Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life"

[Hooch]

I actually checked out to see if there was a local Momentum near me. The facebook page had about a dozen followers but one of them was a girl I'd gone to college with.

Yes.

Result.

Think I was the youngest attendee today by about 20 years.

[Sugar Ape]

I actually like some Tories better than Danzcuk.

[Scooby Dudek]

Funny, some guy (expert or Labour MP, not sure), saying Labour leadership totally out of sync with the British public. 

Setting the agenda not reporting it. Independent BBC

 

 

Is it McTernan or Danzcuk? They're the two appalling cunts the BBC keeps wheeling out.

 

I'd be delighted if both of them burst into flames.

Just seen it again, it was the cunt McTernan.

 

"The public show, that in the end they would like air strikes in Syria"   

 

Absolute bollocks. 

 

After 5 mins about Jeremy and showing McTernan the BBC then report;

Survation Poll showing majority of people polled saying they do not want air strikes. (This includes don't knows). 

 

68%  Conservatives agree with air strikes

44%  Labour agree with air strikes

[VladimirIlyich]

How the fuck will bombing the shit out of a country indiscriminately make this country safer? Absolutely ridiculous and will create more recruits for ISIS and other extremist groups. I'm also pretty sure there arent ISIS soldiers running around with vests inscripted with their logo to pick them out either.

 

We really are the USA's bitches,and its multinationals.

[Bobby Hundreds]

If we brought in the law that those who vote for war have to take part in it, would we see other solutions being researched and presented and a more honest debate amongst the political class and the media. ''now hang on a minute let's not rush in here'.

 

Corbyn said today hit their funding, oil trading and weapons supplies first, how can we possibly trust our political classes motives when they preach morality and security but won't take actions that may hit them in the pocket. They don't give a shit about lives only their own ends. A pox on the lot of them the corrupt bastards.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

How the fuck will bombing the shit out of a country indiscriminately make this country safer?

Look, there's plenty to argue about over interventionist foreign policy without having to make stuff up. There's no suggestion of indiscriminate bombing.

 

There's enough wrong with it without having to resort to Daily Mail tactics. That's what these threads have become, you know? A left wing version of the Daily Mail, pushing a certain bias with twisted, selective reasoning to back it up.

[Bobby Hundreds]

Obviously my facts are from the paper so I don't know if it's true but it mentions there are 600,000 people in raqqa with about 8000 isis suspected to be amongst them if thats true or even roughly true how are bombs going to do anything other than destroy the area kill lots of civilians and breed a new generation with even more hate for the west. How do bombs cause any real dent in a terrorist organisation that could have cells dispersed everywhere amongst multiple nations. It seems targeting somewhere like raqqa would be something isis would welcome like a recruitment policy. Hit their funding and supplies, the less they do on that front the more the entire thing just seems like political games, resource and contract wars.

[ElishaScottBC]

Look, there's plenty to argue about over interventionist foreign policy without having to make stuff up. There's no suggestion of indiscriminate bombing.

 

There's enough wrong with it without having to resort to Daily Mail tactics. That's what these threads have become, you know? A left wing version of the Daily Mail, pushing a certain bias with twisted, selective reasoning to back it up.

 

Collateral damage is an unwanted but inevitable part of a targeted bombing campaign.

 

Collateral damage is a cold, almost emotionless term, and endeavours to soften the nature of the reality those experience first hand.

 

Whether the bombing is seen as discriminate or indiscriminate probably gives a clue to the ever polarizing stance on whether we should bomb or should not. At the well judged risk of being considered a left wing Daily Mail commenter, I consider previous bombing campaigns as a measure of previous efforts to meet the targets set. Therefore considering the bombing campaigns, I would believe indiscriminate is a fair term.

 

Interestingly Daily Mail have published in regards to the 49 innocents killed to every terrorist target in Pakistan

Link

 

Guardian: 41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes

Link

 

Huff Post: Nearly 90 percent of people killed in recent drone strikes were not the target, across Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia

Link

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I would believe indiscriminate is a fair term.

 

 

With the greatest of respect, it doesn't matter what you believe. If you believe that, you're wrong. International law is quite clear on this, and for good reason.

[Stu Monty]

With the greatest of respect, it doesn't matter what you believe. If you believe that, you're wrong. International law is quite clear on this, and for good reason.

"of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction"

 

I think the place that we've got ourselves to where it's okay to kill 9 innocent people if you really concentrate on the fact you're just trying to kill 1 "guilty" person is not a good one.

 

I'm not claiming the bombing will be indiscriminate by the way. Just making a point in the debate around it.

[ElishaScottBC]

With the greatest of respect, it doesn't matter what you believe. If you believe that, you're wrong. International law is quite clear on this, and for good reason.

 

I'm fine with being wrong because respectively it doesn't matter what I believe.

 

Can you point me to where the law is clear on this, I'm not familiar with it and would appreciate the info if you know it offhand?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I'm fine with being wrong because respectively it doesn't matter what I believe.

 

Can you point me to where the law is clear on this, I'm not familiar with it and would appreciate the info if you know it offhand?

Absolutely, I'm on my phone right now but I'll be back on my computer after the game

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I think the place that we've got ourselves to where it's okay to kill 9 innocent people if you really concentrate on the fact you're just trying to kill 1 "guilty" person is not a good one.

 

For me, this is the sort of thing I'm talking about. There's enough to complain about from the half arsed, naive way the situation has been dealt with and the quite frankly poor military tactics reportedly being employed without coming up with things like that.

[VladimirIlyich]

Look, there's plenty to argue about over interventionist foreign policy without having to make stuff up. There's no suggestion of indiscriminate bombing.

 

There's enough wrong with it without having to resort to Daily Mail tactics. That's what these threads have become, you know? A left wing version of the Daily Mail, pushing a certain bias with twisted, selective reasoning to back it up.

Sarcasm?

You really believe bombs can pick out ISIS members and separate them from civilians?

Those smart bombs must have all gone to University and gained honours.

[Stu Monty]

For me, this is the sort of thing I'm talking about. There's enough to complain about from the half arsed, naive way the situation has been dealt with and the quite frankly poor military tactics reportedly being employed without coming up with things like that.

Sorry NV, what part of that is half arsed given that nine non-targeted people are being killed for every one targeted in the current campaign of US drone attacks?

 

That has clearly been deemed acceptable as it is continuing. It's an acceptable level of loss of non-targeted life.

 

I'm not "coming up" with anything. I'm talking facts of the current military doctrine and the value judgements that clearly form the foundations of it.

 

When you've got drone operators calling children "funsized terrorists" there is very much a conversation to be had about the attitude towards "collateral damage" from some nations.

[VladimirIlyich]

I'm really surprised at the neg from Numero here as his views on Military action seem to be at odds with his politics in general.

 

I dont think I am being a 'looney leftie' regarding Syria as there seems to be a majority of opinion against any bombing campaign from the general public. I am quite surprised at this myself considering the amount of disinformation we receive from the media and its obvious right wing leanings.

[redinblack62]

If people are already bombing the living fucking daylights out of Syria, what is Cameron wanting to join in the goatfuck going to help? Unless its just one mammoth Dick Waving contest on his part. Which of course it couldnt be. Not ever.

[KopOut]

Meanwhile, the Revolution rolls on. Adapt or die.

 

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5064767

[Jairzinho]

Here We Are Again on the Way to War - and All Anyone Can Talk About is the Labour Whip

 

Often in the past few days, BBC listeners and viewers, and readers of the unpopular newspapers, might have had the impression that Britain is discussing the pros and cons of an intervention in the Labour Party, rather than of an intervention in Syria.

 

As I read the papers and listened to BBC Radio 4 on Friday morning last week, I was baffled to find that the main item was not the plan for war, but the divisions on this subject within the Labour Party.

 

As it happens, the Tory party is also divided on the issue, as is the Tory press My newspaper, the Mail on Sunday, cautiously favoured bombing yesterday (Advent Sunday, 29th November). By contrast, our stablemate, the Daily Mail, said on Saturday 28thNovember that Mr Cameron had not made the case for war. Sir Max Hastings says he finds it hard to accept that bombing Syria will ‘bring us any closer to a happy ending’http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3335744/MAX-HASTINGS-die-cast-going-join-bombing-Islamic-State-Syria.html. Matthew Parris, generally sympathetic to Mr Cameron, wrote in the Times on Saturday (behind a paywall) that Jeremy Corbyn was right on this issue. Careful readers of the London press will no doubt have found many other reservations about bombing among normally pro-Government publications.

 

 

And Mr Cameron is extremely nervous of risking a Parliamentary defeat, as this might severely weaken and even destroy his position. I asked a 'Whitehall source' on Monday morning if there was any word about how the government planned to whip its MPs. There was (then) none. 

 

I might add that, until the Daily Mirror obliged on Saturday morning, showing that there was no absolute majority for bombing, but that pro-bombers were close to 50% of voters and considerably more numerous than anti-bombers (normal at the start of any conflict, alas) I’d seen no attempt to discover the state of public opinion on the matter.

 

I woke on Friday expecting a variety of opinion and some through coverage of the Commons debate, mentioning the strong doubts about intervention voiced by MPs from all sides.

 

But that morning, all four major unpopular daily papers chose virtually identical headlines, and identical angles on identical stories.

 

As I noted in my Sunday MoS column:

 

‘All the four main unpopular newspapers had virtually the same page one headline on Friday morning: The Times: ‘Labour at war over vote to bomb Isis’, The Telegraph:  ‘Labour at war over Syria air strikes’; The Guardian: ‘Labour in Syria Turmoil as PM makes the case for war’; ‘The Independent’ : ‘Labour at war over air strikes in Syria’. The BBC’s headlines were very similar.

 

 

‘None of these stories contained any clear facts, just anonymous briefings. If it had been a plane crash, or a verdict in a major court case, this sort of unanimity in supposedly competing media would have been normal. But in this case it looks much more as if we have a controlled press.’

 

And, I might have added, a controlled BBC, which from the beginning of the destabilisation of Syria has reported the government line (a noble and spontaneous rising by liberal-minded democrats against the uniquely evil tyrant Assad)  without qualification or scepticism, rarely giving time to doubters.

 

By the way, I am grateful to Edmund Adamus for reminding me, on Twitter,  of the extraordinary interview with Lord (Paddy) Ashdown, normally a part of the interventionist establishment, on the  Radio 4‘Today’ programme, here

(about 1 hr 30 mins in, but (it's interrupted by a conversation with Jeremy Bowen, for some reason)  especially at 1 hour 38 mins):

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06r8rx3

 

Lord Ashdown’s suggestions of reluctance by the Gulf States to take part in the war against ISIS, and of closeness between sections of the Tory Party and rich Arab individuals,  are quite astonishing and in my view worthy of more attention than the internal struggles of the Labour Party – where Jeremy Corbyn’s bad relations with his Blairite MPs are about as surprising and newsworthy as a scowling match between Margaret Thatcher and Ted Heath.

 

The incessant concentration, especially by the BBC in almost every bulletin I heard over the weekend, night and day, on the Labour Party’s internal strife, seems to me to be a failure of impartiality.  Little of substance happened to justify the intensity and sustained continuity of this coverage. It almost all stood upon unattributable briefings received by the reporter involved. Few of these stories (in one I heard it suggested that Jeremy Corbyn might ‘force’ his MPs to vote against bombing, something he has no power to do) rose above the level of speculation.

 

I tried to explain, in my 2004 book ‘The Broken Compass’, later re-engineered as ‘The Cameron Delusion’,  the extraordinary power which the political lobby has over the coverage of politics in this country, and of how its own interests and fixed ideas (few of them are interested in politics in the way that I am. They function much more like show business or sports reporters, whose careers are hitched to the stars they write about) ensure that some things are lavishly, intensively covered and others (often much more important) never covered at all, or barely mentioned. I explained that this was not done in ‘conspiracies’ but at lunches and dinners where people privately agreed to pursue a common interest without appearing to do so. Which sounds so much nicer and more normal than a ‘conspiracy’ but is in fact exactly the same thing.

 

Nobody read it, and it made no difference, as usual. And so here we are again, on the way to war, and all anyone can talk about is the Labour Whip.

[Bobby Hundreds]

I don't get it they were slaughtering Corbyn because they presumed he was going to use the whip and now he isn't he is being slaughtered anyway. He sent an email out about this and got a majority saying they were against the bombing so he has the support of the members and now he has that he is saying the party leader and most members are against the bombing but now I'n going to give you a free vote. There is no way Corbyn is the bad guy in all this but the media once again have been an absolute fucking disgrace.

[Gnasher]

Grant Shapps has resigned from the tory front bench, I suggest for comedy value they replace him with his alter Michael Green, who looks the spitting image of Grant Shapps.

[Gnasher]

bbc main political correspondent. an utter cunt.

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/671331831611056128

[Stickman]

bbc main political correspondent. an utter cunt.

https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/671331831611056128

 

She really is a horrible twisted mouth witch who can't hide her contempt for Corbyn.

The BBC if possible have reached a new low with their coverage of the Labour Party and the vote for war.....

[Strontium]

Is it not her job to accurately report the news?

[Gnasher]

Corbyn, free vote on bombing Syria = weak.

 

Cameron, whipped vote for war= democracy

 

Courtesy of our good old BBC.