Jeremy Corbyn might actually win?

Giz said:
The uk ceasing to exist in its current form would not result in the genocide or ethnic cleansing of Scottish people. If Israel gave the right of return, that is exactly what would happen. (The two situations are not at all comparable).
Click to expand...
Or ethnic cleansing of English, Welsh or Irish people either, I hope and believe.

As to Israel: So there has been an usurpation of land and a replacement of one ethnic group by another. The rightful inhabitants can't be allowed to come back. Meanwhile illegal settlement continues. Yes. That means that a process of peaceful negotiation following the abandonment of these outrageous policies has to commence and be pursued as long as it takes. That will be hard, and it will require international participation and verification.

But while the illegal settlement goes on, the situation can only get worse.
 
Giz said:
The uk ceasing to exist in its current form would not result in the genocide or ethnic cleansing of Scottish people. If Israel gave the right of return, that is exactly what would happen. (The two situations are not at all comparable).
Click to expand...

The capacity of some to claim knowledge of "what would happen" never ceases to amaze me. We can't know with certainty what would happen, under all options for a different ethnic distribution of power in the I/P territories, but we can say what is happening now: massive injustice and violence against the Palestinian population, with the collusion of the powerful countries of the world. That has to change.
 
Antony said:
The capacity of some to claim knowledge of "what would happen" never ceases to amaze me. We can't know with certainty what would happen, under all options for a different ethnic distribution of power in the I/P territories, but we can say what is happening now: massive injustice and violence against the Palestinian population, with the collusion of the powerful countries of the world. That has to change.
Click to expand...
Yes, when they adopt a new policy, we can discuss how to address the inevitable dangers attendant upon implementing it. But while they continue the present policy they have no possibility of arriving at any solution. Netenyahu's ideas on nationality don't help either.

As I have stated, my views on this issue, and on Antisemitism in general, are to be found set down in great detail in these threads.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283318&highlight=Antisemitism
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=290610&highlight=Semitism
 
angrysoba said:
It's related to Corbyn's stance on nuclear weapons. His contributions to the thread are perfectly cromulent.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think I'm on topic here.

What I was (ineptly) trying to get at in my earlier line of questioning, about whether it is a "code" or "euphemism" is the issue of political framing. As you probably know, a poll may get different answers to essentially the same question depending on how it is worded (or "framed"). For example, I just wonder whether you would get different answers depending on whether you frame the issue as "scrapping Trident" or "eliminating all nuclear weapons" even though these are essentially equivalent since currently all nuclear weapons are tridents.

FWIW, here's what I could find regarding public opinion on the issue:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...d_48__of_Scots_think_UK_should_scrap_Trident/

Only a quarter of people in Britain think the UK should scrap its nuclear weapons compared with nearly half in Scotland, a poll has suggested.

The divide in opinion on nuclear weapons on either side of the border is evidenced in a YouGov poll for the Times, where 56% of UK respondents want to replace Trident compared with 42% in Scotland.

Just 25% of UK respondents want it scrapped compared with 48% in Scotland, the poll of 1,656 adults on January 25 and 26 found.
Click to expand...

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/07/16/public-support-nuclear-weapons/

A third (35%) of British adults say that a nuclear missile system should be retained, but it should be less powerful and expensive than replacing Trident, while a quarter (26%) favour replacing Trident with an equally expensive and powerful system. Another quarter, however, believe that Britain should give up nuclear weapons altogether.

However when prompted that a cheaper system of only renewing two of the nuclear submarines would mean "there could be times when there was not a nuclear submarine on patrol” only 25% prefer that option, compared to 34% who want “a more expensive system, where there is always a submarine on patrol.”
Click to expand...

So it would appear that a majority of Britons still favour keeping a nuclear capability of some sort. I'm skeptical that this can be done properly on the cheap, as a practical matter.
 
Puppycow said:
Yes, I think I'm on topic here.

What I was (ineptly) trying to get at in my earlier line of questioning, about whether it is a "code" or "euphemism" is the issue of political framing. As you probably know, a poll may get different answers to essentially the same question depending on how it is worded (or "framed"). For example, I just wonder whether you would get different answers depending on whether you frame the issue as "scrapping Trident" or "eliminating all nuclear weapons" even though these are essentially equivalent since currently all nuclear weapons are tridents.

FWIW, here's what I could find regarding public opinion on the issue:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...d_48__of_Scots_think_UK_should_scrap_Trident/



https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/07/16/public-support-nuclear-weapons/



So it would appear that a majority of Britons still favour keeping a nuclear capability of some sort. I'm skeptical that this can be done properly on the cheap, as a practical matter.
Click to expand...

ComfySlippers said:
Puppycow has been asking relevant questions in an effort to understand our, (UK), political system. I say Good for Him!
Click to expand...

I completely agree, and furthermore I think that it would be illuminating to have a thread dedicated to this very issue.
 
Craig B said:
I want, and actively campaign for, the destruction of the United Kingdom, the country in which I was born, and of which I am a citizen. Most of my fellow citizens in my native city voted for that in a referendum almost exactly a year ago. Suicidal self-haters?
Click to expand...
If Scotland broke away from the UK would the result be genocide?

And that's not even the destruction of the UK, it's merely Scotland seceding. The UK would still continue to exist.

Back to Corbyn, why do you hold him to such low standards? If a US elected official called the KKK his "friends", and said they should be negotiated with and a compromise worked out would you call that elected official out for his obvious racism? If so, why does Corbyn get a pass for coddling up to Hamas?

caveman1917 said:
Please study the following two articles, and the differences between them, closely:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country
Click to expand...
Do you have a point you can make using your own words?
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
Trident is sometimes referred to as Britain's "independent nuclear deterrent" which its detractors also consider to be a euphemism claiming that it is neither independent nor a deterrent, and that the nuclear bit is too expensive anyway.

There are also some people who have very silly pacifistic ideas about unilateral disarmament leading to global brotherly love or something, but I think those arguments are far less persuasive.
Click to expand...

Your straw man's pants are on fire.

The argument is actually that if we don't have them, there is no need for an enemy to attack us first with their own nuclear weapons. Nuclear states would not attack a non-nuclear state, making the place uninhabitable.

If you want to argue that fanatics like ISIS would throw them at us the moment they got hold of them with no regard to consequences, I agree. Therefore we shouldn't waste the fantastic amount of money on replacing them, and austerity is gone in an instant.
 
asydhouse said:
The argument is actually that if we don't have them, there is no need for an enemy to attack us first with their own nuclear weapons. Nuclear states would not attack a non-nuclear state, making the place uninhabitable.
Click to expand...

So in your opinion, was it a waste of time and effort for the Allies to be concerned about the Nazi's atomic program?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage

Do you think that Saddam, who used chemical weapons, would have refrained from using nuclear weapons?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

Would Imperial Japan, who used biological warfare, have refrained from using atomic weapons?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731#Germ_warfare_attacks

It is the height of naivety to believe that if if the West were to disarm, then rogue nations would behave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom