What a load of bollox this is turning into. Both major parties frothing at the mouth over allowing a couple of jets to open their bomb bay doors a little bit more to the left of a border that IS don't recognise? It's hardly total war, is it? It's gonna take a lot more than that to wipe out the Death Cult, and none of our leaders will have the cojones to sign up to what needs to be done, both abroad and at home. Anyway, apparently I'm now affiliated back with the Labour party. Deep joy.
Best hope Corbyn lasts awhile or his successor is similarly inclined, or else presumably your lot will unaffiliate again.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, brs
That's
If Hitler were suggesting we shouldn't fight fascists it would be relevant.
That the terrorist sympathiser is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists is relevant.
If Corbyn doesn't want to be called a terrorist sympathiser maybe he should stop sympathising with terrorists?
No it isn't; it's not any moting groupthink in his MPs.
Sorry but you're absurd. So the Leader Of the Opposition isn't relevant? Good to know.
Opposition to fighting the terrorists is being led by terrorist sympathisers. Plural, McMao as well as Jezbollah and probably others (Milne isn't an MP). Of course the fact that terrorist sympathisers are trying to sympathise with terrorists is relevant.
I note you're not trying to pretend that Jeabollah and McMao aren't terrorist sympathisers. Just that the PM is supposed to ignore the elephant in the room.
Wasn't Cameron pro-apartheid at one time?
I have no idea, although if he was I doubt he is now - but in any case, past views are more relevant for people like Corbyn and McDonnell than others, as they have made as part of their key appeal that they never wavered in their opinions across multiple decades. Another MP's excuse of silly past views they no longer hold does not work with them.
But in any case, whether Cameron believes them to be sympathisers or not, saying it so bluntly, at this time, seems unlikely to encourage more Labour support. The tone is over the top even if people will argue the comment itself is not, and I'd guess will see more abstentions occur.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
If Hitler were suggesting we shouldn't fight fascists it would be relevant.
That the terrorist sympathiser is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists is relevant.
If Corbyn doesn't want to be called a terrorist sympathiser maybe he should stop sympathising with terrorists?
You have missed the point by as far as it is to miss it
Calling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser is probably accurate... saying "don't allay yourself with a bunch of terrorist sympathisers" to MP's that aren't sympathetic to terrorists in the least may be seen as trying to smear by association or make people vote your way by fear of smear
And?
Sounds like a persuasive argument made plausible by the Opposition to this being led by a bunch of terrorist sympathisers. What's your objection exactly? That he's trying to win support or that he called a spade a spade?
Not sure smear is right. Smears are normally false. He's trying to win support by association yes. As leaders generally do.
What a load of bollox this is turning into. Both major parties frothing at the mouth over allowing a couple of jets to open their bomb bay doors a little bit more to the left of a border that IS don't recognise? It's hardly total war, is it? It's gonna take a lot more than that to wipe out the Death Cult, and none of our leaders will have the cojones to sign up to what needs to be done, both abroad and at home. Anyway, apparently I'm now affiliated back with the Labour party. Deep joy.
It is absolutely true that this issue has been blown out of all proportion. The Iraq war it is not.
Agreed. Well, that's three of us
Seriously, it seems like a national nervous breakdown to us but the great majority of people will be sensibly getting on with life and ignoring it.
Cameron has demeaned his role there. Legitimate point to be made by a back bencher but the prime minister should be seeking to unite the country over military action as he did when he made his statement.
Corbyn has equally demeaned himself by moving from making a reasoned criticism of the government's approach to stop the war sloganeering and encouraging attacks on his colleagues. There is no bloody war to stop it is eight fucking aircraft as part of a co-alition that is already targeting Isis. He has badly let down mps who have taken a reasoned position to voting no but aren't knee jerk idiots like him and his acolytes.
He cited Iraq because he knew that it would trigger exactly the reaction we have seen from Pavlov's dogs. The Islamists understand that the Western world can be put under pressure if our "guilt" buttons are pressed.
So we get the:- - "it's your fault because of your colonial interference after WW1" button; - followed by the "it's your fault because Israel was created" button; - followed by the "we are the new Jews of Europe" button (a particularly revolting and inapposite one given how much anti-Semitism there is within the Islamists and how much they target Jews for their murderous hatred),; - occasionally the "we will face a Holocaust of Muslims" button is used. - Then there is the "it's your fault because your societies don't treat our youth with respect/too much Islamophobia/we're being picked on by the authorities" button; - The "we're offended by what you've said about Islam/Mohammed" button is a perennial favourite. - And finally the "you shouldn't have invaded this or that country or done this or that to some Muslim group somewhere" button. Curiously, this always always ignores the efforts which the West eventually put in to help the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo and always always ignores t
I totally agree with you in deploring militant Islam. So why do we want these people in charge of Syria? You, I and everyone here knows these moderate rebels are total nonsense. Why is our Government backing them? Would you like to live under that sort of regime?
Certainly not. The "what next" after bombing question is one which I don't think has been satisfactorily answered and is one reason (BJO please note) why I'm not fully convinced that bombing is necessarily the answer. The long-term strategy appears to be missing.
What I am convinced of is that IS need to be pushed back, out of the territory they hold. They need to be denied space in those countries and elsewhere, anywhere they seek to find a haven. They need to lose, to be eliminated. The ideology needs attacking, here and abroad. How we eliminate IS from the lands they are in I am less certain about. But the do nothing / let's talk to them option is from Planet La-La.
Corbyn's views being willfully misrepresented as 'do nothing'. He wants to prevent states buying ISIS oil, funding them & selling them arms.
Meanwhile Dave, Simon Danczuk and the other war hard ons want to run head down to take IS out no matter what the cost to innocents, and without a clue what follows
Oblivious to the extra converts the killing of the innocents creates.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
I used Hitler as an example of the most loathsome political figure imaginable, and yes, absolutely, you judge a vote on its merits, you vote in the interests of the British people. If Hitler happens to also be voting the right way, fine, that's one more vote. I can't believe anyone here is arguing otherwise. You'd vote for a bombing (or any other policy you felt was wrong and against the interests of the country) to avoid voting with someone disreputable?
I did not go on the Stop the War marches against the Iraq war because they were organised by the SWP and because I thought that they were acting in bad faith in so doing. I thought then that their agenda was not in favour of peace but against anything the West might do. They were and are against any attempt to take action against evil movements which threaten us and innocents more generally. STW have been - when Corbyn was chair - even against taking action to defend the Yazidis purely because it was done by the West. I do not associate with the SWP and people like them because I think they are fundamentally and dangerously wrong-headed. I don't associate with anti-Semites either, for the same reason. Corbyn I note has no problem with doing this. He thinks anti-Semites have something important to say and should be invited to Parliament and to this country to say it.
Corbyn and McDonnell are terrorist sympathisers. They are proud to associate with terrorist groups. Livingstone has shown by his latest remarks that he too is one. He too has associated with and invited to City Hall a cleric who thinks suicide bombing is a good thing.
Those who vote against bombing for genuine thoughtful reasons are not terrorist sympathisers. They are exercising their judgment as MPs should do. There are good reasons for thinking that a bit of extra bombing is not the answer to what we face. The decision is a finely balanced one IMO.
Some of them - judging by what we are hearing - may vote against because they are unwilling or too scared to exercise their judgment, a dereliction of duty by an MP. So be it. No need to call them terrorist sympathisers. Cowards will do.
I think that the vote will be close. Corbyn may think it a great victory if he wins or if the vote is close. He is not operating in a vacuum, however, and other countries: allies and enemies alike will note how the main Opposition party behaves on this issue.
What a load of bollox this is turning into. Both major parties frothing at the mouth over allowing a couple of jets to open their bomb bay doors a little bit more to the left of a border that IS don't recognise? It's hardly total war, is it? It's gonna take a lot more than that to wipe out the Death Cult, and none of our leaders will have the cojones to sign up to what needs to be done, both abroad and at home. Anyway, apparently I'm now affiliated back with the Labour party. Deep joy.
I am just pleased that you still have your job, Mr. Stopper. How goes it in the frontline of local authority cutbacks? Is Leicester Fire and Rescue heading down the merger track yet?
What a load of bollox this is turning into. Both major parties frothing at the mouth over allowing a couple of jets to open their bomb bay doors a little bit more to the left of a border that IS don't recognise? It's hardly total war, is it? It's gonna take a lot more than that to wipe out the Death Cult, and none of our leaders will have the cojones to sign up to what needs to be done, both abroad and at home. Anyway, apparently I'm now affiliated back with the Labour party. Deep joy.
Well some people, usually on the political right, are rather keen on the idea of national sovereignty. Given it requires a political solution at the end of things, clearly that means something different for Iraq and Syria. Defeating ISIS in Iraq might make a substantial improvement to the country whereas in Syria it might just further the quagmire.
Personally I'm becoming rather annoyed by those who express an almost Jihadi-like certainty on these matters. I've no idea what we should do about it and wouldn't abuse my MP for voting either way so long as his view is sincerely felt.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
There I beg to differ, and I think it shows how we lack imagination in Western societies. We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated.
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
Indeed, try to tell a Pakistani apostate that he has a free choice to change religion.
Tell a slave in Mauritania that he was born equal. Tell a woman in Saudi Arabia that she was born equal. Tell a gay man in Uganda or Iran that he was born equal. Tell a leper in Yemen that she is equal.
I know what their responses would be.
Fair enough, and personally I am not that bothered about how other cultures treat their people in their own lands. However, when people from cultures with those sort of attitudes come to live here in the UK then I do not think it unreasonable to ask them to leave their medieval belief systems about the rule of law and rights of individuals at the immigration desk.
Is it really OK for ISIS to throw gay men to their deaths because that is what they do over there?
I don't think it is ok, but I also think there's a lot in the world I think is not ok and we do not have the power to stop it. In some cases we can, although the problem is still too many either support those things or accept them, but in most cases we cannot. I'd hope IS was an evil we do have the power to correct, but it will probably only be temporary even if we contributed to such an end.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
If Hitler were suggesting we shouldn't fight fascists it would be relevant.
That the terrorist sympathiser is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists is relevant.
If Corbyn doesn't want to be called a terrorist sympathiser maybe he should stop sympathising with terrorists?
You have missed the point by as far as it is possible to miss it
Calling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser is probably accurate... saying "don't allay yourself with a bunch of terrorist sympathisers" to MP's that aren't sympathetic to terrorists in the least may be seen as trying to smear by association or make people vote your way by fear of smear
This is the point that is in your head, right?
Because it isn't even in the article - let alone the comment.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
If Hitler were suggesting we shouldn't fight fascists it would be relevant.
That the terrorist sympathiser is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists is relevant.
If Corbyn doesn't want to be called a terrorist sympathiser maybe he should stop sympathising with terrorists?
No it isn't; it's not any more relevant. Either fighting the fascists would be a good idea or it wouldn't. Hitler's view on it wouldn't and shouldn't inform anyone's decision - why would you let someone else make a decision like that for you, whether 'inverted' or not?
It is Cameron unjustifiably inciting groupthink in his MPs.
Sorry but you're absurd. So the Leader Of the Opposition isn't relevant? Good to know.
Opposition to fighting the terrorists is being led by terrorist sympathisers. Plural, McMao as well as Jezbollah and probably others (Milne isn't an MP). Of course the fact that terrorist sympathisers are trying to sympathise with terrorists is relevant.
I note you're not trying to pretend that Jeabollah and McMao aren't terrorist sympathisers. Just that the PM is supposed to ignore the elephant in the room.
@DPJHodges: The next Labour Prime Minister, (if we ever have one), will be found in the division lobby voting for intervention tomorrow.
I disagree, I could see someone such as Keir Starmer hving the credibility of voting against to take over circa 2020 and then, just like Kinnock, bring the party back into contention for 2025. But that is 10 years away and he may have retired by then!
What a load of bollox this is turning into. Both major parties frothing at the mouth over allowing a couple of jets to open their bomb bay doors a little bit more to the left of a border that IS don't recognise? It's hardly total war, is it? It's gonna take a lot more than that to wipe out the Death Cult, and none of our leaders will have the cojones to sign up to what needs to be done, both abroad and at home. Anyway, apparently I'm now affiliated back with the Labour party. Deep joy.
I am just pleased that you still have your job, Mr. Stopper. How goes it in the frontline of local authority cutbacks? Is Leicester Fire and Rescue heading down the merger track yet?
It's looking grim. Still, that HQ is a fantastic looking building.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
There I beg to differ, and I think it shows how we lack imagination in Western societies. We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated.
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
Indeed, try to tell a Pakistani apostate that he has a free choice to change religion.
Tell a slave in Mauritania that he was born equal. Tell a woman in Saudi Arabia that she was born equal. Tell a gay man in Uganda or Iran that he was born equal. Tell a leper in Yemen that she is equal.
I know what their responses would be.
Fair enough, and personally I am not that bothered about how other cultures treat their people in their own lands. However, when people from cultures with those sort of attitudes come to live here in the UK then I do not think it unreasonable to ask them to leave their medieval belief systems about the rule of law and rights of individuals at the immigration desk.
Pardon? You approve of slavery. of buying and selling other humans like a tin of beans as long as you cannot see it happening? Is that really what you are saying? Is it really OK for ISIS to throw gay men to their deaths because that is what they do over there?
You are aware of the penalty for homosexuality in our ally and 'anti-ISIS' coalition member Saudi Arabia?
Corbyn's views being willfully misrepresented as 'do nothing'. He wants to prevent states buying ISIS oil, funding them & selling them arms.
Meanwhile Dave, Simon Danczuk and the other war hard ons want to run head down to take IS out no matter what the cost to innocents, and without a clue what follows
Oblivious to the extra converts the killing of the innocents creates.
That is brilliant!
Read it again, and ponder on your use of the phrase 'wilfully misrepresented '.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
If Hitler were suggesting we shouldn't fight fascists it would be relevant.
That the terrorist sympathiser is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists is relevant.
If Corbyn doesn't want to be called a terrorist sympathiser maybe he should stop sympathising with terrorists?
You have missed the point by as far as it is to miss it
Calling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser is probably accurate... saying "don't allay yourself with a bunch of terrorist sympathisers" to MP's that aren't sympathetic to terrorists in the least may be seen as trying to smear by association or make people vote your way by fear of smear
And?
Sounds like a persuasive argument made plausible by the Opposition to this being led by a bunch of terrorist sympathisers. What's your objection exactly? That he's trying to win support or that he called a spade a spade?
Not sure smear is right. Smears are normally false. He's trying to win support by association yes. As leaders generally do.
I have already said that I think Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser, I just don't think it is appropriate for a PM to use such juvenile and puerile tactics to try and force people who are troubled at the thought of sanctioning killing innocent people to do so
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
If Hitler were suggesting we shouldn't fight fascists it would be relevant.
That the terrorist sympathiser is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists is relevant.
If Corbyn doesn't want to be called a terrorist sympathiser maybe he should stop sympathising with terrorists?
No it isn't; it's not any more relevant. Either fighting the fascists would be a good idea or it wouldn't. Hitler's view on it wouldn't and shouldn't inform anyone's decision - why would you let someone else make a decision like that for you, whether 'inverted' or not?
It is Cameron unjustifiably inciting groupthink in his MPs.
Sorry but you're absurd. So the Leader Of the Opposition isn't relevant? Good to know.
Opposition to fighting the terrorists is being led by terrorist sympathisers. Plural, McMao as well as Jezbollah and probably others (Milne isn't an MP). Of course the fact that terrorist sympathisers are trying to sympathise with terrorists is relevant.
I note you're not trying to pretend that Jeabollah and McMao aren't terrorist sympathisers. Just that the PM is supposed to ignore the elephant in the room.
Wasn't Cameron pro-apartheid at one time?
I believe he took drugs at one time. Your point is? I don't know if he was but he isn't still and to my knowledge never had been during his time being active in politics. In fact I thought apartheid was over before he became involved in politics?
If he is pro-apartheid today like Labour is led by a bunch of terrorist sympathisers today then it would be relevant if an apartheid vote occurred.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native"
There I beg to differ, and I think it shows how we lack imagination in Western societies. We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated.
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
" We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated."
Well said Sean, I couldn't agree more.
Watching the way "progressives" patronise other races and nations is pure cringe
It certainly can be. I think a lot of people really think history and human progress is an inevitable path toward some liberal ideal, but it really is not, and though I am in no way religious myself, religious identity, and often intolerance of the religious identities of others, has been a key if not key factor for large parts of human history. The rise of nationalism competed with it, but religion is still king in many places, and they don't always respond in an 'enlightened' way that we might prefer.
I'd point anyone who believes that way to 16th century Europe. Literacy exploded. Many of the greatest ever works of art, literature, and architecture were produced in that era.
And, this all went hand in hand with some of the most horrific violence that the world has ever witnessed.
Yeah but whenever you get progress there's always likely to be a fightback to stop it. In a way it's what I'd like to believe about the Islamists. They can see the writing on the wall - the influence of the west is going to shatter the belief systems of their societies and they're desperate to stop it.
Maybe, maybe not. Plenty of sophisticated societies have fallen to less sophisticated opponents.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
If Hitler were suggesting we shouldn't fight fascists it would be relevant.
That the terrorist sympathiser is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists is relevant.
If Corbyn doesn't want to be called a terrorist sympathiser maybe he should stop sympathising with terrorists?
You have missed the point by as far as it is possible to miss it
Calling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser is probably accurate... saying "don't allay yourself with a bunch of terrorist sympathisers" to MP's that aren't sympathetic to terrorists in the least may be seen as trying to smear by association or make people vote your way by fear of smear
This is the point that is in your head, right?
Because it isn't even in the article - let alone the comment.
"David Cameron has appealed to Conservative MPs to give him an overall parliamentary majority in favour of military action in Syria by warning them against voting alongside “Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers
“You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers,” the prime minister reportedly told the committee "
Has anyone considered that the vote tomorrow will not only split labour beyond repair but that a new model of socially democracy is conceived with a merger of the anti Corbynites in labour and the lib dems under Hilary Benn
Hmm, well, it *is* a bit of a surprise that the LDs have decided as they have. Would be a way back to relevance for them.
Ask yourself; "what would Charles Kennedy have done?"
Corbyn's views being willfully misrepresented as 'do nothing'. He wants to prevent states buying ISIS oil, funding them & selling them arms.
Meanwhile Dave, Simon Danczuk and the other war hard ons want to run head down to take IS out no matter what the cost to innocents, and without a clue what follows
Oblivious to the extra converts the killing of the innocents creates.
That is brilliant!
Read it again, and ponder on your use of the phrase 'wilfully misrepresented '.
So he wants us to go further then, like Vlad is doing obliterating anything that moves between IS land and Turkey ?
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
There I beg to differ, and I think it shows how we lack imagination in Western societies.
Oh I see - so your hypothesis is that we could enrich our society by reinventing slavery, misogyny, intolerance and bigotry? No doubt you are certain that you will be OK and never on the short end of the stick once these superior social innovations are re-enacted.
We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated.
No doubt that explains the millions fleeing Europe to get to live in patriarchal, religious societies. Germany is expecting 800,000 to run away to the Middle East this year and they are definitely NOT queueing up to get into the UK are they? I mean the west is so sh*t who would want to come here?
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
Yeah.. if you say so. As a woman I am well aware of what would happen to me if these madmen ever got control. No thanks.
On a more serious note, sanctions are how you deal with the likes of Assad and Putin (Saddam for that matter tbh (And House of Saud perhaps !!)). Not bloody IS.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
There I beg to differ, and I think it shows how we lack imagination in Western societies. We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated.
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
" We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated."
Well said Sean, I couldn't agree more.
Watching the way "progressives" patronise other races and nations is pure cringe
It certainly can be. I think a lot of people really think history and human progress is an inevitable path toward some liberal ideal, but it really is not, and though I am in no way religious myself, religious identity, and often intolerance of the religious identities of others, has been a key if not key factor for large parts of human history. The rise of nationalism competed with it, but religion is still king in many places, and they don't always respond in an 'enlightened' way that we might prefer.
I agree. Overall, religion has been responsible for far more of what I would consider to be evil than good. Even if you allow for Daesh following a perverted form of Islam, it still presents itself as religiously motivated. Religion is religion and you cannot disqualify any religion from being a religion because you don't agree with its preachings. That's surely part of the problem.
I totally agree with you in deploring militant Islam. So why do we want these people in charge of Syria? You, I and everyone here knows these moderate rebels are total nonsense. Why is our Government backing them? Would you like to live under that sort of regime?
Certainly not. The "what next" after bombing question is one which I don't think has been satisfactorily answered and is one reason (BJO please note) why I'm not fully convinced that bombing is necessarily the answer. The long-term strategy appears to be missing.
What I am convinced of is that IS need to be pushed back, out of the territory they hold. They need to be denied space in those countries and elsewhere, anywhere they seek to find a haven. They need to lose, to be eliminated. The ideology needs attacking, here and abroad. How we eliminate IS from the lands they are in I am less certain about. But the do nothing / let's talk to them option is from Planet La-La.
Corbyn's views being willfully misrepresented as 'do nothing'. He wants to prevent states buying ISIS oil, funding them & selling them arms.
Meanwhile Dave, Simon Danczuk and the other war hard ons want to run head down to take IS out no matter what the cost to innocents, and without a clue what follows
Oblivious to the extra converts the killing of the innocents creates.
Yeah: they have the arms now. And the money. So what's he going to do to stop them using them? Nothing.
It's like his idiotic remark in response to the question about whether he would authorise force to stop homicidal maniacs shooting people in the street. Even there he wittered about stopping them getting access to guns. They've got the bloody guns and are using them. What's he going to do? Tell them: "oi you're not supposed to have those!"
Some of the funding is done by taxing those living in the areas IS controls. That's one reason why that territory needs to be taken back. It's not just a haven. It provides wealth.
He has no effing clue what to do. Because, fundamentally, his whole world view is predicated on the West being the bad guy and stopping the West doing things to others. It's never occurred to him to think sensibly about how to stop bad guys doing bad things to us.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
If Hitler were suggesting we shouldn't fight fascists it would be relevant.
That the terrorist sympathiser is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists is relevant.
If Corbyn doesn't want to be called a terrorist sympathiser maybe he should stop sympathising with terrorists?
You have missed the point by as far as it is to miss it
Calling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser is probably accurate... saying "don't allay yourself with a bunch of terrorist sympathisers" to MP's that aren't sympathetic to terrorists in the least may be seen as trying to smear by association or make people vote your way by fear of smear
And?
Sounds like a persuasive argument made plausible by the Opposition to this being led by a bunch of terrorist sympathisers. What's your objection exactly? That he's trying to win support or that he called a spade a spade?
Not sure smear is right. Smears are normally false. He's trying to win support by association yes. As leaders generally do.
I have already said that I think Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser, I just don't think it is appropriate for a PM to use such juvenile and puerile tactics to try and force people who are troubled at the thought of sanctioning killing innocent people to do so
So you think something is true but think it is inappropriate for the Prime Minister to say what you think to be true during a debate about the matter you think to be true?
It would be juvenile were Corbyn NOT to be a terrorist sympathiser. Now it's just the truth.
Nobody is forcing the likes of Davis to extend their support to us fighting ISIL the same way we are already fighting ISIL.
I did not go on the Stop the War marches against the Iraq war because they were organised by the SWP and because I thought that they were acting in bad faith in so doing. I thought then that their agenda was not in favour of peace but against anything the West might do. They were and are against any attempt to take action against evil movements which threaten us and innocents more generally. STW have been - when Corbyn was chair - even against taking action to defend the Yazidis purely because it was done by the West. I do not associate with the SWP and people like them because I think they are fundamentally and dangerously wrong-headed. I don't associate with anti-Semites either, for the same reason. Corbyn I note has no problem with doing this. He thinks anti-Semites have something important to say and should be invited to Parliament and to this country to say it.
Corbyn and McDonnell are terrorist sympathisers. They are proud to associate with terrorist groups. Livingstone has shown by his latest remarks that he too is one. He too has associated with and invited to City Hall a cleric who thinks suicide bombing is a good thing.
Those who vote against bombing for genuine thoughtful reasons are not terrorist sympathisers. They are exercising their judgment as MPs should do. There are good reasons for thinking that a bit of extra bombing is not the answer to what we face. The decision is a finely balanced one IMO.
Some of them - judging by what we are hearing - may vote against because they are unwilling or too scared to exercise their judgment, a dereliction of duty by an MP. So be it. No need to call them terrorist sympathisers. Cowards will do.
I think that the vote will be close. Corbyn may think it a great victory if he wins or if the vote is close. He is not operating in a vacuum, however, and other countries: allies and enemies alike will note how the main Opposition party behaves on this issue.
I commend your principles.
But don't fail to mention the other side, and those Tory MPs who are not convinced by Cameron's (imo weak and unconvincing) case for bombing but that will vote to bomb, and even speak passionately in favour, because of Cameron's cajoling and intimidation, or due to the hope of preferment.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
If Hitler were suggesting we shouldn't fight fascists it would be relevant.
That the terrorist sympathiser is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists is relevant.
If Corbyn doesn't want to be called a terrorist sympathiser maybe he should stop sympathising with terrorists?
You have missed the point by as far as it is possible to miss it
Calling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser is probably accurate... saying "don't allay yourself with a bunch of terrorist sympathisers" to MP's that aren't sympathetic to terrorists in the least may be seen as trying to smear by association or make people vote your way by fear of smear
This is the point that is in your head, right?
Because it isn't even in the article - let alone the comment.
"David Cameron has appealed to Conservative MPs to give him an overall parliamentary majority in favour of military action in Syria by warning them against voting alongside “Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers
“You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers,” the prime minister reportedly told the committee "
But we love the Saudis, and we're their biggest arms exporter. Is this ok for you?
No it is not OK. I would not sell the b*st*rds as much as a rusty nail.
Adultery, stealing, etc all have punishments which seem unduly harsh but I do not dispute their right to inflict those punishments. The perpetrators knew the risks of getting caught, but to be killed just because you prefer your own sex to the opposite one? To be made into a near slave just because you are born female? Those I will never agree with.
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
Corbyn's views being willfully misrepresented as 'do nothing'. He wants to prevent states buying ISIS oil, funding them & selling them arms.
Meanwhile Dave, Simon Danczuk and the other war hard ons want to run head down to take IS out no matter what the cost to innocents, and without a clue what follows
Oblivious to the extra converts the killing of the innocents creates.
No one is oblivious to that argument. But an IS in control of a state like enterprise is surely winning converts all the time by appearing powerful, and while trying to cut their funding streams is helpful, at some point somebody has to confront them directly. Now, an argument can be made that we don't need to be a part of that (and plenty has been said about the deficiencies of a mere bombing campaign, reliant on the mythical 70k) , even though we have been asked by allies to do so, but Corbyn seems so fearful of the 'extra converts' line of thinking, which is no idle concern admittedly, that he will never consider direct action as correct, not by us or anyone else.
People may feel Corbyn is being misrepresented, but on the other side of the argument, there is misrepresentation right back about what people are and are not considering, and how gung ho they are supposedly being.
And regardless, these people refer to the West as Crusaders - if they have to go back a long way to justify killing us, they will do so. It doesn't require any action we take or do not take.
And in any case, and a point I do find more convincing as time goes on, we are already bombing them in Iraq. It is not appreciably going to add to our risk to bomb in Syria, not least because our bombing will be a tiny tiny part of what is going on (no doubt someone in or around Syria right now would consider attacking us for bombing IS, even though we are not doing so in Syria).
I'm becoming more of the view that, sure, this is not a problem that can be solved with bombing, as the problem is millions of people support IS or groups just like IS. But maybe it is a problem that can be beaten down for a time at least.
Now, that may well add to problems down the line - but sometimes you have to deal with the problem in front of you, even if that can only be done in such a way that adds problems down the line, because the alternative is it blowing up in your face right now.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
If Hitler were suggesting we shouldn't fight fascists it would be relevant.
That the terrorist sympathiser is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists is relevant.
If Corbyn doesn't want to be called a terrorist sympathiser maybe he should stop sympathising with terrorists?
You have missed the point by as far as it is possible to miss it
Calling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser is probably accurate... saying "don't allay yourself with a bunch of terrorist sympathisers" to MP's that aren't sympathetic to terrorists in the least may be seen as trying to smear by association or make people vote your way by fear of smear
This is the point that is in your head, right?
Because it isn't even in the article - let alone the comment.
"David Cameron has appealed to Conservative MPs to give him an overall parliamentary majority in favour of military action in Syria by warning them against voting alongside “Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers
“You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers,” the prime minister reportedly told the committee "
Re "blowback"; Mohammed Siddique Khan, the leader of the 7/7 murderers was training with explosives in a camp in Pakistan in 2001. Of course, he cited Iraq in his propaganda video. As cyclefree says, pretext v cause.
He cited Iraq because he knew that it would trigger exactly the reaction we have seen from Pavlov's dogs. The Islamists understand that the Western world can be put under pressure if our "guilt" buttons are pressed.
So we get the:- - "it's your fault because of your colonial interference after WW1" button; - followed by the "it's your fault because Israel was created" button; - followed by the "we are the new Jews of Europe" button (a particularly revolting and inapposite one given how much anti-Semitism there is within the Islamists and how much they target Jews for their murderous hatred),; - occasionally the "we will face a Holocaust of Muslims" button is used. - Then there is the "it's your fault because your societies don't treat our youth with respect/too much Islamophobia/we're being picked on by the authorities" button; - The "we're offended by what you've said about Islam/Mohammed" button is a perennial favourite. - And finally the "you shouldn't have invaded this or that country or done this or that to some Muslim group somewhere" button. Curiously, this always always ignores the efforts which the West eventually put in to help the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo and always always ignores the fact that fellow Muslims were usually the ones killing other Muslims and/or not providing any help. It also ignores those countries which have been attacked which have done none of these things: Bali, Kenya, Nigeria, for instance.
I may have missed some out. It's hard to keep up. All disingenuous chaff designed to obscure the fact that militant Islam has been on the march against Western values and principles for the best part of four decades.
On a more serious note, sanctions are how you deal with the likes of Assad and Putin (Saddam for that matter tbh (And House of Saud perhaps !!)). Not bloody IS.
@DPJHodges: Know it's inconvenient for Labour, but if you elect a man who's expressed sympathy with terrorists as a leader, people will point that out.
Just wondering, has the Corbyntifada ever happened to any other major political party in the West?
I'm struggling to think of a precedent - where a once great party, one of the principle parties of power, has been swiftly captured by a malignant, scheming bunch of self-confessed extremists.
We are witnessing history. Unhappy history for the Left.
You could say the same is happening to the Republican Party over the Pond.
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
It really isn't low. It is to some extents accurate, and an important reminder from a party leader who believes in his cause and his party being on the right side of it.
The reporting of it is pretty poor. The interpretation of it on here is hilarious.
Pardon? You approve of slavery. of buying and selling other humans like a tin of beans as long as you cannot see it happening? Is that really what you are saying? Is it really OK for ISIS to throw gay men to their deaths because that is what they do over there?
No, Mrs C, I do not approve of those things and there is lots more happening in the world that I don't like as well. However, a quarter of the globe is no longer painted pink, the UK is not in a position to dictate to any other culture how they should behave.
Furthermore, beams and motes, Mrs. C., beams and motes (Matthew Chapter 7 verses 1-5, if you have forgotten). All the time we tolerate FGM, Wahhabist Preaching and schools, industrial scale child rape, virtual slavery, cultural sensitivity in law enforcement and lots, lots more in our own country we have no moral authority to go telling other countries how they should behave.
Has anyone considered that the vote tomorrow will not only split labour beyond repair but that a new model of socially democracy is conceived with a merger of the anti Corbynites in labour and the lib dems under Hilary Benn
Hmm, well, it *is* a bit of a surprise that the LDs have decided as they have. Would be a way back to relevance for them.
Ask yourself; "what would Charles Kennedy have done?"
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
I'm surprised Dave didn't contract it out to Michael Fallon like he did during the General Election.
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
It's not as if Labour members weren't warned, repeatedly, about Corbyn and his associations and the harm this would do. Lots of people warned them. They ignored the warnings or poo-poohed them. Now what a lot of people predicted would happen has happened. And they're shouting that it's not fair. Well, diddums.
Has anyone considered that the vote tomorrow will not only split labour beyond repair but that a new model of socially democracy is conceived with a merger of the anti Corbynites in labour and the lib dems under Hilary Benn
Hmm, well, it *is* a bit of a surprise that the LDs have decided as they have. Would be a way back to relevance for them.
Ask yourself; "what would Charles Kennedy have done?"
Just wondering, has the Corbyntifada ever happened to any other major political party in the West?
I'm struggling to think of a precedent - where a once great party, one of the principle parties of power, has been swiftly captured by a malignant, scheming bunch of self-confessed extremists.
We are witnessing history. Unhappy history for the Left.
You could say the same is happening to the Republican Party over the Pond.
To be fair, I'd let Corbyn babysit my kids, but I wouldn't let Trump do it. The bloke's not sane.
But we love the Saudis, and we're their biggest arms exporter. Is this ok for you?
No it is not OK. I would not sell the b*st*rds as much as a rusty nail.
Adultery, stealing, etc all have punishments which seem unduly harsh but I do not dispute their right to inflict those punishments. The perpetrators knew the risks of getting caught, but to be killed just because you prefer your own sex to the opposite one? To be made into a near slave just because you are born female? Those I will never agree with.
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
It really isn't low. It is to some extents accurate, and an important reminder from a party leader who believes in his cause and his party being on the right side of it.
The reporting of it is pretty poor. The interpretation of it on here is hilarious.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 2m2 minutes ago Know it's inconvenient for Labour, but if you elect a man who's expressed sympathy with terrorists as a leader, people will point that out.
Two days to the by-election. God alone knows what the good voters of Oldham are thinking tonight.
But don't fail to mention the other side, and those Tory MPs who are not convinced by Cameron's (imo weak and unconvincing) case for bombing but that will vote to bomb, and even speak passionately in favour, because of Cameron's cajoling and intimidation, or due to the hope of preferment.
Hard to prove which ones will be voting for such pathetic reasons, but they of course should be criticised if they allow themselves to be intimidated. Nothing wrong, in itself, with following the judgement and lead of someone you respect and admire, or for that person to seek to convince you, but that shouldn't overcome any critical thinking or doubts one might still hold. On issues such as this, it is not right to toe the party line as some sort of payback for the support the party has given you over the years, like a backbencher voting to support some minor legislation they care nothing about for the sake of the party.
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
Corbyn and McDonnell are fair game.. they are terrorist sympathisers, but to appeal to others to vote with him by saying "If you don't, you are one of them" is poor form
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
If they don't like being called terrorist sympathisers they should stop sympathising with terrorists.
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
I'm surprised Dave didn't contract it out to Michael Fallon like he did during the General Election.
Even I winced at that attack on Ed Miliband.
Or William Hague. Usually one or the other called in when Dave needs the bottom of a barrel scraping.
Has anyone considered that the vote tomorrow will not only split labour beyond repair but that a new model of socially democracy is conceived with a merger of the anti Corbynites in labour and the lib dems under Hilary Benn
Hmm, well, it *is* a bit of a surprise that the LDs have decided as they have. Would be a way back to relevance for them.
Ask yourself; "what would Charles Kennedy have done?"
Just wondering, has the Corbyntifada ever happened to any other major political party in the West?
I'm struggling to think of a precedent - where a once great party, one of the principle parties of power, has been swiftly captured by a malignant, scheming bunch of self-confessed extremists.
We are witnessing history. Unhappy history for the Left.
Has any political party ever allowed so many non-supporters to join and elect its leader?
I think Cameron is wrong to blackmail his MPs into voting for airstrikes in Syria. Corbyn is, in my opinion, a terrorist supporter and Cameron's well in his right to point this out. But just because Corbyn and the loony left are opposing airstrikes in Syria doesn't mean that anyone who holds that position is one of them.
For what it's worth I'm in favour of the airstrikes in Syria, but this is a short term decision. The bigger decision will be boots on the ground. If we do that we need to know who's side we're on and what success looks like. That's the really big decision.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
It really isn't low. It is to some extents accurate, and an important reminder from a party leader who believes in his cause and his party being on the right side of it.
The reporting of it is pretty poor. The interpretation of it on here is hilarious.
It's what Cameron said in his party conference speech.
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
I thought the Salmond posters portraying him as a thief at the GE went a bit far, but the public loved it. Corbyn OTOH has described Hamas and Hezbollah as 'friends'...
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
Corbyn and McDonnell are fair game.. they are terrorist sympathisers, but to appeal to others to vote with him by saying "If you don't, you are one of them" is poor form
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
Corbyn and McDonnell are fair game.. they are terrorist sympathisers, but to appeal to others to vote with him by saying "If you don't, you are one of them" is poor form
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
It really isn't low. It is to some extents accurate, and an important reminder from a party leader who believes in his cause and his party being on the right side of it.
The reporting of it is pretty poor. The interpretation of it on here is hilarious.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 2m2 minutes ago Know it's inconvenient for Labour, but if you elect a man who's expressed sympathy with terrorists as a leader, people will point that out.
Two days to the by-election. God alone knows what the good voters of Oldham are thinking tonight.
Well if the collective wisdom is PB is any indication, according to the predictions above around 40% of those who care enough to turnout will be thinking either a) Labour are definitely the party for me, I love this new direction or b) Whatever, I'm still not voting anything other than Labour, I'm not a Tory or a racist fruitcake at least.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
Indeed, try to tell a
I know what their responses would be.
Fair enough, and personally I am not that bothered about how other cultures treat their people in their own lands. However, when people from cultures with those sort of attitudes come to live here in the UK then I do not think it unreasonable to ask them to leave their medieval belief systems about the rule of law and rights of individuals at the immigration desk.
Pardon? You approve of slavery. of buying and selling other humans like a tin of beans as long as you cannot see it happening? Is that really what you are saying? Is it really OK for ISIS to throw gay men to their deaths because that is what they do over there?
You are aware of the penalty for homosexuality in our ally and 'anti-ISIS' coalition member Saudi Arabia?
But we love the Saudis, and we're their biggest arms exporter. Is this ok for you?
There is a difference between the two. Can you guess what it is? I'll give you a subtle clue. One is based on summary judgement and sentencing, and the other involves a defined criminal justice system with courts, an independent judiciary and an appeals process. I might think it is barbarity to behead someone for a crime, but to say that there is no difference between a system that gives you a trial, an independent judiciary and an appeals process as that of a member of "Isis deciding you are guilty therefore you need to be executed, is beyond absurd. It shows a failure in thinking.
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
I very much doubt that this was a calculated phrase. Much more likely a genuine (if possibly ill-advised) outburst at the fact that matters of state now have to take account of the views of people like Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne.
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
I thought the Salmond posters portraying him as a thief at the GE went a bit far, but the public loved it.
The tipping point in the campaign for us Tory canvassers was when Salmond said "I'm going to write Labour's budget line by line"
Turned the Tories from the largest party in a hung parliament into a Tory majority.
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
Corbyn and McDonnell are fair game.. they are terrorist sympathisers, but to appeal to others to vote with him by saying "If you don't, you are one of them" is poor form
You mean, would be, right?
#whateverdavesays
A bit catchier than the stupid Nigel hashtag for 'Leave'
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
Changing FROM Islam is a bit of a problem Bev.
A one way door that one.
Actually there's a big trend in many countries toward Muslims converting to Christianity. Doesn't usually bode well for the people that do it, but it is happening nonetheless.
@PolhomeEditor: Labour frontbencher on "intimidation" of pro-war MPs: "The leadership's deliberately stoking it up. It's appalling." https://t.co/7Spk9C0vYN
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
I thought the Salmond posters portraying him as a thief at the GE went a bit far, but the public loved it.
The tipping point in the campaign for us Tory canvassers was when Salmond said "I'm going to write Labour's budget line by line"
Turned the Tories from the largest party in a hung parliament into a Tory majority.
Salmond loves it, he plays up to the pantomime villain.
It's not as if Labour members weren't warned, repeatedly, about Corbyn and his associations and the harm this would do. Lots of people warned them. They ignored the warnings or poo-poohed them. Now what a lot of people predicted would happen has happened. And they're shouting that it's not fair. Well, diddums.
The moment Corbyn ummed and ahhed about the police shooting rifle and bomb toting terrorist set on a killing spree is the point at which any reasonably person would conclude that Corbyn really doesn't give a f*ck about our safety. So f*ck him and everyone who supports him.
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
It really isn't low. It is to some extents accurate, and an important reminder from a party leader who believes in his cause and his party being on the right side of it.
The reporting of it is pretty poor. The interpretation of it on here is hilarious.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 2m2 minutes ago Know it's inconvenient for Labour, but if you elect a man who's expressed sympathy with terrorists as a leader, people will point that out.
Two days to the by-election. God alone knows what the good voters of Oldham are thinking tonight.
Anything less than an enormous win will be bad for Labour. A slight win will be associated with ISIS sympathies.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
Changing FROM Islam is a bit of a problem Bev.
A one way door that one.
Actually there's a big trend in many countries toward Muslims converting to Christianity.
Really, I had not heard that. I would be interested in any stories on such a trend if you have any to hand, it goes against the narrative we often seem to expect.
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
Corbyn and McDonnell are fair game.. they are terrorist sympathisers, but to appeal to others to vote with him by saying "If you don't, you are one of them" is poor form
You mean, would be, right?
#whateverdavesays
A bit catchier than the stupid Nigel hashtag for 'Leave'
I don't even know what that is, but lets not play my Dad is bigger than your Dad. If you think it is good form to shame undecided people into voting for something as serious as air strikes by using puerile playground tactics, then fair enough
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
Changing FROM Islam is a bit of a problem Bev.
A one way door that one.
That's not true, my mother in law was Muslim, and converted to Christianity. She tried to get my wife to convert also, but she wasn't having any of it...
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
I very much doubt that this was a calculated phrase. Much more likely a genuine (if possibly ill-advised) outburst at the fact that matters of state now have to take account of the views of people like Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne.
Views which the majority of Labour MPs support or will not oppose, if reports of only 30-40 Lab MPs voting with the government pan out. The myth of a lack of PLP support to disappear?
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
If Hitler were suggesting we shouldn't fight fascists it would be relevant.
That the terrorist sympathiser is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists is relevant.
If Corbyn doesn't want to be called a terrorist sympathiser maybe he should stop sympathising with terrorists?
You have missed the point by as far as it is to miss it
Calling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser is probably accurate... saying "don't allay yourself with a bunch of terrorist sympathisers" to MP's that aren't sympathetic to terrorists in the least may be seen as trying to smear by association or make people vote your way by fear of smear
And?
Sounds like a persuasive argument made plausible by the Opposition to this being led by a bunch of terrorist sympathisers. What's your objection exactly? That he's trying to win support or that he called a spade a spade?
Not sure smear is right. Smears are normally false. He's trying to win support by association yes. As leaders generally do.
I have already said that I think Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser, I just don't think it is appropriate for a PM to use such juvenile and puerile tactics to try and force people who are troubled at the thought of sanctioning killing innocent people to do so
Ah you're being overly sensitive man. Corbyn will likely wear the badge proudly. He believes in Irish Republicanism; he supported Hezbollah and Hamas. He'd be happy to admit that.
As Nick Cohen alluded too. He's no pacifist either, he's quite happy when the aggression is aimed at the West.
That article continues: Obama also hinted at US frustration over [Turkey's] inability to seal a border used by Isis to smuggle reinforcements and supplies into Syria.
“There are about 98 kilometres that are still used as a transit point for foreign fighters [and] Isil shipping out fuel for sale that helps finance their terrorist activities,” said Obama.
Have any other world leaders made the same allegation recently?
From this and his commitment to more boots on the ground, it does look like Obama might have found some balls. I wonder why?
Pardon? You approve of slavery. of buying and selling other humans like a tin of beans as long as you cannot see it happening? Is that really what you are saying? Is it really OK for ISIS to throw gay men to their deaths because that is what they do over there?
No, Mrs C, I do not approve of those things and there is lots more happening in the world that I don't like as well. However, a quarter of the globe is no longer painted pink, the UK is not in a position to dictate to any other culture how they should behave.
Mr Llama, this is nothing to do with the Empire. It is whether or not you believe that it is justifiable to persecute and kill people because of their very nature. If you believe that it is OK to allow gays to be hanged or thrown off roofs, or woman and children to be exploited, beaten and raped as long as "that is normal over there", then where does it stop? In parts of Africa they kill albino children. Is that OK too? What choice did the children have?
The reverse argument applies - If it is OK "over there" then it should be OK over here too. A bit of distance does not make it right and if it is "culturally" OK then Rotherham is not a problem and men running sex slavery rings in Aylesbury, Rochdale and Shropshire should never have been jailed.
Furthermore, beams and motes, Mrs. C., beams and motes (Matthew Chapter 7 verses 1-5, if you have forgotten). All the time we tolerate FGM, Wahhabist Preaching and schools, industrial scale child rape, virtual slavery, cultural sensitivity in law enforcement and lots, lots more in our own country we have no moral authority to go telling other countries how they should behave.
We do not "tolerate" it Mr Llama - those things are illegal here. The fact that domestic law enforcement was more worried about "cultural sensitivity" rather than doing its job and enforcing the law of the land is nothing short of scandalous. Whoever was responsible for the cover up should be charged with every count of abuse or rape perpetrated because of their actions.
Cameron's "terrorist sympathiser" remark... it implies anyone who doesn't follow his lead is one in my eyes... whether to bomb Syria, which will result in innocent, non ISIS Syrians dying, is a sensitive subject that doesn't need bullying from the PM
I think he has looked at some polling and is hoping to strip more of the WWC from Labour.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
There I beg to differ, and I think it shows how we lack imagination in Western societies.
Oh I see - so your hypothesis is that we could enrich our society by reinventing slavery, misogyny, intolerance and bigotry? No doubt you are certain that you will be OK and never on the short end of the stick once these superior social innovations are re-enacted.
We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated.
No doubt that explains the millions fleeing Europe to get to live in patriarchal, religious societies. Germany is expecting 800,000 to run away to the Middle East this year and they are definitely NOT queueing up to get into the UK are they? I mean the west is so sh*t who would want to come here?
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
Yeah.. if you say so. As a woman I am well aware of what would happen to me if these madmen ever got control. No thanks.
I'm not sure that I follow that leap in logic.
Anyone who has followed my posts over the years would be aware that I do not favour the things you accuse me of.
I'm simply trying to explain the world outlook of people who do not share your world outlook.
It's not as if Labour members weren't warned, repeatedly, about Corbyn and his associations and the harm this would do. Lots of people warned them. They ignored the warnings or poo-poohed them. Now what a lot of people predicted would happen has happened. And they're shouting that it's not fair. Well, diddums.
The moment Corbyn ummed and ahhed about the police shooting rifle and bomb toting terrorist set on a killing spree is the point at which any reasonably person would conclude that Corbyn really doesn't give a f*ck about our safety. So f*ck him and everyone who supports him.
The problem with taking such a strong view against Corbyn based on those comments is that apparently millions of people will still intend to vote for a party he leads, so you will need to condemn millions of voters as not being reasonable as well. Which you can do, but is problematic for politicians to do (though it doesn't stop them saying voters are stupid, eg 'only voted in Cameron as they didn't understand what the Tories would do' sort of argument)
Edit: 10,000 posts, yeesh. And that not including pre Vanilla days.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
There I beg to differ, and I think it shows how we lack imagination in Western societies.
Oh I see - so your hypothesis is that we could enrich our society by reinventing slavery, misogyny, intolerance and bigotry? No doubt you are certain that you will be OK and never on the short end of the stick once these superior social innovations are re-enacted.
We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated.
No doubt that explains the millions fleeing Europe to get to live in patriarchal, religious societies. Germany is expecting 800,000 to run away to the Middle East this year and they are definitely NOT queueing up to get into the UK are they? I mean the west is so sh*t who would want to come here?
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
Yeah.. if you say so. As a woman I am well aware of what would happen to me if these madmen ever got control. No thanks.
I'm not sure that I follow that leap in logic.
Anyone who has followed my posts over the years would be aware that I do not favour the things you accuse me of.
I'm simply trying to explain the world outlook of people who do not share your world outlook.
I see election_data has seemingly resigned from the party. Along with the old NUS president. Labour in real danger of lolsing a lot of moderate members now.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
If Hitler were suggesting we shouldn't fight fascists it would be relevant.
That the terrorist sympathiser is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists is relevant.
If Corbyn doesn't want to be called a terrorist sympathiser maybe he should stop sympathising with terrorists?
You have missed the point by as far as it is to miss it
Calling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser is probably accurate... saying "don't allay yourself with a bunch of terrorist sympathisers" to MP's that aren't sympathetic to terrorists in the least may be seen as trying to smear by association or make people vote your way by fear of smear
And?
Sounds like a persuasive argument made plausible by the Opposition to this being led by a bunch of terrorist sympathisers. What's your objection exactly? That he's trying to win support or that he called a spade a spade?
Not sure smear is right. Smears are normally false. He's trying to win support by association yes. As leaders generally do.
I have already said that I think Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser, I just don't think it is appropriate for a PM to use such juvenile and puerile tactics to try and force people who are troubled at the thought of sanctioning killing innocent people to do so
Ah you're being overly sensitive man. Corbyn will likely wear the badge proudly. He believes in Irish Republicanism; he supported Hezbollah and Hamas. He'd be happy to admit that.
As Nick Cohen alluded too. He's no pacifist either, he's quite happy when the aggression is aimed at the West.
I said Corbyn and McDonnell are fair game!!
It's the equivalent of saying to social workers in Rotherham circa 2008 who report signs of trouble with Pakistani men and paedophilia
Re "blowback"; Mohammed Siddique Khan, the leader of the 7/7 murderers was training with explosives in a camp in Pakistan in 2001. Of course, he cited Iraq in his propaganda video. As cyclefree says, pretext v cause.
He cited Iraq because he knew that it would trigger exactly the reaction we have seen from Pavlov's dogs. The Islamists understand that the Western world can be put under pressure if our "guilt" buttons are pressed.
So we get the:- - "it's your fault because of your colonial interference after WW1" button; - followed by the "it's your fault because Israel was created" button; - followed by the "we are the new Jews of Europe" button (a particularly revolting and inapposite one given how much anti-Semitism there is within the Islamists and how much they target Jews for their murderous hatred),; - occasionally the "we will face a Holocaust of Muslims" button is used. - Then there is the "it's your fault because your societies don't treat our youth with respect/too much Islamophobia/we're being picked on by the authorities" button; - The "we're offended by what you've said about Islam/Mohammed" button is a perennial favourite. - And finally the "you shouldn't have invaded this or that country or done this or that to some Muslim group somewhere" button. Curiously, this always always ignores the efforts which the West eventually put in to help the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo and always always ignores the fact that fellow Muslims were usually the ones killing other Muslims and/or not providing any help. It also ignores those countries which have been attacked which have done none of these things: Bali, Kenya, Nigeria, for instance.
I may have missed some out. It's hard to keep up. All disingenuous chaff designed to obscure the fact that militant Islam has been on the march against Western values and principles for the best part of four decades.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
Changing FROM Islam is a bit of a problem Bev.
A one way door that one.
Actually there's a big trend in many countries toward Muslims converting to Christianity.
Really, I had not heard that. I would be interested in any stories on such a trend if you have any to hand, it goes against the narrative we often seem to expect.
Comments
But in any case, whether Cameron believes them to be sympathisers or not, saying it so bluntly, at this time, seems unlikely to encourage more Labour support. The tone is over the top even if people will argue the comment itself is not, and I'd guess will see more abstentions occur.
Sounds like a persuasive argument made plausible by the Opposition to this being led by a bunch of terrorist sympathisers. What's your objection exactly? That he's trying to win support or that he called a spade a spade?
Not sure smear is right. Smears are normally false. He's trying to win support by association yes. As leaders generally do.
Seriously, it seems like a national nervous breakdown to us but the great majority of people will be sensibly getting on with life and ignoring it.
Corbyn has equally demeaned himself by moving from making a reasoned criticism of the government's approach to stop the war sloganeering and encouraging attacks on his colleagues. There is no bloody war to stop it is eight fucking aircraft as part of a co-alition that is already targeting Isis. He has badly let down mps who have taken a reasoned position to voting no but aren't knee jerk idiots like him and his acolytes.
Meanwhile Dave, Simon Danczuk and the other war hard ons want to run head down to take IS out no matter what the cost to innocents, and without a clue what follows
Oblivious to the extra converts the killing of the innocents creates.
Corbyn and McDonnell are terrorist sympathisers. They are proud to associate with terrorist groups. Livingstone has shown by his latest remarks that he too is one. He too has associated with and invited to City Hall a cleric who thinks suicide bombing is a good thing.
Those who vote against bombing for genuine thoughtful reasons are not terrorist sympathisers. They are exercising their judgment as MPs should do. There are good reasons for thinking that a bit of extra bombing is not the answer to what we face. The decision is a finely balanced one IMO.
Some of them - judging by what we are hearing - may vote against because they are unwilling or too scared to exercise their judgment, a dereliction of duty by an MP. So be it. No need to call them terrorist sympathisers. Cowards will do.
I think that the vote will be close. Corbyn may think it a great victory if he wins or if the vote is close. He is not operating in a vacuum, however, and other countries: allies and enemies alike will note how the main Opposition party behaves on this issue.
Personally I'm becoming rather annoyed by those who express an almost Jihadi-like certainty on these matters. I've no idea what we should do about it and wouldn't abuse my MP for voting either way so long as his view is sincerely felt.
Because it isn't even in the article - let alone the comment.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/qzkd4vl
In fact, here are KSA and ISIS' laws respectively in a handy infographic: http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2015/01/20150123_saudi.jpg
But we love the Saudis, and we're their biggest arms exporter. Is this ok for you?
Read it again, and ponder on your use of the phrase 'wilfully misrepresented '.
If he is pro-apartheid today like Labour is led by a bunch of terrorist sympathisers today then it would be relevant if an apartheid vote occurred.
“You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers,” the prime minister reportedly told the committee "
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/01/cameron-accuses-corbyn-of-being-terrorist-sympathiser
Sorry RIP Charles
Got it.
Cameron should have use the accurate phrase 'terrorist supporters'.
No doubt that explains the millions fleeing Europe to get to live in patriarchal, religious societies. Germany is expecting 800,000 to run away to the Middle East this year and they are definitely NOT queueing up to get into the UK are they? I mean the west is so sh*t who would want to come here?
Yeah.. if you say so. As a woman I am well aware of what would happen to me if these madmen ever got control. No thanks.
It's like his idiotic remark in response to the question about whether he would authorise force to stop homicidal maniacs shooting people in the street. Even there he wittered about stopping them getting access to guns. They've got the bloody guns and are using them. What's he going to do? Tell them: "oi you're not supposed to have those!"
Some of the funding is done by taxing those living in the areas IS controls. That's one reason why that territory needs to be taken back. It's not just a haven. It provides wealth.
He has no effing clue what to do. Because, fundamentally, his whole world view is predicated on the West being the bad guy and stopping the West doing things to others. It's never occurred to him to think sensibly about how to stop bad guys doing bad things to us.
Bombing the hell out of the convoys of trucks carrying oil across the desert is likely to be more effective.
It would be juvenile were Corbyn NOT to be a terrorist sympathiser. Now it's just the truth.
Nobody is forcing the likes of Davis to extend their support to us fighting ISIL the same way we are already fighting ISIL.
But don't fail to mention the other side, and those Tory MPs who are not convinced by Cameron's (imo weak and unconvincing) case for bombing but that will vote to bomb, and even speak passionately in favour, because of Cameron's cajoling and intimidation, or due to the hope of preferment.
He is basically saying don't follow these silly people. Some of them sympathise with terrorists.
No smear like if you do...
You'll be as bad as them
You'll never get anywhere if you do
Just a plea. A bit paternalistic, it is true. But not even if you do X we'll be disappointed.
The smears you're inferring and imagining, and getting pretty worked up about.
Adultery, stealing, etc all have punishments which seem unduly harsh but I do not dispute their right to inflict those punishments. The perpetrators knew the risks of getting caught, but to be killed just because you prefer your own sex to the opposite one? To be made into a near slave just because you are born female? Those I will never agree with.
People may feel Corbyn is being misrepresented, but on the other side of the argument, there is misrepresentation right back about what people are and are not considering, and how gung ho they are supposedly being.
And regardless, these people refer to the West as Crusaders - if they have to go back a long way to justify killing us, they will do so. It doesn't require any action we take or do not take.
And in any case, and a point I do find more convincing as time goes on, we are already bombing them in Iraq. It is not appreciably going to add to our risk to bomb in Syria, not least because our bombing will be a tiny tiny part of what is going on (no doubt someone in or around Syria right now would consider attacking us for bombing IS, even though we are not doing so in Syria).
I'm becoming more of the view that, sure, this is not a problem that can be solved with bombing, as the problem is millions of people support IS or groups just like IS. But maybe it is a problem that can be beaten down for a time at least.
Now, that may well add to problems down the line - but sometimes you have to deal with the problem in front of you, even if that can only be done in such a way that adds problems down the line, because the alternative is it blowing up in your face right now.
Is that before or after Prince Charles dresses in a silly outfit and does a dance for them?
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1618922!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/gallery_1200/prince-charles-dances-traditional-dress-saudi-arabia.jpg
The reporting of it is pretty poor. The interpretation of it on here is hilarious.
Furthermore, beams and motes, Mrs. C., beams and motes (Matthew Chapter 7 verses 1-5, if you have forgotten). All the time we tolerate FGM, Wahhabist Preaching and schools, industrial scale child rape, virtual slavery, cultural sensitivity in law enforcement and lots, lots more in our own country we have no moral authority to go telling other countries how they should behave.
Good summary of why the case for bombing is flawed.
Even I winced at that attack on Ed Miliband.
Know it's inconvenient for Labour, but if you elect a man who's expressed sympathy with terrorists as a leader, people will point that out.
Two days to the by-election. God alone knows what the good voters of Oldham are thinking tonight.
I'm sure Labour must have already split into 2 or perhaps 3 parties based on how toxic he makes them sound at the moment. Hard to prove which ones will be voting for such pathetic reasons, but they of course should be criticised if they allow themselves to be intimidated. Nothing wrong, in itself, with following the judgement and lead of someone you respect and admire, or for that person to seek to convince you, but that shouldn't overcome any critical thinking or doubts one might still hold. On issues such as this, it is not right to toe the party line as some sort of payback for the support the party has given you over the years, like a backbencher voting to support some minor legislation they care nothing about for the sake of the party.
For what it's worth I'm in favour of the airstrikes in Syria, but this is a short term decision. The bigger decision will be boots on the ground. If we do that we need to know who's side we're on and what success looks like. That's the really big decision.
A one way door that one.
Corbyn OTOH has described Hamas and Hezbollah as 'friends'...
@guardian_clark: Wonder if all 8 LDs will vote for air strikes. guess 2 wd constitute major rebellion
"I think the estimate of extended air action over Syria would be in the low tens of millions of pounds."
You don't really believe that, do you George?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/12/01/uk-britain-osborne-syria-idUKKBN0TK4PH20151201
I might think it is barbarity to behead someone for a crime, but to say that there is no difference between a system that gives you a trial, an independent judiciary and an appeals process as that of a member of "Isis deciding you are guilty therefore you need to be executed, is beyond absurd. It shows a failure in thinking.
Turned the Tories from the largest party in a hung parliament into a Tory majority.
Look who he surrounds himself with too.
"gave their lives" Livingstone being one of the most odious.
What I would like to know is if the girl writing to her had been an Israeli Arab, would she have replied in the same way?
As Nick Cohen alluded too. He's no pacifist either, he's quite happy when the aggression is aimed at the West.
The reverse argument applies - If it is OK "over there" then it should be OK over here too. A bit of distance does not make it right and if it is "culturally" OK then Rotherham is not a problem and men running sex slavery rings in Aylesbury, Rochdale and Shropshire should never have been jailed. We do not "tolerate" it Mr Llama - those things are illegal here. The fact that domestic law enforcement was more worried about "cultural sensitivity" rather than doing its job and enforcing the law of the land is nothing short of scandalous. Whoever was responsible for the cover up should be charged with every count of abuse or rape perpetrated because of their actions.
Tic toc Labour.
Anyone who has followed my posts over the years would be aware that I do not favour the things you accuse me of.
I'm simply trying to explain the world outlook of people who do not share your world outlook.
Edit: 10,000 posts, yeesh. And that not including pre Vanilla days.
It's the equivalent of saying to social workers in Rotherham circa 2008 who report signs of trouble with Pakistani men and paedophilia
"Don't side with Nick Griffin"
Can't vouch for this link.