aintforever

But Cameron and our current foreign secretary said exactly the same thing. Looks like the Tories are trying to twist his words to mean something they don't for political gain. Problem is they, along with former MI5 chiefs have said the exact same words.

Our current defence secretary slating what he thought was Corby's words but was in fact our foreign secretary's. complete ****ing car crash. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-michael-fallon-slates-jeremy-10508519 The Tories are just trying to use the Manchester bombing to score political points. Corbyn never said anything wrong.

So Cameron said it, the former head of MI5 said it. Yet when Corbyn says it the media jump on him and try to twist his words. ISIS hate our way of life and want to turn the World into a global caliphate. But it is just blatantly obvious that bombing and killing innocent people in Muslim countries makes it easier for them to recruit. The bloke who killed Lee Rigby mentioned this in his own words, the 7/7 bombers I think said the same. ISIS even mentioned the RAF in their pathetic attempt to justify what happened in Manchester.

Didn't the Queen shake the hand of one of the ****s?

I thought he come across a lot better than May. Doesn't stand a cat in hells chance of winning though, he lost any slight chance of making inroads when this Manchester thing happened. Security is now a bigger issue and his IRA thing and perceived passivism won't sit well with the electorate. Labour will get a right kicking.

I'm not saying that it is the main cause, just that it must play a part in making their gullible foot soldiers believe what they are doing is justified. Also the fact that our bombs kill innocents in Muslim countries gives ISIS the opportunity to claim that their cause is just.

To be fair he probably is correct. Former MI5 chief Baroness Manningham-Buller told the Iraq Inquiry in 2010 that the 2003 invasion of Iraq had "undoubtedly increased" the terror threat to the UK and had radicalised "a few among a generation who saw our involvement in Iraq, on top of our involvement in Afghanistan, as being an attack on Islam".

And keeping the problems associated with Wahhabism under the carpet just gives the far right more influence because people know they are being fed lies. How can you expect the public to understand unless they are educated. I can't remember ever hearing a politician say the words Wahhabism, Salafist or mentioning Saudi Arabia in connection with terrorism - the fist I heard of Wahhabism was on here - a football forum, it didn't take much googling to realise what Verbal is saying is spot on.

So you think the IRA killed people because of their interpretation of the Catholic faith? Utter ******.

Complicated yes but my point still stands. Religion in NI created a devide just like other things can like race or nationality. It wasn't their faith in itself that caused them to kill each other, it just turned them into 'us and them'. Muslim extremists are killing because of their religion - a distinct difference. God knows what we can do about it but perpetuating the lie that it is nothing to do with Islam doesn't help anyone except the far right because people can see it clearly is. How can we expect people to understand when everyone is scared of honestly discussing the subject for fear of being accused of racism or 'tarring all Muslims with the same brush'?

Surely there is a difference between religion causing a devide than people killing innocent people (of any religion) in the name of their religion? NI didn't happen because of something in the Catholic faith made them want to kill protestants or vice versa. It was the English rule they were fighting about, religion just made it worse.

Meanwhile in other "region of peace" news, a man is publicly caned in Indonesia for being Gay. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39996224

Not sure there is much you can do. tighten up security and you just end up with more crowded areas outside which are just as much a target. The best defence is to give our security services all the tools they need to try and catch the ****ers before they carry it out.

Didn't Corbyn say “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”?

I was prepared to give Puel a chance but today was dire. Without any pressure, against a poor Stoke side today was a chance to put things right and he failed miserably.

We have peace in NI because we talked to them, it was the Tories who "never negotiated with terrorists".

And their investigation found out what?

The problem is someone has to pay for it and the Tories types cry like babies at the thought of paying a bit more tax. What I don't like about it is the fact that having Dementia, or a loved one with Dementia is a nasty situation to be in already without knowing that the longer it goes on the more likely you will have to sell the family home when the inevitable happens. I know if I was ever in that horrible situation I would much rather just top myself and leave my family with a house.

What is your point? It's a democracy, surely the more people engaged in politics, the more information the electorate have the better?

Well they have been proved to be popular with the viewers so it's a shame that the two donkeys we have to choose between couldn't be arsed. Just shows up what an outdated farce the old red v blue ****** is. No wonder young people can't be bothered to vote, a choice between a bunch of snobs or union infested weirdos.

I take it the remoaners among us will be voting Lib Dem then? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39942573

Shame the red and blue 'leaders' couldn't be arsed to debate live. Says it all about the state of our voting system.

The whole red v blue system just makes voting a pointless exercise for huge amounts of the population. I have never voted for anyone other than Lib Dems my whole life purely because where I live it's just a straight choice between them and the Tories - a vote for anyone else is not even worth the walk down to the polling station. We end up with a choice between a bunch of complete c**ts in the blue corner vs a bunch of idiots in the red to run the country - great!

Because the system that defines how much your job is worth is not fair, it is defined by market forces. A functioning society needs carers as much as it needs bankers yet one group can barely afford a house to live while the other can earn millions on the click of a mouse. If people were paid more purely by how hard they worked you would have a point but they are not.

If the amount you earned was directly proportional to how hard you worked I would agree, but it's not. The system is getting more and more skewed, it's fair that the rich should pay more IMO, and I include me in that.