Russia trolls David Cameron over Jeremy Corbyn 'security threat' message

And in doing so I think they made a pretty good point about the Tories current strategy for dealing with Jeremy Corbyn , the response to the new Labour leaders victory came via a Tweet on the Russian Embassy official Twitter page , in it they criticise the Tories by saying ...

Just imagine UK media headlines if Russian President called a leading opposition party threat to national security?

Which was followed by a Tweet by Russian Ambassador to the UK who said ....

"Congratulations to Jeremy Corbyn. Hope for positive change in terms of debate, including on our relations."

twitter.com...

Nice to see a bit of positivity for a change.

Corbyn is genuine...

He's got a decent record...


But while I'm not usually a one policy man, his position on Nukes loses him my support.
& probably millions of other potential Labour voters.


Palestinian supporter or not...
Anti-austerity or not...
Pro-socialist or not...


His positions on proliferation is a national security threat.

a reply to: gortex

I love this, they are so right, it made me larf !!
But its true, the media and the government would have had a field day with this, I heard this Tory saying that about Corbyn on the news yesterday, he had nothing to say and just kept saying over that Corbyn is a threat to national security...well excuse me, he's possibly a threat to Mr Blair and a threat to those in darkened corridors of power and corruption, but he is our voice and he's heard us, finally Labour party has something different to say to the tories.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

While I don't agree with all of his views I do think it's time we led by example and put the Nukes to bed , I also think he has a point about NATO.
100 Billion English is a lot of money to splash out on something you will never use and if you needed to use it it would be curtains for us all anyway , it's time for us to move forward.

a reply to: gortex
Well Cameron's regimes tactics are working on the general population. To be honest you would have thought corbyns own words were enough to bury him and lies and fear mongering weren't necessary..

a reply to: gortex

That's respectable but personally I'd like us to be the final Country to put the nukes to bed.

As long as there is a single country with them so should we.



It may seem warhawkish, but from my own understanding it's common sense.

When everyone has got rid of them, I'd happily support shutting them down and dismantling them.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

There are many countries in Europe in closer proximity to Russia that don't feel the need to go down the Nuclear road , they don't fear invasion or attack so why should we ? , added to the fact that we are a member of the European Union and NATO then I think that gives us more protection than trident.

We are in a time where our military is stretched , we have an aircraft carrier coming soon but no planes to put on it , I would rather see that money spent on usable hardware and troops than idling away in the ocean.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

When everyone has got rid of them

Everyone hasn't got nukes though.

Off the 196 countries in the world, only 8 have nuclear weapons. 9 if you add Israel ( who probably have them )

a reply to: alldaylong

Semantics, alldaylong my friend...

I was referring to Nuclear nations.

a reply to: gortex

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Corbyn want us out of NATO and without Trident?

One or the other, maybe... Big maybe...


Both is a death wish. In my humble...

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs how were you planning to survive a nuclear attack if we ever used one in aggression against Russia. There would be no UK left just a charred radioactive waste land. There's no real circumstance we could use them in anger and expect to survive.

a reply to: woodwardjnr

I might not survive but others assuredly would...

Unless it's a MAD exchange.


But I can't see that.

I'm really thinking along the lines of preemptive self defence.

& as long as Israel have the Samson Option, so should we.
In my opinion, woodward.

Good on Russia, they are calling it like it is, but the hypocrites on the Right won't see it this way.

I like Corbyn, he's genuine and has integrity.

Ireland doesn't have Nukes or neither are they a member of NATO, similar Sweden and Finland.

I see the media are now jumping all over him for not singing the National Anthem at today's Battle of Britain service.

Well, being a Republican, you wouldn't expect him to would you? Damned if you do, damned if you don't fits this scenario perfectly.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978 he didn't have his top button up either. Clearly a threat to your family

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: gortex

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Corbyn want us out of NATO and without Trident?

Both is a death wish. In my humble...

Corbyn is probably not so bothered about NATO, he already has appointed people who are steadfast about Britain remaIning in NATO, in his shadow cabinet. As for Trident he is probably right, £100 billion is a huge sum of money to waste on Trident and its replacement, and anyway, this government has yet still to make a final decision on any replacement..that will be in 2016. You may also be surprised that the military itself think the money could be better spent elsewhere.

"In a serious political intervention, Major General Patrick Cordingley, who led British forces in the first Gulf War, said:

‘Strategic nuclear weapons have no military use. It would seem the government wishes to replace Trident simply to remain a nuclear power alongside the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council. This is misguided and flies in the face of public opinion; we have more to offer than nuclear bombs.’ "

"Now we know that many in the military think Trident is a “political” tool and little more – that many in the armed forces would rather see the money spent on equipment which could actually be used: especially at a time when the military has been faced with spending cuts."

The second quote, hits it on the nail!

www.newstatesman.com...

Anyone who thinks Nuclear Bombs make us safer, needs their head felt and heart transplanted...

a reply to: gortex

An excellent reply to the disgusting tactics used by the scum tories. However as we all know very little good news will meet the eyes and ears of the public.

The BIGGEST threat to the world and the human race is the control over the media. We are conditioned to believe most information we are fed and not to question. People are too easily confused and in this situation of confusion the mind protects itself by stopping all incoming stimulus and going along with the narrative.

Until we free the media from the shackles our minds will never be free.

originally posted by: smurfy
As for Trident he is probably right, £100 billion is a huge sum of money to waste on Trident and its replacement, and anyway, this government has yet still to make a final decision on any replacement..that will be in 2016.

The oft-quoted £100bn is a figure from CND who are motivated to make it sound as unattractive as possible. The actual cost published by the MOD is two thirds less. Corbyn is active in CND.

Nukes aside. Corbyn's agenda may compromise the security of the UK because the country would fall to pieces, Chavez-style. I'm probably being a bit pessimistic, but show me a country with a far left political agenda that actually works, comrade.

originally posted by: nonjudgementalist
Anyone who thinks Nuclear Bombs make us safer, needs their head felt and heart transplanted...

Anyone who doesn't needs to take the first available flight put of LaLa Land.