Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

unchanged_lineup said:
The bit that was said by someone as left out is in this video, so that you can have the full quotation. I don't think it changes the context of the one in the photo I posted though - as if one kind of bombing creates people who hate you and want revenge, but another kind of bombing doesn't create people who hate you and want revenge :rolleyes:

Click to expand...


Amazing isn't it?

To add to that, at least the Russians have proper ground forces they can coordinate with as well as a clear depiction of who their enemy is. Cameron seems to think he can rely on '70000' jihadists, who may or may not play nice with us.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34438993
Click to expand...

Yes saw that. I think its misquoted or out of context in this scenario. He is talking about Russians bombing rebels rather than ISIS.

See the next quote following it.

"And I would say to them: change direction, join us in attacking Isil but recognise that if we want to have a secure region, we need an alternative leader to Assad. He can't unite the Syrian people".
Click to expand...

Not that I am in the "for" campaign, but if he had really said what the picture quotes him, he would have been shred to pieces yesterday in the debate.
 
bleedred said:
Yes saw that. I think its misquoted or out of context in this scenario. He is talking about Russians bombing rebels rather than ISIS.

See the next quote following it.



Not that I am in the "for" campaign, but if he had really said what the picture quotes him, he would have been shred to pieces yesterday in the debate.
Click to expand...

Well, not really, that's all of the context now. I still think there isn't any sort of magical bombing that doesn't create people who hate you and your country.

What I'm saying is that his statements on 4th Oct and yesterday are naive at best and wilfully ignorant at worst.

Edit: Sorry, keep thinking of things to clarify what I mean. In the context of what he said about Russia, think of his new comments yesterday of saying the vote will make Britain safer. Russia started bombing Syria and then a Russian commercial airliner was blown out of the sky. It's incredibly naive to think that sort of result can't happen from similar British action just because now these jets have a different flag on the side of them.
 
Last edited:
I think in that bullying issue there's a clear contrast between Cameron sticking to calling his opponent a terrorist sympathiser and corbyn putting out a (well-written) statement condemning intimidation.

I guess Cameron being an asshole is dog bites man and not worth covering...
 
Now that the issue has been voted on, I really hope this 'terrorist sympathiser' comment isn't swept under the rug. He should be continuously hounded until he gives an apology, unsurprisingly the media isn't giving it any traction so I hope MPs or whoever is present at any of this talks or visits continues to press him for it. Its quite frankly disgusting that he makes such a disgraceful comment without consequence.
 
Kaos said:
Now that the issue has been voted on, I really hope this 'terrorist sympathiser' comment isn't swept under the rug. He should be continuously hounded until he gives an apology, unsurprisingly the media isn't giving it any traction so I hope MPs or whoever is present at any of this talks or visits continues to press him for it. Its quite frankly disgusting that he makes such a disgraceful comment without consequence.
Click to expand...

Is there any house ethics procedure? I'm pretty sure there is here in Ireland. It was a ludicrous and vile comment.
 
bleedred said:
Yes saw that. I think its misquoted or out of context in this scenario. He is talking about Russians bombing rebels rather than ISIS.

See the next quote following it.

Not that I am in the "for" campaign, but if he had really said what the picture quotes him, he would have been shred to pieces yesterday in the debate.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Russia were not bombing ISIL. Cameron pointed that out in the video. The silly image/quote distorted what he said.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
But surely you can see the irony? Russia dropping bombs in Syria will make terrorists, but UK dropping bombs won't :D It's risible.
Click to expand...

We are there to bomb ISIL which was what the vote was all about yesterday. Cameron, Obama, Hollande etc all want Putin to do the same. If Russia were at that time only bombing ISIL Cameron would not have had to make the comment.
 
Marching said:
We are there to bomb ISIL which was what the vote was all about yesterday. Cameron, Obama, Hollande etc all want Putin to do the same. If Russia were at that time only bombing ISIL Cameron would not have had to make the comment.
Click to expand...
The point is the logic. If their bombs will strengthen the resolve of their targets why won't our bombs strengthen the resolve of our targets?
 
Marching said:
We are there to bomb ISIL which was what the vote was all about yesterday. Cameron, Obama, Hollande etc all want Putin to do the same. If Russia were at that time only bombing ISIL Cameron would not have had to make the comment.
Click to expand...

You can't really justify or make sense of comments like those, no matter how hard you may try. He was - as is often the case, talking utter nonsense. Just like his disgusting "terrorist sympathisers" line the other night.

And the irony of a tory moaning about quotes being distorted or taken out of context is not lost.
 
Marching said:
We are there to bomb ISIL which was what the vote was all about yesterday. Cameron, Obama, Hollande etc all want Putin to do the same. If Russia were at that time only bombing ISIL Cameron would not have had to make the comment.
Click to expand...

The point Silva is making is the point I was making in a different way earlier. If Russia is creating terrorists by bombing our would-be allies (and therefore they must not be so bad), how is it that the UK won't create terrorists out of bombing other people who are supposedly infinitely worse?
 
Kaos said:
Anne Main.

Well considering its the Scottish Parliament I'd go ahead and vote with your conscience. Heck if Corbyn is forced out by 2020 I might pull a Collymore by voting for the Greens while donating to the SNP :lol:
Click to expand...

Ah, you're that side of the county.

We get Mark Prisk who is just awful.

I think the best thing he's ever done for me was not being bothered to turn up same-sex marriage vote because thats the first time he's not actively voted against my beliefs.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
The point Silva is making is the point I was making in a different way earlier. If Russia is creating terrorists by bombing our would-be allies (and therefore they must not be so bad), how is it that the UK won't create terrorists out of bombing other people who are supposedly infinitely worse?
Click to expand...

The point is that Russia attacking the very people they and the rest of the coalition are depending on to help destroy ISIL is obvioulsy not a good idea as it will no doubt piss them off and possibly into the arms of ISIL.

If we and the coalition all attack ISIL the number wanting to join them will dwindle.
 
Marching said:
If we and the coalition all attack ISIL the number wanting to join them will dwindle.
Click to expand...

:D

Because they're dwindling right now, aren't they?

We say they're "good", Russia say they're "bad". Doesn't matter. Being bombed is what they want because it doesn't damage them and it brings them more outraged volunteers.
 
Marching said:
The point is that Russia attacking the very people they and the rest of the coalition are depending on to help destroy ISIL is obvioulsy not a good idea as it will no doubt piss them off and possibly into the arms of ISIL.

If we and the coalition all attack ISIL the number wanting to join them will dwindle.
Click to expand...

I find it weird that you're still trotting out this line when you stopped responding the other day when I challenged it.

Can we please admit that this is a highly contentious point, at best, and, at worst, is just plain wrong and stop pretending like its a fact?
 
Kaos said:
Now that the issue has been voted on, I really hope this 'terrorist sympathiser' comment isn't swept under the rug. He should be continuously hounded until he gives an apology, unsurprisingly the media isn't giving it any traction so I hope MPs or whoever is present at any of this talks or visits continues to press him for it. Its quite frankly disgusting that he makes such a disgraceful comment without consequence.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately it will be.
 
I feel sorry for David Cameron's rug.
 
John McCain is VERY appreciative of the UK joining in -

“Then we will have some token aircraft over there from the British and they'll drop a few bombs, and we'll say thank you very much,” he said. “The president will be able to say 'now we have the British who will be helping us',"

“Air strikes alone won't win a conflict but it's good to have increased air strikes, it's good to have increased air activities, it's good to have shows of support from our British friends," he noted. "So I'm glad of it, thank you, we appreciate it! But to say that it's going to make a significant difference, no I've got to be a little more candid than that."
Click to expand...
 
Ubik said:
Weren't we supposed to be single handedly turning the situation into a catastrophe?
Click to expand...

I don't know...were you?

I wasn't and am still not fussed. Everyone is at it...the UK couldn't afford to sit this out in terms of international presence etc etc...

I don't think it's going to make a difference either way - it's not going to destroy ISIS and it's not necessarily going to make the UK a more attractive target for jihadists or bring about a big surge in refugees.

The world will keep turning and shit will keep happening - they asked the previous US Army Chief of Staff, how long would it take to wipe out ISIS?

His response -

The Army’s top officer believes the fight against the Islamic State, commonly known as ISIS or ISIL, will last “10 to 20 years,” an expansion of the timelines generally offered by the Obama administration.

Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff, added that the solution to the militant group cannot come entirely by military means.

“In my mind, ISIS is a ten to twenty year problem, it’s not a two years problem,” he told reporters Friday. “Now, I don’t know what level it will be a problem, but it’s a long term problem.”

White House officials have been warning since strikes began against the militant group that the fight could be years long, but Odierno’s assessment is by far the longest timetable laid out by a Pentagon official.

“The administration has said ‘three to five’ years. I think in order to defeat ISIL, it’s going to take longer than that,” Odierno said. “This movement is growing right now, and so I think it’s going to take us a bit longer than we originally thought.”
Click to expand...
 
Neutral said:
I don't know...were you?

I wasn't and am still not fussed. Everyone is at it...the UK couldn't afford to sit this out in terms of international presence etc etc...

I don't think it's going to make a difference either way - it's not going to destroy ISIS and it's not necessarily going to make the UK a more attractive target for jihadists or bring about a big surge in refugees.

The world will keep turning and shit will keep happening - they asked the previous US Army Chief of Staff, how long would it take to wipe out ISIS?

His response -
Click to expand...
Apparently so. Think your appraisal is broadly the correct one.
 
Silva said:
2 new recruits for every every one of their members killed suggests otherwise.
Click to expand...


unchanged_lineup said:
6000 new recruits in the month after the US started bombing

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...alling-group-derogatory-Daesh-cutthroats.html

US estimate of the number of ISIS fighters has not changed in ONE YEAR despite bombing campaign - those killed are simply replaced and augmented on.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-isis-militants-pentagon-iraq-syria/30750327/
Click to expand...

Interesting article but from 2014 and the other from 6 months ago says the numbers are the same so that suggests Silva's figures are wrong.

It's not something that will happen overnight but with the oilfields that fund ISIL's recruitment being destroyed, their resupply lines destroyed, the increased attacks on their members, rising numbers of defections away from ISIL.... it is logical that their numbers will dwindle as is mention in this article from a few days ago.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...tions-kurds-lloyd-austin-syria-isil/76503736/
 
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/hila...acebook&utm_campaign=viceuk&utm_medium=social

Apart from the end bit where I think the author loses his way a bit I think this sums up quite well my reaction to Hilary Benn's 'great' speech last night.

Marching said:
Interesting article but from 2014 and the other from 6 months ago says the numbers are the same so that suggests Silva's figures are wrong.

It's not something that will happen overnight but with the oilfields that fund ISIL's recruitment being destroyed, their resupply lines destroyed, the increased attacks on their members, rising numbers of defections away from ISIL.... it is logical that their numbers will dwindle as is mention in this article from a few days ago.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...tions-kurds-lloyd-austin-syria-isil/76503736/
Click to expand...

and again, what evidence do you have that bombing causes this? Just because you say it a lot doesn't make it true.
 
Marching said:
Interesting article but from 2014
Click to expand...

From 2014.... i.e., one month after the bombing started.

That's why I said, one month after the bombing started. :wenger:

What oilfields are we destroying in the city of Raqqa, eh?

And from your own article:
Islamic State fighters continues to field about 20,000 to 30,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria
Click to expand...

i.e., exactly the same as before. There is nothing overwhelmingly positive in your article, in fact the tone is caution and skepticism from the experts!
 
NinjaFletch said:
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/hila...acebook&utm_campaign=viceuk&utm_medium=social

Apart from the end bit where I think the author loses his way a bit I think this sums up quite well my reaction to Hilary Benn's 'great' speech last night.



and again, what evidence do you have that bombing causes this? Just because you say it a lot doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...
Doesn't exactly start great either, lying that there were cheers when the result was read out. But hey, spinning a few mistruths to mark people that are making a difficult moral choice out as callous warmongers will get you plenty of clicks these days.
 
Last edited:
unchanged_lineup said:
From 2014.... i.e., one month after the bombing started.

That's why I said, one month after the bombing started. :wenger:

What oilfields are we destroying in the city of Raqqa, eh?

And from your own article:


i.e., exactly the same as before. There is nothing overwhelmingly positive in your article, in fact the tone is caution and skepticism from the experts!
Click to expand...

I'm thinking what the situation was in 2014 is a little less relevant going into 2016.

You bang on about Raqqa like that loser Corbyn does....no oilfields in Raqqa...just ISIL HQ. and, according to the experts, it's reported that ISIL has started moving the family members of foreign fighters across the border to Mosul, apparently claiming that Raqqa was no longer safe for them.


NinjaFletch said:
.....and again, what evidence do you have that bombing causes this? Just because you say it a lot doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...

You didn't watch the video did you? I'm simply repeating what US Army Col. Steve Warren, the top spokesman for the counter-ISIL coalition who I'm guessing knows a thing or two about the wholesale defections, sparsely manned checkpoints and elite foreign fighters pressed into mundane duty indicate that the U.S.-led bombing campaign and advances by Kurdish forces are eroding the forces of the Islamic State, also known as ISIL.
 
Marching said:
I'm thinking what the situation was in 2014 is a little less relevant going into 2016.

You bang on about Raqqa like that loser Corbyn does....no oilfields in Raqqa...just ISIL HQ. and, according to the experts, it's reported that ISIL has started moving the family members of foreign fighters across the border to Mosul, apparently claiming that Raqqa was no longer safe for them.




You didn't watch the video did you? I'm simply repeating what US Army Col. Steve Warren, the top spokesman for the counter-ISIL coalition who I'm guessing knows a thing or two about the wholesale defections, sparsely manned checkpoints and elite foreign fighters pressed into mundane duty indicate that the U.S.-led bombing campaign and advances by Kurdish forces are eroding the forces of the Islamic State, also known as ISIL.
Click to expand...

They are not going to stand around on check point waiting to get bombed are they? IS will scatter, go underground but not go away.

Marching you support every 'war' we decide to wager in the middle east and they have all failed. Perhaps its time to stop killing people
 
Mozza said:
They are not going to stand around on check point waiting to get bombed are they? IS will scatter, go underground but not go away.

Marching you support every 'war' we decide to wager in the middle east and they have all failed. Perhaps its time to stop killing people
Click to expand...

I agree. And when the ISIL terrorists stop beheadings, mass raping women, burning alive anyone that questions their authority and stop killing people I agree that we should stop killing them.
 
Marching said:
You didn't watch the video did you? I'm simply repeating what US Army Col. Steve Warren, the top spokesman for the counter-ISIL coalition who I'm guessing knows a thing or two about the wholesale defections, sparsely manned checkpoints and elite foreign fighters pressed into mundane duty indicate that the U.S.-led bombing campaign and advances by Kurdish forces are eroding the forces of the Islamic State, also known as ISIL.
Click to expand...

Warren cautioned that evidence of Islamic State manpower shortages was largely anecdotal.

Aye, convincing stuff from a man who's job it is to tell you how great the airstrikes are going.
 
Marching said:
I'm thinking what the situation was in 2014 is a little less relevant going into 2016.

You bang on about Raqqa like that loser Corbyn does....no oilfields in Raqqa...just ISIL HQ. and, according to the experts, it's reported that ISIL has started moving the family members of foreign fighters across the border to Mosul, apparently claiming that Raqqa was no longer safe for them.




You didn't watch the video did you? I'm simply repeating what US Army Col. Steve Warren, the top spokesman for the counter-ISIL coalition who I'm guessing knows a thing or two about the wholesale defections, sparsely manned checkpoints and elite foreign fighters pressed into mundane duty indicate that the U.S.-led bombing campaign and advances by Kurdish forces are eroding the forces of the Islamic State, also known as ISIL.
Click to expand...

I read the whole article and that's what i drew my conclusion from. The experts even used the word skeptical themselves!

You're not getting the reason I posted the US thing - it's to show the aftermath in reality to bombings. Increased numbers.

You're not getting the reason I posted the second article - bombing hasn't dented the numbers. In fact, your article's numbers confirm that.

And finally... it's still 2015!! :D
 
NinjaFletch said:
Warren cautioned that evidence of Islamic State manpower shortages was largely anecdotal.

Aye, convincing stuff from a man who's job it is to tell you how great the airstrikes are going.
Click to expand...

:lol:

OK Ninja I'll ignore the the top spokesman for the counter-ISIL coalition, drone footage and Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, who oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East as chief of Central Command, and take what you say as fact. If you say that it's bollox that near Kirkuk in the last week, 90 Islamic State fighters laid down their arms and turned themselves over to Kurdish peshmerga forces I will just have to believe you.

I will also ignore the fact that the Kurds in Syria and Iraq, backed by U.S. airstrikes and advisers, have dealt ISIL blows recently on the battlefield along with the peshmerga-led attack in northern Iraq two weeks ago that seized the village of Sinjar, which sits astride a key highway and supply line for Islamic State forces along with the fact that over the last few days, Iraqi security forces completely surrounded Ramadi, capturing the last bridge jihadi fighters had used for resupply. All bollox, if you say so.

Another sign of reduced Islamic State manpower has been found at its road checkpoints, Warren said. Footage from surveillance drones shows fewer fighters manning those posts than in previous months. One result has been the ability of more civilians to escape Islamic State-held territory, he said, including a group of 22 people who recently fled Ramadi. That city has been held by the jihadists after a larger force fled without a fight.
Are you denying that increasingly, Islamic State forces have had to call on its better-equipped and trained foreign forces for such mundane duty as manning checkpoints and ISIL has employed foreign fighters as its "shock troops" to seize territory and as quick-reaction forces to respond to Kurds and other coalition forces?

I wish I had the sources you obviously do? Care to share them?
 
Marching said:
Interesting article but from 2014 and the other from 6 months ago says the numbers are the same so that suggests Silva's figures are wrong.

It's not something that will happen overnight but with the oilfields that fund ISIL's recruitment being destroyed, their resupply lines destroyed, the increased attacks on their members, rising numbers of defections away from ISIL.... it is logical that their numbers will dwindle as is mention in this article from a few days ago.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...tions-kurds-lloyd-austin-syria-isil/76503736/
Click to expand...
I'm quoting David Davis numbers. He might well be wrong, but no one pulled him up on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.