What Are You ?

[Bazile]

According to the Prime Minister , those MP's who don't vote for going into Syria, are terrorist sympathisers .

So by extension , those of you who also do not agree with going into Syria must also be terrorist sympathisers - right ?

[Bazile]

//But not the same quote as the OP. Not even nearly the same. //


My post was not in quotation marks

[New Judge]

Let’s not muddy the waters. From the original question:

“According to the Prime Minister , those MP's who don't vote for going into Syria, are terrorist sympathisers .”

No mention of Mr Corbyn. Only “…those MP’s who don’t vote for going into Syria…”

I mentioned Mr Corbyn. My agreement with him (and that won’t happen too often) was following his numerous attempts to get the Prime Minister to apologise for calling some MPs who fail to agree with him “terrorist sympathisers”.

So now on to Mr Cameron’s quote (about which I believe there is no dispute):

“You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers,”

It certainly does not portray Mr Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser. But it certainly does portray some of those MPs who walk through the lobby with him in that light.

So really it’s a question of “all peas are green but not everything that’s green is a pea” (as my old Biology master once drummed into me). Certainly not all those going through the “No” lobby are terrorist sympathisers but, likely as not, all terrorist sympathisers will pass through the “No” lobby. But Mr Cameron’s ill chosen phrase was almost certainly designed to give the impression that those voting against his proposals were terrorist sympathisers. And it seems he has succeeded.

[naomi24]

NJ, I disagree. It doesn't indicate to me that he thinks anyone who votes against airstrikes is a terrorist sympathiser. It does, however, imply that he thinks Mr Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser - and I agree with him.

[Bazile]

//Let’s not muddy the waters. From the original question: //

Exactly NJ - I was about to come back on whether what he said was any different in reality to what i posted

[naomi24]

It was - clearly.

[Bazile]

My interpretation was clearly not , in my opinion

So we will have to agree to disagree .

[naomi24]

//You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers,” //

What is so difficult to understand about that? There is no 'extension' as you suggest.

[Bazile]

i'm having no difficulty understanding anything

As stated by New Judge //Mr Cameron’s ill chosen phrase was almost certainly designed to give the impression that those voting against his proposals were terrorist sympathisers. And it seems he has succeeded.//

So if those mp's ( who are also members of the general public ) are terrorist sympathisers , then Joe Bloogs who don't agree with the proposal must also be terrorist sympathisers

That's my opinion - you have yours - fine - i'm not going to labour the point .

[naomi24]

Explain to me how that sentence gives that impression.

[mikey4444]

It was a disgraceful thing to say.

[naomi24]

Why?

[Baldric]

Naomi, can I have a go at explaining?

I think it only gives that impression if your a L̶̷e̶̷f̶̷t̶̷i̶̷e̶̷ Labour Supporter still smarting from the Election Results!

[naomi24]

Oh, right. Thanks. Now why didn't I think of that? Tut!

[Bazile]

//I think it only gives that impression if your a L̶̷e̶̷f̶̷t̶̷i̶̷e̶̷ Labour Supporter still smarting from the Election Results!//

Really ?
Oh how mistaken you are .

[Hypognosis]

@Bazile

Oddly enough, I thought Cameron was well behind the game and that Answerbankers had equated "no airstrikes" with "terrorist sympathiser" several days ago?

[tamborine]

Why waste an important debate on an off the cuff remark made privately.

We're on the brink of WW3, fgs

[Bazile]

Tell that to Gordon Brown

[tamborine]

Gordon Brown's remark was broadcast. Dave's has yet to be proved.

[Bazile]

Well i don't see Tory spokepersons , lining up to deny it

[New Judge]

“It doesn't indicate to me that he thinks anyone who votes against airstrikes is a terrorist sympathiser. It does, however, imply that he thinks Mr Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser”

I cannot see how you can say that, Naomi (not just from the quoted words, anyway).

There was no direct connection between Corbyn and terrorist sympathisers. I’ll quote again:

“You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers”

Not Jeremy Corbyn and OTHER terrorist sympathisers. Imagine “You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and the Dagenham Girl Pipers”. That would not indicate that Jeremy Corbyn is a Dagenham Girl Piper would it?

All rather a question of semantics. However, the immediate impression I got when reading the quoted statement was that any MP who voted against the proposals must be suspected of terrorist sympathy. Otherwise why mention “terrorist sympathisers”? It is quite an easy step to take from that impression to the impression that some of Joe Public who object to the action must also have terrorist sympathies. People have all sorts of reasons to object to this proposed action from the humanitarian (however “smart” the bombing is, innocent people will be killed) to the purely practical (it will not actually achieve its stated aim, which is my viewpoint). None of those people necessarily are terrorist sympathisers. I know Mr Cameron was only talking about MPs when he made his comment and I have no time either for Mr Corbyn or terrorist sympathisers but there was simply no need to mention terrorist sympathisers at all. As has been demonstrated here his comment was likely to lead to misunderstanding. His proposal should stand (or fall) on its own merit without the need for insults.