Guest MattP Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 The twat on skynews press prewiew, lied through his teeth , mis-using Colbyns interview to make a political jounalistic point.Look I dont know the labour leader yet, but misquoting from the press we dont need.. And then Camy calling labour/conservative against bombing as terrorist sympathisers...jesus what an idiot. Look if we could isolate the IS , and bomb them off the face of the earth, my total support, but bombing an area knowing civilians are there.... is murder. Read what he actually said.
Steven Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 This bombing 'strategy' has worked well before; hasn't it?
hackneyfox Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 Read what he actually said. What did he actually say then?
David Guiza Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 Read what he actually said. “You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers,”
Guest MattP Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 What did he actually say then? You are on a computer, can you really not google it? http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/01/cameron-accuses-corbyn-of-being-terrorist-sympathiser “You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers,” the prime minister reportedly told the committee.
ramboacdc Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/01/cameron-accuses-corbyn-of-being-terrorist-sympathiser “You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers,” the prime minister reportedly told the committee. how is this a misquote? seems pretty direct to me.
Guest MattP Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 how is this a misquote? seems pretty direct to me. Then you can't read, “You should not be walking through the lobbies with a bunch of terrorist sympathisers" does not mean "Anyone who votes against the airstrikes tomorrow is a terrorist sympathiser" - The fact this was actually leaked as well makes me think even more it was deliberate, he knows he's won the vote, so get as many Labour MP's back on side with Corbyn and try and strengthen Jeremy's position again (before tomorrow when it's Oldham ) He shouldn't have said bunch, he should have just named Corbyn and McDonnell, I doubt anyone would be moaning if he had as that's pretty much beyond doubt. It's like having an advent calender at the minute when you hate the Labour party, every day a new treat pops us to make them look a shambles.
ramboacdc Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 Then you can't read, “You should not be walking through the lobbies with a bunch of terrorist sympathisers" does not mean "Anyone who votes against the airstrikes tomorrow is a terrorist sympathiser" - The fact this was actually leaked as well makes me think even more it was deliberate, he knows he's won the vote, so get as many Labour MP's back on side with Corbyn and try and strengthen Jeremy's position again (before tomorrow when it's Oldham ) It's like having an advent calender at the minute when you hate the Labour party, every day a new treat pops us to make them look a shambles. how can i not when he is pulling corbyn in and calling him and anyone who stands with him a terrorist sympathiser? he knows what he is saying there and its not a misquote. corbyn is a pacifist and he has used his name knowing that and said the rest are terrorist sympathisers. i can read and i understand the media. just because i don't agree with you doesn't make me wrong or illiterate.
Guest MattP Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 You clearly can't read, he isn't calling anyone who stands with him a terrorist sympathiser. Corbyn is not a pacifist at all, he has supported bombing campaigns in the past when done by groups he agrees with.
Guest MattP Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 Whatever your views, this is absolutely appalling. A mob protesting outside the house of a lone woman because she still hasn't made up her mind over which way to vote on airstrikes? Even more worrying is the amount of people on the Stop The War page who now seem to think physical intimidation is acceptable. http://www.sunnation.co.uk/anti-stella-creasy-protests-outside-her-home-and-office/ Labour MP Stella Creasy had to endure intimidation from anti-bombing campaigners who protested outside her home and constituency office last night. It is thought some of those involved are also part of a campiagn trying to get the Walthamstow member deselected. Creasy has not yet decided which way to vote on today’s Syria motion, and on Monday posted a threatening message from Asim Mahmood – a local Labour councillor – on her Facebook page. The New Statesman reports that local members think Mahmood may be trying to get Creasy forced out so his sister Saima Mahmud, the mayor of Waltham Forest, could run as a candidate in a trigger ballot against her.
Steven Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 Whatever your views, this is absolutely appalling. A mob protesting outside the house of a lone woman because she still hasn't made up her mind over which way to vote on airstrikes? Even more worrying is the amount of people on the Stop The War page who now seem to think physical intimidation is acceptable. http://www.sunnation.co.uk/anti-stella-creasy-protests-outside-her-home-and-office/ What is bombing if not "physical intimidation"?
Guest MattP Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 What is bombing if not "physical intimidation"? What? I'm not convinced on the case for airstrikes but are you comparing airstrikes against ISIS to protesting outside a woman's house?
Webbo Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 What is bombing if not "physical intimidation"? It's a response to physical intimidation.
leicsmac Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 It's a response to physical intimidation. Yes, by using more forceful physical intimidation. Look, I can see the argument that law of the jungle should apply here and force is the only language that ISIS understand, but why us - when the Russians, Americans and French are already doing a perfectly mediocre job themselves?
Rincewind Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 They are not terrorist sympathisers. They just do not think that airstrikes will solve the problem at this time. So to call them that is wrong. Now the media is blaming Corbyn if they vote for it for giving Labour a free vote. If he had not they would have called him a dictator. He cannot win either way and some say the press are not biased against him.
Guest MattP Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 Yes, by using more forceful physical intimidation. Look, I can see the argument that law of the jungle should apply here and force is the only language that ISIS understand, but why us - when the Russians, Americans and French are already doing a perfectly mediocre job themselves? Fair points and long with the mythical 70,000 rebel fighters Cameron is claiming to be able turn I think we have enough doubt this time to say No to the airstrikes, I think Cameron has made a pretty poor case for joining a war we probably should be involved in in some way alongside a grand coalition. But why are so many people seemingly determined to do nothing? That's what I don't understand, it's a common opinion now to want to just turn the other cheek, what kind of a country have we become when we turn a blind eye to a group of people who behead children because they are the wrong religion? I think the vast majority of rational people believe something has to be done about ISIS, just wandering around with a placard saying "bread not bombs" isn't going to defeat them or make us safer. P.S Why was there no uproar like this when we decided on air strikes on Iraq? I do find it strange we are treating Syria so different. They are not terrorist sympathisers. They just do not think that airstrikes will solve the problem at this time. So to call them that is wrong. Now the media is blaming Corbyn if they vote for it for giving Labour a free vote. If he had not they would have called him a dictator. He cannot win either way and some say the press are not biased against him.
Webbo Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 Yes, by using more forceful physical intimidation. Look, I can see the argument that law of the jungle should apply here and force is the only language that ISIS understand, but why us - when the Russians, Americans and French are already doing a perfectly mediocre job themselves? I've already said I don't know whether bombing is a good idea or not but the arguments that the Russians/French/US are doing it already is a crap 1. What you're basically saying is let them risk their service men, spend their money on our behalf and we'll just accept the benefits.That's cowardly and immoral imo.
Rincewind Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 I do not think people are saying do nothing, they are saying airstrikes will not make things better. Innocent people will suffer. In the recent attacks by France a school was hit with casualties. They will just do random strikes hoping to take a few of the ISIS out. This will more refugees the area and likely to turn more against the West resulting in more terrorism not less. Something has to be done but airstrikes is not the way.
Guest Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 Maybe, it just seems a very strange thing to come out with when you are already guaranteed to win a viote, it came after the DUP and Lib Dems had already committed support as well. If he meant it then it's deplorable, I have no problem with him describing McDonnell, Livingstone, Corbyn etc as that as they are but to use "a bunch of" so liberally and so vaguely is very wrong. Ever since Corbyn was elected you have been moaning about no one is debating or discussing politics. No, I'm actually happy with the increased debate nationally. I've only been moaning about the true blue's input on this website.
Guest Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 both the euro and dollar rates dropping already. i oppose the bombings but not much i can do now to stop it eh? No because you have a democratic government with a majority who should be allowed to do what they like.
Guest Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 “You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers,” does that infer that JC is not a terrorist sympathiser?
Guest Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 Whatever your views, this is absolutely appalling. A mob protesting outside the house of a lone woman because she still hasn't made up her mind over which way to vote on airstrikes? Even more worrying is the amount of people on the Stop The War page who now seem to think physical intimidation is acceptable. http://www.sunnation.co.uk/anti-stella-creasy-protests-outside-her-home-and-office/ Sounds like a lobby group.
The Horse's Mouth Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 Anyone think Camerons "terrorist sympathisers" comment was deliberate to try and get theLabour MP'S rallying around Corbyn? Seems a strange thing to say when he already knows he's won the vote. he said it because he's a scumbag
Guest Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 Fair points and long with the mythical 70,000 rebel fighters Cameron is claiming to be able turn I think we have enough doubt this time to say No to the airstrikes, I think Cameron has made a pretty poor case for joining a war we probably should be involved in in some way alongside a grand coalition. But why are so many people seemingly determined to do nothing? That's what I don't understand, it's a common opinion now to want to just turn the other cheek, what kind of a country have we become when we turn a blind eye to a group of people who behead children because they are the wrong religion? I think the vast majority of rational people believe something has to be done about ISIS, just wandering around with a placard saying "bread not bombs" isn't going to defeat them or make us safer. P.S Why was there no uproar like this when we decided on air strikes on Iraq? I do find it strange we are treating Syria so different. Because JC wasn't the labour leader; igniting the normal person to take an interest in politics and the things done in their name. JC is the difference.
Guest Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 I've already said I don't know whether bombing is a good idea or not but the arguments that the Russians/French/US are doing it already is a crap 1. What you're basically saying is let them risk their service men, spend their money on our behalf and we'll just accept the benefits. That's cowardly and immoral imo. Or he's saying that a few more bombs aren't going to make a difference and we should devote our resources to other avenues that may work. We could also get in the way of the almighty French/US/Russian coalition.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.