Rayvin

FFS. Just FFS.

Wolfy, I don't think anyone is even arguing the theory anymore - Fish was just making a point that you're rejecting all of our evidence based on a series of parameters (lack of evidence, need to see it for yourself, etc) that you are also failing to apply to your own theory. As such, your argument is basically just that you think the earth is flat because you think the earth is flat. Now, think about how that argument looks to us - and you'll see why no one is convinced. The big difference is that some of us have seen proof that the earth is not flat - you think our eyes are lying to us and so on, but at least we can point to evidence (however flawed you might think it is) to support our conclusion.

Good.

We never would have gotten this manifesto without Corbyn. For all his faults, he was necessary to get us here.

Well, everyone - but the point is their own readers, on balance, are agreeing with Corbyn. If the comment section is anything to go by. This isn't surprising, because actually, people like UKIP and Trump have called for non-intervention too. It is accepted on both sides that our roles in these conflicts come with consequences. The only side that doesn't want to hear it (buzzword alert) are the Neoliberals. And the Neocons, but that's a slightly different issue. So actually, the only people Corbyn's speed with offend are people who believe we have a role as 'world police' to play, and those who are still Imperials. Every fucker else will agree with him.

This is the Mail's article on it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4544384/Corbyn-faces-backlash-bid-exploit-Manchester-bomb.html Check the comments - the most upvoted are in agreement with Corbyn. As I said, he's speaking across the aisle here. I mean the Mail is clearly aware of this as well given that the article is peppered with every conceivable factoid about things Corbyn has said in the past that could make him look weak on terrorism.

Disagree on the last bit. Now is the time to dig our heels in and ensure that when people just cannot bear the Tories any more, there is an opposition that can actually improve people's lives while forging lasting change - one that isn't going to be compromised by the need to appeal to short termism. I was wavering a bit in the run up to the election until the manifesto came out, and now I'm firmly back in the 'this needs to happen' camp. We needed something that stood apart from the Tories, and we've got it. If the Tories landslide us I'll concede that the time still isn't right, but it's no longer looking so likely that they will. Which means there is quite possibly sufficient appetite for Corbyn's policies, and the need for change. Corbyn won't win, but if he's able to do well enough to paralyse the government (minority rule) then he'll have been a success IMO.

Corbyn's speech just now was actually pretty fucking good... Will take "Whatever action necessary to keep people safe".

I don't think Fish is going to get better options than playing for Wales like. Poor decision.

You know me - as frequently as possible. It's not about apologising though - it's just about not doing it again.

The Libya campaign could be blamed for Manchester. You see his approach as lunacy because you're in the press though. And I can see why. But judging by the polls a significant number of people are sick of 'the game' that needs to be played and all the nonsense that comes with it. If we reach the point where someone like Corbyn can win while not playing said game, it's a win for society in general.

Right, with you now. If we stop talking about it, we might go back to war again. I mean, we do enjoy invading other countries and destabilising them, it might be a hard habit to kick.

You win ewerk, on the basis that I have no idea what you're talking about anymore

I don't think he's been incompetent here - I think he's just honest. Genuinely. In terms of man management, he's definitely incompetent. In terms of his own beliefs, they're well thought through and make sense. But yeah, we'll have to see what those who think on behalf of the working class have to say about it before measuring the damage.

Why didn't we go into Syria then? It clearly does stop it at least some of the time. Better than nothing.

I think this is what it is too. I just think the easiest thing for us to control is our own foreign policy.

I agree that it is. I'm not certain we've lived through a 'necessary' conflict though.

It's gonna be interesting to see what the papers make of it. Do you think it's going to be a massive talking point or just a headline?

To point it out? How does the notion of stopping it from happening again grab you? Very similar thing happened in Libya and, it could be argued, nearly happened (if not for Miliband) in Syria. At some point we need to stop fucking with other countries.

Corbyn backed by an editorial in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/26/jeremy-corbyn-manchester-british-foreign-policy Also criticised for making political capital out of Manchester though, which I'm inclined to agree with also. As 'slight' as it is, the reference to policing is there.

...are you on shrooms today Parky?

We can't control the ideology, we can control our foreign policy. But yes, you're right - we've done this before and it's pointless to redo it. You're also right about people still experiencing an emotional reaction to the event - they'll just want to blame the Muslims. Let's just hope that they understand what he's saying, and see that he's offering more police and security than the Tories are.

You literally just said:

He honestly doesn't. It's staggering.

It is a good point, agreed. I would suggest that we're all considered 'the same' in the eyes of the Islamists but to be brutally honest, Sargon isn't wrong about his views on this either. That said, when it has suited him in the past, he has blamed our foreign policy also.