Conservative Leader ill-judged insult unworthy of a Prime Minister

[determindator]

This is reported tday. David Cameron should have been statesmanlike. Instead he was partisan. His remark to Tory MPs that 'you should not be walking through the lobbies (i.e voting) with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers' was unworthy of a British Prime Minister. BTW I think a militant exchange.

 

One quote made it was idiotic and crass to say that. It demeans the reality of war.

 

The insult not just aimed at JC but anybody who expresses doubt about the wisdom of bombing Syria. It applies to John Baron, a former British army officer who served in Northern Ireland when terrorism was at it's height. Mr Baron warned that in proposing this action, Britain risked repeating the errors of the past,and was setting out on a 'tragic and misguided path once more'.

 

The office of labour MP Stella Creasy who was undecided ahead of the vote, was yesterday surrounded by a gang of thugs, forcing Ms Creasy to leave the Commons Chamber repeatedly to check that her staff were safe.

 

Polls last night suggested around half of all British voters are opposed to the military adventure in Syria. If true, David Cameron just damned more than 20 million of his fellow citizens as 'terrorist sympathisers' on the basis they have not been convinced by his sales pitch?

 

For that matter, the Prime Minister's remarks would also apply to the Daily Mail which warned last week that David Cameron has not yet convincingly made the case for war. Indeed, the epithet 'terrorist sympathiser' might also be applied to the many experts who are entirely unconvinced by David Cameron's claim that there are 70,000 moderate Syrians ready and willing to join the fight against IS on the ground.

[tobyjugg2]

I think it shows the true (lack of) quality of the man that he is so ignorant when he believes (correctly) that he is winning a vote based on rhetoric and righteous indignation at the Paris attack rather than honesty, sense and evidence.

 

.. and the lack of any sort of worth in the labour leadership that this was allowed to occur so easily.

[SabreSheep]

I take great comfort that he was condemned during the days in parliament from all sides of the house

[determindator]

There's also comments to read at bottom of article

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-strikes-cameron-claims-there-have-been-no-reports-of-civilian-casualties-in-iraq-since-british-a6757351.html

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/this-was-jeremy-corbyns-response-to-david-cameron-calling-him-a-terrorist-sympathiser-a6757341.html

[tobyjugg2]

There's also comments to read at bottom of article

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-strikes-cameron-claims-there-have-been-no-reports-of-civilian-casualties-in-iraq-since-british-a6757351.html

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/this-was-jeremy-corbyns-response-to-david-cameron-calling-him-a-terrorist-sympathiser-a6757341.html

 

 

I must admit that its possible there are no civilian casualties as a result of the British air strikes (rather than since the British started air strikes) as they have bombed sites repeatedly bombed by the Russians and Americans over more than 6 months and which have been repeatedly reported completely destroyed.

 

They probably haven't killed anybody or even destroyed anything not long since already destroyed.

 

Not even on a par with the 118 radicals probably killed by the American air strikes over the last year as reported on the BBC.

What a farce for the finest pilots in the world.

[citizenB]

The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing

 

 

attributed to Edmund Burke, I think.

[tobyjugg2]

attributed to Edmund Burke, I think.

 

Not sure if you are referring to the pilots and UK effectively doing nothing there citizenB?

or that whatever the Americans, and now the UK are doing is certainly ineffective at best. and harmful to the stated goals in actuality.

 

I think we all agree that something needs to be done, but some things are actually worse than nothing.

 

Perhaps

The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing,

but what is done, defines whether Good Men should support or oppose you.

[Filcin]

The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing,

 

So that means the police should sit around and do nothing when someone has been murdered and by doing that there will no longer be any murders. What bunk.

[tobyjugg2]

So that means the police should sit around and do nothing when someone has been murdered and by doing that there will no longer be any murders. What bunk.

 

I have no idea why you would come to the conclusion you have there Filcin.

 

I think we all agree that something needs to be done, but some things are actually worse than nothing.

 

A better example of my point would be:

 

Someone is being attacked by a bearded bloke -

the police

are near enough to intervene saving the person

(good action - support)

 

rather than

 

The police

- ban people walking on the street

- put a curfew on bearded people

- watch the assault on CCTV while sitting back having a tea break

- or go for a tea break

(all bad actions - oppose)

[antone]

So that means the police should sit around and do nothing when someone has been murdered and by doing that there will no longer be any murders. What bunk.

 

Courtesy of Yes Prime Minister, I offer the Politicians' Syllogism:

 

1) We must do something.

2) This is something.

3) Therefore we must do this.

[Filcin]

"The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing,"

 

I see that now having read it again. But surely distance isn't a factor. If we can be their within the hour from Cyprus, then we are nearby and can help to stamp out the evil.

[AndyOrch]

Subbed to thread.

[Old Cogger]

Conservative Leader ill-judged insult unworthy of a Prime Minister

 

 

=

 

Not fit for purpose come to mind!

[antone]

"The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing,"

 

I see that now having read it again. But surely distance isn't a factor. If we can be their within the hour from Cyprus, then we are nearby and can help to stamp out the evil.

 

Sure, I agree that distance isn't really the issue here. I also agree that if there were something we could do to "stamp out the evil", and if the consequences of doing that (whatever it might be) would not be worse than the original problem, then we should seriously consider that action.

 

This, of course, is why people find Cameron's remark objectionable: it's offensive and reductionist. Those of us who oppose the present government's policy do not do so because we want to see ISIS/Daesh succeed. We oppose it because we believe it will be ineffective, dangerous and, ultimately, will create more problems than it solves. Now, reasonable people can disagree on these points: that's why we have debates on forums, in pubs, in Parliament, and so on. But reasonable people cannot go around accusing their opponents of being terrorist sympathisers. Accusations like that are the antithesis of reason.

[citizenB]

I agree, it was wrong of Cameron to suggest anyone who opposed military action was a terrorist sympathiser. IMHO it was no different to those caggers who have accused those who support UKIP of being racist !!

 

However, back to the subject in hand - what is the answer, if not to take military action ? Sanctions and diplomatic intervention didn't work ?

 

How are you going to find any middle ground against a dictator who is prepared to mustard bomb his own people or a group of ninja thugs who want to introduce a perverse version of Islam not only in their own country, but across the world, by using violence ?

 

I am not quite sure why Russia has sided with Assad (sp) - he appeared to be doing quite nicely in emptying Syria of those people he didn't like by forcing them to flee !

 

IS needs to be cut off from its suppliers of financing and arms.

 

Perhaps the answer is/was to surround Syria so no one could get out/in and let IS and Assad battle it out then have the outside alliance sort out the winner of that battle ?

[tobyjugg2]

However, back to the subject in hand - what is the answer, if not to take military action ? Sanctions and diplomatic intervention didn't work ?

Quite right, they didn't.

But there are levels of intervention, and backing a dictator into a corner with no-where to go except stand and fight is worse (and has proven worse for everyone) than continuing a long drawn out sanctions and politacal pressure process.

 

How are you going to find any middle ground against a dictator who is prepared to mustard bomb his own people or a group of ninja thugs who want to introduce a perverse version of Islam not only in their own country, but across the world, by using violence ?

 

Why would Assad gas his 'own people' when he was winning until that was used as an excuse for more external intervention

 

It has of course been reported by monitors and experts that the radicals (never ever called free syrians in this context) have been using gas - not only old stockpile Syrian gas, but stuff made by themselves.

 

I am not quite sure why Russia has sided with Assad (sp) - he appeared to be doing quite nicely in emptying Syria of those people he didn't like by forcing them to flee !

 

and how many have been fleeing from the US led intervention?

10x 100x 1000x 10,000x ?

 

IS needs to be cut off from its suppliers of financing and arms.

 

Perhaps the answer is/was to surround Syria so no one could get out/in and let IS and Assad battle it out then have the outside alliance sort out the winner of that battle ?

Largely agree here although the west should NEVER have interfered militarily in the first place causing this escalation - so should just get out..

If not that, Now how does NATO attack its own members and allies who are doing the opposite?

[determindator]

attributed to Edmund Burke, I think.

 

On the subject of how maybe we are perceived, I believe a French response given 'it was a nice gesture' thought to be said in a sarcy way. Who knows, no official report of it on the net.