Latest post of the previous page:
Syrian Civil War Brilliantly Explained By This Five-Minute Vox VideoINFORMATION
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
Paris killings
Re: Paris killings
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: Paris killings
Perhaps the sometimes erratic nature of the download speed of the link was to blame but the narration, graphics and text seemed out of sync with each other - making a confusing situation even more so.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: Paris killings
The Telegraph, of course: Jeremy Corbyn could have stopped this war. Now it will be his epitaph
Yup. It's all Labour's fault again. If only we had a Prime Minister who could step in and save us from war...
Yup. It's all Labour's fault again. If only we had a Prime Minister who could step in and save us from war...
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: Paris killings
If it wan't so inept it would be funny.Alan H wrote:The Telegraph, of course: Jeremy Corbyn could have stopped this war. Now it will be his epitaph
Yup. It's all Labour's fault again. If only we had a Prime Minister who could step in and save us from war...
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: Paris killings
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: Paris killings
Hey, there is one almost sensible point there - the last one!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: Paris killings
As it seems that, despite evidence or any sense of even recent history, Westmonster will vote for bombing even more shit out of Syria tomorrow is some well misguided eye for an eye mentality covering the "business" of arms manufacture and ridiculous concern about our small island's "importance" I can only firmly state "Not in my name" and post this:
http://eveningharold.com/2015/12/01/anti-terror-police-raid-westminster-address-after-tip-off-500-planning-bombing-campaign/
http://eveningharold.com/2015/12/01/anti-terror-police-raid-westminster-address-after-tip-off-500-planning-bombing-campaign/
Re: Paris killings
I cannot see this as any kind of solution. But I wonder if there is any rational, humane solution against a group that has burned the rational and humane rulebook, a group willing to ignore, even fight against, everything we might consider civilsed.
Is the only solution to leave the people of the region to fight it out on their own terms - then try to deal with the aftermath? I do not see diplomacy working in this matter. The IRA are quoted as an example of the triumph of diplomacy, but which IRA? There are still militant factions on both sides in NI.
No, "leaving them to their own devices" would merely add centuries to the already long history of feudal, sectarian and tribal hatred that probably predates Islam.
Perhaps there is no permanent solution.
Is the only solution to leave the people of the region to fight it out on their own terms - then try to deal with the aftermath? I do not see diplomacy working in this matter. The IRA are quoted as an example of the triumph of diplomacy, but which IRA? There are still militant factions on both sides in NI.
No, "leaving them to their own devices" would merely add centuries to the already long history of feudal, sectarian and tribal hatred that probably predates Islam.
Perhaps there is no permanent solution.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: Paris killings
I can't see the case for bombing Syria. All Cameron seems to be able to do is shout insults at Jeremy Corbyn.
He comes from a bullying background; it's all he understands.
He comes from a bullying background; it's all he understands.
Carpe diem. Savour every moment.
Re: Paris killings
I can't see the case for bombing Syria. All Cameron seems to be able to do is shout insults at Jeremy Corbyn.
He comes from a bullying background; it's all he understands.
He comes from a bullying background; it's all he understands.
Carpe diem. Savour every moment.
Re: Paris killings
Fia wrote:As it seems that, despite evidence or any sense of even recent history, Westmonster will vote for bombing even more shit out of Syria tomorrow is some well misguided eye for an eye mentality covering the "business" of arms manufacture and ridiculous concern about our small island's "importance" I can only firmly state "Not in my name" and post this:
http://eveningharold.com/2015/12/01/anti-terror-police-raid-westminster-address-after-tip-off-500-planning-bombing-campaign/
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: Paris killings
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: Paris killings
I agree, Dave. Corbyn wants negotiations, but with whom about what?Dave B wrote:I cannot see this as any kind of solution. But I wonder if there is any rational, humane solution against a group that has burned the rational and humane rulebook, a group willing to ignore, even fight against, everything we might consider civilsed.
Is the only solution to leave the people of the region to fight it out on their own terms - then try to deal with the aftermath? I do not see diplomacy working in this matter. The IRA are quoted as an example of the triumph of diplomacy, but which IRA? There are still militant factions on both sides in NI.
No, "leaving them to their own devices" would merely add centuries to the already long history of feudal, sectarian and tribal hatred that probably predates Islam.
Perhaps there is no permanent solution.
Re: Paris killings
both party leaders have idiotic policies. Any defeat of Isis needs troops on the ground, but this is very problematic. An article in the "Financial Times" reminded me how much trouble the US had in defeating Al Qaeda in Fallujah in 2004; Isis are a lot stronger and smarter than their predecessors. So the unthinkable seems likely to be true: that the major powers of the world, with all their weapons, cannot eliminate a bunch of terrorist fanatics who barely have a state to their nameNick wrote:I agree, Dave. Corbyn wants negotiations, but with whom about what?Dave B wrote:I cannot see this as any kind of solution. But I wonder if there is any rational, humane solution against a group that has burned the rational and humane rulebook, a group willing to ignore, even fight against, everything we might consider civilsed.
Is the only solution to leave the people of the region to fight it out on their own terms - then try to deal with the aftermath? I do not see diplomacy working in this matter. The IRA are quoted as an example of the triumph of diplomacy, but which IRA? There are still militant factions on both sides in NI.
No, "leaving them to their own devices" would merely add centuries to the already long history of feudal, sectarian and tribal hatred that probably predates Islam.
Perhaps there is no permanent solution.
Re: Paris killings
That last clause does not apply but Viet Nam is a good example that the "local" fighting on their own turf, with possible help from the population, has lots ofcadvantages even over higher tech weapons. Add the fact that IS are happy to break rules tbat the West, in public at least, will not - happy to put even fellow Sunnis in danger as barriers.animist wrote:both party leaders have idiotic policies. Any defeat of Isis needs troops on the ground, but this is very problematic. An article in the "Financial Times" reminded me how much trouble the US had in defeating Al Qaeda in Fallujah in 2004; Isis are a lot stronger and smarter than their predecessors. So the unthinkable seems likely to be true: that the major powers of the world, with all their weapons, cannot eliminate a bunch of terrorist fanatics who barely have a state to their nameNick wrote:I agree, Dave. Corbyn wants negotiations, but with whom about what?Dave B wrote:I cannot see this as any kind of solution. But I wonder if there is any rational, humane solution against a group that has burned the rational and humane rulebook, a group willing to ignore, even fight against, everything we might consider civilsed.
Is the only solution to leave the people of the region to fight it out on their own terms - then try to deal with the aftermath? I do not see diplomacy working in this matter. The IRA are quoted as an example of the triumph of diplomacy, but which IRA? There are still militant factions on both sides in NI.
No, "leaving them to their own devices" would merely add centuries to the already long history of feudal, sectarian and tribal hatred that probably predates Islam.
Perhaps there is no permanent solution.
One of the least pursued paths is the economic one. There are many Saudis, Omanis etc. funding IS, but our politicians are unwilling to come down ver, very hard on such places. I think we can all guess why!
Hitting IS's supply and export lines would be a huge wespon against them, but it would mean sanctions agwinst nations that are "critical" to our defence and economy - oh, and the fat cats of course.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: Paris killings
Calls for David 'call me Dave' Cameron to apologise for his offensive comment: 12. Number of apologies given: 0.
Syria vote: David Cameron ignores repeated calls to apologise
Syria vote: David Cameron ignores repeated calls to apologise
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: Paris killings
he is shameful, not because Corbyn is right, but because Cameron clearly does not care much about the issues. He wanted air strikes against Assad because the US wanted them, and now he claims to want air strikes against Isis (wonder why?). He simply exploits Labour's weakness in order to be insulting since he knows he will get away with itAlan H wrote:Calls for David 'call me Dave' Cameron to apologise for his offensive comment: 12. Number of apologies given: 0.
Syria vote: David Cameron ignores repeated calls to apologise
Re: Paris killings
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: Paris killings
One issue that has not come up in this whole debate, but which, (I fear) will make any kind of UN-agreed settlement very difficult to get: What happens to the Golan Heights?
It is clear that in internationao law the Golan still 'belongs' to Syria. I read an article in the Jerusalem Post a couple of weeks ago speculating that, if Syria becomes a 'failed state' the Israeli claim to permanent annexation of the Golan will become stronger. And an awful lot of oil has been found there recently.
Anyone think this is irrelevant?
It is clear that in internationao law the Golan still 'belongs' to Syria. I read an article in the Jerusalem Post a couple of weeks ago speculating that, if Syria becomes a 'failed state' the Israeli claim to permanent annexation of the Golan will become stronger. And an awful lot of oil has been found there recently.
Anyone think this is irrelevant?
Re: Paris killings
Some good will come of the Syria bombing!!!
https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/3 ... ia-bombing
https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/3 ... ia-bombing
Re: Paris killings
I wonder how many of those who voted for war have interests in these arms dealers?thundril wrote:Some good will come of the Syria bombing!!!
https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/3 ... ia-bombing
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?