Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2
Discussion
Corbyn is a cretin
He has and is causing huge damage to this country with his divisive and hate fuelled action and lack of action, not just on this topic but almost every topic
There is little space for ‘principles’ in politics, politics is about spinning plates and managing compromises
He has and is causing huge damage to this country with his divisive and hate fuelled action and lack of action, not just on this topic but almost every topic
There is little space for ‘principles’ in politics, politics is about spinning plates and managing compromises
williamp said:
Russian Troll Bot said:
He truly is someone capable of uniting people from all over the political spectrum
Now that would be funny: .corbun's racist stance..er sorry anti semetic stance attracting national front and BNP members.Solidarity! Our enemies enemy is our friend, etc..
irocfan said:
williamp said:
Russian Troll Bot said:
He truly is someone capable of uniting people from all over the political spectrum
Now that would be funny: .corbun's racist stance..er sorry anti semetic stance attracting national front and BNP members.Solidarity! Our enemies enemy is our friend, etc..
Jonesy23 said:
Matt80M said:
8 million Jews, men women and children, were walked into gas chambers, in living memory for many.
Six million. This sort of thing is important enough that you should be accurate.gothatway said:
Jonesy23 said:
Matt80M said:
8 million Jews, men women and children, were walked into gas chambers, in living memory for many.
Six million. This sort of thing is important enough that you should be accurate.Matt80M said:
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
It’s not as simple as that though is it. Lots of people are quite happy with Israel’s right to exist but also criticise their current borders and their expansionist aims. Not everyone who raises such issues is anti-Semitic. BlackLabel said:
Matt80M said:
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
It’s not as simple as that though is it. Lots of people are quite happy with Israel’s right to exist but also criticise their current borders and their expansionist aims. Not everyone who raises such issues is anti-Semitic. BlackLabel said:
It’s not as simple as that though is it. Lots of people are quite happy with Israel’s right to exist but also criticise their current borders and their expansionist aims. Not everyone who raises such issues is anti-Semitic.
genuine question here but if Israel gains land as a result of winning a war - why shouldn't they keep it? irocfan said:
BlackLabel said:
It’s not as simple as that though is it. Lots of people are quite happy with Israel’s right to exist but also criticise their current borders and their expansionist aims. Not everyone who raises such issues is anti-Semitic.
genuine question here but if Israel gains land as a result of winning a war - why shouldn't they keep it? There are of course grey areas in this. China invaded and annexed Tibet as one example but did have an historical claim to the region. This claim was however very nearly as historic as the Jews claim to ancient Israel.
So in practicality it is a mixed bag and might is right is at times the actual situation if the one securing the new land is both strong enough, but also has some right to claim the territory acquired.
JagLover said:
There has been a consensus since 1945 that international borders should not change through the use of force.
In '67 & '73 Egypt & Syria wanted to take Israeli land by military force. Ever since then they've squealed about Israel having done the exact same thing to them.
JagLover said:
irocfan said:
BlackLabel said:
It’s not as simple as that though is it. Lots of people are quite happy with Israel’s right to exist but also criticise their current borders and their expansionist aims. Not everyone who raises such issues is anti-Semitic.
genuine question here but if Israel gains land as a result of winning a war - why shouldn't they keep it? There are of course grey areas in this. China invaded and annexed Tibet as one example but did have an historical claim to the region. This claim was however very nearly as historic as the Jews claim to ancient Israel.
So in practicality it is a mixed bag and might is right is at times the actual situation if the one securing the new land is both strong enough, but also has some right to claim the territory acquired.
Mothersruin said:
Russia - Crimea & Georgia?
The annexation of the Crimea has not yet been recognised, but eventually I imagine it will.If it does it will illustrate the point, as to exceptions to the general rule, as it is one of the world's leading military powers annexing a region where it had a strong historical claim.
Rovinghawk said:
JagLover said:
There has been a consensus since 1945 that international borders should not change through the use of force.
In '67 & '73 Egypt & Syria wanted to take Israeli land by military force. Ever since then they've squealed about Israel having done the exact same thing to them.JagLover said:
There has been a consensus since 1945 that international borders should not change through the use of force.
There are of course grey areas in this. China invaded and annexed Tibet as one example but did have an historical claim to the region. This claim was however very nearly as historic as the Jews claim to ancient Israel.
So in practicality it is a mixed bag and might is right is at times the actual situation if the one securing the new land is both strong enough, but also has some right to claim the territory acquired.
I don't think the Argentinians got that note either.There are of course grey areas in this. China invaded and annexed Tibet as one example but did have an historical claim to the region. This claim was however very nearly as historic as the Jews claim to ancient Israel.
So in practicality it is a mixed bag and might is right is at times the actual situation if the one securing the new land is both strong enough, but also has some right to claim the territory acquired.
irocfan said:
BlackLabel said:
It’s not as simple as that though is it. Lots of people are quite happy with Israel’s right to exist but also criticise their current borders and their expansionist aims. Not everyone who raises such issues is anti-Semitic.
genuine question here but if Israel gains land as a result of winning a war - why shouldn't they keep it? BlackLabel said:
If the Arabs had won the war and taken Israeli land in ‘47, ‘67 etc that would be wrong too. Granted the situation is not exactly the same as it was the Arabs who launched the attack and not Israel. However I believe in the right of return. If someone is forced away from their home due to war they should be allowed to return once that war is over.
Tell that to Turkey in Cyprus.Not heard JC talk abut that much
Apologies to my Turkish friends.
Edited by avinalarf on Monday 6th August 16:24
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff