RugbyRebels

The comparisons are all very stupid anyway. Washington voted 90% for Clinton, and are consistently over 80% for the Dems in most elections. Host the inauguration in Alabama and see how the numbers would compare.

Its this sort of stuff which is all a bit distracting, I'd much rather the US press focus on the things Trump did in his first day of office than spend what felt like hours and hours of CNN debating visitor numbers. Its all part of the sideshow that got Trump to where he is. The American people are clueless as to the actual actions of their government in many cases.

jared_7 wrote:The comparisons are all very stupid anyway. Washington voted 90% for Clinton, and are consistently over 80% for the Dems in most elections. Host the inauguration in Alabama and see how the numbers would compare.

Its this sort of stuff which is all a bit distracting, I'd much rather the US press focus on the things Trump did in his first day of office than spend what felt like hours and hours of CNN debating visitor numbers. Its all part of the sideshow that got Trump to where he is. The American people are clueless as to the actual actions of their government in many cases.

Democratic countries get the leaders and governments deserve - Some bloke

rowan wrote:It eventually ran out of credibility, clearly. British Labour Party politician Robin Cook was among the many to dismiss them (shortly before his sudden death). The US had already played that card far too many times. So they rebranded it as 'ISIS,' but it's exactly the same thing - their own proxy mercenaries and jihadists, who they, the Saudis and others armed and trained, and who can conveniently be blamed for every act of resistance to their imperial expansionism.

Did Robin Cook really say that?

Also, are you suggesting his death was suspicious? A 59 year old man suffering a heart attack whilst hill walking is not exactly a stretch is it?

Len wrote:One thing I find interesting is this environmental poilcy hes ditched. The White House websites states it will save 30 billion, which is fine except where does that 30 billion go? Into the pockets of Americans working in jobs in the sector? From scientists right dow to the janitor cleaning the offices and labs? I wonder if anybody will lose their jobs, which is exactly the opposite to what his campaign is all about.

I'm not pretending to know everything about politics, I'm a bit too boan for that, its just something that occured to me the other day.

He's full of shit. His MO is to fiddle the books to create debt and pass that debt off to others. BY creating a smokescreen of environmental policy being a crack pot side show he will do as all politicians do and discredit science as a pastime of liberal academics that don't understand "business" and cut infrastructure spending with impunity. Just look at what is happening in NZ with dairying. It's a massive environmental disaster but the government won't hold agriculture accountable because they are lobbied hard. Any actual investment made is invariably PR and misinformation, which is just pissing resources up against the wall. The sensible thing to do would be to marry environmental science with agriculture and support a sustainable long term enterprise that benefits all. If he slashes federal funding for environmental science then yes, people will lose jobs and ultimately the agriculture sector will start to burn out through mismanagement. The toxins will osmiate through to education and hit employment hard as employers are forced to lobby for overseas skills to replace locals. Oh the irony.

WaspInWales wrote:

rowan wrote:It eventually ran out of credibility, clearly. British Labour Party politician Robin Cook was among the many to dismiss them (shortly before his sudden death). The US had already played that card far too many times. So they rebranded it as 'ISIS,' but it's exactly the same thing - their own proxy mercenaries and jihadists, who they, the Saudis and others armed and trained, and who can conveniently be blamed for every act of resistance to their imperial expansionism.

Did Robin Cook really say that?

Also, are you suggesting his death was suspicious? A 59 year old man suffering a heart attack whilst hill walking is not exactly a stretch is it?

Not as suspicious as poor David Kelly's, that's for sure. Whether he said this or not, I'm pretty certain he did at some stage, because it's also been quote in various articles I've read.

Meanwhile, I'm developing a much greater respect for the anti-Trump feminists movement. While I wouldn't trust too much of what's being reported in the media right now, it has been estimated it's become the biggest rally in American history, approaching 3 million nationwide. After all, women are 50% of the population and he basically just insulted them on the way into office. Of course they ought to be making a stand on that and so should the rest of us; at the very least by showing our support.

Cook did not say that, which doesn't seem surprising, that some people read shite articles doesn't seem surprising either.

rowan wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

rowan wrote:It eventually ran out of credibility, clearly. British Labour Party politician Robin Cook was among the many to dismiss them (shortly before his sudden death). The US had already played that card far too many times. So they rebranded it as 'ISIS,' but it's exactly the same thing - their own proxy mercenaries and jihadists, who they, the Saudis and others armed and trained, and who can conveniently be blamed for every act of resistance to their imperial expansionism.

Did Robin Cook really say that?

Also, are you suggesting his death was suspicious? A 59 year old man suffering a heart attack whilst hill walking is not exactly a stretch is it?

Not as suspicious as poor David Kelly's, that's for sure. Whether he said this or not, I'm pretty certain he did at some stage, because it's also been quote in various articles I've read.

Meanwhile, I'm developing a much greater respect for the anti-Trump feminists movement. While I wouldn't trust too much of what's being reported in the media right now, it has been estimated it's become the biggest rally in American history, approaching 3 million nationwide. After all, women are 50% of the population and he basically just insulted them on the way into office. Of course they ought to be making a stand on that and so should the rest of us; at the very least by showing our support.

I'm almost certain he didn't say it, Pierre-Henre Bunel did, but many people are eager to pass it on as a Robin Cook quote.

I believe Cook commented in the commons that

Al-Qaeda is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan

.

Quite a contrast between the comments.

My personal view is that these names, both Al Qaeda and ISIS, are not used by the terrorists themselves and are just blanket terms invented by the CIA or Western media or whoever, to give a face to anyone (notably Jihadists, of course) carrying out attacks against Westerners and also Western interests - imperialist or otherwise. As they say, when the rebels are on our side, they're heroic freedom fighters, but when they're against us, they're Al Qaeda or ISIS. Instant demonization by association with terrorism - even when their cause is entirely just.

There are problems beyond the quote being attributed in error to Cook, mainly that it seems to suppose that a freedom fighting group, a terrorist group, a Jihad or whatever, and in this case called Al-Qaeda, remains a fixed thing, and doesn't seem to allow that as with any group it may mutate and splinter into new forms/groups.

morepork wrote:

Len wrote:One thing I find interesting is this environmental poilcy hes ditched. The White House websites states it will save 30 billion, which is fine except where does that 30 billion go? Into the pockets of Americans working in jobs in the sector? From scientists right dow to the janitor cleaning the offices and labs? I wonder if anybody will lose their jobs, which is exactly the opposite to what his campaign is all about.

I'm not pretending to know everything about politics, I'm a bit too boan for that, its just something that occured to me the other day.

He's full of shit. His MO is to fiddle the books to create debt and pass that debt off to others. BY creating a smokescreen of environmental policy being a crack pot side show he will do as all politicians do and discredit science as a pastime of liberal academics that don't understand "business" and cut infrastructure spending with impunity. Just look at what is happening in NZ with dairying. It's a massive environmental disaster but the government won't hold agriculture accountable because they are lobbied hard. Any actual investment made is invariably PR and misinformation, which is just pissing resources up against the wall. The sensible thing to do would be to marry environmental science with agriculture and support a sustainable long term enterprise that benefits all. If he slashes federal funding for environmental science then yes, people will lose jobs and ultimately the agriculture sector will start to burn out through mismanagement. The toxins will osmiate through to education and hit employment hard as employers are forced to lobby for overseas skills to replace locals. Oh the irony.

Did you see the reaction of the Federated farmers when Gareth Morgan and the TOP party suggested levies on farmers who exceed environmental limits? Even the Green Party opposed it, absolutely mental.

rowan wrote:My personal view is that these names, both Al Qaeda and ISIS, are not used by the terrorists themselves and are just blanket terms invented by the CIA or Western media or whoever, to give a face to anyone (notably Jihadists, of course) carrying out attacks against Westerners and also Western interests - imperialist or otherwise. As they say, when the rebels are on our side, they're heroic freedom fighters, but when they're against us, they're Al Qaeda or ISIS. Instant demonization by association with terrorism - even when their cause is entirely just.

Whether they call themselves the same thing as we call them doesn't seem important, it's more like Germany Vs Deutschland, either way they exist, and either way calling their cause entirely just is bonkers, and still worse would be to suggest their actions are just whether from murder, destruction of such as Palmyra, subjugation of people that want nothing to do with them, theft... you were on safer ground falsely attributing quotes than the drivel above

Digby wrote:

rowan wrote:My personal view is that these names, both Al Qaeda and ISIS, are not used by the terrorists themselves and are just blanket terms invented by the CIA or Western media or whoever, to give a face to anyone (notably Jihadists, of course) carrying out attacks against Westerners and also Western interests - imperialist or otherwise. As they say, when the rebels are on our side, they're heroic freedom fighters, but when they're against us, they're Al Qaeda or ISIS. Instant demonization by association with terrorism - even when their cause is entirely just.

Whether they call themselves the same thing as we call them doesn't seem important, it's more like Germany Vs Deutschland, either way they exist, and either way calling their cause entirely just is bonkers, and still worse would be to suggest their actions are just whether from murder, destruction of such as Palmyra, subjugation of people that want nothing to do with them, theft... you were on safer ground falsely attributing quotes than the drivel above

You completely missed the point there, I'm afraid, because you too are lumping anyone fighting against Western imperialism together - which is ridiculous. The rebels fighting against other Western-backed rebels (and terrorists) in Iraq, Libya and Syria (such as the Kurdish YPG) are clearly not terrorists and do have a just cause. But the Turks have decided they are terrorists and has bombed them accordingly. America does the same thing when it meets legitimate resistance in the various nations it has occupied, calls them Al Qaeda or ISIS, and bombs them. & the Germany-Deutschland analogy is what is really bonkers here, because you're talking about a sovereign nation - whereas the Western terms Al Qaeda and ISIS are applied to a wide range of entirely disconnected combatants, ranging from Jihadist maniacs to courageous resistance fighters against Western imperialism and its terrorist proxies.

jared_7 wrote:

morepork wrote:

Len wrote:One thing I find interesting is this environmental poilcy hes ditched. The White House websites states it will save 30 billion, which is fine except where does that 30 billion go? Into the pockets of Americans working in jobs in the sector? From scientists right dow to the janitor cleaning the offices and labs? I wonder if anybody will lose their jobs, which is exactly the opposite to what his campaign is all about.

I'm not pretending to know everything about politics, I'm a bit too boan for that, its just something that occured to me the other day.

He's full of shit. His MO is to fiddle the books to create debt and pass that debt off to others. BY creating a smokescreen of environmental policy being a crack pot side show he will do as all politicians do and discredit science as a pastime of liberal academics that don't understand "business" and cut infrastructure spending with impunity. Just look at what is happening in NZ with dairying. It's a massive environmental disaster but the government won't hold agriculture accountable because they are lobbied hard. Any actual investment made is invariably PR and misinformation, which is just pissing resources up against the wall. The sensible thing to do would be to marry environmental science with agriculture and support a sustainable long term enterprise that benefits all. If he slashes federal funding for environmental science then yes, people will lose jobs and ultimately the agriculture sector will start to burn out through mismanagement. The toxins will osmiate through to education and hit employment hard as employers are forced to lobby for overseas skills to replace locals. Oh the irony.

Did you see the reaction of the Federated farmers when Gareth Morgan and the TOP party suggested levies on farmers who exceed environmental limits? Even the Green Party opposed it, absolutely mental.

I know. It's insanity.

Nazi collaborator George Soros behind the "spontaneous" protests in W.D.C.?

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womeninthewo ... ashington/

Z list actress delivers an epic rant about taxes on tampons at this weekend's protest rally.





Mad, Ted. Stark raving bonkers.

alt-right fuckboy alert

cashead wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:1.5m people at the inauguration according to Trump.

'Nasty media, fake news, boo fucking hoo'

Was anyone here at the event? Can you shed any light on this please?

Is the orange cunt right or is the media correct?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... trics-don/

Who will you believe? A Pulitzer-winning organisation or a known lying bigot and his toady, paid to shout that his master is The Warrior of the Wasteland, the Ayatollah of Rock and Rollah?

WaspInWales wrote:

rowan wrote:It eventually ran out of credibility, clearly. British Labour Party politician Robin Cook was among the many to dismiss them (shortly before his sudden death). The US had already played that card far too many times. So they rebranded it as 'ISIS,' but it's exactly the same thing - their own proxy mercenaries and jihadists, who they, the Saudis and others armed and trained, and who can conveniently be blamed for every act of resistance to their imperial expansionism.

Did Robin Cook really say that?

Also, are you suggesting his death was suspicious? A 59 year old man suffering a heart attack whilst hill walking is not exactly a stretch is it?

The idea he said it has been thoroughly debunked. Iirc it was a french intelligence officer who had gone rogue and was wanted for treason charges who actually said it.

Has rowan not got previous for that?

Vengeful Glutton wrote:Nazi collaborator George Soros behind the "spontaneous" protests in W.D.C.?

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womeninthewo ... ashington/

Z list actress delivers an epic rant about taxes on tampons at this weekend's protest rally.
.

Soros is an inside trading worm (Trump should love that), but criticising the march as not being spontaneous (i.e. not a riot) is disingenuous, at the very least. Planned Parenthood and The National Resource Defense Council are not exactly red flags for a subversive militia. The march in DC has been open knowledge here for weeks. Of course it was planned. The cops knew about it beforehand, so everything would be smooth-smoothie. What is the problem? Were you bottle fed as a child? I too think the Trump media beat ups are overkill, but shit boi, if you act like a misogynist cunt for decades, please do not be shocked if the 50% of the population you have portrayed as toy things for your pleasure decide to exercise a little freedom of speech upon your initiation to the highest office in the land. It's a good thing. Let's him know they are still here.

This can only end well...

http://observer.com/2017/01/donald-trum ... -alliance/

rowan wrote:

Digby wrote:

rowan wrote:My personal view is that these names, both Al Qaeda and ISIS, are not used by the terrorists themselves and are just blanket terms invented by the CIA or Western media or whoever, to give a face to anyone (notably Jihadists, of course) carrying out attacks against Westerners and also Western interests - imperialist or otherwise. As they say, when the rebels are on our side, they're heroic freedom fighters, but when they're against us, they're Al Qaeda or ISIS. Instant demonization by association with terrorism - even when their cause is entirely just.

Whether they call themselves the same thing as we call them doesn't seem important, it's more like Germany Vs Deutschland, either way they exist, and either way calling their cause entirely just is bonkers, and still worse would be to suggest their actions are just whether from murder, destruction of such as Palmyra, subjugation of people that want nothing to do with them, theft... you were on safer ground falsely attributing quotes than the drivel above

You completely missed the point there, I'm afraid, because you too are lumping anyone fighting against Western imperialism together - which is ridiculous. The rebels fighting against other Western-backed rebels (and terrorists) in Iraq, Libya and Syria (such as the Kurdish YPG) are clearly not terrorists and do have a just cause. But the Turks have decided they are terrorists and has bombed them accordingly. America does the same thing when it meets legitimate resistance in the various nations it has occupied, calls them Al Qaeda or ISIS, and bombs them. & the Germany-Deutschland analogy is what is really bonkers here, because you're talking about a sovereign nation - whereas the Western terms Al Qaeda and ISIS are applied to a wide range of entirely disconnected combatants, ranging from Jihadist maniacs to courageous resistance fighters against Western imperialism and its terrorist proxies.

Utter tripe, the Kurdish YPG are not lumped together with Al Qaeda or ISIS across Europe and I don't know anyone who think's they're fighting Western imperialism, far from it. Maybe that's the case in Turkey, but seeing as your typical lunacy sees you directing scorn at the US and the UK then we're not responsible for the Turkish government's take on the situation nor the reporting of it in Turkey.

jared_7 wrote:The comparisons are all very stupid anyway. Washington voted 90% for Clinton, and are consistently over 80% for the Dems in most elections. Host the inauguration in Alabama and see how the numbers would compare.

Its this sort of stuff which is all a bit distracting, I'd much rather the US press focus on the things Trump did in his first day of office than spend what felt like hours and hours of CNN debating visitor numbers. Its all part of the sideshow that got Trump to where he is. The American people are clueless as to the actual actions of their government in many cases.

Don't conflate a media obsessed with profit through entertainment with things the public consider relevant.

Utter tripe, the Kurdish YPG are not lumped together with Al Qaeda or ISIS across Europe and I don't know anyone who think's they're fighting Western imperialism, far from it. Maybe that's the case in Turkey, but seeing as your typical lunacy sees you directing scorn at the US and the UK then we're not responsible for the Turkish government's take on the situation nor the reporting of it in Turkey.

That was an example of a group fighting Western proxies - the terrorists America & Saudi, et al, created. You were the one lumping them all together and making silly analogies about Germany and Deutschland. Fact is, just like the actual terrorists, those fighting Western imperialism and Western proxies (including terrorists) do not name themselves like pop groups. That's a creation of Western media. Al Qaeda is actually a slang term for 'the toilet' in Arabic, so that really wouldn't be a very good choice, would it? So they've been rebranded as 'ISIS,' 'Daesh,' 'Al Sham,' 'Al Nusra,' etc (the Khorasan was discredited early on), but these names have all been provided by the West and no distinction is made between jihadist maniacs and resistance fighters. It also serves to disguise the fact the former are provided by staunched American ally Saudi Arabia.

if you act like a misogynist cunt for decades, please do not be shocked if the 50% of the population you have portrayed as toy things for your pleasure decide to exercise a little freedom of speech upon your initiation to the highest office in the land. It's a good thing.

Strange, though, that 53% of white women voted for Trump

Re: Cook's comments and the myth of Al Qaeda, this video covers it well . . .

morepork wrote:

Vengeful Glutton wrote:Nazi collaborator George Soros behind the "spontaneous" protests in W.D.C.?

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womeninthewo ... ashington/

Z list actress delivers an epic rant about taxes on tampons at this weekend's protest rally.
.

Soros is an inside trading worm (Trump should love that), but criticising the march as not being spontaneous (i.e. not a riot) is disingenuous, at the very least. Planned Parenthood and The National Resource Defense Council are not exactly red flags for a subversive militia. The march in DC has been open knowledge here for weeks. Of course it was planned. The cops knew about it beforehand, so everything would be smooth-smoothie. What is the problem? Were you bottle fed as a child? I too think the Trump media beat ups are overkill, but shit boi, if you act like a misogynist cunt for decades, please do not be shocked if the 50% of the population you have portrayed as toy things for your pleasure decide to exercise a little freedom of speech upon your initiation to the highest office in the land. It's a good thing. Let's him know they are still here.

I don't think you understand. He's the edgiest edge that edgingly edged in the history of edging.

Donny osmond wrote:This can only end well...

http://observer.com/2017/01/donald-trum ... -alliance/

When Trump spoke to the CIA yesterday he said something along the lines of he's 1000% percent behind them, and that negative reporting of his views on them was down to lying media outlets.