It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jeremy Corbyn: I am not being unpatriotic questioning UK foreign wars after Manchester attack

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

He is right - foreign wars make terrorists. It was like that in WWII.

So lets close the curtains, lock the doors, withdraw all troops from everywhere except Bucking Palace, and never utter another word of cricitism of anyone who doesn't stand a chance of winning an election against us.

Then we can sleep safe and feel proud of being citizens of the world.




posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:21 AM
link   
And also let's send more foreign aid to these countries so they can set up some more training camps because its all our children's fault isnt it corbyn you #



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Denoli

It isn't one sided but their children are foreign so it doesn't matter Eh ?

For over a year, some senior U.S. officials have been frustrated that their allies have not stepped forward to admit their own errors. U.S. forces first admitted their own civilian casualties in May 2015, and have so far confirmed their responsibility for 377 civilian deaths — including 105 killed in a single incident in Mosul in March.
foreignpolicy.com...


Remove your blinkers.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Okay, maybe I'll address your points again and we can consider my assertion that UK foreign policy is not the sole issue as Corbyn implies it is...


originally posted by: WeAreSound
a reply to: grainofsand

1. Killing Yazidis - they see Yazidis as a perversion of the Islamic religion. Just like Catholics and protestants have murdered and tortured each other for centuries for essentially following off shoots of the same religion. Ancient grudges tend to never fully die out. Just ask suporters of any two rival football clubs.

So nothing to do with UK foreign policy, just murdering barbarous scum who kill anyone following a different belief.


2. They kill Gays because they are Gay - if you think that Isis are the only ones who are doing this then you really need to take a wider look at the world.

Again, nothing to do with UK foreign policy, just murdering barbarous scum who kill people because they disagree with their sexuality.


3. Why does any British soldier join the army to fight for their country around the world even though that country has not done anything to that person or their family personally? People always have, and always will fight for a person, cause, religion or nation that fully believe in. We may have different methods, but what is so different?

What is different is the British army does not kill gays or target children, or other people just for following a different religion.
Are you really comparing the average British soldier with an ISIS fighter? Really?
You are making a #ing disgraceful claim in my opinion if that is really what you are trying to say.


Now can we get back to what everyone was talking about - the more pertinent question. Is our foreign policy really to blame for the current situation. You would have to think the answer is yes - can you really think of any Muslim extremist attacks on the west before intervention in Afghanistan in the 1980's? The first Iraq war led to a ramp up in incidents culminating in 9/11 and the cycle of violence since that watershed event has escalated this into a world wide problem. Almost a stealth WW3.

Does that answer your OP and open the topic up for further discussion?

No, I already accepted that UK foreign policy has inspired some of the fighters in ISIS, this thread is criticising Corbyn for sweeping the rug over the barbarous ideology which has nothing to do with UK foreign policy. You know, my responses to points 1 and 2.

If these terrorists only targeted western forces then yes I'd agree the main focus would be UK foreign policy, but while they kill gay people and those who have a different faith it is clear that it is the ideology itself which is to blame.

I'm in awe at how you wish to deflect from that elephant in the room and focus solely on UK foreign policy.
How did UK foreign policy create a situation where the scumbag barbarians wish to kill gay people and Yazidis?
That is the thread topic and questions.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
People have replied about your OP but you seem unwilling to acknowledge that.

If you want one specific point addressed then ask it rather than keep referring people back to your OP.


I refer you to my reply above ^^^
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Doxanoxa
a reply to: grainofsand

He is right - foreign wars make terrorists. It was like that in WWII.

Yes, I agreed that in the OP, did you even read it?

UK bombing in the middle East did not create barbarous scumbags who kill people for having a different faith or sexuality.
Perhaps you disagree, I'm all ears for your apology for that behaviour?
edit on 27.5.2017 by grainofsand because: Typo



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Sigh
Okay I give in
UK foreign policy has nothing to do do with why ISIS wants to kill Yazidis and gays.
I have never indicated it has.

It is the reason, however, that they want to kill us.

I don't really understand your point about things being swept under the carpet.

Of course these acts are barbaric - what in your ideal world do you want to do? Send our boys overseas to kill them all? After they are all dead what then? Start invading all the other countries that practise what our civilised society considers barbaric?

I am really curious about your motivations here - do you start threads just so people can agree with you?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Doxanoxa
a reply to: grainofsand

He is right - foreign wars make terrorists. It was like that in WWII.

So lets close the curtains, lock the doors, withdraw all troops from everywhere except Bucking Palace, and never utter another word of cricitism of anyone who doesn't stand a chance of winning an election against us.

Then we can sleep safe and feel proud of being citizens of the world.




There were terrorists in World War 2?

I mean I guess one could make the argument that the Partisan and Resistance movements across the world were terrorists - to the Fascists, but no reasonable person would condemn such people as terrorists.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: Doxanoxa
a reply to: grainofsand

He is right - foreign wars make terrorists. It was like that in WWII.

Yes, I agreed that in the OP, did you even read it?

UK bombing in the middle East did not create barbarous scumbags who kill people for having a different faith or sexuality.
Perhaps you disagree, I'm all ears for your apology for that behaviour?


True it didn't create them, but the Iraq war (which Corbyn was clearly refering to in his speach to distance himself from Blairites IMO) was and still is the biggest recruitment and radicalisation tool used by these nutjobs. While there would no doubt be millitants/wahabism if the war had never occured, it's clear ISIS only arose and gained so much power and ability to conduct the attack as a direct result of Iraq. Obviously this doesn't excuse any killing or extremism.


originally posted by: Ohanka


Sure he can.

I've always hated the standpoint "if you don't vote you have no right to complain"

When there is no one running that you feel represents your interests and matches your views, you have every right not to.

Low voter turnout is one of the signs that the people have lost faith in the established political parties entirely.

I might not vote either this time around. The choices are awful, worse than usual really.

Or I might just vote Monster Raving


Sounds like giving in to me. Not voting does nothing to address the problem of political parties not representing people's views. If anything it allows it to continue unnabated. Why not stand for election or get involved in the political process instead? It's not as if the Party who gets in power is going to mourn or pay attention to people not voting or being involved in representative democracy - if anything it's what they want in order to increase power and further quash joe public from having their values and ethics represented in government policy.
edit on 27-5-2017 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 07:41 AM
link   

edit on 27-5-2017 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreSound
a reply to: grainofsand

Sigh
Okay I give in
UK foreign policy has nothing to do do with why ISIS wants to kill Yazidis and gays.
I have never indicated it has.

So you accept that ISIS would want to kill us anyway because 95% of the UK population are not Muslim.
Such wishes to kill us are therefore not inspired by UK bombing sandy places.


It is the reason, however, that they want to kill us.

No it is one reason, they would kill us anyway for not following their vile ideology.


I don't really understand your point about things being swept under the carpet.

Corbyns failure to address the fact that these people would kill us for not following their ideology, while focusing solely on UK foreign policy as being to blame, is in my mind sweeping the elephant in the room under the carpet.


Of course these acts are barbaric - what in your ideal world do you want to do? Send our boys overseas to kill them all? After they are all dead what then? Start invading all the other countries that practise what our civilised society considers barbaric?

That is a different question, start a thread if you like, I'm only focusing here on the fact that these barbarous scum would kill us anyway, regardless of UK foreign policy. You know, just for not following their vile ideology.


I am really curious about your motivations here - do you start threads just so people can agree with you?

My motivation is stimulating and interesting reasoned debate, disagree as much as you like just be sure you stay on topic and pick apart my exact posted words.
Remember, I didn't say what Corbyn said was wrong, just what he refused to mention shows the weasle worded # he is.

Followers of ISIS would kill 95% of UK citizens just for not following their ideology, regardless of UK bombings anywhere.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
True it didn't create them, but the Iraq war (which Corbyn was clearly refering to in his speach to distance himself from Blairites IMO) was and still is the biggest recruitment and radicalisation tool used by these nutjobs. While there would no doubt be millitants/wahabism if the war had never occured, it's clear ISIS only arose and gained so much power and ability to conduct the attack as a direct result of Iraq. Obviously this doesn't excuse any killing or extremism.

Agreed, but ISIS followers would kill us anyway because we don't believe in their vile ideology, UK foreign policy is just another excuse to kill us.
Corbyn effectively ignored that and instead blamed UK foreign policy.
Corbyn is an apologist, snivelling, weasel worded # making political capital out of murderous barbarians who would kill us anyway.
edit on 27.5.2017 by grainofsand because: Typo



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Right I will have one more go - and this time use your exact words and follow your rules to see if you do actually want to debate.

"Followers of ISIS would kill 95% of uk citizens just for not following their ideology regardless of Uk bombings anywhere."

You are probably correct in your assumption since around 5% of the British population is Muslim - however, of that 5%, 4.9999% do not have the same vile ideology.

With that statement being correct we can also assume that ISIS would like to kill 99.75% of the population of Chile and 99% of the population of New Zealand who are not Muslim.

Don't remember any extremist attacks being reported in either of those countries though - what could be different?



I don't think there is any doubt that the extremist ideology of ISIS is vile, so to say it is the elephant in the room is just wrong. For years all we have heard from the media and politicians is about the ideological motivations for radical extremism. Corbin needs not address that - it is a given. What he has done however is stir the debate and been brave enoungh to raise the uncomfortable truth that we have made the situation worse. If you think that makes him a weasle, then you are the one that wants to hide from the truth. He is saying exactly what has been the elephant in the room for years.

Is that sticking close enough to your premise? Or are you still going to be a weasle worded # (hey, you are the one that has demanded every one stick to using your words through this thread - just playing by your rules) because I didn't agree with your statement?



"



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Well it was about oil and yet Corbyn is a traitor? Killing is in the National Interest of Britain's Oil Industry



socialistresistance.org...


he islands are adjacent to Argentina but 8,000 miles from Britain. The new controversy has been triggered by the escalating rush for oil and gas drilling, which is now around the Falklands—or the Malvinas as they are known in Argentina, The situation is getting more tense and Argentina has responded by declaring the new drilling illegal, and is threatening action in the courts.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreSound
a reply to: grainofsand

Right I will have one more go - and this time use your exact words and follow your rules to see if you do actually want to debate.

"Followers of ISIS would kill 95% of uk citizens just for not following their ideology regardless of Uk bombings anywhere."

You are probably correct in your assumption since around 5% of the British population is Muslim - however, of that 5%, 4.9999% do not have the same vile ideology.

With that statement being correct we can also assume that ISIS would like to kill 99.75% of the population of Chile and 99% of the population of New Zealand who are not Muslim.

Don't remember any extremist attacks being reported in either of those countries though - what could be different?

Phillipines much? 94% non Muslim.
MSM story from yesterday... UK Guardian newspaper


I don't think there is any doubt that the extremist ideology of ISIS is vile, so to say it is the elephant in the room is just wrong. For years all we have heard from the media and politicians is about the ideological motivations for radical extremism. Corbin needs not address that - it is a given. What he has done however is stir the debate and been brave enoungh to raise the uncomfortable truth that we have made the situation worse. If you think that makes him a weasle, then you are the one that wants to hide from the truth. He is saying exactly what has been the elephant in the room for years.

I disagree, the ideology in itself is one where UK bombing in the middle East is now a side issue because they would kill us anyway, regardless of our government policy. Corbyn focused solely on UK policy and not that these scum will kill us anyway.


Is that sticking close enough to your premise? Or are you still going to be a weasle worded # (hey, you are the one that has demanded every one stick to using your words through this thread - just playing by your rules) because I didn't agree with your statement?

Yes, fantastic thanks, I like reasoned arguments, debating the actual words is always the way forward in my mind.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Of course it was about protecting British assets.
Are you saying the UK should not have taken the Falklands back? Really?
FFS
SMFH

*Edit*
Corbyn would have ceded British territory to Argentina and for that reason I consider him to be traitor.
Spineless, weasel worded # that he is.
edit on 27.5.2017 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Ohanka

Sure

en.wikipedia.org...



The history of terrorism is a history of well-known and historically significant individuals, entities, and incidents associated, whether rightly or wrongly, with terrorism. Scholars agree that terrorism is a disputed term, and very few of those labeled terrorists describe themselves as such. It is common for opponents in a violent conflict to describe the other side as terrorists or as practicing terrorism.[1] Depending on how broadly the term is defined, the roots and practice of terrorism can be traced at least to the 1st-century AD Sicarii Zealots, though some dispute whether the group, which assassinated collaborators with Roman rule in the province of Judea, was in fact terrorist.


Resistance during WWII[edit]

Some of the tactics of the guerrilla, partisan, and resistance movements organised and supplied by the Allies during World War II, according to historian M. R. D. Foot, can be considered terrorist.[103][104] Colin Gubbins, a key leader within the British Special Operations Executive (SOE), made sure the organization drew much of its inspiration from the IRA.[86][87]
On the eve of D-Day, the SOE organised with the French Resistance the complete destruction of the rail[105] and communication infrastructure of western France[106] the largest coordinated attack of its kind in history



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Is there any record of the French resistance specifically targeting teen girls at public events, gay people, or anyone else who doesn't follow their specific flavour of religion?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

also from the wiki quote on the Falklands War


Corbyn supports a "negotiated settlement" with the Falkland Islands that may involve "some degree of joint administration" with Argentina.


Why is he a traitor - did your brother not get paid for his involvement in the Falklands War? Did he fight out of some higher calling? LOL



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

I think the French killed collaborators that had sex with the occupying German forces, or will that not count with in your narrow definitions?

you have to be clever and type this in google



old definition of terrorism




the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.




terrorism definition



the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.


then there is


Five Types of Terrorism State-Sponsored terrorism, which consists of terrorist acts on a state or government by a state or government. Dissent terrorism, which are terrorist groups which have rebelled against their government.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join