Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life"

[Scooby Dudek]

MPs being contacted by their constituents and fellow party members is somehow wrong.

 

Treats and intimidation, indeed. All we need are someone to have said "we know where you live" and we have the cry of the right full house.

Calling someone a terrorist sympathiser is fine, comparing fellow party members to Stalinist secret police is fine, but telling an MP not to bomb people is bullying. 

[Denny Crane]

I pissed myself laughing that they have the cheek to pipe up about the membership contacting their representatives.

 

Mr Corbyn/team please stop emailing the membership they are getting ideas above their station.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

A load of Labour MP's attended a dinner with some arms dealers Back in February with Vince Cable. Of course they are going to go against the publics wishes.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vince-cable-one-of-40-mps-on-guest-list-for-arms-dealers-dinner-in-london-10026302.html

 

On phone so can't copy and paste.

[Scooby Dudek]

A load of Labour MP's attended a dinner with some arms dealers Back in February with Vince Cable. Of course they are going to go against the publics wishes.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vince-cable-one-of-40-mps-on-guest-list-for-arms-dealers-dinner-in-london-10026302.html

 

On phone so can't copy and paste.

The British government's close ties to the arms industry was illustrated this week at a London banquet hosted by the UK's defence and security companies.

There were 40 MPs on the guest list for a £250-a-head gathering at the Hilton hotel on Park Lane organised by trade organisation ADS, according to information provided by activist group Campaign Against Arms Trade (Caat).

Business Secretary Vince Cable was the most high-profile attendee, and gave a speech at the event.

A spokesperson said he was there to address some of the UK's major employers, and declined to comment further.

The Independent has contacted other MPs reported to have been in attendance.

Jeremy Vine, BBC Radio 2 host who will help to lead the organisation's general election coverage, has come under fire over his speech at the event, for which he received a five-figure fee, with Caat officially complaining that his appearance is "incompatible with the corporation's values".

The BBC stated that Vine "is a freelance presenter and so can make personal appearances without speaking on behalf of the BBC".

But Caat have also taken aim at Westminster, accusing politicians of appearing close to an industry it claims "profits from dictatorships which silence and suppress debate".

READ MORE

• Jeremy Vine criticised over speech at arms dealers dinner
• Prince Charles does not want the UK selling arms in the Middle East

Andrew Smith from Caat said: "It's outrageous that the government actively supports and promotes this deadly trade.

"The fact that arms dealers were swilling champagne with over 40 MPs is a disgrace and shows the extent of the arms trade's connections and political lobbying."

Among the arms companies hosting MPs were Cobham, Raytheon, Thales, BAE Systems and MBDA.

These companies have export and business interests in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Turkey, Israel, Taiwan and Bahrain.

[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?

 

My apologies for taking so long to get back to you, Elisha; I've been busier than shit. So, where were we? Ah, yes, indiscriminate bombing and the hyperbolic nonsense spoken by those of us on here who would happily patronise and condescend to those who use the same tactics, for using the same tactics, in order to convince others of that position. 

 

Okay, to answer your question about the law and your familiarisation with it. The terms used when talking about the legality of was are jus ad bellum - which is reference to the conditions under which a state may engage in and resort to acts or war - and also jus in bello - the International Humanitarian Law governing the conduct of war. The Law of war, in the case of indiscriminate bombing, IHL is quite clear. Additional Protocol I, Article 51(4)(a), which is an additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts, states that an indiscriminate attack are those which are not directed at a specific military objective. 

 

There is so much wrong with the proposals by the government and likely supported by many within Labour, we don't need to accuse them of wanting to launch indiscriminate bombing campaigns. Discriminate attacks do, of course, lead to the loss of civilian lives. I don't support a policy of just airstrikes, because it's, well, militarily stupid in my view. 

 

Sarcasm?

 

Sarcasm? No, I'm being perfectly honest when I say you're using hyperbole in the same way the Daily Mail does, and with the same ignorant slant. 

 

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

 

What? Do you really want me to answer this ridiculous question. 

 

Sorry NV, what part of that is half arsed

The part that I said: The naive military tactics proposed by the government.

 

given that nine non-targeted people are being killed for every one targeted in the current campaign of US drone attacks?

Why are you conflating my comments about the half-arsed nature of the proposed actions of the military with a selectively chosen statistic about one country's current campaign using one form of attack? The lack of objectivity irks me, regardless of if it's by the Mail or those on my side of the debate. It undermines the credibility of those arguing against such measures.

 

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.

Yes, there is. That's nothing to do with anything I've said about indiscriminate bombing though, is it? Maybe, and I'd be surprised at you for doing it, you've fallen into the trap that others on here often do of thinking that when somebody objects to hyperbole and ignorance, that you must support the opposite of what they're condemning. Just because I don't appreciate the same sort of shit I oppose from the right wing media, it doesn't mean I'm championing the murder of 'funsized terrorists'.

 

Which is why I said that there's plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose it, there's no reason to employ this hyperbolic, ignorant, propagandistic, way of opposing them, because it makes those on the left look like fucking morons. It turns out that there are poorly informed people on the right and the left. It's not particularly conducive to a constructive debate, especially on such an important issue.

 

 

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.

What views on military action? Kill civilians. Kill them all. Now.

 

Pathetic.

[ElishaScottBC]

My apologies for taking so long to get back to you, Elisha; I've been busier than shit. So, where were we? Ah, yes, indiscriminate bombing and the hyperbolic nonsense spoken by those of us on here who would happily patronise and condescend to those who use the same tactics, for using the same tactics, in order to convince others of that position. 

 

Okay, to answer your question about the law and your familiarisation with it. The terms used when talking about the legality of was are jus ad bellum - which is reference to the conditions under which a state may engage in and resort to acts or war - and also jus in bello - the International Humanitarian Law governing the conduct of war. The Law of war, in the case of indiscriminate bombing, IHL is quite clear. Additional Protocol I, Article 51(4)(a), which is an additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts, states that an indiscriminate attack are those which are not directed at a specific military objective. 

 

There is so much wrong with the proposals by the government and likely supported by many within Labour, we don't need to accuse them of wanting to launch indiscriminate bombing campaigns. Discriminate attacks do, of course, lead to the loss of civilian lives. I don't support a policy of just airstrikes, because it's, well, militarily stupid in my view.

 

Thank you for the reply. I appreciate the International Humanitarian Law in regards to an indiscriminate attack. On closer inspection of the Geneva Convention, it's protocols and various resolutions agreed to by a list of countries, the legality appears to be on a knife edge. By which I mean, in theory, stating a specific military objective and then executing the plan with a high number of civilian casualties is still in breech of international law if all efforts have not been made to protect civilian life. To effectively carry out a legal and justified bombing campaign is almost impossible. depending on interpretation of what life can be saved or spared, so justification to bomb Syria through use of law is sounds sort of like "well we were legal before we became illegal".

The inevitably of laws becoming blurred once the bombs start to fall is all too familiar. I concede that Britain doesn't plan to participate in indiscriminate bombing. But I believe Britain is heading towards indiscriminate bombing, however we will only be able to refer to it as that after such has happened.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

 I concede that Britain doesn't plan to participate in indiscriminate bombing.

 

A'ight, coo'. 

[VladimirIlyich]

My apologies for taking so long to get back to you, Elisha; I've been busier than shit. So, where were we? Ah, yes, indiscriminate bombing and the hyperbolic nonsense spoken by those of us on here who would happily patronise and condescend to those who use the same tactics, for using the same tactics, in order to convince others of that position.

 

Okay, to answer your question about the law and your familiarisation with it. The terms used when talking about the legality of was are jus ad bellum - which is reference to the conditions under which a state may engage in and resort to acts or war - and also jus in bello - the International Humanitarian Law governing the conduct of war. The Law of war, in the case of indiscriminate bombing, IHL is quite clear. Additional Protocol I, Article 51(4)(a), which is an additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts, states that an indiscriminate attack are those which are not directed at a specific military objective.

 

There is so much wrong with the proposals by the government and likely supported by many within Labour, we don't need to accuse them of wanting to launch indiscriminate bombing campaigns. Discriminate attacks do, of course, lead to the loss of civilian lives. I don't support a policy of just airstrikes, because it's, well, militarily stupid in my view.

 

 

Sarcasm? No, I'm being perfectly honest when I say you're using hyperbole in the same way the Daily Mail does, and with the same ignorant slant.

 

 

What? Do you really want me to answer this ridiculous question.

 

 

The part that I said: The naive military tactics proposed by the government.

 

 

Why are you conflating my comments about the half-arsed nature of the proposed actions of the military with a selectively chosen statistic about one country's current campaign using one form of attack? The lack of objectivity irks me, regardless of if it's by the Mail or those on my side of the debate. It undermines the credibility of those arguing against such measures.

 

 

Yes, there is. That's nothing to do with anything I've said about indiscriminate bombing though, is it? Maybe, and I'd be surprised at you for doing it, you've fallen into the trap that others on here often do of thinking that when somebody objects to hyperbole and ignorance, that you must support the opposite of what they're condemning. Just because I don't appreciate the same sort of shit I oppose from the right wing media, it doesn't mean I'm championing the murder of 'funsized terrorists'.

 

Which is why I said that there's plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose it, there's no reason to employ this hyperbolic, ignorant, propagandistic, way of opposing them, because it makes those on the left look like fucking morons. It turns out that there are poorly informed people on the right and the left. It's not particularly conducive to a constructive debate, especially on such an important issue.

 

 

 

What views on military action? Kill civilians. Kill them all. Now.

 

Pathetic.

I simply find it hard to believe that somebody as intelligent as yourself supports bombing a country thats already been blown to bits many times over,and I am certain you are aware that far more civilians will be killed than ISIS members.

For the record I do think its indiscriminate for the reasons mentioned above. Collateral damage simply means 'we dont give a fuck.'

I remember you also supporting a previous bombing campaign that achieved the square root of sod all as its happening yet again.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I simply find it hard to believe that somebody as intelligent as yourself supports bombing a country

I find it hard to adequately dummies in words the frustration that sentence causes. If you actually read my posts, you'll see I call these strikes naive, half arsed and militarily stupid.

 

 

 

 

I remember you also supporting a previous bombing campaign that achieved the square root of sod all as its happening yet again.

Oh, fucking hell. Try actually fucking ready what I wrote.

[ZonkoVille77]

Mongs gotta mong.

[dennis tooth]

Answer everything in selective quotation dismissing all else and win forumite of the year. Bound for glorious bombing justificationville. All aboard!

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I dislike people who can't read very well, yet have the balls to slag you off based on nothing more than their own ignorant misreading.

[dennis tooth]

Who cares? Haha

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I'd say you do, as you relentlessly reply to my posts despite me acknowledging your existence about twice per year. 

[dennis tooth]

Yes you don't like people who can't read very well presumably that includes blind and autistic people, again I don't care about that I already know you're a closet bigot brimming with arrogance as once again you take the line of argument the guardian uses, shock horror, tell me something new and original I might care.

I pull you on misleading misread selective quotes you lecture me on people who can't read properly.

[Gnasher]

the BBC are gutted that labour seems to have held on to Oldham with a possible 5 thousand majority.

[Gnasher]

I am biased. I fucking hate the BBC.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Another lost deposit for the Lib Dems in the Oldham by election, according to early reports.

 

The Farron Factor.

[Gnasher]

Another lost deposit for the Lib Dems in the Oldham by election, according to early reports.

The Farron Factor.

god might lend him a couple of quid.

[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.

Here is your post again NV.

You say there is no suggestion of 'indiscriminate' bombing but I think the bombing is indiscriminate as the West know that more civilians will be killed than ISIS fighters. Semantics.

I am assuming you think these bombs will simply pick out ISIS members and avoid innocent civilians despite Schools,Shops and Hospitals being in the firing line? This is indiscriminate to me if not you.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Here is your post again NV.

You say there is no suggestion of 'indiscriminate' bombing but I think the bombing is indiscriminate as the West know that more civilians will be killed than ISIS fighters. Semantics.

I am assuming you think these bombs will simply pick out ISIS members and avoid innocent civilians despite Schools,Shops and Hospitals being in the firing line? This is indiscriminate to me if not you.

It's nothing about what's indiscriminate to me or you, it's about things having a definition. There is absolutely no suggestion that what they're going to do is an indiscriminate bombing campaign. That's just a fact, one that you should swallow if you have any regard for international law.

[Gnasher]

here's the BBC political correspondent James Landal (went to Eton with Cameron) before the Oldham result

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34946969

 

 

silly cunt.

[Rotpeter]

For using nomenclature inconsistent with Additional Protocol  I, Article 51(4)(a) of The Geneva Convention, on the internet, I propose that member VladimirIlyich, a Scouse socialist vent-spleen at TLW, be removed from this place henceforth and added to the Index Expungatoris.
 
All those in favour say wibble.

[Scooby Dudek]

Labour obviously increased their share of the vote in Oldham despite Corbyn. Imagine how much they would have won by if they had of had a proper leader.

[Spy Bee]

I don't really see how dropping bombs from the air can be discriminate.