Terrorist sympathiser here....... (1 Viewer)

[duffer]

Well Cameron now is managing to emulate his political hero, the ghastly Tony Blair.

Frankly there is less justification here than Iraq. No apparent motive other than vain egotism by the absurd Cameron.

This however is what happens when there is no opposition, when the opposition leaders only allies are his former lover and, of course, a terrorist sympathiser.

A responsible opposition could stop this. With Corbyn the clown at the helm - it's an easy ride into the latest pointless folly.

Your so called 'reasonable opposition' is neatly lining up behind Cameron to pitch us into another war, just like they lined up with him on benefit cuts, and just like they lined up behind Blair on Iraq.

As a lifelong Labour man, I'm pretty tired of having to take a Tory line to be considered 'reasonable' or 'moderate'. There's nothing reasonable or moderate about this government, imho.

if you stand against what they're doing in parliament today, then by definition you're standing alongside Corbyn. Maybe you should look at his actual policies, rather than what the Daily Mail says about him, and decide what it is you really want to stand for.

 

[chiefdave]

if you stand against what they're doing in parliament today, then by definition you're standing alongside Corbyn.

Its an interesting point. One of the Sunday papers did some polling where they first asked about Con / Lab and Cameron / Corbyn and got answers pretty much in line with what we see currently. They then polled the same people but on issues, the support for the conservatives and Cameron dropped off a cliff.

Gives an indication that people support the Conservatives either out of habit or because they don't actually know what they stand for - quite possible with the majority of the mainstream press keen to distort the narrative.

 

[jimmyhillsfanclub]

Just heard the arrogant c**t Cameron on the radio news......he hasn't & wont even apologise for calling any objector a terrorist sympathiser.....

 

[Otis]

Just heard the arrogant c**t Cameron on the radio news......he hasn't & wont even apologise for calling any objector a terrorist sympathiser.....

That's politicians for you. Someone asked him straight out if he would apologise for the outrageous remark and he simply answered by talking about something else completely.

 

[Nick]

I don't agree with bombing if they are going to kill 100 people but only 2 are ISIS.

How would it work? I know they can use drones to make it more accurate but killing innocence women and kids there is the same as killing them here.

As for ISIS, I'd happily see them all killed

 

[chiefdave]

How would it work?

It wouldn't. What happens when ISIS start hiding out in schools and hospitals. Do we just blow them up?

 

[skybluetony176]

I don't agree with bombing if they are going to kill 100 people but only 2 are ISIS.

How would it work? I know they can use drones to make it more accurate but killing innocence women and kids there is the same as killing them here.

As for ISIS, I'd happily see them all killed

I doubt that there will ever be a case of dropping a bomb and deliberately killing 100 people to get 2 from ISIS. I don't think it works like that.

I guess the argument is that if we stand by and do nothing 100's if not 1000's of innocent people will die at the hands of ISIS with their behead first ask questions later policy and their policy of beheading people on a whim, such as the elderly gentleman who was the caretaker at that ancient temple that they blew up for being a caretaker.

The argument will be that ultimately the targeted bombing of ISIS will save lives

 

[chiefdave]

That's politicians for you. Someone asked him straight out if he would apologise for the outrageous remark and he simply answered by talking about something else completely.

Winds me up, just answer a simple bloody question. The worst is PMQs, especially with Corbyn going for the calmer approach. Think that needs to be looked at and the speaker given the power to insist the question is properly answered.

 

[Nick]

It wouldn't. What happens when ISIS start hiding out in schools and hospitals. Do we just blow them up?

That's the thing. It is all well and good shouting bomb them, but it's no better than them bombing Paris if innocent's are killed.

If they could bomb and take out just ISIS, then fair enough, if they will kill loads of innocent people, it's no better.

 

[chiefdave]

That's the thing. It is all well and good shouting bomb them, but it's no better than them bombing Paris if innocent's are killed.

If they could bomb and take out just ISIS, then fair enough, if they will kill loads of innocent people, it's no better.

Someone mentioned the IRA earlier and I posted on here what if other countries had started bombing England when the IRA were active on our shores?

 

[duffer]

Someone mentioned the IRA earlier and I posted on here what if other countries had started bombing England when the IRA were active on our shores?

Or possibly a better example, under the logic of what is being proposed here - would it have been OK to bomb Dublin in the 1970s?

 

[eastwoodsdustman]

Or possibly a better example, under the logic of what is being proposed here - would it have been OK to bomb Dublin in the 1970s?

No it wouldn't have been. And it isn't now in Syria. The west needs to get its intelligence in order and send squads of people to remove the Isis leaders in the same way that our government did with IRA cells in the 80's.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

As defined by Cameron I am too

 

[wingy]

As defined by Cameron I am too

 

[wingy]

He should be hounded now until he Apologises by the likes of Kunsberg etc, with their mocking, almost scornful attitude to coverage of Labour / Cotbyn related content.
unforgivable Hyperbole.
,

 

[olderskyblue]

Its an interesting point. One of the Sunday papers did some polling where they first asked about Con / Lab and Cameron / Corbyn and got answers pretty much in line with what we see currently. They then polled the same people but on issues, the support for the conservatives and Cameron dropped off a cliff.

Gives an indication that people support the Conservatives either out of habit or because they don't actually know what they stand for - quite possible with the majority of the mainstream press keen to distort the narrative.

It is an interesting point, however, "you" are only standing alongside Corbyn on this one point....

And Labour voters are fully aware of what their party stands for? I tend to look at the issues before deciding on who i will vote for, and have voted for both the main parties in my lifetime, however, I have friends who, even if Corbyn came out and said his main policy was to nuke Coventry, would still vote Labor. They are that entrenched. You quite simply cannot argue policies with them even if you wanted to.

 

[mechaishida]

Just heard the arrogant c**t Cameron on the radio news......he hasn't & wont even apologise for calling any objector a terrorist sympathiser.....

He doesn't have to, ergo he won't. The pompous, grinning little so-and-so is backed by serious power and money to wage this 'war on Islam', so I doubt we'll see anything from him except posturing and obdurate adherence to the task he's been given.

Corbyn et al are merely 'controlled opposition', pawns put in place for the grand pantomime that is politics.

 

[Jack Griffin]

How many of the recent terrorist attacks have been carried out by Syrians Rob?

Irrelevant, Syria is a base for a reprehensible ideology, to convert the world to Islam at the point of the sword (so to speak), ie using the same tactics as the original warlord.

The fact that the Paris killers were not born there is a complete irrelevance as Nationalism & Nationality are not part of this evil vision.

I say blow up the tankers that are being used to export oil through Turkey.

 

[Philosorapter]

...ie using the same tactics as the original warlord...

Anyone see the closer links to Robespierre and the justification of terror when starting a new ideology.

One being the birthplace of modern Western Democracy and the other a birthplace for some sort of Theocracy.

[video=youtube;suZdYkZ_feM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suZdYkZ_feM[/video]

 

[lifeskyblue]

Ahhh the lessons from history...will we ever learn from them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Joy Division]

Interesting view from somebody who has spent time in capture with ISIL

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-says-how-they-can-be-defeated-a6757336.html

 

[cloughie]

It is an interesting point, however, "you" are only standing alongside Corbyn on this one point....

And Labour voters are fully aware of what their party stands for? I tend to look at the issues before deciding on who i will vote for, and have voted for both the main parties in my lifetime, however, I have friends who, even if Corbyn came out and said his main policy was to nuke Coventry, would still vote Labor. They are that entrenched. You quite simply cannot argue policies with them even if you wanted to.

and on the other hand I have a friend who has always voted tory and still does,

yet every cut they make affects him the more than most

So entrenched positions are on both sides

Blinkered vision and unwilling to have an open mind

In his case it's like a turkey voting for Christmas

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

He should be hounded now until he Apologises by the likes of Kunsberg etc, with their mocking, almost scornful attitude to coverage of Labour / Cotbyn related content.
unforgivable Hyperbole.
,

The rousing applause and whooping that Hillary Benn got for his warmongering was almost chilling, yet it is those who stayed silent who get the criticism.

 

[lifeskyblue]

Unfortunately the call to arms often gets popular support while peace doves are seen as weak willed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Unfortunately the call to arms often gets popular support while peace doves are seen as weak willed

Doesn't even have to be those who just don't want us to intervene full stop.

The biggest joke is Cameron also includes those who want an actual plan, and *more* commitment to intervention in Syria, where troops take control and stabilise a country rather than faceless bombing.

Those... who think a couple of bombs will do no more than antagonise and ferment resentment, are seen as 'sympathisers' too? The language is truly, truly disgusting.

 

[wingy]

Doesn't even have to be those who just don't want us to intervene full stop.

The biggest joke is Cameron also includes those who want an actual plan, and *more* commitment to intervention in Syria, where troops take control and stabilise a country rather than faceless bombing.

Those... who think a couple of bombs will do no more than antagonise and ferment resentment, are seen as 'sympathisers' too? The language is truly, truly disgusting.

Yet all the debate today is around divisions in the LP, indeed voting against the leader,Ironic as he'd given them a free vote
Then the abuse of MPs who'd voted for bombing, and Camerons disgusting hyperbole is lost
There really is an agenda out there.
This action is solely to prove we are in the club and largely due To Russias recent presence.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Yet all the debate today is around divisions in the LP, indeed voting against the leader,Ironic as he'd given them a free vote
Then the abuse of MPs who'd voted for bombing, and Camerons disgusting hyperbole is lost
There really is an agenda out there.
This action is solely to prove we are in the club and largely due To Russias recent presence.

Yup, I'm astonished that he has been allowed to get away with not apologising for that remark.

Away from the rights and wrongs of the actual policy, what approach to parliamentary democracy is the Prime Minister taking by scaremongering against his own people, and branding a sizeable number of them cowards?

The emotional rhetoric is exactly what is *not* needed in conflict, rather a cool, calm, calculating strategic mind.

 

[wingy]

Yup, I'm astonished that he has been allowed to get away with not apologising for that remark.

Away from the rights and wrongs of the actual policy, what approach to parliamentary democracy is the Prime Minister taking by scaremongering against his own people, and branding a sizeable number of them cowards?

The emotional rhetoric is exactly what is *not* needed in conflict, rather a cool, calm, calculating strategic mind.

Just watching Question Time and one of his cohorts is defending him saying people with honourable objections are fine.
Apparently Corbyn, Mcdonnel etc have lauded Hizbullah and shook hands with Adams and IMcguinness,.
Think The Queens done that too.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Doesn't even have to be those who just don't want us to intervene full stop.

The biggest joke is Cameron also includes those who want an actual plan, and *more* commitment to intervention in Syria, where troops take control and stabilise a country rather than faceless bombing.

Those... who think a couple of bombs will do no more than antagonise and ferment resentment, are seen as 'sympathisers' too? The language is truly, truly disgusting.

He is a man desperate for a legacy for his 10 years in charge. He doesn't want to go down as the PM who oversaw a British exit from the EU, or Scottish independence, but as the one who beat ISIS. Desperate for this he has committed to bombing in the hope that the conflict will be resolved before 2020.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Just watching Question Time and one of his cohorts is defending him saying people with honourable objections are fine.
Apparently Corbyn, Mcdonnel etc have lauded Hizbullah and shook hands with Adams and IMcguinness,.
Think The Queens done that too.

Blair shook hands with Gaddafi, so did Brown. The old 'guilty by association' argument is lazy but obviously works on some.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

No mention of thatcher opinion of the terrorist Mandela and what about Cameron sucking up to China and selling arm to Saudi Arabia

 

[rob9872]

China are not posing a threat to our shores, isis are.

Humanitarian responsibility is ideological but when we don't trade with such powers as china, there will be complaining of poor economic outlook and no growth.

Really can't see the comparison there at all with a head of state not treating them with respect. Even your high principled republican Corbyn was in his whites for the public engagement with the privy council. Surely he should have refused?

 

[Sick Boy]

He is a man desperate for a legacy for his 10 years in charge. He doesn't want to go down as the PM who oversaw a British exit from the EU, or Scottish independence, but as the one who beat ISIS. Desperate for this he has committed to bombing in the hope that the conflict will be resolved before 2020.

Indeed. I don't think he expected to win a majority and is now worried about the prospect of an Eu exit and as being remembered as the idiot who oversaw it.

His pumped up macho performance the other day was painful to watch, he really is vile. Still can't believe how many are influenced so much by the media in this country.

 

[mechaishida]

Blair shook hands with Gaddafi, so did Brown. The old 'guilty by association' argument is lazy but obviously works on some.

It's not lazy, you just have to possess the ability to read between the lines and come to an informed conclusion.

Politics is a pantomime for public consumption, the reality behind the veil is quite different. Oh and by the way, Cameron is a man being played like a flute; his decisions are not his own, neither are the words from his mouth - he's a figurehead. He's not interested in legacies for God's sake, he's interested in lining his pockets with as much dirty, blood-stained cash as he possibly can.

 

[smouch1975]

It's all about a gas pipe line

Picked this up in the aussie news


http://www.news.com.au/world/middle...t/news-story/74efcba9554c10bd35e280b63a9afb74


Sent from my SM-N915G using Tapatalk