Don't vote Tory

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, Duncan Doughnuts said:

There may be a position available as a UN peace envoy if you ever get sick of Efest.......

But the point remains, he's claiming ISIS and it's bollocks. The article he linked to doesn't try to suggest ISIS, and the smallest amount of brain power applied to it tells you that Saudi don't back ISIS.

[windy_miller]

Its from 2008, but I can't help but wonder if this is somehow related to the government's cenorship of the Saudi Arabia question

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/15/bae.armstrade

Quote

Saudi Arabia's rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted, according to court documents revealed yesterday.

Are Saudia Arabia still holding us to ransom with threats of terrorist activities?

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, windy_miller said:

Its from 2008, but I can't help but wonder if this is somehow related to the government's cenorship of the Saudi Arabia question

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/15/bae.armstrade

Are Saudia Arabia still holding us to ransom with threats of terrorist activities?

who knows.

But it's not Saudi as a regime that's funding ISIS. They're funding various groups that are fighting ISIS, and are friends with the USA, UK and Bahrain & Jordan who are dropping bombs on ISIS.

 

[5co77ie]

57 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

fuck sake, why not stick a big label on your head saying "I'm making it up out of nothing, that's how shit my argument is"?

Or can you direct me to that part of that article which makes the claim you do?

You don't prove May as an evil bullshitter by being a moronic bullshitter.

possibly they mean this article?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/home-office-terrorist-funding-report-saudia-arabia-focus-not-publish-conservatives-government-a7766381.html

[Duncan Doughnuts]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

But the point remains, he's claiming ISIS and it's bollocks. The article he linked to doesn't try to suggest ISIS, and the smallest amount of brain power applied to it tells you that Saudi don't back ISIS.

Yes, the article doesn't suggest ISIS.

Perhaps a better argument would be to not rule out a link between those of influence in Saudi and the funding of terrorist organisations. Besides I think we would all be in agreement that successive governments have turned a blind eye to the very serious human rights violations that take place in some of the gulf states.

[Mr.Tease]

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

fuck sake, why not stick a big label on your head saying "I'm making it up out of nothing, that's how shit my argument is"?

Or can you direct me to that part of that article which makes the claim you do?

You don't prove May as an evil bullshitter by being a moronic bullshitter.

I find your " you're thick" tantrums tedious, it's usually why and discuss thread tends to end up with one of two people contributing.

You're right instead of ISIS I should have written 'revenue streams for extremist groups', I'm sure no one understood the general point, well done. 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, 5co77ie said:

possibly they mean this article?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/home-office-terrorist-funding-report-saudia-arabia-focus-not-publish-conservatives-government-a7766381.html

again, no suggestion of funding ISIS.

[5co77ie]

1 hour ago, Mr.Tease said:

 

 

He says 23,000 potential terrorists being watched on our streets - that's almost an army. Assuming that's just one copper each hat's a lot of resources innit

 

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, Duncan Doughnuts said:

Yes, the article doesn't suggest ISIS.

And no one sensible does. Why would Saudi support the bombing of a group they fund?

 

Quote

Perhaps a better argument would be to not rule out a link between those of influence in Saudi and the funding of terrorist organisations. Besides I think we would all be in agreement that successive governments have turned a blind eye to the very serious human rights violations that take place in some of the gulf states.

There's nothing of this I have an issue with. It's pretty clear that Saudi funds a number of Islamist groups.

But not ISIS.

Bullshit is bullshit is bullshit, no matter who says the bullshit. We do not get smarter by following bullshit.

Edited June 5, 2017 by eFestivals

[5co77ie]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

again, no suggestion of funding ISIS.

okay but it does mention "funding of violent Islamist groups in the UK"

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

You're right instead of ISIS I should have written 'revenue streams for extremist groups', I'm sure no one understood the general point, well done. 

it's an extremely big difference.

ISIS is taking it's warring to 'the west'. The other groups are not (yet).

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, 5co77ie said:

okay but it does mention "funding of violent Islamist groups in the UK"

But not for Islamic violence in the UK.

I'm not trying to defend anything about what the Saudi's are doing, but it's not them bring death to the streets of Britain. That's an organisation they're fighting (by proxy) much like the UK is.

[Mr.Tease]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

it's an extremely big difference.

ISIS is taking it's warring to 'the west'. The other groups are not (yet).

And I get the nuance, I don't think you get sometimes people write their posts whilst walking or between appointments at work or doing some other stuff - I sometimes get lazy when pushed for time (like when I say Saudi Arabia I actually mean 'elements within' rather than the top of the regime) 

[Mr.Tease]

38 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

Latest ICM poll shows an 11pt Tory lead. Have to say I think this will probably be the end result. I think youth turnout will be a bit better than they're claiming, but this will be cancelled out by a swing towards the Tories. 

That's what I'm preparing myself for at this point. But we'll see. 

[eFestivals]

Just now, Mr.Tease said:

And I get the nuance, I don't think you get sometimes people write their posts whilst walking or between appointments at work or doing some other stuff - I sometimes get lazy when pushed for time (like when I say Saudi Arabia I actually mean 'elements within' rather than the top of the regime) 

there's elements within the UK funding ISIS too, but I doubt anyone would say anything of the same wording about the UK funding ISIS.

ISIS want to take the Saudi regime down no more or less than it would like to take the UK down - and normally (as can be seen on posts on these forums) people tend to say we shouldn't help Saudi take ISIS down.

There's some very dumb narratives being made from 'the left' around all of this. Are those 'leftists' for or against fascism? 

[Mr.Tease]

I would very much like to know the extent of the funding and who exactly is doing it, but unfortunately they won't publish the report that would give us that information. We're doing the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" policy as are elements in Saudi Arabia with extremism groups 

[Mr.Tease]

Wow, Corbyn is going for broke- just said May should resign for cutting police numbers. 

[eFestivals]

Just now, Mr.Tease said:

I would very much like to know the extent of the funding and who exactly is doing it

The funding of who?

And just out of interest, why would you consider funding a fight against ISIS as a bad thing?

 

Just now, Mr.Tease said:

We're doing the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" policy as are elements in Saudi Arabia with extremism groups 

Yep. And that's because there's different levels of evil, which can make the enemy of my enemy my friend (at least until the worse enemy is gone).

There is no good option. We have to work out which of the bad options is the least bad option, and I cannot see how the UK withdrawing from all involvement to give ISIS free reign is the best option.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Wow, Corbyn is going for broke- just said May should resign for cutting police numbers. 

will he go for broke and resign for cutting the chances of a Labour victory?

[Babylon sister]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

and Corbyn supported by an indy party that wants a ref in exchange for to un-making him PM is the SNP wanting to put the tories back in charge.

The voters in England also need the voters in Scotland to see sense else we get the tories anyway.

Even with a majority vote we don't have that big an impact. The biggest shift has to happen in England. 

[Mr.Tease]

21 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

will he go for broke and resign for cutting the chances of a Labour victory?

I think you're going to miss him! 

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, Babylon sister said:

Even with a majority vote we don't have that big an impact. The biggest shift has to happen in England. 

in another thread on these forums, there's some indy supporters suggesting the SNP should threaten to support the tories if Corbyn doesn't give the SNP their wanted indyref.

I've pointed out that the SNP supporting the tories won't do the SNP any favours, as well as pointing out that would be Corbyn becoming PM on the basis of the SNP unmaking him PM as soon as they've won that ref .... which would be stupidity of the highest order by Corbyn to agree.

(Corbyn may or may not allow that ref, but the SNP are in no place to make threats about it without destroying themselves)

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

I think you're going to miss him! 

I very much hope I do.

Wouldn't it be great if we were about to get a Labour govt? I could tell you again why we won't.

[Spindles]

I think the manifesto delivered has given us the best chance we have had to be elected.  I don't think we would have had such a popular set of policies under the limited number of candidates that opposed Corbyn, all of whom were offering more of the policies that the electorate has turned their backs on twice in the last 7 years.  I don't believe that the country would be rallying around Owen Smith right now.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, Spindles said:

I think the manifesto delivered has given us the best chance we have had to be elected.  I don't think we would have had such a popular set of policies under the limited number of candidates that opposed Corbyn, all of whom were offering more of the policies that the electorate has turned their backs on twice in the last 7 years.  I don't believe that the country would be rallying around Owen Smith right now.

Corbyn has said they're not his policies but Labour ones.

The alternative of Smith was only there because of Corbyn's vanity and three-quiders stupidity.

If the manifesto is so beyond criticism and Corbyn loses by more seats than Miliband, care to tell me what you'll be saying to Corbyn? There's only one right answer (and it's the same right answer as it was 2 years ago).