I'm sorry, but anyone who believes the western power's excursions in the middle east had nothing to do with the development of ISIS is beyond a dunderhead. Domestic conditions in Syria begat the civil war which immediately begat ISIS but the fact is ISIS would have popped up somewhere because, frankly, the middle east was full of pissed off nutjobs looking for an enemy to hate and we gave them the perfect excuse when we started bombing them.

As for Anne Coffey complaining about 'assassins in the shadows' - which more than likely will actually be the local CLP committee telling her to sod off to her face - an ex political aide to Alistair bloody Campbell has absolutely no ground to stand on when complaining about dirty politics.

Current politics is the dog you and people like you trained, Coffey. Tough luck when it bites you.

ISIS was formed from the remains of Al Qaida in Iraq (AQI). That organisation survived and thrived war with the USA in Fallujah etc. It was largely defeated when the US switched strategy and formed a coalition with Sunni tribes, who overthrew them using American money, intelligence and arms (known as the Anbar Awakening).

That effort fell apart when the US left Iraq, because the Shia dominated government veered towards sectarianism and ceased aiding and cooperating with all Sunni groups. Not to mention Assad releasing all the jihadists from his jails, and Iraq failing to prevent all the jihadists escaping from their own.So we do know pretty much what does and doesn't work when overthrowing ISIS.

Given that they are essentially a messianic rape cult terrorising millions of people on a daily basis, there might be some value in us taking on that task. Assuming we can persuade the capricious local powers to take responsibility for their end of the problem. If that's impossible, then we should at least provide every possible assistance to the Kurdish and Yazidi alliance simply because they are the only people in the region who have yet to actively sabotage themselves.

Ken Livingstone says sorry over 'psychiatric help' comments | Politics | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... emy-corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn warning over terror response after Paris attacks - BBC News
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34886321

I predict the next headline-grabbing UK attack will see him get pilloried to cover for massive security service ineptitude.

John McDonnell’s Mao moment is a dirty trick on his own party | Jonathan Jones | Comment is free | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... irty-trick

Labour furious over timing of Jeremy Corbyn Syria briefing | Politics | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -statement



It doesn't sound right or fair at all, but the sheer audacity...

Labour leadership in turmoil over vote on UK military action in Syria | Politics | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... n-minority

The PLP really are a bunch of Tory-Lite idiots.

With each misstep, Jeremy Corbyn is handing Britain to the Tories | Jonathan Freedland | Comment is free | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... supporters

It's more like the press and the PLP are a bunch of selfish bastards, but unless Corbyn starts making examples of the PLP whilst sticking the boot into George, he'll soon be beyond help. Though the first thing he should bloody try is getting the PLP on the same page after reigning in that d1ckhead McDonnell.

Agreed. As it stands the PLP doesn't think it has anything to lose by basically ignoring Corbyn. What it hasn't realised/doesn't care about is in the process it's actually also ignoring a big chunk of there party rank & file, who have shown they much prefer Corbyn to lot of the rest of the PLP. There's already some whining about the Momentum group running 'deselection campaigns' against Blairite MPs but the bare fact is they're doing all sorts of things the people who voted for them don't want them to do and that's a recipe for trouble in the long term.

I'm not saying they should always toe the party line, it's just if they want to do something that's not what the bloke who was elected with a massive majority like two months ago says is what the party wants, they have to sell why they're doing that. As it is they just appear to be saying 'stuff it, we've got five years until you lot get a say, we known better than you do anyway, we'll do what the hell we like'.

It's stuff like Chukka Amunna saying that the Syrian action vote has to be a free vote and can't be whipped - last time we had a Syria vote labour had a whip on it and he didn't complain at all and the only thing that's changed is that this time the party isn't going the way he wants it to. It's not that people expect the PLP to be automatons, it's just most of them are acting like spoiled children.

Corbyn was always more than happy to rebel against his whips. Why should others not follow that example now?

Deselection is a great idea though. He can reach for that little red book his friend had and together they can purge the party in order to secure permanent revolution.

There is no obvious escape route for Labour from the party’s agonies | Andrew Rawnsley | Comment is free | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ose-corbyn



That sort of lunacy has been apparent from the beginning. Nobody wants more automatons in politics, but that's clearly a farce.

Jeremy Corbyn warns rebels: I'm not going anywhere over Syria | Politics | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... here-syria

It'll be funny as fcuk if Dave can't get his war on. Though they'd be blaming Labour up and down no doubt. The honest truth is British airstrikes will make next to fcuk all difference in Syria (unless you count 'collateral damage') while painting an even bigger target on our back. The only thing that might work in real terms are targeted special forces ops alongside airstrikes. But it's quite clear even Cameron wants to fudge involvement while still 'playing the game'. Absolutely nobody wants troops getting bogged down again.

The thing is, I can not believe for one moment that the Tory party is of one mind in many things either. Every now and then, you get a glimpse behind the curtain when a back bencher asks a question in the HoC, and I expect that they are also experiencing divisions in number of areas. The Tories are very good at keeping people quiet. Labour is being far, far more public with its disagreements. It’s good sport for the media, who delights in such matters, but we, the public, are seeing their debate open and in public. We at least KNOW that Labour, whatever it does, has actually been thinking about the issues and debating it. It’s encouraging, though how long they can keep this going without suffering serious damage in the eyes of the electorate, remains to be seen. Corbyn needs a few more government U turns and climb downs before he can say it’s working.

Corbyn allowed Labour MPs a free vote. So the media is in its various ways blaming Corbyn for us going to war in Syria. Had he applied the party whip to the vote, he’d of course be blamed for us not going to war in Syria.

The vote won’t be until Wednesday, so we don’t yet know how many Labour MPs will vote contrary to Corbyn’s personal vote, and we certainly won’t know how close it will be.