Comments by "Awesome Avenger" (@awesomeavenger2810) on "Channel 4 News"
channel.
-
118
-
115
-
73
-
64
-
52
-
50
-
49
-
43
-
42
-
40
-
40
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
34
-
34
-
32
-
31
-
29
-
28
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The Moro Islamic Liberation Front was a terrorist group funded by Gaddafi. So no surprise that he ended up in Libya. As Chanel 4 news decided not to go into their activities I thought I'd include this bit of information:
'...In March 2007, the Philippine government offered to recognize the right of self-determination for the Moro people which it had never done in three decades of conflict. However, on July 12, 2007, Islamic militants in Basilan in the southern Philippines killed 14 marines, beheading 11 of them, while nine other marines were wounded and about four fighters were killed. The fighting took place as the marines were searching for a kidnapped Italian priest, Giancarlo Bossi, on June 10, 2007.' Wikipedia.
I don't know about anyone else, but I hope Pepsi 'the queen of the Calais Jungle' never steps foot on UK soil. Perhaps the French might like to deport him to Italy, so the Italians could ask him a few questions? Either way, I could not give a shit what happens to him.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Gordon Paterson ''...they never asked the locals what they saw or heard'' Yes they did. The Joint Investigation Team, made up of the Netherlands, Belgium, Ukraine, Australia, and Malaysia, carried out a full investigation. During the investigation, the JIT interviewed 200 witnesses, collected half a million photos and videos and analysed 150,000 intercepted phone calls.
No one disputes MH17 was shot down by a surface to air missile. Even the Russians quietly dropped their '2 fighter jets' fantasy. As for why no one has been prosecuted, ask Putin. When the Netherlands, supported by the other JIT members, attempted to set up a UN international tribunal to prosecute those responsible, Russia vetoed it.
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Besides, Timothy Snyder is a historian. Not an economist. Nothing he said in this interview is factual. It is only opinion. Or at best half-truths. And there are plenty of historians who would disagree with his logic.
For example, his argument is that the 'fascist handbook' advocates the use of simple slogans. This is true. All extremist ideologies advocate simplistic slogans to complicated issues.
But what he doesn't mention is that moderate mainstream political parties do exactly the same. And have always done so. He acts as if the phrase 'on message' doesnt exist. As if political sloganizing is unknown.
What is 'For the many, not the few'? if not a simplistic slogan? How about 'Bollox to Brexit'? Go on any Extinction Rebellion march and you'll hear plenty of simplistic sloganizing.
This doesn't mean that simplistic political sloganizing does no damage to political discourse. I believe it does. But that is not his argument. His argument is that using simplistic slogans is essentially fascistic. And that only fascists do this. His evidence for this is that a fascist handbook advocates for its use. Then he mentions Brexit.
Thats very dishonest.
Worse, after having clearly defined Brexit as a fascist endeavour, he then goes on to talk about the fascist tendency to create a 'Them' and an 'Us'. Once again, this is true. But apart from the fact that all mainstream moderate parties drive an In Group/Out Group mentality in politics, the very fact that his own bias has led him to already label Brexit as the 'Them', and to then label them as fascists, makes his logic extremely hypocritical.
It truly is one man's bias desperation in attempting to explain that, while the present government and those who support Brexit do not sound like fascists, do not act like fascists, and do not do fascist things, they are in fact fascists.
But by that reasoning so are every other political party in the UK.
So its basically just a continuation of project hate. The worst example of academic gaslighting I have seen so far. And history will not be kind to people like him.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
As Channel 4 news explains, the emails show the council felt it was 'under siege'. And despite its considerable efforts to deal with the aftermath of the fire, found itself 'unable to convince people it could help them'.
There was an interview, where one of the survivors was sat next to her social worker, while complaining that the council didn't care and was doing nothing to help. When the social worker asked 'what about me?' the woman replied 'yeah, but you're not from the council, are you?'
The narrative was set early on. By the media and other 'interested groups'. - By people like Jon Snow, who knew exactly what he was doing when he asked that question. By virtue signalling media whores like Lily Alan (who thought it the right time to help propagate some internet conspiracies about 'the true number of deaths being hidden'). And by other assorted entertainers who wanted a few extra cheers while on stage by joining in with the 'day of rage' (sounds very Hamas).
To a point, martin corduroy is right. These are people, many of whom not from the UK, who were given taxpayer subsidised housing, and had no concept of who was doing what for them and how it was being paid for. They were utterly infantilised by the system. And by the media.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Mustafa Ibrahim This is the last time I will give you a history lesson. In future I will simply type 'bollocks' when you attempt to rewrite historical events. As regards to Afghanistan, when the Russians invaded, the Mujahideen formed to drive them out of the country. In its cold war against communism, the US supported the Mujahideen (it did not create the Mujahideen). The Taliban (and if I'm not mistaken Osama bin Laden) were one of many groups within the Mujahideen. After the Russians were driven out, aided by Pakistan, the Taliban waged a war against their previous allies and took power. And yes. Many Afghans fled the country. As for western governments not listening to Gaddafi, it seems to me that the real problem was the Libyan people had stopped listening to him. Or have you also bought into the idea that the uprising against him was simply a wicked plot by the evil democratic nations of west (aided by those pesky Jews). Obviously, being a reactionary, we know who's side you would have taken. But western governments were faced with a choice. Do they support Gaddafi (a vicious and perverted despot that had armed and supported terrorism against the west)? Close their boarders and look the other way? Or actively support an uprising against him. In the event they chose the third option. And unless you can make the argument that the war against Gaddafi would have ended on the very day he died anyway, the West's actions shortened the war. In fact, if the west hadn't have gotten involved, one of three things would have happened. 1) The rebels would have eventually won out. 2) Gaddafi would have eventually won out. Or 3) Like Syria, the war would still be going on. Either way, Libya would be in a worse state than it is today.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I agree. You won't see the 'Stop the War Coalition' demonstrating outside the Syrian embassy, or the Russian embassy, or the Iranian embassy. Because they have no problem with wars fought in defence of mass murdering dictators. Only with wars fought against mass murdering dictators.
Corbyn only preaches peace, pacifism, and fluffy bunnies, when its in defence of something he cares little about. In other words, western liberal democracy. But when it furthers his own ideology, he's more than willing to sit with violent sectarians and terrorists. He's a gift for Iran and the kremlin. Some 6,500 Russian twitter accounts backed him in the last election. Because they know he'd be a pushover. Actually, he wouldn't even stand up to begin with.
He's praised the kremlin's propaganda channel, RT. And has worked on the ayatollah's PressTV. With that in mind, he's really not the best person to give an opinion on a free media.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@usxnews1834 Poverty does not lead to people stabbing someone else with a knife. As I said, this is a problem with young males. Abuse has nothing to do with poverty, as it can and does happen in all families regardless of their income. And we already have free education in the UK.
Policing is an issue. Because if a kid is brought up in a lawless community where he doesnt feel safe, he's more likely to get drawn into gang culture as a gang offers protection.
And this is why kids often say they carry knives - for protection. What they mean is, in their world its dog eat dog - and in that situation social status is all important.
That culture then becomes his way of life. Which in turn leads to criminality which restricts his later prospects. Then he has kids. Then he walks out on them. Because thats the world he grew up in.
Its not really fashionable to say this, but society functions better when we all adhere to certain standards - poor working class housewives scrubbing their doorsteps back in the 1940s, because they don't want the neighbours looking down on them, that kinda thing.
But if you teach a generation they have rights, but no responsibilities, that no one should judge them, and worse, its ultimately all the fault of 'society', then communities start breaking down.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Katie Actually he is right. You clearly know fuck all about the middle east if you think it was stable when Saddam, Gaddafi, and all those other bloodthirsty despots were in charge. You also ignore the fact that when it comes to Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia, it was the people of those countries that decided it was time for their dictators to go. So to say they brought stability is as stupid as saying a boat floats. Right up until it sinks. When it comes to Assad, he could have stepped down and none of this would have happened. But he decided to fight until the last drop of blood (not his own blood obviously). Had the world stood as one against him, Syria might be like Tunisia. But unfortunately for the Syrian people Assad has Russian support. And Putin couldn't care less about freedom and democracy in Russia. Let alone Syria. He desperately wants to keep hold of his Mediterranean navel bases on Syria's coast. So he just keeps on selling attack helicopters, missiles, and bombs. And even joins in with indiscriminate bombing himself. As for ISIS, Putin is far more interested in attacking the Free Syrian Army. What do you think that Russian jet shot down by the Turks was doing near the Turkish boarder? They weren't bombing ISIS. They were bombing Turkmen tribesmen. Putin and his bloodthirsty puppet Assad want to knock the FSA out of the war. To force the west to chose between ISIS and Assad. But until Assad is gone, there will never be peace. So compared to Syria, Libya is a haven of tranquillity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Any deals will no doubt be discussed openly. There will be two sides in any agreement reached, and an open discussion is as much in the EU's interest as it is the UK's. However, neither side can be making promises before the deal has been finalised. The UK, for instance, cannot be making guarantees over EU citizens resident in the UK without knowing that any such guarantee would be reciprocated. That would be plainly ridiculous.
But a vote against any exit deal is not a vote to remain. It would simply be a rejection of any agreement reached. Which, presuming those who voted against any deal (along with Gina Miller and her supports) care at all about the UK's future relations with the EU (and don't just want to sink the ship because they didn't get their way-something that, quite rightly, would be unforgivable), would be very unwise.
As for Theresa May not having a plan, neither does the EU. One moment the principle of free movement is sacred. The next it is not. A good deal with a post-Brexit UK is as much in the interests of the remaining members of the EU as it is for the UK. With Trump's election, the rise of the far right in France, a stagnant economy, and an aggressive Russia on its eastern boarder, Europe is not in any position to be making enemies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So your list of reasons why Muslims join ISIS is basically anyone who dares to question Islam. With the BNP, EDL, and PEGIDA thrown in to make it look legitimate. One, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is an ex-muslim who campaigns for women's rights. An extremely brave, caring, and good person. And Sam Harris is a liberal atheist. Until, I suppose, he criticises Islam. In fact, Islamic terrorism was around long before PEGIDA and the EDL. So they cannot be the reason. Your little wish list doesn't explain anything. As most Islamic terrorism is carried out against Muslims in Muslim countries. Basically, you seem to think by using the word 'Islamophobia' you can silence anyone who disagrees with Islam. It don't work like that tho. Islam is a belief. And just like any other belief, whether religious or political, it is open to ridicule, criticism, and dislike. That will not change. And the more you attempt to explain away Islamist terrorism by pointing to insignificant incidents like the one in this news report, the more fuckin ridiculous you look.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And yet the EDL, BNP, UKIP, the daily mail, the express, the sun, fox news, Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, PEGIDA, Tommy Robinson, Pat Condell, and Britain First do not exist in Muslim countries. But Islamic terrorism does. So clearly you are wrong to say those listed are responsible for Islamic terrorism.
1
-
You seem to be implying that the three people in this video are now members of ISIS. They aren't. And no, the victims of ISIS in Islamic countries are not 'just as Islamic' as the terrorists. ISIS represents an extreme version of Islam. Moreover, ISIS has recruited followers from all over the world. So, once again, the reason why people join ISIS cannot be the EDL, BNP, UKIP, the daily mail, the express, the sun, fox news, Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, PEGIDA, Tommy Robinson, Pat Condell, or Britain First.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Nayden Spirdonov Trump is a symptom of the liberal left and its decades of moral relativism. They couldn't back the removal of the Saddam regime in Iraq or the fight against the taliban in Afghan. Because Bush did it. They came up with excuses as to why the west should never intervene anywhere. It was all about oil. Or Bush and Blair would just replace one dictator with another. Or some other bullshit. They could go on million man marches against Israel. But had nothing to say about Assad or Iran. They did their usual thing of playing identity politics. What right have we to impose western values and freedoms onto others?
Well, the result of that is that now people are more willing to think in terms of 'them and us'. If its wrong to stand up for western values abroad (because all value systems are equal and we have no right to judge). Then the same applies at home. If we have no rights or responsibility to intervene in the 'Muslim world' because we're not part of the Muslim world, then we have no responsibility to except the Muslim world into our world. If western values are not for them, then why would we want them here?
Trouble with that theory is that it's bollox. What happens just across the Mediterranean has an effect on us. We've all seen that. We now have hundreds of thousands of people fleeing into the west from Syria. We all know what should've happened. Assad should've been removed. But, because that would be intervention in the muslim world by the meddling Imperialist West (and because if we had intervened it would most likely have been only about oil like we're told it always is by the liberal left), we did nothing. And now we have the result.
There are consequences to playing identity politics. To creating a 'them and us' society. And Trump is the result. He's not responsible for it. His opponents are. And what you have just said is the logical conclusion to that.
I cant argue against your general point about Islam. It needs to reform. But it won't unless we insist upon it. And do we really trust those who make excuses for it, who are willing to censor the news for it, to make that argument for us? Nope.
Nazism isn't banned in the UK. You cannot be arrested for being a Nazi. What destroyed it as an ideology is that it simply became unacceptable. No one would attempt to portray your average skinhead nazi as a victim of history. His nazism wouldn't be excused because he was poor or felt disenfranchised. He would never appear as a sexy front cover to Rolling Stone magazine. He wouldn't be a 'victim' of extremist grooming. He would just be condemned. And rightly so.
Liberal thinkers have fucked up. They have played moral equivalence so hard and fast and are so far up their own asses that they can't stand up for western liberal values.
We can look at it like this: If you had confidence that any of those refugees fleeing into the west would be automatically removed from the country if they were found to be sympathetic to ISIS or some other Islamist group, would you be slightly more willing to except refugees as a whole? But you know that they won't. It took ten years to get rid of that last big name hate preacher. And you know that once they are here, here is where they stay.
We do have an intolerant, violent, and regressive religion living amongst us. Not all Muslims are like that. But a sizable minority that would never be ignored if it were within the 'mainstream' white community are. So the problem is what to do about it. Mass deportation? Nope. Cos I don't want to live in a society that thinks that is the way. So I say we work with the moderate and secularist muslims. We stand by our principles and stop thinking in terms of them and us. Because if islam is part of our society we have a right to demand that it change. And to demand that it change now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russia is very keen on encouraging nationalism and separatism in western countries. Putin funds a supposed 'Anti-Globalization Movement' that hosts separatist movements from the UK, France, Spain, Italy, and the US (Texas and California). Many of them are ultra-nationalist. But basically its just western separatists. Obviously no Eurasian or Asian separatists. Not the Karakalpaks, or Uzbeks, or Siberians, or Chechens, or Tatars, Uyghur or Tibetans. When he annexed Crimea, he bussed in a few of them to 'observe' his 'referendum'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@randomdaveUK If parliament rejects May's negotiated deal. And it rejects 'no deal'. And the EU has refused further negotiations. Then that leaves only one option. To remain.
But parliament has already voted to implement article 50. Every major party promised before the referendum, during it, and after it, to respect the result. They did the same just before the last general election (apart from the limp dems, who make a habit of breaking promises).
So voting against a 'no deal' Brexit is effectively voting against something they have already voted in favour of. And it makes any negotiations impossible, because, as we are seeing, all Brussels has to do is to refuse to negotiate, and, following the logic of a vote against 'no deal', the UK is forced to remain.
This is the very obvious flaw in telling the side you are negotiating with 'We're leaving the EU, and if you dont give us a good deal we wont leave'.
Any halfwit could see the result of that negotiating tactic. Which leaves the question, is parliament really that stupid? Or are they purposely undermining their own negotiations?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Aaron Giles The EU decided to make Brexit as painful as possible, in order to stop the UK from leaving. And they used the Northern Ireland border issue to do that. Those who campaigned for remain have now gone back on their promise to respect the referendum result. With the leaders of the Lib Dems and Greens both saying that if they got to rerun the referendum, they still would not accept the result if it went against them a second time.
Along with the labour party vowing to vote against any leave deal the tories put forward (and even their own deal, if they were in a position to make one), the EU doesnt see it worth their while to negotiate. Because its unlikely parliament would ever vote for any leave deal no matter what it is. So why would they bother?
So we have a combination of EU high risk taking in the hope of preventing the UK from leaving, along with parliament going back on their word and voting against anything that makes Brexit possible, pushing the country towards a no deal Brexit. Pretty ironic, really.
This could have been avoided if the remain campaign had recognised the referendum result as they promised they would. Thats why we put things to the vote, after all. Because they can't win. Even if they got their hoped for rerun of the referendum, and somehow won it, the remain campaign would now simply do as they did and ignore the result. Because you can't opt out of the democratic process when it goes against you, then opt in when it goes your way, and expect others not to follow your lead.
I don't like throwing the word 'traitor' around. But I know a lot of people who voted leave do. And you have to admit that in some respects they have a point. Why is it that we had Blair and others from the remain campaign running off to Brussels to give advice on how best to undermine the UK's negotiations? Can you imagine that being a thing at any other time? And why is it that, having lost the vote, the remain campaign are now cheering on nationalists working to break up the UK, like, 'if I can't get my way, no one gets anything'?
Many people need to be reassessing their loyalties. The democratic process? Or Brussels? You can't have both.
But you are right. When this all over, everyone is gonna have to get along with everyone else. Because the world is not going to come to an end. The sky is not going to fall. And remainers will not be vindicated by saying 'I told you so' just as their longed for apocalypse descends. Life will go on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lecorsaire2283 It was part of the Arab spring, that started in Tunisia, spread to Egypt and Libya, and carried on to Syria.
Tunisia was spared destruction because Ben Ali was forced out. Same in Egypt, altho not so much of a success. Difference in Libya and Syria is that the dictators decided to go to war against their own people to stay in power.
If Assad had stepped down, Syria would not have gone through years of war. But the Assad regime, thats been in power for around about 40 years, clearly considered its own survival to be of more importance than the survival of the country itself. Much like Gaddafi in Libya and Maduro in Venezuela.
And as I said, North Korea is under no threat from invasion from either the South or the US. All the provocation has come from North Korea, and all the aid from the South and the US.
You need to check your history books. The Kim regime was put in place by Stalin after the defeat of Japan, on advice from his secret police chief, Lavrentiy Beria. With the support of Stalin, North Korea invaded the south, starting the Korean war, which, luckily for the people in the South, they lost and the UN won.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jorgeborges7707 A Brexit with no deal is not ideal, but the idea that the UK cannot leave the EU without the EU offering a deal is ridiculous. There are many countries within the WTO that are not members of the EU, and I have heard no serious commentator claim that the WTO would sanction the UK in the event of a no deal Brexit.
In no way does the GFA prevent the UK from leaving the EU. It couldn't possibly, as the only areas where the GFA was put to a referendum were the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The rest of the UK had no say. Are you really claiming that a small part of the UK and a foreign country decided the UK's membership of a political union for evermore? Even against the wishes of the electorate?
As to who would be responsible for breaking the GFA in a no deal Brexit, that really depends on the demands of either side, and whether or not they are acceptable to the other. If they are not, and one side isn't prepared to compromise on their demands (such as the EU demanding the effectual splitting up of the UK), then no agreement can be made (just as if the UK were to demand the EU split to serve its own interests). Neither is the GFA enforceable through international law. Agreements between sovereign states are made and unmade all the time. There is no international body that can force a country to remain within a treaty against its will. And I really can't see many countries that would be willing to irreparably damage their relations with the UK for no reason.
And I can't remember the remain campaign campaigning on the issue of leaving the EU being illegal under international law, can you?
As for illegal and corrupt practices during the referendum campaign, we only have to look at the half-truths and lies, not to mention the funding from corrupt insider traders and crooks the remain campaign indulged in, and continues to indulge in, to realise that such things were far from one sided. And you can trot out your tired old mantra about it being only an advisory referendum, but parliament voted to enact the result, the government has said it will do just that, and the vast majority of MPs pledged to honour the result and were elected on the promise to make it so.
Compared to that, what have you got?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pretty sure there's a lot more to come. This, remember, is the same guy who, out of principle, won't share a platform with his moderate opposition at home, but has no problem mixing with jihadists, IRA terrorists, anti-Semites, Stalinists, Assad apologists, and Iranian regime supporters. But then the extreme left have always preached pacifism in defence of democratic values they care nothing for, while supporting violence when they think it benefits their ideology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Altolin
''Respecting the GFA without separating Northern Ireland from the UK is now contingent on either our remaining a full member of the EU or on us remaining a part of the EU's major institutions outside of full membership of the EU''
No, it really isn't. The GFA does not bind the UK to EU membership. It commits all sides to come to agreement to prevent a hard border. And there are a number of ways that might be achieved other than UK membership of the EU.
For example, in the event of a no deal Brexit, the Irish government is already considering ways to prevent a hard border. These include conducting checks away from the border. This has already been discussed with Germany.
And of course, the another way would be for Ireland to separate from the EU. Only that would be unreasonable, right? - But certainly no more unreasonable than demanding the UK split.
And does it even occur to you to ask that, if the GFA bound the UK to EU membership forevermore, then by what mandate? The 1998 GFA referendum was held only in Northern Ireland. And the Republic of Ireland. The rest of the UK never got to vote.
How is it then that the UK's future could have been decided by referendum in only a small part of UK and a foreign country? Hardly democratic, yes?
Your problem is that you refuse to recognise that the UK has the right to leave the EU. And because it will, you believe it should be justly punished (by someone) as a result. And you see the separation of the UK as part of that punishment.
This infantile thinking is much like a child breaking something because, if he can't have it, then no one can. Only the UK won't come to an end simply because you didn't get your way. You might not like it, but life goes on, mate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@usxnews1834 A Cambridge University study of 2012 concluded that the best indicator to whether or not young people get involved in crime is personal morality and responsibility. Carried out by the Cambridge institute of criminology, the study focused on both social environments and personal characteristics of 700 youngsters. And found that '...The bulk of offences were committed by a small group - with around 4% responsible for almost half the crime and the overwhelming majority of the most serious property crimes - such as burglaries, robberies and car theft'
This, I believe, has been shown to be the case in many other such studies. It is a small percentage committing most of the crime. And very often if left unchecked that small percentage can literally bring a whole area down with it. Which shows the importance of policing. Of course.
The study also found that the idea that young people will inevitably commit crime in certain environments is not the case. Instead, this applied only to the ‘crime-prone’ (the 4%). Therefore the best way to prevent crime was to 'focus on developing policies that affect children and young people’s moral education and cognitive nurturing - which aids the development of greater self-control - and policies that help minimise the emergence of moral contexts conducive to crime' (so obvious).
In other words, it is individual morality that determines whether someone is prone to committing crime, rather than environmental. It is not understood how this is effected by social disadvantage (however that is defined). But I would suggest that a culture that promotes and glorifies violence and criminality is certainly not favourable to that.
So it is more complicated than simply stating that poverty is responsible for crime, as, of course, poverty is a relative term. And there is inequality in all aspects of life. Not just wealth. And that will always be the case.
1
-
@usxnews1834 Professor Per-Olof H Wikström, FBA, the guy who led the research does indeed mention the dreaded term 'morality' in his summing up (or moral, to be exact).
He mentions this while outlining the importance of 'developing policies that affect children and young people’s moral education'.
Therefor, it is logical to conclude that undermining the development of children and young people's moral education is the opposite of that, am I right? Or is that a little too much speculation for you?
the current view is that moral characteristics or values aren't apriori [2] but learned instead from, you guessed it, our social environment...
I think I made this point several comments back when I said if the only role models a kid has as he's growing up are people who glorify violence and anti-social behaviour, and who gain status thro doing so, while continually teaching them that they act the way they do because of wider society, then its not hard to guess what the result of that will be.
To put it another way, a kid can't learn in a chaotic classroom. And it only takes one kid to disrupt a whole class (the 4%). So the idea that better policing is not the answer is, I would suggest, more down to Akala's opinion of law enforcement than the reality (he did, after all, carry a knife himself when he was younger).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1