Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Corbyn insults 9/11 victims

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    Because women and children are not so capable of making long dangerous journeys, and asylum rules in many European countries stipulate that if a man makes it here and his application is accepted, his family recieve safe passage over here. Not all migrants have families back home, but a very sizeable proportion do.

    I've met many migrants and I can assure you the vast majority just want to live in a country where they aren't at risk of being bombed or forced to fight for people like ISIS or Assad, they have no interest in attacking innocent civilians.
    How do you know that? Try telling them your gay or dressing "immodestly" and see how friendly to our way of life they really are. Communists in the middle of the cold war mightve come in peace. Shouldve probably let all those in. Wouldve improved national security. Not forgetting nazi Germany of course. Sure, lots of nazis were putting people in death camps and were totally ideologically opposed to our way of life, but hey, we bombed them so we'd better let them move here because they look sad.

    If they go back, they are at risk of being killed. Over 10% of the Syrian population have been made casualties of the war, either killed or seriously injured. If you live in a danger area that figure goes up even further. And many of them don't have anywhere to go back to, their houses have been destroyed or they've been forced out of them. And if they come here, as I say above, they can often bring their children here too. Even if they can't, they can get a job here and send money back: some families are relatively safe in refugee camps or neighbouring countries, but they have no future there as provision for education and employment is virtually non-existent.
    So, their families are safe having legitimately claimed asylum in neighboring countries? In that case how on earth are people who come here for economic reasons as you suggest legitimate refugees at all?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by green.tea)
    How do you know that? Try telling them your gay or dressing "immodestly" and see how friendly to our way of life they really are.
    To be honest, most of them probably do harbour homophobic and sexist views (in common with many millions of native Brits), but most would never act on them, because they know they are in a foreign country with a foreign culture and that things are different here. I'm not saying there aren't issues, many of these men come from countries where men and women are barely ever allowed to talk to each other and so they have no concept of what is and isn't acceptable, but trying to claim that all migrants are rapists or even that they all sexually harass women is just wrong.

    And besides, it's not a valid reason for refusing an entire nationality/religion entry to our country. I'm sorry but the right of women not to be catcalled or intimidated is not as important as the right to asylum for people from wartorn countries (especially since it was partially us who caused the war in the first place by invading Iraq), not when only a minority of migrants actually sexually harass women. You can't punish the majority for the crimes of a few people.

    So, their families are safe having legitimately claimed asylum in neighboring countries? In that case how on earth are people who come here for economic reasons as you suggest legitimate refugees at all?
    If someone is living in a refugee camp, they are by definition refugees. A refugee camp is a temporary provision to provide for a humanitarian emergency, it's not a permanent home and living in one does not stop someone from being a legitimate refugee. Don't forget that refugee camps are largely funded by Western countries, so we are paying for their families to live there already: often exorbitantly high amounts of money at that since refugee camps are in the middle of deserts and have no natural resources. It's much cheaper to let them come over here. Even if they aren't in refugee camps, they might be in countries such as Lebanon and Turkey, in which case they are often there illegally and living on savings which are imminently about to run out, so they aren't permanently safe, just temporarily. Many people have been made to go back into Syria from Lebanon and Jordan.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mackemforever)
    9/11 was a tragedy but so is the fact that as a direct result of it there have been hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed by allied forces as a result of action taken in response to 9/11.

    Of course nobody who died in the 9/11 attacks asked to be killed but none of the innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan who were killed by drone strikes or bombs or foreign soldiers asked to be killed either.

    The death of every single person, anywhere in the world, who has died as a direct result of action taken in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks is just as tragic as the death of anybody who died in the attacks themselves.
    okay but 9/11 is a Memorial Day for those who died during those attacks, I find it insulting he associates those who died in 9/11 with the tragedies that happened to others in response. I get your point but 9/11 is not the day for that, do you think it's right we associate victims of 9/11 to victims of the Iraq war? Both deserve their own due respects.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know why lefties like him are incapable of feeling pity for the victims without having to bring up what the west did/does.

    I;m sure there is a right wing version of it that annoys lefties. "Yes Franco was bad but he was good at stopping communism" or something like that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    How is this in any way a problem?! He mourned the deaths of those killed in the attack and the subsequent wars. What's wrong with that? The 9/11 attacks were awful, but so was the subsequent War on terror. I'm not a big fan of corbyn, but what could possibly be wrong with mourning a huge war that has led to millions of lives being destroyed.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    To be honest, most of them probably do harbour homophobic and sexist views (in common with many millions of native Brits), but most would never act on them, because they know they are in a foreign country with a foreign culture and that things are different here. I'm not saying there aren't issues, many of these men come from countries where men and women are barely ever allowed to talk to each other and so they have no concept of what is and isn't acceptable, but trying to claim that all migrants are rapists or even that they all sexually harass women is just wrong.

    And besides, it's not a valid reason for refusing an entire nationality/religion entry to our country. I'm sorry but the right of women not to be catcalled or intimidated is not as important as the right to asylum for people from wartorn countries (especially since it was partially us who caused the war in the first place by invading Iraq), not when only a minority of migrants actually sexually harass women. You can't punish the majority for the crimes of a few people.



    If someone is living in a refugee camp, they are by definition refugees. A refugee camp is a temporary provision to provide for a humanitarian emergency, it's not a permanent home and living in one does not stop someone from being a legitimate refugee. Don't forget that refugee camps are largely funded by Western countries, so we are paying for their families to live there already: often exorbitantly high amounts of money at that since refugee camps are in the middle of deserts and have no natural resources. It's much cheaper to let them come over here. Even if they aren't in refugee camps, they might be in countries such as Lebanon and Turkey, in which case they are often there illegally and living on savings which are imminently about to run out, so they aren't permanently safe, just temporarily. Many people have been made to go back into Syria from Lebanon and Jordan.
    Do you think looking sad in order to infiltrate countries you want to attack is beyond the wit of Isis bloodthirsty maniacs? Its clearly a strategy that would work so why wouldn't they use it? They adhere to a totalitarian and expansionist idiology. At least your "many millions of native Brits" have, in almost all cases, internalised the idea of the Democratic right of other people to hold opposing views.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by green.tea)
    Do you think looking sad in order to infiltrate countries you want to attack is beyond the wit of Isis bloodthirsty maniacs?
    I like how some people seem to think we live in some kind of fortress that was, until the migrant crisis, completely watertight and impervious to terrorists. Terrorists will always find a way to attack us whether we let migrants in or not. We have plenty of ISIS supporting bloodthirsty maniacs in Europe already, why would ISIS bother sending people here? They have already done so on one or two occasions, yes, to stir up racial hatred against Muslims, but the real terror threat comes from homegrown extremists. Many Syrian and Iraqi refugees were forced out of their homes by ISIS and have had family members killed by them: do you really think such people want to commit attacks in their name?

    At least your "many millions of native Brits" have, in almost all cases, internalised the idea of the Democratic right of other people to hold opposing views.
    Tell that to the demonstrators in Trafaglar Square every week for the past 2 months who want to rerun the EU referendum after 52% of Brits voted Leave.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    I like how some people seem to think we live in some kind of fortress that was, until the migrant crisis, completely watertight and impervious to terrorists. Terrorists will always find a way to attack us whether we let migrants in or not. We have plenty of ISIS supporting bloodthirsty maniacs in Europe already, why would ISIS bother sending people here? They have already done so on one or two occasions, yes, to stir up racial hatred against Muslims, but the real terror threat comes from homegrown extremists. Many Syrian and Iraqi refugees were forced out of their homes by ISIS and have had family members killed by them: do you really think such people want to commit attacks in their name?
    So you're suggesting that because we already have terrorists here we shouldn't worry about letting more in? Or that the terrorists wont bother because 10,000 terrorists in Britain wouldn't be significantly preferable to 5000 terrorists in Britian from the perspective of terrorists that don't like Britian?

    Quite a few refugees were probably forced out of their homes by Assad's barrel bombs and chemical attacks too.

    Tell that to the demonstrators in Trafaglar Square every week for the past 2 months who want to rerun the EU referendum after 52% of Brits voted Leave.
    I don't see how, in expressing their views, they aren't respecting the rights of others to disagree? Do they have plans for people that do? Isis have, mostly involving beheading people and burning them alive.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by green.tea)
    So you're suggesting that because we already have terrorists here we shouldn't worry about letting more in? Or that the terrorists wont bother because 10,000 terrorists in Britain wouldn't be significantly preferable to 5000 terrorists in Britian from the perspective of terrorists that don't like Britian?
    I'm suggesting that the primary consideration should be our legal and moral obligation to the majority of innocent civilians who have no terrorist leanings and risk torture and death if they return to their home country. If you go fishing for salmon then you will ensnare the odd pike, but that doesn't mean you should abandon your angling trip altogether.

    Quite a few refugees were probably forced out of their homes by Assad's barrel bombs and chemical attacks too.
    And we are to all intents and purposes fighting Assad, since we're funding and arming the moderate rebels and opposed to Russia and Iran.

    I don't see how, in expressing their views, they aren't respecting the rights of others to disagree? Do they have plans for people that do? Isis have, mostly involving beheading people and burning them alive.
    They are expressing their view that the views of others should be disregarded and that the election should be held again and again until it achieves the 'correct' result.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    I'm suggesting that the primary consideration should be our legal and moral obligation to the majority of innocent civilians who have no terrorist leanings and risk torture and death if they return to their home country. If you go fishing for salmon then you will ensnare the odd pike, but that doesn't mean you should abandon your angling trip altogether.
    Even if the pike runs people down with trucks and blows people up? Weakening ourselves ultimately helps our enemies. You couldn't fight Nazism with your ridiculous policy, Nazism would therefore win. What good have you done? Same applies here. We should be focusing on dealing with the 5th columnists already here.

    And we are to all intents and purposes fighting Assad, since we're funding and arming the moderate rebels and opposed to Russia and Iran.
    Yeah. Our rebels vs Russia's Assad. Of the three Isis seems to be the grass roots movement of the people.

    They are expressing their view that the views of others should be disregarded and that the election should be held again and again until it achieves the 'correct' result.
    Their wanting to disregard someone's view isn't the same thing as believing people have no right to hold any view besides theirs.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by green.tea)
    Even if the pike runs people down with trucks and blows people up? Weakening ourselves ultimately helps our enemies. You couldn't fight Nazism with your ridiculous policy, Nazism would therefore win. What good have you done? Same applies here. We should be focusing on dealing with the 5th columnists already here.
    The Nazis tried to mount a military invasion of Britain and killed millions of people. Islamism at worst is a domestic terror threat which might commit a 9/11 style attack. It is not a major threat to British society and defending against it is not worth breaking our obligations to asylum seekers, most of whom are not Islamists. MI5 is doing a very good job of defending us from Islamism, there hasn't been a mass casualty terror attack here for 11 years. There are some social problems within the UK's Muslim communities but most of them are related to unemployment and alienation, which are only fuelled by policies such as banning Muslims from entering the country based on knee-jerk hysteria.

    Yeah. Our rebels vs Russia's Assad. Of the three Isis seems to be the grass roots movement of the people.
    ISIS has two main elements of support: the Sunni tribes of Western Iraq, and the ex-Ba'athist military elite of Saddamm's Iraq. In addition to this they have significant amounts of funding and a steadily decreasing influx of foreign recruits. They are not a 'grassroots' movement, they are in fact the very opposite: a special interest group for extremist jihadis (they were even rejected by Al-Qaeda) which has totally failed to gain support from any mainstream sector of the Middle East's population, bar the aforementioned Sunni tribes whose loyalties have been secured partly by necessity and partly by force.

    Their wanting to disregard someone's view isn't the same thing as believing people have no right to hold any view besides theirs.
    It still constitutes believing that other people's opinions are irrelevant even when they represent a majority of opinions, thus their own views are the only ones that matter.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zayn008)
    okay but 9/11 is a Memorial Day for those who died during those attacks, I find it insulting he associates those who died in 9/11 with the tragedies that happened to others in response. I get your point but 9/11 is not the day for that, do you think it's right we associate victims of 9/11 to victims of the Iraq war? Both deserve their own due respects.
    Given how so many people bang on about how Iraq etc was nothing to do with 9/11, you can't even say it's in response. That's what makes the point even more bizarre. It's only related in the eyes of these people when it's an opportunity to turn a memorial to the victims of a terrorist attack in America into an attack on America. Otherwise it's never related at all, as people have spent the last 15 years reminding us. It's ridiculous*
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I don't know why lefties like him are incapable of feeling pity for the victims without having to bring up what the west did/does.

    I;m sure there is a right wing version of it that annoys lefties. "Yes Franco was bad but he was good at stopping communism" or something like that.
    Exactly. It's like saying "today we pay tribute to and mourn the victims of Hiroshima.....but also the Chinese Japan massacred and the British they kept in internment camps." It's perverse.*
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Given how so many people bang on about how Iraq etc was nothing to do with 9/11, you can't even say it's in response. That's what makes the point even more bizarre. It's only related in the eyes of these people when it's an opportunity to turn a memorial to the victims of a terrorist attack in America into an attack on America. Otherwise it's never related at all, as people have spent the last 15 years reminding us. It's ridiculous*
    So glad you pointed this! I can't stand the far left, everything seems to suit them only when they please like polls. They were against every poll before the coup, hated them even more afterwards but now dig for the outlier positive polls before the coup and constantly use it
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    The Nazis tried to mount a military invasion of Britain and killed millions of people. Islamism at worst is a domestic terror threat which might commit a 9/11 style attack. It is not a major threat to British society and defending against it is not worth breaking our obligations to asylum seekers, most of whom are not Islamists. MI5 is doing a very good job of defending us from Islamism, there hasn't been a mass casualty terror attack here for 11 years. There are some social problems within the UK's Muslim communities but most of them are related to unemployment and alienation, which are only fuelled by policies such as banning Muslims from entering the country based on knee-jerk hysteria.
    Actually we declared war on Nazi Germany when they invaded Poland. Long before they were an immediate threat to Britain. Fat lot of good we'dve been if we'd thought in your manner and let Nazis come here until they became an immediate threat and declared war on them then.

    MI5 are doing a good job. But at what price? Look at the Snowden revelations. We're all now under surveillance 24/7. That's why MI5 are so good. Your type of nonsense has justified the creation of an Orwellian nightmare. What else is to be sacrificed? Peoples right to wear what they want?

    https://www.rt.com/news/270214-bavar...chool-clothes/

    Peoples right to draw what they want??

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllan...ns_controversy


    ISIS has two main elements of support: the Sunni tribes of Western Iraq, and the ex-Ba'athist military elite of Saddamm's Iraq. In addition to this they have significant amounts of funding and a steadily decreasing influx of foreign recruits. They are not a 'grassroots' movement, they are in fact the very opposite: a special interest group for extremist jihadis (they were even rejected by Al-Qaeda) which has totally failed to gain support from any mainstream sector of the Middle East's population, bar the aforementioned Sunni tribes whose loyalties have been secured partly by necessity and partly
    by force.
    Even then its more grass roots than factions only surviving due to to foreign support.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by green.tea)
    Actually we declared war on Nazi Germany when they invaded Poland. Long before they were an immediate threat to Britain. Fat lot of good we'dve been if we'd thought in your manner and let Nazis come here until they became an immediate threat and declared war on them then.
    Lol. We did declare war on them when they invaded Poland, because Poland were our allies and we had to, but they conquered Poland, Belgium and France and did become an immediate threat to Britain, at which point we beat them anway.

    MI5 are doing a good job. But at what price? Look at the Snowden revelations. We're all now under surveillance 24/7. That's why MI5 are so good. Your type of nonsense has justified the creation of an Orwellian nightmare. What else is to be sacrificed? Peoples right to wear what they want?
    Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

    Even then its more grass roots than factions only surviving due to to foreign support.
    Without foreign support ISIS would be toast as soon as the oil ran out.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    Lol. We did declare war on them when they invaded Poland, because Poland were our allies and we had to, but they conquered Poland, Belgium and France and did become an immediate threat to Britain, at which point we beat them anway.
    And if we hadn't "had to" and allowed them to conquer Europe unopposed? Do you think expansionist totalitarianism will live peacefully if we just leave it alone?

    Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
    Ill be along to install some surveillance cameras in your bedroom then. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

    Without foreign support ISIS would be toast as soon as the oil ran out.
    What foreign support other than grass root support from foreign Muslims?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by green.tea)
    Ill be along to install some surveillance cameras in your bedroom then. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
    I never said I wasn't hiding anything... :P

    What foreign support other than grass root support from foreign Muslims?
    ISIS recieves supplies from Turkey via its border town, Jarablus. At one point there was a near constant stream of lorries going south, bringing guns and vehicles and god knows what else. Turkey doesn't get involved in this directly of course but it turns a blind eye. The supplies come from various sources in the Muslim world: funding comes largely from individuals in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, perhaps also Egypt and Pakistan and anywhere where there are millionaire Muslim businessmen with jihadi sympathies. And Israel, if you believe ISIS's rival Islamist groups.

    And ISIS is not a grassroots movement, it's basically a massive armed gang which rode into Northern Iraq from the outside and took control of it, and holds it with the assistance of foreign fighters, mostly from other Arab countries. It enforces control through brutal execution, detainment and torture of anyone who opposes it, but it is not supported by many if not most of the people it rules as far as we can tell (and if it is tolerated by tribal elites, it's often supported in its capacity of defending the local Sunnis from the Shia armies sponsored by Iran, not as a 'Caliphate').
 
 
 
Poll
Do you have exam superstitions?
Useful resources

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

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