Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Leanne1812

CLAPTON wrote: »

do you support Uncle Alex's position, that it's a good thing to provide weaponry for ground troop in Iraq?

I don't see why not if they have cut IS in half in Iraq. I'd need to look into it some more to be fair. I say yes purely from listened to Alex in the video. Do you see a problem if we were to do this?

Leanne1812

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You seem to be confusing separate issues.

The UK has been conducting air strikes against ISIS targets in Iraq for over a year and there have been zero reported civilian casualties from UK airstrikes.

Other nations (ie Russia) may be less discriminate in their bombing in Syria, and certainly Assad has been less discriminate in his bombing, but it is demonstrably the case that the UK has not created a "terrible death toll" leading to the "destruction of towns & cities" with our bombing of ISIS targets so far in either Iraq or Syria.

The UK airstrikes against ISIS in Syria have followed this same pattern.

So are you now agreeing that IF the UK continues to act in the way it has done against ISIS to date this is OK?

Call me cynical Hamish but I'm not convinced that is the truth.

Don't you see whether it is us or another nation who kills civilians due to air strikes as far as IS, their sympathisers & ordinary citizens caught up in this conflict we are all as one.

I'll reiterate if only infrastructure is targeted then I can't disagree.

I've just read an article which seems to support my view.


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/04/is-uk-claim-zero-civilian-casualties-iraq-airstrikes-credible

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Leanne, putting aside for a moment the SNP position...

You seem to agree that ISIS are a horrific organisation that represent a threat to UK citizens both here at home and around the world?

You also seem to agree that the bombing of the ISIS controlled oilfields that fund their terror campaign was a positive step?

If the UK can continue to target ISIS terrorists and infrastructure without bombing civilians, as it has done in Iraq for over a year, do you still believe we shouldn't?

If so why?

Support for airstrikes is disappearing like 'snaw aff a dyke'... ( snow off a wall ).. and I'll bet in 6 months time everyone will be saying 'omg, what are we even there for'...



Neither the SNP or the Scottish Labour party backed them for the simple reason that they knew that going for them isn't what most Scots wanted to happen.

Are you 100% happy to believe this YouGov subsample poll Hamish, like the last one ?

However, for what it's worth, as of Wednesday and Thursday the scepticism about military action had reached record levels.

Approve or disapprove of air strikes? (Britain-wide)
Approve 44% (-4)
Disapprove 36% (+5)

Among the Scottish subsample, there was a similar swing in opinion, but as support for air strikes had been lower in the first place, that proved sufficient to push 'Disapprove' into a clear lead -

Approve or disapprove of air strikes? (Scottish subsample)
Approve 39% (-5)
Disapprove 45% (+4)

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/when-yougov-produced-its-dramatic-poll.html

Generali

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Call me cynical Hamish but I'm not convinced that is the truth.

Don't you see whether it is us or another nation who kills civilians due to air strikes as far as IS, their sympathisers & ordinary citizens caught up in this conflict we are all as one.

I'll reiterate if only infrastructure is targeted then I can't disagree.

I've just read an article which seems to support my view.


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/04/is-uk-claim-zero-civilian-casualties-iraq-airstrikes-credible

Even the article states that this has been the modern war that has had the fewest civilian casualties and even then that is despite the deliberate and cowardly actions of ISIS in hiding among the civilian population.

Apart from the, the article seems to be very long on supposition and very short on fact. Surprising that given that there are so many people that seem to be desperate to find some evidence that the UK is killing civilians (as an unfortunate side effect as opposed to ISIS's deliberate policy of murder and rape) and all of them have managed to document 0 deaths.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

the article seems to be very long on supposition and very short on fact.

Surprising that given that there are so many people that seem to be desperate to find some evidence that the UK is killing civilians.

Indeed.

We've had 15 months of participation in air strikes against Daesh who are extremely media savvy with propaganda and have plenty of incentive to provide evidence had we got it wrong.

If we were indiscriminately bombing civilians there is no way it wouldn't have got out.

The MOD are being extremely cautious with targeting and are using extremely accurate precision munitions, which of course also means they have high resolution imagery of every strike available to dispute spurious claims of collateral damage.

It is highly probable then that there have in fact been zero civilian casualties from UK air strikes just as they claim.

MFW_ASAP

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You seem to be confusing separate issues.

The UK has been conducting air strikes against ISIS targets in Iraq for over a year and there have been zero reported civilian casualties from UK airstrikes.

Other nations (ie Russia) may be less discriminate in their bombing in Syria, and certainly Assad has been less discriminate in his bombing, but it is demonstrably the case that the UK has not created a "terrible death toll" leading to the "destruction of towns & cities" with our bombing of ISIS targets so far in either Iraq or Syria.

So are you now agreeing that IF the UK continues to act in the way it has done against ISIS to date this is OK?

Doesn't having the UK join in with air strikes, lend legitimacy to other countries involved in bombing who may not be as accurate with their destruction?

MFW_ASAP

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Indeed.

We've had 15 months of participation in air strikes against Daesh who are extremely media savvy with propaganda and have plenty of incentive to provide evidence had we got it wrong.

If we were indiscriminately bombing civilians there is no way it wouldn't have got out.

The MOD are being extremely cautious with targeting and are using extremely accurate precision munitions, which of course also means they have high resolution imagery of every strike available to dispute spurious claims of collateral damage.

It is highly probable then that there have in fact been zero civilian casualties from UK air strikes just as they claim.

Excerpt from BBC:
Conservative MP Johnny Mercer told Newsbeat. "We are using very precise, very lethal weapons."
But Tim Eaton says Britain must be very cautious here.
"While [RAF] weapons are accurate they rely upon strong intelligence.
"So far we've been reluctant to hit targets unless we're very sure about what they are.
"We don't have a lot of intelligence data to act upon so the truth is we won't be dropping many bombs."

If the idea of airstrikes is to destroy/degrade IS then dropping a few bombs on already bombed out infrastructure seems futile and pointless. If you were Daesh would you:

a) Place your arms cache and soldiers in an army camp.
b) Place them in hospitals, mosques, schools, homes.

We are involved in Syria for political reasons, no more no less. We curry favour with the likes of the French, US, Russia and all the other participants. It's a complete disgrace to pretend otherwise. We cannot beat a terrorist organisation by just dropping bombs and hoping for the best. If we could then why didn't we do this in Afghanistan?

princeofpounds

The targeting of air strikes against ISIS has been exceptionally careful. Probably too careful to be effective.


To give you an example of this; it was only after the French attacks that the coalition actually started to bomb ISIS's oil trucks.


When they did, they dropped leaflets 45mins beforehand to tell people to leave their trucks. Then they fired warning shots. Only then did they take out the trucks themselves.


Can you believe that? These people were mostly civilians of a sort, but they were engaged in facilitating ISIS's primary source of funding.


I was kind of amazed that they hadn't taken them out before, but it explains a lot on reflection, in terms of how ISIS have been able to continue operating. You aren't going to achieve much if you won't even touch the supply lines of your enemy.

.string.

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Nicola Sturgeon has issued a statement about the SNP & last weeks vote.

http://www.snp.org/the_fight_against_daesh_is_one_that_cannot_be_shirked_and_which_must_be_won

Regarding N. Sturgeon's comments on the HoC vote to extend bombing missions into Syria, N.Surgeon makes: one or twp

She states:
As such, David Cameron’s words, apparently overheard in a meeting of Tory MPs, equating those who oppose UK strikes to a “bunch of terrorist sympathisers” were as unworthy of the Prime Minister as they are palpably false.

Cameron did not actually say that although some have chosen to interpret it that way. It is clear that he accepts that some were voting from legitimate viewpoints (e.g. Pacifism, or political strategy differences), he was of course targeting Cornyn and McDonnell, both of whom have attracted that type of aura.


I have not been able to find the whole of what Cameron said and what I've heard were clumsy wording, but Sturgeon is just spinning a second hand lie.

She states:
"the 70,000 supposed fighters are neither a unified force waiting for the chance to capitalise on Western bombing – rather, they are a disparate patchwork of often conflicting militias – nor are they likely to be as moderate and in tune with UK and allied objectives as Mr Cameron has made out."


Actually the reference to 70,000 fighters was in the context of political process (hopefully the culmination of the Vienna talks) being successful in achieving a new agreed Syrian government. He was not referring to those fighters being about to attack Daesh because, as is obvious, they are otherwise involved at present. In that context I would not think 70,000 was unreasonable. I'd not call Sturgeons remark on this a Lie, more a scurrilous misrepresentation (spin).


She states:
"the warnings from security chiefs about the reliability of this claim has disturbing echoes of Tony Blair’s “dodgy dossier” from 2003, with its roundly discredited claims about the UK being 45 minutes from attack from – we now know non-existent – Iraqi weapons of mass destruction."[/]

There were two Dossiers, the second Dossier was given the name Dodgy Dossier largely as a result of it being hugely plagiarized from some other report (student's thesis if I remember correctly). The term Dodgy has in the meantime been extended to the first Dossier with all the self-righteousness of hindsight.

Whatever - the 45 minutes was a late addition to the first Dossier, if I recall correctly. It referred to a 45 minute "order to deployment" time for use in a battlefield scenario, not intercontinental rocket attacks (nerve gas or some such). It was not claimed that Saddam had the capability to attack the UK with WMD, it was claimed that Iraq was developing long range rockets (true) which included the base in Cyprus in their range.

I don't know what bearing Iraq had on Sturgeon's rant, but whatever it was, she had her facts wrong.


Edit: I forgot to mention this:

Sturgeon also stated:
"Of course there is a danger in any talk of a political and diplomatic solution sounding glib. You cannot negotiate with Daesh – that much is clear. But what surely must be possible, in the medium to longer term, is a political settlement that ends the fighting in Syria between the other non-Daesh factions, thus depriving the extremists of the chaos and catastrophe in which they have been allowed to thrive."

I guess she had not noticed that such a process is already ongoing and is part of the strategy that the UK Government is pursuing.

.string.

Leanne1812 wrote: »

The government wanted to join forces with these 'Rebels' to fight Assad just 2 years ago. Do you feel the same contempt for them?

Your post made me check on when this Daesh business started.

I found this interesting article --- The Rise of ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria/ISIL/Daesh)

https://www.academia.edu/12872052/The_Rise_of_ISIS_Islamic_State_in_Iraq_and_Syria_ISIL_Daesh_

Basically it states that Daesh started in the latter part of 2014 as a result of the then-Iraq Government not workng well with the Sunnis. Daesh started there and expanded into Syria to fill the vacuum left by the civil war.

It's just possible that the decisions of the West not to intervene in Syria may have contributed too the rise of Daesh and the establishment of what is now almost a state.
The Isis papers: leaked documents show how Isis is building its state

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/07/leaked-isis-document-reveals-plan-building-state-syria