Bank Holiday Edition - Saturday 29th - Monday 31st August

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 7:10 pm

Anyone know where citizenja is?

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 7:13 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:Evening all

I find it a tragedy that lots of people were killed in the WTC and it was, in part, due to one of our assets going 'rogue'.

I find it a tragedy that loads of people are killed in Gaza and one of our 'allies' in the Middle East developed nuclear weapons with no criticism from us.

I find it a tragedy that we and our allies use indiscriminate killing in order to try to assassinate our enemies.

I find it a tragedy that our arms kill thousands of people a year being sold to some of the most autocratic regimes in the world

I find it a tragedy that refugees are coming from North Africa and, if the survive, meeting hatred even though our policies have helped create the situation they find themselves in.

I find it a tragedy that the Labour Party can not oppose the Tory Party effectively in their attack on the poor in our society - partly because people in the leadership actually agree with some of the principles behind what they do

I find it a tragedy that the labour Party's only person who has shown verve and energy and tries to understand what has gone wrong is a 30 year old veteran who has sniped from the sidelines for years

I find it a tragedy that the Labour Party is prepared to give up the values it was built on in order to chase the votes of some ignorant and ill-informed idiots living in bloody Nuneaton (one of the few places that makes Wolverhampton look good!)

I find it a tragedy that a good leader was undermined by those on the right of the party, including some of those now crying that the result of the leadership contest is not going their way

I find it unfortunate for some of the things that Jeremy Corbyn has said can so easily be taken out of context and portray him as believing something we all know he doesn't. He is not the most desirable candidate that Labour could have for the next leader but it is not his fault that the heart of the party was hollowed out by the right wing and their verve for triangulation.

It seems we now have to laud Osborne for his 'political cleverness' over Trident when he is in fact being, as he always is, a twat...unfortunately most of our media and some on here seem to think that the political game is all that matters, even when it is not particularly well-played. Shame it is why the public holds the political classes in utter contempt

And I find it a tragedy that Chelsea lost to Palace.

But I have enough sense not to lump together all 'bad things' into the same category for rhetorical effect, to create the spurious impression of equivalence. "Yes X killed thousands, but the west doesn't clean its teeth at night. So who are we to judge?"

Which is what Corbyn does.

Over and over again.

Yawwwnnnnn!

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 7:14 pm

Change the record, Hugo. It's cracked.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now for the delectation of all the lovely people who have asked after Show.

He is not well; he has a nasty would infection. Much of this is entirely his own doing, having caused some severe inflammation of a very long groin incision (26 staples) by pratting about for 5 hours on public transport a week ago.
He left without his dressings, practice nurse letters, and the special staple-remover he needed; he has insisted he is not in pain and not taken his prescribed analgesia; he has not been resting enough and he's done far too much.

Having insisted on phoning the doctor, I got the appropriate treatment for him and a serious dressing-down from said doctor. Excellent.

Now he is suitably chastened, he is insisting on apologising profusely every time I change his bloody (literally) dressings 3 times a bloody day.
He is actually lying down for more than half an hour at a time and he's taking his medicine like a good little boy.
I've had to do more washing in the past week than I generally do in a month, and I am so pissed off that none of this was necessary.

Obduracy and ignorance is what has caused this. As I tell him at every available opportunity. Way to respect the people who saved his leg.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 7:16 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Anyone know where citizenja is?

Didn't she say they were going away? Or did I dream it?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 7:21 pm

Hugo ...

I haven't cast my vote yet ... but should I end up voting for Corbyn you will probably be able to take a fair bit of credit for that decision. You are driving me into the arms of Corbyn (little hysterical laugh to accompany that last).

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 7:22 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:I don't want to spin the argument out SH (no pun intended) but I find your arguments crass and I'm going to try and explain why ... probably not very well.

I think it's because Corbyn - and others who have said similar - recognises the horror and tragedy of dreadful acts like 9/11 that he is also aware how important a figure Osama Bin Laden and the manner of his death was. It's not a simple 'equating' of events as I see it ... it's about following the due process to show people that such extreme acts are not the way ... not our way.

Depends which due process you mean. Pakistan, where he was hiding? Tanzania, where Al Qaeda blew up the US Embassy?

He could have been put to death in Pennsylvania or New York State.

Why mention all those things together? What's Corbyn saying?

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 7:29 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Hugo ...

I haven't cast my vote yet ... but should I end up voting for Corbyn you will probably be able to take a fair bit of credit for that decision. You are driving me into the arms of Corbyn (little hysterical laugh to accompany that last).

He's driving me bananas.

So much so I can feel a flounce coming on.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 7:32 pm

Yes, there are times when Military force is necessary. But when we come down to their level, what does that make us?

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 7:34 pm

ephemerid wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Hugo ...

I haven't cast my vote yet ... but should I end up voting for Corbyn you will probably be able to take a fair bit of credit for that decision. You are driving me into the arms of Corbyn (little hysterical laugh to accompany that last).
He's driving me bananas.

So much so I can feel a flounce coming on.

You and me both ephie

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 7:35 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:I don't want to spin the argument out SH (no pun intended) but I find your arguments crass and I'm going to try and explain why ... probably not very well.

I think it's because Corbyn - and others who have said similar - recognises the horror and tragedy of dreadful acts like 9/11 that he is also aware how important a figure Osama Bin Laden and the manner of his death was. It's not a simple 'equating' of events as I see it ... it's about following the due process to show people that such extreme acts are not the way ... not our way.
Depends which due process you mean. Pakistan, where he was captured? Tanzania, where Al Qaeda blew up the US Embassy?

He could have been put to death in Pennsylvania or New York State.

Why mention all those things together? What's Corbyn saying?

I am not sure where you are coming from to be honest?

I do not believe that Corbyn is equating these things and believes that Bin Laden's death was a 'tragedy' in itself. I can accept his words were misjudged (taking what you and others have said) but he is not a man who has ever employed someone to 'manage' his message. A mistake but does that disqualify him from being leader?

Blair stood on a unilateralist manifesto in 83. In my view he knowingly lied in the run up to Iraq and was either incompetent or verging on a criminal. His actions and statements have made life much more difficult for his party to gain traction. I also think Cameron is an inveterate liar and he has made similar catastrophic errors of judgement. Not even to mention Osborne or IDS. Boris has also a history that should surely preclude him from ever being a political leader and we have dozens of other examples of political leaders doing much, much worse than Corbyn

It seems that some people's dislike of Corbyn is giving him no room to manoeuvre at all

I repeat for the thousandth time...he is not many people's ideal candidate. The fault is that of the party hierarchy and the other three candidates.......but we see no sign of them upping their game at all and the hierarchy is running around like headless chickens. Who was it who turned on miliband as soon as the game was up in May and immediately blamed the loss on the 'leftward' move and 'abandoning of aspirational voters' - was it Corbyn and his supporters? Are those idiots Danczuck and Mann Corbyn supporters....you know the ones who un ermine the Party at every opportunity they get......or those acolytes of Blair who do the same

In these circumstances what do you expect people to do? Vote like sheep according to the wishes of the party bosses - Tammany Hall-like?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 7:37 pm

ephemerid wrote:Change the record, Hugo. It's cracked.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now for the delectation of all the lovely people who have asked after Show.

He is not well; he has a nasty would infection. Much of this is entirely his own doing, having caused some severe inflammation of a very long groin incision (26 staples) by pratting about for 5 hours on public transport a week ago.
He left without his dressings, practice nurse letters, and the special staple-remover he needed; he has insisted he is not in pain and not taken his prescribed analgesia; he has not been resting enough and he's done far too much.

Having insisted on phoning the doctor, I got the appropriate treatment for him and a serious dressing-down from said doctor. Excellent.

Now he is suitably chastened, he is insisting on apologising profusely every time I change his bloody (literally) dressings 3 times a bloody day.
He is actually lying down for more than half an hour at a time and he's taking his medicine like a good little boy.
I've had to do more washing in the past week than I generally do in a month, and I am so pissed off that none of this was necessary.

Obduracy and ignorance is what has caused this. As I tell him at every available opportunity. Way to respect the people who saved his leg.

Feel for you.

It's the manly denial they're in pain and refusal to take anything for it, that makes me grit my teeth.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 7:38 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:I don't want to spin the argument out SH (no pun intended) but I find your arguments crass and I'm going to try and explain why ... probably not very well.

I think it's because Corbyn - and others who have said similar - recognises the horror and tragedy of dreadful acts like 9/11 that he is also aware how important a figure Osama Bin Laden and the manner of his death was. It's not a simple 'equating' of events as I see it ... it's about following the due process to show people that such extreme acts are not the way ... not our way.
Depends which due process you mean. Pakistan, where he was hiding? Tanzania, where Al Qaeda blew up the US Embassy?

He could have been put to death in Pennsylvania or New York State.

Why mention all those things together? What's Corbyn saying?

Oh, and by the way, on the detail of your post.

It is difficult finding a jurisdiction so a non-judicial execution is permitted then? If we find that acceptable than I think Mr Netanyahu for one should be looking over his shoulder and we should accept anything that happens as acceptable?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 7:44 pm

WHAT CORBYN REPORTEDLY SAID:
'BIN LADEN'S DEATH WAS A TRAGEDY'

WHAT CORBYN ACTUALLY SAID:
'IT WAS A TRAGEDY HE WAS ASSASSINATED RATHER THAN PUT ON TRIAL'

Front page.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 7:48 pm

I was talking about places where his attacks took place- just in terms of 9/11, he'd be at serious risk of being executed. The death penalty is bad both in itself and because it risks martyrizing. But it's there and not applying it when it would normally be applied is even worse. If you can be put to death in Pennsylvania for murdering 2 people, killing 44 via the United 93 hijack could expect to see you executed.

I don't really know where he'd have actually been tried though. Clearly it could happen in lots of places, and due process isn't particularly cuddly in those places.

I guess those places who wanted to try him are happy enough they don't have to though. Any trial could be a rallying point for murderous loons.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 7:53 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
It seems that some people's dislike of Corbyn is giving him no room to manoeuvre at all

I repeat for the thousandth time...he is not many people's ideal candidate. The fault is that of the party hierarchy and the other three candidates.......but we see no sign of them upping their game at all and the hierarchy is running around like headless chickens. Who was it who turned on miliband as soon as the game was up in May and immediately blamed the loss on the 'leftward' move and 'abandoning of aspirational voters' - was it Corbyn and his supporters? Are those idiots Danczuck and Mann Corbyn supporters....you know the ones who un ermine the Party at every opportunity they get......or those acolytes of Blair who do the same

In these circumstances what do you expect people to do? Vote like sheep according to the wishes of the party bosses - Tammany Hall-like?

This.

David Hencke wrote about this on his blog - the constant sniping is driving people to vote for Corbyn.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 7:56 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:I was talking about places where his attacks took place- just in terms of 9/11, he'd be at serious risk of being executed. The death penalty is bad both in itself and because it risks martyrizing. But it's there and not applying it when it would normally be applied is even worse. If you can be put to death in Pennsylvania for murdering 2 people, killing 44 via the United 93 hijack could expect to see you executed.

I don't really know where he'd have actually been tried though. Clearly it could happen in lots of places, and due process isn't particularly cuddly in those places.

I guess those places who wanted to try him are happy enough they don't have to though. Any trial could be a rallying point for murderous loons.

But non-judicial execution is still totally unacceptable....did they attempt to capture him?

Execution after judicial process is still unacceptable but at least there is some semblance of process

How about the Hague as an option - no execution there?

There was no chance of a trial though was there - he was a US asset and knew too much. He would never have been allowed to say what he knew about Afghanistan in the late 80s and his links to the Saudi Government - not conspiracy theory really - just pretty bloody obvious!

Once we accept this type of execution, like that of Ghaddaffi and many others then where does it stop....does it allow our leaders, or allies, to undergo the same?

I think this is a pretty poor argument Tubby and. to be honest, unworthy of you

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 8:02 pm

But non-judicial execution is still totally unacceptable....did they attempt to capture him?

I doubt it- probably seen as too much of a risk of American lives.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 8:05 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
But non-judicial execution is still totally unacceptable....did they attempt to capture him?
I doubt it- probably seen as too much of a risk of American lives.

and he knew too much!

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 8:07 pm

What is absolutely unacceptable is telling Hugo to shut up for saying some fairly reasonable stuff. If you don't like it don't read it, but you should not be attempting to censor opposing views.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 8:11 pm

Once we accept this type of execution, like that of Ghaddaffi and many others then where does it stop....does it allow our leaders, or allies, to undergo the same?

I think this is a pretty poor argument Tubby and. to be honest, unworthy of you

I don't think arresting Bin Laden in Pakistan is like, say, arresting Mark Duggan in Tottenham Hale. That ought to have been straightforward, and I'm troubled by the Police not only mucking it up but, as far as I can see, lying about it.

Bin Laden in Pakistan though, that's much more dangerous in itself. There's also the fact that he's got a murderous international fan club. Is due process- which, I presume would involve him sitting in Pakistan while extradition hearings happen, then escorted around the world for trials- even possible?

If he'd been involved with 7/7, I can't say I'd be thrilled about him being put on trial in London. Would be a nice way of getting to the top of the loons hitlists. There would be lives at stake, not to mention awful implications for race relations.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 8:12 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:What is absolutely unacceptable is telling Hugo to shut up for saying some fairly reasonable stuff. If you don't like it don't read it, but you should not be attempting to censor opposing views.

Who told him to shut up?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 8:13 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
But non-judicial execution is still totally unacceptable....did they attempt to capture him?
I doubt it- probably seen as too much of a risk of American lives.
and he knew too much!

They'd have had to be careful in a trial, certainly. Bin Laden sermonising like Breivik would be a no-no.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 8:17 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Once we accept this type of execution, like that of Ghaddaffi and many others then where does it stop....does it allow our leaders, or allies, to undergo the same?

I think this is a pretty poor argument Tubby and. to be honest, unworthy of you
I don't think arresting Bin Laden in Pakistan is like, say, arresting Mark Duggan in Tottenham Hale. That ought to have been straightforward, and I'm troubled by the Police not only mucking it up but, as far as I can see, lying about it.

Bin Laden in Pakistan though, that's much more dangerous in itself. There's also the fact that he's got a murderous international fan club. Is due process- which, I presume would involve him sitting in Pakistan while extradition hearings happen, then escorted around the world for trials- even possible?

If he'd been involved with 7/7, I can't say I'd be thrilled about him being put on trial in London. Would be a nice way of getting to the top of the loons hitlists. There would be lives at stake, not to mention awful implications for race relations.

I am sure it is not easy and I am sure his death was the acceptable outcome for all involved - he was not going to get arrested in Pakistan as he was protected by the Intelligence Services over there

I am sure the great old US Army would be able to whisk him away if they really really wanted to follow due process

This is a nonsense argument though....Bin Laden was never going to face any trial anywhere....just as Bush and Blair will not face a trial anytime or anywhere, nor Sharon nor Netanyahu

The ICC is only for those whose face doesn't fit

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 8:22 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:My area voted strongly Labour too. Majority of 24,000.

Fantastic!

Excellent......so why do we take them for granted by focusing on those who voted Tory because they didn't bother looking at the nonsense spouted by Cameron closely enough?

Remember the left didn't come out and say we lost for not being left enough although the Scottish situation would have suggested that it was within their rights to do so

No, it was the right who were screaming about Miliband being too left wing and policies that didn't 'speak to Tory voters' - they have reaped what they sowed themselves!

If Corbyn wasn't there we would be now marching down the path to the right....for that I am grateful to him. None of the others saw this early enough and managed to present a coherent policy framework based on what Miliband started - a step to the left!

Because Labour needs to understand why the Blue Labour vote walked away and how to get it back. If it doesn't get it back then it doesn't have the votes necessary to win an election. Nuneaton is typical of the sort of place Labour needs to win and isn't. To an extent this process can be helped by looking at other areas that did vote Labour with similar demographics and trying to understand the differences.

The nature of UK politics is you need a coalition. In the case of Labour it will most likely be a coalition of the have nots and crucially the squeezed middle and working class (this group being Blue Labour). In my view Corbyn will only appeal to the first group and there aren't enough of them to win. It isn't all easy for the Tories Middle income people continue to suffer and property is now out of reach of very many people. These are existential threats to the Tory party, who are unable to do anything about it. However you need a broad based appeal and you need to make it easy for the disaffected middle classes (real middle class not Sunday Times middle class) to vote for you.

I do agree Corbyn has stopped the party adopting a me too Tory agenda which I see as totally pointless and doomed to failure. I am certainly very happy about that. However Corbyn is very unlikely to be able to assemble a winning coalition.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 8:23 pm

I am sure the great old US Army would be able to whisk him away if they really really wanted to follow due process

This is a nonsense argument though....Bin Laden was never going to face any trial anywhere...

He wasn't no, but if I wouldn't want him going on trial in London, I'm not sure I can say he should have gone on trial somewhere else, can I?

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 8:24 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: I doubt it- probably seen as too much of a risk of American lives.
and he knew too much!
They'd have had to be careful in a trial, certainly. Bin Laden sermonising like Breivik would be a no-no.

It is a tricky thing this 'tried by his peers' thing isn't it?

Good job we can get rid of the inconvenience when it suits us........

Do we accept the extra-judicial execution of Western leaders as well? Would it have been okay if Castro has organised the assassination of a US President when there had been so many attempts on his life authorised at the highest level?

I oppose all capital punishment
I believe in trial by due process
I oppose all extra-judicial assassination and I think any Government sanctioning it is guilty of a crime

No ifs, no buts

I know you can argue realpolitik necessitates otherwise but then we should stop the hypocrisy and those in our Government who advocate it should be clear that is what they believe

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 8:26 pm

FWIW IMHO

Hugo should say what he wants.I think it is healthy and rather essential that he is heard.

If he is" driving "people towards the opposite view,you would have thought,Corbyn supporters should be encouraging him.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 8:33 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:My area voted strongly Labour too. Majority of 24,000.

Fantastic!

Excellent......so why do we take them for granted by focusing on those who voted Tory because they didn't bother looking at the nonsense spouted by Cameron closely enough?

Remember the left didn't come out and say we lost for not being left enough although the Scottish situation would have suggested that it was within their rights to do so

No, it was the right who were screaming about Miliband being too left wing and policies that didn't 'speak to Tory voters' - they have reaped what they sowed themselves!

If Corbyn wasn't there we would be now marching down the path to the right....for that I am grateful to him. None of the others saw this early enough and managed to present a coherent policy framework based on what Miliband started - a step to the left!

Because Labour needs to understand why the Blue Labour vote walked away and how to get it back. If it doesn't get it back then it doesn't have the votes necessary to win an election. Nuneaton is typical of the sort of place Labour needs to win and isn't. To an extent this process can be helped by looking at other areas that did vote Labour with similar demographics and trying to understand the differences.

The nature of UK politics is you need a coalition. In the case of Labour it will most likely be a coalition of the have nots and crucially the squeezed middle and working class (this group being Blue Labour). In my view Corbyn will only appeal to the first group and there aren't enough of them to win. It isn't all easy for the Tories Middle income people continue to suffer and property is now out of reach of very many people. These are existential threats to the Tory party, who are unable to do anything about it. However you need a broad based appeal and you need to make it easy for the disaffected middle classes (real middle class not Sunday Times middle class) to vote for you.

I do agree Corbyn has stopped the party adopting a me too Tory agenda which I see as totally pointless and doomed to failure. I am certainly very happy about that. However Corbyn is very unlikely to be able to assemble a winning coalition.

We cannot run after these votes by chasing after them. We have to explain to them why the Tories were wrong and that they have been lied to about austerity and the economy. The approach of the others is to chase after them

If voters truly believe austerity is a sensible policy, that we should attack 'welfare scroungers' and we should believe in the mythical aspiration then they are not people who are worth bothering with

The approach has to be forceful focusing on the lie of austerity. Use the articulate economists out there to make the argument. Explain why the maxing the credit card stuff is shite! Explain why the massive reduction is spending will just force more debt onto the person...that we have zero sum games.

Sack any SC member who blames 'overspending' or who sympathises with austerity

One of the reasons why Labour was not seen as credible was that the right wing spent all their time supporting the Tory line.......Kendall is a culprit but is not alone

The people who undermined Labour's credibility were the right wing and not the left wing.....but they do not seem to get that and until they do they are not worth anything. I await contrition with bated breath

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 8:35 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
I am sure the great old US Army would be able to whisk him away if they really really wanted to follow due process

This is a nonsense argument though....Bin Laden was never going to face any trial anywhere...
He wasn't no, but if I wouldn't want him going on trial in London, I'm not sure I can say he should have gone on trial somewhere else, can I?

Why would he have been tried in London?

He would have been tried in the US, Pakistan, Afghanistan or the Hague...if they were not prepared to try him then surely he would have had to be released wouldn't he?

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 8:41 pm

HindleA wrote:FWIW IMHO

Hugo should say what he wants.I think it is healthy and rather essential that he is heard.

If he is" driving "people towards the opposite view,you would have thought,Corbyn supporters should be encouraging him.

He doesn't bother me....I tend to ignore some of the ramblings but other bits are interesting. I too think he is not helping his professed cause but there you go

I have never seen anyone tell him to 'shut up' as TE suggested but there have been instances when people have said they were going to ignore his posts.....surely they can do that if they want?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 8:43 pm

No reason to try him in London- it was a hypothetical. And not one I'd fancy too much. I can't imagine The Hague is all that disappointed to miss out on the trial of Bin Laden.

As soon as you talk about putting him on trial in Afghanistan, Pakistan etc, you're straightaway not talking about our idea of due process.

(And I don't support assassinating Castro or any other leader).

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 8:44 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
But non-judicial execution is still totally unacceptable....did they attempt to capture him?
I doubt it- probably seen as too much of a risk of American lives.
and he knew too much!

Don't know whether it's true or not, but in a book by Michael Moore, I read that when the no fly zone was in operation immediately [the next day?] after the Twin Towers tragedy, Bush allowed Bin Laden's family to fly back to Saudi...

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 8:44 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:No reason to try him in London- it was a hypothetical. And not one I'd fancy too much. I can't imagine The Hague is all that disappointed to miss out on the trial of Bin Laden.

As soon as you talk about putting him on trial in Afghanistan, Pakistan etc, you're straightaway not talking about our idea of due process.

(And I don't support assassinating Castro or any other leader).

So if he was captured and no-one would try him then he goes free?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 8:47 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
I am sure the great old US Army would be able to whisk him away if they really really wanted to follow due process

This is a nonsense argument though....Bin Laden was never going to face any trial anywhere...
He wasn't no, but if I wouldn't want him going on trial in London, I'm not sure I can say he should have gone on trial somewhere else, can I?

They managed it with Sadam surely?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 8:48 pm

I know you can argue realpolitik necessitates otherwise but then we should stop the hypocrisy and those in our Government who advocate it should be clear that is what they believe

Well, realpolitik is always hypocritical, isn't it?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 8:49 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
I am sure the great old US Army would be able to whisk him away if they really really wanted to follow due process

This is a nonsense argument though....Bin Laden was never going to face any trial anywhere...
He wasn't no, but if I wouldn't want him going on trial in London, I'm not sure I can say he should have gone on trial somewhere else, can I?
They managed it with Sadam surely?

He was on the run though. Bin Laden had years to hole himself up. I'm only guessing, but I'd reckon he made sure it was pretty hard to take him alive.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 8:51 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:No reason to try him in London- it was a hypothetical. And not one I'd fancy too much. I can't imagine The Hague is all that disappointed to miss out on the trial of Bin Laden.

As soon as you talk about putting him on trial in Afghanistan, Pakistan etc, you're straightaway not talking about our idea of due process.

(And I don't support assassinating Castro or any other leader).

So if he was captured and no-one would try him then he goes free?

By logic, yes. That would seem to me impossible, so that shows up that it's impossible to talk of due process with him.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 8:51 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: He wasn't no, but if I wouldn't want him going on trial in London, I'm not sure I can say he should have gone on trial somewhere else, can I?
They managed it with Sadam surely?
He was on the run though. Bin Laden had years to hole himself up. I'm only guessing, but I'd reckon he made sure it was pretty hard to take him alive.

If you look at how he was captured it seems he could have been if it was wanted......

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 8:53 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: I doubt it- probably seen as too much of a risk of American lives.
and he knew too much!
Don't know whether it's true or not, but in a book by Michael Moore, I read that when the no fly zone was in operation immediately [the next day?] after the Twin Towers tragedy, Bush allowed Bin Laden's family to fly back to Saudi...

It is true, except it took 8 days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden ... en_flights" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 9:09 pm

ephemerid wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
It seems that some people's dislike of Corbyn is giving him no room to manoeuvre at all

I repeat for the thousandth time...he is not many people's ideal candidate. The fault is that of the party hierarchy and the other three candidates.......but we see no sign of them upping their game at all and the hierarchy is running around like headless chickens. Who was it who turned on miliband as soon as the game was up in May and immediately blamed the loss on the 'leftward' move and 'abandoning of aspirational voters' - was it Corbyn and his supporters? Are those idiots Danczuck and Mann Corbyn supporters....you know the ones who un ermine the Party at every opportunity they get......or those acolytes of Blair who do the same

In these circumstances what do you expect people to do? Vote like sheep according to the wishes of the party bosses - Tammany Hall-like?

This.

David Hencke wrote about this on his blog - the constant sniping is driving people to vote for Corbyn.

I wouldn't say I voted out of awkwardness, because I wasn't going to bother, but the dodgy claims and headlines and then reading about what he actually said has been excellent for getting his views across, more so than with the other hopefuls. And practical or not I agree with much of what he says.

I'm sorry but I think my vote is important. Why should I give it to someone I don't believe in or particularly like?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 9:09 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:... But I have enough sense not to lump together all 'bad things' into the same category for rhetorical effect, to create the spurious impression of equivalence. "Yes X killed thousands, but the west doesn't clean its teeth at night. So who are we to judge?"

Which is what Corbyn does.

Over and over again.

I'm sorry , SH, but really. Who indeed? Well I'd humbly suggest each and everyone of us in a democracy, you included. However amongst all your criticism, haven't you got anything positive to say? I'm not speaking of Corbyn as you obviously disagree with him, but personally I don't sense any hope in your tone. It all sounds defeatist if you don't mind my saying. I really don't wish to be drawn into an argument as we're both only expressing personal opinion, but haven't you anything inspirational to contribute?

I'll shut up now with agreeing to disagree, but when I look at disenfranchised or desperate people struggling in a harsh but wealthy world, and no I don't adhere to arguments of looking at third world poverty to deny our own, I could cry. Something that in fact I very rarely do even if given cause.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 9:11 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Anyone know where citizenja is?

Couldn't be listening to Putin's side of the argument perchance, rr2. Seriously though, good question.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 9:13 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: He wasn't no, but if I wouldn't want him going on trial in London, I'm not sure I can say he should have gone on trial somewhere else, can I?
They managed it with Sadam surely?
He was on the run though. Bin Laden had years to hole himself up. I'm only guessing, but I'd reckon he made sure it was pretty hard to take him alive.

Sorry, but I can't see the difference. They could just have easily shot Saddam there and then... Or was it because Bin Laden was in Pakistan. That would have opened a huge can of worms wouldn't it.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 9:17 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote: and he knew too much!
Don't know whether it's true or not, but in a book by Michael Moore, I read that when the no fly zone was in operation immediately [the next day?] after the Twin Towers tragedy, Bush allowed Bin Laden's family to fly back to Saudi...
It is true, except it took 8 days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden ... en_flights" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No mention of the Bush's business ties with the Bin Laden's? And no. That's not from Michael Moore's book....

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 9:21 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
ohsocynical wrote: They managed it with Sadam surely?
He was on the run though. Bin Laden had years to hole himself up. I'm only guessing, but I'd reckon he made sure it was pretty hard to take him alive.
Sorry, but I can't see the difference. They could just have easily shot Saddam there and then... Or was it because Bin Laden was in Pakistan. That would have opened a huge can of worms wouldn't it.

If I remember right there was a lot of surprise that Bin Laden seemed to be living pretty much in the open ... could / should have been apprehended if the relevant intelligence and political will had combined. Or am I wrong in that?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 9:23 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:... They'd have had to be careful in a trial, certainly. Bin Laden sermonising like Breivik would be a no-no.

Good point, Tubby, which I can't help would carry more weight without our own hypocrisy, meaning the Western corporate military machine and their rapacious grasp of the planet supported by bought and paid for ploiticaians and their lickspittle media mates.It is paradox because neither must we allow his massage to endanger so many innocents.

Postscript: I did realise there were typos the speed I bashed this out, and no I shan't correct now it has been quoted. However 'massage' has for some reason raised a smile. Perhaps it's time I grew up, maybe I have spent fasr too much of my time relatively alone interspersed by mixing with the young. For example, admittedly I had my wife and sometimes my daughter with me when taking teenage lads on holiday. Tenerife I remember was a lot of fun, we even drank a daytime cruise ship dry.

Meanwhile my daughter loved it, she was given the wheel. There was something of a pirate boat in style.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 9:26 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
ohsocynical wrote: They managed it with Sadam surely?
He was on the run though. Bin Laden had years to hole himself up. I'm only guessing, but I'd reckon he made sure it was pretty hard to take him alive.
Sorry, but I can't see the difference. They could just have easily shot Saddam there and then... Or was it because Bin Laden was in Pakistan. That would have opened a huge can of worms wouldn't it.

I suppose the Iraqis the Americans were working with must have wanted to put Saddam on trial, as the end of an era.

Trouble is, lots of people wanted him dead and were encouraged by his execution. And many of them were even worse than he was.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 9:30 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: He was on the run though. Bin Laden had years to hole himself up. I'm only guessing, but I'd reckon he made sure it was pretty hard to take him alive.
Sorry, but I can't see the difference. They could just have easily shot Saddam there and then... Or was it because Bin Laden was in Pakistan. That would have opened a huge can of worms wouldn't it.
If I remember right there was a lot of surprise that Bin Laden seemed to be living pretty much in the open ... could / should have been apprehended if the relevant intelligence and political will had combined. Or am I wrong in that?

That is how I remember it too....it was not inconceivable that he was take alive

I understand where Tubby is coming from but if you take his argument to the end then all leaders who sanction acts of war and violence outside normal conventions are surely also liable to be treated as legitimate targets? I know the Geneva Convention touches on this but then again we never go to war (we do conflicts) now do we so the Convention does not apply!!!!!

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 9:33 pm

I still cannot help feeling that chasing those who voted otherwise is a foolish option. Inspire those who have and do not vote, by doing so in as broadly a fashion as possible may also capture the waverers. Honest endeavour seems the most appealing to me, but as I've said before, just my opinion and there are many who disagree and even scorn me for my views.

@SH. I trust you appreciate I have nothing against you personally. Assuming you would speak to an old freak, I'm sure we'd get along. Online fora and social media often inflame.

Edit: corrected typo in broadly

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 31 Aug, 2015 9:34 pm

Redfaced Tory councillor apologises after posting a Facebook photo of 14 naked women in a boat captioned 'If Carlsberg did illegal immigrants'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;