Jeremy Corbyn prediction

[caro]

JC posted this on Facebook yesterday.

 

Tonight, I will be going to the England vs France match at Wembley stadium. It is important we show solidarity with all those affected by the tragic events that took place in Paris on Friday.

 

It is right that we are reflecting on the appalling attacks in Paris and how we agree an effective international response. That needs to focus on negotiating a comprehensive settlement of the Syrian civil war through the United Nations, which is the only way to end the threat from ISIS.

 

That is the serious challenge facing us all. I am therefore disappointed that comments I made yesterday in regard to a "shoot to kill" policy have been taken out of context and have distracted from this discussion.

 

Nonetheless, I would like to clarify my position. As we have seen in the recent past, there are clear dangers to us all in any kind of shoot to kill policy. And we must ensure that terrorist attacks are not used to undermine the very freedoms and legal protections we are determined to defend.

 

But of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris.

[caro]

And therein lies much of the problem. The media. How much can we trust what they say or how they distort it?

[Conniff]

JC posted this on Facebook yesterday.

 

Tonight, I will be going to the England vs France match at Wembley stadium. It is important we show solidarity with all those affected by the tragic events that took place in Paris on Friday.

 

It is right that we are reflecting on the appalling attacks in Paris and how we agree an effective international response. That needs to focus on negotiating a comprehensive settlement of the Syrian civil war through the United Nations, which is the only way to end the threat from ISIS.

 

That is the serious challenge facing us all. I am therefore disappointed that comments I made yesterday in regard to a "shoot to kill" policy have been taken out of context and have distracted from this discussion.

 

Nonetheless, I would like to clarify my position. As we have seen in the recent past, there are clear dangers to us all in any kind of shoot to kill policy. And we must ensure that terrorist attacks are not used to undermine the very freedoms and legal protections we are determined to defend.

 

But of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris.

 

There's his opening to make a name for himself. Why doesn't he visit Syria and try a negotiated peace, I'm sure they will be only too glad to drop their weapons because he asks.

[SabreSheep]

Theres Camerons opening to make a name for himself. Why doesnt he bomb Sytria and try a military victory, Im sure they will only be too glad to drop their weapons and surrender because he bombs more

[tobyjugg2]

Theres Camerons opening to make a name for himself. Why doesnt he bomb Sytria and try a military victory, Im sure they will only be too glad to drop their weapons and surrender because he bombs more

 

That is going to be Putins issue, although all he has to do is destroy ISIS (and more important their support and protect network) as a military force and let Assad and maybe the Kurds do the rest,

I dont doubt Iraq would work with Assad even if Turkey wont.

[Conniff]

Theres Camerons opening to make a name for himself. Why doesnt he bomb Sytria and try a military victory, Im sure they will only be too glad to drop their weapons and surrender because he bombs more

 

And what has that to do with corbyn.?

Edited November 19, 2015 by Andyorch
edited

[BarnOwl1]

Theres Camerons opening to make a name for himself. Why doesnt he bomb Sytria and try a military victory, Im sure they will only be too glad to drop their weapons and surrender because he bombs more

 

Weird naive post

[unclebulgaria67]

Weird naive post

 

Not really. It makes the point that a few dozen bombs from RAF in Syria are very unlikely to make any difference. It might make people including Cameron feel better that they are doing something, but even targetted bombing won't change much. The territory under ISIS control is huge and they are hidden in civilian areas. And it is not just ISIS, as there are various other jihadist terrorist groups, who have spread their area of operation into other countries.

 

The UK would be better to deal with cutting off the way ISIS are funded, as somehow they are selling oil and receiving the money. Also they seem to be able to obtain new equipment to continue the war,

[citizenB]

 

The UK would be better to deal with cutting off the way ISIS are funded, as somehow they are selling oil and receiving the money. Also they seem to be able to obtain new equipment to continue the war,

 

I think this is definitely the way to go. Find out who is supplying them with weapons and funds and target those as well.

[tobyjugg2]

Not really. It makes the point that a few dozen bombs from RAF in Syria are very unlikely to make any difference. It might make people including Cameron feel better that they are doing something, but even targetted bombing won't change much. The territory under ISIS control is huge and they are hidden in civilian areas. And it is not just ISIS, as there are various other jihadist terrorist groups, who have spread their area of operation into other countries.

 

The UK would be better to deal with cutting off the way ISIS are funded, as somehow they are selling oil and receiving the money. Also they seem to be able to obtain new equipment to continue the war,

 

Absolutely correct in every point.

 

 

I think this is definitely the way to go. Find out who is supplying them with weapons and funds and target those as well.

Also absolutely correct

So lets bomb the Yanks, Turks, Kuwaitis and Saudis

[san_d]

Not really. It makes the point that a few dozen bombs from RAF in Syria are very unlikely to make any difference. It might make people including Cameron feel better that they are doing something, but even targetted bombing won't change much. The territory under ISIS control is huge and they are hidden in civilian areas. And it is not just ISIS, as there are various other jihadist terrorist groups, who have spread their area of operation into other countries.

 

The UK would be better to deal with cutting off the way ISIS are funded, as somehow they are selling oil and receiving the money. Also they seem to be able to obtain new equipment to continue the war,

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to unclebulgaria67 again.

[Conniff]

...a few dozen bombs from RAF in Syria are very unlikely to make any difference.

 

It will make a difference to those whose head it lands on

[Guest]

It will make a difference to those whose head it lands on

 

600 ('rebels') in one (ruski) missile strike, apparently?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/620958/Russian-airstrikes-Syria-kill-600-Moscow-doubles-jets

[unclebulgaria67]

It will make a difference to those whose head it lands on

 

There are still innocent civilians in Syria. They have not all left.

 

Wish there were intelligent bombs that only killed terrorists !

 

Syria is likely to be in such a bad state that migrants will not be able to return for a long time, if at all. The millions who have travelled to Europe are very likely to stay where they have found work and somewhere to live.

[AndyOrch]

Thread is veering away from thread title......Jeremy Corbyn and the support of his party ?

 

Plenty of existing threads already covering Paris and the attacks of Friday last

 

Still veering...how did this thread turn into Syria ?

 

If we can get it back on track otherwise I will move all the posts to the Syria thread....thank you gentlemen.

 

Andyorch

[tobyjugg2]

and corbyns reshuffle starts

 

Is the start of the split in what is no longer the Labour party.

[snowdragon]

I think it is time we had a new improved party,maybe made up of ordinary people who live in the real world of trying to live hand to mouth.

 

Or vote for the CAG party!

[citizenB]

 

• Jeremy Corbyn begins his "revenge reshuffle"

• Labour leader holding private talks in Westminster office

• Hilary Benn and Maria Eagle favourites to be chopped

• Emily Thornberry favourite to be new Shadow Foreign Secretary

• Reshuffle after moderate MPs rebel on Syria air strikes

• Corbyn 'petty and divisive' if he reshuffles top team

 

 

Hilary Benn quitting would 'trigger domino effect'

 

If Hilary Benn quits his role as Shadow Foreign Secretary amid Jeremy Corbyn's reshuffle it could "trigger a domino effect", one shadow cabinet member has told the BBC.

 

Laura Kuenssberg, the BBC's Political Editor, has been warned that Mr Benn "would be likely to walk rather than accept a different job".

 

He is expected to be replaced by Emily Thornberry

 

 

It was inevitable that this would happen - so he is going to surround himself with like minded people or those who are happy to continue compromising their own beliefs in order to climb the greasy pole.

[tobyjugg2]

I could never understand their (Labour Party) distancing themselves from the Unions which was the Labour Partys creator and roots.

 

... and then follow that by becoming the representatives of 300,000 minority left wingers

Absolutely insane

 

They are probably now the representatives of less people than the Greens at their lowest ebb..

[citizenB]

JC must have known the feelings of Maria Eagle and Hilary Benn when he gave them the positions they currently hold. To move them now seems a bit odd ?

[tobyjugg2]

Does anyone actually think that 'The Labour Party' under Corbyn is in any way representative of a significant (ie more than the greens or UKIP) part of the UK's voting population?

 

I'm pretty much a lifelong Labour voter, despite being more a (social) liberal in political outlook according to the 'definitions', and I think they are in total disarray, out of touch with the reality of Britain and its population and completely and utterly unelectable as it stands.

 

You'd think Corbyns plan of action was written for him by Michael Gove - with love and kisses.

 

I wouldn't vote for them and I see nothing to make me even consider that might change under Corbyn.

[unclebulgaria67]

Difficult ! I think if Corbyn continues, we could see Labour split and the SDP reformed with Liberal Democrats. I could see half of the Labour MP's, agreeing to some pact with Liberal Democrats and agreeing a joint party up to and including a 2020 election. The LD's are in a mess and having over 100 moderate Labour MP's join forces with them, might be a very attractive proposition.

 

If this was ever likely to happen, Corbyn might just walk away, as he would not want to be responsible for a split Labour party.

 

Even the Tories are worried apparently by a split Labour party, as it might lead to a new moderate party being formed, which is attractive to voters.

[tobyjugg2]

Even the Tories are worried apparently by a split Labour party, as it might lead to a new moderate party being formed, which is attractive to voters.

 

Its certainly attractive to me on many counts. The sooner the better.

Although its unlikely, enough tories might follow suit and our political system might start to become representative.

[caro]

I think the number if votes JC got in the leadership election is indicative that the electorate want labour to go back to its roots. JC was the only one standing who wasn't Tory lite although I'm not convinced he's right for the job and modernisation is needed.

[tobyjugg2]

I think the number if votes JC got in the leadership election is indicative that the electorate want labour to go back to its roots. JC was the only one standing who wasn't Tory lite although I'm not convinced he's right for the job and modernisation is needed.

 

Surely if Labour go back to its roots it would be union votes? Where far left was still a minority - if a noisy one with a louder voice than its actual support warranted - but far less so than now.

 

What Corbyn has effectively been doing is going to the £3 Labour Party members to ever-rule the will of MP's elected by their regions voting electorate.

That is not democracy.

 

Tory lite - LOL

Not everything the tories do is wrong at its core - they just tend to implement them in the wrong way.

Benefits do need reducing to at best national minimum wage, but not to give tax relief to the rich, and the minimum wage needs adjusting.

This is where we need strong unions with a strong political arm - to ensure the fruits of our endeavors are more fairly shared.

 

That is what amazed me with all the 'Labour is too close to the unions' rubbish.

Labour should be the political arm of the union members, just as the tories are the political arm are the wealthy.