Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Looks like the World has finally woken up to the threat from ISIS and we will probably see coordinated international action against them. Unfortunately they don't know the meaning of negotiation and are determine to attack us, so realistically the best option is to kick the living s**t out of them. Coordinated international action can do this: not an option to be taken lightly but in the end we have to do this."They are not, as far as I know, a force that wants to negotiate with anybody. My view on Isis is that you have to cut off their money, cut off their arms and cut of their oil sales in order to try and isolate them."
Corbyn has a point.
Does not sound like a soft approach to me, just a bit more sophisticated than bombing the hell out of them. I think that both method's need to be deployed. This recent attack on Paris seems to point to an ISIS blind spot: if they continue this route, they may be the architects of their own downfall.
Russia have no interest in protecting them, most middle Eastern countries including Iran view them as insidious and disruptive, so where do they go given a unilateral war against them?
There will be some who will say 'oh but that will create more terrorists'. Well it appears that the growth and apparent success and strength of ISIS is in itself a factor in making more want to join them. Crush them and less will want to join what will then be a bunch of dead losers.
Unfortunately Corbyn would never go anywhere near that option. Not sure how he thinks he can realistically do what he says above.
In fairness to Corbyn, he voted against the Iraq war originally, which is the main catalyst for the rise of ISIS, so give him credit for that.0 -
UK would be much lower on the terrorist target list if it kept its nose out of stuff, and stopped making up evidence to wage war half way around the world.
Hawks would do well to remember that.0 -
That is true, but we are where we are and have a problem to solve.
Looks like the World has finally woken up to the threat from ISIS and we will probably see coordinated international action against them. Unfortunately they don't know the meaning of negotiation and are determine to attack us, so realistically the best option is to kick the living s**t out of them. Coordinated international action can do this: not an option to be taken lightly but in the end we have to do this."They are not, as far as I know, a force that wants to negotiate with anybody. My view on Isis is that you have to cut off their money, cut off their arms and cut of their oil sales in order to try and isolate them."
Corbyn has a point.
Does not sound like a soft approach to me, just a bit more sophisticated than bombing the hell out of them. I think that both method's need to be deployed. This recent attack on Paris seems to point to an ISIS blind spot: if they continue this route, they may be the architects of their own downfall.
Russia have no interest in protecting them, most middle Eastern countries including Iran view them as insidious and disruptive, so where do they go given a unilateral war against them?
There will be some who will say 'oh but that will create more terrorists'. Well it appears that the growth and apparent success and strength of ISIS is in itself a factor in making more want to join them. Crush them and less will want to join what will then be a bunch of dead losers.
Unfortunately Corbyn would never go anywhere near that option. Not sure how he thinks he can realistically do what he says above.
In fairness to Corbyn, he voted against the Iraq war originally, which is the main catalyst for the rise of ISIS, so give him credit for that."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
UK would be much lower on the terrorist target list if it kept its nose out of stuff, and stopped making up evidence to wage war half way around the world.
Hawks would do well to remember that.
As Stev0 said we are where we are, not standing up to IS is akin to supporting them, its not about being a Hawk.
didnt Hitler try to sue for peace with the UK? maybe we should have agreed to that? whats the difference? do you want to wait until IS is in Turkey/Greece or Austria? and the killings such as in Paris a weekly occurance?
i would like to see Blair and Bush on trial, the blood from Paris and the Russian victims not to mention all the other Iraqi victims, goes straight to their door.0 -
God knows I'm no supporter of Blair and agree that he and Bush contributed to the mess that is the Middle East.
But as Rick(?) once stated, there has been a civil war within Islam for longer than we can remember. What they did was remove a tyrant and unfortunately lit the fuse on the powder keg.
Forget the sexed up dossier for a moment. Saddam used chemical weapons in the 80s against his own people. He invaded Kuwait. Even after he was removed from Kuwait, he destroyed the Marsh Land Arabs. He was a complete c*nt.
When the idea of removing him was mooted, yes I supported the Iraq war. Yes, I've said it. I supported the war. I was not alone, though you wouldn't think it listening to people who now say they were against the war. Everyone seems to have developed 20/20 hindsight.
No-one like Saddam deserves to rule anywhere.
What Bush and Blair did had far unforeseen circumstances. But I believe that the stronger nations should help to safeguard weaker nations and alleviate suppression. If I was a Kurd or a Marsh Arab watching my family being gassed, I would have been asking why no-one was helping. I suppose that brings it round to the UN. What a shower of shite they are.
That's why I believe that whatever force necessary should be used to annihilate IS, regardless of their genesis.0 -
if memory serves me correctly, the Marsh Arabs were relatively safe as there was a no fly zone and harsh snactions, by the time the 2nd Gulf war came about, Saddam was a spent force.
i supported the 1st war and protested against the 2nd one, dating a Swede always gives one a different perspective.
Bush snr didnt destroy Saddam because he took the advice that no else could hold the country together, Bush jnr and Blair ignored this, what has subsequently happened was more than forseeable... over 1m in London alone protested against the this war and were ignored.
We ve just made the same mistakes with Assad, by supporting and arming the FSA, we ve just created a vacum for ISiL and far more people have know died than Assad jur ever killed.0 -
if memory serves me correctly, the Marsh Arabs were relatively safe as there was a no fly zone and harsh snactions, by the time the 2nd Gulf war came about, Saddam was a spent force.
i supported the 1st war and protested against the 2nd one, dating a Swede always gives one a different perspective.
Bush snr didnt destroy Saddam because he took the advice that no else could hold the country together, Bush jnr and Blair ignored this, what has subsequently happened was more than forseeable... over 1m in London alone protested against the this war and were ignored.
We ve just made the same mistakes with Assad, by supporting and arming the FSA, we ve just created a vacum for ISiL and far more people have know died than Assad jur ever killed.
There were no fly zones but crucially they did not include helicopters if I recall correctly.
What he did to them would amount to genocide.
http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm
http://www.usip.org/publications/the-marsh-arabs-iraq-husseins-lesser-known-victims0 -
if memory serves me correctly, the Marsh Arabs were relatively safe as there was a no fly zone and harsh snactions, by the time the 2nd Gulf war came about, Saddam was a spent force.
i supported the 1st war and protested against the 2nd one, dating a Swede always gives one a different perspective.
Bush snr didnt destroy Saddam because he took the advice that no else could hold the country together, Bush jnr and Blair ignored this, what has subsequently happened was more than forseeable... over 1m in London alone protested against the this war and were ignored.
We ve just made the same mistakes with Assad, by supporting and arming the FSA, we ve just created a vacum for ISiL and far more people have know died than Assad jur ever killed.
There were no fly zones but crucially they did not include helicopters if I recall correctly.
What he did to them would amount to genocide.
http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm
http://www.usip.org/publications/the-marsh-arabs-iraq-husseins-lesser-known-victims
and this is why i supported the 1st Iraq war, his crimes were horrendous, however by 2002/3 he was nt the danger he once was ie the damage had already been done, Bush never sighted the marsh arabs as a reason to depose Saddam, it was his danger to world peace! :roll:
is the world a better place without him... yes but he should have been removed in a far more orderly way, by the Iraqis.
the links sight enviormental crimes and genocide by Saddam against the marsh arabs, what has has happened subsequently to Iraq is worse, so what has been gained?0 -
Nothing has been gained. I was explaining my rationale for supporting his removal.0
-
Bombing ISIS might bring about a temporary lull, but unless something is actually done to change the conditions from which they arose (i.e. not a vacuum), then there will be another organisation to replace them. Al-Qaeda was seen as the main threat to western civilians a decade ago, now they are seen as yesterday's terrorists. Sadly, I think that the world will do little other than bomb the crap out of ISIS, then sit back and say "job done", while providing no better future for the Syrian people and sooner or later the whole cycle will start again.
0 -
Maybe, but the immediate imperative is to eliminate the ISIS threat as far as possible. It would be a very bad idea not to do that. Comparatively speaking that is easier than solving the root cause.Bombing ISIS might bring about a temporary lull, but unless something is actually done to change the conditions from which they arose (i.e. not a vacuum), then there will be another organisation to replace them. Al-Qaeda was seen as the main threat to western civilians a decade ago, now they are seen as yesterday's terrorists. Sadly, I think that the world will do little other than bomb the crap out of ISIS, then sit back and say "job done", while providing no better future for the Syrian people and sooner or later the whole cycle will start again."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The root cause will never be solved. Just have a look at the typical US citizen, especially those who follow that f*ckwit Trump and/or those who carry guns everywhere.The fire has been built and has spiralled out of control now.
Both sides need exterminating. It's a shame we can't put all the radicals on a desert island to fight it out so that reasonable people can live in peace.0 -
You're probably right.
Although on the first issue, the French have started boming Raqqa. Good on them."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You're probably right.
Although on the first issue, the French have started boming Raqqa. Good on them.
That gets to the crux of the issue really. France is at war with ISIS, and as we are finding out (with mass graves being uncovered in areas previously held by them) this is how they wage war.
It obviously confirms the reasons why ISIS must be stopped, but it is also a reminder (and a bad one at that) of the consequences of being belligerent.
We live in a small world nowadays, and distance is not as useful a defence as it once was.0 -
On a tangential note, a friend posted this on FB which is worth watching from '92: http://youtu.be/GPL-IaFpcZA0
-
Most of us have forgotten about the other nation to wage war against ISIS and experience a terrorist attack: Russia. That plane that blew up was Russian and ISIS took credit.0
-
So what's your plan for dealing with ISIS?You're probably right.
Although on the first issue, the French have started boming Raqqa. Good on them.
That gets to the crux of the issue really. France is at war with ISIS, and as we are finding out (with mass graves being uncovered in areas previously held by them) this is how they wage war.
It obviously confirms the reasons why ISIS must be stopped, but it is also a reminder (and a bad one at that) of the consequences of being belligerent.
We live in a small world nowadays, and distance is not as useful a defence as it once was."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I'm no security or geopolitical expert.
Ultimately the UK is in already in harms way so you could argue in for a penny in for a pound.
My concern is once ISIS are destroyed, what will replace it? People kept saying Sadam had to go (after he gassed his own citizens and terrorised them with BAE weaponry...) and ISIS partly spawned from that vacuum the UK and US created.
I don't really know, but I would like everyone to be more cautious and consider the long term implications more thoroughly. That's all. Maybe we are so far down the path we have to continue to bomb and kill. If that is the case, people should think about how the UK can avoid getting to that point in the first place.
There's a reason people in Syria want to bomb France and the U.K. but not South Africa or Brazil, for example.0 -
Corbyn gets better and better doesn't he with his idealistic view of the world. Not happy with 'Shoot to KIll'?
(I know it's an unsatisfactory phrase)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/16/corbyn-against-shoot-to-kill-uk-paris-attacks-labourOver and above ARVs most forces have firearms officers with enhanced skills. They have also received the active shooter training and can come in and support ARVs in a second wave of response.
https://www.policingtoday.co.uk/exclusive_changing_the_rules_of_engagement_31386.aspx
'Active shooter' used to be defined along the lines of someone who has access to the means (ammunition) and victims and intends to continue to kill until he exhausts either or until he commits suicide or is killed.
How would Corbyn, if God or Allah forbid, were to became PM, expect the security services to do in such a situation?0 -
Corbyn gets better and better doesn't he with his idealistic view of the world. Not happy with 'Shoot to KIll'?
(I know it's an unsatisfactory phrase)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/16/corbyn-against-shoot-to-kill-uk-paris-attacks-labourOver and above ARVs most forces have firearms officers with enhanced skills. They have also received the active shooter training and can come in and support ARVs in a second wave of response.
https://www.policingtoday.co.uk/exclusive_changing_the_rules_of_engagement_31386.aspx
'Active shooter' used to be defined along the lines of someone who has access to the means (ammunition) and victims and intends to continue to kill until he exhausts either or until he commits suicide or is killed.
How would Corbyn, if God or Allah forbid, were to became PM, expect the security services to do in such a situation?
Sounds to me that he is in favour of maintaining the existing law, which does allow the police to according to the circumstances:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19743825#p19743825]The same article[/url] wrote:After the issue was raised by an MP at a meeting of the parliamentary party, a Labour aide clarified that Corbyn was “committed to what the existing law is that any armed action by the police has to be proportionate to the threat”.
I don't think Corbyn's turning out to be a particularly good communicator.0 -
Maybe, but the immediate imperative is to eliminate the ISIS threat as far as possible. It would be a very bad idea not to do that. Comparatively speaking that is easier than solving the root cause.Bombing ISIS might bring about a temporary lull, but unless something is actually done to change the conditions from which they arose (i.e. not a vacuum), then there will be another organisation to replace them. Al-Qaeda was seen as the main threat to western civilians a decade ago, now they are seen as yesterday's terrorists. Sadly, I think that the world will do little other than bomb the crap out of ISIS, then sit back and say "job done", while providing no better future for the Syrian people and sooner or later the whole cycle will start again.
The question is, how to do that. I'm going to assume that the MOD or FO have been busy analysing IS over the past couple of years and have got a good idea of the group's strengths and weaknesses. Just a few questions which come immediately to my mind when considering how to deal with ISIS, and which hopefully the government would be in a position to answer:
Is it possible to cut off Islamic State's funding, as Corbyn suggests? How much would that damage the group? Would they simply be able to extract the money from the local civilian population?
How much popular support for the group is there in the area or the wider region? Would support increase or decrease if European and American forces stepped up bombing?
How many civilian deaths would result from a bombing campaign?
How feasible is it to get boots on the ground?
What is the likelihood of a peaceful post-IS settlement in Syria? How do we avoid crushing IS just to be left with a brutal, corrupt regime which is now supported by the West - i.e. the same conditions which led to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the same place?
Just a few of the questions that I'd be asking before taking any further action if I were PM.0 -
The police and everyone else for that matter behave in accordance with Sect 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 which statesA person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
To say that he is “committed to what the existing law is that any armed action by the police has to be proportionate to the threat” is stating the bleedin' obvious.
It does not take away the fact that Corbyn seems to be against the police tactic that is designed to combat such situations.0 -
The police and everyone else for that matter behave in accordance with Sect 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 which statesA person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
To say that he is “committed to what the existing law is that any armed action by the police has to be proportionate to the threat” is stating the bleedin' obvious.
It does not take away the fact that Corbyn seems to be against the police tactic that is designed to combat such situations.
To me, it reads more that he is opposed to the policy changing from police taking the decision to shoot to kill when circumstances demand, rather than shooting to kill becoming a default setting for all situations.
If that's what he means (and I think it is), he's done an appalling job at communicating. If he'd just said something along the lines of "the police are already enabled to kill in circumstances which justify the action, and I support the continuation of that law", then there wouldn't be that much controversy over his stance and it would be clearer for the public.0 -
The police and everyone else for that matter behave in accordance with Sect 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 which statesA person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
To say that he is “committed to what the existing law is that any armed action by the police has to be proportionate to the threat” is stating the bleedin' obvious.
It does not take away the fact that Corbyn seems to be against the police tactic that is designed to combat such situations.
To me, it reads more that he is opposed to the policy changing from police taking the decision to shoot to kill when circumstances demand, rather than shooting to kill becoming a default setting for all situations.
If that's what he means (and I think it is), he's done an appalling job at communicating. If he'd just said something along the lines of "the police are already enabled to kill in circumstances which justify the action, and I support the continuation of that law", then there wouldn't be that much controversy over his stance and it would be clearer for the public.
You are cutting him too much slack. Sect 3 dictates that shooting to kill can't be the default setting in all situations. The police don't behave as such.0 -
The police and everyone else for that matter behave in accordance with Sect 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 which statesA person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
To say that he is “committed to what the existing law is that any armed action by the police has to be proportionate to the threat” is stating the bleedin' obvious.
It does not take away the fact that Corbyn seems to be against the police tactic that is designed to combat such situations.
To me, it reads more that he is opposed to the policy changing from police taking the decision to shoot to kill when circumstances demand, rather than shooting to kill becoming a default setting for all situations.
If that's what he means (and I think it is), he's done an appalling job at communicating. If he'd just said something along the lines of "the police are already enabled to kill in circumstances which justify the action, and I support the continuation of that law", then there wouldn't be that much controversy over his stance and it would be clearer for the public.
You are cutting him too much slack. Sect 3 dictates that shooting to kill can't be the default setting in all situations. The police don't behave as such.
I think you've misunderstood what I've written.0 -
You say Corbyn meant that he was against the police having a default setting of shoot to kill in all circumstances. The police have no such thing as I explained. You seem to be saying that Corbyn is against a position that the police don't have nor seek.0
-
What I mean is that it appears that Corbyn is merely arguing in favour of the status quo being maintained. In other words, he is happy with the existing policy that you have described.0
-
The police and everyone else for that matter behave in accordance with Sect 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 which statesA person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
To say that he is “committed to what the existing law is that any armed action by the police has to be proportionate to the threat” is stating the bleedin' obvious.
It does not take away the fact that Corbyn seems to be against the police tactic that is designed to combat such situations.
To me, it reads more that he is opposed to the policy changing from police taking the decision to shoot to kill when circumstances demand, rather than shooting to kill becoming a default setting for all situations.
If that's what he means (and I think it is), he's done an appalling job at communicating. If he'd just said something along the lines of "the police are already enabled to kill in circumstances which justify the action, and I support the continuation of that law", then there wouldn't be that much controversy over his stance and it would be clearer for the public.
No one has suggested a change in policy so why would he say he was against such a change?0 -
The police and everyone else for that matter behave in accordance with Sect 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 which statesA person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
To say that he is “committed to what the existing law is that any armed action by the police has to be proportionate to the threat” is stating the bleedin' obvious.
It does not take away the fact that Corbyn seems to be against the police tactic that is designed to combat such situations.
To me, it reads more that he is opposed to the policy changing from police taking the decision to shoot to kill when circumstances demand, rather than shooting to kill becoming a default setting for all situations.
If that's what he means (and I think it is), he's done an appalling job at communicating. If he'd just said something along the lines of "the police are already enabled to kill in circumstances which justify the action, and I support the continuation of that law", then there wouldn't be that much controversy over his stance and it would be clearer for the public.
No one has suggested a change in policy so why would he say he was against such a change?
According to the first two paragraphs of the article you linked, No. 10 has given the order to shoot to kill, rather than cordon and negotiate.0 -
According to the first two paragraphs of the article you linked, No. 10 has given the order to shoot to kill, rather than cordon and negotiate
If I could find a link to the tactics pertaining to an active shooter I would. The Policingtoday link alludes to training given to specialised units to deal with such eventualities. Cordon and negotiate has not been a realistic option since Mumbai.
Look at my definition of an active shooter above, to understand why.0
