Armchair politics


Thanks, that’s the nicest thing you’ve ever called me





fxt for reasons of political accuracy


It’s still “of” or “from”.


Aye, you’re right. :roll_eyes:


I’m amazed you’re amazed.


I’m sure you’re right, and the views regarding this vary depending on which Jewish voices you listen to. I was looking at the Jewish Chronicle website this morning which is unsurprisingly focused on Labour anti-semitism, Chris Williamson’s suspension & Corbyn but which curiously has no mention of this story which other news outlets all seem to have.

We need to be able to be critical of Israel, Saudi Arabia, the US, UK Russia and anywhere else when the need arises.

C4 tonight will be running a report on EU funded migrant camps in Libya where a blind eye is being turned towards abuse & torture in them provided that the unfortunate people there are kept in Libya & not allowed to cross the Mediterranean to Europe. The EU itself is not above criticism in some cases.


Sirri, show me a man who doesn’t understand incompatability


This is entirely true and you will get no argument from me about that. My issue with a great deal of the Pro Palestinian set on social media though is that they are curiously unconcerned about the fate of Palestinians when their attacker isn’t Israeli. In the last few years, Assad has killed far more Palestinians than Israel (the very excellent Oz Katerji has covered this in depth) and you can spend a long time looking for a single mention of it.


I think that there is a tendency for the left to side with those oppressed by utter cunts, even if they are utter cunts themselves - Palestine and the IRA are the examples I have in mind. The left has largely been blind to the terrorists, who may be oppressed and having a seriously shit time, but they chose to respond with terror.

That said, whenever the oppressed respond with peace everyone completely ignores them and they get wiped out. The world sucks, tbh.


I think it’s very hard to generalise. Gandhi’s India successfully got out of the British empire after a campaign which was not based on terror. Nelson Mandela’s South Africa was liberated by a mix of terror and political action. I’m struggling to think of a respectable state which was brought into being on a genuine foundation of terror - perhaps France, although I’m sure things were a great deal more complex in reality ? The Taliban in Afghanistan might be a better example - they were in charge for 5 years and might have lasted longer if they hadn’t been in bed with bin Laden in 2001. But given their dreadful (from a western liberal point of view) policies I wouldn’t be arguing that there was a case for terror there.

It seems sometimes terror might be justified and sometimes it’s not.



All depends on your viewpoint. As the old adage goes, ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’


I’m pretty sure some indigenous tribes in various countries might beg to differ. USA and a few others spring to mind.


The only thing worse than an uninformed politician is an uninformed armchair politician :zipper_mouth_face:


I don’t follow you Bob. Are you suggesting that the indigenous people were victims of terrorism or were committing terrorism ? In America they were, as a general rule, appallingly treated. But that was massive oppression by foreign settlers once the latter had established themselves sufficiently. On occasion the indigenous people fought back and I suppose it could be argued that hit-and-run raids were terrorism. My whole point was that terrorism might sometimes be justified and might sometimes not. If you’re differing from that then you’ll either have to argue that it always is (Ariana Grande gig ? Boko Haram ?) or that it never is (Nelson Mandela ? Robin Hood ?).



That’s the shittest insult I’ve had all week. It’s irrelevant and completely meaningless.


You seem surprised Adam :roll_eyes:


You should get out more (or spend more time with Pete)


Forum tagline.:+1:


He’s much better at insults