Hilary Benn Sacked From The Shadow Cabinet - wider political debate

[Boss_Blue]

That word shouldn't be used lightly to describe something. It automatically invalidates your point

Okay mate x

Tubes turning into a poor mans Davek.

Sad to see.

 

[Tubey]

Okay mate x

Tubes turning into a poor mans Davek.

Sad to see.

It does, and I note you can't defend using that word, so you're trying to glibly dismiss it.

There's a terrorist organisation murdering innocent people daily. A guy thinks one way about stopping it. That doesn't make him evil.

You should just admit that and say that you simply disagreed with his rationale, instead of labelling him with a word more suitable to Fred West or Ian Huntley.

 

[Eggs]

....Labour simply do not offer a viable opposition at the moment and I've been saying we are now faced with governments of different shades of blue. The only shining light is the new intake of young Labour MPs who seem to be a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately a leadership competition will likely see Corbyn being re-elected. It might be what Jeremy wants but it's not what the country needs.

 

[magicjuan]

Whether or not he deserves a general election based on his backing from the membership I'm not quite sure. But what is clear is that he would lose very badly. I'm struggling to think of a labour government this far to the left that has won an election? All those that have won were more center left.

Wilson's

 

[dholliday]

There's a terrorist organisation murdering innocent people daily. A guy thinks one way about stopping it. That doesn't make him evil.

Have a think about how that terror organisation came to be.

To understand that speech, we have to understand the bigger picture.

Hilary Benn urging us to continue the vicious circle which only benefits the arms industries while ruining the lives of untold thousands is a candidate for the banality of evil award I suggested earlier.

History's full of such awfulness, and Benn is fully aware of this, as he's also aware how history writes things. Which is why he frames his argument in the way that he does. He knows he will fool most of the people all of the time.

 

[Tubey]

Have a think about how that terror organisation came to be.

To understand that speech, we have to understand the bigger picture.

Hilary Benn urging us to continue the vicious circle which only benefits the arms industries while ruining the lives of untold thousands is a candidate for the banality of evil award I suggested earlier.

History's full of such awfulness, and Benn is fully aware of this, as he's also aware how history writes things. Which is why he frames his argument in the way that he does. He knows he will fool most of the people all of the time.

Fool them to do what mate? What personal benefit would he get from it? And don't say political ambition, because if he had that he would have stayed quiet on the issue, sided with Corbyn and bided his time, instead of committing front bench suicide by doing so.

Again, disagree, but don't call him evil, as it's a stupid label. Let's face it, if I wanted to, I could call your logic "evil", because you'd sit idly by and do absolutely nothing while civilians are butchered and left in mass graves - but I won't, because I'm not an idiot and understand you've come to your stance through principle, not wanting civilians dead.

 

[magicjuan]

Yeah, again, you agreed with it being called "evil". That word shouldn't be used lightly to describe something. It automatically invalidates your point.

Disagree by all means, loads of reasons to do so and a lot of yours are valid - but do so rationally or you just look stupid.

The evil element could apply when there has been no due consideration of the possibilities to avoid unnecessary loss of innocent lives, see recent conflicts in the ME on the whim of a western despot. It could also and especially apply when consideration has been given and the desire is to continue and accept loss of life as collateral damage. Either way, it never acknowledged the contribution that was made to the situation in the first place.

Doubt his father would have supported him, someone hoofed that apple way down the orchard...

 

[Tubey]

The evil element could apply when there has been no due consideration of the possibilities to avoid unnecessary loss of innocent lives, see recent conflicts in the ME on the whim of a western despot. It could also and especially apply when consideration has been given and the desire is to continue and accept loss of life as collateral damage. Either way, it never acknowledged the contribution that was made to the situation in the first place.

Doubt his father would have supported him, someone hoofed that apple way down the orchard...

Again, he made lengthy note of this in his speech. He acknowledged it, and explained why he still felt action was to be taken.

And again, we were still bombing in Iraq at the time, specifically precision bombing. Benn simply wanted to extend this to make them more effective, as ISIS ignored the Iraq border in their operations.

It isn't evil to come to that conclusion. It's a stupid tag that should not be used in this instance.

 

[Boss_Blue]

I understand there are people who believe no action should be taken if civilian life is at risk. Fine. Completely understandable

Disagree.

All conflict puts civilians life at risk - the issue here is that the current course of action has failed spectacularly yet we persist with it despite knowing the consequences.

It does, and I note you can't defend using that word, so you're trying to glibly dismiss it

I'm sure that many of those considered evil by society didn't believe that they were and that their actions were justified but Holiday can defend himself on the use of that word - I know what he meant and I agree.

Also, you're leading this argument on a tangent to deflect from your increasingly unsupportable backing of Benn.

There's a terrorist organisation murdering innocent people daily. A guy thinks one way about stopping it. That doesn't make him evil

What if he advocated nuking the area?

Means to an end and all that.

You should just admit that and say that you simply disagreed with his rationale, instead of labelling him with a word more suitable to Fred West or Ian Huntley

You do enjoy telling people what they should and shouldn't say dont you mate?

Dangerous behaviour that.

 

[magicjuan]

I understand there are people who believe no action should be taken if civilian life is at risk. Fine. Completely understandable.

But it's not "evil" to consider a wider situation and advocate action you believe is the greater good. I can't stress enough how stupid and reactionary using the term "evil" is to describe a reasoned political speech, just because you disagree with it.

It's the reasoning that is worrying, if you consider a situation, study and ponder it and still reach the conclusion that the death of children is an acceptable price then you have no right being in a position to make a contribution because politically you have failed.

War is never the answer. If we all accepted that we would change the planet in an instant.

 

[Tubey]

Disagree.

All conflict puts civilians life at risk - the issue here is that the current course of action has failed spectacularly yet we persist with it despite knowing the consequences.


I'm sure that many of those considered evil by society didn't believe that they were and that their actions were justified but Holiday can defend himself on the use of that word - I know what he meant and I agree.

Also, you're leading this argument on a tangent to deflect from your increasingly unsupportable backing of Benn.


What if he advocated nuking the area?

Means to an end and all that.


You do enjoy telling people what they should and shouldn't say dont you mate?

Dangerous behaviour that.

lol

My first response was disagreeing with the notion of him being labelled "evil" - that's all I have a problem with. Check back!

I'm not going to support Benn as a politician. He was rightly sacked due to planning a coup, and that was self serving, because he should have just resigned alone on principle, instead of canvassing in advance.

However, that speech was not evil. It is simply the wrong word, and it'd be good if people could have a bit of common sense and acknowledge it was a stupid tag to use and over the top. It's that simple.

 

[magicjuan]

Again, he made lengthy note of this in his speech. He acknowledged it, and explained why he still felt action was to be taken.

And again, we were still bombing in Iraq at the time, specifically precision bombing. Benn simply wanted to extend this to make them more effective, as ISIS ignored the Iraq border in their operations.

It isn't evil to come to that conclusion. It's a stupid tag that should not be used in this instance.

See the next point I make. Then explain precision bombing.

 

[Tubey]

It's the reasoning that is worrying, if you consider a situation, study and ponder it and still reach the conclusion that the death of children is an acceptable price then you have no right being in a position to make a contribution because politically you have failed.

War is never the answer. If we all accepted that we would change the planet in an instant.

We bombed cities in World War 2. Not all those we bombed were Nazis, but it had to be done. If we sat passively by, you know what the outcome would be.

Sometimes, aggression must be met with aggression. War is sometimes the answer, because if you don't do it, you condemn millions more to death. It's never black and white, and complete pacifism is almost always the wrong answer, because it's idealism over pragmatism.

You say the death of children is never acceptable - but what if you're considering the death of many more children as a result of inaction?

 

[Tubey]

See the next point I make. Then explain precision bombing.

As said in the speech, if ISIS are at the gates of Baghdad and mass murders are the next outcome, then if precision bombing helps turn that tide, it's the correct answer.

If you believe violence is never the answer, that's your prerogative - but I believe it sometimes is, and it's determining that "sometimes" which is the tricky part. It doesn't make me "evil" for considering the greater good.

 

[magicjuan]

We bombed cities in World War 2. Not all those we bombed were Nazis, but it had to be done. If we sat passively by, you know what the outcome would be.

Sometimes, aggression must be met with aggression. War is sometimes the answer, because if you don't do it, you condemn millions more to death. It's never black and white, and complete pacifism is almost always the wrong answer, because it's idealism over pragmatism.

You say the death of children is never acceptable - but what if you're considering the death of many more children as a result of inaction?

The lesser of 2 evils is still evil, think it was Gerry Garcia that said that, and it's true.