The Student Room Group

David Cameron says those against bombing syria are 'terrorist sympathizer's

I am absolutely appalled that a priminister can even make such comments. It is absolutely shocking.

David Cameron accuses Jeremy Corbyn of being 'terrorist sympathiser'

David Cameron has appealed to Conservative MPs to give him an overall parliamentary majority in favour of military action in Syria by warning them against voting alongside “Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers”.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/01/cameron-accuses-corbyn-of-being-terrorist-sympathiser

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
David Cameron , overthrowing Gedaffi before giving libiya to alqaeda and isis among other hard-line terrorist groups infesting it

[video="youtube;7_OFaE19myg"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_OFaE19myg[/video]
The hard-line terrorists are already infesting Iraq and Syria.

We should have been bombing them months ago.
Appalling behaviour. Pathetic.

Posted from TSR Mobile
"David Cameron is now a threat to our national security, our economic security and your family's security".
Says the guy selling arms to Saudi Arabia?
Original post by Tawheed
I am absolutely appalled that a priminister can even make such comments. It is absolutely shocking.

David Cameron accuses Jeremy Corbyn of being 'terrorist sympathiser'

David Cameron has appealed to Conservative MPs to give him an overall parliamentary majority in favour of military action in Syria by warning them against voting alongside “Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers”.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/01/cameron-accuses-corbyn-of-being-terrorist-sympathiser


Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser. He applauds the violent campaigns carried out by the IRA and Hamas. He claims peace in Northern Ireland was only achieved by the violence of the IRA and thus it was necessary. Labour are also okay with bombing ISIS in Iraq. But suddenly we want to attack them in Syria and all of a sudden Labour are staunch pacifists? Nonsense. Makes no sense.
Reply 7
What about him dropping bombs? Doesn't that make him a terrorist too?
Original post by HAnwar
What about him dropping bombs? Doesn't that make him a terrorist too?


No. It's the intentions and results behind 'bombing' that decides whether or not someone is a terrorist.
Reply 9
I don't see anything wrong here.
''President Nixon says those against bombing Cambodia are communist sympathisers''

Corbyn has reasons against intervention in Syria, and although I disagree with them, it is a stretch to proclaim him and those opposing as 'terrorist sympathisers.

I think a lot of the left are in denial about the threat posted by Islamism to the West. But likewise I believe that the West is being naive in believing that it's current course of action, including bombing ISIS, will resolve this situation.

You can drop millions of tons of bombs, but if you don't have adequate troops, either local or foreign, to hold the ground, you will never be able to truly defeat an army.
Original post by pol pot noodles
No. It's the intentions and results behind 'bombing' that decides whether or not someone is a terrorist.


What's the difference between ISIS car bombing a baracks in the UK and the UK bombing an ISIS stronghold? You and I both know only one will be called a terrorist attack, even if the ISIS attack had no collateral damage i.e. civilian deaths :indiff:

I don't support ISIS btw, I am just questioning the lax use of the buzzword 'terrorism'
Reply 12
sometimes i dont even understand the meaning of "terrorist" anymore.
by the way,the world is ending,sigh...
The marketing and communications mask of David Cameron slips occasionally.
It's just pathetic.He has been using this label since Corbyn was first elected as Labour leader, it's getting old now...:colonhash:

Also he just sounds desperate.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Zamestaneh
What's the difference between ISIS car bombing a baracks in the UK and the UK bombing an ISIS stronghold? You and I both know only one will be called a terrorist attack, even if the ISIS attack had no collateral damage i.e. civilian deaths :indiff:

I don't support ISIS btw, I am just questioning the lax use of the buzzword 'terrorism'


It's when ISIS purposefully target and massacre civilians wholesale, which they do a lot, that we call them terrorists, not for their military operations.
Reply 16
Of course not all those opposing bombings are terrorists sympathisers & there are many legitimate concerns but when it comes to Jeremy Corbyn and his support for the IRA and muslim terror groups such as Hezbollah & Hamas it is hard not to agree with David Cameron in regards to Corbyn
Original post by Ace123
Of course not all those opposing bombings are terrorists sympathisers & there are many legitimate concerns but when it comes to Jeremy Corbyn and his support for the IRA and muslim terror groups such as Hezbollah & Hamas it is hard not to agree with David Cameron in regards to Corbyn


So why is Cameron calling them that? Good grief!
Obviously he lied.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Judging by the responses in this thread and also by most of the posts by people on TSR in threads on this issue, I'd say he's bang on the money.

It's nearly always these people who are blaming the west for attacks and the existence of extremism. On that basis, of course they're terrorist sympathisers. Not supporters, but certainly sympathisers.

There's also of course the undeniable fact that Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser. He has extensive previous for it to the extent that you'd have to be deluded to think he doesn't sympathise with the old IRA when they were carrying out bombings and with Hezbollah and Hamas.
(edited 8 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest