| Well said Tim Farron on 11:34 - May 26 with 1505 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:31 - May 26 by Superfrans |
Back to my point above too. It's a tragedy that any discussion on this topic is closed down, as Farron is trying to, when we have zero chance of resolving it without engaging in the debate.
I recognise that Farron needs to win seats in an election, but he would have won a huge amount of credit had he not towed the Tory line that Corbyn is a raving radical on this and acknowledged the importance of debate and discussion of these issues if we are ever going to sort this out.
I must say, I doubt very much Corbyn's abilities to manage a team or lead a parliamentary party, let alone a Government - but he's winning me over with his policies. |
Well said. It's a shame when the idea to take stock and think about something in new ways is dismissed ahead of political opportunism. Farron isn't impressing me at all during this campaign.
I feel dirty admitting it, but Corbyn does often talk a lot of sense, even if his past behaviour is less than exemplary on this topic. |  |
|  |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:47 - May 26 with 1477 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:34 - May 26 by GlasgowBlue |
Surely we should be talking about what our foreign policy is now, rather than what it was ten years ago. We have withdrawn our soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. We have no boots on the ground in Syria.
The main Islamist force against which our armed forces are engaged in military action today is ISIS. Is Corbyn suggesting that we stop taking military action against them and allow them to expand across the middle east? Murdering, carrying out religious cleansing, floggings, rapes, stonings, the throwing of people from tall buildings, beheadings, crucifixions, burning people alive and the use of kids as suicide bombers.
Do we just walk away and say "not our problem"? Will the attacks stop then?
Of course they wont. Corbyn was trying to score cheap political points. |
That's a fair point, things have changed and we're reaping the consequences of past actions under various colours of government.
We're still very much involved in Syria. ISIS will make as much out of people killed by bombs dropped on their heads as they will from people shot on the ground. Haven't we also still got troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and NATO are discussing whether to increase numbers again?
And we're still funnelling cash and weapons into the Middle East. I don't even claim to understand a tenth of it, but it seems like there are many political and commercial vested reasons why we intervene. It wouldn't hurt to re-examine the impact of these. But presumably as we're the beneficiary in some way, I can't see Corbyn making any ground here even if (lol) he was the PM. | |
| |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:48 - May 26 with 1474 views | Superfrans |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:34 - May 26 by GlasgowBlue |
Surely we should be talking about what our foreign policy is now, rather than what it was ten years ago. We have withdrawn our soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. We have no boots on the ground in Syria.
The main Islamist force against which our armed forces are engaged in military action today is ISIS. Is Corbyn suggesting that we stop taking military action against them and allow them to expand across the middle east? Murdering, carrying out religious cleansing, floggings, rapes, stonings, the throwing of people from tall buildings, beheadings, crucifixions, burning people alive and the use of kids as suicide bombers.
Do we just walk away and say "not our problem"? Will the attacks stop then?
Of course they wont. Corbyn was trying to score cheap political points. |
Given that his speech was possibly the most dangerous thing Corbyn could do at this point, given that it isn't slogan-based, it doesn't pander to the media agenda, because it will potentially lose him loads of votes to those believe "send them home" is the only solution, its arguably the bravest thing anyone has done this election.
And, of course, (as a smart man, you know this) he is not calling for us to walk away, he is suggesting that our foreign policy needs debate and scrutiny. And, of course, the issue of radical fundamental Islamic terrorism has roots beyond the past 10 years. To learn, we need to beyond the end of our nose. |  |
| |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:49 - May 26 with 1469 views | lowhouseblue |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:34 - May 26 by Swansea_Blue |
Well said. It's a shame when the idea to take stock and think about something in new ways is dismissed ahead of political opportunism. Farron isn't impressing me at all during this campaign.
I feel dirty admitting it, but Corbyn does often talk a lot of sense, even if his past behaviour is less than exemplary on this topic. |
corbyn is not thinking about things in a new way. he is pursuing his line on foreign policy in exactly the way he always has and he is opportunistically using the events in manchester. corbyn opposes uk foreign policy - the fact that we are fighting isis makes no difference to him. there have been barbaric attacks in france, germany, belgium, scandinavia etc but corbyn just sees the latest attack as a chance to lay into uk foreign policy. he is no different from ukip or the muslim haters who also use such tragedies to push their own agenda. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:49 - May 26 with 1473 views | homer_123 |
Any person that doesn't think that our foreign policy or interventions abroad won't affect how we are viewed by others, and therefore the negative (and positive) effects and consequences this might have, needs their head testing.
It's not just our current policy but both recent and more historical policies and approaches.
As for timing...I disagree with you, 2 weeks before an election and Corbyn talks about something that any political party needs to talk about (Manchester's tradegy aside), he's quite right to do so. I will also point out that, whether you agree with him or not, he's been far more consistent with these views than most politicians over the years.... |  |
| |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:51 - May 26 with 1459 views | homer_123 |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:34 - May 26 by GlasgowBlue |
Surely we should be talking about what our foreign policy is now, rather than what it was ten years ago. We have withdrawn our soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. We have no boots on the ground in Syria.
The main Islamist force against which our armed forces are engaged in military action today is ISIS. Is Corbyn suggesting that we stop taking military action against them and allow them to expand across the middle east? Murdering, carrying out religious cleansing, floggings, rapes, stonings, the throwing of people from tall buildings, beheadings, crucifixions, burning people alive and the use of kids as suicide bombers.
Do we just walk away and say "not our problem"? Will the attacks stop then?
Of course they wont. Corbyn was trying to score cheap political points. |
Isn't that the crux of what he is saying though GB?
He's basically saying, look, this hasn't worked for us historically, maybe, just maybe we need to change it. | |
| |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:52 - May 26 with 1450 views | Superfrans |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:49 - May 26 by lowhouseblue |
corbyn is not thinking about things in a new way. he is pursuing his line on foreign policy in exactly the way he always has and he is opportunistically using the events in manchester. corbyn opposes uk foreign policy - the fact that we are fighting isis makes no difference to him. there have been barbaric attacks in france, germany, belgium, scandinavia etc but corbyn just sees the latest attack as a chance to lay into uk foreign policy. he is no different from ukip or the muslim haters who also use such tragedies to push their own agenda. |
He's thinking and saying what he always has.
But he is acting opportunistically by thinking and saying this now?
Okay then...? | |
| |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:53 - May 26 with 1438 views | lowhouseblue |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:52 - May 26 by Superfrans |
He's thinking and saying what he always has.
But he is acting opportunistically by thinking and saying this now?
Okay then...? |
which bit don't you get. he has an agenda - he is opportunistically using this tragedy to push that agenda.
okay? | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:54 - May 26 with 1428 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:52 - May 26 by Superfrans |
He's thinking and saying what he always has.
But he is acting opportunistically by thinking and saying this now?
Okay then...? |
"He's thinking and saying what he always has."
More police? More funding for the army? |  |
| |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:55 - May 26 with 1424 views | homer_123 |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:52 - May 26 by Superfrans |
He's thinking and saying what he always has.
But he is acting opportunistically by thinking and saying this now?
Okay then...? |
I was having trouble squaring this as well.
He's got to talk about Foreign Policy as part of the election etc.
He's consistent in his approach (whether people like that or not)
What's the problem?
I expect the Tories and Lib Dems to be talking about Foreign Policy as well..arguably more so given Manchester. I want to know what potential governments plan to do. It's not a topic that should be avoided, even given the terrible tragedy. | |
| |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:56 - May 26 with 1419 views | homer_123 |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:53 - May 26 by lowhouseblue |
which bit don't you get. he has an agenda - he is opportunistically using this tragedy to push that agenda.
okay? |
So, given Manchester then, would you expect all parties to avoid talking about politics? | |
| |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:56 - May 26 with 1421 views | Dolly2.0 |
I know you have a weak grasp on the concept of hypocrisy, but feck me.
Farron is using this to score political points. And so are you on here.
Unbelievable Jeff. |  |
| |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:58 - May 26 with 1409 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:53 - May 26 by lowhouseblue |
which bit don't you get. he has an agenda - he is opportunistically using this tragedy to push that agenda.
okay? |
Meanwhile 23 Coptic Christians murdered by Islamist terrorists in Egypt
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-40059307
Killed because of any type of foreign policy? No. Killed because Islamist terrorist don't like their way of life. | |
| |
| Well said Tim Farron on 12:00 - May 26 with 1402 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:56 - May 26 by Dolly2.0 |
I know you have a weak grasp on the concept of hypocrisy, but feck me.
Farron is using this to score political points. And so are you on here.
Unbelievable Jeff. |
The only hypocrite here is Corbyn. He has voted against every piece of anti terror legislation ever put forward. He has spent his entire political life making excuses for terrorists who blow up kids in the north of England. | |
| |
| Well said Tim Farron on 12:02 - May 26 with 1391 views | lowhouseblue |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:56 - May 26 by homer_123 |
So, given Manchester then, would you expect all parties to avoid talking about politics? |
no, but I don't want them using an entirely false interpretation of the events in Manchester - in corbyn's case that it happened because of uk foreign policy - as an opportunity to push a sectional agenda. I don't want ukip saying that it proves that if we had fewer foreigners we'd solve the problem. I don't want racists saying that the attack was the fault of all muslims. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Well said Tim Farron on 12:07 - May 26 with 1365 views | feelingblue |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:34 - May 26 by GlasgowBlue |
Surely we should be talking about what our foreign policy is now, rather than what it was ten years ago. We have withdrawn our soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. We have no boots on the ground in Syria.
The main Islamist force against which our armed forces are engaged in military action today is ISIS. Is Corbyn suggesting that we stop taking military action against them and allow them to expand across the middle east? Murdering, carrying out religious cleansing, floggings, rapes, stonings, the throwing of people from tall buildings, beheadings, crucifixions, burning people alive and the use of kids as suicide bombers.
Do we just walk away and say "not our problem"? Will the attacks stop then?
Of course they wont. Corbyn was trying to score cheap political points. |
Not really.
If we want to assess the true causes and try to help resolve them, we need to look at the whole picture, which goes back to the break up of the Ottoman Empire, if not before.
That is where the original causes lie, and everything that has happened since, Sykes Picot, the British and French mandates, the dishonesty towards Ibn Saud and the Hashemites, The Balfour Declaration, Israel, the overthrow of Mossadeq, right up to the creation of Al Queda, the invasion of 2003, the Arab Spring, have had profound influences.
If we are not prepared to consider of all those things, we will just get another trite set of soundbite policies, exactly of the sort which have caused so much trouble.
Fwiw, I think that Tim Farron is guilty of cheap point scoring. |  | | |
| Well said Tim Farron on 12:08 - May 26 with 1363 views | No9 |
This Mr Glasgow is one of your more disingenous posts.
How many times did you use Blairs foreign policy to blame labour for terrorist atttacks in the UK?
Tim Farron is plain wrong, now is exactly the time to investigate, review & nominate any particular UK party's Foreign Policy |  | | |
| Well said Tim Farron on 12:08 - May 26 with 1359 views | homer_123 |
| Well said Tim Farron on 12:02 - May 26 by lowhouseblue |
no, but I don't want them using an entirely false interpretation of the events in Manchester - in corbyn's case that it happened because of uk foreign policy - as an opportunity to push a sectional agenda. I don't want ukip saying that it proves that if we had fewer foreigners we'd solve the problem. I don't want racists saying that the attack was the fault of all muslims. |
Right, so, we've established that it's OK to talk and discuss Foreign Policy but that, really, this is you disagreeing with a point of view.
Therefore, as we both agree that this is a topic that needs to be discussed, the timing is neither crass or opportunistic.
In addition, regardless of the fact you disagree with his view, he's being consistent - he's not saying anything new, he's shared these views before and, on a platform where you would expect (and we agree on this) him to talk about Foreign Policy, he's merely stated what he has said before.
However, take a look at Farron - now his response is far more opportunistic and far more about point scoring.
I completely accept that you don't agree with Corbyn's views (and neither do I on many things, including aspects of his views of Foreign Policy). However, both yourself and Glassers are wrong on this point. | |
| |
| Well said Tim Farron on 12:08 - May 26 with 1354 views | No9 |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:00 - May 26 by chicoazul |
I dont enjoy this holier than thou posturing politicians and the commentariat take about when it's ok to talk about these things. |
Sorry, I downed you in error | | | |
| Well said Tim Farron on 12:12 - May 26 with 1335 views | No9 |
| Well said Tim Farron on 11:10 - May 26 by GlasgowBlue |
"in which he couldn't ignore the effect of British Foreign Policy on disaffected Muslim youth here in the context of what's happened"
Corbyn is saying, just 4 days after the Manchester bombing, that it is our fault. He's excusing the scumbag who carried out the attack.
He's also ignoring the point that Islamist terrorism such as 9/11 pre dates "the war on terror".
IS aren't sending people to kill us because of our foreign policy. They are killing us because they hate our liberal and free society.
Our equal rights for women. Our love of music. Our society that sees a man marry a man and a woman marry a woman.
Saying British foreign policy created this animal is like saying our tolerant society created the man who killed Jo Cox.
France sat out the Iraq War. Belgium don't get involved in middle east action. The Germans for obvious reasons take more of a back seat when it comes to military intervention.All have been attacked far more than the UK over the past two years.
It's also worth noting that the Manchester bomber was a supporter of British foreign policy. He was delighted when we overthrew Gaddafi. [Post edited 26 May 2017 11:11]
|
I heard most of his speech it is clear that you are misrepresenting what he said. | | | |
| Well said Tim Farron on 12:12 - May 26 with 1338 views | giant_stow |
One thing I'm wondering about is what Corbyn would have done if he'd been PM during the worst of the IRA attacks.
He could have a point about our recent wars, but he might not be the right person to see it through in reality... |  |
| |
| Well said Tim Farron on 12:15 - May 26 with 1324 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Well said Tim Farron on 12:12 - May 26 by giant_stow |
One thing I'm wondering about is what Corbyn would have done if he'd been PM during the worst of the IRA attacks.
He could have a point about our recent wars, but he might not be the right person to see it through in reality... |
This is why I believe Corbyn is an utter hypocrite.
Consider this and tell me you don't feel uncomfortable listening to Corbyn talking about how to combat terror.
22 people were blown to bits by an Islamic terrorist in Manchester on Monday evening.
Somewhere there is a useful idiot who will attend a meeting of an event in support of Islamic terrorism.
The programme printed for the event will state ““force of arms is the only method capable of bringing about a middle east free from western intervention.” but the useful idiot will attend nevertheless. In fact it won’t be the first time the useful idiot will attend such an event. He will attend over 70 such events, during which time the Jihadist terrorists will murder more and more people.
At the event, the useful idiot will share a stage and speak alongside a Jihadist who is currently on the run from British security services for the murder of a British soldier. This won’t seem to bother the useful idiot.
This useful idiot will then stand for a minute’s silence in honour of Jihadi John and Salman Abedi. He will then tell the crowd “I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for a middle east free of foreign troops”
As part of the editorial board of a left wing publication he will contribute to an article which says “the British only sit up and take when they are bombed into it”. In the same issue of the magazine they will publish two jokes at the expense of the victims of the Manchester bombing.
The useful idiot, as a member of Parliament will invite hate preachers who support the Manchester bombings to take tea with him in the House of Commons. He will refer to those who committed the bombings as “his friends”.
Also, as a member of Parliament, he will vote against an agreement which it is hoped will begin talks that will result in peace in the middle east.
Despite his best efforts, some ten years later peace does eventualy arrive in the middle east.
At a meeting with former jihadist terrorists, another useful idiot will state that ““It’s about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Salman Abedi that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of IS. Because of the bravery of IS and people like Salman Abedi, we now have a peace process.”
And in thirty years’ time there will be people on an internet message board, who weren’t born or were too young to remember the Manchester bombing and other islamist terror attacks. The people will bend over backwards to defend the useful idiots as peacemakers. Despite all of the above being made available to them the useful idiot’s apologists will put their fingers in their ears and shout very loudly.
And that ulla is why I feel Jeremy Corbyn is completely unfit to be Prime Minster of the United Kingdom. Substitute useful idiot for Jeremy Corbyn or John McDonnel, substitute IS for IRA and substitute Middle East for Northern Ireland and defend Corbyn’s words and deeds. | |
| |
| Well said Tim Farron on 12:16 - May 26 with 1315 views | feelingblue |
| Well said Tim Farron on 12:12 - May 26 by giant_stow |
One thing I'm wondering about is what Corbyn would have done if he'd been PM during the worst of the IRA attacks.
He could have a point about our recent wars, but he might not be the right person to see it through in reality... |
Good question. The bloke is completely unsuited to be leader of anything which requires subtlety, compromise or original thinking. | | | |
| Well said Tim Farron on 12:22 - May 26 with 1299 views | lowhouseblue |
| Well said Tim Farron on 12:08 - May 26 by homer_123 |
Right, so, we've established that it's OK to talk and discuss Foreign Policy but that, really, this is you disagreeing with a point of view.
Therefore, as we both agree that this is a topic that needs to be discussed, the timing is neither crass or opportunistic.
In addition, regardless of the fact you disagree with his view, he's being consistent - he's not saying anything new, he's shared these views before and, on a platform where you would expect (and we agree on this) him to talk about Foreign Policy, he's merely stated what he has said before.
However, take a look at Farron - now his response is far more opportunistic and far more about point scoring.
I completely accept that you don't agree with Corbyn's views (and neither do I on many things, including aspects of his views of Foreign Policy). However, both yourself and Glassers are wrong on this point. |
how do you feel about ukip using Manchester as an opportunity to push an anti-immigration line? is it just that you don't agree with their anti-immigration line, or do you feel it is wrong for them to use this tragedy for their own nasty ends?
what's the difference between that and corbyn? | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
