Jeremy Corbyn's Labour

[Tangled up in Blue]

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

Read this and you'll see that many people disagree with you.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism

You'll also see that the "shock and awe" terror bombing is specifically mentioned in the text.I can certainly remember Noam Chomsky talking about US "state terrorism-at the North American Institute here-back in the mid-90's ."

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.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

yes that's it! my weltanschau is entirely black and white. youve got me.

It would also appear that you, (and many others), have unfortunately learnt nothing from Britain's unsuccessful interventions in Iraq,Afghanistan and Libya.

 

[Napster]

It would also appear that you, (and many others), have unfortunately learnt nothing from Britain's unsuccessful interventions in Iraq,Afghanistan and Libya.

It would also appear that you (and many others) are quite content with the status quo and letting ISIS continue with their terror.

 

[rigsby]

True - I have a very Western view of the word. Simple facts for me though are that Sadam, Assad and IS butcher their own people - and for that reason alone I'm an interventionist.

Perhaps you could become one of President Trump's advisers when he wins the election. Of course as long as you have an equal interventionist policy I won't mind. I mean would hate to see only Arab despots removed just because they have lots of oil.

How about Kim Jong-un (Jong-un the wrong-un) or Robert Mugabe. Plenty of work in Central America and Haiti needs a dose of Interventionism.

If anyone's thinking of going into business they may want to consider headstones for military personnel looks like a lot of work to be had in the future.

 

[mrsblue]

It would also appear that you (and many others) are quite content with the status quo and letting ISIS continue with their terror.

ISIS will not be beaten by just bombing ,it will need a highly trained ground force numbering hundreds of thousands of troops to even have a sporting chance of victory,Russia come unstuck when they went into Afghanastan likewise America with their invasions .

I don't want to see our pilots being captured and burnt alive in a cage and I don't want to see body bags containing British troops.

Virtually every terrorist attack here and in Europe was carried out by known people on the so called watch list,start with these first and the odds increase in our favour.

 

[Napster]

Perhaps you could become one of President Trump's advisers when he wins the election. Of course as long as you have an equal interventionist policy I won't mind. I mean would hate to see only Arab despots removed just because they have lots of oil.

How about Kim Jong-un (Jong-un the wrong-un) or Robert Mugabe. Plenty of work in Central America and Haiti needs a dose of Interventionism.

If anyone's thinking of going into business they may want to consider headstones for military personnel looks like a lot of work to be had in the future.

So what's the alternative?

ps I don't see Zimbabweans or North Koreans bombing innocents in foreign countries...

 

[C C Csiders]

yes that's it! my weltanschau is entirely black and white. youve got me.

Bloody Hell! Well done for admitting it. Is it vitiligo?

 

[Napster]

ISIS will not be beaten by just bombing ,it will need a highly trained ground force numbering hundreds of thousands of troops to even have a sporting chance of victory,Russia come unstuck when they went into Afghanastan likewise America with their invasions .

I don't want to see our pilots being captured and burnt alive in a cage and I don't want to see body bags containing British troops.

Virtually every terrorist attack here and in Europe was carried out by known people on the so called watch list,start with these first and the odds increase in our favour.

ISIS's strength is its Caliphate. Make inroads into that area and you're winning the battle. I never said just bombing, but as the Caliphate is part of its ideology, bombing makes sense as part of an overall strategy. Of course, the strategy has to include welcoming immigrants into our countries as well.

Russia/US/Afghanistan as part of proxy wars in the Cold War is a different kettle of fish as you should know.

No of course not, but you sign up for the army and it's a risk of the job in any war.

Of course, but sometimes it's not as simple as that. Some on this list are giving us information back- I reckon Hooky was a double agent for the MI5.

 

[Napster]

Bloody Hell! Well done for admitting it. Is it vitiligo?

No I don't fear heights sorry.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Labour GAIN Rochford (Rochford District) from Conservative.

It appears UKIP cost the Tories that seat. Both Tories and Labour lost votes to UKIP, but the Tories slightly more. There was only a handful of votes in it.

I am an interventionist, I have always thought that democracy should be imposed throughout the world (which is probably an oxymoron).
But I would say that Cameron's show of strength speech sounded about as weak and lacking in conviction as it is possible to be. In comparison I think Corbyn is talking a lot of sense in the lack of a coherent plan that Cameron is offering.

Corbyn:

"Our first priority must be the security of Britain and the safety of the British people. The issue now is whether what the PM is proposing strengthens, or undermines, our national security.
"I do not believe that the PM today made a convincing case that extending UK bombing to Syria would meet that crucial test. Nor did it satisfactorily answer the questions raised by us and the Foreign Affairs Committee.
"In particular, the PM did not set out a coherent strategy, coordinated through the UN for the defeat of ISIS. Nor has he been able to explain what credible and acceptable ground forces could retake and hold territory freed from ISIS control by an intensified air campaign.
"In my view, the PM has been unable to explain the contribution of additional UK bombing to a comprehensive negotiated political settlement of the Syrian civil war, or its likely impact on the threat of terrorist attacks in the UK.
"For these, and other reasons, I do not believe the PM's current proposal for air strikes in Syria will protect our security and therefore cannot support it."

How can you impose democracy? What if people vote to restore the previous regime or, more likely, a similarly violent and barbaric opposition.

Democracy needs to come from the people, otherwise it lacks legitimacy. If the West impose democracy it will lack legitimacy, the government and the system will both be tainted as western puppets.

I agree with Corbyn's message, but he needs to do a better job of getting it out there.

True - I have a very Western view of the word. Simple facts for me though are that Sadam, Assad and IS butcher their own people - and for that reason alone I'm an interventionist.

How does intervention stop that? You have a very Blairite view on things.

ISIS's strength is its Caliphate. Make inroads into that area and you're winning the battle. I never said just bombing, but as the Caliphate is part of its ideology, bombing makes sense as part of an overall strategy. Of course, the strategy has to include welcoming immigrants into our countries as well.

Russia/US/Afghanistan as part of proxy wars in the Cold War is a different kettle of fish as you should know.

No of course not, but you sign up for the army and it's a risk of the job in any war.

Of course, but sometimes it's not as simple as that. Some on this list are giving us information back- I reckon Hooky was a double agent for the MI5.

No, it's strength is categorically not geographical. It's strength is ideological fanaticism and economic. Cut off the supply of fanatics (stop doing things that polarise as it leads to radicalisation), cut off the economic funding and IS will die. Capturing territory won't kill it - it will just move it.

 

[Napster]

No, it's strength is categorically not geographical. It's strength is ideological fanaticism and economic. Cut off the supply of fanatics (stop doing things that polarise as it leads to radicalisation), cut off the economic funding and IS will die. Capturing territory won't kill it - it will just move it.

I disagree. Yes the supply of fanatics is important, but whereas Al Qaeda was geographically not tied down to any one place - ISIS are. They yearn for stability and a place of influence. Decimate that area and they will dissipate.

ps its financial strength mainly comes from taxing/punishing the locals - so again, capture the area, they lose the economic benefits.

 

[londonblue]

It would also appear that you, (and many others), have unfortunately learnt nothing from Britain's unsuccessful interventions in Iraq,Afghanistan and Libya.

It would also appear that you haven't learnt how well an intervention can work, such as the 2nd World War. I would say that was pretty successful.

How about Rwanda as an example of where intervention was needed but didn't come?

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Has anyone considered that IS could well be suffering heavy loses and are on the verge of being destroyed?
Kurdish forces seem to be winning back more and more ground. The Paris attacks very possibly were a act of desperation rather than a show of strengh.
Perhaps the media need to start reporting on IS as the desperate murderous cowards they really are rather than playing up to them and stop referring to them as a "state" which they clearly are not. A point made by a muslim female audience member on QT last week.

 

[Napster]

Has anyone considered that IS could well be suffering heavy loses and are on the verge of being destroyed?
Kurdish forces seem to be winning back more and more ground. The Paris attacks very possibly were a act of desperation rather than a show of strengh.
Perhaps the media need to start reporting on IS as the desperate murderous cowards they really are rather than playing up to them are referring to them as a "state" which they clearly are not. A point made by a muslim female audience member on QT last week.

I've seen it mentioned that the Paris attacks were the result of lone wolves - anyone leaving the Caliphate is not welcomed back so they were seen as outcasts.

 

[londonblue]

I disagree. Yes the supply of fanatics is important, but whereas Al Qaeda was geographically not tied down to any one place - ISIS are. They yearn for stability and a place of influence. Decimate that area and they will dissipate.

ps its financial strength mainly comes from taxing/punishing the locals - so again, capture the area, they lose the economic benefits.

According to the Daily Fail, their funding comes from Rich Arabs...who are friendly with the tories.

 

[Napster]

According to the Daily Fail, their funding comes from Rich Arabs...who are friendly with the tories.

Here's a fascinating alternative view.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-25/meet-man-who-funds-isis-bilal-erdogan-son-turkeys-president

 

[londonblue]

Here's a fascinating alternative view.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-25/meet-man-who-funds-isis-bilal-erdogan-son-turkeys-president

Either way it seems their financial strength is not due to taxing/punishing the locals as you said. The locals wouldn't yield the millions they apparently have stashed away.

 

[Napster]

Either way it seems their financial strength is not due to taxing/punishing the locals as you said. The locals wouldn't yield the millions they apparently have stashed away.

I;ll have to find the quote again.

 

[londonblue]

Either way it seems Corduroy's days are numbered already:

BBC

If he carries on like this he won't be able to form a shadow cabinet, and may have to do it all himself.

(Genuine question, should that ever happen, what would be the outcome?)

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

It would also appear that you (and many others) are quite content with the status quo and letting ISIS continue with their terror.

Absolutely not.I recognise that IS needs to be destroyed but believe this can only be done via the UN route.