Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

that's my analysis, but it's a pretty obvious to reach that conclusion, isn't it. whether it's the IRA, the US in the middle east, Israel and the Palestinians - he always backs the little guy.

 

Fair enough it's what you're reading into it, but he didn't say it. His stock response in reality is always to call for restraint and to step back from violence. You can choose to interpret in the way you have, but it's not his stock response. It's your stock assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rayvin said:

 

I might as well vote Tory then.

I take your point about wanting someone who questions the hypocrisy of it all. It was more of a wider comment re: his lack of pragmatism though. He gets caught up in the minutiae of how important it is to be even handed with everyone. Even if it’s going to cost him lots of votes. It’s indicative of his failure to see the bigger picture imo. It all gets back to needing someone capable of winning before even being able to think about helping people and changing things. I’m pretty much in agreement with you about that being in large part because of the ridiculous way the electorate views issues like this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alex said:

I take your point about wanting someone who questions the hypocrisy of it all. It was more of a wider comment re: his lack of pragmatism though. He gets caught up in the minutiae of how important it is to be even handed with everyone. Even if it’s going to cost him lots of votes. It’s indicative of his failure to see the bigger picture imo. It all gets back to needing someone capable of winning before even being able to think about helping people and changing things. I’m pretty much in agreement with you about that being in large part because of the ridiculous way the electorate views issues like this. 

 

Tbh I overreacted a bit to that comment as I knew what you were getting at. And you're right. Even Gloom and ewerk are basically right. It just pisses me off that the truth is seen as a problem instead of something to aspire to.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Fair enough it's what you're reading into it, but he didn't say it. His stock response in reality is always to call for restraint and to step back from violence. You can choose to interpret in the way you have, but it's not his stock response. It's your stock assumption.

His stock response is to criticise the US and western allies and never to condemn terrorists on the receiving end. It doesn’t take a genius to work out why. 
 

We are still arguing about Corbyn 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

His stock response is to criticise the US and western allies and never to condemn terrorists on the receiving end. It doesn’t take a genius to work out why. 
 

We are still arguing about Corbyn 

 

I sometimes wonder what we expect these "terrorists" to do when we invade and destabilise their regions with reckless abandon. Bend over and take it?

 

If they were attacking us without provocation I would agree with you. But they aren't. They're attacking us because we have forced them to, and because they can't fight back conventionally because we have overwhelming force.

 

I don't get why this isn't more obvious. What would you have these countries do? Nothing?

Edited by Rayvin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ewerk said:

Ziegler. I maybe should have made that more clear.

 

I don't get the reference either way, sorry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I sometimes wonder what we expect these "terrorists" to do when we invade and destabilise their regions with reckless abandon. Bend over and take it?

 

If they were attacking us without provocation I would agree with you. But they aren't. They're attacking us because we have forced them to, and because they can't fight back conventionally because we have overwhelming force.

 

I don't get why this isn't more obvious. What would you have these countries do? Nothing?

i'm not saying i don't have sympathy for those on the receiving end. 

rayvin, walk with me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

i'm not saying i don't have sympathy for those on the receiving end. 

rayvin, walk with me. 

 

But what is it you think they should do? I mean you're basically saying we need to see both sides of this, which is fine, but I'm curious about how we can have sympathy for the US when it invades other countries and then is surprised when, rather than line up to get shot to pieces by high tech military hardware, the enemy forces instead hit them where it hurts - their civilians.

 

We would do exactly the same and would call it justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

But what is it you think they should do? I mean you're basically saying we need to see both sides of this, which is fine, but I'm curious about how we can have sympathy for the US when it invades other countries and then is surprised when, rather than line up to get shot to pieces by high tech military hardware, the enemy forces instead hit them where it hurts - their civilians.

 

We would do exactly the same and would call it justified.

i don't have an answer, sorry. i am not defending trump's strike here by the way - he's off his tits. all i'm saying is if a political leader wants to be taken seriously, they have to be able to answer that question. once again, corbyn couldn't bring himself to do so but, yet again, he didn't hesitate to attack those terrible US imperialists. it's interesting that he never attacks russian atrocities in the same way, isn't it - i wonder why that is? 

corbyn is an irrelevance now, increasingly so the longer he stays in office, so we really ought to knock this on the head. 

oh, and you're clearly not a west wing man

Edited by Dr Gloom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I'm getting none of these references, sorry :lol:

 

On Russia, Corbyn condemned the Salisbury attacks and said the evidence pointed towards Russia but, once again, that the UK should abide by international law and follow due process. Because he isn't a chest thumping psychopath. So you can wonder all you like, but the answer is that he has been consistent.

 

I'm trying to angle this away from Corbyn tbf as he is indeed irrelevant now, which is why i dropped him from the previous post altogether - but ultimately you mention "terrible US imperialists" as if it's some kind of exaggeration. It isn't. They are terrible. They are imperialists. And whenever someone in the middle east commits "an act of terror" against them, it's because they've been committing acts of terror themselves to provoke it.

 

No one should have any sympathy for the US at the state level. This is the price they pay for their foreign policy. No sympathy at all. Reap what they sow, etc etc. If they would just fuck off out of the region, Islamic terror would be far easier to hate on - except that very probably it would cease altogether.

 

The US creates these problems and then bitches on when it gets hit. They know exactly what they're doing and in any objective sense are the real bad guys in that region. Unless they know something the rest of us don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of planes, the Americans shot down an Iranian civilian plane in 1988, killing 290 people, 66 children.

 

How is that not an act of terror? They're utter bastards in foreign policy. Maybe it really is all necessary to keep us safe but i sincerely doubt it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dr Gloom said:

corbyn's response to sailsbury was pathetic and he was attacked by his own MPs for refusing to see what was blatant from the offset - that russia was behind it 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/14/jeremy-corbyn-under-fire-over-response-to-pms-russia-statement

pretty sure we argued about it at the time 

 

We did, and my view remains the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but let's have that argument again because we clearly can't get enough of it. 

Edited by Dr Gloom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No we're good, let's drop Corbyn. Nothing is gonna change on that front for either of us and I'm not minded to rehash Salisbury either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

On the subject of planes, the Americans shot down an Iranian civilian plane in 1988, killing 290 people, 66 children.

 

How is that not an act of terror? They're utter bastards in foreign policy. Maybe it really is all necessary to keep us safe but i sincerely doubt it.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7852265/BBC-World-Affairs-Editor-JOHN-SIMPSON-assassination-Qassem-Soleimani.html

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's surprisingly insightful from the Mail. If Iran does have some history in orchestrating things like Lockerbie then I guess we should expect a US official to be disappeared at some point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dianne Abbott backs RLB for leader and Richard Burgon for Deputy. :lol:

 

It's becoming increasingly difficult to defend this woman. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rayvin said:

That's surprisingly insightful from the Mail. If Iran does have some history in orchestrating things like Lockerbie then I guess we should expect a US official to be disappeared at some point.

 

I think we're looking at a wave of Iranian backed terrorism for the foreseeable future. Article is by John Simpson who knows his stuff but is also a self regarding ponce, perfect for the BBC..& the mail..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

 

I think we're looking at a wave of Iranian backed terrorism for the foreseeable future. Article is by John Simpson who knows his stuff but is also a self regarding ponce, perfect for the BBC..& the mail..

How can you say that? He liberated Kabul 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


Recent tweets

Toontastic Facebook

Donate to Toontastic

Keeping the lights on since... well ages ago
TT-Staff


×