About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

Northern Monkey · 12-05-2017, 03:50 PM

The Labour leader is taking the fight to Theresa May as he insists he could take military action as a last resort - just not her "pandering to an erratic Trump"
Jeremy Corbyn will today insist he is “not a pacifist” as he takes the fight to Theresa May on defence and security.

The Labour leader will launch a furious attack on the “bomb first, talk later” approach he says has dominated UK foreign policy for 20 years.

Conscious he is seen by some of his critics as weak on defence, Mr Corbyn will insist: “I am not a pacifist. I accept that military action, under international law and as a genuine last resort, is in some circumstances necessary.

“But that is very far from the kind of unilateral wars and interventions that have almost become routine in recent times.”

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.mir...n-10405380.amp

Beso · 12-05-2017, 07:15 PM

I like how he has not isolated the tories in this latest poor me sob fest. I do however have to admit that his pandering and adoration of the IRA in the past has already told me that he aint a pacifist.

user104658 · 12-05-2017, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parmnion

I like how he has not isolated the tories in this latest poor me sob fest. I do however have to admit that his pandering and adoration of the IRA in the past has already told me that he aint a pacifist.

So the IRA were "pandered to and adored" but oh wait... hmmmm... they barely exist any more, the situation with N.I. while it still exists is very much under control. No one fears "Irish terrorists" on British streets. They weren't wiped out with bombs or bullets so... where did they go?

Meanwhile, we repeatedly try to show our strength and "crush Islamic terrorism" - desperate not to "pander to them" - and, oh look, it keeps getting worse, and worse, every time we do it.

It feels like people are adverse to tackling terrorism with diplomacy, purely on principle. Not a care for what actually might reduce the number of attacks and save lives and eventually put an end to it all.

Beso · 13-05-2017, 06:43 AM

Where did they go?

Jai,l thats where,. Not for long though.

Brillopad · 13-05-2017, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

The Labour leader is taking the fight to Theresa May as he insists he could take military action as a last resort - just not her "pandering to an erratic Trump"
Jeremy Corbyn will today insist he is “not a pacifist” as he takes the fight to Theresa May on defence and security.

The Labour leader will launch a furious attack on the “bomb first, talk later” approach he says has dominated UK foreign policy for 20 years.

Conscious he is seen by some of his critics as weak on defence, Mr Corbyn will insist: “I am not a pacifist. I accept that military action, under international law and as a genuine last resort, is in some circumstances necessary.

“But that is very far from the kind of unilateral wars and interventions that have almost become routine in recent times.”

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.mir...n-10405380.amp

Don't trust him. He wants to win the election what else can he say. All his other utterings suggest he would be totally against it whatever.

Brillopad · 13-05-2017, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

So the IRA were "pandered to and adored" but oh wait... hmmmm... they barely exist any more, the situation with N.I. while it still exists is very much under control. No one fears "Irish terrorists" on British streets. They weren't wiped out with bombs or bullets so... where did they go?

Meanwhile, we repeatedly try to show our strength and "crush Islamic terrorism" - desperate not to "pander to them" - and, oh look, it keeps getting worse, and worse, every time we do it.

It feels like people are adverse to tackling terrorism with diplomacy, purely on principle. Not a care for what actually might reduce the number of attacks and save lives and eventually put an end to it all.

There have to be principles. Do we pay ransoms every time someone is kidnapped? How can we? It would simply encourage more kidnappings.

So we make terrorism pay by negotiating with terrorists. Give them what they want because their tactics are too vile to ignore. How can we? It would only see an end of it as long as they get their way. That isn't tackling the problem it is submitting to terrorism.

It would lead to complete submission to terrorism as every time they didn't get their way they would resort to the same old tactics. It would only encourage more terrorism and hence cost more lives.