Charl91 Posted 5 December 2015 Posted 5 December 2015 To be fair the nasty side of the caring sharing left has never been particularly well hidden, this makes it only slightly more obvious Yeah, I suppose at least you're upfront about your cruel, callous side.
MooseBreath Posted 5 December 2015 Posted 5 December 2015 Yeah, I suppose at least you're upfront about your cruel, callous side. Definitely, I think a certain degree of 'cruel to be kind' is sometimes necessary and can be beneficial and I'm not at all ashamed to admit it. For me that's much more morally acceptable than pretending to be caring sharing but actually being nasty, snide little shits at every opportunity.
Thracian Posted 5 December 2015 Posted 5 December 2015 I'm not totally convinced re the effectiveness of the bombing but this stuff is completely unacceptable, Is there not a simple way to identify these people and punish them as this type of malicious posting needs to be stopped before it becomes, if it hasn't already an everyday occurrence that people accept as normal. I'm not totally convinced re the effectiveness of the bombing but this stuff is completely unacceptable, Is there not a simple way to identify these people and punish them as this type of malicious posting needs to be stopped before it becomes, if it hasn't already an everyday occurrence that people accept as normal. It's absolutely typical of the considerable number of political, religious, and trades union fanatics who physically or mentally abuse anyone who dares to have a different view to their own. Like the guy who says "I know what's best for you, this is who you should vote for, and you'll go to hell if you don't, really." Yes, there are other fanatics but the three groups mentioned are the ones who corner most of the attention. But it seems to be a common denominator that the more fanatical/blinkered/unbalanced they are, the more intolerant they of anyone else's views.
Guest MattP Posted 5 December 2015 Posted 5 December 2015 The abuse being linked to Corbyn is rather stupid. The abusers are simply morons who should be traced by the police and punished. According to many inside the party he is encouraging it and was happy to outsoucre party discipline to Twitter. To be fair the nasty side of the caring sharing left has never been particularly well hidden, this makes it only slightly more obvious It's great Corbyn has brought it out in them to a wider audience, this was something never spoken about ten years ago and now the whole country has been able to see it.
Guest MattP Posted 5 December 2015 Posted 5 December 2015 I'd happily take on anyone who threatened Liz as well.
Stadt Posted 5 December 2015 Posted 5 December 2015 No problem with bombing ISIS whatsoever. But how many civilians will end up being killed by these bombs? For me, that's why I'm against the bombing. If I could be convinced that it would only be ISIS caught in it, then I'd have no problems at all. It shouldn't be a case of unintentionally killing 200 civilian potentially saving 10,000s of lives but I think that's what it could boil down to unfortunately, IS are going to and have killed more innocent Syrians, Iraqis, Yazidis, Christians, Kurds than coalition airstrikes will. Personally, the debate isn't whether we should bomb IS but more is it effective enough considering American, French and Russian airstrikes are far outstripping our efforts. I'd rather we didn't have to put boots on the ground but if every western country involved formed a coalition alongside the Kurds etc IS would be finished within months - the airstrikes are hindering IS rather than defeating them.
Thracian Posted 5 December 2015 Posted 5 December 2015 No problem with bombing ISIS whatsoever. But how many civilians will end up being killed by these bombs? For me, that's why I'm against the bombing. If I could be convinced that it would only be ISIS caught in it, then I'd have no problems at all. No problem with bombing ISIS whatsoever. But how many civilians will end up being killed by these bombs? For me, that's why I'm against the bombing. If I could be convinced that it would only be ISIS caught in it, then I'd have no problems at all. Seems to me that terrorists kill plenty of civilians wherever they are in the world be it the Middle East, Africa, America, Paris, London or anywhere else. What really gets me is that they're ever allowed to evolve in such a way. There should be a law against all ideological brainwashing of people under the age of 16/18 just as there supposed to be a law against the grooming of under aged kids. In fact why not a law against all ideological brainwashing at any age? And no, that's not aimed at anyone specifically be it related to religion, politics or anything else. Yes, there should be an agreed British code of ethics. And the concepts of accepted good behaviour should be emphasised in schools, workplaces and everywhere that groups of people come together. But idealogical brainwashing should be outlawed because it breeds fanaticism. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to construct a society capable of widely and rationally debating/explaining ideas rather than having them rammed down people's throats by people wearing idealogical blinkers. And this idea that relatives should all be so suddenly surprised that a husband, wife, brother or sister should "do something evil" in respect of mass murder or some other horrific action is nonsense unless the relative is either blind, afraid or unwilling to notice. Insanity always makes itself apparent as a person passes through life, and usually long before they ever take lethal uncontrolled action. We see it all the time when killers and control freaks etc are caught, how it comes out that all sorts of events which highlighted their insanity, intolerance, supposedly uncontrollable desires, sense of being victimised or even their illusionary but self-justifying perception of devine guidance. What's needed is the will to recognise such problems in people and to treat them quickly and in the most suitably effective environment. Not to leave them exposed to exploitation. I remember talking to someone about schizophrenia and listening to them excusing their son for his anger "because he just couldn't control himself without medication". I persuaded the mother to conduct an experiment. I said I've give her son £20 if he went for a week without shouting at anyone or threatening them. He made it no problem. Why? Because the reward got him what he wanted as well as the attention he always craved. Medicine for the mind .... it's much neglected yet the more people there are, the greater the need. As gets clearer by the day.
The Doctor Posted 5 December 2015 Posted 5 December 2015 yeah! so let's use clean renewable energy and say "no" to the Saudis. We buy just a fraction of our oil from the Saudis - most comes from Norway, Algeria and Nigeria
Webbo Posted 5 December 2015 Posted 5 December 2015 We buy just a fraction of our oil from the Saudis - most comes from Norway, Algeria and Nigeria The Saudis can affect the price of oil with just a statement. Whether we buy our oil from there or not, we can't afford to piss them off.
MooseBreath Posted 5 December 2015 Posted 5 December 2015 We buy just a fraction of our oil from the Saudis - most comes from Norway, Algeria and Nigeria More to the point renewable energy alone wouldn't affect our demand for oil
Rincewind Posted 5 December 2015 Posted 5 December 2015 http://eveningharold.com/2015/12/04/syrian-children-devastated-pro-bombing-labour-mps-feel-bullied/
Sol thewall Bamba Posted 5 December 2015 Posted 5 December 2015 It's not going to make an immediate impact. IS have got lots of money already and will keep receiving more in donations. It's a minor long term annoyance for them, it doesn't make Syria any safer today or tomorrow or next month, but it's apparently our primary concern after rushing to war. Perhaps not, but the USAAC's bombing campaign on Nazi factories in WWII didn't make an 'immediate impact' on their capabilities on the front lines, but slowly slowly (nice Claudio reference ) they cut off their capability to replace what they had and ground them down over time. Granted it's not a perfect comparison but everyone knows we're in this for the long haul, so I would predict that destroying IS's actual equipment and manpower in actually quite low on the list of priorities at the moment. Tactical removal (is that a thing?) of non life-sustaining infrastructure is probably the aim at the moment.
Fox92 Posted 5 December 2015 Posted 5 December 2015 Terrorist incident in London. Attacker shouted "this is for Syria" (apparently). Not sure where else to post it, only just breaking, but it'll not be the last time people retaliate (as such). Edit: apparently three hours ago...
MooseBreath Posted 5 December 2015 Posted 5 December 2015 Sounds like he started stabbing people indiscriminately in a tube station. Nobody can say the increase of incidents such as this was unforeseen when we started bombing Syria. Let's hope it's all worth it in the end. Hopefully the person with serious injuries survives and the perpetrator enjoys some vip treatment at the hands of mi5.
Rincewind Posted 6 December 2015 Posted 6 December 2015 The bombings give them another excuse for more attacks. Not that they needed much. It is the reaction they wanted. They know innocents are going to suffer and will gain sympathy and also disrupt the west with divided opinions. Good thinking Bateron.
Frank to be Posted 6 December 2015 Posted 6 December 2015 We still haven't bombed anything other than oil fields while IS ideology has killed disabled people in the US and stabbed innocent people now in London. Say out loud that this was about making us safe and not about oil. Stand up tall and say it out loud. Chant it, beat the drum. We're all in this together.
Strokes Posted 6 December 2015 Posted 6 December 2015 We still haven't bombed anything other than oil fields while IS ideology has killed disabled people in the US and stabbed innocent people now in London. Say out loud that this was about making us safe and not about oil. Stand up tall and say it out loud. Chant it, beat the drum. We're all in this together. What do you think the purpose of bombing the oil fields is?
Guest MattP Posted 6 December 2015 Posted 6 December 2015 Liz Kendall on Daily Politics now, stockings on as well.
Dr The Singh Posted 6 December 2015 Posted 6 December 2015 Liz Kendall on Daily Politics now, stockings on as well.I fancy a love sandwich, me, Corbyn and Liz in the middle.
MPH Posted 6 December 2015 Posted 6 December 2015 We still haven't bombed anything other than oil fields while IS ideology has killed disabled people in the US and stabbed innocent people now in London. Say out loud that this was about making us safe and not about oil. Stand up tall and say it out loud. Chant it, beat the drum. We're all in this together. Bit silly to bomb oil fields and oil tankers if we are after their oil, don't you think?
Frank to be Posted 6 December 2015 Posted 6 December 2015 What do you think the purpose of bombing the oil fields is? To regain control of the oil Bit silly to bomb oil fields and oil tankers if we are after their oil, don't you think? The tankers and works above ground can be replaced, what we're after is under the ground and won't be destroyed by bombs
Thracian Posted 6 December 2015 Posted 6 December 2015 The bombings give them another excuse for more attacks. Not that they needed much. It is the reaction they wanted. They know innocents are going to suffer and will gain sympathy and also disrupt the west with divided opinions. Good thinking Bateron. The bombings give them another excuse for more attacks. Not that they needed much. It is the reaction they wanted. They know innocents are going to suffer and will gain sympathy and also disrupt the west with divided opinions. Good thinking Bateron. And you think if everyone lays off they'll suddenly turn into moderate nice guys? There were well-meaning people felt like that about Hitler. Sadly they were wrong. If Hitler didn't have an excuse, he'd make one. Can you honestly not understand that? Even "innocents" are used as an excuse - and a means of dividing the opinions you mentioned. It's why they take hostages and put them where they're bound to become victims. there's nothing new in it and nothing new in people choosing not to see anything they don't wish to see.
Rincewind Posted 6 December 2015 Posted 6 December 2015 I mostly agree but I do not think they have explored all the avenues for a solution. Don't ask me what they are though. I think we should show ourselves as better human beings than them which will gain us more friends than enemies.
davieG Posted 6 December 2015 Posted 6 December 2015 A man has been charged with malicious communications following an investigation into Facebook messages sent to an MP, Scotland Yard says. Craig Wallace, 23, who is also known as Muhammad Mujahid Islam, was arrested at an address in north London. He remains in custody and will appear at Hendon Magistrates' Court on Monday. It comes after Labour MPs Simon Danczuk and Neil Coyle reported to police alleged death threats after voting in favour of Syria air strikes. A number of MPs have complained they received death threats after voting in favour of airstrikes on so-called Islamic State (IS) militants in Syria. Police declined to name the MP, but said the politician does not represent a London constituency. Mr Wallace was arrested following an investigation into messages sent on Thursday 3 December.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.