The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Eames]

58 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Sadly she lacked humor, compassion, warmth, a heart and empathy.

Ah no-one's perfect. 

[MakemineVanilla]

1 hour ago, Mantis said:

Or maybe they just believe (rightly or wrongly) that we should be doing something to combat ISIS, especially when we're already fighting them in Syria? You don't have to agree with their decision but to claim that they voted for air strikes for "political advantage" is a bit ridiculous.

It's not like they voted to bomb civilians anyway.

I just can't imagining these ISIS death cultists with guns, knives and bad attitudes, doing their own washing and catering every time they gather at their command hubs to discuss their strategy.

I kind of imagine that they will compel some civilians to do that sort of stuff for them and so  civilians are likely to be present when the RAF makes one of their famous surgical strikes.

So civilians are going die and the only way Cameron can avoid this is by reclassifying the woman who pops in to cook the flat bread and clean the bogs as a combatant. 

As for political advantage. With everything decided before the vote, there was only one reason for Benn making his headline-grabbing speech and that was for political advantage.

He could have just voted but he saw it as an opportunistic chance he could exploit.

[snowychap]

7 hours ago, Awol said:

You came back with a quote from Benn saying others had made legitimate arguments, effectively answering a question I hadn't asked. 

I actually said Mr Benn had said the following:

Quote

I accept that there are legitimate arguments, and we have heard them in the debate, for not taking this form of action now.

Which is not just that the arguments had been legitimate but that they had been arguing for not taking this form of action now, i.e. that they had been arguments contrary to the argument which Mr Benn made.

7 hours ago, Awol said:

However Julian Lewis' argument revolves around a lack of ground forces, implying the commitment is insufficient. I'm pretty sure that's not a relevant position for the left wingers who are criticizing Benn's speech.

Julian Lewis's argument was against the government motion. It was an argument that was on the other side of the fence to the argument Mr Benn made.

His argument doesn't just revolve around a lack of ground forces from what I can remember of it, it also went on to speak about inconsistency of government positions (having wanted to bomb side A one year and side B a year or two later) and also for the need, in his view, for the UK to make a choice between two evils, i.e. support dictatorships.

You asked what were the arguments given and I gave you one but as that isn't a relevant position for the left wingers who are criticizing Mr Benn's speech (Am I in that box? Do I get a choice about it or have you appointed yourself Comrade I/C of political categorization? ), it isn't apparently a valid answer to your question.

It sounds as though you ought to tell people who may be critical of Mr Benn's speech what counter position they are permitted to take and what arguments they are allowed to make so that you can then deconstruct and rebut them.

[mjmooney]

I see the media are getting all outraged because some of the pro-bombing Labour MPs have got some unpleasant abuse on social media. Well I see gung-ho right wing Britain First types handing out the same sort of stuff to 'terrorist loving' left wing softies on a daily basis. But, strangely, I've never seen that reported on the BBC news at six. Funny, that.

[tonyh29]

6 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I can't help it, I seem to admire Corbyn more with each day that passes.

It makes a change to get a party leader with principles rather than revolting oleaginous phonies like Blair and Cameron.

Hopefully last night's vote will lead to a purge of all those Blairite sinecurists who see political advantage in bombing civilians.  

Power at any cost, as long as someone else bears that cost.

 

Your last sentence could almost sum up Corbyn's economic policies .... 

We aren't Russia or even America so so far we are on zero civilian deaths as I understand it ,... hypothetically of course but  If it came down to it and 500 civilian deaths would save 5000 deaths ... Would you still say it was wrong and it would be better to let the 5000'innocent die ?

[Mantis]

3 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I just can't imagining these ISIS death cultists with guns, knives and bad attitudes, doing their own washing and catering every time they gather at their command hubs to discuss their strategy.

I kind of imagine that they will compel some civilians to do that sort of stuff for them and so  civilians are likely to be present when the RAF makes one of their famous surgical strikes.

So civilians are going die and the only way Cameron can avoid this is by reclassifying the woman who pops in to cook the flat bread and clean the bogs as a combatant. 

As for political advantage. With everything decided before the vote, there was only one reason for Benn making his headline-grabbing speech and that was for political advantage.

He could have just voted but he saw it as an opportunistic chance he could exploit.

Nobody's claiming that airstrikes will wipe them out completely but so far our contribution in Iraq over the past 14 months has brought modest success and few if any civilian casualties. It's not as if we're just carpet-bombing Syria, which is what some opponents of airstrikes have been making out.

He spoke because he's the shadow foreign secretary. Why is he not allowed to make his case like so many dozens of other people did without being accused of being opportunistic?

[snowychap]

5 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

If it came down to it and 500 civilian deaths would save 5000 deaths ... Would you still say it was wrong and it would be better to let the 5000'innocent die ?

I'm always very mistrustful of anyone advocating such a utilitarian mode of decision making.

I become more convinced as and when they begin offering up their loved ones to be amongst the 500 to go.

[tonyh29]

21 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I'm always very mistrustful of anyone advocating such a utilitarian mode of decision making.

I become more convinced as and when they begin offering up their loved ones to be amongst the 500 to go.

I don't believe I was advocating anything or making any decision I just offered it up there ...

Sometimes leaders have to make decisions we may not agree with them but they still have to be made .... In this case there is now a united Europe and it will quite possibly help convince Putin to stop propping up Assad and bombing civilians on his behalf  and instead bomb the bejebus out of ISIS instead 

so actually our decision could possibly save civilian lives 

[ROTTERDAM1982]

You can't put principles before reality though can you.Sometimes in life you have to make tough, uncomfortable, difficult decisions to get the right results.

 I don't think JC would be capable of that.

I think you are missing the point mrmooney, the threats to Labour MPs is a direct threat to their livelihood from within their, supposed supporters.These supporters insist on inflicting their narrow minded minority views onto the general public.They are bullying and threatening their own people, members of their own party, do as you are told or else.For me they deserve no place in a supposed democracy.

[snowychap]

14 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I don't believe I was advocating anything or making any decision I just offered it up there ...

Did I say that you were?

I'm mistrustful of anyone advocating that kind of decision making whosoever it may be.

Quote

so actually our decision could possibly save civilian lives 

It may, it may not. That's immaterial to a discussion of the 500 v 5000 (or the 1 v 5000000).

[snowychap]

4 minutes ago, ROTTERDAM1982 said:

They are bullying and threatening their own people, members of their own party, do as you are told or else.For me they deserve no place in a supposed democracy.

I agree that we should ban Whips.

[tonyh29]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

Did I say that you were?

I'm mistrustful of anyone advocating that kind of decision making whosoever it may be.

It may, it may not. That's immaterial to a discussion of the 500 v 5000 (or the 1 v 5000000).

You directly quoted me and wrote your comment , so in a nutshell yes , you were

[tonyh29]

8 minutes ago, ROTTERDAM1982 said:

You can't put principles before reality though can you.Sometimes in life you have to make tough, uncomfortable, difficult decisions to get the right results.

 I don't think JC would be capable of that.

I think you are missing the point mrmooney, the threats to Labour MPs is a direct threat to their livelihood from within their, supposed supporters.These supporters insist on inflicting their narrow minded minority views onto the general public.They are bullying and threatening their own people, members of their own party, do as you are told or else.For me they deserve no place in a supposed democracy.

Sometimes one like just isn't enough , have an Internet or something as well 

[snowychap]

11 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

You directly quoted me and wrote your comment , so in a nutshell yes , you were

I was quoting the part of your post which had the hypothetical scenario you were 'just offering up there' in order to make a comment on those who would make decisions on that basis in that hypothetical scenario.

I wasn't excluding you from those people in my original post as I didn't know until your subsequent post whether or not you were a part of that number but I wasn't saying that you were either. So, in all the nutshells under the sun, I wasn't.

Edited December 3, 2015 by snowychap

[Xann]

23 minutes ago, ROTTERDAM1982 said:

You can't put principles before reality

This reality is a knock on effect from previous let's bomb exploits.

Since they're being bombed by the bombing specialists anyway? Why bother? Is there a better plan about what to do after the bombing stage?

The money to pay for this would be of great use at home.

 

China committing forces changes things.

Perhaps getting involved would be worth the resources for the symbolic message.

The old and the new World powers (the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council to boot) coming together to stamp out religious barbarism would be tres formidable.

 

[tonyh29]

6 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I just can't imagining these ISIS death cultists with guns, knives and bad attitudes, doing their own washing and catering every time they gather at their command hubs to discuss their strategy.

I kind of imagine that they will compel some civilians to do that sort of stuff for them and so  civilians are likely to be present when the RAF makes one of their famous surgical strikes.

So civilians are going die and the only way Cameron can avoid this is by reclassifying the woman who pops in to cook the flat bread and clean the bogs as a combatant. 

As for political advantage. With everything decided before the vote, there was only one reason for Benn making his headline-grabbing speech and that was for political advantage.

He could have just voted but he saw it as an opportunistic chance he could exploit.

Just him or also  the other 156 MP's  that got up and spoke ?

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, ROTTERDAM1982 said:

 

I think you are missing the point mrmooney, the threats to Labour MPs is a direct threat to their livelihood from within their, supposed supporters.These supporters insist on inflicting their narrow minded minority views onto the general public.They are bullying and threatening their own people, members of their own party, do as you are told or else.For me they deserve no place in a supposed democracy.

These narrow minded views that people are inflicting on others.

The public in general is roughly 50 / 50 split on this (though with a strange lack of good opinion polls). The members that fund the Labour party are 75% against the extension of bombing. The majority of the PLP voted against, the party leader voted against.

I'd suggest that the 67 MP's (if anyone) are inflicting a minority view on others in a 'supposed democracy'. If my MP that I directly funded didn't agree with me and the other funders and volunteers, I'd want a different representative.

However, Labour unlike the Conservatives, made this a free vote. So I do actually think this labour 'split' was a positive thing. Incidentally, still nothing in the media on the 14 votes against and abstentions from tories defying a 3 line whip. I find that odd. Not in a conspiracy way, in a poor journalism looking to follow the pack sort of way.

[tonyh29]

Labour made it a free vote after they found out 60+ MP's were going to vote against the party regardless , so I'm not sure you can really use that in your argument in this instance 

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Labour made it a free vote after they found out 60+ MP's were going to vote against the party regardless , so I'm not sure you can really use that in your argument in this instance 

Right decision for wobbly reasons is still a right decision. Hopefully, eventually, it will be accepted that all MP's should use their conscience not their pager on matters of war.

 

[tonyh29]

4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Right decision for wobbly reasons is still a right decision. Hopefully, eventually, it will be accepted that all MP's should use their conscience not their pager on matters of war.

 

Sounds like in a roundabout way you are saying we are right to bomb then ?

 

but I'm still not sure the correct decision by wobbly methods is grounds to claim a "victory"  ... But If bicks can claim osbornes u-turn on tax credits as a labour victory then the Tories  can claim labours u-turn on a free vote as a victory for them