There were things in this speech that i agree with however they were things that everyone will agree with.

Now what i disagree with about his speech are firstly -
"The war on terror is'nt working"
well it is working.ISIS are being diminished in Iraq and if we weren't there they'd be much bigger and in control of much more territory.
We can't just let them get on with it.
Yes our interventions in Iraq and Lybia are fueling the narrative however that narrative would still be there had we not gone in.Just possibly under another banner.It is ingrained in deep rooted religious and cultural ideas.These are tribal ideological anti western value religious maniacs.They would still be doing this stuff!
He'd pull our airforce out leaving the Iraqi army screwed and we'd still be getting attacked!

What i also disagree with is that there was absolutely no mention of Islamism.He mentioned that our past interventions are fuelling this fair enough but no specific mention of the ideology behind the whole thing.This is an Islamic problem but he won't say it.He needs to admit this or it looks as though he's just blaming the west.
Islamism IS the root cause.

Vile trash to speak the truth.:shrug:

A great post :clap1:

Exactly, people are getting way too precious about this Manchester thing that it's just getting silly now.

Some people would just have it that May's a saint and that no other party is allowed to challenge her over her handling of the situation, it's really stupid, it really is.

"This Manchester thing" only happened 4 days ago, it is still raw for many people, me included that these young children perished at the hands of a terrorist. It is going to be raw for a LONG time....if people are precious they have every right to be.

I agree that these issues need to be spoken about, there will always be people who disagree with things that are said but to say people are being "precious" is pretty rough Mock.

I honestly don't care if it sounds rough, it's been incredibly annoying that you dare to say anything about how the situation could've been handled better and you get emotional responses like "it's too soon to talk about this" or "it's an agenda which is completely disrespectful to the victims" so what are people suppose to do? Just go around praising Theresa May for her people to actually know that this guy was in the country but just let him walk freely in the country? I like some other people want a solution as soon as possible, I don't know if May or Corbyn have the solution, or somebody else from another party for that matter, but I am sick and tired of people just wanting to think about the victims and not the solution.

Yes that may sound rough, and of course it's sad that a girl around my Niece's age fgs got killed in the attack, but we can't just harp on and on about the evil Jihadists if nobody wants a possible solution from if we have to an alternative source to Theresa May.

I actually agree with what you are saying Mock but your choice of phrase is what riled me....maybe its because its Manchester and so too close to home for me to be rational and impartial but of course its too soon for some people to talk about it - the city is still in shock so god knows what people more closely affected are feeling.

It's hardly unreasonable. It is forefront of everyone's minds - what is the next government going to do about terror? UKIP have done it too.

He's unfortunately scared some voters away for sure, but he's not wrong. Our foreign policy has been a disaster for well over a decade now.

This century's spiral of conflict was set off on September 11th 2001 when 3000 civilians were killed in America. Someone needs to remind him off that. Some people voting in this election won't even remember 9/11. What would his reason for the 9/11 attacks be? I suppose he'd say Vietnam or something like that.

After 9/11 America was never not going to go into Afghanistan. It would have happened even if Al Gore had won in the close 2000 election.

France opposed and took no part in the Iraq war in 2003, and yet still has been on the end of some of the worst terrorist attacks. The narrative the terrorists use in those cases is that France has been fighting IS. Does that mean to prevent further attacks countries have to leave IS alone to commit more genocide in Iraq?

In Libya there was already a civil war before Britain and France got involved, and in Syria we have specifically not gotten involved militarily - remember the vote in the Commons after the chemical weapons attack? and Syria is an on-going catastrophe.

Have you forgotten there was a war in the gulf in the 90s then?... :/

Corbyn stated truths,unwelcome ones to some possibly but nevertheless truths.
Ones that needed saying too if any UK govt. is ever going to seriously look at addressing long term this hatred and determination to attack the UK with terrorism.

It is way overdue that the UK should have been looking at resisting getting involved,left,right and centre as to Middle East Nations.
U
I really doubt that realisation will ever come from Mrs May and her bunch.
The sad thing,attacks like this should bring the best ideas from those in all Parties as to ways forward.

May's dismissal the UKs intervention in Libya has any connection was ridiculous denial of the worst kind.
We should never have got involved in Libya at all.
All we did was build up the fires of hate.

Manchester is a shocking tragedy,it is devastating it happened.
Preparing only for more such attacks and not analysing all as to how to start looking for eradicating them altogether is at best short sighted and at worst gross incompetence.

No, I haven't. It was caused because Saddam Hussein invaded Iraq.

I read that Bin Laden became motivated to attack Americans because Saudi Arabia allowed America to place military bases in the Kingdom, where the holiest sites of Islam are located.

But is it legitimate to point to all that, as reason that America should somehow have expected terrorism in the 90s, and also 9/11.

Following the destabilisation do you feel that they should have just forgotten about it all by 2001?.. No that was just the beginning.

Yeah maybe I was blunt saying precious, but I'm glad that you can see my point as that rant really is unlike me on a sensitive subject like this so I was feeling bad for the outburst.

:clap1:

66% on a YouGov poll agree on his view on foreign policy and terrorism. As is the case with most of his policies, the British Public agree on it. Unfortunately too many people can't get over he fact they've been told he's unelectable and want someone "strong and stable" that doesn't even know what she wants for Lunch.

His policies and figures remain unproven. So vote away on blind faith. Risky business. A lot of youngsters just think that will have more money and get free university tuition, but will they I wonder!

We have no reason to suspect he won't go ahead he has throughout his career been a man of his word, may on the other hand... :/

I think based on his history and everything he has fought for his whole political career, youngsters can believe and trust in him way more than any other alternatives this country has.

Tory arguments are getting weaker by the day, I think even they understand theyre running out of ways to sabotage Labour / promote conservatives

Pretty much, headlines and catchphrases hold more sway with the voting public than any policy can ever hope to do so. It's why May will win despite the fact that this election has shown her up as dangerously incompetent time and time again but who cares about that? She's promising bloody vengeance against terrorism and she says Strong and Stable a lot!

I don't know, what may turn out to be false promises seem to be carrying a lot of weight for some.

Had to laugh though about her saying strong and stable a lot - that is true and I agree it's frustrating.

That's some Trump style facts there! :laugh:

Saddam Hussein was President of Iraq from 1979 to 2003.

Maybe you were thinking of Kuwait.

Oh right, I didn't even realise I typed Iraq instead of Kuwait until now, hah.