Jump to content

 

 

Bigoted language shame of would-be SNP MP


Recommended Posts

to cite Craig Murray, fomer UK Ambassador:

"We are directly responsible for the disasters in the Mediterranean. The bombing of Libya into failed state status is now coming back to haunt us. The ludicrous idea, propounded by Blair, Robert Cooper and the Henry Jackson Society, that you could improve dictatorial states by massive bombing campaigns that targeted their basic infrastructure, is now a total bust. Sadly so are Iraq and Libya, to the permanent detriment of many millions of people. We caused both the Islamic State and the Mediterranean boat disasters, and we caused them with bombs."

 

Next question: On whose behalf did we attack all of those countries? Yours? Mine? Or maybe on behalf of the capitalists who run the governments in Washington, Westminster and Paris.

Link to post
Share on other sites

to cite Craig Murray, fomer UK Ambassador:

"We are directly responsible for the disasters in the Mediterranean. The bombing of Libya into failed state status is now coming back to haunt us. The ludicrous idea, propounded by Blair, Robert Cooper, Sting and the Henry Jackson Society, that you could improve dictatorial states by massive bombing campaigns that targeted their basic infrastructure, is now a total bust. Sadly so are Iraq and Libya, to the permanent detriment of many millions of people. We caused both the Islamic State and the Mediterranean boat disasters, and we caused them with bombs."

 

Next question: On whose behalf did we attack all of those countries? Yours? Mine? Or maybe on behalf of the capitalists who run the governments in Washington, Westminster and Paris.

 

What do you think would have happened in Libya without British involvement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm outnumbered!

 

The deaths are coming from the ammoral entrepreneurs that are charging these people thousands of pounds for safe passage on a boat to Europe. They then buy a cheap boat, stuff far too many people on them thake them into international waters and then the captain abandons them. It's demand vastly ourstrips supply and people take advantage. It's capitalism at its most evil as it's without the safety bufffer of socialist type controls.

 

There is no natural advantage or imperative or compulsion to feeling bad for these people, but I personally do.

 

You are projecting morality onto an amoral economic theory. The people are merely players in the system. The players are subservient to the law.

 

Socialism removes personal liberty.

 

to cite Craig Murray, fomer UK Ambassador:

"We are directly responsible for the disasters in the Mediterranean. The bombing of Libya into failed state status is now coming back to haunt us. The ludicrous idea, propounded by Blair, Robert Cooper and the Henry Jackson Society, that you could improve dictatorial states by massive bombing campaigns that targeted their basic infrastructure, is now a total bust. Sadly so are Iraq and Libya, to the permanent detriment of many millions of people. We caused both the Islamic State and the Mediterranean boat disasters, and we caused them with bombs."

 

Next question: On whose behalf did we attack all of those countries? Yours? Mine? Or maybe on behalf of the capitalists who run the governments in Washington, Westminster and Paris.

 

Easy target. Capitalists responsible for the dictators of the world; Capitalists are responsible for the power vacuum when dictators are removed. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

I will point you to this:

 

"Crony capitalism is not capitalism. It’s cronyism. So long as we allow the debate to be framed by people who think the market is efficient because it is based on a human failing, we are going to lose.

 

The only way to uphold market freedom is to show people that the market doesn’tsucceed because of greed. For the truth is just the opposite.

 

The market succeeds because it gives people incentives to put their own wants and needs aside to address the wants and needs of others. To succeed, you have to produce something that other people are willing to pay for."

Edited by Rousseau
Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think would have happened in Libya without British involvement?

 

the country wouldn't have been utterly destroyed and turned into a failed state; scores of thousands of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa wouldn't be crowding on to boats and sailing into Europe and billions of pounds of Libyan assets would not now be owned by the British and French. You ask that question as though British involvement was in any way beneficial to the citizens of that country - and before you respond with anything about getting rid of a dictator, do a bit of reading about what has actually happened and is happening there now

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, titter.

 

the country wouldn't have been utterly destroyed and turned into a failed state

 

Really? If so tell us the details.

 

You ask that question as though British involvement was in any way beneficial to the citizens of that country - and before you respond with anything about getting rid of a dictator, do a bit of reading about what has actually happened and is happening there now

 

No I didn't. Why are you so prejudiced?

Edited by ranger_syntax
Link to post
Share on other sites

the country wouldn't have been utterly destroyed and turned into a failed state; scores of thousands of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa wouldn't be crowding on to boats and sailing into Europe and billions of pounds of Libyan assets would not now be owned by the British and French. You ask that question as though British involvement was in any way beneficial to the citizens of that country - and before you respond with anything about getting rid of a dictator, do a bit of reading about what has actually happened and is happening there now

 

It started with the Arab Spring. Gaddafi attacked them with military might. This contravened international law, and so NATO got involved. With no dictator to keep the factions in check, those factions have split the country along their various tribes etc. Britain wasn't responsible, but we did play a part.

 

Does everyone think the Arab Spring was a good thing?

 

The problem with these countries is that they have been defined along lines that have no bearing on the tribes within the country. It happened at a time when we played a key role. I think we feel the need to 'fix' the mess we left behind. I don't think we can, or should, do it. It's up to them to sort themselves out now. The lines should be erased and the different tribes should be able to set up their own states in the way that they wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It started with the Arab Spring. Gaddafi attacked them with military might. This contravened international law, and so NATO got involved. With no dictator to keep the factions in check, those factions have split the country along their various tribes etc. Britain wasn't responsible, but we did play a part.

 

Does everyone think the Arab Spring was a good thing?

 

The problem with these countries is that they have been defined along lines that have no bearing on the tribes within the country. It happened at a time when we played a key role. I think we feel the need to 'fix' the mess we left behind. I don't think we can, or should, do it. It's up to them to sort themselves out now. The lines should be erased and the different tribes should be able to set up their own states in the way that they wish.

 

You make a few points which are true, e.g that these countries were defined when we and the French were imperial masters and took no cognisance of the tribal make up within and that the current instability of those countries is largely held in check purely by means of repression and force. Your solution to the problem, i.e. erase the lines and start from scratch, is the only workable option and it is one that the populations of many of these countries would choose. However, your central ideas, first that NATO got involved because of a contravention of international law and second that we feel a need to fix the mess we created, is so staggeringly naive that it's difficult to know where to start.

 

The West in general, and its military arm NATO, do not and never have got involved anywhere unless their own interests were threatened or could be promoted. We never have and we never will.

Israel has been in breach of international law every day since June 1967 and commits war crimes on an almost daily basis without NATO getting involved. Saudi Arabia carried out a de facto invasion of neighbouring Bahrain to support their fellow monarchy during the Arab Spring, and the repression and brutality which followed was in contravention of international law. NATO involvement? Zero. Not interested, because both the zionists and the Saudi despots are 'on our side' and act in our strategic economic interest, i.e. they keep the oil flowing at an acceptable price.

 

You really have to get it out of your head that we are 'the good guys' - we are not. We have brought nothing to the people of that region other than trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You make a few points which are true, e.g that these countries were defined when we and the French were imperial masters and took no cognisance of the tribal make up within and that the current instability of those countries is largely held in check purely by means of repression and force. Your solution to the problem, i.e. erase the lines and start from scratch, is the only workable option and it is one that the populations of many of these countries would choose. However, your central ideas, first that NATO got involved because of a contravention of international law and second that we feel a need to fix the mess we created, is so staggeringly naive that it's difficult to know where to start.

 

The West in general, and its military arm NATO, do not and never have got involved anywhere unless their own interests were threatened or could be promoted. We never have and we never will.

Israel has been in breach of international law every day since June 1967 and commits war crimes on an almost daily basis without NATO getting involved. Saudi Arabia carried out a de facto invasion of neighbouring Bahrain to support their fellow monarchy during the Arab Spring, and the repression and brutality which followed was in contravention of international law. NATO involvement? Zero. Not interested, because both the zionists and the Saudi despots are 'on our side' and act in our strategic economic interest, i.e. they keep the oil flowing at an acceptable price.

 

You really have to get it out of your head that we are 'the good guys' - we are not. We have brought nothing to the people of that region other than trouble.

 

Yes, fine; I'll yield. We do get involved when it suits us. I never said we were the 'good' guys, simply that the past holds significant sway in the sense we recognise we didn't act in the right manner and perhaps feel a small desire to try to correct it -- slightly. However, you do imply that we are the 'bad' guys.

 

I do wish we'd just leave them to it now, but we do have to act to further our own interests. I don't think that's a bad thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.