You’re all focusing on the nuclear warheads extreme scenario but the point may still stand. If another 7/7 style attack (or an even bigger attack) happened in Britain by the likes of ISIS, would Corbyn be willing to go a military route or would he only be willing to open a dialogue with terrorists? I’m not sure what the answer is but if it’s latter, I can definitely see why people wouldn’t want him in power.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
The military route with terrorists? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
Maybe not in some cases. But Corbyn wipes the whole idea of a military route with anyone, in any circumstance off the table. He thinks the worlds ills can all be settled by talking and UN peacekeepers. Tell that to the Rwandans.
Woke Soubz, favourite of the centrist.
What the countries without nukes have a different sort of deterrent from the one you were heralding as the only reason we haven't been nuked yet?
The protection of those that do.
The military route against terrorism has only led to more terrorism.
Yes. This is the principle of MAD
So they're both protected by and entirely under threat from nuke holding nations.
So we give any group, faction or freedom fighters anything they want - no questions asked. Does that include ISIS?
the problem is that we haven't been asking questions to begin with, the manchester bomber and his father were paid by the UK government to go to Lybia, kill people as members of a terrorist organisation and we're surprised when he comes back and kills people here, it's an untenable policy and needs to get fecked
I look forward to you meeting the guy who used your account to post this.
Wow. You split some hairs don't you. Do you always dissect things like that.
That was a generalised statement - I will qualify.
'Not unless they tried to nuke me which they would only do if I, or none of my mates, had any nukes.
They are here. It is a fact. Nobody is saying that it is good, or the preferred option. The world is such that we do not and, at present cannot, get along or see things the same way. So. Given that some nations have nukes AND said nations do not hold the same world view AND historically there is a long record of tyrants either marauding around the world slaughtering everything in sight or trying to impose their will upon it - including all the colonial powers, I do not think we can just disappear the nukes just yet. Suggesting that we can all be like Switzerland is naïve and takes no account of human nature in so far as has been demonstrated in 10,000 years.
Bollox. Islamism has.
oh definitely, it also caused the troubles, which any historian will you tell only ended when the muslims got kicked out of ireland
Last edited:
They wanted to leave to fight Gaddafi. You think money was the motivation for them to go? I don't really care about Abedi's motivation. Nothing can justify what he did.
of course, and nothing can justify the UK government funding his terrorist training either
That's what we've been doing in Syria
The IRA came to the table because (a) They had lost militarily, (b) they were totally compromised by British intelligence and (c) they were losing support.
So they took what they could get.
oh look someone missed the point, this never happens
As I understand it we voted not to intervene with regard to the civil war itself. The US are backing the Kurds who are fighting IS. We are supporting the campaign against IS with airstrikes. The Rebels are being armed by others.That's what we've been doing in Syria
Your point is that military action against terrorism leads to more terrorism.
My point is that no action is worse.
I was sarcastically replying to @Fearless millionth islamophobic comment, Einstein.
No, we have been actively arming rebel forces. That is fact. Many of whom are Islamist fundamentalists.
Intentionally?
The rebels? Yes. The problem isn't that we give moderates guns and bombs, the problem is that there are few moderates on either side. Arms we supply the rebels, the ideological views of whom are largely unaccounted for, can slip into anyone's hands. Afghanistan all over again.
let he who hasn't spent decades accidentally arming terror groups cast the first stone
This is still happening or has happened? I can understand some assistance if the government thought these were moderates but if they have been totally taken over by Jihadists. It should stop.
US/UK/France main goal is to keep the resistance going which means providing military strikes and weapons/covert training to these rebel forces. It's ongoing as of now and no one knows how crazy or dangerous these rebels are.
It's not working.
But it's not as if any of these groups were ever particularly squeaky clean or unblemished at the start. They may have gotten worse as time has gone on but our government would've been well aware of that risk and were happy to take it until ISIS became so prominent.
It's an unwinnable war unless the US/UK put troops on the ground and that could be catastrophic. As horrible as it is, Assad is the most moderate and/or viable of the three murderous groups in Syria.
So, if it not for the use of CW's, would Assad be the preferred choice?
I have to confess that I am coming over to that view. The CW's are a bit too far in my opinion. But I wonder about the cause of all this which appears to be the brutal putting down of demonstrations, arrests, incarcerations and even torture of dissidents.
My neighbours worked in Syria back in 2005. They had their kids in school there. The had nothing but good things to say about the place. It always appeared to me to be quite harmonious and secular with all religions seemingly rubbing along. My neighbours also told me that they were looking to leave because politically things were getting dodgy. But they were sad to do so. Maybe isolated ex-pats.
Also most Syrians that I have met which includes a family I met in 2015 in Kos who were fleeing, seem really quite liberal - almost western.
Can it be that Assad needed to use a rod of iron to try and preserve that?
As an individual, he doesn't strike me as a deranged monster.
Against ISIS and co yes, in general no because he increases Putin's sphere of influence. From the perspective of the UK/US (minus Trump perhaps) anyway. Personally unsure, there really are no good sides on this fight for the most part.