wasn't there a terrorist attack in the leadup to 2017 also
Do you mean the assassination of Jo Cox or something else?
Jo Cox was murdered in 2016, they probably meant the June 2017 London Bridge attack where a van drove into pedestrians and then they started stabbing people.
...Or the similar event at Westminster in Marc, or the Ariana Grande concert-turned-suicide-bombing in May. 2017 sure was a year, huh.
The snap GE was five days after the London Bridge attack, in any case.
I actually couldn't remember, although now that I google I see that there was a London Bridge vehicle attack (after just before the 2017 election, which for some reason I keep thinking was in late May) and a separate vehicle attack from London Bridge (in March) but which is more commonly known as the Westminster attack
This is the part where the token Irish forumer wanders in to remind everybody that the Tory party has a confidence and supply agreement with the political wing of the UVF.
Anyway, BBC are reporting that sadly two members of the public were killed in the attack. The Tories and Labour have suspended campaigning for the night. I expect the other parties will follow suit.
Also just want to mention I've literally never seen it mentioned anywhere that the DUP is affiliated with the UVF. The media here are completely muted on the subject probably because the UVF were British affiliated terrorists.
I like how this fuckin trooper made an account to make this post did so then got distracted by a Warhammer thread I guess it can't be a full time struggle a warrior becomes fatigued
I like how this fuckin trooper made an account to make this post did so then got distracted by a Warhammer thread I guess it can't be a full time struggle a warrior becomes fatigued
Also just want to mention I've literally never seen it mentioned anywhere that the DUP is affiliated with the UVF. The media here are completely muted on the subject probably because the UVF were British affiliated terrorists.
They've never admitted it, unlike Sinn Fein who have been pretty open about their IRA affiliation, so that complicates it.
Please calm down, there has been no indication that the perpetrator in The Hague had terrorist motives. The guy is currently at large, so this is also very much still a developing story, so I see little point in discussing it in the Hiberno-Britannic politics thread. If anything wild happens I'll probably make a post in [chat], if only to let people know I am save.
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
Also today:
People realized that yesterday Theresa May, on behalf of the Tories, unveiled a statue dedicated to a literal fascist.
The first female MP to sit in Parliament also happened to be a vicious antisemite who admired Hitler, and on the 100th anniversary of her election, which happened to be yesterday, she got a bronze statue.
But it seems that most people including the media didn't seem to remember the whole frothing Jew-hater part until today. The Beeb said not a word about it, and even the fucking Guardian only spared a single line about it in their story yesterday. Meanwhile, the Independent's story on it today made it the lede, and aside from them only Vice seems to have noticed the whole "oh right this woman was awful" thing.
Theresa May has unveiled a statue of Nancy Astor, the first female MP to sit in Parliament, as campaigners asked that the pioneering politician's "virulent antisemitism" was also remembered.
It's doubly noteworthy that a goddamned fascist got a statue in her honor when she wasn't even the first woman elected, but the actual first woman, Constance Markievticz, was a member of Sinn Fein and so didn't take her seat in keeping with her party, so Astor got to be the first woman sitting. And I mean, if they were willing to overlook that technicality, surely they could have had a statue made of the first woman in Parliament who wasn't a fangirl for one of history's greatest villains?
(I should also add that no, they wouldn't have done that, because the statue was funded not by government but by crowdfunding directed by a historical institute devoted to preserving Astor's memory, but since they seem to be lionizing her I'd say that they're doing a shitty job.)
Regardless, the last prime minister lead the unveiling ceremony and the, ugh, current prime minister Johnson turned up to bask in the reflected glory, so I'm sure the Chief Rabbi will be along any minute to condemn this whitewashing of history.
I like how this fuckin trooper made an account to make this post did so then got distracted by a Warhammer thread I guess it can't be a full time struggle a warrior becomes fatigued
Knock it off. Report posts you think are a problem.
Other Labour figures attack Johnson on it, but since Corbyn gets the most screen time it's a big gap in offensive capability. I certainly don't think he's gaining many votes by not attacking Johnson's character out of his own unshakeable nobility.
I don't think it's about nobility or whatever. I think it's a strategic decision to not have the leader lobbing personal attacks at other politicians. Because 100% the media coverage is going to be about how mean Corbyn was and not about Johnson's terrible character. It will be all about how it's undignified and how a leader should be above such a thing. You see the same thing in the US. It's smarter to have other Labour figures do the attacks because they aren't "speaking for the party". (Does Johnson make a habit of attacking Corbyn's character? I have to admit I don't really listen to him.)
+4
Options
TavIrish Minister for DefenceRegistered Userregular
Probably old news here but I just found out that in 2005 Boris Johnson wrote a book called 72 Virgins where a floppy haired MP has to stop a muslim terrorist from assassinating the president of the United States.
The book refers to Arabs as having “hook noses” and “slanty eyes". A mixed-race person is described as "coffee-coloured" while some people are called "half-caste". The word "negroid" is also used.
Critics have pointed out that the book contains sexist attitudes towards women including one description that reads “a mega-titted six-footer”.
Yeah Johnson's terrible, misogynist, racist, self-insert, mary-sue, completely incoherent attempt at a novel is already well known. As is the case with anything Johnson no one who is offended by it was never going to vote for him anyway and everyone else either ignores it or makes it part of his "eyyyyy wat a lad!!!11!" legend.
People realized that yesterday Theresa May, on behalf of the Tories, unveiled a statue dedicated to a literal fascist.
The first female MP to sit in Parliament also happened to be a vicious antisemite who admired Hitler, and on the 100th anniversary of her election, which happened to be yesterday, she got a bronze statue.
But it seems that most people including the media didn't seem to remember the whole frothing Jew-hater part until today. The Beeb said not a word about it, and even the fucking Guardian only spared a single line about it in their story yesterday. Meanwhile, the Independent's story on it today made it the lede, and aside from them only Vice seems to have noticed the whole "oh right this woman was awful" thing.
Theresa May has unveiled a statue of Nancy Astor, the first female MP to sit in Parliament, as campaigners asked that the pioneering politician's "virulent antisemitism" was also remembered.
It's doubly noteworthy that a goddamned fascist got a statue in her honor when she wasn't even the first woman elected, but the actual first woman, Constance Markievticz, was a member of Sinn Fein and so didn't take her seat in keeping with her party, so Astor got to be the first woman sitting. And I mean, if they were willing to overlook that technicality, surely they could have had a statue made of the first woman in Parliament who wasn't a fangirl for one of history's greatest villains?
(I should also add that no, they wouldn't have done that, because the statue was funded not by government but by crowdfunding directed by a historical institute devoted to preserving Astor's memory, but since they seem to be lionizing her I'd say that they're doing a shitty job.)
Regardless, the last prime minister lead the unveiling ceremony and the, ugh, current prime minister Johnson turned up to bask in the reflected glory, so I'm sure the Chief Rabbi will be along any minute to condemn this whitewashing of history.
Who was the first sitting female MP who wasn't a fascist or affiliated to a mass murdering terrorist group? Can we make a statue of them?
People realized that yesterday Theresa May, on behalf of the Tories, unveiled a statue dedicated to a literal fascist.
The first female MP to sit in Parliament also happened to be a vicious antisemite who admired Hitler, and on the 100th anniversary of her election, which happened to be yesterday, she got a bronze statue.
But it seems that most people including the media didn't seem to remember the whole frothing Jew-hater part until today. The Beeb said not a word about it, and even the fucking Guardian only spared a single line about it in their story yesterday. Meanwhile, the Independent's story on it today made it the lede, and aside from them only Vice seems to have noticed the whole "oh right this woman was awful" thing.
Theresa May has unveiled a statue of Nancy Astor, the first female MP to sit in Parliament, as campaigners asked that the pioneering politician's "virulent antisemitism" was also remembered.
It's doubly noteworthy that a goddamned fascist got a statue in her honor when she wasn't even the first woman elected, but the actual first woman, Constance Markievticz, was a member of Sinn Fein and so didn't take her seat in keeping with her party, so Astor got to be the first woman sitting. And I mean, if they were willing to overlook that technicality, surely they could have had a statue made of the first woman in Parliament who wasn't a fangirl for one of history's greatest villains?
(I should also add that no, they wouldn't have done that, because the statue was funded not by government but by crowdfunding directed by a historical institute devoted to preserving Astor's memory, but since they seem to be lionizing her I'd say that they're doing a shitty job.)
Regardless, the last prime minister lead the unveiling ceremony and the, ugh, current prime minister Johnson turned up to bask in the reflected glory, so I'm sure the Chief Rabbi will be along any minute to condemn this whitewashing of history.
Who was the first sitting female MP who wasn't a fascist or affiliated to a mass murdering terrorist group? Can we make a statue of them?
I think the point is that raising a statue to a nazi and attending its unveiling is just as anti semitic as anything Corbyn has done and that neither should get a free pass. It doesn't matter than Johnsons supporters wouldn't care, maybe a few Labor voters might swing Lib Dem or Green instead.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+2
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Tice is Brexit party, Sunak is Tory, Swinson is Lib Del leader, Long-Bailey is Labour.
Sturgeon is SNP, Lucas is Green party, Price is Plaid Cymru.
Honest question, is there a particular reason this has become An Important Question?
Corbyn famously says he would never use nuclear weapons, which has diplomatic and political impacts (regardless of whether we think it’s a good idea personally).
So now everyone gets asked.
ETA: I gather it’s a totem issue for the Greens and the SNP as well, though I suspect Corbyn’s personal views are what’s catapulted it to the main stage, so to speak.
Yeah Johnson's terrible, misogynist, racist, self-insert, mary-sue, completely incoherent attempt at a novel is already well known. As is the case with anything Johnson no one who is offended by it was never going to vote for him anyway and everyone else either ignores it or makes it part of his "eyyyyy wat a lad!!!11!" legend.
I’m under no illusions about it changing anything
It’s more of a “wait, what?” because it’s so on the nose, it sounds like satire
Tice is Brexit party, Sunak is Tory, Swinson is Lib Del leader, Long-Bailey is Labour.
Sturgeon is SNP, Lucas is Green party, Price is Plaid Cymru.
Honest question, is there a particular reason this has become An Important Question?
It is a dumb question because I'm pretty sure no human being really knows what they would do if some shit went down and they had to make this choice. The no fucking way crowd may hit the button in a heartbeat and the never ever crowd may spam the red button like someone trying to avoid an unacceptable elevator partner. It means nothing in the context of nuclear war but it might mean something in another context. All information is potentially useful.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
I can't take the credit for this, saw it in a comments section on the Guardian; but I thought you guys might like to know that, rather appropriately, Get Brexit Done is an anagram of Being Extorted.
Yeah Johnson's terrible, misogynist, racist, self-insert, mary-sue, completely incoherent attempt at a novel is already well known. As is the case with anything Johnson no one who is offended by it was never going to vote for him anyway and everyone else either ignores it or makes it part of his "eyyyyy wat a lad!!!11!" legend.
I’m under no illusions about it changing anything
It’s more of a “wait, what?” because it’s so on the nose, it sounds like satire
A similar book by a similarly toxic masculine man (Brent) is part of the plot of s4 of The Good Place. Art imitates life.
In the script, which is written in “classic Boris prose” according to Sheffield, jihadis are described as being “spifflicated” with shovels. Helictopters go “dugga, dugga, dugga, thwok, thwok, thwok” and, at the end, a “horrible cologne-drenched jihadi with an air of mincing menace” is murdered with the phrase “Aaargh. Splatteroo”.
Johnson’s lead character in Mission to Assyria is an archaeologist named Marmaduke Montmorency Burton, who leads a seven-strong team of explorers whose aim is to save “Shargar, the long-lost city of Tiglath-Pileser III in Syria, from the advancing evil of Islamic State”.
The prime minister suggested Angelina Jolie or Scarlett Johansson for the female lead, a “gorgeous but scholarly” younger woman who teams up with Marmaduke to rescue relics.
His self image is an almost Herculean fear of delusion.
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
edited November 2019
As I understand it, the nuclear question used to be a big deal in American* politics because game theory dictated that even if you personally objected to nukes the public position had to be that you would use them without hesitation.
So it became more of a “does you have at least a rudimentary understanding of foreign policy?” question.
After the Cold War ended it became less of a big deal. I don’t recall it even being asked in recent memory.
*while I’m aware this is the HB thread I figured the extra context was still relevant
knitdan on
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
As I understand it, the nuclear question used to be a big deal in American* politics because game theory dictated that even if you personally objected to nukes the public position had to be that you would use them without hesitation.
So it became more of a “does you have at least a rudimentary understanding of foreign policy?” question.
After the Cold War ended it became less of a big deal. I don’t recall it even being asked in recent memory.
*while I’m aware this is the HB thread I figured the extra context was still relevant
You're right to note the context, this really is just parroting of a US talking point that doesn't make much sense in relation to UK foreign policy.
I expect they'll start asking if politicians would kill baby Hitler next.
As I understand it, the nuclear question used to be a big deal in American* politics because game theory dictated that even if you personally objected to nukes the public position had to be that you would use them without hesitation.
So it became more of a “does you have at least a rudimentary understanding of foreign policy?” question.
After the Cold War ended it became less of a big deal. I don’t recall it even being asked in recent memory.
*while I’m aware this is the HB thread I figured the extra context was still relevant
You're right to note the context, this really is just parroting of a US talking point that doesn't make much sense in relation to UK foreign policy.
I expect they'll start asking if politicians would kill baby Hitler next.
No. It has(d) a lot to do with UK policy. The UK has four nuclear missile submarines each of which will get a letter from the PM indicating what they should do if the UK is destroyed.
Though to be fair to policy public statements that indicate the PM would not issue a retaliatory letter isnt a huge inducement to attack.
The denuclearisation of Scotland is also, and has long been, an SNP policy point.
The wider UK never seems to grasp the extent to which some segments of Scottish society were and remain angry that the UK government chose to site Trident at Faslane. It's a core part of the "Westminster doesn't care about Scotland" narrative, so Sturgeon's response is aimed at a different audience, with a different set of priorities, relative to the other candidates.
The BBC have rather predictibly caved in and let Johnson off with a soft touch Marr interview. Worse still, they're using yesterday's attack to justify it. Utterly pathetic.
Tice is Brexit party, Sunak is Tory, Swinson is Lib Del leader, Long-Bailey is Labour.
Sturgeon is SNP, Lucas is Green party, Price is Plaid Cymru.
Honest question, is there a particular reason this has become An Important Question?
It is a dumb question because I'm pretty sure no human being really knows what they would do if some shit went down and they had to make this choice. The no fucking way crowd may hit the button in a heartbeat and the never ever crowd may spam the red button like someone trying to avoid an unacceptable elevator partner. It means nothing in the context of nuclear war but it might mean something in another context. All information is potentially useful.
It's not really a dumb question at all. It's the core question of MAD, which is the keystone of nuclear weapon strategy in foreign policy. Basically the only purpose of nuclear weapons is that everyone knows you have them and would use them.
As I understand it, the nuclear question used to be a big deal in American* politics because game theory dictated that even if you personally objected to nukes the public position had to be that you would use them without hesitation.
So it became more of a “does you have at least a rudimentary understanding of foreign policy?” question.
After the Cold War ended it became less of a big deal. I don’t recall it even being asked in recent memory.
*while I’m aware this is the HB thread I figured the extra context was still relevant
You're right to note the context, this really is just parroting of a US talking point that doesn't make much sense in relation to UK foreign policy.
I expect they'll start asking if politicians would kill baby Hitler next.
No. It has(d) a lot to do with UK policy. The UK has four nuclear missile submarines each of which will get a letter from the PM indicating what they should do if the UK is destroyed.
Though to be fair to policy public statements that indicate the PM would not issue a retaliatory letter isnt a huge inducement to attack.
I don't really understand your point here, you've accepted that Trident is built for a retaliatory strike, but the 'would you press the button' question only matters in a first strike situation?
I dunno if someone has a loaded pistol stuck in my face and they say "I promise to never use this" I dont really feel any better its really sort of alarming in a way
Posts
Jo Cox was murdered in 2016, they probably meant the June 2017 London Bridge attack where a van drove into pedestrians and then they started stabbing people.
...Or the similar event at Westminster in Marc, or the Ariana Grande concert-turned-suicide-bombing in May. 2017 sure was a year, huh.
The snap GE was five days after the London Bridge attack, in any case.
Christ.
on the news I see pictures of a white truck?
... maybe the place needs more bollards
I am glad I don't work there anymore.
not really hiding ur power level here friend
Anyway, BBC are reporting that sadly two members of the public were killed in the attack. The Tories and Labour have suspended campaigning for the night. I expect the other parties will follow suit.
Yeah it's on BBC right now. I'm surprised they went ahead with it, especially given it's the BBC.
I like how this fuckin trooper made an account to make this post did so then got distracted by a Warhammer thread I guess it can't be a full time struggle a warrior becomes fatigued
Dakka > Maga
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
They've never admitted it, unlike Sinn Fein who have been pretty open about their IRA affiliation, so that complicates it.
Please calm down, there has been no indication that the perpetrator in The Hague had terrorist motives. The guy is currently at large, so this is also very much still a developing story, so I see little point in discussing it in the Hiberno-Britannic politics thread. If anything wild happens I'll probably make a post in [chat], if only to let people know I am save.
(BBC political correspondent.)
Tice is Brexit party, Sunak is Tory, Swinson is Lib Del leader, Long-Bailey is Labour.
Sturgeon is SNP, Lucas is Green party, Price is Plaid Cymru.
Steam | XBL
People realized that yesterday Theresa May, on behalf of the Tories, unveiled a statue dedicated to a literal fascist.
The first female MP to sit in Parliament also happened to be a vicious antisemite who admired Hitler, and on the 100th anniversary of her election, which happened to be yesterday, she got a bronze statue.
But it seems that most people including the media didn't seem to remember the whole frothing Jew-hater part until today. The Beeb said not a word about it, and even the fucking Guardian only spared a single line about it in their story yesterday. Meanwhile, the Independent's story on it today made it the lede, and aside from them only Vice seems to have noticed the whole "oh right this woman was awful" thing.
It's doubly noteworthy that a goddamned fascist got a statue in her honor when she wasn't even the first woman elected, but the actual first woman, Constance Markievticz, was a member of Sinn Fein and so didn't take her seat in keeping with her party, so Astor got to be the first woman sitting. And I mean, if they were willing to overlook that technicality, surely they could have had a statue made of the first woman in Parliament who wasn't a fangirl for one of history's greatest villains?
(I should also add that no, they wouldn't have done that, because the statue was funded not by government but by crowdfunding directed by a historical institute devoted to preserving Astor's memory, but since they seem to be lionizing her I'd say that they're doing a shitty job.)
Regardless, the last prime minister lead the unveiling ceremony and the, ugh, current prime minister Johnson turned up to bask in the reflected glory, so I'm sure the Chief Rabbi will be along any minute to condemn this whitewashing of history.
Knock it off. Report posts you think are a problem.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I don't think it's about nobility or whatever. I think it's a strategic decision to not have the leader lobbing personal attacks at other politicians. Because 100% the media coverage is going to be about how mean Corbyn was and not about Johnson's terrible character. It will be all about how it's undignified and how a leader should be above such a thing. You see the same thing in the US. It's smarter to have other Labour figures do the attacks because they aren't "speaking for the party". (Does Johnson make a habit of attacking Corbyn's character? I have to admit I don't really listen to him.)
Who was the first sitting female MP who wasn't a fascist or affiliated to a mass murdering terrorist group? Can we make a statue of them?
I think the point is that raising a statue to a nazi and attending its unveiling is just as anti semitic as anything Corbyn has done and that neither should get a free pass. It doesn't matter than Johnsons supporters wouldn't care, maybe a few Labor voters might swing Lib Dem or Green instead.
Honest question, is there a particular reason this has become An Important Question?
Corbyn famously says he would never use nuclear weapons, which has diplomatic and political impacts (regardless of whether we think it’s a good idea personally).
So now everyone gets asked.
ETA: I gather it’s a totem issue for the Greens and the SNP as well, though I suspect Corbyn’s personal views are what’s catapulted it to the main stage, so to speak.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
I’m under no illusions about it changing anything
It’s more of a “wait, what?” because it’s so on the nose, it sounds like satire
It is a dumb question because I'm pretty sure no human being really knows what they would do if some shit went down and they had to make this choice. The no fucking way crowd may hit the button in a heartbeat and the never ever crowd may spam the red button like someone trying to avoid an unacceptable elevator partner. It means nothing in the context of nuclear war but it might mean something in another context. All information is potentially useful.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Steam | XBL
A similar book by a similarly toxic masculine man (Brent) is part of the plot of s4 of The Good Place. Art imitates life.
His self image is an almost Herculean fear of delusion.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
So it became more of a “does you have at least a rudimentary understanding of foreign policy?” question.
After the Cold War ended it became less of a big deal. I don’t recall it even being asked in recent memory.
*while I’m aware this is the HB thread I figured the extra context was still relevant
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I expect they'll start asking if politicians would kill baby Hitler next.
No. It has(d) a lot to do with UK policy. The UK has four nuclear missile submarines each of which will get a letter from the PM indicating what they should do if the UK is destroyed.
Though to be fair to policy public statements that indicate the PM would not issue a retaliatory letter isnt a huge inducement to attack.
The wider UK never seems to grasp the extent to which some segments of Scottish society were and remain angry that the UK government chose to site Trident at Faslane. It's a core part of the "Westminster doesn't care about Scotland" narrative, so Sturgeon's response is aimed at a different audience, with a different set of priorities, relative to the other candidates.
They can "urge him to take part in an Andrew Neil" interview all they like, we all know he won't do one and has been gifted an excuse to evade it.
It's not really a dumb question at all. It's the core question of MAD, which is the keystone of nuclear weapon strategy in foreign policy. Basically the only purpose of nuclear weapons is that everyone knows you have them and would use them.