Mudd
What has corbyn done to stop isis or assad,along with leftists,who get active about israel,or western bombing,but ignore other war crimes,sectarian murder,abuse of gay and female innocents?
Perhaps if corbyns friends in hamas and hezbolah get butchered by isis more often,the left may awake.
Stop the war in london and glasgow today....
Ok,but do you let assad and isis murder at will,letting evil win?
How do stop the war think?They look like white left wing hipsters,making themselves feel good,while kids,gay men,women,muslims and non isis cult members suffer.
Shame
Afridi
This is at least in part about isis.
I take it the israel palestinian issue is not about israel,by your logic?
Islamist attacks in africa are about oil and greed too afridi,and boko haram kidnnap christian girls,remember them,because of blair,bush,oil,imperialism,edl,bnp..
At least try to formulate reasons to blame it all on everyone else,apart from islamist madmen.
Care to list off all these "leftists" that have had even an ounce of real power in this millennia? Please don't say Blair/Brown.
Major gaffe by Cameron tonight.
“You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers”
That's what the odious C had to say this evening to his MP's. Given that most of the population, according to polls, are opposing the bombing, he has by extension called most of the British population 'terrorist sympathisers'.
He's basically gone full-ja606 off topic thread on this one.
What is odious about that. I wouldn't give terrorist sympathizes the pleasure of my company either.
Oh, and that is not what the BBC is saying he said.
Pretty sure the polls are in favour of bombing aren't they? The yougov ones were at least.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 26 minutes ago
What is odious about that. I wouldn't give terrorist sympathizes the pleasure of my company either.
----------------------
Firstly, quote taken from here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/01/cameron-accuses-corbyn-of-being-terrorist-sympathiser
Secondly, stop being a complete and utter idiot. Opposing bombing Syria is not 'sympathising with terrorists', as Cameron claims.
Thirdly, Cameron himself supports terror. He has supported various brutal regimes, sells weapons to known human rights abusers and cheerlead the destruction of Libya, supported the invasion of Iraq etc...
So his comments are odious. Referring to many Labour MP's *and* the majority of the British population by extension as 'terrorist sympathisers' is odious, flatly false and frankly embarrassing. It's the resort of a man who has no compelling argument.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
Pretty sure the polls are in favour of bombing aren't they? The yougov ones were at least.
--------------------
There's various polls from the Mirror, ITV. You're right about the YouGov poll though.
In any case, even if only 10% of the population were opposed, according to Dave, that's 6.4 million 'terrorist sympathisers' in the UK.
Yep I got your sentiment berba.
I think he was referring to Corbyn and his aides rather than anyone opposed to bombing though wasn't he? It's still wrong, but the way they wrote it in the guardian didn't make me think he meant everyone opposed to it was de facto a sympathiser.
Melton
Even the polls from Labour this morning had the public in favour of bombing at 64%
Even if he did only mean it as Corbyn and his aides, it's a smear on his supporters by association.
Or put differently, if someone accused you of being a genocide denier, and I was a supporter of Meltonblue, implicit in the smear is that *I* support a genocide denier.
It's at best a very, very poor choice of words and, more accurately, a total disgrace. The litmus test will be how little attention it gets in the media, or pointing out the hypocrisy of the smear given who it comes from. There will likely be a brushing under the carpet of it, and the attacks and smears will continue in the same direction as before.
Melts
And the Guardian did not write what Cameron said. They even say it is supposedly what he said.
The BBC has worded it differently.
The BBC:
The prime minister called on them not to "sit on their hands" and side with Jeremy Corbyn and others he labelled "a bunch of terrorist sympathisers".
Same difference.
Absolutely it is, but the same could be argued anytime an insult is thrown at another leader. People are guilty of believing all Tories are the same as much as they do anyone from the far left - neither side see the varying degrees once you marginally out of centre.
I agree it's a very poor choice of words, and not an opinion I think should be voiced, I thought the same when he used it at conference in the first place. It's continuation of rhetoric against Corbyn though more than anything else - it deserved the outcry the first time he said it.
It's getting the attention as every paper is leading with it. I doubt you'll see the hypocrisy angle aside from in the editorials.
Well it isn't the same is it.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
Well it isn't the same is it.
-------------
The meaning and the smear - ie, the only bit that actually matter, are exactly the same. You're having a howler this evening.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
Absolutely it is, but the same could be argued anytime an insult is thrown at another leader. People are guilty of believing all Tories are the same as much as they do anyone from the far left - neither side see the varying degrees once you marginally out of centre.
I agree it's a very poor choice of words, and not an opinion I think should be voiced, I thought the same when he used it at conference in the first place. It's continuation of rhetoric against Corbyn though more than anything else - it deserved the outcry the first time he said it.
It's getting the attention as every paper is leading with it. I doubt you'll see the hypocrisy angle aside from in the editorials.
-----------------------
Personal insults rarely extend beyond the target of the insult itself though. Other labels - this being one of them (genocide denial being the other) - do carry with them implications for those who are close to/support the target(s) of the smear, however.
And I obviously harbour no aspirations that this *will* be condemned across the board in the way in which it should.
It depends if the reasons Cameron called Corbyn a sympathiser in the first place were things that people support him for or not to be honest. Personally, I thought he was wrong and misinterpreting something to say it in the beginning anyway.
In this context though, I don't see the correlation between being against air strikes with it though, it feels a bit to me like being offended by disregarding context. Corbyn should feel offended and slag him off for it absolutely, and I believe already has.
Berba
Ah I see, I am having a howler yet you are the one I have had to correct.
You ever posted a link that said supposedly.
We can all see who the chump is here and it isn't me.
He's basically gone full-ja606 off topic thread on this one.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Genuine LOL moment.
The point of the 'sympathiser' smear, is that a) it won't actually do Cameron any harm, and b) it'll ratchet the pressure right up on the Labour rebels thinking about losing their seats to the Tories/UKIP.
We're living back in Cold War USA, where if you're not in favour of backing the military hard line, you're a traitor to the state.
Viddy had a mare here and still can't stop arguing with people.
Live debate for bombing Syria for anybody interested.
Cameron said he will now refer to ISIL as Daesh because they have nothing to do with Islam. Wow I can't believe it, this i the first time (and probably the last time) I have been thankful for something Cameron has said.
Sign in if you want to comment
Betrayal
Page 11 of 19
12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
posted on 1/12/15
Mudd
What has corbyn done to stop isis or assad,along with leftists,who get active about israel,or western bombing,but ignore other war crimes,sectarian murder,abuse of gay and female innocents?
Perhaps if corbyns friends in hamas and hezbolah get butchered by isis more often,the left may awake.
posted on 1/12/15
Stop the war in london and glasgow today....
Ok,but do you let assad and isis murder at will,letting evil win?
How do stop the war think?They look like white left wing hipsters,making themselves feel good,while kids,gay men,women,muslims and non isis cult members suffer.
Shame
posted on 1/12/15
Afridi
This is at least in part about isis.
I take it the israel palestinian issue is not about israel,by your logic?
posted on 1/12/15
Islamist attacks in africa are about oil and greed too afridi,and boko haram kidnnap christian girls,remember them,because of blair,bush,oil,imperialism,edl,bnp..
At least try to formulate reasons to blame it all on everyone else,apart from islamist madmen.
posted on 1/12/15
Care to list off all these "leftists" that have had even an ounce of real power in this millennia? Please don't say Blair/Brown.
posted on 1/12/15
Major gaffe by Cameron tonight.
“You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers”
That's what the odious C had to say this evening to his MP's. Given that most of the population, according to polls, are opposing the bombing, he has by extension called most of the British population 'terrorist sympathisers'.
He's basically gone full-ja606 off topic thread on this one.
posted on 1/12/15
What is odious about that. I wouldn't give terrorist sympathizes the pleasure of my company either.
posted on 1/12/15
Oh, and that is not what the BBC is saying he said.
posted on 2/12/15
Pretty sure the polls are in favour of bombing aren't they? The yougov ones were at least.
posted on 2/12/15
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 26 minutes ago
What is odious about that. I wouldn't give terrorist sympathizes the pleasure of my company either.
----------------------
Firstly, quote taken from here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/01/cameron-accuses-corbyn-of-being-terrorist-sympathiser
Secondly, stop being a complete and utter idiot. Opposing bombing Syria is not 'sympathising with terrorists', as Cameron claims.
Thirdly, Cameron himself supports terror. He has supported various brutal regimes, sells weapons to known human rights abusers and cheerlead the destruction of Libya, supported the invasion of Iraq etc...
So his comments are odious. Referring to many Labour MP's *and* the majority of the British population by extension as 'terrorist sympathisers' is odious, flatly false and frankly embarrassing. It's the resort of a man who has no compelling argument.
posted on 2/12/15
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
Pretty sure the polls are in favour of bombing aren't they? The yougov ones were at least.
--------------------
There's various polls from the Mirror, ITV. You're right about the YouGov poll though.
In any case, even if only 10% of the population were opposed, according to Dave, that's 6.4 million 'terrorist sympathisers' in the UK.
posted on 2/12/15
Yep I got your sentiment berba.
I think he was referring to Corbyn and his aides rather than anyone opposed to bombing though wasn't he? It's still wrong, but the way they wrote it in the guardian didn't make me think he meant everyone opposed to it was de facto a sympathiser.
posted on 2/12/15
Melton
Even the polls from Labour this morning had the public in favour of bombing at 64%
posted on 2/12/15
Even if he did only mean it as Corbyn and his aides, it's a smear on his supporters by association.
Or put differently, if someone accused you of being a genocide denier, and I was a supporter of Meltonblue, implicit in the smear is that *I* support a genocide denier.
It's at best a very, very poor choice of words and, more accurately, a total disgrace. The litmus test will be how little attention it gets in the media, or pointing out the hypocrisy of the smear given who it comes from. There will likely be a brushing under the carpet of it, and the attacks and smears will continue in the same direction as before.
posted on 2/12/15
Melts
And the Guardian did not write what Cameron said. They even say it is supposedly what he said.
The BBC has worded it differently.
posted on 2/12/15
The BBC:
The prime minister called on them not to "sit on their hands" and side with Jeremy Corbyn and others he labelled "a bunch of terrorist sympathisers".
Same difference.
posted on 2/12/15
Absolutely it is, but the same could be argued anytime an insult is thrown at another leader. People are guilty of believing all Tories are the same as much as they do anyone from the far left - neither side see the varying degrees once you marginally out of centre.
I agree it's a very poor choice of words, and not an opinion I think should be voiced, I thought the same when he used it at conference in the first place. It's continuation of rhetoric against Corbyn though more than anything else - it deserved the outcry the first time he said it.
It's getting the attention as every paper is leading with it. I doubt you'll see the hypocrisy angle aside from in the editorials.
posted on 2/12/15
Well it isn't the same is it.
posted on 2/12/15
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
Well it isn't the same is it.
-------------
The meaning and the smear - ie, the only bit that actually matter, are exactly the same. You're having a howler this evening.
posted on 2/12/15
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
Absolutely it is, but the same could be argued anytime an insult is thrown at another leader. People are guilty of believing all Tories are the same as much as they do anyone from the far left - neither side see the varying degrees once you marginally out of centre.
I agree it's a very poor choice of words, and not an opinion I think should be voiced, I thought the same when he used it at conference in the first place. It's continuation of rhetoric against Corbyn though more than anything else - it deserved the outcry the first time he said it.
It's getting the attention as every paper is leading with it. I doubt you'll see the hypocrisy angle aside from in the editorials.
-----------------------
Personal insults rarely extend beyond the target of the insult itself though. Other labels - this being one of them (genocide denial being the other) - do carry with them implications for those who are close to/support the target(s) of the smear, however.
And I obviously harbour no aspirations that this *will* be condemned across the board in the way in which it should.
posted on 2/12/15
It depends if the reasons Cameron called Corbyn a sympathiser in the first place were things that people support him for or not to be honest. Personally, I thought he was wrong and misinterpreting something to say it in the beginning anyway.
In this context though, I don't see the correlation between being against air strikes with it though, it feels a bit to me like being offended by disregarding context. Corbyn should feel offended and slag him off for it absolutely, and I believe already has.
posted on 2/12/15
Berba
Ah I see, I am having a howler yet you are the one I have had to correct.
You ever posted a link that said supposedly.
We can all see who the chump is here and it isn't me.
posted on 2/12/15
He's basically gone full-ja606 off topic thread on this one.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Genuine LOL moment.
The point of the 'sympathiser' smear, is that a) it won't actually do Cameron any harm, and b) it'll ratchet the pressure right up on the Labour rebels thinking about losing their seats to the Tories/UKIP.
We're living back in Cold War USA, where if you're not in favour of backing the military hard line, you're a traitor to the state.
posted on 2/12/15
Viddy had a mare here and still can't stop arguing with people.
posted on 2/12/15
Live debate for bombing Syria for anybody interested.
Cameron said he will now refer to ISIL as Daesh because they have nothing to do with Islam. Wow I can't believe it, this i the first time (and probably the last time) I have been thankful for something Cameron has said.
Page 11 of 19
12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16