Politics

[Renton 17973]

Just now, The Fish said:

Well, that depends on how far back you want to go, doesn't it?

 

I was wondering which smart arse would be first to come up with this.  Well done, and I still don't think it's true. 

[NJS 3989]

18 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

I get that you hate Starmer and Labour centrists as much as the Tories, but Howay man ffs, is this really called for.  Starmer said today "Alongside leaders around the world, I have called throughout for adherence to international law, for humanitarian pauses to allow access for aid, food, water, utilities and medicine, and have expressed our concerns at the scale of civilian casualties". The bastard! 

 

The issue with a ceasefire as I understand it is that it will keep Hamas in place. Personaliy, I am against that. Others may disagree. But what I do know is that it is not in the gift of anybody, least of all the leader of the opposition of an increasingly irrelevant island off the coast of Europe, to grant this. And tbh, it seems to me that most the Labour MPs who are so honourably breaking the whip are doing so I suspect because they have large Muslim populations in their constituency.

 

This is not the fault of the UK and we can't stop this. 

I've read several comments (some from supposed insiders) that he's basing the position entirely on following Biden so as not to rock that particular boat. 

 

Would you be okay if Trump was in and we followed whatever batshit response he had/will have? 

 

He's also point blank lying about restraint - he's on video from the start saying cutting off power and water is acceptable. 

 

 

[Renton 17973]

1 minute ago, NJS said:

I've read several comments (some from supposed insiders) that he's basing the position entirely on following Biden so as not to rock that particular boat. 

 

Would you be okay if Trump was in and we followed whatever batshit response he had/will have? 

 

He's also point blank lying about restraint - he's on video from the start saying cutting off power and water is acceptable. 

 

 

 

And he's rowed back on that, as I am absolutely sure you know, or you could just read the labour amendment today. So, to ask you a question, do you think it's acceptable for Hamas to stay in power? It's fine asking for a ceasefire but what happens afterwards? Anyway, wrong thread. 

[Alex 30698]

10 hours ago, spongebob toonpants said:

Even Macron, hardly a pillar if the left, has called for a ceasefire

 

Starmer is a gutless coward, terrified of the media and the electorate. 

 

The country needs a leader, he isn't one

I don’t think there’s a thing wrong with what Starmer said. As for Macron, doesn’t France traditionally have the largest Muslim population in Western Europe?

[Alex 30698]

11 hours ago, ewerk said:

It’s completely futile. A meaningless vote about an already decided topic that the U.K. aren’t even party to.

 

But a lot of people are asking Labour to stand up for what’s right and what is right is a ceasefire. Both sides have inflicted plenty of deaths on the other. Further deaths won’t change a thing.

 

Starmer is right in that you can’t influence anything unless you’re in power but what’s the point in being in power unless you stand for something.

What’s the point in getting drawn into demanding a ceasefire? It’s the left in the main calling for it, many of whom would prefer Corbyn. The right, meanwhile would jump all over it. Not because they care about it but because they could use it against him, aided and abetted by the Mail et al. His nuanced, considered response is clever and the right one imo. Whether that’s playing the game (because that’s the only way to win) or whether it’s what he actually thinks. 

[RobinRobin 9354]

 

[RobinRobin 9354]

44 minutes ago, Alex said:

What’s the point in getting drawn into demanding a ceasefire? It’s the left in the main calling for it, many of whom would prefer Corbyn. The right, meanwhile would jump all over it. Not because they care about it but because they could use it against him, aided and abetted by the Mail et al. His nuanced, considered response is clever and the right one imo. Whether that’s playing the game (because that’s the only way to win) or whether it’s what he actually thinks. 

Meanwhile... 

 

[spongebob toonpants 3629]

10 hours ago, Renton said:

 

And he's rowed back on that, as I am absolutely sure you know, or you could just read the labour amendment today. So, to ask you a question, do you think it's acceptable for Hamas to stay in power? It's fine asking for a ceasefire but what happens afterwards? Anyway, wrong thread. 

Hamas are never going to be beaten by bombs, unless they completely remove all Palestinians from Gaza, which means genocide.

I don't have an answer but I'm pretty sure killing Palestinians isn't it

[Howmanheyman 27347]

This Rwanda business.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Renton 17973]

55 minutes ago, spongebob toonpants said:

Hamas are never going to be beaten by bombs, unless they completely remove all Palestinians from Gaza, which means genocide.

I don't have an answer but I'm pretty sure killing Palestinians isn't it

 

So since the position of Hamas, written in their charter, is the elimination of Israel, if you are correct and they cannot be defeated, then yes, we have an unsolvable problem don't we? In these circumstances I am forced to be more sympathetic to the jewish people of Israel, whatever injustices they have committed historically and presently, because Hamas are a literal existential threat to them. By implication, you have broadened that to the people of Palestine more generally. If two groups cannot co-exist then the only outcome can be the stronger group will eliminate the weaker one.

Personally, I disagree and think Hamas can be eliminated. What happens next for the governance of Gaza is then crucial, but we have to take islamic zealotry out the equation somehow (and the equivalent on the jewish side). Northern Ireland, obviously to a much lesser extent, shows what can be done with the right leaders. 

 

[spongebob toonpants 3629]

7 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

So since the position of Hamas, written in their charter, is the elimination of Israel, if you are correct and they cannot be defeated, then yes, we have an unsolvable problem don't we? In these circumstances I am forced to be more sympathetic to the jewish people of Israel, whatever injustices they have committed historically and presently, because Hamas are a literal existential threat to them. By implication, you have broadened that to the people of Palestine more generally. If two groups cannot co-exist then the only outcome can be the stronger group will eliminate the weaker one.

Personally, I disagree and think Hamas can be eliminated. What happens next for the governance of Gaza is then crucial, but we have to take islamic zealotry out the equation somehow (and the equivalent on the jewish side). Northern Ireland, obviously to a much lesser extent, shows what can be done with the right leaders. 

 

If the British government had started bombing the fuck out of the Catholic areas in Northern Ireland would that have any chance of stopping the IRA. I don't think it would, I think it would have created more "terrorists"

Only talk can stop this - or genocide, and I'm guessing if Gaza gets completely levelled a few of the surrounding Arab countries would become a problem 

Edited November 16, 2023 by spongebob toonpants

[Renton 17973]

5 minutes ago, spongebob toonpants said:

If the British government had started bombing the fuck out of the Catholic areas in Northern Ireland would that have any chance of stopping the IRA. I don't think it would, I think it would have created more "terrorists"

Only talk can stop this - or genocide, and I'm guessing if Gaza gets completely levelled a few of the surrounding Arab countries would become a problem 

 

Fair point, probably daft making NI comparisons, although we have been a lot closer to peace in in Israel in the past. I just don't see how you can negotiate with people who have your elimination as the main part of their charter? This is from wiki, but presumably accurate "The Covenant [Hamas] proclaims that Israel will exist until Islam obliterates it, and jihad against Jews is required until Judgement Day". Palestinian kids indoctinated with this shit have no chance, as if the bombing weren't enough. 

The root cause of this is yet again religion. Centuries of war in the Middle East in people who believe in the same Abrahamic sky fairy. And it pollutes everything, even our own politics as last night showed, draining bandwidth away from our own problems. Anyway, this has come up on this thread because of the Labour rebels. My contention is they are in the wrong and Starmer is not a "hoop licker" of people committing genocide. I believe Starmer and indeed Biden are trying to defuse the situation the best they can. 

[Rayvin 4964]

I believe that the Americans will eventually call for a ceasefire but only once the numbers of dead become truly incredible. Which will mean they've priced in an acceptable body count for Israel and are essentially enabling a revenge fantasy. If Israel somehow successfully "wins" here then I will admit I was wrong in this judgement, but if they're forced into an eventual climbdown due to the numbers of dead then there will be no redeeming Biden in my eyes because he will have known that this outcome was inevitable from day 1, and chose to let tens of thousands of people die first.

 

I don't include Starmer in this because he is a total irrelevance who barely exists even in the British political landscape, let alone the international one.

[NJS 3989]

Starmer will be PM when the next US president takes office. At the moment that will likely be Trump. If Starmer supports Israel and the US to the current degree he'll be party to proper genocide.

 

He could take a stand now but his default position on absolutely everything is to not rock the boat. That's why nothing will change when he comes to power. 

[Renton 17973]

1 hour ago, NJS said:

Starmer will be PM when the next US president takes office. At the moment that will likely be Trump. If Starmer supports Israel and the US to the current degree he'll be party to proper genocide.

 

He could take a stand now but his default position on absolutely everything is to not rock the boat. That's why nothing will change when he comes to power. 

 

You're now actually accusing Starmer as being party to genocide in some ficticious future? Just wow. If/when Starmer and Trump get in, which looks likely, I know where you will direct your ire.  How about the stance your man Corbyn took in that interview with Morgan? Honestly, he turns my stomach now, not in some hypothetical future.

 

See what I desperately don't want is for religion to become another fucking wedge issue in our politics, which is what the Labout left are doing, knowingly or not. Labour MP who voted with her leader now getting threatened on twitter and having demonstrations against her office. Even the fact we're discussing this on this thread and not the ME one proves the point. 

 

 

[Renton 17973]

1 hour ago, Rayvin said:

I believe that the Americans will eventually call for a ceasefire but only once the numbers of dead become truly incredible. Which will mean they've priced in an acceptable body count for Israel and are essentially enabling a revenge fantasy. If Israel somehow successfully "wins" here then I will admit I was wrong in this judgement, but if they're forced into an eventual climbdown due to the numbers of dead then there will be no redeeming Biden in my eyes because he will have known that this outcome was inevitable from day 1, and chose to let tens of thousands of people die first.

 

I don't include Starmer in this because he is a total irrelevance who barely exists even in the British political landscape, let alone the international one.

 

You genuinely think Biden wants innocent Palestinians killed to get an "acceptable body count"? I really hope you are wrong. 

[NJS 3989]

Corbyn was an idiot in playing into Morgan's hands as Hamas are terrorists. 

 

Then again so were the ANC, both flavours of opponent in Zimbabwe,  those who opposed the British in Kenya and Malaysia and indeed Ben Gurion and his mates. 

 

Also too many people in the US and indeed Ireland define the IRA as legitimate rebels. 

 

It's funny how the states in those cases (mostly the British) who killed many times more people than the terrorists are never brought to justice. 

[Renton 17973]

But why didn't he just admit they were terrorists? We're not even talking bog standard European Irish or Spanish terrorists here, we're talking about hate-filled ISIS inspired jihadist baby killing terrorists here. Anf he couldn't bring himself to say it, after 15 repeated questions. He's fucking well managed to make Piers Morgan look the reasonable one. 

Honestly, maybe I am naive, but I just don't see an ounce of badness in either Starmer or Biden. I don't always agree with their policies, but to equate them to genoicde enablers is just incredibly wrong. Fwiw I don't think Corbbyn is evil either, he's just a stubborn, blinkered fool with relatively little intellect or political nouse. And he is clearly anti-semitic. 

Edited November 16, 2023 by Renton

[Alex 30698]

Hamas killed almost as many civilians in 24 hours as were killed in several decades in the Troubles. Israel have killed several times more (in the preceding 20 years) and in the weeks since. I am not for a second seeking to condone / justify Israel’s response. But a huge response to what Hamas did was inevitable. It’s the worse slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust. As I’ve mentioned previously I don’t see anything wrong in the response from Starmer in relation to the call for a ceasefire. There’s nothing to be gained at all and plenty for his opponents to use against him. I have loads of issues with the bloke and his (lack of) leadership over things he can influence. But I find a lot of the criticism of him over this on here quite bizarre tbh. 

[PaddockLad 14795]

 

[Renton 17973]

Meanwhile more draconian measure introduced for unemployed people (following cutting PIP for disabled people last week). Just said on the radio now they are going to remove free prescriptions for the unemployed too.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/16/unemployed-benefits-in-jeremy-hunt-autumn-statement

 

But let's focus on the wording of clause which will not make a single iota of difference anyway I guess. 

Edited November 16, 2023 by Renton

[Alex 30698]

11 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

 

Does that stupid, angry, on the verge of a seizure cunt realise who makes the law? 

[Dr Gloom 19990]

20 hours ago, NJS said:

Should have called it the "stop newborn babies dying when their incubators are deliberately starved of fuel cessation" vote. 

 

68% of Americans and  66% of UK voters support a ceasefire so they could have least I dunno reflected public opinion?

 

No they're smarter and know better. Licking the hoops of genociders because they want to stay lapdogs of the US. 

 

 

 

 

Hamas is committed to genocide 

 

 

 

[Dr Gloom 19990]

3 hours ago, NJS said:

Starmer will be PM when the next US president takes office. At the moment that will likely be Trump. If Starmer supports Israel and the US to the current degree he'll be party to proper genocide.

 

He could take a stand now but his default position on absolutely everything is to not rock the boat. That's why nothing will change when he comes to power. 

don’t know where to start with this tbh

[Dr Gloom 19990]

1 hour ago, Alex said:

Hamas killed almost as many civilians in 24 hours as were killed in several decades in the Troubles. Israel have killed several times more (in the preceding 20 years) and in the weeks since. I am not for a second seeking to condone / justify Israel’s response. But a huge response to what Hamas did was inevitable. It’s the worse slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust. As I’ve mentioned previously I don’t see anything wrong in the response from Starmer in relation to the call for a ceasefire. There’s nothing to be gained at all and plenty for his opponents to use against him. I have loads of issues with the bloke and his (lack of) leadership over things he can influence. But I find a lot of the criticism of him over this on here quite bizarre tbh. 

Even more bizarre are the well meaning lefties who think Hamas are remotely interested in a ceasefire