ernie_lynch - Member
I suspect epicyclo thinks that Corbyn should ignore the House of Lords and pretend that that part of our bicameral legislature doesn't exist.

No, I think representatives should be accountable to the electorate.

ernie. I approve of JC.

So do I, I trust his judgement more than I do the judgement of most other MPs. I know nothing about Mike Watson, if Corbyn has decided that today he is suitable for a post in the shadow cabinet, whatever occurred 10 years ago, then I accept his judgement on the matter.

If I have doubts concerning Corbyn then they are with regards to much more important issues. I'm not particularly comfortable with Corbyn's repeated declarations that he's not a 'deficit denier' which I feel lends credibility to the current Tory/right-wing narrative - remember the Tories have been deficit deniers for most of the period they've been in government since WW2, it's only now that they want to use it as a tool to attack the welfare state (while giving tax breaks to the very wealthiest in society) that the Tories want to talk about deficits, before that it was a non-issue.

I'm also uncomfortable with regards to Corbyn not even talking about a special party conference to re-democratize the party. Remember that despite having the support of 60% of those who voted in the leadership election Corbyn only got onto the ballot paper in the final minutes before nominations closed because the right-wing antidemocratic PLP elite screwed up, they will never make that mistake again. Corbyn hasn't done or suggested anything to reduce the enormous power they have to thwart the democratic wishes of the party.

No, I think representatives should be accountable to the electorate.

So you think Corbyn should instead reform or abolish the House of Lords, despite the fact that he is only leader of the opposition ?

I can't think of any party leader more likely to reform or abolish the House of Lords than Corbyn. To achieve that though he has to be the prime minister, in the meantime he has to accept our legislature as it exists.

They might call him JC but he can't work miracles.

konabunny - Member
...Some terrorists turned to terrorism because they don't have any popular legitimacy and/or because they're simply scumbags.

And some because they want their country back.
One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.

I'm not sure which people you are describing when you say "they want their country back". Perhaps you're referring to the people who blow up abortion clinics or throw acid in the faces of children. They're people who have no popular legitimacy and are scumbags. They are people that want peace on their terms. Is that who you were referring to? Perhaps you could be more specific about who are the terrorists that just "want their country back".

time reading public and private reports and opinion pieces on GEO-politics and finance than do most (all ?) here not least as that's part of what I am paid to do so spend a lot of time every day doing just that

To my mind, it makes them both very unconvincing.

Oh come on,who hasn't set fire to a building after a night out? I would go and watch United( Dundee) at the time because my mate had two hospitality passes. Being minks we would rock up at 11.31 am, He would be in the free bar necking spirits already. Clearly had a drink problem which was dramatically announced to the papers. FWIW he is supposed to have set the fires after he was refused more drink,now that he doesn't drink,I am fairly confident he is unlikely to behave in a similar way. But Corbyn could appoint Johnny Wilkinson to his cabinet and the right would smear him.

Re: Wilkinson, I heard he "snubbed" the rugby to do a constituency surgery. This is an outrage! 😉

ernie_lynch - Member
...So you think Corbyn should instead reform or abolish the House of Lords, despite the fact that he is only leader of the opposition ?...

He can make a start by not appointing them to positions of power and influence.

konabunny - Member
"One man's terrorist is another man's X" is a remarkably lazy thing to say.
I'm not sure which people you are describing when you say "they want their country back". Perhaps you're referring to the people who blow up abortion clinics or throw acid in the faces of children...

Now you're hoping I'll give an example. No, all forms of war are dirty, and generally the terrorists are fighting an asymmetrical war where they kill in the tens (horribly) while the other dominant side kills thousands (or hundreds of thousands) but that's not horrible because gets glossed over by a compliant media peddling govt propaganda.

Surely you can think of a recent example of that?

Whilst setting fire to some curtains in a refusal to serve booze seems like a scene out of Withnail and I the reality is that
1) we have all done ridiculous and stupid things when pissed. Does anyone think the Cabinet Bullingdon boys have not done things that they would prefer to not get into the public arena perhaps with cocaine and prostitutes if rumours are to be believed.

2) we want our politicians to bemore like real people

Therefore when this happens dont moan about it but accept that they, like us all , are mixed bag of strength, weaknesses and errors of judgement in the past.

I do like, and look forward to, KB inputs to the forum

EDIT:

He can make a start by not appointing them to positions of power and influence.

Its rather hard for the opposition leader to not pick a Leader of the Lords opposition who is not a Lord

The system of govt means that it can be easier to affect change of policy and the actuality of the wording in that chamber than in the commons.
he has no real choice if he wants to hold them to account.

Corbyn will probably announce this week that he's planning to nationalise the IRA.

Now you're hoping I'll give an example.

Perhaps you could be more specific about who are the terrorists that just "want their country back".

What does "terrorist" actually mean, beyond "bloke on the other side"?

Someone who uses violence/murder/death and terror, as opposed to direct action or democratic processes, to achieve a political goal

Like, a soldier, then?

OED definition is:

The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

This is different from a solider who has to abide by certain rules and had certain rights.

There are rules that you have to follow to make war 'official' which is why all soldiers aren't charged with dozens of counts of murder when they get back. Terrorists don't follow them (or can't).

Surely you must know this?

You win you're a freedom fighter, you lose you're a terrorist was what I always thought the official definition was.

There are rules that you have to follow to make war 'official' which is why all soldiers aren't charged with dozens of counts of murder when they get back. Terrorists don't follow them (or can't).

Really? Who made up these rules? Where were they agreed on?

The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Who is the one who "authorizes" the violence and intimidation? Where was the job advertised?

The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Well that explains why the IDF isn't classed as terrorist - they are officially authorized by the Israelis. I had always wondered.

The IRA missed a trick by not getting someone to 'officially authorize' them eh?

Like, a soldier, then?

A bit like a soldier, but not in uniform, or a standing army, or serving a state, or seeking to hold territory.

Hmm. Seems that, for example, Hamas and Hezbullah fit that definition quite well.So, actually, quite similar after all.

I'm fairly sure that some organisations which are classed as terrorist by the UK government have uniforms, have combatants with no other jobs, hold territory, and engage in civil administration. So a bit like a soldier then.

I'm fairly sure that some organisations which are classed as terrorist by the UK government have uniforms, have combatants with no other jobs, hold territory, and engage in civil administration. So a bit like a soldier then.

Whereas, for example, the French Resistance did not meet any of those criteria.

Who made up these rules? Where were they agreed on?

Google not working for you? This is all history, afaik.

Or are you trying obliquely to make a point? If so, please get on with it 🙂

Hamas and Hezbullah fit that definition quite well.

I'm not sure about Hezbullah but the UK government does not class Hamas as terrorist, it is perfectly legal in the UK to be a member of Hamas. However the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades which has close links with Hamas is classed a terrorist by the UK government.

To say that Hamas is classed as terrorist is as factually incorrect as claiming that Sinn Fein is.

Google not working for you? This is all history, afaik.

Really? I must have missed that lesson. Help me out.

Or are you just making stuff up?

To say that Hamas is classed as terrorist is as factually incorrect as claiming that Sinn Fein is.

I don't doubt it, but it is classed as "terrorist" by a number of bodies including the EU.

Whereas, for example, the French Resistance did not meet any of those criteria.

Which is why they were terrorists.

And enemies of the Third Reich ! Gott im Himmel ! Schweinhunds !

If you look at the eu as an occupying force, as no doubt tens of millions of people across the world do, then it can make it incredibly hard to see a difference between the French resistance in WW2 and many so-called terrorist organisations

French resistance would have been considered terrorists if caught by the Nazis. Unlike a British soldier in uniform who would have been sent to a POW camp.

The SOE in WW2 were setup based on terrorist lines and were all aware of having no rights of captured on a mission. Infact they were required to sign that they understood that and the UK government would deny they were theirs.

Historically the rules were 'gentlemans agreements' between European powers, later on coded into things like the Geneva convention.

So when it suited them, the British government sanctioned acts outside the rules of engagement. That would make them state sponsored and sanctioned acts of terrorism. Which is quite embarrassing for Jeremy Corbyn, as I saw him on television the other day having a discussion with the leader of her majesty's government, he really is friends with terrorists.

A bit like drone assassination in a country in which you are supposedly not at war?

In WW2 yes at Churchill's request. SOE was shut down afterwards. It's what Flemming based James Bond on. SOE is considered controversial with historians as a result of being outside of normal warfare rules.

There's a long history of making words more emotive than they actually are. Like terrorist, it's largely used to demonize and promote a particular course of action.

terrorist
"a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims."

That covers a wide range of actions, that largely aren't classed as terrorism by the likes of our media.

It's pretty simple, don't rely on basising your opinion based on the emotive use of language by the media. Labels are irrelevant. Ignore the emotions, and look at the history and actions and decide for yourself.

Terrorism is a widely used tactic and has been for a long long time. It's not always called that though.

The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

That definition is somewhat at odds with our human rights, particularly the right to life, and the right to liberty and security.

I'd argue even authorised violence is terrorism.

Which is quite embarrassing for Jeremy Corbyn, as I saw him on television the other day having a discussion with the leader of her majesty's government, he really is friends with terrorists.

Disgusting. He should take a leaf out of Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu's book - he refused to share a platform with Tony Blair because he didn't want to be associated with a terrorist.

I have no idea why you are attributing that quote to me seosamh, I didn't make it, I merely responded to it.

aye, didn't mean to, edited.

Fair enough.

BTW it should be remembered that terrorists we like are called "rebels".

When ISIS was beheading Syrian soldiers the UK government classed them as nothing more than rebels. But when they became naughty and crossed the border into Iraq and did the same thing to our friends they were reclassified as terrorists.

From the start of the Syrian Civil War until June last year ISIS were rebels, after June last year they were terrorists. Despite using exactly the same tactics before and after June last year.

Remember, if it's you doing the terrorism it's "shock and awe" and "sending a clear message".

the Rev Charles Dodgson on the subject of meanings of words,and he knew what he was talking about.“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

BTW it should be remembered that terrorists we like are called "rebels".

Or "freedom fighters", of whom I think the Nicaraguan Contras were the first example, murdering teachers and doctors in the cause of ... errr .... "freedom".

The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Could easily be a description of our intervention in Iraq.

Except it was official and authorised.

It's just what you call the enemy.

So - slightly more on topic - if you think Israel are behaving badly, and the Palestinians have a legitimate grudge, does that make you a terrorist sympathiser? AND are you therefore untrustworthy in some way?

Well, no, because that would be suggesting that the only method of resisting Israel's "bad behaviour" is terrorism, which is stupid.

So was Corbyn condoning terrorism then in some other way?

Shock and Awe was carried out by an authorised military coalition against another countries military and undertaken with specific engagement rules, so no not an act of terrorism.

There are many reasons to be against the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent disastrous aftermath, but labeling it things it wasn't, doesn't help the argument.

Hmm. Seems that, for example, Hamas and Hezbullah fit that definition quite well.So, actually, quite similar after all.

People like you that inject moral elements into identifying terrorism just unnecessarily muddy the waters.

Totally off topic, but did someone here say -

I wouldn't be talking up the resurgence of the left in Greece just yet as the polls suggest Syriza are going to take a beating in the snap election.

People like you that inject moral elements into identifying terrorism just unnecessarily muddy the waters.

On the contrary, I am not injecting a moral element at all. In fact I am saying that the word "terrorist" means more or less nothing. It says more about the person using the word than it does about their subject.

I think that's fairly accurate DrJ.

Shock and Awe was carried out by an authorised military coalition

As I asked before - who did the authorising? Is it like a passport application where it has to be signed by a GP or a solicitor?

Well, it was authorised by parliament. They did apparently consult a legal team on the legality. BUT I believe there is some debate as to whether or not that team was correct, as we know there is often dispute between different legal professionals. It's kind of their job after all.

I still think your point would be better made though if you just stated it rather than asking all these questions to which I am sure you know the answer.

Well, it was authorised by parliament.

So, in effect, then, the UK parliament decides who is a terrorist and who isn't? Who invested them with that authority? Call me churlish, but it seems a bit unfair.

As I asked before - who did the authorising? Is it like a passport application where it has to be signed by a GP or a solicitor?

You know all this that war criminal Blair who faked a dossier to get parliamentary approval for a war he wanted to wage

It was legitimate and illegitimate at the same time

like Hamas but with better western PR- please lets not discuss that as a serious point and treat it as a flippant throw away remark as I mean no disrespect to hamas there [ see point i just made etc]

So, in effect, then, the UK parliament decides who is a terrorist and who isn't?

Well they are supposed to operate by a set of international laws. There is a court that can adjudicate too.

Honestly don't know where you're going with this or what it's got to do with Corbyn.

Well, it was authorised by parliament. They did apparently consult a legal team on the legality.

No, parliament did not consult a legal team on the legality. The government sort legal advice which they kept secret from everyone including parliament.

2 years after the start of the Iraq War :

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/apr/28/uk.world3 ]Revealed: the government's secret legal advice on Iraq war[/url]

Quote :

[i]"Tony Blair was told by the government's most senior law officer in a confidential minute less than two weeks before the war that British participation in the American-led invasion of Iraq could be declared illegal.

In a legal opinion Mr Blair has repeatedly refused to publish and never seen by the cabinet, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, spelled out the dangers of going to war, including the prospect of Britain losing a case in an international court"[/i]

In fact as even the cabinet didn't see the legal advice it was just Tony Blair who was aware of it. The warmonger obviously didn't want his own government to see the legal advice.

Honestly don't know where you're going with this or what it's got to do with Corbyn.

What it has to do with Corbyn is that JC has been widely pilloried for cosying up to "terrorists", but as any fule kno, one man's terrorist is another man's ... err .. non-terrorist (since there is no logical or consistent definition of 'terrorist'), so this accusation is entirely empty, and just exposes the prejudices of the accuser.

Yeah, and what does 'cosying up' actually mean here?

In summary; terrorist/freedom fighter/patriot is purely a matter of perspective. If someone blows up your nan's house, it doesn't matter if the bomb came with a seal of approval from some distant political forum, you're still going to feel fairly terrorised.

Yeah, and what does 'cosying up' actually mean here?

It means keeping channels of communication open in the hope of promoting peace, or in jambaland committing gross acts of sexual depravity and devil worshipping.

Is JC a Spurs fan 😉

DrJ just because the Iraq war was wrong and Blair a liar still does not make it an act of terrorism. The British forces went and fought under a clear code of conduct and those that didn't and were caught were duely tried and punished. They also did not set out to deliberately kill women and children. This is clearly different from the IRA bombing Manchester city centre or the AQ 9-11 attacks.

The RAF destroyed Dresden.
ISIS destroyed Palmyra.
The IRA destroyed Cannon Street.

If we are going to infiltrate terrorist or military organisations, this perfectly illustrates the importance of using someone with a decent taste in architecture.

Makes you think.

...clear code of conduct...

Perspective, it depends on yours, doesn't it?

These headlines just get better and better

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-army-could-stage-mutiny-under-corbyn-says-senior-serving-general-10509742.html ]British Army 'could stage mutiny under Corbyn', says senior serving general [/url]

They also did not set out to deliberately kill women and children. This is clearly different from the IRA bombing Manchester city centre

The PIRA Manchester bombing is a poor example as they did not set out to deliberately kill women and children. In fact nobody died because the PIRA gave a 90 minute warning.

And while the coalition might not have set out to deliberately kill women and children there was clearly a callous disregard to the known certainty that they would be killing women and children.

You don't bomb a city like this without being fully aware that you will be killing women and children.

[img] [/img]

Baghdad was a city full of women and children.

Dresden was not a terrorist attack and Nazi Germany wouldn't have considered it so either. Any shot down RAF service would have been taken to a POW camp and not shot on sight as per 'terrorists'.

PIRA I've no idea what's in their book but as they aren't the sanctioned any of Ireland and are operating outwith is laws then clearly they are terrorists.

British Army 'could stage mutiny under Corbyn', says senior serving general

There's a lot of panicking going on considering everyone is certain that Jeremy Corbyn has no chance at all of winning the next general election.

And it isn't for almost another 5 years anyway. This election that JC has absolutely no chance of winning.

Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace

I'm pretty certain the Iraq war would come under that definition. If that's not terrorism, god knows what is.

So if the army staged a coup, would that be an act of terrorism?

Dresden was not a terrorist attack

So the RAF deliberately killing 25,000 civilians was OK, but the IRA deliberately killing nobody at all was bad. You do realise how ridiculous that sounds, don't you?

BruceWee - Member
So if the army staged a coup, would that be an act of terrorism?

I've no idea why this is so difficult to grasp.

So if the army staged a coup, would that be an act of terrorism?

Good heavens no, it would be an act of patriotism.

DrJ - Member
but the IRA deliberately killing nobody at all was bad.

But with in that there is the added compliction of spies, plants, deliberately ignored warnings, collusion and direct support for loyalist paramilitaries.

From the 70s onwards, the PIRA weren't the only ones engaged in terrorism. It's a pretty standard tactic in any war.

Although anybody fighting against the army to support the democratically elected government would be terrorist scum.

It wasn't intended as a wholly serious comment.

Merely an illustration of the pathetic hair splitting and ignorant nonsense spouted by those attempting to justify mass murder.

From the 'Green Book'

The Irish Republican Army, as the legal representatives of the Irish people, are morally justified in carrying out a campaign of resistance against foreign occupation forces and domestic collaborators. All volunteers are and must feel morally justified in carrying out the dictates of the legal government; they as the Army are the legal and lawful Army of the Irish Republic which has been forced underground by overwhelming forces.

going on considering everyone is certain that Jeremy Corbyn has no chance at all of winning the next general election.