Wednesday, 2 December 2015

Cameron "terrorist sympathisers" slur makes him more despicable than Blair.



David Cameron  seems to have repeated the slur that  to vote against  tomorrow's crunch vote over bombing Isil in Syria means that MPs opposed to him are "terrorist sympathisers"
  

You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers,”
 the prime minister reportedly told the committee.


The Prime Minister t made the comment during a meeting with his backbenchers as he tried to tighten up support for extending military action.
MPs are due to vote tomorrow (Wednesday) on whether to allow UK planes to bomb Isil targets in Syria, as well as Iraq.

- Advertisement -
It is looking increasingly likely that the Conservatives, who have a majority of just 12 in the Commons, will need MPs from other parties to back the plan in order to get it through the Commons.


It is an outrages slur but it shows that Cameron's enthusiasm for bombing Syria is more about enhances his popularity with the electorate /

It can not be anything but a despicable ploy  to hold the debate and vote on the eve of the Oldham byelection in that a defeat to Ukip would further increase divisions in Labour

Whatever you views on Military Action  it should be considered on its merit and to risk the lives of young men and women for a short term political gain.

Just as om of his predecessors did but even he as not so despicably opportunist.

 

I urge all MPs not to vote for foolhardy vanity ploy which will consist of only  16 Tornadoes  and Typhoons targeting both Syria and Iraq in order tho claim Britain is a major world power or even worse be a deliberate  attempt by the Prime Minister like Tony Blair before him give the impression he is an Important figure in World politics.

Now you can add equating opponents as "terrorist sympathisers,” for political advantage to the list.

All the Military Inventions in the Middle East have turned into a disaster and made the World a more dangerous place .




 

7 comments:

  1. Well Glyn we are all terrorist sympathisers on Wings, in the SNP, or maybe not. It really depends who you see as the terrorist. I go with the Conservatives and company who will blow up people from far away, will send other people to do their dirty work. If they want to go to war may I suggest they put on a uniform and do it themselves.
    NOT IN MY NAME.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The british are already bombing daesh - they are doing so in iraq.If passed this motion will merely extend efforts to fatally degrade daesh to syria. Tho on their own of course these actions wouldnt be enough to prise daesh out of its boltholes in syria like raqqa and an international coalition is really needed to do that.But this action should help the kurds retake places like kobani and make it less easy for daesh fighters to move from iraq into syria and vice versa And of course there's the not insignificant matter of liberating hundreds of thousands of people in syria from daesh's awful rule.

    So the claims being trotted out by the swp front that is the 'stop the war coalition' that 'cameron is taking us to war' is frankly nonsense - the uk is already at war with daesh! The war against daesh really is a war for civilisation and its one those of us opposed to the cancerous daesh dare not lose. Cameron was wrong to call opponents of extending strikes on daesh 'terrorist sympathisers' but its wrong to call him a 'cynical opportunist' on this matter. Certainly cameron wanted to attack daesh in syria over a year ago when they were beheading british nationals like alan henning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not sure the civilians in Ragga will feel they are being bombed on that they are being Liberated and where does the bombing of Iraq justify bombing Syria. Its an old cliche but tqo wrongs do not make a right.

      Delete
    2. Daesh cant be talked into disbanding and volunteering to giving up their territory and their missiles, guns, mines, training camps and suicide belts Glyn. Anyone who really wants to see daesh's evil presence eroded in the region and the wider world has to accept that military action must form part of this. While anything that might occur in places like raqqa as a result of coalition attacks will be as nothing compared to the horrors that are visited on them every day by the mass murderers of daesh.

      And dont fall for the crude propaganda of the british ultra left Glyn - there wont be mass bombing of civilian areas.The principal targets will rightly be daesh training camps, supply lines, weapons depots,command and control structures and its leadership.Once upon a time the British left took defeating fascism seriously and wanted to be part of efforts to crush it - now sections of it seemingly want to shield the theocratic fascists of daesh from the reckoning they so richly deserve.

      Delete
    3. I'm inclined to agree with gd.

      Delete
  3. The problem with buying into the war of civilisations idea is that neither the UK, USA nor France has moved from their initial goal of removing Assad from power in Syria. The problem for them isn’t ISIL, its Russia backing Assad and by being nice to Putin him they hope to bring him over to the’ winning side’

    I know many will ignore because it RT and John Pilger, but he really does sum up how I and many in the UK feel and about what’s really going on in the interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py_XwwMokHg

    And yes Glyn I agree cheap politics is at play to discredit Jeremy Corbyn and supporters by the Tory and Labour establishment, but is anyone really surprised?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why not starve them of money, weapons, communications?

    Britain could do that. it starves its poor well enough.

    But seriously couldn't we wage cyber war on them? Couldn't we stop them getting weapons, selling oil that they have stolen?

    Scotland voted wholeheartedly against them, except for the sole Tory, who is obliged to vote the way Cameron told him to, and Carmichael the liar. Frankly no one gives a toss what he votes, and if we hadn't seen it with our own eyes we wouldn't have believed that he'd done it.

    It's not our war, but we'll be dragged in.

    I wonder how many sick people or old people they'll have to starve to death to fund it.

    ReplyDelete