Forum menu
ecause in the last 87 pages only 196 people have joined in
Have you looked at other similar paged threads
the rugby one and the music one have fewer contributers FWIW - seems to be a reasonable number actually [ surprised me but then again i look at the evidence then form an opinion rather than form an opinion and look at /ignore the evidence
I am doing you supporters a favour by pointing out what Corbyn needs to work on
Yes of course you are given your illustrious CV has he not been in touch to offer a job?
I'm only saying what all the senior figures in the Labour and most of the MPs are saying
I see you have decided to keep doing appeal to authorities
[b]FFS will you at least learn why they are an utter waste of time and fallacious thinking.[/b]
Please learn this it is very simple
God bless the children of the Ulster plantation eh. Its great to see what you canone can achieve if you just place loyal subjects of a foreign country in another landA significant portion of the NI population do not want a "united" Ireland
Heart warming eh.
See also the Falklands and Gibraltar
statement by JC supporting a unified Ireland
CMD made a statement that he supported [s]west ham[/s] [s]bury[/s] aston villa, I don't think he made it a policy though.
While he may support this - the consensus in Westminster is to not talk about it
I can't see a problem. Corbyn is entitled to his opinion, the Good Friday Agreement fully recognizes that those who wish for a united Ireland have a perfectly legitimate point of view.
Like Corbyn I've always supported the reunification of Ireland - a divided community in a divided country has always seemed like a pretty stupid idea to me, and a recipe for disaster. To be fair I think we can all agree that history has judged the idea rather harshly.
Although I'm sure it made a lot of sense to the British government almost a 100 years ago, ie, let the Irish have their independence but only let them have the rural areas with extreme poverty and primitive peasant farming, we'll keep the wealthy industrial areas which employ skilled well-paid Scottish/English protestant immigrants, and which discriminate against unskilled poor Irish nationalists.
Oh how things have changed, as you point out in your reference to the burden on the UK government.
Its great to see what you canone can achieve if you just place loyal subjects of a foreign country in another land
Like Argentina?
Argentina was under Spanish control and I believe the British did a deal for the Falklands with Spain. The Argentinian claims are tenuous at best.
Like him or not, sage words from Mandelson for Labour supporters. Quotes from a paper he has circulated and reproduced in the Guatdian which is the UK's most prominent leftish newspaper and now fquite notably anti-Corbyn
[i]In his paper, Lord Mandelson writes: “In choosing Corbyn instead of Ed Miliband, the general public now feel we are just putting two fingers up to them, exchanging one loser for an even worse one. We cannot be elected with Corbyn as leader.
“Nobody will replace him, though, until he demonstrates to the party his unelectability at the polls. In this sense, the public will decide Labour’s future and it would be wrong to try and force this issue from within before the public have moved to a clear verdict.”[/i]
Oh Mandy....
Argentina was under Spanish control and I believe the British did a deal for the Falklands with Spain. The Argentinian claims are tenuous at best.
Who could dispute that we dont own an island on the other side of the globe that we took with force
These bloody foreigners eh
I am ignoring the fact that your history lesson is wrong we took it with force then abandoned it then retook it with force about a century later [ we left a plague saying it was still ours ] kicking of the Argentinian inhabitants.
Indisputably ours like Gibraltar and Ireland etc
As for mandy can i just say appeal to authority - shall i add it as a signature?
Lord Mandelson writes: "In choosing Corbyn instead of Ed Miliband, the general public now feel we are just putting two fingers up to them, exchanging one loser for an even worse one".
Peter Mandelson is a politician who shamefully had to resign from government in disgrace. A few years later he was given a second chance and unbelievably he had to resign [u]again[/u] in disgrace.
He then decided to give up being an elected politician altogether and went for a nice cushy job as an EU Commissioner, a political appointment which means that it doesn't matter if the public thinks you're a tosser - no one needs to elect you.
When his term as EU Commissioner ended Peter Mandelson thought he try his luck again with UK politics, only this time to avoid the need of people liking him and having to be elected he decided to go for the completely unelected chamber in the UK legislature.
That's why we now call him Lord Mandelson and how he got back into the last Labour cabinet without a single person voting for him.
Who gives a toss about what Mandelson has to say, apart from you jambalaya ?
"the group’s mission is to promote all forms of cycling inside and outside the Houses of Parliament"
Bunnyhopping BMXs on the front benches? 🙂
God bless the children of the Ulster plantation eh. Its great to see what you canone can achieve if you just place loyal subjects of a foreign country in another land
Heart warming eh.
See also the Falklands and Gibraltar
On this rationale, we'd better be getting back to Saxony, Normandy, Scandinavia and ultimately the Great Rift Valley.
Argentina as an independent country didn't exist when the UK colonized the Falklands. In any case, you can't visit the sins of the fathers on their great-great-great grandsons. I presume you agree with the UN charter's position on self-determination?
Who could dispute that we dont own an island on the other side of the globe that we took with force
To be fair, both sides in that rather pathetic little wildly waving squabble are guilty on this count.
No it was unoccupied when the Argentinians arrived - we had left but still claimed it as ours naturally- we then evicted them with force , refused them the right to return[ or any argentinian iirc possibly still do not sure] and now talk about how we respect the islanders right to self determination.
UK colonized the Falklands. In any case, you can't visit the sins of the fathers on their great-great-great grandsons*. I presume you agree with the UN charter's position on self-determination?
* I assume that means all the stuff the Nazis stole from the Jews will be passed on soon enough then to the rightful owners of the children of the thiefs? When does the wrong stop being wrong and become right - how many generations?
I assume you agree with their position on what happens to colonised territories
Solemnly proclaims the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations;
As you noted it is a colony and it has not ended.
This debate has been done to death but we took a wee island on the other side of the world by force, removed the inhabitants, put ours there , stopped them coming then claim"self determination" as the principle for the implanted population. Its not a convincing argument IMHO
As i said see also NI and Gibraltar but its pretty clear to see what we did. Some folk still think [ 18 th century]might is still right.
I disagree.
It's amazing how the left are such avid supporters of fascist dictators.
Its amazing how ad homs beat debate for some folk. Irreconcilably we were dicsussing thatcher supporting Pinochet earlier
Two brief points.
1.Feel free to point out the errors or flaws in my argument.
2. Its possible to think our the UK claim is not legitimate and to dislike fascist dictators.
No it was unoccupied when the Argentinians arrived -
I was actually referring to Argentina tbf
Apologies then for the misunderstanding
I leave that to ernie as i dont know much about the country
1.Feel free to point out the errors or flaws in my argument.
You argue as a hobby. You could argue anything, any side, with equal ability. Yet, like the other lefty hobbiest arguers, it's always the mass murdering fascists and totalitarians that you side with.
It's odd.
I requested you point out the flaws in my argument not that you keep making things up.
You seem to have, once more, pointed out my personal flaws and everyone else on the left.
Would you like to try again focusing on the argument/points rather than the man or shall we just accept its beyond you to argue with reason and not insults?
ou argue as a hobby. You could argue anything, any side, with equal ability. Yet, like the other lefty hobbiest arguers, it's always the mass murdering fascists and totalitarians that you side with.
It's odd.
It's not to do with being a Lefty, its coz he's a Vegan.
Maybe that makes him double evil
I leave that to ernie as i dont know much about the country
Erm, no thanks. If there's one thing I've learnt on here is the complete futility of attempting to have a sensible and rational debate about the Falklands, take the crass [i]"It's amazing how the left are such avid supporters of fascist dictators"[/i] comment as an example. I've mostly skipped over the references to the Falklands on this thread.
It's made all the easier by the fact that I personally don't have strong emotive views on the Falklands. I do however support the United Nations stance on the issue - something which clearly many people on here, in keeping with successive UK governments, don't.
Can I just add that almost every country in the world, including all of Latin America, supports a the decolonization of the Falklands, which is why UN resolution after UN resolution backs Argentina. Even our closest ally and the one with whom we allegedly have a "special relationship", the US, refuses to back the UK and the best it manage is to abstain from Falklands related votes at the UN.
A point which those who are convinced of the righteousness of the UK hanging on to an insignificant remnant of a once mighty empire might like to consider, and something which quite frankly I find rather embarrassing.
Not only that, but freakin expensive. I doubt the cost of MPA is being met by the locals?
we took a wee island on the other side of the world by force, removed the inhabitants, put ours there , stopped them coming then claim"self determination" as the principle for the implanted population
How about a deal, we will hand back the Falklands when Argentina gets handed back to [url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/05/argentina-fight-reclaim-ancestral-land-indigenous-leader ]its indigenous population[/url]?
I do however support the United Nations stance on the issue - something which clearly many people on here, in keeping with successive UK governments, don't.
Which stance? Decolonisation or right to self determination, as in this case they appear to be mutually exclusive.
Or are you referring to the UN mandate that we should re-enter negotiations towards resolving the issue?
Argentina: can we have the Malvinas back?
U.K: No!
Negotiations concluded
Happy now?
Jeremy has started with a negative overall poll rating -3.
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11888380/Jeremy-Corbyn-becomes-first-Labour-leader-ever-to-score-negative-debut-poll-rating.html ]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11888380/Jeremy-Corbyn-becomes-first-Labour-leader-ever-to-score-negative-debut-poll-rating.html[/url]
Even Foot did better than that!
**** it, Ninfans just made the same point I did.
Flounces
Meh. Oil. The second oil isn't needed, the UK will hand back the Falklands with a smile.
which is why UN resolution after UN resolution backs Argentina.
Which resolutions are these then?
I thought it was the islanders who had the right of self determination?
In 1988, the General Assembly reiterated a 1965 request that both countries negotiate a peaceful settlement to the dispute and respect the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the principles of UN GA resolution 1514
Sorry to drag this further off but I am unaware of any UN resolutions that support the Argentinians? Happy to be corrected.
Anyway, the real interest is in the potential oil reserves. If these are found to be to marginal and difficult, I would imagine the UK will get rid of the Islands.
Sorry to drag this further off but I am unaware of any UN resolutions that support the Argentinians? Happy to be corrected.
The ones that come up about once a year calling for negotiations between the UK and Argentina over the Falklands and which the US abstains from.
If you don't accept my point that's fine - just dismiss it as nonsense.
The ones that come up about once a year calling for negotiations between the UK and Argentina over the Falklands and which the US abstains from.
How is that a show of support from the UN for the Argentinian claim on the Falklands?
If you don't accept my point that's fine - just dismiss it as nonsense.
??? As I said I am happy to be corrected.
Hmm, saying that the UK should re-enter negotiations is hardly a rousing endorsement of the Argentine position is it? Even the UN decolonisation committee accepts that the issue of the islands is a "special and particular colonial situation" rather than a simple case of decolonisation.
Of course, the Argentinian claim isn't just for the Falklands is it? It's for South Georgia and the South Sandwich isles as well, even though these are over a thousand miles away and have never been colonised by the Argentinians (well other than a short period when they did so by force a couple of decades ago) - which sort of shoots the whole crux of their argument down really. As does the inconvenient fact that their reliance on 'decolonisation' by the UN focuses us on the fact that their alternate claim on the islands relies on the belief that [b]they[/b] own it as a colonial remnant from the fall of the Spanish empire 😆
The whole argument is shot full of more holes than the Belgrano!
As I said I am happy to be corrected.
Yeah but you're not even reading my posts properly. This is what I said :
[i]Can I just add that almost every country in the world, including all of Latin America, supports a the decolonization of the Falklands, which is why UN resolution after UN resolution backs Argentina. Even our closest ally and the one with whom we allegedly have a "special relationship", the US, refuses to back the UK and the best it manage is to abstain from Falklands related votes at the UN.[/i]
These are resolutions submitted to the UN by Argentina calling for a negotiated solution between itself and the UK to comply with the UN's policy on decolonization.
You'd think that if this was such an "important" issue people in the UK would be well-informed on the position of the UN with regards to the Falklands, apparently not.
These are resolutions submitted to the UN by Argentina calling for a negotiated solution between itself and the UK to comply with the UN's policy on decolonization.
Now this hardly the same as:
position of the UN with regards to the Falklands,
[url= http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml ]http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml[/url]
Interesting that the Falklands have the smallest population out of any of the UK's colonies but the most disputed one. I wonder why?
Even the UN decolonisation committee accepts that the issue of the islands is a "special and particular colonial situation" rather than a simple case of decolonisation.
I am Mary Shelley and refund my own £5
Best documentary I've seen for a while:
Decolonisation or right to self determination, as in this case they appear to be mutually exclusive.
Did you miss the bit where i explained that the setled poppulation that removed the existing one cannot then claim self determination
For example we could invade France kick them all out move over there and then claim self determination - its not very convincing as an argument
Or are you referring to the UN mandate that we should re-enter negotiations towards resolving the issue?
If the UN supported us they would go What issue
Even the UN decolonisation committee accepts that the issue of the islands is a "special and particular colonial situation" rather than a simple case of decolonisation.
Indeed but they still think its a colony because it is
I will follow ernies advice on this as it is pointless but you cannot claim self determination in this case as it is a planted population as is NI as woudl France be in my example above.
These are resolutions submitted to the UN by Argentina calling for a negotiated solution between itself and the UK to comply with the UN's policy on decolonization.Now this hardly the same as:
position of the UN with regards to the Falklands,
It's exactly the same, what on earth are you talking about?
That is the UN position with regards the Falklands.
For example we could invade France kick them all out move over there and then claim self determination - its not very convincing as an argument
A bit like the spaniards did to the whole of South America then?
ps! theres no evidence that any of the civilian population was forced to leave the Falklands in 1833 when we reasserted our ownership of the islands, in fact it's a matter of record that a number of the troops and gauchos remained as settlers.
It's exactly the same, what on earth are you talking about?
You know very well that it's a non sequitur that UN members supporting the Argentine position and UN mandate with regards to 're-establishing negotiations' is akin to UN members supporting the Argentine position on either the sovereignty of the islands or right to self determination of the islanders.
It's exactly the same, what on earth are you talking about?That is the UN position with regards the Falklands.
The UN position is that the UK and Argentinian governments should negotiate a peaceful settlement.
The UN has not issued a resolution to support the Falklands being passed over to Argentina.
The problem for the UN is, that it supports self determination and decolonisation, which in this case, would appear to be contradictory.
Indeed it is a balance between the two competing rights.
The question is can people who colonise claim self determination for the settle population
Can Israel steal Palestinian land then claim the people want to stay or are they just thiefs? The passage of time clouds the issue for sure but , as the france issue showed, no one would argue that was just if we tried it today on the other side of the globe.
theres no evidence that any of the civilian population was forced to leave the Falklands in 1833 when we reasserted our ownership of the islands, in fact it's a matter of record that a number of the troops and gauchos remained as settlers.
[scribble] and i am sure the argentians will do the same when they retake the island with force and you will applaud the noble act[/scribble]
I don't think you can start playing games of repatriation. If we started that we'd be here forever. with Ireland, aye we all know about the planters and the orange state that followed partition and the hegemony that ensued. But you need to recognise that after a while even the planters have a right to exist in a land and then follow democratic principles. History is history. Learn the lessons and move on, but it has little bearing in what should happen in the future.
In that sense Argentina's claim is silly and the uk's has been backed up with referendum. Same with a UI if you want it to happen you need to get people to vote for it. Same with an independent Scotland.
The question is can people who colonise claim self determination for the settle population
Like the 86% of the Argentinian population who descend from Spanish colonial settlers?
Anyway, back on topic:
the 86% of the Argentinian population who descend from Spanish colonial settlers?
The largest ethnic group in Argentina are the Italians - over 60% of Argentines are of Italian descent.
There is a saying in Argentina which claims that :
"[i]Argentines are Italians who speak Spanish live like the French but want to be British"[/i].
There are elite English schools in Argentina and British influence was massive - at one time there were more British nationals living in Argentina (despite its small population) than anywhere else outside the British Commonwealth.
There was even an Argentine RAF fighter squadron during WW2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._164_Squadron_RAF
But you need to recognise that after a while even the planters have a right to exist in a land and then follow democratic principles. History is history. Learn the lessons and move on, but it has little bearing in what should happen in the future
I really dont and I dont see how you can say we can ignore how we got here in deciding what we do next.
I stole your bike but i have had it for a decade how I got it is not important? lets move forward recognising property rights but ignoring the bit about how I got it.
FWIW we can recognise their rights but we can also return it to the people we stole it from using military might.
In bithe cases we ignored the democratic rights it a bit hypocritical/convenient to stand for them now
Does that mean we can look forward to the English returning to Denmark and Germany and giving Lloegr back to the Welsh?we can recognise their rights but we can also return it to the people we stole it from using military might.
My comment is a comment relating to two cited examples and those cases
Would you like to join in the discussion on these or not?
Clearly not all colonisation can be reversed as it would involve us all go back to Africa/ the garden of Eden.
Ninfan that telegraph link largely involves him walking past reporters and not answering a question when say getting in a car.
very weak
I had missed the bit where Corbyn commented on the Falklands this week. Does anyone have the link? 😉
So what are the criteria for deciding which colonisations can be reversed and which can't? Is there some arbitrary cut-off date?Clearly not all colonisation can be reversed
Quote "Clearly not all colonisation can be reversed as it would involve us all go back to Africa/ the garden of Eden "
True JY plus CMD would have us all stopped at the first "safe" country.
The largest ethnic group in Argentina are the Italians
Thank you for supporting my point
or were you unaware that most of Italy was part of the Spanish Empire 😈
So what are the criteria for deciding which colonisations can be reversed and which can't? Is there some arbitrary cut-off date?
Should be interesting for Texas...
I had missed the bit where Corbyn commented on the Falklands this week.
He doesn't comment on anything any more, just mumbles some platitudes and says we'll think about it...
[quote=rusty90 said]Is there some arbitrary cut-off date?
Some kind of hand-wringing day zero ?
ninfan - MemberThank you for supporting my point
I'm sure you think you're very clever ninfan but I haven't a clue what you're talking about.
.
teamhurtmore - MemberI had missed the bit where Corbyn commented on the Falklands this week.
Why else do you think that elements in the army are making early plans to stage an Argentine-style military coup should the British people dare to elect Corbyn in 5 years time ?
Well I say "an Argentine-style military coup" but these days there is no possibility that the Argentine military could and would stage a successful coup. I reckon there's probably a better chance of that happening in the UK.
Certainly it would appear that some senior military figures think it's feasible.
Jy - after a time i said, I personally think the important factor is generational. It's people lives we are talking about so the bike analogy doesn't stand up. There is a difference.
I say all I say as someone very sympathetic to Irish unification. Falklands island I couldn't really care less about tbh.
In the interests of peace you need to think about it differently than a simple possession.
So what are the criteria for deciding which colonisations can be reversed and which can't?
Interesting question what do you think?
Oh another complicated question what are your views?Is there some arbitrary cut-off date?
the important factor is generational
Yes and no as clearly the pasaage of time changes things but only to some degree. For example the gold, art and other stuff the nazis stole/looted is now the property of Germany as its a generational thing? The land Israel illegally occupied is now there? There are not always easy simple answers or arbitrary cut off points in time
Its all complicated and has nuances and shades of grey that wont be explored on STW as we insist on an answers that cannot be given to trap folk.
In the NI example I would accept the people have the right to reside there but they dont have the right to partition the country due to having been planted their to have allegiance to another country ignoring the wishes of the majority of the island population.
In the interests of peace you need to think about it differently than a simple possession.
Is peace more important than justice? An interesting question that one and I shall ponder on it.
Generally speaking, that if you're born somewhere then it's your country and you have the right to self determination.Interesting question what do you think?
To answer your 2 questions. Nazi gold, its a simple possession so I don't think there should be any statute of limits. Same goes for the British loot that fills our museums etc.
The isreali Palestine situation. Well its similar to Ireland in that just giving it back would lead end up leading to war. So essentially, yes it is different. I'm personally in favour of making the west bank and Gaza ful parts of Israel and giving them full democratic rights. I think it's the only possible solution. Isreali clearly doesn't want to stops its expansion. So if the want the land they should take the people and afford them full rights.
IANAL but reading both cases in full it's not clear to me that Argentina has a significantly better claim than the UK.
If it were my decision I'd want to see a cast iron case before doing anything against the wishes of the inhabitants, and that isn't likely.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
Neither claim is particularly stronger than the other. It's all just opinion, 'facts' are hard to come by, and easily countered by other 'facts'. However, when it comes to territorial sovereignty throughout history, possession has always proven to be 9/10ths of the law, with the right to self determine coming in recently (in historical terms) to be the 1/10th exception that proves the rule. There is a certain irony of countries that are recently established in historical terms, displacing and killing off indigenous populations in doing so, then complaining about territory. If Argentina were calling for Malvinas/Falklands to be granted independence then they would have more credibility, but they just want to replace one master with another. Surely in this situation the most important thing is what the people who live there want?
As regards the Falklands surely,in true free market ideological style , we should let the markets decide.Defending the Falklands costs the UK taxpayer how much- £400 milion a year? And the Falkland residents contribute how much to this - zero? They also enjoy a top tax rate of 26% and pay no VAT.And as for self determination,it sounds like a great idea so who can migrate there and then get to vote on the issue?
Offer the islanders a deal so good they'd all vote yes. In fact, they'd only have to offer the deal to 51pc of them. 🙂
Argentina, a fine home for Nazis fleeing justice after the war. A government implicated in bombing of Jews in chorus with Iran and where the investigator mysterioulsy committed suicide just before bringing the matter to trial ? There has already been a settlement of the issue, the Argentines invaded and we resolved the situation in our favour for once and for all.
Corbyns stance on the Falklands is a vote loser amongst current and potential Labour voters and once again makes him a very easy target for his opponents. Tie this in with his view we should not have a military capable of operating away from these shores and he's advocating we run up the white flag all over the world.
@ninfan yes I saw that list, Corbyn has remarkably little to say on most issues he's pressed on. Well that is until he reverses his position or tried to weasel out of a tight spot. He can't even make up,his mind about whether to kneel before the Queen
@ernie Mandelson is another of the people who got Labour elected, that's why people should listen to him and at least have a coherent responce.
@nick, the economic argument is pretty compelling given the oil discoveries in the waters around the Falklands
@ernie Mandelson is another of the people who got Labour elected
You really say the most astounding things.
As regards the Falklands surely,in true free market ideological style , we should let the markets decide.Defending the Falklands costs the UK taxpayer how much- £400 milion a year? And the Falkland residents contribute how much to this - zero? They also enjoy a top tax rate of 26% and pay no VAT.And as for self determination,it sounds like a great idea so who can migrate there and then get to vote on the issue?
Nick, believe me, 26% tax doesn't make it worthwhile to live in the Falklands! Although it's a great place to visit, I'm off next winter
jambalaya - Member
@nick, the economic argument is pretty compelling given the oil discoveries in the waters around the Falklands
But surely they are Argentina's deposits? In the Indy thread you argued they would be split by population and not by whose international waters they lay in. The people who pointed out that was contrary to international law were OBVIOUSLY ignored,but hey-ho!
Oh,and you realise your wee critique of Argentina also sums up your precious Israel quite well? Although Argentina expansionist policy needs a bit of fine tuning,unlike the zionist genocide merchants.You are nuttier that squirrel poo.
A government implicated in bombing of Jews
How about a government linked to bombings, murders and kidnapping on foreign soil since the 50's?
See if you can guess the country.
[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations ]the country that can do no wrong and the one that jam cannot criticise[/url]
Cannot wait to see ignore what they do yet again whilst lecturing Argentina
FWIW your comments are not even accurate
From the beginning, he [Nisman] had the unstinting support of Argentina’s Presidents—first of Néstor Kirchner, who chose Nisman to supervise the prosecution in 2004, then of Cristina, who succeeded her husband in 2007. Every autumn, she travelled to New York and denounced the Iranian regime before the United Nations. Whenever Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, entered the main hall to speak, Argentina’s diplomats, under Kirchner’s orders, walked out.
the govt has never been implicated in the bombing but has been criticised for the investigation as has Nisman
Next up in the Corbyn news - 9/11 was made up and had nothing to do with Osama BL:
In August Corbyn shared a platform with a nutjob opineing that the world is controlled by "Jewish elders" and a secret new world order that's apparently so powerful it couldn't even stop a bearded job-dodging conspiracy theorist from Islington from being elected to lead the Labour Party.
The Labour Party elders of old would be ashamed at the new depths that Corbyn's dragging the party down to.
Interesting article.
However, all governments manipulate the news for their own benefit. As does the Daily Telegraph!
He never actually states that 9/11 was a CIA conspiracy.
That same year, he said in Socialist Campaign Group News: “The aim of the war machine of the United States is to maintain a world order dominated by the banks and multinational companies of Europe and North America.”
That rings pretty true to me.
@duckman The comparison makes no sense. North Sea Oil is divided by international boundaries between the UK and Norway. Likewise oil in the South Atlantic. The Falklands are British territory. How North Sea oil is to be distributed in the event of Indy would be based upon negotiation as its pragmatically impossible for Scotland todo a Zimbabwe and declare UDI.
@JY have to say I don't have a huge back catalogue of reading on the Jewish centre bombing other than to say it's suspected the Argentine government of the day was most definitely involved. As for history I don't see Australia being returned to the Aboriginies or the US to the native Americans ?
I come back to my original point whatever you think about the Falklands Corbyn's stance is a vote loser for Labour and further plays to his opponents who suggest he poses a security threat to the UK
@gobuchul given we live in a capitalist society it's not surprising that large companies who provide employment and banks who lend the money we crave are important parts of our society.
@justfive, I don't believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic but he certainly chooses his "friends" and fellow speakers poorly as many most certainly are. This lack of judgement most definitely is a threat to the UK economically and otherwise
@gobuchul given we live in a capitalist society it's not surprising that large companies who provide employment and banks who lend the money we crave are important parts of our society.
I agree.
The quote from the Telegraph is supposed to show Corbyn as a conspiracy theory nut job. He stating the truth just using words the right wing wouldn't.
That same year, he said in Socialist Campaign Group News: “The aim of the [s]war machine[/s] government of the United States is to[s] maintain a world order dominated by the banks and multinational companies [/s]ensure that the economies of Europe and North America are succesful.”
Given they used 9/11 to attack a country and a leader no one thinks was involved he may well be making a reasonable point.
Sharing a platform with someone does not mean you agree with them as STW is a shared platform and clearly we dont all agree
JY have to say I don't have a huge back catalogue of reading on the Jewish centre bombing other than to say it's suspected the Argentine government of the day was most definitely involved
How can it be suspected they were most definitely involved?
Amusing phrase that contradicts itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_bombing
Even Mossad investgated it and have never alleged what you say
I saw not even a mention of this on a quick skim reading if the wiki page just that the investigation was poorly handled
PS you forgot to say a word about all the death and murder that Israel has waged abroad with bombings
Ones that there are no doubt about
Interesting eh.
Israeli diplomatic sources who read the "final" report by SIDE on the attack said in 2003 that the attack was a suicide bombing carried out by Ibrahim Hussein Berro, a 21-year-old Hezbollah operative[24] who has been honored with a plaque in southern Lebanon for his "martyrdom" on July 18, 1994, the date of the bombing.[citation needed] This investigation was carried out jointly with the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation.[25] Hussein had been identified by FBI and Argentine intelligence, and corroborated by at least three witnesses.[24] According to official Argentine government prosecutor, Alberto Nisman, Hussein's two US-based brothers had testified that he had joined the radical Shia militant group Hezbollah. "The brothers' testimony was substantial, rich in detail and showed that he was the one who was killed," Nisman added
What you say is just not true and the refusal to even mention israel is risible
That same year, he said in Socialist Campaign Group News: “The aim of the [s]war machine[/s] government of the United States is to [s]maintain a world order dominated by the banks and multinational companies[/s] ensure that [u]the owners of[/u] the economies of Europe and North America are succesful.”
FTFY
just5minutes - MemberNext up in the Corbyn news - 9/11 was made up and had nothing to do with Osama BL:
just5minutes aren't you at least a little embarrassed with regards to making up stuff which even your own link instantly refutes ?
The Daily Telegraph article which you link to says that Corbyn claims 9/11 was manipulated by George Bush and Tony Blair as an excuse to go to war. This is an opinion which is very widely shared by the general public, including myself.
Nowhere does the article say that Corbyn claims that "9/11 was made up" as you completely falsely suggest.
In the case of Osama Bin Laden's involvement I very distinctly remember on the day of 9/11 "experts" in TV studios pointing out two important things. Firstly that Al-Qaeda wasn't a structured organisation to which you could apply for membership, in fact the claim was made that it wasn't an organisation as such at all but a very loose association of like-minded people.
The second claim made was that it was extremely unlikely that Osama Bin Laden himself was personally involved in the planning of 9/11 and very likely didn't even know beforehand that it would take place. Quite apart from anything else it is very unlikely that he could access a secure telephone line/internet connection to coordinate international operations.
There is little doubt that 9/11 was used to justify going to war - in fact Bush and Blair both clearly stated that it justified going to war, so you would have to be pretty daft to think that the event wasn't manipulated.
'The Project for the New American Century' was a right-wing think tank which completely dominated George Bush's foreign policy. 10 of the 25 founding member The Project for the New American Century served in George Bush's administration, including arch-hawks Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.
Long before 9/11 The Project for the New American Century was arguing in favour of global "full-spectrum dominance" by the US - total global military superiority on land, sea, and air.
Long before 9/11 The Project for the New American Century was arguing in favour of attacking Iraq.
9/11 gave George Bush and his friends and colleagues in The Project for the New American Century (all involved in the oil industry btw) the excuse to start wars they had been waiting to start.
So 9/11 gave them the excuse to attack and invade Afghanistan, next they went for something worthwhile - a country with oil, unfortunately the Iraq War unlike Afghanistan didn't go as planned and the policy stalled.
Had Iraq been as easy as Afghanistan the next target would probably have been Iran, the real prize. Certainly during the early stages of the Iraq War when it seemed to be going fairly well there was some sabre-rattling towards Iran by the Bush administration.
After Iran my guess is that it would have been Syria, although there was some sabre-rattling towards Syria too so that could have been first. Anyway whatever way it went the plan was that the whole of the Middle East would be dominated by the US and serve US interests.
However the Iraq War changed all that when it was realised that walking into foreign countries isn't quite the pushover that arrogant and greedy Republican right-wingers might have hoped.
The Project for the New American Century now appears to have become defunct despite its significant funding from the oil and arms industries, the "project" has been abandoned, ironically not very far into the 21st century. I can't even find their website anymore.
Out of the main party leaders Corbyn is the most likely to give an honest appraisal of the reasons for going to war. Certainly more honest than the Tories. Thanks for bringing it up just5minutes.
Carefully ignored the fact that the uk oil would be in Scottish water and everybody except you and perhaps Zulu, agrees it would almost definitely certainly probably be Scottish. But what is international law to you,eh? I did talk in more detail about Israel compared to Argentina, you must have missed that.
jambalaya - Member
...How North Sea oil is to be distributed in the event of Indy would be based upon negotiation as its pragmatically impossible for Scotland todo a Zimbabwe and declare UDI...
We'll see.
There's growing support for it from those who think the SNP is not pushing hard enough. The critical period will be after the Scottish elections. If the SNP clean up like they did this year (unlikely IMO), then the voices will become more strident. The attitude being that the voters will then have spoken, no need for another referendum.
This is because there is considerable distrust of any process in which the UK govt has a hand because so many people believe the postal votes were manipulated in the referendum.
I'd put my money on the Scottish Parliament passing a motion to dissolve the Treaty of Union rather than a UDI, but it comes to much the same.
The SNP are following rather than pushing the movement.
I am interested to see what effect Corbyn will ultimately have on Scotland. At the moment it seems minimal, but surely he is going to be able to attract some of the faithful back. The SNP's moment in the sum may be briefer than they expected, hence a need to move quickly on independence.
Back to Corbyn. In today's news :
[i][b]David Cameron must intervene to press his Saudi counterparts to halt the planned beheading and crucifixion of a protester, Jeremy Corbyn has said.
The Labour leader has also called for the prime minister to terminate the bid of a Ministry of Justice commercial body to sell expertise to Saudi Arabia’s prison service.
Corbyn asked Cameron: “Will you step in to terminate the Ministry of Justice’s bid to provide services to the Saudi prisons system – the very body, I should stress, which will be responsible for carrying out Ali’s execution?”[/b][/i]
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/26/cameron-urged-to-intervene-over-planned-execution-of-saudi-protester ]Cameron urged to intervene over planned execution of Saudi protester[/url]
I note that despite having a close personal relationship with the Saudi despots Tony Blair hasn't yet found the time to express an opinion on the matter.
He found plenty of time to intervene 3 times in the Labour Party leadership debate though.
Perhaps that was one of the reasons why Tony Blair was so determined that Corbyn shouldn't win the election - he knew that Corbyn might upset his murdering despot friends who pay him vast amounts of money for his "advice".
If the SNP clean up like they did this year (unlikely IMO), then the voices will become more strident. The attitude being that the voters will then have spoken, no need for another referendum.
is the price of oil going up?????
Damn Ernie,I am sure Jambalaya was coming along in a second to post that up...or not. I am starting to like jezza more and more.
So, Jeremy now thinks we [u]should[/u] intervene in the internal politics of Arab countries ❓
That's an interesting volte-face.
It's completely consistent. He has long campaigned against injustices in the Middle East and indeed throughout the world.
Which bit of achieving change through peaceful means instead of war don't you understand, my little daft Tory troll ?
Which bit of achieving change through peaceful means instead of war don't you understand
The bit that involves supporting the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah?