UK General Election 2017

[Beskar]

Unfortunately, some papers cannot keep the tone civil.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think chance of Theresa May getting a larger majority just rose significantly. People will be more conscious for a 'Strong and Stable' message.

Hmmmm, conservative political philosophies benefitting from a public sentiment that they have been attacked....

Beskie, I must agree with you but this level of analysis will NOT get you that NASA gig.

[Pannonian]

Unfortunately, some papers cannot keep the tone civil.

Why are you surprised? I saw this coming in 2015. I said at the time that he was toxic to the British people, and would turn the Labour party toxic by association. All the Tories needed to do to win re-election was point at Corbyn and say, look, he's the Labour leader. The Labour members elected and re-elected him regardless of this extremely obvious attack line. They can have no complaints about the Tory press doing what the Tory press can be expected to do. After all, they were no less harsh on Owen Smith last year, so complaints about a harsh reception and unfairness stinks of hypocrisy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To what extent was the issue substantive inequality over specific rights?

Goodness knows. But the solution was to tell the devolved Northern Ireland government to grow up and deal with things themselves, within the parameters of general British decency, with a healthy subsidy as an incentive. Whatever problems they have locally, Britain don't really want to care about, except that there shouldn't be any discrimination (as that falls within the realms of British decency). Before he stepped down, Martin McGuinness (the head man in the IRA before they ended their campaign) said that he preferred direct government by Westminster to the DUP-led Stormont government. That's Sinn Fein wanting the British government to be more involved than the British government want to be.

There were endemic problems, including deliberately gerrymandered constituencies designed to prevent Republicans or Catholics every gaining seats - irrc there were no Catholic ministers until 1972, a year before the NI Parliament was abolished.

Unfortunately, some papers cannot keep the tone civil.

Last week Theresa May was accused of stealing food from children.

Sean O'Callaghan says Corbyn has "blood on his hands" because he encouraged the IRA.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

@Beskar

[Beskar]

Jeremy Corbyn to blame terrorist attacks such as Manchester bombing on UK foreign policy
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7756266.html

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, of course, because it's the fault of the victims.

[Pannonian]

Jeremy Corbyn to blame terrorist attacks such as Manchester bombing on UK foreign policy
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7756266.html

He can't help himself, can he. Abedi's family fled Qaddafi. Abedi's family were able to return to Libya because UK foreign policy had removed Qaddafi. Abedi then bombs and kills children in the UK. And the Stop the War Coalition chairman, with a sideline in leading the Labour party, blames UK foreign policy for this arsehole deciding that kids were a fair target. I bet Corbyn's predecessor as chairman of the StWC, now his campaign chief, is proud of his boss.

Corbyn is doing all he can to turn the UK into a one party state.

[Sarmatian]

It doesn't have to be true in every single case. You had a Charleston church shooting because someone felt that white males were oppressed in America. Or the mass shooting in Norway...

Terrorism is connected with a political goal, even if that goal isn't always the same or even rational.

Also, blaming the UK foreign policy is not blaming the victims. There's no equivalence there.

[Husar]

Also, blaming the UK foreign policy is not blaming the victims. There's no equivalence there.

The problem is that the UK foreign policy is absolutely blameless and was never wrong. And if it ever was undeniably "wrong", it doesn't count because they ended all slavery worldwide for ever!

Take the Zulus for example, they were terrible slackers who were too lazy to invent gunpowder and got slaughtered by the British in return, who were just defending their country.
British foreign policy is (and always has been) the height of enlightenment and more altruistic than Mother Theresa. Only a terrorist would ever disagree with that.

[Pannonian]

The problem is that the UK foreign policy is absolutely blameless and was never wrong. And if it ever was undeniably "wrong", it doesn't count because they ended all slavery worldwide for ever!

Take the Zulus for example, they were terrible slackers who were too lazy to invent gunpowder and got slaughtered by the British in return, who were just defending their country.
British foreign policy is (and always has been) the height of enlightenment and more altruistic than Mother Theresa. Only a terrorist would ever disagree with that.

How typical. Someone whose family the UK has helped for decades, who was brought up here like any other Briton, decides to bomb children. And Husar is right here blaming the UK for this. The lesson we can draw from this is the conclusion I've come to. We should stop taking in immigrants from Muslim countries, even those who claim refuge (as Abedi's parents did). Even if we do all we can for them, they'll still end up against us, and we'll still be blamed for their actions by anti-Anglo ideologues. Rather than try to explain how it came to this end, let's just not make a start in the first place. Let Germany take them all.

[Greyblades]

@Husar the zulu had migrated into the area from east africa and rose to dominance by exterminating the surrounding tribes, killing thier men raping their women and enslaving thier children. Thier ascendance set into motion a mass migration of fleeing tribes that resulted in a major depopulation of the surrounding region killing 2 million people.

Did this history make the zulu state deserving of their subjugation?

[Husar]

How typical. Someone whose family the UK has helped for decades, who was brought up here like any other Briton, decides to bomb children. And Husar is right here blaming the UK for this.

I was only blaming you (English nationalists) in my post, but just to make you happy, here you go:

@Husar the zulu had migrated into the area from east africa and rose to dominance by exterminating the surrounding tribes, killing thier men raping their women and enslaving thier children. Thier ascendance set into motion a mass migration of fleeing tribes that resulted in a major depopulation of the surrounding region killing 2 million people.

Did this history make the zulu state deserving of their subjugation?

So two wrongs make a right now in the UK.
In which case the wrong terrorism just rights your wrong foreign policy.

The yin and yang are perfectly balanced, nothing to see here.

The lesson we can draw from this is the conclusion I've come to. We should stop taking in immigrants from Muslim countries, even those who claim refuge (as Abedi's parents did). Even if we do all we can for them, they'll still end up against us, and we'll still be blamed for their actions by anti-Anglo ideologues. Rather than try to explain how it came to this end, let's just not make a start in the first place. Let Germany take them all.

How typical. Looks like you finally came around to the pro-Brexit side, glad I could help.
Or perhaps you're trying to fight ideological wars with bombs and bombs aren't ideological weapons.
Surely they're being used by ideologues, but you can't bomb ideologies. Even the terrorists can't. The right always responds like you do and the left always replies with "we need more peace and love!".
To get such a ban as you propose, you have to fight the same ideologies and/or establish a dictatorship, so good luck with that. You could start by bombing those who oppose the new legislation until they agree with you.

[Pannonian]

I was only blaming you (English nationalists) in my post, but just to make you happy, here you go:

So two wrongs make a right now in the UK.
In which case the wrong terrorism just rights your wrong foreign policy.

The yin and yang are perfectly balanced, nothing to see here.

Just a reminder. When I was saying that Britain should mind its own business and withdraw from all engagements with the middle east, you were the one arguing for more engagement. I would gladly accede to this terrorist's wishes and have absolutely nothing to do with Muslim countries, except where necessary to trade for resources.

How typical. Looks like you finally came around to the pro-Brexit side, glad I could help.
Or perhaps you're trying to fight ideological wars with bombs and bombs aren't ideological weapons.
Surely they're being used by ideologues, but you can't bomb ideologies. Even the terrorists can't. The right always responds like you do and the left always replies with "we need more peace and love!".
To get such a ban as you propose, you have to fight the same ideologies and/or establish a dictatorship, so good luck with that. You could start by bombing those who oppose the new legislation until they agree with you.

I see no point in fighting an ideological war with bombs and bullets, or with ideology. I see no point in fighting the war at all, or engaging with these barbarians in any way beyond what is necessary. I think their ideology is barbaric, but they're free to have it in their own country. They use the argument of self determination (despite your trying to weasel out of that principle when I pressed you on it), but their claim is reciprocal. They want us out of their country, the reciprocation is that they should get out of our country. Since we can't get them out due to international laws, we should keep them out instead, which is within our rights as a state.

[Idaho]

How typical. Someone whose family the UK has helped for decades, who was brought up here like any other Briton, decides to bomb children. And Husar is right here blaming the UK for this. The lesson we can draw from this is the conclusion I've come to. We should stop taking in immigrants from Muslim countries, even those who claim refuge (as Abedi's parents did). Even if we do all we can for them, they'll still end up against us, and we'll still be blamed for their actions by anti-Anglo ideologues. Rather than try to explain how it came to this end, let's just not make a start in the first place. Let Germany take them all.

You are InsaneApache from 30 years ago. About to make that leap from labour to hard right.

[Pannonian]

You are InsaneApache from 30 years ago. About to make that leap from labour to hard right.

I'd like to hear your solution to the problem. Or indeed your definition of the problem.

[Husar]

Just a reminder. When I was saying that Britain should mind its own business and withdraw from all engagements with the middle east, you were the one arguing for more engagement. I would gladly accede to this terrorist's wishes and have absolutely nothing to do with Muslim countries, except where necessary to trade for resources.

The trade for resources is the part that basically shatters your argument entirely. What if they decide to trade the resources with Russia or China instead because they sell them arms in return? You just say okay, stop using your car?

I see no point in fighting an ideological war with bombs and bullets, or with ideology. I see no point in fighting the war at all, or engaging with these barbarians in any way beyond what is necessary. I think their ideology is barbaric, but they're free to have it in their own country. They use the argument of self determination (despite your trying to weasel out of that principle when I pressed you on it), but their claim is reciprocal. They want us out of their country, the reciprocation is that they should get out of our country. Since we can't get them out due to international laws, we should keep them out instead, which is within our rights as a state.

Why should they get out of your country if they want self determination? Does the UK not allow people from the US in because they used violence to get self determination? Does a country have to basically be a UK colony for the citizens to be allowed into the country?

[Pannonian]

The trade for resources is the part that basically shatters your argument entirely. What if they decide to trade the resources with Russia or China instead because they sell them arms in return? You just say okay, stop using your car?

That's their right to do so. I respect their right to do so. Unlike you, I respect the principle of self determination.

Why should they get out of your country if they want self determination? Does the UK not allow people from the US in because they used violence to get self determination? Does a country have to basically be a UK colony for the citizens to be allowed into the country?

What right does anyone from outside the UK have to enter the UK? It's a privilege, and we can allow it to whoever we like, and withhold it from whoever we like. At least what I suggest doesn't involve violence, unlike what these arseholes are inflicting on us. If they want us to respect their self determination, they should reciprocally respect our self determination. Or is it a one way thing, in that people are allowed to do whatever they want to us, but we're expected to soak up whatever they hand us? I suspect it's the latter for you, since we're Britain and thus automatically the punchbag for the high horse moralists of this world.

[Greyblades]

So two wrongs make a right now in the UK.
In which case the wrong terrorism just rights your wrong foreign policy.

Im not sure if I should be annoyed you ruined my set up or happy you understand my point.

Just as the Zulu's actions doesnt nullify the wrongs of the british invasion, the iraq war doesnt make right of this terrorist attack.

[Montmorency]

That's their right to do so. I respect their right to do so. Unlike you, I respect the principle of self determination.




What right does anyone from outside the UK have to enter the UK? It's a privilege, and we can allow it to whoever we like, and withhold it from whoever we like. At least what I suggest doesn't involve violence, unlike what these arseholes are inflicting on us. If they want us to respect their self determination, they should reciprocally respect our self determination. Or is it a one way thing, in that people are allowed to do whatever they want to us, but we're expected to soak up whatever they hand us? I suspect it's the latter for you, since we're Britain and thus automatically the punchbag for the high horse moralists of this world.

Aside from conflating individuals with countries, you fail to realize that there is no such thing as mutual self-determination, because self-determination necessitates conflict - therefore we have compromise in society.

Should the UK and the United States have respected Nazi German self-determination in the continent as long as they kept the peace with Anglophone countries?

[Gilrandir]

Should the UK and the United States have respected Nazi German self-determination in the continent as long as they kept the peace with Anglophone countries?

They have tried hard to respect it for the most part of the 1930s.

[Pannonian]

Aside from conflating individuals with countries, you fail to realize that there is no such thing as mutual self-determination, because self-determination necessitates conflict - therefore we have compromise in society.

Should the UK and the United States have respected Nazi German self-determination in the continent as long as they kept the peace with Anglophone countries?

In case you missed it, Britain entered WW2 as a result of keeping its promise to Poland, and did its darned best to continue doing so despite bankrupting itself in the process. And Germany declared war on the US.

As for mutual self determination: all diplomacy is based on reciprocity. If it's deemed an acceptable argument to point to our intervention as why we are a fair target (and NB. his sister said it was US attacks that made him decide to attack us), why is the reciprocal deemed to be unacceptable? Why are they allowed to say that we shouldn't be there, but we're not allowed to say that they shouldn't be here?

[Idaho]

I'd like to hear your solution to the problem. Or indeed your definition of the problem.

Which particular problem? Innocent people getting killed in someone else's war? Innocent people in this country getting killed in someone else's war?

[Montmorency]

In case you missed it, Britain entered WW2 as a result of keeping its promise to Poland, and did its darned best to continue doing so despite bankrupting itself in the process. And Germany declared war on the US.

As for mutual self determination: all diplomacy is based on reciprocity. If it's deemed an acceptable argument to point to our intervention as why we are a fair target (and NB. his sister said it was US attacks that made him decide to attack us), why is the reciprocal deemed to be unacceptable? Why are they allowed to say that we shouldn't be there, but we're not allowed to say that they shouldn't be here?

So the UK had reason to contest German self-determination (though honor toward Poland wasn't ultimately a significant factor).

Again you conflate a number of different questions.

What is a matter of deserts and what is a matter of consequences? Whether or not you believe British foreign policy is a direct cause of terrorist attacks, it's a petulant display to treat a country like a sports team fanatic, endlessly whingeing about it but calling it the pinnacle of oppression when non-fanatics offer an opinion too. This is a question you need to give proper consideration regardless of whether the actions of terrorists are right or wrong.

The self-determination of domestic radicals isn't that of countries, these being different kinds of entities; you shouldn't apply the term to individuals at all, in fact. Domestic radicals are additionaly your countrymen, and the actions they undertake are usually straightforwardly criminal under British law. Don't try to apply concepts to inappropriate contexts.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The problem is that the UK foreign policy is absolutely blameless and was never wrong. And if it ever was undeniably "wrong", it doesn't count because they ended all slavery worldwide for ever!

Whilst this is, of course, true throughout the 19th Century it is not really applicable today. The Golden Age of the Foriegn Office when debates over policy were conducted in Ancient Greek merely for the greater ease of quoting Plato have come to an end.

Corbyn is referring to this modern, fallen, form of Statecraft so it's unfair to use our glorious Empire as a beating stick to undermine his point.

Take the Zulus for example, they were terrible slackers who were too lazy to invent gunpowder and got slaughtered by the British in return, who were just defending their country.
British foreign policy is (and always has been) the height of enlightenment and more altruistic than Mother Theresa. Only a terrorist would ever disagree with that.

Yes, excellent example, had almost nothing to do with the Foreign Office as Lt General Chelmsford was acting without orders. Shocking he got away with it, really.

Here's the situation.

This man was a Libyan refugee, we recently liberated Libya from the man his parents fled. Following that the locals have sent the country half to hell and he decided to blow up some teenagers. His insane response is not our fault.

You are InsaneApache from 30 years ago. About to make that leap from labour to hard right.

Apache is less Right Wing than you are Left Wing and Pannonian only appears to be shifting to the Right because Labour is abandoning the Centre and he feels they have no answer to this problem.

[Pannonian]

So the UK had reason to contest German self-determination (though honor toward Poland wasn't ultimately a significant factor).

Again you conflate a number of different questions.

What is a matter of deserts and what is a matter of consequences? Whether or not you believe British foreign policy is a direct cause of terrorist attacks, it's a petulant display to treat a country like a sports team fanatic, endlessly whingeing about it but calling it the pinnacle of oppression when non-fanatics offer an opinion too. This is a question you need to give proper consideration regardless of whether the actions of terrorists are right or wrong.

The self-determination of domestic radicals isn't that of countries, these being different kinds of entities; you shouldn't apply the term to individuals at all, in fact. Domestic radicals are additionaly your countrymen, and the actions they undertake are usually straightforwardly criminal under British law. Don't try to apply concepts to inappropriate contexts.

And there is the salient point. They were born here, but their parents weren't. And radicalism does not decrease with each successive generation, but it's the younger generation, born here and raised here, who cause problems. If we can't remove these from the pool as they're our countrymen, why should we further add to that pool? After all, future prospective incomers aren't our countrymen, but outsiders from another country.

[Husar]

Unlike you, I respect the principle of self determination.

I have no recollection of what you are referring to I'm afraid, but given that you constantly blame me for things you only imagine me saying, that's perfectly fine with me.
It just bothers me that you claim you support self-determination and yet defend the colonial adventures of your country that robbed people of self-determination and put them into artificial nation-states that obviously aren't actual nations and don't work. But hey, I just hate you so it's all fine, nothing to see here, keep calm and pretend you never did anything wrong.
And just in case you want to follow this up with a "but he was a 2nd gen immigrant!", the people who benefitted from his brainwashing and wanted to brainwash him for their purposes probably aren't.

Just as the Zulu's actions doesnt nullify the wrongs of the british invasion, the iraq war doesnt make right of this terrorist attack.

I don't think a lot of people say it does. What many might say is that it is a logical consequence to some extent. You reap what you sow and so on. This may shock you, but I'm as much against terrorist attacks as you are.

[Montmorency]

And there is the salient point. They were born here, but their parents weren't. And radicalism does not decrease with each successive generation, but it's the younger generation, born here and raised here, who cause problems. If we can't remove these from the pool as they're our countrymen, why should we further add to that pool? After all, future prospective incomers aren't our countrymen, but outsiders from another country.

Could it be a better idea to engage the problem than to abdicate responsibility? Religious or national quarantines indicate an outstanding level of disdain for those who currently are your countrymen, aside from demanding a departure from contemporary British ideals. To many of your fellows who find your approach inimical to their view of the country, you would come to exemplify the understanding that "the enemy of my enemy is not my friend but my enemy's enemy".

[Pannonian]

Apache is less Right Wing than you are Left Wing and Pannonian only appears to be shifting to the Right because Labour is abandoning the Centre and he feels they have no answer to this problem.

More a case of exasperation with how we get it in the neck whatever we do or don't do, rules changing with no consistent philosophical basis except the conclusion that we're wrong and must be punished (Calvinball). If people are going to say we're wrong and hate us anyway, we might as well have a consistent philosophical argument, within international law, and go for the cheapest and clearest solution possible. If intervention is wrong and non-intervention is wrong, depending on which option we'd last chosen, then at least non-intervention across the board is cheaper. If an indefinitely replenishing number of British Muslims are going to hate us and attack us, and no-one's going to take them for us, then at least we can stop adding to their number from abroad. Other ongoing solutions can go on top of that.

[Pannonian]

Could it be a better idea to engage the problem than to abdicate responsibility? Religious or national quarantines indicate an outstanding level of disdain for those who currently are your countrymen, aside from demanding a departure from contemporary British ideals. To many of your fellows who find your approach inimical to their view of the country, you would come to exemplify the understanding that "the enemy of my enemy is not my friend but my enemy's enemy".

These are contemporary British ideals. The UK left the EU because the Brexiteers feared the admission of Turkey would allow Muslims a free road into this country, among other things. Certainly immigration and Muslims are the top reason(s).