BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 08:50 AM

Yet another piece of Mail nastiness. Reported in the i which will of course now come under fire from our alt-right team...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 09:29 AM

Yep, that was the copy of the Mail I picked up for free on Thursday. It was a foul and vituperative article but I suppose the Mail has an army of lawyers advising them as to where the red line is. Disgusting, and an attack on freedom of speech by raising unrelated issues to do with his private life in order to vilify him for expressing views that the Mail doesn't like.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 09:45 AM

I get The Times (for Codeword) and I've noticed how it has become more and more vituperlatively right-wing in the tender hands of Murdoch and his ilk - his recent marriage hasn't done him much good.
His crude hate campaign against Corbyn - nearly a year solid now - is enough to convince me I've chosen the right side
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 01:11 PM

"Do your really not recall that the British Parliament voted on whether to send troops into Syria and decided not to become involved" - Jim Carroll

I do not think that the British Parliament EVER held a debate or vote on sending troops into Syria, such a move would have guaranteed the censure of the UN Security Council. The vote and the debate in the Autumn of 2012 was on whether or not we should set up a "No-Fly Zone" over Syria that would prevent Assad's air force from bombing civilians. There was never any question of putting boots on the ground in Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 01:39 PM

WRONG AGAIN
The debate was whether to take military action against Syria
Nitpick if you like - it was a decision not to intervene militarily
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 01:42 PM

You know this anyway
Both you and your running mate described it as the invasion of another country and called me a "fascist" for supporting it - see Homs Horror
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 01:53 PM

Jim the link is by someone not trying to grab headlines and not selling newspapesr and I find him a more credible source than you are quoting.
I am assuming your acid test for veracity is that it made a newspaper article. Does the same apply to stories in the Dandy and Beano?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/amnesty-internationals-kangaroo-report-on-human-rights-in-syria/5574195

you are also very quiet about arms sales by your labour buddies. bit embassing for you perhaps.

and never a mention of saudi bombing the yemen back to the stone age.
One cruise missile probably surpasses the GDP of the country.
   Using bold, red ink and capitals may be a bullying technique, but it does nothing to provide evidence.
You could also take issue with the situation in certain North Afican
countries where munitions are sold. You could also make an issue of Britain training the military of various unsavoury governments.
   or you could make an issue of the school of the Americas at Fort Benning, the biggest terrorist training school in the world. Instead of closing it because its output was becoming too public, they simply renamed it.
   Assad may not be an angel but generally he is supported in Syria because the alternative is an even more regressive and medieval than Saudi.
    But no, the world according to Jim has only one baddie that you appear tio have a fixation on.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 02:01 PM

You haven't been here long, have you? 😅

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: mayomick
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 02:04 PM

"What has the Guardian misreported then, Iains? Do you have any recent examples?" .......DtG
"Russia to launch 'large-scale' airstrikes on Syria as Americans vote"
The above Guardian headline , written by the British newspaper's World affairs editor Julian Borger featured prominently on the Google News aggregator site on US election day ,November 8 .The article's opening paragraphs predicted massive Russian airstrikes on Aleppo within 24 hours............."according to reports".
These "reports " - supposedly emanating from Moscow - claimed that: "Russia has threatened to launch "large-scale" cruise missile and airstrikes on Aleppo to coincide with the US election".
The Guardian's election-day story was picked up by several pro-Clinton news outlets in the US and circulated via Google News' USA edition, with predictions of Russian strikes "within hours" that would involve , "cruise missiles, carrier-based and land-based warplanes".

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 02:11 PM

Steve the source stands. The former prime minister publicised the joke.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8159142/David-Cameron-makes-John-Bercow-dwarf-joke.html
of course it was quoted in a quality paper the torygraph.

It seems that, like Jim, you are peddling false news. Go and sit on the naughty step.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 02:25 PM

You have a lot more to answer for than the source of that joke. You need to go through an awful lot of old threads before you can claim who's been silent about this, that and the other. Which you haven't done. Go and put yourself in the nearest rubbish bin.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 02:33 PM

I cannot help but think that Terrikins and Iains are twins.

Slightly different approach but perhaps Terrikins is trying to reinvent himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 03:02 PM

Steve it is only a person like you would make an issue of the source of the joke. Some of us have more important things to do. Anyway I get a lot more sense off the sheep on the mountain than from you. A nice bracing day for checking on sheep.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 03:08 PM

mayomick. Thanks for locating the article. I only made a cursory search to demonstrate a point. Later arrivals insisted on specifying the nature of the error to be identified.

raggedytashy I do not need a twin to post on here. You may feel the need for help;- i do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 03:14 PM

"It seems that, like Jim, you are peddling false news. "
It seems that you are rejecting the reports which were covered by all the press, researched fully by Amnesty and acknoleged in the British Parliament to the extent that they voted whether to intervene or not
Your link is to the opinion of an "investigative journalist, Rick Sterling, who is member of the Syria Solidarity Movement - an organisation whose declared aim is "Respect for and protection of Syrian sovereignty and Territory - in other words, an active mouthpiece and propagandist for the Assad Regime.
C'mon - give us a break!!
You really are not very good at this, are you?
"you are also very quiet about arms sales by your labour buddies"
I have no time for right-wing Labour - I stpooed voting for them twenty years ago = they are the ones who did deals and sold out the people who created the Labour Party.
My recent support for the hope Corbyn has brought that Labour will return the party to the the principles it once stood for.
I HAVE ALWAYS CONDEMNED SELLING ANY ARMS FOR PROFIT - WHOEVER DOES IT - LABOUR - CONSERVATIVE - THE RAVING LOONEY PARTY - PROFITEERING ON DEATH IS AN ACT OF UTTER EVIL AND THOSE WHO POINT THE FINGER AT OTHERS WHILE THEIR OWN PARTY IS INVOLVED IN THE TRADE IS JUST AS EVIL
Jaysus - it's like talking to a child!!.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 03:34 PM

"Russia to launch 'large-scale' airstrikes on Syria as Americans vote"
The above Guardian headline , written by the British newspaper's World affairs editor Julian Borger featured prominently on the Google News aggregator site on US election day ,November 8 .The article's opening paragraphs predicted massive Russian airstrikes on Aleppo within 24 hours............."according to reports".

According to reports is the key here. The Guardian are reporting what has been reported elsewhere. If people are stupid enough to think that 'according to reports' is fact then they deserve everything they get.

I think all newspapers rely on this tactic to some extent but the Mail is particularly guilty of it. Which is why they have been discounted as a valid source while other papers have not.

No cigar this time mayomick.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 03:42 PM

Hope you're listening, Iains. You are totally out of order here claiming that any of us blokes you have taken against have kept silent about those atrocities and dodgy arms dealings. We have not, and it would be a really good thing if you were to research old threads before you start chucking out your accusations. As for the joke, yep, trivial. But your false reporting of its provenance is, unfortunately, emblematic of your slapdash approach. A word in your shell-like, mate. You may not like us much but we are not stupid and we instantly pick up on people like you with an agenda but little with which to support it. It's tough at times around here and hawks abound, as some of us have found out to our cost over a number of years. So take a back seat for a bit. It'll do you good and help to stop you from being humiliated.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 04:02 PM

Iains, you may have noticed I frequent refer to other posters not by their preferred name but whatever comes to mind.

Childish I know, but in my defence I have proffered an olive branch to various people only to have it thrown back in my face. I have even sent a PM on occasion to pour oil on very troubled water.

Could I suggest that rather than going down a much worn, and tiresome road that you and I maintain a little decorum and refer to each other by our chosen pseudonyms.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 04:57 PM

Talking to a child Jim? It seems you are the one that insists on spilling the paintbox all over the page. That is puerile!
I am more inclined to believe the report I linked to than amnesty or
babblings in Parliament. The author made some very valid criticisms of amnesty that I believe have substance. If I could see a similar article from RT, quoting the same figures,I might believe it.
How do you know you are not been fed a line to satisfy a certain agenda.
Who benefits from toppling Assad? certainly not the average poor Syrian. If he goes it ends up as another failed state like Libya and Iraq. And who created these failed states if it was not American Hegemony. And why were they broken? because oil is underneath in the case of Iraq and Libya and Syria is needed to provide a pipeline route for Quatari gas and oil from other gulf states. Right now european pipelines import russian gas and Vlad the lad has control and he certainly does not want a western controlled pipeline nicking some of his trade, or providing an independant source. With Syria broken into pieces America will control the future pipelines. It is a resource was pure and simple. The link is old but a good summary.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/08/the-wars-that-really-are-about-the-oil/

You may believe the propaganda about Syria and the terrorists masquerading in a so called civil war, but I do not believe a word of it. And I had 4 years in country up to and including the start of the destabilisation and still have ex colleagues and friends there.
From the start of the fight to replace Assad the mainstream media has been feeding the public with an entirely false narrative, and are rarely reined in for their more outrageous claims.
You can continue to believe your sources if you wish but do not expect me to. I have watched events from the sidelines in many countries for 45 years. I would not be so conceited as to say I know what is going on, but I can recognise horsesh*t when I see it. I can say with all honesty the story reeled out for public consumption concerning these events is frequently massaged to the extent the original event can scarcely be recognised. (as an example While in Nigeria I saw footage of the miners strike and Mr plod was laying into the miners with gusto.Not a very edifying sight to have with your cornflakes, and definitely not broadcast on any British TV station. If that was not unrestrained police brutality, I do not know what is.) The situation in Syria goes far beyond replacing Assad and vilifying him at every opportunity. Why do you think that in Syria,as in Iraq, critical infrastructure is bombed to smithereens by the "coalition" No bridges, no hospitals, no water, no power,no medicines, no compassion. All these targets hit the civilian population and I can only believe it is to destroy social cohesion. I am beginning to think the civilians are an unnecessary appendage interfering in the great game of American hegemony, and collateral damage is encouraged. Often Russian airstrikes are blamed especially by the white helmets, but who in their right mind kills civilians deliberately when trying to win hearts and minds? After all in Iraq with reputedly 500,000 kids being killed, when quizzed Madeline Albright said:"We think it was worth it"
If Trump manages to pull all his forces out of the country and lock horns with the neocons and reach an accommodation with Russia and China he will be acclaimed a hero.
I have said before Assad is no angel, but he stands head and shoulders above those destroying his people and country.

To an extent I agree with you about Corbyn. Unfortunately he appears too nice a man to make a good career politician. Whatever party is in power needs a strong opposition to prevent a virtual dictatorship, especially since government has essentially morphed into a one man band. Your crack about Maggie and the veg may be banal but there is unfortunately an underlying reality to it. Spitting image may actually have portrayed the reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 06:12 PM

Oh dear.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 07:10 PM

"the UK would still be permitted under international law to take exceptional measures in order to alleviate the scale of the overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe in Syria by deterring and disrupting the further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime." - Legal advice to the British Government presented to Parliament

There was never any intention, not even the remotest possibility, of the UK - "the British Parliament voted on whether to send troops into Syria" - Jim Carroll's incorrect understanding

Troops all of the UK's 82,000 would be useless when it comes to deterring or disrupting because they could not be put "on the ground" in sufficient strength in time, especially when you consider that the British Army was still engaged in Afghanistan at that time.

Assad's attacks on his civilian population were mainly carried out by ground forces and his air force {Principally "barrel bombs" dropped by helicopter). Establishment of a "no-fly zone" would serve to deter and attack from the air on Assad forces armour and artillery would definitely disrupt - all done from the Air - no ground troops required.

Not "nitpicking", not "semantics" - just better understanding coupled with the application of common sense and reasoning - oh and of course a far better memory for detail.

By the way Iains your link about it all being about oil - it is old, it was a complete and utter load of b*****ks in 2014 and it still is today. The USA has no need whatsoever to tailor it's foreign policy for oil from the middle-east.

Russia's sole interest in Syria is connected to a naval base and port facilities - same reason they took Crimea.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 07:14 PM

there are four horses running in this raceon monday 13 feb, can any of you very clever people predict which one is going to win.
Same Circus (32)
J: W T Kennedy T: D McCain Jnr        117222        11–5        5/4        
6/5
        
3
Big Penny (85)
J: Aidan Coleman T: Jonjo O'Neill        31        10–12        –        
5/4
        
4
Your Turn (46)
J: B Hughes T: T R Gretton        F3/2        10–12        –        
13/2
        
2
Arctic Lady (33)
J: A P Heskin T: T R George

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 07:41 PM

Arctic Lady because it's so bloody cold here. I don't bet, so if it wins it'll be a right pisser.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 02:17 AM

What does the tipster in the Daily Mail reckon GSS? That according to Wiki would then eliminate one of the four choices.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 03:23 AM

"Jim Carroll's incorrect understanding"
More uncorroborated dismissal of reported facts
"That is puerile!"#
What is peurile is dismissing the facts of Syria, which we watched nightly on television, read daily in our newspapers, have been threatened with actions by the international law courts, were defended by Russian and Chinese vetoes, were condemned internationally and were were almost acted on with military invention by Britain..... on the basis of an article written b a syrian propagandists
That is as puerile as it comes.
You alone on this forum are the only one to defend the horrors of this regime.
You are right as far as the "civil war masquerade goes - it started as part of the Arab Spring protests as a reaction to decades of torture and mass murder, with the assistance of World indifference, Assad turned it into a Civil War
SYRIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
UNITED NATIONS
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2016/02/08/UN-report-Syrias-Assad-guilty-of-inhuman-crimes-gruesome-torture-deaths/8491454979690/
WORLDWIDE CONDEMNATION
OFFICIAL BRITISH CONDEMNATION OF SYRIA
And you prefer to take the word of a Syrian propagandist
Right!!!!!!
Enjoy your solitude - at least you have the Russians and Chinese to lean on for support
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 03:52 AM

YOUR incorrect understanding. Show me anything stated by either the Prime Minister, any other Cabinet Minister, any Senior Civil Servant or any Senior Military Commander that would suggest that there was ever any mention of sending British troops to intervene on the ground in the Syrian conflict. If you cannot do that then your statement about there ever being a debate in the House of Commons about sending British troops to Syria is wrong - more Carroll "Made-up-Shit".

No need to attempt to divert the thread by introducing whichever of your pet hobby-horses you fancy riding today. No need to tell whoever is following this thread what a bad person you think I am - all you have to do is put up something credible to support your contention (You won't do that of course primarily because you can't, such evidence does not exist).

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Mr Red
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 04:26 AM

Spend a Penny on
Big Penny, it would make you a right pisser! But a better better.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 04:43 AM

If you wish to insist that they voted not to intervene militarily rather than to send in troops (I'm sure the no fly zone would be enforced by civilians!!!!) - feel free
The vote was instigated because of the massacres that were taking place in Homs - no 'no fly zone' would have made the slightest difference to that
Both you and your mate accused me of being a fascist for wanting Britain to "invade" Syria, not for establisjhing a no fly zone.
This is typical of your smoke and mirrors.
The point was - to our latest atrocity denier - that Britain was forced to hold a vote on intervening to stop the atrocities.
As you put so much effort in denying Britain's part in those atrocities, to the extent of "not having a crystal ball" and claiming shipments that were licences weren't, I have little doubt you will continue to obstruct this discussion with your nit-picking.
You have a thing for mass murderers, don't you?
Chacon son gout
Jim Carroll

This is how The Daily Telegraph reported on the issue - you can interpret that as "establishing a 'No Fly Zone if you wish

SYRIA CRISIS: NO TO WAR, BLOW TO CAMERON
David Cameron was forced to abandon plans for Britain to participate in military strikes against Syria after suffering an unprecedented Parliamentary defeat.
                                        
By Robert Winnett, Political Editor
29 Aug 2013
Dozens of Conservative MPs refused to support the Prime Minister and sided with Labour in opposing a Government motion which supported the principle of military intervention. The motion backing the use of force "if necessary" was rejected by 285 votes to 272, a majority of 13 votes.
It is the first time that a British Government has been blocked from executing a military deployment and highlights the deep mistrust of official intelligence in the wake of the Iraq war.
Within minutes of the embarrassing defeat, the Prime Minister said that he understood that there was not support for British action against Syria and indicated he would abandon any such plans. The decision came just hours after Britain had sent fighter jets to the region.
Mr Cameron had hoped to join America in launching cruise missile strikes against the Syrian regime as soon as this weekend after Assad was accused of deploying chemical weapons in a suburb of Damascus last week.
Related Articles
The Prime Minister had played a leading role in persuading President Obama of the need for action against Syria – with Britain tabling a draft United Nations resolution – and the Parliamentary vote may also undermine Mr Cameron's international reputation.
"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," Mr Cameron said tonight.
"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."
Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, said that the Parliamentary vote would be welcomed by the Syrian regime.
"I am disappointed," he said. "We do believe that the use of chemical weapons in this way needs a clear and strong response."
"There is a deep well of suspicion about military involvement in the middle east stemming largely from the experiences of Iraq."
"I don't think it is anything to do with the Prime Minister, I think it is to do with the legacy of experience."
It is the first time since the 1956 Suez crisis that an opposition has failed to support Government plans for a deployment of the armed forces.
The Coalition's motion – which had already been watered down earlier in the week to allow for another Parliamentary vote before Britain took part in direct military action – was defeated by a majority of 13 votes.
In a night of febrile scenes in the Commons, senior Cabinet ministers openly accused those opposing the motion of giving "succour" to the Assad regime. Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, allegedly shouted at Conservative rebels who he described as a "disgrace".
Labour demanded an official inquiry into the activities of the Prime Minister's main spin doctor.
The Parliamentary vote may trigger a leadership crisis for Mr Cameron as Conservative MPs openly criticised the Prime Minister's decision to recall Parliament and force a vote. He was accused of a massive miscalculation with Sir Gerald Howarth, a former defence minister, describing the Prime Minister's actions as "rushed" and "cavalier".
There were shouts of "resign" from the Labour benches as the results of the Parliamentary vote were read out by John Bercow, the Commons Speaker.
Mr Cameron has spent much of the week personally stressing the need for military action against the Assad regime. In his speech to Parliament today, the Prime Minister had insisted that Britain has a duty to "do the right thing" and intervene in the "humanitarian catastrophe" unfolding in Syria.
However, he also admitted that the intelligence assessment did not provide "100 percent" certainty of the evidence against the regime.
The Prime Minister told an emergency sitting of Parliament that the country should not be "paralysed" over its response to international crises in the wake of mistakes made in the run-up to the Iraq war.
He had implored MPs to "force themselves" to watch harrowing videos of small children suffering following a chemical weapons attack in Damascus last week which killed hundreds of ordinary Syrians.
However, in a major blow to his authority, senior Conservative MPs spent the day standing up during the eight-hour Parliamentary debate to criticise the Government's plans to intervene in the Syrian crisis. Among those blocking the plans were David Davis, the former shadow Home Secretary, and former ministers.
Nick de Bois, Secretary of the Tory 1922 Committee, voted against the Government. He said it was an "extremely difficult decision".
Ed Miliband refused to support the Government's Parliamentary motion saying that he was, as yet, not fully convinced of the case against the Assad regime. The decision sparked an angry backlash from Downing Street who accused the Labour leader of "giving succour" to the Syrian dictator. This was strongly denied by senior Labour sources who said that the behaviour of Mr Cameron's aides was "frankly insulting".
Other developments today in the Syrian crisis saw:
The publication of a British intelligence briefing which concluded that it was "highly likely" that the Assad regime was responsible for last week's chemical weapons attack which killed more than 300 civilians.
The release of the Attorney General's legal advice which ruled that British could legally participate in military strikes against Syria to protect innocent civilians from further atrocities.
The White House privately briefing senior figures in the US Senate and Congress on secret intelligence on the Assad regime which could pave the way for American action against Syria this weekend.
President Assad pledge that Syria would "defend itself in the face of any aggression".
The experience of the Iraq war was repeatedly raised by MPs during the debate – with several former Labour Cabinet ministers speaking and describing the "scars" of the mistakes made by the Blair administration.
"I am very clear about the fact that we have to learn the lessons of Iraq," the Labour leader said. "Of course we have got to learn those lessons and one of the most important lessons was indeed about respect for the United Nations."
He added: "I do not rule out supporting the Prime Minister but I believe he has to make a better case than he did today."
During the course of the debate, a succession of senior Conservative and Labour MPs also made speeches expressing doubt over the wisdom of British action against Syria.
David Davis, the former shadow home secretary said that the intelligence "might just be wrong".
Mr Davis said that chemical weapons were used either by Assad's regime, by a rogue regime military unit, or by rebels "with the direct aim of dragging the West into the war".
Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, said "We all know - I have the scars about this - how easy it is to get into military action and how difficult it is to get out of it.".
In a parallel debate in the House of Lords, Lord Hurd, the former foreign secretary, said: "I cannot for the life of me see how dropping some bombs or firing some missiles in the general direction of Syria, with targets probably some way removed from the actual weapons we've been criticising, I can't see how that action is going to lessen the suffering of Syrian people.
"I think it's likely to increase and expand the civil war in Syria, not likely to bring it to an end."
The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke of his fears that Christians in Syria would be targeted in the wake of any strike.
However, other senior Parliamentarians offered backing for the Prime Minister. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the head of the Intelligence and Security committee, said: "At this very moment, the Assad regime in Damascus are watching very carefully as to whether they will get away with what they have done."
"If they get away with what they have done, if there is no significant international response of any kind, then we can be absolutely certain that the forces within Damascus will be successful in saying we must continue to use these whenever there is a military rationale for doing so.
"There is no guarantee that a military strike against military targets will work, but there is every certainty that if we don't make that effort to punish and deter, then these actions will indeed continue."
Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader, said: "We are, I think, living under the shadow, sadly, of Iraq. But this is not Iraq. We are not putting boots on the ground, we are not invading, we are not seeking to govern somebody else's country and, above all, this is not George W Bush, this is Barack Obama.
"And you only need to look at this American president and what he has done to see how nervous, how hesitant, how cautious he is about action."
Tonight, American reports suggested that President Obama was now drawing up plans to intervene in Syria without international assistance.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 05:51 AM

Carroll - Do you ever READ the vast swathes of text you "cut'n'paste" in your attempts to support your arguments??

"The vote was instigated because of the massacres that were taking place in Homs" - Jim Carroll once again paying absolutely no heed to facts or to any time-line

Date of the massacres in Homs - Spring 2012
Read your Telegraph article and you will find that this debate was triggered by Assad using chemical weapons against civilians in Aleppo in August 2013. I know Jom it is just one of those minor "nitpicking details" that you cannot be bothered with but if you are going to post it really should be accurate if you are trying to make a point in any discussion.

"no 'no fly zone' would have made the slightest difference to that" - Jim Carroll

Three occasions where no-fly zones have worked and saved civilian lives under threat:
1: Iraq
2: Kosovo
3: Libya

Now then onto your "Article"

What do you think the following refers to?

(A) "David Cameron was forced to abandon plans for Britain to participate in military STRIKES against Syria"

Hang on I will tell you - AIR STRIKES (If you refer to the actions of ground troops the wording would refer to "raids", "assaults", "offensive operations" - not "strikes".)

(B) "The decision came just hours after Britain had sent fighter jets to the region."

As these were the only British Forces deployed it would seem to imply that only AIR STRIKES were being considered - NO deployment of boots on the ground in Syria.

(C) Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader, said: "We are, I think, living under the shadow, sadly, of Iraq. But this is not Iraq. We are not putting boots on the ground, we are not invading, we are not seeking to govern somebody else's country"

Now then Jom, in the light of all of that, what was that shit you were spouting about the debate being about sending British troops to Syria?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 06:30 AM

"Carroll "
As insecure as that eh?
The vote was held after a history of massacred and human rights abuses - no one incident can be cited - the Chemicals (possibly facilitated by British sales) were a step too far.
The Human Rights abuses are decades old
The rest is evasive bullshit.
Britain felt compelled to do something that your running- mate has described as "false news", which is why I put it up and why you are trying to steer the discussion away from
Were those who were to set up your "no fly zone" not "troops" - perhaps Securicor' offers a service we don't know about!!
" Jom"
And yet more insecurity - you really are a psychological mess.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 08:41 AM

"no one incident can be cited" - Jim Carroll

But Jom - you only cited one in your post

Then that long article from the Telegraph only cited one, the one described initially by Barack Obama as a "Red Line" incident - the use of chemical weapons on civilians.

Since when have RAF personnel ever been referred to as "troops" Jom?

send troops into Syria Is what you said Jom - you're in a hole stop digging - better still buy yourself an Observers Book of Wild Flowers and join your pals discussing orchids.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Stu
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 09:03 AM

You two should really get a room.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 09:09 AM

" Jom ", "Jom", "jom"
Bad as that?
Not really Stu - just good to see him squirm when the thread seems not to be going anywhere
Satisfied now
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Stu
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 09:31 AM

Since when do thread with the four horseman in full flow ever go anywhere? No offence intended.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 09:34 AM

Goodness Teribus, civilian lives saved by no fly zones in Libya? It would be a massive stretch to say that western intervention in Libya saved more lives than it destroyed.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 09:55 AM

Are threads supposed to go somewhere, Stu?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 09:57 AM

Maybe the old threads home?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 10:11 AM

"No offence intended."
None taken, Stu
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 11:14 AM

Thankfully Mr. Carter(UK) Gaddafi's assassins never got the opportunity to annihilate the population of Benghazi ( All 631,555 of them - "going street by street, house by house, room by room and wardrobe by wardrobe") Balance weighed the 9,400 actually killed, most of whom were combatants, stacks up quite well against what the case might have been had Gaddafi carried out his threat. So yes the establishment of the "no-fly zone" over Libya did save civilian lives.

Stu, no room needed, the solution is simple, the second the "Usual suspects", particularly Jom, stop posting arrant nonsense, then I would find no need to post at all.

As to this going nowhere? Well we have one more proven example of Jim Carroll "Made-up-shit" that the British were going to send troops into Syria. Truth of the matter is = That was never, ever considered.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 11:19 AM

Oh, give over.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 11:34 AM

What Shaw? No amusing off topic anecdote about wild flowers, cheese, beer, rambles, or pointless and unproductive demos?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 12:07 PM

They all have as much to do with the initial topic as the latest bunch of posts. May as well talk about something pleasant if we are going to wander this far off topic.

Weather has really bucked up in Airedale today. If it keeps up we will have a grand weekend at Ribblehead.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 12:13 PM

Enjoy gazing at your "Puff-Puff" Gnome - remember to take your anorak.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Stu
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 12:27 PM

El Tezzo me old sprout, you are one of the usual suspects.

Carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 12:29 PM

Oy doyen of all "factul" information. You may recall Dave saying he was sorry the steam train was NOT running when he is there.

And you expect us to believe your other rants :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 12:34 PM

Incidentally Ribbleshead Viaduct is one of the finest examples of Victorian building work on any rail system in the country. Right up your street I would have thought. It is surrounded by moorland that has been sculpted by man for centuries, again right up your street I would have thought.

But maybe not, any graceful and sublime seems an anathema to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 01:01 PM

Anoraks or similar are de rigueur out on the fells in February, Teribus but nowadays they tend to be made of Gortex or some modern breathable windproof fabric. Probably completely unlike your days swabbing decks dressed from head to foot in oilskins. Raggy has already pointed out that steam trains are not running that weekend and I must add that I did say I am no train buff anyway. Still such (in)attention to detail is only to be expected. Good to see that you agree about much pleasanter subjects anyway.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 01:03 PM

Incidentally, Raggy, in case you did not see it in daylight last time, the Station has the best view from a Gents toilet that you are likely to come across. Check it out :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 02:58 PM

Well Raggy, had YOU read Gnome's post - the locomotive he spoke so fondly of he could see this evening (13th Feb) as it would be passing about half a mile from his house - true? The loco will be running between Skipton and Appleby during the week from the 14th to 16th of Feb and as I understood it Gimli was going to go a-wandering with his knapsack on his back up by Ribblehead the week-end of 18th/19th Feb. No mention of him being away from home this evening in his original post, which when all said and done is just off-topic waffle, engaged in by the usual suspects when on-topic points you and your pals have put up are being more than successfully challenged.

Yet another OWN GOAL Raggers.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 03:11 PM

As I said earlier. No more off topic than many other posts on here, including yours Teribus.

Don't think I will get to see the Tornado anyway - Bit busy and will not see much in the dark anyway.

BTW - Gimli is a Dwarf. Different race. You are getting nearly as accurate as the Daily Mail.

DtG