1 minute ago, kent_white said:

Respectfully, I disagree. If Israel had stuck sort of operation against Hamas like they carried out against Hezbollah - I don't think there would have anything approaching the outrage that we saw. 

This idea that people are only interested in humanitarianism when it involves the 'right' people is anathema to me. 

The PSC organised protests from 8th October

45 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

They would in a heart beat if they could be entirely assured that the others would reciprocate. 

History, and current times prove that they won't.

Gaza was allowed to be a self governing zone, which now has no Jews in it by the way, and we can all see how well that has gone. 

It creeps into every thread this Palestine malarkey doesn’t it 😄

History doesn’t prove anything other than Israel has continued to deny their existence . You really have no grasp on the reality of religious extremism in Israel if you think they would accept Palestinian sovereignty if they thought they would be peaceful. 
 

History & current affairs tell us they want the land for themselves at the expense of Palestinians.

No Hamas running the West Bank yet they continue to commit ethnic cleansing there.

 Give them sovereignty, stop the land grabs, then work from there.

 There really is no defence. It’s a clear violation of international law.

Nobody suggested we don’t give other nations sovereignty because extremists operated there. 

Edited January 29Jan 29 by London Wanderer

18 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

The PSC organised protests from 8th October

The conflict didn’t begin on the 7th October. Israel violently escalated things before this date.

Their own defence minister resigned before Oct saying he couldn’t defend Israel’s aggression & things were going to escalate. 

26 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

The conflict didn’t begin on the 7th October. Israel violently escalated things before this date.

Their own defence minister resigned before Oct saying he couldn’t defend Israel’s aggression & things were going to escalate. 

And what about all the ministers who didn’t resign? Sounds like he was in a minority.

Do you think pro Palestine marches over here, just a few days after the Oct 7th attacks were the brightest of ideas? 

Edited January 29Jan 29 by royal white

37 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

The PSC organised protests from 8th October

The PSC aren't representative of 'the left'. 

21 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

The conflict didn’t begin on the 7th October. Israel violently escalated things before this date.

Their own defence minister resigned before Oct saying he couldn’t defend Israel’s aggression & things were going to escalate. 

I'm aware the conflict didn't begin on 7th October and also that there'd have been protests no matter what military action Israel took post that date

24 minutes ago, kent_white said:

The PSC aren't representative of 'the left'. 

I've not claimed they are, though I don't think it's much of a stretch to argue that in practice they're of the left and representative of a section of it despite their claims not to be

52 minutes ago, royal white said:

And what about all the ministers who didn’t resign? Sounds like he was in a minority.

Do you think pro Palestine marches over here, just a few days after the Oct 7th attacks were the brightest of ideas? 

Course not. What kind of question is that 😄

The other ministers make up one of Israel's most extremist ever governments. Some have even been sanctioned by the UK and US government.

 

23 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

Course not. What kind of question is that 😄

The other ministers make up one of Israel's most extremist ever governments. Some have even been sanctioned by the UK and US government.

 

Good then we can agree that they’re complete fkin M0ngs
 

And some do business with UK and US government 👍

Edited January 29Jan 29 by royal white

14 hours ago, Dimron said:

Religion is a weapon used to control the masses.

And has been so for centuries. The rings through the noses of the 'faithful' are a dead giveaway.

8 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Whether they succeeded or not, doesn't mean they won't try again.

Indeed they said as much, and suggested with more malign intent.

He's very dim is Spider. Incapable of seeing that the current 'need to obliterate Irans nuclear programme' is simply a pretext for the actual goal of regime change/ridding the world of the biggest sponsors of terrorism.

Go The Don.

8 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Have you actually learned anything about the situation over there?

Numb as a piss stone is that lad. 

7 hours ago, Dimron said:

So we were led to believe.

Aĺl we know is there is a big build up going on but without a stated reason... sure he'll think of an excuse soon

It's plain to see what the actual goal is.

Long live The Shah.

3 hours ago, kent_white said:

Respectfully, I disagree. If Israel had stuck sort of operation against Hamas like they carried out against Hezbollah - I don't think there would have anything approaching the outrage that we saw. 

If only it had been that easy. It wasn't. Blame Hamas for the destruction. Blame Walz for what's going on in Minnesota.

You leftie types seem to struggle with this straight to the point approach.

6 hours ago, bolty58 said:

He's very dim is Spider. Incapable of seeing that the current 'need to obliterate Irans nuclear programme' is simply a pretext for the actual goal of regime change/ridding the world of the biggest sponsors of terrorism.

Go The Don.

But “Don” said he’d already done it.

And you believed him.

But now he’s saying it still needs doing.

Do you see my point yet? He lies and you swallow them joyously as you would his semen.

Doublethink is actually quite a skill so maybe your IQ is above 16 after all. As high as 20 perhaps.

Edited January 30Jan 30 by Spider

10 hours ago, royal white said:

Good then we can agree that they’re complete fkin M0ngs
 

And some do business with UK and US government 👍

To an extent. You can’t pop a label on every single person who’s been on a pro Palestine demo. So I’ll not be doing that. But we can agree the initial protests were poorly timed & disrespectful. 
 

Exactly. Which is why many argue the need for more political pressure & sanctions. Which is what the Dems were looking at Tbf.

 Anyway, you’ve just accidentally shown us why the lady in the video was wrong. Two very different situations & government approaches. It would be wrong to expect similar protests & pressure regarding Iran. When nobody is suggesting we do business with them or supporting denying their sovereignty. If we were trading with & arming the regime, I’m sure there would be more protests. 

11 hours ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

I've not claimed they are, though I don't think it's much of a stretch to argue that in practice they're of the left and representative of a section of it despite their claims not to be

No I'd agree they're 'of the left' but I just wouldn't you should use them as a barometer of everybody on the left. 

They're a special interest group, representing Palestine - so it stands to reason they'd mobilise immediately. 

I just wouldn't use it as a broad indication about how everyone 'on the left' might be thinking. Whatever 'on the left' actually means these days. 

8 hours ago, bolty58 said:

If only it had been that easy. It wasn't. Blame Hamas for the destruction. Blame Walz for what's going on in Minnesota.

You leftie types seem to struggle with this straight to the point approach.

I can understand the first part. The way Hamas were structured meant it was very difficult to carry out targeted strikes. 

The second part just sounds bonkers to me. Not sure what Walz has done to provoke people getting shot in the head. 

I don't feel like I struggle with any 'straight to the point approach'. I do struggle when I don't think the end justifies the mean. 

9 hours ago, bolty58 said:

It's plain to see what the actual goal is.

Long live The Shah.

Another American engineered regime change?

After the massive balls up of Iraq?

Probably planning a massive weakening of the Revolutionary Guard which in turn will weaken the sitting government and enable the will of the majority (assuming they are the majority)

5 minutes ago, Dimron said:

Another American engineered regime change?

After the massive balls up of Iraq?

Probably planning a massive weakening of the Revolutionary Guard which in turn will weaken the sitting government and enable the will of the majority (assuming they are the majority)

Bolty thought Saddam should have stayed.

He gets confused.

9 hours ago, bolty58 said:

And has been so for centuries. The rings through the noses of the 'faithful' are a dead giveaway.

Religion used to be the centre of everyone's lives... health care, farming, the lot. You can bet a fundamentalist Jew or Muslim will take his child to a science based hospital before consulting whatever witch doctor he believes in.

Religion has become the enforcing tool of regimes rather than the core reason for existence.

A national version of Shinto was "manufactured"  by the Japanese and they became a world force in the 100 years prior to WW2. Now we have North Korea creating their own religion making Kim Jong Un and his family deities but this time, considering what happened to the Japanese, making nuclear weapons integral to their religion.

20 minutes ago, Spider said:

Bolty thought Saddam should have stayed.

He gets confused.

To a certain extent, I agree with Bolty. Saddam was evil but post invasiion the country spiralled downwards into militia led pseudo-religious anarchy.

You MUST read the Accidental Soldier by Owain Mulligan for a true insight i to what really happened on the ground in post Saddam Iraq... it is an entertaining book as well

Edited January 30Jan 30 by Dimron

Also - if this does kick off, and the regime collapses. Migration Watch have predicted 1.5 million Iranian refugees arriving in the UK within the next decade. At a cost of £150 billion. 

Worst case scenario of course that some of the 'straight to the point' advocates might want to consider. 

37 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Also - if this does kick off, and the regime collapses. Migration Watch have predicted 1.5 million Iranian refugees arriving in the UK within the next decade. At a cost of £150 billion. 

Worst case scenario of course that some of the 'straight to the point' advocates might want to consider. 

Not if they're not allowed in.

The people there want regime change.

Help them achieve it, then leave them to determine their own future.

Provide help if they want it, but other than that, allow them self determination. 

From a security perspective, what it worse:

1. Leave the mad cunts in charge, with their funding of terrorism, and significant risk to this country, and many others at this moment in time, and that's even without  nuclear weapons.

2. Remove those nuclear risks, degrade their ability to wage war on the outside world and their own people. Sure, there is always the case of "What next", but you have to focus on the now when it becomes as dangerous as it is. 

 

No one knows exactly how it would pan out, and whilst nations will be running through possible scenarios, they have to be weighed up with the risks we face now.

On balance, bomb the irgc cunts, destroy any facilities that may be developing nuclear weapons, and facilitate the people to create a better future for themselves. 

40 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Not if they're not allowed in.

The people there want regime change.

Help them achieve it, then leave them to determine their own future.

Provide help if they want it, but other than that, allow them self determination. 

From a security perspective, what it worse:

1. Leave the mad cunts in charge, with their funding of terrorism, and significant risk to this country, and many others at this moment in time, and that's even without  nuclear weapons.

2. Remove those nuclear risks, degrade their ability to wage war on the outside world and their own people. Sure, there is always the case of "What next", but you have to focus on the now when it becomes as dangerous as it is. 

 

No one knows exactly how it would pan out, and whilst nations will be running through possible scenarios, they have to be weighed up with the risks we face now.

On balance, bomb the irgc cunts, destroy any facilities that may be developing nuclear weapons, and facilitate the people to create a better future for themselves. 

That's the ideal solution, I absolutely agree. And in an ideal world with no civil war/power vacuum etc that's what I'd be advocating for. 

And while I doubt it would be the worst case scenario (that I described earlier) the reality is probably somewhere between the two. 

So I'm just trying to be a realist - and pointing out that if we accept similar problems rata numbers that we did with Syria - that we're likely to have a huge influx if there isn't immediate stability. 

Europe will be the port of call for refugees. As I highly doubt DT will be welcoming them into the states.