Would anyone actually vote for corbyn

National Debt went up £405bn under 13 years of Labour government. Current rise under Osborne? £651bn. Not one solitary penny of our debt has been paid back. Bravo for the economy. I certainly feel 'netter if.'


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I get your points Jay and as I said there is nothing more significant than human life so I am pretty sure that it wasn't a decision the government took lightly, far from it; I'm sure they considered the implications and the counter arguments for sanctioning this killing - I don't for one second believe that it was a case of just going out and killing people. The argument about radicalisation is a clear and strong one but the counter argument to this is that had this maniac been allowed to continue he would have continued to execute people, hostages and those Syrians who didn't conform completely to the warped ISIS ideology - this includes homosexuals, women, children, Christians, Shias, etc.

I know that killing him just means that somebody else will take his place but is this a justification to not take action; in my opinion it isn't, I am convinced that the right course of action was taken.

As you say the situation in Syria is chaotic but on this occasion they did get the right man and that was down to intelligence, good intelligence and not luck. If they had killed other ISIS members then you're right it would have been a case of 'so what'. Had they killed an innocent civilian then I'm sure questions would have been asked about the intelligence and further decisions like this would have been difficult to make because of the public reaction. It seems to me, from the reports I've read that the drone strikes and the air strikes are infinitely more precise and clinical than in previous campaigns so the chances of not getting the right man are extremely slim.

Had there been another option to stop Emwazi I think they would have taken it, there was an urgent need to do something to stop the chief executioner of ISIS but the situation did not allow and kind of capture so the options left were limited to say the least.

 

I'm very glad I'm not in that position - thankless task.

Regarding the repatriation issue, assuming he had been caught, do you have any idea where he would stand trial? As his crimes were committed abroad, I'm beginning to doubt whether they'd fall under British jurisdiction. I'm also not sure if they would be treated as war crimes and be sent to The Hague.

 

I'm sure you're not alone in that but how long before that could happen? It could have been years, it may not have ever happened so he had to be stopped by other means.

 

Really? OK please explain how my comments were ridiculous and immature? Have you got any kind of input to this? The way I, and many others, see it we couldn't get to him to place him in custody and put him on trial; that was virtually impossible so what other options we there to stop him?

 

This illustrates that, as you and Jay have done, you can argue the case either way (respectfully). The key point being that whether you agree with Corbyn's view that it would have been better for him to have faced trial it is a valid point and in no way makes him a terrorist sympathiser as portrayed by the media.

 

It would have been interesting to see how this had played out. I would expect the USA to want to take control and have him extradited but surely he'd have gone to The Hague? I really don't know.

 

I don't think he is either however he sometimes doesn't help his self.

 

Looks like he would have gone to The Hague according to this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

 

For preferring JJ to have been brought to justice and faced trial, you deemed Redstar 'happy' to see him carrying on murdering people in cold blood. That IS ridiculous and you know full well that's not what Redstar was suggesting. I'm assuming you're an adult, hence the addition of my advice that you should grow up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I've read what people have written or had written for them.
It seems that unless your a supporter of Corbyns left wing policies you're labelled as somehow uncaring and stupid. People that point to the fact that the Tories are not clearing the deficit quickly enough are either unaware of the financial state the country was in when the Tories came to power or don't know anything about economics. If was so easy to get "tax" out of these huge co-ops Blair/Brown would've done it, it's not. They have legal teams with far more resources than the British Govt has.
Renationalise the railways? really does anyone think this is doable?
Although I bet he's a great bloke to have a pint with, not a good choice as a PM.

 

I don't see why not. They're franchised out - East Coast was essentially a nationalised service. Several city regions are campaigning to get the rules changed so that rail services can be directly controlled at a local level, which would basically be part way to municipalisation. Nobody thinks that's particularly strange, and in fact something similar already happens in London. Network Rail is publically owned (for now) so the only companies you'd actually need to give money to in order to bring about full renationalisation would be the ROSCOs.

He'd probably not take you up on that, seeing as he doesn't drink!

 

He has a point corbyn never said how he planned to bring jj to justice in raqqa where you would have to deploy ground troops and risk soilders lives to bring him to justice. And imagine if we put all UK citizens who have traveled to syria on war crimes charges in front of a jury and jailed them about 300+ minimum.

 

You clearly only read the bits you wanted to read then because that wasn't the context. So are you going to act like a grown up and explain what your alternative was or are you just going to keep on reducing the debate to playground levels? Let me put it this way; if we hadn't killed Emwazi he would have carried on killing so if you follow this to it's conclusion then isn't allowing him to live letting him continue killing? These are the options in a nasty grown up world.

 

The audacity of hope eh

 

Jihadi John wasn't the chief executioner of ISIS was he? He was simply a chosen public face. Chosen due to the fact he was British. There are literally hundreds of videos of ISIS executing people and none of them show him in them but the British media have turned a blind eye to them because they only give a **** when it is a western victim or a British guy on camera.

It appears that in these 'wars' we are in a massive catch 22 situation. We retaliate , they retaliate, we retaliate, they retaliate. It's actually really ******* pathetic and schoolboy stuff but sadly it is with real human lives. There is absolutely no doubt at all that the deaths of Lee rigby, Alan Henning, David Haines, James Foley, 130 people in Paris, 56 people in London and many many more were in retaliation for the deaths of Muslims at the hands of British and French governments. That is something people don't want to hear but it is a fact.

The problem is how do you now solve the issue without giving them further reason to target innocent people over here? I can't answer that as I don't know. What I do know though is that murdering someone via drone without even being sure that A. Your drone is going to hit the right target. B. It is jihadi John that you are aiming at. C jihadi John is actually who you think he is or D. Jihadi John was the person doing the executions and not just a front man, and then parading that death around the world's media is not going to help matters at all. In the long run it achieves **** all positive but causes a hell of a lot of negatives.

 

I think 'terrorist sympathiser' may be a little harsh but his dealings with the IRA were far from what I'd expect from an MP, especially during the troubles.

 

This I'm afraid is not a fact and is very much down to your own belief of what makes a terrorist / Jihadist. I think the Labour MP (I can't remember his name) who was recently removed from the shadow cabinet for 'disloyalty' hit the nail on the head on this matter.

 

hahahahahahaha
You've been reading far too much Byron

 

Yes it was. And show me an example of where I've 'reduced the debate to playground levels'. Seriously. Emwazi might well have carried on killing, which would have been awful, but your suggestion that Redstar would have been happy about that is "ridiculous", as you know full well. So c'mon then, where's this playground-level debate? Anytime you like....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk