Jeremy Corbyn - this guy worries me

Indeed. And there can be nothing more than compromise.

We get to choose (by 'we' I mean our governments, UK, US, allies and Russia, who I hope could be an ally), between Assad or IS. Neither is perfect, but we can't achieve 'perfect'.

Hypothetically, if we had more military might, we could take out all dictators, and all oppressive regimes. But then we would then be the oppressors, imposing our will, our ideals on everyone else.

We could also do nothing, and hope that it all sorts itself out without affecting us, but we know that can't happen, and if it did, we'd be the ones that everyone hates as, "all it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing".

We could take out Assad AND IS. But could we? IS is not a nation, it is an idea, and if we give Syria and Iraq to people outside of those two countries that share that idea, then all we do is feed it.

So our only option is compromise. Hopefully destroy the heart of IS in Syria and Iraq, and leave their sick supporters with nowhere to regroup because another force is already in control everywhere, even if in some places, such as Syria, that force is led by an horrible man that was already in charge, and legally still is.

One other thought. During world war 2, the Nazi propaganda machine had ordinary German civilians believe that Germany was attacking Britain to liberate us from a tyrannical regime. I don't believe many brits were grateful for the German planes coming. I'm not suggesting it's the same thing, but we have to remember that as well as opposition to Assad in Syria, there is also support. Is it really for us to decide which side is right? IS is different, because there can be no confusion that they are bad.

 

Looks like Corbyn's done a U-turn!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...Labour-MPs-over-shoot-to-kill-opposition.html

 

Yes he does seem to "modify" his stance when under his own party's pressure . The thing is I and seemingly the majority of people I know , will not vote Labour while Corbyn is leading the party or anywhere near the cabinet . The worrying thing is there must be a large core of labour MPs who believed in his policies to support his leadership campaign . So do we still have a large chunk of the "Looney Left" sitting in Westminster ?

 

Just like to say that why do we living in what is probably one of the most undemocratic democracies in the world think that it is the right way for all other countries.

I just dont think that democracy and the ballot box works in all countries.
It only works here because we let it, the public.
The public in some countries are not quite the same as us, take what we get and put up with it for five years.

And the way this country is going, with all the imports, I can see a day looming, on the horizon, when maybe we will be more like them, rather than them being like us.

 

We have very strange priorities here in the UK @pete, I hear what you're saying, I think.

I'm not sure about 'all the imports'. Most people, regardless of background, are good people. But I really don't like the current situation, where we're accepting people from an IS held territory without question. Greek authorities have already confirmed that one of the Paris attackers passed through Greece as an asylum seeker.

And as for us not being very democratic, I totally agree. The last election was proof of that. Ukip got three times as many votes as the SNP yet the former won one seat compared to the latter's 50 odd. But we still have more democracy and freedom than many.

That doesn't give us the right to impose 'our' will on others, and 'our' is in quotes because our will is whatever is supposed to be our will. My will right now would be considered a bit right wing, in that I think if we let anyone in without knowing anything about them, then we detain them until we know, and ask them to explain why they passed through several safe countries if safety is their only motive.

 

Forgot to add 're priorities, I think it's a bit crazy that while IS is clearly doing very well with their organisation, planning and propaganda, which all requires good, private communications, the average Joe is vehemently rejecting government efforts to access private communications when they have grounds to do so. The government has asked if comms providers could give them the option of secure access to encrypted communications. Everyone is crying foul about it. It's an infringement on our civil liberties apparently. Well, I'm in the data business. I know the importance of privacy and security of data, but I'd have no problem at all with MI5 listening in. I mean, these people who object, do they really think MI5 could be bothered to read what they had for dinner, or what their kid did at school? While you might not want just anyone to snoop, I think someone would only have grounds to object to the intelligence agencies listening to them if they were discussing stuff that they didn't want the intelligence services to know about. I wonder if the latest Paris attack would have ended so tragically if the masses had given more priority to allowing the intelligence services to do their job than to protecting the details of their random Facebook posts about the weather or some silly minions quote.

 

I would rather the authorities had full access to Data, rather than live the rest of my life with no legs or blind

Jack McH

 

I think we should just listen to our westminster masters and do what they tell us to do because they always have our best interests at heart and wouldnt misslead us (LIE!)in any way would they .

 

IS is being "fueled" from Saudi Arabia. America are being mugs again giving another billion dollars of armaments to SA. They have a history of supporting a particular side in the Middle East and a few years down the road find that they are the opposition. They never learn.

 

There's articles all over BBC and LinkedIn written by a couple of journalists who know exactly nothing about IT but have clearly watched movies.

They are sparking a debate about whether government should have a 'back door' into comms apps that allows them to bypass encryption.

Other people, who also know nothing about IT but who also have seen the movies, are screaming out that a 'back door' for government would soon be discovered and exploited by hackers.

This is why I really wish we had some sort of license system where you have to prove you know basic IT security before you're allowed to connect any device to a public network. Maybe then, there'd be no ridiculous rantings about back doors, as people would realise that all you have to do is let MI5 have copies of decryption keys, then all the security still stands.

@WeeTam, I hear what you say about not fully trusting government. They are not to be trusted in many things, but the fact is, our police and armed forces, acting on intelligence gathered by government agencies, have successfully prevented a number of terrorist attacks, and have caught a number of terrorists. So far, they seem to be doing a better job of keeping us safe than the conspiracy theorists that fill socialmedia with cries of foul play and erosion of civil liberties.

 

If people were to read between the lines it would become fairly obvious who are behind , fund,and instruct these guys. Of course 99% of the population wont/cant do this .Its much easier to obey and not question what you are being told. A lot safer to go with the crowd too.

 

Not an appropriate logo in this case but it perhaps in a way illustrates the amount of "sheep" in the world.