Terrorist Sympathising

[GiddyOnZackHunt]

How does David Cameron justify attacking 'that man' for being a terrorist sympathiser? David Cameron took selfies at the funeral of a convicted terrorist. A convicted terrorist that was a member of an organisation that Margaret Thatcher condemned as a terrorist group when she refused to meet their leaders.
And moreover to know he was on such dodgy legal ground that he dare not name 'that man'?

Don't worry about it.

No one's remembering anything from this Tory conference because everyone's just wondering who's going to replace Cameron to oppose Corbyn.
Will it be Boris! Oh but he fucked a dead pig too... Maybe Theresa! Yes, a woman would be good...

Ah Theresa as leader. At least the BBC would devote equal time to their footwear and clothing.

It just bloody infuriates me that he's made such a hypocritical allegation without having the balls to name names but then the media have joined up the dots to make it an attack on Jeremy Corbyn. Doing his dirty work.

He made so many sly digs without actually naming Corbyn, because they have all been advised by suited PR Lynton Crosbys to not be too bitchy because "They" (that's us) "don't like it".
A bit bitchy, just bitchy enough but not too bitchy. That's our Cameron!

Sailing the right side of Legal. So cynical and not compassionate.

And moreover to know he was on such dodgy legal ground that he dare not name 'that man'

Other than, three sentences earlier, referring to "the new leader of the Labour Party". Yeah, that's keeping it vague on the down-low for legal reasons .

Do you seriously think that the political discourse of this country would be enhanced were party leaders to start suing each other over the contents of political speeches? Or that it's a concern that Cameron would have considered while approving the speech? If Corbyn thinks what Cameron said was libellous, nothing Cameron did over the nomenclature he used would prevent a libel suit. If Corbyn wants to commit political suicide, he is entirely able to bring one.

Corbyn dislikes Jews and loves Palastinian terrorists. His chancellor said:

“It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA.”

How does David Cameron justify attacking 'that man' for being a terrorist sympathiser?

Well judge for yourselves HOW Cameron is allowed to repeat Corbyn’s own words, within a speech without parliamentary privilege in Manchester – clearly with facts, rather than something alleged against him by a man with a self confessed ‘beef’ - publishing schoolgirl Chinese Whispers, without a shred of proof.

Aug 2015; What Jeremy Corbyn ACTUALLY said about Osama Bin Laden’s death being a tragedy
metro.co.uk/2015/08/31/what-jeremy-corbyn-actually-said-about-osama-bin-ladens-death-being-a-tragedy-5369339/

The Labour leadership frontrunner can be heard saying the solution should ‘be law, not war’. And it’s that which he consider tragic, because he’s against the death penalty.

”There was no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him, to put him on trial, to go through that process.”

”This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy.”

Corbyn goes on: ‘The World Trade Centre was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died. Torture has come back on to the world stage, been canonised virtually into law by Guantanamo and Bagram.

‘Can’t we learn some lessons over this?’

I think the lessons we have all learned Mr Corbyn is that you have had extremely poor judgement supporting extremists/terrorists masquerading a ‘peoples ‘struggles, while exhibiting complete contempt for our queen.

Whether by inviting the IRA to London 2-weeks after they bombed the Conservative Conference in 1984 (where several were killed and many more injured), meeting and calling Hezbollah (and Hamas) “friends”, or calling the death of Bin Laden a ”tragedy”.

And it is not just Conservatives doubting Mr Corbyn's political sympathies - that have funded Labour with donations for decades - and so widened to include a home-own-goal.

Aug 2015; Jeremy Corbyn challenged on Hezbollah 'friends' comment by Labour Friends of Israel chief Joan Ryan
www.ibtimes.co.uk/jeremy-corbyn-challenged-hezbollah-friends-comment-by-labour-friends-israel-chief-joan-ryan-1514948

The comments come after Corbyn, a veteran parliamentarian, was challenged for describing terror group Hezbollah and Hamas, the Palestinian group which has called for the total annihilation of Israel, his "friends".

Meh - it's the helping of Saudi Arabia to get in the UN that's makes my piss boil. They are about to actually crucify a young boy soon. Cameron helped them in when they are the worst abusers of human rights on this earth. All a bunch of bastards

What Corbyn actually said was that Bin Laden should have been put on trial, according to international laws.

Sounds right to me.

---

In a clip from the Press TV show the Agenda, Corbyn is heard complaining that there had been “no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him and put him on trial, to go through that process”. He went on: “This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy.

“The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died. Torture has come back on to the world stage, been canonised virtually into law by Guantánamo and Bagram.

“Can’t we learn some lessons from this? Are we just going to sink deeper and deeper?

“The next stage will be an attempted assassination on Gaddafi and so it will go on. This will just make the world more dangerous and worse and worse and worse."

---

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/31/jeremy-corbyn-said-osama-bin-laden-should-have-been-tried-not-killed

Does anyone have a problem with this putting people on trial for their crimes instead of assassinating them?

If so, what do you propose? Killing accussed people for their alleged crimes without trial?

Do we reserve the courts for petty criminals?

The ultra strict religious laws of the Sunni Saudi Arabia have been in place long before John Wayne became a cowboy, in fact they go back to the founding of modern day Saudi Arabia and the then two main Bedouin families - there is no wall, there is wealth, so no one need stay if they don't want to.

Shia Iran/Syria controlled Hezbollah, that invaded/stayed in the Lebanon for 20-years, who in turn funded and provided rocket factories/technology to Sunni Hamas, against Israel.

None of them are 'good eggs', but some are smellier than others, so to compare the (bad) domestic laws/justice dished out on a few in SA, to the state sponsored murders/terrorism of the others, is a tad naive - as they don't give those they face any choices but the gun/barrel bomb.

No way would he have ever seen a trial. USA are too deep in shit to have let him speak

So Middle East bullsquirt aside, do we now agree that Cameron was FACTUALLY correct, in quoting Corbyn's own words?

Ricardian yes you're right that he'd referenced the Labour leader' a few lines earlier. I withdraw the side issue of legality.
However my point about Mandela's funeral still stands.

A few itsme? it's roughly one every two days. A crucifixion or stoning or some other similarly delightful way of extenguishing life.

It's strange how two posters can have such different views on the same subject. It's strange that you havnt mentioned US involvement of supplying chemical warfare or weapons to 'freedom fighters' or Israel. But I suppose that's another thread.

And also do you know you were shouting or had bolded the whole post or was it just to 'get your point across' ?

She who shouts loudest and all that ...

Law, not war.

How can the Torybots argue with that. I assume they think "War not law".
And there I was thinking we were a civilised society.

Inthelookingglass ... She who shouts loudest and all that ...

Within a SEA of social media bullsquirt, how else would a little voice BE heard? lol

Lol

squidzin .... How can the Torybots argue with that. I assume they think "War not law".

IMO 'the jury is still out' whether you are in the same Russian Troll House 'cell' as claig .... in which case that would be the 'Russian kettle calling an English tea pot, black'.
www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house

Err.. You've just outed yourself as a member of Torybot HQ with that link.

I knew it.

At least we now know who were the main social media influences behind the UKIP and Corbyn's support... after me, 'ra, ra ras-Putin, lover of the Syrian king'

And at the General Election, you can't fool all of the people, all of the time.

squidzin .... I will write Cameron is a complete and utter tosser

In a kind of on-line polygraph test, YOU do the same with Putin (in bold) in the next few minutes, and if you 'pass', I'll apologise.

squidz-in.....I guess the jury is no longer-out.

How long does it take to check with YOUR supervisors?

Day in, day out you utter more profanities than a builders mate, yet CAN'T criticise Putin with such a word... the question has to be, is there anyone British posting on this board supporting the far left/right anti Tory Labour/UKIP - apart from those in Scotland?

I believe that their are truly evil people in this world but I also agree that people should be put on trial for their crimes. I do not believe in the death penalty in any circumstances. This does not mean I support terrorists or any other bollocks like that it just means that I do not agree with killing people. The two are very separate issues.
Cameron was not surprisingly playing for the camera in his conference speech. Thankfully I have an inquiring and intelligent mind so question the bollocks that comes out of our politicians mouths but I do worry about those who don't. Only the other day yet again I was speaking to somebody in my village who kept on telling me that they needed to build new houses in our village to house all the bloody immigrants.
We live in one of the least likely places to ever meet an immigrant, it's painfully un-diverse round here. If you do it is likely to be your Dr as we have a recruitment problem in this area and they are desperately needed. There is also not a housing shortage round here but why let the facts get in the way of rhetoric. Sensible debate and conversation has been replaced with political point scoring and soundbites. So disappointing as it means that real discourse and conversation that could progress into real solutions is rarely explored by any politicians.