Will UK join Syria bombing efforts ?

[Drummond]

The Number One news item, currently dominating the UK media, is the imminent vote in the House of Commons as to whether the UK will begin its own bombing of ISIS in Syria. It's had enormous coverage over the past couple of weeks, and I've just listened to over an hour of a rabidly Left-wing phone-in host on LBC, James O'Brien, doing his damndest to skew all discussions in favour of opposing it. Not that he had to try particularly hard, as the majority of calls being permitted on air saw things HIS way (.. 'strangely' ..) ....

BBC coverage ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34980504


MPs are debating whether to back UK air strikes against militants from from so-called Islamic State.

A 10-hour House of Commons debate will culminate in a vote on whether the UK should join the US, France, Russia and others bombing targets in Raqqa, the group's stronghold, and other areas.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron says IS is a threat to Britain's security.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn opposes bombing but has given MPs a free vote amid divisions within his own ranks.

Mr Corbyn's aides say as many as 90 Labour MPs could back the government - and with both the Democratic Unionist Party and the Liberal Democrats backing action Mr Cameron is expected to win parliamentary approval for the UK to intervene militarily in the four-year conflict in Syria.

However, at least 110 MPs from six different parties - including the SNP, which opposes action - have already signed up to an amendment seeking to block air strikes.

Cameron has said that he'll not see this voted on at all in the Commons if there was a great likelihood of losing the vote to the 'don't bomb' side. That he is holding it SHOULD mean that he's secured enough votes to know he'll win.

Debate in the Commons began minutes ago .. I have it playing in the background as I type. The Speaker, John Bercow, announced that there'll be well over a hundred questions / debating points to be heard in the expected ten-hour marathon debate, now underway. The outcome of the vote is expected to be known at around 10PM tonight (GMT).

Live reporting link ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-34961844

Headline bullet-points:-

Key Points



MPs debating and due to vote on whether UK should begin bombing IS targets in Syria
The Commons day began at 11:30 GMT, with a vote expected at about 22:00 GMT
David Cameron urges Tory MPs to 'take a stand' against so-called Islamic State
But the prime minister is criticised for branding Jeremy Corbyn a "terrorist sympathiser"
Despite Tory rebels, PM expected to win helped by votes of some Labour MPs, the Lib Dems and DUP


As I type, Cameron has already faced repeated, angry-sounding demands that he retract and apologise for the 'terrorist sympathiser' accusation ... it appears that Labour are trying to demonise and undermine the PM on this point, making it a focal (and diversionary) point of the debate ....

[Drummond]

Regular news broadcasts on the BBC News channel have been suspended (ever since around 11.30 AM), in favour instead of non-stop coverage of the Parliamentary debate on this subject. The same's true of Sky News ...

[Drummond]

Here's a sample of how Jeremy Corbyn (Labour leader - Socialist) argues his case for opposing the bombing of ISIS by Britain ... the Andrew Marr show, BBC-1, last Sunday morning ..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1y4_MP-NnU

If of interest ... Nigel Farage, UKIP leader (anti-EU membership), given a half-hour phone-in slot on London Broadcasting, London's non-BBC radio station (Nick Ferrari's show) ... he discusses wider issues, such as the refugee crisis ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhNziVp8U_4

[Drummond]

.... happily, MP's have voted to commence bombing ISIS in Syria.

Two motions were voted on. The first, was an 'amendment' .. its wording ...

TO BLOCK AIRSTRIKES AGAINST I.S IN SYRIA.

For: 211
Against: 390

Majority: 179.

The second, 'main' motion ...

TO CARRY OUT AIRSTRIKES AGAINST I.S IN SYRIA.

For: 397
Against: 223

Majority: 174

SO, our bombing should commence, we think, within hours of the vote.

Jeremy Corbyn, Labour Leader, permitted a 'free' vote .. that's to say, his Socialist MP's were permitted to vote according to their consciences, rather than take direction from their Chief Whip, who - if authorised - would simply direct MP's to vote as the Party requires them to.

Freed from that mandatory direction, it's estimated that around 60 Labour MP's defied Corbyn's leadership on the issue, and voted WITH the Conservative Government for airstrikes. There's been much reporting over how the anti-IS airstrikes issue has fractured the Labour Party in recent days and weeks, with even front-bench Labour MP's defying their leader.

In this mix of voting, of course, will be other Parties, including the SNP (Scottish Nationalists, hardline Scottish Lefties), who'll have all voted against airstrikes. The Conservatives govern with a fairly slender majority in the House of Commons .. so this is a more comfortable affirmation of Government policy than Cameron will be used to.

It's been a remarkably good day for our Conservatives .. and an expectedly bad day for Labour, which is suffering deep divisions within its Party. Talk is that as matters stand, Labour is unelectable in British politics .... and the airstrikes issue has comletely dominated news reporting throughout the day, here in the UK, with other reporting even suspended altogether for some hours.

[jimnyc]

I hope you guys do get involved and play a larger role. Honestly, I don't have the greatest grasp in the differences between our politics. How are the "liberals" over there responding to potentially getting involved?

[jimnyc]

Oh hell, I read the title and read the first post and then responded!

So it appears you guys will be getting involved. How did the voting go. Who voted against going after ISIS?

[Gunny]

Oh hell, I read the title and read the first post and then responded!

So it appears you guys will be getting involved. How did the voting go. Who voted against going after ISIS?

The ones that wear pink lace panties.

[Drummond]

I hope you guys do get involved and play a larger role. Honestly, I don't have the greatest grasp in the differences between our politics. How are the "liberals" over there responding to potentially getting involved?

Naturally, I'd welcome that. But we should be clear .. the vote only authorised airstrikes, and these are only an expansion of action we're already taking in Iraq. Reporting has made clear that 'boots on the ground' (i.e troops fighting ISIS directly) is not being contemplated. In fact .. a part of the case the Left tried to make was that, with no likelihood of ground troops being involved, airstrikes would be ineffective against ISIS as a whole and only be effective in killing 'innocents'.

Even with authorisation for bombing, our participation won't be as great as even the French are currently deploying. You see ... a very great deal has been done in the UK to create a climate where any semblance of a '2003 Iraq invasion' - style action couldn't be contemplated by any Party wishing to preserve its voting base (i.e it'd be committing political suicide). The ever-vocal Left here, added to the witch-hunt of the Chilcot Inquiry (which is a number of years overdue in reporting its conclusions) have done much to poison any appetite for military actions anywhere in the Middle East. Yes, our Left has been extremely busy here.

The whole debate over here has been centred on the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, being implacably opposed to any actions which stand a chance of opposing ISIS. He's been against airstrikes. He's been against ground troops in Syria. He's even been against a police 'shoot to kill' policy for our police, should a terrorist attack happen in London or any major city. With Corbyn finding excuse after excuse to resist any meaningful action against ISIS, even some of his own Party have been rebelling against him.

I think that Corbyn only allowed a free vote because he knew his Leadership of the Party would suffer a severe challenge if he forced MP's to vote against their consciences.

Cameron added an interesting element to the debate. He openly accused MP's who'd oppose airstrikes of being 'terrorist sympathisers'. This made for some angry questioning and statements from Labour MP's - and a senior SNP (and former leader of them) individual called Alex Salmond - who insisted that Cameron publicly apologise.

Cameron did not apologise.

Another dimension to this is the fact that, two years ago, Cameron held a vote to authorise bombing against Assad, and in support of 'the rebels' .. a vote he lost. This may have been on the back of reporting at the time, notably by the BBC, who were insisting that Assad was an 'evil dictator' and 'the rebels' were the heroes of the moment. Nobody had, then, recognised who or what ISIS was, how or to what extent they were active. So ... Corbyn tried to argue the fairly cheap point that Cameron was taking an absurd position by effectively 'changing sides' .. by now wanting 'the rebels' bombed instead.

Cameron's long-term aim is still one of being totally committed to seeing Assad deposed, which opposes Russia's own position.

[Gunny]

Naturally, I'd welcome that. But we should be clear .. the vote only authorised airstrikes, and these are only an expansion of action we're already taking in Iraq. Reporting has made clear that 'boots on the ground' (i.e troops fighting ISIS directly) is not being contemplated. In fact .. a part of the case the Left tried to make was that, with no likelihood of ground troops being involved, airstrikes would be ineffective against ISIS as a whole and only be effective in killing 'innocents'.

Even with authorisation for bombing, our participation won't be as great as even the French are currently deploying. You see ... a very great deal has been done in the UK to create a climate where any semblance of a '2003 Iraq invasion' - style action couldn't be contemplated by any Party wishing to preserve its voting base (i.e it'd be committing political suicide). The ever-vocal Left here, added to the witch-hunt of the Chilcot Inquiry (which is a number of years overdue in reporting its conclusions) have done much to poison any appetite for military actions anywhere in the Middle East. Yes, our Left has been extremely busy here.

The whole debate over here has been centred on the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, being implacably opposed to any actions which stand a chance of opposing ISIS. He's been against airstrikes. He's been against ground troops in Syria. He's even been against a police 'shoot to kill' policy for our police, should a terrorist attack happen in London or any major city. With Corbyn finding excuse after excuse to resist any meaningful action against ISIS, even some of his own Party have been rebelling against him.

I think that Corbyn only allowed a free vote because he knew his Leadership of the Party would suffer a severe challenge if he forced MP's to vote against their consciences.

Cameron added an interesting element to the debate. He openly accused MP's who'd oppose airstrikes of being 'terrorist sympathisers'. This made for some angry questioning and statements from Labour MP's - and a senior SNP (and former leader of them) individual called Alex Salmond - who insisted that Cameron publicly apologise.

Cameron did not apologise.

Got to love dumbasses. At the end of the day, you only take and hold ground with ground troops. Just bombing them is like scattering an anthill on a daily basis.

[Drummond]

Got to love dumbasses. At the end of the day, you only take and hold ground with ground troops. Just bombing them is like scattering an anthill on a daily basis.

True. There are those here who recognise that (and it was part of the LABOUR argument AGAINST even committing to airstrikes). But such is the political environment here that nobody, EVEN knowing that to be true, has wanted to support committing our ground troops. Cameron's well aware that he'd lose any vote on that proposal.

So, what we instead have is imprecise, 'fuzzy' talk about a political settlement somehow being arranged in the long term. Nobody's explaining how you'd ever get to that point .. they're just saying that in all conflicts, sooner or later, a political solution is always found, so, 'one day', this will also happen with Syria.

Our media has been making a big thing of opinion polls apparently showing that support even for airstrike action from the British public is 'waning'. The Left, over years, has done an enormous amount to poison any willingness from ordinary Brits to see us involved in any more military actions than is deemed 'absolutely necessary'.

I'm in no doubt that it'll take no less than a second '7/7' style attack to change that mood to its opposite .. and even then, I expect that Corbyn will want to 'warn' against fighting the likes of ISIS.

Bear in mind that EVERYONE here, from EVERY political Party, is squarely behind the 'mainstream Islam is a religion of peace' fiction. It's far easier to neutralise enthusiasm for fighting ISIS if you can convince everyone that they're 'just a comparatively few extremist nutters'.

[Drummond]

Action taken in the wake of the Commons vote has been immediate. Already, the first bombing run has been completed, and recognised as being a success. See ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/12/03/us-mideast-crisis-syria-britain-idUSKBN0TL00M20151203#T19avXPQ2RuQt3XF.97


British bombers made their first strikes on Islamic State in Syria on Thursday, hitting oil fields that Prime Minister David Cameron says are being used to fund attacks on the West.

Tornado bombers took off from the RAF Akrotiri air base in Cyprus just hours after British lawmakers voted 397-223 to support Cameron's plan for air strikes, a Reuters witness said. They returned to base safely several hours later.

The four bombers used laser-guided bombs to attack six targets in the Omar oil fields in eastern Syria controlled by the Islamist militant group which British officials call Daesh, using an Arabic acronym that the group rejects.

"That strikes a very real blow at the oil and the revenue on which the Daesh terrorists depend," Defense Secretary Michael Fallon told the BBC.

"There are plenty more of these targets throughout eastern, northern Syria which we hope to be striking in the next few days and weeks," Fallon said. He said Britain was sending eight more warplanes to Cyprus to join the missions.

So, the 'yes' vote is already having a good effect !

Meanwhile, the Labour Party's infighting continues on this unabated. Around 60 Labour MP's defied their own leader, and voted with the Government for bombing. And now, an argument is brewing over what to call ISIS. Cameron wants the name 'Daesh' used at every opportunity. I understand that the BBC is refusing to cooperate with that.

And so it continues. Our media has been full of reports about how divisive the whole argument about whether or not to bomb has been, and such is Labour's infighting, many of its MP's deeply unhappy with their leader's stances, that they're proving prognostications correct about being unelectable with him in charge.

Corbyn's position, as of two days ago:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34976279


Asked about his failure to convince his shadow cabinet to back his position, he said: "Some people are more difficult to persuade than others, and I look forward to them being persuaded."

Rather than air strikes, Mr Corbyn said efforts should focus on a political settlement and achieving a "credible line of government" across Syria.

He said he was not saying he would "never" back military action, but said it had to be the "only alternative" and that this was not the case with Wednesday's vote.

Asked whether, if he was prime minister, he would urge France and the United States - which are already bombing IS in Syria - to stop, he said: "I would ask them to put their efforts into a peace process."

I'm listening to James O'Brien on his LBC phone-in show as I type this. O'Brien is 'hard Left', and yesterday did all he could to turn his show into an 'everyone disagrees with bombing' propaganda showcase. Today, he's minutes away from interviewing Alex Salmond, who's the SNP's ex-leader (the SNP are the Scottish Nationalist Party, voted into power on a landslide, and themselves hard-Left, being against the UK possessing any nuclear deterrent of its own. EVERY one of their MP's voted against bombing ISIS). Salmond was apparently the most aggrieved Parliamentary member, yesterday, when he stood up in the Commons and demanded that Cameron apologise for calling opposers of bombing 'terrorist sympathisers'.

Cameron did not apologise. Salmond is furious with him ...

So, we've had a dramatic period in British politics, over just the last 24 hours, and the infighting still rumbles on.

[Christie Brinkley]

Symbolic token strikes... nothing more to expect. UK is just another country not committed to defeating ISIS.

[Drummond]

Symbolic token strikes... nothing more to expect. UK is just another country not committed to defeating ISIS.

I'm finding it difficult to agree. The first targets were oilwells, which now help to fund ISIS terrorism. In weeks or months, their loss will translate into a reduced capacity to fund purchases of weaponry, bomb-making equipment, etc ...

The UK, on its own, cannot defeat ISIS. Nonetheless, we are part of a bigger picture. We have our part to play, and thanks to David Cameron - and not forgetting the 66 rebelling Labour MP's who couldn't bring themselves to support Corbyn's sellout stance - we are providing a component part of the overall effort. It's said that we are bringing precision bombing capabilities to the fight which add to its overall effectiveness.

And .. tell me this, Christie B ... if the British contribution is so 'useless' and 'pointless', then why has a bullying and intimidation campaign started against the rebelling Labour MP's ? I watched ITV News this lunchtime .. Ann Coffey, Labour MP for Stockport, was reporting on texts and tweets received by some of those MP's (herself included), calling them 'terrorists', claiming they will have blood on their hands ... and apparently also saying a lot worse than that, some not even fit to air on TV.

There are some of the far Left who are very disturbed about this turn of events. WHY, if it's all 'token' .. ?

[Christie Brinkley]

I'm finding it difficult to agree. The first targets were oilwells, which now help to fund ISIS terrorism. In weeks or months, their loss will translate into a reduced capacity to fund purchases of weaponry, bomb-making equipment, etc ...

The UK, on its own, cannot defeat ISIS. Nonetheless, we are part of a bigger picture. We have our part to play, and thanks to David Cameron - and not forgetting the 66 rebelling Labour MP's who couldn't bring themselves to support Corbyn's sellout stance - we are providing a component part of the overall effort. It's said that we are bringing precision bombing capabilities to the fight which add to its overall effectiveness.

And .. tell me this, Christie B ... if the British contribution is so 'useless' and 'pointless', then why has a bullying and intimidation campaign started against the rebelling Labour MP's ? I watched ITV News this lunchtime .. Ann Coffey, Labour MP for Stockport, was reporting on texts and tweets received by some of those MP's (herself included), calling them 'terrorists', claiming they will have blood on their hands ... and apparently also saying a lot worse than that, some not even fit to air on TV.

There are some of the far Left who are very disturbed about this turn of events. WHY, if it's all 'token' .. ?
Oil wells are only being struck because Turkey has been exposed in dealing with ISIS oil. Is ISIS headquarters in Raqqa destroyed yet?

[Drummond]

Symbolic token strikes... nothing more to expect. UK is just another country not committed to defeating ISIS.

Further to my previous post, explain this, Christie B:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3344070/Labour-s-traitor-list-Corbyn-tries-call-bullies-anti-war-supporters-plotting-kick-66-MPs-backed-bombing-ISIS-Syria.html


Jeremy Corbyn's army of anti-war supporters today published a 'traitor list' of the 66 pro-bombing Labour MPs and pushed pictures of dead Syrian babies and severed heads through their doors.

Party trolls are calling those who voted to bomb ISIS in Syria last night 'Red Tories', 'baby killers' and 'mass murderers' - and have focussed their abuse on young female MPs.

Labour rebels have had their homes surrounded and were forced to barricade their offices as hard-Left group Left Unity urged supporters to deselect the 66 who voted with the Government.

The organisation, which supports Mr Corbyn but is not part of the Labour Party, published a full list of those backing military action on Twitter under the heading 'warmongers', urging members: 'Deselect them now'.

Mr Corbyn last night said there was 'no place' for bullies in Labour but victims said today the campaign of abuse came with the blessing of 'the top of the party'.

Left-winger Ken Livingstone said he would back efforts to remove pro-war MPs, telling LBC: 'If I had an MP who had voted to bomb Syria then I would be prepared to support someone to challenge him'.

If UK bombing is so 'token' and 'insignificant', then why is ANY of this happening ?

[Perianne]

The ones that wear pink lace panties.

I wear pink lace panties and if I were in charge of the world there wouldn't be any ISIS. Heck, there wouldn't be any misbehaving Muslims. Not for long, anyway.

[Drummond]

Oil wells are only being struck because Turkey has been exposed in dealing with ISIS oil.

I don't see that you can have it both ways. You've claimed that UK bombing is only 'token'. If so, then it follows that nothing coming from it actually matters. YET .. your latest post suggests otherwise.


Is ISIS headquarters in Raqqa destroyed yet?

... and this is more of the same. Less than 24 hours after we've even had a vote to PROCEED with airstrikes, and already, you want the taking out of ISIS's headquarters to have had any chance of happening ??

Wow. Are we THAT effective in all we do ??

I suggest you make up your mind. Are we ineffective, or .. SUPER effective ???

[Drummond]

I wear pink lace panties and if I were in charge of the world there wouldn't be any ISIS. Heck, there wouldn't be any misbehaving Muslims. Not for long, anyway.:clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Drummond]

Here's part of a building campaign of reprisal / victimisation now being attempted against the 66 Labour MP's who dared to vote in favour of Syria airstrikes, and against their leader, last night ... you can see from this the extent of vitriol felt against those who've dared to stray from the 'Party line' (and despite Corbyn's own promise of a 'free vote') ......

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8044&stc=1

[Black Diamond]

Here's part of a building campaign of reprisal / victimisation now being attempted against the 66 Labour MP's who dared to vote in favour of Syria airstrikes, and against their leader, last night ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8044&stc=1
Mr Drummond, was Churchill labeled a war monger? I know there was great debate after Dunkirk about whether to continue. I just wonder how fierce the debate was.

[Drummond]

Mr Drummond, was Churchill labeled a war monger? I know there was great debate after Dunkirk about whether to continue. I just wonder how fierce the debate was.

As to the fierceness of the debate .. I don't know myself. Without a doubt, though, until events proved him right ... Churchill was unpopular, seen to be an agitator and troublemaker, out of step with what the then-Leadership of the Conservative Party thought they could strive to attain.

But what these Labour MP's are now going through is an altogether worse campaign of sheer bile. Some have been sent trolling texts and tweets said to have been extreme enough to be un-reproduceable in our media ... there have been images of dead babies sent to some of them. Fact is that there's an intensely Fascistic core of the hard Left (whether or not they're actually a part of the Labour Party as such) who'll not tolerate dissention from the pacifistic, anti-'war' position that the Labour leadership now favours, and will bully and victimise to get their way.

[Black Diamond]

As to the fierceness of the debate .. I don't know myself. Without a doubt, though, until events proved him right ... Churchill was unpopular, seen to be an agitator and troublemaker, out of step with what the then-Leadership of the Conservative Party thought they could strive to attain.

But what these Labour MP's are now going through is an altogether worse campaign of sheer bile. Some have been sent trolling texts and tweets said to have been extreme enough to be un-reproduceable in our media ... there have been images of dead babies sent to some of them. Fact is that there's an intensely Fascistic core of the hard Left (whether or not they're actually a part of the Labour Party as such) who'll not tolerate dissention from the pacifistic, anti-'war' position that the Labour leadership now favours, and will bully and victimise to get their way.

I don't know that folks on either side of the pond have the belly for this fight.

[Drummond]

I don't know that folks on either side of the pond have the belly for this fight.

Perhaps you're right. I don't know about on your side of it, but on this side of the Pond, our Left have worked extremely hard to counter any likelihood of wanting to fight terrorists. Corbyn, the Labour leader, is typical of how they think.

Tony Blair went through hell from his own Party for being so supportive of Bush, and was labelled a 'war criminal' for his part in the 2003 Iraq invasion. The subsequent Chilcot Inquiry was commissioned by his successor, and has always been fully expected to be highly critical of Blair and those associated with his line .. in a nutshell, it'll be the product of an official witch-hunt, meant to lastingly demonise those who'd hold any enthusiasm to go to war. The result of it is years overdue.

It must infuriate the hard Left to see that, for all their efforts, a 'pro' vote was even possible for airstrikes in Syria. So, they've gone into victimisation overdrive. It's an effort that may lessen (or even intensify), but the Left won't give up on it. They want war actions to become unthinkable here.

And this itself is a part of why this vote completely dominated all news broadcasting yesterday. James O'Brien, on LBC, hosted a 3 hour phone-in show where it was obviously very heavily biased towards promotion of an 'anti' view, and there was precious little sign of the 'pro' lobby getting even so much as a hearing on his programme (he even failed to take a single call for the first 15 minutes of it, instead launching into a speech of what and why he believed what he said he did). If you took a straw poll of all his callers, around 90-95% would've been anti-bombing, something meant to suggest to the listening public as reflecting the 'true' position across the British public.

[Gunny]

True. There are those here who recognise that (and it was part of the LABOUR argument AGAINST even committing to airstrikes). But such is the political environment here that nobody, EVEN knowing that to be true, has wanted to support committing our ground troops. Cameron's well aware that he'd lose any vote on that proposal.

So, what we instead have is imprecise, 'fuzzy' talk about a political settlement somehow being arranged in the long term. Nobody's explaining how you'd ever get to that point .. they're just saying that in all conflicts, sooner or later, a political solution is always found, so, 'one day', this will also happen with Syria.

Our media has been making a big thing of opinion polls apparently showing that support even for airstrike action from the British public is 'waning'. The Left, over years, has done an enormous amount to poison any willingness from ordinary Brits to see us involved in any more military actions than is deemed 'absolutely necessary'.

I'm in no doubt that it'll take no less than a second '7/7' style attack to change that mood to its opposite .. and even then, I expect that Corbyn will want to 'warn' against fighting the likes of ISIS.

Bear in mind that EVERYONE here, from EVERY political Party, is squarely behind the 'mainstream Islam is a religion of peace' fiction. It's far easier to neutralise enthusiasm for fighting ISIS if you can convince everyone that they're 'just a comparatively few extremist nutters'.

I don't care about their religion nor their backward thinking. What they are though is a virus. Every time we ignore it and let it grow, we have to beat it back into the dirt. Then they just start over. The only thing that's changed in this war over the centuries is our will to stop them. They're spreading like a plague because of progressive leftism who refuse to accept that they are a threat to our entire society.

[Gunny]

Perhaps you're right. I don't know about on your side of it, but on this side of the Pond, our Left have worked extremely hard to counter any likelihood of wanting to fight terrorists. Corbyn, the Labour leader, is typical of how they think.

Tony Blair went through hell from his own Party for being so supportive of Bush, and was labelled a 'war criminal' for his part in the 2003 Iraq invasion. The subsequent Chilcot Inquiry was commissioned by his successor, and has always been fully expected to be highly critical of Blair and those associated with his line .. in a nutshell, it'll be the product of an official witch-hunt, meant to lastingly demonise those who'd hold any enthusiasm to go to war. The result of it is years overdue.

It must infuriate the hard Left to see that, for all their efforts, a 'pro' vote was even possible for airstrikes in Syria. So, they've gone into victimisation overdrive. It's an effort that may lessen (or even intensify), but the Left won't give up on it. They want war actions to become unthinkable here.

And this itself is a part of why this vote completely dominated all news broadcasting yesterday. James O'Brien, on LBC, hosted a 3 hour phone-in show where it was obviously very heavily biased towards promotion of an 'anti' view, and there was precious little sign of the 'pro' lobby getting even so much as a hearing on his programme (he even failed to take a single call for the first 15 minutes of it, instead launching into a speech of what and why he believed what he said he did). If you took a straw poll of all his callers, around 90-95% would've been anti-bombing, something meant to suggest to the listening public as reflecting the 'true' position across the British public.

The RAF sure didn't waste any time after the vote, huh? They started playing whack-a-doodle with some Tornadoes right off the bat.

[Gunny]

And in case no one's noticed, the RAF are total badasses in MY book. Outnumbered 9-1 and STILL kicked Hitler's ass.

"You know you probably won't be coming back, right?"

"Does that mean I get a shot of single malt before I take off, sir?"

Fukkin A. HARD Corps.

I couldn't tell you if I built more Hawker Hurricanes, Spitfires or Mosquitoes when I was a kid.

[Drummond]

The RAF sure didn't waste any time after the vote, huh? They started playing whack-a-doodle with some Tornadoes right off the bat.

Yep .. they must've already had their orders before the vote authorised them to act. I understand that barely an hour passed before they began their flights. No casualties .. all returned a couple of hours later.

24 hours ago, we had eight jets operating out of RAF Akrotiri. Now, 24 hours later, a further seven have joined them, with the likelihood of more to follow in the coming days.

Ironically, one base they're flying out of in the UK is in Scotland .. home to the SNP, who are staunchly against any form of nuclear capability being based on Scottish soil. But they can't act on that, for as long as they remain a part of the UK ...

[Gunny]

Yep .. they must've already had their orders before the vote authorised them to act. I understand that barely an hour passed before they began their flights. No casualties .. all returned a couple of hours later.

24 hours ago, we had eight jets operating out of RAF Akrotiri. Now, 24 hours later, a further seven have joined them, with the likelihood of more to follow in the coming days.

Ironically, one base they're flying out of in the UK is in Scotland .. home to the SNP, who are staunchly against any form of nuclear capability being based on Scottish soil. But they can't act on that, for as long as they remain a part of the UK ...

Well, you know us Scots. we love our non-nuclear swords and to fight like real men. :)

[Drummond]

And in case no one's noticed, the RAF are total badasses in MY book. Outnumbered 9-1 and STILL kicked Hitler's ass.

"You know you probably won't be coming back, right?"

"Does that mean I get a shot of single malt before I take off, sir?"

Fukkin A. HARD Corps.

I couldn't tell you if I built more Hawker Hurricanes, Spitfires or Mosquitoes when I was a kid.:clap::clap:

Indeed, Gunny. I've always said it ... there's a certain 'machine' quality to UK forces. We don't let anything dent our morale, what matters is dedication to the mission. With us it's more humour and deliberate lightheartedness than the straight 'gung ho' display. I honestly think that's better ... because the enemy has a less straightforward time of hoping to undermine your morale that way.

[Drummond]

Well, you know us Scots. we love our non-nuclear swords and to fight like real men. :)

All well and good. Unfortunately, I'm sorry to say that the SNP added solid opposition to airstrikes in the vote last night. So what thought there is in Scotland to being centred on ridding their territory of nukes has a hardline Socialist / pacifistic basis to it.

In the last election, the SNP won with those policies by a landslide.

[Gunny]

:clap::clap:

Indeed, Gunny. I've always said it ... there's a certain 'machine' quality to UK forces. We don't let anything dent our morale, what matters is dedication to the mission. With us it's more humour and deliberate lightheartedness than the straight 'gung ho' display. I honestly think that's better ... because the enemy has a less straightforward time of hoping to undermine your morale that way.

I disagree. British morale is what won the Battle of Britain.

As far as the sense of humour thing goes, you probably get mine more than most. I learned mine from reading YOUR damned books. :laugh: But people here are weird about that. They think I'm just an ass because I make fun of everything. They don't get the difference in wit.

[Gunny]

All well and good. Unfortunately, I'm sorry to say that the SNP added solid opposition to airstrikes in the vote last night. So what thought there is in Scotland to being centred on ridding their territory of nukes has a hardline Socialist / pacifistic basis to it.

In the last election, the SNP won with those policies by a landslide.

Scot politicians have always been wimps. Highlanders just want to woop your butt. Bring you scimitar onto the field MF-er and we'll see how many strikes that pansy-ass blade can take from a claymore.

[Black Diamond]

I disagree. British morale is what won the Battle of Britain.

As far as the sense of humour thing goes, you probably get mine more than most. I learned mine from reading YOUR damned books. :laugh: But people here are weird about that. They think I'm just an ass because I make fun of everything. They don't get the difference in wit.

Which books ?

[Gunny]

Which books ?

Allistaire MacLean mostly. Read everything he ever wrote. Shakespeare. The King James Bible. And anything else the Iraklion. Crete AFB library had. Entertainment was hard to come by on an island in 71. :)

[Drummond]

I disagree. British morale is what won the Battle of Britain.

As far as the sense of humour thing goes, you probably get mine more than most. I learned mine from reading YOUR damned books. :laugh: But people here are weird about that. They think I'm just an ass because I make fun of everything. They don't get the difference in wit.

On the morale issue .. that's not what I'm saying. There are different ways of maintaining morale. In Britain, all those decades ago, it was partly a faith in what you were and what you stood for, BUT, in part it was also a straight fight for our very survival, one we dared not lose. With the greatest of respect, the US as a nation was never in any real danger of a defeat that could see them collapse as a nation .. nobody expected the Japanese to take up residence in the White House, did they ? .. but, WE WERE under that extreme a threat. Pretty much everyone was expecting Hitler to invade us in 1940, and to have a good chance of succeeding. We prevailed because we knew we were fighting for our right, AND our very ability, to exist as ourselves.

[Black Diamond]

Allistaire MacLean mostly. Read everything he ever wrote. Shakespeare. The King James Bible. And anything else the Iraklion. Crete AFB library had. Entertainment was hard to come by on an island in 71. :)

Withersoever thou goest. I grew up on KJV too. No one seems to use it anymore.

[Gunny]

On the morale issue .. that's not what I'm saying. There are different ways of maintaining morale. In Britain, all those decades ago, it was partly a faith in what you were and what you stood for, BUT, in part it was also a straight fight for our very survival, one we dared not lose. With the greatest of respect, the US as a nation was never in any real danger of a defeat that could see them collapse as a nation .. nobody expected the Japanese to take up residence in the White House, did they ? .. but, WE WERE under that extreme a threat. Pretty much everyone was expecting Hitler to invade us in 1940, and to have a good chance of succeeding. We prevailed because we knew we were fighting for our right, AND our very ability, to exist as ourselves.

Problem is, we're doing the very same today. Just a bunch of leftist idiots don't get it. We ARE fighting for our existence as a society. And half our society won't fight back.

[Elessar]

What I saw early on in this thread was the opposition's hope for a
diplomatic solution to ISIS.

That is deluded thinking no matter what nation you are in. They
want full domination and capitulation. They need to be eradicated, period.

[Gunny]

Withersoever thou goest. I grew up on KJV too. No one seems to use it anymore.

You mean there's another version? I didn't get the memo. :halo9:

[Gunny]

What I saw early on in this thread was the opposition's hope for a
diplomatic solution to ISIS.

That is deluded thinking no matter what nation you are in. They
want full domination and capitulation. They need to be eradicated, period.

They need to try a diplomatic solution with some cobras. I'm sure I'll find the ending satisfactory.

[Drummond]

Problem is, we're doing the very same today. Just a bunch of leftist idiots don't get it. We ARE fighting for our existence as a society. And half our society won't fight back.

Agreed. The Left have very short memories. Worse, they CHOOSE to have those short memories, and even to rewrite aspects of history if they can get away with it. Propaganda has so much more value to them than any reality they don't happen to like.

Here, Labour managed to create a climate where to be critical of Islam could be viewed as being racist. Same with immigration .. criticise it, and you must have a racist motivation, and to be thinking in terms preferring the rights of your race over others. So, in that climate, people were being conditioned to be deferential to any and all cultures which were not their own.

This is how, just a couple of weeks after the Paris attack .. which after all, is almost on our doorstep .. STILL, people can dislocate any understanding of the proximity and nature of the threat against them, AND go on to decide that ISIS shouldn't be tackled !

Happily, sense prevailed when it needed to, last night. Even so .. and as I'm typing this ... I have the BBC's 'Any Questions' playing in the background, a topical TV discussion show where Left and Right are getting very heated over the success in committing to airstrikes !!!

[Drummond]

One of the Labour rebels voting in favour of UK airstrikes last night was one Hilary Benn (a man, despite the name !!). He gave a speech arguing for the correctness of airstrikes which was memorable, certainly for one good reason .. ALL sides of the House applauded it. Partisan loyalties usually make such universal support of a single speech a near-impossibility.

I've found a transcript of his speech, which I'm going to post large chunks of, now. It's a great speech, coming as it does from a LEFTIE. Anyone not liking long essays ... look away now ! ..

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hilary-benn-speech-syria-vote-6944272


Thank you very much Mr Speaker. Before I respond to the debate, I would like to say this directly to the Prime Minister: although my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition and I will walk into different division lobbies tonight, I am proud to speak from the same Despatch Box as him. My right honourable friend is not a terrorist sympathiser. He is an honest, a principled, a decent and a good man, and I think the Prime Minister must now regret what he said yesterday and his failure to do what he should have done today which is simply to say, ‘I am sorry.’

The question which confronts us in a very very complex conflict is at its heart very simple. What should we do with others to confront this threat to our citizens, our nation, other nations and the people who suffer under the yoke, the cruel yoke, of Daesh?

Carnage in Paris brought home to us the clear and present danger we face from them. It could just as easily have been London or Glasgow or Leeds or Birmingham – and it could still be. And I believe we have a moral and a practical duty to extend the action we are already taking in Iraq to Syria. And I am also clear, and I say this to my colleagues, that the conditions set out in the emergency resolution passed at the Labour party conference in September have been met. We now have a clear and unambiguous UN Security Council resolution 2249, paragraph five of which specifically calls on member states to take all necessary measures; to redouble and co-ordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria.

So the United Nations is asking us to do something. It is asking us to do something now. It is asking us to act in Syria as well as in Iraq. And it was a Labour government, if the honourable gentleman will bear with me, it was a Labour government that helped to found the United Nations at the end of the Second World War. And why did we do so? Because we wanted the nations of the world working together to deal with threats to international peace and security – and Daesh is unquestionably that.

So given that the United Nations has passed this resolution, given that such action would be lawful under Article 51 of the UN charter, because every state has the right to defend itself, why would we not uphold the settled will of the United Nations? Particularly when there is such support from within the region, including from Iraq.

We are part of a coalition of over 60 countries standing together shoulder to shoulder to oppose their ideology and their brutality. Now Mr Speaker, all of us understand the importance of bringing an end to the Syrian civil war, and there is now some progress on a peace plan because of the Vienna talks. They are the best hope we have of achieving a ceasefire. Now that would bring an end to Assad’s bombing, leading to a transitional government and elections. And why is that vital? Both because it will help in the defeat of Daesh, and because it would enable millions of Syrians who have been forced to flee to do what every refugee dreams of: they just want to be able to go home.

Now Mr Speaker, no one in this debate doubts the deadly serious threat we face from Daesh and what they do – although sometimes we find it hard to live with the reality. We know that in June four gay men were thrown off the fifth storey of a building in the Syrian city of Deir al-Zor. We know that in August the 82-year-old guardian of the antiquities of Palmyra, Professor Khaled al-Assad, was beheaded and his headless body was hung from a traffic light. And we know that in recent weeks there has been the discovery of mass graves in Sinjar, one said to contain the bodies of older Yazidi women murdered by Daesh because they were judged too old to be sold for sex. We know they have killed 30 British tourists in Tunisia, 224 Russian holidaymakers on a plane, 178 people in suicide bombings in Beirut , Ankara and Suruc, 130 people in Paris – including those young people in the Bataclan, whom Daesh, in trying to justify their bloody slaughter, called them apostates engaged in prostitution and vice. If it had happened here they could have been our children, and we know they are plotting more attacks.

So the question for each of us and for our national security is this: given that we know what they are doing, can we really stand aside and refuse to act fully in our self defence against those who are planning these attacks? Can we really leave to others the responsibility for defending our national security when it is our responsibility? And if we do not act, what message would that send about our solidarity with those countries that have suffered so much, including Iraq and our ally France. Now France wants us to stand with them , and President Hollande, the leader of our sister socialist party, has asked for our assistance and help. And as we are undertaking air strikes in Iraq, where Daesh’s hold has been reduced, and we are already doing everything but engage in air strikes in Syria, should we not play our full part?

Now Mr Speaker, it has been argued in the debate that air strikes achieve nothing. Not so. Look at how Daesh’s forward march has been halted in Iraq. The house will remember that 14 months ago people were saying, ‘They are almost at the gates of Baghdad.’ And that is why we voted to respond to the Iraqi government’s request for help to defeat them. Look at how their military capacity and their freedom of movement has been put under pressure. Ask the Kurds about Sinjar and Kobane. Now of course air strikes alone will not defeat Daesh, but they make a difference because they are giving them a hard time and it is making it more difficult for them to expand their territory.

Now I share the concerns that have been expressed this evening about potential civilian casualties. However unlike Daesh, none of us today act with the intent to harm civilians. Rather we act to protect civilians from Daesh, who target innocent people.

Now on the subject of ground troops to defeat Daesh, there has been much debate about the figure of 70,000 and the government must, I think, better explain that. But we know that most of them are currently engaged in fighting President Assad. But I tell you what else we know: it’s whatever the number - 70,000, 40,000, 80,000 - the current size of the opposition forces mean the longer we leave taking action, the longer Daesh will have to decrease that number. And so to suggest, Mr Speaker, that air strikes should not take place until the Syrian civil war has come to an end is, I think, to miss the urgency of the terrorist threat that Daesh poses to us and others and I think misunderstands the nature and objectives of the extension to air strikes that is being proposed.

And of course we should take action - it is not a contradiction between the two - to cut off Daesh’s support in the form of money and fighters and weapons, and of course we should give humanitarian aid and of course we should offer shelter to more refugees, including in this country, and of course we should commit to play our full part in helping to rebuild Syria when the war is over.

I accept that there are legitimate arguments, and we’ve heard them in the debate, for not taking this form of action now, and it is also clear that many members have wrestled and who knows, in the time that is left may still be wrestling, with what the right thing to do is. But I say the threat is now and there are rarely if ever perfect circumstances in which to deploy military forces. Now we heard very powerful testimony from the honourable member for Edisbury earlier when she quoted that passage, and I just want to read what Karwan Jamal Tahir, Kurdistan regional government high representative in London, said last week, and I quote: ‘Last June Daesh captured one third of Iraq overnight, and a few months later attacked the Kurdistan region. Swift air strikes by Britain, America and France, and the actions of our own Peshmerga saved us. We now have a border of 650 miles with Daesh. We have pushed them back and recently captured Sinjar. Again Western air strikes were vital. But the old border between Iraq and Syria does not exist. Daesh fighters come and go across this fictional boundary.’ And that is the argument, Mr Speaker, for treating the two countries as one if we are serious about defeating Daesh.

Now Mr Speaker, I hope the House will bear with me if I direct my closing remarks to my Labour friends and colleagues on this side of the House. As a party, we have always been defined by our internationalism. We believe we have a responsibility one to another. We never have and we never should walk by on the other side of the road. And we are here faced by fascists. Not just their calculated brutality, but their belief that they are superior to every single one of us here tonight, and all of the people that we represent. They hold us in contempt. They hold our values in contempt. They hold our belief in tolerance and decency in contempt. They hold our democracy, the means by which we will make our decision tonight, in contempt. And what we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated. And it is why, as we have heard tonight, socialists and trade unionists and others joined the International Brigade in the 1930s to fight against Franco. It’s why this entire House stood up against Hitler and Mussolini. It is why our party has always stood up against the denial of human rights and for justice. And my view, Mr Speaker, is that we must now confront this evil. It is now time for us to do our bit in Syria. And that is why I ask my colleagues to vote for this motion tonight.

A very long speech (and not quoted in full !) ... but for the most part, I say, a great one.

Once Benn had finished, Corbyn, who was sitting next to him, made a point of not acknowledging him once he sat down again .....

A question debated on 'Any Questions' (BBC) tonight asks if this speech has threatened Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party.

[Gunny]

On the morale issue .. that's not what I'm saying. There are different ways of maintaining morale. In Britain, all those decades ago, it was partly a faith in what you were and what you stood for, BUT, in part it was also a straight fight for our very survival, one we dared not lose. With the greatest of respect, the US as a nation was never in any real danger of a defeat that could see them collapse as a nation .. nobody expected the Japanese to take up residence in the White House, did they ? .. but, WE WERE under that extreme a threat. Pretty much everyone was expecting Hitler to invade us in 1940, and to have a good chance of succeeding. We prevailed because we knew we were fighting for our right, AND our very ability, to exist as ourselves.

Matter of fact, we fought for our existence against YOU. If you're going to go there, you have to factor that in.

As it is now, the US and IK are being invaded from withing by the idiots that are our enemies and allow our enemies in.

[Drummond]

Matter of fact, we fought for our existence against YOU. If you're going to go there, you have to factor that in.

Well, Ok - point taken. Though that was centuries ago, in a different age entirely.


As it is now, the US and IK are being invaded from withing by the idiots that are our enemies and allow our enemies in.

Again, fair point .. though is there a national consciousness that this is so, or, is the truth being buried and obscured by Leftie propaganda ? And it's not quite the same as one nation State declaring war on another, and for territorial lines defences figuring prominently and consciously between the conflicting sides.

[Drummond]

What I saw early on in this thread was the opposition's hope for a
diplomatic solution to ISIS.

That is deluded thinking no matter what nation you are in. They
want full domination and capitulation. They need to be eradicated, period.

Couldn't agree more.

Corbyn tries to lead his Party with that kind of deluded thinking. There's no interest, partly even as an act of will, in wanting to understand how the enemy thinks, and the extent of threat it adds up to. I'm sure Corbyn seriously believes that there are those in ISIS who'd like nothing better than to discuss differences over a cup of tea and scones, and to reach amicable agreements out of it ...

The whole concept of what a terrorist IS, eludes Corbyn and his supporters. And that's partly because his personal philosophy cannot cope with the truth.

Corbyn's utterly unfit to lead any political Party with that brand of thinking, EVEN a Leftie one.