AFCDorset
Roofer
I do not personally insult people SF, you know that.
if you have more to say, feel free to do so.
It may be croneyism but it is not racist, which is the point being made.
The Government care about you...
- Thread starter jackieguaccamo
- Start date
if you have more to say, feel free to do so.
AFCDorset
Roofer
If that is Marxist theory, it bears no relation to marxist reality, if you believe otherwise, well....
You are truly lost!
Richardvanles
Roofer
“Individual acts of terrorism do not work.” That is a direct quote from militant ideology when I was involved with them many many years ago.
It was a very much pragmatic approach they had towards violent acts. I actually found it slightly distasteful as it was quite emotionless. No thought for innocent lives lost etc, just how terrorism fails because someone else will step into the murdered victims shoes and the system won’t change. Their viewpoint was all about changing the system.
It seems that anything you consider wrong with the world is all down to Marxism and quite frankly it’s laughable and nauseous at the same time. Like some old grandad that sits in his vest drinking tea out of a saucer and blaming everything on the Russians.
sabredunce
Silver Surfer
Remember, 'terrorism' is a political label - irregular warfare is proven successful. Blowing up the local postbox with the mailman.. not so much. Marx was being very specific.
Pure tokenism as well as the measure of the characters on both sides - that Johnson has uttered negatively about Africans, colonialism, Muslims, gays, the working class etc etc over the years & that any minister (never mind one with an Asian background) would choose to serve under his leadership knowing all this.
S
SardiniaFox
Guest
Apologies but Corbyn is not a terrorist.
Club_B00k_Crutchless
Registered
Very much so. These people serving under him as ministers is like working class people voting for them, thinking they have a chance of becoming like them. It's feeding the crocodile hoping it eats them last.
AFCDorset
Roofer
Morning all, a few thoughts.
I try to frame my thoughts without recourse to political dogma, this might well make me 'inconsistent' and often at odds with political theory. For once I did not bring Marxism into the discussion, but it is telling how quickly it cropped up when terrorism is being discussed.
I did not say that Corbyn was a terrorist but that he gives succour and support to those who are. There is ample evidence of this, I gave a handful of examples, there are many more.
Political standards in the UK are, in my view, at an all time low but Johnson has given two of the three great offices of state to ethnic Indians, that is real. You call it tokenism if you like but would you have called 'racist' had he named only white people to all the top jobs.
'Irregular warfare' is now the norm, it is all about propaganda and optics. Most major countries have the firepower to destroy virtually any dissident political group and their supporters but the cost, the political cost, is too high. The result is that violent dissent has become the best means to bend the authorities to your will, it is most definitely working and will I think only get worse.
I try to frame my thoughts without recourse to political dogma, this might well make me 'inconsistent' and often at odds with political theory. For once I did not bring Marxism into the discussion, but it is telling how quickly it cropped up when terrorism is being discussed.
I did not say that Corbyn was a terrorist but that he gives succour and support to those who are. There is ample evidence of this, I gave a handful of examples, there are many more.
Political standards in the UK are, in my view, at an all time low but Johnson has given two of the three great offices of state to ethnic Indians, that is real. You call it tokenism if you like but would you have called 'racist' had he named only white people to all the top jobs.
'Irregular warfare' is now the norm, it is all about propaganda and optics. Most major countries have the firepower to destroy virtually any dissident political group and their supporters but the cost, the political cost, is too high. The result is that violent dissent has become the best means to bend the authorities to your will, it is most definitely working and will I think only get worse.
And one of them was dispelled as twisted reporting. Add to the fact that I'm aware at times Corbyn sees having to speak to the "enemy" as a necessity if peace is to be achieved (as opposed to continued battle & warfare which inexplicably seems to be the continued mindset of so many.
I'm not saying he's perfect (wonky glasses after all), but to portray someone as so extreme (when you've mentioned on here that you like to take onboard all info before reaching a conclusion), sounds like you've viewing him through a Mail/Express filter.
So you're not actually interested in their outlook or the way they're undertaking their jobs, just that they happen to be Indians, so that makes it "OK"?
Richardvanles
Roofer
If, “irregular war” is the only means available for the little guys to strike back then of course it will get more common. People will try to take bullies down by any means possible. Unfortunately innocent people suffer on both sides. Whether that’s the result or a regular war or an irregular war.
Britain has invaded 9 out of 10 countries in its history. The US is causing murder and mayhem throughout the world. Actions cause reactions.
It’s also well documented that Corbyn isn’t a racist or a terrorism sympathiser. Yes he calls out the aggressors But he recognises that you can only find peace through addressing both parties, understanding the issues and seeking common ground.
You don’t have to agree with his politics but by rehashing the bullshit the media portray at the behest of the establishment because you don’t agree with his politics is disingenuous.
You’re not alone. Others do the same.
Whether it’s Corbyn, Trump, Farage, Covid, BLM movement, even that Tommy Robinson prick. The portrayal of these is governed by what the media want you to think and not carried out with any honesty or integrity.
But hey, it keeps us all divided so the establishment win in the end.
AFCDorset
Roofer
It was not twisted Mistryman, it was in a discussion about a specific IRA attack, but to be fair, no politician would condemn acts by organisations that the broadly support and he didn't.
If this was a one off or an occasional event I could accept your point but it wasn't, Corbyn has offered support to terrorist organisations time after time after time.
I was discussing the selection of the two of them, very much a 'damned if you do damned if you don't' situation. Personally I think that Sunak and Patel have turned out to be wretched globalist shills, race does not enter into it.
I know nothing about Sunak beyond the fact that he is a rich banker, Patel on the other hand was the local MP for the constituency where Mrs AFC had her 'family' home and was very well regarded. That makes her performance as Home Secretary particularly disappointing.
S
SardiniaFox
Guest
Given that a simple text seems to work wonders maybe you should SMS Johnson your solution?
AFCDorset
Roofer
As a sort of global overview there is not that much wrong with that assessment.
But as always, the devil really is in the detail and of course the events that you chose to highlight and those you choose to ignore. By viewing history in such a selective manner it allows you to make pretty much any narrative you wish.
I think it is imperative that you look at what a politician or any man in the public domain actually does, not what he says and definitely not what the media say of him, I exercise my judgement on this, mostly based on what I see happening, not what I am told.
Yet, you thought it warranted mentioning to defend Johnson as being a non-racist.
A simple Google search will demonstrate what Johnson thinks of any group of people that don't fit his narrow mindset. All those newspaper columns & speeches were never going to be filled with open-mindedness & empathy were they?
S
SardiniaFox
Guest
How someone with his utter lack of diplomatic skills became Foreign Secretary let alone PM is a mystery to us all. They must be pretty hot photos...
Oh the irony
AFCDorset
Roofer
He was being accused of being racist, I thought his choice was worth mentioning, you are making more of it than was meant.
Johnson is a rather obvious pompous public school type, I've met a few over the years. I had some thoughts that he might make a decent PM acting as a kind of energetic, 'big picture' type taking the flak and letting those more competent deal with Brexit and what ever followed.
That turned out to be hopelessly optimistic on my part, I accept that, but his bumbling performance was not actually my fault. I am not sure why the subject is being discussed as if it was.
Richardvanles
Roofer
Folk are pissed off when they look at what they could have got to what they’ve actually got and to a lot of people’s thinking we’ve actually got exactly what the label said on the tin, in bright neon lights and if those that voted for Boris expected something different then they really need to have a word with themselves
I am far more broad-minded than Johnson, I can assure you of that.
Sorry AFC, but the more you say, the deeper the hole you dig for yourself.
We needed a PM to lead from the front & be competent with Brexit. And as for a 'big picture type taking the flak'...unfortunately in all of his previous roles, he had either underperformed, or gone off-script making undeliverable promises leaving others to pick up the pieces.
Isn't it strange that he's continued in the same vein as PM?
bnet
Roofer
You genuinely think this is all real don't you ! FFS. you actually think MP's and the PM really make the decisions, so you are six years old.
AFCDorset
Roofer
No argument Richard. I accept that I got it horribly wrong but at the time I voted for what I thought would offer the best outcome.
Remember, Corbyn pretty much refused to explain his position on the EU, which, like it or not, was what the election was fought on.
I'm not sure that he has continued in vein Mm, I think he has tried to be a serious politician which really has shown him up.
It's politics, we all take a different perspective, take what we like, throw out what we don't. I took the position that a Johnson government would be best for the UK given what else was on offer, especially with regards to Brexit. I've explained my reasons.
Pity there was no one on the labour side with your clarity of vision to explain the future.
S
SardiniaFox
Guest
Richardvanles
Roofer
One of Corbyns mistakes. He was tied to what labour wanted. Oddly enough the labour that’s in charge now. Corbyn has always been in the leave side. That’s why you didn’t see him beating the remain drum with any conviction.
The comment about Muslims was very recent (probably more recent than some of the Corbyn utterances you mentioned).
Of course, it would be too much to expect an apology from him - that would show he’s grasped the error of his ways on the things he’s spouted rubbish about.
I know they don't make the decisions.
It's the wonderfully open-minded, sane, knowledgeable people you know on YouTube isn't it?
AFCDorset
Roofer
As a socialist he was bound to be anti-EU, it was his lack of conviction that showed up very poorly. I never quite understood how the Blairites could be so pro EU, globalist of a sort I guess.
Given that the Tory government is generally hated, I can only assume that Labour's poor showing in the Polls is down to Starmer and his lack of any kind of a clear vision for the future. I know we are probably some years off a General Election, but do you see any way that Labour can put forward a decent program to capture the voters, real question.
S
SardiniaFox
Guest
Talking of Globalists, weren't we sold the idea of Brexit was that we could go Global?