Off Topic The Politics Thread

[kiwiqpr]

Fact or fiction it's what some Americans were reading over breakfast the other morning
One man's fake news is another man's gospel

 

[Stroller]

Completely ridiculous article.

There are issues with prejudice everywhere in society.

Fact: racism is a bigger issue on the right.
Fact: violent hate crime is a bigger issue on the right.
Fact: there are greater anti-racism and pro-rights campaigns on the left.
Fact: there are more instances of racial or homophobic slurs in the Tory party than in Labour.

I am not a typical Labour voter. I support Green. I'm not even suggesting there aren't anti-Semitic Labour members. But it's clear that there is a political agenda to remove Jeremy Corbyn from any position of power because of his anti-establishment views. The press and the Tories will throw anything at him. Furthermore, people within Labour who do not want the left to have power in the party are also doing all they can to remove him.

Another fact: universities have studied the balance in our media and have found that there is a clear imbalance in reporting between the parties, in favour of Tories and the right.

Exactly.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

You are an absolute genius sir

...and an arse.

 

[DT’s Socks]

Springtime for Hitler and Germany

 

[kiwiqpr]

troops heading back to afghanistan and russian interference

State fighters in Afghanistan 'in touch with UK cells'
Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson tells Sky News that the UK must act to prevent "future Manchester-style attacks".
11:28, UK,Monday 03 September 2018

You must log in or register to see images

1:30

The British government has revealed that Islamic State fighters in Afghanistan are communicating with cells in the UK and western Europe with the potential to carry out attacks.
Although the rise of IS in Afghanistan has been well documented, it is the first time the government has confirmed the franchise now poses a direct threat to the UK.
On a visit to British troops in Afghanistan, the defence secretary told Sky News that the UK must act to prevent an attack.
"What we see is a real threat posed by these groups to the UK and we've got to be acting as we are to ensure that we do not see future Manchester-style attacks," Gavin Williamson said from the northern city of Mazeer-i-Shareef.
"We consistently see terrorist groups operating here in Afghanistan, [and] evidence of their links back not just to the United Kingdom but to the whole of continental Europe."

You must log in or register to see images

0:11

The group, known as IS-Khorasan or IS-K, is a rival to the Taliban and al Qaeda and has been targeted by US and British special forces in Afghanistan. Its latest leader, Abu Saad Erhabi, was killed in a US airstrike a week ago - he was the fourth IS leader to be killed in the country in the past few years.
Thousands of foreign fighters are believed to have arrived in Afghanistan having been pushed out of Iraq and Syria but the defence secretary's words suggest the group is more established than previously thought.
Sources wouldn't confirm whether any Britons are known to be among their number but said IS-K represents a "broad demographic".
However, General John Nicolson, the highly respected outgoing American head of the international coalition, rejected the claim that IS-K is growing.
"They have been able to replenish a portion of their losses by recruiting from other violent extremist organisations," he told Voice of America. "Despite this recruiting there are losing fighters and losing ground."

You must log in or register to see images

Image: With 400 more troops, the UK now has 1,100 personnel committed to Afghanistan
The news that IS-K poses a threat to the UK is a worrying development and comes as 440 extra British troops arrive in Afghanistan as part of an uplift requested by Washington to tackle the threat and stabilise the country.
Sky News was the only television news organisation to fly in with the troops. The total UK commitment to Afghanistan now numbers around 1,100 personnel, the third largest behind the United States and Germany.
The small increase comes four years after British troops ended their combat mission in the country and left Camp Bastion in Helmand. The move was criticised at the time as being too soon, but the defence secretary defended it, pointing out that Afghan forces, not the international coalition, are now in charge of security across the country.
"You've seen the Afghan government move forward very rapidly in terms of the development of their forces. I think what we have done is recognise where we can add value and support.
"The Afghan people are one of the most proud people and nations you could imagine. They want to be able to defend their country against the threats they face."

The arrival of more British forces in the country, to operate in non-combat roles, comes at a crucial moment.
President Ashraf Ghani has offered formal peace talks to the Taliban and, although nothing is likely to happen before the presidential elections next year, there is quiet optimism.
"We now have a real chance to make progress," Britain's deputy ambassador to Afghanistan, Giles Lever, told Sky News.
"I appreciate that people have been saying that for a long time but we have a particular set of circumstances this year which do represent qualitatively different from where we've seen before since 2001.
"First if all the president's peace offer to the Taliban, the offer of unconditional talks. Second, the US/South Asia strategy which doesn't set any timeline for US military support to Afghanistan.
"Finally, the Eid ceasefire in June where we've seen something we had not previously seen in 17 years which was a complete cessation of violence and Taliban fighters coming into the city and welcomed."
The suggestion of peace talks has attracted Russia, who recently proposed hosting the talks. Russian-funded radio stations are now broadcasting in Afghanistan, putting out anti-NATO messages on the airwaves. There are multiple reports that Russia has been arming the Taliban, sources say via Iran as a proxy.

Mr Williamson criticised Russia's increasing "meddling" in the country.
"What we want Russia to do is play a positive role in Afghanistan. I think that they could be playing a much more positive role," he said.

 

[Sooperhoop]

troops heading back to afghanistan and russian interference

State fighters in Afghanistan 'in touch with UK cells'
Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson tells Sky News that the UK must act to prevent "future Manchester-style attacks".
11:28, UK,Monday 03 September 2018

You must log in or register to see images

1:30

The British government has revealed that Islamic State fighters in Afghanistan are communicating with cells in the UK and western Europe with the potential to carry out attacks.
Although the rise of IS in Afghanistan has been well documented, it is the first time the government has confirmed the franchise now poses a direct threat to the UK.
On a visit to British troops in Afghanistan, the defence secretary told Sky News that the UK must act to prevent an attack.
"What we see is a real threat posed by these groups to the UK and we've got to be acting as we are to ensure that we do not see future Manchester-style attacks," Gavin Williamson said from the northern city of Mazeer-i-Shareef.
"We consistently see terrorist groups operating here in Afghanistan, [and] evidence of their links back not just to the United Kingdom but to the whole of continental Europe."

You must log in or register to see images

0:11

The group, known as IS-Khorasan or IS-K, is a rival to the Taliban and al Qaeda and has been targeted by US and British special forces in Afghanistan. Its latest leader, Abu Saad Erhabi, was killed in a US airstrike a week ago - he was the fourth IS leader to be killed in the country in the past few years.
Thousands of foreign fighters are believed to have arrived in Afghanistan having been pushed out of Iraq and Syria but the defence secretary's words suggest the group is more established than previously thought.
Sources wouldn't confirm whether any Britons are known to be among their number but said IS-K represents a "broad demographic".
However, General John Nicolson, the highly respected outgoing American head of the international coalition, rejected the claim that IS-K is growing.
"They have been able to replenish a portion of their losses by recruiting from other violent extremist organisations," he told Voice of America. "Despite this recruiting there are losing fighters and losing ground."

You must log in or register to see images

Image: With 400 more troops, the UK now has 1,100 personnel committed to Afghanistan
The news that IS-K poses a threat to the UK is a worrying development and comes as 440 extra British troops arrive in Afghanistan as part of an uplift requested by Washington to tackle the threat and stabilise the country.
Sky News was the only television news organisation to fly in with the troops. The total UK commitment to Afghanistan now numbers around 1,100 personnel, the third largest behind the United States and Germany.
The small increase comes four years after British troops ended their combat mission in the country and left Camp Bastion in Helmand. The move was criticised at the time as being too soon, but the defence secretary defended it, pointing out that Afghan forces, not the international coalition, are now in charge of security across the country.
"You've seen the Afghan government move forward very rapidly in terms of the development of their forces. I think what we have done is recognise where we can add value and support.
"The Afghan people are one of the most proud people and nations you could imagine. They want to be able to defend their country against the threats they face."

The arrival of more British forces in the country, to operate in non-combat roles, comes at a crucial moment.
President Ashraf Ghani has offered formal peace talks to the Taliban and, although nothing is likely to happen before the presidential elections next year, there is quiet optimism.
"We now have a real chance to make progress," Britain's deputy ambassador to Afghanistan, Giles Lever, told Sky News.
"I appreciate that people have been saying that for a long time but we have a particular set of circumstances this year which do represent qualitatively different from where we've seen before since 2001.
"First if all the president's peace offer to the Taliban, the offer of unconditional talks. Second, the US/South Asia strategy which doesn't set any timeline for US military support to Afghanistan.
"Finally, the Eid ceasefire in June where we've seen something we had not previously seen in 17 years which was a complete cessation of violence and Taliban fighters coming into the city and welcomed."
The suggestion of peace talks has attracted Russia, who recently proposed hosting the talks. Russian-funded radio stations are now broadcasting in Afghanistan, putting out anti-NATO messages on the airwaves. There are multiple reports that Russia has been arming the Taliban, sources say via Iran as a proxy.

Mr Williamson criticised Russia's increasing "meddling" in the country.
"What we want Russia to do is play a positive role in Afghanistan. I think that they could be playing a much more positive role," he said.

So IS is now a 'franchise'? A sort of explosive Spud-U-Like...

 

[Stroller]

A strong statement by Nike to use Colin Kaepernick to front their new Just Do It campaign. They obviously judge Trump's unpopularity around the world to be a bigger factor than his redneck supporters in the US, who have been burning their products in response. Well played Nike, a big tick from me.

 

[Sooperhoop]

A strong statement by Nike to use Colin Kaepernick to front their new Just Do It campaign. They obviously judge Trump's unpopularity around the world to be a bigger factor than his redneck supporters in the US, who have been burning their products in response. Well played Nike, a big tick from me.

Hard to believe it's the 21st century in America, Kapernick has been the fall-guy so well done Nike. Rednecks are always burning something...

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

I question whether Kaepernick did the right thing to disrespect the flag, rather than aiming it at Trump personally. This could backfire on Nike in the US.

 

[West London Willy]

Kaepernick didn't disrespect the flag. It's about disproportionate police brutality towards blacks. Trump wants to deflect it to the flag because he has no defence against the actual issue.

 

[sb_73]

I question whether Kaepernick did the right thing to disrespect the flag, rather than aiming it at Trump personally. This could backfire on Nike in the US.

Does the flag stand for the execution without due process of people based on the colour of their skin by law enforcement officers? That’s what he was drawing attention to, very effectively. As ex CIA director John Brennan said, what he did gave meaning to the preamble to the US constitution, building a ‘more perfect Union’

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”

The problem is bigots who think a bit of cloth is more important than real lives, or real justice. It might backfire on Nike, but even so they deserve more respect than I had hitherto granted them.

 

[BobbyD]

I question whether Kaepernick did the right thing to disrespect the flag, rather than aiming it at Trump personally. This could backfire on Nike in the US.

when did kneeling at a game equate to disrespecting the flag? The precedent was already set by Tim Teblow a few years before Colin Kaepernick.

 

[West London Willy]

when did kneeling at a game equate to disrespecting the flag? The precedent was already set by Tim Teblow a few years before Colin Kaepernick.

... who knelt because he's anti-abortion. he was praised by (among others) Donald J Trump. But that's fine, because, well, he's white.

Which is kind of Kaepernick's point. If the Pledge of Allegiance, the flag, the anthem, and all that have any meaning at all, then it has to be to prevent a white guy being praised whilst a black man gets called a son of a bitch who should be fired - for doing the exact same thing.

 

[awjm]

Interesting article about the IHRA definition. It's from The Canary, who araen't the best journalistic outfit but this particular article outlines many worrying facts about the pressure being put on to accept the definition in full, most interestingly about the fact that the IHRA claims the definition is "internationally accepted," which it is not.

https://www.thecanary.co/opinion/20...into-a-trap-that-could-destroy-jeremy-corbyn/

Labour is about to walk into a trap that could destroy Jeremy Corbyn

The Labour Party appears to be walking into a trap that could destroy Jeremy Corbyn. On 4 September, Labour’s national executive committee (NEC) is likely to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism with all its examples.
If Labour adopts examples such as “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour”, the party’s own guidelines could equate certain criticisms of Israel with antisemitism.
Then, the state of Israel, the Labour right and the Conservatives will be able to use the party’s own rules to generate endless antisemitism claims against Labour members, Palestinian activists and the Corbyn-led movement. The Labour Party’s interpretation of the definition is irrelevant: only the interpretation of the accusers matters. As we have seen, the mainstream media will report on antisemitism allegations against Corbyn’s Labour with little regard for the truth.
The IHRA definition and examples will not only damage the Corbyn-led movement and the quest for justice for the Palestinian people but will also undermine genuine instances and genuine concerns about antisemitism in Labour and wider society.
The definition as an Israeli state weapon
The IHRA definition lays out authentic examples of antisemitism. But the definition in full seems to be a weapon to smear critics of Israel as antisemitic and shut down debate. And Corbyn, a stalwart supporter of Palestinian rights and leader of a party close to entering government in the UK, is now a serious threat to Israel’s occupation. Al-Jazeera documentary The Lobby exposed attempts to undermine Corbyn stemming from the Israeli embassy in London.
We can see that the definition can be a weapon firstly from its roots and secondly from how it’s already been used.
The roots of the weapon
The definition originates from Israel’s offensive against its international critics.
In 2004, Israeli academics proposed “creating a new definition of antisemitism that would equate criticisms of Israel with hatred of Jews”, in the words of Jerusalem-based analyst Nathan Thrall. One of the academics was Dina Porat, who had been a delegate for Israel’s foreign ministry at a 2001 UN conference.
The academics’ work formed the basis of the European Union Monitoring Centre’s (EUMC) working definition. And pro-Israel lobbyist Rabbi Andrew Baker was the driving force that brought the tool onto the EUMC. But the definition failed to make international strides and the EUMC never fully adopted it, following widespread criticism.
That’s until 2015 when Porat co-chaired a conference in Jerusalem, which Israel’s foreign ministry sponsored. The conference recommended: “that the Working Definition of Antisemitism should be reintroduced into the international arena with the aim of giving it legal status”.
Why the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted the definition
As chair of IHRA’s committee on antisemitism and Holocaust denial, senior pro-Israel lobbyist Mark Weitzman was best placed to give the definition an international status.
Convincing the 31 member countries of the IHRA to adopt the working definition took “approximately three years of intense political activity”, Weitzman says. Winning the argument was possible because only 26% of those countries even recognise Palestine as a state and those that do mostly aren’t strong on Palestinian rights. And within each member country, IHRA delegates are government ministers or appointed by governments that don’t recognise Palestine. In short, there is no substantial Palestinian representation on the IHRA.
By contrast, 71% of UN countries recognise Palestine. So the widespread affirmation that the definition is ‘internationally recognised’ should be disputed. It’s recognised mainly among the minority of countries that don’t acknowledge Palestine.
Framing it in terms of the global rise in antisemitism and the real issues surrounding that, Weitzman was able to get agreement on the definition. The IHRA officially adopted the definition in May 2016.
The appearance of legitimacy
Although even with the IHRA adoption, the vast majority of the 31 member countries have not fully endorsed it. For 25 of the member states, the definition is only applicable through the IHRA. Only six of the IHRA member countries have fully endorsed the definition for use within their respective states. Another two, Bulgaria and Macedonia have also adopted it.
However you slice it, the IHRA definition is not really endorsed internationally.
Still, the IHRA’s adoption of the definition gives it an appearance of legitimacy. And that’s good enough for the establishment media. Even the so-called liberal Guardian has published around 40 stories on Labour’s ‘antisemitism crisis’ in the past month.
The Israeli government lauded the adoption of the definition, saying:
the main innovation in the working definition is that it also includes expressions of Antisemitism directed against the State of Israel, when it is perceived as a Jewish collective
In other words, people can be branded antisemites for talking about Israel rather than specifically about Jews.
How the weapon works – the practical application
The definition contains a number of examples of genuine antisemitism, like “Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews”.
But other examples, particularly “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour”, are ripe for being used as a weapon to smear critics. 24 Palestinian organisations, trade unions and networks in the UK have said:
This non-legally binding definition attempts to erase Palestinian history, demonise solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality, suppress freedom of expression, and shield Israel’s far-right regime of occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid from effective measures of accountability in accordance to international law.
Kenneth Stern was a lead EUMC author of the working definition in 2005. He has fiercely criticised what the definition has become, saying that he never intended:
to provide a framework for eviscerating free speech or academic freedom, let alone labelling anyone an antisemite.
“Chilling and McCarthy-like”
But, in line with Israel’s original aim, that is exactly what the definition has been used for. Stern himself says:
The EUMC’s “working definition” was recently adopted in the United Kingdom, and applied to campus. An “Israel Apartheid Week” event was cancelled as violating the definition. A Holocaust survivor was required to change the title of a campus talk, and the university mandated it be recorded, after an Israeli diplomat complained that the title violated the definition. Perhaps most egregious, an off-campus group citing the definition called on a university to conduct an inquiry of a professor (who received her PhD from Columbia) for antisemitism, based on an article she had written years before. The university then conducted the inquiry. And while it ultimately found no basis to discipline the professor, the exercise itself was chilling and McCarthy-like.
As well as providing a means for the UK and Israeli establishment to smear the Corbyn-led movement, the adoption of the definition could discourage people from speaking out against Israel in the first place. This is known as the ‘chilling effect‘.
The definition also appears to place the onus on the accused to somehow prove they aren’t antisemitic. Rather than the accuser showing antisemitic intent.
It will never end unless Corbyn resigns
Leading anti-Corbyn MP Margaret Hodge finally admitted on 2 September that the ‘antisemitism crisis’ is predominantly a coup. Hodge said that adopting the definition in full wouldn’t be enough, spelling out that:
The problem is that he [Corbyn] is the problem
Labour is poised to adopt the definition and examples, likely with some additional guidance in an attempt to protect freedom of speech. Both Labour Against Antisemitism and Blairite group Progress have also indicated that the way Labour adopts the definition won’t be enough. For the anti-Corbyn informal alliance, removing Corbyn will always be the ultimate aim.
Why toppling Corbyn is vital for the establishment
The UK has a permanent seat on the UN security council and is home to powerful multinational corporations and a top global finance industry. For the Israeli government, the prospect of having a prime minister of the sixth largest economy who genuinely supports Palestinian self-determination is enemy number one.
Similar can be said of the UK establishment. For example, the UK’s overseas territories are the world’s largest network of tax havens. The idea that a genuine internationalist progressive could be UK prime minister is unacceptable to the majority of ruling institutions.
Dismantle the weapon
The IHRA does very important work, for example, on ensuring that countries educate children about the Holocaust and other genocides. But its lack of Palestinian representation has led the IHRA to give powerful legitimacy to a potential pro-Israel weapon that threatens free speech, smears critics and obscures genuine antisemitism.
If Labour adopts the definition in full, the Israeli and UK establishments will be able to use it to accelerate the ‘antisemitism crisis’ even further. The Labour leadership would be wise to resist. And instead, launch an online and offline onslaught against the media and the other withering establishment institutions, with the 2017 manifesto front and centre. Stop playing their games before it’s too late.

 

[sb_73]

when did kneeling at a game equate to disrespecting the flag? The precedent was already set by Tim Teblow a few years before Colin Kaepernick.

Wasn’t Tebow actually praying though?

 

[BobbyD]

Wasn’t Tebow actually praying though?

I heard it was about protests about anti abortion.

In any case, he could pray before or after but he purposely knelt during the anthem which is the whole uproar about the kaepernick thing. Was just wondering what goldie made of it

 

[DT’s Socks]

Get those robbing English pig fisherman off our scallop beds ... season starts in Oct you English swine

The English have nicked the French scallops so they will nick the best tuna has although they were too thick to know it was there off Jersey

There will be only one winner here
Allez les bleus

 

[sb_73]

I heard it was about protests about anti abortion.

In any case, he could pray before or after but he purposely knelt during the anthem which is the whole uproar about the kaepernick thing. Was just wondering what goldie made of it

Having looked it up from several angles I think Tebow was indulging in private prayer rather than making any explicit protest. Apparently he’s a religious nutter and is in the habit of falling to his knees all the time. However, the people who did interpret this one instance in 2012 as a protest against abortion hailed him as an American hero, and are doubtless the exact same people who are calling Kaepernick a traitor. Hypocritical ****wits.

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

Does the flag stand for the execution without due process of people based on the colour of their skin by law enforcement officers? That’s what he was drawing attention to, very effectively. As ex CIA director John Brennan said, what he did gave meaning to the preamble to the US constitution, building a ‘more perfect Union’

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”

The problem is bigots who think a bit of cloth is more important than real lives, or real justice. It might backfire on Nike, but even so they deserve more respect than I had hitherto granted them.

You're commenting on the cause, I was focusing on the means of protest. If he wants to have a go at Trump, fly a balloon, wear a T shirt with "Trump sucks" on it, refuse to shake his hand, or lead a protest outside the US Supreme Court. I just don't see he's going to make a lot of allies by seeming to disrespect the American flag. Particularly given that Americans are known to be highly patriotic. Strikes me as dumb (in their words).

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

when did kneeling at a game equate to disrespecting the flag? The precedent was already set by Tim Teblow a few years before Colin Kaepernick.

Taking a theoretical, if Raheem Sterling, protesting against stop and search, kneels when the National Anthem is played at the next England game, how will that be viewed and how much support would he garner? There are many better ways to make a protest and win support