Re. The terrorist sympathisers comment; I ain't one of DC's biggest fans, but I personally like the fact that a politician hasn't apologised for saying something he really thinks, instead of pathetically backtracking with a wishy washy apology and not meaning a word of it (I think they call it lip service).
Also, if you look at the two top blokes running the shadow cabinet, with a proven track record of rubbing shoulders and sympathising with known terrorists and their organisations (Corbyn and McDonnell with Hamas and the IRA), you can start to see where the comment was aimed at
He didn't exactly take responsibility for it though did he? If it's what he thinks he shouldn't apologise, but he should take responsibility for it rather than repeating a written line over and over.
That said it is more of a travesty that one person wasted their time asking for an apology during the debate. Let alone 12! Typical grandstanding from attention seekers like salmond and flint. If they were against it, why waste time demanding an apology and make their case.
Bombs don't end wars. What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thought Hilary Benn spoke extremely well. Stone faced Corbyn looks more like Catweasel everytime I see him. Livingstone and Abbot must be totally gutted.
Re. The terrorist sympathisers comment; I ain't one of DC's biggest fans, but I personally like the fact that a politician hasn't apologised for saying something he really thinks, instead of pathetically backtracking with a wishy washy apology and not meaning a word of it (I think they call it lip service).
Also, if you look at the two top blokes running the shadow cabinet, with a proven track record of rubbing shoulders and sympathising with known terrorists and their organisations (Corbyn and McDonnell with Hamas and the IRA), you can start to see where the comment was aimed at
He didn't exactly take responsibility for it though did he? If it's what he thinks he shouldn't apologise, but he should take responsibility for it rather than repeating a written line over and over.
That said it is more of a travesty that one person wasted their time asking for an apology during the debate. Let alone 12! Typical grandstanding from attention seekers like salmond and flint. If they were against it, why waste time demanding an apology and make their case.
Maybe he thought debating the bombing of Syria was more important than a load of offended liberals demanding a very incensere apology
A question; If you was about to stand up in the House of Commons to demand an apology from the PM and 5 or 6 others had already done it before you, wouldn't you just call it a day and think that the others had stole your thunder a bit? coz I would
A question; If you was about to stand up in the House of Commons to demand an apology from the PM and 5 or 6 others had already done it before you, wouldn't you just call it a day and think that the others had stole your thunder a bit? coz I would
How much time did each speaker devote to their request for an apology? Was it a couple of seconds or several minutes?
David Cameron is equally a terrorist sypmathiser by backing what he calls the Free Syria Army. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
The FSA and Daesh are the same? You sure?
of course not, not to me, but to the Russians for example, just making the point about blurred lines. That said, his pointless figure of 70,000 FSA ground troops includes al-Qaeda forces currently opposed to Daesh, so he sympathises with them now it seems.
A question; If you was about to stand up in the House of Commons to demand an apology from the PM and 5 or 6 others had already done it before you, wouldn't you just call it a day and think that the others had stole your thunder a bit? coz I would
How much time did each speaker devote to their request for an apology? Was it a couple of seconds or several minutes?
I ain't watched it, seeing Salmond nearly go into cardiac arrest was enough for me
A question; If you was about to stand up in the House of Commons to demand an apology from the PM and 5 or 6 others had already done it before you, wouldn't you just call it a day and think that the others had stole your thunder a bit? coz I would
How much time did each speaker devote to their request for an apology? Was it a couple of seconds or several minutes?
I ain't watched it, seeing Salmond nearly go into cardiac arrest was enough for me
OK, I haven't seen it either and won't be searching it out. I thought you had seen it because you brought it up.
If it's a couple of seconds each, I don't see the problem with it. If they spent their whole speeches complaining about it, then I do see the problem.
I lived in Scotland for a few years while he was First Minister - he looks like that all the time.
Folly, such folly. Something has to be done to counter the fanatics of IS, but upping the stakes, as has now been done, will only escalate things further into madness and mayhem. Civilians will be in the firing line, both in Syria and here in the UK. The Military-Industrial complex commences yet another war, and public services in the UK are ripped to shreds as there's "not enough money" to sustain them.
"You choose your leaders and place your trust As their lies wash you down and their promises rust You'll see kidney machines replaced by rockets and guns And the public wants what the public gets But I don't get what this society wants. I'm going underground."
I keep reading people comparing this situation to the one in respect of Iraq that Blair presented to Parliament.
Firstly the decision to go to war in Iraq was based around intelligence (flawed though it was) with no external threat to our country (other than our base in Cyprus). It was after Iraq flouted U.N. resolution after resolution relating to WMD. It committed us to use ground forces and it came at a time when there was little consensus internationally about whether action was
a) required b) authorised
to enforce UN resolutions which arguably already authorised the use of force. It was in essence about regime change of a sovereign government.
This vote is about extending a mission that we have already committed to by the request of our ally Iraq who needed close air support to supplement both Iraqi Army and Kurdish Peshmerga ground forces. It commits us to attack those areas - supplying Daesh forces in Iraq but allowing us to degrade their forces, revenue earning, supply lines and HQ based across a non existent border in an area of Syria the size of the UK.
Those we are attacking have caused many foreign deaths both British and our European neighbours.
One of our closest allies has asked us to take part after its civilians were cruelly attacked. The Fascist death cult Daesh is perpetrating some of the most heinous crimes against innocents ever known. They are also intent on attacking our civilian population here at home. They will succeed eventually. I do not believe that sending a message that we are worried about their attacks upon us so much that we are afraid to attack them in Syria makes us safer. On the contrary, it will send a message of keep trying to attack us.
For me this is the easiest decision to agree to deploy forces that our Parliament is ever likely to approve short of tanks amassing across the English Channel.
Is the situation in Syria a simple one? No it isn't. It's extremely challenging to see how a resolution of the civil war is going to be achieved. That is no excuse for inaction in my view.
@Anna_Kissed can I ask what you mean by the military industrial complex in reference to the UK? I hear it used a lot and I'm not sure the literal meaning can be the same as its use here.
Military industrial complex example: each Brimstone missile costs £100,000 and someone is growing very wealthy through their increased demand and manufacture
I have no problem with bombing IS as long as the attackers (UK, USA, Russia, France etc) have a plan as to what should be done when IS is beaten and there is a vacuum in Syria. If they can't agree a plan then there is no pint in bombing as it will end up in another civil war war as did Iraq and Libya.
That bit is what I thought was meant by it. If anyone thinks that MBDA are capable of lobbying government to go to war to sell missiles they are sadly mistaken. The defence lobby in this country is good at sipping drinks abroad at ambassadors houses, they are not in and out of Downing Street, nor do they have the ear of the top military commanders. the US, perhaps, but not here or in Europe. Sorry chaps.
I have no problem with bombing IS as long as the attackers (UK, USA, Russia, France etc) have a plan as to what should be done when IS is beaten and there is a vacuum in Syria. If they can't agree a plan then there is no pint in bombing as it will end up in another civil war war as did Iraq and Libya.
Can't we learn from the mistakes of the past?
This is key, totally agree but fear we (collectively) don't. And that is shameful.
Military industrial complex example: each Brimstone missile costs £100,000 and someone is growing very wealthy through their increased demand and manufacture
So we never go to war for any reason because someone is gonna make some money out if it? I mean, we could wheel that argument out for virtually any cause can't we. I'm never going to the doctors because some shareholders from a multinational pharmaceutical company is gonna make a few quid off it
Comments
That said it is more of a travesty that one person wasted their time asking for an apology during the debate. Let alone 12! Typical grandstanding from attention seekers like salmond and flint. If they were against it, why waste time demanding an apology and make their case.
Many of which went onto form the Islamic state.
Thought Hilary Benn spoke extremely well.
Stone faced Corbyn looks more like Catweasel everytime I see him.
Livingstone and Abbot must be totally gutted.
We didn't bomb the Iraqi army though, we sacked them. There and then but let them keep their weapons!
New images from Syria, seems we fixed everything with our special bombs
One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
If it's a couple of seconds each, I don't see the problem with it. If they spent their whole speeches complaining about it, then I do see the problem.
I lived in Scotland for a few years while he was First Minister - he looks like that all the time.
An excellent 14 minutes. Corbett looks like he's sitting on something very uncomfortable throughout.
The Military-Industrial complex commences yet another war, and public services in the UK are ripped to shreds as there's "not enough money" to sustain them.
"You choose your leaders and place your trust
As their lies wash you down and their promises rust
You'll see kidney machines replaced by rockets and guns
And the public wants what the public gets
But I don't get what this society wants.
I'm going underground."
Firstly the decision to go to war in Iraq was based around intelligence (flawed though it was) with no external threat to our country (other than our base in Cyprus). It was after Iraq flouted U.N. resolution after resolution relating to WMD. It committed us to use ground forces and it came at a time when there was little consensus internationally about whether action was
a) required
b) authorised
to enforce UN resolutions which arguably already authorised the use of force. It was in essence about regime change of a sovereign government.
This vote is about extending a mission that we have already committed to by the request of our ally Iraq who needed close air support to supplement both Iraqi Army and Kurdish Peshmerga ground forces. It commits us to attack those areas - supplying Daesh forces in Iraq but allowing us to degrade their forces, revenue earning, supply lines and HQ based across a non existent border in an area of Syria the size of the UK.
Those we are attacking have caused many foreign deaths both British and our European neighbours.
One of our closest allies has asked us to take part after its civilians were cruelly attacked. The Fascist death cult Daesh is perpetrating some of the most heinous crimes against innocents ever known. They are also intent on attacking our civilian population here at home. They will succeed eventually. I do not believe that sending a message that we are worried about their attacks upon us so much that we are afraid to attack them in Syria makes us safer. On the contrary, it will send a message of keep trying to attack us.
For me this is the easiest decision to agree to deploy forces that our Parliament is ever likely to approve short of tanks amassing across the English Channel.
Is the situation in Syria a simple one? No it isn't. It's extremely challenging to see how a resolution of the civil war is going to be achieved. That is no excuse for inaction in my view.
Can't we learn from the mistakes of the past?