Shadow Cabinet Anger Over Shock Corbyn Letter

[Osem]

Originally Posted by tweedle

A lot of people I've been talking to today are of the same opinion. It seems Syria went out the window and all Labour wanted to do was moan about being called names.

A mixture of political point scoring (own goals mainly it seems) and the usual hypocrisy. The nastiness in Labour has always been there not very far under the surface, no matter what the likes of Corbyn try to pretend. Some of their own are finding out for themselves just how nasty...

[ianch99]

^^ wow, never saw this post coming

[tweedle]

Originally Posted by ianch99

^^ wow, never saw this post coming

Do you ever make constructive comments? You need to understand people are reacting to MP's getting police protection, yes right now labour MPs are under police protection. It seems some people want to terrorise MPs for their beliefs/opinions.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So it would be "democratic" to listen to the 31% who opposed air strikes, against the 48% who supported them?

And if we are going to run the country/our political parties by polling, it doesn't look very good for Mr Corbyn (from the Times article linked to in your link).

It might be an idea to to have the majority of the country supporting our leaders call for something as serious as war, no wonder it was rushed through without even delaying for a second days debate or a coherent plan, support is waining daily for Dave's folly

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Osem

A mixture of political point scoring (own goals mainly it seems) and the usual hypocrisy. The nastiness in Labour has always been there not very far under the surface, no matter what the likes of Corbyn try to pretend. Some of their own are finding out for themselves just how nasty...

There is a element of nastiness in all political parties so its nothing new.

---------- Post added at 05:17 ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 ----------

Originally Posted by tweedle

Do you ever make constructive comments? You need to understand people are reacting to MP's getting police protection, yes right now labour MPs are under police protection. It seems some people want to terrorise MPs for their beliefs/opinions.

Sadly there is always a very tiny minority who do this and one hopes the book gets thrown at them as its inexcusable.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

It might be an idea to to have the majority of the country supporting our leaders call for something as serious as war, no wonder it was rushed through without even delaying for a second days debate or a coherent plan, support is waining daily for Dave's folly

It was a majority last week. You can't decide these matters based on polling.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by tweedle

Do you ever make constructive comments?

Nice try ..

[Osem]

Originally Posted by tweedle

Do you ever make constructive comments? You need to understand people are reacting to MP's getting police protection, yes right now labour MPs are under police protection. It seems some people want to terrorise MPs for their beliefs/opinions.

Well the truth hurts some poor folks you know.

For goodness sake let it go.The matter was decided in Parliament,democratically and though I think it was a poor decision that's the end of it..let's move on.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

For goodness sake let it go.The matter was decided in Parliament,democratically and though I think it was a poor decision that's the end of it..let's move on.

Led by the nose once again based on lies, when will we learn not to trust these people

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...inst-ISIS.html

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Led by the nose once again based on lies, when will we learn not to trust these people

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...inst-ISIS.html

Dave's Dodgy Dossier, sounds familiar? http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-the-papers-35002499

David Cameron's case for air strikes in Syria is examined in several of Friday's papers, and the Sun sums up the key talking point with the headline: "You and whose army?"
It says senior defence officials have "disowned" Mr Cameron's claim that 70,000 moderate Syrian troops are ready to fight so-called Islamic State (IS).
The Times says government officials fear the claim will become Mr Cameron's "dodgy dossier" - a reference to documents relied upon by Tony Blair in the build-up to the 2003 Iraq war.
Officials were not worried about the validity of the figure, the paper says, but they were reluctant for Mr Cameron to use a specific number as it could become the "one thing that everyone latches on to", like Mr Blair's claim that Saddam Hussein could have launched weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes.

[nomadking]

Link.

Officials say the source for the 70,000 figure is the UK's Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), drawing on assessments by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, UK intelligence agencies and open sources.
...
Charles Lister of the Brookings Institute puts the number of fighters in strategically influential groups at around 65,000 - with 10,000 fighters in smaller groups.

Regardless of the lack of clarity, the 70,000 figure does not include the Kurds.
...
The SDF generally operates in a tense ceasefire with the Assad regime and has even been accused of being in open alliance with it, and as a result the British government does not include the YPG or the SDF - which may have as many as 40-50,000 troops - in its estimate.

So, counting the number of "allies" that the West considers vital to its dual strategy of defeating IS and pushing Mr Assad to the negotiating table makes the magical 70,000 number actually more like 100-120,000.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Led by the nose once again based on lies, when will we learn not to trust these people

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...inst-ISIS.html

Possibly but it's decided and we have to try and be gentlemen about it..Attacking others about it will not solve any thing..

Originally Posted by ianch99

Dave's Dodgy Dossier, sounds familiar? http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-the-papers-35002499

So it's "based on lies", when your post links states

Officials were not worried about the validity of the figure

So if the figures are valid, how can it be based on lies?

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Possibly but it's decided and we have to try and be gentlemen about it..Attacking others about it will not solve any thing..

How deliciously ironic, was it intended?