UK general election

[brocktonblockbust]

You know Brockton you were one of them. That is exactly why you have done a 180 now. Some kind of twisted guilt thing.If you are going to mock, be spiteful and derail better to do it in this thread than the Manchester one. Our democracy can handle it on any debate you have little to offer so go ahead knock yourself out but do it here or in your own ranting thread.Don't forget you are the one who insisted that America was no different to ISIS.

That is a pathetic and generalized attempt to say that I changed my position. I never changed my position on the Iraq invasion that is a different position than the one I have against these people now who are doing what they do period I also said that Obama and Clinton created Isis so how can you be against Trump if he wants to wipe them out now?

[brocktonblockbust]

Not only that but your you refuse to admit defeat that if somebody had said that here about Muslim apologist after 911 I would have said the same thing to them

[Beanz]

Not only that but your you refuse to admit defeat that if somebody had said that here about Muslim apologist after 911 I would have said the same thing to them

Defeat? For fuck's sake how childish are you. No wonder you and Lyle are such bum chums. You are absolutely fully behind ISIS if you think it's fine for Trump to be neck deep in it with the House of Saud, and you have categorically stood behind that visit. You were the guy calling allied soldiers rats for Christ's sake. Full of shit.

[El Kabong]

Not only that but your you refuse to admit defeat that if somebody had said that here about Muslim apologist after 911 I would have said the same thing to them

Defeat? For fuck's sake how childish are you. No wonder you and Lyle are such bum chums. You are absolutely fully behind ISIS if you think it's fine for Trump to be neck deep in it with the House of Saud, and you have categorically stood behind that visit. You were the guy calling allied soldiers rats for Christ's sake. Full of shit.

again, I'm mentioned because?


You do yourself no favors with constant (I mean CONSTANT) posts like that Beanz, just trying to help you out, but I know that you will continue on as usual.

[brocktonblockbust]

Not only that but your you refuse to admit defeat that if somebody had said that here about Muslim apologist after 911 I would have said the same thing to them

Defeat? For fuck's sake how childish are you. No wonder you and Lyle are such bum chums. You are absolutely fully behind ISIS if you think it's fine for Trump to be neck deep in it with the House of Saud, and you have categorically stood behind that visit. You were the guy calling allied soldiers rats for Christ's sake. Full of shit.

More generalizations in white washing from you. So you are against Donald Trump wiping out Isis then? It seems that you must be supporting Isis. And so also you are against Donald Trump trying to get the cooperation of the saudies? In your mind nothing should be done because because we just can't trust The Saudis? Or if we try to manipulate them to do their job that means we are in Neck Deep with them? Finally the use of the word defeat simply because I'm eating breakfast at the same time as typing causes you to lose all sight or all reason of the discourse which is typical of your fixation on certain words which will then distract you from the meaning of the entire post itself

[Beanz]

Not only that but your you refuse to admit defeat that if somebody had said that here about Muslim apologist after 911 I would have said the same thing to them

Defeat? For fuck's sake how childish are you. No wonder you and Lyle are such bum chums. You are absolutely fully behind ISIS if you think it's fine for Trump to be neck deep in it with the House of Saud, and you have categorically stood behind that visit. You were the guy calling allied soldiers rats for Christ's sake. Full of shit.

More generalizations in white washing from you. So you are against Donald Trump wiping out Isis then? It seems that you must be supporting Isis. And so also you are against Donald Trump trying to get the cooperation of the saudies? In your mind nothing should be done because because we just can't trust The Saudis? Or if we try to manipulate them to do their job that means we are in Neck Deep with them? Finally the use of the word defeat simply because I'm eating breakfast at the same time as typing causes you to lose all sight or all reason of the discourse which is typical of your fixation on certain words which will then distract you from the meaning of the entire post itself

Trump just did a deal to sell Saudi $350 Billion worth of weapons.


5 days ago.


That has nothing to do with wiping out ISIS and everything to do with patting the originators of terror on the back and looking the other way while they massacre the children of Yemen etc

Neck deep in the swamp and you thought he would be different.

Still fuck all to do with the UK Election.

Distractions seem to be all you have to offer

[Beanz]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7752706.html


"Tragic terror attacks like that in Manchester, inspiring fear and anger, often drive voters to back the incumbent. It is ironic then that one of the essential long-term solutions to the terror threat lies within the foreign policy agenda articulated by leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn. In articulating his international vision at Chatham House, Corbyn went on the front foot, laying out a comprehensive vision for Britain’s place in an insecure world. Seeking to throw off the caricature-like branding of him as an ageing hippy, Corbyn’s approach evinced the rational thinking of a seasoned observer of global politics.
Corbyn has been on the right side of history since he began his long political career, and his response to terrorism inspired by events in the Middle East is no different. Corbyn has been astute enough to realise the link between Western interventions in the Middle East and the terror threat emanating from the region. This is a link which is rarely discussed except in dismissive terms due to a form of right wing political correctness. As such, his approach targets some of the root factors driving terror ideology and facilitating the conditions under which terror spreads. It is also the most cost-effective method, important given the apparent lack of funds available for other policy areas like the NHS and the elderly.
Corbyn opposed the ill-fated regime changes in Iraq and Libya. He questioned the justifications when it was unpopular to do so. He was right. He warned of the repercussions. He was right. There is no longer any debate that both of these helped provide the space, motivation and chaos for extremist groups to thrive. Isis of course would not even exist if not for the Iraq War, and Al Qaeda would have less recruits. With regard to Libya, a 2016 report by the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee stated that the intervention was based on “erroneous assumptions”, not on accurate intelligence."


In holding these views, Corbyn is in tune with the ‘intervention-fatigue’ and anti-regime change sentiment that has grown alongside the anti-establishment wave sweeping the West. This has been harnessed by those from the far right like Le Pen and the alt right, libertarians like Rand Paul, and other maverick left-leaners like Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard and Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Donald Trump himself used it as a club to beat opponents like Jeb Bush and Clinton. Corbyn even went close to joining the dots between the refugee crisis and interventions in the Middle East, something successfully exploited by Nigel Farage. Even some of the staunchest supporters of expansive anti-terror laws domestically oppose continued interventionism overseas.
When addressing Chatham House, Corbyn clarified that questioning interventionism does not make him a “pacifist”, the vague but guffaw-triggering label studiously pinned on him by the mainstream media. Challenging the amnesia that pervades public debates over war, Corbyn provided a historical perspective including WWII, the Cold War, Vietnam, and the post-Cold War promise. Stating that military action, as a last resort and under international law, is sometimes necessary, he aligned with what most members of the public would consider reasonable, and what most countries officially support. The Labour Leader seems to understand that a multipronged approach is necessary to combat extremism, from military actions, to policing, to mental health services.


Corbyn has also drawn attention to the double standards which undermine the West’s image around the world. His speech noted the inconsistency of Tory intervention enthusiasts given the party’s unwillingness to impose sanctions on apartheid South Africa, a cause which Corbyn himself was arrested while fighting for. He has also identified situations of mass carnage, such as Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, where intervention could have been justified but which were ignored due to vested interests. Throughout his speech, Corbyn included anecdotes of his travel to some of the world’s worst conflict-zones, a subtle message that he’s not a social justice warrior snowflake but a man whose view is informed by seeing the real effects of war.
The Labour leader has promised an ethical foreign policy committing not only to consistently applying human rights (which already receive much attention), but also to addressing massive levels of inequality which should garner more focus. Targeted and working alongside other measures, this would enhance the West’s image and further weaken the drivers that enable terror groups to garner new recruits.

Corbyn has offered a sober, carefully considered approach to international security, free of the jingoism and political correctness that dominates this important policy area. Attacks at home show clearly that the status quo, spending millions on increasing security at home while spending billions on wars that spread insecurity overseas, is not working. Just like in economic policy, Corbyn’s non-interventionist approach may be lampooned by the mainstream media but is based on rational insights and values, and increasingly reflects the views of the population.

[Beanz]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7752706.html"Tragic terror attacks like that in Manchester, inspiring fear and anger, often drive voters to back the incumbent. It is ironic then that one of the essential long-term solutions to the terror threat lies within the foreign policy agenda articulated by leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn. In articulating his international vision at Chatham House, Corbyn went on the front foot, laying out a comprehensive vision for Britain’s place in an insecure world. Seeking to throw off the caricature-like branding of him as an ageing hippy, Corbyn’s approach evinced the rational thinking of a seasoned observer of global politics. Corbyn has been on the right side of history since he began his long political career, and his response to terrorism inspired by events in the Middle East is no different. Corbyn has been astute enough to realise the link between Western interventions in the Middle East and the terror threat emanating from the region. This is a link which is rarely discussed except in dismissive terms due to a form of right wing political correctness. As such, his approach targets some of the root factors driving terror ideology and facilitating the conditions under which terror spreads. It is also the most cost-effective method, important given the apparent lack of funds available for other policy areas like the NHS and the elderly.Corbyn opposed the ill-fated regime changes in Iraq and Libya. He questioned the justifications when it was unpopular to do so. He was right. He warned of the repercussions. He was right. There is no longer any debate that both of these helped provide the space, motivation and chaos for extremist groups to thrive. Isis of course would not even exist if not for the Iraq War, and Al Qaeda would have less recruits. With regard to Libya, a 2016 report by the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee stated that the intervention was based on “erroneous assumptions”, not on accurate intelligence."In holding these views, Corbyn is in tune with the ‘intervention-fatigue’ and anti-regime change sentiment that has grown alongside the anti-establishment wave sweeping the West. This has been harnessed by those from the far right like Le Pen and the alt right, libertarians like Rand Paul, and other maverick left-leaners like Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard and Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Donald Trump himself used it as a club to beat opponents like Jeb Bush and Clinton. Corbyn even went close to joining the dots between the refugee crisis and interventions in the Middle East, something successfully exploited by Nigel Farage. Even some of the staunchest supporters of expansive anti-terror laws domestically oppose continued interventionism overseas. When addressing Chatham House, Corbyn clarified that questioning interventionism does not make him a “pacifist”, the vague but guffaw-triggering label studiously pinned on him by the mainstream media. Challenging the amnesia that pervades public debates over war, Corbyn provided a historical perspective including WWII, the Cold War, Vietnam, and the post-Cold War promise. Stating that military action, as a last resort and under international law, is sometimes necessary, he aligned with what most members of the public would consider reasonable, and what most countries officially support. The Labour Leader seems to understand that a multipronged approach is necessary to combat extremism, from military actions, to policing, to mental health services.Corbyn has also drawn attention to the double standards which undermine the West’s image around the world. His speech noted the inconsistency of Tory intervention enthusiasts given the party’s unwillingness to impose sanctions on apartheid South Africa, a cause which Corbyn himself was arrested while fighting for. He has also identified situations of mass carnage, such as Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, where intervention could have been justified but which were ignored due to vested interests. Throughout his speech, Corbyn included anecdotes of his travel to some of the world’s worst conflict-zones, a subtle message that he’s not a social justice warrior snowflake but a man whose view is informed by seeing the real effects of war.The Labour leader has promised an ethical foreign policy committing not only to consistently applying human rights (which already receive much attention), but also to addressing massive levels of inequality which should garner more focus. Targeted and working alongside other measures, this would enhance the West’s image and further weaken the drivers that enable terror groups to garner new recruits.Corbyn has offered a sober, carefully considered approach to international security, free of the jingoism and political correctness that dominates this important policy area. Attacks at home show clearly that the status quo, spending millions on increasing security at home while spending billions on wars that spread insecurity overseas, is not working. Just like in economic policy, Corbyn’s non-interventionist approach may be lampooned by the mainstream media but is based on rational insights and values, and increasingly reflects the views of the population.

Anyone else..thoughts?

[brocktonblockbust]

Corbin wants open borders. That's all you need to know about the UK election you f*** wit

[Beanz]

Corbin wants open borders. That's all you need to know about the UK election you f*** wit

Corbyn.