Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Leanne1812

CLAPTON wrote: »

ISIL are are a sunni wahhabi fanatical sect: many of their commanders are formally Saddam's people.
They were/ are funded by Saudi Arabia

No they weren't funded by Cameron or even Tony

Yep, I did understand that much Clapton but is it quite so simple as that? I've just looked around and the list of factions is just incredible. I don't know where to begin......

I didn't suggest we funded them but armed by whom?

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You do realise you're quoting a website that features headlines such as...

'The Holocaust - A Jew on Jew false flag operation'

Even by CyberNat standards that's an outrageous source to be quoting if you expect anyone to take you seriously...

No I didn't actually. I do apologise ( sincerely) ..

Mabye the BBC will do ?

Syria air strikes 'kill 26 civilians'

Syrian activists say at least 26 civilians, including children, have been killed in the north-east of the country by air strikes possibly carried out by the US-led coalition.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based monitoring group, says the village of al-Khan, near al-Hawl in Hasakah province, was hit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35031531

“You cannot eliminate all risk," Mr Fallon said.

“It is very important for the campaign that we avoid mistakes. You can’t completely eliminate mistakes in wartime, but we do our best to ensure that any civilian damage is minimised. I also have to be sure that what’s being proposed is absolutely consistent with the rules of engagement that I set and that the Prime Minister has approved.”

“There are risks in any war and I hope the public will be ready for setbacks.”

https://www.politicshome.com/foreign-and-defence/articles/story/michael-fallon-admits-risk-civilian-casualties-syria-airstrikes

The vote in the HOC was won. There is no further need to stick to the 'no civilians ever harmed' line anymore. You're kidding yourself imo.

Shakethedisease

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Yep, I did understand that much Clapton but is it quite so simple as that? I've just looked around and the list of factions is just incredible. I don't know where to begin......

I didn't suggest we funded them but armed by whom?

Leanne, this piece in the Spectator today condenses the factions and politics at play down nicely. ( It is anti-intervention though ).

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/12/i-used-to-mock-non-interventionists-like-corbyn-but-events-have-proved-them-right/

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Mabye the BBC will do ?

Sure.

If the BBC report UK air strikes hit a village and killed civilians I'd be inclined to believe it.

Except of course that's not what's being reported.

1. An activist group is claiming a village was hit.

2. They speculate it might have been a coalition strike. (There are of course many countries in the coalition as you have frequently pointed out)

3. It might also have been a Russian strike.

4. Or for that matter Assad's forces.

If a credible news source reports UK airstrikes have killed civilians, then by all means, come back and post it.

Until then you're just indulging in speculation and rumour mongering.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Leanne, this piece in the Spectator today condenses the factions and politics at play down nicely.

And this piece in the Spectator shows the perspective of those attacked by Daesh in their own country...

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/12/for-us-kurds-western-intervention-is-a-lifeline/

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Sure.

If the BBC report UK air strikes hit a village and killed civilians I'd be inclined to believe it.

Except of course that's not what's being reported.

1. An activist group is claiming a village was hit.

2. They speculate it might have been a coalition strike. (There are of course many countries in the coalition as you have frequently pointed out)

3. It might also have been a Russian strike.

4. Or for that matter Assad's forces.

If a credible news source reports UK airstrikes have killed civilians, then by all means, come back and post it.

Until then you're just indulging in speculation and rumour mongering.

The BBC is credible according to yourself.

a UK-based monitoring group, says the village of al-Khan, near al-Hawl in Hasakah province, was hit.

And honestly, it isn't really the point. Fallon is telling the UK to 'prepare' for civilian deaths. All that guff about 'no civilians' being hit is being backtracked already. It won the day in the HOC on the day of the vote, and that was the point. Along with the 70,000 'friendly' troops ready to go. You've been sold a pup. I see no point in endless debate here over civilian deaths being or not being a part of a war or a heavy bombing campaign. Because they almost always are.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And this piece in the Spectator shows the perspective of those attacked by Daesh in their own country...

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/12/for-us-kurds-western-intervention-is-a-lifeline/

The German Vice Chancellor is probably on the right track. Cameron should be 100% behind this. The far right are rising fast in France and Donald Trump is now saying Muslims should be banned from traveling to the US altogether.

Germany has publicly warned Saudi Arabia against further financing religious radicals globally.

German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel’s demand to cut money flowing to the Wahhabis comes as some lawmakers are growing weary of Saudi-funded radical mosques. Gabriel stressed that the Saudi regime has been funding mosques known for radicalizing the Muslim population, including in various communities in Europe.

“We have to make clear to the Saudis that the time of looking away is over,” Mr Gabriel, Merkel’s deputy and the head of the Social Democrats (SPD), told Bild am Sonntag newspaper. “Wahhabi mosques all over the world are financed by Saudi Arabia. Many Islamists who are a threat to public safety come from these communities in Germany.”

https://www.rt.com/news/324936-germany-criticizes-saudi-arabia/

The UK should be very careful as to what and whom it's committing to long term. Because those allies have elections too which can 'change things utterly'.

Generali

@STD - As previously stated, You Gov have not updated their polling methodology:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9558

If you're going to make stuff up at least credit the people you're lying to with a little intelligence.

Leanne1812

Shakes, Hamish, I read both articles and the common theme seems to be no defeat without ground troops which at the moment no gov is willing to commit. It's a quandary as while I understand the reticence it's clear air strikes are not going to be effective in total annihilation.

A long, drawn out bloody battle is what I see ahead. Even then I'm not convinced it will lead to more stability in the region.

chris_m

Shakethedisease wrote: »

and Donald Trump is now saying Muslims should be banned from traveling to the US altogether.

I wouldn't place any credence whatsoever, nor base any action, on anything Trump says. He's trying to get himself elected, so will say anything to achieve that end. However, based on lots of other rubbish he's spouted, I take the view that he's an out and out racist (amongst other things) nutter.

God help the USA if the GOP selects him, and God help the world if the USA elects him