Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For certain arms and components. Another sign of Labour anti-Semitism, pandering to the vocal Muslim voter base in the UK. Poorly judged (as usual for him) and will embolden Iran to launch the all out proxy war from all sides that they have been preparing for." This is not antisemitism. It is Labour sending a soft, but firm, political message to Israel (given the UK's general position on Israel, however, this is the equivalent of screaming). Yes, many within Labour's support base would not be unhappy if Israel lost a war or two (with everything that implies) but it is a real stretch to call this antisemitic. It is purely political. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For certain arms and components. Another sign of Labour anti-Semitism, pandering to the vocal Muslim voter base in the UK. Poorly judged (as usual for him) and will embolden Iran to launch the all out proxy war from all sides that they have been preparing for." Or a political message to say that murdering 16,000+ children is not acceptable? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the arms sales licences are granted for weapons to be used for strictly deffensive purposes .... israel have chosen to flagrantly ignore the terms of sale and aggressively use the weapons in an offensive role ... therefore the licences have been revoked and they will recieve no more weapons ... it's that simple." Where is Israel using weapons in a theatre where they started the specific chain of events with a belligerent and offensive action (e.g. Russia into Ukraine)? You can argue that the actions are wrong, disproportionate, illegal, etc... But they do fall within the overall realm of defense, not offense. You might disagree with the principles that underpin the defense, which is a different matter. By and large, Israel doesn't attack unless attacked first (or preemptively, where there is a clear or stated position against them). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the arms sales licences are granted for weapons to be used for strictly deffensive purposes .... israel have chosen to flagrantly ignore the terms of sale and aggressively use the weapons in an offensive role ... therefore the licences have been revoked and they will recieve no more weapons ... it's that simple. Where is Israel using weapons in a theatre where they started the specific chain of events with a belligerent and offensive action (e.g. Russia into Ukraine)? You can argue that the actions are wrong, disproportionate, illegal, etc... But they do fall within the overall realm of defense, not offense. You might disagree with the principles that underpin the defense, which is a different matter. By and large, Israel doesn't attack unless attacked first (or preemptively, where there is a clear or stated position against them)." millions disagree with you .... there is a distinct line between offense and defense no matter how you chose to blur those lines | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the arms sales licences are granted for weapons to be used for strictly deffensive purposes .... israel have chosen to flagrantly ignore the terms of sale and aggressively use the weapons in an offensive role ... therefore the licences have been revoked and they will recieve no more weapons ... it's that simple. Where is Israel using weapons in a theatre where they started the specific chain of events with a belligerent and offensive action (e.g. Russia into Ukraine)? You can argue that the actions are wrong, disproportionate, illegal, etc... But they do fall within the overall realm of defense, not offense. You might disagree with the principles that underpin the defense, which is a different matter. By and large, Israel doesn't attack unless attacked first (or preemptively, where there is a clear or stated position against them)." When does a defensive action become an offensive action? One could argue that Israel had nullified the immediate threat and therefore is no longer acting defensively. Or, you could argue that Israel feels it will never be safe until it has removed any future threat. Given that all evidence shows that actions like those perpetrated by Israel only further radicalises a traumatised group, it could be argued that Israel will only be safe when there are no Palestinians left to fight back, so essentially they are acting defensively. Personally, I would argue that murdering 16,000 children is going way, way too far and the world needs to act against what is looking more and more like a genocide, but others obviously disagree. Removing around 8% of export licenses is the barest minimum we can do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Indeed! Not everything that may either criticise Israel or impede their actions is anti-semitic! Israel had a right to defend itself. Israel had a right for revenge. The actions of Hamas were despicable. Israel has gone too far with a disproportional response. It’s time to stop." there not going to stop,there waiting to see who gets in office in the states,if its trump I imagine they will flatten the rest of the strip | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the arms sales licences are granted for weapons to be used for strictly deffensive purposes .... israel have chosen to flagrantly ignore the terms of sale and aggressively use the weapons in an offensive role ... therefore the licences have been revoked and they will recieve no more weapons ... it's that simple. Where is Israel using weapons in a theatre where they started the specific chain of events with a belligerent and offensive action (e.g. Russia into Ukraine)? You can argue that the actions are wrong, disproportionate, illegal, etc... But they do fall within the overall realm of defense, not offense. You might disagree with the principles that underpin the defense, which is a different matter. By and large, Israel doesn't attack unless attacked first (or preemptively, where there is a clear or stated position against them). When does a defensive action become an offensive action? One could argue that Israel had nullified the immediate threat and therefore is no longer acting defensively. Or, you could argue that Israel feels it will never be safe until it has removed any future threat. Given that all evidence shows that actions like those perpetrated by Israel only further radicalises a traumatised group, it could be argued that Israel will only be safe when there are no Palestinians left to fight back, so essentially they are acting defensively. Personally, I would argue that murdering 16,000 children is going way, way too far and the world needs to act against what is looking more and more like a genocide, but others obviously disagree. Removing around 8% of export licenses is the barest minimum we can do." way to far is calling it murder | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good move by Lammy Someone has to stop Israel’s genocide in Gaza " Not a genocide | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the arms sales licences are granted for weapons to be used for strictly deffensive purposes .... israel have chosen to flagrantly ignore the terms of sale and aggressively use the weapons in an offensive role ... therefore the licences have been revoked and they will recieve no more weapons ... it's that simple. Where is Israel using weapons in a theatre where they started the specific chain of events with a belligerent and offensive action (e.g. Russia into Ukraine)? You can argue that the actions are wrong, disproportionate, illegal, etc... But they do fall within the overall realm of defense, not offense. You might disagree with the principles that underpin the defense, which is a different matter. By and large, Israel doesn't attack unless attacked first (or preemptively, where there is a clear or stated position against them). When does a defensive action become an offensive action? One could argue that Israel had nullified the immediate threat and therefore is no longer acting defensively. Or, you could argue that Israel feels it will never be safe until it has removed any future threat. Given that all evidence shows that actions like those perpetrated by Israel only further radicalises a traumatised group, it could be argued that Israel will only be safe when there are no Palestinians left to fight back, so essentially they are acting defensively. Personally, I would argue that murdering 16,000 children is going way, way too far and the world needs to act against what is looking more and more like a genocide, but others obviously disagree. Removing around 8% of export licenses is the barest minimum we can do.way to far is calling it murder " Is collateral damage easier for you? Unintended consequences of using high explosives in built up areas where whilst they might get one terrorist they kill umpteen innocents.. But hey cost benefit analysis and all that.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good move by Lammy Someone has to stop Israel’s genocide in Gaza Not a genocide " Possibly not I agree, in Gaza certainly but unchecked ethnic cleansing with fatal consequences for people living in their own property in the west bank is very appropriate and unlawful .. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" By and large, Israel doesn't attack unless attacked first (or preemptively, where there is a clear or stated position against them)." I was really going to ask if you wrote this with a straight face… because even I had to giggle Isreal has been hitting targets In Lebanon, in Syria and actually in Iran for years… Using the word “preemptive” is just an excuse for getting in your shot first…. Case in point.. when Isreal attacked the Iranian consulate in Syria… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Indeed! Not everything that may either criticise Israel or impede their actions is anti-semitic! Israel had a right to defend itself. Israel had a right for revenge. The actions of Hamas were despicable. Israel has gone too far with a disproportional response. It’s time to stop.there not going to stop,there waiting to see who gets in office in the states,if its trump I imagine they will flatten the rest of the strip" Possibly/probably but the UK can try to be less complicit (too late really). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I was really going to ask if you wrote this with a straight face… because even I had to giggle " Happy to amuse you. Glad you found it funny. 
" Isreal has been hitting targets In Lebanon, in Syria and actually in Iran for years… Using the word “preemptive” is just an excuse for getting in your shot first…. " The wording to which you responded "preempted" this. Reread it. It is true that Israel has attacked states or targets within states, without first being subjected to a direct military attack by them. We can surely agree that it is patently stupid to wait to be nuked before responding to that attack. Okay - that's one extreme end of the spectrum (defensive). We could probably also agree that it's pretty crappy to nuke a peaceful neighbour because you like their land, or because they may, one day, become a threat. That's the other extreme end of the spectrum (offensive). We could quibble around the middle. Israel is subjected to missiles from Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Syria. Much of this is supplied, funded, planned and coordinated by Iran. Most of these regimes (or groups within the states) have the obliteration of Israel as a stated goal. If you want to define Israel's actions against this as "offensive" rather than "defensive", then power to you. How far does an enemy need to go before offensive becomes defensive? Iran is not stupid - their aim is to put all of the pieces into place so that Israel cannot act until it's too late. Israel knows this and works to frustrate that plan - and catches much flak for it. Offensive? If you like. But quite a few people understand the imperative to counter Iran (and its proxies). That's why Lammy did not mention any of the "offensive" items mentioned, but rather the plight of Gazans. You don't need to support or agree with Israel, but they're clearly in a defensive position, surrounded by actors who would like to see them obliterated. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good move by Lammy Someone has to stop Israel’s genocide in Gaza " Well it's only 10% reduction in arms sales including f35 parts for maintenance. So sends a bit of a message I suppose. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Indeed! Not everything that may either criticise Israel or impede their actions is anti-semitic! Israel had a right to defend itself. Israel had a right for revenge. The actions of Hamas were despicable. Israel has gone too far with a disproportional response. It’s time to stop.there not going to stop,there waiting to see who gets in office in the states,if its trump I imagine they will flatten the rest of the strip Possibly/probably but the UK can try to be less complicit (too late really)." why would we be less complicit? After all we have killed hundreds of thousands of civillians in iraq oops i forgot thats just collateral damage, fact is our goverment will happily kill civillians if it suits us | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Indeed! Not everything that may either criticise Israel or impede their actions is anti-semitic! Israel had a right to defend itself. Israel had a right for revenge. The actions of Hamas were despicable. Israel has gone too far with a disproportional response. It’s time to stop.there not going to stop,there waiting to see who gets in office in the states,if its trump I imagine they will flatten the rest of the strip Possibly/probably but the UK can try to be less complicit (too late really).why would we be less complicit? After all we have killed hundreds of thousands of civillians in iraq oops i forgot thats just collateral damage, fact is our goverment will happily kill civillians if it suits us" It didn't suit us, not those of us who matched in protest about what we saw was a dick swinging exercise by bush and Blair(plus the majority of Tory MPs at the time) It wasn't something that we were given a choice about.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Indeed! Not everything that may either criticise Israel or impede their actions is anti-semitic! Israel had a right to defend itself. Israel had a right for revenge. The actions of Hamas were despicable. Israel has gone too far with a disproportional response. It’s time to stop.there not going to stop,there waiting to see who gets in office in the states,if its trump I imagine they will flatten the rest of the strip Possibly/probably but the UK can try to be less complicit (too late really).why would we be less complicit? After all we have killed hundreds of thousands of civillians in iraq oops i forgot thats just collateral damage, fact is our goverment will happily kill civillians if it suits us It didn't suit us, not those of us who matched in protest about what we saw was a dick swinging exercise by bush and Blair(plus the majority of Tory MPs at the time) It wasn't something that we were given a choice about.." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" By and large, Israel doesn't attack unless attacked first (or preemptively, where there is a clear or stated position against them). I was really going to ask if you wrote this with a straight face… because even I had to giggle Isreal has been hitting targets In Lebanon, in Syria and actually in Iran for years… Using the word “preemptive” is just an excuse for getting in your shot first…. Case in point.. when Isreal attacked the Iranian consulate in Syria… " iv just had a giggle reading this lol so Israel haven’t been attacked by these country’s there the attackers wow | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Indeed! Not everything that may either criticise Israel or impede their actions is anti-semitic! Israel had a right to defend itself. Israel had a right for revenge. The actions of Hamas were despicable. Israel has gone too far with a disproportional response. It’s time to stop.there not going to stop,there waiting to see who gets in office in the states,if its trump I imagine they will flatten the rest of the strip Possibly/probably but the UK can try to be less complicit (too late really).why would we be less complicit? After all we have killed hundreds of thousands of civillians in iraq oops i forgot thats just collateral damage, fact is our goverment will happily kill civillians if it suits us It didn't suit us, not those of us who matched in protest about what we saw was a dick swinging exercise by bush and Blair(plus the majority of Tory MPs at the time) It wasn't something that we were given a choice about.." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" By and large, Israel doesn't attack unless attacked first (or preemptively, where there is a clear or stated position against them). I was really going to ask if you wrote this with a straight face… because even I had to giggle Isreal has been hitting targets In Lebanon, in Syria and actually in Iran for years… Using the word “preemptive” is just an excuse for getting in your shot first…. Case in point.. when Isreal attacked the Iranian consulate in Syria… iv just had a giggle reading this lol so Israel haven’t been attacked by these country’s there the attackers wow " The main issue with this statement is if your a victim of crime then that doesn't allow you to break the law in revenge. Hamas have committed war crimes, including the taking of hostages and possibly more war crimes if they did kill hostages but that does not give a green light to Israel. Laws should hold everyone to account Netenyahu is taking advantage of the situation to expand Israel without regard to hostages, Israelis or anyone else and partly for his own interests. Israel have dropped more bombs in Gaza than the Americans in Afghanistan. Also, the amount of destruction plus the contamination of exploded ordinance in Gaza will cause birth defects and health issues for years to come. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Indeed! Not everything that may either criticise Israel or impede their actions is anti-semitic! Israel had a right to defend itself. Israel had a right for revenge. The actions of Hamas were despicable. Israel has gone too far with a disproportional response. It’s time to stop.there not going to stop,there waiting to see who gets in office in the states,if its trump I imagine they will flatten the rest of the strip Possibly/probably but the UK can try to be less complicit (too late really).why would we be less complicit? After all we have killed hundreds of thousands of civillians in iraq oops i forgot thats just collateral damage, fact is our goverment will happily kill civillians if it suits us It didn't suit us, not those of us who matched in protest about what we saw was a dick swinging exercise by bush and Blair(plus the majority of Tory MPs at the time) It wasn't something that we were given a choice about.." didnt hear to many people moaning about all the civilians who died there,anyone else does it and all of a sudden people want leaders up in the Hague, when bush and blair are in the Hague then i will happily call for others to be tried until then whats good for the goose and all that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Indeed! Not everything that may either criticise Israel or impede their actions is anti-semitic! Israel had a right to defend itself. Israel had a right for revenge. The actions of Hamas were despicable. Israel has gone too far with a disproportional response. It’s time to stop.there not going to stop,there waiting to see who gets in office in the states,if its trump I imagine they will flatten the rest of the strip Possibly/probably but the UK can try to be less complicit (too late really).why would we be less complicit? After all we have killed hundreds of thousands of civillians in iraq oops i forgot thats just collateral damage, fact is our goverment will happily kill civillians if it suits us It didn't suit us, not those of us who matched in protest about what we saw was a dick swinging exercise by bush and Blair(plus the majority of Tory MPs at the time) It wasn't something that we were given a choice about..didnt hear to many people moaning about all the civilians who died there,anyone else does it and all of a sudden people want leaders up in the Hague, when bush and blair are in the Hague then i will happily call for others to be tried until then whats good for the goose and all that" Do you think the millions who marched globally did so because they were objecting to sadam Hussein and his entourage of butchers being threatened by the approaching war? You'll be a long time waiting in the Hague having any say in that, it's only the foreign despots who get helps to account.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Indeed! Not everything that may either criticise Israel or impede their actions is anti-semitic! Israel had a right to defend itself. Israel had a right for revenge. The actions of Hamas were despicable. Israel has gone too far with a disproportional response. It’s time to stop.there not going to stop,there waiting to see who gets in office in the states,if its trump I imagine they will flatten the rest of the strip Possibly/probably but the UK can try to be less complicit (too late really).why would we be less complicit? After all we have killed hundreds of thousands of civillians in iraq oops i forgot thats just collateral damage, fact is our goverment will happily kill civillians if it suits us It didn't suit us, not those of us who matched in protest about what we saw was a dick swinging exercise by bush and Blair(plus the majority of Tory MPs at the time) It wasn't something that we were given a choice about..didnt hear to many people moaning about all the civilians who died there,anyone else does it and all of a sudden people want leaders up in the Hague, when bush and blair are in the Hague then i will happily call for others to be tried until then whats good for the goose and all that Do you think the millions who marched globally did so because they were objecting to sadam Hussein and his entourage of butchers being threatened by the approaching war? You'll be a long time waiting in the Hague having any say in that, it's only the foreign despots who get helps to account.." when the western despots also get held to account then I will be cheering on going after all the others around the world to until then it's a bit hypocritical cheering on going after others,as for the millions marching globally to stop the invasion I thought what are you wasting your time for,our governments don't listen and they never will,just like the pro Palestine marches are a waste of time also it ain't gona stop the bombing,that stops when Israel decides it stops | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For certain arms and components. Another sign of Labour anti-Semitism, pandering to the vocal Muslim voter base in the UK. Poorly judged (as usual for him) and will embolden Iran to launch the all out proxy war from all sides that they have been preparing for." -------------------------------------- I think your point might have had credibility if Labour had announced they were supplying arms to Hamas but they're not are they? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've seen 8% and 10% mentioned of licences stopped. I assume that is UK only which supplies about 1% in total of Israelis weapons. So at best 0.1% of the overall Israeli imports if I'm looking at it right. If the UK is the only possible supplier of these things then it could be significant, but if Israel can simply buy elsewhere then not so significant. " I heard on Radio 4 that it was certain parts for the F35 as well as other stuff so yes they'll simply get it from the States .. It's a political point so that our government can say they are abiding by international law.. Bit of a moot point when you look at the charade that is end user certificates and the way they are gotten around to sell to dodgy regimes.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've seen 8% and 10% mentioned of licences stopped. I assume that is UK only which supplies about 1% in total of Israelis weapons. So at best 0.1% of the overall Israeli imports if I'm looking at it right. If the UK is the only possible supplier of these things then it could be significant, but if Israel can simply buy elsewhere then not so significant. I heard on Radio 4 that it was certain parts for the F35 as well as other stuff so yes they'll simply get it from the States .. It's a political point so that our government can say they are abiding by international law.. Bit of a moot point when you look at the charade that is end user certificates and the way they are gotten around to sell to dodgy regimes.." Exactly this. It makes out the UK government is "concerned" and (sort of) abiding by international law while being totally ineffective | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've seen 8% and 10% mentioned of licences stopped. I assume that is UK only which supplies about 1% in total of Israelis weapons. So at best 0.1% of the overall Israeli imports if I'm looking at it right. If the UK is the only possible supplier of these things then it could be significant, but if Israel can simply buy elsewhere then not so significant. I heard on Radio 4 that it was certain parts for the F35 as well as other stuff so yes they'll simply get it from the States .. It's a political point so that our government can say they are abiding by international law.. Bit of a moot point when you look at the charade that is end user certificates and the way they are gotten around to sell to dodgy regimes.. Exactly this. It makes out the UK government is "concerned" and (sort of) abiding by international law while being totally ineffective " But we are not alone.. All governments who say they follow the rules of international laws and treaties etc have paid lip service to such things.. Twas ever thus.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Look up Genocide "The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part." It's genocide" How do you prove that intent, to a legal standard? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Look up Genocide "The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part." It's genocide How do you prove that intent, to a legal standard?" Govt level; - statements made by the Israeli government - Type of strategy used by the IDF and weapons used - the allowing of illegal settlement of Israelis on West Bank land which has increased by 20 fold (illegal in Israeli law but the law is there as window dressing) Individual conduct level of IDF: - sniper fire killing civilians.. especially children (shows deliberate intent) - video evidence of MIS conduct Obviously why independent journalists are not allowed in. An American-palestinian journalist was shot by s sniper.. and after 1 year of denial and coming up with fake evidence finally admitted they did actually shoot her | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Look up Genocide "The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part." It's genocide How do you prove that intent, to a legal standard?" Another example - dropping 2000 pound bombs onto a crowded refugee camp | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Look up Genocide "The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part." It's genocide How do you prove that intent, to a legal standard?" The example I always give is. By killing such a high number of women and children, or killing future mothers and fathers It could be put, that it is a action that ensures those killed will never repopulate, simply put will never have children because they have been killed. We all have the right to repopulate, even after war it is a basic human right. So to hinder that right I would say is unlawful and an attempt at population reduction at best. It must have got pretty crowded in the strip. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Indeed! Not everything that may either criticise Israel or impede their actions is anti-semitic! Israel had a right to defend itself. Israel had a right for revenge. The actions of Hamas were despicable. Israel has gone too far with a disproportional response. It’s time to stop." Agreed. Seems that anything other than unconditional support of all Israeli actions is deemed to be antisemitic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"it's now come to light that David Cameron was told by multiple sources at the begining of last february, that the continuation of allowing the now suspended licences was against international law, yet he chose to deliberately supress the advice and carry on as usual. " Doesn't suprise me  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"it's now come to light that David Cameron was told by multiple sources at the begining of last february, that the continuation of allowing the now suspended licences was against international law, yet he chose to deliberately supress the advice and carry on as usual. . Doesn't suprise me "he's got no shame when it comes to supplying every man and his dog in the levant with weapons and 'no questions asked mate' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...we thought that it was important to relay the views of many of our constituents. In each of our constituencies in Barnet, constituents have been in touch and expressed deep concern and upset about Monday’s decision. They have asked that we express their concerns to you, so that the Government can better understand their point of view. Firstly, many constituents are upset and angry... ...Secondly, our constituents have raised questions about... ...Lastly, our constituents have queried... ...We know that they would appreciate a response from you in due course which we can circulate to them. Yours sincerely, David Pinto-Duschinsky MP Member of Parliament for Hendon (Labour) Sarah Sackman MP Member of Parliament for Finchley and Golders Green (Labour) Dan Tomlinson MP Member of Parliament for Chipping Barnet (Labour)”" Lots of distancing language there. I.e. "We don't share the views of our constituents, but we don't want to lose their votes, so they should know that we have passed along their messages (with which we do not agree), so they think we're somehow on their side". Not that they have much choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the government had any integrity it would have cancelled all the licenses." This thread proves that the govt will never have the consensus of the British public re the Gaza situation, what to do? They do have to send a message to Netty boy that his actions are disproportionate. It's a difficult situation that has been around since before the creation of Israel. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Look up Genocide "The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part." It's genocide" Which, I believe, Hamas has openly stated re Israel. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Look up Genocide "The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part." It's genocide Which, I believe, Hamas has openly stated re Israel." Yes they have I think hamas and its aims is a product of the Zionist ideology imposed on Palestinians since 1948 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Look up Genocide "The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part." It's genocide Which, I believe, Hamas has openly stated re Israel. Yes they have I think hamas and its aims is a product of the Zionist ideology imposed on Palestinians since 1948 " You mean they didn't like the creation of Israel? Diddums. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Look up Genocide "The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part." It's genocide Which, I believe, Hamas has openly stated re Israel. Yes they have I think hamas and its aims is a product of the Zionist ideology imposed on Palestinians since 1948 You mean they didn't like the creation of Israel? Diddums." Possibly the way it was created would be my guess The Palestinians were forcibly removed Just saying I not attacking you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Look up Genocide "The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part." It's genocide Which, I believe, Hamas has openly stated re Israel. Yes they have I think hamas and its aims is a product of the Zionist ideology imposed on Palestinians since 1948 You mean they didn't like the creation of Israel? Diddums. Possibly the way it was created would be my guess The Palestinians were forcibly removed Just saying I not attacking you " Oh I didn't think you were. I have broad shoulders anywhere. I do not for one moment think Israel is the only nation creation, or border restructuring of any nation that has pissed people off. But the (threatened) genocide of a people is unacceptable. Btw I'm no more pro Israel than I am Gaza. It's an awful situation that will not be resolved by war and the deaths of innocents irrespective of ethnicity/religion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Look up Genocide "The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part." It's genocide Which, I believe, Hamas has openly stated re Israel. Yes they have I think hamas and its aims is a product of the Zionist ideology imposed on Palestinians since 1948 You mean they didn't like the creation of Israel? Diddums. Possibly the way it was created would be my guess The Palestinians were forcibly removed Just saying I not attacking you Oh I didn't think you were. I have broad shoulders anywhere. I do not for one moment think Israel is the only nation creation, or border restructuring of any nation that has pissed people off. But the (threatened) genocide of a people is unacceptable. Btw I'm no more pro Israel than I am Gaza. It's an awful situation that will not be resolved by war and the deaths of innocents irrespective of ethnicity/religion." Yeah tell me about it! The UN haveen as useful as a chocolate hammer so far | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For certain arms and components. Another sign of Labour anti-Semitism, pandering to the vocal Muslim voter base in the UK. Poorly judged (as usual for him) and will embolden Iran to launch the all out proxy war from all sides that they have been preparing for." Correct. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For certain arms and components. Another sign of Labour anti-Semitism, pandering to the vocal Muslim voter base in the UK. Poorly judged (as usual for him) and will embolden Iran to launch the all out proxy war from all sides that they have been preparing for. This is not antisemitism. It is Labour sending a soft, but firm, political message to Israel (given the UK's general position on Israel, however, this is the equivalent of screaming). Yes, many within Labour's support base would not be unhappy if Israel lost a war or two (with everything that implies) but it is a real stretch to call this antisemitic. It is purely political." What is the UK's position on Israel? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For certain arms and components. Another sign of Labour anti-Semitism, pandering to the vocal Muslim voter base in the UK. Poorly judged (as usual for him) and will embolden Iran to launch the all out proxy war from all sides that they have been preparing for. This is not antisemitism. It is Labour sending a soft, but firm, political message to Israel (given the UK's general position on Israel, however, this is the equivalent of screaming). Yes, many within Labour's support base would not be unhappy if Israel lost a war or two (with everything that implies) but it is a real stretch to call this antisemitic. It is purely political. What is the UK's position on Israel?" Ally (including intelligence sharing and direct military support). Staunch supporter of their right to exist. Generally supportive of their efforts to combat terrorism - unlike some countries, they consider Hamas a terrorist organisation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For certain arms and components. Another sign of Labour anti-Semitism, pandering to the vocal Muslim voter base in the UK. Poorly judged (as usual for him) and will embolden Iran to launch the all out proxy war from all sides that they have been preparing for. Or a political message to say that murdering 16,000+ children is not acceptable?" But no outrage at Israelis kidn*p**d,r**ed and murdered. No outrage at children tied together and set on fire waaaayyyy back in October 2023. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For certain arms and components. Another sign of Labour anti-Semitism, pandering to the vocal Muslim voter base in the UK. Poorly judged (as usual for him) and will embolden Iran to launch the all out proxy war from all sides that they have been preparing for. This is not antisemitism. It is Labour sending a soft, but firm, political message to Israel (given the UK's general position on Israel, however, this is the equivalent of screaming). Yes, many within Labour's support base would not be unhappy if Israel lost a war or two (with everything that implies) but it is a real stretch to call this antisemitic. It is purely political. What is the UK's position on Israel? Ally (including intelligence sharing and direct military support). Staunch supporter of their right to exist. Generally supportive of their efforts to combat terrorism - unlike some countries, they consider Hamas a terrorist organisation." Then send them every weapon we have so they can finish Hamas. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For certain arms and components. Another sign of Labour anti-Semitism, pandering to the vocal Muslim voter base in the UK. Poorly judged (as usual for him) and will embolden Iran to launch the all out proxy war from all sides that they have been preparing for. Or a political message to say that murdering 16,000+ children is not acceptable? But no outrage at Israelis kidn*p**d,r**ed and murdered. No outrage at children tied together and set on fire waaaayyyy back in October 2023. " Keir Starmer has expressed plenty of outrage? He has gone further than many in his party would like in that direction? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For certain arms and components. Another sign of Labour anti-Semitism, pandering to the vocal Muslim voter base in the UK. Poorly judged (as usual for him) and will embolden Iran to launch the all out proxy war from all sides that they have been preparing for. This is not antisemitism. It is Labour sending a soft, but firm, political message to Israel (given the UK's general position on Israel, however, this is the equivalent of screaming). Yes, many within Labour's support base would not be unhappy if Israel lost a war or two (with everything that implies) but it is a real stretch to call this antisemitic. It is purely political. What is the UK's position on Israel? Ally (including intelligence sharing and direct military support). Staunch supporter of their right to exist. Generally supportive of their efforts to combat terrorism - unlike some countries, they consider Hamas a terrorist organisation. Then send them every weapon we have so they can finish Hamas." Hamas will never be finished. They will have recruited tens of thousands during the Israeli genocide of Palestinians. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For certain arms and components. Another sign of Labour anti-Semitism, pandering to the vocal Muslim voter base in the UK. Poorly judged (as usual for him) and will embolden Iran to launch the all out proxy war from all sides that they have been preparing for. Or a political message to say that murdering 16,000+ children is not acceptable? But no outrage at Israelis kidn*p**d,r**ed and murdered. No outrage at children tied together and set on fire waaaayyyy back in October 2023. Keir Starmer has expressed plenty of outrage? He has gone further than many in his party would like in that direction?" Poppy on Poppy off starmer. What a tosser | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For certain arms and components. Another sign of Labour anti-Semitism, pandering to the vocal Muslim voter base in the UK. Poorly judged (as usual for him) and will embolden Iran to launch the all out proxy war from all sides that they have been preparing for. This is not antisemitism. It is Labour sending a soft, but firm, political message to Israel (given the UK's general position on Israel, however, this is the equivalent of screaming). Yes, many within Labour's support base would not be unhappy if Israel lost a war or two (with everything that implies) but it is a real stretch to call this antisemitic. It is purely political. What is the UK's position on Israel? Ally (including intelligence sharing and direct military support). Staunch supporter of their right to exist. Generally supportive of their efforts to combat terrorism - unlike some countries, they consider Hamas a terrorist organisation. Then send them every weapon we have so they can finish Hamas. Hamas will never be finished. They will have recruited tens of thousands during the Israeli genocide of Palestinians. " What genocide? The population of what you call Palestine has increased three or four fold since 1948. What genocide? Can you stop using words when you have no idea what they mean? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" upholding arrest warrants " Which arrest warrants? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" upholding arrest warrants Which arrest warrants?" Good question all applications foe arrest warrants from the ICC to apply the law not just pick and choose which ones | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" upholding arrest warrants Which arrest warrants? Good question all applications foe arrest warrants from the ICC to apply the law not just pick and choose which ones" Arrest warrants or applications for arrest warrants? You don't arrest on an application...? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" upholding arrest warrants Which arrest warrants? Good question all applications foe arrest warrants from the ICC to apply the law not just pick and choose which ones Arrest warrants or applications for arrest warrants? You don't arrest on an application...?" Think he's complaining about the issue of arrest warrants from the ICC not being followed up by subsequent arrests of those they are issued against. Don't think he is aware of the limits of the jurisdiction of the ICC on such matters. Think that's were his frustration comes from. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" upholding arrest warrants Which arrest warrants? Good question all applications foe arrest warrants from the ICC to apply the law not just pick and choose which ones Arrest warrants or applications for arrest warrants? You don't arrest on an application...?Think he's complaining about the issue of arrest warrants from the ICC not being followed up by subsequent arrests of those they are issued against. Don't think he is aware of the limits of the jurisdiction of the ICC on such matters. Think that's were his frustration comes from. Mrs x" Ok how does the ICC work then I have seen the American government have put sanctions on one of the ICC judges too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" upholding arrest warrants Which arrest warrants? Good question all applications foe arrest warrants from the ICC to apply the law not just pick and choose which ones Arrest warrants or applications for arrest warrants? You don't arrest on an application...?Think he's complaining about the issue of arrest warrants from the ICC not being followed up by subsequent arrests of those they are issued against. Don't think he is aware of the limits of the jurisdiction of the ICC on such matters. Think that's were his frustration comes from. Mrs x Ok how does the ICC work then I have seen the American government have put sanctions on one of the ICC judges too" The ICC's decisions to issue arrest warrants are a bit of a paper tiger really. Although the member states are supposed to uphold their decisions the ICC has no power to enforce member states to do so. Therefore, having no police force of its own, it rely on those of the member States to enforce these arrest warrants but this is not always tge case and it's common for member states to ignore them. So they carry no real authority but are more persuasive in nature, forcing member states to look at their relationship with the individual concerned. There's also the issue of non member stated where the ICC has no jurisdiction at all. So arrest warrants can be sought, they normally take months to be issued, they are quite often ignored by member states and carry no authority at all in non member states. You'd expect it to be like in tge movies were a powerful police force bursts into a building and grabs the individual who has an outstanding arrest warrant, carting them off to some I.posing prison . In reality it couldn't be further from the truth. That's the issue with the ICC and arrest warrants. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
