The Theresa May General Election thread (edited)

ICBM

Drew_TNBD said:

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.

Because that's what you're trying to portray him as (or rather not) saying. You appear to have an agenda too - which I don't entirely disagree with, for what it's worth.

If you actually read what he says and how the various sentences relate to each other, he is precisely saying that UK foreign policy is a major contributing factor to terrorism, but not the only cause.

This is a problem with Corbyn, in many ways - because he doesn't speak in short soundbites, it's very easy for the media to deliberately misrepresent what he's said, and/or to bury the message by selectively quoting or taking elements individually rather than as part of the whole. It's unfortunate that it is so because I would much prefer all politicians not to speak in soundbites.

Drew_TNBD

ICBM said:

he is precisely saying that UK foreign policy is a major contributing factor to terrorism, but not the only cause.

I don't read that in there at all. At all. I could just as easily say that the reason you DO read it in there is because you have an agenda. Where does that get us? Right back where we started!

I *HAVE* actually read what he says! Your insistence that I haven't is insulting.

YOU are making an inference. It's one that I cannot make, because I just don't see it. Your insistence that it's a flaw with my thinking rather than a flaw in your own thinking is crass self aggrandizement!

ICBM

Drew_TNBD said:

ICBM said:

he is precisely saying that UK foreign policy is a major contributing factor to terrorism, but not the only cause.

I don't read that in there at all. At all. I could just as easily say that the reason you DO read it in there is because you have an agenda. Where does that get us? Right back where we started!

I *HAVE* actually read what he says! Your insistence that I haven't is insulting.

YOU are making an inference. It's one that I cannot make, because I just don't see it. Your insistence that it's a flaw with my thinking rather than a flaw in your own thinking is crass self aggrandizement!

I am not suggesting you haven't read what he said so please don't accuse me of that. What I'm saying is that you have read it but ignored the message, because you're fixated on thinking that he's claimed that foreign policy is the sole cause of terrorism, which he hasn't. Everything he has said is correct, both individually and as a whole - it may not be the *whole* truth though.

I agree that he has avoided mentioning Islam, and I agree with you that he perhaps should have done. The difficulty is doing it in a way which does not further increase the 'them and us' rhetoric in a way which will backfire. But it is definitely a part of the problem which will need to be tackled.

Fretwired

ICBM said:

Drew_TNBD said:

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.

This is a problem with Corbyn, in many ways - because he doesn't speak in short soundbites, it's very easy for the media to deliberately misrepresent what he's said, and/or to bury the message by selectively quoting or taking elements individually rather than as part of the whole. It's unfortunate that it is so because I would much prefer all politicians not to speak in soundbites.

So what is "... a problem with UK foreign policy" if it's not a soundbite? It is one reason, but there are many others but one he has not addressed is the elephant in the room. The various Muslim communities up and down the country that have rejected our laws and values and follow Islamic law. How can we allow one man to marry multiple wives and claim multiple benefits? Why was the Rochdale grooming scandal covered up for so long? When will he speak about radical Imams? Why did Andy Burnham look shifty when he said Manchester was attacked by 'extremists' rather than say 'Muslim extremists'?

The problem for Labour is it depends on the Muslim vote so the best plan of attack is British and US foreign policy. Corbyn's head will be firmly in the sand over everything else.

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 .

ICBM said:

I am not suggesting you haven't read what he said so please don't accuse me of that.

What the actual fuck? What the actual fuck? What the fuck!?... actually.

ICBM said:

because you're fixated on thinking that he's claimed that foreign policy is the sole cause of terrorism, which he hasn't.

I'm really not. I just don't think there is enough in that article for you to conclusively state that he's a 100% correct, which is what you originally said. How can he be 100% correct when he's only quoted as talking about foreign policy in general terms without any sort of focused language or specificity? How can he be 100% correct when he omits factors from his statements?

Remember, that was my entire response to you originally. That he wasn't 100% correct, because he picked out one issue and ran with it and didn't raise any of the others. I never - never - said that he claimed that foreign policy is the sole cause of terrorism. I never said that!!!

REPEAT: I NEVER SAID THAT! You're misrepresenting what I said.

What I said was that he focused on one issue to the detriment of others. I then followed that up with my opinion on why it's not just a foreign policy issue.

ICBM

Fretwired said:

It is one reason, but there are many others but one he has not addressed is the elephant in the room. The various Muslim communities up and down the country that have rejected our laws and values and follow Islamic law. How can we allow one man to marry multiple wives and claim multiple benefits? Why was the Rochdale grooming scandal covered up for so long?

I agree.

Fretwired said:

When will he speak about radical Imams? Why did Andy Burnham look shifty when he said Manchester was attacked by 'extremists' rather than say 'Muslim extremists'? 

Good question.

The difficulty again is how to do it without alienating non-violent Muslims, whose support we need. (Not just the Labour Party.) It's not an easy problem to solve and I think it would be best to think carefully before risking having the opposite effect.

Not that I necessarily give Burnham credit for thinking that far ahead either. Or possibly even Corbyn.

Fretwired said:

The problem for Labour is it depends on the Muslim vote so the best plan of attack is British and US foreign policy. 

That may be true, but British and US foreign policy is wrong and a cause of terrorism *anyway*, so it needs addressing even if it is not the only cause. It's not even done us any good.

Drew_TNBD

I've not read this yet:
http://5pillarsuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/5Pillars_Normative_Islam_Report_2016.pdf

But this is a report on a poll done through the 5 Pillars website. It represents their userbases normative attitudes towards Islam.

Fretwired

ICBM said:

The difficulty again is how to do it without alienating non-violent Muslims, whose support we need. (Not just the Labour Party.) It's not an easy problem to solve and I think it would be best to think carefully before risking having the opposite effect.

Easy. Use the term Muslim extremists or radicalised Muslims for that's what they are - let it be known that we won't tolerate these sorts of people. But the problem of the numerous insular communities needs solving. The number of Pakistani and Bangladeshi women who can speak English is rising. These people face social exclusion - men prefer to marry women from their own country.

Ann Cryer, the former Labour MP for Keighley – who was one of the first politicians to raise the issue of migrants failing to learn English – said there was a particular problem among the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities in her former constituency with women being brought to Britain as wives and denied the chance to integrate.

“English is the key to everything,” she said

“In the 13 years that I was a Member of Parliament I was unable to persuade the Pakistani community or the Bangladeshi community that it would be a really good idea for them to start to marry within the settled community itself, it is the way forward for them.

“I think the Government do have to tighten up – if you are saying that a new husband or wife has to have a reasonable level of English they have got to check that that is the case.

“But ultimately I don’t think it is a Government solution that we need, it is a solution from he community.

“They will not advance until they accept that it is a good thing to marry someone who is actually born in the Bradford district and not from Mirpur [the district of Kashmir].

“We have had waves and waves of immigration to Bradford and Keighley district over the past 100 years but it has always been the case – if you think of the Irish, the Italians and even other Asian communities – they do not tend to bring husbands and wives in from outside the community, they tend to marry in the settled community but it is not happening wit the Pakistani and Bangladeshi community.”

 

ICBM

Fretwired said:

“English is the key to everything,” she said

“In the 13 years that I was a Member of Parliament I was unable to persuade the Pakistani community or the Bangladeshi community that it would be a really good idea for them to start to marry within the settled community itself, it is the way forward for them.

“I think the Government do have to tighten up – if you are saying that a new husband or wife has to have a reasonable level of English they have got to check that that is the case.

“But ultimately I don’t think it is a Government solution that we need, it is a solution from he community.

“They will not advance until they accept that it is a good thing to marry someone who is actually born in the Bradford district and not from Mirpur [the district of Kashmir].

“We have had waves and waves of immigration to Bradford and Keighley district over the past 100 years but it has always been the case – if you think of the Irish, the Italians and even other Asian communities – they do not tend to bring husbands and wives in from outside the community, they tend to marry in the settled community but it is not happening wit the Pakistani and Bangladeshi community.”

I fully agree with that too. You might be surprised to know that one thing I really object to is pandering to minorities by allowing them to use languages other than English even for official communications. The language of this country is English and if you want to live here you should learn it. [/atypical reactionary outburst ]

Allowing communities to perpetuate non-integration by not learning the official language of their country is a dangerous thing to do, but unfortunately it would now be quite difficult to reverse without a huge backlash.

Drew_TNBD

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

“English is the key to everything,” she said

“In the 13 years that I was a Member of Parliament I was unable to persuade the Pakistani community or the Bangladeshi community that it would be a really good idea for them to start to marry within the settled community itself, it is the way forward for them.

“I think the Government do have to tighten up – if you are saying that a new husband or wife has to have a reasonable level of English they have got to check that that is the case.

“But ultimately I don’t think it is a Government solution that we need, it is a solution from he community.

“They will not advance until they accept that it is a good thing to marry someone who is actually born in the Bradford district and not from Mirpur [the district of Kashmir].

“We have had waves and waves of immigration to Bradford and Keighley district over the past 100 years but it has always been the case – if you think of the Irish, the Italians and even other Asian communities – they do not tend to bring husbands and wives in from outside the community, they tend to marry in the settled community but it is not happening wit the Pakistani and Bangladeshi community.”

I fully agree with that too. You might be surprised to know that one thing I really object to is pandering to minorities by allowing them to use languages other than English even for official communications. The language of this country is English and if you want to live here you should learn it. [/atypical reactionary outburst ]

Allowing communities to perpetuate non-integration by not learning the official language of their country is a dangerous thing to do, but unfortunately it would now be quite difficult to reverse without a huge backlash.

See not even I would go that far! lol. I think non-British people should learn English fluently, but I don't want to stop them using their mother tongue. British people should learn other languages too, because it makes you smarter.

ICBM

Drew…

OK, I'll admit that the BBC have now edited their page to include more of Corbyn's speech, but is this enough?

"However he said that the causes "certainly cannot be reduced to foreign policy decisions alone" "

Drew_TNBD

ICBM said:

Drew…

OK, I'll admit that the BBC have now edited their page to include more of Corbyn's speech, but is this enough?

"However he said that the causes "certainly cannot be reduced to foreign policy decisions alone" "

Yup! That addition satifies me. Twasn't there this morning!

Axe_meister

The problem with our foreign policy is we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Take Libia. Some rebels fight against the nasty regime that existed, they relatiate and bomb/kill the rebels and innocent people.
We have a number of options.
1) Negotiate/Sanctions, but that in many cases does not work, i.e. dicator clinging on to power at all costs
2) Step back and watch the slaughter unfold. We are then the nasty country who allows innocents to be slaughtered
3) Bomb the shit out of the rebels and let the regime continue feeling validated
4) Bomb the shit out of the regime (which we consider evil)

So we went with option 4, but did not (as usual) have a post bombing strategy.

Then of course we have a massive interest in the region. OIL.
If the entire region becomes destabalised our supply of oil could dry up or prices will sky rocket.
So we either have a massive economic crash and our way of life will change massively
We'll have to pay over the odds, with cash going straight to those who want to destroy our way of life.

ICBM

Axe_meister said:

The problem with our foreign policy is we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

We have a number of options.

2) Step back and watch the slaughter unfold. We are then the nasty country who allows innocents to be slaughtered

As we do in many other countries which do not have resources we want. I don't see us bombing South Sudan or the Democratic Republic of Congo.

I'm not sure it even makes us the 'nasty country'. It's simply an acceptance that we can't police the world.

Are the Western countries which don't take part in military adventures damned for not doing so? I don't see any evidence for that.

Axe_meister said:

Then of course we have a massive interest in the region. OIL.
If the entire region becomes destabalised our supply of oil could dry up or prices will sky rocket.
So we either have a massive economic crash and our way of life will change massively
We'll have to pay over the odds, with cash going straight to those who want to destroy our way of life.

There are plenty of other sources of oil. The problem is that many of them are operated by countries we can't bomb into compliance or (and) which we dislike for other political reasons.

ICBM

Drew_TNBD said:

See not even I would go that far! lol. I think non-British people should learn English fluently, but I don't want to stop them using their mother tongue. British people should learn other languages too, because it makes you smarter.

No, I'm not saying they shouldn't use their mother tongue! Just that we should not allow them to refuse to integrate by sending official communications to them in non-English languages. I'm quite happy for them to use their own languages as well for any other aspects of their lives if they want to - allowing them to not learn English *at all* is the problem.

The British have a very poor record for languages, yes - I count myself guilty, I can barely speak a bit of French but not enough to hold a serious conversation.

Drew_TNBD

ICBM said:

Drew_TNBD said:

See not even I would go that far! lol. I think non-British people should learn English fluently, but I don't want to stop them using their mother tongue. British people should learn other languages too, because it makes you smarter.

No, I'm not saying they shouldn't use their mother tongue! Just that we should not allow them to refuse to integrate by sending official communications to them in non-English languages. I'm quite happy for them to use their own languages as well for any other aspects of their lives if they want to - allowing them to not learn English *at all* is the problem.

The British have a very poor record for languages, yes - I count myself guilty, I can barely speak a bit of French but not enough to hold a serious conversation.

Right I think I get you, you're talking about having governmental organisations and banks and things sending out comms in a variety of languages??

Axe_meister

Most of these countries who don't go wading in, don't have the fire power to do it.
Do we as one of the worlds richest nations not have some obligation to the rest of the world that we have exploited for years to help provide some protection against dictatorships. I also think it is wrong we don't help out those countries that don't have resources we need/want.
I'd love to see a peacefull Africa with stable regimes who are willing to trade for mutual benefit.
Ideally the United Nations would provide that kind of protection but they have become a debating shop.

Fretwired

The problem is the horse has bolted so there's no point closing the stable door.

Corbyn says we haven't fought a just war since 1945 - what about the Falklands the first Iraq war?

He can take us out of military intervention in the Middle East and Afghanistan but that won't stop the attacks - the excuse for the Manchester bomb was attacks by US warplanes. It will also weaken our friendships with our partners. And you can't really talk to these groups as they hate each other and hate us and aren't in the mood for compromise.

We have to counter the propaganda that radicalises young men and we need to get these various Muslim communities integrated with mainstream society and improve the life chances of young Muslim men through access to education etc. No mention of this from Corbyn so a C must do better from me.

May's mob get a D.

Drew_TNBD

ICBM

Drew_TNBD said:

Right I think I get you, you're talking about having governmental organisations and banks and things sending out comms in a variety of languages??

Yes, exactly. I can foresee that there may be an issue with that too, in that it can result in one family member who speaks English acting as the translator and keeping the others in the dark (which I think was the reason for the policy in the first place), but overall I think it would result in a greater desire to learn English.

Fretwired said:

The problem is the horse has bolted so there's no point closing the stable door.

I don't agree that there's no point in closing the stable door. Our military foreign policy has been counterproductive in its own terms, even ignoring the terrorist angle. There is no point in repeating the same mistakes again.

Fretwired said:

Corbyn says we haven't fought a just war since 1945 - what about the Falklands the first Iraq war?

He's wrong there. The Falklands was unquestionably justified since it was an invasion of a British territory by another country, whether or not you think we should own the Falklands. The first Iraq war was justified because it was a UN-backed operation in support of another country for the same reason. That's also the only Western intervention in the Middle East which can be counted as something of a success, even though as usual the aftermath was not planned for and led directly to the second war.

Fretwired said:

He can take us out of military intervention in the Middle East and Afghanistan but that won't stop the attacks

No, it won't - but it will cause less harm to the world overall anyway, so is a good first step.