| She's a liar, liar, liar 02:48 - Jun 8 with 10276 views | caught-in-limbo |
Theresa May and the real reason for calling an early election.
In 2013 The House of Commons voted against Britain's military intervention in Syria.
Since that time, the Conservatives have been chomping at the bit to topple Assad in Syria under the guises of fighting ISIS. However, it would be impossible to put British troops on the ground without parliamentary approval, unless...
Parliament was suspended prior to an election, in which case the PM could act alone without a vote in the HoC.
Britain has now invaded Syria
In July 2015 Theresa May "declined to rule out ground forces... stressing that the debate was over extending airstrikes and parliamentary approval would be needed for such a move."
Quotes from The Times June 7 (today):
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sas-help-launch-dawn-assault-as-final-push-on
"Syrian militias backed by American and British special forces last night entered Raqqa, the de facto capital of Islamic State’s self-declared caliphate."
"SAS soldiers, who have been working with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in northern Syria, are understood to be on the ground in a supporting role. RAF Typhoon and Tornado jets and Reaper drones are also in close support as part of the US-led coalition."
"Forces of the Assad regime were also moving in, triggering a confrontation with Western troops. The Pentagon said the US-led coalition had struck regime forces yesterday after they approached a base near the town of Tanf".
Well done Theresa May, you've skilfully avoid the parliamentary process and got Britain into a war in the Middle East.
Thanks.
[Post edited 8 Jun 2017 2:49]
|  |
| |  |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 03:22 - Jun 8 with 5108 views | mutters |
Wasn't there a vote in the HoC to decide whether we should launch or get involved?
I remember a very passionate speech by Labours Hillary Benn as to why we should launch these strikes. The motion passed quite easily. |  |
| |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 06:57 - Jun 8 with 5036 views | LimitlessBlue |
Wibble |  |
| |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 07:29 - Jun 8 with 4999 views | GlasgowBlue |
"Conspiracy theories are designed to make lazy under-achievers feel like rigorous scholars — no person with two braincells to rub together has any respect for them.
Conspiracy theorists have been with us forever — once they would have wielded pitchforks, accused women of being witches or Jews of poisoning wells. They may hide behind new-fangled technology these days, but the medieval song remains the same; namely, that Those People Over There are in cahoots with the Devil. But though they may appear to be mouth-frothing thugs, they’re just sad little sacks wetting their beds in the long dark night of the modern soul where no one knows what’s around the corner, using their far-fetched fancies as a kind of blanky to be cuddled for comfort — no matter how rancid such comforters become with repeated use. It’s them, not us, who are actually the sheeple — seeking the unswervingly strong shepherd of destiny while we are tough-minded enough to take our chances with the wolves of uncertainty.
Their fruitcake theories about the authenticity of the moon landing in particular illustrates the tininess of their minds and their dullards lack of ability to experience wonder or appreciate achievement; at heart, conspiracy theorists are a bunch of fearful, curtain-twitching stick-in-the-muds, like a demented Neighbourhood Watch on a global scale. The idea that the world actually doesn’t have a pattern terrifies them, driven as they are by a narrow-minded desire for order — as are the terrorists whose crimes they so lightly dismiss. In fact, conspiracy theorists are best described as terrorists too scared to leave their bedrooms — a good thing, on balance.
What to do? Some people would censor the half-wits — but this would just play into the clammy paws of their persecution fantasies. No, the only course of action is to let them chatter themselves senseless — even the ones who aren’t barking mad now eventually will be — until they end up in a Tower of Babel situ, no longer able to understand even each other. The sainted Christopher Hitchens famously coined the phrase ‘the silly led by the sinister’ to describe Western apologists for Islamism, and it is equally applicable to conspiracy theorists. Though we may feel that the sinister deserve greater condemnation than the silly, it’s good to have them all in the same padded cybercell, where we can keep an eye on them and hopefully prevent them from injuring themselves too seriously on the sharp corners of cold hard fact". |  |
| |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 07:53 - Jun 8 with 4955 views | Coastalblue |
She called an early election because she felt in a position to strengthen her hand, whilst being aware that the sh1t is going to hit the fan in the next couple of years.
Two years time it's unlikely the sitting government would have much hope of winning an election as things start to bite. |  |
| |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 09:00 - Jun 8 with 4904 views | Yaffle |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 07:29 - Jun 8 by GlasgowBlue |
"Conspiracy theories are designed to make lazy under-achievers feel like rigorous scholars — no person with two braincells to rub together has any respect for them.
Conspiracy theorists have been with us forever — once they would have wielded pitchforks, accused women of being witches or Jews of poisoning wells. They may hide behind new-fangled technology these days, but the medieval song remains the same; namely, that Those People Over There are in cahoots with the Devil. But though they may appear to be mouth-frothing thugs, they’re just sad little sacks wetting their beds in the long dark night of the modern soul where no one knows what’s around the corner, using their far-fetched fancies as a kind of blanky to be cuddled for comfort — no matter how rancid such comforters become with repeated use. It’s them, not us, who are actually the sheeple — seeking the unswervingly strong shepherd of destiny while we are tough-minded enough to take our chances with the wolves of uncertainty.
Their fruitcake theories about the authenticity of the moon landing in particular illustrates the tininess of their minds and their dullards lack of ability to experience wonder or appreciate achievement; at heart, conspiracy theorists are a bunch of fearful, curtain-twitching stick-in-the-muds, like a demented Neighbourhood Watch on a global scale. The idea that the world actually doesn’t have a pattern terrifies them, driven as they are by a narrow-minded desire for order — as are the terrorists whose crimes they so lightly dismiss. In fact, conspiracy theorists are best described as terrorists too scared to leave their bedrooms — a good thing, on balance.
What to do? Some people would censor the half-wits — but this would just play into the clammy paws of their persecution fantasies. No, the only course of action is to let them chatter themselves senseless — even the ones who aren’t barking mad now eventually will be — until they end up in a Tower of Babel situ, no longer able to understand even each other. The sainted Christopher Hitchens famously coined the phrase ‘the silly led by the sinister’ to describe Western apologists for Islamism, and it is equally applicable to conspiracy theorists. Though we may feel that the sinister deserve greater condemnation than the silly, it’s good to have them all in the same padded cybercell, where we can keep an eye on them and hopefully prevent them from injuring themselves too seriously on the sharp corners of cold hard fact". |
If you are going to cut and paste other people's work at least credit the source. Allow me...
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/manchester-conspiracy-theory-mob-pitiful-b
Now, rather than play the man/women for the umpteenth time, why not address the points made in the OP? I have no idea if CIL is correct in her hypothesis, but I'm genuinely interested to read any coherent argument for or against the points put forward. In the meantime I'll also have a read myself. |  | | |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 09:06 - Jun 8 with 4881 views | Yaffle |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 03:22 - Jun 8 by mutters |
Wasn't there a vote in the HoC to decide whether we should launch or get involved?
I remember a very passionate speech by Labours Hillary Benn as to why we should launch these strikes. The motion passed quite easily. |
Didn't take long....
https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2015/december/mps-debate-motion-on-isil-
"...notes the Government will not deploy UK troops in ground combat operations;..." | | | |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 09:26 - Jun 8 with 4837 views | WD19 |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 09:24 - Jun 8 by Swansea_Blue |
There's a later motion on ISIL in Syria too CIL, that was passed 397 to 223 on 2nd December 2015. It supported airstrikes, but specifically states "notes the Government will not deploy UK troops in ground combat operations".
https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2015/december/mps-debate-motion-on-isil-
So there are two clear apparent facts:
1) The Government put forward a motion committing to no troops on the group (verified - it's primary source is checkable)
2) The SAS are on the ground (according to the Times article, so can't be verified, but assumed factual)
I can't find any records of subsequent motions stating the use of ground troops, so it does look as though the government have indeed lied and authorised troop on the ground, contrary to what was agreed in parliament.
Yet Corbyn is supposed to be the aggressor according to the right wing media 
Is it the real reason? Who knows, but it's certainly plausible that it's part of the reason. At the very least it's a fortuitous opportunity that she's happily exploited.
Vote Saint Farron! [Post edited 8 Jun 2017 9:25]
|
I am certainly not endorsing it, but don't the US and UK usually get around this kind of thing by putting people on the ground in an 'advisory' capacity. (ie They would argue they are not on the ground for combat operations). |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 09:31 - Jun 8 with 4829 views | No9 |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 07:53 - Jun 8 by Coastalblue |
She called an early election because she felt in a position to strengthen her hand, whilst being aware that the sh1t is going to hit the fan in the next couple of years.
Two years time it's unlikely the sitting government would have much hope of winning an election as things start to bite. |
Correct all the economic indicator are presently bad and don't look like getting any better for some time.
Reading the stuff on the EU website it is clear the tories have no idea how to start negotiations and that they must follow the judgements of the ECJ or just walk away whihc means they would probably end up in the ICH with us having a massive bill.
I would prefer Kier Starter to be leading the departure from the EU |  | | |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 09:32 - Jun 8 with 4830 views | Guthrum |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 09:24 - Jun 8 by Swansea_Blue |
There's a later motion on ISIL in Syria too CIL, that was passed 397 to 223 on 2nd December 2015. It supported airstrikes, but specifically states "notes the Government will not deploy UK troops in ground combat operations".
https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2015/december/mps-debate-motion-on-isil-
So there are two clear apparent facts:
1) The Government put forward a motion committing to no troops on the group (verified - it's primary source is checkable)
2) The SAS are on the ground (according to the Times article, so can't be verified, but assumed factual)
I can't find any records of subsequent motions stating the use of ground troops, so it does look as though the government have indeed lied and authorised troop on the ground, contrary to what was agreed in parliament.
Yet Corbyn is supposed to be the aggressor according to the right wing media
Is it the real reason? Who knows, but it's certainly plausible that it's part of the reason. At the very least it's a fortuitous opportunity that she's happily exploited.
Vote Saint Farron! [Post edited 8 Jun 2017 9:25]
|
There is a key phrase in there: 'ground combat operations'.
If you have SAS teams involved in training, observation, intelligence gathering and target designation for air raids (all being standard special forces roles), but not actual fighting, then the letter of the motion has been adhered to. |  |
| |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 09:39 - Jun 8 with 4807 views | Yaffle |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 09:32 - Jun 8 by Guthrum |
There is a key phrase in there: 'ground combat operations'.
If you have SAS teams involved in training, observation, intelligence gathering and target designation for air raids (all being standard special forces roles), but not actual fighting, then the letter of the motion has been adhered to. |
Fair point, the Times article refers to 'in a supporting role' so I guess that's not combat? Even so, pretty sneaky, I doubt they were unarmed! Thanks for the insight. | | | |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 09:42 - Jun 8 with 4797 views | No9 |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 09:26 - Jun 8 by WD19 |
I am certainly not endorsing it, but don't the US and UK usually get around this kind of thing by putting people on the ground in an 'advisory' capacity. (ie They would argue they are not on the ground for combat operations). |
Wasn't the point made by the UN that the UK forces were directly involved?
And I have read reports that British made weapons have been found in Yemen duirng the 'forgotten war'
One of the more distasteful bits is that UK exports to stoke up the wars in the ME have been boasted about by RW politicians and Mrs May herself went to Saudi purposely to increase arms sales.
CIL has a point | | | |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 09:45 - Jun 8 with 4788 views | GlasgowBlue |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 09:00 - Jun 8 by Yaffle |
If you are going to cut and paste other people's work at least credit the source. Allow me...
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/manchester-conspiracy-theory-mob-pitiful-b
Now, rather than play the man/women for the umpteenth time, why not address the points made in the OP? I have no idea if CIL is correct in her hypothesis, but I'm genuinely interested to read any coherent argument for or against the points put forward. In the meantime I'll also have a read myself. |
You do understand what quotation marks mean don't you? | |
| |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 09:49 - Jun 8 with 4778 views | Yaffle |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 09:45 - Jun 8 by GlasgowBlue |
You do understand what quotation marks mean don't you? |
Yes thanks. I also know that if I'm quoting something to include the appropriate reference to avoid any confusion or suggestion that I might be misappropriating something as my own.
Now back to the OP, anything to add? Anything helpful, insightful or constructive to add? | | | |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 09:50 - Jun 8 with 4775 views | Guthrum |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 09:39 - Jun 8 by Yaffle |
Fair point, the Times article refers to 'in a supporting role' so I guess that's not combat? Even so, pretty sneaky, I doubt they were unarmed! Thanks for the insight. |
They will be armed and undoubtedly allowed to use them in self defence. 'In a supporting role' implies a training and advisory capacity, not actual combat. | |
| |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 09:52 - Jun 8 with 4767 views | Swansea_Blue |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 09:32 - Jun 8 by Guthrum |
There is a key phrase in there: 'ground combat operations'.
If you have SAS teams involved in training, observation, intelligence gathering and target designation for air raids (all being standard special forces roles), but not actual fighting, then the letter of the motion has been adhered to. |
I can't see past the paywall, so maybe you can see more. I'm going on the first paragraph which says specifically that SAS troops are "on the ground in a supporting role".
The motion says we won't deploy UK troops in ground combat operations.
They've been deployed
They are UK troops
They're on the ground
It's a combat operation
Whatever their role, if they're on the ground in a combat operation surely that's in breach of the motion? The motion doesn't provide any caveats for eligible types of role.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's spun in the manner you say to try and justify it, but I'm not seeing a lot of wiggle room in the definition. |  |
| |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 10:01 - Jun 8 with 4746 views | Guthrum |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 09:52 - Jun 8 by Swansea_Blue |
I can't see past the paywall, so maybe you can see more. I'm going on the first paragraph which says specifically that SAS troops are "on the ground in a supporting role".
The motion says we won't deploy UK troops in ground combat operations.
They've been deployed
They are UK troops
They're on the ground
It's a combat operation
Whatever their role, if they're on the ground in a combat operation surely that's in breach of the motion? The motion doesn't provide any caveats for eligible types of role.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's spun in the manner you say to try and justify it, but I'm not seeing a lot of wiggle room in the definition. |
In a supporting role (training and advisory, perhaps observation and air target designation) is not ground combat operations (missions involving actual shooting at the enemy).
"Operations" are specific missions, not just being in a war zone. | |
| |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 10:03 - Jun 8 with 4734 views | GlasgowBlue |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 09:49 - Jun 8 by Yaffle |
Yes thanks. I also know that if I'm quoting something to include the appropriate reference to avoid any confusion or suggestion that I might be misappropriating something as my own.
Now back to the OP, anything to add? Anything helpful, insightful or constructive to add? |
Thank you for your advice on board etiquette. You views have been duly noted.
Anything to add? The Times story says they are there in an advisory capacity. | |
| |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 10:04 - Jun 8 with 4732 views | mutters |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 07:53 - Jun 8 by Coastalblue |
She called an early election because she felt in a position to strengthen her hand, whilst being aware that the sh1t is going to hit the fan in the next couple of years.
Two years time it's unlikely the sitting government would have much hope of winning an election as things start to bite. |
The BRexit deal is not going to be good whoever was leading the negotiations. 2 Years to Brexit, 3 years to rebuild their reputation.
I am not sure i'd want to be in power now, very difficult times ahead. | |
| |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 10:13 - Jun 8 with 4713 views | Yaffle |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 10:03 - Jun 8 by GlasgowBlue |
Thank you for your advice on board etiquette. You views have been duly noted.
Anything to add? The Times story says they are there in an advisory capacity. |
...as is your sarcasm.
At this stage your point doesn't really add to the discussion, does it? I guess my question is, why was a grown man so quick to jump in a throw conspiracy theory insults at someone who was making a perfectly reasonable and considered point worthy of discussion? | | | |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 10:14 - Jun 8 with 4712 views | Guthrum |
al-Tanf is right in the south, near the Jordanian border, in a Maghawir al-Thawra/New Syrian Army (US/Jordanian-trained, many SAA defectors) rebel enclave. The base there has previously been bombed by the Russian or Syrian air force.
That confrontation is nowhere near Raqqa, where government forces are still many miles to the west (but advancing steadily). | |
| |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 10:19 - Jun 8 with 4696 views | caught-in-limbo |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 07:29 - Jun 8 by GlasgowBlue |
"Conspiracy theories are designed to make lazy under-achievers feel like rigorous scholars — no person with two braincells to rub together has any respect for them.
Conspiracy theorists have been with us forever — once they would have wielded pitchforks, accused women of being witches or Jews of poisoning wells. They may hide behind new-fangled technology these days, but the medieval song remains the same; namely, that Those People Over There are in cahoots with the Devil. But though they may appear to be mouth-frothing thugs, they’re just sad little sacks wetting their beds in the long dark night of the modern soul where no one knows what’s around the corner, using their far-fetched fancies as a kind of blanky to be cuddled for comfort — no matter how rancid such comforters become with repeated use. It’s them, not us, who are actually the sheeple — seeking the unswervingly strong shepherd of destiny while we are tough-minded enough to take our chances with the wolves of uncertainty.
Their fruitcake theories about the authenticity of the moon landing in particular illustrates the tininess of their minds and their dullards lack of ability to experience wonder or appreciate achievement; at heart, conspiracy theorists are a bunch of fearful, curtain-twitching stick-in-the-muds, like a demented Neighbourhood Watch on a global scale. The idea that the world actually doesn’t have a pattern terrifies them, driven as they are by a narrow-minded desire for order — as are the terrorists whose crimes they so lightly dismiss. In fact, conspiracy theorists are best described as terrorists too scared to leave their bedrooms — a good thing, on balance.
What to do? Some people would censor the half-wits — but this would just play into the clammy paws of their persecution fantasies. No, the only course of action is to let them chatter themselves senseless — even the ones who aren’t barking mad now eventually will be — until they end up in a Tower of Babel situ, no longer able to understand even each other. The sainted Christopher Hitchens famously coined the phrase ‘the silly led by the sinister’ to describe Western apologists for Islamism, and it is equally applicable to conspiracy theorists. Though we may feel that the sinister deserve greater condemnation than the silly, it’s good to have them all in the same padded cybercell, where we can keep an eye on them and hopefully prevent them from injuring themselves too seriously on the sharp corners of cold hard fact". |
Ahh, the words of a ranting lunatic. Not your own words of course, you're not quite as adept with your ridiculous generalisations and stereotyping as Julie Burchill.
Her argument falls apart after the first three words "Conspiracy theories are".
By definition a conspiracy theorist is someone who "believes that an unpleasant event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people".
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/conspiracy-theory?q=conspirac
In order not to be a conspiracy theorist you have to believe that powerful people never work covertly to maintain or increase their power at the expense of others. In other words a "conspiracy denier".
I'm sure you believe those who wield power in Iran, China, Russia, Venezuela or North Korea sometimes plan unpleasant events in secret to maintain their power status. If so, that would make you a conspiracy theorist.
People like you, Julie Birchall and other conspiracy deniers live in a simple world where people who question the "white hats" are conspiracy theorists and those that don't instantly question "black hats" are "apologists". You live in a simplistic world of black hats and white hats. It's very childish.
Birchall's idea that everyone branded a"conspiracy theorist" shares the same beliefs concerning the moon landing, every detail concerning 9/11 and chemtrails (to name just three) is intellectually barren and nothing more than a cheap generalisation of anyone who seeks to question official narrative. It's very immature.
Birchall's witch analogy is steeped in hypocrisy. Those of the majority who attempt to silence or ridicule anyone who challenges the official narrative are in fact the pitchfork wavers, while the persecuted "witches" of the past are the "conspiracy theorists" of today.
My words and my views- not the those lifted from a paid mouthpiece of an establishment rag. [Post edited 8 Jun 2017 10:40]
| |
| |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 10:22 - Jun 8 with 4679 views | caught-in-limbo |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 09:32 - Jun 8 by Guthrum |
There is a key phrase in there: 'ground combat operations'.
If you have SAS teams involved in training, observation, intelligence gathering and target designation for air raids (all being standard special forces roles), but not actual fighting, then the letter of the motion has been adhered to. |
semantics - lol
You yourself said just 3 days ago "Doubt we'll be bombing Assad any time soon". How wrong you were. [Post edited 8 Jun 2017 10:28]
| |
| |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 10:23 - Jun 8 with 4669 views | tractaboy |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 10:01 - Jun 8 by Guthrum |
In a supporting role (training and advisory, perhaps observation and air target designation) is not ground combat operations (missions involving actual shooting at the enemy).
"Operations" are specific missions, not just being in a war zone. |
Exactly this.
Special forces aren't classed as combat boots on the ground by the Government.
However, Coalition bombs don't pick their own targets and intel has to be gained somehow.
As much as I welcome reading CIL's information and views on these sort of threads, to say, and I quote, "Britain has invaded Syria" is just wrong. A Squadron of SF troops with their support isn't an invasion. Just ask Mr Blair. |  | | |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 10:28 - Jun 8 with 4642 views | Guthrum |
| She's a liar, liar, liar on 10:22 - Jun 8 by caught-in-limbo |
semantics - lol
You yourself said just 3 days ago "Doubt we'll be bombing Assad any time soon". How wrong you were. [Post edited 8 Jun 2017 10:28]
|
You say that, but it's the kind of distinction which is made by all governments, everywhere. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
