British Prime Minister calls snap general elections

[Robert]

Youre missing the Elephant in the room Robert. Thje invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and bloodshed in places such as Libya, Syria and other areas has only increased the security risk of people in the UK. The root cause of almost all terrorist attacks(by so called Muslims) is foriegn policy. You might want to worry about Russia after this mess is sorted out. May will only make the UK a more dangerous place for it's citizens, Corbyn will reduce the risk.

Iraq was a foreign policy disaster, it's clear as day.

The Afghanistan operation was sanctioned by the UN and included troops from over forty countries, not just NATO. Article 5 was declared after 9/11, indicating that every NATO state had been attacked.

To my dying day I don't think I will understand NATO involvement in Libya. That nation was stable and Gadaffi was playing ball with the West. Now the Islamofascists rule a fractured nation.

I note that you do not extend the same standard of behaviour toward Russia in Syria as you do to NATO in other places. Why?

I worry about Russia far more as they pose an existential threat to everyone in the U.K. Terrorism will never amount to more than pinpricks.

We have allies. They stand with us because they have a better life due to adopting our political systems. Corbyn would let them be reabsorbed by an anti-democratic corrupt and illiberal nation with a bad human rights record. Shame on his cowardice.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Iraq was a foreign policy disaster, it's clear as day.

The Afghanistan operation was sanctioned by the UN and included troops from over forty countries, not just NATO. Article 5 was declared after 9/11, indicating that every NATO state had been attacked.

To my dying day I don't think I will understand NATO involvement in Libya. That nation was stable and Gadaffi was playing ball with the West. Now the Islamofascists rule a fractured nation.

I note that you do not extend the same standard of behaviour toward Russia in Syria as you do to NATO in other places. Why?

I worry about Russia far more as they pose an existential threat to everyone in the U.K. Terrorism will never amount to more than pinpricks.

We have allies. They stand with us because they have a better life due to adopting our political systems. Corbyn would let them be reabsorbed by an anti-democratic corrupt and illiberal nation with a bad human rights record. Shame on his cowardice.

I wouldn't call the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan an operation. I assume you agree with it because you quote the UN? Just because the UN sanctioned it doesn't make it morally right. We both know it was agreed due to pressure and emotional rhetoric of Bush and co. ie 'You are either with us or against us'.

Russia were asked to intervene by the ruling authority in Syria and they also have a naval base present in Syria. I dont agree with their use of bombs either but it's chalk and cheese to compare with unilateral actions of Nato members who use lies to excuse their imperialistic agenda.

Corbyn is not a coward, he has a brain and has the interests of his country in mind unlike the Zionist stooges who have led this country in recent years. Corbyn understands in a modern global world security is very difficult to maintain if you have an aggressive violent foreign policy.

It might be pinprick in your opinion but i doubt the families of those murdered in cold blood by lunatics because of the foreign policy of our government share your sentiments. People esp those living in London are paranoid and fear for their safety even though the chances are unlikely. Also you're not a Muslim so may not understand the rise of Islamophobia has really made life difficult for some Muslims esp women with head scarfs.

In today's word we need peacemakers not terrorists in charge.

 

[Robert]

I wouldn't call the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan an operation. I assume you agree with it because you quote the UN? Just because the UN sanctioned it doesn't make it morally right. We both know it was agreed due to pressure and emotional rhetoric of Bush and co. ie 'You are either with us or against us'.

Russia were asked to intervene by the ruling authority in Syria and they also have a naval base present in Syria. I dont agree with their use of bombs either but it's chalk and cheese to compare with unilateral actions of Nato members who use lies to excuse their imperialistic agenda.

Corbyn is not a coward, he has a brain and has the interests of his country in mind unlike the Zionist stooges who have led this country in recent years. Corbyn understands in a modern global world security is very difficult to maintain if you have an aggressive violent foreign policy.

It might be pinprick in your opinion but i doubt the families of those murdered in cold blood by lunatics because of the foreign policy of our government share your sentiments. People esp those living in London are paranoid and fear for their safety even though the chances are unlikely. Also you're not a Muslim so may not understand the rise of Islamophobia has really made life difficult for some Muslims esp women with head scarfs.

In today's word we need peacemakers not terrorists in charge.

Yes, broadly speaking I agree with the ISAF operation in Afghanistan.

Putin is imperialist. He sees this conflict as an opportunity to increase his influence in the ME. Unlike the RAF who use smart munitions he is hauling indiscriminate iron bombs and cuasing massive civilian casualties.

Yet Corbyn would accept aggressive foreign policy from hostile competitor nations, like Chamberlain before him. This is what I mean by cowardice. He has a history of meeting terrorists, voted against the Good Friday agreement which brought peace in NI and has accepted money for speaking in Iranisan state TV.

With regard to Islamophobia, the elephant in the room is that there would be no such attitude if no British Muslim had blown up, hacked up or run down their fellow Britons.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Labour's policy on the police appears extremely solid and credible.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rneBbKrVE7A

 

[KingKhanWC]

Yes, broadly speaking I agree with the ISAF operation in Afghanistan.

So if China demanded a resident of the UK should be handed over because he/she is accused of terrorism in China without offering any proof to the UK authorities , you'd be ok with that too? The Taliban were willing to hand him over but asked for proof as would any ruling power of any country would.

You also believe he death and destruction in Afghanistan was worth it? How has terrorism reduced because of these actions? It has increased according to most academics. So why do you agree with it?

[QUOTE[Putin is imperialist. He sees this conflict as an opportunity to increase his influence in the ME. Unlike the RAF who use smart munitions he is hauling indiscriminate iron bombs and cuasing massive civilian casualties.[/QUOTE]

I don't think you read what I wrote, Putin already had influence in Syria because of close relations to Assad and his naval base. If Putin is an imperialist then I wonder what that makes Nato? RAF and Nato warplanes kill as much if not more innocents because they drop more bombs, please take off your patriotic blinkers.

Yet Corbyn would accept aggressive foreign policy from hostile competitor nations, like Chamberlain before him. This is what I mean by cowardice. He has a history of meeting terrorists, voted against the Good Friday agreement which brought peace in NI and has accepted money for speaking in Iranisan state TV.

What's wrong with Iran? This is a nation which hasn't invaded anyone in centuries. He understands a diplomatic relationship with powerful nations is far better than a conflicting one.

With regard to Islamophobia, the elephant in the room is that there would be no such attitude if no British Muslim had blown up, hacked up or run down their fellow Britons.

Wow! You sound like Nigel Farrage or likes of Tommy Robinson. The attitude exists with some Britons because they are frankly idiots of the highest order who can't understand the difference between law abiding Muslims to those who commit such crimes. The media and government propaganda is also to blame, something which you have fallen for .

 

[Markhor]

Theresa May running a cowardly campaign. Goes to speak from city to city in front of a carefully handpicked crowd of Tory activists where locals are not invited. Goes down to Cornwall but bars local reporters from the event.

Refuses to participate in TV debates yet claims she did so because she prefers to "go out into communities" to speak to people.

 

[Markhor]

John Major wasn't the most charismatic of speakers but at least he had the guts to get on his soapbox and speak to ordinary people.

May on the other hand has her talking points (or should I say "strong and stable" talking points" which she repeats on loop like a robot.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Theresa May running a cowardly campaign. Goes to speak from city to city in front of a carefully handpicked crowd of Tory activists where locals are not invited. Goes down to Cornwall but bars local reporters from the event.

Refuses to participate in TV debates yet claims she did so because she prefers to "go out into communities" to speak to people.

John Major wasn't the most charismatic of speakers but at least he had the guts to get on his soapbox and speak to ordinary people.

May on the other hand has her talking points (or should I say "strong and stable" talking points" which she repeats on loop like a robot.

Even as Home Secretary she did the same. In fact when running for Tory leader she never actually laid out her plans for the party and country - she just let her opponents tear themselves apart and shoot themselves in the foot which is the same tactic she's using now.

 

[Robert]

So if China demanded a resident of the UK should be handed over because he/she is accused of terrorism in China without offering any proof to the UK authorities , you'd be ok with that too? The Taliban were willing to hand him over but asked for proof as would any ruling power of any country would.

You're deliberately avoiding the issue that ISAF was a mission by forty nations and sanctioned by UN Resolution to stabilise Afghanistan. It has been rescued from the clerics who had dragged it back into a medieval state.

You also believe he death and destruction in Afghanistan was worth it? How has terrorism reduced because of these actions? It has increased according to most academics. So why do you agree with it?

I think ISAF became politically necessary for the UN after 9/11.

I don't think you read what I wrote, Putin already had influence in Syria because of close relations to Assad and his naval base. If Putin is an imperialist then I wonder what that makes Nato? RAF and Nato warplanes kill as much if not more innocents because they drop more bombs, please take off your patriotic blinkers.

That's falsehood. The RAF deploy Storm Shadow smart munitions which are highly accurate and minimise collateral damage. Russia's planes haul iron bombs - basically the same as WW2 munitions - which are very innaccurate and cause much collateral damage.

What's wrong with Iran? This is a nation which hasn't invaded anyone in centuries. He understands a diplomatic relationship with powerful nations is far better than a conflicting one.

It's a theocracy will a poor attitude to human rights, oppressive to women in some ways, inimicable to our liberal democratic values.

Wow! You sound like Nigel Farrage or likes of Tommy Robinson. The attitude exists with some Britons because they are frankly idiots of the highest order who can't understand the difference between law abiding Muslims to those who commit such crimes. The media and government propaganda is also to blame, something which you have fallen for .

Nice. You conflate me, who challenges Islamophobia wherever he hears it, with those two mass-scale dog-whistling poo-stirrers.

So no British Muslims have bombed or mowed down fellow British citizens? Ah yes, 7/7 was a false flag attack, silly me. Keep ignoring that elephant, just blame everyone else.

 

[KingKhanWC]

You're deliberately avoiding the issue that ISAF was a mission by forty nations and sanctioned by UN Resolution to stabilise Afghanistan. It has been rescued from the clerics who had dragged it back into a medieval state.

Im asking for your opinion, forget the UN. Why do you believe it was a good idea and do you think it has reduced terrorism? It's irrelevant what the country is like in terms of culture, this was the not the point of invading to change the culture.

That's falsehood. The RAF deploy Storm Shadow smart munitions which are highly accurate and minimise collateral damage. Russia's planes haul iron bombs - basically the same as WW2 munitions - which are very innaccurate and cause much collateral damage.

lol. So British bombs have not killed innocent people?

It's a theocracy will a poor attitude to human rights, oppressive to women in some ways, inimicable to our liberal democratic values.

So? It can do what it likes as long as it doesn't invade or bomb others which it hasn't in 200 years. You seem to be supporting bombing countries to change their way of life. What is to say the western secular life is better anyway? Even if it is, what right do western nations have to impose their way of life on others?

Nice. You conflate me, who challenges Islamophobia wherever he hears it, with those two mass-scale dog-whistling poo-stirrers.

So no British Muslims have bombed or mowed down fellow British citizens? Ah yes, 7/7 was a false flag attack, silly me. Keep ignoring that elephant, just blame everyone else.

Im sorry but what you wrote has come out of the mouth of such people.

White right wingers have bombed or attempted to bomb places in the UK, Irish have done the same. So according to your logic it's the fault of white people if they are discriminated against?

 

[Robert]

Im asking for your opinion, forget the UN. Why do you believe it was a good idea and do you think it has reduced terrorism? It's irrelevant what the country is like in terms of culture, this was the not the point of invading to change the culture.

I am saying it was politically necessary after 9/11. It has probably not reduced jihadism globally, but it has improved parts of Afghanistan out of recognition, particularly for women.

lol. So British bombs have not killed innocent people?

Yes, but I think only about 1% of the civilian casualties afflicted by the Russian air force, for the reasons I have given. Much more accurate weapons, much better intel and a more positive and ethical attitude to civilian casualties. Plus, only a few few strikes going in.

So? It can do what it likes as long as it doesn't invade or bomb others which it hasn't in 200 years. You seem to be supporting bombing countries to change their way of life. What is to say the western secular life is better anyway? Even if it is, what right do western nations have to impose their way of life on others?

My point is that Corbyn should not be legitimising oppressive regimes in the way he did. You say he is a peacemaker, but he voted against the Good Friday agreement. He is a contrarian who is fine with political violence as long as it is not Western state political violence.

Im sorry but what you wrote has come out of the mouth of such people.

White right wingers have bombed or attempted to bomb places in the UK, Irish have done the same. So according to your logic it's the fault of white people if they are discriminated against?

I woulnd't invoke logic if I were you - not while you deliberately distort my arguments, and attempt to paint me as a racist for disagreeing with you. Your tactic, on a mass scale, led to Brexit and President Trump.

No, it's the fault of the bombers, of course. Some Britons used to hate the Irish because of the IRA - when I went out drinking with my Irish mate you could hear the remarks. But peace was brokered in NI, the bombings stopped and now there is no Eirephobia. If Muslims stop letting off bombs in the UK then Islamophobia will die down too.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I am saying it was politically necessary after 9/11. It has probably not reduced jihadism globally, but it has improved parts of Afghanistan out of recognition, particularly for women.

It wasn't the intention to improve womens rights and there is no evidence of any real change. Social change can only happen within the country not by invading armies. The Taliban still control the majority of Afghanistan and are made up of dozens of tribes. Women's issues are related to tirbalism not terrorism. Besides the invading forces have killed thousands of women in Afghanistan, their right to life isn't held sacred by state terrorism so I doubt they really care about anything else related to women.

Yes, but I think only about 1% of the civilian casualties afflicted by the Russian air force, for the reasons I have given. Much more accurate weapons, much better intel and a more positive and ethical attitude to civilian casualties. Plus, only a few few strikes going in.

If you are part of a 'gang' or 'group' or organistaion, you cannot then separate yourself from the actions of your peers. It's impossible to know which bombs belonging to which nation have killed which people. Nato has killed more innocent people than Russia, this cannot be denied.

My point is that Corbyn should not be legitimising oppressive regimes in the way he did. You say he is a peacemaker, but he voted against the Good Friday agreement. He is a contrarian who is fine with political violence as long as it is not Western state political violence.

Please read the bottom of the link which shows he didn't oppose the agreement as you are suggesting.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1985/nov/27/anglo-irish-agreement

Iran is an old culture. Since you mentioned women's rights earlier, Iranian women outnumbered men 2 to 1 in education. It has a different culture which you may not understand but it's not an oppressive regime as you make out.

I woulnd't invoke logic if I were you - not while you deliberately distort my arguments, and attempt to paint me as a racist for disagreeing with you. Your tactic, on a mass scale, led to Brexit and President Trump.

No, it's the fault of the bombers, of course. Some Britons used to hate the Irish because of the IRA - when I went out drinking with my Irish mate you could hear the remarks. But peace was brokered in NI, the bombings stopped and now there is no Eirephobia. If Muslims stop letting off bombs in the UK then Islamophobia will die down too.

Why isn't there the same level of fear of white supremacists who have been involved in many many attacks in the UK? The Zionist run media's aim was always to increase Islamaphobia. Once you demonise a people, it's far easier to justify your murder of them in far away lands.

 

[Robert]

It wasn't the intention to improve womens rights and there is no evidence of any real change. Social change can only happen within the country not by invading armies. The Taliban still control the majority of Afghanistan and are made up of dozens of tribes. Women's issues are related to tirbalism not terrorism. Besides the invading forces have killed thousands of women in Afghanistan, their right to life isn't held sacred by state terrorism so I doubt they really care about anything else related to women.

A key role of ISAF was to improve women's rights. 80% of Afghanistan is under government control supported by NATO allies. They have elections now.

If you are part of a 'gang' or 'group' or organistaion, you cannot then separate yourself from the actions of your peers. It's impossible to know which bombs belonging to which nation have killed which people. Nato has killed more innocent people than Russia, this cannot be denied.

But you can approximate what is likely to happen. Drop iron bombs on a city like Russia, and many civilians will die. Attack a rebel-held fortification with a smart missile like the RAF do, and few if any civilians will die.

Please read the bottom of the link which shows he didn't oppose the agreement as you are suggesting.

The vote I refer to was in 1998, though Corbyn also voted against peace in 1985:

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of us oppose the agreement for reasons other than those that he has given [i.e. Unionist]? We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the twenty-six counties, and those of us who wish to see a united Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason.

....and in any event he is on that list as a No, so quite clearly he has voted against peace in NI twice. Thank you for proving my point!

Iran is an old culture. Since you mentioned women's rights earlier, Iranian women outnumbered men 2 to 1 in education. It has a different culture which you may not understand but it's not an oppressive regime as you make out.

So a woman's voice is not half that of a man's under Iranian law?

What happens to an Iranian woman is she runs away from a forced marriage?

Whay happens to a woman who has been raped?

What happens if an Iranian citizen leaves Islam?

What happens to gay Iranians?

This is what Corbyn tacitly supported by accepting money to speak in Iran.

Now, I know that the Mays and Johnsons are no better with their cosying up to the Saudis, but I do not posit them as some sort of paragon as you do Corbyn.

Why isn't there the same level of fear of white supremacists who have been involved in many many attacks in the UK? The Zionist run media's aim was always to increase Islamaphobia. Once you demonise a people, it's far easier to justify your murder of them in far away lands.

Many? I cannot think of even one.

There you go again, deflect, deflect, deflect.... ignoring that elephant. Can you in all honesty tell me that 7/7 did not contribute to Islamophobia? Every brown-skinned young man with a rucksack on a bus or train was viewed suspiciously after that! Nobody batted an eyelid before 7/7.

 

[KingKhanWC]

A key role of ISAF was to improve women's rights. 80% of Afghanistan is under government control supported by NATO allies. They have elections now.

You mean after the invasion an extra excuse of aiming to improve womens rights was used to justify the occupation. Taliban recently took over Kunduz province and even the most liberal western commentators admit to the Taliban controlling 40-50% of Afghanistan. I would suggest the real figure is around 70%. Im not sure where you get your data from. After 16 years the worlds superpowers cannot defeat an enemy with the smallest of resources. These idiots should learn from history, no empire has ever controlled these lands. The best was Alexander the great but he married an Afghani women to secure his rule or a period of time.

But you can approximate what is likely to happen. Drop iron bombs on a city like Russia, and many civilians will die. Attack a rebel-held fortification with a smart missile like the RAF do, and few if any civilians will die.

I know you're very patriotic Robert and believe the UK forces do only good things but again your information on this subject is flawed. You're not gettting to grasps the seriousness and damage occupation can have on ordinary people. British troops have killed hundres of people by various means in the country, once killing over 30 people including women and children. These are just the documented ones. Now if an Afghan whose family has been wiped out by British troops decides to take revenge in the UK by means of 'terrorism', instead of trying to understand you will still blame him for causing Islamaphobia.

The vote I refer to was in 1998, though Corbyn also voted against peace in 1985:

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of us oppose the agreement for reasons other than those that he has given [i.e. Unionist]? We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the twenty-six counties, and those of us who wish to see a united Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason.

....and in any event he is on that list as a No, so quite clearly he has voted against peace in NI twice. Thank you for proving my point!

This is futile to debate what happen decades ago, Cameron was having fun with pigs but was still made leader. Corbyn whatever his flaws is a better person than May, for the majority of Britain and for the world.

So a woman's voice is not half that of a man's under Iranian law?

What happens to an Iranian woman is she runs away from a forced marriage?

Whay happens to a woman who has been raped?

What happens if an Iranian citizen leaves Islam?

What happens to gay Iranians?

This is what Corbyn tacitly supported by accepting money to speak in Iran.

Now, I know that the Mays and Johnsons are no better with their cosying up to the Saudis, but I do not posit them as some sort of paragon as you do Corbyn.

So you want the UK which is no longer a power to join forces with American to bomb any country which has social issues? Other socieities could argue women in the UK are brainwashed into losing their self respect which is why millions have either STD's, single mothers, suffering from mental issues or victims of domestic violence. I suggest the UK should worry about it's women, I see suffering daily on basis, maybe you don't. As for your questions, start a thread and you will get the answers but again your are ill informed. A womans voice is not half, it's a rule where two women can share the stand together to help each other in testimony.

Many? I cannot think of even one.

There you go again, deflect, deflect, deflect.... ignoring that elephant. Can you in all honesty tell me that 7/7 did not contribute to Islamophobia? Every brown-skinned young man with a rucksack on a bus or train was viewed suspiciously after that! Nobody batted an eyelid before 7/7.

You don't think hard enough. It was a far right terrorist who murdered an MP not long ago, it's a shame her life has little rememberance in your mind.

1 in 3 terror suspects are white far right wingers. Why dont we same percentage of media and public paranoia about them?