Yeah, that sounds more accurate although I don't know the exact figures on that.
Theresa May's Conservatives
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour
Tim Farron's Liberal Democrats
Paul Nuttall's UKIP
2 people's Greens
Nicholas Durgeon's Scottish Nationalists
Satan's Sinn Fein
Dr Ian Paisley's DUP
Some other bunch of nonces
I'm foreign, but I wish I were an Englishman
Yeah, that sounds more accurate although I don't know the exact figures on that.
What I get from the Irish is that both sides of the conflict were massively shit.
Henry and Boydy refusing to acknowledge the issue / pretending it doesn't exist / equivocating proves the point perfectly here. Exactly as you'd expected from the fully-paid up tinfoil hat brigade.
Quite fitting.Originally Posted by Enoch Powell, March 1971
So now we're on to defending loyalist terrorism. Nice.
You could pretty easily argue that the IRA were committing crimes in the belief that they were helping to preserve the integrity of their country.
But what I think is more fitting is this:
OnE Of tHe mOsT DaNgErOuS WoRdS Is 'ExTrEmIsT'. A PeRsOn wHo cOmMiTs aCtS Of vIoLeNcE Is nOt aN 'eXtReMiSt'; hE Is a cRiMiNaL. iF He cOmMiTs tHoSe aCtS Of vIoLeNcE WiTh tHe oBjEcT Of dEtAcHiNg pArT Of tHe tErRiToRy oF ThE UnItEd kInGdOm aNd aTtAcHiNg iT To a fOrEiGn cOuNtRy, He iS An eNeMy uNdEr aRmS. tHeRe iS ThE WoRlD Of dIfFeReNcE BeTwEeN A CiTiZeN WhO CoMmItS A CrImE, iN ThE BeLiEf, HoWeVeR MiStAkEn, ThAt hE Is tHeReBy hElPiNg tO PrEsErVe tHe iNtEgRiTy oF HiS CoUnTrY AnD HiS RiGhT To rEmAiN A SuBjEcT Of hIs sOvErEiGn, AnD A PeRsOn, Be hE CiTiZeN Or aLiEn, WhO CoMmItS A CrImE WiTh tHe iNtEnTiOn oF DeStRoYiNg tHaT InTeGrItY AnD ReNdErInG ImPoSsIbLe tHaT AlLeGiAnCe. ThE FoRmEr bReAcHeS ThE PeAcE; tHe lAtTeR Is eXeCuTiNg aN AcT Of wAr. ThE UsE Of tHe wOrD 'eXtReMiSt' Of eItHeR Or bOtH CoNvEyS A DaNgErOuS UnTrUtH: iT ImPlIeS ThAt bOtH HoLd aCcEpTaBlE OpInIoNs aNd sEeK PeRmIsSiBlE EnDs, OnLy tHaT ThEy cArRy tHeM To 'ExTrEmEs'. nOt sO: tHe oNe iS A LaWbReAkEr; ThE OtHeR Is aN EnEmY. tHe sAmE PuRpOsE, tHaT Of rEnDeRiNg fRiEnD AnD FoE InDiStInGuIsHaBlE, iS AcHiEvEd bY ReFeReNcEs tO ThE 'iMpArTiAlItY' oF ThE BrItIsH TrOoPs aNd tO ThEiR FuNcTiOn aS 'kEePiNg tHe pEaCe'. tHe bRiTiSh fOrCeS ArE In nOrThErN IrElAnD BeCaUsE An aVoWeD EnEmY Is uSiNg fOrCe oF ArMs tO BrEaK DoWn lAwFuL AuThOrItY In tHe pRoViNcE AnD ThErEbY SeIzE CoNtRoL. tHe aRmY CaNnOt bE 'iMpArTiAl' ToWaRdS An eNeMy, NoR BeTwEeN ThE AgGrEsSoR AnD ThE AgGrEsSeD: tHeY ArE NoT GlOrIfIeD PoLiCeMeN, rEsTrAiNiNg tWo sEtS Of cItIzEnS WhO MiGhT OtHeRwIsE Do oNe aNoThEr hArM, aNd dUtY BoUnD To sHoW No 'PaRtIaLiTy' ToWaRdS OnE LaWbReAkEr rAtHeR ThAn aNoThEr. ThEy aRe eNgAgEd iN DeFeAtInG An aRmEd aTtAcK UpOn tHe sTaTe. OnCe aGaIn, ThE TeRmInOlOgY Is dEsIgNeD To oBlItErAtE ThE ViTaL DiFfErEnCe bEtWeEn fRiEnD AnD EnEmY, lOyAl aNd dIsLoYaL.
You could. But you can't then run the country that you wanted to lose.
Not for me, Clive. Not when the divisions are so clear and present.
I trust Crosby is now driving the train without Team May attempting to tell him where to go.
I might need to be educated here, but how does someone seemingly so principled in all other areas of violence end up in a situation where he refuses to condemn the IRA?
He didn't refuse to condemn the IRA.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...-saying-he-did
https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/05/22...-and-the-rest/
The second one's a good read.
Boydy has drunk the Kool-Aid, evidently.
Excellent article, and this is worth highlighting, a similar point to the one I made above.
Corbyn’s comments are more easily read as a refusal to condemn the IRA by an audience that either defends the actions of loyalist paramilitaries or – likely in the case of many of the English viewers of yesterday’s interview – cares little or even knows nothing about the violence carried out by loyalist paramilitaries and the British state.
Because his principles include supporting terrorists against "oppressive western governments". You can see it in his language towards Hamas, Hezbollah and his fraternising constantly with unsavoury terrorist types. He's surrounded himself with people who hold similar views (Seamus Milne, as an example, wrote an article in the week after 9/11 basically telling the Americans it was their own fault).
It's his world view. Which is fine if you're prepared to acknowledge that's the case and you're going to vote for him despite all of it, but pretending it's not and / or desperately equivocating to get out of acknowledging it is seriously lol. Just look at Boydy and Henry, who are so utterly determined to apologise for him they can't bring themselves to call a spade a spade. Much like Jez, really.
He hasn't refused to condemn the IRA. Stop lying.
Everything he has said and done suggests that, at best, he was merely too thick to fully comprehend what he was doing, but was still content to wave the unionist (and non-violent nationalist, lest we forget that John Hume consistently out-polled Gerry Adams during the period in question) majority off without their having any say in the matter; and, at worst, he saw anti-British violence as a regrettable necessity. What makes it difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt is things like having IRA members over for a buffet two weeks after their attempt to mass murder the British government, which you wouldn't really do if you were genuinely committed to a peaceful settlement. Unless you were thick, of course. Either way, he shouldn't be running the country.
"Occupation."
He said IRA bombing was wrong earlier because it killed civilians. Again, it either implies a certain thickness in his approach, or a belief that coppers and soldiers were fair game.
Anyway, as far as these latest polls go, I would take 44/35-ish as basically the ideal result (those 50/30 polls were always stupid). The Theresa May and Unionist Party would coast home with a comfortable majority, and the Jezza bunker would get twenty feet deeper and a new set of lead-lined blast doors.
That video is fucking retarded
It's like an intro to a reality TV show.
I believe the phrase you're looking for is "legitimate target".
The IRA once kidnapped a man's family, chained him to a van and told him they'd shoot them if he didn't do what he was told. They forced him to drive a bomb to an army barracks at which point it was remotely detonated, obliterating him and five soldiers. Apparently using a human bomb was acceptable, because the bloke worked in the kitchens of an army barracks and was thus a "legitimate target". This was in 1990. McGuinness was the IRA's northern commander, and approved the attack.
If ISIS did that, they'd be - rightly - denounced as barbarians plumbing new depths. When the IRA did it, Corbyn continued to apologise for them, to equivocate, and to refuse to condemn them. He continued to share platforms with IRA members. Not once did he denounce them in public at the time.
This is what you're dealing with. McDonnell, Abbott, Livingstone were all the same. It's just part of the hard-left mindset that any 'armed struggle' against a western occupying force (as they see the British role in Northern Ireland) is fair game.
Agreed. A Tory majority of c 80 with a clear manifesto pledge to pull out of the single market and customs union effectively puts the Liberal Democrats and associated whingers out of business for the next ten years. Corbyn being able to cling on to ruin Labour forever on the back of increasing the vote share would make the early election worthwhile.
It's an attack ad - what are you expecting. It doesn't have to do anything other than replay things Corbyn has actually said. Unless you think his views on defence, security and terrorism are irrelevant when he's pitching to be Prime fucking Minister.That video is fucking retarded
It's like an intro to a reality TV show.
DRAMATIC MUSIC. ZOOM IN.
BIG.
CAPITAL.
LETTERS.
It's all so childish.
If you're looking for something less childish, perhaps we could just put pictures of IRA bomb atrocities on the screen and interlace it with pictures of Jez standing for a minute's silence to honour the people who carried them out.
Childish? How about photos of Theresa May mingling with the Saudis a few weeks before another (recent) terrorist attack, with the caption 'ISIS ENABLER!'
Do you believe terrorist attacks are our own fault, then?
No. I believe they are the fault of terrorists.
Do you believe denouncing terrorism one day and getting in bed with Saudi Arabia on another is acceptable behaviour?
There are good reasons not to be buddies with the Saudi Arabians, but, unless their actual government is directly supporting the people attacking us (and Theresa May knows about it), it's not equivalent to backing the IRA.
Dealing with Saudi Arabia is unpalatable, but dealing with them is the difference between being the Prime Minster and continuing to indulge faux outrage student union-esque gesture politics. The Prime Minister should only be interested in doing what is right for the UK's national interest.
We would achieve absolutely nothing from internationally ostracising Saudi Arabia, by the way. Rather you'd encourage them to fight further proxy wars as they sought to achieve compensating influence. See: Putin/Russia. We'd also immediately lose any intelligence provided from one of the key regional players. As an example, we ostracised Gaddafi and he retaliated by supplying semtex and other powerful weaponry to the IRA.
It's not the equivalent to anything, but it's still a blot on her character and all of those before her. I appreciate the Saudi Arabia situation is complicated, but to continually address the Corbyn IRA links whilst the Prime Minister is day tripping to the Middle East is slightly hypocritical. The way in which she (falsely) attacked Corbyn following Manchester was, at best, in very poor taste too. Considering you could argue, and excuse the extreme nature of the statement, she's indirectly financing ISIS herself.
Theresa May, as Prime Minister, dealing with the legitimate government of Saudi Arabia is within the acceptable parameters of "being wrong". You may not agree with it, but you can see why she has to do it when she's running a country and not putting her day in at Stop the War rallies.
Supporting the IRA armed campaign is outside the acceptable parameters of "being wrong".
This is the key distinction.
Yeah, wrongness vs treason. It's a bit like me thinking that Trident is a waste of money. I might be wrong, but, as long as my reasons for binning it aren't so that it helps the Chinese take over, I'm merely stupid.
You say "within the acceptable paramaters of being wrong" like it's a fact. It isn't. As Lewis alludes to, it depends who is supporting ISIS both financially and logistically. I wouldn't be surprised if that was known and being kept hush because of the implications, but the question is why aren't the Saudi government, who we're dealing with, prosecuting them? Why aren't we pressuring them to prosecute?
It's all mental Islamic charities and wealthy idiots (some of them are probably quite prominent), like when the IRA and Sinn Fein used to receive goodwill packages from their deluded American cousins. There is obviously a large amount of stupidity and dishonesty in our foreign policy (us issuing that joint statement accusing Russian bombing [and Russian bombing only] of radicalising Syrians was a classic of the genre), but you can draw a reasonable distinction between who is and isn't directly seeking to blow up the people you now want to vote for you.
This is the best satire the BBC has produced in about ten years.
The IRA were directly targeting British civilians and actively sought to wipe out the entire cabinet in the Brighton bombing. They specifically targeted British soldiers, members of the security services, Members of Parliament and the Royal Family. It's just not the same as the Prime Minister engaging with the Saudi government because she deems it to be in the UK's national interest.
Supporting the IRA, who were actively seeking to destroy the integrity of the UK against the majority wishes of the people in 'the north', by bombing them into submission, probably does classify as treason. If you wanted a united Ireland, there was always the SDLP under John Hume - someone who holds deep respect on all sides. He didn't bother with them - he chose the terrorists. Again, it's completely outside the acceptable parameters of "being wrong".
Lol at the excuse making for enabling Islamic terrorism.
So, under what circumstances would you people support a couple against Corbyn were he elected?
https://andrewgilliganblog.wordpress...the-documents/
You wonder how much more of this there's going to be.
She could be the Home Secretary.
https://order-order.com/2017/05/28/c...cre-terrorist/
The state of him.
Fucking hell
It's like he thinks he's God or something.
Do you even understand what the discussion is about?
I can read, yes. I'm sure I don't understand as much as you do though, oh mighty one!
I for one would like to hear more about what precisely constitutes acceptable levels of wrongness, and how one can know if they have crossed the line into unacceptable levels of wrongness. Next time I get something wrong, I'll then be ask myself "Am I wrong, or am I unacceptably wrong?"
Can you explain the basic principles of the difference, and how a individual person can know which category they fall into in any given situation? I hope there's a .pdf file somewhere that I can use as a frame of reference. I'm sorry to take time out of your very important day.
Put it this way, according to our great oracle, if you vote Conservative you are correct, if you vote Lib Dem, you're naive and our you vote Labour, you are not only wrong but unacceptably wrong.
Again, I'll stress to all outside of Britain, a vote in the election is not for your eventual Prime Minister.
...but it also kind of very much is.
No, I said that supporting the IRA was unacceptable.
There is no way to sustain the argument that publicly supporting an organisation with the stated aim of destroying the United Kingdom through an armed struggle is acceptable. It would be the equivalent today of a politician supporting a sustained IS bombing campaign because of perceived historical grievance.
You cannot lead the country when you were happy to see a part of handed over to a foreign power without the democratic consent of the people who lived there. You certainly cannot lead the country when you wanted that country to lose to a terrorist organisation determined to bomb you into submission by killing your citizenry in sufficient numbers to make it too unpalatable for you to stay.
I'd like to hear odds on GS being a bot.
It's nobody's fault other than your own if you can't follow the argument enough to understand it. We can only hope that repetition might hammer the point home. You can decide for yourself if that's a pun or not.
Paul Nuttall being willing to execute nonces and terrorists himself is pretty lol.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
