Corbyn ally says should have "cups of tea" with ISIS not airstrikes
Scroll to see replies
@BeastOfSyracuse
Full quote.
"She warned that media stories about Mr Corbyn’s non-interventionism were having a negative impact and imagined a voter saying: “That Jeremy Corbyn you know, faced with terrorists he'd sit down and have a cup of tea with them or something.”Ms Shawcroft went on: “Now I mean, you know, maybe we should try it! Bombing them and attacking them has got us nowhere, why don't we get the teabags out? “You know I did read a while ago about when the EDL were going round picketing outside mosques... One particular mosque in the Midlands somewhere just opened the doors and said would you like to come in for a cup of tea? “And they went in for a cup of tea and now they're friends with the EDL. Straight away the EDL are now like oh, well actually these people are not the monsters you know that we're being told all this time, they're actually human beings that you can sit down and have a cup of tea with. “So you know I think we should bear in mind that having cups of tea might actually be the best kind of system of defence and national security that you could have, but there we are.”
I thought it was taken out of context and it was. It is definitely of the slant that we should be trying other avenues and I don't think hardened ISIS ideologues can be reasoned with like an EDL person can. They are not comparable. But the notion that we need people in that area to not see us as enemies is sound.
It's an anti-war viewpoint but it was more tongue in cheek. They did not think we should actually go out and give tea to ISIS fighters.
Full quote.
"She warned that media stories about Mr Corbyn’s non-interventionism were having a negative impact and imagined a voter saying: “That Jeremy Corbyn you know, faced with terrorists he'd sit down and have a cup of tea with them or something.”Ms Shawcroft went on: “Now I mean, you know, maybe we should try it! Bombing them and attacking them has got us nowhere, why don't we get the teabags out? “You know I did read a while ago about when the EDL were going round picketing outside mosques... One particular mosque in the Midlands somewhere just opened the doors and said would you like to come in for a cup of tea? “And they went in for a cup of tea and now they're friends with the EDL. Straight away the EDL are now like oh, well actually these people are not the monsters you know that we're being told all this time, they're actually human beings that you can sit down and have a cup of tea with. “So you know I think we should bear in mind that having cups of tea might actually be the best kind of system of defence and national security that you could have, but there we are.”
I thought it was taken out of context and it was. It is definitely of the slant that we should be trying other avenues and I don't think hardened ISIS ideologues can be reasoned with like an EDL person can. They are not comparable. But the notion that we need people in that area to not see us as enemies is sound.
It's an anti-war viewpoint but it was more tongue in cheek. They did not think we should actually go out and give tea to ISIS fighters.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by BeastOfSyracuse
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12199570/British-soldiers-should-have-cups-of-tea-with-Islamic-State-terrorists-says-Jeremy-Corbyn-ally.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Unless she's referring to teabagging in the Urban Dictionary sense (and even that would be a bit weird)?
Unless she's referring to teabagging in the Urban Dictionary sense (and even that would be a bit weird)?
Why is this about Corbyn and not the person who actually made the quote? Maybe because you (like the articles) are trying to mislead people into thinking this is Corbyn's position? No, of course not, that would just be deceitful.
Not to mention intentionally taking the quote out of context and being dishonest about it's meaning.
(edited 8 years ago)
It's low to quote so egregiously out of context and link so tortuously to Corbyn. Labour's right-wingers, once so good at spin and briefing, have lost their touch in the age of free information. Everything they say is at odds with almost all sectors of today's British electorate, Tory and Labour voting. It's impossible in politics to please everyone - but it takes some pretty special incompetence to please no-one at all.
(edited 8 years ago)
The real question is... Who would even want to have a cup of tea with them?
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Ms Shawcroft went on: “Now I mean, you know, maybe we should try it! Bombing them and attacking them has got us nowhere, why don't we get the teabags out?"
It's an anti-war viewpoint but it was more tongue in cheek. They did not think we should actually go out and give tea to ISIS fighters.
Ms Shawcroft went on: “Now I mean, you know, maybe we should try it! Bombing them and attacking them has got us nowhere, why don't we get the teabags out?"
It's an anti-war viewpoint but it was more tongue in cheek. They did not think we should actually go out and give tea to ISIS fighters.
It was undeniably a pro-diplomacy sentiment, which is ridiculously stupid.
The notion of negotiating with a group that beheads aid-workers is simply insane. And to suggest air-strikes "have got us nowhere" merely demonstrates her ignorance of the facts: the Islamic State have lost 40% of their territory in Iraq since air-strikes began, 26,000 IS fighters have been killed, their oil revenues have been dramatically cut, RAF air-strikes have resulted in 0 civilian casualties, and air-strikes have saved many lives.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-loses-40-of-iraq-territory-and-20-in-syria-as-international-air-strikes-support-ground-a6797486.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/isis-fighters-killed-iraq-syria/
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/19/isis-oil-revenue-damaged-by-airstrikes-low-price.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/michael-fallon-claims-been-zero-6922729
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Sinjar_offensive
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
@BeastOfSyracuse
Full quote.
"She warned that media stories about Mr Corbyn’s non-interventionism were having a negative impact and imagined a voter saying: “That Jeremy Corbyn you know, faced with terrorists he'd sit down and have a cup of tea with them or something.”Ms Shawcroft went on: “Now I mean, you know, maybe we should try it! Bombing them and attacking them has got us nowhere, why don't we get the teabags out? “You know I did read a while ago about when the EDL were going round picketing outside mosques... One particular mosque in the Midlands somewhere just opened the doors and said would you like to come in for a cup of tea? “And they went in for a cup of tea and now they're friends with the EDL. Straight away the EDL are now like oh, well actually these people are not the monsters you know that we're being told all this time, they're actually human beings that you can sit down and have a cup of tea with. “So you know I think we should bear in mind that having cups of tea might actually be the best kind of system of defence and national security that you could have, but there we are.”
I thought it was taken out of context and it was. It is definitely of the slant that we should be trying other avenues and I don't think hardened ISIS ideologues can be reasoned with like an EDL person can. They are not comparable. But the notion that we need people in that area to not see us as enemies is sound.
It's an anti-war viewpoint but it was more tongue in cheek. They did not think we should actually go out and give tea to ISIS fighters.
Full quote.
"She warned that media stories about Mr Corbyn’s non-interventionism were having a negative impact and imagined a voter saying: “That Jeremy Corbyn you know, faced with terrorists he'd sit down and have a cup of tea with them or something.”Ms Shawcroft went on: “Now I mean, you know, maybe we should try it! Bombing them and attacking them has got us nowhere, why don't we get the teabags out? “You know I did read a while ago about when the EDL were going round picketing outside mosques... One particular mosque in the Midlands somewhere just opened the doors and said would you like to come in for a cup of tea? “And they went in for a cup of tea and now they're friends with the EDL. Straight away the EDL are now like oh, well actually these people are not the monsters you know that we're being told all this time, they're actually human beings that you can sit down and have a cup of tea with. “So you know I think we should bear in mind that having cups of tea might actually be the best kind of system of defence and national security that you could have, but there we are.”
I thought it was taken out of context and it was. It is definitely of the slant that we should be trying other avenues and I don't think hardened ISIS ideologues can be reasoned with like an EDL person can. They are not comparable. But the notion that we need people in that area to not see us as enemies is sound.
It's an anti-war viewpoint but it was more tongue in cheek. They did not think we should actually go out and give tea to ISIS fighters.
The core Corbynista viewpoint is still there- that they think us using military force is inherently wrong and we should bend over backwards to placate people who want to murder us and subjugate millions, because it must be a big misunderstanding that could be magically resolved if only we just talked.
Like all recent quotes of Corbyn and his allies that they accuse the media of taking out of context, being put in their 'context' doesn't actually change anything.
Original post by pol pot noodles
Like all recent quotes of Corbyn and his allies that they accuse the media of taking out of context, being put in their 'context' doesn't actually change anything.
Like all recent quotes of Corbyn and his allies that they accuse the media of taking out of context, being put in their 'context' doesn't actually change anything.
It does. The out of context quotes make it look like the pacifists want to site down and make a deal with ISIS, when in reality their approach is more akin to using diplomacy the take away their power base. It's not to destroy ISIS by talking to them, but essentially neuter them.
Original post by Farm_Ecology
This woman was put on Labour's National Executive Committee by Corbyn. She is a senior officer in a his little personality cult, Maomentum. It is entirely reasonable to point out the link
Original post by Farm_Ecology
It's not to destroy ISIS by talking to them, but essentially neuter them.
What, the old Corbyn chestnut about isolating them and magically they will go away? That's a fantasy, a delusionThe ISIS territories are completely isolated from the international banking system and overseas funding. Since that occurred the vast majority of their funding has come from exploiting illicit oil supplies (much of which is traded with the Assad regime) and taxing the local population
Your suggestion that somehow this magical diplomatic solution can be pursued is simply a rhetorical tactic to oppose any concrete action to actually destroy the Islamic State. And we don't have to ask why. It wasn't that long ago the hard left was praising ISIS as "the Iraqi resistance"
Original post by BeastOfSyracuse What, the old Corbyn chestnut about isolating them and magically they will go away? That's a fantasy, a delusion
The ISIS territories are completely isolated from the international banking system and overseas funding. Since that occurred the vast majority of their funding has come from exploiting illicit oil supplies (much of which is traded with the Assad regime) and taxing the local population
Your suggestion that somehow this magical diplomatic solution can be pursued is simply a rhetorical tactic to oppose any concrete action to actually destroy the Islamic State. And we don't have to ask why. It wasn't that long ago the hard left was praising ISIS as "the Iraqi resistance"
What, the old Corbyn chestnut about isolating them and magically they will go away? That's a fantasy, a delusionThe ISIS territories are completely isolated from the international banking system and overseas funding. Since that occurred the vast majority of their funding has come from exploiting illicit oil supplies (much of which is traded with the Assad regime) and taxing the local population
Your suggestion that somehow this magical diplomatic solution can be pursued is simply a rhetorical tactic to oppose any concrete action to actually destroy the Islamic State. And we don't have to ask why. It wasn't that long ago the hard left was praising ISIS as "the Iraqi resistance"
It wasn't long ago that Obama was arming Isis and Britain supporting it. Such a leftie.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Farm_Ecology
It does. The out of context quotes make it look like the pacifists want to site down and make a deal with ISIS, when in reality their approach is more akin to using diplomacy the take away their power base. It's not to destroy ISIS by talking to them, but essentially neuter them.
In the context of the actual fight against ISIS and how we're dealing with them, sitting down and making a deal with ISIS is exactly the approach Corbyn and co are implying. It's easy to vaguely say 'diplomacy' is an alternative to war, just as it's easy to vaguely say 'close tax loopholes' is an alternative to cuts.
The reality is there's no actual diplomacy to be had with ISIS. We're already working with the Kurds and moderate ground forces. Our air campaign is the best strategy at the moment short of committing ground troops, and it's high time Corbyn admitted that instead of blathering meaninglessly about 'diplomacy'.
Original post by Bornblue
It wasn't long ago that Obama was arming Isis and Britain supporting it. Such a leftie.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
It wasn't ever ago. That never happened.
Original post by pol pot noodles
It wasn't ever ago. That never happened.
It most certainly did. Funded and armed the group that later became ISIS. They armed the Jihad u group in Libya.
Just like the US funded and armed the group that later became Al Qaeda.
Stop shutting down the debate. People can legitimately oppose the current war. Not because they support Isis, but because they don't think the current tactics will work.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
It wasn't long ago that Obama was arming Isis and Britain supporting it. Such a leftie.
That's never actually happened, and you won't be able to cite any credible evidence it has (conspiracy websites and Stormfront doesn't count)
Original post by Bornblue
Nope. The group that became ISIS was Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which was created around the time of the US invasion in 2003 and has always been a mortal enemy of the West
Just like the US funded and armed the group that later became Al Qaeda
No again. The US funded the Afghan mujahideen. That was successful, the Soviets withdrew in 1989 and the US guillotined the funding. It wasn't until 1993/4 that Al-Qaeda was created and it was never supported by the US
And speaking of prior support, Corbyn and his hard left cronies like Shameless Milne are the ones who breathlessly praised ISIS' predecessor organisation Al-Qaeda in Iraq, as "the Iraqi resistance", who lionised the Taliban as the legitimate forces of Afghan nationalist aspiration "even if there are disagreements about the social attitudes of its leadership" (Corbyn's words.. and they're damning). If you want to talk about who supported whom, I don't think you'll win this
Not because they support Isis, but because they don't think the current tactics will work.
But they are working. It's not August 2014 anymore, enough time has passed and we have the evidence of ISIS withdrawal from many areas and its total inability to mount any sort of major offensive for the last 9 months. ISIS cut its fighters' salaries by 50% a few months ago, and its top leaders are being picked off one by one. The strategy is working, you only have to look at a map
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
It most certainly did. Funded and armed the group that later became ISIS. They armed the Jihad u group in Libya.
Just like the US funded and armed the group that later became Al Qaeda.
Stop shutting down the debate. People can legitimately oppose the current war. Not because they support Isis, but because they don't think the current tactics will work.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Just like the US funded and armed the group that later became Al Qaeda.
Stop shutting down the debate. People can legitimately oppose the current war. Not because they support Isis, but because they don't think the current tactics will work.
Posted from TSR Mobile
No they didn't. The US or UK has never funded or supported extremist salafist groups. The best you guys can come up with tying the USA to ISIS is six degrees of separation. Who are 'Jihad u'?
There is no evidence what-so-ever that the US funded foreign mujahideen in Afghanistan. All co-operation was between the CIA and Afghan natives like Ahmad Shah Massoud.
How am I shutting down the debate, and when did I ever say or imply that people who disagree with me support ISIS?
Continuous bombing and killing won't work. We need to find out why people are joining ISIS and how we can stop them from joining them.
Original post by pol pot noodles
No they didn't. The US or UK has never funded or supported extremist salafist groups. The best you guys can come up with tying the USA to ISIS is six degrees of separation. Who are 'Jihad u'?
There is no evidence what-so-ever that the US funded foreign mujahideen in Afghanistan. All co-operation was between the CIA and Afghan natives like Ahmad Shah Massoud.
How am I shutting down the debate, and when did I ever say or imply that people who disagree with me support ISIS?
There is no evidence what-so-ever that the US funded foreign mujahideen in Afghanistan. All co-operation was between the CIA and Afghan natives like Ahmad Shah Massoud.
How am I shutting down the debate, and when did I ever say or imply that people who disagree with me support ISIS?
They armed jihadist militia groups in Lybia, who included the group who were to become Isis. Given that the US also funded AQ in Afghanisatn, you can excuse people for not trusting their judgement.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Only way you can really defend that is if it was a sort of joke saying that doing nothing is better than randomly bombing.
Left wing people in these countries went over to Spain to fight Franco not have cups of tea with him
It's defiantly in the realm of when pacifism starts to end up essentially supporting monsters like ISIS.
Left wing people in these countries went over to Spain to fight Franco not have cups of tea with him
It's defiantly in the realm of when pacifism starts to end up essentially supporting monsters like ISIS.
Sorry couldn't resist being a grammar nazi for once
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Do You Drink Milk As Is?
- What are the most competative courses at Cardiff university?
- English literature how to revise
- Tuition Fee Loan rejected for second degree - but it's an AHP course?
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- does lipton peach iced tea have caffeine ?
- What should I do during my dentistry work experience?
- thesis statement for eng lit PLS REAPLY ASAP
- Getting Kathy fit again. Take II
- FOA Student Finance
- Which Tea Brand is the best?
- Diet
- Septum piercings - turn on or turn off?
- I hate having big boobs
- English Lit GCSE
- Freshers on TSR: Getting Ready for University - Let's Share Top Tips!
- gold iDEA badge in the 5 stage of chatbots
- The Same Picture of Ainsley Harriott Every Day
- Brits, tell me about your culture
- English Literature
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
