Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
peterms

Tunisia, Egypt, Libya... Arab Countries in Revolt

Recommended Posts

Not sure this is quite the right place to post this. Could just as easily have gone in the cheer you up thread.

 

Munich, 3 September 2015: Germany is currently experiencing its greatest influx of refugees for many decades. This presents a special challenge to the state and society. FC Bayern München will play an active part in meeting the challenge and, working closely with the city of Munich and state of Bavaria, contribute financial, material and practical help.

FC Bayern via its youth section plans to establish a “Training camp” for refugees over the coming weeks. Municipal authorities will assume essential organisational tasks. Kids and youths will train at FC Bayern at intervals to be determined later, take German classes, and be provided with meals and football kit.

FC Bayern München AG will additionally donate €1 million from a friendly match to refugee support projects. The projects will be selected after liaison with Bavarian interior minister Joachim Herrmann and Mayor of Munich Dieter Reiter.

At the club’s next match against FC Augsburg on 12 September, our players will be escorted onto the Allianz Arena pitch hand-in-hand with a German child and a refugee child as a mark of support for the integration of refugees.

FC Bayern president Karl-Hopfner also announced measures to be taken by the club’s charity foundation FC Bayern Hilfe eV. The foundation is especially keen to raise the spirits of children from refugee families by providing activities and events in the period before Christmas.

“We at FC Bayern consider it our socio-political responsibility to help displaced and needy children, women and men, supporting and assisting them in Germany,” commented FC Bayern München chairman Karl-Heinz Rummenigge.

Bavarian interior minister Joachim Herrmann (CSU) welcomed FC Bayern’s plans to help refugees: “This is a wonderful and exemplary programme which I fully welcome and support – another magnificent example of the willingness to help and welcoming culture in our country.”

Mayor of Munich Dieter Reiter (SPD) commented: “FC Bayern is laying down an important marker and I am delighted with the club’s significant commitment. I have consequently also gladly pledged the support of the city of Munich.”

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RAF drone strike killed two British terrorists in Syria. I'd love to know how an unmanned drone acts in "self-defence".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting though how the story has always been that drones over Syria were never armed and only there for reconnaissance. Not that we'll ever know the details of what happened here but it does appear to be a change in policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting though how the story has always been that drones over Syria were never armed and only there for reconnaissance. Not that we'll ever know the details of what happened here but it does appear to be a change in policy.

Mr Cameron said, after the coalition government lost the vote in 2013, " ...I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons. It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting though how the story has always been that drones over Syria were never armed and only there for reconnaissance. Not that we'll ever know the details of what happened here but it does appear to be a change in policy.

Mr Cameron said, after the coalition government lost the vote in 2013, " ...I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons. It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly."

 

With respect there is a huge difference between military action in the sense of attacking a foreign regime, and a pin-point strike to assassinate a specific terrorist. Both use military tools but on a vastly different scale. If the intelligence services presented clear reports to the NSC that these guys were a particular threat, over and above your run of the mill jihadi they have a duty to act. Cameron can't exactly call Damascus and ask to have them arrested.   However, they could just as easily have got the Americans to pull the trigger and avoided any messy fallout from moon howlers in the UK. They wanted this to be a job done with British assets to send a psychological message to the Jihadi community in the UK. It will be interesting to see how that message is received.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

moon howlers in the UK.

Who? :huh:

Not you!! Just the usual types more concerned with the rights of a psychotic terrorist than the safety of the UK population. Think some Doris from Reprieve was on the telebox banging her gums about it earlier.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect there is a huge difference between military action in the sense of attacking a foreign regime, and a pin-point strike to assassinate a specific terrorist.

'With respect', there isn't really.

What makes it not covered by Cameron's respecting the will of the House of Commons? Why wouldn't any other military strike on anyone else in Syria (I can't believe that, if IS does represent the direct danger to the UK that other Cameron speeches/articles have said, that these two Herberts are the only potential targets) also be justified in the same manner?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

With respect there is a huge difference between military action in the sense of attacking a foreign regime, and a pin-point strike to assassinate a specific terrorist.

'With respect', there isn't really.

What makes it not covered by Cameron's respecting the will of the House of Commons? Why wouldn't any other military strike on anyone else in Syria (I can't believe that, if IS does represent the direct danger to the UK that other Cameron speeches/articles have said, that these two Herberts are the only potential targets) also be justified in the same manner?

I've tried to explain what I believe the difference to be in the part of the post you didn't quote. You don't accept my interpretation, fair enough. Seems little point in going round and round on it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not you!! Just the usual types more concerned with the rights of a psychotic terrorist than the safety of the UK population. Think some Doris from Reprieve was on the telebox banging her gums about it earlier.

I worry about this kind of comment.

I didn't hear the woman from Reprieve and what she said but it sounds like an 'if you don't agree with taking out bad guys in whatever way we can and do then you're one of the usual types more concerned with the rights of the wrong people'.

There's plenty of room in between the extremes to question what the UK government (in our instance) has done and does do, its trustworthiness and its intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tried to explain what I believe the difference to be in the part of the post you didn't quote. You don't accept my interpretation, fair enough. Seems little point in going round and round on it.

So simply scale then - as it can't be the foreign regime bit otherwise that would surely encompass any and all strikes on IS as they're not recognized as a regime by the UK are they?

What doesn't count under the accepting the will of the house? A one off? One a week? One a day?

 

Edit: My point is not about whether the strikes themselves are the right thing to do but as per my previous point about questioning the actions, intent, &c. of the state.

Edited by snowychap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say I'm overly upset by this.

They had some friend of the relatives on the radio saying this was Britain killing Brits abroad and we will need an investigation. Yep, needs to be investigated, totally agree. Then in the afternoon after the investigation I'd like that investigation published.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tried to explain what I believe the difference to be in the part of the post you didn't quote. You don't accept my interpretation, fair enough. Seems little point in going round and round on it.

So simply scale then - as it can't be the foreign regime bit otherwise that would surely encompass any and all strikes on IS as they're not recognized as a regime by the UK are they?

What doesn't count under the accepting the will of the house? A one off? One a week? One a day?

 

Edit: My point is not about whether the strikes themselves are the right thing to do but as per my previous point about questioning the actions, intent, &c. of the state.

The parliamentary vote in 2013 was specifically about striking the Assad regime over its use of WMDs.  As a result the campaign was aborted but the PM said at the time he reserved the right to act in specific circumstances (such as the emergence of a direct threat) and to inform Parliament after the event.

The legality or otherwise of any military action is not conferred by Parliamentary vote but derives from international law, in this case Article 51 of the UN Charter.  Cameron is legally entitled under the Royal Prerogative to do this as often as he wants if he believes he is responding to a direct threat to national security - the right to self defence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say I'm overly upset by this.

They had some friend of the relatives on the radio saying this was Britain killing Brits abroad and we will need an investigation. Yep, needs to be investigated, totally agree. Then in the afternoon after the investigation I'd like that investigation published.

I'd like to see the evidence. I'm also aware that it is likely that there are still active investigations happening which are likely to be jeopardised by releasing anything at this time. Time will have to tell on this one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A clear message needs to be sent out to british Jihadist's. Today this was a clear message and personally I am all for it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say I'm overly upset by this.

They had some friend of the relatives on the radio saying this was Britain killing Brits abroad and we will need an investigation. Yep, needs to be investigated, totally agree. Then in the afternoon after the investigation I'd like that investigation published.

I'd like to see the evidence. I'm also aware that it is likely that there are still active investigations happening which are likely to be jeopardised by releasing anything at this time. Time will have to tell on this one.

yep agreed, but it feels a bit like a very very small side story, I don't think this one incident turns Cameron into Blair mkII

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The parliamentary vote in 2013 was specifically about striking the Assad regime over its use of WMDs.

The motion put by the government and voted upon was that but subsequent to the result being called the following exchange was had (see Hansard 29 Aug 2013 cols 1055,1056 as per link at bottom of post - link button in editor doesn't seem to be working for me) :

10.31 pm

Edward Miliband: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There having been no motion passed by this House tonight, will the Prime Minister confirm to the House that, given the will of the House that has been expressed tonight, he will not use the royal prerogative to order the UK to be part of military action before there has been another vote in the House of Commons?

Mr Speaker: That is of course not a matter for the Chair, but the Prime Minister has heard the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order, and he is welcome to respond.

The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I can give that assurance. Let me say that the House has not voted for either motion tonight. I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons, but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons. It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion,

29 Aug 2013 : Column 1556

the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the Government will act accordingly.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that response.

 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130829/debtext/130829-0004.htm

Edited by snowychap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...
Â