or to join or start a new Discussion

Articles/all comments
These 53 comments are related to an article called:

Hillary Benn

Page 1 of 3

posted on 4/12/15

His form is commendable, but it lacks any substance whatsoever.

posted on 4/12/15

Hilary.

posted on 4/12/15

Hilaryous article !

posted on 4/12/15

Thanks SirCastic.

harlequinHebdo, why's that then?

posted on 4/12/15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfXmpJRZPYI

His fathers speech was better imo.

Notice who is sitting in the background

posted on 4/12/15

Santi , it's all in the name !, but in all seriousness , I think that he is definately the future of the Labour party .To have any chance at all in the coming years , the Labour party must be seen to have shaken off the shackles of out dated ,head in the sand pseudo /socialism As much as I admire Corbyns honesty and integrity ,I just do not think that the people of Britain ,wish to remain in the past .Consequently ,Benn, and his more realistic mind set , is the future .

posted on 4/12/15

I dont care. I'm anti Labour and left wing in general since some Labour party and union activists told me that they would rather send the NHS out on strike and let people die as a result to achieve their political ends than not have the strike.

posted on 4/12/15

In what ways are Corbyn views outdated? He's more popular amongst young crowd than anything.

With a name like Hilary when you're a guy how can you be a PM let alone leader of a party.
His speech was well delivered but it doesn't mean what he said was. His father delivered a much better one and one that made sense.

Tories and the right wing media know that Corbyn is a danger to their BS set up. He's the only man out there with principles and want for a better country.

posted on 4/12/15

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

posted on 4/12/15

It was a powerful speech, but focused almost entirely on emotional reasons for tackling ISiS, which are not really in dispute. He touched on what air strikes could bring to the table, but there was little to no discussion of long term strategy, succession and peacekeeping which is exactly the sort of shortsightedness that has led to imperialist states making an absolute mess of that region, going from now, to the Gulf wars, all they say back to the days of Empire.

The power vacuum caused by intervention has allowed ISIS to reach this point, and I can only see more reactionary intervention as contributing to the problem in the long term.

posted on 4/12/15

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35006404

posted on 4/12/15

All his historical examples were of facist dictators of soverign states. You can bomb a standing army with a clear leader, you cant bomb an ideology.

posted on 4/12/15

you cant bomb an ideology.

-----------

You also cant idly sit back and watch this ideology expand throughout the whole of Syria, in the process watching their 'Army' (if you could even call them an army pmsl) get bigger and bigger.

posted on 4/12/15

The alternative proposal is to negotiate with 'them' I think

posted on 4/12/15

Maybe we can get the self-loathing lefties to gather around the table with them and propose peace talks.

posted on 4/12/15

Well said someday.

Only reason Hillary is being hyped up is just another reason to undermine Corbyn. Media and Tories would prefer him in because he fits in with their agenda more, and is more one of them. Whereas Corbyn is an anti establishment figure, and not a status-quo politician. Hillary spins where the wins is blowing. He actually said a few weeks ago (after Paris attacks) that labour should NOT back airstrikes. Now suddenly he's changed his view. He's a very typical polician, and part of the reason why many people feel disillusioned with politics.

His speech was of course very well spoken. You can't take that away from him. However he wasn't interrupted every other sentence like Corbyn was. The Tories were lapping it up. Whereas Corbyn had to stop to allow interventions, or stop to say he won't take interventions, and pause for he speaker telling the Tories off for shouting. The best speaker in the world would struggle in that environment. His uninterrupted are very good as well.

posted on 4/12/15

Song

You are doing what we do...putting a good man down,after he made a great speech,and I say that as someone against our recent bombing fiascos.

What was wrong with Benn's speech?

Corbyn is on record as being friends with hamas and hezbolah,who daesh hate,so corbyn calls it badly,over and over.
Corbyn backed the pira thugs who bombed us,and he did so before any peace move, a nd he never talked with unionists,and ignored the irish left,sidi g with facist provo thugs.
Corbyn is all over the place on nato,capping benefit,welfare reform,eu membership,and national security.In paris type attack,corbyn would risk innocent lives,as he is so messed up on how to cope with extremists,who distort islam.

Corbyn has done what to counter daesh or assad,and he is not that bright, claiming attacking isis would lead to british muslims attacking british people...how racist and islamophobic is that,and he doesnot even know it?
Daesh kill more muslims than anyone,yet corbyn claims people living among us will be somehow enraged by the global action against daesh.So,he says muslims are not like the rest of us,and a threat to the uk,which is far right ideology,jezza.

posted on 4/12/15

Corbyn and his loonileft mates are so dull,in mood and personality,with that dead eyes look,mastered by years of hating everything about the people they live among,whilst seeing only good in those who hate.

The british working class are more likely to be ukip,tory or even bnp,and corbyn hates them.
The old industrial working class has gone,and north london middle class types got corbyn in,along with hard left students,militant,hipsters,and momentum nutters.

Why would british workers back corbyn or abbott or mcdonnell,as they hate us.

.

posted on 4/12/15

comment by thebluebellsareblue (U9292)
posted 41 minutes ago
Corbyn and his loonileft mates are so dull,in mood and personality,with that dead eyes look,mastered by years of hating everything about the people they live among,whilst seeing only good in those who hate.

The british working class are more likely to be ukip,tory or even bnp,and corbyn hates them.
The old industrial working class has gone,and north london middle class types got corbyn in,along with hard left students,militant,hipsters,and momentum nutters.

Why would british workers back corbyn or abbott or mcdonnell,as they hate us.

.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
They hate us? Where on earth did you get this from?! The Tories hate us (the working class) more than ANYone ever would! But you'd rather side with them?! That's a bit like an abused wife staying with her hamfisted husband! Ludicrous! As for Corbyn, I may not agree with absolutely everything he says, but strip away the bad suit, scruffy hair and the Tory backbiting and actually read his policies. Are they really so bad? Then ask whether you want some slimy shiny suit politician who walks all over you and keeps the rich rich or someone who may not, at first glance look appealing but who speaks to the heart of what Labour is?

We're told what to think and what to do so much that people don't think for themselves anymore (and I'm not in any way suggesting this is you). Ask the people who hate Corbyn and it's the shame c.arp you read from the papers as if it's a direct quote. No independent thinking!

posted on 4/12/15

comment by thebluebellsareblue (U9292)
posted 57 minutes ago
Song

You are doing what we do...putting a good man down,after he made a great speech,and I say that as someone against our recent bombing fiascos.

What was wrong with Benn's speech?

Corbyn is on record as being friends with hamas and hezbolah,who daesh hate,so corbyn calls it badly,over and over.
Corbyn backed the pira thugs who bombed us,and he did so before any peace move, a nd he never talked with unionists,and ignored the irish left,sidi g with facist provo thugs.
Corbyn is all over the place on nato,capping benefit,welfare reform,eu membership,and national security.In paris type attack,corbyn would risk innocent lives,as he is so messed up on how to cope with extremists,who distort islam.

Corbyn has done what to counter daesh or assad,and he is not that bright, claiming attacking isis would lead to british muslims attacking british people...how racist and islamophobic is that,and he doesnot even know it?
Daesh kill more muslims than anyone,yet corbyn claims people living among us will be somehow enraged by the global action against daesh.So,he says muslims are not like the rest of us,and a threat to the uk,which is far right ideology,jezza.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not putting him down, I'm being cautious simply because it's only been ONE speech. Then consider that when your enemy is actively encouraging disunity in your ranks, you have to stop and ask why. Why are the Tories so eager to endorse Benn and to heckle and insult Corbyn? Because they'll get a free pass from Benn. Simple! Think about the shadow cabinet who, after Corbyn won, said they wouldn't serve him. Why? Because they follow the Tory line for the most part. I mean, the main issue with politics up to Corbyn was that the main parties were the same and now that you have a politician who actually challenges and holds the government to account, you want to go back to the kind of opposition that says "yes"?! All because of one well-delivered speech? I'm sorry, you'll have to do better than that!

And as for the impact of dropping bombs, whilst Ken Livingstone's words were not the best, the fundamental point is true: 7/7 happened because we bombed Iraq. So it stands to reason that we will be seen as aggressors again and people will try to attack us. I said above that I may not agree with everything Corbyn says but dropping bombs without a clear strategy is wrong. Cameron is like the kid who wants to be popular, same as Blair and he's playing fast and loose with our lives and our freedom. I won't try to type it all out here but there are a plethora of things that can be done instead of / alongside dropping bombs but there is no coherent plan from the Tories and THAT is the main concern. Plus the simple question: how will you know whether you've hit civilians or not? No answer. I'm sorry, mate, but that sort of indiscriminate attack is going to make us more hated and with ISIS having an ideology that spans borders, someone in / from Europe can take up the mantle and start attacks (case in point, the Paris bomber was Belgian... do we bomb them next?).

And as for who he may have supported etc back then, I'm not going to defend that, but who propped up these groups when the West was against Saddam or Gaddafi? The West. Who created Osama? The US. Who sells these groups weapons? The West. I think there are worse people out there than Jeremy Corbyn but the media and the Tories have made him the pantomime villain and you're just eating it up and letting the rest of them get away with the real crimes...

posted on 4/12/15

7/7 happened because we bombed Iraq. So it stands to reason that we will be seen as aggressors again and people will try to attack us

------------------------------------------



We already are a target to attack from ISIS in the first place. Imagine thinking ISIS have gone easy on the UK all because we haven't yet bombed Syria yet

posted on 4/12/15

ISIS killed 130 people in Paris, but let us pretend it was after France started bombing Syria rather than before.

posted on 4/12/15

comment by Viva Vela (U17571)
posted 10 minutes ago
7/7 happened because we bombed Iraq. So it stands to reason that we will be seen as aggressors again and people will try to attack us

------------------------------------------



We already are a target to attack from ISIS in the first place. Imagine thinking ISIS have gone easy on the UK all because we haven't yet bombed Syria yet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that what I said?

posted on 4/12/15

Yeah, pretty much

posted on 4/12/15

comment by Viva Vela (U17571)
posted 8 minutes ago
ISIS killed 130 people in Paris, but let us pretend it was after France started bombing Syria rather than before.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, is that what I said? Yes, they were ISIS but the people were Belgian. As they may be British in the future... so the action needs to be more clearly thought out than to simply drop bombs on one nation.

Page 1 of 3

Sign in if you want to comment