Jeremy Corbyn

bit of a stretch to say the IRA killed no-body.

Sorry, I wasn't clear - I was comparing it with the Manchester bombing that had been discussed earlier.

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?

About as ridiculous as you're sounding. The history books are full of discussion of Dreseden, go and read some.

I've just found out he's with Dianne Abbot, she's stupider than my dog. Combine that with his weak stance on the muslm problem and he doesnt stand a chance. Sorry JC your oot!

wilburt - Member
I've just found out he's with Dianne Abbot,[b] she's as stupider than my dog.[/b] Combine that with his weak stance on the muslm problem and he doesnt stand a chance. Sorry JC your oot!

The muslim problem has been solved, turns out that 2 + 2 does equal 4 and not 5, pretty obvious all along really.

DrJ I think you need to rethink your post as Dresden no matter how much of a low point in human history wasn't an act of terrorism because GB and Germany both recognised they were at war and the pilots were RAF personnel in uniform. Same the other way around during the blitz.

You can have a peaceful coup albeit they are bit rare.

DrJ I think you need to rethink your post as Dresden no matter how much of a low point in human history wasn't an act of terrorism because GB and Germany both recognised they were at war and the pilots were RAF personnel in uniform. Same the other way around during the blitz.

Err, no, I don't think I do. You need to rethink your ideas about what terrorism is and isn't. In your world it's OK to fry thousands of people because it was "an act of war", but not OK for the IRA to destroy some ugly buildings in Manchester because it wasn't signed off by Tony Blair or whoever. Absurd.

personnel in uniform

The history books are full of discussion of Dreseden, go and read some.

Maybe you can point out some which have a happy ending, and in which all those civilians actually didn't die.

Uniform. THATS the answer!

Would party hats count?

Absurd.

Take it up with the people who make the rules.

I'm taking it up with the dopes who fhink there is a "rule book" which absolves some murderers and condemns others according to if they are wearing fancy dress.

Maybe you can point out some which have a happy ending, and in which all those civilians actually didn't die.

You've really lost me now - seriously. I'm not saying it wasn't a bad thing..? Confused.

which absolves some murderers and condemns others according to if they are wearing fancy dress.

Ah, I see. You think we are saying war is fine as long as it's legal. We're not. We're just explaining the technicalities you keep asking about.

I thought the idea that war is bad was taken for granted by all present.

Take it up with the people who make the rules.

Confused.

Well, that makes 2 of us. Why do you imagine I need to go and read books about Dresden?

Ah, I see. You think we are saying war is fine as long as it's legal.

I think that (some of) you are drawing a distinction between war carried out by "terrorists" and that carried out by good chaps in shiny uniforms.

You need to get away from Dresden imo DrJ. While it's not so easy to morally justify the destruction of Dresden Nazi Germany was a threat.

In contrast the "shock and awe" tactics used against Iraq was not because Iraq was a threat. As the former UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook famously said in his resignation speech to Parliament, the decision to bomb Iraq wasn't made because Iraq was a threat, but precisely because Iraq was seen to be weak.

Dresden [i]is[/i] a messy analogy, in that the context that it happened was pretty much universally accepted as a 'just' war, from the allies perspective. However, the justifications of firebombing a primarily civilian population to terrify and destroy the moral of the population with no primary military value pretty closely equates to terrorism, to be honest.

Dresden and more so Hiroshima/Nagasaki were essentially state-perpetrated terrorism IMO (then again, I'm not a war historian)

I'd also suggest that "shock and awe" is a term that could legitimately and absolutely appropriately appear in anyone's definition of terror. Step up George & Tony.

sadly as they tend to say about "behaviour" in war, the winner makes the rules

Anyway, getting back to the definition of terrorism.

I think we can all agree that if the bomb is dropped from the sky it's not an act of terrorism.

But if the bomb is placed on the ground then it is an act of terrorism.

I think that clears it up.

I think you're onto something there Ernie - gets us round that tricky situation with Assad, too

Seriously, nobody else is worried that there's a serving British general saying that he'd mutiny if he didn't like what Corbyn was doing?

DrJ, pleese admit your'e trolling, you must be. You seemingly don't know the difference between 'a terrorist attack' & 'terror attack'. Either that or you can't grasp the current state of affairs in this world just now.
FYI, the Dresden/Cologne/Hamburg bombings were carried out during a time when the world was at war (like nearly everyone was scrapping, yeah?) not just like now when some religious (?) cranks are trying to terrorise people &/or get their own back on someone else who caused the problem in the 1st place. (mainly the UK, reading between the lines but who knows?)
In 1939 till 1945 the UK (then known as 'Great Britain') was at war with Germany & we bombed the crap out of each other. It wasn't 'right' & it wasn't nice. But it happened, like shit happens, & you need to realise this. So, unless your'e in a position to make damn sure it doesn't happen again, which would be awesome & worthy of more than a sainthood, DEAL WITH IT & stop harping on like the RAF/UK are the only force in the world to have carried out any sort of atrocity.

FWIW, I dunno who's the most dangerous to this country between that **** cameron & that crank corbyn. (both neither worthy of capital letters)

EDIT, I think Ernie has made a good point.

Seriously, nobody else is worried that there's a serving British general saying that he'd mutiny if he didn't like what Corbyn was doing?

I doubt he'll be serving much longer...

Seriously, nobody else is worried that there's a serving British general saying that he'd mutiny if he didn't like what Corbyn was doing?

Not really because everyone knows that Corbyn stands no chance at all of winning the next general election.

Or is the consensus starting to change ?

In contrast the "shock and awe" tactics used against Iraq was not because Iraq was a threat. As the former UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook famously said in his resignation speech to Parliament, the decision to bomb Iraq wasn't made because Iraq was a threat, but precisely because Iraq was seen to be weak.

Yet was authorised by the man Jeremy has just appointed shadow justice secretary...

You seemingly don't know the difference between 'a terrorist attack' & 'terror attack'.

its the ist

and it not the fact you commit atrocities

stop harping on like the RAF/UK are the only force in the world to have carried out any sort of atrocity.

Just caught up, quite surprised to see a few major events over the weekend not mentioned. Anyway more of that in a second.

@seasom - on the CV thing, yes you have a point. I just mentioned it in responce to posters trying to trivialise arguments by comparing arguments to tabloid headlines. People here may not agree with what I have to say but it's generally well researched from public and private sources.

@Klunk yes that's the lady, very impressive. Did not catch that programme will do so soon. She was quite clear that Gadadfi had to go not least as he was the IRA's primary supplier of cemtex.

Corbyn is particularly dangerous as he's totally unproved and inexperienced as a leader, never even in the shadow cabinet. A campaigner and protest politician. His inexperience shows in how he gives credibility to terrorists by associating with them as an MP and also his statements on the UK armed forces, Trident and NATO (all of which he has now backtracked on or at least distanced himself from, being a leader is quite different to being a peotest politician)

So the weekends events just get better and better. Go Jezza go 🙂

Jezza has been closely involved with the eh Stop the War coalition for 10 years and it's chairman for the last 4. This "coalition" has some rather unsavoury elements, not least the terrorist apologist at the heart of Syrian Human Rights Observatory. I'm sure you recall their comments on what a cuddly young man was Jihadi John. So on Wednesday Stop the War published a poem on their website basically describing the Queen as endorsing terrorism. Jezza's Chairman and his comment ... I haven't read it. Sorry a Poem on the homepage of the website slandering the Queen not read but it's chairman in 5 days, not read by the leader of the Labour Party, not read by the man who's just sworn allegiance at the privy council ? Also Labour report he's pulled out of making a scheduled speech on behalf of Stop the War. He seems to be backtracking at world record pace. Shambles.

The reasoning is obvious he cannot afford to given even more ammunition to those in the Labour Party and in the press who have him by the short and curlies over his ties to terrorists, I say Labour Party as the Tories haven't even spoken up yet. As Vince Cable notes this weekend they are keeping a low profile at the moment as they want Corbyn to hang on as long as possible as they know they will make mincemeat of him and the longer he stays around the more he damages Labour as a potential party of government. The last thing they want is him to crash and burn so soon.

Yet was authorised by the man Jeremy has just appointed shadow justice secretary...

A very good point indeed ninfan.

I'm sure we can all agree that Tony Blair was perfectly willingly for women and children to die to achieve his political goal, he was in other words what is commonly accepted to be a terrorist.

The question we need to ask is why was Corbyn a member of a political party led by a terrorist ?

I think the accusation of Corbyn being all chummy with terrorists sticks in this case.

Btw to expand on my earlier reference to Robin Cook's resignation speech as Foreign Secretary here is the exact quote :

[i] "Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat". [/i]

Corbyn is particularly dangerous as he's totally unproved and inexperienced as a leader

Just like Tony Blair was then. And Thatcher. And a few others.

People here may not agree with what I have to say but it's generally well researched from public and private sources

All this is you going you know those opinion I have well I think they are right and well researched well no shit sherlock NONE OF THIS MAKES THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED TRUE

See this one for example

@ransos 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. Yes correct the where faced down by more powerful forces, when you have no negotiating position it's best not to play hardball

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/jeremy-corbyn/page/63#post-7174378

I suspect this is one so blatant even you will have to admit it may just have been wrong.

STOP FFS STOP
PLEASE READ THIS and use your awesome intellect to digest it and refrain from fallacious arguments. FWIW even the first premise is false as you are not even an expert on the things you offer views on you just claim you are 😳
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I now withdraw from further engagement with you as the realms of logic and reason are beyond your grasp

As Vince Cable notes this weekend they are keeping a low profile at the moment as they want Corbyn to hang on as long as possible as they know they will make mincemeat of him and the longer he stays around the more he damages Labour as a potential party of government. The last thing they want is him to crash and burn so soon.

His inexperience shows in how he gives credibility to terrorists by associating with them as an MP

What on earth..? How do you give credibility to terrorists? You are so far lost in this stupid image game you have lost all sight of what's actually important. Is he a terrorist? No. Does he think terrorism is a good idea? No. End of.

You are just insinuating, that is all you are doing. No better than Jivehoneyjive and his conspiracies. Makes you think, doesn't it? Hmm?

So Tsipras wins and Syriza get a other mandate to oppose austerity - how many is that now? Lets see what happens with balancing that and the demands of creditors. An interesting test case coming to an economy near you....

Jezza and co should be fascinated

See if one of my Higher Modern Studies pupils handed in homework like Jambalayas posts..."its well researched." No it isn't, see Ernie's rebuttal of your declaration of how Corbyns inexperience will be a problem.And in your opinion,what parts of that poem that you haven't read are the ones that slander the Queen?

So on Wednesday Stop the War published a poem on their website basically describing the Queen as endorsing terrorism.

Jambalaya like the Daily Wail read the first words of the title and had an epileptic fit not realizing it was in german.

die Windsors [i]Eine schrecklich nette Familie[/i]

Will JC slowly evolve into Pol Pot?

Or will Diane Abbott evolve into talk show host?

That is the question innit! 😆

Couple of my old favourite images from Stop the War event in Bradford (that orangisation of which JC is so fond of) peace long souls, flowers in their hair ? I do so wonder why people keep drawing links between terrorists and JC ?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

I do so wonder why people keep drawing links between terrorists and JC ?

It's an easy smear isn't it? It's easy, lazy and of course, because the word "terrorist" raises the hackles of the simple minded so easily, people like you will continue to do it, even when it's untrue.

@duckman the only rebuttal that matters here is from the electorate, if Jeremy gets that far as leader

I do so wonder why people keep drawing links between terrorists and JC ?

For exactly the same reason as right-wingers like you keep drawing links between terrorists and Barack Obama of course.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

jambalaya - Member
@duckman the only rebuttal that matters here is from the electorate, if Jeremy gets that far as leader

POSTED 9 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

I'm sure it's been linked to and read many times already, but Jambo's post above made me smile and think of this;

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/man-who-just-got-elected-definitely-unelectable-20150914101940

Is he a terrorist? No. Does he think terrorism is a good idea? No

I am not sure it is quite that simple. Corbyn invited Adams to the House of Commons in 1984 within a couple of weeks of the Brighton Bombing carried out by the IRA. A bombing that killed one Tory MP, the wife of a Treasury Minister and three other party organisers. It also severely injured a number of people including most famously Norman Tebbit's wife who has been in wheelchair ever since. Whatever you think the rights and wrongs of the overall struggle that was an incredibly provocative thing for an MP to do, one that chimed with some, but likely horrified the majority. It is not unreasonable to remind people of that and ask questions about his judgement.

@Klunk, the piece is in English and German

[url= http://stopwar.org.uk/news/god-save-the-queen-as-she-and-her-family-lubricate-britain-s-wars ]Stop the War - Poem link[/url]