Portland Bill Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 1 hour ago, The Gasbuster said: It was indeed, an ill thought out, foolish, cringeworthy thing to say, and he should know better. He should retract that statement. He was given plenty of opportunity to do that today, but wouldn't. All I can think is that it was another use of a sound bite that is backfiring on him. I also see that he's now complaining about the BBC and Sky news calling Isis,Isis!! He's decided they now must be called Daesh, sounds like a dictator to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 I think even Osbourne suggested he should retract it at one point. Cameron can be a very good statesman when he wants (Hillsboro and Bloody Sunday) but too much lately he can be a bit of a dick (most PMQs). For the sake of the debate he should have retracted his statement, he clearly upset people on ALL sides of the room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted December 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 It was a stupid comment to make and the fact that it's dominated the headlines rather than what should be a serious debate is just embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phileas Fogg Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 2 hours ago, Collis1 said: Its going to be interesting to see how this thread evolves over time. Surely even Corbyn's strongest critics can agree that he has caused a bit of a stir over the last few weeks which is ultimately good for democracy? The Tories feel threatened by him without any doubt. There was also a attack on him by the media yesterday making it look like the war would be his responsibility. Whilst the limelight he is getting strengthens some peoples dislike of him, there are more and more people starting to warm to him. It will be very interesting to see how it develops. I doubt they feel threatened by him at all. I admire his principles and how he stick to them but not much else. I saw Dan Jarvis speak earlier, he looked like a leader in waiting for me. If Corbyn goes anytime soon he should definitely apply to be leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 28 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said: I doubt they feel threatened by him at all. I admire his principles and how he stick to them but not much else. I saw Dan Jarvis speak earlier, he looked like a leader in waiting for me. If Corbyn goes anytime soon he should definitely apply to be leader. If they aren't scared of him.. Why do they and the media continue to attack him. No other reason than fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phileas Fogg Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 3 minutes ago, Tomarse said: If they aren't scared of him.. Why do they and the media continue to attack him. No other reason than fear. Because it's effective at swaying public opinion. If there was an election right now I think Labour would do worse than they did in May. That shouldn't happen, there's usually a dead cat bounce - the same as a new football manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 1 minute ago, Phileas Fogg said: Because it's effective at swaying public opinion. If there was an election right now I think Labour would do worse than they did in May. That shouldn't happen, there's usually a dead cat bounce - the same as a new football manager. So why, at first opertunity, do they want rid. If I was a Tory MP id be saying carry on.. If someone like Jarvis came in before the election he could get a swing to Labour as someone else above mentions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 3 hours ago, Portland Bill said: I listened to Cameron and Corbyn on the radio whilst at work. As you say, the bahaviour on the government benches was pathetic. Are they seriously afraid of letting someone with a view different to theirs, actually talk. As for Cameron, well, he's now told over 50% of the British people that they are 'terrorist sympathisers', is there no end to his inept, pathetic childish ways. In my work today people were using the phrase like the old "I'm Spartacus" joke, but replaced by "I'm a terrorist sympathiser". Even people I know that vote Tory, are outraged at what he said. it was an incredibly inappropriate thing to say, as for an apology when has that ever happened in modern UK politics?, it was never going to happen and after the first 2 interruptions requesting an apology it was obvious there wasn't going to be an apology and the further constant interruptions requesting an apology started to resemble a pantomime script. 50% Bill? more like 31%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityexile Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 As the term 'blue labour' was mentioned above, which I suppose is as good a summary of where I sit as any, I do hope, but certainly do not expect, that the vote is anti bombing. The only case for it seems to me is that we are seen to be doing our bit, and joining the grand alliance. That does I conceed have some value. I do not believe it will make us any safer, or indeed put us at much more risk. If ISIS could get at us before they would, and that will not change. Our contribution will be very marginal indeed and make no difference to the overall situation. Our interventions in that part of the world, including Iraq, have led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of refugees. Camerons vision of an army of 70,000 moderates is just pie in the sky. If and when ISIS are beaten, they will fragment, not to mention they want to overthrow Assad who has the support of the Russians. How does that work? Cut off the sense of injustice in that part of the world that feeds their poison. Cut off their money. Destroy their oil fields if need be. I have never been a fan of gesture politics, which this smells of. I have huge huge issues with Corbyn. History will show him to be right on this one however of that I have little doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 4 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said: it was an incredibly inappropriate thing to say, as for an apology when has that ever happened in modern UK politics?, it was never going to happen and after the first 2 interruptions requesting an apology it was obvious there wasn't going to be an apology and the further constant interruptions requesting an apology started to resemble a pantomime script. 50% Bill? more like 31%. I agree with there not being an apology however for the sake of the debate and for at that very moment of it he'd have been a bigger man if he just retracted it. Even Gideon was in his ear suggesting it by all accounts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 3 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said: it was an incredibly inappropriate thing to say, as for an apology when has that ever happened in modern UK politics?, it was never going to happen and after the first 2 interruptions requesting an apology it was obvious there wasn't going to be an apology and the further constant interruptions requesting an apology started to resemble a pantomime script. 50% Bill? more like 31%. E's, I would say that Cameron classes the undecided 20%, in the same bracket as the 30 plus % who are totally against bombing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 1 minute ago, Tomarse said: I agree with there not being an apology however for the sake of the debate and for at that very moment of it he'd have been a bigger man if he just retracted it. Even Gideon was in his ear suggesting it by all accounts of course Tom of that there is no doubt, but as I said it hasn't happened in modern UK politics, so never likely to happen. There is more likelihood of a politician actually answering a yes/no question, with a yes or a no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 1 minute ago, Portland Bill said: E's, I would say that Cameron classes the undecided 20%, in the same bracket as the 30 plus % who are totally against bombing. of course you do Bill, because it makes your argument look stronger, but it's not true is it?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phileas Fogg Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 13 minutes ago, Tomarse said: So why, at first opertunity, do they want rid. If I was a Tory MP id be saying carry on.. If someone like Jarvis came in before the election he could get a swing to Labour as someone else above mentions True, but it doesn't hurt for Corbyn to remain unpopular. Perhaps they feel he'd ride out hard times using his enormous mandate to justify staying in office as he is a very principled politician. If Jarvis did come in then the Conservatives would have a fight on their hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 Interestingly I read a piece that was in the New York Times today, in this article it was said that it's now believed the main leaders of Isis are now in Lybia! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Batman Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 9 minutes ago, Portland Bill said: Interestingly I read a piece that was in the New York Times today, in this article it was said that it's now believed the main leaders of Isis are now in Lybia! Lies, it's the Jews and Israel that are behind Isis. :-/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 Perhaps Cameron needs a lesson in apologies from Ken Livingstone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 From one of Corbyn's front bench and ain't that the truth?. 'I will do everything I can to stop my party becoming essentially the cheerleader, the vanguard for a sort of angry, intolerant pacifism, which sets a myriad of conditions, of preconditions, which they know will never be met, and will ultimately say no to any military intervention.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityexile Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 3 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said: From one of Corbyn's front bench and ain't that the truth?. 'I will do everything I can to stop my party becoming essentially the cheerleader, the vanguard for a sort of angry, intolerant pacifism, which sets a myriad of conditions, of preconditions, which they know will never be met, and will ultimately say no to any military intervention.' It is right that miltary intervention must be a last choice. It must be carefully considered and thought about. Of course, sadly, it is at times required. If we had thought about it a little more deeply pre Iraq we would not be in half the mess we are now in, maybe, it seems to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 9 minutes ago, cityexile said: It is right that miltary intervention must be a last choice. It must be carefully considered and thought about. Of course, sadly, it is at times required. If we had thought about it a little more deeply pre Iraq we would not be in half the mess we are now in, maybe, it seems to me. Iraq had little to do with thought and everything to do with lies and more lies. The point John Woodcock was making was that there would never be circumstances that Corbyn would ever support a war and he has said he cannot visualise any set of circumstances where as prime minister he would authorise use of UK forces and his formula would always find a loophole for saying no, whatever the circumstances. So in theory if Isis had swept across Europe and were at Calais about to board P & O ferries set to invade Britain, he would still say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityexile Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 1 minute ago, Esmond Million's Bung said: Iraq had little to do with thought and everything to do with lies and more lies. The point John Woodcock was making was that there would never be circumstances that Corbyn would ever support a war and he has said he cannot visualise any set of circumstances where as prime minister he would authorise use of UK forces and his formula would always find a loophole for saying no. So in theory if Isis had swept across Europe and were at Calais about to board P & O ferries set to invade Britain, he would still say no. I have said it before, but in my book Corbyn is a decent man who comes from the Quaker perspective. I respect that, and fundamentally disagree with it. That does not mean case by case I can disagree with miltary intervention, as I do here. The case is built on that it will make us more safe. It will not. It is bombing to be seen to do something. Anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 1 minute ago, cityexile said: I have said it before, but in my book Corbyn is a decent man who comes from the Quaker perspective. I respect that, and fundamentally disagree with it. That does not mean case by case I can disagree with miltary intervention, as I do here. The case is built on that it will make us more safe. It will not. It is bombing to be seen to do something. Anything. Your'e missing my point, John Woodcock is saying it is ridiculous having a leader who would never support war whatever the circumstances, which is quite obviously the case with Corbyn, it means he almost always going to be at odds with many in his own party. it has nothing to do with his pacifist views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 33 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said: Iraq had little to do with thought and everything to do with lies and more lies. The point John Woodcock was making was that there would never be circumstances that Corbyn would ever support a war and he has said he cannot visualise any set of circumstances where as prime minister he would authorise use of UK forces and his formula would always find a loophole for saying no, whatever the circumstances. So in theory if Isis had swept across Europe and were at Calais about to board P & O ferries set to invade Britain, he would still say no. Could be worse, we have a PM whose 100% changed which side he supports in Syria from two years ago! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityexile Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 19 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said: Your'e missing my point, John Woodcock is saying it is ridiculous having a leader who would never support war whatever the circumstances, which is quite obviously the case with Corbyn, it means he almost always going to be at odds with many in his own party. it has nothing to do with his pacifist views. Might be splitting hairs, but seems a bit disingenious to say 'who would never support war' is nothing to do with his pacifist views? I have not followed every nuance, but also was not aware he had said he could not imagine the circumstances in which he would authorise the use of UK forces. I did catch a similar reference to nuclear weapons, but that is quite different. Anyhow, let us hope there is some cunning masterplan we have. Not at all obvious at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 Big shooting incident going on in California as I type, don't know if it's terrorist related or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 5 minutes ago, Portland Bill said: Big shooting incident going on in California as I type, don't know if it's terrorist related or not? 3 guys in body armour so I think it's definitely 'terrorist' related- though these terrorists I suspect are of the Christian fundamentalist variety given that it's rumoured to be a social care medical facility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 6 minutes ago, Portland Bill said: Big shooting incident going on in California as I type, don't know if it's terrorist related or not? Come on Bill even for you that is a really silly jump, a) it's outside of an abortion clinic and b) mass shootings have been and will be a regular occurrence in the U S of A with it's ridiculous gun laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 11 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said: Come on Bill even for you that is a really silly jump, a) it's outside of an abortion clinic and b) mass shootings have been and will be a regular occurrence in the U S of A with it's ridiculous gun laws. Flippin hell E's, I typed my post about 10 seconds after I saw the TVs pictures. I must apologise for not knowing every fn thing at that moment! Next time i will ring up my source at cnn to get the full breakdown before i make any comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Batman Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 Just send the corbynator out there to negotiate the ceasefire with Isis and to make them stop killing everyone and we can welcome them back to their respective homelands. I'll pay for the ticket there (let's be honest, a return ticket would be a waste of money) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 10 minutes ago, Portland Bill said: Flippin hell E's, I typed my post about 10 seconds after I saw the TVs pictures. I must apologise for not knowing every fn thing at that moment! Next time i will ring up my source at cnn to get the full breakdown before i make any comment Get a grip Bill, 'some' of us get criticised by 'some' on this thread for hijacking it away from it's title or alleged misinformation and then 'some' make claims like it's true because the terrorists said so on their website. There is also a breaking a story with Russia releasing what it claims as surveillance of hundreds of tankers coming from Isis held territory in Syria and Iraq and into Turkey via it's border, but the rules prevent me from posting that on this thread, so i've been told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.