The election 2015

Warbler said:
I'm not sure how Diane Abbott has concluded that the public view is swinging towards a no vote though? Most polls I've seen have the support for bombing at about 60%+
Click to expand...
I've seen those polls also, and I'm surprised. Very much so.
From the readers comments alone of the most reactionary newspaper -- DailyMail -- one would form the opinion that the opposite was nearer the truth. If readers of the Daily Heil are against it, surely the more liberal sections of British society would also be so.
I'm frankly stunned that over 60% of the population is in favour of bombing without a proven ground force in support. I don't buy it.
 
For anyone still here who is as confused as I am, I found this which explains everything.....

"Incase you don't know what's happening in the middle east. [emoji106]

President Assad ( who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels ( who are good ) started winning ( Hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.)

So the Americans ( who are good ) started bombing Islamic State ( who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) so they could fight Assad ( who is still bad ) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria.
So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad ( who is still bad ) by attacking IS ( who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans ( who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels ( who are also good).

Now Iran ( who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad ( still bad ) as are the Russians ( bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad ( still bad ) Putin ( extra bad ) and the Iranians ( good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS ( who are bad ) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) which is bad.

Now the British ( obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans ( also good ) cannot attack Assad ( still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin ( bad ) and Iran ( good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS ( who are super bad).

So Assad ( bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS ( but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America ( still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin ( now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran ( also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS ( still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims ( Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good ( Doh!.)

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal ( mmm.might have a point.) and hence we will be seen as Bad.

So now we have America ( now bad ) and Britain ( also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels ( bad ) many of whom are looking to IS ( Good / bad ) for support against Assad ( now good ) who, along with Iran ( also Good) and Putin ( also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

So, now you fully understand everything, all your questions are answered!!!!"
 
No the poll facility is still with us.
I have just posted up a poll on the proposed Syria bombing.
 
Last edited:
Why the rush to have some grand strategy before hitting them? The key is to inflict at least some damage and take out leaders where possible
Click to expand...

In other words kick ahead, any head. You really can't be serious.
 
Grey said:
In other words kick ahead, any head. You really can't be serious.
Click to expand...

im only going to answer this rubbish on the subject once and for all

they are targeting leaders and as stated above by an expert Britain has more capability than most to do so. It is not your stupid suggestion that it's just firing at anyone . Give it a rest

and what gives you the right to make that judgement? You work for gchq or something?

domt answer. It's ridicuoius
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
im only going to answer this rubbish on the subject once and for all

they are targeting leaders and as stated above by an expert Britain has more capability than most to do so. It is not your stupid suggestion that it's just firing at anyone . Give it a rest

and what gives you the right to make that judgement? You work for gchq or something?

domt answer. It's ridicuoius
Click to expand...

Can someone explain why our limited weaponry will be more effective against Isis in Syria than it is against Isis in Iraq? Else why switch it?
 
Another interesting article, this time in Politico Magazine, which suggests ISIS is doomed to failure without any further or extra military action. And points out the benefits to the West of it failing "naturally" rather than thro` force. Sorry can`t do a link!
 
clivex said:
im only going to answer this rubbish on the subject once and for all

they are targeting leaders and as stated above by an expert Britain has more capability than most to do so. It is not your stupid suggestion that it's just firing at anyone . Give it a rest

and what gives you the right to make that judgement? You work for gchq or something?

domt answer. It's ridicuoius
Click to expand...

Targeting leaders? Like that Lord Haw Haw figure they picked off the other week, I suppose, which gave you such a thrill.
 
The one that beheaded numerous aid workers ?

Interesting that you equate that to some idiot who spewed out a few radio broadcasts.


yes it did please me but it would appear that you have a problem with it. Interesting

I'll leave others to make up their minds about what a prick that makes you

i think what I'll do is link each of his videos ...the explicit ones

and then Lord haw haws broadcasts?

good idea????
 
Last edited:
The man was hardly one of the leaders, surely that's obvious. And yes, I do have a problem with the hypocrisy of people who claim to be civilised but exult in violence.
 
well I disliked the way he was killed. His victims were taunted and had to wait until he slowly cut through the spinal cord before they were put out of their misery whereas he knew nothing about it

he conducted the video mass beheading of 23 syrian soldiers I think ita fair to say he was significant

I am delighted he is dead.
 
Is 28% a "small minority"?

John McDonnell seems to think so :lol:

He dismissed the 66 Labour MPs who voted with the government as a "small minority" and said Mr Corbyn had the backing of the majority of Labour members, the party's national executive and the shadow cabinet

:lol::lol: thrice :lol:
 
he probably thinks that's an insignificant rate of inflation too. Mind you compared with their model economy Venezuela, it would be
 
i'm starting to really laugh at the these left factions wanting MP's deslected..or threatening it. Firstly..it was a free vote..so no one has voted against a whip.

Now.. if voting.."how it doesn't suit" is deemed worthy of deselection...then it should be done retrospectively to suit the left wing opinion..can't see how they can argue with that..in which case..Corbyn would get deselected about 500 times..as he has consistently through 30 years voted against his party. So using the factions new politics would mean...Corbyn wouldn't be leader and wouldn't have been an MP for the last 30 years. In fact he has be so against the labour party in the past..i'm staggered he has kept his seat..using their criterion

The factions now involved in the Labour party are a mirror image of the same "militant" cancer that Kinnock had to rid from the party..the problem is..they are now the majority of the members..so any future leader election will get a similar result to the last one...they are truly in the grip of the hard left now.
 
Last edited:
Agree with all that. Also it is a feature of the hard left that dissent is not tolerated and there is a near constant paranoia which swings around the weakness of their world view but also their feeble mindedness and consequent marvelling at their glorious leaders. Witness how many from that sect perversely admire various dictators stretching even to saddam and the like

its threat after threat . Tom Watson did well to slam livingstone and that ridicuoius momentum group last week. Both are a cancer in the party. But this is and has always been a project to gain power of the oarty and sod the election. Their is a real vacuum now on the moderate left.

I also notice that much hostility is directed at Northern labour MPs who are often more traditional and God forbid, responsive to the evil white working class with their disgusting patriotism. the livingstone jibes about mental health were almost certainly planned

latest rumour is that he wants to ditch Benn and replace him with........ Flabbot
 
Last edited:
Get real, EC. Respectfully you're living in fantasy; or maybe you can't see the facts for being blinded by a bitterness or contempt for Corbyn.
The facts are:
1) The majority of his shadow cabinet voted with him in the "Bomb Syria" Commons vote
2) The majority of the Labour Parliamentary party voted with him on same.
3) The majority of the Labour Party members have agreed with his stance on the Syria bombing issue.
Those are the three fundamental framework/architectures of the national Labour movement. That's it, Corbyn has the support of the majority of the Labour movement on this particular issue.

Am I right in thinking ( my memory ain't too good nowadays) that you forecasted that Corbyn would lead Labour to a defeat in Oldham East? Strange, then, that Labour increased their vote by 7% last Thursday in that election, no?

You also dismissed a suggestion ( by me) that Labour under Corbyn might not be the disaster in the 2016 general election that is forecasted by you and by others on here. All it takes is a right clusterfuck down the road in Syria or the Brexit vote next year to radically change public opinion.
Don't be too fast to swallow the right-wing media that is selling you a "Labour With Corbyn Is Dead" spin. The truth is otherwise.
 
I can't see Benn surviving within this regime unfortunately..even though during his speech last week it looked like he was the leader..in fact PM material..Corbyn's face during his speech was the highlight of the political year..if Corbyn had sh1t himself he couldn't have looked more uncomfortable..in fact at one point i thought he had.

Benn is too near Blairism for the current members to ever vote for as a leader...whilst they have this current leadership method in place..how will anyone oust Corbyn?

these will be black years for labour...basically..militant from the 80's have actually taken the party over...not just being a nuisance that Kinnock had to queal..a real threat to them now they have a strangle hold over the party.
 
icebreaker said:
Get real, EC. Respectfully you're living in fantasy; or maybe you can't see the facts for being blinded by a bitterness or contempt for Corbyn.
The facts are:
1) The majority of his shadow cabinet voted with him in the "Bomb Syria" Commons vote
2) The majority of the Labour Parliamentary party voted with him on same.
3) The majority of the Labour Party members have agreed with his stance on the Syria bombing issue.
Those are the three fundamental framework/architectures of the national Labour movement. That's it, Corbyn has the support of the majority of the Labour movement on this particular issue.

Am I right in thinking ( my memory ain't too good nowadays) that you forecasted that Corbyn would lead Labour to a defeat in Oldham East? Strange, then, that Labour increased their vote by 7% last Thursday in that election, no?

You also dismissed a suggestion ( by me) that Labour under Corbyn might not be the disaster in the 2016 general election that is forecasted by you and by others on here. All it takes is a right clusterfuck down the road in Syria or the Brexit vote next year to radically change public opinion.
Don't be too fast to swallow the right-wing media that is selling you a "Labour With Corbyn Is Dead" spin. The truth is otherwise.
Click to expand...

firstly..i don't buy media opinion..i backed the tories to win the election..just by ignoring media influence..i make my own decisions..its you that likes posting links to the media..so i'd be looking at your own views and influences tbh

i've never passed an opinion on the Oldham by election...and if i had i would have said they would win easily ..because they have a very good local candidate..nothing to do with Corbyn..the man from oldham..won oldham..and also the ukip idiots with that stupid leaflet lost their own votes..which also helped
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
I can't see Benn surviving within this regime unfortunately..even though during his speech last week it looked like he was the leader..in fact PM material.
Click to expand...
Are you fuckin serious? Genuinely?
Hilary Benn was never leader material and never will be. His entire political life was an existence as a mediocrity -- a nobody.
His speech is being puffed as being something extraordinary -- even Churchillian. It wasn't. It was a speech where he threw in a couple of cliche'd phrases, but was totally bereft of any solutions or answers to the ISIS crisis except bomb the bejasus outta them.
It also showed his disloyalty to a Labour Party leader. True for Salmond to say that "Tony must be birning in his grave"
Benn the Younger is a fleeting cherub who has had his fifteen minutes of fame. Time will show him as a shallow non-entity.
 
why don't you start to talking to me sensibly without the put downs... if you want a reply?..you are starting to come across as a biased moron..which i'm sure you aren't

you clearly don't watch many speeches..but you are clearly biased against Benn..so again..your view just looks biased. How can you be disloyal on a free vote?..do you actually know what you are talking about?? It was a free vote for goodness sake...or have you forgot that?

Corbyn isn't..and never will be a credible leader of anything of worth imo.

If Corbyn had any balls he would have whipped the vote..rooted out those who voted against it...but he hasn't..and now he can have no gripe with people who voted "against" him,,because he gave a free vote..something you and the factions fail to comprehend by the looks of it
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
If Corbyn had any balls he would have whipped the vote..rooted out those who voted against it..
Click to expand...
Yep, and if he had done that, I know what the reaction would be ............ "Stifling Free Speech; Dictatorial Commie Style; Tyrant" blah, blah.
 
Back
Top