Forum menu
slowoldman - MemberI would have thought this is precisely the time to be discussing the cause of such atrocities.
yeah, god forbid we should talk about government policy and reaction to terrorism before an election. Obviously it's fine as long as you just dispense simple platitudes but you cross a line if you actually want to think about it.
Definitely touches the right talking points, but also sounds sincere
I think he is sincere - he's been very consistent in his views about British foreign policy, going back a long time.
When I saw the current YouGuv poll, I honestly thought it was from before the Manchester bomb. Heartened to see that it wasn't.
+1
There may actually be some Hope after all!
Just listened to his speech. Probably the best he's ever given IMO. He came across as quite the statesman, and didn't once try to blame the tories or anyone else for what has happened. I was nervous last night when I heard what he was going to talk about, but he got it dead on. I look forward to other politicians following suit.
Unfortunately there was enough in there for anyone to choose a snippet which suits their agenda (as some are already doing), but hopefully people are starting to see through that a bit. At least I assume they must be for the polls to swing so much.dazh - MemberJust listened to his speech. Probably the best he's ever given IMO. He came across as quite the statesman, and didn't once try to blame the tories or anyone else for what has happened. I was nervous last night when I heard what he was going to talk about, but he got it dead on. I look forward to other politicians following suit.
Yes, ironically it's probably a strong suit of his in terms of knowledge, having been involved in pacifism for a long time.
Whether or not he can convince the electorate that bombing brown people isn't the answer though is another issue.
Well it was when the UK participated in the liberation of Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. However, Corbyn was anti this as well.
Just as Blair was blinded into thinking intervention was always going to lead to success. Corbyn is blinded into thinking standing by and doing nothing is the key. Both are wrong the world nuanced and complicated than that.
Corbyn is blinded into thinking standing by and doing nothing is the key.
Have you read/heard his speech? Could you point out the bit where he said we should do nothing?
It's interesting that people think that Corbyn doesn't understand this, when he is usually the one with the more nuanced and complicated view.Both are wrong the world nuanced and complicated than that.
Obvious crassness here :
The people who we ask to protect us and care for us in the emergency services, who yet again did our country proud: the police; firefighters and paramedics; the nurses and doctors; people who never let us down and deserve all the support we can give them.And the people who did their best to help on that dreadful Monday night – the homeless men who rushed towards the carnage to comfort the dying, the taxi drivers who took the stranded home for free, the local people who offered comfort, and even their homes, to the teenagers who couldn’t find their parents.
They are the people of Manchester. But we know that attacks, such as the one at the Manchester Arena, could have happened anywhere and that the people in any city, town or village in Britain would have responded in the same way.
It is these people who are the strength and the heart of our society. They are the country we love and the country we seek to serve.
That is the solidarity that defines our United Kingdom. That is the country I meet on the streets every day; the human warmth, the basic decency and kindness.
It is our compassion that defines the Britain I love. And it is compassion that the bereaved families need most of all at this time. To them I say: the whole country reaches out its arms to you and will be here for you not just this week, but in the weeks and years to come.
Good to hear that Jezza thinks that we should stand united in the face of our enemies
How times change
And true to form, trying to make as much political capital out of something he didn't actually say, here's Michael Fallon, the tories chief fantasist:
[i]"He seems to be implying that a terrorist attack in Manchester is somehow our fault, it’s somehow Britain’s fault."[/i]
They just can't help themselves can they?
They just can't help themselves can they?
Well he is trying to sneak into number 10 and steal the election...
And it is obviously rightfully theirsWell he is trying to sneak into number 10 and steal the election...
Corbyn is blinded into thinking standing by and doing nothing is the key.
If it's a government. In contrast they regard terrorism as a terrific way to "bring Britain to the negotiating table."
Plus the party that gave us Iraq telling me that campaigns like Iraq create terrorism is a bit bloody rich.
"He seems to be implying that a terrorist attack in Manchester is somehow our fault, it’s somehow Britain’s fault." something he didn't actually say
If Corbyn *had* said it I think he'd have been pretty much right. If we'd propped up Gadaffi instead of helping to depose him I think there's a fair chance Manchester wouldn't have happened. Deposing (relatively) reasonable secular leaders and replacing them with Militant Islamic regemes is clearly going to create more terrorism. ....and let's not forget Fallon was so keen to replace Assad with Islamic extremists that he invented a completely fictional 'Liberal Army' in Syria as a pretext to do so.
Whether or not he can convince the electorate that bombing brown people isn't the answer though is another issue.
I think the electorate are on board with this and have been for years, even Labour admit it cost them a fair few votes. (Blair acknowledges it in 'A Journey', but rightly points out not enough to actually lose.)
If Corbyn *had* said it I think he'd have been pretty much right.
Agree. Take some examples from countries which don't think they can chang the world for the better by interfering with everything only to find they made it worse (every single time)
And true to form, trying to make as much political capital out of something he didn't actually say, here's Michael Fallon, the tories chief fantasist:"He seems to be implying that a terrorist attack in Manchester is somehow our fault, it’s somehow Britain’s fault."
They just can't help themselves can they?
That would be the Michael Fallon who called Nelson Mandela a terrorist...
If we'd propped up Gadaffi instead of helping to depose him I think there's a fair chance Manchester wouldn't have happened.
WPC Yvonne Fletcher
Berlin Discotheque
Lockerbie
To name but a few
Corbyn is blinded into thinking standing by and doing nothing is the key
Did he say not to do anything?
Obvious crassness here
See, there's the difference. May simmply says 'we need to bring the country together' as if that'll have any effect. That Corbyn speech however is actually pretty moving.
If Corbyn *had* said it I think he'd have been pretty much right. If we'd propped up Gadaffi instead of helping to depose him I think there's a fair chance Manchester wouldn't have happened. Deposing (relatively) reasonable secular leaders and replacing them with Militant Islamic regemes is clearly going to create more terrorism.
This narrative doesn't stand up, he was anti Gadaffi, propping up that regime would just give a different grievence
but I wonder if foreign policy isn't the common factor here.
Many radicalised people have very explicitly said it is - which is a difficult body of evidence to ignore...
Corbyn is blinded into thinking standing by and doing nothing is the key.
What's the "doing [i]something[/i]" that'll fix all this, then?
The "everything we've done so far" hasn't exactly helped, has it?
Besides, he's not saying "do nothing" - he's saying talk to the buggers.
It's the only approach that has [i]ever[/i] worked against terrorism.
History tells you that.
Take some examples from countries which don't think they can chang the world for the better by interfering with everything only to find they made it worse (every single time)
That's not always true. A lot of the (relatively) reasonable secular leaders were put in place and propped up by intervention in the first place specifically to prevent militant lunatics taking over.
...but yeah, if you've got stability, and there's no liberal government in waiting then deposing the (relatively) reasonable secular leader is a very bad thing to do and the USA seem to have well understood that for a good few decades before 9/11.
Well doing nothing would have resulted in ISIL taking over Iraq.
[b]"UK foreign policy would change under a Labour government to one that "reduces rather than increases the threat" to the country, Jeremy Corbyn is to say".[/b]
ISIL and franchised groups are now active in close to 50 countries, the majority of which are not in the "West" and in most cases have played no role in Libya, Iraq or other "hotspots".
If Corbyn's diagnosis of the root cause of Islamist terror in the UK is foreign policy he's completely wrong.
ISIL themselves have stated that their attacks on European countries are nothing to do with foreign policy and solely motivated by a desire to:
1. attack the kuffir
2. kill non believers
3. establish a worldwide caliphate.
4. see an end to secularism, liberalism and democracy.
For this reason there is no scope for negotiating - ISIL and similar groups have no interest in doing so and what our domestic foreign policy has been / will be is by and large removed from the Islamist terror attacks that first started in the 1980s and are spreading in line with the adoption of Wahabi / Salafist Islam.
Even reasonably stable Islamic secular states like Indonesia are now having to deal with terrorism and unrest i.e. recent events in Aceh.
Well doing nothing would have resulted in ISIL taking over Iraq.
If we'd done nothing then ISIS wouldn't have been there in the first place.
Besides, he's not saying "do nothing" - he's saying talk to the buggers.It's the only approach that has ever worked against terrorism.
No it isn't, the peace in NI came about from military action, penetrations by the security services, and the passage of time leading to key personalities deciding to talk
On what basis do you want to talk to an ideology that is expansionary by military conquest, commits genocide, operates a system of slavery and even kills people of Islamic faith if it's the wrong denomination?
What's the "doing something" that'll fix all this, then?
That's a big topic but telling the terrorists that terrorism is a really effective way to "bring Britain to the negotiating table" isn't the best of starts.
WPC Yvonne Fletcher
Berlin Discotheque
LockerbieTo name but a few
Gadaffi was well back in his box at the point he was deposed. We had far more influence over him than we do over the various Islamist factions. Moreover Lybia under Gadaffi was in such good shape that immigrants from Eritrea didn't even get to Europe becuase they typically found good jobs in Lybia - now Lybia's a basket case run by loons migrants have to keep going to Europe. (Whether that's good or bad is another issue, but it shows that Gadaffi was a better leader than the Islamist factions.)
ISIL themselves have stated that their attacks on European countries are nothing to do with foreign policy and solely motivated by a desire to:
1. attack the kuffir
2. kill non believers
3. establish a worldwide caliphate.
4. see an end to secularism, liberalism and democracy.
But how to ISIL get supporters? They recruit from the poor, downtrodden and oppressed.
I believe history has shown that by making people happier they are less likely to take up arms for crackpot armies.
May be Corbyn could demonstrate his Philosophy here
I'm sure the airfare could be crowd funded
If Corbyn's diagnosis of the root cause of Islamist terror in the UK is foreign policy he's completely wrong.ISIL themselves have stated that their attacks on European countries are nothing to do with foreign policy and solely motivated by a desire to:
1. attack the kuffir
2. kill non believers
3. establish a worldwide caliphate.
4. see an end to secularism, liberalism and democracy.
I reckon your underlying point holds true - unless Corbyn has a time machine to undo everything that's already happened then him simply stating the obvious isn't going to help.
However, I reckon your listed objectives are wrong. I think there's a very strong case that ISIS are quite sincerely using these attacks to provoke the West (Rome) into a massive appocalyptic final battle at Dabiq:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Besides, he's not saying "do nothing" - he's saying talk to the buggers.It's the only approach that has ever worked against terrorism.
If by "the buggers" you mean ISIS, he isn't saying that.
No it isn't, the peace in NI came about from military action, penetrations by the security services, and the passage of time leading to key personalities deciding to talk
On what basis do you want to talk to an ideology that is expansionary by military conquest, commits genocide, operates a system of slavery and even kills people of Islamic faith if it's the wrong denomination?
He's not saying we should talk to ISIS, he's saying that military action has led to destroyed states in which groups like ISIS can prosper, and that we'd be better off a) not doing it in the first place, and b) where we have done it, keep a dialogue with local elements that can contribute to rebuilding the society.
Not too contentious, I'd say, though the usual suspects will make the customary distortions.
May be Corbyn could demonstrate his Philosophy here
What are you trying to say?
That ISIS are bad? We know this, so does Corbyn.
That we need to do something? Yes, we do.
That we should send in the troops? Won't work, and more people will die.
So - what? Come on, let's hear it.
but telling the terrorists that terrorism is a really effective way to "bring Britain to the negotiating table" isn't the best of starts.
The UK did this in Palestine in the 1940's when the Jewish were the terrorists and it ended very badly, and resulted in the mess we now have with Israel and the surrounding Arabs.
In NI it was military intelligence and ability to act on it, that was one of the primary drivers for bringing the IRA to the negotiating table.
He's not saying we should talk to ISIS, he's saying that military action has led to destroyed states in which groups like ISIS can prosper, and that we'd be better off a) not doing it in the first place, and b) where we have done it, keep a dialogue with local elements that can contribute to rebuilding the society.
That's fine as the "I wouldn't start from here" bit
Seeing as we are "here" what is Corbyn proposing is done in regard to ISIS
Has he actually stated what that is?
In NI it was military intelligence and ability to act on it, that was one of the primary drivers for bringing the IRA to the negotiating table.
No, no, no, you've got it all wrong:
It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table.
That's fine as the "I wouldn't start from here" bitSeeing as we are "here" what is Corbyn proposing is done in regard to ISIS
Has he actually stated what that is?
See item (b) in my post.
In NI it was military intelligence and ability to act on it, that was one of the primary drivers for bringing the IRA to the negotiating table.No, no, no, you've got it all wrong:
It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table.
In what way are those statements contradictory?
That's fine as the "I wouldn't start from here" bitSeeing as we are "here" what is Corbyn proposing is done in regard to ISIS
Has he actually stated what that is?
Hold a vigil, sing some songs, tie some ribbons to a fence and surround it with tea lights.
Job Jobbed, terrorism defeated overnight.
In what way are those statements contradictory?
One says Britain's tactics brought the IRA to the negotiating table. The other says terrorism brought Britain to the negotiating table.
They are opposite.
...but that's not why I find the second quote dispicable. The reason I find it dispicable is because it's directly encourgages people like Abedi to use terrorism to influence Britain. The last thing this scum need to hear is that killing kids gets you influence.
Even if someone thinks that "every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us", it's unhelpful to say it in public.
Not too contentious, I'd say, though the usual suspects will make the customary distortions
Hold a vigil, sing some songs, tie some ribbons to a fence and surround it with tea lights.Job Jobbed, terrorism defeated overnight.
Quelle surprise!
Hold a vigil, sing some songs, tie some ribbons to a fence and surround it with tea lights.Job Jobbed, terrorism defeated overnight.
Is that what he really said? Or are you just being a git?
I wonder what goes through your mind when writing a post like this. Do you think you are helping, or making a sound point? I think you should have a bit of a think.
One says Britain's tactics brought the IRA. The other says terrorism brought Britain to the negotiating table.They are opposite.
Nope. Try again.
Britain and the IRA came to the negotiating table for different reasons. Nobody said otherwise.
The reason I find it dispicable is because it's directly encourgages people like Abedi to use terrorism to influence Britain.
Not really - a cursory glance at a history book is enough to see the truth of this.
Is that what he really said? Or are you just being a git?
Are you new around here?
Is that what he really said? Or are you just being a git?
Ok, so what did he say the solution and path forwards was?
Oh, sorry, he didn't, did he?
Just like with Kosovo, Iraq, Bosnia, Israel and everything else difficult, Corbyn is heavy on the critisism and light on the solutions.