Middle East Thread

[BCM]

Ken Livingstone getting attacked by the Bbc and its Cronies for talking sense on Bbc News about just going into Syria and just using air strikes. He must have 3 people plus the presenter Derbyshire barracking him.

 

If you think the news is impartial you must be mad, making my blood boil just watching this.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

But these are ultra-smart bombs with IQ's north of 180 and Mensa membership. They'll find those pesky unflattened areas and flatten them.

 

Plus Cameron and his buddies who have links to Arms manufacturers/dealers will be rubbing their dirty grubby hands together. 

[Jairzinho]

Ken Livingstone getting attacked by the Bbc and its Cronies for talking sense on Bbc News about just going into Syria and just using air strikes. He must have 3 people plus the presenter Derbyshire barracking him.

 

If you think the news is impartial you must be mad, making my blood boil just watching this.

 

Just watched that. Utterly pathetic.

[Denny Crane]

Corbyn the warmonger, kinell.

 

 

[Strontium]

If Corbyn had whipped Labour MPs to oppose bombing Syria, he would have had a few front bench resignations, but Cameron would probably have called off the vote. Corbyn has put party unity over stopping the bombing, which is a political gamble he's obviously hoping will pay off.

[Denny Crane]

Aren't the Lib Dems and the DUP following the Conservative line.

 

So they may have had the numbers anyway right?.

[SasaS]

Corbyn the warmonger, kinell.

 

 

 

Oh! There's a new way to fight dementia!

[Stu Monty]

If Corbyn had whipped Labour MPs to oppose bombing Syria, he would have had a few front bench resignations, but Cameron would probably have called off the vote. Corbyn has put party unity over stopping the bombing, which is a political gamble he's obviously hoping will pay off.

Let's pretend you aren't just framing things that way to once again score cheap points against Labour.

 

What makes you think he'd call off the vote?

[Em City]

If Corbyn had whipped Labour MPs to oppose bombing Syria, he would have had a few front bench resignations, but Cameron would probably have called off the vote. Corbyn has put party unity over stopping the bombing, which is a political gamble he's obviously hoping will pay off.

 

Yes, it's all Corbyn's fault that war is on the horizon and many more innocent people will die. What a monstrous selfish man he is.

 

It's not like Cameroid wanting to play G.I Joe with the support of his party as well as that of your beloved Lib Dems have any part in it. 

[Red Phoenix]

From Corbyn, writing in The Guardian :

 

Crucially, he has failed to convince almost anyone that, even if British participation in the current air campaign were to tip the balance, there are credible ground forces able to take back Isil-held territory. Last week the prime minister suggested that Kurdish forces or the Free Syrian Army would be able to play that role. He even claimed there is a 70,000-strong force of moderate FSA fighters ready to coordinate on the ground with a western air campaign.

 

That claim has not stood up to basic scrutiny. Kurdish forces will be of little assistance in the Sunni Arab areas Isil controls. Nor will the FSA – which is now a disparate umbrella group, including elements few would regard as moderate, and mostly operating in other parts of the country. The only ground forces now able to take advantage of a successful bombing campaign are the stronger jihadist and radical Salafist groups.

 

That’s why the logic of an intensified air campaign is mission creep and western boots on the ground, whatever the prime minister says now about the deployment of British combat troops. UN security council resolution 2249, passed in the aftermath of the Paris attacks, does not give clear and unambiguous authorisation for UK airstrikes. But it’s a welcome framework, for example, for action by UN member states to cut off funding, oil revenues and arms supplies from Isil territory.

 

There’s little sign, however, of that happening in earnest. Nor is there yet any serious evidence that it’s being used to coordinate international military or diplomatic strategy in Syria, despite the clear risk of potentially disastrous incidents, such as the shooting down of a Russian military aircraft by Turkish forces.

 

The prime minister has avoided spelling out to the British people the warnings he has surely been given about the likely impact of British airstrikes in Syria on the threat of terrorist attacks in the UK. And he’s offered no serious assessment of the impact of an intensified air campaign on civilian casualties in Isil-held Syrian territory, or on the wider Syrian refugee crisis.

 

Most importantly, Cameron has been entirely unable to explain how UK bombing in Syria would contribute to a comprehensive negotiated political settlement of the Syrian war. That is widely understood to be the only way to ensure the defeat of Isil in the country.

 

More here : http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/01/cameron-failed-show-bombing-syria-isil-work-jihadist

 

Also :

 

Cameron has failed to justify Syria airstrikes, MPs' committee says

 

David Cameron’s hopes of building a consensus behind military action against Islamic State in Syria has suffered a blow after parliament’s foreign affairs select committee said he had failed to justify airstrikes.

 

The prime minister had made his case for military action in response to a critical report earlier from the committee, setting out what he claimed was a “comprehensive” approach to the crisis in Syria. The committee’s Conservative chairman, Crispin Blunt, had already given his personal view that Cameron had gone far enough and indicated he would support military action.

 

But in a meeting on Tuesday, the eve of the Commons vote on military action, the committee voted four to three in favour of a motion that Cameron “has not adequately addressed concerns”.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/01/cameron-has-failed-to-justify-syria-airstrikes-mps-committee-says

[Jairzinho]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiV-MhQbNIw

[Anubis]

This is a heartbreaking read. A powerful indictment of 'collateral damage' through bombing.

 

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-11-30/us-help-saudi-arabia-obliterating-yemen

[Rico1304]

I'm not sure anything other than a coalition of local forces can sort it out, but who knows how that will end up. It does seem daft we can bomb them one side of an imaginary line but not the other. If there's evidence they are using the border to 'hide' then it should be easier for the other nations to pick them off - fish in a barrel so to speak.

 

I'd imagine they'll start using human shields and operating from schools and hospitals to increase collateral damage and help recruit. Mental.

[Spy Bee]

I'm not sure anything other than a coalition of local forces can sort it out, but who knows how that will end up. It does seem daft we can bomb them one side of an imaginary line but not the other. If there's evidence they are using the border to 'hide' then it should be easier for the other nations to pick them off - fish in a barrel so to speak.

 

I'd imagine they'll start using human shields and operating from schools and hospitals to increase collateral damage and help recruit. Mental.

Who really cares about collateral damage. The US bombed a hospital the other week. 90% of all deaths in violent conflicts since the second World War have been civilian. They know civilians will die, and they don't give two shits.

[Spy Bee]

Let's pretend you aren't just framing things that way to once again score cheap points against Labour.

 

What makes you think he'd call off the vote?

There is absolutely no reason he would Stu, because as has been pointed out there would have been dissenters anyway. The media somehow suggesting that war is Corbyn's fault is just ridiculous. Typical and ridiculous.

[Strontium]

Let's pretend you aren't just framing things that way to once again score cheap points against Labour.

 

What makes you think he'd call off the vote?

 

Labour are scoring cheap points off themselves. Nothing to do with me.

 

Cameron wouldn't go ahead with the vote unless he was confident of getting a majority. With all the Tory rebels, that would have been by no means guaranteed had Corbyn whipped his party.

[Gnasher]

Labour are scoring cheap points off themselves. Nothing to do with me.

 

Cameron wouldn't go ahead with the vote unless he was confident of getting a majority. With all the Tory rebels, that would have been by no means guaranteed had Corbyn whipped his party.

 

You don't half write some shit.

[Pidge]

Labour are scoring cheap points off themselves. Nothing to do with me.

 

Cameron wouldn't go ahead with the vote unless he was confident of getting a majority. With all the Tory rebels, that would have been by no means guaranteed had Corbyn whipped his party.

 

All those tory rebels who WILL have been whipped... Yeah, guaranteed gamechanger that...

[Stu Monty]

Labour are scoring cheap points off themselves. Nothing to do with me.

 

Cameron wouldn't go ahead with the vote unless he was confident of getting a majority. With all the Tory rebels, that would have been by no means guaranteed had Corbyn whipped his party.

So you think he'd have just gone for a massive humiliating climb down on the chance that the whipped MPs don't rebel anyway.

 

He's going to hand a huge victory to the Labour leader despite it being odds on that his vote would still pass?

 

Okay.

[Baltar]

This is just bizarre. We are sleepwalking into a war that has nothing to do with us. Why is the UK getting involved in this? All this will do is kill civilians in Syria and create more terrorists as a result. Not to mention this will almost certainly result in terrorist reprisals against us here in the UK. ISIS have hundreds if not thousands of sympathizers and they will almost certainly strike us since they have no loyalty to the UK but to their "caliphate".

We've been bombing the Middle East for decades and what has it achieved? Nothing but chaos in Iraq, Libya and Syria.

[Strontium]

So you think he'd have just gone for a massive humiliating climb down on the chance that the whipped MPs don't rebel anyway.

 

He's going to hand a huge victory to the Labour leader despite it being odds on that his vote would still pass?

 

Okay.

 

I said it would be a gamble for Cameron to go ahead if Labour had come out against airstrikes.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/2015/11/majority-shadow-cabinet-back-air-strikes-syria-labour-position-undecided

 

Having said that he will only act if he can achieve a "clear majority", Cameron may pull the vote if Corbyn whips his party against.

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2f30ba5a-9780-11e5-95c7-d47aa298f769.html#axzz3t7K7wYHw

 

Senior Conservatives admitted that had Mr Corbyn whipped Labour MPs to oppose RAF strikes in Syria, it would have complicated David Cameron’s calculations on whether he could win a Commons vote on the issue.

 

“We would have had to do some more thinking,” admitted one minister. But ultimately Mr Corbyn decided he was not politically strong enough to order Labour MPs to “stop the war” in Wednesday’s parliamentary vote. David Cameron, in Paris for climate change talks, greeted the news with relief.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html

 

Indeed, instead of “stopping the rush to war”, Jeremy Corbyn has cleared the path for it. If Corbyn had insisted on whipping Labour MPs, Cameron would have considered pulling a vote on military action altogether. Now the Prime Minister can safely secure a majority for intervention.

 

 

I'm not pulling this stuff out of my backside, as some folk seem to be doing.

[Stu Monty]

 

I said it would be a gamble for Cameron to go ahead if Labour had come out against airstrikes.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/2015/11/majority-shadow-cabinet-back-air-strikes-syria-labour-position-undecided

 

Having said that he will only act if he can achieve a "clear majority", Cameron may pull the vote if Corbyn whips his party against.

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2f30ba5a-9780-11e5-95c7-d47aa298f769.html#axzz3t7K7wYHw

 

Senior Conservatives admitted that had Mr Corbyn whipped Labour MPs to oppose RAF strikes in Syria, it would have complicated David Cameron’s calculations on whether he could win a Commons vote on the issue.

 

“We would have had to do some more thinking,” admitted one minister. But ultimately Mr Corbyn decided he was not politically strong enough to order Labour MPs to “stop the war” in Wednesday’s parliamentary vote. David Cameron, in Paris for climate change talks, greeted the news with relief.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html

 

Indeed, instead of “stopping the rush to war”, Jeremy Corbyn has cleared the path for it. If Corbyn had insisted on whipping Labour MPs, Cameron would have considered pulling a vote on military action altogether. Now the Prime Minister can safely secure a majority for intervention.

 

 

I'm not pulling this stuff out of my backside, as some folk seem to be doing.

No, you're just agreeing with a faulty argument because it's convenient for you. And hilariously using two clearly anti-Corbyn framed pieces as evidence. Apparently that doesn't even register as maybe damaging them as testimony.

 

He wouldn't have pulled the vote. Stop talking bollocks. He's well aware that Labour MPs would ignore the whip, just as his own MPs will, and wouldn't have suffered a huge defeat just in case the slim odds came in.

 

It's nonsense.

[Red Phoenix]

Cameron and the Blairites getting ripped into here : http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/david-cameron-there-arent-70000-moderate-fighters-in-syria-and-whoever-heard-of-a-moderate-with-a-a6753576.html

[Denny Crane]

Strontium is right about some of the Labour MPs who have seized this opportunity to give Corbyn a kicking.

 

Seriously one of their main  gripes seems to revolve around he's consulting the voters.

 

 The revamped lib dems logo is erm eyecatching...

 

[Denny Crane]

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-is-on-the-verge-of-entering-into-a-long-war-in-syria-based-on-wishful-thinking-and-poor-a6756476.html