Jump to content

Murder of an MP


Chinahand

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

 

 

Totally agree. But most of them are on the left and believe that if only we love everyone all will be well.

 

 

 

 

If everyone dealt with other people with love and respect, most things would be well, and we'd better placed to fix the other things.

 

Thanks again, Declan. You're being a great help today. Of course your statement is totally true, but your IF is just about the biggest one there is. It illustrates perfectly the naivety of the liberal stance. Unfortunately that isn't the way the world is in reality as has been tragically proven in this case. And what's more, it never ever will be. It's a pipe dream. One that people sincerely yearn for, but a pipe dream nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The EU has NOT kept the relative peace in Europe. Nuclear weapons have done that. Does anyone believe that Russia would have annexed Crimea if Ukraine had not negotiated away its nuclear status by joining the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1994? A treaty guaranteed incidentally by the USA, Britain and (seriously) Russia, to respect the security of Ukraine.

Do you believe they would have annexed it had Ukraine been a member of the EU?

 

The carrot of EU membership has encouraged democracy throughout Europe, and a decline in military dictatorships. Breaking it up could lead to instability. They set goals for countries with poor human rights records to meet before they can join. It's better for the people of Europe to have it, not just on an economic level.

 

They would not have annexed it in the short term because Putin could not so easily predict the consequences. He knows not to to mess with NATO. Baltic states? Who knows? But he isn't a fool. The EU is given credit for many things which it has not deserved but gladly accepts. Ultimately, rotten with corruption, it will collapse in on itself. Nothing is forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The EU has NOT kept the relative peace in Europe. Nuclear weapons have done that. Does anyone believe that Russia would have annexed Crimea if Ukraine had not negotiated away its nuclear status by joining the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1994? A treaty guaranteed incidentally by the USA, Britain and (seriously) Russia, to respect the security of Ukraine.

Do you believe they would have annexed it had Ukraine been a member of the EU?

 

The carrot of EU membership has encouraged democracy throughout Europe, and a decline in military dictatorships. Breaking it up could lead to instability. They set goals for countries with poor human rights records to meet before they can join. It's better for the people of Europe to have it, not just on an economic level.

 

I think that is true, but do you think a Brexit would lead to an eventual break up of the EU? I'm not so sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did something like this happen in the past, does nobody find the timing of this event rather convenient for the stay in campaign. Knowing what government intelligence agencies have in the past done, and do get up to, I wouldn't put this past being a planned timely distraction for manipulating the voting process, 16:6:16, exactly 1 week prior.

 

The name of the killer came out too quickly and seems scripted to me.

The victim was a friend of Palestine.

The perpetrator is following the standard template of a lone crazy societal misfit.

 

 

I have purposely left out all woo, but Here is something I found interesting when taking into account that the alleged killer, Tommy Mair, shouted "Britain first".

 

http://www.lbc.co.uk/jo-cox-witness-says-no-one-shouted-britain-first-132375

 

A sign in a shop by the spot Jo Cox was killed states the claims that the gunman shouted "Britain First" are untrue.

 

The message in the landerette's window says: "Please note, I did not tackle the gunman. And no one shouted Britain First at any time."

 

"LBC's reporter in Birstall Bethan Davies spoke to Ahmed Tahir, the owner, who insisted he has not spoken to anyone who heard that phrase.

 

And Mr Tahir admitted he was worried for his safety ."

 

So if that part is a lie from the media, then what else is also, that mis reported phrase was an important piece of this possible staged operation in my view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did something like this happen in the past, does nobody find the timing of this event rather convenient for the stay in campaign. Knowing what government intelligence agencies have in the past done, and do get up to, I wouldn't put this past being a planned timely distraction for manipulating the voting process, 16:6:16, exactly 1 week prior.

 

The name of the killer came out too quickly and seems scripted to me.

The victim was a friend of Palestine.

The perpetrator is following the standard template of a lone crazy societal misfit.

 

 

I have purposely left out all woo, but Here is something I found interesting when taking into account that the alleged killer, Tommy Mair, shouted "Britain first".

 

http://www.lbc.co.uk/jo-cox-witness-says-no-one-shouted-britain-first-132375

 

A sign in a shop by the spot Jo Cox was killed states the claims that the gunman shouted "Britain First" are untrue.

 

The message in the landerette's window says: "Please note, I did not tackle the gunman. And no one shouted Britain First at any time."

 

"LBC's reporter in Birstall Bethan Davies spoke to Ahmed Tahir, the owner, who insisted he has not spoken to anyone who heard that phrase.

 

And Mr Tahir admitted he was worried for his safety ."

 

So if that part is a lie from the media, then what else is also, that mis reported phrase was an important piece of this possible staged operation in my view.

 

You need help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you question something it is bad taste, there is no disrespect or bad taste in that post. This morning the press is claiming that when asked his name in court he said "death to traitors and freedom to Britain". which campaign does this muddy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Totally agree. But most of them are on the left and believe that if only we love everyone all will be well.

 

 

 

If everyone dealt with other people with love and respect, most things would be well, and we'd better placed to fix the other things.

Thanks again, Declan. You're being a great help today. Of course your statement is totally true, but your IF is just about the biggest one there is. It illustrates perfectly the naivety of the liberal stance. Unfortunately that isn't the way the world is in reality as has been tragically proven in this case. And what's more, it never ever will be. It's a pipe dream. One that people sincerely yearn for, but a pipe dream nonetheless.
So we're condemned to a never ending cycle of violence? One conflict giving rise to the seeds of the next, and all we can do is be the biggest psycho on the block?

 

If anything this event has proven the exact opposite of what you say. The Liberal values of Jo Cox are the ones being lauded around the world not those of her attacker. We can't magic away the men of violence but copying their tactics only increses the amount of violence in the world.

 

Creating a peaceful, fair world, is a massive task it began long before we were born and will continue long after we're gone. There'll be setbacks along the way, but if we all try to live peaceful, tolerant lives humanity will get there, and in the meantime we'll have better lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to try and rebut gerrydandridge but I see that the person charged refused to give his name when in court only saying "Death to traitors, freedom for Britain" when asked.

 

I fully endorse what Declan says, but with the caveat that if we see fault lines developing in a liberal democracy, as with immigration (as just one example), and the suggestion arises that we cannot mention it because to do so is racist, then that is hiding heads in sand and grossly irresponsible. It has to be met head on with facts and the arguments in favour.

 

The difficulties with housing, health and almost anything else are not caused by immigrants but by under investment and austerity, the former for decades and the latter more recently, and by white reaction such as moving out of an area when an immigrant moves in. There are nearly always two causes of ghettoization, the inward movement and the outward movement.

 

2 million people, over ten years, is two extra on a bus, one extra in a school class, one extra in a morning or afternoon surgery session. The figures aren't noticeable in reality, they have little effect. The cuts, on the other hand...

 

And in the meantime they have contributed many times more in tax and NI and economic benefit than extending the services might cost plus they have worked, many in areas that there is a shortage of British applicants for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...