Forum menu
I know DrJ. Was supposed to be then I lost the plot a bit. It was not right of me.
Can you explain how he is a 'danger' - other than just parroting tabloid headlines?
I think that is a "no".
know DrJ. Was supposed to be then I lost the plot a bit. It was not right of me.
Fair do's.
People are absolutely entitled to interpret those events how they wish
Hah! And you accuse Corbyn of being naive?!
The facts are the facts, but people aren't debating those. They are picking them out of context to justify a pre-existing belief. You're doing it, the media are doing it, and the general population are either doing it or reading other people doing it. On both sides.
If you don't understand this then you are either staggeringly naive or dim. Or unwilling to examine your own thought processes because you like your own conclusions. Telling yourself what you want to hear, in other words.
@grum if I thought you where actually interested in my reply I'd answer in detail, however think of it in the same way as Labour who lost the last election not least as they lacked credibility on the economy and migration (as per focus group research/debriefs). Corbyn is seen as a danger on these issues, security and more. What is important is not my view but those of the voters in winnable constituencies deciding whether to vote Labour again. It's far too easy to attack Corbyn as his career has been one of protest politics and "sod the consequences" as he never sought a senior position in government or opposition.
I'd be interested in your answer if you weren't just doing exactly what I asked if you could avoid doing. You're not actually coming up with any valid criticism of Corbyn, you just keep repeating 'oh well this won't play well in the press'. The press is behaving in a truly disgraceful manner towards Corbyn - you claim to care about press standards, yet you keep defending this as if it's reasonable.
@gofaster - to be fair I do not think Corbyn wanted/wants to see people killed and maimed by terrorists but his wilful naivety provides legitimacy to terrorists as they so easily manipulate him. He is spectacularly naive in his statements on Argentina / Falklands and in dealing with Putin / Ukraine.
I don't think he is naive - I think he is utopian
"hey everyone, wouldn't the world be a better place if everyone just got along, and we would never need bombs or tanks, and could disband the armies, and use our bayonets to knit tofu instead"
I also think that its that that is his biggest weakness, as the electorate know that utopia doesn't really exist.
PS. loving: https://twitter.com/corbynjokes
his wilful naivety provides legitimacy to terrorists
Reading this again.. you do realise that terrorists want peace too, don't you? And that they usually only resort to violence when they have no other options?
So you have two options, don't you? Talk to them, or crush them. The latter option seems not to work, ever.
JY it's my view that 9-11 was the key factor which broke the deadlock in a process that was largely stalled.
You have rewritten it again
IMO the single biggest factor in the peace was 9-11. It ended all funding from the US and the IRA realised the terrorist narrative was done.
This is false because the facts, cause and effect and the space time continuum make it impossible.
Do you really wonder why folk question your intelligence?
@ at the gray Respect for your reply to the points raised We all do it from time to time but not all of us will admit it
Jam why dont you just take a leaf out his book eh. Anyone who can understand time or cause and effect can see your original point is wrong and it will just lead to folk questioning your integrity as well as your insight.
@grum this thread is full of posts from me saying why I think Corbyn would be a financially and politically dangerous PM, I'm relaxed about it though as he has zero chance of being elected PM in 2020. If you're that interested you can re-read from the start.
I am certain I spend far more 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. I've also been fortunate to be able to speak to an ex head of MI5 about the IRA, she was doing a presentation / corporate team building event at SCB. I appreciate others have a different opinion, we are lucky enough to live in a Democracy where we can express such views and do so free from intimidation.
I'm off out for the rest of the day so will catch up tomorrow. Pairs btw still has many fully armed troops guarding all sensitive sites like Synagogues and Jewish Schools, I suppose you all think this isn't necessary ? Big BFMTV interview last night with another Brit who had reacted when the terrorist on the train tried to open fire, another guy not the one who had the legion d'honor.
Why do you always try and give us your CV?
We don't care. It doesn't give your silly point any more authority.
I'm actually beginning to think you, thm and bainbrge are all the same person btw! Can we get and IP check? 😆
ex head of MI5 and a she...oh who could it be?
Anyway thanks for yet another appeal to authority, this time your own
Who can argue with a poster who cites his own brilliance and expertise as the evidence and an off the record anecdote.
If this sort of reason and logic does not beat cause and effect and the actual events then I for one dont know what does.
Now the thread's reduced to a few of the usual suspects clawing away like rats in a sack (otherwise known as "the debate on the left"), I just wondered - has any other thread passed the 3,000 mark?
[img] 
[/img]
Genuine LOL at Woppit!
Scottish independence was the longest by some way and a few of your god ones 😉
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0145x77 ]nice lectures [/url]by Jambalayas mate on terrorism and how to deal with it
[quote=Mr Woppit ]Now the thread's reduced to a few of the usual suspects clawing away like rats in a sack (otherwise known as "the debate on the left"), I just wondered - has any other thread passed the 3,000 mark?
[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/tune-association-threadits-friday-and-im-bored ]This one? [/url]
nice lectures by Jambalayas mate on terrorism and how to deal with it
That has obviously worked like a charm as terrorism has now gone away.
the debate on the left
To be fair, this is mostly the left vs Jambalaya.
Its mainly logic and reason v Jambalaya
He is entitled to his opinion - he makes some ok points on how ordinary folk may perceive JC IMHO though I draw the line at publicly agreeing with him 😉 - but his IRA terrorism analysis is risible TBH I was amazed anyone wants to support that view.
you do realise that terrorists want peace too, don't you? And that they usually only resort to violence when they have no other options?
This is tosh. Everyone wants peace - on their terms. Some terrorists turned to terrorism because they don't have any popular legitimacy and/or because they're simply scumbags.
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.
@grum this thread is full of posts from me saying why I think Corbyn would be a financially and politically dangerous PM, I'm relaxed about it though as he has zero chance of being elected PM in 2020. If you're that interested you can re-read from the start.
I asked for you to do it using something other than meaningless hysterical tabloid cliches though. Oh well.
you do realise that terrorists want peace too, don't you? And that they usually only resort to violence when they have no other options?This is tosh. Everyone wants peace - on their terms. Some terrorists turned to terrorism because they don't have any popular legitimacy and/or because they're simply scumbags.
This times lots, resisted making the same point myself earlier. I don't think the Taliban, or PIRA for that matter, represent the will of the majority. There's usually the option of engaging constructively with your opponents/putting up and shutting up.
I don't think the Taliban, or PIRA for that matter, represent the will of the majority. There's usually the option of engaging constructively with your opponents/putting up and shutting up.
Really? What negotiating line do you think the Russians would actually have taken? Beer and sandwiches?
Hence my use of "usually". And I was talking about the modern Taliban, not the Mujahideen.
I don't know why all the shock and surprise, especially from Molgrips, over jambalaya's suggestion that Corbyn is a terrorist sympathizer.
It's a pretty standard tactic when all else fails for those with strong right-wing views to both question the loyalty of their opponents and to claim that they sympathize with terrorists.
Donald Trump gave a wonderful example of this only yesterday when at a rally he welcomed the suggestion that the US President Barack Obama is a Muslim, not even American, and allows the growth of terrorist camps in the United States by people who want to kill Americans.
Obviously anyone with just average intelligence will dismiss as complete nonsense those suggestions, however in US presidential election everyone with below average intelligence is also gets a vote so it can be a very useful tactic.
jambalaya is merely maintaining this right-wing tradition by using the tactic against Corbyn. Others before him have used it on Ken Livingstone, who like Corbyn was accused of being a racist and terrorist sympathizer - ninfan/Z-11/Labrat did the honours on here in the case of Livingstone.
When you're struggling to offer credible and logical arguments accusing your opponent of being a disloyal terrorist sympathizer certainly beats talking about the real issues.
I don't know why all the shock and surprise, especially from Molgrips, over jambalaya's suggestion that Corbyn is a terrorist sympathizer
What I am is angry with him.
You are right though, the real issue is whether or not his alternative (to the Tories) economic policies can work. And that is a legitimate question.
his alternative (to the Tories) economic policies
Not so much an alternative to the Tory's policy, but an alternative to every other economic policy (with the possible exception of the Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe and Venezuela).
For a party that is seen as economically incompetent this isn't exactly reasuring. Funny though. Bloody funny. The longer this lasts the better. I hope the coup is months away... 😀
molgrips - MemberTo be fair, this is mostly the left vs Jambalaya.
It's causality vs Jambalaya
Not so much an alternative to the Tory's policy, but an alternative to every other economic policy (with the possible exception of the Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe and Venezuela).
Care to flesh out your comment by telling us which specific policies you imagine have anything in common with the examples you mention?
with the possible exception of the Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe and Venezuela).
Yeah go on. Compare Corbyn's version of QE (bear in mind we've been doing QE for ages) with Zimbabwe, we're keen to hear it. And then put you right 🙂
Ah Zimbabwe, we haven't heard Zimbabwe being mentioned for a while.
Corbyn is just like Robert Mugabe doncha know ?
rabid right wing view here
I wasn't sure if people would accept McDonnell's explanation and apology, although he did receive quite an applause from the QT audience, it's good to hear that the Spectator thinks they have.
The smear campaign doesn't seem to be working terribly well so far. If it carries on like this who knows Corbyn might even end up winning the next general election.
Like the racist and sectarian connections which punctuate Mr Corbyn’s life and friends-list, the Corbynistas will pretend that the facts are not facts but merely ‘smears’.
Is this Jambalaya's day job?
Forget the terrorist stuff.
Corbyn has lost all credibility as a Labour leader by appointing a Lord to his shadow cabinet IMO.
That's not really standing up for democracy.
Interesting view here:
http://publicpolicypast.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/the-wrongness-of-corbynism.html?m=1
That's not really standing up for democracy
Standing up for democracy would involve only having MPs in the shadow cabinet?
I'm not convinced that the general public shares the same faith in MPs as you apparently do epicyclo, specially as only 16 Labour MPs voted for Corbyn despite almost 60% of party members and supporters doing so.
Labour MPs appear to be very disconnected from their own party. And considering how many have expressed regret that Corbyn was even on the ballot paper, not very democratic.
It is a tad tricky having a Leader in the Lords, a shadow cabinet position, who sits in the Commons.
I suspect epicyclo thinks that Corbyn should ignore the House of Lords and pretend that that part of our bicameral legislature doesn't exist.
I don't share epics view that all lords are bad, however this one did set fire to a hotel, which makes me question his judgement slightly.
Interesting view here:
http://publicpolicypast.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/the-wrongness-of-corbynism.html?m=1
Not so interesting. Some paragraphs of huffing and puffing followed by an "analysis" that largely doesn't support the conclusions reached in the prologue. Par for the course, then.
Labour MPs appear to be very disconnected from their own party.
They want to win the next election? The traitorous bastards!
Not so interesting. Some paragraphs of huffing and puffing followed by an "analysis" that largely doesn't support the conclusions reached in the prologue. Par for the course, then.
theres none so blind...
Well I skipped past the title " the wrongness of Corbyn" excitingly looking forward to what was to come but I got distracted
SO ninfan what did it conclude? Supportive or negative the suspense is killing me
SO ninfan what did it conclude?
that some of his policies were quite positive, others negative, but the electoral sums of trying to increase vote share on the left don't add up, because you still need to take votes from the right to win.