• The leading opposition political party in UK is declared a threat to national security.
    78 replies, posted
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;48683962]Nukes are still very important today. They're not meant to actually be used, but to give a political leverage over others. It's why no one takes North Korea a serious military threat. Or why Ukraine was easy pickings for Russia.[/QUOTE] If Ukraine had nukes, Russia would have still annexed Crimea. Also not to mention that the number of active nuclear weaponry has been reduced by about 80% since the end of the cold war. If they were important, I am curious as to why Russia dismantled hundreds of them last year.
[QUOTE=Sableye;48683318]Britain and France essentially bought into nuclear weapons by detonating devices much more crude than even the Manhattan projects early bombs produced, it was enough to make the US government give them nuclear weapon systems in exchange for a closure of the British and French weapon programs [editline]14th September 2015[/editline] By crude I mean they surrounded plutonium with lithium-6 and imploded the whole damn thing and it had a very very low yield[/QUOTE] This is not true for Britain, I do not know about France. Britain developed thermonuclear weapons, in a shorter time span than the USA, and their later detonations produced a weapon with a yield of 1.8Mt (Operation Grapple). Additionally the UK was involved in the Manhattan Project, and whilst it may be an American project, it does not mean the UK had no involvement.
Have to agree with Sobotnik here, nuclear weapons are tremendously expensive. I'd argue we're better off putting money into anti-missile defences and other areas. The moment we have to use nukes, we've already lost and you're about to murder millions of innocent people for nothing and we can say goodbye to the human race. As for them being a deterrent, I would argue that the UK does not need nuclear weapons to deter other nation states from attacking us. We don't live in the 20th century anymore, the world is much more different than it was. If you believe the current media narrative, the real external threats appear to be terrorists and rogue states who would not care about our nuclear weapons anyway. As for arbitrary "prestige", there really isn't anything prestigious about being able to vapourize millions of people within seconds. We can get our prestige from better places.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48684048]If Ukraine had nukes, Russia would have still annexed Crimea. Also not to mention that the number of active nuclear weaponry has been reduced by about 80% since the end of the cold war. If they were important, I am curious as to why Russia dismantled hundreds of them last year.[/QUOTE] Because of the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons]Non-Proliferation Treaty[/url]. Nukes are more of a political tool than military weapon now.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;48684242]Because of the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons]Non-Proliferation Treaty[/url]. Nukes are more of a political tool than military weapon now.[/QUOTE] It's still difficult to see Ukraine holding onto Crimea if they possessed nuclear bombs though.
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;48683969]He said Bin Laden's death was a tragedy in that someone was killed without a trial, rather than arrested and put on international trial for war crimes and dealt with properly, anyone can agree with that. But he was martyred and his death would have encouraged yet more violence. You don't fight violence with violence in the real world, it brings more violence. It's not like he loves Bin Laden as the video implied. He called Hamas and Hezbollah his friends because it was a diplomatic hearing intended to hear the views of the oppressed for once, and to work towards solving the crisis without violence or simple condemnation. It's important to note that Hamas and Hezbollah are both political parties with military organizations within them (Hamas in fact is the leading political party in Palestine), they're not simply military forces, they're primarily founded for political resistance against Israeli expansion. Should we have not done diplomacy with Irish Republican movement because of the military wing of the IRA? Should we have ignored Irish oppression and maybe bombed them? As for dismantling the armed forces, he wants to reduce it because our unnecessary, damaging global intervention is hilariously disproportionate to our scope. But reduction is not the same as full on dismantling as the video suggests. As for nuclear weapons, there's no spin that's true, but it's a good thing and it's hilarious that the video acts like it's somehow evil to get rid of our mega death bombs.[/QUOTE] This.
Can we get back to discussing the tory party declaring a rival party a threat to national security? Discussing nukes is fun and all but there is a danger of wandering off topic and the statements made by the tory party being quietly forgotten while the thread finds its way down through the forums to the unread depths and this opportunity we have: to collectively analyse, denounce or praise those controversial statements will be squandered. Does anybody actually think statement was fully justified? Is it right/moral for a political party to declare its biggest rival a threat to national security?
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;48682708]Maybe by not being dragged into costly wars, the world won't hate us and are less likely to kill us. IMO it might just be beneficial to national security.[/QUOTE] TBH I think people would thank us if we stepped into Syria and stopped the unnecessary killing there
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/kx6VKGS.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Mallow234;48686612]TBH I think people would thank us if we stepped into Syria and stopped the unnecessary killing there[/QUOTE] Just like they did in Libya. They did thank us... right? They didn't thank us? ungrateful swine! We bombed their infrastructure, gave power to radical militias/criminals and generally destabilised the region causing the deaths of 1000s more; the least they could do is thank us. Even if we pull the finger out and go full boots on ground mode there is a chance we would get another iraq ie a drawn out, deadly, destabilising war which kills more people than would have died had it never occurred. Throw more bombs at a region and in most cases you'll just end up with more people dead and lives interrupted.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;48686695]Just like they did in Libya. They did thank us... right? They didn't thank us? ungrateful swine! We bombed their infrastructure, gave power to radical militias/criminals and generally destabilised the region causing the deaths of 1000s more; the least they could do is thank us. Even if we pull the finger out and go full boots on ground mode there is a chance we would get another iraq ie a drawn out, deadly, destabilising war which kills more people than would have died had it never occurred. Throw more bombs at a region and in most cases you'll just end up with more people dead and lives interrupted.[/QUOTE] Ground intervention is exactly what I'm talking about Air campaigns don't work in these kind of wars - actually putting large numbers of troops into the country to fight down both the Syrian government (which is guilty of war crimes), Jabhat al-Nusra, ISIS (just plain evil), whoever is killing people to further their own political gains, is the only way to stop the war and to stop people from being killed It's fairly obvious that most sides won't accept a political solution to this, we need to end this ourselves [editline]15th September 2015[/editline] And we've learnt from Iraq and Afghanistan - or I hope we have None of this is ever going to happen though, the war will rage on, people will die, and bigoted racists will still worry about Syrian refugees taking their welfare money
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48683097]When you think of nukes as a badge of "prestige" i'm pretty sure you've ruled out anyone taking your arguments seriously[/QUOTE]That's all they really are though at this point, even our arsenal which is largely the reason why anyone would take the British arsenal seriously. Shot-for-shot, Russia could take all of the UK's missiles on the chin and still be perfectly capable of leveling every city on the island twice over. MAD has always been a viable policy, one of several, that has enabled smaller countries allied with us to have a certain credibility extended to their nuclear arsenal. By themselves they're just like having a single aircraft carrier; largely useless and easily dealt with. This is quickly changing however as anti-missile technology keeps advancing and soon even SLBMs (which are still a viable trump card in the missile game) will be basically obsolete. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48683357]Well yes, especially considering that most of them have been sitting rotting in chambers for years under the care of inept or bored technicians. If the United States was to actually try using its nuclear arsenal, it would find that much of it wouldn't actually be readily available for war.[/QUOTE]what You could not be more wrong. No, we don't use corrosive fuel in our launch vehicles so we really do have missiles that are ready to fire [i]this very second[/i] and while it's impossible to say for sure there are estimates that say up to 30% of our fleet is in a ready state. If we needed to nuke the living piss out of a country we could do so very quickly, and by the time we got the [i]other[/i] missiles fueled, we'd still have time to launch them before the silos were hit. We're quite capable of glassing a billion people in China or a half a billion in Russia if we so fancy, but as I said above they're quickly becoming obsolete. We're already developing a replacement in the form of the Prompt Global Strike system, something that's being developed to allow us to conventionally strike anywhere in the world within an hour. Russia has already attempted to head that off with the S-500 which is expected to be able to intercept the [i]hypersonic[/i] missiles (I think this is the really cool part) that the system will likely use.
[QUOTE=Mallow234;48686753]Ground intervention is exactly what I'm talking about Air campaigns don't work in these kind of wars - actually putting large numbers of troops into the country to fight down both the Syrian government (which is guilty of war crimes), Jabhat al-Nusra, ISIS (just plain evil), whoever is killing people to further their own political gains, is the only way to stop the war and to stop people from being killed It's fairly obvious that most sides won't accept a political solution to this, we need to end this ourselves [editline]15th September 2015[/editline] And we've learnt from Iraq and Afghanistan - or I hope we have None of this is ever going to happen though, the war will rage on, people will die, and bigoted racists will still worry about Syrian refugees taking their welfare money[/QUOTE] I see your point and I wish I could believe in our ability (as the west/Uk/coalition/whatever we are) to achieve that goal. We might have learnt but so have have they and we still have limitations. Western/non muslim intervention there will help fuel the fires of hatred and extremism. Every war has civilian casualities. We would need to use local forces from Turkey, SA, Syria, Kurds, Iraqis, Iran, Hezbollah, Israel etc, assuming they would be willing to cooperate with us, Them with their neighbour and us with them, they follow a different doctrine also, they might put less emphasis on minimising civilian casualities or hold different priorities (eg Most/all parties will hold capturing new land and removal of rivals above the abolition of IS). At the moment Turkey seems to be prioritising fighting the kurds over fighting IS. Nobody wants Assad to stick around. Once the fighting stops will the Kurds have to give the land back to Iraq, Turkey and Syria? Our own participants have their own priorities. The US and UK want Assad gone. Russia want assad protected and their influence spread/protected. Our politicians will protect the interests of arms companies, whos interest in turn it is to sell and use arms; peace doesn't help with this. Politicians, generals and local influential guys will also have their own interestings "I'm the guy who defeated IS" "I lead that successful campaign" "I got a medal" "I won a whole lotta land" Then you have the matter of public support. Support is relatively high at the moment (still not overwhelmingly high) but once soldiers start getting blown up by IEDs and suicide bombers support will plummet, especially if there is little marked improvement in the situation there. Once people stop supporting intervention its a matter of pulling out and leaving the job half done (disastrous consequences imo) a government is unlikely to value doing the job correctly more than keeping support and their ability to be re-elected. All of the above is assuming we have learnt to approach the problem correctly, this is in itself questionable. If we haven't learnt sufficiently how to tackle the problem then it shouldn't even be considered.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48682829]It's embarrassing, we're supposed to be courteous, if Cameron was a true gentleperson he'd shake Corbyn's hand and congratulate him on winning. This is politics, with grown, highly educated men and women not the primary school playground.[/QUOTE] David Cameron won the general election, Ed Miliband congratulates him. Jeremy Corbyn wins the labour leadership election, something less important than the GE, the Conservatives instantly slam him as a dangerous man.
[b]Here are two opinion pieces that friend's (or friends of friends) of mine have written on facebook which highlight what is wrong with the Cameron Gov's slogan throwing. Please don't say tl;dr because what has been said is far more complex that just something whittled down into a twitter post or a 1 minute video. These aren't necessarily everything I believe but they're concise enough and in depth enough to describe what the sort of dangerous territory the Conservatives are now entering into. One is more opinionated than the other. 1.[/b] "The Conservatives released a silly video on Monday, titled "Labour: a threat to our national security". In this video, it is alleged that the new, democratically elected (with over 250,000 votes) leader of the Labour Party has four dangerous beliefs that make him a "threat to British national security". First, that "Bin Laden's death was a 'tragedy'". Second, "terrorists are 'friends'". Third, "wants to surrender our nuclear weapons". And lastly, "wants to dismantle our Armed Forces". The video calls these "The Facts". Here are the real facts. Thinks Osama Bin Laden's death was a tragedy: The clip showing this cuts off at the right time, and is otherwise self-explanatory. Corbyn says that Bin Laden's death was a tragedy, in comparison to putting him on trial. This was also noted by many other leaders at the time, including the former leader of the Liberal Democrats Paddy Ashdown. Also, as a democracy operating under the rule of law, and certainly by international law standards, we should always strive to uphold the right to a fair trial - for everyone. This serves two purposes: First, useful information and evidence comes to light from important sources. Second, we practice the Enlightenment values that we preach. Feels Hezbollah and Hamas are "friends": Again, context. Corbyn has subsequently repeatedly clarified that his terminology of "friends" was simply in diplomatic reference to the peace process parties. He has adamantly stated that he does not agree with the actions of Hamas nor Hezbollah. Tony Blair has already met with Hamas to negotiate peace deals twice. The former head of British intelligence MI5, Lady Eliza Manningham-Buller, has also said that talks with these organisations are "necessary". It is not odd to want to bridge gaps between both sides of a conflict in order to instil peace, without further conflict. Step one is diplomatic terminology. Wants to give up nuclear weapons: Britain has signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and is legally bound under international law to take steps to give up our nuclear weapons. Following international law, as a member of the Security Council, would set precedent and pressure for an eventual global nuclear disarmament. This obviously takes time, but is unanimously agreed to be a positive development. Hence, an international treaty to that effect. Furthermore, the modern threat of terrorism that Britain faces has no solution, nor deterrent, in nuclear weaponry - because it is a worldwide phenomenon with no realistically tangible target. Wants to "dismantle our Armed Forces": This is inaccurate. It is no secret that Corbyn sincerely believes in alternative resolutions to war and death. And a more constructive global role for Britain than bombing campaigns. He certainly does want to alter NATO's 2% defence spending commitment. However, to imply he wants to completely demilitarise Britain is nonsensical. It is in fact the Conservative Party that have inflicted some of the most substantial cuts on our security budgets. The police force is set to lose 22,000 jobs under new spending cuts. Thousands of army officials have already been made redundant, and according to the Telegraph, more cuts are set to take place. This accusation in particular is purely hypocritical, hyperbolic, and misleading. In conclusion, I am sure that even within these clarifications there is plenty for Conservative Party members and supporters to disagree with. And by all means, disagree. In a democracy, that is how ideas thrive and develop. However, misrepresenting, decontextualising, and misquoting Corbyn and the Labour Party as Bin Laden-sympathising, terrorist-loving, army-hating creatures of sort, is counterproductive and dishonest. It only serves to damage political discourse and poison the public mood. This is ultimately not good for the country, or anyone in it" [b]2.[/b] "Regardless of where you stand on Corbyn, this is an utterly vile statement by Cameron, more worthy of Farage (or le Pen, or Putin) than the leader of a democracy. The PM has just used the exact same language to describe Labour as he does ISIS and al Qaeda. So the official political opposition to the government is now a "national security threat"? And what do we do with "national security threats" these days? We strip them of rights, treat them as enemies and terrorists. Is the PM saying that Labour -- and anyone who supports it -- is now a terrorist? Will he send Teresa May with flying squads to raid Labour meetings at the local church hall? No, of course not. He is simply — and quite deliberately — using Faragian rhetoric to further poison the political culture, to sow division, hatred and fear among the electorate. Like the Tea Party in America, his Tories have nothing to offer but fear and demonization of all those who disagree with them or present the slightest alternative to their extremist cult of austerity and neoliberalism. But oh, what a grand and noble figure the PM cuts, thundering down from his bully pulpit! Look at him there, with his well-tailored suit, his well-fed frame, his well-tanned face, as he denounces the mortal danger of opposing his enlightened rule and his holy cult. A man who sells arms in crooked deals to the misogynist, head-chopping religious extremists in Saudi Arabia. A man who sells arms to militant factions who force children into battle. A man who turned Libya into a terrorist-spawning chaos and did nothing to help restore it, who supports “moderate” Islamic extremists to keep the civil war churning in Syria, a man who sells off whole chunks of the nation’s security infrastructure to foreign powers … THIS is the man who denounces his opponents as a “national security threat.” I knew the Tories and their string-pullers in the oh-so-patriotic right-wing media (a gaggle of non-doms, foreigners, porn merchants and tax-dodgers) would strike hard and low — no matter WHO Labour picked as leader. (Yes, we would have been seeing “Red Liz” or “Commie Cooper” or “Andy Anarchy in the UK” headlines this morning if the vote had gone another way. Don’t kid yourself.) But to see them go so low so quickly — with the Prime Minister himself regurgitating hysterical Tea Party bile in such a bald-faced fashion — is stunning. I’ll say it again: this is vile. This goes beyond the rough-and-tumble of hardball partisan politics into the realm of hate speech and provocation. (If Corbyn is a “national security threat” — just like ISIS — shouldn’t he be “taken out”? If he — or the Labour Party in general — is a “threat to your family’s security,” shouldn’t some stalwart dad out there do “whatever it takes” to protect his little ones from this imminent danger? These are the sinister notions Cameron is feeding into the national psyche.) Cameron — like Trump, whose followers are now beating up people who look like immigrants — is playing with fire here. And he knows it. And he doesn’t care. This message is a vile, shameful, morally putrid piece of filth"
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48683850]I'm genuinely more interested in how there are people out there (of which you are a part of I can only assume) that think any world leaders that aren't from North Korea would genuinely think using nukes is a valid option today.[/QUOTE] If a state was being conventionally invaded and defeated it would probably happen. It's the only conceivable reason why North Korea would use their weapons and Russia has publicly stated that they would do this. [editline]15th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48686939]MAD has always been a viable policy, one of several, that has enabled smaller countries allied with us to have a certain credibility extended to their nuclear arsenal. By themselves they're just like having a single aircraft carrier; largely useless and easily dealt with. This is quickly changing however as anti-missile technology keeps advancing and soon even SLBMs (which are still a viable trump card in the missile game) will be basically obsolete.[/QUOTE] MAD isn't a policy, it's the result of a failed first strike.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48686939]what You could not be more wrong. No, we don't use corrosive fuel in our launch vehicles so we really do have missiles that are ready to fire [i]this very second[/i] and while it's impossible to say for sure there are estimates that say up to 30% of our fleet is in a ready state. If we needed to nuke the living piss out of a country we could do so very quickly, and by the time we got the [i]other[/i] missiles fueled, we'd still have time to launch them before the silos were hit. We're quite capable of glassing a billion people in China or a half a billion in Russia if we so fancy, but as I said above they're quickly becoming obsolete. We're already developing a replacement in the form of the Prompt Global Strike system, something that's being developed to allow us to conventionally strike anywhere in the world within an hour. Russia has already attempted to head that off with the S-500 which is expected to be able to intercept the [i]hypersonic[/i] missiles (I think this is the really cool part) that the system will likely use.[/QUOTE] I'm not too sure as to how you could glass half a billion people in Russia considering that there aren't even 150 million people in Russia. The point however is that the United States takes exceptionally poor care of their nuclear weaponry, and that the staff typically allocated to look after it tend to be the dregs of the air force who are left to babysit expensive weaponry that has never been used. As a consequence, their morale tends to be low and accidents are common: [url]http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nukes-cost-20141109-story.html#page=1[/url] [url]http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/security-failures-at-us-nuclear-weapons-site-persist-courtesy-of-spending-cuts-and-mismanagement-150906?news=857360[/url] [url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/muclear-missile-officers-suspended-drug-cheating-scandals[/url] [url]http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/11/14/pentagon-order-nuclearoverhaul.html[/url] This is also not to mention that the US nuclear arsenal has shrunk by over 80% since the end of the Cold War, and that many of the problems afflicting the United States is also happening in the other major nuclear power of Russia. Simply put, given that tensions are not going to rise to the point that nuclear weaponry will be used, there is a decreasing focus given to their importance. They are costly and utterly useless piles of junk that do nothing but serve as a stupid relic from the Cold War. There's also mentioning that this process is still ongoing. The United States and Russia both possess several hundred less nuclear bombs than last year, and the vast majority of their stockpiles aren't even active. Also not to mention that starting a nuclear war means you've already destroyed civilization anyways, so why bother using them?
[b]Another opinion piece from the Guardian, which worryingly I think rings too true to the truth about the reality of the smears:[/b] "You might almost conclude that the Conservatives are terrified of Jeremy Corbyn. The strident scare movie released by the Tories today does not exactly suggest a governing party that thinks the new leader of the opposition is a joke, a reincarnation of Michael Foot, or an unelectable far-left throwback. Was this always the plan, to go so ludicrously ballistic years ahead of the next general election, or has the scale of Corbyn’s support in the Labour movement and the novelty of his no-frills personality and raw unplasticated ideas thrown Tory spinmeisters into a panic? It is the stuff of nightmares. Jeremy Corbyn, a threat to national security! The Labour party, a threat to national security! The rhetoric in the video is ramped up massively, the footage of Corbyn edited melodramatically and captioned too aggressively. It is easy to mock and makes the Conservative party look like it is on the back foot, unsure how to take on a new kind of Labour leader. We are back to Demon Eyes, the poster that absurdly tried to demonise Tony Blair back in 1997. Tory theme of Corbyn's 'threat to national security' draws criticism Read more That poster revealed the pure panic of the Conservative party as it tried to counter Blair’s wide appeal. Giving up on rational argument, it simply gave Blair red demonic eyes behind a torn off strip of his smiling face and warned “NEW LABOUR NEW DANGER”. It was one of the most useless pieces of electoral advertising of modern times, but it may soon be joined in the museum of crap propaganda by this Corbyn attack video. The film has the savagery of an American attack ad, or an average bulletin on Fox News, or some wild parody of insane rightwing propaganda dreamed up by Chris Morris or Charlie Brooker. Advertisement It starts with a clip of President Barack Obama announcing the death of Osama bin Laden, then cuts to Corbyn describing the killing of the man who masterminded 9/11 as a “tragedy”. (It’s edited to exclude the fuller context of his remark). From there we switch to another Corbyn moment already served up in spades by his critics during the Labour leadership contest, this time where he calls Hamas and Hezbollah “friends”. And then it shows him saying supposedly shocking things about Trident and the army and peace and war in general – which we are expected to find just as troubling as the allegation that the new leader of the Labour party thought Osama bin Laden’s killing was morally equivalent to the barbarity of unprovoked mass murder in New York. The video is only slightly more effective than the scripted comments of Conservative ministers on television at the weekend, as they all trundled out the message that Labour under Jeremy Corbyn is a threat to national security. Clearly this is the line decided on from above, and it was wheeled out in an extremely clumsy, dead-eyed way by Tories who had apparently learned it by rote. The video at least provides some evidence to back up that claim – for it is really Corbyn speaking in it, however unjustly edited – but it feels rattled, bullying, charmless, ugly, and paranoid: the kind of Conservative attack that Corbyn supporters will relish, and that in the short term can only enhance his standing as a likable maverick. It seems the Conservatives have rejected the obvious course of playing a softly softly game against Corbyn and letting him make his own mistakes. A leader of the opposition who walks silently away from a TV reporter (but hey, it was Sky) as if he really did have something to hide is probably going to make his own unforced errors in time – that walk of silent anger was the first – but apparently the Conservative party cannot wait. It wants, it seems, to prosecute Corbyn as a traitor and the Labour party with him: to exclude Corbyn’s Labour not just from electability but national life. And all this is very reassuring for Corbyn’s new movement, until you imagine yourself as another kind of viewer – not a confirmed supporter of the Labour party or member of the chattering and twittering classes, but someone who does not pay much attention to politics and yet has certain rather conventional values like patriotism as well as a natural fear of terrorism, and a feeling that Britain is probably not one of the worst countries on Earth – a working class person, perhaps, or a middle class person who is not on “the left”. All this is very reassuring for Corbyn’s new movement, until you imagine yourself as another kind of viewer This video is absurd, but it differs from the Demon Eyes poster in one crucial sense. It is not completely made up. The clips of Corbyn have not been fabricated. Those recordings of him talking so provocatively – to put it kindly – about Osama bin Laden, Hezbollah and Hamas have been ruthlessly edited, sure, but he did really say those things. It is not very subtle of the Conservative machine to wheel this out so aggressively right now, when Corbyn is new and fresh and the centre of media attention, but these are not just smears – they are smears with legs. Advertisement It was not subtle of the Tories to repeat ad nauseam that Ed Miliband would unite with the SNP to “wreck Britain” – but it worked. This attack video tells us two things. It tells us, as does the wider Tory nervousness, that Corbyn really does have it in him to be the left’s Nigel Farage. Over the coming months and maybe years he will give Labour a bounce, make it talked about, make it cool. Everyone on Twitter will be talking about his coming victory. He will not be unseated, he will build up his movement. And then Labour will be wiped out at the next general election. Because it does not matter how horrible and nasty and stupid this video and those that will follow it are. Unless Corbyn can prove he is a different man from the one who called terrorists “friends” and seemed sorry for Osama bin Laden on real, authentic video recordings, he will indeed by seen by the electorate as every bit as extreme as this attack ad claims."
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.