Reform 2025 Limited new name same business

There's posters actually trying to fuckin convince themselves that Starmer never gave the green light for The Israelis to turn the taps off for the desperate Palestinians in that interview. Trying to somehow say "Yeh but he added International Law at the end of his sentence"

He didn't have the bollocks to just say "No they must let water in"

 
I'm sure faridge will be really upset by the outrage this has caused and didn't intend it at all......
FFS, you absolute mugs. This is his game
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
I'm sure faridge will be really upset by the outrage this has caused and didn't intend it at all......
FFS, you absolute mugs. This is his game
Click to expand...
It is, but it’ll spilt his gammon vote. I’m probably not his target audience and him siding with Putin doesn’t surprise me in the slightest and hasn’t “triggered” me.

He didn’t need to say it. For all it gives him oxygen, it won’t please a fair chunk of people thinking of voting Reform.
 
west didsblue said:
Tate, Putin, Trump. Is there any **** that the frog faced fascist doesn’t have a good word for?
Click to expand...
The common factor (besides them being twats) is they are all polarising figures. Like faridge they thrive off polarising debate into two baying mobs that drown out any actual debate or discussion. This is the climate where extremism thrives and it worries me that it has over the last decade or so become the default in our politics
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
The way that interview has been completely mythologised and twisted is infuriating to me and I don’t even like Starmer.

Starmer says about 10 times in 30 seconds “Israel has the right to defend itself… Israel has that right… Israel has that right…” clearly he is talking about Israel’s right to defend itself. That point is abundantly clear.

Ferrari interrupts and talks about stopping water and Starmer continues “Israel has that right [stuck in a loop of repeating the same thing he’s already said repeatedly]. Obviously everything should be done within international law.”

How has the bit in bold been totally erased from history? How has this turned into Starmer advocating the deaths of children? Is starving children within the bounds of international law? No? Then that is quite obviously not what he’s suggesting. Is stopping water as a form of collective punishment within the bounds of international law? No? Then he clearly he was not suggesting that either. It’s not a matter for ambiguity.

There have been people complaining for years about the Tories taking things out of context and weaponising them against the likes of Corbyn, and now they’re quite happily doing it themselves without a second thought. Suggesting somebody believes war crimes are okay when they have actually quite clearly said the exact opposite. Unless somebody can come here and explain how war crimes can be committed within international law.
Click to expand...

It wasn't clear though was it. He didn't answer the question directly. He could have just answered about the specific things Ferrari cited and said they are not allowed.

Why was he stuck in the loop? Because he was avoiding giving a direct answer.

Emily Thornberry then went further and said Israel has an absolute right.
 
Last edited:
For the sake of clarity, we should change the thread title from ‘Reform’ to the ‘Russian Fascist Party’ :)
 
BobKowalski said:
For the sake of clarity, we should change the thread title from ‘Reform’ to the ‘Russian Fascist Party’ :)
Click to expand...

That name is already taken.

main-qimg-dcf51cc85cd92f149b58b8ea4300c2ac-lq
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
It wasn't clear though was it. He didn't answer the question directly. He could have just answered about the specific things Ferrari cited and said they are not allowed.

Why was he stuck in the loop? Because he was avoiding giving a direct answer.

Emily Thornberry then went further and said Israel has an absolute right.
Click to expand...

Of course, I totally agree his answer was shoddy, and that dithering and indecision is part of the reason I really can’t take to him as an individual. It was a clumsy and terrible interview and Labour’s positioning on the whole issue was worthy of criticism.

I’m just highlighting there’s a difference between Starmer trying to be evasive to avoid upsetting people for political reasons, and him having some earnest belief that committing war crimes is a morally acceptable thing to do. He clarified that actions should be confined by international law. That’s good enough for me to know he acknowledges there is a line, even if his messaging on where that line can be found was inadequate.

The Tories and Reform don’t even know international law exists, so in that respect it’s a small improvement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top