I meant over a longer period. We've already been bombing Iraq, there's no border between the two countries. Who would even know?Originally Posted by Luke Emia
I meant over a longer period. We've already been bombing Iraq, there's no border between the two countries. Who would even know?
Fucking hell Corbyns reaction to that speech was classic.
For all the good it would do, no-one.
And where are you good chaps watching all that's going on in the House of Commons?
Anyone know how many bombers we've been using thus far?
Akrotiri isn't far away at all so it won't be long.
Did anyone else spot fat Salmond's smug face? Horrible little cunt.
The chief whip did not vote with the Tories. That's just a lie doing the rounds.
Can we merge them with Iraq and make a super pro-Western nation once Assad is toppled to really fuck the middle East up.
I watched the last hour or so on BBC Parliament. Worth giving Benn's speech a listen. The end bit of it where he addresses his own party (brilliantly, and offers hope that it won't be dead after all) is on the BBC site's live coverage of the debate.
The existing borders are made up anyway so I doubt it would make things any worse.
The end of Benn's speech is up here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34990957 - but when the whole thing's up you really should watch it, I found it breathtaking and I'm not really sure whether I agree or not.
There's been stuff going around they've got to toe the party line and not free vote.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...mment-64413525
People suggest that there is nothing to talk to Isis about. But it is important to understand that talking to terrorists is not the same as agreeing with them. The British would never have discussed a united Ireland at the barrel of a gun against the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland. But when we sat down with the IRA, its leaders wanted to talk about legitimate subjects like power-sharing and human rights. The same will be true of Isis. No one is going to talk to them about a universal caliphate, but we can talk about Sunni grievances and a way of ending violence.
Honestly.
I don't agree (with bombing alone anyway - we ought to stop fucking about letting our allies fund the cunts and fight them on the ground) and found it persuasive. I really hope Corbyn gets the arse and sacks him. He'd be out within the week.
Shia abs Sunni combining to make a great country. What could go wrong?
#nothingtodowithislam
We always talk in the end and we will do so with this lot. Not before they're starved/battered into submission though.http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...mment-64413525
People suggest that there is nothing to talk to Isis about. But it is important to understand that talking to terrorists is not the same as agreeing with them. The British would never have discussed a united Ireland at the barrel of a gun against the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland. But when we sat down with the IRA, its leaders wanted to talk about legitimate subjects like power-sharing and human rights. The same will be true of Isis. No one is going to talk to them about a universal caliphate, but we can talk about Sunni grievances and a way of ending violence.
Honestly.
See those blokes you set fire to and stuff, what's that really solving? I think we can sort something out.http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...mment-64413525
People suggest that there is nothing to talk to Isis about. But it is important to understand that talking to terrorists is not the same as agreeing with them. The British would never have discussed a united Ireland at the barrel of a gun against the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland. But when we sat down with the IRA, its leaders wanted to talk about legitimate subjects like power-sharing and human rights. The same will be true of Isis. No one is going to talk to them about a universal caliphate, but we can talk about Sunni grievances and a way of ending violence.
Honestly.
The world has never had such a thing. Bar the high command of the third reich even the Nazis were just humans. These fuckers are worse than the Japanese in terms of no surrender. Every single one of them will suicide it up. There's no sovereign will to protect or leader to say enough or we'll disintegrate.
I don't really agree, but you need to read the whole article rather than taking one quote out of context and pretending it means something he's already clarified that it doesn't.
I grow tired at the simplistic nature of this entire debate.
He made it clear it won't just be a case of 'talking' but you can't reason with a group that want to enforce Sharia law by any means necessary.
This is either a fucking lie or an admission of complete ignorance, given that hundreds of them have been surrendering.
Also bullshit, since they believe Al-Baghdadi to be doing the divinely inspired will of Allah.
Some of the leaders are former members of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party, they're not all devout muslims. As always, it's about power and politics. The religious shit is useful for recruiting retards stupid enough to want to fight for a cause. It all goes the same way in the end. We'll kill enough people, roll back enough land, they'll have fuck all to cling to other than a need not to be killed themselves and they'll roll over.
We talk to the Taliban who at the time were "the worst ever we can never talk to them there's no reasoning!". It's bullshit. There always comes a talking point.
What did the Taliban want? For us to fuck off.
Yes but you can do that anywhere on earth, that was my point.
****on phone
We'll see.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...speech-6944024
Full Hilary Benn speech.
Jonathan Powell wrote the same article last year. He's a twat.
I don't think there's anyone capable of winding me up more than Jonathan Powell. If you read his memoir about the Blair years (which in typical twat fashion is described as 'Machiavelli and politics' or something) you will get a throm.
It's certainly interesting to see the MASSIVE government rebellion which Henry mentioned manifesting itself by scraping into double figures.
To be fair to Henry if Labour weren't such a shambles that's a massive story given the nature of the vote. The government has a very slender majority. Corbyn is inadvertently protecting Cameron by being so shit.
About 12 Tory rebels? Hardly.
This. Labour had a free vote and had 57 rebels. It would have been closer to the Tory number had it been whipped.
Cameron had the authority to whip the party, who fell into line. Labour had a free vote because a sizeable number would have chosen to ignore the whip, including Hilary Benn who has just demonstrated quite emphatically that Corbyn is a no hoper.
The Shadow Chief Whip chose to abstain tonight, which is entertaining.
The majority is only 12. If Corbyn had any strength of leadership Cameron would have been close to losing a vote on going to war. That's a significant story.
Cameron wouldn't have held the vote in those circumstances though. It's a deliberate government strategy ("we want consensus lads"), so it wouldn't have got to this stage and is therefore a moot argument. They knew had the votes before they called it.
Final figures appear to be 7 rebels and 7 abstentions on the Tory side. 67 Labour MPs voted with the government. DUP, UUP, one independent Unionist and the Lib Dems also voted with the government.
What sort of twat abstains on a vote like this?
Well quite. So the Prime Minister woul not even have the authority to hold a vote to take action he clearly feels strongly is in the national interest. That still sounds like a story to me.
Cameron must go to bed pissing every night. In fact footage could emerge of him pissing on his kids every night and he'd still be able to mock the Leader of the Opposition and win public support for doing so.
Perhaps, but it's always been quite 'vague' on when a vote would be called and it's very much been on the back burner. It would just been postponed indefinitely until "we have consensus lads". They'll have quietly sounded out members of the PLP over the last couple of months to know which way the wind was blowing.
I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that Corbyn could almost be referred to as the former leader of the opposition this evening. Benn will have significant moral and personal authority after this - certainly more so than Corbyn in the PLP.
Could anyone explain why we're particularly even needed to bomb Syria, with so many others involved aleady?
The best hope Labour have is for Corbyn to sack Benn. It will definitely happen sooner or later. If sooner, while tonight is relatively fresh in the memory, then Corbyn will be utterly fucked. I can't see I've ever seen Benn himself as leadership material (and I don't think there has ever been a suggestion that he'd want it) but he's as good a focus as any for the end of this mad experiment.
I think Hilary Benn's speech is probably the most succinct argument you're going to get for the strategic need and moral obligation that exists.
It'll be interesting to see the final shadow cabinet figures. It's a laugh whenever the leader is citing "we think half the shadow cabinet hasn't voted against his stated view".
So thirty per cent of Labour voted for it? You would think it was everybody but Jezza the way people are carrying on.
Are you a Tory now, GS?
Working life has demonstrated that this is the way forward. You should try it.
A "High Tory", in his own words. Trust GS to go for the 17th century variant.
Yeah, I was taking the piss. I know you are. You don't have to be such a zealous convert though.
That's a mental statement. Apart from the sly dig. Everybody likes a sly dig.
Labour are doomed whatever happens now because of the entryists. Look at what's happening to Stella Creasy at the moment. Some seriously vile people knocking about on the left fringes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote