Support NeoGAF

[Huw_Dawson]

I'm sorry, but speaking as an LD supporter you are not doing yourself any favours.

It's fine for you to think that, but I'm simply unpicking Corbyn's viewpoint. His view is that the War on Terror is a failure. His view is that talking to terrorists is the route to peace. He has, in his speech, obfuscated those two basic principles of his beliefs by talking about "almost always" and "I'll still be strong". But that is still the core of his beliefs, which you can read from this speech and his entire history in British politics.

People in this thread talk about how terrorist groups want to provoke us. True, they do. They talk about how the people who feed into those terrorist attacks are furious at ineffective Western foreign policy. That's true.

Unfortunately we live in a world where we can't roll back the clock to the 1970s and re-do everything from about the fall of the Shah onwards with the benefit of hindsight.

We live in a nasty world with an anarchic international situation. You have to be willing to use your armed forces to advance British objectives. You have to be willing to press the Red Button. You have to be tough on terrorism.

But here's my actual point - it's not party political, this. I don't disagree with a lot of that speech. But because we're in a general election everyone assumes that I'm banging on about Corbyn's views on this "because I'm a Lib Dem, so naturally all I want to do is hurt Corbyn."

Anything but. I think he's wrong, regardless of what party he represents. But the problem is because we're four days gone from a terrorist attack and in the middle of a nasty general election campaign, the debate is both oversimplified and ad hominem. And Corbyn has brought it on himself.

And by throwing out messages like "Huw's only saying this because he's a Lib Dem", or "the only reason the media are disagreeing because it's Corbyn" you're directly fueling the politicisation of this debate, and therefore a terrorist attack that happened four days ago.

And under no circumstances could I ever regard that as right.

Nobody should not be using a terrorist attack as an excuse to promote the views and purity of a party leader in the middle of a general election campaign. That is what Corbyn has done, and that is wrong.

 

[hodgy100]

I dont think Corbyn was saying he would be weak on terrorism. i interpreted it as being tough on terrorists but sympathetic and helpful to those affected by terrorism in their own countries.

We can't keep being complicit with bombings that kill innocents en-masse and then pretend that had no effect when we get blowback here.

 

[Maledict]

I'm sorry but talking to terrorists brought the end of the Troubles, the end of the Basque movement, the end of FARC in Columbia, and many many more terrorist actions across the globe. Meanwhile, the amount of terror groups successfully defeated by bombing the shit out of them and their families stands at precisely zero.

No-one is saying go hug ISIS. But I think it takes some nerve to think that what we are currently doing, and our current campaign of massive bombing of civilians, is having any effect other than creating further terrorists and troubles down the road.

Also, what on earth are these lines about 'tough on terrorism'? You sound like you've swallowed a Theresa May speech. What exactly did Corbyn say in that speech that so offended you? What exactly are you arguing against because it doesn't seem to actually be the speech Corbyn gave?


Finally, politics is all. You cannot put a box around an incident and say 'no, can't politisce this'. That's what the NRA does every time there's a mass shooting in America - "it's too soon to talk about this' you're politisicing it". That's garbage. Now *is* the time to talk about this. Young men born and raised in this country are strapping explosives to themselves and murdering scores of children in a suicide attacks! If politics can't talk about this, then there's no fucking point to any of it.

 

[Pixieking]

I feel there needs to be some primer posted on Facebook every few weeks that basically details euphemisms and dog-whistles - Final Solution, (((Globalists))), "New York Elite", "economic anxiety". These are all terms that are increasingly flung around, but it's surprising how few people know their meanings.

 

[Ashes]

Well "final solution" has some pretty fucking massive connotations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution

That's my point though. It feels like I am being sarcastic when I am not.

 

[TomWaitsForNoMan]

I'm sorry but talking to terrorists brought the end of the Troubles, the end of the Basque movement, the end of FARC in Columbia, and many many more terrorist actions across the globe. Meanwhile, the amount of terror groups successfully defeated by bombing the shit out of them and their families stands at precisely zero.

The Tamil Tigers, but that's very much of the "making a desert and calling it peace" school of warfare and not something to ever be emulated

 

[Real Hero]

Lib Dems really do sound they have been given Tory talking points today, which is odd because there's plenty of Lib Dem voters who will agree with Corbyn on that speech

 

[SomTervo]

Katie Hopkins To Leave LBC Radio After ‘Final Solution’ Tweet

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_5927ef98e4b06f6080538666

Fucking yes

 

[Daffy Duck]

Finally, politics is all. You cannot put a box around an incident and say 'no, can't politisce this'. That's what the NRA does every time there's a mass shooting in America - "it's too soon to talk about this' you're politisicing it". That's garbage. Now *is* the time to talk about this. Young men born and raised in this country are strapping explosives to themselves and murdering scores of children in a suicide attacks! If politics can't talk about this, then there's no fucking point to any of it.

Here, here.

 

[Moobabe]

I'm sorry but talking to terrorists brought the end of the Troubles, the end of the Basque movement, the end of FARC in Columbia, and many many more terrorist actions across the globe. Meanwhile, the amount of terror groups successfully defeated by bombing the shit out of them and their families stands at precisely zero.

No-one is saying go hug ISIS. But I think it takes some nerve to think that what we are currently doing, and our current campaign of massive bombing of civilians, is having any effect other than creating further terrorists and troubles down the road.

Also, what on earth are these lines about 'tough on terrorism'? You sound like you've swallowed a Theresa May speech. What exactly did Corbyn say in that speech that so offended you? What exactly are you arguing against because it doesn't seem to actually be the speech Corbyn gave?


Finally, politics is all. You cannot put a box around an incident and say 'no, can't politisce this'. That's what the NRA does every time there's a mass shooting in America - "it's too soon to talk about this' you're politisicing it". That's garbage. Now *is* the time to talk about this. Young men born and raised in this country are strapping explosives to themselves and murdering scores of children in a suicide attacks! If politics can't talk about this, then there's no fucking point to any of it.

Great post top to bottom.

 

[SomTervo]

Yep, think I'm gonna take the SNP plunge. Oh well.

Hear, hear.

ftfy

but yes, amazing post Maledict

Al-Qaeda, you say?



like, seriously dude, this is basic art of war, know your enemy stuff. AQ evidently knows theirs quite fucking well. The same cannot be said of the leadership of the countries it chooses to antagonize.

also no one said anything about talking them down, so how about you take that strawman down, eh?

Goddamn, this is enlightening, too

 

[Spuck-uk]

To be fair, the people watching Corbyn's speech this morning will be mostly people out of work sat at home, typical Labour supporters

Spoiler

heh

.

Joking aside, Corbyn has always had a loyal following in the real world (ie outside of the media), the question is whether he is only preaching to the converted or whether (as the latest YouGov poll suggests) he is finally gaining some real traction.

Honestly, I think everyone is simply sick to death of May and her 'strong and stable' nonsense.

I was taking the piss a bit with that first image, but it does seem like he's reaching people outside that core audience, either that or theres a shitload of young people suddenly signed up to vote.

That speech was a lot better than I'd thought it would be, and addressing part of it to the services was very, very smart. Cut off the standard criticism at the knees.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

I'm sorry but talking to terrorists brought the end of the Troubles, the end of the Basque movement, the end of FARC in Columbia, and many many more terrorist actions across the globe. Meanwhile, the amount of terror groups successfully defeated by bombing the shit out of them and their families stands at precisely zero.

(...)

Also, what on earth are these lines about 'tough on terrorism'? You sound like you've swallowed a Theresa May speech. What exactly did Corbyn say in that speech that so offended you? What exactly are you arguing against because it doesn't seem to actually be the speech Corbyn gave?

(...)

Finally, politics is all. You cannot put a box around an incident and say 'no, can't politisce this'. That's what the NRA does every time there's a mass shooting in America - "it's too soon to talk about this' you're politisicing it". That's garbage. Now *is* the time to talk about this. Young men born and raised in this country are strapping explosives to themselves and murdering scores of children in a suicide attacks! If politics can't talk about this, then there's no fucking point to any of it.

On the first paragraph, there is a massive difference between the IRA and IS/AQ/ANF and the other islamist terror groups. Not understanding that is, in my opinion, a good example of why Corbynites have bad foreign policy.

Tough on terrorism is a line from Corbyn's own speech. But to be tough on terrorism you have to be willing to do whatever is necessary to defeat them, including "bombing the s- out of them".

And there is a wealth of difference between the political nature of a terrorist attack and the choice by Corbyn to deliver a speech, on a Labour podium, to a Labour and press audience, publicised in the press overnight, talking about how his government would be different on foreign policy and terror than the Conservatives.

Tell me that - tell me that this speech was not designed to win votes and get Corbyn to be PM.

 

[PJV3]

Nobody should not be using a terrorist attack as an excuse to promote the views and purity of a party leader in the middle of a general election campaign. That is what Corbyn has done, and that is wrong.

You could have just let the speech slide as it was mostly fluff, with a little bit about changing our foreign policy and the war on terror.

You're making it out to be something much bigger than it is.

 

[Spuck-uk]

We live in a nasty world with an anarchic international situation. You have to be willing to use your armed forces to advance British objectives. You have to be willing to press the Red Button. You have to be tough on terrorism.

If you told me this part was a speech by Thatcher I'd honestly believe you. You really believe in that kind of imperialism?

 

[Spuck-uk]

I'm sorry but talking to terrorists brought the end of the Troubles, the end of the Basque movement, the end of FARC in Columbia, and many many more terrorist actions across the globe. Meanwhile, the amount of terror groups successfully defeated by bombing the shit out of them and their families stands at precisely zero.

No-one is saying go hug ISIS. But I think it takes some nerve to think that what we are currently doing, and our current campaign of massive bombing of civilians, is having any effect other than creating further terrorists and troubles down the road.

Also, what on earth are these lines about 'tough on terrorism'? You sound like you've swallowed a Theresa May speech. What exactly did Corbyn say in that speech that so offended you? What exactly are you arguing against because it doesn't seem to actually be the speech Corbyn gave?


Finally, politics is all. You cannot put a box around an incident and say 'no, can't politisce this'. That's what the NRA does every time there's a mass shooting in America - "it's too soon to talk about this' you're politisicing it". That's garbage. Now *is* the time to talk about this. Young men born and raised in this country are strapping explosives to themselves and murdering scores of children in a suicide attacks! If politics can't talk about this, then there's no fucking point to any of it.

I've had a few slagging matches with you in here but.. Damn, all of this, nailed it.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

If you told me this part was a speech by Thatcher I'd honestly believe you. You really believe in that kind of imperialism?

No, I believe in realist international politics - the dominant philosophy of how the international sphere works since WW2.

 

[Dougald]

Lib Dems really do sound they have been given Tory talking points today, which is odd because there's plenty of Lib Dem voters who will agree with Corbyn on that speech

I've been on and off the LD train since their stance on Iraq. Is policy really now that foreign intervention is good after all?

I seem to remember Charles Kennedy saying invading Iraq would only fuel the fires of extremism, but now Corbyn says it it's wrong?

 

[JonathanEx]

Tell me that - tell me that this speech was not designed to win votes and get Corbyn to be PM.

Well it is an election

 

[PJV3]

No, I believe in realist international politics - the dominant philosophy of how the international sphere works since WW2.

It isn't fucking working anymore, the bodies are washing up on the shores of Europe.

 

[jelly]

If someone launches a nuke these days, world over. I'm glad he doesn't want to push it and every other sane leader in the world likely thinks the same behind closed doors. Just because he says it doesn't make the deterrent less effective, the deterrent existing does the job itself.

 

[Spuck-uk]

Apparently Katie Hopkins colleagues cheered and applauded when they found out she'd been fired.

 

[D4Danger]

No, I believe in realist international politics - the dominant philosophy of how the international sphere works since WW2.

we've been bombing IS in Iraq and Syria for years years and it's done nothing. We're no closer to an end that we were 5 years ago (in fact we're probably further away).

This idea that we can march an army in, kill the bad guys and then sit back as democracy takes over is the most simplistic world view imaginable. it does not work. it hasn't worked.

If we want to marginalize groups like IS and really drive them out we need to work with countries in the region and have a proper foreign policy that promotes the growth of these countries as allies so power vacuums can't form.

let's not forget that Britain has been at war with pretty much everyone at one point in time. We can work towards a common good but the first step is to admit the current plan isn't working.

 

[Spuck-uk]

No, I believe in realist international politics - the dominant philosophy of how the international sphere works since WW2.

The death throes of Neoliberalism are pretty wild.

 

[Wrestlemania]

Tell me that - tell me that this speech was not designed to win votes and get Corbyn to be PM.

Of course it was. He wants to be elected so he can enact these policies he believes will help reduce the threat of terrorism. He set out his beliefs and people will decide whether or not to vote for him based in part on that.
You are familiar with elections, right?

 

[gun_haver]

Tell me that - tell me that this speech was not designed to win votes and get Corbyn to be PM.

Nobody is even trying to tell you that. That isn't what matters. He SHOULD be trying to get votes by expressing his views honestly.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Apparently Katie Hopkins colleagues cheered and applauded when they found out she'd been fired.

https://media.giphy.com/media/ibNNZZXkrr31u/giphy.gif[IMG][/QUOTE]

Regardless of your politics, she doesn't strike one as a nice person to, you know, be in the vicinity of.

 

[PJV3]

Regardless of your politics, she doesn't strike one as a nice person to, you know, be in the vicinity of.

It would be cool if the fad for being an uncompromising cold hearted tightarse is over.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

It isn't fucking working anymore, the bodies are washing up on the shores of Europe.

Here's what I mean by Realism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)

Bodies are washing up on the shores of Europe because we're not acting in a way which is most beneficial to the West - which would be to go in and remove IS via troops on the ground, probably. We could also remove Assad, except that would cause a US-Russia standoff and possible thermonuclear war.

Alternatively we could pursue soft power, but it hasn't worked yet and I'm not convinced it will.

I would argue that Western foreign policy was too damaged after attempting to be World Police - i.e. liberal interventionism - in 2003. Because of that, we have been too soft on pursuing Western goals - for example, crushing terror organisations hiding in a collapsed country - and thus have paid the price with IS and IS-inspired terrorism.

The whole irony is that someone is going to have to remove IS. It can be the West now or Assad and Russia once Syria is won.

Radicalisation at home is a radically different problem, and should be treated as such. But Corbyn's gone on stage today and told folks that the terrorists are right - it's not their own ideology that's wrong, it's that they were forced into those acts by what the West had done before.

So at no point can I look at this speech and the man and not feel like there's something seriously wrong with his worldview.

Of course it was. He wants to be elected so he can enact these policies he believes will help reduce the threat of terrorism. He set out his beliefs and people will decide whether or not to vote for him based in part on that.
You are familiar with elections, right?

OK, so tell me that his speech was not directly inspired by the attack on Monday night.

 

[gun_haver]

OK, so tell me that his speech was not directly inspired by the attack on Monday night.

Again, it should be inspired by the attack. When these things happen again it should be a time when the issue is talked about and looked at again - in a sensible way, that makes progress - not in a sensationalistic nonsense way about the spirit of the UK prevailing and how it's time to get even tougher on terrorism

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Again, it should be inspired by the attack. When these things happen again it should be a time when the issue is talked about and looked at again - in a sensible way, that makes progress - not in a sensationalistic nonsense way about the spirit of the UK prevailing and how it's time to get even tougher on terrorism

OK, so tell me it's not OK to use an act of terror to try and win a general election.

 

[Pixieking]

4 hours ago - Government vows cyber encryption crackdown after Manchester suicide bombing. New plans would force messaging apps to decrypt suspects...

But of course Corbyn's speech is politicising the issue.

OK, so tell me it's not OK to use an act of terror to try and win a general election.

Has Corbyn staked-out a policy? Yes? Has he used victims overtly as politicial props? No? Then there's nothing inherently wrong with what he's done, to me. Is it distasteful? Maybe. But I'd rather he did this than just said nothing.

 

[Wrestlemania]

OK, so tell me that his speech was not directly inspired by the attack on Monday night.

Of course it was in response to the attack. Anything else you'd like me to tell you?

 

[D4Danger]

OK, so tell me it's not OK to use an act of terror to try and win a general election.

do you expect our politicians to just not talk about foreign policy, policing or terrorism?

this is the first day of campaigning since the Monday attack and if he was to come out and talk about school lunches people would rightly criticise him. It's important to talk about the challenges we face and people want to know what he would do.

I doubt he had this speech planned for today but you can find his views about the war on terror and a billion other issues related to that going back nearly 40 years. It's not like he just plucked this out of thin air to score some cheap points. In fact he was a lot more reserved than he could've been considering he's been on the right side of this issue for a long time.

 

[King_Moc]

Yougov poll has 66% agreeing with Corbyn's statement that the UK's foreign policy is, in part, helping cause terror attacks in the UK.

24% disagree
10% don't know

 

[travisbickle]

Radicalisation at home is a radically different problem, and should be treated as such. But Corbyn's gone on stage today and told folks that the terrorists are right - it's not their own ideology that's wrong, it's that they were forced into those acts by what the West had done before.

He said the terrorists are right?

 

[Beefy]

I don't like Corbyn, but his speech was great. Way too many people jumping to conclusions when it simply was a "lets change how we do things" speech. I agree with him, how much we fucked up in Iraq is costing us now.

 

[Real Hero]

This is a genuinely mad argument, politician shouldn't make a speech on a super important issue that is extremely relevant right now, in the middle of an important election because ??????

Argue with his points all you want, but using the same arguments fuck nut republicans used against gun control and obama is just low.

 

[Pixieking]

He said the terrorists are right?

No.

This is a genuinely mad argument, politician shouldn't make a speech on a super important issue that is extremely relevant right now, in the middle of an important election because ??????

Can you imagine trying to do this in the US?

Can we talk about gun crime? Nope.
Opioid epidemic? Nope.
Terrorism? Maybe?

 

[Beefy]

He said the terrorists are right?

Nope

 

[D4Danger]

He said the terrorists are right?

No, never. The full transcript is here if you want to read it.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=238130472&postcount=8095

 

[Spuck-uk]

This is a genuinely mad argument, politician shouldn't make a speech on a super important issue that is extremely relevant right now, in the middle of an important election because ??????

Imagine if he hadn't mentioned it, people would (rightly) be going for him twice as hard and (unrightfully) calling him a terrorist sympathiser for it.

 

[TimmmV]

OK, so tell me it's not OK to use an act of terror to try and win a general election.

How can you claim to be a realist, and then have a problem with someone doing this?

 

[jelly]

You can't really argue terrorists existed before 9/11 as a knock on what Corbyn is saying. Going further back in history to see the mess, I think a good point to go back to is Russia invading Afghanistan and who pumped in billions to arm the rebels against them then left them to it and that's quite recent times.

 

[Screaming Meat]

Tough on terrorism is a line from Corbyn's own speech. But to be tough on terrorism you have to be willing to do whatever is necessary to defeat them, including "bombing the s- out of them".

He said that. Word for word.

Tell me that - tell me that this speech was not designed to win votes and get Corbyn to be PM.

There isn't a single speech in any run up to an election that isn't, at the very least in part, about winning elections.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

do you expect our politicians to just not talk about foreign policy, policing or terrorism?

I ask again, tell me it's not OK to use a terrorist attack to win an election.

 

[PJV3]

Here's what I mean by Realism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)

Bodies are washing up on the shores of Europe because we're not acting in a way which is most beneficial to the West - which would be to go in and remove IS via troops on the ground, probably. We could also remove Assad, except that would cause a US-Russia standoff and possible thermonuclear war.

Alternatively we could pursue soft power, but it hasn't worked yet and I'm not convinced it will.

I would argue that Western foreign policy was too damaged after attempting to be World Police - i.e. liberal interventionism - in 2003. Because of that, we have been too soft on pursuing Western goals - for example, crushing terror organisations hiding in a collapsed country - and thus have paid the price with IS and IS-inspired terrorism.

The whole irony is that someone is going to have to remove IS. It can be the West now or Assad and Russia once Syria is won.

Radicalisation at home is a radically different problem, and should be treated as such. But Corbyn's gone on stage today and told folks that the terrorists are right - it's not their own ideology that's wrong, it's that they were forced into those acts by what the West had done before.

So at no point can I look at this speech and the man and not feel like there's something seriously wrong with his worldview.




OK, so tell me that his speech was not directly inspired by the attack on Monday night.

It's like you're talking about a world that doesn't exist anymore, how does Western interest work with huge communities able to see families getting wiped out on the news and from relatives on mobile phones etc.

It just sounds really old fashioned and simplistic to talk about Western interests.

 

[Showaddy]

I honestly think in terms of the election Corbyn is better off pushing May on her dismal record of shredding the Police as Home Secretary. That video from 2015 of May accusing the Police Federation of scaremongering and crying wolf in the face of a Manchester Police Officer telling her the cuts would make them less safe is startling.

She can't defend against it and there's no way Murdoch's rags can spin it as unpatriotic or sympathising with terrorists.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

It's like you're talking about a world that doesn't exist anymore, how does Western interest work with huge communities able to see families getting wiped out on the news and from relatives on mobile phones etc.

It just sounds really old fashioned and simplistic to talk about Western interests.

No, seriously - that' how international politics works. Or at least, when I did my degree in 2009.

As I said above, we live in a world of starved cats, tied up in a bag with nuclear warheads.

It's crazy but that's the underpinning of how all international affairs work.

Realism was the replacement for the Woodrow Wilson-esque liberal internationalism of the interwar period. In reality, of course, it's been the driving philosophy of international politics since the dawn of time.

 

[D4Danger]

I ask again, tell me it's not OK to use a terrorist attack to win an election.

talking about it isn't using it. You're making it sound sinister with your own emphasis. We can't just pretend it never happened and people have every right to know what a potential PM would do about the current situation.

if he was "using" this in the way you're implying he'd be out there criticizing May personally for failing to prevent this attack or doing what UKIP did the other day and arguing we should close the border.