grow up
Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
grow up
You have to admit MPs behaviour is a bit grim.
So what do we do Mozza? While you were thinking ISIL have executed more than 18 individuals in a public yard in Tadmur city and beheaded a Russian.
Oh good the green laughing smileys again I do love when you use them in want of a better argument.
I don't think you should ignore anything. But you should treat your sources critically. If the spokesperson for the US campaign in Syria tells you that the campaign in Syria is going fantastically you should question why. I mean he's hardly going to say 'It's a disaster, we're not achieving anything, we should be dropping flowers and peace symbols' We had this the other day when you were perfectly willing to believe that the UK had killed no civilians simply because Cameron had said that it was true.
You're not going to believe everything an IS spokesman says, you're probably not even going to believe everything a Russian spokesman says. You shouldn't believe Warren just because he's saying what you like.
If not growing up means that I think the discussions should take place in a sombre and serious tone because of the seriousness of the topic at hand you can call me Peter fecking Pan.
No-one cheered and laughed the decision.
grow up peter pan
What even with all the bombs the Yanks have been dropping? Good thing our 8 jets are going to join the fight. That should stop them
IS will be stopped when there is a settlement to the Syrian civil war. They won't survive a united Syrian people. In the meantime we police internaly to stop any attacks within Britain
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?
His source was your own article
I've long given up on a better argument coming from your direction. It's a fact that the sources I have quoted are on the ground in the area concerned and you are feck knows where but I am damned sure the info you have is more suspect than theirs. As for Cameron's claim that no civilians have been killed in 18 months of missions that you simply dismiss...don't you think it would have been proved as wrong by now.
I haven't heard cheering myself, so I'll take that back (although my comment yesterday was based on Mhairi Blacks social media posts who was present, unlike us, so perhaps heard something not picked up on the mic).
There's absolutely no doubt that MPs burst into laughter within seconds of the vote because Bercow was cracking jokes (and seemed like he was cracking jokes about a part of our democratic process, too, which is a bit dickish) hardly the mood to prove that the decision was made 'with a heavy heart'.
Yes Marching, believe in the good government that has never, and will never, lie to us. There's a good boy.
But lets get into the meat and bones of it, because your source is, frankly, just a bit shit.
So:
Ah, yes, the Vietnam War. Lets examine that. The Pentagon does not officially consider body count a good metric of success. Most people believe they keep tally of it, true, but officially killing people is 'not the aim'. In part, this is because the numbers are inflated. There's an admittance that the body count in the Vietnam War was inflated by about 30%. 951,000 became 600,000 a third of the US 'success' was nothing but smoke and mirrors. But, I hear you cry, we couldn't possibly get it that wrong this time our technology is better. True, but lets say that the figure of 23,000 is broadly correct and represents roughly the numbers killed by the US bombing campaign so far. That number could still be correct and involve the death of literally not one single IS fighter. If you are killed by a US drone strike, you're male, and you're in the area where IS operate you're considered an enemy combatant unless, after your death, you are convincingly proved NOT to be an enemy combatant.
As of August the US acknowledge 2 non-combatant deaths from a total of 5,700 air strikes. A group of journalists investigating this claim believe they have found evidence of 459 from just 118 airstrikes. You'll be pleased to hear that the US is investigating 5 more incidents including one where local reports say 58 people BEING HELD PRISONER by IS were killed by a US airstrike that they refused to acknowledge for 2 weeks. Now I am not sure the numbers found by Airways are correct, I suspect they're probably overstated, and its a problem of methodology that when you rely on local reports you're going to get local bias, but lets give them their dues, they have conclusively proven, too, that people killed in air-strikes that have been claimed by local reports to be civilians have, in fact, been members of IS. They're clearly taking this seriously and they're doing the investigative work that you seem to think is impossible by anyone who's not the government. They're treating sources critically and they're cross checking.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...targets-killed-more-than-450-civilians-report
Why does all this matter? At the minute, every single one of those 459 is considered a success story for the airstrikes. And thats just an analysis of 118 strikes! The more we delve into it, the more the 23,000 figure becomes suspect. And the more we look at it, the more we must question whether we can tangibly ascertain that the US-led airstrikes have had quite the effect on IS numbers that you're so keen to say they have.
And how many of the 5,700 airstrikes that took place before August are the US actually checking to see whether they killed civilians or not? Well I told you, as of the publication of that article, 5. Lets be a bit loose with the numbers here and say that they killed 100 IS militants in each strike and no civilians. That leaves us 5,694 (including the concluded investigation) airstrikes to go with thousands of deaths still to investigate.
Don't just take my word for it:
Take the word of a 'military expert':
Literally your own article, the very one you think is the proof says 'wait and see' but, somehow, you've decided thats perfectly enough evidence to prove that Airstrikes are a resounding success and support your incredibly tenuous point.
And, for every single one of those people killed that aren't IS members do you not admit:
So collateral damage is not just proof that you shouldn't believe everything you read but, also, leads by your own admission to strengthening the enemy.
As for your last point. You are aware we're still waiting on the Chilcott inquiry into the Iraq War right?
Long story short, don't believe everything you read.
Last edited:
Why are there Labour MPs whining about people telling them things like they'd have "blood on their hands" if they voted to drop bombs on Syria?
If you're not comfortable with the idea of being responsible for bombs being dropped on people, don't vote to drop bombs on people. It's very simple.
It's all well and good whining but if you actively vote for a decision that will directly cost lives, a basic requirement should really be that you're ready to accept the responsibility of that decision, rather than act like a tantrumy fecking queen about it.
Labour really haven't shown themselves well at all since Corbyn took charge. It comes across as if half the party is made up of stupid spoilt children who don't like being made to eat their vegetables.
If you're not comfortable with the idea of being responsible for bombs being dropped on people, don't vote to drop bombs on people. It's very simple.
It's all well and good whining but if you actively vote for a decision that will directly cost lives, a basic requirement should really be that you're ready to accept the responsibility of that decision, rather than act like a tantrumy fecking queen about it.
Labour really haven't shown themselves well at all since Corbyn took charge. It comes across as if half the party is made up of stupid spoilt children who don't like being made to eat their vegetables.
Let me guess Marching, you swallowed the whole WMD angle circa 2003 and were convinced Libya was going to be a clean job too?
If only the people that always voted for inaction would accept that their decisions cost lives, too. They never do, so understandably those who are trying to do something about it get irked when the self-anointed moral arbiters of twitter start grandstanding.
Because its a bullshit argument that counts no cost for inaction. I'm against the decision but I am not saying everyone who differs is some kind of immoral butcher because that really would be childlike reasoning.
Aye, it can't be denied that there are trolls out there and people being abusive but they are definitely taking that small minority and plonking them into the same boat as those who are simply exercising their democratic right to tell their MPs their opinion or protest peacefully. In my opinion it's a very cynical attempt to undermine Corbyn who has only discouraged abuse, and the rest of the left. There are trolls on both sides of the political spectrum - the only difference I can tell is that some of the ones on the right actually get paid to have their opinions published in the national news.
She could have done with showing more of that side of her character in the election
I don't think anyone in parliament advocates complete inaction, painting the debate in such simple terms is a bit shitty.
She did towards the end when it was clear she couldn't win, but yeah a bit earlier would've been nice (not that it would have mattered).
She could have done with showing more of that side of her character in the election
Vast majority of it wasn't, no, didn't suggest it was.
FFS! Vietnam? Here's another 
for your collection.
Remind me how many drones and satellites the Americans had overlooking the battlefield in Vietnam?
I don't know which of your comments astounded me the most....you completely ignored the fact that if Cameron's claim (which will have come verified from military advisors of course) was incorrect it will have been discredited by someone who isn't as clueless as you. You are quick to tell me to not believe everything I read but you do just that and dismiss every positive comment from any source yet revel in every negative comment and take it as gospel.
We can round in circles with me quoting facts from official sources saying that cutting off the oil that funds ISIL to the tune of £1m a day will mean they will not be able to continue to keep the hired killers they employ and afford the arms they are being supplied....you will of course dismiss that because you know best.
for your collection.Remind me how many drones and satellites the Americans had overlooking the battlefield in Vietnam?
I don't know which of your comments astounded me the most....you completely ignored the fact that if Cameron's claim (which will have come verified from military advisors of course) was incorrect it will have been discredited by someone who isn't as clueless as you. You are quick to tell me to not believe everything I read but you do just that and dismiss every positive comment from any source yet revel in every negative comment and take it as gospel.
We can round in circles with me quoting facts from official sources saying that cutting off the oil that funds ISIL to the tune of £1m a day will mean they will not be able to continue to keep the hired killers they employ and afford the arms they are being supplied....you will of course dismiss that because you know best.
I don't think any war is ever a clean job and as for the WMD once the evidence was put forward that they weren't there I believed it.
FFS! Vietnam? Here's another
Remind me how many drones and satellites the Americans had overlooking the battlefield in Vietnam?
I don't know which of your comments astounded me the most....you completely ignored the fact that if Cameron's claim (which will have come verified from military advisors of course) was incorrect it will have been discredited by someone who isn't as clueless as you. You are quick to tell me to not believe everything I read but you do just that and dismiss every positive comment from any source yet revel in every negative comment and take it as gospel.
We can round in circles with me quoting facts from official sources saying that cutting off the oil that funds ISIL to the tune of £1m a day will mean they will not be able to continue to keep the hired killers they employ and afford the arms they are being supplied....you will of course dismiss that because you know best.
Any chance that you could get back to the fact that the negatives you mention came from your own source? That's kinda crucial.
Edit: And by the way, what does it matter how many drones and satellites they have? In your own article that you posted, the guy IN CHARGE of the Anti-ISIL operation says the evidence of a decline in numbers is purely ANECDOTAL!
Last edited:
Nah, this doesn't really wash. People who vote for inaction aren't responsible for costing lives; the people who take those lives (ie the terrorists we're fighting) are responsible. To suggest otherwise, and blame people who support inaction, is a deflective tactic. If people feel the cost of life that bombing will bring is necessary to sort out the problem, then fair enough, but the idea that those who don't support these airstrikes have some level of responsibility over the loss of lives is absolute shite.
It's your deflective tactic tbf. Action will cost lives as will inaction.
Lives are going to be lost either way. But I'm very skeptical as to whether our sudden involvement in the bombings is going to mean that the Middle East sees any sort of peace once we're finished with them. What'll happen is that we'll probably manage to weaken ISIS, so someone else can continue killing, and Cameron can claim this as some massive success.
Just the other year we were going to bomb Assad. Now we're likely to be working alongside him in some capacity. He's been known to be a rather unpleasant guy himself, but I wouldn't accuse those who voted alongside him of being people who are enabling his actions.
Plenty of countries out there aren't involved in this current campaign. They're not responsible for costing lives though, which is a bullshit accusation. The people who cost lives are the ones who kill people.
action & inaction costs lives
You haven't actually bothered to address my post at all. Saying inaction costs lives, and using it as an excuse to feel fine if our bombing results in civilian casualties is not a particularly good excuse. Lives are going to be lost either way, and the source we are targeting (ie ISIS), is not the sole cause of atrocities in the Middle East, even if they are in the main one at the moment. Assad has been responsible for many atrocities, yet we seem fine to work alongside him now.
Again, there will be plenty of nations out there who are not taking part in airstrikes and are not currently involved in this military conflict despite being Western nations. They are not responsible for the loss of lives in the Middle East.
I get why people do support this, but to accuse those not currently supporting airstrikes of being responsible for a loss of life is a shite tactic.
I don't actually go around accusing people of such things, and I think you'll agree I gave plenty of merit to those arguing against this action. I was responding to a direct accusation of "blood on their hands" bullshit, which I'm not having. I think people who see it as a binary of if you act, then you're a bloodthirsty killer, and if you don't there are no moral consequences to this, are living in a dream world of diminished responsibility. Every choice on whether to intervene is immensely difficult, particularly on the subject of civilian casualties. That's why I don't expect people to throw pejoratives around to those who have to make such decisions, when they are making such a decision to save lives, not end them. You're right, failing to save lives isn't directly costing them. That was my bastardisation of the point to respond to the accusation of there being "blood on the hands" of those that voted in favour. THERE IS NO EASY CHOICE. Get it?
As is accusing people who support it.
Obviously it is not an exact science when it comes to counting bodies during a military campaign so that's why the figure is a nice round 23,000 and why caution has been expressed. And "purely anecdotal" was never said. Personally I am encouraged that the 23,000 figure includes 3,000 since October and hopefully the figure will continue to grow. I am also encouraged by the positives in that article that will be drawn from intelligence sources and drone footage.
Result in May 2015 (turnout 59.6%):
Labour Michael Meacher 23,630 54.8 +9.3
UKIP Francis Arbour 8,892 20.6 +17.4
Turnout looks to have almost halved, so equivalent majority would be about 7.5k.
Last edited:
@Ubik where did you get those numbers from?
General election! Sorry, should've made that doubly clear.
Early signs looking good for my fellow Kendallite.
FFS! Vietnam? Here's another
Remind me how many drones and satellites the Americans had overlooking the battlefield in Vietnam?
I don't know which of your comments astounded me the most....you completely ignored the fact that if Cameron's claim (which will have come verified from military advisors of course) was incorrect it will have been discredited by someone who isn't as clueless as you. You are quick to tell me to not believe everything I read but you do just that and dismiss every positive comment from any source yet revel in every negative comment and take it as gospel.
We can round in circles with me quoting facts from official sources saying that cutting off the oil that funds ISIL to the tune of £1m a day will mean they will not be able to continue to keep the hired killers they employ and afford the arms they are being supplied....you will of course dismiss that because you know best.
Do you notice how at no point in the argument have I called you names. At no point, despite your fairly ridiculous gullibility and your refusal to read even a simple post on a forum, have I ever been anything but civil? And at no point have I responded to any argument you've made, despite ample opportunity, with the green smiley.
But yes, lets go 'round in circles' again because you're asking me a ton of questions that I've already addressed.
So lets get on to the specifics shall we:
'Remind me how many drones and satellites the Americans had overlooking the battlefield in Vietnam?'
Sorry, pre-empted that one Marching. And let me remind you, the Vietnam body count issue is not my opinion why it should not be used as a metric for success. I haven't given my opinion at any point in that paragraph. It is quite literally the reason the US doesn't use it as a metric for success, at least, in public. If the US do not believe body counts are particularly reliable, and your only argument for the success of the venture is the US's estimate of deaths then you're on a hiding to nothing. You're not arguing against me, there, you're arguing against the very people that you believe unquestionably.
Ignored is an odd choice of word I'd say I addressed that quite ridiculous logic throughout the post you're replying to, and I think it fairly clearly shows you didn't read my link so I'll quote it for you:
Uh-oh thats not very positive is it? 'Not aware of', very non committal language to form an argument that we with absolute certainty haven't killed a civilian. Certainly, members of Parliament thought we could do more to be sure of the fact.
Next.
Ah, yes. So when I said:
That was me 'tak[ing] it as gospel'? Because it sounds an awful lot like source criticism to me. But lets take two seconds to look at airwars and their methodology, in particular how they asses claims. http://airwars.org/methodology.html I think there can be very little doubt that they raise significant problems to the US/UK narrative that you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker. A part of source criticism is to evaluate your authors, the people you believe whole heartedly have more motive to lie, or misrepresent the facts (DC's 70,000 moderates anyone) than absolutely anyone I have pointed towards. That is not to say that everything they have graded as 'fair' is proof of a civilian death, of course not.
And here we come, again, to another unrelated argument. We can argue to till the cows come home, and have, about the most effective way to cut off ISIS's funding. But that is not what I took issue with.
You said:
And I responded to the bolded part.
You said a few days ago:
And when challenged couldn't answer how you know this or what evidence you can base this claim on.
You have again been unable to answer how or why.
As I have shown in the post above you have directly contradicted what you said. You can not say, on the one hand say that airstrikes will 'persuade others think of joining... that it might not be their best decision' and on the other say that killing people 'the very people [we are] depending on... will no doubt [be] piss[ed] off and possibly [sent] into the arms of ISIL.' they are part and parcel of the same thing!
So perhaps third time lucky?
Looks like an Incredibly low turnout. I do worry about UKIP in the north, the refugee situation is undoubtedly going to win them votes and next year's EU debate could play into their hands depending on how things go.
I was giving information so people have a comparison, in fact primarily so people don't say 'majority of 15,000 down to 4,000!'
So accept everything the Government says is true, don't question, just support