UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
UK and North American politics. => A look at British politics in the light of the decision to leave the EU. => Topic started by: faithlilly on January 12, 2020, 12:53:12 AM
-
An excellent opinion piece from a life long Tory on Johnson’s capacity for lying and why he can’t be trusted.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/11/peter-oborne-s-diary-boris-johnson-s-nhs-lies-my-bulging-dossier-deceit-and
And Osborne’s list of Johnson’s lies.
https://boris-johnson-lies.com/
Does honesty in politics really not matter anymore and if it does why are we prepared to stomach Johnson’s terminal dishonesty ?
-
IMO, of course it is important that politicians should be honest, and I doubt that Boris is the only one who has lied.
Why are we wiling to put up with him? Many of us are not, but he won the election, so we have no choice--------unfortunately.
-
Pertinent here too.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/opinion/the-conservative-party-anti-semitism-crisis-nobody-talks-about/06/12/#.Xh2StSyehxk.facebook
-
Pertinent here too.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/opinion/the-conservative-party-anti-semitism-crisis-nobody-talks-about/06/12/#.Xh2StSyehxk.facebook
No, because people can’t get over the letterbox comment, it’s kind of boring now. We expect Tories to be vile racist pigs though don’t we? It’s a given, so less commentworthy than when a right on, politically correct, inclusive “hasn’t-got-a-racist-bone-in-his-body” saint like JC turns a blind eye to it in his own party. IMO.
-
No, because people can’t get over the letterbox comment, it’s kind of boring now. We expect Tories to be vile racist pigs though don’t we? It’s a given, so less commentworthy than when a right on, politically correct, inclusive “hasn’t-got-a-racist-bone-in-his-body” saint like JC turns a blind eye to it in his own party. IMO.
Turns a blind eye ? So far as leader he has put new procedures in place to deal with any claims of [ censored word]emitism quicker and has also mounted an investigation into the subject. That you and the vested interests don’t feel that that’s enough is for you to deal with.
-
Turns a blind eye ? So far as leader he has put new procedures in place to deal with any claims of [ censored word]emitism quicker and has also mounted an investigation into the subject. That you and the vested interests don’t feel that that’s enough is for you to deal with.
Yes, turned a blind eye, didn’t act fast enough or firmly enough. Dilly-dallied. Weak, ineffectual leadership but, hey, this thread is about Boris isn’t it? I don’t have to deal with anything, Labour do. Sort it out!!
-
Yes, turned a blind eye, didn’t act fast enough or firmly enough. Dilly-dallied. Weak, ineffectual leadership but, hey, this thread is about Boris isn’t it? I don’t have to deal with anything, Labour do. Sort it out!!
Mmmmmm....not according to many Jewish members of the U.K.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/20/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-crucial-ally-in-fight-against-[ censored word]emitism
Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour is a crucial ally in the fight against [ censored word]emitism
Over 200 Jewish members and supporters of the Labour party sign a letter urging that anyone seeking an end to bigotry and racism should back Labour and Corbyn
Letters
Wed 20 Feb 2019 18.39 GMT Last modified on Sat 23 Feb 2019 21.12 GMT
Shares
11,197
Jeremy Corbyn
Jeremy Corbyn. ‘Labour governments introduced both the anti-racist and human rights legislation of the 20th century and the 2010 Equalities Act.’ Photograph: Matthew Horwood/Getty
You report (19 February) that a number of implacably anti-Corbyn MPs have left the Labour party alleging a failed “approach to dealing with [ censored word]emitism”, with Luciana Berger criticising Labour for becoming “sickeningly institutionally racist”.
We are Jewish members and supporters of the Labour party concerned about the current rise of reactionary ideologies, including [ censored word]emitism, in Britain and elsewhere across Europe.
We note the worrying growth of populist rightwing parties, encouraging racism, Islamophobia and [ censored word]emitism. In Britain the far right is whipping up these prejudices, a threat that requires a resolute and energetic response. But instead we have seen a disproportionate focus on [ censored word]emitism on the left, which is abhorrent but relatively rare.
Advertisement
We believe that the Labour party under the progressive leadership of Jeremy Corbyn is a crucial ally in the fight against bigotry and reaction. His lifetime record of campaigning for equality and human rights, including consistent support for initiatives against [ censored word]emitism, is formidable. His involvement strengthens this struggle.
Labour governments introduced both the anti-racist and human rights legislation of the 20th century and the 2010 Equalities Act. A Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn will be a powerful force to fight against racism, Islamophobia and [ censored word]emitism.
It is in this context that we welcome the Labour party’s endorsement of freedom of expression on Israel and on the rights of Palestinians. Labour is correct to recognise that while prejudice against Jewish people is deplorable, criticism of Israel’s government and policies can and must be made.
Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more
We urge all who wish to see an end to bigotry and racism, and who seek a more just society, to give their support to the Labour party.
Prof Elizabeth Dore
Prof David Epstein
Prof Gene Feder
Mike Leigh
Prof Mica Nava
Prof Michael Rosen
Prof Donald Sassoon
Prof Avi Shlaim
Gillian Slovo
Prof Annabelle Sreberny
Walter Wolfgang
Prof John Yudkin
John Abraham
Kate Adams
Rebecca Amiel
Ruth Appleton
Tasha Barlow
Graham Bash
Dr Shereen Benjamin
Jeremy Bernhaut
Frances Bernstein
Dr Jon Berry
Cllr Jo Bird
Rica Bird
Frank Black
Jay Blackwood
Pamela Blakelock
Alice Bondi
Tony Booth
Jenny Malca Brown
Peter Buckman
Andy Burkitt
Erica Burman
Samuel Burrowes
Keith Burstein
Rose Challands
Brian Chinnery
Eve Cina
Andrew Clifford
Emma Clyne
Jonathan Clyne
Mike Cohen
Ron Cohen
Amnon Cohen
Ruth Cohen
Kathy Cohn
Rita Craft
Judith Cravitz
Prof. David Curtis
Mike Cushman
Miriam David
Steven Davidson
Hilary De Santos
Alan Deadman
Greg Douglas
Elizabeth Dresner
Linda Edmondson
Ros Edwards
David Einhorn
Mark Elf
Michael Ellman
Prof Debbie Epstein
Javier Farje
Pia Feig
Jack George Field
Arye Finkle
Nick Foster
Roisin Francis
Esther Freeman
Debbie Friedman
Danny Friedman
Kenny Fryde
Carolyn Gelenter
Mike Gerber
Vicki Gilbert
René Gimpel
Prof. Jane Ginsborg
Claire Glasman
Murray Glickman
David Goldberg
Paul Goldman
Simon Goodman
John Goodman
Peter Gorbach
Tony Graham
Rosalind Grainger
Alice Gray
Ilse Gray
Elleanne Green
Heinz Grünewald
Ash Hardenne
Alison Harris
Jeanne Heal
Prof Susan Himmelweit
Andrew Hornung
Katharine Hoskyns
Mike Howard
Jonathan Hyams
Selma James
Lin James
Riva Joffe
Ann Jungman
Michael Kalmanovitz
L Sasha Kaplin
Stephen Kapos
Jenny Kassman
Richard Keidan
Monash Kessler
Jenny King
Godfrey King
Katherina Kohler
Simon Korner
Dr Agnes Kory
Debbie Krantz
Richard Kuper
Jon Kurta
Prof Frank Land
Michelle Laufer
Pam Laurance
Daniel Laverick
Mike Layward
Dr Sydney Leaman
Joanna Leigh
Jessica Leschnikoff
Cllr Leah Levane
Rachel Lever
John Lipetz
Robert Lizar
Ruth Lukom
Simon Lynn
Deborah Maccoby
Dorothy Macedo
Nikki Mailer
Jenny Manson
Jessica Manson
Helen Marks
Stephen Marks
Gillian McCall
Jeff McCracken-Hewson
Terence McGinity
Ros Meadow
Rita Mendelson
Dr Heather Mendick
Angie Mindel
Prof David Mond
Diana Neslen
David Nissen
Gary Ostrolenk
Jonathan Parish
Susan Pashkoff
Helen Pearson
Jacob Prager
Caroline Raine
Reuben Ramsay
Roland Rance
Tom Reed
Jenny Richardson
Siôn Rickard
Prof Marion Roberts
Prof Jonathan Rosenhead
Benny Ross
Carolyn Roth
Richard Saffron
Esther Saraga
Ian Saville
Monika Schwartz
Josepha Scotney
Mike Scott
Amanda Sebestyen
Glyn Secker
Jenny Secretan
Irene Sedler
Marian Sedley
Ruth Selwyn
Brian Shade
Janet Silver
Liz Silver
Ludi Simpson
Pam Singer
Mark Smithson
Stephen Solley QC
David Sperlinger
Ruth Steigman
Dr Alexandra Stein
Adrian Stern
Martin Stevenson
Benny Talbot
Deborah Talmi
Inbar Tamari
Norman Traub
Tessa van Gelderen
Daniel Vulliamy
Brian Warshaw
Sam Weinstein
Charlotte Prager Williams
George Wilmers
Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi
Debbie Windley
Roy Wolfe
Miriam Yagud
Dr Gillian Yudkin
-
There will always turkeys who vote for Christmas IMO. I suppose the views of all the Jews who left the party or who spoke out against Corbyn or who were racially abused by other Labour members or who encountered [ censored word]emitism within the party don’t count.
-
There will always turkeys who vote for Christmas IMO. I suppose the views of all the Jews who left the party or who spoke out against Corbyn or who were racially abused by other Labour members or who encountered [ censored word]emitism within the party don’t count.
Name them....as I have ? ( please exclude those with preexisting ties to Israel- friendly groups or organisations ).
BTW are you suggesting that the Jewish people mentioned in my post are too stupid not to recognise they are part of a party which tolerates ant-semitism ? Isn’t that anti-Semitic in itself ?
-
I was hoping not to have to comment, but Jew hating makes me sick to my stomach. I will never be able to understand this.
But never mind eh! We don't all feel like that.
-
I was hoping not to have to comment, but Jew hating makes me sick to my stomach. I will never be able to understand this.
But never mind eh! We don't all feel like that.
I will never understand any kind of racism.
-
I was hoping not to have to comment, but Jew hating makes me sick to my stomach. I will never be able to understand this.
But never mind eh! We don't all feel like that.
[ censored word]emitism might by now have been a thing of the past, had the Nazis won.
-
I will never understand any kind of racism.
And I believe that you don't. But defining Racism is very difficult, and only too often something as seen as Racism when it actually isn't.
We demean the whole thing without much thought.
I have always been a little on the brown side. My skin is darker than most English people, but then my father looked like a Ghurka. And never anyone more Irish than he was.
I have always been a bit pleased to be a bit more brown. Crass by half, eh what.
-
Name them....as I have ? ( please exclude those with preexisting ties to Israel- friendly groups or organisations ).
BTW are you suggesting that the Jewish people mentioned in my post are too stupid not to recognise they are part of a party which tolerates ant-semitism ? Isn’t that anti-Semitic in itself ?
Of course it’s not anti-semitic, or explain exactly why it is, then explain why it is not anti-semitic to criticise Jews who left the Labour Party on the grounds of [ censored word]emitism while you’re at it..
You want the names of every Jew who quit the Labour Party because of anti-semitism, but on your terms only?? That’s very reasonable I’m sure. @)(++(*
-
Of course it’s not anti-semitic, or explain exactly why it is, then explain why it is not anti-semitic to criticise Jews who left the Labour Party on the grounds of [ censored word]emitism while you’re at it..
You want the names of every Jew who quit the Labour Party because of anti-semitism, but on your terms only?? That’s very reasonable I’m sure. @)(++(*
The amount that I have posted who support Corbyn and the Labour Party will do.
-
Don’t you ever get sick of this childish name calling ? Are we really not better than that too ?
I think anyone who takes time to write in favour of Nazis and extermination of the Jews on a public forum deliberately to goad and stir things up can rightly be described as a childish prat. I certainly do not feel ashamed of doing so and don’t need any lectures from you on the rights and wrongs of online name calling.
-
The amount that I have posted who support Corbyn and the Labour Party will do.
No it won’t. I can post information showing far greater numbers than you have posted of Jews dissatisfied with Labour and its handling of [ censored word]emitism and you will 100% certainly find some reason to disqualify it .
-
I think anyone who takes time to write in favour of Nazis and extermination of the Jews on a public forum deliberately to goad and stir things up can rightly be described as a childish prat. I certainly do not feel ashamed of doing so and don’t need any lectures from you on the rights and wrongs of online name calling.
I’m sure you don’t feel ashamed or you wouldn’t do it....I’m just of the opinion that if you start name calling instead of debating like adults it’s a sure sign you lost the argument.
-
No it won’t. I can post information showing far greater numbers than you have posted of Jews dissatisfied with Labour and its handling of [ censored word]emitism and you will 100% certainly find some reason to disqualify it .
Go on then....I promise I’ll look on your post with the seriousness it deserves.
-
I hope you’re better than this WS.
One of my favourite films is Schindlers List.
Actually made me cry when I saw it.
Liam Neeson deserved an Oscar.
Epic film, nothing else I've seen comes close.
-
One of my favourite films is Schindlers List.
Actually made me cry when I saw it.
Liam Neeson deserved an Oscar.
Epic film, nothing else I've seen comes close.
I was at the British premiere of that film. Spielberg was there (he introduced the film), as were several holocaust survivors. It’s a shame you feel the need to write some of the offensive dross you come out with, is there a particular reason for it?
-
Possibly of topic but is today the first of April?
I've just read two headlines
Daily Mail
1. Boris is contemplating moving the House of Lords to York and building a new , no doubt, expensive building to accommodate this second chamber of government?
The Telegraph.
2. Jeremy Corbyn has recommended John Bercow for a peerage?
Just to add that I don't buy any newspapers but scan online headlines and read some articles but don't take seriously much that I read.
-
Possibly of topic but is today the first of April?
I've just read two headlines
Daily Mail
1. Boris is contemplating moving the House of Lords to York and building a new , no doubt, expensive building to accommodate this second chamber of government?
The Telegraph.
2. Jeremy Corbyn has recommended John Bercow for a peerage?
Just to add that I don't buy any newspapers but scan online headlines and read some articles but don't take seriously much that I read.
Yes, I read those too. The first one is a Boris fantasy, the second is cronyism, Tom Watson (the despicable toad) has also been nominated. Yeuch. Abolish the lot of them!
-
Yes, I read those too. The first one is a Boris fantasy, the second is cronyism, Tom Watson (the despicable toad) has also been nominated. Yeuch. Abolish the lot of them!
Your "Abolish" suggestion seems to be the popular option.
I won't repeat where my hubby suggested moving the lot of them !!
-
Yes, I read those too. The first one is a Boris fantasy, the second is cronyism, Tom Watson (the despicable toad) has also been nominated. Yeuch. Abolish the lot of them!
Not sure how Corbyn’s suggestion can be called cronyism....isn’t it simply following tradition? Bercow is the only former speaker not to have been given a peerage in 230 years. The decision smells of pique rather than cronyism...or perhaps Boris is [ censored word]emitic ?
I do agree with you however about the HoL .
-
An excellent opinion piece from a life long Tory on Johnson’s capacity for lying and why he can’t be trusted.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/11/peter-oborne-s-diary-boris-johnson-s-nhs-lies-my-bulging-dossier-deceit-and
And Osborne’s list of Johnson’s lies.
https://boris-johnson-lies.com/
Does honesty in politics really not matter anymore and if it does why are we prepared to stomach Johnson’s terminal dishonesty ?
Lying and politics aren`t mutually exclusive. In fact I would say you can't have one without the other. Politicians must be among the most untrustworthy people in our country.
-
I was hoping not to have to comment, but Jew hating makes me sick to my stomach. I will never be able to understand this.
But never mind eh! We don't all feel like that.
It's a Palestinian thing Eleanor. Corbyn has a record of supporting anti Israeli terrorist groups in the Middle East and elsewhere and that is another reason why grassroot card-carrying Labour supporters wouldn't vote for him in the recent General Election.
IMO, voting in Sir Keir Starmer to replace him will cost them the next election too.
-
It's a Palestinian thing Eleanor. Corbyn has a record of supporting anti Israeli terrorist groups in the Middle East and elsewhere and that is another reason why grassroot card-carrying Labour supporters wouldn't vote for him in the recent General Election.
IMO, voting in Sir Keir Starmer to replace him will cost them the next election too.
My, my the propaganda really does get everywhere.
-
It's a Palestinian thing Eleanor. Corbyn has a record of supporting anti Israeli terrorist groups in the Middle East and elsewhere and that is another reason why grassroot card-carrying Labour supporters wouldn't vote for him in the recent General Election.
IMO, voting in Sir Keir Starmer to replace him will cost them the next election too.
I agree, they might as well keep Corbyn if they vote in Keir Starmer because he is cut from the same cloth. The inner circle will vote for Starmer but he will never represent Labour voters outside of London. Labour is unelectable and long may it last... Sock it to them Boris @)(++(* @)(++(* 8@??)(
-
My, my the propaganda really does get everywhere.
“Corbyn has a record of supporting anti Israeli terrorist groups in the Middle East and elsewhere” is a fact, not propaganda.
-
I agree, they might as well keep Corbyn if they vote in Keir Starmer because he is cut from the same cloth. The inner circle will vote for Starmer but he will never represent Labour voters outside of London. Labour is unelectable and long may it last... Sock it to them Boris @)(++(* @)(++(* 8@??)(
Why is Labour so popular in London?
Is it just the number of voters who live there?
How many Conservative MPs representing London constituencies are there?
Why is Labour now unelectable in Scotland in so far as Westminster is concerned?
Why is the Conservative party unelectable in Scotland/in so far as.Westminster is concerned?
-
Why is Labour so popular in London?
Is it just the number of voters who live there?
How many Conservative MPs representing London constituencies are there?
Why is Labour now unelectable in Scotland in so far as Westminster is concerned?
Why is the Conservative party unelectable in Scotland/in so far as.Westminster is concerned?
Labour is popular with the young and with people of BAME heritage especially Muslims, both demographics largely represented in certain parts of London, that’s one reason.
-
Labour is popular with the young and with people of BAME heritage especially Muslims, both demographics largely represented in certain parts of London, that’s one reason.
I can understand the swing from Labour in the regions of England who voted for Brexit.
However still trying to figure out the total loss of the Labour vote here.
My own opinion is that many voted SNP in protest against the extremes of both Labour and Conservative parties.
Three brothers in law who were totally Labour voters voted SNP and are hoping for independence ??
It will be an interesting few years.
I read that Boris, once he has Brexit sorted, is going to pay a few visits to Scotland to promote the Union.
That will really work!
-
“Corbyn has a record of supporting anti Israeli terrorist groups in the Middle East and elsewhere” is a fact, not propaganda.
Corbyn has made many, many speeches, perhaps you can quote any part of one where he has given his support to any terrorist group ( dear God please not the Hamas quote again ! ).
-
I can understand the swing from Labour in the regions of England who voted for Brexit.
However still trying to figure out the total loss of the Labour vote here.
My own opinion is that many voted SNP in protest against the extremes of both Labour and Conservative parties.
Three brothers in law who were totally Labour voters voted SNP and are hoping for independence ??
It will be an interesting few years.
I read that Boris, once he has Brexit sorted, is going to pay a few visits to Scotland to promote the Union.
That will really work!
Perhaps it really is just about Independence ?
-
Corbyn has made many, many speeches, perhaps you can quote any part of one where he has given his support to any terrorist group ( dear God please not the Hamas quote again ! ).
How about you point to all the times he has invited members of the Israeli government and loyalist paramilitary groups to have tea with him at the HoC, how many times he has outright condemned acts of terrorism against us and our allies without in the next breath wagging the finger of blame at ourselves and our allies for supposedly bringing it upon themselves, equivocate, equivocate, equivocate, deflect, deflect, deflect. Corbyn supports Palestine and despises Israel, but you don’t think he supports Hamas? Gimme a break.
-
Perhaps it really is just about Independence ?
Perhaps it is.
-
How about you point to all the times he has invited members of the Israeli government and loyalist paramilitary groups to have tea with him at the HoC, how many times he has outright condemned acts of terrorism against us and our allies without in the next breath wagging the finger of blame at ourselves and our allies for supposedly bringing it upon themselves, equivocate, equivocate, equivocate, deflect, deflect, deflect. Corbyn supports Palestine and despises Israel, but you don’t think he supports Hamas? Gimme a break.
No quote then ?
-
No quote then ?
As I said Jeremy always equivocates - it’s always “ we condemn the Manchester bombing, but we also condemn the stabbing of a Muslim outside a Mosque”. It’s alway always qualified, or the issue deflected to remind us that we’re the bad guys. Look at his recent speech for CND.
-
For someone who started this thread to discuss Boris and his lies, you’re not doing very well at keeping it on topic! Instead it’s turned into another thread about Yesterday’s Man. He’s history. Let’s move on.
-
As I said Jeremy always equivocates - it’s always “ we condemn the Manchester bombing, but we also condemn the stabbing of a Muslim outside a Mosque”. It’s alway always qualified, or the issue deflected to remind us that we’re the bad guys. Look at his recent speech for CND.
So no direct quote again.
Are you really trying to suggest that when he links the heightened risk of terrorist attacks with our foreign policy decisions he isn’t telling the truth ? What is unpatriotic about that ?
-
So no direct quote again.
Are you really trying to suggest that when he links the heightened risk of terrorist attacks with our foreign policy decisions he isn’t telling the truth ? What is unpatriotic about that ?
Jeez, you really need to ask. Imagine a Labour MP in 1941 excusing the Blitz because it was us that declared war on Germany. “We thoroughly condemn the killing of thousands of British civilians by the Germans, however we only have ourselves to blame for declaring war on them in the first place and by the way we’ve killed some German civilians too, so we’re in no position to take the moral high ground”.
-
Jeez, you really need to ask. Imagine a Labour MP in 1941 excusing the Blitz because it was us that declared war on Germany. “We thoroughly condemn the killing of thousands of British civilians by the Germans, however we only have ourselves to blame for declaring war on them in the first place and by the way we’ve killed some German civilians too, so we’re in no position to take the moral high ground”.
One difference. German invaded Poland...what followed was justified. What is the justification for the destruction of great swathes of the Middle East ?
-
One difference. German invaded Poland...what followed was justified. What is the justification for the destruction of great swathes of the Middle East ?
I think you know what the justification was, the Labour Government at the time believed that Iraq posed an existential threat to the area. Prior to that of course there was the worst terrorist atrocity perpetrated on the West by a terrorist organisation propped up and given shelter by the Taliban in Afghanistan, a terror group headed by one Osama Bin Laden, whose death Corbyn described as a tragedy. A tragedy for whom exactly? I take it you are of the view that Bin Laden’s actions were justified then, or at the very least understandable? And all terrorist attacks wherever they occur against the West?
-
I think you know what the justification was, the Labour Government at the time believed that Iraq posed an existential threat to the area. Prior to that of course there was the worst terrorist atrocity perpetrated on the West by a terrorist organisation propped up and given shelter by the Taliban in Afghanistan, a terror group headed by one Osama Bin Laden, whose death Corbyn described as a tragedy. A tragedy for whom exactly? I take it you are of the view that Bin Laden’s actions were justified then, or at the very least understandable? And all terrorist attacks wherever they occur against the West?
How many mistakes can you include in one post.
Iraq posed no threat, google WMD.
Corbyn said Bin Laden should have been tried under international law and the fact that he didn’t was the tragedy.
“Jeremy Corbyn has come under fire for saying it was a “tragedy” that Osama bin Laden was killed by the US rather than being put on trial.
The Labour leadership frontrunner made the remarks shortly after the special forces raid in 2011 on the al-Qaida chief’s Pakistan compound in which he and four others were shot dead.
In an interview for Iranian television, he suggested the assassination of the mastermind behind the September 11 attacks would result in deeper unrest.
It is the latest in a series of past comments and associations that the veteran left-winger has been forced to defend since emerging as the surprise favourite to succeed Ed Miliband.
In a clip from the Press TV show the Agenda, Corbyn is heard complaining that there had been “no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him and put him on trial, to go through that process”. He went on: “This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy.
“The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died. Torture has come back on to the world stage, been canonised virtually into law by Guantánamo and Bagram.
“Can’t we learn some lessons from this? Are we just going to sink deeper and deeper?
“The next stage will be an attempted assassination on Gaddafi and so it will go on. This will just make the world more dangerous and worse and worse and worse.”
A spokesman for Corbyn said he was “a total opponent of al-Qaida, all it stands for”.
He was proved correct.
-
How many mistakes can you include in one post.
Iraq posed no threat, google WMD.
Corbyn said Bin Laden should have been tried under international law and the fact that he didn’t was the tragedy.
“Jeremy Corbyn has come under fire for saying it was a “tragedy” that Osama bin Laden was killed by the US rather than being put on trial.
The Labour leadership frontrunner made the remarks shortly after the special forces raid in 2011 on the al-Qaida chief’s Pakistan compound in which he and four others were shot dead.
In an interview for Iranian television, he suggested the assassination of the mastermind behind the September 11 attacks would result in deeper unrest.
It is the latest in a series of past comments and associations that the veteran left-winger has been forced to defend since emerging as the surprise favourite to succeed Ed Miliband.
In a clip from the Press TV show the Agenda, Corbyn is heard complaining that there had been “no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him and put him on trial, to go through that process”. He went on: “This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy.
“The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died. Torture has come back on to the world stage, been canonised virtually into law by Guantánamo and Bagram.
“Can’t we learn some lessons from this? Are we just going to sink deeper and deeper?
“The next stage will be an attempted assassination on Gaddafi and so it will go on. This will just make the world more dangerous and worse and worse and worse.”
A spokesman for Corbyn said he was “a total opponent of al-Qaida, all it stands for”.
He was proved correct.
Iraq posed no threat to stability in the Middle East?? Really?? And Saddam wasnt busy killing thousands of his own citizens either I suppose. Of course we should have just let him get on with it, that would have been far better, let him gas men, women and children, just like we should have let Hitler get on with it I suppose.
Notice how Corbyn denunces terrorism and in the very next breath denounces the Americans. His usual tactic, just as I described. He also. clearly described Bin Laden’s death as an assassination and a tragedy, no matter how you attempt to post rationalise it.
-
Iraq posed no threat to stability in the Middle East?? Really?? And Saddam wasnt busy killing thousands of his own citizens either I suppose. Of course we should have just let him get on with it, that would have been far better, let him gas men, women and children, just like we should have let Hitler get on with it I suppose.
Notice how Corbyn denunces terrorism and in the very next breath denounces the Americans. His usual tactic, just as I described. He also. clearly described Bin Laden’s death as an assassination and a tragedy, no matter how you attempt to post rationalise it.
Please don’t pretend that the reason America invaded Iraq was to protect the Iraqi population from Saddam. 2.4 million have been killed since 2003 and if you want to protect people from a dictator you don’t arm him to the teeth as America did during the Iran/Iraq war when they were courting Sadam.
Under international law Bin Laden’s death was an assassination and a tragedy as Corbyn said, which has lead to countless deaths both in the west and the Middle East. Bin Laden should have been tried for his crimes, just as the Nazis were at Nuremberg. Instead America made him a martyr and we gave the terrorists a further reason to hate us.
I would learn my history if I was you and especially the principle of causality.
-
Please don’t pretend that the reason America invaded Iraq was to protect the Iraqi population from Saddam. 2.4 million have been killed since 2003 and if you want to protect people from a dictator you don’t arm him to the teeth as America did during the Iran/Iraq war when they were courting Sadam.
Under international law Bin Laden’s death was an assassination and a tragedy as Corbyn said, which has lead to countless deaths both in the west and the Middle East. Bin Laden should have been tried for his crimes, just as the Nazis were at Nuremberg. Instead America made him a martyr and we gave the terrorists a further reason to hate us.
I would learn my history if I was you and especially the principle of causality.
Kindly don’t lecture me about history. Saddam was an enabler of terrorism against the West and Israel. He posed a threat to both, directly or indirectly. Bin Laden’s death was not a tragedy, the death of 2000 plus in the Twin Towers was a tragedy. You don’t think Bin Laden on trial and in prison would have given terrorists an excuse for further atrocities? They really don’t need much of one you know.
-
Kindly don’t lecture me about history. Saddam was an enabler of terrorism against the West and Israel. He posed a threat to both, directly or indirectly. Bin Laden’s death was not a tragedy, the death of 2000 plus in the Twin Towers was a tragedy. You don’t think Bin Laden on trial and in prison would have given terrorists an excuse for further atrocities? They really don’t need much of one you know.
I’m sorry but your post is simply rehashed propaganda.
In what way did Sadam ‘enable’ terrorism ? He was a secular leader and afraid of the pernicious rise of fundamental Islam. To claim that he encouraged it is simply false.
As to Bin Laden, you either believe in international law or you don’t....you can’t pick and chose.
-
I’m sorry but your post is simply rehashed propaganda.
In what way did Sadam ‘enable’ terrorism ? He was a secular leader and afraid of the pernicious rise of fundamental Islam. To claim that he encouraged it is simply false.
As to Bin Laden, you either believe in international law or you don’t....you can’t pick and chose.
Sometimes laws have to be broken for the greater good, this is one of those occasions IMO. Dangerous men (it’s usually men) are shot dead on the streets of London by police and that is perfectly acceptable, Bin Laden certainly fell into the category of “dangerous man”.
As for Saddam, your views are similar to those of Donald Trump’s. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-says-saddam-hussein-was-an-opponent-of-terrorism-hes-wrong
-
One question remains regarding Iraq's terrorism capability: Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of Saddam's statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes.
Extract 34.
[19 April 1990]
"IfAmerica interferes we will strike. You know us, we are not the talkative type who holds the microphone and says things only, we do what we say. Maybe we cannot reach Washington but we can send someone with an ex- plosive belt to reach Washington."
"We can send people to Washington... a person with explosive belt around him could throw himself on Bush's car. 107
In the years between the two Gulf Wars, UN sanctions reduced Sad- dam's ability to shape regional and world events, steadily draining his military, economic, and military powers. The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's "coercion" toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power. Saddam nurtured this capability with an infrastructure supporting (1) his own particular brand of state terrorism against internal and external threats, (2) the state sponsorship of suicide operations, and (3) organizational relationships and "outreach programs" for terrorist groups. Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces.
https://fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/v1.pdf
-
Saddam's Terror Links
Updated March 24, 2008 12:01 am ET
PRINT
TEXT
Five years on, few Iraq myths are as persistent as the notion that the Bush Administration invented a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Yet a new Pentagon report suggests that Iraq's links to world-wide terror networks, including al Qaeda, were far more extensive than previously understood.
Naturally, it's getting little or no attention. Press accounts have been misleading or outright distortions, while the Bush Administration seems indifferent. Even John McCain has let the study's revelations float by. But that doesn't make the facts any less notable or true.
The redacted version of "Saddam and Terrorism" is the most definitive public assessment to date from the Harmony program, the trove of "exploitable" documents, audio and video records, and computer files captured in Iraq. On the basis of about 600,000 items, the report lays out Saddam's willingness to use terrorism against American and other international targets, as well as his larger state sponsorship of terror, which included harboring, training and equipping jihadis throughout the Middle East.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120631495290958169
-
Sometimes laws have to be broken for the greater good, this is one of those occasions IMO. Dangerous men (it’s usually men) are shot dead on the streets of London by police and that is perfectly acceptable, Bin Laden certainly fell into the category of “dangerous man”.
As for Saddam, your views are similar to those of Donald Trump’s. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-says-saddam-hussein-was-an-opponent-of-terrorism-hes-wrong
If there is an immediate danger then action must be taken to defuse that danger. If not then the law should be allowed to take it’s course.
As an aside do you think those tried at Nuremberg should have been executed without a trial ?
-
One question remains regarding Iraq's terrorism capability: Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of Saddam's statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes.
Extract 34.
[19 April 1990]
"IfAmerica interferes we will strike. You know us, we are not the talkative type who holds the microphone and says things only, we do what we say. Maybe we cannot reach Washington but we can send someone with an ex- plosive belt to reach Washington."
"We can send people to Washington... a person with explosive belt around him could throw himself on Bush's car. 107
In the years between the two Gulf Wars, UN sanctions reduced Sad- dam's ability to shape regional and world events, steadily draining his military, economic, and military powers. The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's "coercion" toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power. Saddam nurtured this capability with an infrastructure supporting (1) his own particular brand of state terrorism against internal and external threats, (2) the state sponsorship of suicide operations, and (3) organizational relationships and "outreach programs" for terrorist groups. Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces.
https://fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/v1.pdf
From the document you posted.
‘This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda.’
Makes you wonder why they attacked Iraq.
-
Saddam's Terror Links
Updated March 24, 2008 12:01 am ET
PRINT
TEXT
Five years on, few Iraq myths are as persistent as the notion that the Bush Administration invented a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Yet a new Pentagon report suggests that Iraq's links to world-wide terror networks, including al Qaeda, were far more extensive than previously understood.
Naturally, it's getting little or no attention. Press accounts have been misleading or outright distortions, while the Bush Administration seems indifferent. Even John McCain has let the study's revelations float by. But that doesn't make the facts any less notable or true.
The redacted version of "Saddam and Terrorism" is the most definitive public assessment to date from the Harmony program, the trove of "exploitable" documents, audio and video records, and computer files captured in Iraq. On the basis of about 600,000 items, the report lays out Saddam's willingness to use terrorism against American and other international targets, as well as his larger state sponsorship of terror, which included harboring, training and equipping jihadis throughout the Middle East.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120631495290958169
Sounds like the justification for an illegal war to me.
-
From the document you posted.
‘This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda.’
Makes you wonder why they attacked Iraq.
Why do you think they spent a trillion dollars doing so?
-
From the document you posted.
‘This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda.’
Makes you wonder why they attacked Iraq.
Oil darling Oil. Do we really believe that Blair and bush gave a toss about Kurds in the North or Shia muslims who fled to Iran? IF is was out of compassion to save people then why stop at Iraq anyone looking at Africa?
-
Oil darling Oil. Do we really believe that Blair and bush gave a toss about Kurds in the North or Shia muslims who fled to Iran? IF is was out of compassion to save people then why stop at Iraq anyone looking at Africa?
Of course and Libya later.
-
Of course and Libya later.
The US gets only a very small percentage its oil from Iraq or Libya so I think that is a bit of a red herring.
-
The US gets hardly any of its oil from Iraq or Libya so I think that is a bit of a red herring.
I don’t think things panned out as they’d hoped.
-
I don’t think things panned out as they’d hoped.
Oh? Why not? The thing is if you want to ensure a good and steady flow of oil from somewhere it’s best not to plunge that somewhere into a state of war and chaos. Hence why I don’t believe oil was the motivating factor.
-
Oh? Why not? The thing is if you want to ensure a good and steady flow of oil from somewhere it’s best not to plunge that somewhere into a state of war and chaos. Hence why I don’t believe oil was the motivating factor.
Do you really think that the US administration envisaged war and chaos or did they envisage a something similar to the smooth hand over of power as happened during the coup in Iran in 1953 ?
-
Do you really think that the US administration envisaged war and chaos or did they envisage a something similar to the smooth hand over of power as happened during the coup in Iran in 1953 ?
I don’t know - did the USA drop 10000 tons of bombs on Tehran? I wasn’t born then so perhaps you can enlighten me.
-
I don’t know - did the USA drop 10000 tons of bombs on Tehran? I wasn’t born then so perhaps you can enlighten me.
You really should learn your history ( NB you don’t need to be alive to know it ).
-
The US gets only a very small percentage its oil from Iraq or Libya so I think that is a bit of a red herring.
No red herrings, they stole a lot of oil in the name of payment towards saving them poor souls from erm... the boogie man. Big bad Muslim talibanies
Saddam Hussein was assassinated without trial. Nice work Tony.
I cried when I saw on BBC live (they showed it live- I saw it on tape years later) the OMG wow its shock and awe and whooo look at those bombs dropping. whooplah we are winning a war! It was PR and a disgrace! slaughter of the innocents.
erm did anyone see the dead children who didn't declare war?
-
You really should learn your history ( NB you don’t need to be alive to know it ).
You likened US actions in Iraq with their part in the downfall of the Iranian regime, saying that the US hoped it would all work out the same way, and I’m asking - did that involve declaring war on Iran and a massive blitzkrieg of missiles plunging the country into chaos and destruction? A simple yes or no will suffice.
-
No red herrings, they stole a lot of oil in the name of payment towards saving them poor souls from erm... the boogie man. Big bad Muslim talibanies
Saddam Hussein was assassinated without trial. Nice work Tony.
I cried when I saw on BBC live (they showed it live- I saw it on tape years later) the OMG wow its shock and awe and whooo look at those bombs dropping. whooplah we are winning a war! It was PR and a disgrace! slaughter of the innocents.
erm did anyone see the dead children who didn't declare war?
How much oil did the US steal? Was it a lot more than this?
“The U.S. alone spent $60 billion over nine years — some $15 million a day — to rebuild Iraq”
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/12/88-point-2-billion-us-dollar-price-tag-for-rebuilding-iraq-after-islamic-state-war.html
If so, kindly provide the cite.
Moreover what the heck is the Donald talking about here if the oil has already been stolen?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/21/donald-trump-iraq-war-oil-strategy-seizure-isis
-
You likened US actions in Iraq with their part in the downfall of the Iranian regime, saying that the US hoped it would all work out the same way, and I’m asking - did that involve declaring war on Iran and a massive blitzkrieg of missiles plunging the country into chaos and destruction? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Different time, different method...the same hoped for result. You really should look it up.
-
How much oil did the US steal? Was it a lot more than this?
“The U.S. alone spent $60 billion over nine years — some $15 million a day — to rebuild Iraq”
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/12/88-point-2-billion-us-dollar-price-tag-for-rebuilding-iraq-after-islamic-state-war.html
If so, kindly provide the cite.
Moreover what the heck is the Donald talking about here if the oil has already been stolen?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/21/donald-trump-iraq-war-oil-strategy-seizure-isis
I thought American didn’t need Iraq’s oil.
-
I thought American didn’t need Iraq’s oil.
This is Trump in 2016, according to you and Misstaken the US already got their hands on it and that’s why they bombed the hell out of Iraq?
-
Different time, different method...the same hoped for result. You really should look it up.
I asked you how plunging a country into physical chaos and destruction by bombing it is conducive to keeping the oil flowing to the US. You then compared it to Iran in the 50s where there was no declaration of war and no bombing. therefore IMo no comparison.
-
This is Trump in 2016, according to you and Misstaken the US already got their hands on it and that’s why they bombed the hell out of Iraq?
That’s not what I said ( you seem to be making a habit of misquoting me). I said that was the intention..of course the reality turned out to be somewhat different.
-
That’s not what I said ( you seem to be making a habit of misquoting me). I said that was the intention..of course the reality turned out to be somewhat different.
Miss Taken claimed the USA stole Iraq’s oil. You are claiming they would have stolen it if it hadn’t been for what I don’t know.
-
Miss Taken claimed the USA stole Iraq’s oil. You are claiming they would have stolen it if it hadn’t been for what I don’t know.
I’ll just leave this here.
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/index.html
-
I’ll just leave this here.
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/index.html
and I shall just leave this here
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/17/a-decade-later-and-the-iraq-debate-is-still-contaminated-with-myths/
-
and I shall just leave this here
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/17/a-decade-later-and-the-iraq-debate-is-still-contaminated-with-myths/
From my link :
“Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."
They don’t seem like conspiracy nuts to me.
-
From my link :
“Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."
They don’t seem like conspiracy nuts to me.
So what went wrong then?
Though Abizaid says that Bush’s Iraq policy seeks to keep oil “prices low,” the per-barrel cost of oil has risen dramatically since the U.S. first invaded. In March 2003, the price of oil was roughly US$35 a barrel. Today, prices reached “above $85 a barrel for the first time.”
-
So what went wrong then?
Not sure what you mean ?
-
Not sure what you mean ?
see above.
-
see above.
Still not sure. Did you read my link.....or more important, did you understand it ?
-
Still not sure. Did you read my link.....or more important, did you understand it ?
No, too thick to understand it, sorry.
-
No, too thick to understand it, sorry.
Not thick....blinkered perhaps.
-
Not thick....blinkered perhaps.
yeah, and that. Also, brainwashed, gullible, and anything else you care to throw at me if it makes you feel superior.
-
yeah, and that. Also, brainwashed, gullible, and anything else you care to throw at me if it makes you feel superior.
I’m a socialist....everyone is equal 8(>((
-
I’m a socialist....everyone is equal 8(>((
Except like every socialist knows some people are more equal than others.
-
Except like every socialist knows some people are more equal than others.
Nope.
-
Nope.
If everyone is equal then you too are blinkered. Glad we got that one sorted!
-
I’m a socialist....everyone is equal 8(>((
Everyone is not equal. Humans are individuals- their fingerprints are evidence of this.
Some people like to create boxed to hold people in to separate them,say they need special laws and treatments and call it diversity! at the same time claiming they seek a multi cultural society where everyone is equal. in which the 'diversity' shows up these flaws!
-
Everyone is not equal. Humans are individuals- their fingerprints are evidence of this.
Some people like to create boxed to hold people in to separate them,say they need special laws and treatments and call it diversity! at the same time claiming they seek a multi cultural society where everyone is equal. in which the 'diversity' shows up these flaws!
Special laws and treatments?
-
Special laws and treatments?
Yes Faith. to discuss them would be shouted down as has been for many years. Even got the racist ticket on here a few times. which I wear with pride. 8(0(*