tan and a beard? that's how they'll really get you, you know. Dirty bombs and anthrax tucked into your microwavable all american papa johns pizza. They'll find your poisoned and blown up corpse clutching a handwritten note in arabic script that, when translated, reads "Allah hu Akbar - You should have gone to the mall you dozy fucker".
-
I was referring to the decision about military action against Iraq in 2003 (possibly the only time Corbyn has ever been right on a foreign policy issue).
In reply to your question if it concerns bombing ISIS in Syria.
Of course the effect is the same, which is exactly why we should be bombing ISIS in Syria as well as Iraq. We are already using drone strikes in Syria anyway.
-
“The [convenience] stores/tobacco outlets, etc. with the lights around
the windows and doors are not owned by God fearing Christians. In
large part, these stores are owned by folk that send their profits
back to their homeland and then in turn use these funds against our
country to create turmoil, fear and in some cases death and
destruction.”Clever American has singelhandedly discovered the key to fighting terrorism.
-
(possibly the only time Corbyn has ever been right on a foreign policy issue).
Just out of interest, why do you feel Corbyn is wrong on TTIP?
-
The reasoning in this is, I think, sound:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-02/islamic-state-s-new-strategy-is-suicidalWhich is why I think military action could actually prevent Daesh from doing any more damage.
Doesn't detract from need for longer-term solutions in the region. But Daesh shouldn't really have a seat at that table.
-
Really? I read that as an economist trying to explain something that exists fundamentally outside of economics - or a western notion of, at least.
Brings to mind something Ruhollah Khomeini said:
"I cannot believe that the purpose of all these sacrifices was to have less expensive melons."
-
The choice of the word Daesh is a western acronym for 'al-dowla al-islaamiyya fii-il-i’raaq wa-ash-shaam' = 'Islamic State in Iraq and Syria'.
Daesh is five letters not four (‘in’ and ‘and’ are omitted so it's just ISIS/L) because the Arabic letter 'ع' which begins the word for 'Iraq' is difficult/impossible to pronounce for an anglophone hence the use of an 'e' (or occasionally an ’e) in the transliteration.
They don't really use acronyms in arabic so they consider it to be a funny made up word not the legitimate 'Islamic state' title they want. I think that a lot of people are reluctant to legitimise their status by calling them the Islamic State/ISIL/IRAQ too, and I know some (I think the French and the US) have been particularly keen on only using the term daesh and avoid any official sounding titles etc.
-
In Arabic word-play it is a derogatory term which Daesh really don't like. Anything which makes Daesh a little less in charge of there own name is destabilising and a good thing. The BBC are a little slow to take it up but Cameron suddenly loves using it.
-
News In Brief ,Evening Standard 2/12
"An ex-lawyer who sneaked into a woman's bedroom in a G-string and fishnet
stockings while high on drugs was cleared at Southwark Crown court of trespassing with intent
to commit a sexual offense.
Desmond Moran, 53, claimed he thought the woman was a
panda "
aggi
The_Seldom_Killer
JWestland
dicki
deleted
hoefla
NotThamesWater
fallschirmjäger
starfish&coffee
h2o
croft
The_Kindness_of_Trees
Greenbank
n3il
Constable_Savage
andyp-
Post a reply
About
In the news
Posted by
@Platini
Don't just do something, stand there.
Might actually be the best bit of advice to dish face. We're already "doing something" in Iraq to target ISIS and their oil (apparently).
Our bombs aren't going to do anything different to France et al. Unless ours have some sort of built in ISIS checker, where prior to detonation a small boxing glove knocks on the door of the targeted building and waits for the door to open to check the documentation before deciding whether it should terminate.
I think James Cameron did a film about sentient bombs didn't he?
(i was always fucking bollocksed when my mate decided to put it on)