|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: UK General Election June 8th 2017
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think the suspension (and the threat level) will also help Mrs May. It gets her off the hook in relation to the car crash she was going through, and she can now look dignified and regal and she can make sonorous pronouncements about security. Surely, it's a slam dunk now.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
A bigger concern I have, is how long the campaign is suspended for now that the threat level has been raised to critical. If it continues for more than a couple of days, they should probably move the polling date.
Extending the suspension on campaigning, and even more so moving the polling date, would be seen as saying terrorism can disrupt our democratic system. So, it won't be a long break in campaigning and the election date won't be moved - unless something very significant happens (of the level of further attacks or a very credible immediate threat to senior politicians out campaigning or threat to polling itself).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I agree, but if they suspend the campaign for a couple of days, then not changing the polling date is fair enough - but if it runs over the week they may need to move the polling date.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I suppose the questions are:
(a) are polling stations under threat? It seems unlikely, but on the other hand I suppose some kind of attack would have symbolic value as an attack on democracy.
(b) if they are, how do the authorities protect thousands of polling stations/counts? Last time I wandered into a GE count with a friend and sat very close to (as it happens) Nigel Farage. It doesn't require much imagination as to the damage I could have done if I was minded.
(c) if there is a real threat, is this going to be reduced by waiting?
(d) if there is no real threat, no intelligence about the poll as a target, nothing to suggest anything is going to happen - how do the authorities persuade people to keep calm and carry on?
It'll be very interesting to see what happens at large sporting events, concerts and other events this weekend. Even if there is heightened police presence, it is hard to see how this can be kept up indefinitely.
I suspect the reality is that the poll will go ahead more-or-less as before with extra security at the counts. And everyone will be hoping that nothing bad happens.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarasa
Shipmate
# 12271
|
Posted
I remember back before the Brexit vote when May was beeing fairly feeble about her support for remain one of the arguments she did put forward was the difficulties faced if we left the EU was over sharing intelligence about such attrocities as Monday nights attack in Manchester if we were no longer in the Union. Like others I think she is more likely to get a good majority now, but will this make her re-think her Brexit stance?
--------------------
'I guess things didn't go so well tonight, but I'm trying. Lord, I'm trying.' Charlie (Harvey Keitel) in Mean Streets.
Posts: 2035 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
...
(b) if they are, how do the authorities protect thousands of polling stations/counts? Last time I wandered into a GE count with a friend and sat very close to (as it happens) Nigel Farage. It doesn't require much imagination as to the damage I could have done if I was minded. ...
If only. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If only.
I'm not sure why you find that hilarious. I despise Farage and his neo-Nazi sympathies, I could easily have practiced the "punch a Nazi" meme that night.
Fortunately for him, I'm a believer in non-violence, even against particularly vomit-worthy extreme politicians.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarasa:
I remember back before the Brexit vote when May was beeing fairly feeble about her support for remain one of the arguments she did put forward was the difficulties faced if we left the EU was over sharing intelligence about such attrocities as Monday nights attack in Manchester if we were no longer in the Union. Like others I think she is more likely to get a good majority now, but will this make her re-think her Brexit stance?
Do you think they have a stance? Well, an incoherent one, I suppose. They will cobble together some meaningless statement about cooperation.
No doubt the EU negotiators have noticed how frail May actually is, and crumbles before any obstacle. The lady is for turning.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Do you think they have a stance? Well, an incoherent one, I suppose. They will cobble together some meaningless statement about cooperation.
As I posted on the other thread, the last year (by the time the new government is actually formed) could be seen as one long dither over how Brexit is actually handled.
The student who is supposed to be revising and instead decides to finally tidy their room springs to mind.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
My point wasn't in relation to current criminal activity. It's about how to change things so that the kids of today don't contemplate blowing themselves up at a concert in 5-10 years. It's about changing the attitude of societies to see that there is a peaceful and legal route to address their grievances.
There are already peaceful and legal routes to address grievances in this country. The reason that the terrorists don't use them is that they know full well that most people don't accept that the fact we don't live under a Caliphate and that women are allowed to wear what they like don't really qualify as legitimate grievances.
The thing is, Alan, that you assume that most people are like you. If people have recourse to terrorism they must be really desperate because the only occasion on which someone like you would have recourse to terrorism would be in such circumstances. You overlook the existence of people who are just plain nasty. Dealing with them requires time, and patience, and, if push comes to shove, a well placed bullet to the head. I have very little time for Mrs May and I suspect the wheels are going to come off her premiership in a way that will make the decline and fall of every Prime Minister since Harold Wilson look like a storm in a tea cup, but on the subject of terrorism I think that she is a better bet than Jeremy Corbyn. Now if someone like me thinks that, I am prepared to wager that it is a reasonably popular sentiment in the country at large.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
but on the subject of terrorism I think that she is a better bet than Jeremy Corbyn. Now if someone like me thinks that, I am prepared to wager that it is a reasonably popular sentiment in the country at large.
Then you and the popular sentiment in the country are mad and driving us off a cliff. Well done.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
There are already peaceful and legal routes to address grievances in this country.
Which I didn't deny. But there are groups in society who don't see those routes, or don't think those routes are open to them. What finally ended the Troubles was when, through a lot of hard work of people talking to each other, both the Loyalist and Republican communities came to see that there was a political process by which they could work out their differences. That those communities have (largely) accepted that paramilitary and terrorist activities are not a sign of loyalty to their community but disloyalty, and as such information about such activities is much more likely to be passed to the authorities because a) those activities are seen as unacceptable and b) the authorities are more trusted to act sensibly on that information (ie: without rounding up and intering people, most of whom are totally innocent, or raiding properties with a "shoot to kill" policy that results in innocent people getting shot).
The question for today is what is the analogous approach to building a similar peace in which Islamic radicalism is viewed within the Islamic community the same way paramilitaries have become seen in Ireland? IMO it certainly doesn't start by branding anyone willing to talk to radical Islamists to find common ground on which to build as a traitor to the nation, or weak on terrorism.
quote:
You overlook the existence of people who are just plain nasty.
Yes, there are, and always have been, people who are just plain nasty. Some will always be loners and almost impossible to identify and deal with before they go over the edge and commit an atrocity. Most will probably be attracted to a cause or group where their nastiness is approved of and supported - many of those who joined the Irish paramilitaries would have been in that group, they didn't really care about the cause just a chance to knee-cap people. Some would join criminal gangs and express their nastiness through loan-sharking or other protection rackets, or anything else where they can just be nasty. Addressing issues of injustice so that one (or more) of the potential causes they might align with are removed probably won't change things significantly in regard to the plain nasty, they'll simply find another cause or outlet for their nastiness.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
But, Alan, what would you propose to talk to ISIS about? Introducing Sharia Law? Mass forcible conversion to Islam? Taxing unbelievers? Forbidding the ringing of church bells? I'm just interested.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
but on the subject of terrorism I think that she is a better bet than Jeremy Corbyn. Now if someone like me thinks that, I am prepared to wager that it is a reasonably popular sentiment in the country at large.
Then you and the popular sentiment in the country are mad and driving us off a cliff. Well done.
Last time I looked the UK was a democracy with free and fair elections, so I'm not convinced that "anyone who disagrees with me is insane" is really a useful line to take in persuading people that they may be wrong. I'd seriously consider voting Labour, btw, if I lived in a seat where they were remotely competitive (and had an MP or candidate whose views I could respect). It's not my fault (particularly as I voted for Kendall and Bradshaw) that Labour thought it was a good idea to elect someone as leader whose views on terrorism are somewhat awry from where the UK mainstream is, and then to bleat that people were being a bit unsympathetic. This was entirely predictable in 2015. Don't blame me that you kidded yourself that things could go otherwise.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
This was entirely predictable in 2015. Don't blame me that you kidded yourself that things could go otherwise.
I don't vote Labour, have no interest in their leadership issues. But I'm under no allusion that somehow the leader of the Tories is better for the country with regard to terrorism that the leader of Labour. That's plainly nuts.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
But, Alan, what would you propose to talk to ISIS about? Introducing Sharia Law? Mass forcible conversion to Islam? Taxing unbelievers? Forbidding the ringing of church bells? I'm just interested.
Exactly. We know what a compromise with Sinn Fein looks like and, despite the bit about treating nasty people like respectable statesmen, it's something we can all sign up to. What do we discuss with people who object, on principle, to young people having a good time? There are occasions when a compromise peace is important and necessary and occasions when peace is a euphemism for surrender. I think that this falls into the latter category.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
But, Alan, what would you propose to talk to ISIS about? Introducing Sharia Law? Mass forcible conversion to Islam? Taxing unbelievers? Forbidding the ringing of church bells? I'm just interested.
I've no idea. But, until someone does start talking to radical Islamists (which is more than just ISIS) there's no way to know what scope there is to talk. ISIS are a spent force, they're going backwards in Syria and Iraq and once the Caliphate is gone they will have no credibility within the radical parts of Islam. So, we need to be talking to the people who support that form of radical Islam. In particular (since this is about the UK election) those in this country. And, we need to be talking to the wider Islamic community about what it is that is fueling radicalisation and what we can do to cut off that fuel supply. Until someone starts talking there's not much to go on. And, the right wing reactionaries who would treat any Muslim, any immigrant even, as a potential enemy to be kept at arms length and under surveilance (even worse start intering them) are not helping in one bit - in fact, quite the opposit.
If you treat people like they're the enemy sooner or later some of them will act like it. If you treat people like potential friends then many of them may become genuine friends.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
This was entirely predictable in 2015. Don't blame me that you kidded yourself that things could go otherwise.
I don't vote Labour, have no interest in their leadership issues. But I'm under no allusion that somehow the leader of the Tories is better for the country with regard to terrorism that the leader of Labour. That's plainly nuts.
It's not plainly nuts. Jeremy Corbyn supported the Irish Republican Army when they were blowing up British civilians and members of the armed forces. I struggle to think of anything remotely analogous Theresa May has done. British governments have endorsed all sorts of weird and wonderful people including the celebrated moment when Caron Keating gave Mrs Thatcher a hard time over her insistence that moderate members of the Khmer Rouge were necessary to the Cambodian peace process but, by and large, it is considered bad form by a democratic politician to support people who are committing terrorist atrocities against one's own country. I don't like May or Corbyn but only one of them has a track record of coming over all J.C. Flannel about, nay endorsing, this kind of shit, and it isn't Mrs May.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
But, Alan, what would you propose to talk to ISIS about? Introducing Sharia Law? Mass forcible conversion to Islam? Taxing unbelievers? Forbidding the ringing of church bells? I'm just interested.
I've no idea. But, until someone does start talking to radical Islamists (which is more than just ISIS) there's no way to know what scope there is to talk. ISIS are a spent force, they're going backwards in Syria and Iraq and once the Caliphate is gone they will have no credibility within the radical parts of Islam. So, we need to be talking to the people who support that form of radical Islam. In particular (since this is about the UK election) those in this country. And, we need to be talking to the wider Islamic community about what it is that is fueling radicalisation and what we can do to cut off that fuel supply. Until someone starts talking there's not much to go on. And, the right wing reactionaries who would treat any Muslim, any immigrant even, as a potential enemy to be kept at arms length and under surveilance (even worse start intering them) are not helping in one bit - in fact, quite the opposit.
If you treat people like they're the enemy sooner or later some of them will act like it. If you treat people like potential friends then many of them may become genuine friends.
The previous US approach was to negotiate with those Sunni tribes and sheikhs who were tempted to follow IS, and previously Al Qaeda. It seemed to work with the latter, as the Awakening group of Sunnis eventually drove AQ out of tribal areas.
I don't know if this is possible now with IS-leaning tribes and groups in Iraq and Syria; it may be too dangerous at the moment. But it is possible to drive a wedge into the Sunni bloc, and this would probably reduce terrorism in the West.
Something similar can be done in the West, I think. Islamism is not monolithic.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
But, Alan, what would you propose to talk to ISIS about? Introducing Sharia Law? Mass forcible conversion to Islam? Taxing unbelievers? Forbidding the ringing of church bells? I'm just interested.
I'm not Alan, but I do remember that the core demand of Sinn Fein was a united Ireland. It won't happen however because Sinn Fein get fewer votes in the Irish Republic than in Northern Ireland. ISIS too has a political end, namely the establishment of a different kind of government in the middle east, particularly Iraq (which was left in the lurch after Saddam Hussein was deposed), Syria (all sorts of people want Assad out, and Britain & the US are equivocating as he is against ISIS) plus Libya, Yemen and who knows what others.
In short, it has political aims and it's those we ought to talk about. "We" of course means a single voice representing practically everyone else, eg, Russia, the USA, other Arab States, you name it.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
This was entirely predictable in 2015. Don't blame me that you kidded yourself that things could go otherwise.
I don't vote Labour, have no interest in their leadership issues. But I'm under no allusion that somehow the leader of the Tories is better for the country with regard to terrorism that the leader of Labour. That's plainly nuts.
It's not plainly nuts. Jeremy Corbyn supported the Irish Republican Army when they were blowing up British civilians and members of the armed forces. I struggle to think of anything remotely analogous Theresa May has done. British governments have endorsed all sorts of weird and wonderful people including the celebrated moment when Caron Keating gave Mrs Thatcher a hard time over her insistence that moderate members of the Khmer Rouge were necessary to the Cambodian peace process but, by and large, it is considered bad form by a democratic politician to support people who are committing terrorist atrocities against one's own country. I don't like May or Corbyn but only one of them has a track record of coming over all J.C. Flannel about, nay endorsing, this kind of shit, and it isn't Mrs May.
If you are on about killing people you have to consider the changes to the criteria that determine whether disabled people are able to work. This may not be as dramatic and horrific as bombings and shooting but it is just as certain, and this democratically elected government has done just that.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It's not plainly nuts. Jeremy Corbyn supported the Irish Republican Army when they were blowing up British civilians and members of the armed forces.
Oh feck off. Thinking that someone who is using violence might actually have a genuine grievance is not the same as supporting the violence. Dickhead.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Corbyn opposed 'this kind of shit' in Iraq, didn't he? I wonder how May voted on it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I struggle to think of anything remotely analogous Theresa May has done.
Well, there is the actual material support that the US and UK governments have provided to AQ linked groups in Syria over the last few years.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
But, Alan, what would you propose to talk to ISIS about? Introducing Sharia Law? Mass forcible conversion to Islam? Taxing unbelievers? Forbidding the ringing of church bells? I'm just interested.
I'm not Alan, but I do remember that the core demand of Sinn Fein was a united Ireland. It won't happen however because Sinn Fein get fewer votes in the Irish Republic than in Northern Ireland. ISIS too has a political end, namely the establishment of a different kind of government in the middle east, particularly Iraq
Furthermore 'Islamism' isn't some kind of monolith. To a large extent ISIS succeeded in the territory in which they formed their short lived state because of local forces (either tribal or otherwise) being willing to align with them - however temporarily - for local advantage or because they felt their own alternative was worse.
It's the same with sectarian conflicts elsewhere - even if some groups are clearly beyond the pale, there are others who could split off via negotiation.
I mean even in the Irish example, there were factions who never accepted the peace process - but support for them was gradually drained by including the more moderate (even if only by comparison) elements.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
And I think it's because the British govt were in contact with the Republican movement, that they realized that one wing, or in fact, a big chunk, could be split away from military solutions, towards the ballot box. Of course, the ultras cried foul, and threatened further attacks, but they were isolated by various means. The same thing happened in Iraq, but then the Iraqui govt messed it up, as far as I can see, and pushed back against the Sunni reconcilers. Hence, the tribes turned to IS, to an extent.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I struggle to think of anything remotely analogous Theresa May has done.
Well, there is the actual material support that the US and UK governments have provided to AQ linked groups in Syria over the last few years.
I thought that British governments supported various Libyan groups, who fought against Gaddafi, and were of dubious Islamist credentials. Abedi's father is supposed to be a member of LIFG, which Gordon Correra (BBC) is saying was sometimes supported by the West. Links to AQ supposedly.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It's not plainly nuts. Jeremy Corbyn supported the Irish Republican Army when they were blowing up British civilians and members of the armed forces.
Oh feck off. Thinking that someone who is using violence might actually have a genuine grievance is not the same as supporting the violence. Dickhead.
Corbyn's support for the IRA is a matter of public record and no amount of egregious cuntery on your part can erase that.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
If you treat people like they're the enemy sooner or later some of them will act like it. If you treat people like potential friends then many of them may become genuine friends.
Are we confining this courtesy to the Islamists or is the plan to sit down with Jamie Copeland and Thomas McNair, while we are at it?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It's not plainly nuts. Jeremy Corbyn supported the Irish Republican Army when they were blowing up British civilians and members of the armed forces.
Oh feck off. Thinking that someone who is using violence might actually have a genuine grievance is not the same as supporting the violence. Dickhead.
Corbyn's support for the IRA is a matter of public record and no amount of egregious cuntery on your part can erase that.
What I don't understand is why Corbyn today is unable to condemn the IRA in clear, unambiguous terms. Asked (repeatedly) whether he thinks the IRA's actions were wrong he seems unable to say 'yes', even as part of a wider answer. I find it equally offensive and baffling.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
So 'we' (the British Government, presumably) are to sit down and talk with 'the Jihadists' (if a representative group of them can be identified, which has always been a problem) on behalf of - whom? Don't lets delude ourselves - it's the USA who are the major players here - and, of course, the Russians. The UK has only a walking-on role. Or are we talking about a separate deal in these post-Brexit times?
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I thought that the Western powers have always been talking with various groups, depending on which is the flavour of the month. See the Libyan anti-Gaddafi groups which seem to have been in favour, and out of favour alternately. And of course, there are talks with IS-sympathizing sheikhs and tribes, trying to deconvert them. The UK may have a role, as UK intelligence has had some prestige.
In Syria, there were Cameron's vaunted 'friendly fighters' of uncertain provenance, but I guess they have either been bombed by the Russians, or melted away, or are just fighting Assad.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
And not just talks, apparently. Many stories of large sums of money changing hands, so that leaders change sides, and also stories of war criminals, who perpetrated mass slaughter on Shia civilians, were given wads of cash. C'est la guerre. (That's war for you).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
So 'we' (the British Government, presumably) are to sit down and talk with 'the Jihadists' (if a representative group of them can be identified, which has always been a problem) on behalf of - whom? Don't lets delude ourselves - it's the USA who are the major players here - and, of course, the Russians. The UK has only a walking-on role. Or are we talking about a separate deal in these post-Brexit times?
Mainly there needs to be a discussion within the UK. It doesn't need to be the government taking a lead, indeed it may be better if it isn't. Maybe a few "maverick" MPs with a passion for peace and justice (who don't mind that in 20 years time their name will be forever associated with sharing a platform with groups who were terrorists at the time). Churches and other faith groups. Local community groups, local councils. Anyone and everyone who is committed to trying to talk, as a better solution than further violence. Start the wagon rolling, and maybe the government can jump on later and take concrete actions.
Internationally people can talk on the same informal, local level. But, ultimately there will need to be international action - with the EU, US, Russia Middle Eastern and other Muslim majority states being the main players.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One of the odd things about the campaign, is that Mrs May looks frail and timid and dishonest, in the face of opposition. She caves in quite quickly. Corbyn has withstood an absolute battering from trash media and right wing dingbats. So it goes.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Can anyone point to any evidence that Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell achieved anything in their dialogue with the IRA and Hamas>
I accept that dialogue is usually part of the path to peace. I don't see much evidence that Mr Corbyn is actually good at it.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Can anyone point to any evidence that Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell achieved anything in their dialogue with the IRA and Hamas>
I accept that dialogue is usually part of the path to peace. I don't see much evidence that Mr Corbyn is actually good at it.
What would such evidence look like? How do you measure success and how do you connect it to the action? Hamas recently revised their constitution to tone down the anti-Semitic rhetoric and move towards recognising Israel. Was that partly down to engagement from western politicians, including Corbyn? How do you tell, unless someone claims that as an influence. But, as backbench MPs, their influence was likely small. Jaw-jaw always has to be better than war-war, and putting Corbyn in a position to engage in this more influentially can only be a good thing.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Corbyn's support for the IRA is a matter of public record and no amount of egregious cuntery on your part can erase that.
I'd be interested in links which prove Corbyn's support of bombing and shooting, as opposed to supporting a united Ireland.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Corbyn's support for the IRA is a matter of public record and no amount of egregious cuntery on your part can erase that.
I'd be interested in links which prove Corbyn's support of bombing and shooting, as opposed to supporting a united Ireland.
Alex Massie's piece in the Spectator is, for me, just as powerful now as when I read it a year ago. As he says:
quote:
It cannot be said too often that there is nothing intrinsically objectionable about supporting the idea of a united Ireland. But if you did – or still do – support that goal you had a choice. You could ally yourself with the SDLP or you could chum around with Sinn Fein and the IRA. The choice mattered because it was a choice between decency and indecency, between constitutional politics and paramilitary politics. Corbyn, like his Shadow Chancellor, made his choice and chose indecently.
There is no room for doubt about this and no place for after-the-fact reinterpretations of Corbyn’s ‘role’ in the Irish peace process. That role was limited to being a cheerleader for and enabler of the Republican movement. No-one who was seriously interested in peace in the 1980s spoke at Troops Out rallies. The best that could be said of those people was that they wanted ‘peace’ on the IRA’s terms. In other words, they wanted the IRA to win.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
If the Tories are pinning electoral success on Jeremy Corbyn's unwise connections from twenty years ago then they must be worried about Labour's policies being more popular than their own.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
There's a line of reasoning among various left-wingers which goes:
Powerful oppressors have never stopped oppressing people because they were just asked politely. They've only ever ceded power when they have been forced to do so. (Partly true; I think more complicated than that.)
Violence by the oppressed is almost always judged more harshly than violence by the oppressors. (I think mostly true in so far as oppressors usually have better access to the media and official spokespeople. Exceptions occur where the media is unsympathetic to the oppressors anyway.)
Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland were unjustly oppressed. Free and fair elections did nothing to resolve this, partly because the elections weren't free and fair, but mostly because the Protestants had enough of a majority to win even free and fair elections. (True. Ironically the army was originally sent into Northern Ireland to try to resolve the problem.)
Therefore, violence by the IRA ought to be judged much less harshly than it was judged by the media. If we accept the full argument, then if the IRA hadn't been violent the Peace Process might never have happened. Anyone complaining about people appearing on platforms with the IRA ought equally to complain about people appearing on platforms with the security services.
I think that position in the strong form is moraly wrong. But I think it is a morally wrong position that someone who cares about morality could hold as a moral mistake; it's not a position that marks someone out as someone who doesn't care about morality. I think the same about Tony Blair's support of Bush in the second Iraq War: a moral mistake but compatible with trying to be moral.
Whether it is altogether wise for a political party to elect a leader who has publically made that mistake in the past is maybe another matter.
[ 24. May 2017, 22:05: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Alex Massie's piece in the Spectator is, for me, just as powerful now as when I read it a year ago.
I'm not expecting you to change your mind on this, but your 'powerful' piece by Massie contains (at least) one glaring and potentially holed-below-the-waterline error.
Corbyn wasn't on the board of Labour Briefing. So all that stuff you think he published and approved of? Nope. Link.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Alex Massie's piece in the Spectator is, for me, just as powerful now as when I read it a year ago.
I'm not expecting you to change your mind on this, but your 'powerful' piece by Massie contains (at least) one glaring and potentially holed-below-the-waterline error.
Corbyn wasn't on the board of Labour Briefing. So all that stuff you think he published and approved of? Nope. Link.
Not quite convinced, I'm afraid...
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Not quite convinced, I'm afraid...
Actually, the specific claim was that he was on the editorial board in December 1984 when the article in question was published. The links by Rentoul do not relate to this time period.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Can anyone point to any evidence that Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell achieved anything in their dialogue with the IRA and Hamas>
I accept that dialogue is usually part of the path to peace. I don't see much evidence that Mr Corbyn is actually good at it.
What would such evidence look like? How do you measure success and how do you connect it to the action?
I'm not the one making the claim that Mr Corbyn's approach to the IRA means he would be good at tackling Islamist death cults. Presumably the people who are making such claims have some evidence base for it.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm not the one making the claim that Mr Corbyn's approach to the IRA means he would be good at tackling Islamist death cults. Presumably the people who are making such claims have some evidence base for it.
For me the main point is that the current approach is not working. There has to be a better way, and simply labelling someone who does not hold to the current paradigm as "weak on terrorism" seems lazy at best, and possibly totally inaccurate. Whether opening dialogue between UK authorities and the radical (or, radicalisable) communities within the UK will produce significant and rapid reductions in terrorist incidents is difficult to judge (not least when the rate of terrorist attacks in the UK is very low it's difficult to measure changes in that rate). But, it seems to be worth a try - while not reducing the traditional intelligence-lead policing (which I've seen nothing to suggest any of the party leaders would advocate).
At the end of the day, if there had been an election in the autumn shortly after Mrs May took up the reins of Conservative Party leadership, and Labour had won the events in Manchester wouldn't have turned out any differently. I don't actually believe who is Prime Minister makes any difference on these issues, at least not in the short term. Though, some policy decisions are very likely to make things worse in the medium to long term (internment, travel restrictions based on religion without significant evidence that the individual is a potential criminal, anything that makes communities feel unwelcome in the UK).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Not quite convinced, I'm afraid...
Actually, the specific claim was that he was on the editorial board in December 1984 when the article in question was published. The links by Rentoul do not relate to this time period.
In the interview transcript Mr Corbyn denies any involvement with the publication beyond being a reader and a contributor. The links by Rentoul et al suggest his involvement was more than that.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And Diane Abbott's done another interview:
Interviewer (ITN): Do you know the number of net losses so far for Labour?
Diane Abbott: At the time of us doing this interview I think the net losses are about 50.
Interviewer: There are actually 125 net losses so far.
Diane Abbott: Well the last time I looked we had net losses of 100 but obviously this is a moving picture.
I've just seen this on an earlier episode of Have I Got News For You. Why is she so in the forefront of the party? Is it years of service? That interview seemed like a trainwreck...no consistency.
I allow for politicians making mistakes [we all do...and if they come clean good on them], but from what I hear she has made a few. And something like the above just seems, well, incompetent. How can you switch from 50 to 100 in the space of a few seconds? Or am I being uncharitable?
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Dafyd wrote:
quote:
Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland were unjustly oppressed. Free and fair elections did nothing to resolve this, partly because the elections weren't free and fair, but mostly because the Protestants had enough of a majority to win even free and fair elections. (True. Ironically the army was originally sent into Northern Ireland to try to resolve the problem.)
Therefore, violence by the IRA ought to be judged much less harshly than it was judged by the media. If we accept the full argument, then if the IRA hadn't been violent the Peace Process might never have happened. Anyone complaining about people appearing on platforms with the IRA ought equally to complain about people appearing on platforms with the security services.
There are multiple narratives about those times. For example, I remember being told that after 1969, when the civil rights march was attacked, partly by off-duty cops, Catholic areas saw loyalist mobs breaking into houses, beating people up, and so on.
Inhabitants didn't know what to do, and there was scorn about the IRA - I Ran Away, and so on.
Eventually, self-defence operations began, in those areas.
However, I have also been told that this is mostly mythic, and that nobody wrote I Ran Away on walls.
But you can imagine how the various narratives progress from here on in. For example, the British Army - defender of local Catholic areas, or prime instigator of violence?
I don't really know how one sifts actual facts from myths.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Never mind JC's being an apologist or supporter (or not) for the IRA, what about Diane Abbott?
In an interview carried in Labour and Ireland (volume 2, number 5) a journal published by the Labour Committee on Ireland (which still exists, largely funded by various unions), Ms Abbot was quoted as follows quote:
(Ireland)“is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.”
In the same interview she stated that she didn't regard herself as British. In answer to the question "Would you see yourself as 'Black-British'" she gave the answer quote:
No, I would self-define myself just as Black. Though I was born here in London, I couldn't identify as British - and anyway most British people don't accept us as British. God! British people can be so racist
So there you have it: the person proposing to become Home Secretary doesn't consider herself British, considers "British People" to be racist, and thought a defeat for the "British State" would be a good thing.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
