1) presumably the Conservatives are now sure that Jeremy Corbyn has won.
2) we're seeing the Icke-ification of Jeremy Corbyn.
Once Corbyn is elected and proves to be a squalid disaster, Tories will need to show that they did their best for the country, when it was still possible to stop Jihadi Jez. Ergo they need to oppose him NOW, not stay entirely silent and gloaty as Labour shoots its own legs off.
Look at Southam below, he'd love to be able to blame Tories for this malign development. Tories must ensure Labour owns this horrible error. And they will.
The responsibility for Corbyn becoming Labour leader lies with all those who voted for him, whatever their reasons. The vast majority are hard lefties and Palmer-style Useful Idiots, but Tories are voting for him too. That's not thr fault of the Conservative party, but the individuals concerned just have to accept they have been as short-sighted, stupid and as juvenile as any of ther other £3ers, and that Corbyn will not only cause huge damage to Labour, but will also bring a smile to the faces of this country's enemies across the wotld and cause many of our friends to think worse of us - with the possible consequences that may bring in wishing to share intelligence etc.
Agreed. I was going to vote for Corbyn - I even paid my £3. And I've had to endure emails from Andy Burnham ever since.
But I'm not going to vote for him now, not after all this stuff has been unearthed. Corbyn is a douche. A moral narcissist with vile opinions. I don't care if he would demolish Labour, he would also damage Britain.
Good and respect to you. I just wish more on my side had given it as much thought; or, even more depressingly, cared. I have been very naive these last few years in thinking the hard left and the moral relativists in Labour were a dwindling minority.
Where were the trials for the thousands of people he led others to kill?
Even the UN Security Council applauded his death, FFS.
The point is, we cannot be sure he was responsible until he is put on trial. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
When someone in multiple videos claims he was responsible, then I think we can be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt - the criminal requirement - that he was responsible. As I say, insanity was the only plea to avoid the death penalty. And whilst you and I might think you would have to be pretty damned certifiable to slam planes into skyscrapers, all the supporting evidence was that he was quite sane and executing a military strategy.
In fairness to Mr Corbyn we are talking about a man who got 2 E grade A levels without any mitigating circumstances and whose further education was a brief, unsuccessful, period in North London Polytechnic.
The poor man is obviously just more than a bit thick and it is wrong to mock him for that or even his understandably simplistic view of the world. Of course it does raise questions of his suitability for a major role but that is up to the Labour party.
Surely account needs to be taken of when he obtained his 2 E grade A levels. Corbyn would have been 18 in 1967 and it is not unreasonable to assume that an E grade from that period would equate to a C - maybe B - A level grade today. Several former party leaders have only managed 3rd class Honours degrees - Kinnock- Steel - Baldwin.
Not a fan of corbyn but seems to me he was saying the act of assassinating an enemy without trial was a tragedy rather than the passing of bin laden... That said he probably is far too sympathetic to people like that to be leader of the opposition
Politics has to involve at its core pragmatism, even for life and death matters for someone like OBL.
Can the dwindling number of Corbynites on pb tell us whether they agree with the Dear Leader Manque that the assassination of Bin Laden was very possibly faked, and staged? and that Bin Laden had been dead a year, already?
And, if they do agree, what are their thoughts on the moon landings?
I'm not sure about faked or staged, but certainly kept until a certain point, and used as a deliberate propaganda coup. The fact that they scoured the earth up to that point and aparently failed to find him was ridiculous. He was keeping for such time as he was more useful dead than alive.
I have no opinion either way on the moon landings.
So you actually and sincerely believe that Obama knew where Bin Laden was hiding, and they did nothing about it, waiting for the moment when his death would maximise publicity for Obama, even though they ran the risk of Public Enemy Number One escaping?
Rrrrrright
Meanwhile edmund has joined you in pb Psych Ward.
Eesh.
Finding UBL...was very, very hard, simply because the West had spent years running down its HUMINT resources in favour of the simpler, crowd-pleasing SIGINT - partly as a consequence of the post cold war peace dividend. Even fundamentals like intelligence processing were challenging because of the dearth of appropriately skilled linguists.
The limitations of SIGINT became painfully obvious when he went off the grid. The idea that UBL was kept on ice for some kind of PR spectacular is risible.
The Statist Democrats might be more appropriate, or possibly given their [the Liberals] preposterous proposals for HoL reforms, the just The Statists might be best
If you think a) the House of Lords is undemocratic, and b) that is bad, then I have difficulty understanding why you think Liberal proposals to make it an elected body were themselves undemocratic. However, given that you do think that, then you can relax: the Conservatives now have a overall majority and will no doubt be introducing a bill to democratise the Lords in due course.
Because the proposal was entirely unserious and designed to be completely unacceptable to anyone with a brain, the obvious intention was that the Tories would shoot it down thereby giving Clegg the excuse he wanted to ditch his commitment to the boundary review.
Regarding your point "the proposal was...unserious and designed to be...unacceptable..., the...intention was that the Tories would shoot it down thereby giving Clegg the excuse...to ditch his commitment to the boundary review". I agree that the Libs should have held to their committment on the boundary review. But from my recollection of news sources at the time, I do not agree that the attempts to democratise the HoL were either unserious nor intended as a stalking horse.
However, as I said before, if you think the failure of the coalition government to democratise the House of Lords was down to the Liberals, then the efforts (or otherwise) of the present Conservative majority government to do so over the next five years will prove either you or me to be right.
Can the dwindling number of Corbynites on pb tell us whether they agree with the Dear Leader Manque that the assassination of Bin Laden was very possibly faked, and staged? and that Bin Laden had been dead a year, already?
And, if they do agree, what are their thoughts on the moon landings?
I'm not sure about faked or staged, but certainly kept until a certain point, and used as a deliberate propaganda coup. The fact that they scoured the earth up to that point and aparently failed to find him was ridiculous. He was keeping for such time as he was more useful dead than alive.
I have no opinion either way on the moon landings.
So you actually and sincerely believe that Obama knew where Bin Laden was hiding, and they did nothing about it, waiting for the moment when his death would maximise publicity for Obama, even though they ran the risk of Public Enemy Number One escaping?
Rrrrrright
Meanwhile edmund has joined you in pb Psych Ward.
Eesh.
I think you're personalising it too much with the Obama stuff. Let's just say I think he could have been found by the US authorities. No-one can really hide these days, especially not if you wear a distinctive beard and you keep releasing video clips of yourself. US foreign policy has a somewhat symbiotic relationship with Arab terrorists. They're more useful alive for a while before they're liquidated.
Of course people can hide, ffs, especially when they have many people backing them. And especially when they have money to buy silence and help (although allegedly one of the biggest problems he had during his last years was direct funding).
Technology makes it harder, which is why the Yanks got at him through a courier.
He would be unlikely to be endorsing Bin Laden on Press TV; Iran is a Shia country at daggers drawn with Sunni Al Qaeda. Corbyn was clearly saying it was a tragedy that due process had not taken place. A subtlety that was no doubt lost on readers of The Sun, but should not have been lost on readers of PB.
A comparison may also be drawn with Tony Blair, who we now know made a last ditch attempt to broker a deal for Gadaffi to be kept alive. I don't really want to get into the rights and wrongs of Gadaffi being butchered by a mob, but here we have an example of a former Labour leader (and PM) not just thinking it was a tragedy that a wicked alleged mass killer was killed, but actively intervening to prevent it. This stuff goes on all the time. Corbyn just gets mixed up with the wrong bad guys not the approved bad guys.
Corbyn's problem is that he thinks we're the bad guys. And it's ridiculous to think due process can be followed with someone that is dangerous, at large, and in another country.
Ridiculous perhaps, but not an endorsement of Bin Laden, which is clearly the slant of the story.
I don't think that is the implication. I think the criticism is that his moral system is so skewed he wants to find moral equivalency in everything to paint the West as the bad guys.
Can the dwindling number of Corbynites on pb tell us whether they agree with the Dear Leader Manque that the assassination of Bin Laden was very possibly faked, and staged? and that Bin Laden had been dead a year, already?
And, if they do agree, what are their thoughts on the moon landings?
Why do you not tell us as you voted for Corbyn as your so f ing clever.
Where were the trials for the thousands of people he led others to kill?
Even the UN Security Council applauded his death, FFS.
The point is, we cannot be sure he was responsible until he is put on trial. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
What's difficult to understand is why anyone would think he was not guilty. Unless, of course, you are a stupid tinfoil hatter.
Again, where were the trials for the thousands - including Muslims - that he killed?
You're posting farcically. Should 'what everyone thinks' be a part of the legal process? X-factor style voting perhaps? Perhaps you'd like to see this principle applied to senior Conservatives accused of child abuse? Legal processes exist for everyone, not just everyone unless they're really awful (everyone thinks) and then the yanks can just pop a cap in them. If the evidence was overwhelming, this would have been clear in the trial, so no problem.
1) presumably the Conservatives are now sure that Jeremy Corbyn has won.
2) we're seeing the Icke-ification of Jeremy Corbyn.
Once Corbyn is elected and proves to be a squalid disaster, Tories will need to show that they did their best for the country, when it was still possible to stop Jihadi Jez. Ergo they need to oppose him NOW, not stay entirely silent and gloaty as Labour shoots its own legs off.
Look at Southam below, he'd love to be able to blame Tories for this malign development. Tories must ensure Labour owns this horrible error. And they will. Ŷ
The responsibility for Corbyn becoming Labour leader lies with all those who voted for him, whatever their reasons. The vast majority are hard lefties and Palmer-style Useful Idiots, but Tories are voting for him too. That's not thr fault of the Conservative party, but the individuals concerned just have to accept they have been as short-sighted, stupid and as juvenile as any of ther other £3ers, and that Corbyn will not only cause huge damage to Labour, but will also bring a smile to the faces of this country's enemies across the wotld and cause many of our friends to think worse of us - with the possible consequences that may bring in wishing to share intelligence etc.
What I find disappointing about the £3ers is the glee they have taken in ignoring a sense of fair play. Sad endictment of the modern world, morality swapped for whatever you can get away with and justify on small print
Harman said "anyone can vote". Where does fair play come into it?
"Yes there are and they are repelled by Corbyn. The U.S. asked Afghanistan to give up Bin Laden after 9/11. They didn't. Nor did Pakistan. Hence the action they took. Second, the U.S. has put others involved with 9/11 on trial"
This doesn't sound like a rule most liberals would find very liberal. Would you extend the same extradition rules to Hamas who want to put Netanyahu amongst others on trial for war crimes? Rules for the most powerful that don't apply to anyone else isn't very liberal.
As an aside those who spent decades in Guantanamo Bay wouldn't have your unquestioning faith in US justice
But since this isn't Handwringing.com, the question has to remain, how many potential voters, and especially swing voters, will actually care what happened to OBL and how so long as he is gone.
It's all very well to sit in a comfortable armchair and pontificate, but if you are the executive and you have strong intelligence that a given individual has caused and is continuing to cause the death of American people, and yet he is in a sympathetic area that is protecting him, what do you do, wring your hands and tell the people whose sons and daughter die as a result that you are sorry but your principles were so precious to you that you kept a terrorist leader alive and let their children die. Doesn't sound like a winner at the ballot box to me.
You do exactly what the US did (at least according to my sources).
You go in with the primary plan to extract him unharmed and bring him back to the US for trial. However, in the event that the team on the ground believes that there is either a risk he might escape, or live extraction would involve unacceptable risk to US lives then shoot-to-kill is authorised.
On the substance, it looks pretty astute in hindsight, doesn't it? The US assassinated the Al Qaeda leadership and Al Qaeda got replaced by people less moderate than them. Then they took out the Libyan government too, and that didn't work out as well as they'd hoped. Tragedy after tragedy, each one creating the next tragedy.
"less moderate"
WTF????????
OBL was a moderate in your eyes?
Compared to Ken Clarke or Nick Clegg, obviously not. Compared to ISIS, yes.
Read his letters - a lot of them are him ineffectually urging the people who were now exercising Islamicist Nutjob power on the ground to be less brutal, not try to hold territory unless you can govern it properly, not force non-believers to pay a protection tax unless they're actually getting protection, etc etc. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Osama-bin-Laden-Diaries/dp/1620873826
Do you agree with Corbyn that the death of Bin Laden was possibly faked and staged? A phoney stunt, when Bin Laden had already been dead a year?
Even if you don't agree, perhaps you could talk us through Jeremy's thought processes, and why he might have reached that unexpected conclusion?
Thanks.
It sounds a bit unlikely - you'd think there would have been more reporting by now with a bit more supporting detail, if only in the - ahem - marginal press.
I can't speak for Jeremy Corbyn's thought process but the bit where they throw the evidence in the sea before anybody can verify that it's him is a bit weird.
Is the London Review of Books counted as marginal? The account there, which suggests he was unarmed, and there was no firefight seems plausible enough.
That may well be true, but I took the conspiracy theory SeanT was talking about to be that he wasn't in the house in the first place.
Corbyn's problem here is not describing extra-judicial execution as wrong, but describing the death of a mass murderer as a "tragedy" - the same term one would apply to, well, something like the deaths of 3000 innocent people on 11 September 2001.
Part of Corbyn's appeal to certain people is that he doesn't talk like somebody who has been tutored in the extremely careful choice of words... but careful choice of words does have its advantages!
Incidentally, I think his choice to go on Press TV was also unwise. This is a Iranian Government propaganda channel that was ultimately taken off air (jumped before being pushed) after a range of problems culminating in broadcasting an interview with a prisoner given under duress. Useful idiots like Corbyn shouldn't get involved in lending legitimacy to the highly dubious mouthpiece of a repressive regime.
I don't want someone who makes a careful choice of words. I want someone who understands that Bin Laden was evil and that his death was not a tragedy. It is the sentiments which are wrong not the words.
Corbyn gives the impression that he does not understand the difference between good and evil and that, if he did, he would choose evil.
Perfectly legitimate though to view the American- British attack on Iraq as an act of evil and to wish to see those responsible apprehended - or failing that - given the Bin Laden 'treatment'.
Where were the trials for the thousands of people he led others to kill?
Even the UN Security Council applauded his death, FFS.
The point is, we cannot be sure he was responsible until he is put on trial. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
Oh, come on.
Brilliant argument. If only you'd have been there with your 'Oh, come on' when Habeus Corpus was established - what time and effort we could have all saved.
"I'd also strongly dispute the notion that there was any wideranging, collective national identity before the 1870s and the development of a national education system."
I suppose it depends by what you mean by "wideranging", in any event I am not sure it is supported by any historical evidence. Care to give some?
On the substance, it looks pretty astute in hindsight, doesn't it? The US assassinated the Al Qaeda leadership and Al Qaeda got replaced by people less moderate than them. Then they took out the Libyan government too, and that didn't work out as well as they'd hoped. Tragedy after tragedy, each one creating the next tragedy.
"less moderate"
WTF????????
OBL was a moderate in your eyes?
Compared to Ken Clarke or Nick Clegg, obviously not. Compared to ISIS, yes.
Read his letters - a lot of them are him ineffectually urging the people who were now exercising Islamicist Nutjob power on the ground to be less brutal, not try to hold territory unless you can govern it properly, not force non-believers to pay a protection tax unless they're actually getting protection, etc etc. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Osama-bin-Laden-Diaries/dp/1620873826
Do you agree with Corbyn that the death of Bin Laden was possibly faked and staged? A phoney stunt, when Bin Laden had already been dead a year?
Even if you don't agree, perhaps you could talk us through Jeremy's thought processes, and why he might have reached that unexpected conclusion?
Thanks.
It sounds a bit unlikely - you'd think there would have been more reporting by now with a bit more supporting detail, if only in the - ahem - marginal press.
I can't speak for Jeremy Corbyn's thought process but the bit where they throw the evidence in the sea before anybody can verify that it's him is a bit weird.
Is the London Review of Books counted as marginal? The account there, which suggests he was unarmed, and there was no firefight seems plausible enough.
That may well be true, but I took the conspiracy theory SeanT was talking about to be that he wasn't in the house in the first place.
Corbyn's problem here is not describing extra-judicial execution as wrong, but describing the death of a mass murderer as a "tragedy" - the same term one would apply to, well, something like the deaths of 3000 innocent people on 11 September 2001.
Part of Corbyn's appeal to certain people is that he doesn't talk like somebody who has been tutored in the extremely careful choice of words... but careful choice of words does have its advantages!
Incidentally, I think his choice to go on Press TV was also unwise. This is a Iranian Government propaganda channel that was ultimately taken off air (jumped before being pushed) after a range of problems culminating in broadcasting an interview with a prisoner given under duress. Useful idiots like Corbyn shouldn't get involved in lending legitimacy to the highly dubious mouthpiece of a repressive regime.
I don't want someone who makes a careful choice of words. I want someone who understands that Bin Laden was evil and that his death was not a tragedy. It is the sentiments which are wrong not the words.
Corbyn gives the impression that he does not understand the difference between good and evil and that, if he did, he would choose evil.
Perfectly legitimate though to view the American- British attack on Iraq as an act of evil and to wish to see those responsible apprehended - or failing that - given the Bin Laden 'treatment'.
Not if you are standing for Labour leader and hence Leader of the Opposition and hence potentially PM.
Where were the trials for the thousands of people he led others to kill?
Even the UN Security Council applauded his death, FFS.
The point is, we cannot be sure he was responsible until he is put on trial. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
Well, they never put Hitler on trial either. Do you doubt that he had responsibility for the actions of Germany 1933 - 45?
Hitler comitted suicide in his bunker. Had he been captured alive, he would have been put on trial, as many Nazis were.
Perhaps one of the PB historians could help me: I thought Stalin had an order out that Hitler should not be captured alive? Or is that faulty memory on my part?
1) presumably the Conservatives are now sure that Jeremy Corbyn has won.
2) we're seeing the Icke-ification of Jeremy Corbyn.
Once Corbyn is elected and proves to be a squalid disaster, Tories will need to show that they did their best for the country, when it was still possible to stop Jihadi Jez. Ergo they need to oppose him NOW, not stay entirely silent and gloaty as Labour shoots its own legs off.
Look at Southam below, he'd love to be able to blame Tories for this malign development. Tories must ensure Labour owns this horrible error. And they will.
The responsibility for Corbyn becoming Labour leader lies with all those who voted for him, whatever their reasons. The vast majority are hard lefties and Palmer-style Useful Idiots, but Tories are voting for him too. That's not thr fault of the Conservative party, but the individuals concerned just have to accept they have been as short-sighted, stupid and as juvenile as any of ther other £3ers, and that Corbyn will not only cause huge damage to Labour, but will also bring a smile to the faces of this country's enemies across the wotld and cause many of our friends to think worse of us - with the possible consequences that may bring in wishing to share intelligence etc.
Agreed. I was going to vote for Corbyn - I even paid my £3. And I've had to endure emails from Andy Burnham ever since.
But I'm not going to vote for him now, not after all this stuff has been unearthed. Corbyn is a douche. A moral narcissist with vile opinions. I don't care if he would demolish Labour, he would also damage Britain.
My apologies glad you had a re think on voting for him. That says a lot about you , that you thought about your country above your preferred party . I am not a Corbyn supporter but he is , so the answer might be here.
Where were the trials for the thousands of people he led others to kill?
Even the UN Security Council applauded his death, FFS.
The point is, we cannot be sure he was responsible until he is put on trial. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
What's difficult to understand is why anyone would think he was not guilty. Unless, of course, you are a stupid tinfoil hatter.
Again, where were the trials for the thousands - including Muslims - that he killed?
You're posting farcically. Should 'what everyone thinks' be a part of the legal process? X-factor style voting perhaps? Perhaps you'd like to see this principle applied to senior Conservatives accused of child abuse? Legal processes exist for everyone, not just everyone unless they're really awful (everyone thinks) and then the yanks can just pop a cap in them. If the evidence was overwhelming, this would have been clear in the trial, so no problem.
''You're posting farcically'' -- this from luckyguy!
Where were the trials for the thousands of people he led others to kill?
Even the UN Security Council applauded his death, FFS.
The point is, we cannot be sure he was responsible until he is put on trial. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
What's difficult to understand is why anyone would think he was not guilty. Unless, of course, you are a stupid tinfoil hatter.
Again, where were the trials for the thousands - including Muslims - that he killed?
You're posting farcically. Should 'what everyone thinks' be a part of the legal process? X-factor style voting perhaps? Perhaps you'd like to see this principle applied to senior Conservatives accused of child abuse? Legal processes exist for everyone, not just everyone unless they're really awful (everyone thinks) and then the yanks can just pop a cap in them. If the evidence was overwhelming, this would have been clear in the trial, so no problem.
Where were the trials for the thousands of people he led others to kill?
Even the UN Security Council applauded his death, FFS.
The point is, we cannot be sure he was responsible until he is put on trial. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
What's difficult to understand is why anyone would think he was not guilty. Unless, of course, you are a stupid tinfoil hatter.
Again, where were the trials for the thousands - including Muslims - that he killed?
surely a trial would try him for the murder of said victims? or have I missed something?
No, where were the trials that OBL gave the victims before he decided that they should die? He was a man who believed in murder of random innocents to further his aims. He did not try them, he did not know them.
Where were the trials for the thousands of people he led others to kill?
Even the UN Security Council applauded his death, FFS.
The point is, we cannot be sure he was responsible until he is put on trial. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
When someone in multiple videos claims he was responsible, then I think we can be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt - the criminal requirement - that he was responsible. As I say, insanity was the only plea to avoid the death penalty. And whilst you and I might think you would have to be pretty damned certifiable to slam planes into skyscrapers, all the supporting evidence was that he was quite sane and executing a military strategy.
That may be so, it may not be so, but that's to be decided by a Judge, not you or I deciding someone is guilty beyond OUR reasonable doubt. I don't see why I'm having to explain this?
Far too busy on PB today.. you should all be out there sweltering in a traffic jam..
Chance would be a fine thing: it's chucking it down.
briiliant sunshine in God's country
One of the hottest and best summers I ever had in this country was in Pitlochry: swimming, walking, just being out in the open. It was simply glorious. It was the year I passed my Bar exams and my boyfriend's father, a Scottish judge (apologies - am not meaning to sound boastful) rang me to tell my results.... He was a lovely man.
Cyclefre, hello, unfortunately this year in general has been dire, worst summer for many a year.
The only good thing about all this rain is that my garden is looking simply gorgeous.
On the substance, it looks pretty astute in hindsight, doesn't it? The US assassinated the Al Qaeda leadership and Al Qaeda got replaced by people less moderate than them. Then they took out the Libyan government too, and that didn't work out as well as they'd hoped. Tragedy after tragedy, each one creating the next tragedy.
"less moderate"
WTF????????
OBL was a moderate in your eyes?
Compared to Ken Clarke or Nick Clegg, obviously not. Compared to ISIS, yes.
Read his letters - a lot of them are him ineffectually urging the people who were now exercising Islamicist Nutjob power on the ground to be less brutal, not try to hold territory unless you can govern it properly, not force non-believers to pay a protection tax unless they're actually getting protection, etc etc. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Osama-bin-Laden-Diaries/dp/1620873826
Do you agree with Corbyn that the death of Bin Laden was possibly faked and staged? A phoney stunt, when Bin Laden had already been dead a year?
Even if you don't agree, perhaps you could talk us through Jeremy's thought processes, and why he might have reached that unexpected conclusion?
Thanks.
It sounds a bit unlikely - you'd think there would have been more reporting by now with a bit more supporting detail, if only in the - ahem - marginal press.
I can't speak for Jeremy Corbyn's thought process but the bit where they throw the evidence in the sea before anybody can verify that it's him is a bit weird.
They gave him, I understand, Islamic last rites and took DNA samples which were verified with members of his family.
Where were the trials for the thousands of people he led others to kill?
Even the UN Security Council applauded his death, FFS.
The point is, we cannot be sure he was responsible until he is put on trial. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
What's difficult to understand is why anyone would think he was not guilty. Unless, of course, you are a stupid tinfoil hatter.
Again, where were the trials for the thousands - including Muslims - that he killed?
You're posting farcically. Should 'what everyone thinks' be a part of the legal process? X-factor style voting perhaps? Perhaps you'd like to see this principle applied to senior Conservatives accused of child abuse? Legal processes exist for everyone, not just everyone unless they're really awful (everyone thinks) and then the yanks can just pop a cap in them. If the evidence was overwhelming, this would have been clear in the trial, so no problem.
No, I'm posting logically. You should try it sometime.
Where were the trials for the thousands of people he led others to kill?
Even the UN Security Council applauded his death, FFS.
The point is, we cannot be sure he was responsible until he is put on trial. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
Oh, come on.
Brilliant argument. If only you'd have been there with your 'Oh, come on' when Habeus Corpus was established - what time and effort we could have all saved.
The point is there is no need for argument. If you seriously think there is the slightest possibility that bin Laden was not guilty then you are beyond help.
If Labour didn't want this idiotic performance over the last few months, and the potentially absurd outcome, they shouldn't have put in place this damn stupid system.
Or better yet, used the nominations process correctly rather than indulging in some kind of 'mass debate', which looks more like a homophone for the phrase with every passing day.
Here's the list: Diane Abbott, Rushanara Ali, Margaret Beckett, Richard Burgon, Dawn Butler, Ronnie Campbell, Sarah Champion, Jeremy Corbyn, Jo Cox, Neil Coyle, Jon Cruddas, Clive Efford, Frank Field, Louise Haigh, Kelvin Hopkins, Rupa Huq, Imran Hussain, Huw Irranca-Davies, Sadiq Khan, David Lammy, Clive Lewis, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Gordon Marsden, John McDonnell, Michael Meacher, Grahame Morris, Chi Onwurah, Kate Osamor, Tulip Siddiq, Dennis Skinner, Cat Smith, Andrew Smith, Gareth Thomas, Emily Thornberry, Jon Trickett, Catherine West.
I see that my own MP Tulip Nitwit is on the list....... Hardly surprising: when she attended a pre-election debate at my son's school, she was by far the weakest of the three main candidates, being particularly feeble on the question of freedom of speech.
Were there questions from the audience? I doubt she'd have been expecting the sort of questioning you might be able to throw her way.
There were. But that is to give me too much credit. She was up against Maajid Nawaz, someone who knows a thing or two about Islamist extremism and free speech. She is - like far too many MPs - second rate, with scarcely a thought in her head that hasn't been put there by others. Nawaz won the debate hands down, much good did it do him, sadly.
I agree that Nawaz makes an enlivening and authoritative contribution to any debate on Islamic issues. However people vote on labels. Tulip had a Labour label. JC on the other hand has a JC label, which I would contend might make many traditional Labour supporters think twice about supporting a non Labour label. I think that's a lot of votes up for grabs.
Corbyn's problem here is not describing extra-judicial execution as wrong, but describing the death of a mass murderer as a "tragedy" - the same term one would apply to, well, something like the deaths of 3000 innocent people on 11 September 2001.
Part of Corbyn's appeal to certain people is that he doesn't talk like somebody who has been tutored in the extremely careful choice of words... but careful choice of words does have its advantages!
Incidentally, I think his choice to go on Press TV was also unwise. This is a Iranian Government propaganda channel that was ultimately taken off air (jumped before being pushed) after a range of problems culminating in broadcasting an interview with a prisoner given under duress. Useful idiots like Corbyn shouldn't get involved in lending legitimacy to the highly dubious mouthpiece of a repressive regime.
I don't want someone who makes a careful choice of words. I want someone who understands that Bin Laden was evil and that his death was not a tragedy. It is the sentiments which are wrong not the words.
Corbyn gives the impression that he does not understand the difference between good and evil and that, if he did, he would choose evil.
perhaps in his mind he does choose good over evil.
Frightening thought of the day.
I would not be entirely surprised if that were the case.
There were - in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and, indeed, this happens after very tragedy - big or large - plenty of people willing to blame the victims for what was done to them.
In an ideal world, evil people who commit mass murder should be brought to trial. But we are not in an ideal world and the reason the world is not ideal at the moment is due in no small part to the activities of people like Bin Laden and others of his ilk. Bin Laden got what he deserved. Indeed, his death was rather more merciful than the one suffered by all those people in the Twin Towers and on those 4 planes. It might be - at best - regrettable that he was not put on trial. But in no sensible person's mind was it a "tragedy" let alone a tragedy comparable to what happened to the victims that day.
Corbyn will rightly be excoriated for what he has said in this regard. As will the Labour party, if they are foolish enough to elect him. Too bad.
You seem to miss the point of a trial, which is to establish guilt, not to rubber stamp it so everyone feels happy.
I'm willing to guess that I've done rather more trials than you and understand rather better than you what the point of a trial is.
Where were the trials for the thousands of people he led others to kill?
Even the UN Security Council applauded his death, FFS.
The point is, we cannot be sure he was responsible until he is put on trial. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
When someone in multiple videos claims he was responsible, then I think we can be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt - the criminal requirement - that he was responsible. As I say, insanity was the only plea to avoid the death penalty. And whilst you and I might think you would have to be pretty damned certifiable to slam planes into skyscrapers, all the supporting evidence was that he was quite sane and executing a military strategy.
That may be so, it may not be so, but that's to be decided by a Judge, not you or I deciding someone is guilty beyond OUR reasonable doubt. I don't see why I'm having to explain this?
you're having to explain it to try and dig yourself out of a hole of your making - by vesting your hopes in Jeremy Corbyn.
In fairness to Mr Corbyn we are talking about a man who got 2 E grade A levels without any mitigating circumstances and whose further education was a brief, unsuccessful, period in North London Polytechnic.
The poor man is obviously just more than a bit thick and it is wrong to mock him for that or even his understandably simplistic view of the world. Of course it does raise questions of his suitability for a major role but that is up to the Labour party.
Surely account needs to be taken of when he obtained his 2 E grade A levels. Corbyn would have been 18 in 1967 and it is not unreasonable to assume that an E grade from that period would equate to a C - maybe B - A level grade today. Several former party leaders have only managed 3rd class Honours degrees - Kinnock- Steel - Baldwin.
Oh dear - Believe me 2E's was pretty crap in the 60s.
Where were the trials for the thousands of people he led others to kill?
Even the UN Security Council applauded his death, FFS.
The point is, we cannot be sure he was responsible until he is put on trial. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
When someone in multiple videos claims he was responsible, then I think we can be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt - the criminal requirement - that he was responsible. As I say, insanity was the only plea to avoid the death penalty. And whilst you and I might think you would have to be pretty damned certifiable to slam planes into skyscrapers, all the supporting evidence was that he was quite sane and executing a military strategy.
That may be so, it may not be so, but that's to be decided by a Judge, not you or I deciding someone is guilty beyond OUR reasonable doubt. I don't see why I'm having to explain this?
you're having to explain it to try and dig yourself out of a hole of your making - by vesting your hopes in Jeremy Corbyn.
Just drop the guy. He's poison.
I think LuckyGuy is putting his hopes in Putin rather than Corbyn ...
Can the dwindling number of Corbynites on pb tell us whether they agree with the Dear Leader Manque that the assassination of Bin Laden was very possibly faked, and staged? and that Bin Laden had been dead a year, already?
And, if they do agree, what are their thoughts on the moon landings?
I think you have misunderstood what Corbyn was saying in the video. By dealing with Bin Laden the way the US did, they made it easy for such conspiracy theories to thrive. I don't think he was suggesting that the death actually was faked. Or if he was saying that, the video has been edited in such a way that it no longer carries that meaning.
Anyone with ambitions to lead the Labour Party would of course be much better advised to say nothing on the subject. Whatever they said would be misinterpreted by the excitable as Mt T has just demonstrated. I quite like the idea that no such calculation has entered JC's head. It might wreck his and his party's chances - but who knows. He has shaken off a whole load of criticism that I would have expected to sink him already.
1) presumably the Conservatives are now sure that Jeremy Corbyn has won.
2) we're seeing the Icke-ification of Jeremy Corbyn.
Once Corbyn is elected and proves to be a squalid disaster, Tories will need to show that they did their best for the country, when it was still possible to stop Jihadi Jez. Ergo they need to oppose him NOW, not stay entirely silent and gloaty as Labour shoots its own legs off.
Look at Southam below, he'd love to be able to blame Tories for this malign development. Tories must ensure Labour owns this horrible error. And they will.
The responsibility for Corbyn becoming Labour leader lies with all those who voted for him, whatever their reasons. The vast majority are hard lefties and Palmer-style Useful Idiots, but Tories are voting for him too. That's not thr fault of the Conservative party, but the individuals concerned just have to accept they have been as short-sighted, stupid and as juvenile as any of ther other £3ers, and that Corbyn will not only cause huge damage to Labour, but will also bring a smile to the faces of this country's enemies across the wotld and cause many of our friends to think worse of us - with the possible consequences that may bring in wishing to share intelligence etc.
Agreed. I was going to vote for Corbyn - I even paid my £3. And I've had to endure emails from Andy Burnham ever since.
But I'm not going to vote for him now, not after all this stuff has been unearthed. Corbyn is a douche. A moral narcissist with vile opinions. I don't care if he would demolish Labour, he would also damage Britain.
Where were the trials for the thousands of people he led others to kill?
Even the UN Security Council applauded his death, FFS.
The point is, we cannot be sure he was responsible until he is put on trial. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
Well, they never put Hitler on trial either. Do you doubt that he had responsibility for the actions of Germany 1933 - 45?
Hitler comitted suicide in his bunker. Had he been captured alive, he would have been put on trial, as many Nazis were.
Perhaps one of the PB historians could help me: I thought Stalin had an order out that Hitler should not be captured alive? Or is that faulty memory on my part?
I don't know if Stalin had issued any such order, but there was quite a strong view that was supported by Churchill and the Cabinet that leading Nazis would if captured be identified and then summarily executed. Stalin also advocated shooting some 50,000 German staff officers, a view that Churchill violently disagreed with (at the Tehran Conference).
The trials were agreed upon by the four victorious Powers at Yalta and the subsequent London Charter and the plan for summary executions was dropped. Should Hitler have been captured, he would have appeared at Nuremberg.
Can the dwindling number of Corbynites on pb tell us whether they agree with the Dear Leader Manque that the assassination of Bin Laden was very possibly faked, and staged? and that Bin Laden had been dead a year, already?
And, if they do agree, what are their thoughts on the moon landings?
I think you have misunderstood what Corbyn was saying in the video. By dealing with Bin Laden the way the US did, they made it easy for such conspiracy theories to thrive. I don't think he was suggesting that the death actually was faked. Or if he was saying that, the video has been edited in such a way that it no longer carries that meaning.
Anyone with ambitions to lead the Labour Party would of course be much better advised to say nothing on the subject. Whatever they said would be misinterpreted by the excitable as Mt T has just demonstrated. I quite like the idea that no such calculation has entered JC's head. It might wreck his and his party's chances - but who knows. He has shaken off a whole load of criticism that I would have expected to sink him already.
We've had this discsussion before, but conspiracy theorists don't require anything to thrive. If the facts don't match their conspiracy, then they'll either ignore them, or invent counter-facts.
As we saw with the official report into 9/11, the more facts that are given, the more they insiduously worm their way into every word and detail.
If there had been a trial, then the trial would have been a fix, it would not have been OBL on the stage but an actor, the evidence against him would all be faked, etc, etc.
Concern about feeding the fetid imaginations of conspiracy theorists is no reason to do anything - then can feed themselves well enough.
Has Corbyn said nothing new (or old) outrageous since I was last on? No more posing with posters of a mass murderer?
Morris
Borris Johnson & Jez agree they would have prefered a trial for Bin Laden.
This could be the next choice for PM BJ or JC. What joy for the British voters.
I'll be spoiling my ballot by marking the Lib Dem box if that's the choice. May well vote for George Osborne tho, his budgets have been pretty good for me personally.
1) presumably the Conservatives are now sure that Jeremy Corbyn has won.
2) we're seeing the Icke-ification of Jeremy Corbyn.
Once Corbyn is elected and proves to be a squalid disaster, Tories will need to show that they did their best for the country, when it was still possible to stop Jihadi Jez. Ergo they need to oppose him NOW, not stay entirely silent and gloaty as Labour shoots its own legs off.
Look at Southam below, he'd love to be able to blame Tories for this malign development. Tories must ensure Labour owns this horrible error. And they will. Ŷ
The responsibility for Corbyn becoming Labour leader lies with all those who voted for him, whatever their reasons. The vast majority are hard lefties and Palmer-style Useful Idiots, but Tories are voting for him too. That's not thr fault of the Conservative party, but the individuals concerned just have to accept they have been as short-sighted, stupid and as juvenile as any of ther other £3ers, and that Corbyn will not only cause huge damage to Labour, but will also bring a smile to the faces of this country's enemies across the wotld and cause many of our friends to think worse of us - with the possible consequences that may bring in wishing to share intelligence etc.
What I find disappointing about the £3ers is the glee they have taken in ignoring a sense of fair play. Sad endictment of the modern world, morality swapped for whatever you can get away with and justify on small print
Harman said "anyone can vote". Where does fair play come into it?
Most people have a sense of fair play, a moral compass you could call it. A bit like the spirit of cricket I guess. You just proved my point actually, by quoting Harman and using the quote as a defence... Anyone with common sense would know that she meant "anyone who wants the best for labour"
1) presumably the Conservatives are now sure that Jeremy Corbyn has won.
2) we're seeing the Icke-ification of Jeremy Corbyn.
Once Corbyn is elected and proves to be a squalid disaster, Tories will need to show that they did their best for the country, when it was still possible to stop Jihadi Jez. Ergo they need to oppose him NOW, not stay entirely silent and gloaty as Labour shoots its own legs off.
Look at Southam below, he'd love to be able to blame Tories for this malign development. Tories must ensure Labour owns this horrible error. And they will.
My point is that potentially, Corbyn is dangerous to the Tories because he shines a very bright light on them. And will voters like what they see.
After goodness knows how many years at Westminster, do you honestly think that Corbyn gives a toss for the Tory Front bench or what his "brothers" actually think of him?
I think it's plain to see whose opinions JC covets. Everyone will have their own list and I daresay that I will agree with the overwhelming majority of them, even yours.
Where were the trials for the thousands of people he led others to kill?
Even the UN Security Council applauded his death, FFS.
The point is, we cannot be sure he was responsible until he is put on trial. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
Well, they never put Hitler on trial either. Do you doubt that he had responsibility for the actions of Germany 1933 - 45?
Hitler comitted suicide in his bunker. Had he been captured alive, he would have been put on trial, as many Nazis were.
Perhaps one of the PB historians could help me: I thought Stalin had an order out that Hitler should not be captured alive? Or is that faulty memory on my part?
I don't know if Stalin had issued any such order, but there was quite a strong view that was supported by Churchill and the Cabinet that leading Nazis would if captured be identified and then summarily executed. Stalin also advocated shooting some 50,000 German staff officers, a view that Churchill violently disagreed with (at the Tehran Conference).
The trials were agreed upon by the four victorious Powers at Yalta and the subsequent London Charter and the plan for summary executions was dropped. Should Hitler have been captured, he would have appeared at Nuremberg.
There was also an American plan that Germany should after the war be reduced to an agrarian economy and never be allowed to build anything but the simplest of industries. Churchill managed to get that one stopped too. The trauma of world war brought forth some very odd plans by well meaning people who were determined that their successors and descendants should never have to face what they had.
Has Corbyn said nothing new (or old) outrageous since I was last on? No more posing with posters of a mass murderer?
Morris
Borris Johnson & Jez agree they would have prefered a trial for Bin Laden.
This could be the next choice for PM BJ or JC. What joy for the British voters.
I'll be spoiling my ballot by marking the Lib Dem box if that's the choice. May well vote for George Osborne tho, his budgets have been pretty good for me personally.
Pulpstar
I think for the first time if that was the choice , I would spoil my ballot.
1) presumably the Conservatives are now sure that Jeremy Corbyn has won.
2) we're seeing the Icke-ification of Jeremy Corbyn.
Once Corbyn is elected and proves to be a squalid disaster, Tories will need to show that they did their best for the country, when it was still possible to stop Jihadi Jez. Ergo they need to oppose him NOW, not stay entirely silent and gloaty as Labour shoots its own legs off.
Look at Southam below, he'd love to be able to blame Tories for this malign development. Tories must ensure Labour owns this horrible error. And they will. Ŷ
The responsibility for Corbyn becoming Labour leader lies with all those who voted for him, whatever their reasons. The vast majority are hard lefties and Palmer-style Useful Idiots, but Tories are voting for him too. That's not thr fault of the Conservative party, but the individuals concerned just have to accept they have been as short-sighted, stupid and as juvenile as any of ther other £3ers, and that Corbyn will not only cause huge damage to Labour, but will also bring a smile to the faces of this country's enemies across the wotld and cause many of our friends to think worse of us - with the possible consequences that may bring in wishing to share intelligence etc.
What I find disappointing about the £3ers is the glee they have taken in ignoring a sense of fair play. Sad endictment of the modern world, morality swapped for whatever you can get away with and justify on small print
Harman said "anyone can vote". Where does fair play come into it?
Most people have a sense of fair play, a moral compass you could call it. A bit like the spirit of cricket I guess. You just proved my point actually, by quoting Harman and using the quote as a defence... Anyone with common sense would know that she meant "anyone who wants the best for labour"
Nonsense. She said "anyone", thereby making it an open primary.
I think most people would prefer to have seen Bin Laden arrested and put on trial rather than murdered in cold blood - indeed many of us wish to see that happen to Blair and Bush. Those who see nothing wrong with his killing expose their own humbug and hypocrisy whilst also revealing their adherence to the rule of law to be skin deep.
Corbyn's problem here is not describing extra-judicial execution as wrong, but describing the death of a mass murderer as a "tragedy" - the same term one would apply to, well, something like the deaths of 3000 innocent people on 11 September 2001.
.
I don't want someone who makes a careful choice of words. I want someone who understands that Bin Laden was evil and that his death was not a tragedy. It is the sentiments which are wrong not the words.
Corbyn gives the impression that he does not understand the difference between good and evil and that, if he did, he would choose evil.
perhaps in his mind he does choose good over evil.
Frightening thought of the day.
I would not be entirely surprised if that were the case.
There were - in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and, indeed, this happens after very tragedy - big or large - plenty of people willing to blame the victims for what was done to them.
In an ideal world, evil people who commit mass murder should be brought to trial. But we are not in an ideal world and the reason the world is not ideal at the moment is due in no small part to the activities of people like Bin Laden and others of his ilk. Bin Laden got what he deserved. Indeed, his death was rather more merciful than the one suffered by all those people in the Twin Towers and on those 4 planes. It might be - at best - regrettable that he was not put on trial. But in no sensible person's mind was it a "tragedy" let alone a tragedy comparable to what happened to the victims that day.
Corbyn will rightly be excoriated for what he has said in this regard. As will the Labour party, if they are foolish enough to elect him. Too bad.
You seem to miss the point of a trial, which is to establish guilt, not to rubber stamp it so everyone feels happy.
Where were the trials for the thousands of people he led others to kill?
Even the UN Security Council applauded his death, FFS.
That rather implies that it was OK to go along with AL Quaeda style killings when it suited us. I had rather assumed that we expect higher moral and judicial standards than that.
Mr. City, well, we'll see. Boris 'let's vote no so we can bargain for a better position and stay in' approach is probably about as appealing to the PCP as a handjob from Edward Scissorhands.
1) presumably the Conservatives are now sure that Jeremy Corbyn has won.
2) we're seeing the Icke-ification of Jeremy Corbyn.
Once Corbyn is elected and proves to be a squalid disaster, Tories will need to show that they did their best for the country, when it was still possible to stop Jihadi Jez. Ergo they need to oppose him NOW, not stay entirely silent and gloaty as Labour shoots its own legs off.
Look at Southam below, he'd love to be able to blame Tories for this malign development. Tories must ensure Labour owns this horrible error. And they will. Ŷ
The responsibility for Corbyn becoming Labour leader lies with all those who voted for him, whatever their reasons. The vast majority are hard lefties and Palmer-style Useful Idiots, but Tories are voting for him too. That's not thr fault of the Conservative party, but the individuals concerned just have to accept they have been as short-sighted, stupid and as juvenile as any of ther other £3ers, and that Corbyn will not only cause huge damage to Labour, but will also bring a smile to the faces of this country's enemies across the wotld and cause many of our friends to think worse of us - with the possible consequences that may bring in wishing to share intelligence etc.
What I find disappointing about the £3ers is the glee they have taken in ignoring a sense of fair play. Sad endictment of the modern world, morality swapped for whatever you can get away with and justify on small print
Harman said "anyone can vote". Where does fair play come into it?
Most people have a sense of fair play, a moral compass you could call it. A bit like the spirit of cricket I guess. You just proved my point actually, by quoting Harman and using the quote as a defence... Anyone with common sense would know that she meant "anyone who wants the best for labour"
Harriet Harman's a trained lawyer. If that's what she meant to say, she should have said it.
In fact, I'm not sure she'd thought it through that far. Cameron and the Conservatives had tried open primaries, and I think Labour were somewhat going for that sort of thing, without thinking through the potential problems such as how it might be gamed, both by their own MPs and people who opposed them.
1) presumably the Conservatives are now sure that Jeremy Corbyn has won.
2) we're seeing the Icke-ification of Jeremy Corbyn.
Once Corbyn is elected and proves to be a squalid disaster, Tories will need to show that they did their best for the country, when it was still possible to stop Jihadi Jez. Ergo they need to oppose him NOW, not stay entirely silent and gloaty as Labour shoots its own legs off.
Look at Southam below, he'd love to be able to blame Tories for this malign development. Tories must ensure Labour owns this horrible error. And they will. Ŷ
The responsibility for Corbyn becoming Labour leader lies with all those who voted for him, whatever their reasons. The vast majority are hard lefties and Palmer-style Useful Idiots, but Tories are voting for him too. That's not thr fault of the Conservative party, but the individuals concerned just have to accept they have been as short-sighted, stupid and as juvenile as any of ther other £3ers, and that Corbyn will not only cause huge damage to Labour, but will also bring a smile to the faces of this country's enemies across the wotld and cause many of our friends to think worse of us - with the possible consequences that may bring in wishing to share intelligence etc.
What I find disappointing about the £3ers is the glee they have taken in ignoring a sense of fair play. Sad endictment of the modern world, morality swapped for whatever you can get away with and justify on small print
Harman said "anyone can vote". Where does fair play come into it?
Most people have a sense of fair play, a moral compass you could call it. A bit like the spirit of cricket I guess. You just proved my point actually, by quoting Harman and using the quote as a defence... Anyone with common sense would know that she meant "anyone who wants the best for labour"
Nonsense. She said "anyone", thereby making it an open primary.
Corbyn's problem here is not describing extra-judicial execution as wrong, but describing the death of a mass murderer as a "tragedy" - the same term one would apply to, well, something like the deaths of 3000 innocent people on 11 September 2001.
.
I don't want someone who makes a careful choice of words. I want someone who understands that Bin Laden was evil and that his death was not a tragedy. It is the sentiments which are wrong not the words.
Corbyn gives the impression that he does not understand the difference between good and evil and that, if he did, he would choose evil.
perhaps in his mind he does choose good over evil.
Frightening thought of the day.
I would not be entirely surprised if that were the case.
There were - in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and, indeed, this happens after very tragedy - big or large - plenty of people willing to blame the victims for what was done to them.
In an ideal world, evil people who commit mass murder should be brought to trial. But we are not in an ideal world and the reason the world is not ideal at the moment is due in no small part to the activities of people like Bin Laden and others of his ilk. Bin Laden got what he deserved. Indeed, his death was rather more merciful than the one suffered by all those people in the Twin Towers and on those 4 planes. It might be - at best - regrettable that he was not put on trial. But in no sensible person's mind was it a "tragedy" let alone a tragedy comparable to what happened to the victims that day.
Corbyn will rightly be excoriated for what he has said in this regard. As will the Labour party, if they are foolish enough to elect him. Too bad.
You seem to miss the point of a trial, which is to establish guilt, not to rubber stamp it so everyone feels happy.
Where were the trials for the thousands of people he led others to kill?
Even the UN Security Council applauded his death, FFS.
That rather implies that it was OK to go along with AL Quaeda style killings when it suited us. I had rather assumed that we expect higher moral and judicial standards than that.
On the substance, it looks pretty astute in hindsight, doesn't it? The US assassinated the Al Qaeda leadership and Al Qaeda got replaced by people less moderate than them. Then they took out the Libyan government too, and that didn't work out as well as they'd hoped. Tragedy after tragedy, each one creating the next tragedy.
"less moderate"
WTF????????
OBL was a moderate in your eyes?
Compared to Ken Clarke or Nick Clegg, obviously not. Compared to ISIS, yes.
Read his letters - a lot of them are him ineffectually urging the people who were now exercising Islamicist Nutjob power on the ground to be less brutal, not try to hold territory unless you can govern it properly, not force non-believers to pay a protection tax unless they're actually getting protection, etc etc. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Osama-bin-Laden-Diaries/dp/1620873826
I can't believe you're defending your post thus confirming the accuracy of the universal criticism of it (I can't recall any support).
1) presumably the Conservatives are now sure that Jeremy Corbyn has won.
2) we're seeing the Icke-ification of Jeremy Corbyn.
Once Corbyn is elected and proves to be a squalid disaster, Tories will need to show that they did their best for the country, when it was still possible to stop Jihadi Jez. Ergo they need to oppose him NOW, not stay entirely silent and gloaty as Labour shoots its own legs off.
Look at Southam below, he'd love to be able to blame Tories for this malign development. Tories must ensure Labour owns this horrible error. And they will. Ŷ
The responsibility for Corbyn becoming Labour leader lies with all those who voted for him, whatever their reasons. The vast majority are hard lefties and Palmer-style Useful Idiots, but Tories are voting for him too. That's not thr fault of the Conservative party, but the individuals concerned just have to accept they have been as short-sighted, stupid and as juvenile as any of ther other £3ers, and that Corbyn will not only cause huge damage to Labour, but will also bring a smile to the faces of this country's enemies across the wotld and cause many of our friends to think worse of us - with the possible consequences that may bring in wishing to share intelligence etc.
What I find disappointing about the £3ers is the glee they have taken in ignoring a sense of fair play. Sad endictment of the modern world, morality swapped for whatever you can get away with and justify on small print
Harman said "anyone can vote". Where does fair play come into it?
Most people have a sense of fair play, a moral compass you could call it. A bit like the spirit of cricket I guess. You just proved my point actually, by quoting Harman and using the quote as a defence... Anyone with common sense would know that she meant "anyone who wants the best for labour"
I agree Isam.
Most people admire boxers and golfers who try to beat their opponent playing by the rules and in the spirit of them. It should be the same for democracy. It certainly is not correct when UKIP get millions of votes and 1 MP.
Where were the trials for the thousands of people he led others to kill?
Even the UN Security Council applauded his death, FFS.
The point is, we cannot be sure he was responsible until he is put on trial. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
Well, they never put Hitler on trial either. Do you doubt that he had responsibility for the actions of Germany 1933 - 45?
Hitler comitted suicide in his bunker. Had he been captured alive, he would have been put on trial, as many Nazis were.
Perhaps one of the PB historians could help me: I thought Stalin had an order out that Hitler should not be captured alive? Or is that faulty memory on my part?
I don't know if Stalin had issued any such order, but there was quite a strong view that was supported by Churchill and the Cabinet that leading Nazis would if captured be identified and then summarily executed. Stalin also advocated shooting some 50,000 German staff officers, a view that Churchill violently disagreed with (at the Tehran Conference).
The trials were agreed upon by the four victorious Powers at Yalta and the subsequent London Charter and the plan for summary executions was dropped. Should Hitler have been captured, he would have appeared at Nuremberg.
There was also an American plan that Germany should after the war be reduced to an agrarian economy and never be allowed to build anything but the simplest of industries. Churchill managed to get that one stopped too. The trauma of world war brought forth some very odd plans by well meaning people who were determined that their successors and descendants should never have to face what they had.
Yes, the US Morgenthau Plan would have dismantled Germany (and probably caused immense suffering among the surviving population). Tempers cooled as the war ended and with Truman as the new US President, some of the more harsh measures were respited.
Many German war criminals were extradited to countries in which their crimes took place and were executed there, sometimes after pretty sketchy trials.Equally, some of the worst war criminals managed to escape execution in both the Western and Russian zones of occupation.
1) presumably the Conservatives are now sure that Jeremy Corbyn has won.
2) we're seeing the Icke-ification of Jeremy Corbyn.
Once Corbyn is elected and proves to be a squalid disaster, Tories will need to show that they did their best for the country, when it was still possible to stop Jihadi Jez. Ergo they need to oppose him NOW, not stay entirely silent and gloaty as Labour shoots its own legs off.
Look at Southam below, he'd love to be able to blame Tories for this malign development. Tories must ensure Labour owns this horrible error. And they will. Ŷ
The responsibility for Corbyn becoming Labour leader lies with all those who voted for him, whatever their reasons. The vast majority are hard lefties and Palmer-style Useful Idiots, but Tories are voting for him too. That's not thr fault of the Conservative party, but the individuals concerned just have to accept they have been as short-sighted, stupid and as juvenile as any of ther other £3ers, and that Corbyn will not only cause huge damage to Labour, but will also bring a smile to the faces of this country's enemies across the wotld and cause many of our friends to think worse of us - with the possible consequences that may bring in wishing to share intelligence etc.
What I find disappointing about the £3ers is the glee they have taken in ignoring a sense of fair play. Sad endictment of the modern world, morality swapped for whatever you can get away with and justify on small print
Harman said "anyone can vote". Where does fair play come into it?
Most people have a sense of fair play, a moral compass you could call it. A bit like the spirit of cricket I guess. You just proved my point actually, by quoting Harman and using the quote as a defence... Anyone with common sense would know that she meant "anyone who wants the best for labour"
Nonsense. She said "anyone", thereby making it an open primary.
You can't be that stupid
? Pay £3 and sign up to vote. How stupid do you have to be?
In fairness to Mr Corbyn we are talking about a man who got 2 E grade A levels without any mitigating circumstances and whose further education was a brief, unsuccessful, period in North London Polytechnic.
The poor man is obviously just more than a bit thick and it is wrong to mock him for that or even his understandably simplistic view of the world. Of course it does raise questions of his suitability for a major role but that is up to the Labour party.
Surely account needs to be taken of when he obtained his 2 E grade A levels. Corbyn would have been 18 in 1967 and it is not unreasonable to assume that an E grade from that period would equate to a C - maybe B - A level grade today. Several former party leaders have only managed 3rd class Honours degrees - Kinnock- Steel - Baldwin.
Oh dear - Believe me 2E's was pretty crap in the 60s.
But in the 1960s a good 30% failed A levels - few do today. It's certainly daft to compare present day E grades with the same grade from that period though it might imply that today's B/C grades do not amount to much!
1) presumably the Conservatives are now sure that Jeremy Corbyn has won.
2) we're seeing the Icke-ification of Jeremy Corbyn.
Once Corbyn is elected and proves to be a squalid disaster, Tories will need to show that they did their best for the country, when it was still possible to stop Jihadi Jez. Ergo they need to oppose him NOW, not stay entirely silent and gloaty as Labour shoots its own legs off.
Look at Southam below, he'd love to be able to blame Tories for this malign development. Tories must ensure Labour owns this horrible error. And they will. Ŷ
The responsibility for Corbyn becoming Labour leader lies with all those who voted for him, whatever their reasons. The vast majority are hard lefties and Palmer-style Useful Idiots, but Tories are voting for him too. That's not thr fault of the Conservative party, but the individuals concerned just have to accept they have been as short-sighted, stupid and as juvenile as any of ther other £3ers, and that Corbyn will not only cause huge damage to Labour, but will also bring a smile to the faces of this country's enemies across the wotld and cause many of our friends to think worse of us - with the possible consequences that may bring in wishing to share intelligence etc.
What I find disappointing about the £3ers is the glee they have taken in ignoring a sense of fair play. Sad endictment of the modern world, morality swapped for whatever you can get away with and justify on small print
Harman said "anyone can vote". Where does fair play come into it?
Most people have a sense of fair play, a moral compass you could call it. A bit like the spirit of cricket I guess. You just proved my point actually, by quoting Harman and using the quote as a defence... Anyone with common sense would know that she meant "anyone who wants the best for labour"
Harriet Harman's a trained lawyer. If that's what she meant to say, she should have said it.
In fact, I'm not sure she'd thought it through that far. Cameron and the Conservatives had tried open primaries, and I think Labour were somewhat going for that sort of thing, without thinking through the potential problems such as how it might be gamed, both by their own MPs and people who opposed them.
As I say, people with a sense of fair play would have known exactly what she meant, there was no need for lawyer esque caution on her part. Most people have it, it's why most people who support other parties didn't join labour to vote for a leader that was bad for them
1) presumably the Conservatives are now sure that Jeremy Corbyn has won.
2) we're seeing the Icke-ification of Jeremy Corbyn.
Once Corbyn is elected and proves to be a squalid disaster, Tories will need to show that they did their best for the country, when it was still possible to stop Jihadi Jez. Ergo they need to oppose him NOW, not stay entirely silent and gloaty as Labour shoots its own legs off.
Look at Southam below, he'd love to be able to blame Tories for this malign development. Tories must ensure Labour owns this horrible error. And they will. Ŷ
The responsibility for Corbyn becoming Labour leader lies with all those who voted for him, whatever their reasons. The vast majority are hard lefties and Palmer-style Useful Idiots, but Tories are voting for him too. That's not thr fault of the Conservative party, but the individuals concerned just have to accept they have been as short-sighted, stupid and as juvenile as any of ther other £3ers, and that Corbyn will not only cause huge damage to Labour, but will also bring a smile to the faces of this country's enemies across the wotld and cause many of our friends to think worse of us - with the possible consequences that may bring in wishing to share intelligence etc.
What I find disappointing about the £3ers is the glee they have taken in ignoring a sense of fair play. Sad endictment of the modern world, morality swapped for whatever you can get away with and justify on small print
Harman said "anyone can vote". Where does fair play come into it?
Most people have a sense of fair play, a moral compass you could call it. A bit like the spirit of cricket I guess. You just proved my point actually, by quoting Harman and using the quote as a defence... Anyone with common sense would know that she meant "anyone who wants the best for labour"
Nonsense. She said "anyone", thereby making it an open primary.
You can't be that stupid
Open primaries are not unheard of in this country, and there is no moral imperative to vote for what is best for the party - voting for what is best for the country is legitimate too.
Mr. City, well, we'll see. Boris 'let's vote no so we can bargain for a better position and stay in' approach is probably about as appealing to the PCP as a handjob from Edward Scissorhands.
Morris he changes his tune to the audience. Look at what he says in London.
Where were the trials for the thousands of people he led others to kill?
Even the UN Security Council applauded his death, FFS.
The point is, we cannot be sure he was responsible until he is put on trial. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
Well, they never put Hitler on trial either. Do you doubt that he had responsibility for the actions of Germany 1933 - 45?
Hitler comitted suicide in his bunker. Had he been captured alive, he would have been put on trial, as many Nazis were.
Perhaps one of the PB historians could help me: I thought Stalin had an order out that Hitler should not be captured alive? Or is that faulty memory on my part?
I don't know if Stalin had issued any such order, but there was quite a strong view that was supported by Churchill and the Cabinet that leading Nazis would if captured be identified and then summarily executed. Stalin also advocated shooting some 50,000 German staff officers, a view that Churchill violently disagreed with (at the Tehran Conference).
The trials were agreed upon by the four victorious Powers at Yalta and the subsequent London Charter and the plan for summary executions was dropped. Should Hitler have been captured, he would have appeared at Nuremberg.
There was also an American plan that Germany should after the war be reduced to an agrarian economy and never be allowed to build anything but the simplest of industries. Churchill managed to get that one stopped too. The trauma of world war brought forth some very odd plans by well meaning people who were determined that their successors and descendants should never have to face what they had.
The trauma of a terrorist attack on US soil also brought forth some very odd plans by (presumably) well meaning people, such as invading afghanistan, iraq, guantanamo bay, extraordinary rendition and the rest. Pity we didn't have any Churchills available to moderate them
1) presumably the Conservatives are now sure that Jeremy Corbyn has won.
2) we're seeing the Icke-ification of Jeremy Corbyn.
Once Corbyn is elected and proves to be a squalid disaster, Tories will need to show that they did their best for the country, when it was still possible to stop Jihadi Jez. Ergo they need to oppose him NOW, not stay entirely silent and gloaty as Labour shoots its own legs off.
Look at Southam below, he'd love to be able to blame Tories for this malign development. Tories must ensure Labour owns this horrible error. And they will. Ŷ
The responsibility for Corbyn becoming Labour leader lies with all those who voted for him, whatever their reasons. The vast majority are hard lefties and Palmer-style Useful Idiots, but Tories are voting for him too. That's not thr fault of the Conservative party, but the individuals concerned just have to accept they have been as short-sighted, stupid and as juvenile as any of ther other £3ers, and that Corbyn will not only cause huge damage to Labour, but will also bring a smile to the faces of this country's enemies across the wotld and cause many of our friends to think worse of us - with the possible consequences that may bring in wishing to share intelligence etc.
What I find disappointing about the £3ers is the glee they have taken in ignoring a sense of fair play. Sad endictment of the modern world, morality swapped for whatever you can get away with and justify on small print
Harman said "anyone can vote". Where does fair play come into it?
Most people have a sense of fair play, a moral compass you could call it. A bit like the spirit of cricket I guess. You just proved my point actually, by quoting Harman and using the quote as a defence... Anyone with common sense would know that she meant "anyone who wants the best for labour"
Nonsense. She said "anyone", thereby making it an open primary.
You can't be that stupid
? Pay £3 and sign up to vote. How stupid do you have to be?
Hmm Ill have to think whether it is stupid in the long term to be a cheat... It works for some I guess but they would have a painting in the attic that ages badly
Although the electoral system is not quite what I would have designed, nonetheless it is not the main problem.
Corbyn tries to come to Cambridge, 2000 people want to meet him to hear him speak, the venue has to be repeatedly changed.
Cooper comes to Cambridge, barely 30 people want to hear her speak. A cloakroom is ample space.
The problem is not Corbyn, nor the electoral system, not the Useful Idiots that Southam repeatedly berates.
The problem is Corbyn’s opponents. There are clever and able people on the centre and centre-left in Labour (Jarvis, Cruddas, Johnson, Starmer). They chose not to stand.
If you choose not to stand -- for whatever reason -- then you have to accept that someone less able (Cooper, Burnham, Kendall) will stand in your place.
If Cooper & Co can barely raise interest in 30 people in a place like Cambridge, then she is a piss-poor candidate. She deserves to lose.
1) presumably the Conservatives are now sure that Jeremy Corbyn has won.
2) we're seeing the Icke-ification of Jeremy Corbyn.
Once Corbyn is elected and proves to be a squalid disaster, Tories will need to show that they did their best for the country, when it was still possible to stop Jihadi Jez. Ergo they need to oppose him NOW, not stay entirely silent and gloaty as Labour shoots its own legs off.
Look at Southam below, he'd love to be able to blame Tories for this malign development. Tories must ensure Labour owns this horrible error. And they will. Ŷ
The responsibility for Corbyn becoming Labour leader lies with all those who voted for him, whatever their reasons. The vast majority are hard lefties and Palmer-style Useful Idiots, but Tories are voting for him too. That's not thr fault of the Conservative party, but the individuals concerned just have to accept they have been as short-sighted, stupid and as juvenile as any of ther other £3ers, and that Corbyn will not only cause huge damage to Labour, but will also bring a smile to the faces of this country's enemies across the wotld and cause many of our friends to think worse of us - with the possible consequences that may bring in wishing to share intelligence etc.
What I find disappointing about the £3ers is the glee they have taken in ignoring a sense of fair play. Sad endictment of the modern world, morality swapped for whatever you can get away with and justify on small print
Harman said "anyone can vote". Where does fair play come into it?
Most people have a sense of fair play, a moral compass you could call it. A bit like the spirit of cricket I guess. You just proved my point actually, by quoting Harman and using the quote as a defence... Anyone with common sense would know that she meant "anyone who wants the best for labour"
Harriet Harman's a trained lawyer. If that's what she meant to say, she should have said it.
In fact, I'm not sure she'd thought it through that far. Cameron and the Conservatives had tried open primaries, and I think Labour were somewhat going for that sort of thing, without thinking through the potential problems such as how it might be gamed, both by their own MPs and people who opposed them.
they thought they'd be able to minimize union power by recruiting thousands of centrists..
1) presumably the Conservatives are now sure that Jeremy Corbyn has won.
2) we're seeing the Icke-ification of Jeremy Corbyn.
Once Corbyn is elected and proves to be a squalid disaster, Tories will need to show that they did their best for the country, when it was still possible to stop Jihadi Jez. Ergo they need to oppose him NOW, not stay entirely silent and gloaty as Labour shoots its own legs off.
Look at Southam below, he'd love to be able to blame Tories for this malign development. Tories must ensure Labour owns this horrible error. And they will. Ŷ
The responsibility for Corbyn becoming Labour leader lies with all those who voted for him, whatever their reasons. The vast majority are hard lefties and Palmer-style Useful Idiots, but Tories are voting for him too. That's not thr fault of the Conservative party, but the individuals concerned just have to accept they have been as short-sighted, stupid and as juvenile as any of ther other £3ers, and that Corbyn will not only cause huge damage to Labour, but will also bring a smile to the faces of this country's enemies across the wotld and cause many of our friends to think worse of us - with the possible consequences that may bring in wishing to share intelligence etc.
What I find disappointing about the £3ers is the glee they have taken in ignoring a sense of fair play. Sad endictment of the modern world, morality swapped for whatever you can get away with and justify on small print
Since when did politics and fair play share a bed?
I don't want someone who makes a careful choice of words. I want someone who understands that Bin Laden was evil and that his death was not a tragedy. It is the sentiments which are wrong not the words.
Corbyn gives the impression that he does not understand the difference between good and evil and that, if he did, he would choose evil.
Perfectly legitimate though to view the American- British attack on Iraq as an act of evil and to wish to see those responsible apprehended - or failing that - given the Bin Laden 'treatment'.
You want the assassination of Blair? It's a point of view, I suppose.
It is perfectly legitimate to criticise the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The reasons for criticising it are rather more interesting though. But, personally, I don't think the removal of Saddam Hussein was an act of evil on a par with the attack on the Twin Towers or the bombs in Nairobil office blocks, for instance. The consequences of his removal were - and remain - an appalling mess and much much more thought should have been given beforehand to this before any decision to invade was made, if indeed any invasion should have gone ahead.
I think that to say that the war was unlawful is not quite as clear cut as some like to assume. I am not an expert in international law but what I do know of it suggests that it is rather more nuanced than many would have it. Certainly, the Chief of the General Staff sought a legal opinion from the Attorney-General before giving the decision to send British troops into battle precisely in order to protect his men from any suggestion that what they were doing was either unlawful or that individual soldiers were war criminals.
Whether the war was wise is quite another matter. But that is very different from saying that it was illegal. Something can be legal but unwise.
It is perfectly legitimate to criticise the wisdom of the war. I think Blair did incalculable damage to British politics in the way that he led the country into war. But that does not mean that he is a war criminal according to the rules of war.
Some of the criticism levelled at him from Corbyn on this front is, however, wholly disingenuous and dishonest. Would Corbyn have supported the war, for instance, if there had been a second UN resolution?
Can the dwindling number of Corbynites on pb tell us whether they agree with the Dear Leader Manque that the assassination of Bin Laden was very possibly faked, and staged? and that Bin Laden had been dead a year, already?
And, if they do agree, what are their thoughts on the moon landings?
I think you have misunderstood what Corbyn was saying in the video. .... He has shaken off a whole load of criticism that I would have expected to sink him already.
?? Huh ?? His words are exactly what his entryist voters want to hear. They are what is keeping him afloat.
What I find disappointing about the £3ers is the glee they have taken in ignoring a sense of fair play. Sad endictment of the modern world, morality swapped for whatever you can get away with and justify on small print
Possibly if they didnt want everyone up to and including Uncle Tom Cobly to vote, Hattie Harperson should not have gone and national TV and told everyone they could vote for the next Labour Leader, having being told that, people expecting to do so shouldn't be hard to understand.
However, as I said before, if you think the failure of the coalition government to democratise the House of Lords was down to the Liberals, then the efforts (or otherwise) of the present Conservative majority government to do so over the next five years will prove either you or me to be right.
Clegg had an idiotic proposition (15 year tenure!) he intended to be shot down so he could ditch the boundary commission proposal, its a marginal improvement on Cameron who clearly doesn't propose to come forward with even an idiotic proposal, but its a pretty fine hair to split!
That may be so, it may not be so, but that's to be decided by a Judge, not you or I deciding someone is guilty beyond OUR reasonable doubt. I don't see why I'm having to explain this?
Early today we had Handwriting.com, we seem to have moved on to LegalisticQuibbling.com. The troops that went to get OBL and ended up killing him were ordered to do so by a chain of command that must have stretched all the way to the top of the Whitehouse, and would have been authorised by a special panel of the National Security Council, in the US that is legal, it might not be in the UK, but they were not British people, and at no point was the operation conducted on British territory.
Its pointless arguing about how something another country did wouldn't be legal in this country. Lots of things unlawful in the UK are lawful elsewhere and lots of things unlawful elsewhere are lawful in the UK, I fail to be shocked.
As I say, people with a sense of fair play would have known exactly what she meant, there was no need for lawyer esque caution on her part. Most people have it, it's why most people who support other parties didn't join labour to vote for a leader that was bad for them
You may say it repeatedly, it's just that I'm not sure you're correct.
Labour is, and prides itself on being, a mass movement. I think they were more concerned on getting people involved by voting than on who those voters were. After all, there was a back-stop in the fact that candidates had to get 35 MPs to back them, meaning that poor candidates would not be on the ballot.
I don't know if Stalin had issued any such order, but there was quite a strong view that was supported by Churchill and the Cabinet that leading Nazis would if captured be identified and then summarily executed. Stalin also advocated shooting some 50,000 German staff officers, a view that Churchill violently disagreed with (at the Tehran Conference).
The trials were agreed upon by the four victorious Powers at Yalta and the subsequent London Charter and the plan for summary executions was dropped. Should Hitler have been captured, he would have appeared at Nuremberg.
There was also an American plan that Germany should after the war be reduced to an agrarian economy and never be allowed to build anything but the simplest of industries. Churchill managed to get that one stopped too. The trauma of world war brought forth some very odd plans by well meaning people who were determined that their successors and descendants should never have to face what they had.
The trauma of a terrorist attack on US soil also brought forth some very odd plans by (presumably) well meaning people, such as invading afghanistan, iraq, guantanamo bay, extraordinary rendition and the rest. Pity we didn't have any Churchills available to moderate them
Indeed. That is the criticism that can be made of Blair. He wholly misused - or failed to use - such credit as he did have with the US (which is probably much less than he imagined) to get them to think properly about the consequences of any invasion. And plan for it.
Neither the US (not the British) have any real understanding of the trauma of occupation, even if the occupiers are doing something good for you. The reactions of those who are being helped are not simple gratitude but are much more mixed. The experience of much of Europe at the end of WW2 should have taught us that. The US thought that it could do this as a quick short surgical strike and all would be well afterwards. They were tragically wrong. So were the British who think that our previous involvement gives us some special insight into the region when, in fact, all it means is that we are utterly distrusted by everyone there.
Open primaries are not unheard of in this country, and there is no moral imperative to vote for what is best for the party - voting for what is best for the country is legitimate too.
They could well have been trying what the Tories do locally and select two candidates which are as good as each other as far as the party and the MPs are concerned, and they let the public decide in an open primary. It looks democratic, and really you don't care who wins that much.
This is exactly what would have happened in this race if it was a Cooper/Burnham/Kendall competition as originally envisaged. The PLP could have lived with any of those, and certainly either the two plausible winners, its only when some idiot let Corbyn into the competition that holding an open primary became a problem, hence all the back pedalling since.
Isn't it a pity politicians like Farron (and obviously Corbyn) can't resist making cheap populist comments that sound like they're auditioning for late night slots on Radio 5?
I don't want someone who makes a careful choice of words. I want someone who understands that Bin Laden was evil and that his death was not a tragedy. It is the sentiments which are wrong not the words.
Corbyn gives the impression that he does not understand the difference between good and evil and that, if he did, he would choose evil.
Perfectly legitimate though to view the American- British attack on Iraq as an act of evil and to wish to see those responsible apprehended - or failing that - given the Bin Laden 'treatment'.
You want the assassination of Blair? It's a point of view, I suppose.
Whether the war was wise is quite another matter. But that is very different from saying that it was illegal. Something can be legal but unwise.
It is perfectly legitimate to criticise the wisdom of the war. I think Blair did incalculable damage to British politics in the way that he led the country into war. But that does not mean that he is a war criminal according to the rules of war.
Some of the criticism levelled at him from Corbyn on this front is, however, wholly disingenuous and dishonest. Would Corbyn have supported the war, for instance, if there had been a second UN resolution?
I personally didn't feel comfortable going to war on a "nuanced" case. Especially when there was considerable reason to doubt that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
As I say, people with a sense of fair play would have known exactly what she meant, there was no need for lawyer esque caution on her part. Most people have it, it's why most people who support other parties didn't join labour to vote for a leader that was bad for them
You may say it repeatedly, it's just that I'm not sure you're correct.
Labour is, and prides itself on being, a mass movement. I think they were more concerned on getting people involved by voting than on who those voters were. After all, there was a back-stop in the fact that candidates had to get 35 MPs to back them, meaning that poor candidates would not be on the ballot.
Ooops.
I though the intention was to get people that might be inclined to vote for Labour at the next GE involved with the choice of its leader... anyone who doesn't fit that bill and is voting for someone that will damage Labour is not acting within the spirit of fair play, and it disappoints me that such people did it and are proud of it.
1) presumably the Conservatives are now sure that Jeremy Corbyn has won.
2) we're seeing the Icke-ification of Jeremy Corbyn.
Once Corbyn is elected and proves to be a squalid disaster, Tories will need to show that they did their best for the country, when it was still possible to stop Jihadi Jez. Ergo they need to oppose him NOW, not stay entirely silent and gloaty as Labour shoots its own legs off.
Look at Southam below, he'd love to be able to blame Tories for this malign development. Tories must ensure Labour owns this horrible error. And they will. Ŷ
The responsibility for Corbyn becoming Labour leader lies with all those who voted for him, whatever their reasons. The vast majority are hard lefties and Palmer-style Useful Idiots, but Tories are voting for him too. That's not thr fault of the Conservative party, but the individuals concerned just have to accept they have been as short-sighted, stupid and as juvenile as any of ther other £3ers, and that Corbyn will not only cause huge damage to Labour, but will also bring a smile to the faces of this country's enemies across the wotld and cause many of our friends to think worse of us - with the possible consequences that may bring in wishing to share intelligence etc.
What I find disappointing about the £3ers is the glee they have taken in ignoring a sense of fair play. Sad endictment of the modern world, morality swapped for whatever you can get away with and justify on small print
Harman said "anyone can vote". Where does fair play come into it?
Most people have a sense of fair play, a moral compass you could call it. A bit like the spirit of cricket I guess. You just proved my point actually, by quoting Harman and using the quote as a defence... Anyone with common sense would know that she meant "anyone who wants the best for labour"
But ...if you think the best for Labour is to end it?
Where were the trials for the thousands of people he led others to kill?
Even the UN Security Council applauded his death, FFS.
The point is, we cannot be sure he was responsible until he is put on trial. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
When someone in multiple videos claims he was responsible, then I think we can be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt - the criminal requirement - that he was responsible. As I say, insanity was the only plea to avoid the death penalty. And whilst you and I might think you would have to be pretty damned certifiable to slam planes into skyscrapers, all the supporting evidence was that he was quite sane and executing a military strategy.
That may be so, it may not be so, but that's to be decided by a Judge, not you or I deciding someone is guilty beyond OUR reasonable doubt. I don't see why I'm having to explain this?
you're having to explain it to try and dig yourself out of a hole of your making - by vesting your hopes in Jeremy Corbyn.
Just drop the guy. He's poison.
I'm not having to dig, there's no hole, and I can't 'drop' Corbyn because I'm not a Labour supporter and wouldn't vote for the party at gunpoint.
That said, I don't like hypocrisy, dishonesty, or double standards, and I will point them out where I find them.
1) presumably the Conservatives are now sure that Jeremy Corbyn has won.
2) we're seeing the Icke-ification of Jeremy Corbyn.
Once Corbyn is elected and proves to be a squalid disaster, Tories will need to show that they did their best for the country, when it was still possible to stop Jihadi Jez. Ergo they need to oppose him NOW, not stay entirely silent and gloaty as Labour shoots its own legs off.
Look at Southam below, he'd love to be able to blame Tories for this malign development. Tories must ensure Labour owns this horrible error. And they will.
The responsibility for Corbyn becoming Labour leader lies with all those who voted for him, whatever their reasons. The vast majority are hard lefties and Palmer-style Useful Idiots, but Tories are voting for him too. That's not thr fault of the Conservative party, but the individuals concerned just have to accept they have been as short-sighted, stupid and as juvenile as any of ther other £3ers, and that Corbyn will not only cause huge damage to Labour, but will also bring a smile to the faces of this country's enemies across the wotld and cause many of our friends to think worse of us - with the possible consequences that may bring in wishing to share intelligence etc.
Agreed. I was going to vote for Corbyn - I even paid my £3. And I've had to endure emails from Andy Burnham ever since.
But I'm not going to vote for him now, not after all this stuff has been unearthed. Corbyn is a douche. A moral narcissist with vile opinions. I don't care if he would demolish Labour, he would also damage Britain.
My apologies glad you had a re think on voting for him. That says a lot about you , that you thought about your country above your preferred party . I am not a Corbyn supporter but he is , so the answer might be here.
"Men’s issues also need to be addressed. A good place to start could be the fact that the biggest killer of men aged 18–50 is suicide, with many men suffering from mental distress but unable to seek help, and often finding it lacking when they do."
You want the assassination of Blair? It's a point of view, I suppose.
It is perfectly legitimate to criticise the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The reasons for criticising it are rather more interesting though. But, personally, I don't think the removal of Saddam Hussein was an act of evil on a par with the attack on the Twin Towers or the bombs in Nairobil office blocks, for instance. The consequences of his removal were - and remain - an appalling mess and much much more thought should have been given beforehand to this before any decision to invade was made, if indeed any invasion should have gone ahead.
I think that to say that the war was unlawful is not quite as clear cut as some like to assume. I am not an expert in international law but what I do know of it suggests that it is rather more nuanced than many would have it. Certainly, the Chief of the General Staff sought a legal opinion from the Attorney-General before giving the decision to send British troops into battle precisely in order to protect his men from any suggestion that what they were doing was either unlawful or that individual soldiers were war criminals.
Whether the war was wise is quite another matter. But that is very different from saying that it was illegal. Something can be legal but unwise.
It is perfectly legitimate to criticise the wisdom of the war. I think Blair did incalculable damage to British politics in the way that he led the country into war. But that does not mean that he is a war criminal according to the rules of war.
Some of the criticism levelled at him from Corbyn on this front is, however, wholly disingenuous and dishonest. Would Corbyn have supported the war, for instance, if there had been a second UN resolution?
Given that Bush and Blair made several unsuccessful attempts to assassinate Saddam Hussein they can hardly complain if others wish the same outcome for them! It could also be argued that Blair was responsible for more deaths than Bin Laden and deserves the same fate. However, that is not my preferred outcome - I would like to see both hauled before the International Court at the Hague. The vast majority of International Lawyers believe the attack on Iraq to have been unlawful. It took me several years to read the entire transcripts of the Nuremburg trial - on the internet - and I am very clear that in respect of the Indictment relating to 'Planning for War', Blair & Bush were more guilty than any of those Nazi leaders convicted - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop , though he lacked final executive authority.
Has Corbyn said nothing new (or old) outrageous since I was last on? No more posing with posters of a mass murderer?
Morris
Borris Johnson & Jez agree they would have prefered a trial for Bin Laden. This could be the next choice for PM BJ or JC. What joy for the British voters.
Osborne never wanted to offer an EU referendum as it would harm the interests of big business. Douglas Carswell claimed today that Osborne loved the EU so much he stated in the 90s that we should join the euro. I cannot see him ever becoming leader. Johnson and May are becoming increasingly vocal about the EU which will play very well with many Tories.
Betting post.
"Douglas Carswell claimed today that Osborne loved the EU so much he stated in the 90s that we should join the euro."
The expectation is that Osborne will be backing Yes for the referendum on the EC. How then does he expect to win the membership election for Leader if a majority of the membership vote No?
Mr. JS, that is a good paragraph. I also found Owen Jones' comments on the Greek crisis interesting. Obviously, we're miles apart politically, and he was far more sceptical than I thought would be the case.
It's always worth remembering the cleverest of chaps gets things wrong, and the silliest of men can offer insight.
There's gentle mockery of Mr. Roger over his Obama dismissal, but great attention is paid when he considers the Oscars.
1) presumably the Conservatives are now sure that Jeremy Corbyn has won.
2) we're seeing the Icke-ification of Jeremy Corbyn.
Once Corbyn is elected and proves to be a squalid disaster, Tories will need to show that they did their best for the country, when it was still possible to stop Jihadi Jez. Ergo they need to oppose him NOW, not stay entirely silent and gloaty as Labour shoots its own legs off.
Look at Southam below, he'd love to be able to blame Tories for this malign development. Tories must ensure Labour owns this horrible error. And they will. Ŷ
The responsibility for Corbyn becoming Labour leader lies with all those who voted for him, whatever their reasons. The vast majority are hard lefties and Palmer-style Useful Idiots, but Tories are voting for him too. That's not thr fault of the Conservative party, but the individuals concerned just have to accept they have been as short-sighted, stupid and as juvenile as any of ther other £3ers, and that Corbyn will not only cause huge damage to Labour, but will also bring a smile to the faces of this country's enemies across the wotld and cause many of our friends to think worse of us - with the possible consequences that may bring in wishing to share intelligence etc.
What I find disappointing about the £3ers is the glee they have taken in ignoring a sense of fair play. Sad endictment of the modern world, morality swapped for whatever you can get away with and justify on small print
Harman said "anyone can vote". Where does fair play come into it?
Most people have a sense of fair play, a moral compass you could call it. A bit like the spirit of cricket I guess. You just proved my point actually, by quoting Harman and using the quote as a defence... Anyone with common sense would know that she meant "anyone who wants the best for labour"
Nonsense. She said "anyone", thereby making it an open primary.
You can't be that stupid
Harriet Harman specifically said "We will allow people who are not party members or who are not affiliated supporters through a trade union or Labour linked organisation like the Fabian society to have a vote. Anyone – providing they are on the electoral register – can become a registered supporter, pay £3 and have a vote to decide our next leader. "
1) presumably the Conservatives are now sure that Jeremy Corbyn has won.
2) we're seeing the Icke-ification of Jeremy Corbyn.
Once Corbyn is elected and proves to be a squalid disaster, Tories will need to show that they did their best for the country, when it was still possible to stop Jihadi Jez. Ergo they need to oppose him NOW, not stay entirely silent and gloaty as Labour shoots its own legs off.
Look at Southam below, he'd love to be able to blame Tories for this malign development. Tories must ensure Labour owns this horrible error. And they will. Ŷ
The responsibility for Corbyn becoming Labour leader lies with all those who voted for him, whatever their reasons. The vast majority are hard lefties and Palmer-style Useful Idiots, but Tories are voting for him too. That's not thr fault of the Conservative party, but the individuals concerned just have to accept they have been as short-sighted, stupid and as juvenile as any of ther other £3ers, and that Corbyn will not only cause huge damage to Labour, but will also bring a smile to the faces of this country's enemies across the wotld and cause many of our friends to think worse of us - with the possible consequences that may bring in wishing to share intelligence etc.
What I find disappointing about the £3ers is the glee they have taken in ignoring a sense of fair play. Sad endictment of the modern world, morality swapped for whatever you can get away with and justify on small print
Harman said "anyone can vote". Where does fair play come into it?
Most people have a sense of fair play, a moral compass you could call it. A bit like the spirit of cricket I guess. You just proved my point actually, by quoting Harman and using the quote as a defence... Anyone with common sense would know that she meant "anyone who wants the best for labour"
But ...if you think the best for Labour is to end it?
As I say, people with a sense of fair play would have known exactly what she meant, there was no need for lawyer esque caution on her part. Most people have it, it's why most people who support other parties didn't join labour to vote for a leader that was bad for them
You may say it repeatedly, it's just that I'm not sure you're correct.
Labour is, and prides itself on being, a mass movement. I think they were more concerned on getting people involved by voting than on who those voters were. After all, there was a back-stop in the fact that candidates had to get 35 MPs to back them, meaning that poor candidates would not be on the ballot.
Ooops.
I though the intention was to get people that might be inclined to vote for Labour at the next GE involved with the choice of its leader... anyone who doesn't fit that bill and is voting for someone that will damage Labour is not acting within the spirit of fair play, and it disappoints me that such people did it and are proud of it.
So what about the open primary for say Sarah Wollaston in Totnes, or Carol Dineage in Gosport, or Kelley Tolhurst at Rochester and Strood ? When the Conservative held those and stood up and told people that it was open to everyone to vote, should they have assumed that Cameron/Pickles really only mean people likely to vote Conservative ?
As I say, people with a sense of fair play would have known exactly what she meant, there was no need for lawyer esque caution on her part. Most people have it, it's why most people who support other parties didn't join labour to vote for a leader that was bad for them
You may say it repeatedly, it's just that I'm not sure you're correct.
Labour is, and prides itself on being, a mass movement. I think they were more concerned on getting people involved by voting than on who those voters were. After all, there was a back-stop in the fact that candidates had to get 35 MPs to back them, meaning that poor candidates would not be on the ballot.
Ooops.
I though the intention was to get people that might be inclined to vote for Labour at the next GE involved with the choice of its leader... anyone who doesn't fit that bill and is voting for someone that will damage Labour is not acting within the spirit of fair play, and it disappoints me that such people did it and are proud of it.
So what about the open primary for say Sarah Wollaston in Totnes, or Carol Dineage in Gosport, or Kelley Tolhurst at Rochester and Strood ? When the Conservative held those and stood up and told people that it was open to everyone to vote, should they have assumed that Cameron/Pickles really only mean people likely to vote Conservative ?
I would have assumed that yes.. I am sure the intention isn't for people that dislike the party to vote for the person they think is going to do the worst job
Where were the trials for the thousands of people he led others to kill?
Even the UN Security Council applauded his death, FFS.
The point is, we cannot be sure he was responsible until he is put on trial. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
Well, they never put Hitler on trial either. Do you doubt that he had responsibility for the actions of Germany 1933 - 45?
Hitler comitted suicide in his bunker. Had he been captured alive, he would have been put on trial, as many Nazis were.
Perhaps one of the PB historians could help me: I thought Stalin had an order out that Hitler should not be captured alive? Or is that faulty memory on my part?
I don't know if Stalin had issued any such order, but there was quite a strong view that was supported by Churchill and the Cabinet that leading Nazis would if captured be identified and then summarily executed. Stalin also advocated shooting some 50,000 German staff officers, a view that Churchill violently disagreed with (at the Tehran Conference).
The trials were agreed upon by the four victorious Powers at Yalta and the subsequent London Charter and the plan for summary executions was dropped. Should Hitler have been captured, he would have appeared at Nuremberg.
There was also an American plan that Germany should after the war be reduced to an agrarian economy and never be allowed to build anything but the simplest of industries. Churchill managed to get that one stopped too. The trauma of world war brought forth some very odd plans by well meaning people who were determined that their successors and descendants should never have to face what they had.
Where the Nuremberg trial 'fair'? Not that I am bothered. Should Speer have been executed? And Hess? What about the atrocities committed by the Red Army?
Huge changes and movements of people went on in Europe and to Germany after WW2. The aim was to settle borders once and for all. The demilitarisation plan for Germany was not too dissimilar to the one after WW1. Eventually it was realised it was not perhaps the best option. But overall I do not think we should underestimate the post war misery of Germany, even allowing for the Marshall Plan. The notion of punishment of Germany seems at odds with the way the US occupied Japan.
Comments
The limitations of SIGINT became painfully obvious when he went off the grid. The idea that UBL was kept on ice for some kind of PR spectacular is risible.
However, as I said before, if you think the failure of the coalition government to democratise the House of Lords was down to the Liberals, then the efforts (or otherwise) of the present Conservative majority government to do so over the next five years will prove either you or me to be right.
Technology makes it harder, which is why the Yanks got at him through a courier.
Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 3h3 hours ago
Boris Johnson, December 2001, The Telegraph: Bin Laden should die, but we must try him first http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3570797/Bin-Laden-should-die-but-we-must-try-him-first.html …
You go in with the primary plan to extract him unharmed and bring him back to the US for trial. However, in the event that the team on the ground believes that there is either a risk he might escape, or live extraction would involve unacceptable risk to US lives then shoot-to-kill is authorised.
Some good charts on the effects of non-EU immigtration.
"I'd also strongly dispute the notion that there was any wideranging, collective national identity before the 1870s and the development of a national education system."
I suppose it depends by what you mean by "wideranging", in any event I am not sure it is supported by any historical evidence. Care to give some?
That says a lot about you , that you thought about your country above your preferred party .
I am not a Corbyn supporter but he is , so the answer might be here.
Owen Jones retweeted
Richard Osman @richardosman 5h5 hours ago
Richard Osman retweeted Daniel Finkelstein
Agree or disagree, this is the best piece I've seen about Corbyn. Richard Osman added,
Daniel Finkelstein @Dannythefink
If the link on the @OwenJones84 piece didn't work try this https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/my-honest-thoughts-on-the-corbyn-campaign-and-overcoming-formidable-obstacles-de81d4449884 …
Has Corbyn said nothing new (or old) outrageous since I was last on? No more posing with posters of a mass murderer?
Just drop the guy. He's poison.
Anyone with ambitions to lead the Labour Party would of course be much better advised to say nothing on the subject. Whatever they said would be misinterpreted by the excitable as Mt T has just demonstrated. I quite like the idea that no such calculation has entered JC's head. It might wreck his and his party's chances - but who knows. He has shaken off a whole load of criticism that I would have expected to sink him already.
Borris Johnson & Jez agree they would have prefered a trial for Bin Laden.
This could be the next choice for PM BJ or JC.
What joy for the British voters.
The trials were agreed upon by the four victorious Powers at Yalta and the subsequent London Charter and the plan for summary executions was dropped. Should Hitler have been captured, he would have appeared at Nuremberg.
As we saw with the official report into 9/11, the more facts that are given, the more they insiduously worm their way into every word and detail.
If there had been a trial, then the trial would have been a fix, it would not have been OBL on the stage but an actor, the evidence against him would all be faked, etc, etc.
Concern about feeding the fetid imaginations of conspiracy theorists is no reason to do anything - then can feed themselves well enough.
I bet Osborne wishes now Cameron had not agreed to one.
I think for the first time if that was the choice , I would spoil my ballot.
In fact, I'm not sure she'd thought it through that far. Cameron and the Conservatives had tried open primaries, and I think Labour were somewhat going for that sort of thing, without thinking through the potential problems such as how it might be gamed, both by their own MPs and people who opposed them.
Most people admire boxers and golfers who try to beat their opponent playing by the rules and in the spirit of them.
It should be the same for democracy.
It certainly is not correct when UKIP get millions of votes and 1 MP.
Many German war criminals were extradited to countries in which their crimes took place and were executed there, sometimes after pretty sketchy trials.Equally, some of the worst war criminals managed to escape execution in both the Western and Russian zones of occupation.
Pay £3 and sign up to vote. How stupid do you have to be?
Look at what he says in London.
Corbyn tries to come to Cambridge, 2000 people want to meet him to hear him speak, the venue has to be repeatedly changed.
Cooper comes to Cambridge, barely 30 people want to hear her speak. A cloakroom is ample space.
The problem is not Corbyn, nor the electoral system, not the Useful Idiots that Southam repeatedly berates.
The problem is Corbyn’s opponents. There are clever and able people on the centre and centre-left in Labour (Jarvis, Cruddas, Johnson, Starmer). They chose not to stand.
If you choose not to stand -- for whatever reason -- then you have to accept that someone less able (Cooper, Burnham, Kendall) will stand in your place.
If Cooper & Co can barely raise interest in 30 people in a place like Cambridge, then she is a piss-poor candidate. She deserves to lose.
It is perfectly legitimate to criticise the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The reasons for criticising it are rather more interesting though. But, personally, I don't think the removal of Saddam Hussein was an act of evil on a par with the attack on the Twin Towers or the bombs in Nairobil office blocks, for instance. The consequences of his removal were - and remain - an appalling mess and much much more thought should have been given beforehand to this before any decision to invade was made, if indeed any invasion should have gone ahead.
I think that to say that the war was unlawful is not quite as clear cut as some like to assume. I am not an expert in international law but what I do know of it suggests that it is rather more nuanced than many would have it. Certainly, the Chief of the General Staff sought a legal opinion from the Attorney-General before giving the decision to send British troops into battle precisely in order to protect his men from any suggestion that what they were doing was either unlawful or that individual soldiers were war criminals.
Whether the war was wise is quite another matter. But that is very different from saying that it was illegal. Something can be legal but unwise.
It is perfectly legitimate to criticise the wisdom of the war. I think Blair did incalculable damage to British politics in the way that he led the country into war. But that does not mean that he is a war criminal according to the rules of war.
Some of the criticism levelled at him from Corbyn on this front is, however, wholly disingenuous and dishonest. Would Corbyn have supported the war, for instance, if there had been a second UN resolution?
Huh
??
His words are exactly what his entryist voters want to hear. They are what is keeping him afloat.
Early today we had Handwriting.com, we seem to have moved on to LegalisticQuibbling.com. The troops that went to get OBL and ended up killing him were ordered to do so by a chain of command that must have stretched all the way to the top of the Whitehouse, and would have been authorised by a special panel of the National Security Council, in the US that is legal, it might not be in the UK, but they were not British people, and at no point was the operation conducted on British territory.
Its pointless arguing about how something another country did wouldn't be legal in this country. Lots of things unlawful in the UK are lawful elsewhere and lots of things unlawful elsewhere are lawful in the UK, I fail to be shocked.
Labour is, and prides itself on being, a mass movement. I think they were more concerned on getting people involved by voting than on who those voters were. After all, there was a back-stop in the fact that candidates had to get 35 MPs to back them, meaning that poor candidates would not be on the ballot.
Ooops.
Douglas Carswell claimed today that Osborne loved the EU so much he stated in the 90s that we should join the euro.
I cannot see him ever becoming leader.
Johnson and May are becoming increasingly vocal about the EU which will play very well with many Tories.
Neither the US (not the British) have any real understanding of the trauma of occupation, even if the occupiers are doing something good for you. The reactions of those who are being helped are not simple gratitude but are much more mixed. The experience of much of Europe at the end of WW2 should have taught us that. The US thought that it could do this as a quick short surgical strike and all would be well afterwards. They were tragically wrong. So were the British who think that our previous involvement gives us some special insight into the region when, in fact, all it means is that we are utterly distrusted by everyone there.
This is exactly what would have happened in this race if it was a Cooper/Burnham/Kendall competition as originally envisaged. The PLP could have lived with any of those, and certainly either the two plausible winners, its only when some idiot let Corbyn into the competition that holding an open primary became a problem, hence all the back pedalling since.
" Farron condemns Corbyn"
"But the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron, said Corbyn was “utterly wrong”. “Bin Laden’s death was not a tragedy. The tragedy was the 2,977 who died during that awful day. We remember them,” he said."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/31/jeremy-corbyn-said-osama-bin-laden-should-have-been-tried-not-killed?CMP=twt_a-politics_b-gdnukpolitics
Isn't it a pity politicians like Farron (and obviously Corbyn) can't resist making cheap populist comments that sound like they're auditioning for late night slots on Radio 5?
That said, I don't like hypocrisy, dishonesty, or double standards, and I will point them out where I find them.
"Men’s issues also need to be addressed. A good place to start could be the fact that the biggest killer of men aged 18–50 is suicide, with many men suffering from mental distress but unable to seek help, and often finding it lacking when they do."
The vast majority of International Lawyers believe the attack on Iraq to have been unlawful. It took me several years to read the entire transcripts of the Nuremburg trial - on the internet - and I am very clear that in respect of the Indictment relating to 'Planning for War', Blair & Bush were more guilty than any of those Nazi leaders convicted - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop , though he lacked final executive authority.
"Douglas Carswell claimed today that Osborne loved the EU so much he stated in the 90s that we should join the euro."
The expectation is that Osborne will be backing Yes for the referendum on the EC. How then does he expect to win the membership election for Leader if a majority of the membership vote No?
It's always worth remembering the cleverest of chaps gets things wrong, and the silliest of men can offer insight.
There's gentle mockery of Mr. Roger over his Obama dismissal, but great attention is paid when he considers the Oscars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPh-cCAVGTA
https://www.facebook.com/labourparty/posts/10152803860307411
Quite unequivocally ANYONE can vote. Period. No qualifications at all.
What about the atrocities committed by the Red Army?
Huge changes and movements of people went on in Europe and to Germany after WW2. The aim was to settle borders once and for all.
The demilitarisation plan for Germany was not too dissimilar to the one after WW1. Eventually it was realised it was not perhaps the best option. But overall I do not think we should underestimate the post war misery of Germany, even allowing for the Marshall Plan.
The notion of punishment of Germany seems at odds with the way the US occupied Japan.
If the UK votes Out, big business will just have to suck it up.