I look forward to you meeting the guy who used your account to post this.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Wow. You split some hairs don't you. Do you always dissect things like that.
That was a generalised statement - I will qualify.
'Not unless they tried to nuke me which they would only do if I, or none of my mates, had any nukes.
They are here. It is a fact. Nobody is saying that it is good, or the preferred option. The world is such that we do not and, at present cannot, get along or see things the same way. So. Given that some nations have nukes AND said nations do not hold the same world view AND historically there is a long record of tyrants either marauding around the world slaughtering everything in sight or trying to impose their will upon it - including all the colonial powers, I do not think we can just disappear the nukes just yet. Suggesting that we can all be like Switzerland is naïve and takes no account of human nature in so far as has been demonstrated in 10,000 years.
Bollox. Islamism has.
oh definitely, it also caused the troubles, which any historian will you tell only ended when the muslims got kicked out of ireland
Last edited:
They wanted to leave to fight Gaddafi. You think money was the motivation for them to go? I don't really care about Abedi's motivation. Nothing can justify what he did.
of course, and nothing can justify the UK government funding his terrorist training either
That's what we've been doing in Syria
The IRA came to the table because (a) They had lost militarily, (b) they were totally compromised by British intelligence and (c) they were losing support.
So they took what they could get.
oh look someone missed the point, this never happens
As I understand it we voted not to intervene with regard to the civil war itself. The US are backing the Kurds who are fighting IS. We are supporting the campaign against IS with airstrikes. The Rebels are being armed by others.That's what we've been doing in Syria
Your point is that military action against terrorism leads to more terrorism.
My point is that no action is worse.
I was sarcastically replying to @Fearless millionth islamophobic comment, Einstein.
No, we have been actively arming rebel forces. That is fact. Many of whom are Islamist fundamentalists.
Intentionally?
The rebels? Yes. The problem isn't that we give moderates guns and bombs, the problem is that there are few moderates on either side. Arms we supply the rebels, the ideological views of whom are largely unaccounted for, can slip into anyone's hands. Afghanistan all over again.
let he who hasn't spent decades accidentally arming terror groups cast the first stone
This is still happening or has happened? I can understand some assistance if the government thought these were moderates but if they have been totally taken over by Jihadists. It should stop.
US/UK/France main goal is to keep the resistance going which means providing military strikes and weapons/covert training to these rebel forces. It's ongoing as of now and no one knows how crazy or dangerous these rebels are.
It's not working.
But it's not as if any of these groups were ever particularly squeaky clean or unblemished at the start. They may have gotten worse as time has gone on but our government would've been well aware of that risk and were happy to take it until ISIS became so prominent.
It's an unwinnable war unless the US/UK put troops on the ground and that could be catastrophic. As horrible as it is, Assad is the most moderate and/or viable of the three murderous groups in Syria.
So, if it not for the use of CW's, would Assad be the preferred choice?
I have to confess that I am coming over to that view. The CW's are a bit too far in my opinion. But I wonder about the cause of all this which appears to be the brutal putting down of demonstrations, arrests, incarcerations and even torture of dissidents.
My neighbours worked in Syria back in 2005. They had their kids in school there. The had nothing but good things to say about the place. It always appeared to me to be quite harmonious and secular with all religions seemingly rubbing along. My neighbours also told me that they were looking to leave because politically things were getting dodgy. But they were sad to do so. Maybe isolated ex-pats.
Also most Syrians that I have met which includes a family I met in 2015 in Kos who were fleeing, seem really quite liberal - almost western.
Can it be that Assad needed to use a rod of iron to try and preserve that?
As an individual, he doesn't strike me as a deranged monster.
Against ISIS and co yes, in general no because he increases Putin's sphere of influence. From the perspective of the UK/US (minus Trump perhaps) anyway. Personally unsure, there really are no good sides on this fight for the most part.
His regime is despotic, no doubt about it. Not a monster, but the regime as a whole is a disgrace.
And yet Syria is a highly educated country, had relatively decent healthcare, was tolerant to Jews, Muslims, and the 5 odd million or so Christians. Pros and cons when you concede to a tyrant, but it's preferable in my view to another Iraq from whence ISIS came.
Not significantly though. Syria, Iran and Russia are the three countries that will benefit. But Iran is on a tight leash, Russia doesn't have any installations abroad outside of Tartus in Syria, and Assad will count his lucky stars he survived.
It needs world leaders to go to Geneva and reach a settlement.
True, although I imagine the Western leaders would continue to view it in a way wherein it still represents a big victory for Putin symbolically.
Letting him win would appear to be the best option. But we can't let him use CW's.
In a way I think that conclusion has already been reached. The airstrikes carried out by the US/UK/France appear to be no more than a statement. The Russians were consulted behind the scenes so none of their personnel or assets were damaged. And a suitable furore in the UN and media to lend it all authenticity.
In a way I think that conclusion has already been reached. The airstrikes carried out by the US/UK/France appear to be no more than a statement. The Russians were consulted behind the scenes so none of their personnel or assets were damaged. And a suitable furore in the UN and media to lend it all authenticity.
Yeah, that's fairly certain. It's whether or not they can spin it in a way where everyone wins.
Jeremy Corbyn SILENT for HOURS after Kate and William welcome royal baby
JEREMY Corbyn took more than three hours to congratulate the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of their third royal baby child - a boy - at the Lindo Wing of St Mary’s Hospital, sparking frustration across social media.
Not a parody: https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...our-live-update-hospital-Duchess-of-Cambridge
JEREMY Corbyn took more than three hours to congratulate the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of their third royal baby child - a boy - at the Lindo Wing of St Mary’s Hospital, sparking frustration across social media.
Not a parody: https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...our-live-update-hospital-Duchess-of-Cambridge
Good griefz. Off with his beard.
Weird, I saw something yesterday about how Kate was "in Labour" so assumed she was a keen supporter of his.
Good grief, Cheesy...
Off with his...um...cheese.