Theresa May

[anonymous-user]

Garvin said:

So, pissing them off by refusing to trade with them at all and openly criticising them means they will listen intently to your views, suddenly realise what is happening, adapt their foreign policy, call off the attack dogs and terrorism in the UK will be reduced? Fantasy, pure fantasy.

If you agree that the Saudis are involved with backing Isis why on earth would you want to seek them arms?

It isn't a simple as changing the way we deal with Saudi Arabia et all is not a panacea, but it should provide part of a long term solution to Jihadi terrorists.

Edit: let's not forget our support for jihad when it suits us. It's not just about Saudi Arabia.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 4th June 16:45

[p1stonhead]

desolate said:

Garvin said:

So, pissing them off by refusing to trade with them at all and openly criticising them means they will listen intently to your views, suddenly realise what is happening, adapt their foreign policy, call off the attack dogs and terrorism in the UK will be reduced? Fantasy, pure fantasy.

If you agree that the Saudis are involved with backing Isis why on earth would you want to seek them arms?

It isn't a simple as changing the way we deal with Saudi Arabia et all is not a panacea, but it should provide part of a long term solution to Jihadi terrorists.

It's morally abhorrent selling arms to the Saudis. But Boris Johnson himself said 'if we don't, someone else will'.

I'm not sure of the right way to tackle it because they will get arms and attack us if they want to with or without our arms.

Do we try to keep them a bit on side by selling to them, or tell them to fk off and they may continue with whatever they may be doing with even more hatred to us?

I'm leaning with fk them let's cancel all trade.

stty situation all round to be honest.

[Garvin]

desolate said:

Garvin said:

So, pissing them off by refusing to trade with them at all and openly criticising them means they will listen intently to your views, suddenly realise what is happening, adapt their foreign policy, call off the attack dogs and terrorism in the UK will be reduced? Fantasy, pure fantasy.

If you agree that the Saudis are involved with backing Isis why on earth would you want to seek them arms?

It isn't a simple as changing the way we deal with Saudi Arabia et all is not a panacea, but it should provide part of a long term solution to Jihadi terrorists.

Edit: let's not forget our support for jihad when it suits us. It's not just about Saudi Arabia.

Edited by desolate on Sunday 4th June 16:45

Well you've got there in the end. The selling of arms to Saudi Arabia is a moral issue and has no correlation with preventing terrorism.

The morality I have covered in an earlier post.

Influencing the Saudis long term re terrorism will be strengthened by having good relations with them rather than holding them at arms (no pun intended) length will it not?

[anonymous-user]

Garvin said:

Well you've got there in the end. The selling of arms to Saudi Arabia is a moral issue and has no correlation with preventing terrorism.

The morality I have covered in an earlier post.

Influencing the Saudis long term re terrorism will be strengthened by having good relations with them rather than holding them at arms (no pun intended) length will it not?

I disagree. There is a correlation.

Our influence isn't working, time for a change in policy.

Selling arms to your enemy is a monumentally stupid thing to do.

We are to busy sucking their cocks for money to give a st though.

[Garvin]

desolate said:

I disagree. There is a correlation. . . . . . .

Disagree as much as you like but just persisting in stating that there is a correlation without any credible explanation why is not justifying your disagreement in any shape or form.

[anonymous-user]

desolate said:

I disagree. There is a correlation.

Our influence isn't working, time for a change in policy.

Selling arms to your enemy is a monumentally stupid thing to do.

We are to busy sucking their cocks for money to give a st though.

USA just signed a $350 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, what we do is chicken feed by comparison. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/20/us-saudi-arabia-sea...

[anonymous-user]

Garvin said:

Disagree as much as you like but just persisting in stating that there is a correlation without any credible explanation why is not justifying your disagreement in any shape or form.

We sell arms and give credibility and support to a regime that back ISIS.
We do this for money.

We bow (or curtsy in Trumps case) to them and invite them for tea and cake whilst they propagate the type of Islam we profess to hate.

There correlation is that our support gives them greater strength and credibility, enabling them to further support their goals.

We can't claim to be serious about tackling the jihadis in our country whilst supporting the regimes that create and support ISIS.

[Garvin]

desolate said:

Garvin said:

Disagree as much as you like but just persisting in stating that there is a correlation without any credible explanation why is not justifying your disagreement in any shape or form.

We sell arms and give credibility and support to a regime that back ISIS.
We do this for money.

We bow (or curtsy in Trumps case) to them and invite them for tea and cake whilst they propagate the type of Islam we profess to hate.

There correlation is that our support gives them greater strength and credibility, enabling them to further support their goals.

We can't claim to be serious about tackling the jihadis in our country whilst supporting the regimes that create and support ISIS.

Your first point is based on your highly subjective view. Whether Saudi Arabia backs ISIS in the way you think is is also a moot point. Even if they do, whether UK sells arms to them or not will not affect their own policy one iota.

Your second point provides no correlation whatsoever to the topic in question.

Your third point is, essentially, a repeat of your first and I refer you to my response to that given above.

Your fourth point provides no correlation whatsoever to the topic in question.

[BruceV8]

If Saudi Arabia supports ISIL, why do ISIL attack Saudi Arabia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_in...

[anonymous-user]

Garvin said:

desolate said:

I disagree. There is a correlation. . . . . . .

Disagree as much as you like but just persisting in stating that there is a correlation without any credible explanation why is not justifying your disagreement in any shape or form.

Of course there's a correlation, people keep pointing it out, you're just keep saying you disagree.

Presumably you work for British aerospace or Qinetiq or similar?

[anonymous-user]

Garvin said:

Your first point is based on your highly subjective view. Whether Saudi Arabia backs ISIS in the way you think is is also a moot point. Even if they do, whether UK sells arms to them or not will not affect their own policy one iota.

Your second point provides no correlation whatsoever to the topic in question.

Your third point is, essentially, a repeat of your first and I refer you to my response to that given above.

Your fourth point provides no correlation whatsoever to the topic in question.

I can accept that if you don't agree that SA and its particular brand of sectarianism is part of the issue with ISIS, terrorist funding and support of extreme Islamic preaching in the UK then you would not accept there is a link.

Do you think there is a link between our Libyan policy and the Manchester bomb?

[Garvin]

El stovey said:

Garvin said:

desolate said:

I disagree. There is a correlation. . . . . . .

Disagree as much as you like but just persisting in stating that there is a correlation without any credible explanation why is not justifying your disagreement in any shape or form.

Of course there's a correlation, people keep pointing it out, you're just keep saying you disagree.

Presumably you work for British aerospace or Qinetiq or similar?

There is no correlation, none whatsoever. What people keep pointing out is that it is morally wrong to sell arms to Saudi Arabia which is a completely different subjects and can be debated on their use towards, for example, Yemen.

If the correlation is solely about showing support to a state then why just pick on arms? Any trading will provide the same 'support' and, therefore, by that logic we should stop trading with a huge number of countries, including China and Russia. Perhaps we should and stand morally superior to everyone else on the face of the planet . . . . . and a lot poorer to boot . . . . . . all without changing their foreign policy and approach to terrorism and cyber attacks etc. at all.

[Garvin]

desolate said:

I can accept that if you don't agree that SA and its particular brand of sectarianism is part of the issue with ISIS, terrorist funding and support of extreme Islamic preaching in the UK then you would not accept there is a link.

Do you think there is a link between our Libyan policy and the Manchester bomb?

I do not agree at all with the way Saudi Arabia runs its country just as I disagree with the way Putin runs Russia and his interference on the international stage. I also do not agree with the way China is run, or the way Trump is behaving. The way these countries and their leaders operate and their foreign policies has absolutely nothing to do with arms sales anywhere in the world.

Yes, I do think there is a link between our approach and actions towards Libya and Manchester. I also think there is a link to our approach and actions in Iraq and Afghanistan and ISIS and terrorism. I believe many mistakes have been made for which the UK should not be proud. This, however, has nothing to do with arms sales to the Middle East.

[anonymous-user]

Garvin said:

I do not agree at all with the way Saudi Arabia runs its country just as I disagree with the way Putin runs Russia and his interference on the international stage. I also do not agree with the way China is run, or the way Trump is behaving. The way these countries and their leaders operate and their foreign policies has absolutely nothing to do with arms sales anywhere in the world.

Yes, I do think there is a link between our approach and actions towards Libya and Manchester. I also think there is a link to our approach and actions in Iraq and Afghanistan and ISIS and terrorism. I believe many mistakes have been made for which the UK should not be proud. This, however, has nothing to do with arms sales to the Middle East.

Fair enough.
I disagree on the arms, but at least we can agree on the rest of your post.

Could do with this thread no going the same way as so many others on this sort of topic so will leave it there.

[tamore]

i don't think tess fancies being PM. it's the only possible explanation i can think of for the utter horlicks she's making of the election campaign.

[Leroy902]

These events over the past days in Manchester and London have basically played into her /conservative parties hands.

[johnxjsc1985]

Leroy902 said:

These events over the past days in Manchester and London have basically played into her /conservative parties hands.

don't be silly just consider what your saying.

[glazbagun]

Leroy902 said:

These events over the past days in Manchester and London have basically played into her /conservative parties hands.

All things being equal I normally would have agreed with that, but her refusal to smack down Donald Trump over the total bullst he's been spewing on Twitter has probably undone much of the "incumbent authority bounce" she might have recieved.

I swear that guy could actually be a Russian plant and wouldn't do so good a job of alienating the US.

[p1stonhead]

Leroy902 said:

These events over the past days in Manchester and London have basically played into her /conservative parties hands.

It's done the exact opposite IMO.

[loafer123]

"Doing a Macron" and ruining our relationship with Trump is pointless, no matter how stupid or irrational he is.

Our relationship with him will be very important during the Brexit negotiation - you might not like it, and probably neither does TM, but we have to hold our noses and think sensibly.