David Cameron says Jeremy Corbyn is a 'terrorist sympathiser' for not wanting to bomb Syria
74 replies, posted
Cameron seriously makes me want to move to Canada
Instead of bombing Syria let's bomb Cameron amirite guys haha
And I swear to god GCHQ fuck off this is a joke.
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;49229732]
When has Corbyn sympathised with terrorists?[/QUOTE]
Can't you read? It's because he doesn't want to bomb them. If you're not with us, you're with them.
Isn't this basicaly defamation at this point, like isn't this kind of stuff ILLEGAL in any modern countries; realy what the hell is going on with britain.
[QUOTE=enricociccio;49230007]Isn't this basicaly defamation at this point, like isn't this kind of stuff ILLEGAL in any modern countries; realy what the hell is going on with britain.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure it can't be legal.
At this point, it just kind of seems like the Tories are scared of him. If he's so damn unelectable, why don't they just leave him to it, rather than coming out with bullshit insults.
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;49230056]I'm sure it can't be legal.
At this point, it just kind of seems like the Tories are scared of him. If he's so damn unelectable, why don't they just leave him to it, rather than coming out with bullshit insults.[/QUOTE]
saying stuff in parliament CANNOT BE LEGAL!!!!
Jeremy can sue Dave for slander or libel if he wants to. In fact, suing for libel is notoriously easy in the UK as the burden of proof is bizarrely on the defendant. The reality is that what he is saying is perfectly legal, as much as cry-babies who hate Jesus Christ having mean things being said about him so much that you want to restrict free speech.
[editline]2nd December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=enricociccio;49230007]Isn't this basicaly defamation at this point, like isn't this kind of stuff ILLEGAL in any modern countries; realy what the hell is going on with britain.[/QUOTE]
I would say in modern countries you are allowed to say whatever you like in the legislative chamber in particular. One thing the US does right is the 1st Amendment.
[QUOTE=Tacooo;49229783]Cameron seriously makes me want to move to Canada[/QUOTE]
don't, we have a complete fucking moron as a prime minister right now.
[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;49230155]don't, we have a complete fucking moron as a prime minister right now.[/QUOTE]
Less of a moron than the last guy though.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49230088]saying stuff in parliament CANNOT BE LEGAL!!!!
Jeremy can sue Dave for slander or libel if he wants to. In fact, suing for libel is notoriously easy in the UK as the burden of proof is bizarrely on the defendant. The reality is that what he is saying is perfectly legal, as much as cry-babies who hate Jesus Christ having mean things being said about him so much that you want to restrict free speech.[/QUOTE]
I hate engaging with you, because all your posts seem thick with pointless insults that reflect worse on you than anyone else and you exaggerate everyone else's point to make them look stupid. This isn't how to approach political discussion.
This is someone in an the highest position of public authority telling a lie. This isn't about free speech.
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;49227430]The complete lack of disrespect people hold for Jeremy Corbyn, simply because of the fact they disagree with him, is ridiculous. What happened to refuting his arguments rather than trying to label him as a terrorist sympathiser?[/QUOTE]
The problem is that his supporters have even less respect for people who disagree with him, which is largely why people dislike him so much. It isn't so much the views that he holds, it's the other people who share them who by and large are violent trotskyists and radical socialists
The blame that people give to the media is a huge exaggeration, the sort of people who read the Sun and the Daily Mail already hated Corbyn, all the media does is validate their opinion.
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;49230211]
This is someone in an the highest position of public authority telling a lie. This isn't about free speech.[/QUOTE]
Firstly it's not a lie, it's an opinion. Secondly it's a pretty well known fact that Corbyn had sympathies with the IRA throughout the 1980s, so it isn't entirely untrue. Thirdly, Cameron said it to a 1922 comittee meeting, it wasn't supposed to be a public statement.
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;49230211]I hate engaging with you, because all your posts seem thick with pointless insults that reflect worse on you than anyone else and you exaggerate everyone else's point to make them look stupid. This isn't how to approach political discussion.
This is someone in an the highest position of public authority telling a lie. This isn't about free speech.[/QUOTE]
Prove it is a lie. This is about free speech even if it is untrue (which given his more-or-less direct support for the IRA and less explicit endorsement of groups like HAMAS, he would find it difficult to prove it was untrue), which it isn't. Even if it was a lie, he can still say it (though he would be liable to being sued for libel/slander).
Corbyn doesn't merit respect or deserve it in my eyes or in the eyes of most Tories. You respect political opponents when you want to, not because you have to.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49230301]Prove it is a lie. This is about free speech even if it is untrue (which given his more-or-less direct support for the IRA and less explicit endorsement of groups like HAMAS, he would find it difficult to prove it was untrue), which it isn't. Even if it was a lie, he can still say it (though he would be liable to being sued for libel/slander).
Corbyn doesn't merit respect or deserve it in my eyes or in the eyes of most Tories. You respect political opponents when you want to, not because you have to.[/QUOTE]
The only evidence I've ever seen for the claims of sympathising with the IRA/Hamas is him calling for negotiations and political engagement. If you can provide evidence that he said that he actually supported their militant tactics, I'll be both very surprised that a pacifist would support them and happy to concede the point.
[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-criticised-by-victims-families-after-failing-to-condemn-the-ira-10442683.html[/url]
[QUOTE]Mr Nolan repeated: “The question is do you condemn what the IRA did?”
Mr Corbyn replied: “Look, I condemn what was done by the British Army as well as the other sides as well. What happened in Derry in 1972 was pretty devastating as well.”
When the question was put to him a third time, he said: “Can I answer the question in this way? We gained ceasefires, they were important and a huge step forward. Those ceasefires brought about the peace process, brought about the reconciliation process which we should all be pleased about. Can we take the thing forward rather than backward?”
Mr Nolan again asked: “Are you refusing to condemn what the IRA did?”. At which point railway noise can be heard Mr Corbyn said that he could not hear the question because he was travelling on a train and had poor signal.
Asked the question a fifth time, he said: “I feel we will have to do this later you know”, before the line goes dead.[/QUOTE]
Not outright support - but the word Cameron uses is 'sympathises', which I think this proves.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49230607][url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-criticised-by-victims-families-after-failing-to-condemn-the-ira-10442683.html[/url]
Not outright support - but the word Cameron uses is 'sympathises', which I think this proves.[/QUOTE]
He still condemns bombing ("I condemn all bombing, it is not a good idea, and it is terrible what happened"), so it seems more like he sympathised with the cause rather than the methods. It is strange that he refuses to condemn the IRA directly, I'll give you that, but he never supported the terrorist tactics.
[editline]2nd December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=The mouse;49230218]The problem is that his supporters have even less respect for people who disagree with him, which is largely why people dislike him so much. It isn't so much the views that he holds, it's the other people who share them who by and large are violent trotskyists and radical socialists.[/QUOTE]
If you have a problem with his supporters, criticise them, not him.
To me, and I would guess the majority of the British public, that is not far enough a condemnation to make him not a terrorist sympathiser.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49230680]To me, and I would guess the majority of the British public, that is not far enough a condemnation to make him not a terrorist sympathiser.[/QUOTE]
I find it hard to understand how a pacifist could be seen to sympathise with terrorism (with the causes of the terrorists, but that's a very distinct difference).
He says himself he isn't a pacifist, and given that his closest ally McDonnell openly endorsed the strategy ([url]http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/18/john-mcdonnell-apologises-for-ira-comment-labour[/url]) of 'bombs and bullets' of the IRA, it seems likely that he probably does in some respects also. He isn't anti-violence [I]per se[/I], more anti-[I]Western[/I] violence. He will do anything to prevent Western military intervention (including trying to deny the genocide in Kosovo) but will at the very least endorse the causes of terrorists (which is also extremely bad in my view, but not even close to as bad as endorsing the methods) and excuse their violence if possible in order to retain his world-view that places the West as the source of most of the ills in the world, as he proved from chairing Stop The War for years.
[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;49230155]don't, we have a complete fucking moron as a prime minister right now.[/QUOTE]
He'd have to try a lot harder in order to be a bigger moron than harper or cameron
Well, yes won, we're fighting them. Fuck the Tories.
[QUOTE=massaki;49230895]Well, yes won, we're fighting them. Fuck the Tories.[/QUOTE]
The honour of glorious defeat is really so special to you that you would damage the welfare of those who rely on a sensible, electable Labour party to improve their lot to achieve it?
[QUOTE=Piciul;49227296]atleast Corbyn knows that you can't kill an ideology just by dropping bombs on it[/QUOTE]
I feel the real issue here is that Cameron put his opinion in a asshole fuck you sort of way.
I don't agree with the bombings all the way as well, but what Corbyn doesn't understand, is that ISIS is leaving us little options to deal with them. And last I checked, America is very hesitant at the idea of sending troops to a middle-eastern nation AGAIN. It has been about a decade since America first entered the Middle-East with the goal of finding the asshat who blew up our towers just to fuck with us.
And sending troops and supplies is also the only thing some nations can do to help. Because they either do and they're "falling for a trap that ISIS will still somehow win from", and if they don't help at all, they're "just a bunch of capitalist pigs sitting in their ivory towers indecisive on what to do".
Are bombings the best way to deal with all of this? Most likely not. Is the currently the only option the nations of the world can do against a extremist violent group of murderers and scumbags of this planet? Sadly yes.
And that's not to say boots on the ground will make this situation magically better, no matter what everything about dealing with ISIS is gonna be messy, Politicians and people will be criticized, and no one will be truly happy in the duration of all of this.
if I were in Britain I'd vote for Corbyn in a second, he's the most genuine politician and a rare example of a principle politician which is what every country needs. The way the media treats him is absolutely disgusting - systematic and so typical of the Murdoch media. Australia has the same problem - the whims of the public are dictated by what is printed in the papers, and the papers are run by NewsCorp and NewsCorp is run by Murdoch, who needs a fucking bullet
[QUOTE=killerteacup;49230957]if I were in Britain I'd vote for Corbyn in a second, he's the most genuine politician and a rare example of a principle politician which is what every country needs. The way the media treats him is absolutely disgusting[/QUOTE]
People say they want genuine politicians until they actually meet one like Corbyn and then they run for the hills as the polls show. When people say they want there to be less professional politicians they are a pack of liars.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49230975]People say they want genuine politicians until they actually meet one like Corbyn and then they run for the hills as the polls show. When people say they want there to be less professional politicians they are a pack of liars.[/QUOTE]
i could argue with you for days about how you are wrong in various ways but I've done it before and it was a genuine fucking waste of energy so I'm not going to dignify this with a response
point is politics is decided by the papers, and I hate that. People are so impressionable these days and just absorb what they read like osmosis. Every country in the world would benefit directly from a fair and balanced media which doesn't systematically attack people to represent the political interests of a media magnate but there we go, that's the reality that we live in
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49230975]People say they want genuine politicians until they actually meet one like Corbyn and then they run for the hills as the polls show. When people say they want there to be less professional politicians they are a pack of liars.[/QUOTE]
If the whole of parliament were filled with Jeremy Corbyns (that is to say on attitude, not necessarily political opinions) we'd be a lot better off and our democracy would work a lot better. The problem is that once people start using the sort of underhanded personal attacks that Mr Cameron and other politicians do, it goes from being a debate to a public school popularity contest. Principled polticians are great for the former and terrible at the latter.
this shit is the exact same thing bush supporters said to people who didn't support the iraq war, and look what that got us.
the "if you dont support us, then you support the enemy" fallacy is just disgusting and i cant believe that people are still falling for it
[QUOTE=ossumsauce;49231122]this shit is the exact same thing bush supporters said to people who didn't support the iraq war, and look what that got us.
the "if you dont support us, then you support the enemy" fallacy is just disgusting and i cant believe that people are still falling for it[/QUOTE]
It's a fallacy for many of those who oppose air strikes for principled reasons (including some in his own party), but as I have discussed, its a contestable and in many ways legitimate description of Corbyn himself.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49230756]He says himself he isn't a pacifist, and given that his closest ally McDonnell openly endorsed the strategy ([url]http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/18/john-mcdonnell-apologises-for-ira-comment-labour[/url]) of 'bombs and bullets' of the IRA, it seems likely that he probably does in some respects also. He isn't anti-violence [I]per se[/I], more anti-[I]Western[/I] violence. He will do anything to prevent Western military intervention (including trying to deny the genocide in Kosovo) but will at the very least endorse the causes of terrorists (which is also extremely bad in my view, but not even close to as bad as endorsing the methods) and excuse their violence if possible in order to retain his world-view that places the West as the source of most of the ills in the world, as he proved from chairing Stop The War for years.[/QUOTE]
So you can't actually demonstrate that he sympathises with terrorists, you just think he does and know he is in broad political agreement with someone who does?
[editline]2nd December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49231135]It's a fallacy for many of those who oppose air strikes for principled reasons (including some in his own party), but as I have discussed, its a contestable and in many ways legitimate description of Corbyn himself.[/QUOTE]
To be honest, even if it is true that Corbyn sympathised with the IRA (for which the burden of proof lies with you and you have not provided any solid evidence), calling him that with regards to the debate on ISIS is entirely counter-productive. You calling him it on an internet forum is one thing, the prime minister referring to his opposition leader that was is appalling and he should have apologised.
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;49231147]So you can't actually demonstrate that he sympathises with terrorists, you just think he does and know he is in broad political agreement with someone who does?[/QUOTE]
He twists himself into knots to avoid condemning the IRA with a few simple words (for no apparrent reason) and is willing to grossly distort the truth to such an extent simply to stick it to the evil west (such as his opinions on Kosovo, and the opinions of Stop The War on massacres of Yazidis, for example), so yes, I think he does sympathise with terrorists.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49231188]He twists himself into knots to avoid condemning the IRA with a few simple words (for no apparrent reason) and is willing to grossly distort the truth to such an extent simply to stick it to the evil west (such as his opinions on Kosovo, and the opinions of Stop The War on massacres of Yazidis, for example), so yes, I think he does sympathise with terrorists.[/QUOTE]
I understand that opinion, but I'll respectfully disagree. I think we've gone as far as we really can with this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.