He will be sh1tting his pants at the prospect of facing someone who knows his stuff and isn't interested in coming out with senseless soundbites and vilifying his colleagues in a childish way. I'll be tuning into PMQs too to see Corbyn make the establishment look silly.
I agree there's been some deeply shocking reactions to this across the whole of Europe (us included) as well as some amazing displays of empathy and human kindness (indeed there was over 40 people helping to pack and donate donated items at a local restaurant on Saturday in Cardiff - the Landsdowne had been overwhelmed by the sheer number of items donated for the refugees in Calais and needed help packing it and sorting it, and an amazing 40 people turned up to help. But so much has been donated across Europe that there's a bottle neck in Calais, so things (quite rightfully) are being diverted to other needy causes, such as the homeless or sold to raise money to charities helping the refugees or the disadvantaged. Other donations are being stored ready for a later date, or sent on to Hungry. I know someone who is in Hungry and she says the reaction by members of the public is amazing and really puts the government to shame. But I think it's dangerous to look at what other countries are not doing, or judging ourselves against what others are doing, rather than judging ourselves against what is right. If we look at others and say 'well they are not doing anything, why should we' or if we ignore our government's disgusting reaction to call down other countries reactions then, however accurate and truthful that observation is, we open the way to a path which can lead to in fighting amongst European countries, and perhaps in the end the dissolution of the EU or even war. (Remember how the 2nd and 1st world wars started). It's scary times, but lots to be hopeful for despite the national press.
Definitely, and I'm sure he will attack him. He is going to need an amazing grass roots movement/social media drive to get his message across as Owen Jones says, as the main stream media is already ramping up it's attacks on him.
I don't think we should be helping anyone who has made the journey all the way to Calais to come to the UK. I agree with David Cameron's stance on this one, if we are taking in refugees it should be from refugee camps on the borders of Syria to discourage people making the dangerous journey across to Europe. I also think the fact ISIS have openly said they are using this situation to sneak terrorists into Europe should make us wary as to how we vet people before allowing them entry into the EU. With the current flood of people across Europe how do we keep a handle on who is going where? I do think this is a situation that clearly needs attention but in lots of cases it seems emotion is overriding logic in people's thinking. Help needs to happen in the right way, aimed at the right people and my concern is that the upset of seeing people struggling is making people overlook the need to approach this situation cautiously.
But I thought (or at least it's been said for the past few years) that the issue was stopping terrorists going the other way, and leaving the UK to join up with ISIS in the Middle East? Are we now saying that once they get to Syria then they immediately turn around and spend the next few years coming back to Europe via refugee camp after camp (spending years in each) to get back to the UK? It's a rather convoluted journey - still if they want to waste their time continually travelling the length and breadth of Europe, then they won't be able to do much damage or plan many attacks... Certainly bedraggled refugees (or those pretending to be refugees) won't be able to hide much C4, or any AK47s on them while crossing the borders, herded by police...
Don't be so ridiculous. There is a difference between the issue of stopping people going to join ISIS and stopping them sending terrorists into Europe. No-one is suggesting they are just doing constant round trips ffs.
Well it's just funny that all you seemed to hear from the Daily Mail, Britains First, Sun ect was about this huge exodus of British people going to the Middle East to join ISIS, and now suddenly all the Daily Mail, Britains First, Sun ect is going on about is all the ISIS coming into Europe instead! I still don't know how a terrorist is going to sneak in a load of weapons/explosives surrounded by a load of refugees who have nothing, while surrounded by police herding them to a camp. But even if they could, surely anyone worried about terrorism would want to deal with these refugee camps as soon as possible, and ensure the refugees are well looked after and moved out of the camps. Because misplaced, mistreated people left in desperate situations in refugee camps are usually prime places for terrorist groups to radicalise people...
Like I said, there is a clear difference between stopping people going to join ISIS and stopping ISIS terrorists getting into Europe. Two very different issues. How a terrorist might sneak into Europe? It's not like there are hundreds of thousands of people illegally entering Europe currently or anything... Oh wait... I can't imagine it's particularly difficult to mix in with a load of refugees. Your also making the assumption they need to take the weapons with them as opposed to locating weapons within Europe (not that it would be difficult to bring some plastic explosives across). You've also made the assumption that all of these people arriving in Europe are all going into refugee camps which just isn't the reality or we wouldn't have the scenes we do at Calais. Or the lorries full of dead refugees turning up. And yes, I do think help should start at the refugee camps on the borders of Syria, that was the point I was making in the first place!
You mean the scenes in Calais... in the refugee camps? I understand you wanting you help the refugees in the camps by Syria, but what about the rest of the refugee camps? Do you want to just ignore these until the people there just disappear from consciousness? Or (more realistically) they continue to exist in a legal 'limbo' state, like in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and other countries, where they can't stay, they can't work, they can't leave, they can't feed themselves, they can't get or earn housing or safety, constantly unable to go on or go back, open to racists abuse, violence, starvation/freezing, criminal gangs and human slavery, and extremist/terrorist groups trying to recruit them. My point was, that if the weapons/explosives are already in the country - or the supply lines are already set up to transport them here, then the damage is already done, as it's much simpler to for a highly organised, well funded, international group such as ISIS to smuggle people in using criminal gangs, human traffickers or corrupt border guards. But if there aren't big caches of weapons already in Europe, then there's no way they'll be able to smuggle the weapons in with the refugees and won't be able to do much damage while here. My opinion is that it's a lot of typical scaremongering by the right wing press - 'you can't help a Muslim because you might be helping a terrorist' 'better to let them starve or be blown up'...
Except my point isn't about them being Muslim. It's me using logic to see that offering help in a way that discourages people making a dangerous journey across to Europe is the best solution. It's me seeing ISIS openly saying they are using this situation to smuggle extremists into Europe as a negative thing that should be addressed. This is a situation that needs international help and the international community should be looking to provide the necessary help, but that isn't the same as getting emotional and making poor decisions. If those who have made the journey to Europe have to wait until those who are in the camps by Syria are dealt with, then so be it, we shouldn't be encouraging people to flock to the EU. We should be providing assistance to the situation but for me that starts over in the region that is actually effected. It doesn't start with those who have hand picked which country they are heading to and illegally tried to sneak there way in. As for sneaking explosives and weaponry in, I have no idea why you think it would be difficult for some terrorists in amongst refugees to smuggle some explosives through. It only takes the smallest amount of certain explosives to cause incredible damage. They aren't going to be walking along with an RPG on there shoulder ffs Edit: also RE Calais my point was if as these refugees were arriving in Europe they were being funnelled into refugee camps we wouldn't have anyone at Calais as it isn't one of the entry points into the EU for refugees.
If you really want to deal with the problem of ISIS and other terrorist groups, why not try and tackle those who are supporting these groups? But of course, we wouldn't want to do that otherwise we'd be knocking on the doors of our own people and our closest allies.
I don't know how we will end up approaching the ISIS situation. The west doesn't want Assad or ISIS in control of the region but who else is there to step in? There's so many different factions involved in the conflict, from the Kurds to Al Queda. I don't think there is a straight forward answer and I'm still unsure what I think the solution is. I'm guessing your point was more to blame the Americans though?
I'm referring to the countries that supported both openly and covertly, groups fighting Asad. It's a tragedy that these things are allowed to continue to happen in this world, and all they achieve is to destabilise the region even more. Sometimes, its the better the devil you know, and Asad in charge was infinitely better than having crazy extremists chopping off heads and taking over. They've made Iraq, Libya and now Syria into dangerous death traps. But then again, what do we know of the grand scheme of things, only they know.
TBH Syria has long been known as a terrible place, where the secret police are feared for their brutality and human rights violations. Indeed the Western countries, especially Britain and the USA used to extradite illegally detained suspected terrorists there all the time in the decade following 9/11, so that the Syrian secret police could torture them with impunity and feed back the information. (This also happened to prisioners from Guantanamo, who were moved to Syria instead of being released). State terror was rampant, leading to the uprising. The whole area has been turned upside down by fighting, civil unrest, horrendous government crackdowns, foreign bombs killing thousands of civilians and terrorist groups running amok. In Iraq it is not just ISIS and the US forces killing civilians with impunity, there is Iraqi government militia which has started a civil war, and is killing, abducting and torturing Sunni civilians, while ISIS do the same to Shi'a civilians - see this report - http://www.amnesty.org.uk/sites/default/files/absolute_impunity_iraq_report.pdf The same things are happening in Syria, Egypt, Libya and other countries across the area - where you have original freedom fighters, state backed militias, secret police, terrorists, western forces, and western backed/armed groups all killing/fighting/bombing indiscriminately. The only stable country in the area is Iran (the big nuclear terror according to some idiots in the American press), and Israel - though with the social cleansing and genocide Israel is currently enacting in Palestine then it's hardly a stable area... Assad has had his day IMO, the citizens will never follow him and his corrupt, despotic rule again, but how to get rid of ISIS without the population rising up against the West as it did in Afghanistan and Iraq?
