I don't get this personal attacks on Corbyn from her. it's not like she's proven to be strong and stable recently. Several u-turns on policies, early elections which she said would not happen and three attacks under her watch.
Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II
- Thread starter Zefan
- Start date
- Status
For five of those years the Conservatives were in a coalition with the LibDems, who routinely blocked any anti-terror legislation from being proposed.
So to conclude then, we now think Saudi Arabia are the good guys because it helps us do a bit of Tory bashing?
Meanwhile Corbyn's brother is accusing Qatar of being behind the conspiracy that is global warming/climate change.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,070
Rubbish, effective legislation would have and had been passed. Managing terrorism is not just about legislation.
Many proposals like the 'The Investigatory Powers Act 2016' and her latest proposals were rightly challenged.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,290
- Location
- deep space nine
lovely example of whataboutery there
It was meant light heartedly though true - not as a counter point or whatever.
On another note if it came to war - the UK has a defence pact with Qatar and military bases and port facilities there.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,070
They didn't block it though if you read the article and don't headline grab.
Regardless, TM has been in charge of the resources for 7 years and the only way they can manage going forward is carte blance policing and censorship of the whole internet, comms networks, vpns, Facebook, WhatsApp etc.
In doing so, taking away 20,000 real police officers with more attrition to come, community integration and management to cyber policing. These cuts don't just impact on terrorism but all aspects of domestic policing. Pretty crime like bike thefts etc is all but ignored now due to resourcing.
If you threw something like Kosovo or supporting the Kurds in there, you would have a much better argument for intervention being appropriate sometimes and against apathy. But of your picks, they're all, imo, bad examples.
Sadam did kill very many people. In large part with the weapons we sold him when he gassed the Kurds. And also during the Iran-Iraq war when we backed him in a war which he started and initiated military action without even a declaration of war - just tanks rolling over the border one day. Saddam was our man, until he wasn't. By the time we did actually decide to invade Iraq (by "we" I mean Blair and Bush against massive public protests against it), who exactly were we saving? Because our invasion and occupation has killed millions of people and certainly wasn't about protecting the Iraqi people.
Bin Laden was eventually found living in Northern Pakistan, so the USA really invaded the wrong country there but no big deal. Also the Taliban did also offer to work with the USA in locating him prior to the invasion (little known fact, but if you were about to be attacked by the entire United States armed forces, you'd offer dialogue as well). Afghanistan is a better argument for intervention than Iraq but it's still not the case that the West went in there to prevent people being killed.
Libya is perhaps your worst example - at least in the sense of what you're trying to prove. It was a productive country with, by the standards of its region, very good infrastructure, health care and no debt. The Benghazi rebels were presented to the West as peaceful protestors that Gaddafi was about to roll tanks over. That's been amply demonstrated as not true. They were an armed insurgency that attacked military bases and did not have popular support across the country. Indeed, they had to have their numbers bolstered by Qatari troops who, again, the Western media portrayed as local freedom fighters. There's nothing untrue in this - it's common knowledge outside of UK and USA but within these countries there was no mainstream coverage of that. Feel free to look it up and check if this surprises you. If you want to claim we were there to prevent massacres then I'm afraid you'll find we came in on the wrong side. The rebels and foreign soldiers that we backed in Libya were the ones who engaged in ethnic cleansing of the towns they occupied. Indeed, they rounded up Black people and lynched them in at least two towns documented. These were the ones we helped turn Libya into the Hell hole it is today.
So all three of your examples are not cases of the West intervening to help protect the population and in none of these cases would "they eventually land on our shores, there [sic] intentions are quite clearly laid out". Saddam had no intention of invading / attacking the UK. Nor did the Taliban. The Taliban are local warlords with no navy and no airforce. How do you imagine they "would eventually land on our shores". And the 9/11 attackers were mostly, as was Osama bin Laden, Saudi Arabian. And Gaddafi had been reaching out to the West for years trying to come in from the diplomatic cold. The Libyan army was not about to "eventually land on our shores" either.
Your statement is based on a very skewed portrayal by some Western news sources. All of the above that I wrote is relatively easily fact-checked if doubted.
Amazing. Hopefully she gets kicked out on her arse.
Taken out of context and assuming for the sake of arguement motives are pure this is one of those lose/lose situations - how long do you do nothing about widespread human rights abuse knowing that any direct action will result in the death and displacement of at least as many people?
Conversely Karn Bradley this morning on Radio 4 admitted that since 2010 the number of armed police have been cut since there wasnt any money. I suspect that will be worth 5% of the vote back to Labour.
Perhaps they should have concentrated less on tax cuts and kept the Police spending, esp on armed police, at the same level.
Deleted member 68110
Deleted member 68110
So this ******* GE is *still* going ahead then?
What a disrespectful load of ****.
No doubt the result will be crowed as a mandate for whatever ****, on whatever policy area, the next government decide over the next 4 years...
What a disrespectful load of ****.
No doubt the result will be crowed as a mandate for whatever ****, on whatever policy area, the next government decide over the next 4 years...
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,070
The main issue is with policing cuts is to domestic policing of all crime; from gang violence, assault, burglary, theft etc.
The majority of the population is affected on a day to day basis by these cuts.
The majority of the population is affected on a day to day basis by these cuts.
Exactly. Our local police station closed a couple of years ago due to cuts, if we're lucky we see a couple of pcso's once in a blue moon.
How is it disrespectful to carry on with an election despite attempts to disrupt it?
Pft our local one closes down this year. Nearest one will be 35 miles and 45 minutes driving away after that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,070
Exactly, this election is much more than just about dealing with terrorism when it comes to policing.
Ok it provides May some good soundbites but the cuts to domestic policing at her hand have been significant and with serious consequences when excluding terrorism.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,989
Given that some people suggest Theresa May is only a short step away from Hienrich Himmler it's ironic for the Conservatives to be bashed on domestic security as if there is more they should be doing. Politics is definitely a sport where you can be bashed for two utterly opposed reasons simultaneously.
- Status