Good to hear that Jezza thinks that we should stand united in the face of our enemies

How times change

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j235O9ktnk0[/video]

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?

They just can’t help themselves can they?

Well he is trying to sneak into number 10 and steal the election…

Well he is trying to sneak into number 10 and steal the election…

And it is obviously rightfully theirs

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 something” 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 ever 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.

“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”.

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
Lockerbie

To 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

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/26/they-kill-defenceless-people-thousands-flee-besieged-philippine-city-of-marawi

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” bit

Seeing 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” bit

Seeing 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.

Not really – a cursory glance at a history book is enough to see the truth of this.

I don’t really agree, but even if it is true British politicians shouldn’t be spelling out the political advantages of killing British kids.

I don’t really agree, but even if it is true British politicians shouldn’t be spelling out the political advantages of killing British kids.

what about the political disadvantages of killing kids abroad?

That we should send in the troops? Won’t work,

Well military action between 2015 & 2016 reduced the ISIL controlled area by 14% and took 4 million people out of their control. Obviously that isn’t the sole solution, but to say it doesn’t work is disingenuous.

Corbyn is heavy on the critisism and light on the solutions.

Agree. In this case the critisim is largely aimed at his own party while he’s trying to get that party elected.

“Vote Labour, we’re the major cause of the Manchester atrocity, but the other parties didn’t help much either. …and by the way we think terrorism is really effective.”

what about the political disadvantages of killing kids abroad?

Are there are any?