Jeremy Corbyn's Labour

[RHB]

It would seem that most people would bomb ISIS in Syria if we could guarantee not killing any innocent civilians. Then the simple and safe solution would be to use the experts. Saudi terrorists in Boeing 757's

Very true indeed !

The airmanship achieved by the Pentacon novice pilot was truly remarkable ,Since then many highly skilled pilots have attempted to copy this stunning feat on a flight sim,every single pilot failed as the air speed was too great,plus the other factor that a passenger jet is not designed to fly at 2 feet doing 530mph.

That guy was a top top top top top top gun.

Fascinating though this may be to some conspiracy sects , what has it got to do with Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Party leader??

 

[Hotman]

Being probably the only one on here who's met the man since being appointed, I can tell you he is weak in that he has no charisma whatsoever. Seriously - Andy Burnham had far more about him, even ****ing Caroline Lucas has more of a spark. Politics is largely about influence... can't see it in him.

In what way is he being weak? He has put on record his opposition to airstrikes based mainly on 1) they have been used for years already to little effect 2) there is no after plan - no plan to deal with Assad or plan to fill the vacuum. He could have just gone along with the 'popular' vote and saved himself any trouble, but chose to state what he believed is right in a reasonable way without emotive language or trying to discredit the other view.


He then allowed the party membership to have their say - and 70,000 did. He then discussed with the shadow cabinet and agreed to a free vote for all Labour MPs.


Reasonable and democratic is what I see. You see weakness - where exactly?

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

Being probably the only one on here who's met the man since being appointed, I can tell you he is weak in that he has no charisma whatsoever. Seriously - Andy Burnham had far more about him, even ****ing Caroline Lucas has more of a spark. Politics is largely about influence... can't see it in him.

He comes alive on TV when talking about the manhole covers he collects, if that helps.
I'm sorry, but the guy is like a wet sponge. His dress sense is all wrong. He has zero charisma. He had an open goal when Cameron mentioned 70,000 Syrian troops ready to fight ISIL. 4 experts on the subject have come on TV that I saw this week, all saying these troops/civilian fighters, do exist, but they are fighting Assad hundreds of miles away, and will not leave their families and friends undefended to be murdered by Assad's troops. So will not be going anywhere to go and fight ISIL. So Cameron is talking spin and rubbish, and Corbyn let him off the hook.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Metro front page headline and lead story 'Corbyn's free vote puts UK on brink of war'


Erm - if Cameron successfully whipped his MPs then he would win the vote alone.
We are already bombing Iraq so if this new bombing means we are at war then we are already at war.


The 'free' - in all senses of the word - press just love to twist but this makes Corbyn sound like a warmonger. Always new lows from our journalists, always new angles to insult our intelligence.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

In what way is he being weak? He has put on record his opposition to airstrikes based mainly on 1) they have been used for years already to little effect 2) there is no after plan - no plan to deal with Assad or plan to fill the vacuum. He could have just gone along with the 'popular' vote and saved himself any trouble, but chose to state what he believed is right in a reasonable way without emotive language or trying to discredit the other view.




He then allowed the party membership to have their say - and 70,000 did. He then discussed with the shadow cabinet and agreed to a free vote for all Labour MPs.


Reasonable and democratic is what I see. You see weakness - where exactly?

So if in the most unlikely event of Chairman Corbyn and his trusted lieutenants Diane Abbott and fellow terrorist supporting chum John Mcdonnell ever come to power and are faced with any important decisions, you are happy for him as PM to email a bunch of swampies to form Government policy? And when your own party threaten to mutiny, you cave in and bury your head in the sand and offer a free vote rather than show leadership.
Yep, I see weakness everywhere I look.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

The irony of Labour's free vote over bombing in Syria is that it will almost certainly give the green light to HMG's "rush to war."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34970516

It's also worth noting that the much maligned Ed Miliband, (not by me I hasten to add), managed to impose a three-line whip on the PLP, to vote against the coalition bombing in Syria, (against Assad)two years ago,without any internal party strife.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

The irony of Labour's free vote over bombing in Syria is that it will almost certainly give the green light to HMG's "rush to war."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34970516

It's also worth noting that the much maligned Ed Miliband, (not by me I hasten to add), managed to impose a three-line whip on the PLP, to vote against the coalition bombing in Syria, (against Assad)two years ago,without any internal party strife.

That's a very good point about Miliband. He showed leadership and his party followed. However I'm pretty sure his party and many others were of the opinion that we shouldn't bomb. This time is different.

 

[londonblue]

KL also made the point that if we hadn't embarked on an illegal war in Iraq, (with Blair lying to the country about the existence of WMD's), then the London bombings in 7/7 would never have happened.He's right.What's more if we bomb Syria without UN backing, then we can expect more of the same in the future.

He's wrong. The people you blame for terrorism are the terrorists. Plain and simple.

You might do something to upset people, and they may use that as their excuse, but that is all it is, an excuse. People should take responsibility for their own actions, and not blame it on others. Making excuses like that on their behalf is even worse.

We live in a democratic society. If these people want to oppose government policy, then they're perfectly entitled to do so, in a peaceful way. There is simply no excuse for terrorism.

Or for state terrorism?

Of which the British bombing of Syria would be an example for me (as was the bombing and invasion in Iraq,Afghanistan and Libya).

I disagree with that. Going to war is one thing, but that is not the same as terrorism.

Given that you haven't argued any of the points about KL being wrong I take it that you now agree with me.

Nope.But since we have such diametrically opposite views I thought it best to agree to disagree.

And this from your very own Guardian:

Guardian

And I quote:

After terrorist bombings struck London on 7 July 2005, killing 52 and injuring more than 700, the then mayor found exactly the right words, for which he was praised around the world (Ken himself was filmed only recently being moved to tears by a playback of them). “This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at presidents or prime ministers,” he stated back then. “It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion, or whatever.”

Great speech. Still, at least we now know what he really thought. As he explained to the Question Time audience on Thursday night, the “7/7 bombers gave their lives” in protest at the actions of a prime minister.

It seems even Ken doesn't know what he thinks.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Here is a picture of the great man with another who liked planting bombs under innocents.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

And this from your very own Guardian:

Guardian

And I quote:



It seems even Ken doesn't know what he thinks.

On the contrary, your Guardian quote captures his stirring words made at the time.The remarks he made on QT (came as he said) after reading police intelligence on the bombings and the bombers' own website comments.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Here is a picture of the great man with another who liked planting bombs under innocents.

You want a picture of Maggie with Pinochet? Or Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam - maybe some US presidential bigwig shaking hands with Assad or the Taliban. They're easily found.

The "troubles" with the IRA was stopped when people stopped shooting and bombing and started talking.

You've started to repeat yourself, I think you went down this road about 50 pages and 500 posts ago.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Don't remember Pinochet planting bombs outside Harrods mind?
Isn't Livingstone topical at the moment and has been appointed by Corbyn under much controversy?
My post is a follow up of Londonblue's post - I don't remember posting it before but if you know better then do let me know.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Don't remember Pinochet planting bombs outside Harrods mind?
Isn't Livingstone topical at the moment and has been appointed by Corbyn under much controversy?
My post is a follow up of Londonblue's post - I don't remember posting it before but if you know better then do let me know.

No, he was apparantly responsible for a reported 3200 deaths in Chile under an extreme military dictatorship. But they're not British, so hey, it doesn't matter?

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Then start a new thread if you feel so outraged by it. This is the Jeremy Corbyn thread, Livingstone is related to it - Pinochet isn't.

 

[rigsby]

You want a picture of Maggie with Pinochet? Or Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam - maybe some US presidential bigwig shaking hands with Assad or the Taliban. They're easily found.

The "troubles" with the IRA was stopped when people stopped shooting and bombing and started talking.

You've started to repeat yourself, I think you went down this road about 50 pages and 500 posts ago.

This is a total left wing myth. The IRA only used Ken and co to as part of a 'Lets not lose face' when we surrender policy.

It was only when the SAS starting shooting that the bombing stopped. The IRA were forced to the negotiating table

 

[MK Shrimper]

This is a total left wing myth. The IRA only used Ken and co to as part of a 'Lets not lose face' when we surrender policy.

It was only when the SAS starting shooting that the bombing stopped. The IRA were forced to the negotiating table

Any evidence for that? As I understand it, talks had been going on under the radar for many years, even under Thatcher. John Major begun the peace process, and then when voted out, Mo Mowlam took over.

Don't know where you're getting Ken Livingstone & Jeremy Corbyn from.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Any evidence for that? As I understand it, talks had been going on under the radar for many years, even under Thatcher. John Major begun the peace process, and then when voted out, Mo Mowlam took over.

Don't know where you're getting Ken Livingstone & Jeremy Corbyn from.

 

[londonblue]

On the contrary, your Guardian quote captures his stirring words made at the time.The remarks he made on QT (came as he said) after reading police intelligence on the bombings and the bombers' own website comments.

Disagree, to me it shows he speaks with a forked tongue. I also think you need to read the rest of the article. It points out the kind of person he is.

 

[MK Shrimper]

 

[MK Shrimper]

You want some with Martin McGuinness and the Queen laughing and joking? Give it a rest SAM. It's history thankfully put to rest by people talking to each other.