This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
If people need their thoughts about fictitious characters in the sky protected (who despite being fictitious have caused hundreds of millions of real deaths), then I have no problem with a belief about real animals being protected, however much I think his beliefs are a bit loopy.
If I were a plant I'd be thinking "why can't these bloody animals just eat each other and leave us alone? It's pretty unsporting to rip a carrot out of the ground when it's doing no harm to anyone. WILL NO-ONE THINK OF THE TURNIPS?"
MalcolmG will, but only because he uses them as weapons.
Tom Harris conflates Nicola Sturgeon's party management issues, which are real to her but don't need to concern the rest of us, with the pitch she is making to the people of Scotland for independence, in particular the group that are sceptical but might be convinced.
If there is another referendum I expect to vote for the Union. I don't feel we should give up on it just because the English nationalists and especially the present UK government are making such a mess of it. We should take a longer view in my opinion. I also expect independence to win the referendum. I suspect Johnson will very forcefully ignore calls for there to be another referendum, which will itself contribute to a constitutional crisis.
On current polls there could be a Unionist majority at Holyrood 2021
bellend of the year award won already
Scexit won’t be the only issue in 2021 - Scottish health and education are in dire need of some competence. .
Unfortunately it is not immediately obvious who is offering it. The Tory party in Scotland post Ruth needs a serious investment of ideas, energy and talent. The Scottish Labour party is a joke. The Scottish Lib Dems don't even have the positive of being funny. And as for the Greens, words fail me.
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
It's a decision by an Employment Tribunal (so not precedent-setting) and it was uncontested on this point. So it's hardly a landmark decision.
That said, I don't really see what's objectionable about it. Ethical vegans are far more numerous than many small religious sects and have a worked-through set of ethical beliefs. Why shouldn't they have the same protections as Seventh Day Adventists or Baha'is?
I'm amazed no one has tried to make leaver/remainer protected characteristics.
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
If people need their thoughts about fictitious characters in the sky protected (who despite being fictitious have caused hundreds of millions of real deaths), then I have no problem with a belief about real animals being protected, however much I think his beliefs are a bit loopy.
Well isn't that the point, they don't need that protected. If their belief in he sky fairy is so weak that it can't take a few harsh comments then that's on them. The law shouldn't protect opinions or beliefs.
Er, harsh comments? The issue is whether he could be fired for his beliefs, not ridiculed.
Which is bizarre, because he should really have appealed being sacked for whistleblowing.
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
If people need their thoughts about fictitious characters in the sky protected (who despite being fictitious have caused hundreds of millions of real deaths), then I have no problem with a belief about real animals being protected, however much I think his beliefs are a bit loopy.
If I were a plant I'd be thinking "why can't these bloody animals just eat each other and leave us alone? It's pretty unsporting to rip a carrot out of the ground when it's doing no harm to anyone. WILL NO-ONE THINK OF THE TURNIPS?"
What you're describing is fruitarianism. It was referenced in the film Notting Hill (unsympathetically). Gandhi followed such a diet for a while.
Jainist monks can follow such strict diets as part of their aim not to harm any living thing.
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
It's a decision by an Employment Tribunal (so not precedent-setting) and it was uncontested on this point. So it's hardly a landmark decision.
That said, I don't really see what's objectionable about it. Ethical vegans are far more numerous than many small religious sects and have a worked-through set of ethical beliefs. Why shouldn't they have the same protections as Seventh Day Adventists or Baha'is?
I'm amazed no one has tried to make leaver/remainer protected characteristics.
I think Alastair’s response to that is totally predictable. But I agree with him on the ET decision. I would have been astonished if it had gone any other way.
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
It's a decision by an Employment Tribunal (so not precedent-setting) and it was uncontested on this point. So it's hardly a landmark decision.
That said, I don't really see what's objectionable about it. Ethical vegans are far more numerous than many small religious sects and have a worked-through set of ethical beliefs. Why shouldn't they have the same protections as Seventh Day Adventists or Baha'is?
I'm amazed no one has tried to make leaver/remainer protected characteristics.
Neither comes close. To qualify, it must be a philosophical belief that is genuinely held and more than an opinion. It must be cogent, serious and apply to an important aspect of human life or behaviour.
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
If people need their thoughts about fictitious characters in the sky protected (who despite being fictitious have caused hundreds of millions of real deaths), then I have no problem with a belief about real animals being protected, however much I think his beliefs are a bit loopy.
Well isn't that the point, they don't need that protected. If their belief in he sky fairy is so weak that it can't take a few harsh comments then that's on them. The law shouldn't protect opinions or beliefs.
Er, harsh comments? The issue is whether he could be fired for his beliefs, not ridiculed.
Which is bizarre, because he should really have appealed being sacked for whistleblowing.
Except that to be a whistleblower you need to be reporting something wrong. His complaint was that the pension fund was investing in companies carrying on perfectly legal animal testing ( on his version, his employer says that had nothing to do with it).
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
Wait for the actual decision, I think. No ruling on the substance of the claim, which would render the discussion of whether veganism amounts to a belief nugatory.
More to the point, it’s the ET. Once real judges get their hands on a subsequent appeal on this then a touch of realism tends of emerge.
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
If people need their thoughts about fictitious characters in the sky protected (who despite being fictitious have caused hundreds of millions of real deaths), then I have no problem with a belief about real animals being protected, however much I think his beliefs are a bit loopy.
Well isn't that the point, they don't need that protected. If their belief in he sky fairy is so weak that it can't take a few harsh comments then that's on them. The law shouldn't protect opinions or beliefs.
Er, harsh comments? The issue is whether he could be fired for his beliefs, not ridiculed.
Which is bizarre, because he should really have appealed being sacked for whistleblowing.
Except that to be a whistleblower you need to be reporting something wrong. His complaint was that the pension fund was investing in companies carrying on perfectly legal animal testing ( on his version, his employer says that had nothing to do with it).
Right. My understanding was that he had blown the whistle on them investing thusly when they had said they were supportive of the ethical treatment of animals. But I could easily be wrong. I haven’t studied it in depth.
I still think the judges are idiots, but then I think that of many judges. Dear old Jim Hacker.
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
Possible explanations for what has happened:
1) Wotzisface was planning a mass attack on US personnel. 2) Trump wanted to demonstrate his independence from Putin 3) Trump wanted to scare the Iranians 4) Trump wanted to scare the North Koreans. 5) Trump wanted to scare the Iranians AND the North Koreans 6) Somebody in the Depratment [sic] of Defense has bought oil shares 7) Trump, Pompeo or Whojamaflip at Defense are trying to start a war. 8) Trump is totally insane.
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
Possible explanations for what has happened:
1) Wotzisface was planning a mass attack on US personnel. 2) Trump wanted to demonstrate his independence from Putin 3) Trump wanted to scare the Iranians 4) Trump wanted to scare the North Koreans. 5) Trump wanted to scare the Iranians AND the North Koreans 6) Somebody in the Depratment [sic] of Defense has bought oil shares 7) Trump, Pompeo or Whojamaflip at Defense are trying to start a war. 8) Trump is totally insane.
Perhaps I should set up a twitter poll?
1st January the Iranians boasted they were untouchable by the US.........
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
If people need their thoughts about fictitious characters in the sky protected (who despite being fictitious have caused hundreds of millions of real deaths), then I have no problem with a belief about real animals being protected, however much I think his beliefs are a bit loopy.
Well isn't that the point, they don't need that protected. If their belief in he sky fairy is so weak that it can't take a few harsh comments then that's on them. The law shouldn't protect opinions or beliefs.
Er, harsh comments? The issue is whether he could be fired for his beliefs, not ridiculed.
Which is bizarre, because he should really have appealed being sacked for whistleblowing.
Except that to be a whistleblower you need to be reporting something wrong. His complaint was that the pension fund was investing in companies carrying on perfectly legal animal testing ( on his version, his employer says that had nothing to do with it).
Right. My understanding was that he had blown the whistle on them investing thusly when they had said they were supportive of the ethical treatment of animals. But I could easily be wrong. I haven’t studied it in depth.
I still think the judges are idiots, but then I think that of many judges. Dear old Jim Hacker.
But why would they reach a different conclusion on this (my guess is that it won't actually figure in any appeal because the employer did not even argue the point)?
I think that there are 2 points. Firstly, the definition of religious belief in the Equality Act which is deliberately wide and seems to me quite capable of incorporating such a belief system. Secondly, the question of whether that protected characteristic had anything to do with his dismissal. This case looks likely to be determined on this second point.
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
Possible explanations for what has happened:
1) Wotzisface was planning a mass attack on US personnel. 2) Trump wanted to demonstrate his independence from Putin 3) Trump wanted to scare the Iranians 4) Trump wanted to scare the North Koreans. 5) Trump wanted to scare the Iranians AND the North Koreans 6) Somebody in the Depratment [sic] of Defense has bought oil shares 7) Trump, Pompeo or Whojamaflip at Defense are trying to start a war. 8) Trump is totally insane.
Perhaps I should set up a twitter poll?
The message maybe that Trump is saying after he held off twice (Reaper drone shot down, attack on Saudi oil fields) that third time is too much (attack on embassy). The message is we can take down the Iranian leadership any time we want but we will not go after the Iranian people, but please overthrow your leadership.
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
Possible explanations for what has happened:
1) Wotzisface was planning a mass attack on US personnel. 2) Trump wanted to demonstrate his independence from Putin 3) Trump wanted to scare the Iranians 4) Trump wanted to scare the North Koreans. 5) Trump wanted to scare the Iranians AND the North Koreans 6) Somebody in the Depratment [sic] of Defense has bought oil shares 7) Trump, Pompeo or Whojamaflip at Defense are trying to start a war. 8) Trump is totally insane.
Perhaps I should set up a twitter poll?
1st January the Iranians boasted they were untouchable by the US.........
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
In this, as in so many things, I am the anti-Corbyn. I instinctively have sympathy for the position of my own country, the US and the west in general. And yet, when any other country assassinates opponents in the way that the US has done since 9/11 and the advent of drone technology, we rightly call them out as a terrorist state. Who gave the Americans the right to decide who lives and who dies?
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
Possible explanations for what has happened:
1) Wotzisface was planning a mass attack on US personnel. 2) Trump wanted to demonstrate his independence from Putin 3) Trump wanted to scare the Iranians 4) Trump wanted to scare the North Koreans. 5) Trump wanted to scare the Iranians AND the North Koreans 6) Somebody in the Depratment [sic] of Defense has bought oil shares 7) Trump, Pompeo or Whojamaflip at Defense are trying to start a war. 8) Trump is totally insane.
Perhaps I should set up a twitter poll?
The message maybe that Trump is saying after he held off twice (Reaper drone shot down, attack on Saudi oil fields) that third time is too much (attack on embassy). The message is we can take down the Iranian leadership any time we want but we will not go after the Iranian people, but please overthrow your leadership.
Yes, worth remembering that Trump called off an attack on Iran at the last moment in June, reportedly.
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
At the end of the day the USA has unparalleled ability to carry out assassinations around the world without risking HumInt resources due to it's drone ability.
The calculus has always been that the USA would not go rouge with that ability an start doing it indiscriminately, without thought to regional balance. With Trump holding the trigger the view might be that that calculus is out of date.
I have recently started to add a rasher of vegan bacon to my morning omelette, and very nice it is too
Your morning omelette? That is a nice civilized image, I have to say. This country would be a great deal improved if everybody started the day in that vein.
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
In this, as in so many things, I am the anti-Corbyn. I instinctively have sympathy for the position of my own country, the US and the west in general. And yet, when any other country assassinates opponents in the way that the US has done since 9/11 and the advent of drone technology, we rightly call them out as a terrorist state. Who gave the Americans the right to decide who lives and who dies?
In fairness, most countries carry out attacks like this on people they consider threats. We do. The French do. The Chinese do. Certainly the Israelis do. As for the Russians...
What sets this apart is that it’s bloody unusual to assassinate a senior politician from another country that you are not at war with. It is sort of the equivalent of the Iranians blowing up Dominic Cummings or Jared Kushner. Now, let’s face it, many people would see no reason to mourn for either of these two being reduced to a heap of smoking charcoal, but at the same time it would be considered rather aggressive and a bit strange, inviting huge retaliation.
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
At the end of the day the USA has unparalleled ability to carry out assassinations around the world without risking HumInt resources due to it's drone ability.
The calculus has always been that the USA would not go rouge with that ability an start doing it indiscriminately, without thought to regional balance. With Trump holding the trigger the view might be that that calculus is out of date.
They may not have yet gone full rouge, but they have brought some colour to the Iranians' cheeks.....
I just don't believe that this was the first opportunity in three years for Trump to have taken out Soleimani. I weep not a single tear for a butcher, but I keep asking myself why now. I don't think Trump has even considered what happens next. That is the concern.
The easiest way to understand things is that Trump sees a personal benefit in doing it now. That is exactly how he has worked since the day he became President. But up to now it has had domestic or bilateral consequences. Now he has gone global.
If that is right, it makes it far harder for governments, including our own, to come up with a response that goes beyond platitudes about de-escalation.
This pushes Iran deeper into its relationship with Russia, and away from the European olive branches; the increase in the oil price also benefits Putin and the Saudis. I would imagine that has a bearing on the decision.
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
In this, as in so many things, I am the anti-Corbyn. I instinctively have sympathy for the position of my own country, the US and the west in general. And yet, when any other country assassinates opponents in the way that the US has done since 9/11 and the advent of drone technology, we rightly call them out as a terrorist state. Who gave the Americans the right to decide who lives and who dies?
In fairness, most countries carry out attacks like this on people they consider threats. We do. The French do. The Chinese do. Certainly the Israelis do.
What sets this apart is that it’s bloody unusual to assassinate a senior politician from another country that you are not at war with. It is sort of the equivalent of the Iranians blowing up Dominic Cummings or Jared Kushner. Now, let’s face it, many people would see no reason to mourn for either of these two being reduced to a heap of smoking charcoal, but at the same time it would be considered rather aggressive and a bit strange, inviting huge retaliation.
I think most countries may well go after terrorist organisations that had caused harm to their citizens and were operating somewhere out the reach of law enforcement. But this is, as you say, a very high ranking official of another sovereign country. It's really an extraordinary move.
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
In this, as in so many things, I am the anti-Corbyn. I instinctively have sympathy for the position of my own country, the US and the west in general. And yet, when any other country assassinates opponents in the way that the US has done since 9/11 and the advent of drone technology, we rightly call them out as a terrorist state. Who gave the Americans the right to decide who lives and who dies?
In fairness, most countries carry out attacks like this on people they consider threats. We do. The French do. The Chinese do. Certainly the Israelis do.
What sets this apart is that it’s bloody unusual to assassinate a senior politician from another country that you are not at war with. It is sort of the equivalent of the Iranians blowing up Dominic Cummings or Jared Kushner. Now, let’s face it, many people would see no reason to mourn for either of these two being reduced to a heap of smoking charcoal, but at the same time it would be considered rather aggressive and a bit strange, inviting huge retaliation.
I think most countries may well go after terrorist organisations that had caused harm to their citizens and were operating somewhere out the reach of law enforcement. But this is, as you say, a very high ranking official of another sovereign country. It's really an extraordinary move.
Do we know where they launched the strike from? If it was from within Iraq the Iraqis are going to go spare. And if it wasn’t they’ve broken half a dozen laws on the fly (literally).
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
Possible explanations for what has happened:
1) Wotzisface was planning a mass attack on US personnel. 2) Trump wanted to demonstrate his independence from Putin 3) Trump wanted to scare the Iranians 4) Trump wanted to scare the North Koreans. 5) Trump wanted to scare the Iranians AND the North Koreans 6) Somebody in the Depratment [sic] of Defense has bought oil shares 7) Trump, Pompeo or Whojamaflip at Defense are trying to start a war. 8) Trump is totally insane.
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
In this, as in so many things, I am the anti-Corbyn. I instinctively have sympathy for the position of my own country, the US and the west in general. And yet, when any other country assassinates opponents in the way that the US has done since 9/11 and the advent of drone technology, we rightly call them out as a terrorist state. Who gave the Americans the right to decide who lives and who dies?
In fairness, most countries carry out attacks like this on people they consider threats. We do. The French do. The Chinese do. Certainly the Israelis do.
What sets this apart is that it’s bloody unusual to assassinate a senior politician from another country that you are not at war with. It is sort of the equivalent of the Iranians blowing up Dominic Cummings or Jared Kushner. Now, let’s face it, many people would see no reason to mourn for either of these two being reduced to a heap of smoking charcoal, but at the same time it would be considered rather aggressive and a bit strange, inviting huge retaliation.
I think most countries may well go after terrorist organisations that had caused harm to their citizens and were operating somewhere out the reach of law enforcement. But this is, as you say, a very high ranking official of another sovereign country. It's really an extraordinary move.
He was Head of the QUDS force, which is responsible for foreign actions by Iran i.e IED's in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc that have killed and maimed US and British troops. He may well have been a legitimate military target.
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
In this, as in so many things, I am the anti-Corbyn. I instinctively have sympathy for the position of my own country, the US and the west in general. And yet, when any other country assassinates opponents in the way that the US has done since 9/11 and the advent of drone technology, we rightly call them out as a terrorist state. Who gave the Americans the right to decide who lives and who dies?
In fairness, most countries carry out attacks like this on people they consider threats. We do. The French do. The Chinese do. Certainly the Israelis do.
What sets this apart is that it’s bloody unusual to assassinate a senior politician from another country that you are not at war with. It is sort of the equivalent of the Iranians blowing up Dominic Cummings or Jared Kushner. Now, let’s face it, many people would see no reason to mourn for either of these two being reduced to a heap of smoking charcoal, but at the same time it would be considered rather aggressive and a bit strange, inviting huge retaliation.
I think most countries may well go after terrorist organisations that had caused harm to their citizens and were operating somewhere out the reach of law enforcement. But this is, as you say, a very high ranking official of another sovereign country. It's really an extraordinary move.
It certainly sets a huge precedent. I guess a lot of Middle East folk might be thinking if the benchmark of acceptability for extrajudicial killing is high ranking individuals who are responsible for killing a lot of us and who may kill a lot of us in the future, gimme some of that sauce.
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
In this, as in so many things, I am the anti-Corbyn. I instinctively have sympathy for the position of my own country, the US and the west in general. And yet, when any other country assassinates opponents in the way that the US has done since 9/11 and the advent of drone technology, we rightly call them out as a terrorist state. Who gave the Americans the right to decide who lives and who dies?
In fairness, most countries carry out attacks like this on people they consider threats. We do. The French do. The Chinese do. Certainly the Israelis do.
What sets this apart is that it’s bloody unusual to assassinate a senior politician from another country that you are not at war with. It is sort of the equivalent of the Iranians blowing up Dominic Cummings or Jared Kushner. Now, let’s face it, many people would see no reason to mourn for either of these two being reduced to a heap of smoking charcoal, but at the same time it would be considered rather aggressive and a bit strange, inviting huge retaliation.
I think most countries may well go after terrorist organisations that had caused harm to their citizens and were operating somewhere out the reach of law enforcement. But this is, as you say, a very high ranking official of another sovereign country. It's really an extraordinary move.
Do we know where they launched the strike from? If it was from within Iraq the Iraqis are going to go spare. And if it wasn’t they’ve broken half a dozen laws on the fly (literally).
I don't, but as you say wherever it was launched from the Iraqis are going to be very, very unhappy.
I just don't believe that this was the first opportunity in three years for Trump to have taken out Soleimani. I weep not a single tear for a butcher, but I keep asking myself why now. I don't think Trump has even considered what happens next. That is the concern.
The easiest way to understand things is that Trump sees a personal benefit in doing it now. That is exactly how he has worked since the day he became President. But up to now it has had domestic or bilateral consequences. Now he has gone global.
If that is right, it makes it far harder for governments, including our own, to come up with a response that goes beyond platitudes about de-escalation.
This pushes Iran deeper into its relationship with Russia, and away from the European olive branches; the increase in the oil price also benefits Putin and the Saudis. I would imagine that has a bearing on the decision.
Not to mention the more marginal fracking producers in the US.
Neither comes close. To qualify, it must be a philosophical belief that is genuinely held and more than an opinion. It must be cogent, serious and apply to an important aspect of human life or behaviour.
I wonder if existentialism would qualify. I think it would. And if I think that, it would.
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
In this, as in so many things, I am the anti-Corbyn. I instinctively have sympathy for the position of my own country, the US and the west in general. And yet, when any other country assassinates opponents in the way that the US has done since 9/11 and the advent of drone technology, we rightly call them out as a terrorist state. Who gave the Americans the right to decide who lives and who dies?
In fairness, most countries carry out attacks like this on people they consider threats. We do. The French do. The Chinese do. Certainly the Israelis do.
What sets this apart is that it’s bloody unusual to assassinate a senior politician from another country that you are not at war with. It is sort of the equivalent of the Iranians blowing up Dominic Cummings or Jared Kushner. Now, let’s face it, many people would see no reason to mourn for either of these two being reduced to a heap of smoking charcoal, but at the same time it would be considered rather aggressive and a bit strange, inviting huge retaliation.
I think most countries may well go after terrorist organisations that had caused harm to their citizens and were operating somewhere out the reach of law enforcement. But this is, as you say, a very high ranking official of another sovereign country. It's really an extraordinary move.
It certainly sets a huge precedent. I guess a lot of Middle East folk might be thinking if the benchmark of acceptability for extrajudicial killing is high ranking individuals who are responsible for killing a lot of us and who may kill a lot of us in the future, gimme some of that sauce.
Yes. You wonder whether the Americans are altogether wise to green light such thinking...
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
In this, as in so many things, I am the anti-Corbyn. I instinctively have sympathy for the position of my own country, the US and the west in general. And yet, when any other country assassinates opponents in the way that the US has done since 9/11 and the advent of drone technology, we rightly call them out as a terrorist state. Who gave the Americans the right to decide who lives and who dies?
In fairness, most countries carry out attacks like this on people they consider threats. We do. The French do. The Chinese do. Certainly the Israelis do.
What sets this apart is that it’s bloody unusual to assassinate a senior politician from another country that you are not at war with. It is sort of the equivalent of the Iranians blowing up Dominic Cummings or Jared Kushner. Now, let’s face it, many people would see no reason to mourn for either of these two being reduced to a heap of smoking charcoal, but at the same time it would be considered rather aggressive and a bit strange, inviting huge retaliation.
I think most countries may well go after terrorist organisations that had caused harm to their citizens and were operating somewhere out the reach of law enforcement. But this is, as you say, a very high ranking official of another sovereign country. It's really an extraordinary move.
It certainly sets a huge precedent. I guess a lot of Middle East folk might be thinking if the benchmark of acceptability for extrajudicial killing is high ranking individuals who are responsible for killing a lot of us and who may kill a lot of us in the future, gimme some of that sauce.
Blair's going to need his security detail beefed up.
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
In this, as in so many things, I am the anti-Corbyn. I instinctively have sympathy for the position of my own country, the US and the west in general. And yet, when any other country assassinates opponents in the way that the US has done since 9/11 and the advent of drone technology, we rightly call them out as a terrorist state. Who gave the Americans the right to decide who lives and who dies?
In fairness, most countries carry out attacks like this on people they consider threats. We do. The French do. The Chinese do. Certainly the Israelis do.
What sets this apart is that it’s bloody unusual to assassinate a senior politician from another country that you are not at war with. It is sort of the equivalent of the Iranians blowing up Dominic Cummings or Jared Kushner. Now, let’s face it, many people would see no reason to mourn for either of these two being reduced to a heap of smoking charcoal, but at the same time it would be considered rather aggressive and a bit strange, inviting huge retaliation.
I think most countries may well go after terrorist organisations that had caused harm to their citizens and were operating somewhere out the reach of law enforcement. But this is, as you say, a very high ranking official of another sovereign country. It's really an extraordinary move.
He was Head of the QUDS force, which is responsible for foreign actions by Iran i.e IED's in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc that have killed and maimed US and British troops. He may well have been a legitimate military target.
He would have been a legitimate military target in a time of war between the US and Iran. We are not (yet) in that position. He seems to have been an evil shit and I have no sympathy but are we really going to be surprised when a western politician is specifically targeted for the next retaliatory act?
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
In this, as in so many things, I am the anti-Corbyn. I instinctively have sympathy for the position of my own country, the US and the west in general. And yet, when any other country assassinates opponents in the way that the US has done since 9/11 and the advent of drone technology, we rightly call them out as a terrorist state. Who gave the Americans the right to decide who lives and who dies?
In fairness, most countries carry out attacks like this on people they consider threats. We do. The French do. The Chinese do. Certainly the Israelis do.
What sets this apart is that it’s bloody unusual to assassinate a senior politician from another country that you are not at war with. It is sort of the equivalent of the Iranians blowing up Dominic Cummings or Jared Kushner. Now, let’s face it, many people would see no reason to mourn for either of these two being reduced to a heap of smoking charcoal, but at the same time it would be considered rather aggressive and a bit strange, inviting huge retaliation.
I think most countries may well go after terrorist organisations that had caused harm to their citizens and were operating somewhere out the reach of law enforcement. But this is, as you say, a very high ranking official of another sovereign country. It's really an extraordinary move.
It certainly sets a huge precedent. I guess a lot of Middle East folk might be thinking if the benchmark of acceptability for extrajudicial killing is high ranking individuals who are responsible for killing a lot of us and who may kill a lot of us in the future, gimme some of that sauce.
Blair's going to need his security detail beefed up.
Why? Surely nobody thinks he’s going to be killing anyone in the future? He couldn’t even knife Corbyn properly.
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
In this, as in so many things, I am the anti-Corbyn. I instinctively have sympathy for the position of my own country, the US and the west in general. And yet, when any other country assassinates opponents in the way that the US has done since 9/11 and the advent of drone technology, we rightly call them out as a terrorist state. Who gave the Americans the right to decide who lives and who dies?
In fairness, most countries carry out attacks like this on people they consider threats. We do. The French do. The Chinese do. Certainly the Israelis do.
What sets this apart is that it’s bloody unusual to assassinate a senior politician from another country that you are not at war with. It is sort of the equivalent of the Iranians blowing up Dominic Cummings or Jared Kushner. Now, let’s face it, many people would see no reason to mourn for either of these two being reduced to a heap of smoking charcoal, but at the same time it would be considered rather aggressive and a bit strange, inviting huge retaliation.
I think most countries may well go after terrorist organisations that had caused harm to their citizens and were operating somewhere out the reach of law enforcement. But this is, as you say, a very high ranking official of another sovereign country. It's really an extraordinary move.
He was Head of the QUDS force, which is responsible for foreign actions by Iran i.e IED's in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc that have killed and maimed US and British troops. He may well have been a legitimate military target.
He would have been a legitimate military target in a time of war between the US and Iran. We are not (yet) in that position. He seems to have been an evil shit and I have no sympathy but are we really going to be surprised when a western politician is specifically targeted for the next retaliatory act?
It is interesting to consider that when Trump called off an airstrike in June that was expected to kill 150 Iranians, he was criticised. By some who are now criticising his latest action.
I think most countries may well go after terrorist organisations that had caused harm to their citizens and were operating somewhere out the reach of law enforcement. But this is, as you say, a very high ranking official of another sovereign country. It's really an extraordinary move.
It is. But apparently there had been some "twitter taunting" between the 2 men. Mmm, I know. My feeling is that we will be quite fortunate to get to the end of Trump (whether that's this year or, god forbid, later) without something catastrophic occurring in which he is instrumental.
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
In this, as in so many things, I am the anti-Corbyn. I instinctively have sympathy for the position of my own country, the US and the west in general. And yet, when any other country assassinates opponents in the way that the US has done since 9/11 and the advent of drone technology, we rightly call them out as a terrorist state. Who gave the Americans the right to decide who lives and who dies?
In fairness, most countries carry out attacks like this on people they consider threats. We do. The French do. The Chinese do. Certainly the Israelis do.
What sets this apart is that it’s bloody unusual to assassinate a senior politician from another country that you are not at war with. It is sort of the equivalent of the Iranians blowing up Dominic Cummings or Jared Kushner. Now, let’s face it, many people would see no reason to mourn for either of these two being reduced to a heap of smoking charcoal, but at the same time it would be considered rather aggressive and a bit strange, inviting huge retaliation.
I think most countries may well go after terrorist organisations that had caused harm to their citizens and were operating somewhere out the reach of law enforcement. But this is, as you say, a very high ranking official of another sovereign country. It's really an extraordinary move.
He was Head of the QUDS force, which is responsible for foreign actions by Iran i.e IED's in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc that have killed and maimed US and British troops. He may well have been a legitimate military target.
He would have been a legitimate military target in a time of war between the US and Iran. We are not (yet) in that position. He seems to have been an evil shit and I have no sympathy but are we really going to be surprised when a western politician is specifically targeted for the next retaliatory act?
It is interesting to consider that when Trump called off an airstrike in June that was expected to kill 150 Iranians, he was criticised. By some who are now criticising his latest action.
To a large number of Americans, especially in the media and on Twitter, the answer is always orange man bad, whether he’s taking out terrorists or not taking out terrorists.
Most of what passes for TV news over there is completely unwatchable. Fox is the exception, but only because they have exactly the opposite problem.
England used to have quite a good lower middle order.
Now it seems to be five out, all out.
And the first 5 are still always down for not very much.
2020 is yet again showing Spurs and English cricket level of performances continuing to correlate in a most unwelcome way.
What did you make of the Mourinho appointment? A short sighted mistake, to replace someone who had a bond with the club and fans such as Poch with a mercenary, for mine.
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
:
In fairness, most countries carry out attacks like this on people they consider threats. We do. The French do. The Chinese do. Certainly the Israelis do.
What sets this apart is that it’s bloody unusual to assassinate a senior politician from another country that you are not at war with. It is sort of the equivalent of the Iranians blowing up Dominic Cummings or Jared Kushner. Now, let’s face it, many people would see no reason to mourn for either of these two being reduced to a heap of smoking charcoal, but at the same time it would be considered rather aggressive and a bit strange, inviting huge retaliation.
I think most countries may well go after terrorist organisations that had caused harm to their citizens and were operating somewhere out the reach of law enforcement. But this is, as you say, a very high ranking official of another sovereign country. It's really an extraordinary move.
He was Head of the QUDS force, which is responsible for foreign actions by Iran i.e IED's in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc that have killed and maimed US and British troops. He may well have been a legitimate military target.
He would have been a legitimate military target in a time of war between the US and Iran. We are not (yet) in that position. He seems to have been an evil shit and I have no sympathy but are we really going to be surprised when a western politician is specifically targeted for the next retaliatory act?
It is interesting to consider that when Trump called off an airstrike in June that was expected to kill 150 Iranians, he was criticised. By some who are now criticising his latest action.
To a large number of Americans, especially in the media and on Twitter, the answer is always orange man bad, whether he’s taking out terrorists or not taking out terrorists.
Most of what passes for TV news over there is completely unwatchable. Fox is the exception, but only because they have exactly the opposite problem.
It is a more general point - to the world at large
1) US strikes Iran. 150 people killed, mostly low level. Strike at night when the senior staff are all at home in bed.
England used to have quite a good lower middle order.
Now it seems to be five out, all out.
And the first 5 are still always down for not very much.
2020 is yet again showing Spurs and English cricket level of performances continuing to correlate in a most unwelcome way.
What did you make of the Mourinho appointment? A short sighted mistake, to replace someone who had a bond with the club and fans such as Poch, with a mercenary for mine.
Not much at all. Last throw of the dice before the squad collapses and has to be rebuilt with us soon to be back fighting for Europa League spots and dreaming of a CL place.
But it's been a fun ride whilst it did last.... Levy's barren transfer periods will surely be looked at in our history at as a cataclysmic failure leading to much of what then happened.
It is interesting to consider that when Trump called off an airstrike in June that was expected to kill 150 Iranians, he was criticised. By some who are now criticising his latest action.
The criticism was not for calling it off. It was for doing so capriciously and chaotically at the last minute and then taking immediately to twitter to boast about what a great and merciful being this showed him to be. He was - yet again - using massively important life or death matters as props for his personal glorification. Seeking as always to make everything all about him. It is nauseating.
I’ve always said that there is no problem assessed by the SNP which wouldn’t be solved by independence for Scotland.
If she were clever she should make the case for negotiating terms before a referendum. This would likely lead to some anti Union sentiment, and also get around one of the negatives of a Brexit we voted without knowing what was on offer.
It still doesn’t get around the central flawed logic that union bad, European Union good though.
Last sentence is just the opinion of a diehard unionist , it has ZERO reality and shows how blinkered unionists really are.
I’ve said before on here that I would be happy for Scotland to leave. I just don’t understand how a party of independence wants to leave the ‘shackles’ of one Union only to take up those of another.
It is plain that with 60%+ for remain and 45%+ for independence their must be some crossover.
There is also a logical flaw for those who want to leave the EU but remain in the Union.
the EU is completely different to the uk union, no comparison. they would not be taking all our revenue , deciding what to spend it on and then tell us we are useless.
Yes but that's only one side of the coin and you know it. No fiscal transfer either. No sweetheart subsidies from them Germans.
deficit at below 3% of GDP please.
Making Edinburgh the Athens of the North in more ways than one.
Once we get rid of all the usary from London , 3% will be a dawdle. Also none of these are sacrocant , it is only if you want the Euro that you have to meet certain criteria, UK never met criteria in its puff. Usual doom mongering from unionists , with the usual Scotland is the only country in the world unable to look after itself.
I’ve always said that there is no problem assessed by the SNP which wouldn’t be solved by independence for Scotland.
If she were clever she should make the case for negotiating terms before a referendum. This would likely lead to some anti Union sentiment, and also get around one of the negatives of a Brexit we voted without knowing what was on offer.
It still doesn’t get around the central flawed logic that union bad, European Union good though.
It may be hard for you to get your head round, but there are folk who find it perfectly logical to think EU good, UK bad (or at least not as good).
Well her argument that independence won’t be a mess because she will be negotiating it rather than Westminster seems at the very least fanciful in the extreme.
More money for everything basically. Independence will be the end of the SNP.
you mean like brexit except much much simpler. Any dullard knows independence will be end of SNP, that is their sole purpose.
Just like the ANC in SA, eh Malcolm? (Happy New Year by the way)
Cheers David, not so happy so far, spent it all in hospital, wife has double pneumonia so been pretty rough and I am still struggling as well. Cannot get much worse.
Tom Harris conflates Nicola Sturgeon's party management issues, which are real to her but don't need to concern the rest of us, with the pitch she is making to the people of Scotland for independence, in particular the group that are sceptical but might be convinced.
If there is another referendum I expect to vote for the Union. I don't feel we should give up on it just because the English nationalists and especially the present UK government are making such a mess of it. We should take a longer view in my opinion. I also expect independence to win the referendum. I suspect Johnson will very forcefully ignore calls for there to be another referendum, which will itself contribute to a constitutional crisis.
I’ve always said that there is no problem assessed by the SNP which wouldn’t be solved by independence for Scotland.
If she were clever she should make the case for negotiating terms before a referendum. This would likely lead to some anti Union sentiment, and also get around one of the negatives of a Brexit we voted without knowing what was on offer.
It still doesn’t get around the central flawed logic that union bad, European Union good though.
It may be hard for you to get your head round, but there are folk who find it perfectly logical to think EU good, UK bad (or at least not as good).
Well her argument that independence won’t be a mess because she will be negotiating it rather than Westminster seems at the very least fanciful in the extreme.
More money for everything basically. Independence will be the end of the SNP.
you mean like brexit except much much simpler. Any dullard knows independence will be end of SNP, that is their sole purpose.
Just like the ANC in SA, eh Malcolm? (Happy New Year by the way)
Cheers David, not so happy so far, spent it all in hospital, wife has double pneumonia so been pretty rough and I am still struggling as well. Cannot get much worse.
I’ve always said that there is no problem assessed by the SNP which wouldn’t be solved by independence for Scotland.
If she were clever she should make the case for negotiating terms before a referendum. This would likely lead to some anti Union sentiment, and also get around one of the negatives of a Brexit we voted without knowing what was on offer.
It still doesn’t get around the central flawed logic that union bad, European Union good though.
Last sentence is just the opinion of a diehard unionist , it has ZERO reality and shows how blinkered unionists really are.
I’ve said before on here that I would be happy for Scotland to leave. I just don’t understand how a party of independence wants to leave the ‘shackles’ of one Union only to take up those of another.
It is plain that with 60%+ for remain and 45%+ for independence their must be some crossover.
There is also a logical flaw for those who want to leave the EU but remain in the Union.
the EU is completely different to the uk union, no comparison. they would not be taking all our revenue , deciding what to spend it on and then tell us we are useless.
Yes you can keep your revenue and find out you are useless on your own! I don’t mean that offensively - unless Sturgeon has some magical powers the Scottish government will be ran as effectively as government in England, Wales, the EU and around the world. Some things will be done to varying degrees of competence and there will be some monumental balls ups.
For example the Scottish Parliament building cost in excess of ten times the amount that the Welsh assembly cost. Was this cost down to materials. Well probably a small amount, but the biggest thing was that rather than consulting at the beginning and then delivering the project, the Scottish Parliament consulted users during the project and had large amounts of changes due to that. Does this tell us that welsh politicians are somehow better than Scots. Not in the slightest, it tells us that organisations mess things up regularly.
It was all down to Labour who did not want to use the hold Scottish Parliament.
I’ve always said that there is no problem assessed by the SNP which wouldn’t be solved by independence for Scotland.
If she were clever she should make the case for negotiating terms before a referendum. This would likely lead to some anti Union sentiment, and also get around one of the negatives of a Brexit we voted without knowing what was on offer.
It still doesn’t get around the central flawed logic that union bad, European Union good though.
It may be hard for you to get your head round, but there are folk who find it perfectly logical to think EU good, UK bad (or at least not as good).
Well her argument that independence won’t be a mess because she will be negotiating it rather than Westminster seems at the very least fanciful in the extreme.
More money for everything basically. Independence will be the end of the SNP.
you mean like brexit except much much simpler. Any dullard knows independence will be end of SNP, that is their sole purpose.
Just like the ANC in SA, eh Malcolm? (Happy New Year by the way)
Cheers David, not so happy so far, spent it all in hospital, wife has double pneumonia so been pretty rough and I am still struggling as well. Cannot get much worse.
Sorry to hear it’s still not great. Had been hoping things were improving. Best wishes to you both.
I’ve always said that there is no problem assessed by the SNP which wouldn’t be solved by independence for Scotland.
If she were clever she should make the case for negotiating terms before a referendum. This would likely lead to some anti Union sentiment, and also get around one of the negatives of a Brexit we voted without knowing what was on offer.
It still doesn’t get around the central flawed logic that union bad, European Union good though.
Last sentence is just the opinion of a diehard unionist , it has ZERO reality and shows how blinkered unionists really are.
I’ve said before on here that I would be happy for Scotland to leave. I just don’t understand how a party of independence wants to leave the ‘shackles’ of one Union only to take up those of another.
It is plain that with 60%+ for remain and 45%+ for independence their must be some crossover.
There is also a logical flaw for those who want to leave the EU but remain in the Union.
the EU is completely different to the uk union, no comparison. they would not be taking all our revenue , deciding what to spend it on and then tell us we are useless.
Yes you can keep your revenue and find out you are useless on your own! I don’t mean that offensively - unless Sturgeon has some magical powers the Scottish government will be ran as effectively as government in England, Wales, the EU and around the world. Some things will be done to varying degrees of competence and there will be some monumental balls ups.
For example the Scottish Parliament building cost in excess of ten times the amount that the Welsh assembly cost. Was this cost down to materials. Well probably a small amount, but the biggest thing was that rather than consulting at the beginning and then delivering the project, the Scottish Parliament consulted users during the project and had large amounts of changes due to that. Does this tell us that welsh politicians are somehow better than Scots. Not in the slightest, it tells us that organisations mess things up regularly.
At least it will be Scottish MP's spending the cash and we can get rid of them , currently it is done by English MP's and we have no say whatsoever. How anyone can try to justify the model beats me. We are supposed to just doff our cap and think how wonderful all these English MP's are for spending our money on things they want rather than what we want. Scottish Parliament in total was a fraction of the Cross rail overrun
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
In this, as in so many things, I am the anti-Corbyn. I instinctively have sympathy for the position of my own country, the US and the west in general. And yet, when any other country assassinates opponents in the way that the US has done since 9/11 and the advent of drone technology, we rightly call them out as a terrorist state. Who gave the Americans the right to decide who lives and who dies?
In fairness, most countries carry out attacks like this on people they consider threats. We do. The French do. The Chinese do. Certainly the Israelis do.
What sets this apart is that it’s bloody unusual to assassinate a senior politician from another country that you are not at war with. It is sort of the equivalent of the Iranians blowing up Dominic Cummings or Jared Kushner. Now, let’s face it, many people would see no reason to mourn for either of these two being reduced to a heap of smoking charcoal, but at the same time it would be considered rather aggressive and a bit strange, inviting huge retaliation.
I think most countries may well go after terrorist organisations that had caused harm to their citizens and were operating somewhere out the reach of law enforcement. But this is, as you say, a very high ranking official of another sovereign country. It's really an extraordinary move.
He was Head of the QUDS force, which is responsible for foreign actions by Iran i.e IED's in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc that have killed and maimed US and British troops. He may well have been a legitimate military target.
By that logic, so are Pompeo and Trump himself. Or Vladimir Putin. Or Obama...
There is a reason national leaders generally refrain from assassination geach other. These are not morally comfortable calculations, but most things are better than all out war, most of the time.
I’ve always said that there is no problem assessed by the SNP which wouldn’t be solved by independence for Scotland.
If she were clever she should make the case for negotiating terms before a referendum. This would likely lead to some anti Union sentiment, and also get around one of the negatives of a Brexit we voted without knowing what was on offer.
It still doesn’t get around the central flawed logic that union bad, European Union good though.
It may be hard for you to get your head round, but there are folk who find it perfectly logical to think EU good, UK bad (or at least not as good).
Well her argument that independence won’t be a mess because she will be negotiating it rather than Westminster seems at the very least fanciful in the extreme.
More money for everything basically. Independence will be the end of the SNP.
you mean like brexit except much much simpler. Any dullard knows independence will be end of SNP, that is their sole purpose.
Just like the ANC in SA, eh Malcolm? (Happy New Year by the way)
Cheers David, not so happy so far, spent it all in hospital, wife has double pneumonia so been pretty rough and I am still struggling as well. Cannot get much worse.
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
In this, as in so many things, I am the anti-Corbyn. I instinctively have sympathy for the position of my own country, the US and the west in general. And yet, when any other country assassinates opponents in the way that the US has done since 9/11 and the advent of drone technology, we rightly call them out as a terrorist state. Who gave the Americans the right to decide who lives and who dies?
In fairness, most countries carry out attacks like this on people they consider threats. We do. The French do. The Chinese do. Certainly the Israelis do.
What sets this apart is that it’s bloody unusual to assassinate a senior politician from another country that you are not at war with. It is sort of the equivalent of the Iranians blowing up Dominic Cummings or Jared Kushner. Now, let’s face it, many people would see no reason to mourn for either of these two being reduced to a heap of smoking charcoal, but at the same time it would be considered rather aggressive and a bit strange, inviting huge retaliation.
I think most countries may well go after terrorist organisations that had caused harm to their citizens and were operating somewhere out the reach of law enforcement. But this is, as you say, a very high ranking official of another sovereign country. It's really an extraordinary move.
He was Head of the QUDS force, which is responsible for foreign actions by Iran i.e IED's in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc that have killed and maimed US and British troops. He may well have been a legitimate military target.
By that logic, so are Pompeo and Trump himself.
I wonder if the Iranians are pondering that the best way to have a much improved relationship with the EU might be to find a way to take out Trump.
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
In this, as in so many things, I am the anti-Corbyn. I instinctively have sympathy for the position of my own country, the US and the west in general. And yet, when any other country assassinates opponents in the way that the US has done since 9/11 and the advent of drone technology, we rightly call them out as a terrorist state. Who gave the Americans the right to decide who lives and who dies?
In fairness, most countries carry out attacks like this on people they consider threats. We do. The French do. The Chinese do. Certainly the Israelis do.
What sets this apart is that it’s bloody unusual to assassinate a senior politician from another country that you are not at war with. It is sort of the equivalent of the Iranians blowing up Dominic Cummings or Jared Kushner. Now, let’s face it, many people would see no reason to mourn for either of these two being reduced to a heap of smoking charcoal, but at the same time it would be considered rather aggressive and a bit strange, inviting huge retaliation.
I think most countries may well go after terrorist organisations that had caused harm to their citizens and were operating somewhere out the reach of law enforcement. But this is, as you say, a very high ranking official of another sovereign country. It's really an extraordinary move.
He was Head of the QUDS force, which is responsible for foreign actions by Iran i.e IED's in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc that have killed and maimed US and British troops. He may well have been a legitimate military target.
By that logic, so are Pompeo and Trump himself.
I wonder if the Iranians are pondering that the best way to have a much improved relationship with the EU might be to find a way to take out Trump.
It's a lot more difficult to hit US presidents than it used to be.
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
In this, as in so many things, I am the anti-Corbyn. I instinctively have sympathy for the position of my own country, the US and the west in general. And yet, when any other country assassinates opponents in the way that the US has done since 9/11 and the advent of drone technology, we rightly call them out as a terrorist state. Who gave the Americans the right to decide who lives and who dies?
In fairness, most countries carry out attacks like this on people they consider threats. We do. The French do. The Chinese do. Certainly the Israelis do.
What sets this apart is that it’s bloody unusual to assassinate a senior politician from another country that you are not at war with. It is sort of the equivalent of the Iranians blowing up Dominic Cummings or Jared Kushner. Now, let’s face it, many people would see no reason to mourn for either of these two being reduced to a heap of smoking charcoal, but at the same time it would be considered rather aggressive and a bit strange, inviting huge retaliation.
I think most countries may well go after terrorist organisations that had caused harm to their citizens and were operating somewhere out the reach of law enforcement. But this is, as you say, a very high ranking official of another sovereign country. It's really an extraordinary move.
He was Head of the QUDS force, which is responsible for foreign actions by Iran i.e IED's in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc that have killed and maimed US and British troops. He may well have been a legitimate military target.
By that logic, so are Pompeo and Trump himself.
I wonder if the Iranians are pondering that the best way to have a much improved relationship with the EU might be to find a way to take out Trump.
It's a lot more difficult to hit US presidents than it used to be.
Who was the last US president to have a serious attempt (as in, actually took place rather than being stopped) on his life? Was it Reagan in 1981?
In this, as in so many things, I am the anti-Corbyn. I instinctively have sympathy for the position of my own country, the US and the west in general. And yet, when any other country assassinates opponents in the way that the US has done since 9/11 and the advent of drone technology, we rightly call them out as a terrorist state. Who gave the Americans the right to decide who lives and who dies?
In fairness, most countries carry out attacks like this on people they consider threats. We do. The French do. The Chinese do. Certainly the Israelis do.
What sets this apart is that it’s bloody unusual to assassinate a senior politician from another country that you are not at war with. It is sort of the equivalent of the Iranians blowing up Dominic Cummings or Jared Kushner. Now, let’s face it, many people would see no reason to mourn for either of these two being reduced to a heap of smoking charcoal, but at the same time it would be considered rather aggressive and a bit strange, inviting huge retaliation.
I think most countries may well go after terrorist organisations that had caused harm to their citizens and were operating somewhere out the reach of law enforcement. But this is, as you say, a very high ranking official of another sovereign country. It's really an extraordinary move.
He was Head of the QUDS force, which is responsible for foreign actions by Iran i.e IED's in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc that have killed and maimed US and British troops. He may well have been a legitimate military target.
By that logic, so are Pompeo and Trump himself.
I wonder if the Iranians are pondering that the best way to have a much improved relationship with the EU might be to find a way to take out Trump.
It's a lot more difficult to hit US presidents than it used to be.
Who was the last US president to have a serious attempt (as in, actually took place rather than being stopped) on his life? Was it Reagan in 1981?
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
In this, as in so many things, I am the anti-Corbyn. I instinctively have sympathy for the position of my own country, the US and the west in general. And yet, when any other country assassinates opponents in the way that the US has done since 9/11 and the advent of drone technology, we rightly call them out as a terrorist state. Who gave the Americans the right to decide who lives and who dies?
In fairness, most countries carry out attacks like this on people they consider threats. We do. The French do. The Chinese do. Certainly the Israelis do.
What sets this apart is that it’s bloody unusual to assassinate a senior politician from another country that you are not at war with. It is sort of the equivalent of the Iranians blowing up Dominic Cummings or Jared Kushner. Now, let’s face it, many people would see no reason to mourn for either of these two being reduced to a heap of smoking charcoal, but at the same time it would be considered rather aggressive and a bit strange, inviting huge retaliation.
I think most countries may well go after terrorist organisations that had caused harm to their citizens and were operating somewhere out the reach of law enforcement. But this is, as you say, a very high ranking official of another sovereign country. It's really an extraordinary move.
He was Head of the QUDS force, which is responsible for foreign actions by Iran i.e IED's in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc that have killed and maimed US and British troops. He may well have been a legitimate military target.
By that logic, so are Pompeo and Trump himself.
I wonder if the Iranians are pondering that the best way to have a much improved relationship with the EU might be to find a way to take out Trump.
It's a lot more difficult to hit US presidents than it used to be.
Who was the last US president to have a serious attempt (as in, actually took place rather than being stopped) on his life? Was it Reagan in 1981?
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
In this, as in so many things, I am the anti-Corbyn. I instinctively have sympathy for the position of my own country, the US and the west in general. And yet, when any other country assassinates opponents in the way that the US has done since 9/11 and the advent of drone technology, we rightly call them out as a terrorist state. Who gave the Americans the right to decide who lives and who dies?
In fairness, most countries carry out attacks like this on people they consider threats. We do. The French do. The Chinese do. Certainly the Israelis do.
What sets this apart is that it’s bloody unusual to assassinate a senior politician from another country that you are not at war with. It is sort of the equivalent of the Iranians blowing up Dominic Cummings or Jared Kushner. Now, let’s face it, many people would see no reason to mourn for either of these two being reduced to a heap of smoking charcoal, but at the same time it would be considered rather aggressive and a bit strange, inviting huge retaliation.
I think most countries may well go after terrorist organisations that had caused harm to their citizens and were operating somewhere out the reach of law enforcement. But this is, as you say, a very high ranking official of another sovereign country. It's really an extraordinary move.
He was Head of the QUDS force, which is responsible for foreign actions by Iran i.e IED's in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc that have killed and maimed US and British troops. He may well have been a legitimate military target.
By that logic, so are Pompeo and Trump himself.
I wonder if the Iranians are pondering that the best way to have a much improved relationship with the EU might be to find a way to take out Trump.
It's a lot more difficult to hit US presidents than it used to be.
I’ve always said that there is no problem assessed by the SNP which wouldn’t be solved by independence for Scotland.
If she were clever she should make the case for negotiating terms before a referendum. This would likely lead to some anti Union sentiment, and also get around one of the negatives of a Brexit we voted without knowing what was on offer.
It still doesn’t get around the central flawed logic that union bad, European Union good though.
It may be hard for you to get your head round, but there are folk who find it perfectly logical to think EU good, UK bad (or at least not as good).
Well her argument that independence won’t be a mess because she will be negotiating it rather than Westminster seems at the very least fanciful in the extreme.
More money for everything basically. Independence will be the end of the SNP.
you mean like brexit except much much simpler. Any dullard knows independence will be end of SNP, that is their sole purpose.
Just like the ANC in SA, eh Malcolm? (Happy New Year by the way)
Cheers David, not so happy so far, spent it all in hospital, wife has double pneumonia so been pretty rough and I am still struggling as well. Cannot get much worse.
I have seen the Scottish Parliament. Somebody, somewhere, is missing a B&Q. It's made even worse by th fact it's in Edinburgh, which is stuffed to the gunnels with nice buildings. How the hell Cardiff, which is a slightly worse version of Bristol, ended up with a nicer Parliament is beyond me.
I have seen the Scottish Parliament. Somebody, somewhere, is missing a B&Q. It's made even worse by th fact it's in Edinburgh, which is stuffed to the gunnels with nice buildings. How the hell Cardiff, which is a slightly worse version of Bristol, ended up with a nicer Parliament is beyond me.
That is Labour for you, whoever selected that design should have been shot
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEQcvFBEwMM
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
Jainist monks can follow such strict diets as part of their aim not to harm any living thing.
I still think the judges are idiots, but then I think that of many judges. Dear old Jim Hacker.
1) Wotzisface was planning a mass attack on US personnel.
2) Trump wanted to demonstrate his independence from Putin
3) Trump wanted to scare the Iranians
4) Trump wanted to scare the North Koreans.
5) Trump wanted to scare the Iranians AND the North Koreans
6) Somebody in the Depratment [sic] of Defense has bought oil shares
7) Trump, Pompeo or Whojamaflip at Defense are trying to start a war.
8) Trump is totally insane.
Perhaps I should set up a twitter poll?
I think that there are 2 points. Firstly, the definition of religious belief in the Equality Act which is deliberately wide and seems to me quite capable of incorporating such a belief system. Secondly, the question of whether that protected characteristic had anything to do with his dismissal. This case looks likely to be determined on this second point.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/21/us/politics/trump-iran-decision.html
That would have had quite a bit of collateral damage....
The calculus has always been that the USA would not go rouge with that ability an start doing it indiscriminately, without thought to regional balance. With Trump holding the trigger the view might be that that calculus is out of date.
What sets this apart is that it’s bloody unusual to assassinate a senior politician from another country that you are not at war with. It is sort of the equivalent of the Iranians blowing up Dominic Cummings or Jared Kushner. Now, let’s face it, many people would see no reason to mourn for either of these two being reduced to a heap of smoking charcoal, but at the same time it would be considered rather aggressive and a bit strange, inviting huge retaliation.
I guess a lot of Middle East folk might be thinking if the benchmark of acceptability for extrajudicial killing is high ranking individuals who are responsible for killing a lot of us and who may kill a lot of us in the future, gimme some of that sauce.
Now it seems to be five out, all out.
If Bernie comes out full force opposing Trump's actions and opposing any war with Iran, whilst Biden has a weak response.
"I'm just as sorry as you, Dimitri."
2020 is yet again showing Spurs and English cricket level of performances continuing to correlate in a most unwelcome way.
Most of what passes for TV news over there is completely unwatchable. Fox is the exception, but only because they have exactly the opposite problem.
1) US strikes Iran. 150 people killed, mostly low level. Strike at night when the senior staff are all at home in bed.
or
2) US hits guy in charge. Universal condemnation.
makes me think of https://westwing.fandom.com/wiki/A_Proportional_Response
But it's been a fun ride whilst it did last.... Levy's barren transfer periods will surely be looked at in our history at as a cataclysmic failure leading to much of what then happened.
Usual doom mongering from unionists , with the usual Scotland is the only country in the world unable to look after itself.
We are supposed to just doff our cap and think how wonderful all these English MP's are for spending our money on things they want rather than what we want.
Scottish Parliament in total was a fraction of the Cross rail overrun
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/15756/scorecard/63863/south-africa-vs-england-4th-test-england-tour-of-south-africa-1999-00
People of a nervous disposition should not look at the result after Kallis and Cullinan had got going...
Edit - and no, three more runs do not make a major difference!
Or Vladimir Putin. Or Obama...
There is a reason national leaders generally refrain from assassination geach other. These are not morally comfortable calculations, but most things are better than all out war, most of the time.
Next up protection for ethical Jedi's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots#George_W._Bush
Btw, Are you a real Morris Dancer?
No, I'm afraid my wiffle stick is purely fictional.
Best wishes to you both
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/us/politics/q4-democratic-trump-fundraising.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage