Support NeoGAF

[Spuck-uk]

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.

Interventionism isn't a blanket 'western foreign policy'. Don't see the same people criticising Ireland or Switzerlands stance re: Not blowing up the middle east for fun and Jesus.

 

[gun_haver]

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.

Then you're wrong. The point is that, whether you agree with it or not, a lot of people think that the UK and Western world in general's activities and support of activities in the Middle East over the past 30 years have created circumstances in the Middle East which has inadvertantly created an amenable atmosphere to elements within that area that would like to see a radical version of Islam take over the world, and that this has spiralled out into the current situation where we see frequent terrorist attacks from both foreign nationals to and citizens of Western countries happening.

The sentiment 'fuck terrorists' does nothing to help stop these attacks, while, on the other hand, looking at the attacks as a complex problem, which includes considering how governments could change their foreign policy, in order to understand as best as possible why these attacks happen and how they can be stopped in the future is what should actually be done.

 

[Spuck-uk]

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.

The bolded part is correct, yes. Our own military intelligence agree with this as well.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

on a different note

HAPPY BIRTHDAY JEZZA

 

[Huw_Dawson]

The bolded part is correct, yes. Our own military intelligence agree with this as well.

Sure, buy by agreeing that it's a good reason for terrorists wanting to kill us, he's justifying terrorism.

"The actions are appalling, but I totally get why they're angry."

Same old JC.

 

[King_Moc]

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...

Given that that would be about something completely different, most likely, yes.

 

[Pixieking]

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

Not as black-and-white as all that.

 

[PJV3]

Sure, buy by agreeing that it's a good reason for terrorists wanting to kill us, he's justifying terrorism.

"The actions are appalling, but I totally get why they're angry."

Same old JC.

No, it's just an explanation.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Given that that would be about something completely different, most likely, yes.

Also May has not yet jumped out and done this - I'll expect us to condemn using this attack as an excuse for a ramped up security state should May go down that route.

And no, it's not just an explanation. And if it is - if this is what Corbyn actually believes - it's wrong.

 

[King_Moc]

Sure, buy by agreeing that it's a good reason for terrorists wanting to kill us, he's justifying terrorism.

"The actions are appalling, but I totally get why they're angry."

Same old JC.

No he isn't. Saying why they have the motivation to do this isn't implying that it's justified. Like, at all.

 

[TimmmV]

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.

They tried that, but you don't listen

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.

Terrorism is bad, that everyone is absolutely in agreement about.

However thinking you can just go around the world invading places to further your own interests, and not make people want to do them against you is intellectually dishonest

He is saying "if we do x, then more people will want to terrorist attacks against us. So we should stop doing x" that is entirely different than "we did x, so we deserve the terrorist attacks"

 

[PJV3]

No he isn't. Saying why they have the motivation to do this isn't implying that it's justified. Like, at all.

It's like saying poverty can create the conditions for crime and social problems isn't justifying criminal behaviour.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

However thinking you can just go around the world invading places to further your own interests, and not make people want to do them against you is intellectually dishonest

Sure, which is why we didn't go into Libya, causing the state to collapse and make the entire problem worse.

 

[*Splinter]

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...

That would probably depend on whether or not their is evidence to support May's assertions.

I think Farron's hypocrisy would be overshadowed by May's cuntiness in that case.

 

[War Peaceman]

Sure, buy by agreeing that it's a good reason for terrorists wanting to kill us, he's justifying terrorism.

"The actions are appalling, but I totally get why they're angry."

Same old JC.

This is so stupid. Recognising what inspires actions doesn't equal justifying. Such rubbish.

Corbyn isn't just indulging in the fantasy that he can close pandora's box caused by iraq/afghanistan/libya etc. Because he is actually proposing things that will - theoretically - protect UK citizens from existing terror threats while also working to create a safer world long-term. This isn't just a 'look I was right' thing.

I don't even particularly like Corbyn, but he is right on the money here.

 

[gun_haver]

It's like saying poverty can create the conditions for crime and social problems isn't justifying criminal behaviour.

Some people want to just react to problems when they arise and other people want to think about the underlying processes that caused the problems to arise in the first place.

 

[kmag]

Sure, which is why we didn't go into Libya, causing the state to collapse and make the entire problem worse.

After we bombed the shit out of it.

 

[Spuck-uk]

Sure, buy by agreeing that it's a good reason for terrorists wanting to kill us, he's justifying terrorism.

"The actions are appalling, but I totally get why they're angry."

Same old JC.

That's more ridiculous reductionism.

 

[Chinner]

Looks like the speech has started.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I think you're busy convincing Lib/Lab waverers to swing firmly to camp red right now, Huw.

 

[Uzzy]

I'll be remembering Farron's comments the next time someone suggests a 'progressive alliance. '

 

[Pixieking]

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.

*nods* For sure, and it's why I hate the aftermath of the Iraq war. There are genuine issues that ought to be talked about more in order to prevent human rights abuses by strongmen, as well as foreign country overreach. But the pendulum has swung comprehensively away from even academic or non-partisan policy talk about what can/should be done outside of the UN/NATO peacekeeping. It's stunning that in the course of 25 years the West has gone from Bill Clinton's intervention in the Balkans to world-wide non-intervention in Syria (with Rwanda in the middle(ish)).

 

[Maledict]

At this stage I'm just going to resort to the tritest of sayings - let Corbyn be Corbyn. Whether it works or not will come down to him and his skill. There's truth in what he's saying, but whether he can pull it off is another thing. But he's gotten this far by being Corbyn and doing this stuff, so he should keep on doing that.

 

[TomWaitsForNoMan]

There are genuine issues that ought to be talked about more in order to prevent human rights abuses by strongmen

Weirdly "stop selling them weapons" never seems to be an option

 

[Spuck-uk]

Looks like the speech has started.

Well, here we go. I can honestly see public reaction going either way on this.

I fully expect most of the press to paint him as a monster.

 

[Xun]

Great speech so far...

 

[Madouu]

It's going really well so far

 

[AngryMoth]

Where can I watch it?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Corbyn is sounding... Prime Ministerial?

 

[Xun]

Where can I watch it?

https://www.facebook.com/JeremyCorbynMP/videos/10155395577533872/

Corbyn is sounding... Prime Ministerial?

Agreed.

I hope he can somehow do it.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Where can I watch it?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/election-2017-live-jeremy-corbyn-10502630

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

Here it comes...

edit: I'm supposed to be disgusted over that? if people can listen to that and call it pro terrorist then they've got a screw loose.

 

[kmag]

And when it comes to say the IRA (because we all know they'll suddenly be news this weekend). Do people really think the UK's actions didn't have an effect there? I mean the IRA were inactive in NI for essentially 40 years, it wasn't until the civil rights movement started getting attacked by the NI police apparatus, then after a violent series of Loyalist attacks in both NI and Dublin, and then the events of Bloody Sunday that the Provisional IRA actually properly got back involved.

The UK allowed the statlet to operate as an apartheid state, then allowed that state to violently crush any civil rights movement which rose, then wondered why it all went to shit.

It's like saying White South Africa had no part to play in rise of the ANC. It's fucking inane thinking.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

I think you're busy convincing Lib/Lab waverers to swing firmly to camp red right now, Huw.

Not really - if you're the sort who will rush to agree with Corbyn on this I think you were convinced already.

I'll be remembering Farron's comments the next time someone suggests a 'progressive alliance. '

The only people suggesting a progressive alliance were the Green Party, who used it as a vehicle to get into the news.

 

[DavidDesu]

When we are so close, mere days really, away from potentially voting the Tories in for 5 more years of their fucking leadership, I would say now has to be the time for people like Corbyn to take the government to task on how we got here.

I read the Telegraph article last night and we had FIVE occasions to intercept this guy and do something about him. His family reported him, his friends reported him, his mosque reported him and banned him from attending. May and the Tories have banged on constantly about intercepting everyone's private messages to prevent terror attacks (while weakening our day to day security, see the NHS hack stolen from NSA and used against us) meanwhile legitimate concerns of several people about the same guy go by with nothing done. That is an absolute failure. We don't really have time to grieve and be restrained. There's no time since electing the Tories for 5 more years of detrimental leadership is not something that can be fobbed off because it's a sensitive time, sadly.

 

[TimmmV]

Sure, which is why we didn't go into Libya, causing the state to collapse and make the entire problem worse.

Which is why we shouldn't have bombed the fuck out of it and then left it to burn afterwards. The public doesn't have the will to see through the necessary occupation to make any intervention a long term success. So faced with that reality, non intervention is probably better than just bombing the hell out of everything and then expecting a country to rebuild itself

And when it comes to say the IRA (because we all know they'll suddenly be news this weekend). Do people really think the UK's actions didn't have an effect there? I mean the IRA were inactive in NI for essentially 40 years, it wasn't until the civil rights movement started getting attacked by the NI police apparatus, then after a violent series of Loyalist attacks in both NI and Dublin, and then the events of Bloody Sunday that the Provisional IRA actually properly got back involved.

The UK allowed the statlet to operate as an apartheid state, then allowed that state to violently crush any civil rights movement which rose, then wondered why it all went to shit.

It's like saying White South Africa had no part to play in rise of the ANC. It's fucking inane thinking.

I think the average person is probably mostly ignorant to the UKs actions in NI tbh

 

[War Peaceman]

Not really - if you're the sort who will rush to agree with Corbyn on this I think you were convinced already.

Didn't the Liberal Democrats get their best ever result because of the Iraq War?

 

[Spuck-uk]

And when it comes to say the IRA (because we all know they'll suddenly be news this weekend). Do people really think the UK's actions didn't have an effect there? I mean the IRA were inactive in NI for essentially 40 years, it wasn't until the civil rights movement started getting attacked by the NI police apparatus, then after a violent series of Loyalist attacks in both NI and Dublin, and then the events of Bloody Sunday that the Provisional IRA actually properly got back involved.

The UK allowed the statlet to operate as an apartheid state, then allowed that state to violently crush any civil rights movement which rose, then wondered why it all went to shit.

It's like saying White South Africa had no part to play in rise of the ANC. It's fucking inane thinking.

A lot of people in England particularly don't understand just how bad the RUC were.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Didn't the Liberal Democrats get their best ever result because of the Iraq War?

Sure, which is a very different topic to discuss from the reasons behind this terror attack. The Second Iraq War was wrong and was stood up against. The reasons for this attack are not even clear yet, and Corbyn gets up on a stage and points blame at the West.

 

[TomWaitsForNoMan]

And when it comes to say the IRA (because we all know they'll suddenly be news this weekend). Do people really think the UK's actions didn't have an effect there? I mean the IRA were inactive in NI for essentially 40 years, it wasn't until the civil rights movement started getting attacked by the NI police apparatus, then after a violent series of Loyalist attacks in both NI and Dublin, and then the events of Bloody Sunday that the Provisional IRA actually properly got back involved.

The UK allowed the statlet to operate as an apartheid state, then allowed that state to violently crush any civil rights movement which rose, then wondered why it all when to shit.

It's like saying White South Africa had no part to play in rise of the ANC. It's fucking inane thinking.

This is what's been so infuriating about the commentary around Northern Ireland recently, everyone's forgotten why and how the PIRA returned to military action, that the UDA was essentially a state-sanctioned sectarian militia, and that taken as a whole the British security services and loyalist groups killed almost as many civilians (and proportionally more civilians) than all the nationalist groups put together.

But instead the narrative is IRA bad, Our Brave Boys good. Ahistorical and pathetic

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Well, that was bold. Alea iacta est, and all that.

I have to give some respect to Corbyn. He wasn't my choice, but he's impressed with this manifesto, this campaign, and his willingness to be bold. It looks like Corbynism, maybe sans Corbyn, will be the Labour Party's future after all, and I'm less worried about that than I once was.

 

[Spuck-uk]

Didn't the Liberal Democrats get their best ever result because of the Iraq War?

Yeah, the Lib Dems I know (possibly excluding Huw, are incredibly anti-war, especially my Dad (Though being in the Army is probably a factor there too.))

 

[Real Hero]

He nailed it.

 

[Spuck-uk]

That was a really well delivered speech*


*Yes, I know I'm biased but still

 

[sammex]

Full text of Corbyn's speech for those that couldn't watch/listen (spoilered for size)

Our whole nation has been united in shock and grief this week as a night out at a concert ended in horrific terror and the brutal slaughter of innocent people enjoying themselves. When I stood on Albert Square at the vigil in Manchester, there was a mood of unwavering defiance. The very act of thousands of people coming together sent a powerful message of solidarity and love. It was a profound human impulse to stand together, caring and strong. It was inspiring.

In the past few days, we have all perhaps thought a bit more about our country, our communities and our people. The people we have lost to atrocious violence or who have suffered grievous injury, so many of them heart-breakingly young .

The people who we ask to protect us and care for us in the emergency services, who yet again did our country proud: the police; firefighters and paramedics; the nurses and doctors; people who never let us down and deserve all the support we can give them. And the people who did their best to help on that dreadful Monday night – the homeless men who rushed towards the carnage to comfort the dying, the taxi drivers who took the stranded home for free, the local people who offered comfort, and even their homes, to the teenagers who couldn't find their parents.

They are the people of Manchester. But we know that attacks, such as the one at the Manchester Arena, could have happened anywhere and that the people in any city, town or village in Britain would have responded in the same way.

It is these people who are the strength and the heart of our society. They are the country we love and the country we seek to serve. That is the solidarity that defines our United Kingdom. That is the country I meet on the streets every day; the human warmth, the basic decency and kindness.

It is our compassion that defines the Britain I love. And it is compassion that the bereaved families need most of all at this time. To them I say: the whole country reaches out its arms to you and will be here for you not just this week, but in the weeks and years to come. Terrorists and their atrocious acts of cruelty and depravity will never divide us and will never prevail.

They didn't in Westminster two months ago. They didn't when Jo Cox was murdered a year ago. They didn't in London on 7/7. The awe-inspiring response of the people of Manchester, and their inspirational acts of heroism and kindness, are a living demonstration that they will fail again.

But these vicious and contemptible acts do cause profound pain and suffering, and, among a tiny minority, they are used as an opportunity to try to turn communities against each other.

So let us all be clear, the man who unleashed carnage on Manchester, targeting the young and many young girls in particular, is no more representative of Muslims, than the murderer of Jo Cox spoke for anyone else. Young people and especially young women must and will be free to enjoy themselves in our society.

I have spent my political life working for peace and human rights and to bring an end to conflict and devastating wars. That will almost always mean talking to people you profoundly disagree with. That's what conflict resolution is all about. But do not doubt my determination to take whatever action is necessary to keep our country safe and to protect our people on our streets, in our towns and cities, at our borders.

There is no question about the seriousness of what we face. Over recent years, the threat of terrorism has continued to grow. You deserve to know what a Labour Government will do to keep you and your family safe. Our approach will involve change at home and change abroad.

At home, we will reverse the cuts to our emergency services and police. Once again in Manchester, they have proved to be the best of us. Austerity has to stop at the A&E ward and at the police station door. We cannot be protected and cared for on the cheap. There will be more police on the streets under a Labour Government. And if the security services need more resources to keep track of those who wish to murder and maim, then they should get them.

We will also change what we do abroad. Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries, such as Libya, and terrorism here at home.

That assessment in no way reduces the guilt of those who attack our children. Those terrorists will forever be reviled and implacably held to account for their actions.

But an informed understanding of the causes of terrorism is an essential part of an effective response that will protect the security of our people, that fights rather than fuels terrorism.

Protecting this country requires us to be both strong against terrorism and strong against the causes of terrorism. The blame is with the terrorists, but if we are to protect our people we must be honest about what threatens our security.

Those causes certainly cannot be reduced to foreign policy decisions alone. Over the past fifteen years or so, a sub-culture of often suicidal violence has developed amongst a tiny minority of, mainly young, men, falsely drawing authority from Islamic beliefs and often nurtured in a prison system in urgent need of resources and reform. And no rationale based on the actions of any government can remotely excuse, or even adequately explain, outrages like this week's massacre. But 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.

That's why I set out Labour's approach to foreign policy earlier this month. It is focused on strengthening our national security in an increasingly dangerous world.

We must support our Armed Services, Foreign Office and International Development professionals, engaging with the world in a way that reduces conflict and builds peace and security.

Seeing the army on our own streets today is a stark reminder that the current approach has failed. So, I would like to take a moment to speak to our soldiers on the streets of Britain. You are doing your duty as you have done so many times before.

I want to assure you that, under my leadership, you will only be deployed abroad when there is a clear need and only when there is a plan and you have the resources to do your job to secure an outcome that delivers lasting peace.

That is my commitment to our armed services. This is my commitment to our country. I want the solidarity, humanity and compassion that we have seen on the streets of Manchester this week to be the values that guide our government. There can be no love of country if there is neglect or disregard for its people. No government can prevent every terrorist attack. If an individual is determined enough and callous enough, sometimes they will get through.

But the responsibility of government is to minimise that chance, to ensure the police have the resources they need, that our foreign policy reduces rather than increases the threat to this country, and that at home we never surrender the freedoms we have won, and that terrorists are so determined to take away. Too often government has got it wrong on all three counts and insecurity is growing as a result. Whoever you decide should lead the next government must do better.

Today, we must stand united. United in our communities, united in our values and united in our determination to not let triumph those who would seek to divide us. So for the rest of this election campaign, we must be out there demonstrating what they would take away: our freedom; our democracy; our support for one another. Democracy will prevail. We must defend our democratic process, win our arguments by discussion and debate, and stand united against those who would seek to take our rights away, or who would divide us.

Last week, I said that the Labour Party was about bringing our country together. Today I do not want to make a narrow party political point. Because all of us now need to stand together. Stand together in memory of those who have lost their lives. Stand together in solidarity with the city of Manchester. And – stand together for democracy.

Because when we talk about British values, including tolerance and mutual support, democracy is at the very heart of them. And our General Election campaigns are the centrepieces of our democracy – the moment all our people get to exercise their sovereign authority over their representatives.

Rallies, debates, campaigning in the marketplaces, knocking on doors, listening to people on the streets, at their workplaces and in their homes – all the arts of peaceful persuasion and discussion – are the stuff of our campaigns.

They all remind us that our government is not chosen at an autocrats' whim or by religious decree and never cowed by a terrorist's bomb.

Indeed, carrying on as normal is an act of defiance – democratic defiance – of those who do reject our commitment to democratic freedoms.

But we cannot carry on as though nothing happened in Manchester this week.

So, let the quality of our debate, over the next fortnight, be worthy of the country we are proud to defend. Let's have our arguments without impugning anyone's patriotism and without diluting the unity with which we stand against terror.

Together, we will be stronger. Together we can build a Britain worthy of those who died and those who have inspired us all in Manchester this week. Thank you.

Edit: didn't work. Ah well.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Well, that was bold. Alea iacta est, and all that.

I have to give some respect to Corbyn. He wasn't my choice, but he's impressed with this manifesto, this campaign, and his willingness to be bold. It looks like Corbynism, maybe sans Corbyn, will be the Labour Party's future after all, and I'm less worried about that than I once was.

That is a huge turnaround from what you were saying in the early days of the campaign. Because Corbyn decided he'd rather be hung as a sheep than a lamb?

 

[Huw_Dawson]

I'm anti-war usually - I believe that war should only be undertaken when there is a clear need to use it. My degree is in International Politics.

However there is a very large gulf between the Iraq War and using a terror attack as a platform for saying that Western foreign policy causes terrorism.

It's entirely right for someone to call that out as wrong. The fact that it's an opposition party leader saying it is the reason people are jumping on it as hypocritical. But Farron refusing to condemn this is tacit support, and we neither support this timing or support this message.

 

[PJV3]

Jeremy did alright, the speech seemed really sensible without anything too controversial in it.

 

[Daffy Duck]

Oh, I'm not saying May should not be criticised. Let them fight!

So the free breakfasts are costed at just 7p per breakfast and don't take into account extra staffing costs.

Bravo, a well costed and thought out Mani....wait, what's that Corbyn is the devil, oh right best vote for strong and stable.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That is a huge turnaround from what you were saying in the early days of the campaign. Because Corbyn decided he'd rather be hung as a sheep than a lamb?

Something like that, yes. I mean, he was very fortunate in that there was an enormous own goal (series of own goals) by the Conservatives. May is a much less formidable opponent than Cameron. But you still have to make those chances count, and even though Labour is almost certainly not even reaching hung parliament status, we did not go gentle into that good night.