Vile lies and fear mongering from a pig lover!

[Audio Advent]

In case there are some people on here who just suck up what they're given by Cameron and his tabloid Chipping Norton buddies, I'd like to give them an opportunity to read EXACTLY what Jeremy Corbyn said about Bin Laden (and how Boris Johnson expressed the same sentiments):


There was no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him, to put him on trial, to go through that process.

This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy.

The World Trade Centre was a tradegy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died. Torture has come back on to the world stage, been canonised virtually into law by Guantanamo and Bagram.

Can’t we learn some lessons over this? Are we going to descend deeper and deeper....

The next stage will be an attempted assissination on Gaddafi and so it will go on.

And this will just make the world more dangerous and worse and worse and worse. The solution has got to be law not war.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLb15UPqwxw


Boris Johnson said:


British soldiers are not taught to murder unarmed people in the act of surrendering.

Bin Laden should be put on trial; not in Britain, but in the place where he organised the biggest and most terrible of his massacres, New York.

He should be put on trial, because a trial would be the profoundest and most eloquent statement of the difference between our values and his. He wanted to kill as many innocent people as he could.

We want justice.

The Torys make me sick, almost physically if I wound myself up enough about their vile, dispicable nature. Eventually, public mistrust through the exposure of their lies will bring them down, likely before 2020. (obviously, sometimes individuals can say some ok things as above, but collectively :spew:)

[Arkless Electronics]

Well said!

[Audio Advent]

I think I need to change my profile to "I'm Jez" too...

[Macca]

What would have been the point of putting him on trial? Was there ever a possibility of him being found innocent?

How many Nazis got slung at the Nuremburg Trial? None. If fighting a war should we put every enemy soldier on trial before we allow our soliders to shoot them? Is that in any way practical? No, of course not, but then this is Jeremy Corbyn we are talking about isn't it?

In a way I would love to see him as the PM, the conflict between his naievety and the very difficult moral decisions he would be faced with would be highly entertaining.

[walpurgis]

Effective leadership in difficult times requires ruthlessness. Unfortunately the Tories think this extends to the treatment given to the people of the country.
Corbyn is likely to take the opposing standpoint. Therefore we are potentially, stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea!:rolleyes:

[jandl100]

The return of the nasty party.

I agree, the Tories make me sick, too, with their lies and their vile and abusive social engineering.

[walpurgis]

Can you have a ruthless Liberal, Leftie, Socialist?

The thought of Corbyn getting limp wristed Labour elected is every bit as unappealing as seeing the current manipulative and conspiratory Conservative mob ballsing up the country at our expense.

[Joe]

Can you have a ruthless Liberal, Leftie, Socialist?

The thought of Corbyn getting limp wristed Labour elected is every bit as unappealing as seeing the current manipulative and conspiratory Conservative mob ballsing up the country at our expense.

Which is why Corbyn will be gone long before 2020.

[User211]

Politics and another version of the truth. Are you surprised? I wouldn't let it wind you up.

[anthonyTD]

Politics and another version of the truth. Are you surprised?
:)

[Audio Advent]

What would have been the point of putting him on trial? Was there ever a possibility of him being found innocent?

How many Nazis got slung at the Nuremburg Trial? None. If fighting a war should we put every enemy soldier on trial before we allow our soliders to shoot them? Is that in any way practical? No, of course not, but then this is Jeremy Corbyn we are talking about isn't it?

In a way I would love to see him as the PM, the conflict between his naievety and the very difficult moral decisions he would be faced with would be highly entertaining.

Hahaha ... well there goes our whole justice system, the ideology behind it and core British values of justice which we've exported to the world!

What's the point of having ANY trial if you believe hard enough that someone is guilty? That's the Isis way I guess! It was the Stalin way and it was the Hitler way too but at least they might put on a show trial. Given that way of working, you can also just throw in some people you don't like to be murdered too, completely innocent of anything.

Trial is important, even when you know that the accused is guilty. The US had him there, unarmed. But they decided trial wasn't important to their moral code and prefered assassination, murder, revenge - that is a tragedy right there, to see the US's ideals exposed.

Nuremburg trials were held in a 1940s world where capital punishment was pretty rife. Yet despite that, some Nazis were given life imprisonment instead, deemed not to have committed crimes requiring the death penalty. Yet you would have murdered them all because you feel angry and therefore they were guilty of everything you could have thought of. That kind of thinking is to reduce society to barbarism worthy of Isis.

It depends where Bin Laden would have been tried but capital punishment has been dropped in many many places around the world because our moral attitudes have evolved to become more civil. So why would his death been inevitable had he been tried?

Where is the war in this situation that you talk of? There has been no war against terrorism - it is rhetoric to influence people's opinions and outlook on the following actions (sorry you fell for it..) but there is no war as is defined by things like the Geneva convention. Terrorism is a string of criminal acts, no matter how descructive. To hear someone sucking up United States's agenda-promoting distortions as if they are the thruth is quite shocking - I thought that was only done in the gun toting, republican south or the fringes of the internet.

The refusal to accept other people's corruption and amoral behaviour as the way things must therefore be done is NOT naievity. In fact it is naieve to believe you will be seen as strong and powerful by ordering extrajudicial killings as the US does and Cameron does.

The strong leaders who earn real respect around the world are those who insist on real justice to be done and especially those who resist calls for revenge and murder from uncivilised parts of society.

[Audio Advent]

Effective leadership in difficult times requires ruthlessness. Unfortunately the Tories think this extends to the treatment given to the people of the country.
Corbyn is likely to take the opposing standpoint. Therefore we are potentially, stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea!:rolleyes:

Effective leadership requires people to follow, by definition. It absolutely does not require ruthlessness, in fact ruthlessness is divisive and creates opposition - the opposite of effective leadership unless you only want to lead dwindling numbers.

Strong leadership results in effective leadership. Strong leadership stems from trust, belief that they have the interests of the country's populous at heart, knowing your leader's moral stand point and trust that he/she will be unwavering in that.

Cameron is as weak and limp-wristed as they come because he has no moral values, he has no real views and he lies all the time, saying what he things people want to hear (even for something as pointless as what football team he supports! ) . I suspect his only views which come close to being guiding priciples are a) to be in power b) that only the rich are to be respected (and the poor really just need to work harder and stop being so pathetic) even though his wealth is only inherited. The difficult times haven't yet happened to Cameron - I suspect that when they do economically, he and Osborne will be left floundering.

Corbyn has real moral values that he has adhered to for more than 30 years in politics and has shown strength by defying the party whip on over 500 occasions, something that weak or career-minded politicians would never ever do. I think his leadership as PM would show similar strength.

What prevents that is whether people agree with his political outlook, ways to achieve those moral goals.. we will see.

[Audio Advent]

Politics and another version of the truth. Are you surprised? I wouldn't let it wind you up.

Problem is that the lies influence many people to then make political choices which screw us all over in the long term..

A bit like lending someone something personally important and valuable to you and watching them chuck it about with not a care in the world and eventually destroying it. Best to get wound up by that, take it off them and let them know exactly their faults... Can't sit about rolling eyes and trying to ignore it, will only result in the destruction actually happening.

[Macca]

Fine words but that is all they are. Clearly there is a moral difference between putting a man on trial for murder and shooting dead an enemy soldier. In the former case the man is found guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt' before punishment is administered.

In the latter case the man may be entirely innocent, a conscript who is there against his will. He gets no trial, no hearing, nothing. A bomb or shell drops on his foxhole and kills him.

You want some sort of moral rules whereby it is okay to kill with no trial in a war, but not in other combatitive situations. So who decides whether it is a war or not? And if they decide it is a war is it then fine to start the indiscriminate carpet bombing? Does that now become morally acceptable just because there has been a vote in the U.N?

This is the problem with moral standards - run them too high up the flagpole and you will start to get you knickers in a twist. To mix a metaphor.

On the other hand, setting aside so called 'morality' we all understand basic right from wrong in specific circumstances. In the case of Bin Laden he had already publically claimed responsibility for 9/11 along with several other mass-murders. If they had caught him and someone said to me: 'Look, we've got Bin Laden here, no-one knows yet, we can hand him over for a multi-miilion dollar global show trial or you can just take him out the back and shoot him in the face.' I know what I would have done.

Morality? It's just a word.

[walpurgis]

Morality? It's just a word.

Bang on Martin! I don't believe in 'other people's' measure of morality, or right and wrong. And as I mind my own business most of the time and treat people decently, I don't believe 'other people's' rules and laws apply to me, as I don't need them!! 'Society' supposedly creates moral values and rules, but society is just an invention, or just a concept if you like and I didn't volunteer to join it (whatever it is) when I was born.

[User211]

Problem is that the lies influence many people to then make political choices which screw us all over in the long term..

A bit like lending someone something personally important and valuable to you and watching them chuck it about with not a care in the world and eventually destroying it. Best to get wound up by that, take it off them and let them know exactly their faults... Can't sit about rolling eyes and trying to ignore it, will only result in the destruction actually happening.
I agree. But BS flying around in political circles has been going on since - well, a long time ago. You cannot stop it, so don't get upset by it.

If you feel you are actually in a position to do something about it, then the situation is somewhat different.

[anthonyTD]

Quite agree!
Bang on Martin! I don't believe in 'other people's' measure of morality, or right and wrong. And as I mind my own business most of the time and treat people decently, I don't believe 'other people's' rules and laws apply to me, as I don't need them!! 'Society' supposedly creates moral values and rules, but society is just an invention, or just a concept if you like and I didn't volunteer to join it (whatever it is) when I was born.

[agk]

The man needed to die. Shame he didn't suffer more first.

The world is a hard place and bleating about it won't change it.

[Audio Advent]

Fine words but that is all they are. Clearly there is a moral difference between putting a man on trial for murder and shooting dead an enemy soldier. In the former case the man is found guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt' before punishment is administered.

In the latter case the man may be entirely innocent, a conscript who is there against his will. He gets no trial, no hearing, nothing. A bomb or shell drops on his foxhole and kills him.

You want some sort of moral rules whereby it is okay to kill with no trial in a war, but not in other combatitive situations. So who decides whether it is a war or not? And if they decide it is a war is it then fine to start the indiscriminate carpet bombing? Does that now become morally acceptable just because there has been a vote in the U.N?

This is the problem with moral standards - run them too high up the flagpole and you will start to get you knickers in a twist. To mix a metaphor.

I'm not sure where it fits in to the thread but war is immoral generally. Sometimes though that immorality is forced upon people in order to prevent greater amorality or immorality - like fighting WW2. If the enemy soldier was innocent and gave himself up, to shoot him is a war crime, but is overlooked due to the difficulty in self-control in such a situation.


On the other hand, setting aside so called 'morality' we all understand basic right from wrong in specific circumstances. In the case of Bin Laden he had already publically claimed responsibility for 9/11 along with several other mass-murders. If they had caught him and someone said to me: 'Look, we've got Bin Laden here, no-one knows yet, we can hand him over for a multi-miilion dollar global show trial or you can just take him out the back and shoot him in the face.' I know what I would have done.

Morality? It's just a word.

Everything you've written is just a bunch of words - but they convey real meaning! That's surely obvious. Morality is a word representing something real amongst at least human kind.

So your standard of guilt is someone claiming responsibility for something, nothing more than a sentence or perhaps just the accusation of something by some body you trust? And you're prepared to murder on their say so? You're coming across as a danger to society as you're potentially available to use as weapon via simply convincing you of something or other. To some people that's radicalisation you'd be susceptable to.

To act against people being such weapons turned against their own or other's societies, we have trails and courts of law.

[Audio Advent]

I agree. But BS flying around in political circles has been going on since - well, a long time ago. You cannot stop it, so don't get upset by it.

If you feel you are actually in a position to do something about it, then the situation is somewhat different.

If you can point it out to a handful of people so that they begin to think about what they are reading or hearing and learn to examine the truth behind something...

... then I am doing something about it.

Thowing up your hands and saying you can't stop it is effectively to condone it either passively or actively (depending on your personal outlook).

[Audio Advent]

The man needed to die. Shame he didn't suffer more first.

The world is a hard place and bleating about it won't change it.

You want torture? Someone else showing their true colours..

Whether Bin Laden died or not is neither here nor there. To get back on topic, this is about deliberately lying in a public speach to influence people's thoughts and to lead a bunch of sheep into bleating the same - it is vile, dispicable and not least of all desperate.

Corbyn (and Boris Johnson) expressed that the murder of Bin Laden when unarmed and the hands of US Soldiers follows a string of death and illegal, immoral acts all stemming from each other and that descent into immorallity is a tragedy. 100s of thousands of people have died off the back of the US's actions in response to 9/11 none of which have achieved much other than making their government and nationalists feel better from a bit of revenge on mainly innocent races of people.

To twist that expression to say Corbyn was a supporter of Bin Laden is .. I've said it already, vile etc.

Killing Bin Laden was a crime whether anyone is bothered by it or not. For the Tories to vilify someone pointing out criminal behaviour... is crazy! But I guess they're used to that, telling people to back off when it's their own kind committing them..

[Audio Advent]

Bang on Martin! I don't believe in 'other people's' measure of morality, or right and wrong. And as I mind my own business most of the time and treat people decently, I don't believe 'other people's' rules and laws apply to me, as I don't need them!! 'Society' supposedly creates moral values and rules, but society is just an invention, or just a concept if you like and I didn't volunteer to join it (whatever it is) when I was born.

How do you square that up with being a moderator on here? Can we do what we like on here too, other people's rules don't apply etc? I guess this community is an invention or concept. :lol:

Society and communities are created out of thin air, they create themselves via interactions and require only two people to start them off. "society" is a description of the way people behave together, it is not a "thing", just a description of what is created by human interaction. The only way you can say you are not part of one is to refuse to interact, stay at home, be a hermit - many people do and also find solace in their hifi and the internet to compensate.

Life itself (the thing you say you didn't volunteer to join?) is not a society.

If you actively remain within a particular society you are part of that society by choice. You can move about the world, you can find groups of people to be involved with or withdraw yourself from it too. The choice is entirely yours!

[Macca]

So your standard of guilt is someone claiming responsibility for something, nothing more than a sentence or perhaps just the accusation of something by some body you trust? And you're prepared to murder on their say so? You're coming across as a danger to society as you're potentially available to use as weapon via simply convincing you of something or other. To some people that's radicalisation you'd be susceptable to.

To act against people being such weapons turned against their own or other's societies, we have trails and courts of law.

You are extrapolating again. In the specific case of Bin Laden he admitted guilt - he took pride in his actions. So why have a trial? You don't try someone who pleads guilty, you just sentence them. So the execution of Bin Laden was not in anyway against the rules or 'immoral'.

Essentially Corbyn's postition is that if we had never bothered them, they would never have bothered us. I note that there are a few people here who also take that postition.

It would be great if we could just leave them to it, killing each other like savages, that would be my first choice too. Unfortunately there is this little thing called oil that happens to be buried in the ground under the land where these folk are grubbung about. Since our entire civilisation is based on oil and will collapse without it it is necessary to secure those reserves. Hence Gulf 2 and the consequent 'fallout'.

[Audio Advent]

You are extrapolating again. In the specific case of Bin Laden he admitted guilt - he took pride in his actions. So why have a trial? You don't try someone who pleads guilty, you just sentence them. So the execution of Bin Laden was not in anyway against the rules or 'immoral'.

Essentially Corbyn's postition is that if we had never bothered them, they would never have bothered us. I note that there are a few people here who also take that postition.

It would be great if we could just leave them to it, killing each other like savages, that would be my first choice too. Unfortunately there is this little thing called oil that happens to be buried in the ground under the land where these folk are grubbung about. Since our entire civilisation is based on oil and will collapse without it it is necessary to secure those reserves. Hence Gulf 2 and the consequent 'fallout'.

You're extrapolating again - that is not his position as I have ever seen it presented nor as I understand it.

Leave who to what? We're talking about Bin Laden aren't we?

If someone claims responsibility outside of a court of law for whatever PR or self-aggrandising reason, it is not a guilty plea inside a court. Once he was in court, he could then plead guilty where it meant something towards the process and justice in a civil society.

If you're happy to let people kill each other (whoever you're talking about here) without care than you show a certain side of yourself which isn't pretty. Certainly there was no need to attempt to "secure oil reserves" in the gulf as the oil will always flow via those willing to sell it to and with the right diplomatic efforts we become valued customers. Well that whole idea got F*@ked up because the US and UK tried to take it all by force instead.

Then there is the very small point that we are only slaves to oil because we choose to be. Why do our governments choose to be? Because they get short-term kickbacks in all forms from those directly porifiting hansomely from the continued use of it. We could have come off the addiction a long time had there been a need and a desire to do so.

Anyway, wanted to see if that youtube video in the OP will embed now, given some advice on posting them.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLb15UPqwxw

[Audio Advent]

Hey! Works now..

[Macca]

If you're happy to let people kill each other (whoever you're talking about here) without care than you show a certain side of yourself which isn't pretty. Certainly there was no need to attempt to "secure oil reserves" in the gulf as the oil will always flow via those willing to sell it to and with the right diplomatic efforts we become valued customers. Well that whole idea got F*@ked up because the US and UK tried to take it all by force instead.

Then there is the very small point that we are only slaves to oil because we choose to be. Why do our governments choose to be? Because they get short-term kickbacks in all forms from those directly porifiting hansomely from the continued use of it. We could have come off the addiction a long time had there been a need and a desire to do so.


There is no way we can get by without oil. Absolutely no way at all unless we go back to living in mud huts and eating straw. If we do not come up with a viable alternative like cold fusion then when the oil does eventually run out that is what we will go back to doing. Don't kid yourself.

You are right in thinking that I really do not care what a bunch of people half a world away do to each other. I couldn't give a toss. The biggest mistake we made was to kow tow to the Americans after WW2 and set up the independant middle-east states in territory that was, at the time, under British control. That gave the muslims control of the oil and that has brought us eventually to the situation we have now.

You cannot rely on these people to do honest business - look up OPEC - in addition the global trade in oil is done in dollars, making the dollar the de facto global reserve currency. If the oil producers decide they don't want to sell in dollars, that would have a huge effect on Western economies. Now you start to see the real reason Saddam had to go.

it is easy to stand on the sideline and be 'mister morality' but if you were the one to be faced with these problems and have to make a decision - bearing in mind your responsibility is to your own people not those of a foreign country - you would find that all too often pragmatism has to trump 'the better angels of our nature'.