Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Disambiguation, Nov 17, 2015.
Cabinet approves Syria airstrikes motion
Twelve-point plan put forward by David Cameron is approved unanimously at weekly meeting devoted entirely to Syria
David Cameron’s cabinet has approved a 12-point motion designed to pave the way for Britain to extend its involvement in airstrikes on Islamic State targets from Iraq to Syria.
The motion, which is deliberately designed to reflect the motion passed by the Labour party at its conference in September, was approved unanimously by the cabinet at its weekly meeting, which was devoted entirely to Syria.
As the motion was published, Jeremy Corbyn increased the pressure on Labour MPs planning to support military action, warning them they may pay a political price and there was “no hiding place” for them.
Moar .... http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/01/cabinet-approves-syria-airstrikes-motion
DAVID CAMERON IS A FUCKING MORON!
Yes he is. But why ?
Okay, the hippocrits have done this:
These are in the wrong thread I think,
David Cameron warned Tory MPs against voting alongside “Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathizers” in a Commons debate on military action in Syria.
Anonymous @AnonPress 3 hours ago
It's a strange position to be in where releasing any threat/statement can lead to large media headlines. Great power, great responsibility..
Anonymous @AnonPress 3h3 hours ago
I am against the bombing of innocent people. The killing of children. To @David_Cameron I am a #terroristsympathiser, to me I am human.
David Cameron is a despicable human being. He is insane, and unfit to hold the office of Prime Minister. He should be pressured into resigning immediately, because he, and he alone will be responsible for the deaths of a multitude of innocent people.
House of Commons
Wednesday 2 December 2015 Meeting started at 11.34am
Patrick Cockburn: 'Britain is on the verge of entering into a long war in Syria based on wishful thinking and poor information'
By Patrick Cockburn / 02 December 2015
Jeremy Corbyn invited Patrick Cockburn to brief MPs on the facts about today’s Common’s vote on air strikes in Syria. He wrote a briefing for the public in the Independent.
Britain is on the verge of entering a conflict in Syria in which its political and military strategy is based on wishful thinking and poor information. British air strikes in Syria will be too few to make much difference to Isis, but are important because they signal Britain’s entry into what may be a long war.
In one crucial respect, David Cameron’s approach is similar to that which saw Britain fight two small but unsuccessful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003, in both cases without an effective local partner on the ground. Similarly in Syria, Britain will be at the mercy of events which are being shaped by the numerous other players in the conflict, all of whom have their own highly contradictory agendas.
Much of the debate around the feasibility of the British strategy has focused on Mr Cameron’s statement that we do indeed have a partner, of whose existence few were previously aware. He said that there are 70,000 “Syrian opposition fighters on the ground who do not belong to extremist groups”. The impression given is that there is a “third force” in Syria which will provide a powerful ally for the US, France and Britain.
This would be very convenient but, unfortunately, its existence is very debatable. “The notion that there are 70,000 moderate fighters is an attempt to show that you can fight Isis and [President Bashar al] Assad at the same time,” says Professor Joshua Landis, the director of the Centre for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma and an expert on Syrian politics. But he is dismissive of the idea that such a potential army exists, though he says there might be 70,000 Syrians with a gun who are fighting for their local clan, tribe, warlord or village. “The problem is that they hate the village down the road just as much they hate Isis and Assad,” he said.
The armed opposition to President Assad is dominated by Isis, the al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and the ideologically similar Ahrar al-Sham. Some of the smaller groups, once estimated by the CIA to number 1,500, might be labelled as moderate, but only operate under license from the extreme jihadists. Aymenn al-Tamimi, a fellow at the Middle East Forum and an authority on the Syrian armed opposition, says that these groups commonly exaggerate their numbers, are very fragmented and have failed to unite, despite years of war.
He recalls that one group he met during a recent visit to Latakia province in north-west Syria claimed to have 2,000 fighters, but probably numbered only 500.
He warns that they pretend to the outside world that they are more moderate than they really are, speaking of “the equality of all Syrians before the law” when they are outside Syria or communicating with people who have never been to the country, but express “hatred for Shia and Allawites” on all other occasions.
Mr Tamimi says that the smaller armed groups, which sometimes have good weapons supplied by the Americans, had acted as auxiliaries to Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham when they captured Idlib City in fierce fighting with the Syrian army in May.
Source - http://10014-4606www.versobooks.com...ased-on-wishful-thinking-and-poor-information
Anonymous @GroupAnon 44m44 minutes ago
Bombing in Syria will undoubtedly lead to civilian casualties. I hope the UK Parliament thinks hard. #SyriaVote
Anonymous @YourAnonNews 54m54 minutes ago
Say it loud, say it clear, no more war, no more fear! #DontBombSyria
Whole lotta stupid for one post partner.
And what do you think will happen when the Russians start shooting down British fighter jets?
Didn't think about that, did you.
Fuck off, you short sighted cunt.
Of course bombing the Middle East would have prevented the attack on Paris by all those European terrorists.
Bomb Belgium. That'll fix it.
Harry Fear @harryfear 17 minutes ago Turkey
BREAKING: #UK Parliament votes to extend anti-#ISIL air campaign to #Syria (397 votes to 223)
Glenn Greenwald: No strategic rationale why bombing Syria will weaken IS
MPs backing air strikes on Syria are concerned with projecting an image of the UK as a powerful relevant military actor, the journalist tells MEE
With the UK parliament set to vote today on whether to carry out air strikes against the Islamic State in Syria, leading US independent journalist Glenn Greenwald has warned that Britain "lacks any strategic rationale" to join other nations in bombing IS in Syria.
“The action we propose is legal,” said British Prime Minister David Cameron on Wednesday at the beginning of a marathon parliamentary debate on air strikes. “It is necessary and it is the right thing to do to keep our country safe.”
In an exclusive interview Greenwald, the founding editor of the investigative media outlet The Intercept, told Middle East Eye that Cameron’s wish to bomb IS in Syria is about Britain making itself out to be “some sort of powerful, relevant, military actor”.
“None of the Tory or Labour war advocates can remotely articulate any strategic rationale why bombing Syria will weaken, let alone destroy IS, and they don’t even seem to be trying to pretend,” Greenwald said.
“It’s all about the pose and self-image, showing Britain as [standing] up – from a nice safe distance of 30,000 feet in the air - to whoever is the newest Muslim villain group.”
Greenwald went on to say that previous British wars in the last 14 years in Iraq and Libya had “enabled IS in the first place” and that the military operations achieved nothing positive but “massive amounts of human suffering and dangerous instability”.
“The excitement and pulsating sense of purpose brought about by a new bombing campaign completely overwhelms those rational lessons,” he remarked.
Greenwald warned of the cycle of violence perpetuated by massive corporate profit and political power-seizures will have repercussions on the home soil of countries involved, where double standards will then consume the politicians backing the war.
“In the event of another horrific, violent attack in London, people like David Cameron, Hilary Benn, Liz Kendall and the rest of the Tory/Blairite war-mongers will pretend to be mystified that anyone would possibly want to bring violence to peaceful, loving Britain, completely ignoring their own role in fostering and fuelling endless violence,” he finished.
Source .... http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/g...onale-why-bombing-syria-will-weaken-935788953
Nothing to Fear But the Fearful Themselves
From Paris to San Bernardino
Turkey, Russia, & the Fallacy of “Collective Security”
Abolish NATO Before It Gets Us All Killed
Yes you are right
Personaly as a person I am really fed up with Islam
I tried to be reassonable but I got my ass kicked every wich way.
So stuff Allah in my ass
Maybe this will brighten your day, Kitty. 100 pages about external policies that helped in the creation of Daesh.
ISIS information leak
Sick, but very slick. This is why we have to take these motherfuckers out!
https://ia801509.us.archive.org/7/items/NoRespiteBOS/No Respite (BOS).mp4
Do you have a strategy or do you plan to continue saying we have to take these motherfuckers out forever?
Anon De Plume is just one of many people helping to combat ISIS. Our strategy is to have a strong team of capable people with a robust work ethic. and all of this effort is paying off, as we are having considerable success in taking down a massive amount of their websites & Twitter accounts. And continue to do so on a daily basis.
In the Wither III game bananas and cucumbers are very cheap at the classiest bordello in Novigrad
A relevant cross-post.
#OpISIS - A message from Anonymous and friends
ISIS is small state that brutally censors visiting journalists and its own people. As such it must be opposed. The question is in what manner should it be opposed.
We think it's great if people want to hack ISIS and publish their secrets. But engaging in social media censorship campaigns and dealing with intelligence contractors and government agents is deeply stupid. The former will contribute to legitimize the spread of internet censorship and will lead to the increased censorship for everyone, including Anonymous. Dealing with government agents et al will not only result in many more informers in Anonymous bu twill also damage its reputation as it will lead to a view that Anonymous is too close to US intelligence interests.
The same intelligence industry that runs their own NSA hacker operations against ISIS uses the same counter-terrorism justification to spy on everyday civilians with no regards for rights to privacy, encryption, or anonymity. They have always targeted Anonymous and other dissident groups as terrorists, and when they aren’t trying to discredit or imprison us, they are attempting to co-opt us – sometimes openly by attending conferences like DEFCON, seducing us with promises of money or calls for patriotic duty, other times covertly lurking around IRC channels attempting to steer us unwittingly into supporting their agenda.
We would like to strongly advise - while we cannot speak for the whole of Anonymous - to always release information to the public, as we want to operate in its interest. Any attempts to act in secrecy, supporting political or governmental organizations, will be discouraged by us or completely ignored to safeguard our allies and supporters fighting for openness and transparency within governments, dictatorships and organizations around the globe that control various aspects of our lives.
We are on the side of the oppressed, not the oppressors. We support the victims of war, not the war-makers.
You sure do make a lot of press releases, Anonymous. Mostly about yourself and what you are all about. It's starting to become a thing, an embarrassing thing.
Nobody knows what the fuck to do about ISIS, least of all you, obviously. So maybe try going outside to play?
Slap fight moved
Smells like Putin's butthurt.
Very reliable reports coming in from Iraqi Army personnel, about an American helicopter having landed in the vicinity of the Iraqi city of Anbar, to pick up ISIS Top brass / Commanders, who were being subjected to a heavy assault from the Iraqi Army. This happened two days ago, and was witnessed by a large section of the Iraqi Army. Apparently, this is not the first time that American Military helicopters have been observed landing in order to pick up ISIS Commanders who were being subjected to heavy ordinance fire.
This very same scenario also happened in the vicinity of the Iraq city of Diala (I month ago)
And in the vicinity of Tikrit (12 months ago)
WTF IS GOING ON?
When Iraq fell apart at the seams, ISIS got their hands on all sorts of American military equipment.
Would that be the same Iraqi army that formerly totally pussed out and walked away and abandoned all of the equipment they had been given and everything because they refused to duke it out with another musloid?
Yes, that is true. However, when it comes to American helicopters, none of them (ISIS) would have the technical ability, or the operational ability to actually enable them to pilot them.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!