Shootings in Paris

Google has oil?!

 

Which would you prefer, a reasoned, considered response from a principled, long time campaigner for peace, with first-hand negotiating experience with 'unsavoury middle eastern types' or an incendiary, jingoistic soundbite, from a Right Wing Murdoch puppet, seeking to make domestic political capital from a tragedy?

Where in the article does it actually say Corbyn does not support a Shoot to kill policy...

"any kind of shoot-to-kill policy" posed "clear dangers to us all" and said "terrorism should not be used to undermine freedom and legal protection".

"....I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris."

"war on the streets" must be avoided and also that UK air strikes in Syria could make the situation there "far worse"

"I'm not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think it can often be counter-productive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can."

I'm finding it hard to disagree with any of the above.

As for the cuts to the Policing budget (among many other equally vital services) this was part of the Tory manifesto....I didn't vote for it

 

Wanted to contribute, don't understand why it's a big deal.

 

No worries. I'm sure that you can volunteer your services to approach an injured terrorist to ask him nicely if he is wearing a suicide vest or not.

 

If the circumstances dictate I'm quite happy for an armed response team or special forces to shoot to kill.

 

Im a bit peed of I actually argued then said I wouldn't and then did it again!

 

Peed off but not lying on a slab somewhere in Paris. So not that bad.

 

So, seeing as non of us on here, to my knowledge, had direct, personal experience of the atrocities in Paris, should we refrain from commenting on it, or expressing our views? I don't have a problem with people posting links or using the internet as a source of information. That's what it's there for, isn't it?

I don't think anyone is trying to make capital out of this whatsoever...what would be the point?

 

I see your point but I didn't think that was the original point of the thread. My interpretation of what happened was that people jumped in very quickly to make their political views felt and it was distasteful to me. It was almost as if the argument was waiting to be had. A discussion on the political point then ensued, which I got drawn in to. It wasn't my thread and I don't control what people say so I shouldn't get upset but that's where we are.

Discussion and argument... yes. possibly not appropriate to discuss it through the gunsmoke.

 

My guess, is that we're all remote from the epicentre, so aside from the shared sense of outrage and sadness, which I'm certain everyone must feel to a greater or lesser extent, it's difficult to divorce the events from the issues surrounding it. I know you have concerns closer to home, so you'll've been touched by this in a way that I, and others, haven't. My views and sentiments are simply that, my own. The same can be said respectively for everyone else who has contributed to the thread.

It's unfortunate to see that things have been misconstrued or taken out of context, and people have taken things personally. Just serves to illustrate what a difficult task lies ahead....some of the Hymn sheets are in Arabic and others can't read without predjudice

Why make this personal?

 

Are you moderators in need of moderation