Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Corbyn ally says should have "cups of tea" with ISIS not airstrikes watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    A newspaper takes something out of context? Quelle Surprise.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...medium=twitter

    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The real question is... Who would even want to have a cup of tea with them?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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/wo...-a6797486.html
    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/17/po...ed-iraq-syria/
    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/19/isis-...low-price.html
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...n-zero-6922729
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novemb...njar_offensive
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    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.
    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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    It's not to destroy ISIS by talking to them, but essentially neuter them.
    :lol: 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"
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    :lol: 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"
    It wasn't long ago that Obama was arming Isis and Britain supporting it. Such a leftie.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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'.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    It wasn't ever ago. That never happened.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It most certainly did. Funded and armed the group that later became ISIS.
    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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    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?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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?

    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
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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 :facepalm:

    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
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 21, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.