Advanced search

to think Cameron should not be calling people who are concerned about bombing Syria terrorist sympathisers?

(107 Posts)
Egosumquisum Tue 01-Dec-15 23:35:19

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DirtyBlonde Tue 01-Dec-15 23:40:52

"The Telegraph has been told that numerous Labour MPs have been left in tears after being warned by hard-left activists that they will be “murdering women and babies” by backing military action.
Others have been threatened with deselection and one MP was sent a picture of a dead baby alongside a message demanding they vote against strikes, one senior Labour source said."


Egosumquisum Tue 01-Dec-15 23:42:29

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

howtorebuild Tue 01-Dec-15 23:43:02

Here is a V to Dave, from me. I am full of anxiety about the vote tomorrow. He is going to win and we will enter ww3. sad

howtorebuild Tue 01-Dec-15 23:43:46

That's not a victory V, it's an insult V, btw.

EnaSharplesHairnet Tue 01-Dec-15 23:48:06

Ego I have only seen this reported on here so knowing naff all about it I'll wade in! Apologies if I'm misinterpreting what's gone on.

Corbyn, John McDonnell and Ken Livingstone have all said or done things in the past -unconnected to the Syria debate - that have struck me as sailing very close to sympathising with terrorists. I feel they have left an open goal for odious Dave!

They try to lead public opinion in a way that's not going to work with the majority, who believe more in personal responsibility rather than the sweep of events/history.

DirtyBlonde Tue 01-Dec-15 23:49:13

"One Labour MP subjected to sustained abuse at the hands of activists said: “It is a systematic and substantial effort to bully moderate Labour MPs into voting against military action. This is being aided and abetted by Corbyn’s office"

I think what the Labour Party is saying to its members is far, far worse than what was said to the 1922 Committee (said once to a group), rather than sustained pressure to individuals on their personal phone lines with accusations of being baby killers.

Calling someone a murderer is way more deplorable than sympathiser.

Backawaynow2 Tue 01-Dec-15 23:50:27

We are already in WW3 i
afraid since we took on Saddam.

Vile bastard as he was he kept the various religious factions under foot.

We got rid of him and believed democracy Democracy would follow. It didn't and his *get rid of me and you open the gates of
hell* speech was right.

Corbyn is a twat though.

Egosumquisum Tue 01-Dec-15 23:51:15

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Egosumquisum Tue 01-Dec-15 23:53:19

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

EnaSharplesHairnet Wed 02-Dec-15 00:15:03

I watched Question Time when Ken L said of warnings of potential terror threats as a result of the Iraq invasion given to Tony BlaIR "He ignored that advice and it killed 52 Londoners."

The far left have a cloth ear on security issues.

I'm against bombing Syria by the way.

SinisterBumFacedCat Wed 02-Dec-15 00:16:02

YANBU op and thank you for starting the thread. I think it's quite worrying that this comment which was reported on the 10 o clock news has gone so under the radar.

In describing MPs who intend to vote against bombing as terrorist sympathisers he also describes the people outside protesting against bombing, British people against bombing, and those who voted against military action in Syria two years ago as terrorist sympathisers.

A pacifist is not a terrorist sympathiser. If a prime minister can't tell the difference and is happy to dismiss th as such then yes, he is leading us straight into WW3

QueenLaBeefah Wed 02-Dec-15 00:21:31


I think his comments weren't helpful

I have no idea if bombing Syria is a good idea or not. The whole issue is so confusing.

Iliveinalighthousewiththeghost Wed 02-Dec-15 00:25:54

YNBU. Im not a terrorist sympathiser but nor do I advocate the killing and maiming of innocent civilians because that's who'll be harmed, not the terrorists.
I'm worried sick. My DD is petrified, as we all I suppose.

Mistigri Wed 02-Dec-15 05:36:27

I must say that I have little sympathy for MPs who are "reduced to tears" by pictures of dead babies. Do they think that bombing Syria is some sort of video game with no "collateral damage"? shock

Those Labour MPs who firmly believe that the case for bombing has been made should vote with their conscience, of course. But they cannot deny that this policy will result in dead children. Why should they be protected from the consequences of their political choices? If the thought of dead civilians is too upsetting for the poor dears, then why are they voting for it?

meditrina Wed 02-Dec-15 07:38:17

If I read that linked Telegraph article correctly, both the Conservatives and Labour are using metaphor in the run up to the debate.

Cameron, speaking to a meeting of party members about securing the Tory vote, used one metaphor once. He wasn't speaking as PM in the house or to the nation. That is why it's not in the headlines.

Labour activists are using a different but just as extreme a metaphor and there are an increasing number of accounts of downright bullying. This includes seeking out individuals repeatedly including at home.

Is Corbyn aware of the bullying and approving of it? Or is he simply not in control?

It doesn't matter to me how passionately you believe in something, there is a point where things tip into harassment and bullying, and Labour has reached it.

museumum Wed 02-Dec-15 07:43:19

I'm all for eliminating ISIL but to what end? To put asad back in charge? Or to run the country ourselves as an occupying force? Neither of those are solutions I can accept.
Until they say who is going to take charge after the bombing (and exactly who they are bombing on whose behalf - which factions in the civil war are "our side") I can't support it.
Russia turkey and nato are all fighting on slightly different sides. It's chaos.

Egosumquisum Wed 02-Dec-15 07:45:08

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

meditrina Wed 02-Dec-15 07:53:10

You see a difference.

So do others, but they see a different difference.

Both sides are throwing rhetoric around.

Only one is bullying individuals.

DirtyBlonde Wed 02-Dec-15 07:55:28

From article linked in OP

"The Labour leader’s office was on Tuesday accused of leaking to anti-war activists the names and contact details of MPs undecided about whether to back air strikes."

shock shock

Egosumquisum Wed 02-Dec-15 07:55:47

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Egosumquisum Wed 02-Dec-15 07:56:54

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Mistigri Wed 02-Dec-15 07:57:33

If MPs are upset that their constituents disagree with them, then they need to consider whether they are adequately representing their constituents.

I am NOT condoning harrassment, but confronting your MP with a picture of the consequences of bombing is not "harrassment". An MP is a public figure, and members of the public have the right to contact their MP to make their opinions clear. All the more so if the person is a member of that MP's constituency party! shock

Of course, if there is genuine harrassment, MPs can and should go to the police to get it stopped.

I think Labour MPs have badly judged the mood of constituents. I have a close friend who is an active Labour party member and has been for many years - he is a university-educated small business owner in his 50s, not a youthful activist. He and other party members of his generation are absolutely incensed with their local MP's voting intentions and if reselection ever happens this MP will be out on his arse ...

Egosumquisum Wed 02-Dec-15 08:03:11

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Samcro Wed 02-Dec-15 08:07:39

yanbu. what ever the rights or wrongs about this, Scameron acted like a playground bully

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: