Support NeoGAF

[Air Zombie Meat]

That's unfair - Farron is responding to what Corbyn's doing, he's not trying to set the headlines. Corbyn is trying to connect the dots between the Manchester bombing and foreign policy.

But they are connected.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

At the risk of sounding like an apologist, perhaps the reason Farron is more opposed to politicising it in the week of the event is because of his personal connection to the area? He said two of his kids knew people at the concert that night, he's honestly probably a bit more shaken than Maidenhead May or Islington Corbyn.

 

[King_Moc]

Commenting on Jeremy Corbyn's forthcoming speech on British foreign policy, Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said: "A few days ago, a young man built a bomb, walked into a pop concert and deliberately slaughtered children. Our children. Families are grieving. A community is in shock.

Jeremy Corbyn has chosen to use that grotesque act to make a political point. I don't agree with what he says, but I disagree even more that now is the time to say it. That's not leadership, it's putting politics before people at a time of tragedy."

Isn't this exactly the time to say it? What weird logic.

 

[naweednrahman]

I've been saying this since the election sort of began. But Corby is going to defy the odds.

I think you'll see labour having a 2 point gain against the conservative a day before election date.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Disgusting of Farron. This is a legitimate and important issue that people are rightly concerned about. Criticising Corbyn for pointing out the government has not been doing enough is beneath him.

 

[*Splinter]

That's unfair - Farron is responding to what Corbyn's doing, he's not trying to set the headlines. Corbyn is trying to connect the dots between the Manchester bombing and foreign policy.

Farron is criticising Corbyn's actions based on the Manchester bombing.

Corbyn is criticising May's actions based on the Manchester bombing.

The only difference is that Corbyn is calling for real change while Farron is purely trying to undermine Corbyn for political gain.

 

[Wrestlemania]

Corbyn is such a political opportunist, openly expressing his long held views on ways we can prevent terrorist attacks in the wake of a terrorist attack. What a cunt!

 

[gun_haver]

Isn't this exactly the time to say it? What weird logic.

Tim Farron seems like a turd to me, and this sounds desperate.

Politicians often accuse other people of trying to politicise public tragedies when they respond to them with politics, in order to deflect from the complexity of a situation and score some humanity points.

It's pretty pathetic that the response to violence and tragedy is often: 'our leaders should just be sad and not try to figure out why this happened and how to stop it until the media forgets about it'.

Their job is to come up with political proposals and solutions. Skip the theatrical bullshit about being sad.

 

[pswii60]

I think the media and the right-wing of Labour will try to make sure it goes badly for Corbyn, as they have everything else, but whether it does or not I suppose we will find out in a few days with whatever new poll comes out.

I've no doubt The Sun will have some major Corbyn FUD that they've saved for their front page right before voting day. It's their style, and let's not forget 'Independence Day' last year!

I don't know how The Sun has any readers anymore, I really don't.

 

[PJV3]

Disgusting of Farron. This is a legitimate and important issue that people are rightly concerned about. Criticising Corbyn for pointing out the government has not been doing enough is beneath him.

It's a general election, lets talk about the weather.

 

[BossDarkseid]

LBC and Hopkins parting ways, presumably after her 'final solution' tweet.

They've "agreed that Katie will leave LBC effective immediately", which is an interesting way of saying fired

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/868028943659524096

Yay.

Also funny to see people say its a denial of freedom of speech. For some many supposedly enlightened people they don't know what they're on about half the time (although we all do that from time to time).

 

[Moze]

Farron is a disaster. Surely he will be gone when he fails to gain any seats?

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Farron is criticising Corbyn's actions based on the Manchester bombing, via a short statement on the topic of needing to be respectful in the wake of the attack.

Corbyn is criticising May's actions based on the Manchester bombing in a well-publicised speech with excerpts sent out to the entire press, garnering coverage across the media spectrum this morning.

The only difference is that Corbyn is making this an issue via a presumably televised speech, whilst Farron is being asked for comment.

Small edit.

 

[PJV3]

Farron is a disaster. Surely he will be gone when he fails to gain any seats?

I thought he would do better, but he's been to the Clegg school of tactics.

 

[Maledict]

Farron is a disaster. Surely he will be gone when he fails to gain any seats?

If they don't gain any seats he won't go because there's literally no-one to replace him. They only gave 8 MPS in total, none of them have any presence, and unlike the SNP they don't really have an alternate power base they can use to grow future leaders. No-one is making the jump from a local council to running a national party.

 

[kmag]

That's unfair - Farron is responding to what Corbyn's doing, he's not trying to set the headlines. Corbyn is trying to connect the dots between the Manchester bombing and foreign policy. What do you propose he do - stay quiet about something he thinks is wrong?

Isn't that his entire shtick when it comes to gays, abortion etc?


And those dots aren't dots they're fucking neon trails. The bomber was trained in Libya, you know the country we bombed into absolute chaos.

 

[Ghost]

I think talking about it is a Trumpian move, it's smashing the convention and as Andrew Neil himself has said several times himself, we need our politicians to actually talk about this and not just deal out the same platitudes every time it happens (wonder if that will come up in the interview, bet not).

But I don't think Corbyn has the personality or the policy to pull it off, it's not going to come across as a new approach that might actually stop this from happening, it's going to come across as blaming 'ourselves' for getting attacked, as apologising for terrorists, it's going to go down really poorly.


Ultimately there's a reason all we get when this happens is platitudes, it's because that's the only thing that's worked with the public.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Isn't that his entire shtick when it comes to gays, abortion etc?

No, but he does tend to keep his faith to himself. Corbyn wants to spread his faith by any means necessary.

Do I disagree with the notion that the war on terror has not helped fight Islamic terrorism? No - I think it's far more complicated than a right or wrong answer. We chose NOT to intervene in Syria. We chose to NOT put troops on the ground in Libya.

 

[Wrestlemania]

No, but he does tend to keep his faith to himself. Corbyn wants to spread his faith by any means necessary.

Do I disagree with the notion that the war on terror has not helped fight Islamic terrorism? No - I think it's far more complicated than a right or wrong answer.

Faith! Fucking hell.

 

[kmag]

No, but he does tend to keep his faith to himself. Corbyn wants to spread his faith by any means necessary.

Logical fuckery there.

Politician A has got to speak up about something he thinks is wrong. Politician A has a record of making tepid comments on stuff everyone knows he thinks is wrong, but hey nows the time.
Politician B gets slated about speaking up about something he thinks is wrong. Politician B for all his faults has a track record of speaking up about issues he cares about regardless of the political wisdom of doing so.

Not seeing what's so appealling about Politician A's approach, seems to be a bit cunty.

 

[gun_haver]

I think talking about it is a Trumpian move, it's smashing the convention and as Andrew Neil himself has said several times himself, we need our politicians to actually talk about this and not just deal out the same platitudes every time it happens (wonder if that will come up in the interview, bet not).

But I don't think Corbyn has the personality or the policy to pull it off, it's not going to come across as a new approach that might actually stop this from happening, it's going to come across as blaming 'ourselves' for getting attacked, as apologising for terrorists, it's going to go down really poorly.


Ultimately there's a reason all we get when this happens is platitudes, it's because that's the only thing that's worked with the public.

I think it's more that parties have election strategies and when something like the Manchester bombing happens suddenly, it throws their strategy off and they try to react to it essentially as little as possible in order to continue on with what they were doing before. It doesn't 'work' with the public, the idea is just to ignore it while hopefully making voters think you feel empathy.

It will only come off as blaming ourselves for being attacked if that is how the media and Corbyn's own MPs react to it. If they're making this statement with some conviction and throught put into it then it doesn't have to be like that.

 

[jem0208]

Logical fuckery there.

Politician A has got to speak up about something he thinks is wrong. Politician A has a record of making tepid comments on stuff everyone knows he thinks is wrong, but hey nows the time.
Politician B gets slated about speaking up about something he thinks is wrong. Politician B for all his faults has a track record of speaking up about issues he cares about regardless of the political wisdom of doing so.

Not seeing what's so appealling about Politician A's approach, seems to be a bit cunty.

To be fair, politician A also consistently votes in favour of what we all know is right regardless of whatever his personal views are...

 

[*Splinter]

Small edit.

Is your complaint that he's getting his message out to too many people?

Are you suggesting the "need to be respectful" is more important than the need for foreign policy change, better funded police, etc?

I think talking about it is a Trumpian move, it's smashing the convention and as Andrew Neil himself has said several times himself, we need our politicians to actually talk about this and not just deal out the same platitudes every time it happens (wonder if that will come up in the interview, bet not).

But I don't think Corbyn has the personality or the policy to pull it off, it's not going to come across as a new approach that might actually stop this from happening, it's going to come across as blaming 'ourselves' for getting attacked, as apologising for terrorists, it's going to go down really poorly.


Ultimately there's a reason all we get when this happens is platitudes, it's because that's the only thing that's worked with the public.

I dunno... With his record and reputation he might be just the man for the job. If it was a new focus for him it would look opportunistic, it's much harder to make that argument against Corbyn.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Not seeing what's so appealling about Politician A's approach, seems to be a bit cunty.

Politician A has been known to be a strong defender of those who he gets constantly accused of hating or disrespecting on behalf of his faith.

Politician B has been linked for much of his political career with anti-Western politics.

That is the context here. But attacking the messenger isn't really fair. Let's attack the message.

We can all agree that a debate needs to be had about police funding - even though where that money goes is a good question.

But to schedule a speech specifically in response to the bombing which tells the British public that it was our foreign policy to blame is crass and opportunistic.

As much as we should have this debate, which I agree should be had, doing it at this time is wrong.

@Splinter, my complaint is that he should not be using this attack as a justification for railing against western foreign policy. That is wrong - it is not the actions of a leader, as Farron put it.

 

[TimmmV]

Commenting on Jeremy Corbyn's forthcoming speech on British foreign policy, Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said: "A few days ago, a young man built a bomb, walked into a pop concert and deliberately slaughtered children. Our children. Families are grieving. A community is in shock.

Jeremy Corbyn has chosen to use that grotesque act to make a political point. I don't agree with what he says, but I disagree even more that now is the time to say it. That's not leadership, it's putting politics before people at a time of tragedy."

The "playing politics" argument about tragedies is, and always will be, absolute fucking bullshit

It's a terrorist attack - it is inherently political. Refusing to talk about the reasons why it happened because you don't want to "make a political point" does a disservice to the victims of it.

The little respect I had remaining for Farron just evaporated with that statement

Politician A has been known to be a strong defender of those who he gets constantly accused of hating or disrespecting on behalf of his faith.

Politician B has been linked for much of his political career with anti-Western politics.

That is the context here. But attacking the messenger isn't really fair. Let's attack the message.

We can all agree that a debate needs to be had about police funding - even though where that money goes is a good question.

But to schedule a speech specifically in response to the bombing which tells the British public that it was our foreign policy to blame is crass and opportunistic.

As much as we should have this debate, which I agree should be had, doing it at this time is wrong.

@Splinter, my complaint is that he should not be using this attack as a justification for railing against western foreign policy. That is wrong - it is not the actions of a leader, as Farron put it.

If only Farron followed that logic! Everything about that is an attack on Corbyn

 

[PJV3]

@Splinter, my complaint is that he should not be using this attack as a justification for railing against western foreign policy. That is wrong - it is not the actions of a leader, as Farron put it.

That's a mental position, he genuinely believes British people are dying because of our contribution to instability and chaos around the world.

Of course he should say it.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

Farron didn't just say the timing was wrong he said the message was too. So he's either ignorant or being dishonest. I suspect the latter.

 

[*Splinter]

@Splinter, my complaint is that he should not be using this attack as a justification for railing against western foreign policy. That is wrong - it is not the actions of a leader, as Farron put it.

I'm not arguing against that point - I'm not actually decided on it one way or the other - I'm arguing that Farron is doing exactly the same.

Or to make another small edit:

he should not be using this attack as a justification for railing against Corbyn's campaign strategy

Whether or not Corbyn is doing the right thing, I can only see Farron's statement as worse.

 

[kmag]

Politician A has been known to be a strong defender of those who he gets constantly accused of hating or disrespecting on behalf of his faith.

Politician B has been linked for much of his political career with anti-Western politics.

That is the context here. But attacking the messenger isn't really fair. Let's attack the message.

We can all agree that a debate needs to be had about police funding - even though where that money goes is a good question.

But to schedule a speech specifically in response to the bombing which tells the British public that it was our foreign policy to blame is crass and opportunistic.

As much as we should have this debate, which I agree should be had, doing it at this time is wrong.

@Splinter, my complaint is that he should not be using this attack as a justification for railing against western foreign policy. That is wrong - it is not the actions of a leader, as Farron put it.

Lets just have a couple of weeks of inane platitudes, until it all blows over. That's strong and stable leadership. Our foreign policy HAS contributed to this attack, that's simply a matter of fact, we turned the country the bomber was trained into a chaotic mess, via the explosive nature of our foreign policy. And from what's been released to the press, it seems that the state of Libya was a major driver in his radicalisation.

Who would have thunk us blowing up their children might lead them to wanting to blow up ours?

 

[Huw_Dawson]

It's a terrorist attack - it is inherently political. Refusing to talk about the reasons why it happened because you don't want to "make a political point" does a disservice to the victims of it.

Except he isn't. He's using it as an opportunity to talk about why Western wars in the Middle East are bad, and connecting the dots between the two.

There will be a good set of reasons why this attack happened. Some of them will have been impossible to prevent. Some of them will have been due to police and security cuts over the past seven years.

And then you have the "foreign wars" bit, which is where the 'playing politics' comes from. It's grandstanding on international issues.

 

[Theonik]

@Splinter, my complaint is that he should not be using this attack as a justification for railing against western foreign policy. That is wrong - it is not the actions of a leader, as Farron put it.

Running to be the prime minister of a country is to wish to lead a change in policy. If anything criticism of our existing policy is exactly what a leader ought to do.

 

[kmag]

Except he isn't. He's using it as an opportunity to talk about why Western wars in the Middle East are bad, and connecting the dots between the two.

There will be a good set of reasons why this attack happened. Some of them will have been impossible to prevent. Some of them will have been due to police and security cuts over the past seven years.

And then you have the "foreign wars" bit, which is where the 'playing politics' comes from. It's grandstanding on international issues.

It's not grandstanding, it's fucking common sense. And if we're to believe Chilcot, something our intelligence services believe as well.

Here's what the head of MI5 at the time of the Iraq war said to the Chilcot inquiry

Our involvement in Iraq radicalised a few among a generation of young people who saw [it] as an attack upon Islam.

how about what the JIC said to Blair at the time

The JIC assessed that al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq..."

"The JIC assessed that any collapse of the Iraqi regime would increase the risk of chemical and biological warfare technology or agents finding their way into the hands of terrorists, not necessarily al-Qaida."

The notion that our foreign policy in the Middle East does not greatly factor into the current state of radical Islamic terrorism is probably the least contentious thought in Western politics.

 

[Real Hero]

I don't care that farron disagrees with the message that's fine, I just hate him for suggesting everyone should shut up because we are still in the changing our Facebook profile picture stage of the tragedy. That's not leadership

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Can I judge from the comments here that people believe the line of thinking, which is the following:

"Now guys, I know this was a radical Islamist terrorist's actions...

BUT

it was really our fault. Because of our actions, terrorists want to kill us!"

Because this is the argument I'm reading when I read these quotes. So at this point I think Farron's right in his statement - this is a grotesque speech to make at this time.

The crux of my point is that Farron has made ONE statement, in response to something Corbyn is doing which is of far greater magnitude. But *Corbyn* isn't the one at fault here, it's Farron.

 

[Spuck-uk]

So do we think Corbyn actually has a chance or are we just curious to see how close he can make it?

Not a hope of winning it, but reducing the majority would be huge.

 

[PJV3]

Can I judge from the comments here that people believe the line of thinking, which is the following:

"Now guys, I know this was a radical Islamist terrorist's actions...

BUT

it was really our fault. Because of our actions, terrorists want to kill us!"

I'm surprised you're going for this, it reminds me of the poverty and crime debate and how it got twisted into Labour attacking poor people.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

Can I judge from the comments here that people believe the line of thinking, which is the following:

"Now guys, I know this was a radical Islamist terrorist's actions...

BUT

it was really our fault. Because of our actions, terrorists want to kill us!"

If you simplify it to the level of a Daily Mail take, sure.

 

[*Splinter]

Can I judge from the comments here that people believe the line of thinking, which is the following:

"Now guys, I know this was a radical Islamist terrorist's actions...

BUT

it was really our fault. Because of our actions, terrorists want to kill us!"

I think that's quite a gross reduction of the argument.

 

[Pixieking]

But to schedule a speech specifically in response to the bombing which tells the British public that it was our foreign policy to blame is crass and opportunistic.

As much as we should have this debate, which I agree should be had, doing it at this time is wrong.

@Splinter, my complaint is that he should not be using this attack as a justification for railing against western foreign policy. That is wrong - it is not the actions of a leader, as Farron put it.

Torn between "He's telling the truth at the wrong moment" and "telling the truth at what can be perceived as the wrong moment". This isn't UKIP saying "immigrants are to blame", which would be both wholly incorrect, and cynical. He's not wrong about foreign policy being (at least partially) to blame, so it's very much a judgement call on whether to speak now, or leave it.

What concerns me more than the timing is the polarisation that this thing engenders, and that Corbyn himself is pushing (knowingly or not). Assad has used chemical weapons on his own people - if the vote to get involved in Syria had been successful, then that (probably) wouldn't have occurred. Would we be in a better situation than we are now, or would we have more radicalisation and extremist views? Hard to say for sure, but saying all foreign involvement in wars is bad is simple and naive. Unless Corbyn pushes more NATO/UN involvement in obvious wrongs that occur in other countries, he's not helping the wider issue, he's only pushing a more isolationist view within the UK.

I think a more reasoned view of foreign policy would be that Iraq was a mistake, Libya was half-assed, and Syria would've been better handled were both politicians and voters not gun-shy due to Iraq and Libya. However, that's not an easy sell, especially for someone who's been actively against involvement in other country's activities.

 

[kmag]

Can I judge from the comments here that people believe the line of thinking, which is the following:

"Now guys, I know this was a radical Islamist terrorist's actions...

BUT

it was really our fault. Because of our actions, terrorists want to kill us!"

Because this is the argument I'm reading when I read these quotes. So at this point I think Farron's right in his statement - this is a grotesque speech to make at this time.

The crux of my point is that Farron has made ONE statement, in response to something Corbyn is doing which is of far greater magnitude. But *Corbyn* isn't the one at fault here, it's Farron.

That's because with the best will in the world, you're a partisan hack.

 

[TimmmV]

Except he isn't. He's using it as an opportunity to talk about why Western wars in the Middle East are bad, and connecting the dots between the two.

There will be a good set of reasons why this attack happened. Some of them will have been impossible to prevent. Some of them will have been due to police and security cuts over the past seven years.

And then you have the "foreign wars" bit, which is where the 'playing politics' comes from. It's grandstanding on international issues.

Do you not think that Islamic terrorism is at least partially a response to western wars in the middle east?

You say "connecting the dots" and "grandstanding" like its not a valid point to bring up

 

[King_Moc]

Can I judge from the comments here that people believe the line of thinking, which is the following:

"Now guys, I know this was a radical Islamist terrorist's actions...

BUT

it was really our fault. Because of our actions, terrorists want to kill us!"

Because this is the argument I'm reading when I read these quotes. So at this point I think Farron's right in his statement - this is a grotesque speech to make at this time.

The crux of my point is that Farron has made ONE statement, in response to something Corbyn is doing which is of far greater magnitude. But *Corbyn* isn't the one at fault here, it's Farron.

Congratulations on removing all nuance and turning it into a black and white question. You really need to look past your Farron bias, as it's stopping you from seeing the very obvious truth here.

 

[Spuck-uk]

As long as you package it nicely- "Why spend x overseas when we can spend x on your safety" it could be very effective. But they're gonna have to soothe people's worries that higher taxes aren't gonna mean they've gotta resort to Lidl.

Spoiler

No disrespect to Lidl, wish I had one near me

Already playing that angle eh?

I agree with the earlier poster, it's unhelpful when the two 'progressive' parties go after eachother.

They care more about increasing their marginal share of the vote than stopping the Tories from gaining an overwhelming mandate. Anyone voting for them really should know this.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Double post.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Not a hope of winning it, but reducing the majority would be huge.

Off the topic of the speech for a second, the Tories have to get about 36%-ish before I'd say they're in danger of losing this election.

---

I won't be responding to folks who are saying "OMG you're biased" - you're attacking the messenger, not the message. I'm as biased as sin - prove me wrong.

Do you not think that Islamic terrorism is at least partially a response to western wars in the middle east?

You say "connecting the dots" and "grandstanding" like its not a valid point to bring up

No, I'm saying that it's wrong to turn around and do what he's doing, which is partially justifying the terrorist's cause. That is not what someone who wants to be Prime Minister should be saying in the wake of this attack.

As I said prior, there is OBVIOUSLY a link between foreign policy and terrorism. Both are under the sphere of international politics. Terrorism is a violent act to cause terror for political gain.

But saying something as reductionist as "Many experts (...) have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries and terrorism here at home."

Or:

"We must be brave enough to admit the ‘war on terror' is simply not working. We need a smarter way to reduce the threat from countries that nurture terrorists and generate terrorism."

These are far too simplistic views. Libya collapsed because we dallied between going in or not, instead opting for ineffective bombing campaigns. ISIS has happened because the Syrian government nearly collapsed, we softly backed the rebels but refused to put steel behind the cash. And ISIS in Iraq happened because we rushed to flee Iraq once they had anything that had a semblance of good governance in place.

"Foreign wars" did not cause Libya to collapse. Revolution at home and anaemic foreign policy caused it to collapse.

Corbyn is wrong in his statements, he is wrong in his timing, and Farron is right to call him out for it.

 

[Meadows]

can't wait for this election to be over, turns everyone into absolute twats

 

[kmag]

Torn between "He's telling the truth at the wrong moment" and "telling the truth at what can be perceived as the wrong moment". This isn't UKIP saying "immigrants are to blame", which would be both wholly incorrect, and cynical. He's not wrong about foreign policy being (at least partially) to blame, so it's very much a judgement call on whether to speak now, or leave it.

What concerns me more than the timing is the polarisation that this thing engenders, and that Corbyn himself is pushing (knowingly or not). Assad has used chemical weapons on his own people - if the vote to get involved in Syria had been successful, then that (probably) wouldn't have occurred. Would we be in a better situation than we are now, or would we have more radicalisation and extremist views? Hard to say for sure, but saying all foreign involvement in wars is bad is simple and naive. Unless Corbyn pushes more NATO/UN involvement in obvious wrongs that occur in other countries, he's not helping the wider issue, he's only pushing a more isolationist view within the UK.

I think a more reasoned view of foreign policy would be that Iraq was a mistake, Libya was half-assed, and Syria would've been better handled were both politicians and voters not gun-shy due to Iraq and Libya. However, that's not an easy sell, especially for someone who's been actively against involvement in other country's activities.

The arguments for disposing violent dictators (well the ones who aren't pally with us at the moment) are always based on jam tomorrow. Basically under violent dictators, a potentially large amount of the populace (particular ethnicities, opposition parties, particularly religious sects) get an unbelievably shitty deal. When the great torch of Western democracy unleashes it's payload of enlightenment on those Dictators, everyone in that country seems to end up with a shitty deal, and we in the West have little answer to that apart from well you can vote now can't you.

We can easily blow up a country, we can't ever seem to put it back together. The other issue is that in most of these places it's the violent strongman who's keeping the populace from killing each other, because when the West originally drew up those 'countries' it had the ethnic, racial and religious sensibilities of a 1970's Bernard Manning gig. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, probably shouldn't be unified countries per se, they are because the British empire said they were. They're essentially post empirical administrative zones, which weren't allowed because of who we installed as rulers to really bond together in countries, and lack of some of the unifying characteristics of what makes countries viable.

And that's not a dig at the populace themselves, even in the West, places like Belgium which while not descending into violence, has extremely geographically partisan politics because fundamentally it's a purely administrative construct.

 

[jem0208]

I'd be curious to see whether opinions on Farron's comments would differ if instead it was May making a speech about how we need to increase internet security etc...

 

[Spuck-uk]

To be fair, politician A also consistently votes in favour of what we all know is right regardless of whatever his personal views are...

If by 'what we all know is right' you mean 'abstaining or voting against gay and womens rights', then sure.

 

[Ghost]

No, I'm saying that it's wrong to turn around and do what he's doing, which is partially justifying the terrorist's cause.

I don't think he's said anything about the terrorists being justified, the opposite in fact. What he's trying to say is that the current approach doesn't work and we need a new one. I don't think he's wrong to say that in the current circumstances either, I think it's actually exactly when it needs to be said because the political will to do anything evaporates as quickly as they can get away with it.

His mistake is to frame it as 'this is what we've done wrong in the past' instead of 'this is what we will do in the future to prevent this'