The Theresa May General Election thread (edited)

Emp_Fab

That's a good start.  All true, as you say.  Her approach seems to be "let's address the symptoms" whilst his appears to be "let's address the cause".  Corbyn is looking more and more like a plain speaking common sense man whilst she is looking increasingly detached from the people and more like a cross between Glenn Close as the bunny boiler and Cruella de-Ville.

Drew_TNBD

ICBM said:

And as usual, Corbyn is 100% correct if you actually listen to what he has to say…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40053427

No he's not. He's like, 33.3% correct. He's picked out one factor and ran with that, completely ignoring all the other factors.

The foreign policy argument doesn't just end with "we are bad people and we've done something in the past to deserve this" - that is just dumb.

It goes further. It goes to "why does a kid born in the UK feel any sort of connection to people being bombed in country X when he's never been there, has no family there, and didn't give a shit about the place until he was exposed to propoganda?"

And that is where the religious element comes in. No other religion reinforces the idea of a global community and global family more than Islam does. It's a real big problem.

ICBM

Drew_TNBD said:

ICBM said:

And as usual, Corbyn is 100% correct if you actually listen to what he has to say…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40053427

No he's not. He's like, 33.3% correct. He's picked out one factor and ran with that, completely ignoring all the other factors.

No, he's 100% correct - he said it wasn't the only cause. He's absolutely right in every statement that's quoted in that BBC article.

Foreign military interference isn't the *only* cause, but it is a major 'justifier' for the terrorists. Stopping it now would not stop the problem overnight or completely but it would at least not continue to make it worse in the future.

Also, stopping the waste of money (not even mentioning lives) spent on overseas military intervention would save a huge amount of money, and even if a fraction of it was put into policing and intelligence in this country it could well make a significant difference.

While I would not blame them personally, I do think that a part of the cause of the Manchester attack lies with Cameron's disastrous bombing of Libya (as I'm sure you know that's where the terrorist came from) and May's cuts to the police when she was Home Secretary, as well as with Blair's messianic idiocy in the Middle East in general and Brown's failure to stop it.

While politicians don't always live up to their promises, I'm certain that if he became PM, Corbyn would never authorise the sort of military adventures he's spent his whole political life campaigning against.

Drew_TNBD

ICBM said:

Drew_TNBD said:

ICBM said:

And as usual, Corbyn is 100% correct if you actually listen to what he has to say…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40053427

No he's not. He's like, 33.3% correct. He's picked out one factor and ran with that, completely ignoring all the other factors.

No, he's 100% correct - he said it wasn't the only cause. 

Citation please. I can't find Corbyn saying anything like that on the BBC website. The word 'only' doesn't even appear on that article.

ICBM

Drew_TNBD said:

Citation please. I can't find Corbyn saying anything like that on the BBC website. The word 'only' doesn't even appear on that article.

Just read the whole article and stop being so dim . No, he doesn't absolutely explicitly say so in one easy-to-quote sentence - but if you read all of what he's reported as saying, it's entirely clear that he regards it as a major factor rather than the only cause. And about which he is completely right.

Drew_TNBD

ICBM said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Citation please. I can't find Corbyn saying anything like that on the BBC website. The word 'only' doesn't even appear on that article.

Just read the whole article and stop being so dim . No, he doesn't absolutely explicitly say so in one easy-to-quote sentence - but if you read all of what he's reported as saying, it's entirely clear that he regards it as a major factor rather than the only cause. And about which he is completely right.

Well I read it.

I ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY DID NOT get the idea that he's saying that foreign policy is not the only cause. I actually get the explicit idea that he's DEFINITELY saying that it is the only cause, or that at the very least the BBC is omitting what he really did say.

So now where are we? Where are we?

Yet again on this forum, we're at a place where one person hasn't validated their viewpoint with any evidence whatsoever and is seemingly steadfast refusing to do so! Instead resorting to insulting someone's intelligence or character.

So let's pull this apart. These are *ALL* of the lines from that article that relate to Corbyn. The rest were quotes from other politicians. Everything in bold is something Corbyn is quoted as saying. Everything underlined is something that the BBC have said or inferred.

UK foreign policy would change under a Labour government to one that "reduces rather than increases the threat" to the country, Jeremy Corbyn is to say.

As election campaigning resumes after the attack in Manchester, the Labour leader will point to links between wars abroad and "terrorism here at home".

In a speech, Mr Corbyn will say the "war on terror is simply not working".

In London, Mr Corbyn will deliver his speech as the bigger political parties return to the campaign trail following Monday night's suicide bombing at Manchester Arena that killed 22 people, many of them children, and injured 116.

According to pre-released excerpts from his speech, Mr Corbyn will pledge a "change at home and change abroad" if Labour wins power.

He will say that "many experts... have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries and terrorism here at home".

"That assessment in no way reduces the guilt of those who attack our children. Those terrorists will forever be reviled and held to account for their actions.

"But an informed understanding of the causes of terrorism is an essential part of an effective response that will protect the security of our people that fights rather than fuels terrorism."

Mr Corbyn, who opposed UK military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, and voted against strikes in Libya and Syria, will say: "We must be brave enough to admit the 'war on terror' is simply not working.

"We need a smarter way to reduce the threat from countries that nurture terrorists and generate terrorism."

He will add: "No government can prevent every terrorist attack. If an individual is determined enough and callous enough, sometimes they will get through.

"But the responsibility of government is to minimise that chance - to ensure the police have the resources they need, that our foreign policy reduces rather than increases the threat to this country, and that at home we never surrender the freedoms we have won and that terrorists are so determined to take away."

Mr Corbyn is also expected to say that a Labour government would fund more police and ensure the security services had sufficient resources "to keep track of those who wish to murder and maim".

Please point out where Corbyn (NOT the BBC) says anything remotely like 'foreign policy is just one factor and is not the only cause' which is my original presupposition.

english_bob

Drew_TNBD said:

blah - snip

Please point out where Corbyn (NOT the BBC) says anything remotely like 'foreign policy is just one factor and is not the only cause' which is my original presupposition.

So none of the uses of "links" or "connections" when talking about foreign policy and terrorism rather than "cause" and "effect" count?

Drew_TNBD

english_bob said:

Drew_TNBD said:

blah - snip

Please point out where Corbyn (NOT the BBC) says anything remotely like 'foreign policy is just one factor and is not the only cause' which is my original presupposition.

So none of the uses of "links" or "connections" when talking about foreign policy and terrorism rather than "cause" and "effect" count?

No, I don't believe they do. It's not clear enough to be able to draw the conclusion that he's 100% right.

So you can't actually point out where he says there are many factors then? I mean you can point to 'links' and 'connections' as indicators. But that doesn't disprove what I said, which was:

No he's not. He's like, 33.3% correct. He's picked out one factor and ran with that, completely ignoring all the other factors.

Here's another question. Does Corbyn talk about ANY of the other factors? He doesn't. So he doesn't explicitly say that there are other factors and he doesn't talk about any of the other factors. He only talks about changes in foreign policy.

Corbyn isn't 100% right about anything. At this point he's offering his opinion which has about as much weight as anyone else right here on this very forum.

Bottom line is that it's a bunch of platitudes and generalised statements. That's not want anyone wants to hear right now. We want to hear explicit intentions - what EXACTLY are any of the parties going to down about terrorism?

None of them have answered that question.

I will say that JC comes closest when he says:

"No government can prevent every terrorist attack. If an individual is determined enough and callous enough, sometimes they will get through.

That tells you everything you need to know about our politicians. They haven't got a clue how to prevent this stuff.

Brad

"But an informed understanding of the causes of terrorism is an essential part of an effective response that will protect the security of our people that fights rather than fuels terrorism."


I admit it may be seen as a little (or a lot) on the vague side, but this does suggests a broader approach than just blaming foreign policy. 

Drew_TNBD

Brad said:

"But an informed understanding of the causes of terrorism is an essential part of an effective response that will protect the security of our people that fights rather than fuels terrorism."


I admit it may be seen as a little (or a lot) on the vague side, but this does suggests a broader approach than just blaming foreign policy. 

Well I can see why you'd say that and I agree. I do however think it's wishful thinking. The implication is that we don't have an informed understanding of the causes of terrorism. But that's not really true. There are experts who really do understand this stuff.

Brad

Drew_TNBD said:

Brad said:

"But an informed understanding of the causes of terrorism is an essential part of an effective response that will protect the security of our people that fights rather than fuels terrorism."


I admit it may be seen as a little (or a lot) on the vague side, but this does suggests a broader approach than just blaming foreign policy. 

Well I can see why you'd say that and I agree. I do however think it's wishful thinking. The implication is that we don't have an informed understanding of the causes of terrorism. But that's not really true. There are experts who really do understand this stuff.

Quite right and I think we have an issue of getting these expert's voices to be heard to be able to try and change things. Or those voices do get heard and we carry on regardless. I really don't know.
 
I'd argue the implication of a lack of an informed understanding of the causes of terror, has more to do with the Wesmintser elite's approach than anything else. He has opposed and voted against every military intervention in the Middle East so that is where I'd hazard a guess to where his comments are aimed. I could very well be wrong though. 

funhouse

Drew_TNBD said:

It goes further. It goes to "why does a kid born in the UK feel any sort of connection to people being bombed in country X when he's never been there, has no family there, and didn't give a shit about the place until he was exposed to propoganda?"

And that is where the religious element comes in. No other religion reinforces the idea of a global community and global family more than Islam does. It's a real big problem.

I find both these comments deeply troubling.

 Out of sight, out of mind? Perhaps we should all pay more attention to the terrible loss of life and destabilisation the our foreign policy has caused, and continues to cause, in the middle east. 

Your second statement is plain wrong.

Fretwired

Corbyn's simplistic comments will play well with the electorate but he's woefully ignorant about radical Islam. The roots of modern extremism go back to the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928 in Egypt. Their aim was to restore the principles of Islam by recreating the social order that the Koran prescribes and the Caliphate of Baghdad enforced around the eighth century.

From its inception, the Brotherhood's version of Islam totally rejected the entire world-order of plurality and secular nation states. Sayyid Qutb wrote an influential work called Milestones. It declared war against the entire world-order and became the text of modern Islamism.

To quote Henry Kissinger: “In Qutb’s view, Islam was a universal system offering the only true form of freedom from the governance by other men and man-made doctrines.”

These views were considered so extreme that no one in the Western world thought them worthy of attention, but they are a rallying cry for all today’s jihadists, inspiring Al-Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Iran’s clerical regime, Nigeria’s Boko Haram, Syria’s extremist militia Jabhat al-Nusra and the Isil. Theirs was the militant doctrine of the Egyptian radicals who assassinated Anwar al-Sadat for daring to make peace with Israel in 1979.

When the Iranian revolution occurred in 1979 there was a massacre of the followers of the Bahá'í Faith as the hard line radicals saw it as apostasy from Islam. Any idea notion that Islam is peaceful is not backed up by the facts. Muslims are routinely murdered and executed in the name of Islam.

Al-Qaeda waas formed to rid Saudi Arabia of the House of Saud. They wanted to take Saudi Arabia over and use it as a base to attack the rest of the Middle East and Europe. According to Fouad Hussein, a Jordanian journalist and author who has spent time in prison with Al-Zarqawi, Al Qaeda's strategy plan consists of seven phases and is similar to the plan described in Al Qaeda's Strategy to the year 2020:

"The Awakening." This phase was supposed to last from 2001 to 2003. The goal of the phase is to provoke the United States to attack a Muslim country by executing an attack on US soil that kills many civilians.

"Opening Eyes." This phase was supposed to last from 2003 to 2006. The goal of this phase was to recruit young men to the cause and to transform the al-Qaeda group into a movement. Iraq was supposed to become the center of all operations with financial and military support for bases in other states.

"Arising and Standing up", was supposed to last from 2007 to 2010. In this phase, al-Qaeda wanted to execute additional attacks and focus their attention on Syria. Hussein believed that other countries in the Arabian Peninsula were also in danger.

Al-Qaeda expected a steady growth among their ranks and territories due to the declining power of the regimes in the Arabian Peninsula. The main focus of attack in this phase was supposed to be on oil suppliers and Cyberterrorism, targeting the US economy and military infrastructure.

The declaration of an Islamic Caliphate, which was projected between 2013 and 2016. In this phase, al-Qaeda expected the resistance from Israel to be heavily reduced.

The declaration of an "Islamic Army" and a "fight between believers and non-believers", also called "total confrontation".

"Definitive Victory", projected to be completed by 2020. The world will be "beaten down" by the Islamic Army.

The radical Islamists were always going to attack us and saw the mass immigration of Muslims into Europe as a positive thing - they could cause division and conflict. And the first Islamic attack of the modern age occurred in Syria in 1979 and the first in Europe was Spain in 1985. The UK was always a target due to our colonial past and support of Israel.

The problem we have is that a large swathe of Muslims don't believe in the UK or our laws or our government. They live in their own world quite separate from the rest of society. This is the first thing that needs fixing Mr Corbyn.

Drew_TNBD

funhouse said:

Drew_TNBD said:

It goes further. It goes to "why does a kid born in the UK feel any sort of connection to people being bombed in country X when he's never been there, has no family there, and didn't give a shit about the place until he was exposed to propoganda?"

And that is where the religious element comes in. No other religion reinforces the idea of a global community and global family more than Islam does. It's a real big problem.

I find both these comments deeply worrying

 Out of sight, out of mind? Perhaps we should all pay attention to the terrible loss of life and destabilisation the our foreign policy has caused, and continues to cause, in the middle east. 

Your second statement is plain wrong.

Prove it. You talk about out of sight out of mind, but you seem to be ignoring what is right in front of you.

Drew_TNBD

Fretwired said:

The radical Islamists were always going to attack us

Just like they did with Wallachiain in the 1400's.

I can't believe the wilful mental castration some of you are buying into. You only seem to care about politics since the 1980's and you're completely ignorant of radical political Islam and their actions since the inception of the religion.

Drew_TNBD

funhouse

Drew_TNBD said:

funhouse said:

Drew_TNBD said:

It goes further. It goes to "why does a kid born in the UK feel any sort of connection to people being bombed in country X when he's never been there, has no family there, and didn't give a shit about the place until he was exposed to propoganda?"

And that is where the religious element comes in. No other religion reinforces the idea of a global community and global family more than Islam does. It's a real big problem.

I find both these comments deeply worrying

 Out of sight, out of mind? Perhaps we should all pay attention to the terrible loss of life and destabilisation the our foreign policy has caused, and continues to cause, in the middle east. 

Your second statement is plain wrong.

Prove it. You talk about out of sight out of mind, but you seem to be ignoring what is right in front of you.

Prove what?

You made a declarative statement, without any evidence, about Islam, which is patently false.

"Wilful mental castration" - really? You're fond of your hyperbole aren't you?

Drew_TNBD

funhouse said:

Drew_TNBD said:

funhouse said:

Drew_TNBD said:

It goes further. It goes to "why does a kid born in the UK feel any sort of connection to people being bombed in country X when he's never been there, has no family there, and didn't give a shit about the place until he was exposed to propoganda?"

And that is where the religious element comes in. No other religion reinforces the idea of a global community and global family more than Islam does. It's a real big problem.

I find both these comments deeply worrying

 Out of sight, out of mind? Perhaps we should all pay attention to the terrible loss of life and destabilisation the our foreign policy has caused, and continues to cause, in the middle east. 

Your second statement is plain wrong.

Prove it. You talk about out of sight out of mind, but you seem to be ignoring what is right in front of you.

Prove what?

You made a declarative statement, without any evidence, about Islam, which is patently false.

"Wilful mental castration" - really? You're fond of your hyperbole aren't you?

Islam is *THE* religion that reinforces the concept of a global community - known as the umma - that other religions don't reinforce nearly as much. You disagree with that. I want you to provide something - *anything* - to support your disagreement.

english_bob

Drew_TNBD said:

I can't believe the wilful mental castration some of you are buying into. 

Wouldn't mental castration be a good thing- cutting bollocks out of your thinking?

Drew_TNBD

english_bob said:

Drew_TNBD said:

I can't believe the wilful mental castration some of you are buying into. 

Wouldn't mental castration be a good thing- cutting bollocks out of your thinking?

LOL. Very good.