Turn on thread page Beta

Jeremy Corbyn is a threat to National Security says the Tories. watch

Announcements
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    USA and Russia have a lot of new weapons. If you dig down the rabbit hole you will find a lot of conspiracy theories which are very disturbing.
    Could you please share some of these conspiracy theories because they're pretty interesting to me. I don't really believe them at all but I'd like to please know of them, sorry if I have offended you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Switzerland was lovely and neutral during WWII, yet the Nazis still planned to invade them. Being a pacifist doesn't mean aggressors won't try to hurt you.
    Holland, Denmark, Belgium
    And Norway were neutral
    As well
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Corbyn is a threat to national security. Not only has he spoken about abolishing the entire army & our nuclear weapons several times he also has close links with the IRA and muslim terrorist groups and even wants to give the Falklands to Argentina. Abolishing the army & nukes, associating with anti British terrorists & wanting to give away British territory is the definition of a threat to national security.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Isn't that a line from Star Wars?
    If he could be turned, he would be a powerful ally.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StolenPrivacy)
    Could you please share some of these conspiracy theories because they're pretty interesting to me. I don't really believe them at all but I'd like to please know of them, sorry if I have offended you.
    Think of a machine that is able to artificially develop extreme weather, tsunamis, earthquakes and create electromagnetic pulses.
    Create a natural disaster any where on the planet without having to commit yourself to a war because no ordinary person will have a clue that human being was responsible for it.

    Forget about nukes. There time has disappeared. The world is too globalized to set off nukes. If you nuke 1 place in the world food prices shoot up and then you have the nuclear fall out to deal with which ends up killing wildlife and giving people cancer.

    Put it this way. Don't buy Sea Food from the Pacific Ocean because the Cancer risk is huge! But chances are your risk of cancer has increased whether you like it or not due to Fukushima.

    But anyway. You know how the Bible talks about a time of suffering known as the tribulation? Well I doubt it will be God causing it. It will most likely be some human being using their new weapon of mass destruction on everyone in the globe.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by citydeer)
    of course david cameron is calling him a threat, he is the biggest threat to camerons government
    the post by the tories should read "jeremy corbyn is a threat to MY security and OUR (the riches) economy/finance"
    That's the truth.

    To senior Tories, "the nation" = hedge funds, banks, very large offshored wealth, aristocrats and their property portfolios, etc, etc.

    The Mailygraph/Express-Sun then translate this into loads of flag waving and tub thumping for the ordinary person. Something gets lost in the message.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ace123)
    Corbyn is a threat to national security. Not only has he spoken about abolishing the entire army & our nuclear weapons several times he also has close links with the IRA and muslim terrorist groups and even wants to give the Falklands to Argentina. Abolishing the army & nukes, associating with anti British terrorists & wanting to give away British territory is the definition of a threat to national security.
    Cameron and Osborne are already largely disbanding the armed forces, due to the pressing need for, er, austerity.

    He doesn't have any closer links with the IRA than did previous Tory governments who held extensive talks with them.

    The Falklands thing has been totally manipulated and overblown, basically he favours it being discussed at a UN level, which you may be surprised to hear, was the position of the Thatcher government before Galtieri went and invaded it. It's clear that the UK cannot militarily defend the Falklands now, especially given the massive scale of government cuts to the armed forces. Against that background, it's silly to pretend we would rush down there to defend them if there was a rerun of the invasion. I suppose the realistic alternative is to invite the Falklanders into negotiations with Argentina, if the latter continues to press for undemocratic takeover, then we should oppose it, although with what?

    I don't personally like Corbyn's willingness to share platforms with anti-semites or his cosying up to some of the militaristic elements of the Palestinian cause, but given that Israel does nothing to modify its policies and continues to take Arab lands, it seems that softer, gentler approaches to them don't work. We live in a world where the main global power tolerates and pampers Israeli brutality on the ground. That needs opposing.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Cameron and Osborne are already largely disbanding the armed forces, due to the pressing need for, er, austerity.

    He doesn't have any closer links with the IRA than did previous Tory governments who held extensive talks with them.

    The Falklands thing has been totally manipulated and overblown, basically he favours it being discussed at a UN level, which you may be surprised to hear, was the position of the Thatcher government before Galtieri went and invaded it. It's clear that the UK cannot militarily defend the Falklands now, especially given the massive scale of government cuts to the armed forces. Against that background, it's silly to pretend we would rush down there to defend them if there was a rerun of the invasion. I suppose the realistic alternative is to invite the Falklanders into negotiations with Argentina, if the latter continues to press for undemocratic takeover, then we should oppose it, although with what?

    I don't personally like Corbyn's willingness to share platforms with anti-semites or his cosying up to some of the militaristic elements of the Palestinian cause, but given that Israel does nothing to modify its policies and continues to take Arab lands, it seems that softer, gentler approaches to them don't work. We live in a world where the main global power tolerates and pampers Israeli brutality on the ground. That needs opposing.

    Given the state of the Argentine military, as well as the equipment we have there now there is no way they could take the islands. To say we could not defend them suggests quite a bit of ignorance about the forces we have there. By all means if we lost the islands we would be unlikely to take them back, but we would not get to that stage.

    Plus Corbyn suggested joint administration of the islands. That is going a bit further than mere UN mediation. His position shows he has little understanding of Argentina. Frankly I think may of his actions show the same lack of judgement. He seems willing to cosy up to any one that may share a similar outlook to him, His first couple of days have not shown much of a desire to move beyond being a protest MP, rather than a credible PM.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I firmly hate the tories, everything they stand for, and David Cameron himself makes me wretch, but I have to agree here. Prior to being declared the new leader of the labour party, I was actually thinking, "Hey, he actually stands for some good things", Now I find out that he has a lot of intentions which can and will only screw over the entire country.

    What I am talking about is his stance on foreign intervention in the crisis over in Syria, his stance on Trident, and a few other things which I've read since. For those who say we won't ever need Trident, we are already hilariously outmatched by other countries, some of which already pose an active threat. Russia as an example who have been using military intimidation tactics on Britain over the last few years. Eliminating Trident, Reducing military activity overseas, and other things of that type will actively reduce our countries stability, and we simply wouldn't be able to defend ourselves against any attacker.

    His stance on muslim (taking the term lightly, they're actually defying their claimed religion) extremists is also very worrying (Yes, I know they don't even make up 1% of the muslim population, but they're still real nevertheless!). At the end of the day, one deranged man can kill thousands if they have the will to do so.




    And in respect to what people are saying about cutting ground troops, go ahead. Humans are flimsy meatbags which fall to the floor with 1 bullet. Replace all foot soldiers with mechanical drones and such. Loooong overdue change. I would go as far as to say that we need to spend more money on military R&D to keep up with other countries. The Active Denial System, the ever shrinking espionage apparatus, and all the other thing that our country falls behind on.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Being a member of NATO is a pretty big security guarantee. Both NATO and nuclear weapons provide a security guarantee into the future regardless of what happens. Given the way Russia is acting in the east and America's declining interest in Europe the case for the deterrent will only become stronger. If current trends continue our security is going to become less and less certain. Though regardless of the domestic political situation, thanks to technical limitations it is unlikely we will have a nuclear deterrent one for much longer.

    If we were to disarm tomorrow you would have to see an increase in the size of our conventional military, given that no politician seems willing to do that I'd rather stick with a nuclear deterrent for as long as we can.
    How come?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Cameron and Osborne are already largely disbanding the armed forces, due to the pressing need for, er, austerity.

    He doesn't have any closer links with the IRA than did previous Tory governments who held extensive talks with them.

    The Falklands thing has been totally manipulated and overblown, basically he favours it being discussed at a UN level, which you may be surprised to hear, was the position of the Thatcher government before Galtieri went and invaded it. It's clear that the UK cannot militarily defend the Falklands now, especially given the massive scale of government cuts to the armed forces. Against that background, it's silly to pretend we would rush down there to defend them if there was a rerun of the invasion. I suppose the realistic alternative is to invite the Falklanders into negotiations with Argentina, if the latter continues to press for undemocratic takeover, then we should oppose it, although with what?

    I don't personally like Corbyn's willingness to share platforms with anti-semites or his cosying up to some of the militaristic elements of the Palestinian cause, but given that Israel does nothing to modify its policies and continues to take Arab lands, it seems that softer, gentler approaches to them don't work. We live in a world where the main global power tolerates and pampers Israeli brutality on the ground. That needs opposing.
    The Argentine Military are very weak & their economy is in a total mess we can defend the Falklands and more importantly the Islanders voted to be British, 99% voted to be British and under the UN self determination rules the Falklands are British.

    And someone who says he admires the IRA and associates with muslim extremists is not fit to be PM
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    And yet had I asked you 5 or 10 years ago would a nation in Europe forceably annex and ferment a civil war (Including the shooting down of a civilian airliner) in another state within Europe I bet you would have laughed.
    If you'd asked me whether Russia, under Putin, would do, I'd have said that there's a reasonable likelihood of it occurring, just as I'd have said there's would be a reasonable likelihood of the United States attempting to intervene again in the Middle East.

    (Original post by Aj12)
    The idea that Putin may try a similar campaign within a member of NATO is not inconceivable. Now is clearly not the time to be weakening ourselves.
    We can conceive of a whole range of possibilities, including the notion that aliens will invade tomorrow at 14:00. Putin is not going to attack Britain.

    (Original post by Aj12)
    Yes because a defensive alliance expanding is grounds to annex and cripple a country that was unlikely to ever join. You are simultaneously claiming that our security environment is a reasonably safe one whilst defending the same sort of international politics that has caused countless wars throughout European and world history.
    If it were a defensive alliance, it wouldn't be expanding in the first place, and it would have looked at the consequences of its actions.

    The democratically elected leader of Ukraine was overthrown, despite the West, the Ukranian government and Russia having agreed upon early elections. We were in part responsible for crippling Ukraine in the first place.

    I'm not defending any sort of international politics; I support left-wing, anti-war activists in Russia who are calling for Russia to withdraw from Eastern Ukraine. But, the sort of international politics I'm talking of does exist: Putin is lashing out, but he's not going to invade Britain, I'm afraid.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    B) come off it, Yanukovych was a goner and is clearly a Russian stooge *** dictator
    A democratically elected leader who agreed to hold early elections, more like.

    And, we did a lot to support it: we didn't oppose the eventual unconstitutional coup despite agreeing to hold early elections, for a start, and we were actively supporting the rebels, up to and including some of our ministers giving out free cookies, in a comical scene.

    If Russia supported the overthrow of the democratically elected leader of Mexico, had ministers giving out cookies to the rebels; and the Warsaw Pact was expanding up to the United States' borders, the United States would have reacted in much the same way as Russia. In fact, we know from the past that they most definitely would have.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    What is the most ethical? We have a free press in Britain unlike in Russia, North Korea and China.
    We have a fairly free press, although not as free as in the United States, say, due to the First Amendment, of which the late great Christopher Hitchens was of course a passionate defender. Our government, in a move criticised by even the US, feels free to go into the offices of a large newspaper and smash up its hard drives.

    Regardless, propaganda doesn't entail that the government controls the press (although they're certainly doing their best to intimidate the BBC), it simply entails that it's owned by a few elites, such as Rupert Murdoch, and that it self-censors when appropriate.

    And, we see it everyday: the Telegraph prints stories directly from Conservative HQ, such as a business letter which included the names of businesses that didn't even exist anymore; and the rest of the newspapers join in the attack on figures they don't like - including Jeremy Corbyn - whilst producing fawning headlines when it comes to figures such as David Cameron (see The Sun's pathetic headline on the drone strike issue).

    They're perfectly free to attack people and parties that threaten their interests, but it's still propaganda at the end of the day. The media is not impartial, it selectively presents facts and attempts to further an agenda. And, establishment intellectuals have known for a long time that, in a democracy, propaganda is an essential tool to control the masses.

    Edward Bernays, the founder of the modern public relations and advertising industry, wrote: "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized." Incidentally, amongst his achievements were encouraging women to smoke through the use of his methods of advertising and marketing - so who knows how many women he killed. For capitalism, he did a lot.

    Walter Lippmann, the father of modern journalism and another respected establishment intellectual, wrote: "That the manufacture of consent is capable of great refinements no one, I think, denies. The process by which public opinions arise is certainly no less intricate than it has appeared in these pages, and the opportunities for manipulation open to anyone who understands the process are plain enough. . . . [a]s a result of psychological research, coupled with the modern means of communication, the practice of democracy has turned a corner."

    Is it any wonder that the British public are so wrong about so many things, from the amount of benefits fraud that exists to the number of immigrants in the country to the amount we spend on foreign aid? Propaganda is to democracy what a bludgeon is to a dictatorship.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    If the Labour Party is a threat to national security, why isn't Dave banning it?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    How come?
    It is an American system, despite all the talk of the renewal of Trident it is actually the subs that are being rebuilt. Trident itself is an older system that will soon require replacement. America is planning a new sub missile system (Their entire nuclear triad needs renewal,) So in three decades the UK will have three options, upgrade to the new system, whatever it is, try to carry on with Trident or develop a new independent deterrent. The issue with upgrading is the system may fit American requirements but not British ones. Carrying on with trident means trying to support an American system without America. Just ask the Iranians how hard it is to source spare parts for a machine the developer country is no longer supporting. Finally we could build our own deterrent, we have the scientific base to some degree but certainly not the money or domestic will to do so.

    The situation I am sketching out is by no means certain and will progress across the next three decades. The US has committed to Trident till 2042 but again it is by no means certain they will stay committed to the life extension program on the Trident missile. Any one who has followed American weapons procurement will know just how many programs get cut, even after hundreds of millions of dollars. So we will face three lousy options with a political establishment that has shown a real reluctance to commit to long term spending commitments. My guess is the issue will be fudged till we end up with an expensive and unsuitable nuclear deterrent.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Food for thought....


    Name:  putin.png
Views: 47
Size:  173.1 KB
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    The pathetic tory soundbites have begun

    fallon,
    cameron,
    gove have all said it this morning

    they have been briefed well by CCHQ
    Political party in message discipline shocker.

    Yes, I'm sure they should all be saying different things. That's a ****ing great Comms strategy that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I'm actually not overly concerned about his economic views, his thoughts on NI and Falklands, even leaving the EU and NATO.

    What concerns me is he is willing to sit down with Islamists preaching jihaad but apparently BNP members are too extreme and he also agrees with the popular but in my view highly misleading view that the west is responsible for most of the hardship in the world and that the west has quote 'no moral authority' over the likes of Russia and China.

    If you think that violent Islamists are far worse than the BNP and that despite mistakes the West has ten times the moral authority than Russia or China then Mr Corbyn should worry you too.
    Agreed entirely. And I will get round to the horseshoe thread - it just requires a proper post as opposed to on the fly on the phone!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Corbyn will harm my family, destroy Britain, and cause world war 3.

    #hysterical
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Agreed entirely. And I will get round to the horseshoe thread - it just requires a proper post as opposed to on the fly on the phone!
    Thanks and no worries!
 
 
 
Poll
Could you cope without Wifi?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.