By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
For the cretins defending him, claiming that he is not a treacherous self serving arshole, then explain his nonsense about Nato and the EU being responsible for Russia attacking Ukraine.
Ukraine is a sovereign state and should be free to do as it pleases, with regard to who it aligns with. Was that not what the Russians told Farage to say ?
Note how the righties are defending Putin. Trump, Fox News and Farage jumping now their paymaster has cracked the whip.
This latter day William Joyce told us Russia would not attack the Ukraine. Nato is not the EU, but it does not stop this traitor from speaking as if they were..
Farages sort were interned during WW2, and the French gave them and their kind short shrift after the war, as we did with Joyce, and Italy did with Mussolini.
Sorry if I think wars almost always lead to more wars. If only I had Blair’s ideology and faith to help me sacrifice hundreds of thousands of innocent lives ...
Sorry if I think wars almost always lead to more wars. If only I had Blair’s ideology and faith to help me sacrifice hundreds of thousands of innocent lives ...
would you always reject war? how would you have dealt with hitler?
Probably because it’s inflammatory when the context is accidentally or wilfully misconstrued. But I think the conclusion itself does go too far.
Anyway, it’s a long way from the insinuation that they support Russia’s military aggression and expansion into Crimea on those terms alone.
support, excuse. potato, potato (you have to do the two pronunciations yourself).
they exist to attack nato and the west. the rest is just weasel words to give their shyer supporters something to hide behind. if you don't know what stop the war are about by now it's simply because you don't want to.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
I linked the video earlier in the thread. You must have missed it.
So it was against NATO. Glad we cleared that up.
And of course it was going to be disingenuously framed later on by someone like Lee Kern – a more hateful and disingenuous crank you’d struggle to find.
support, excuse. potato, potato (you have to do the two pronunciations yourself).
they exist to attack nato and the west. the rest is just weasel words to give their shyer supporters something to hide behind. if you don't know what stop the war are about by now it's simply because you don't want to.
You and others on this thread are clearly struggling to understand pacifism and how an anti-war movement has to work on its own elected governments.
Not surprising. There’s very little you do seem to grasp outside of your narrow world view.
would you always reject war? how would you have dealt with hitler?
[Post edited 28 Feb 2022 18:55]
“Almost always” I said.
Of course, some threats can’t be ignored or appeased. But at the core of the anti-war movement is a belief in political settlement before those forces or indeed evil get that far.
The other side of the coin is people who think strength and posturing can avoid wars while getting them what they want, and they’re the countries most involved in conflicts as a result.
And of course it was going to be disingenuously framed later on by someone like Lee Kern – a more hateful and disingenuous crank you’d struggle to find.
'This alloooooone should tell us that the claims that Russia is the aggressor should be treated skeptically"
Have you really sunk this low?
Tell me how her words are any different from those of Farage?
You and others on this thread are clearly struggling to understand pacifism and how an anti-war movement has to work on its own elected governments.
Not surprising. There’s very little you do seem to grasp outside of your narrow world view.
one-sided pacifism. again your selective blindness is entirely self-serving.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
Of course, some threats can’t be ignored or appeased. But at the core of the anti-war movement is a belief in political settlement before those forces or indeed evil get that far.
The other side of the coin is people who think strength and posturing can avoid wars while getting them what they want, and they’re the countries most involved in conflicts as a result.
good point, so you did.
i think some are too far gone to compromise; milosevic is the most recent example and putin looks to be going the same way.
trump would have been a worry too, had he stayed in charge
'This alloooooone should tell us that the claims that Russia is the aggressor should be treated skeptically"
Have you really sunk this low?
Tell me how her words are any different from those of Farage?
Horse meet shoe.
[Post edited 28 Feb 2022 19:09]
But you don’t think NATO or “Western Imperialism” is a problem, do you? I’m sure you’re very comfortable with it.
Putin is a c@nt. Unfortunately we are too often c@nts as well, when we should have way higher standards.
The UK and US just have the luxury of having this stuff at arm’s length. But how did we respond with a sphere of influence discussion on our actual doorstep? We shat our beds and went for Brexit. Imagine how we’d have been with an actual military foe across the Channel? Or how the US would react if Mexico cosied up with a more aggressive and militaristic China?
This has been going on for years too. Maybe if you weren’t in your fantasy party political world you’d have noticed.
But you don’t think NATO or “Western Imperialism” is a problem, do you? I’m sure you’re very comfortable with it.
Putin is a c@nt. Unfortunately we are too often c@nts as well, when we should have way higher standards.
The UK and US just have the luxury of having this stuff at arm’s length. But how did we respond with a sphere of influence discussion on our actual doorstep? We shat our beds and went for Brexit. Imagine how we’d have been with an actual military foe across the Channel? Or how the US would react if Mexico cosied up with a more aggressive and militaristic China?
This has been going on for years too. Maybe if you weren’t in your fantasy party political world you’d have noticed.
I'll ask again. How are her words any different from those used by Farage?
i think some are too far gone to compromise; milosevic is the most recent example and putin looks to be going the same way.
trump would have been a worry too, had he stayed in charge
Trump’s a good case. He was an absolute weapon in many foreign policy respects but not perhaps the real destabilising danger of a Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz et al or even Obama’s strange strongman pivot.
But interesting to think what we’d have done if a country we understand with all its flaws and weaknesses was taken over by a megalomaniac narcissist with aggressive and militaristic expansion plans. Ultimately, I think we’d look to the US citizens themselves as the answer and try to sway them.
I don’t think there’s quite the same global connection or cut through in Russia but I think appealing to the Russian public and ultimately Putin’s support is the way to go. Posturing against Russia and answering power with power seems a retrograde step that plays into an old-school c@nt like Putin’s hands and on the level he’d like it to be. When there’s much more damage we can do with hearts and minds if we’re willing to set that higher, more peaceful and democratic standard.
I'll ask again. How are her words any different from those used by Farage?
[Post edited 28 Feb 2022 19:28]
I addressed that yesterday on this very thread.
“More of a general comment on this thread, but what’s with the silly conflation of Corbyn and others with Farage?
It’s just lazy and ignorant. Farage may blame NATO for raising the stakes over the years because it’s his mate Putin. Of course, Farage would likely be all for NATO and ourselves developing our sphere of influence in the Middle East and throwing our weight around like Putin is in the Ukraine.
Corbin and others have been pacifist anti-imperialists and against our foreign “interventions” for decades. That includes NATO posturing. There’s nothing remotely pro-Putin in that (he’s the antithesis of what they want in the world).
But I’ve already seen dangerous examples where people like Zarah Sultana MP are now being called “Putin’s wh0re” etc.
How about we get a bit of f@cking sense and perspective, please.
And that includes not excusing this stuff in our name (Iraq) or our allies’ name (Saudi Arabia and the Yemen, Israel with Palestine). It’s not right when we do it either.”
If you weren’t so busy responding to everything with your next bad-faith smear then we could have done this yesterday.
That’s b@ll@cks. There’s universal condemnation of Putin’s aggression and the Russian invasion from STW.
They’re certainly also condemning NATO’s role in building up tension. As you’d also expect from an anti-war movement.
Why the need to lie about them?
From the national officer of STW. Why shouldn’t a sovereign country which want to join a defensive military alliance when it shares a border with an imperialist dictator?
STW are useful idiots for the Kremlin - there’s no “both sides” to this. The criticism of the West should be that they didn’t take action against Putin earlier, not that they’re now doing it.
From the national officer of STW. Why shouldn’t a sovereign country which want to join a defensive military alliance when it shares a border with an imperialist dictator?
STW are useful idiots for the Kremlin - there’s no “both sides” to this. The criticism of the West should be that they didn’t take action against Putin earlier, not that they’re now doing it.
That’s one national officer who I happen to disagree with on some points and agree with on many others.
I’ll repeat that you and others don’t seem to get anti-war movements. It’s zero tolerance and it’s about working on your own government above all else.
Turning that into being pro-Putin and approving his warmongering is pretty sh1tty and disingenuous. But I’ve come to expect little better.
That’s one national officer who I happen to disagree with on some points and agree with on many others.
I’ll repeat that you and others don’t seem to get anti-war movements. It’s zero tolerance and it’s about working on your own government above all else.
Turning that into being pro-Putin and approving his warmongering is pretty sh1tty and disingenuous. But I’ve come to expect little better.
This is the title from one of their events - seems fully focussed on NATO. The “working on your own government” excuse doesn’t work either - Stop The War has plenty to say about the US. Again that’s not to justify everything the US does, there’s just a massive lack of consistency from STW.
Farage is a c–-t. That’s a given. And his views on this conflict are appalling and should never be forgotten. The media should completely starve him if oxygen over this.
But once again, your argument falls down when you try to make this a left v right issue.
There are many in the left who have have equaly outrageous views on who is at fault for this conflict.
Corbyn has held the view that NATO is at fault and Russia is the victim when the annexed the Crimea
And his view is no different today
And here is that well known rightie Diane Abbot saying ” the claims that Russia is the aggressor should be treated sceptically”
The future of right wing politicians, Young Labour
And the Tory loving, right wingers, Stop The War
Stop making this a right v left issue when it’s nothing if the sort.
Just logging in to say that in my humble opinion, that’s a superb post Glassers.
This is the title from one of their events - seems fully focussed on NATO. The “working on your own government” excuse doesn’t work either - Stop The War has plenty to say about the US. Again that’s not to justify everything the US does, there’s just a massive lack of consistency from STW.
This is exactly the disingenuous nonsense we have to deal with.
Conflicts and their origins are almost always two-sided so why wouldn’t your own side be the first port of call and where you have the biggest chance of effecting change?
And I have a real problem with a narrative that’s fine with some wars and injustices but gets on its high horse for others. Taking the side of self-interest is always the worst side.
We need to have a bit more respect and understanding, instead of disdain and smeary misrepresentations, for those who criticise both sides for the conflicts they always seem to end up in and the innocent people who suffer or die as a result.
This is exactly the disingenuous nonsense we have to deal with.
Conflicts and their origins are almost always two-sided so why wouldn’t your own side be the first port of call and where you have the biggest chance of effecting change?
And I have a real problem with a narrative that’s fine with some wars and injustices but gets on its high horse for others. Taking the side of self-interest is always the worst side.
We need to have a bit more respect and understanding, instead of disdain and smeary misrepresentations, for those who criticise both sides for the conflicts they always seem to end up in and the innocent people who suffer or die as a result.
"And I have a real problem with a narrative that’s fine with some wars... but gets on its high horse for others."
But isn't that the problem? Intervention should be analysed on a case to case basis, rather than a blanket yes or no to all wars. For example, Iraq and WMDs was obviously a disaster and shouldn't have happened. However, subscribing to a completely inflexible ideology of non-interventionism, it also means turning a blind eye and leaving thousands of innocent muslims to being slaughtered by Milosevic. I found out recently that Corbyn put down an Early Day Motion which praised a writer who had denied the genocide. For me that's the complete opposite of peace.
And before the question inevitably comes, no I don't think the UK and US should be selling weapons to Saudi Arabia either.
"And I have a real problem with a narrative that’s fine with some wars... but gets on its high horse for others."
But isn't that the problem? Intervention should be analysed on a case to case basis, rather than a blanket yes or no to all wars. For example, Iraq and WMDs was obviously a disaster and shouldn't have happened. However, subscribing to a completely inflexible ideology of non-interventionism, it also means turning a blind eye and leaving thousands of innocent muslims to being slaughtered by Milosevic. I found out recently that Corbyn put down an Early Day Motion which praised a writer who had denied the genocide. For me that's the complete opposite of peace.
And before the question inevitably comes, no I don't think the UK and US should be selling weapons to Saudi Arabia either.
That’s a start. With Iraq, you understand where something like Stop The War needs to turn the light towards our side and push for honesty and balance. I also remember how the anti-war movement was rejected on similar grounds at the time as if it was supporting Saddam Hussein.
But you confuse being against military interventions as being non-interventionist. That’s not the case. There are plenty of avenues to address issues and injustices – politically, legally and if need be economically. When a military response becomes the so-called failsafe and we quickly default to that, then that’s when the real problems and the dangers multiply.
It’s a mindset where we do end up selling arms to Saudi Arabia and training their pilots to drop bombs, hopefully on as few children as possible. Because we get there far too quickly rather than as the last resort.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
