Best Of

For gods sake, SKS is on full whine mode.
I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.

No winners here today, only whiners.

But why didn’t Kemi stand up for herself? Comeback with what Starmer was pushing was spin?

It was like watching a boat in a boat show parade being blown to bits by a sub ☹️

Didn't think she was any good either, but she's not PM.

It was like that Knight from Monty Python, having its arm chopped off, a pause, and then repeating “but what about cost of petrol gone up this week, what are you doing about it. Don’t you realise Everyone’s upset about it?”

Ffs shes not there to respond to Starmers rants and obfuscation. He is there to answer questions.
What do you think people will be more exercised about ultimately.... who said what about Iran when or being fucking skint because petrol is 2 quid a litre?

Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.

He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.

My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.

It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.

Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.

You need a proximate causi belli for it to classify as a just war.

Just stop trying to achieve from philosophical principles you don’t understand. We all get that you want to bash the baddies and that’s fine. Just don’t try to justify it.

There are multiple proximate casus bellis.

Iran attacking Israel via Hamas and Hezbollah.
Iran developing nukes.

I can't remember the figures but hasn't Israel has 10s of thousands of rockets fired at it over the years, with the ultimate source being Iran?

Iran does not directly control Hamas or Hezbollah, but it does support them and it works closely with Hezbollah. That makes the case for a casus belli a bit more complicated.

Iran developing nuclear weapons does not create a casus belli for Israel under international law, AIUI. (Israel developed nuclear weapons: does that mean every neighbour of Israel has a casus belli against Israel?)

At the time that Israel developed nuclear weapons, nearly every neighbour had declared permanent war on them (some in a performative manner).

Since then, nearly all signed peace treaties with Israel

Many nearby countries were not at war with Israel (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, Cyprus, and of course Iran). Was a casus belli created by Israel acquiring nuclear weapons?

Iran has been in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but that’s not a casus belli and Israel isn’t signed up to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, so it’s nowt to do with them.

An imminent threat of attack is a casus belli, but just acquiring weapons does not demonstrate an imminent threat of attack. AIUI.

If I shared the law of the jungle mindset of the comfortably upholstered Geopolitical Men of PB, I’d advise Turkey to get nukes pdq,


Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett says Israel may have to wage a war against Turkey after Iran if it attempts to create any type of Islamic alliance.

He says any Islamic alliance would automatically be considered terrorism and a threat to Israel.

“We will not sit idle.”

https://x.com/shadowofezra/status/2031556834603979230?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

Bit awks for NATO.

Re jury trials

@Northern_Al "Yes, there's quite a lot of bad faith going on here, epitomised by the 'end of trial by jury' hysteria. Currently, trial by jury is already restricted to around 2-3% of criminal cases. The proposals will reduce that further, as you say to offences that carry a 3 year+ sentence."

This too is a bad faith argument. Or, possibly, an ignorant one.

Under the proposals a defendant could be convicted by a judge alone and still be sentenced to more than 3 years without getting a jury trial, even though they should have been entitled to one.

Lammy made one of the worst bad faith arguments of all by comparing the right to a jury trial to scraping your knee and demanding to see a consultant. The ignorant pillock does not understand the damage that a prison sentence does to someone - their family, their work, their future life. To compare it to a scraped knee is appalling. As is the reference to victims and offenders. The latter are not offenders. They are defendants and they are innocent until proven guilty, a tenet Lammy and his idiot sidekick, Sackman, seem not to understand.

Finally, 47% of all appeals from magistrates courts are won. That right of appeal will be removed. The government is prepared to countenance 1 in 2 defendants being wrongly convicted.

This is utterly utterly shameful from Labour.

Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.

He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.

My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.

It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.

Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.

You need a proximate causi belli for it to classify as a just war.

Just stop trying to achieve from philosophical principles you don’t understand. We all get that you want to bash the baddies and that’s fine. Just don’t try to justify it.

There are multiple proximate casus bellis.

Iran attacking Israel via Hamas and Hezbollah.
Iran developing nukes.

I can't remember the figures but hasn't Israel has 10s of thousands of rockets fired at it over the years, with the ultimate source being Iran?

Iran does not directly control Hamas or Hezbollah, but it does support them and it works closely with Hezbollah. That makes the case for a casus belli a bit more complicated.

Iran developing nuclear weapons does not create a casus belli for Israel under international law, AIUI. (Israel developed nuclear weapons: does that mean every neighbour of Israel has a casus belli against Israel?)

At the time that Israel developed nuclear weapons, nearly every neighbour had declared permanent war on them (some in a performative manner).

Since then, nearly all signed peace treaties with Israel

Many nearby countries were not at war with Israel (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, Cyprus, and of course Iran). Was a casus belli created by Israel acquiring nuclear weapons?

Iran has been in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but that’s not a casus belli and Israel isn’t signed up to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, so it’s nowt to do with them.

An imminent threat of attack is a casus belli, but just acquiring weapons does not demonstrate an imminent threat of attack. AIUI.

If I shared the law of the jungle mindset of the comfortably upholstered Geopolitical Men of PB, I’d advise Turkey to get nukes pdq.


Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett says Israel may have to wage a war against Turkey after Iran if it attempts to create any type of Islamic alliance.

He says any Islamic alliance would automatically be considered terrorism and a threat to Israel.

“We will not sit idle.”

https://x.com/shadowofezra/status/2031556834603979230?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q