Jeremy Corbyn

[Fish]

And risk the lives of our soldiers, just blow him to bits with a drone, hopefully take out a handful or two of his mates and be done with it.

I am starting to feel uncomfortable agreeing with you just lately :smirk:

 

[FairwayDodger]

Or do you support his right to only answer questions he wants to answer and refuse to answer the more difficult ones?

Like every other politician in the world you mean?

 

[freddielong]

I am starting to feel uncomfortable agreeing with you just lately :smirk:

Don't worry its just maths, after 3300 posts 1 had to strike a cord. 😊

 

[ColchesterFC]

Like every other politician in the world you mean?

I've heard and seen politicians of all parties avoiding answering questions or answering a different question than the one that was asked but have never seen one refuse to answer because the question was hypothetical.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I've heard and seen politicians of all parties avoiding answering questions or answering a different question than the one that was asked but have never seen one refuse to answer because the question was hypothetical.

He explained his position, it's the same as current governmebt policy and this attention is no more than a dig at Corbyn,
The man or woman on the ground is the only one who can make the decision and I prefer to trust them way more than some hypothetical answer from some politician, you can't bring him to account if his hypothetical answer to the hypothetical question is wrong.

 

[Ethan]

If he is going to refuse to answer hypothetical questions how can his party ever get elected? "So what will you do about the NHS if you get elected?" "I'm sorry I can't answer that as it's hypothetical".

Or do you support his right to only answer questions he wants to answer and refuse to answer the more difficult ones?

I doubt he would deliver such a facile answer. Answering a general policy question is fine, but detailed questions sometimes depend on the prevailing circumstances and budget situation. Hypothetical questions on taking out terrorists very much depend on the circumstances.

 

[FairwayDodger]

I've heard and seen politicians of all parties avoiding answering questions or answering a different question than the one that was asked but have never seen one refuse to answer because the question was hypothetical.

I certainly have, it's quite a common deflection.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

And risk the lives of our soldiers, just blow him to bits with a drone, hopefully take out a handful or two of his mates and be done with it.

This isn't how it happens all the time though, it's not that simple, if the opportunity had arisen to send troops in and grab these people, Military Commanders will discuss this option with Politicians, they tried to capture Bin Laden with the authority to use lethal force if required, sometimes the public humiliation of these people can have a better impact than simply removing them off the face of the earth and turning them into martyrs.

 

[MegaSteve]

Whatever answer is given to a 'hypothetical' question you'll be demonised by one quarter or another...

So, they are most probably best ignored...

 

[ColchesterFC]

I doubt he would deliver such a facile answer. Answering a general policy question is fine, but detailed questions sometimes depend on the prevailing circumstances and budget situation. Hypothetical questions on taking out terrorists very much depend on the circumstances.

I bet he'd have no problem with shoot to kill if a bloke in a bomb vest carrying an AK47 was walking towards him and his family.

 

[MegaSteve]

I bet he'd have no problem with shoot to kill if a bloke in a bomb vest carrying an AK47 was walking towards him and his family.

I suspect the family of Jean Charles de Menezes are less than chuffed with a 'shoot to kill' policy...

When it all goes wrong the 'powers that be' always seem to go AWOL...

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I bet he'd have no problem with shoot to kill if a bloke in a bomb vest carrying an AK47 was walking towards him and his family.

Again you're over reacting and sensationalising this, it was discussed on Radio 2 at lunchtime by a Labour MP and George Galloway, he never said he's against shoot to kill in the scenario you mention.
Even Galloway who is another clown who goes on about peace said if he was in that situation he would shoot first ask questions later.

If the Police have an opportunity to arrest a terrorist on his way to commit a crime you're saying we should shoot him, no questions asked, that's crazy, the chance to get information from him could be invaluable to prevent other outrages! Why can't you accept it's a judgement only the person in that situation can make.
There's a time to shoot first and there's a time when a pause can be more productive

 

[ColchesterFC]

I suspect the family of Jean Charles de Menezes are less than chuffed with a 'shoot to kill' policy...

I'm sure they aren't, but if it comes down to a choice between a guy blowing himself up in a crowd or a police officer stopping him by force then I'll always come down on the side of putting a bullet between his eyes every time.

 

[Fyldewhite]

Again you're over reacting and sensationalising this, it was discussed on Radio 2 at lunchtime by a Labour MP and George Galloway, he never said he's against shoot to kill in the scenario you mention.
Even Galloway who is another clown who goes on about peace said if he was in that situation he would shoot first ask questions later.

If the Police have an opportunity to arrest a terrorist on his way to commit a crime you're saying we should shoot him, no questions asked, that's crazy, the chance to get information from him could be invaluable to prevent other outrages! Why can't you accept it's a judgement only the person in that situation can make.
There's a time to shoot first and there's a time when a pause can be more productive

Fully agree, I think all he's actually said from the bits I've heard is that any actions should be lawful. Not an unreasonable view, and the law regarding the use of lethal force in confrontational situations is clear and well established. One more murky area is the legality of drone strikes, a relatively new innovation and less well established legally which is why he said he was not convinced the Jihadi John strike was legal......I'm not to be honest but I don't particularly care in those circumstances. Maybe he has to care, because he, or Cameron for that matter, unlike me or you has to be accountable.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Any time live rounds are fired then that person must ensure they follow correct rules of engagement and are able to fully justify their actions of firing live rounds. Lots of rules govern the use of firearms in this country. Before pulling the trigger - got to make sure that you can back up the actions or face jail

 

[freddielong]

This isn't how it happens all the time though, it's not that simple, if the opportunity had arisen to send troops in and grab these people, Military Commanders will discuss this option with Politicians, they tried to capture Bin Laden with the authority to use lethal force if required, sometimes the public humiliation of these people can have a better impact than simply removing them off the face of the earth and turning them into martyrs.

Again why risk our soldiers and then pick up the bill for flying him back, lawyers, security and his upkeep in a jail when you can smash him into little pieces and take out some of his allies at the same time.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Again why risk our soldiers and then pick up the bill for flying him back, lawyers, security and his upkeep in a jail when you can smash him into little pieces and take out some of his allies at the same time.

Like I replied before, the humiliation of capture, look at Saddam's pathetic pictures, the information you may get from interrogation, what if the risk of 8-20 Soldiers attempting a capture could've prevented 9/11. Nobody makes these calls before all avenues have been explored, a situation like Paris, absolutely shoot to kill, give them no chance,

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Fully agree, I think all he's actually said from the bits I've heard is that any actions should be lawful. Not an unreasonable view, and the law regarding the use of lethal force in confrontational situations is clear and well established. One more murky area is the legality of drone strikes, a relatively new innovation and less well established legally which is why he said he was not convinced the Jihadi John strike was legal......I'm not to be honest but I don't particularly care in those circumstances. Maybe he has to care, because he, or Cameron for that matter, unlike me or you has to be accountable.

Good to hear some sense on this thread.
Drones have a 90% chance of failure to hit the targeted individual, so nine times out of ten innocent and guilty bystanders are killed.
It is rather like spraying a rail carriage with a machine gun in the hope of killing the one guilty individual.

To me drones are unproductive. They will only add more fuel to the fire.

The constant miss-quoting of Corbyn by the British press and senior political and establishment figures makes me wonder about the direction our country is heading.

 

[Fish]

Good to hear some sense on this thread.
Drones have a 90% chance of failure to hit the targeted individual, so nine times out of ten innocent and guilty bystanders are killed.
It is rather like spraying a rail carriage with a machine gun in the hope of killing the one guilty individual.

To me drones are unproductive. They will only add more fuel to the fire.

The constant miss-quoting of Corbyn by the British press and senior political and establishment figures makes me wonder about the direction our country is heading.

Can you provide some proof and evidence of these quoted statistics please?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Good to hear some sense on this thread.
Drones have a 90% chance of failure to hit the targeted individual, so nine times out of ten innocent and guilty bystanders are killed.
It is rather like spraying a rail carriage with a machine gun in the hope of killing the one guilty individual.

To me drones are unproductive. They will only add more fuel to the fire.

The constant miss-quoting of Corbyn by the British press and senior political and establishment figures makes me wonder about the direction our country is heading.

Drones 90% chance of failure to hit the target ?!

Is that a guess or from actual evidence ?

Drones have been very productive and have reduced the risk of our own pilots whilst also saving lives of other people.