Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
They did give their lives for what they believed in. It's just that they believed in a load of crap and gave other people's lives as well. So how do we stop people believing in violent jihad?0
-
There's another thread to discuss that. However I can see where Red Ken thinks the blame lies. He's just another terrorist apologist like Corbyn and McDonnell. Won't go down to well with the electorate will it.They did give their lives for what they believed in. It's just that they believed in a load of crap and gave other people's lives as well. So how do we stop people believing in violent jihad?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
There's another thread to discuss that. However I can see where Red Ken thinks the blame lies. He's just another terrorist apologist like Corbyn and McDonnell. Won't go down to well with the electorate will it.They did give their lives for what they believed in. It's just that they believed in a load of crap and gave other people's lives as well. So how do we stop people believing in violent jihad?
Your right because alot of the electorate believe the headlines, understanding (what motivates) terrorists helps you defeat them, know thy enemy and all that, you can bet your life, they understand exactly what makes us tick.
How was he being an apologist ?0 -
Ah, fhe usual 'electorate are too thick to understand approach (unlike you of course) :roll: often used when you own views are in a minority.
There's another thread to discuss that. However I can see where Red Ken thinks the blame lies. He's just another terrorist apologist like Corbyn and McDonnell. Won't go down to well with the electorate will it.They did give their lives for what they believed in. It's just that they believed in a load of crap and gave other people's lives as well. So how do we stop people believing in violent jihad?
Your right because alot of the electorate believe the headlines, understanding (what motivates) terrorists helps you defeat them, know thy enemy and all that, you can bet your life, they understand exactly what makes us tick.
How was he being an apologist ?
I am saying Livingstone is a terrorist apologist. The statement on the 7/7 bombers implies they had some sort of worthy cause. However look at his history of supporting the IRA:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Livingstone#Scandal:_Republicanism_and_Ireland
Pretty clear to me where his sympathies lie..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Ah, fhe usual 'electorate are too thick to understand approach (unlike you of course) :roll: often used when you own views are in a minority.
There's another thread to discuss that. However I can see where Red Ken thinks the blame lies. He's just another terrorist apologist like Corbyn and McDonnell. Won't go down to well with the electorate will it.They did give their lives for what they believed in. It's just that they believed in a load of crap and gave other people's lives as well. So how do we stop people believing in violent jihad?
Your right because alot of the electorate believe the headlines, understanding (what motivates) terrorists helps you defeat them, know thy enemy and all that, you can bet your life, they understand exactly what makes us tick.
How was he being an apologist ?
I am saying Livingstone is a terrorist apologist. The statement on the 7/7 bombers implies they had some sort of worthy cause. However look at his history of supporting the IRA:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Livingstone#Scandal:_Republicanism_and_Ireland
Pretty clear to me where his sympathies lie...
From that link, it sounds like he sympathises with the aims, but not so much with the methods. FWIW, I think he (along with Corbyn) are totally wrong in supporting Irish unification as long as the majority of the population of Ulster wishes to remain British, but I can't see them as wanting these aims to be achieved by violence.
Also, why do you think that mamba's views are in the minority? It looks like a majority of the British public are opposed to the Iraq War. I would imagine that a large number of these people would view British foreign policy as one of the root causes for terrorism. I've certainly seen that view expressed on this forum from people across the political spectrum.0 -
Of course he's not so stupid as to spell it out but it is pretty clear what he means when stating the zBritish fight against the IRA was some sort of campaign against terrorism. If thats not a clear indication of being a terrorist apologist as you will get from a public statement by a political figure what is?
If you're convinced that he is a nice but misunderstood leftie maligned by the press, have look here at some of his other statements.
http://archive.adl.org/special_reports/livingstone/livingstone.html#.VlsotGhFBoM
Not sure why you are bringing up Iraq, the current issue mamba was referring to is ISIS and Syria. And the point that you and mamba appear to be defending someone who most people see as trying to apologise for terrorists - or will see if they read his comments. Pretty sure you two are in the minority on this.
Also fits quite easily in the 'unfit to govern' category occupied by Corbyn and McDonnell on these grounds IMO."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Ah, fhe usual 'electorate are too thick to understand approach (unlike you of course) :roll: often used when you own views are in a minority.Your right because alot of the electorate believe the headlines, understanding (what motivates) terrorists helps you defeat them, know thy enemy and all that, you can bet your life, they understand exactly what makes us tick.
How was he being an apologist ?
I am saying Livingstone is a terrorist apologist. The statement on the 7/7 bombers implies they had some sort of worthy cause. However look at his history of supporting the IRA:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Livingstone#Scandal:_Republicanism_and_Ireland
Pretty clear to me where his sympathies lie...
Your reading into that what isnt there, as i ve said before, most people are not interested in Politics, that was context, not that they are too thick.
As for KL being an aoplogist, in regards to his remarks about the 7/7 bombers i dont see that at all, ill timed, insensitive perhaps, i dont see that i am defending him, he just didnt say what you are accusing him off.
what has the IRA got to do with anything? it was after all John Major who started talking to them or was he an apologist too?
What you need to realise steve0 is that it is your brand of politics that has directly and indirectly lead to the destruction of Iraq and Libya, wars in Afgan, the rise of IS, millions of displaced peoples and countless lives wasted and these are views held by many across the political spectrum, the political right has given more sucur to terrorists than anything KL has ever done.
The Wests foreign policy, led by the right, has be a total failure.
also, Labour are not in power, DC is and he flip flops between calling for bombing Assad and bombing IS or shall we bomb Turkey as well?
he really hasnt a clue nor the leadership, compelling argument or bravery to call a commons vote unless he can be sure to win it, he cant even win over his own bl00dy party for crying out loud! hardly a Churchillian stance is it ?0 -
And the Corbyn's policy for dealing ISIS is what exactly? Seems to be somewhere between doing nothing and aski g to talk to people who dont want to talk to us, just kill us. Even President Hollande, a socialist who seems to espouse 'your brand of politics' was imploring us to support France. Unless you think he's a bit right wing given that he doesnt quote Chairman Mao
And if we'd followed Corbyns brand of politics in WW2 we'd probably be having this conversation in German...
Anyhow, lets see what happens in the New Old Labour defence policy shambles this week
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
There's another thread to discuss that. However I can see where Red Ken thinks the blame lies. He's just another terrorist apologist like Corbyn and McDonnell. Won't go down to well with the electorate will it.They did give their lives for what they believed in. It's just that they believed in a load of crap and gave other people's lives as well. So how do we stop people believing in violent jihad?
Maybe you weren't in London then but Ken was impeccably behaved during that period.
His speech immediately afterwards was very good, and it was universally felt he did a good job.
Easy for you to sneer and make petty remakes but it felt like he was on every Londer's side, which he was.0 -
Of course he's not so stupid as to spell it out but it is pretty clear what he means when stating the zBritish fight against the IRA was some sort of campaign against terrorism. If thats not a clear indication of being a terrorist apologist as you will get from a public statement by a political figure what is?
Can you rephrase that please, so it makes sense?If you're convinced that he is a nice but misunderstood leftie maligned by the press, have look here at some of his other statements.
http://archive.adl.org/special_reports/livingstone/livingstone.html#.VlsotGhFBoM
I didn't say he's nice. I think that politics can attract some fairly ruthless types on all sides.Not sure why you are bringing up Iraq, the current issue mamba was referring to is ISIS and Syria. And the point that you and mamba appear to be defending someone who most people see as trying to apologise for terrorists - or will see if they read his comments. Pretty sure you two are in the minority on this.
The 7/7 bombings happened in the wake of the Iraq War. You were talking about his statements about the 7/7 bombers. They have nothing to do with ISIS or Syria.Also fits quite easily in the 'unfit to govern' category occupied by Corbyn and McDonnell on these grounds IMO.
As opposed to those lovely Tories, who definitely don't have any links with mass murderers, torturers, human rights abusers or supporters of Islamic extremism? OK, so let's say that neither Labour nor the Tories are fit to govern. Who should we vote for?0 -
And the Corbyn's policy for dealing ISIS is what exactly? Seems to be somewhere between doing nothing and aski g to talk to people who dont want to talk to us, just kill us. Even President Hollande, a socialist who seems to espouse 'your brand of politics' was imploring us to support France. Unless you think he's a bit right wing given that he doesnt quote Chairman Mao
And if we'd followed Corbyns brand of politics in WW2 we'd probably be having this conversation in German...
Anyhow, lets see what happens in the New Old Labour defence policy shambles this week
He's already said that he doesn't believe we can talk to ISIS and I've already quoted his stated views on the matter. The alternative is enforcing an embargo on oil sales and trying to stem the flow of fighters and weapons into Syria and Iraq.0 -
And the Corbyn's policy for dealing ISIS is what exactly? Seems to be somewhere between doing nothing and aski g to talk to people who dont want to talk to us, just kill us. Even President Hollande, a socialist who seems to espouse 'your brand of politics' was imploring us to support France. Unless you think he's a bit right wing given that he doesnt quote Chairman Mao
And if we'd followed Corbyns brand of politics in WW2 we'd probably be having this conversation in German...
Anyhow, lets see what happens in the New Old Labour defence policy shambles this week
Alright warmongerer, calm down.
Turn it on its head. What is bombing actually achieving, and what will further bombing achieve?
You're very happy to put young Brit armed forces members as well as innocent Syrians at risk to be seen to be 'doing something'.
We also know ISIS target the foreign nations who are intervening. So why is going to war so important?
If there is evidence that the bombing reduces the threat to the UK then let's see it, and I'd be happy to listen and be persuaded. But all we've had is "trust me" from DC.
At least we have someone who will force the debate for a change. We didn't for Iraq or Libya and they were both disasters: one sowed the seeds for ISIS, the other 40% of the refugee crisis.
And let's be crystal clear, Britain played a role in creating both because it was to keen to get into war.
Iraq was suposed to reduce the threat to the UK, it increase it significantly.0 -
And the Corbyn's policy for dealing ISIS is what exactly? Seems to be somewhere between doing nothing and aski g to talk to people who dont want to talk to us, just kill us. Even President Hollande, a socialist who seems to espouse 'your brand of politics' was imploring us to support France. Unless you think he's a bit right wing given that he doesnt quote Chairman Mao
And if we'd followed Corbyns brand of politics in WW2 we'd probably be having this conversation in German...
Anyhow, lets see what happens in the New Old Labour defence policy shambles this week
Jeez your scraping the barrel to connect Corbyn and WW2, was he even alive then ?
the french have to do something, polictically Hollande has to be seen to be the tough guy, but i think he is wrong too...unless he ties in with Russia, which he seems to be doing.
There is a poiltical solution to this, NOT involving IS because they ve have no aims that we could ever give in to but Russia, Assad, the Iranians the Kurds in the end that is what will happen in the end, its what almost always happens.
http://www.ibtimes.com/syria-peace-talks-round-two-negotiations-begin-vienna-differences-over-assads-2184526
During the 1970's and 80's would you have aerial bombed Ulster and South Armagh to destroy the IRA? because that is pretty much what Cameron etc are asking to do and fxxk all the civilians, kids and womens who ll be killed and maimed, they ve zero to do with IS they dont support them or agree with them in anyway, wont be your kids blown to bits will it?
But what you ve deftly side stepped is Cameron cannot command a majority in the H of Commons amongst his own MPs let alone anyone else, so to me, the Tory Gov is in shambles and that is v worrying as we live in dangerous times and they are in power not Corbyn livingston or any other lefty boggie men you despise.0 -
It does seen that the leffies think they can win this argument by carpet bombing the thread "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
I've added the missing word - it was in the link in any case. If you can't understand that, tough.Of course he's not so stupid as to spell it out but it is pretty clear what he means when stating the British fight against the IRA was some not sort of campaign against terrorism. If thats not a clear indication of being a terrorist apologist as you will get from a public statement by a political figure what is?
Can you rephrase that please, so it makes sense?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Steady on now Mr. Pacifist surrender monkeyAnd the Corbyn's policy for dealing ISIS is what exactly? Seems to be somewhere between doing nothing and aski g to talk to people who dont want to talk to us, just kill us. Even President Hollande, a socialist who seems to espouse 'your brand of politics' was imploring us to support France. Unless you think he's a bit right wing given that he doesnt quote Chairman Mao
And if we'd followed Corbyns brand of politics in WW2 we'd probably be having this conversation in German...
Anyhow, lets see what happens in the New Old Labour defence policy shambles this week
Alright warmongerer, calm down.
Turn it on its head. What is bombing actually achieving, and what will further bombing achieve?
You're very happy to put young Brit armed forces members as well as innocent Syrians at risk to be seen to be 'doing something'.
We also know ISIS target the foreign nations who are intervening. So why is going to war so important?
If there is evidence that the bombing reduces the threat to the UK then let's see it, and I'd be happy to listen and be persuaded. But all we've had is "trust me" from DC.
At least we have someone who will force the debate for a change. We didn't for Iraq or Libya and they were both disasters: one sowed the seeds for ISIS, the other 40% of the refugee crisis.
And let's be crystal clear, Britain played a role in creating both because it was to keen to get into war.
Iraq was suposed to reduce the threat to the UK, it increase it significantly.
I was trying to make the point about Livingstone being a prat for making the statements he did on terrorism. Not get into an argument that's already going in another thread on the Syrian question."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I was in London then - was even here when he was running the GLC. Didn't feel protected or backed up by him in any way whatsoever.
There's another thread to discuss that. However I can see where Red Ken thinks the blame lies. He's just another terrorist apologist like Corbyn and McDonnell. Won't go down to well with the electorate will it.They did give their lives for what they believed in. It's just that they believed in a load of crap and gave other people's lives as well. So how do we stop people believing in violent jihad?
Maybe you weren't in London then but Ken was impeccably behaved during that period.
His speech immediately afterwards was very good, and it was universally felt he did a good job.
Easy for you to sneer and make petty remakes but it felt like he was on every Londer's side, which he was."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Livingstone also stated that UK troops were discredited.
Another vote winner from our red friend. Keep 'em coming Ken.0 -
I think the holy trinity of Jezza, Chairman Mao Jnr and Red Ken should be enough to keep the votes away and the laughs rolling inLivingstone also stated that UK troops were discredited.
Another vote winner from our red friend. Keep 'em coming Ken. We just need Diane Abbott to weigh in now... "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think the holy trinity of Jezza, Chairman Mao Jnr and Red Ken should be enough to keep the votes away and the laughs rolling inLivingstone also stated that UK troops were discredited.
Another vote winner from our red friend. Keep 'em coming Ken. We just need Diane Abbott to weigh in now...
Perhaps she could come up with another gem like this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/27/diane-abbott-said-on-balance-mao-did-more-good-than-harm_n_8660910.html0 -
I think the holy trinity of Jezza, Chairman Mao Jnr and Red Ken should be enough to keep the votes away and the laughs rolling inLivingstone also stated that UK troops were discredited.
Another vote winner from our red friend. Keep 'em coming Ken. We just need Diane Abbott to weigh in now...
Perhaps she could come up with another gem like this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/27/diane-abbott-said-on-balance-mao-did-more-good-than-harm_n_8660910.html
Try reading past the headline. I'm no fan of Diane Abbott (or Mao or any other Marxist-Leninist leader), but she's saying that SOME PEOPLE would argue that he did more good than harm. I've known quite a few fairly apolitical Chinese people who credit Mao with the fact that they are no longer some piss-poor feudal subsistence agrarian society living under brutal local warlords or Japanese military domination. I don't know how you would balance that out against Mao's crimes and of course, they have been living with government propaganda their whole lives, but what's wrong with hearing both sides of the story?0 -
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/maos-great-leap-forward-killed-45-million-in-four-years-2081630.html
What great work would you have to do to offset the deaths of 45 million people?
Mind you, I remember VTech arguing that Hitler wasn't all bad.
Mind you, compared to Mao, perhaps he wasn't. :shock:
Before anyone starts, they were both c**ts.0 -
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/maos-great-leap-forward-killed-45-million-in-four-years-2081630.html
What great work would you have to do to offset the deaths of 45 million people?
Mind you, I remember VTech arguing that Hitler wasn't all bad.
Mind you, compared to Mao, perhaps he wasn't. :shock:
Before anyone starts, they were both c**ts.
Read a book about Chinese history. It was a terrible, brutal place to live before Mao turned up, it was a terrible, brutal place under Mao, but it emerged as a country which could unify and modernise economically.
It's very much like you arguing that Iraq and Libya were better places to live under Hussein and Gadaffi. Does that mean that you admire those men? No, I'm sure you don't. It just means that you think crap situation A is better than crap situation B.
I wouldn't want to venture an opinion about whether China was better or worse thanks to Mao because it's such a complicated history with tens of millions of deaths before and after him and also because I don't know how things would have turned out without Mao and the CPC.0 -
It does seen that the leffies think they can win this argument by carpet bombing the thread
so you cant engage in any meaningful argument, just a few so called jokes, bit like DC then.
You pipe up and say that JC KL etc are this that or the other, that we are a bunch of pacifist lefties (ho hum) but the evidence is that bombing (on its own) wont work hasnt worked, remember Paris happened after a year or more of US and Russian bombing, stopped them in their tracks didnt it?
At least some in the labour party and quite a few Tories dont agree with sending others into harms way just so they can look statesmen like.
Sending men and women into a war zone should be done as a last resort, not as you think, so we can look good.
Corbyn seems to genuinely care about other people, DC just cares about himself.
oh and banging on about Mao? an evil man no doubt of that but the present chinese leaders have and continue to kill and disposes their way through China and Tibet, not too mention their expansionist policies in the Pacific, but thats ok because we need their money, or rather the Tories do.0 -
I've said this before, if countries refuse to do business with any other country that has or seen to have a dodgy record on human rights, world trade would shrink pretty drastically. Pretty sure you could aim the same sort of accusation against the US, Russia etc and depending on your timeframe, Japan and a good portion of Europe.oh and banging on about Mao? an evil man no doubt of that but the present chinese leaders have and continue to kill and disposes their way through China and Tibet, not too mention their expansionist policies in the Pacific, but thats ok because we need their money, or rather the Tories do.
I've also been through the economic logic of foreign investment vs funding ourselves before, have a read."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Anyway.........
I see both sides of the House are having internal problems.
Who to vote for, the indecisive, or the bullies?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Steady on now Mr. Pacifist surrender monkeyAnd the Corbyn's policy for dealing ISIS is what exactly? Seems to be somewhere between doing nothing and aski g to talk to people who dont want to talk to us, just kill us. Even President Hollande, a socialist who seems to espouse 'your brand of politics' was imploring us to support France. Unless you think he's a bit right wing given that he doesnt quote Chairman Mao
And if we'd followed Corbyns brand of politics in WW2 we'd probably be having this conversation in German...
Anyhow, lets see what happens in the New Old Labour defence policy shambles this week
Alright warmongerer, calm down.
Turn it on its head. What is bombing actually achieving, and what will further bombing achieve?
You're very happy to put young Brit armed forces members as well as innocent Syrians at risk to be seen to be 'doing something'.
We also know ISIS target the foreign nations who are intervening. So why is going to war so important?
If there is evidence that the bombing reduces the threat to the UK then let's see it, and I'd be happy to listen and be persuaded. But all we've had is "trust me" from DC.
At least we have someone who will force the debate for a change. We didn't for Iraq or Libya and they were both disasters: one sowed the seeds for ISIS, the other 40% of the refugee crisis.
And let's be crystal clear, Britain played a role in creating both because it was to keen to get into war.
Iraq was suposed to reduce the threat to the UK, it increase it significantly.
I was trying to make the point about Livingstone being a prat for making the statements he did on terrorism. Not get into an argument that's already going in another thread on the Syrian question.
You were criticising Corbyn for being pacifist, and I wanted to illustrate why that's nothing to be critical of in this instance.0 -
I've said this before, if countries refuse to do business with any other country that has or seen to have a dodgy record on human rights, world trade would shrink pretty drastically. Pretty sure you could aim the same sort of accusation against the US, Russia etc and depending on your timeframe, Japan and a good portion of Europe.oh and banging on about Mao? an evil man no doubt of that but the present chinese leaders have and continue to kill and disposes their way through China and Tibet, not too mention their expansionist policies in the Pacific, but thats ok because we need their money, or rather the Tories do.
I've also been through the economic logic of foreign investment vs funding ourselves before, have a read.
So, its all ok to have a go at the opposition for quoting Mao, whilst your lot carrying on sucking up to the chinese, like begging poodle.
Got to hand it to the Tories though, some how they ve managed to make their call for syrian airstrikes, Corbyns problem, eh???? Cameron has a working majority of 12, so why does he need labour? not much of PM if cant persuad his own party on air strikes.0 -
I've said this before, if countries refuse to do business with any other country that has or seen to have a dodgy record on human rights, world trade would shrink pretty drastically. Pretty sure you could aim the same sort of accusation against the US, Russia etc and depending on your timeframe, Japan and a good portion of Europe.oh and banging on about Mao? an evil man no doubt of that but the present chinese leaders have and continue to kill and disposes their way through China and Tibet, not too mention their expansionist policies in the Pacific, but thats ok because we need their money, or rather the Tories do.
I've also been through the economic logic of foreign investment vs funding ourselves before, have a read.
On the whole I agree that one country refusing to do business with another because of human rights record would lead to gross hypocrisy, but that's no reason to stay silent on the subject. As part of the EU, we are in the world's biggest and most powerful economy. If our government started working for the EU to start imposing conditions on human rights and workers rights when we traded with other countries, we might end up seeing some very positive changes. After all, international pressure didn't harm the anti-apartheid movement.0 -
...
Got to hand it to the Tories though, some how they've managed to make their call for Syrian airstrikes, Corbyn's problem, eh???? Cameron has a working majority of 12, so why does he need Labour? not much of PM if can't persuade his own party on air strikes.
Yepp, that is a good point well made. It is strange how all the press focus is on Labour and their "disarray" when really it shouldn't even be a factor in this vote. Politics is a funny old game when things won't be put to a vote unless the outcome is guaranteed! Perhaps we should adopt this approach in the next General Election?0
