Three Belgian companies in court today over selling the raw chemicals required to make sarin or in part, manufacturer, expeditor and transporter .Some, genuine, questions for those that agree with the bombing.
On what basis in international law do you think the bombings are legal given that international law requires either a mandate from the UN or the country carrying out the bombing to be acting in self defence?
What evidence is there that the targets were genuine? All I can see is May saying that not even MPs will be shown the alleged evidence. On the opposite side it was only a couple of weeks ago the OPCW declared there was no chemical weapons production or storage at the site.
Why now? Since 21 August 2013, the date of the worst chemical weapon attack in Syria to date, there have been over 85 chemical weapons attacks in Syria. Many of which were worse than the Douma attack. Incidentally the recent Douma attack was at least the sixth time this year the area has been targeted with chemical weapons.
If the issue is chemical weapons use then why haven't we done anything about the attacks in Darfur by the Sudanese government?
So did we bomb a paint factory ?Three Belgian companies in court today over selling the raw chemicals required to make sarin or in part, manufacturer, expeditor and transporter .
Seemingly the major chemical is utilised in paint manufacture and they believe the companies they dealt with were related to that industry.
It's now being said it was a civil service /Border force innitiative and did occur in 2010.
A death linked to this story on C4 tonight.
P.S they also.omitted a clause that protected Commonwealth citizens from being deportedCorbyn was one of only 6 Labour M.Ps to vote against the bill that caused this situation, the bill was presented under Cameron whilst May was Home Secretary. It was expected that this information would be put on computer but this was vetoed by the Conservatives.
so May lied as well as creating the mess in the first place and Jeremy Hunt forgot he owned 7 luxury flats. Jumping catfish!
It's bad enough being thoroughly inept at your job, it's another being spiteful, nasty and calculating about it.
some horrific stories emerging and a clumsy attempt to lay it at the feet of Labour by Mays adviser Nick Timothy exposed as absolute bullshit, (he's now gone to ground).
She's a bullshitter and a racist and she should resign immediately.
It's bad enough being thoroughly inept at your job, it's another being spiteful, nasty and calculating about it.
Don’t be ridiculous
if you're OK with a racist as PM good luck to you. I'm not.
Another fucking mess she caused as home secretary. Just like when she reduced police numbers and when police chiefs said it could lead to a serious terrorist incident she told them to stop been dramatic.
She's fucking' useless and dangerous, it's not a good combo.
You're bored today aren't youThe irony is the title of this thread is dedicated to the most evil racist that’s ever lead a main stream political party in this country.
The irony is the title of this thread is dedicated to the most evil racist that’s ever lead a main stream political party in this country.
Corbyns a sly fucker, spent years fighting racism when secretly he's a racist, OK then.
Corbyn has a record of fighting racism and being a member of anti racist groups going back to the 70s.
May is trying to deport black commonwealth citizens who have a right to be here. But you carry on deflecting.
Corbyn fights for any cause that strives for anarchy and the destruction of society.
Get back to Central office .Corbyn fights for any cause that strives for anarchy and the destruction of society.
Says the guy who's a fanboy for Activate.I thought you were a fan of Momentum?
Corbyn fights for any cause that strives for anarchy and the destruction of society.
When did the thread title get changed to Oh Winston Churchill?The irony is the title of this thread is dedicated to the most evil racist that’s ever lead a main stream political party in this country
Corbyn fights for any cause that strives for anarchy and the destruction of society.
When did the thread title get changed to Oh Winston Churchill?
So fighting for multiculturalism and acceptance of diversity strives for anarchy and the destruction of society?
Even if everything you say about Corbyn is true May would still be a dangerous racist.
Problem is, she's in charge of the country.
May isn’t a racist. She’s about as extreme and radical as a plank of wood. She wouldn’t know a radical thought if it went straight through her head. She’s a europhile.
She is obviously not Europhile enough then. If she were, she would not have accepted the job of taking us out of the largest trading bloc in the world. That should have been given to the buffoon, mince and/ or Fox. She has given them an out by being in charge during Brexit.
May isn’t a racist. She’s about as extreme and radical as a plank of wood. She wouldn’t know a radical thought if it went straight through her head. She’s a europhile.
Al quida affiliates.she's a Europhile alright who took an opportunity that went against her natural position when the tories needed a leader to unite their warring factions.
I thought she was a plank of wood as well, but the more the light is shone on her time as home secretary the more it becomes clear she's actually quite radical.
Her new best mates in Syria are called, if I remember correctly, the army of Islam. Imagine if Corbyn was in cahoots with such people.
Go on then, I'll bite. Explain how Corbyn is, in your words "the most evil racist that’s ever lead a main stream political party in this country" when you compare him to Churchill.To even compare Churchill to a cowardly worm like Corbyn is disgraceful.
Given that Corbyn wasn't born until a few years after WWII ended I agree he wouldn't have been a good choice to lead the UK in WWII. Odd assertion to make though, that believing the use of force should be a last resort is the same as saying the use of force is never an option. Your description sounds more like Chamberlain in Munich than Corbyn.If Corbyn has been in charge when Jews were being slaughtered he’d have deplored violence on both sides, Livingstone would be praising him and ultimately he’d have surrendered to the Nazi regime without even a murmur.
Not that preparedness to bomb random countries is really a reflection on how racist someone is.Corbyn said:I doubt many, if any, in this room would have questioned the legitimacy, ultimately, of the Second World War. Because of the catastrophe that had approached by the rise of the Nazis all across Europe to that point. And so I think there has to be, ultimately, that preparedness to use military force.
This is one point I just can't get my head around.She is obviously not Europhile enough then. If she were, she would not have accepted the job of taking us out of the largest trading bloc in the world. That should have been given to the buffoon, mince and/ or Fox. She has given them an out by being in charge during Brexit.
This is one point I just can't get my head around.
May campaigned to stay in the EU. She still wants to stay in the EU. But she is following the will of the people.
Corbyn has always wanted out of the EU. He has voted against the EU in every way he could. He was the most vocal against the Maastricht treaty. May has always wanted us to be as close to the EU as possible.
But if you didn't know the truth and only read what has occurred on here you would think that it is the other way round. Those who want us to stay in the EU and are extremely vocal about it rip into May and defend Corbyn to the hilt. But May wanted the same as them while Corbyn wanted the total opposite.
All I can think is it is all about the party they vote for and not what the person stands for.
Go on then, I'll bite. Explain how Corbyn is, in your words "the most evil racist that’s ever lead a main stream political party in this country" when you compare him to Churchill.
Corbyn displays his clear racism by spending decades campaigning against it.
Churchill on the other hand was happy to target the Irish and Welsh let alone those from further afield.
A member of, the now thankfully defunct, Liberty UK was arrested for racial harassment for a speech he made except it wasn't his speech he was quoting Churchill.
Or in Churchill's own words:
“Aryan stock is bound to triumph”;
"We should be rid of a bad man and an enemy of the Empire if he died" referring to Ghandi;
"breeding like rabbits" as a reason for diverting supplied to the UK from India while they were in the grip of a famine that killed 3 million;
"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes" speaking about Islamic countries;
"I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place"
“the minimum of suffering” referring to concentration camps in South Africa where 42K Boers and black South Africans were killed;
“a beastly people with a beastly religion” referring to Indians;
“barbaric hoards who ate little but camel dung” that will be Palestinians;
“Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live” refereeing to those practicing Islam;
Churchill did some great things for sure but that doesn't remove the fact he was an incredibly racist person.
Given that Corbyn wasn't born until a few years after WWII ended I agree he wouldn't have been a good choice to lead the UK in WWII. Odd assertion to make though, that believing the use of force should be a last resort is the same as saying the use of force is never an option. Your description sounds more like Chamberlain in Munich than Corbyn.
Not that preparedness to bomb random countries is really a reflection on how racist someone is.
Why is it?An extremely simplistic point of view.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?