UK Politics Thread VIII—Can't Let EU Go

[The Huskar Social Union]

For a group that never sanctioned terrorist attacks, that sounds a whole lot like sanctioning terrorist attacks.

That isn't terrorism, the PIRA was at war with the UK. England was a legitimate target.

It was fucking terrorism, they carried out attacks in civilian areas that involved civilian targets as well as carrying out attacks against military targets, stop being so fucking deluded and acting as if every fucking attack was done by lone wolves.

The amount of retarded shite i see spouted on this forum about the troubles is fucking ridiculous.

[Vassenor]

Funny you all keep saying I'm wrong but only one of you has tried to refute it.

Vass beat me to it, but the Birmingham Pub Bombings spring to mind as part of a catalogue of general shite that they did.

I generally prefer to cite Manchester since Birmingham is still debatable re: exactly who did it.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Why the West allows Israel to continue what it is doing should be beyond me, but sadly international law isn't as important as a nice ally against the people we've randomly decided are a threat.

I said before i'd support an ultimatum to Israel that they either withdraw to the legal borders, or continue the war and annex Palestine with the understanding there would be constitutional equality for palestinians.

Failing to do either results in a withdrawal of support, sanctions and so on. In the event they prosecute the war, we should support them with material and so on.

Tell them if they don't think they can handle the territory, to withdraw to the legal borders. If they can, end this perpetual war in the middle east.

If the group doing what Israel is doing was 'Iranian-backed,' however, they wouldn't last 10 minutes.

[Ifreann]

I wonder if we can expect the Tories facing deselection to join the secret seven?

Maybe once the website is back up and accepting new membership applications.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Funny you all keep saying I'm wrong but only one of you has tried to refute it.

Vass beat me to it, but the Birmingham Pub Bombings spring to mind as part of a catalogue of general shite that they did.

And the guildford pub bombing, and the kingsmill massacre. The 1974 bristol christmas bombing, the baltic exchange bombing, and many fucking others.

[The Blaatschapen]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ds-to-grow

Goddammit, we get the bankers

[Thermodolia]

I said before i'd support an ultimatum to Israel that they either withdraw to the legal borders, or continue the war and annex Palestine with the understanding there would be constitutional equality for palestinians.

Failing to do either results in a withdrawal of support, sanctions and so on. In the event they prosecute the war, we should support them with material and so on.

Tell them if they don't think they can handle the territory, to withdraw to the legal borders. If they can, end this perpetual war in the middle east.

If the group doing what Israel is doing was 'Iranian-backed,' however, they wouldn't last 10 minutes.

Hell said group doesn’t need to be Israeli either, it could be KSA backed and the west wouldn’t give a shit

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I wonder if we can expect the Tories facing deselection to join the secret seven?

Maybe once the website is back up and accepting new membership application.

Is the website being over-used, being attacked, or just shit?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

If the group doing what Israel is doing was 'Iranian-backed,' however, they wouldn't last 10 minutes.

Hell said group doesn’t need to be Israeli either, it could be KSA backed and the west wouldn’t give a shit

Unless KSA tells the West to give a shit, at which point they'll bend over again.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

White phosphorous creates unnecessary suffering in soldiers and does not discriminate between combatants and non-combatants, making its use a war crime. Big powers committing war crimes doesn't make something any less a war crime.

Actually it’s not. It’s war crime to use it against civilians but not against soldiers. It’s not banned by any international law, mostly thanks in part to the US.

...

Using weapons that cause unnecessary suffering against soldiers is a war crime... Rome Statute Article 8 Section 2 Subsection b (xviii).

The IRA were terrorists and they carried out terrorist acts.

Individual members of the PIRA carried out terrorist attacks. The PIRA never sanctioned a single act of terrorism.

…
The PIRA never sanctioned a terrorist attack?
okay
Next?

Go on lad, prove me wrong.

There is a tea pot orbiting between Mars and the Earth...

Israeli governance has been described as 'apartheid', which is a crime against humanity, and Israeli soldiers have shot civilians without repercussion, which is a war crime.

The Israeli government is far from the level of apartheid and to claim that it rises to that level is an insult to those who suffered under apartheid.

Is there systemic racism? Most definitely. However it’s not on the level of separate living, drinking, dining, and other facilities. And Arabs in Israel get to vote, run for office, and hold judicial seats. Something a native African could never have done under apartheid.

South Africa or the US having a very harsh form of apartheid doesn't make less harsh forms of apartheid less so. Apartheid is a legal term, with an actual definition.

‘The crime of apartheid’ means inhumane acts of a character similar to
those referred to in paragraph 1 [Persecution, murder, deportation, extermination, enslavement, rape, torture, enforced disappearance, other inhumane acts], committed in the context of an
institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one
racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the
intention of maintaining that regime;

[Ifreann]

Vass beat me to it, but the Birmingham Pub Bombings spring to mind as part of a catalogue of general shite that they did.

I generally prefer to cite Manchester since Birmingham is still debatable re: exactly who did it.

That was Corbyn, obvs.

---

Maybe once the website is back up and accepting new membership application.

Is the website being over-used, being attacked, or just shit?

Yes.

[Trumptonium1]

Why Israel doesn’t just annex the area entirely and end the military occupation is Beyond me

Why the West allows Israel to continue what it is doing should be beyond me, but sadly international law isn't as important as a nice ally against the people we've randomly decided are a threat.

Randomly?

[Imperializt Russia]

Here is a war crime, sorry to break it to you:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22310544

"Okay, we'll stop committing war crimes.".

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... wish-event

Technically using white phosphorus isn’t a war crime. Or at least it’s not one the big powers care about

The use of white phosphorous or other incendiary agents in built-up areas, especially if it is known that civilians are present, is expressly forbidden under the laws of war.

The get-out clause for WP is when used to generate smoke, or as components in illumination flares. Which is not how Israel use it when they fire it at schools.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I generally prefer to cite Manchester since Birmingham is still debatable re: exactly who did it.

That was Corbyn, obvs.

---

Is the website being over-used, being attacked, or just shit?

Yes.

Which

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Why the West allows Israel to continue what it is doing should be beyond me, but sadly international law isn't as important as a nice ally against the people we've randomly decided are a threat.

Randomly?

randomly

[The Huskar Social Union]

That was Corbyn, obvs.

---

Yes.

Which

Yes.



Would not be surprised if someone was attacking it.

[Thermodolia]

Technically using white phosphorus isn’t a war crime. Or at least it’s not one the big powers care about

The use of white phosphorous or other incendiary agents in built-up areas, especially if it is known that civilians are present, is expressly forbidden under the laws of war.

The get-out clause for WP is when used to generate smoke, or as components in illumination flares. Which is not how Israel use it when they fire it at schools.

Yes using it against civilian targets is a war crime, however using it against military targets is not per the CWC

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Which

Yes.



Would not be surprised if someone was attacking it.

I wouldn't be surprised if they'd launched without protection against such attacks, it seems rather rushed.

[Major-Tom]

Can someone explain this anti-semitism controversy? All I can find is that Corbyn said some mean things about the Israeli government and approved of a mural in 2012 or some shit. Are there any other indicators that he/his party is anti-semitic? I'm confused about all this.

[The Archregimancy]

Don't be daft, Vassenor; it's far more than that.

I don't believe that Corbyn is himself deliberately anti-Semitic, but he's shown a tendency to be blind towards anti-Semitism, and there are legitimate concerns that some Corbyn supporters can't distinguish the line between 'strong criticism of Israeli policies towards the Palestinians' and 'negative stereotyping of Jewish people drawing on anti-Semitic tropes'.

For example, anyone who can't see a problem with this mural, the context of (and the artist's own statements about) the mural, or why it might be problematic that Corbyn has previously openly defended this mural, might need to rethink their approach to the issue:

(Image)

It's more than just one mural, of course; Corbyn has also shown a worrying tendency to share a stage (physical and metaphorical) with individuals who aren't just anti-Israeli, but are openly anti-Semitic; and he clearly struggles to see why this is a problem, just as he struggles to bring himself to condemn a murderous dictator in northern South America when that dictator and his predecessor have previously been the subject of warm words from Corbyn.

Edit:
For the record, I also acknowledge that some of the criticism of certain sections of the Labour Party for anti-Semitism has been politically motivated, self-interested, and hypocritical. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong.

Even if it's not, the basis of the accusations against Labour is still the party leader and his position on Israel. That Corbyn isn't especially good at responding those accusations means they are seized upon for their utility. Any truth to them is incidental.

I'm not sure I can entirely agree with that, Ifreann.

There are four separate (though inter-linked) issues here. A) Corbyn's personal support of Palestinian causes (and opposition to Israeli policy towards Palestinians); B) the existence of a sometimes vocal minority of Labour members who - as noted above - struggle to understand where the line lies between 'strong criticism of Israeli policies towards the Palestinians' and 'negative stereotyping of Jewish people drawing on anti-Semitic tropes'; C) the extent to which Corbyn has personally struggled to effectively respond to B given his own support for A, and the means by which he's sometimes expressed that support; D) the extent to which some of the attacks on Corbyn over A-C might be politically motivated, and whether motivation should invalidate criticism over points A-C, particularly B & C.

I'm not convinced that motivation should invalidate the criticism. For example, the accusations of blackface and sexual assault on the top three ranking Democrats in Virginia might well have been politically motivated in origin; but that doesn't make those individuals any more or less guilty.

And it's also entirely possible to reserve some admiration for Corbyn's basic stance on A, while being troubled to differing degrees (and not always for the same reason) by B, C & D. It's also possible to hold that A shows Corbyn to be a man of principle while believing C is one of the key pieces of evidence of why he's been an utter disaster as a party leader.

But we don't seem to be interested in nuance anymore in UK political debate. Corbyn - and Labour - must be either directly guilty of anti-Semitism or entirely innocent of anti-Semitism. Acknowledging that there might be a fair number of grey areas between those two positions might better serve us in the long run. The alternative is the playground taunting that this thread has so quickly devolved into now that the issue has come up.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Can someone explain this anti-semitism controversy? All I can find is that Corbyn said some mean things about the Israeli government and approved of a mural in 2012 or some shit. Are there any other indicators that he/his party is anti-semitic? I'm confused about all this.

Ive largely not kept up with it myself, but i think most of it stems from people accusing him of not doing enough to crack down on antisemitism from some elements of the Labour Party and kind of acting like it doesnt exist, as well as his past connections and appearances with certain people from the middle east who are not huge fans of Israel and his sympathy for the Palestinians etc. Im sure someone else will give you a more detailed cover of the whole issue.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Which

I would suggest all three.

[Thermodolia]

Actually it’s not. It’s war crime to use it against civilians but not against soldiers. It’s not banned by any international law, mostly thanks in part to the US.

...

Using weapons that cause unnecessary suffering against soldiers is a war crime... Rome Statute Article 8 Section 2 Subsection b (xviii).

The CWC doesn’t list white phosphorus as a banned substance. It’s not a war crime to use white phosphorus against military personnel or targets.

You are using a overly broad section of language from a treaty that is nearly exclusively European to unilaterally declare that the use of white phosphorus is a war crime because you don’t like it.

The Rome statue is just European imperialism and colonialism masked behind good intentions. I refuse to recognize the validity of such treaty

[The Blaatschapen]

But we don't seem to be interested in nuance anymore in UK political debate.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

...

That does explain a lot about current UK politics actually.

[Ifreann]

That was Corbyn, obvs.

---

Yes.

Which

All of them.


Oh, hey, speak of the devil, the website is back up.

The Independent Group of MPs is supported by Gemini A Ltd a company limited by guarantee.

A very normal way to structure a political party. And it seems that Gemini A Ltd was founded in January. Very normal stuff.
https://www.theindependent.group/policy ... ons-policy

The company is neither a political party nor a non-party campaigner, as such terms are used by the Electoral Commission in accordance with the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA).

Despite that, the company wishes only to accept donations that would meet the legal requirements set out in PPERA for donations.
...
The company will publish accounts regularly indicating all donations received in the previous 3 month period in excess of £500 (or such other sum as it would be required to publish were it a party controlled by PPERA).

We promise to obey the laws that we've arranged ourselves so as not to actually be subject to.