O/T Jeremy corbyn

[ragingpup]

I agree in principle with your post. but don't think that it gets Corbyn fully off the hook. He knows (or ought to know) that neither the UK nor the US are going to reveal much of the evidence that they hold, as to do so could compromise either the human sources or non human techniques through which intelligence is gathered. That isn't a satisfactory position from a democratic accountability point of view, but it's another example of an inconvenient reality.

I also think it valid to question Corbyn’s wider position. We know that he likes to back slap Hamas and Hezbollah despite the wealth of evidence that links them to terrorism, indiscriminate violence and their self-proclaimed intention to destroy the state of Israel. We know too of the wealth of evidence to show the suffering of the people of Venezuela, who are living the Socialist dream, but that Corbyn declines to comment upon it. We know that Iran is a country that oppresses large swathes of its population and persecutes and arbitrarily detains dissidents and yet he is happy to trouser £20 000 fees for appearing on Iranian state TV.

Take all the above together and it’s not hard to reach the conclusion that his world view and his demands for evidence are based in large part upon showing solidarity with, and trying to supress criticism of, any country or organisation that doesn’t like America or the West.

Surely it doesn't matter what Corbyn thinks. I would have thought that surely you, of all people, should want to see clear and beyond doubt evidence that Iran was responsible for carrying out the attacks before taking action. That's the only point.

We've got horrific previous on this kind of international knee jerk response that has cost many service people's lives for no reason. Why on earth would we want to encourage our leaders to do it again?

[John2]

I agree in principle with your post. but don't think that it gets Corbyn fully off the hook. He knows (or ought to know) that neither the UK nor the US are going to reveal much of the evidence that they hold, as to do so could compromise either the human sources or non human techniques through which intelligence is gathered. That isn't a satisfactory position from a democratic accountability point of view, but it's another example of an inconvenient reality.

You're being very unfair here. His job is to hold the government to account and be the opposition and demand answers and evidence. He's damned if he does damned if he doesn't under your rules of engagement.

He absolutely should be asking these questions, the government can state that sources are sensitive or brief him privately, but to suggest he just shouldn't challenge things because it might be confidential is a bit of a poor argument.

[ragingpup]

In the U.K. we have a professional, highly efficient security service that analyses risks both home and abroad. The information they obtain is used to brief the Prime Minster and selected MPs.

By their analysis they said the Russians were behind the novochok attacks in Salisbury, Corbyn didn’t believe them.

By their analysis they said that Iran was responsible for the recent tanker bombings in the gulf of Hormuz , Corbyn didn’t believe them.

Would you really want that man as PM?

I take it you believed Blair and his "weapons of mass destruction'? Corbyn didn't and voted against. Shame we believed Blair as if we'd called him out we could have saved many British lives.

[ragingpup]

There are many things that I will not defend Corbyn about, but you're wrong here.



That's not an accurate analysis. He never challenged whether it was the Russians, he just (reasonably) asked what new evidence we had after pointing the finger, given our intelligence services initially suggested it was either the Russian state or disgruntled operatives.



Again, Corbyn has asked for evidence, NOT the same as not believing they did it. The EU is also advising caution before we have more evidence.

We live in strange times, I used to trust the US on issues like this, but Trump's lack of integrity and willingness to lie combined with his hostile stance towards Iran mean that I'd now demand a higher standard of evidence from the Americans than in the past.

Asking for evidence is not the same as not believing, asking for evidence is not something to be condemned, ever.

Surprised that you ever trusted the US on issues like this John. Not sure they ever really earned any more trust than other international big stagers that we mistrust.

[Pattylallacks2]

Didn't like him much when he was in "Gavin and Stacey" and can't stand him since he moved to the States.

[KerrAvon]

For the reasons that I have stated, I know that it is highly unlikely that I will ever see the evidence upon which the American and British position is based.

It really does matter what Corbyn thinks. He wants to be PM and you and others support him in that aim.

[ragingpup]

For the reasons that I have stated, I know that it is highly unlikely that I will ever see the evidence upon which the American and British position is based.

It really does matter what Corbyn thinks. He wants to be PM and you and others support him in that aim.

You and I may not, but surely if we are going to be involved with intervention in international incidents, our security services will share the evidence with the UK government and would that involve leader of the opposition/parliament so that they can make an informed decision on the intervention? I honestly don't know, but isn't the leader of the opposition meant to be informed of such evidence as much as the security services have it? Or can the foreign secretary and PM take action without consulting opposition leader and parliament?

In asking for further evidence before taking intervention, I would support Corbyn or anyone.

[KerrAvon]

I wouldn't share my shopping list with Corbyn.

See above and previous posts for details of his association with PIRA, Hezbollah, Hamas and his lucrative relationship with the mouthpiece of the Iranian government.

[ragingpup]

I wouldn't share my shopping list with Corbyn.

See above and previous posts for details of his association with PIRA, Hezbollah, Hamas and his lucrative relationship with the mouthpiece of the Iranian government.

We're all well aware of your obsession with Corbyn. I was just asking if the opposition party leader is legally entitled to be informed of all intelligence from the security services that lead up to international intervention? I honestly don't know.

Don't you think that a more cynical scrutiny of evidence might have prevented the war in Iraq and unnecessary death of soldiers?

[KerrAvon]

We're all well aware of your obsession with Corbyn. I was just asking if the opposition party leader is legally entitled to be informed of all intelligence from the security services that lead up to international intervention? I honestly don't know.

Don't you think that a more cynical scrutiny of evidence might have prevented the war in Iraq and unnecessary death of soldiers?

I’m obsessed with Corbyn? I’ll repeat the point that I made the other day that it isn’t so long since you were trilling away about how people were chanting his name in Grime Clubs. It’s only since you’ve realised that he is a toxic brand that you’ve come all over sceptical about him.

I don’t know whether the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to intelligence briefings. I think it has always been a matter of convention, but I know of no law that requires it. It’s difficult to see how there could be oversight of such an arrangement and I can’t see the security services being too keen to share information about intelligence held on Iran with someone who has taken handsome payments from an arm of the Iranian government. Can you? Do you seriously think it would be a good idea, bearing in mind the intelligence will almost certainly be based in part on human sources and that Iran isn’t known for its tolerance and open and independent judicial system ?

You have to bear in mind that Corbyn is a man of principle and that the principle is ‘anyone who doesn’t like the USA and the West is ok with him’.

It’s a tricky one though isn’t it? Corbyn and by extension you as a Labour voter, want Diane Abbott to be the next Home Secretary - a woman who said of the PIRA "Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed" in charge of the police and security services… I really don’t care how many haircuts she’s had since she said it, I wonder if she would like to explain it to the friends and families of the people who were blown up in Guildford or Birmingham or the parents of the 3-year old and the 12-yr old who were killed in the Warrington bombing.

And you spend days making daft points about how ‘far right’ Farage is for some stupid comment about Romanians whilst getting on the knocker to try to catapult Corbyn, Abbott and the equally extreme McDonnell into power. It beggars belief and you really need to have a word with yourself.

I don't know if a ‘more cynical scrutiny’ of evidence might have prevented the war in Iraq and unnecessary death of soldiers, because I don’t know what the evidence was.