Forum menu
He had his plan- to blame labour for early release of terrorists
It's a lie but people will believe it
https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1201076262854365184?s=19
You can see why he was so desperate to avoid Neil
Shock Corbyn announcement
No matter what happens in the election he will not repeat not be the next manager of Arsenal.
Ransos^^^ yes, unfortunate juxtaposition by me but Jones on a 45 minute diatribe was too much.
Some good stuff from Corbyn today about the nature of patriotism and the reasons terrorists attack the UK. It's easy to call people "evil" or "radicalised", but maybe these people are rational and feel this is their only option.
I don't know if that's true or not, but worth asking
Careful there yourguitarhero the last thing the tories want is people listening to reasoned argument and thinking things through for themselves.
“ Some good stuff from Corbyn today about the nature of patriotism and the reasons terrorists attack the UK”
Not really because it misses the obvious point that it’s not just U.K. citizens being blown up and stabbed on their own streets - it’s a worldwide phenomenon that includes countries that have had no role in any military engagements in the Middle East.
What Corbyn doesn’t like to talk about is that the indiscriminate murder we have again seen is ideological - you simply cannot have safety when thousands of people living in this country and so radicalised that their only motivation is to seek out opportunities to maximise the suffering of others e.g. deliberately targeting a concert that was mostly attended by young girls and women.
These same attacks also take place across the Muslim world and almost always are perpetrated on minority populations - that’s when they aren’t being enslaved or forced to suffer forced rape or being burnt in cages.
Corbyn has no perspective on this other than to call the leaders of these groups his “friends.”
Rob Dixon - did you read or see the interview
thats just the " terrorist sympathiser" canard repeated from you. Utter nonsense.
What fuels terrorism? Bombing brown folk out of their homes to put int very simply.
The tories pals the saudis are the biggest funders of terrorism.
So actually tory wars and tory friends drive terrorism
Quoting you on page 96 of this thread to avoid any doubt.
Thick politicians, thick voters, it’s a destructive cycle.
Would you care to address why that is hypocritical of you given that you immediately jumped on any insinuation of stupidity on the part of Leave voters on the other thread?
Oddly enough Rob Dixon
many people seem to agree with Corbyn on this one
https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1201138090720530432?s=19
Perhaps if you dropped your blinkers you'd cencede that he has a point
On the other hand, had IS been allowed to flourish we’d actually be less safe. Let alone the fact that it would have resulted in genocides against minority Muslim populations. Destroying AQ ruined their ability and leadership to inspire further attacks as well.
Although the general rule that creating chaos and instability (the Iraq war) increases terrorism does seem to be true.
Baby steps Rayban
Where did isis come from? Which countries? what had happened in those countries before the rise of isis
"Do the public agree with Jeremy Corbyn who will say today that "the actions of successive governments have fueled, not reduced the threat of terrorism" ?"
The US State Department and MI5 both agree with him too, those dirty terrorist sympathisers.
Baby steps Rayban
Where did isis come from? Which countries? what had happened in those countries before the rise of isis
Did you notice I mentioned the Iraq war?
It was our responsibility to clean up our mess, stating that we shouldn’t have got involved because it would increase the risk to us is racist - yazidi and Kurd lives are apparently worth less than British lives.
Nice. ISIS that arose out of the ruins of Iraq and Libya - two countries we helped destroy - have caused huge suffering worldwide.
Now try this one - is the average inhabitant of Iraq and libya better off now than before we smashed their countries? Was the number of brown folk we killed worth it?
Nice. ISIS that arose out of the ruins of Iraq and Libya – two countries we helped destroy – have caused huge suffering worldwide.
Now try this one – is the average inhabitant of Iraq and libya better off now than before we smashed their countries? Was the number of brown folk we killed worth it?
Again jumping the gun here TJ - I’ve not made any claims supporting the Iraq war, only that it was our responsibility to make sure that ISIS did not gain a permanent foothold in the region.
Still refusing to answer Rayban?
What created the conditions for the rise of Isis? Who armed them at the beginning?
Still refusing to answer Rayban?
What created the conditions for the rise of Isis? Who armed them at the beginning?
I’ve said the Iraq war created chaos and instability.
Who funds Isis?
10er on you thinking it’s Israel.
Right - so now you accept that the first gulf war created the conditions for the rise of Isis. another baby step from you. don't worry. I'll nurse you thru this
who armed them at the beginning?
Now try this one – is the average inhabitant of Iraq and libya better off now than before we smashed their countries?
Some sweeping assumptions contained in that! But we're off topic again.
OK
I got told off by frank for engaging with Rayban and taking the thread off track so won't do it again
Iraq and libya where stable and wealthy countries pre 1990. Our bombing of them killed many millions of people and created the conditions for the rise of Isis
During the first gulf "war" we armed insurgents and encouraged them to take arms from the Iraqi army dumps. these insurgents became Isis. so Isis were created by us and the Americans
Isis thrives on grievance - it requires that to recruit. Its much easier to recruit from a population who has seen their country " bombed into the stone age"
Saudi Arabia funds Isis. the same Saudi arabia that our goverments fawn over.
Everytime we go bombing brown folk we create more recruits for Isis
Fighting for peace is a nonsense. Its like bonking for virginity
Every intervention we make in the middle east / North africa simply fuels the rise of terrorism
So the answer to who created Isis is us, the Americans and the Saudis
Oh dear
I thought you were gaining some glimmers of understanding.
Never mind
You can’t compare an intervention on behalf of a state based actor, with multiple regional state based actors also playing a role with an occupation and getting involved in what was essentially a tribal conflict.
Another thread ruined.
Boris got some nerve blaming Labour for the attack! Shameful frankly. Corbyn gets difficult questions on AS every interview. Bojo has got half a dozen or more subjects he needs to answer difficult questions on!
Hope he does the A. Neil interview. I'm thinking no chance
Hope Corbyn demands an apology for blaming Labour in the head to head.
Actually I've had enough of demanding apologies its ****ing stupid.
There’s no way he’s doing the Andrew Neil interview. Not a chance
We’ve had mates up from that there London this weekend. They were talking about a conversation they were having with a mate of there’s who works in the print meedya in London.
They were saying how the main concerns of Johnson’s minders at Tory Central office is trying to keep him relatively sober during the rest of the election campaign.
Apparently it’s common knowledge In Westminster circles that he’s a raging vodka-on-your-cornflakes level alcoholic. Having a read of some of the papers, with that in mind, there seems to be quite a few insinuations to that effect
Had to switch channels away from Swinson this morning. About five 'you knows' per sentence. Nearly as bad as Johnson umming.
Got to say (even though no love for her) - Jo Swinson much better since she dropped the massive ego - in debate.
Binners - I've also heard that rumoured but we need conclusive proof and in the media.
Lives in hope......
Binners – I’ve also heard that rumoured but we need conclusive proof and in the media.
Lives in hope……
Nah This is what he has for breakfast.
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49154007021_540d2851a2.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49154007021_540d2851a2.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/2hTz8MF ]EJw-tMHXkAESE3j[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/140397021@N03/ ]michaelwex10[/url], on Flickr
Gove special.
Apparently, from the same source, Gove is even worse. Pretty much permanently pissed
A colleagues school friend works for Dept for international trade
She said that Fox was kind but dumb as a post , she said Truss is incredibly rude & all the staff hate her.
I can see both Gove & Johnson being haunted by their demons & past mistakes that they hit the bottle hard.
Fact is, Johnson could be found unconscious in a crack den in just his underpants , have it splashed over the papers and people would still vote for him because he's 'gonna get Brexit done'
I say again, shit floats right now. The very worst politicians seem to attract funding and media attention.
Liz Truss is as thick as mince. When she’s being interviewed you can literally see the cogs clunking away as she tries to work out which way is up. A vile human being
She’s lauded by the same people who accuse Dianne Abbot of being thick.
I know who Id rather have in charge of a govt dept and it ain’t Truss.
U.K. PRIME MINISTER BORIS JOHNSON ACCUSED OF PLAGIARIZING PROMINENT LEGAL BLOG IN TWEETS ABOUT LONDON BRIDGE ATTACKER
Drac
Subscriber
Another thread ruined.
Have you tried turning your iPad off aaand on again?
Pretty much permanently pissed
So was Charles Kennedy, but he was pretty much universally loved.
She’s lauded by the same people who accuse Dianne Abbot of being thick.
I think Abbot is incredibly dumb, and Truss is a moron. Does that prove or disprove the point?
Being pissed all the time does explain how they manage to come out with so much shit and not care about it.
Iraq and libya where stable and wealthy countries pre 1990.
They were also dictatorships with dubious human rights records, but that doesn't play into your narrative. It's no wonder you cherry picked the defining characteristics.
But sometimes leaving a dictator with a terrible record on human rights in charge is the least worst option. Saudi Arabia being a prime example of this.
Anyhoo, back on topic, who in the hell do I vote for? It's between labour and ex-labour (now tigfc) in my ward, and their pamphlets are more or less identical.
It's got split vote letting the Tories in written all over it:-/
They were also dictatorships with dubious human rights records
They certainly were. The question is did the interventions make it any better and have they ever made it any better. A dictatorship may not sound great but sometimes things are better left alone rather than killing a whole load of people and ending up with something no better.
Still, may have got some oil out of it and upped the sales of weapons...
A dictatorship may not sound great but sometimes things are better left alone
Agreed.
But making it sound like a dusty paradise before there were boots on the ground is a little lopsided.
Still, Boris drunk? George Michael will be gay next.
If anyone wants to understand the history of our relationship with the middle east specifically Saudi, Iraq and Libya then watch Bitter Lake by Adam Curtis: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02gyz6b/adam-curtis-bitter-lake