A Political Thread pt. 2

[General Melchett]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-68402672

Great, an opportunistic narcissist. Just what British politics needs.

There was me thinking that British politics was already in a dark place with the three main parties tearing shreds out of each other and causing even more division by making irresponsible comments before the general election e.g. Lee Anderson. Galloway having a voice in Parliament is just going to cause even more unrest on the streets. He's just a far left Nigel Farage.

 

[McTallshort]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-68402672

Great, an opportunistic narcissist. Just what British politics needs.

And a Putin shrill

 

[ncurd]

I knownthis election had special circumstances but what ******* idiots keep voting for Galloway?

It's weird though Farage has more impact but can't get elected but Galloway keeps on doing so.

Hope the people of Rochdale boot him out when they get some proper candidates next time.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Doesn't Rochdale have a large Muslim population, who are appalled by the whole Gaza situation?

 

[Which Tyler]

Doesn't Rochdale have a large Muslim population, who are appalled by the whole Gaza situation?

That and labour withdrawing support for their official candidate would have reduced options for anyone on the left.
Galloway's a twat, but he's pretty harmless in and of himself, and I don't see him keeping the seat once the GE rolls around (May? Autumn?)

 

[ncurd]

That and labour withdrawing support for their official candidate would have reduced options for anyone on the left.
Galloway's a twat, but he's pretty harmless in and of himself, and I don't see him keeping the seat once the GE rolls around (May? Autumn?)

He's harmless except the people of Rochdale Gate an MP who's proven to be **** at the job time and time again.

 

[Which Tyler]

OK, in those terms, yeah, he'll be a fairly **** constituency MP for a few months before being kicked out.
I've no idea if he'll be more or less **** as a constituency MP; that bar is set pretty damned low.

I thought the comparison was with someone like Farage (rhymes with Garage) - who would also be a fairly **** constituency MP, AND actively dangerous and harmful to individuals, and the country as a whole whilst at it.


ETA: I will also reserve the right to be wrong, let's be honest, Galloway hasn't really made an appearance on my political antennae for well over a decade - he may hold an eloquence, and some dangerous beliefs that I simply don't recall from him.

 

[Saintjay]

He's harmless except the people of Rochdale Gate an MP who's proven to be **** at the job time and time again.

He's probably harmless if you are not jewish. He clearly won this predominantly on the back of support for Gaza. It's tricky for Labour, they probably don't need muslim or jewish votes but the party line on Israel / Palestine isn't going down well in places with high Pro-Palestine populations. Nor do they seem particularly popular with the jewish community. Starmer can't win on this one.

 

[McTallshort]

He's harmless except the people of Rochdale Gate an MP who's proven to be **** at the job time and time again.

And his pro Kremlin social media outbursts

 

[General Melchett]

Galloway seems to be gunning for Labour and has apparently been in talks with Corbyn presumably with a view to de-stabilising them. Bet the Tories are loving that. Starmer has a proper headache now. I suspect Galloway's party funding will be under scrutiny now. Wouldn't be surprising if some Russian money has found it's way into the coffers.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Galloway seems to be gunning for Labour and has apparently been in talks with Corbyn presumably with a view to de-stabilising them. Bet the Tories are loving that. Starmer has a proper headache now. I suspect Galloway's party funding will be under scrutiny now. Wouldn't be surprising if some Russian money has found it's way into the coffers.

Didn't he set up a charity for Palestine years ago and literally none of it went to them. I could be remembering that wrong but guy is a snake.

 

[General Melchett]

Didn't he set up a charity for Palestine years ago and literally none of it went to them. I could be remembering that wrong but guy is a snake.

Didn't read about that but wouldn't be surprised. He was besties with Saddam Hussein for a short while and I'm sure anyone he criticises in Parliament will be ready to throw that one back at him.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Galloway ran an almost exclusively Gaza related campaign, gotta imagine his party will do the same in other targeted areas - might end up with another one or two MPs out of it

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I'd disagree with your last sentence but, yeah it's a pretty one sided war, nothing exactly new. But more than that it's a one sided war against a terrorist organisation taking place in an extremely small area with a high civilian population. A war against terrorists who, doing what terrorists do, have little regard for their civilian population as supported by their use of human shields, killing their own population and having their soldiers dress in civilian clothing. A recipe for disaster but a war nonetheless.

I don't think Hamas are the only ones acting like terrorists in this. Israel have massacred far more Palestinians than Hamas have Israelis, and this is over many years not just in this conflict. It's something like a whole order of magnitude more people the Israelis have killed. They have maintained a semi-permanent siege on Gaza and the west bank, destroyed people's homes, driven people away to make room for their settlers, frequently engaged in violence against locals and now have been repeatedly targeting hospitals, herding the entire population into every shrinking "safe" spaces (which they have proceeded to bomb), cut the supply of essentials and are proceeding to destroy all the infrastructure necessary for Gaza to survive even if this ends tomorrow.

If Hamas murdering 1,000 Israelis in cold blood is a terrorist atrocity, how is Israel killing over 10,000 Gazans and still rising not? Israel may not be operating at the same level of desire for genocidal slaughter as Hamas but their capabilities vastly eclipse Hamas. As a result, they are actually doing far more damage. When this ends, if Gaza still exists, it will be a complete wreck with deaths probably going into 6 figures with another generation entirely at the mercy of Israel to just survive. The alternative is Gaza ceases to exist entirely and we could then be looking at the forced displacement of 100,000's on top of the already forced displacement of thousands over the years due to illegal settlements.

I just don't see how one side can say the others are murderous terrorists and then proceed to kill 10 times that number without batting an eyelid. It's all built on the assumption that Israel is only ever the victim of aggression and not the aggressor itself. Hamas firing rockets indiscriminately into Israel over years is terrorism, Israel driving entire communities out of their homes through violence isn't? It's simple to imagine this flipped, if Hamas drove Jewish people out of their homes using violence and a campaign of intimidation to destroy entire communities, that would be labelled terrorism. Why is it not for Israel?

 

[Welsh Exile]

I don't think Hamas are the only ones acting like terrorists in this. Israel have massacred far more Palestinians than Hamas have Israelis, and this is over many years not just in this conflict. It's something like a whole order of magnitude more people the Israelis have killed. They have maintained a semi-permanent siege on Gaza and the west bank, destroyed people's homes, driven people away to make room for their settlers, frequently engaged in violence against locals and now have been repeatedly targeting hospitals, herding the entire population into every shrinking "safe" spaces (which they have proceeded to bomb), cut the supply of essentials and are proceeding to destroy all the infrastructure necessary for Gaza to survive even if this ends tomorrow.

If Hamas murdering 1,000 Israelis in cold blood is a terrorist atrocity, how is Israel killing over 10,000 Gazans and still rising not? Israel may not be operating at the same level of desire for genocidal slaughter as Hamas but their capabilities vastly eclipse Hamas. As a result, they are actually doing far more damage. When this ends, if Gaza still exists, it will be a complete wreck with deaths probably going into 6 figures with another generation entirely at the mercy of Israel to just survive. The alternative is Gaza ceases to exist entirely and we could then be looking at the forced displacement of 100,000's on top of the already forced displacement of thousands over the years due to illegal settlements.

I just don't see how one side can say the others are murderous terrorists and then proceed to kill 10 times that number without batting an eyelid. It's all built on the assumption that Israel is only ever the victim of aggression and not the aggressor itself. Hamas firing rockets indiscriminately into Israel over years is terrorism, Israel driving entire communities out of their homes through violence isn't? It's simple to imagine this flipped, if Hamas drove Jewish people out of their homes using violence and a campaign of intimidation to destroy entire communities, that would be labelled terrorism. Why is it not for Israel?

In my opinion it's all about intent. You have to prove that Isreal are directly targeting civilians and not Hamas. We know Hamas' MO is target civilians, you could make a case that Isreal do I suppose and I do think, at this point, the regard for Palestinian civilians is not what it should be but deliberately targeting civilians? I'm not so sure.

I'm also not really sure on this framing of numbers. Since when in war has proportionality ever been a thing. In fact, if Isreal acted proportionally to October 7th they would've sent a few IDF people and murdered people, raped women on the street, beheaded babies and kidnapped a couple of hundred Gaza's and taken them back to Isreal. Would that have been acceptable.

I totally agree on all the West Bank expansionist stuff and clearly Isreal has not acted appropriately but we come back to intent and this is a hard thing to prove. It also comes down to who you attribute moral blame for the death of Palestinian civilians, you could easily make the case that their deaths are on Hamas' hands and not Israel's.

Having said that, I think a ceasefire at this point is needed. I don't like the idea of letting Hamas win, and they do with a ceasefire as everything so far has gone according to plan for them, but aid has dropped in the last month and that can't continue.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

The Conservatives’ economic record since 2010 in 10 charts

From a huge budget deficit to weak GDP and a record rise in tax, we look at the background to the Tory budget

www.theguardian.com

Pretty damning on the Conservatives economic record.

 

[General Melchett]

In my opinion it's all about intent.

I think there is a bit more to it than intent. I would bring negligence and recklessness into the discussion. The rules of war are designed so that those countries that have signed up to them are obligated to not target civilians. Granted Hamas are not a country but a terrorist organisation that is led by barbaric animals. Israel is supposed to be a democratic country promoting freedom, democracy and respect for the rule of law (including international law).

Most outside observers tend to pick a side when there is a war going but I am on the fence with this one. For me, Hamas are cowards and complete cuntz for targeting Israeli hostages and putting Palestinian women and children directly in the firing line in Gaza. Israel are complete cuntz for not giving a **** and recklessly and negligently killing anyone who gets in their way, civilian or not. 25,000 women & children dead so far suggests this to be the case. To make matters worse, Israel is controlling the aid that comes into Gaza and the fact that their best friend the US is now having to bypass them and airdrop aid directly into Gaza is a damning indictment on Israel. If my country was engaged in a war and happily starved opposition civilians (including the elderly, women, children and babies) of food, water, medicine and power I would probably emigrate in protest.

We know this is a very difficult conflict with no obvious solution. One thing I know is that Hamas are evil brutal cuntz. The Israeli Govt are evil brutal cuntz. Neither deserve to be in power. It's the Israeli hostages and Palestinian civilians caught in the middle who I feel sorry for.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I think there is a bit more to it than intent. I would bring negligence and recklessness into the discussion. The rules of war are designed so that those countries that have signed up to them are obligated to not target civilians. Granted Hamas are not a country but a terrorist organisation that is led by barbaric animals. Israel is supposed to be a democratic country promoting freedom, democracy and respect for the rule of law (including international law).

Most outside observers tend to pick a side when there is a war going but I am on the fence with this one. For me, Hamas are cowards and complete cuntz for targeting Israeli hostages and putting Palestinian women and children directly in the firing line in Gaza. Israel are complete cuntz for not giving a **** and recklessly and negligently killing anyone who gets in their way, civilian or not. 25,000 women & children dead so far suggests this to be the case. To make matters worse, Israel is controlling the aid that comes into Gaza and the fact that their best friend the US is now having to bypass them and airdrop aid directly into Gaza is a damning indictment on Israel.

We know this is a very difficult conflict with no obvious solution. One thing I know is that Hamas are evil brutal cuntz. The Israeli Govt are evil brutal cuntz. Neither deserve to be in power. It's the Israeli hostages and Palestinian civilians caught in the middle who I feel sorry for.

I'm just answering @Ragey Erasmus question of why is Hamas considered a terrorist and Isreal not. Clearly Isreal are not squeaky clean from a moral point of view but also, clearly, for me, there's a difference.

Intent is key when determining whether an act is an act of terrorism or not. Can you not see a difference between hang-gliding into a place like ******* fortnight and raping, beheading, burning and murdering civilians compared to killing civilians via collateral damage in a bombing campaign? There's a clear difference there for me.

Did the IRA act like Hamas? did Che Guevara? Did Mandela and the ANC did Ghandi did MLK? These organisation may have killed civilians to varying degrees but it was not their sole and only aim, and throw into that they actually cared about their civilian population. Hamas clearly do not. In fact I'd go as far as to say that Isreal probably care more about Palestinian civilians than Hamas do which is wild considering, at this point, Israel's regard for civilian life is low.

 

[Amiga500]

He's probably harmless if you are not jewish. He clearly won this predominantly on the back of support for Gaza.

I thought it was Israel invading Gaza, not Jews.

 

[Saintjay]

I thought it was Israel invading Gaza, not Jews.

I'm sure the jewish community welcomed Galloway's appointment with glee.