pacifists/conscienti ous objectors/Jeremy Corbyn

Agree that this blanket reporting is inflamitory. We don't need to know every thought that crosses the mind of leaders or whoever. People don't seem to realise that JC didn't come down in the last shower and is held in high regard

I would agree with your first paragraph MOnica except that no dotty uncle I know has such dubious friends.
Which is probably why he is so hesitant when he is talking about using force against terrorists.

I still find that very odd - to welcome people who you know have killed children .....

I do not understand why everyone is so rude about Jeremy Corbyn. He strikes me as delightful kind and thoughtful man, everyone's ideal of a dotty old uncle, always busy in the shed making things and not really connected to the outside world. I am sure if I met him I would like him, and agree with many of his views.

However whether such a nice man is capable of leading a country, which punches well above its weight in many international spheres, is another question and whether he would be capable of making the very hard and difficult decisions that need to be made as Prime Minister of this country at a time when we are dealing with guerilla warfare waged as it has never been waged before, is yet another question. There are times when we have to admit that the nicest of people are, nevertheless, not fit for the job.

he he he he !!!!!!!

Wrong thread!!

As far as I'm concerned you can shout at Jenni Murray all you like apricot
I just don't turn her on in the first place (or read any of her articles)
annoying woman

I suspect he needs many many years to be able to do that.

D'you reckon he's got many many years soon?

.

He is not merely reflective. He literally does not know his own mind. I suspect he needs many many years to be able to do that.

All people make some decisions based on current facts.

Soontobe....would you follow someone who's opinions are set in stone rather than someone who makes a decision based on the current facts. Something might work for a particular set of circumstances and be disastrous in another.

If being reflective and considering all options is vacillating then I'll follow the vacillator.

And what better way to radicalise them than to drop bombs on their families, homes and cities.

But many are 'home-grown' and no-one is bombing their families in Europe. It is other Muslims who are bombing them in the Middle East too.

Most of us want peace and would pray (in our different ways, even if we are not religious) for that.

The question is: if a pacificist had the chance to kill one dangerous person in order to save hundreds or thousands of innocent people, including children, would he or she do it? If he or she decided they could not would they have the deaths of all those other people on their conscience?

I think I am getting your point M0nica?

whitewave, I cannot find anything on google about JC would have joined in WW2. Have you got a link please?

vq, I agree with you about fear.
How can you say what he would and wouldn't do at some point in the future?
But that is a big point. I for 1 dont follow someone who doesnt know himself where he is going.

Actually ISIS depends on the radicalisation of young and impressionable Muslims to build up its fighting force. And what better way to radicalise them than to drop bombs on their families, homes and cities.

As someone mentioned on another thread, Ireland is a great demonstration of the pointlessness of these tit-for-tat atrocities which only serve to create further hatred and an unquenchable appetite for violent revenge. At the risk of being boring, I say again that we need to establish who is supplying ISIS with training, weapons and ongoing logistical support, and take measures to totally isolate them from the rest of the world.

I recall some posters taking exception to George Osborne being referred to as "Gideon" on some threads. And yet it seems it is perfectly OK to refer to Jeremy Corbyn as "a twerp", "a disgrace" and "a fool". Everyone is entitled to their opinion but that is just personal abuse.

gillybob Please don't let the axe you have to grind regarding your sister colour your view of all public service workers, many of whom do a very stressful job in difficult circumstances and for pay that is not commensurate with the degree of responsibility they have.

Pacifists probably kill as many people as non-pacifists. I do not think the choice is ever to kill or not to kill. It is fight and this group of people get killed. Do not fight and that group of people get killed. It is merely a choice between which group gets killed. I think more pacifists should realise this.

JC seems to be quite acedemic in his thinking. Rather than practical. He isnt going to actually do much, is he?

Yes VQ There is a fine line between reporting what is happening in the world and giving the terrorist the world stage on which to advertise their expertise.

I'm a supporter of JC. How can you say what he would and wouldn't do at some point in the future? The current method of indiscriminate, otherwise known as targeted. bombing has been used many times in recent decades and hasn't been affective. Surely the time has come to think of different ways.

Perhaps a start would be to stop the blanket media coverage of every atrocity. I'm not saying pretend nothing has happened. We need straightforward news reporting but all the coulds, woulds and maybes that come in subsequent reports and programmes don't help anyone. We need to strangle the massive about of publicity the terrorists get. Fear is an important weapon. The amount of coverage helps to create fear which hands power to the terrorist.

Thinking about JC - in his own words " I have a very low threshold to any form of violence" he then goes on to talk about the fight against the Nazis in the Ww2 and how he would have joined that if he had been alive then. So I would interpret that as "No I am not a pacifist, and would use violence of absolutely necessary" I think that he needs convincing at a very high level and there is nothing gung-ho about his approach.

grumppa you read too much into my post I haven't voiced an opinion as to whether being a pacifist makes you suitable to be a PM.

Personally I think his main supporters are the vast amount of public sector workers (and ex PS ) who see him as their meal ticket great savior.

Could be wrong but my sister who has never taken an interest in politics whatsoever has suddenly began talking about him as though he is going to personally save the NHS and give them all "the pay rises they deserve" . This has undoubtedly come from her union. No surprises there.

Sorry for going off topic about JC.

I too would defend the right to be a pacifist, whitewave. That doesn't mean that a pacifist is fit to lead a country in a world containing Putin and ISIS.

The trouble is, he has got so many supporters within the Labour Party outside of the Shadow Cabinet. (who mostly seem to realise he is a fool) Heaven forbid he ever becomes PM.

He would probably have all the opposing sides in for a chat and tell them to play nicely. The man is a disgrace.