Rayvin

Ok but, Israel has admitted to trying to influence Labour policy and indeed apparently has successfully achieved the ousting of MPs for anti-Israel views, according to they themselves: Among the MPs that Masot and Strizzolo discussed “taking down” was Sir Alan Duncan, a foreign minister and a vocal supporter of a Palestinian state. In the latest recordings, Masot boasts of establishing organisations “in Israel and here [in the UK]”. When asked what he means, the Israeli official replies: “Nothing I can share, but yeah,” adding: “Yeah, because there are things that, you know, happen, but it’s good to leave those organisations independent. But we help them, actually.” It's not happened in a vacuum. We might actually need to acknowledge that to be able to restore this. Although maybe a purge simply is the quickest way through it now. I don't care, frankly, as long as this ceases to be an issue.

Have posted it before, but this is why that happens: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/08/israeli-diplomat-shai-masot-plotted-against-mps-set-up-political-groups-labour So it's not like these views and fears are coming from nothing. The problem is, they need to stand down or we'll never get anywhere. Israel just doesn't matter within British politics. It's not a battleground. A Labour victory at an election would be far more annoying to Israel than all this bitching and moaning.

This has to be the most obvious mackem we've ever had, including the ones who just announced they were mackems from the start. I recall a few weeks back when "marra" slipped into one of his posts hits every mackem stereotype going despite his efforts to go under the radar.

Bloody good thing their owner ignored them though when they were out for blood. If he'd listened to those dumbfucks they'd have sacked the guy and still been ambling pointlessly around midtable. Once again the fans would have been front and centre of the damage. Instead they've been saved by the owner they've forced into selling up. For their sake, I hope the next owner realises that he should pay no attention to them whatsoever. Seems to be the best way to run that particular club.

He maybe couldn't have done anything yesterday but is it not his fault that we're in this position through weeks of poor decision making on the injury front? Or do you think it was all unavoidable..?

Under Ashley.

Looks like they might be turning it around mind. Seems the fans were wrong as usual, good thing their owner ignored them I guess. They should be grateful that their mindless gibbering wasn't paid any heed.

Wonder what Shefki Kuqi is up to these days...

I think the sentence should be whatever is sufficient to rehabilitate people, either shorter or longer than the current guidelines based on the individual. If that means some people who remain a danger to the community never get out, then so be it. But you're right about it inevitably being reduced, especially since she's a woman.

I agree that the monarchy isn't a big issue at this point tbf. It's something to float when you have a majority the size of Johnson, not when you're trying to win power by attempting to establish "progressive patriotism". But ffs man, we can't let the right wing nutjobs silence our actual debates out of fear of what the press will weaponise against us on future. They really have won if that happens.

It's a weird case indeed this one. What do you think a more appropriate sentence would have been? 8 years is fairly lengthy by our standards.

He's appealing to Labour members here, not the wider country. He doesn't need those psychologically attached to the notion of servitude to vote for him at this point.

So Iran shot down the plane, according to the releases coming out now. And apparently will hand over the black boxes. They responded to the killing of their general by lightly grazing some US bases and killing 100 Iranians plus 70 or so others, none of whom were American. Pathetic.

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.

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.

We did, and my view remains the same.

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.

Yeah I'm getting none of these references, sorry 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.

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 get the reference either way, sorry.

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?

Toby? Who the fuck is Toby?

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.

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.

Did he actually say that or is that journalistic license?