Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
About Me
- Jemmy Hope
- "Grandad's swearing at the telly..." (Alan Klein, "What a Crazy World.") Old, tired and somewhat disillusioned, but trying to keep up standards. Aware that capitalism cannot be reformed, but despairing of its dissolution in the near future, I use whatever means are available to me to avoid capitulation. I join forces with other resisters in the Industrial Workers of the World.
15 comments:
Wonder what negative outside forces are instigating the current violence?
Currently Hamas is fighting a war with ISIS/Al Qaeda and losing. Israel is de-facto helping Hamas fight ISIS/Al Qaeda. Israel is also tilting toward Fatah/Palestinian Authority/Palestinian National Security Forces (NSF) in their conflict with Hamas.
What external force is trying to foment a conflict between Fatah/PA/NSF and Israel?
Hope Israel does not do something stupid like back ISIS/AQ, or Hamas, or Hezbollah against Fatah/PA/NSF.
The current conflict benefits ISIS/AQ and hurts Israel, Fatah/PA/NSF, Hamas, Mustafa Barghouti (who I respect), Hezbollah.
To put this in context, most of the world's 1.5 billion muslims are fighting a war against ISIS/AQ/allied Takfiris. ISIS/AQ and friends have killed over a million muslims and might kill millions of additional muslims unless they are stopped. Many (perhaps most) muslims believe that England supports ISIS/AQ/allied Takfiris against muslims.
If this conspiracy theory sounds crazy remember that England exports thousands of English Takfiri all over the world to create mayhem, organize terrorist attacks, and violently attack muslims and nonmuslims alike. In retired Sec Def Gates' book, he mentioned that President Karzai asked him why the English were supporting the Taliban. Many Iraqis are currently claiming that England backs Al Qaeda and ISIS. Even more suspicious from muslim eyes is that 251 thousand English people voted for Jeremy Corbyn--who many muslims fear might support ISIS/Al Qaeda--in a Labor party election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2015
Jeremy Corbyn has said that he supports a political process and political settlement with ISIS; despite knowing that virtually the entire muslim world opposes this idea. To muslim ears it sounds like Jeremy Corbyn wants to reach a separate peace with ISIS in return for secretly helping ISIS mass murder muslims all around the world. ISIS has repeatedly said that they want to conquer and rule the world to establish an idylic perfect world ruled by God (and God's representatives on earth--ISIS).
England has a growing problem of ISIS/Al Qaeda and friends assassinating and threatening English muslims for daring to not support ISIS/Al Qaeda. Sometimes the English police fall back and do not risk their lives to protect English muslims from ISIS/Al Qaeda and friends.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2888716/Retreating-Queen-s-Guard-End-era-palace-sentries-fall-face-mounting-fears-new-lone-wolf-terrorist-attack.html
I think that England should:
1) try to bring Palestinians together (Mustafa/Fatah/Hamas/independents)
2) try to bring Israelis together (Israelis often fight other Israelis)
3) try to bring Palestinians and Israelis together.
By contrast the Corbyn strategy (which I fear might be held by several other establishment English) appears to be the opposite.
I hope that England changes policy and tries to help the Palestinian people. For example, England can:
1) Dramatically increase taxes on rich and poor English people
2) Dramatically slash social spending and health care spending
3) Give the money to Palestine
4) Allow full and free imports of all Palestinian goods and services and immigrants and business development and capital investment and cross border product development R&D into England; without any preconditions.
5) Provide 100% scholarships and easy admission for large numbers of Palestinian students to attend English universities, including Oxford and Cambridge.
This would be a start. Although England can do much more to help Palestinians than this.
anan
Same old shit, Onan.
England is not a state.
"Jeremy Corbyn has said that he supports a political process and political settlement with ISIS"
Before I flush your latest turdfest away, I'm giving you the opportunity to provide a reliable source for this statement. Your fevered imagination does not count as a source.
England is a country within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Will this fact ever succeed in lodging itself in that flickering magic lantern you use as a substitute for a brain?
Why are you bothering to deposit the products of your mental contortions on my blog, when you know I'll delete them? Has everyone else tired of your nonsense and blocked you? Poor little hijra.
Jemmy, give you credit for not deleting the comments. Not being defensive suggests that your heart is open to new feelings, ideas and transformation. May others follow your example.
These words are from a friend and well wisher.
Here is an example of Corbyn calling for a political process and political negotiations regarding Syria and Iraq:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ILO6kL3m9Q
In Iraq Corbyn meant a political process involving ISIS. In Syria he meant a political process involving ISIS and Al Qaeda (since at that time there were four principle factions in Syria . . . ISIS, Al Qaeda, Assad, and a small remnant of the nationalist Free Syrian Army, the nascent Kurdish movement was not yet far along). The Free Syrian Army was mostly defeated by the time of this interview. Notice how he calls the fully sovereign, fully legitimate, freely and democratically elected Iraqi governments that have ruled Iraq since June 2004 as "very sectarian government in Iraq".
I think the large majority of Iraqis would acknowledge that they have significant challenges with respect to racism, sectarianism and bigotry inside their own country and on the part of Iraqi voters. However, what free democracy does not have this challenge? Couldn't the same criticism be applied to England, the Labour party and Corbyn's own heart? It isn't the statement itself that is objectionable as much as the hypocrisy of implying that England is any better.
Corbyn should have described ISIS/Al Qaeda as attempting a genocide against muslim and nonmuslim alike. Rather he uses the language "civil war."
I say these words with deep sadness. As much as the muslims would like to tell the English to get lost; muslims can't say this. The world's 1.5 billion muslims desperately need help from nonmuslims to have a fighting chance against ISIS/Al Qaeda/allied Takfiri. Even from England.
Just noticed that Corbyn has recently changed and softened his stance on ISIS/Al Qaeda. Very good. Perhaps his heart shivered at the prospect of ISIS/AQ killing millions of muslims in the near future. I hope Corbyn's new comments reflect the feelings of his heart rather than public relations.
Would you like additional document ion regarding Corbyn's position on a political process with ISIS in 2014?
My hope is that this is the beginning of a constructive dialogue and sharing of information, ideas, and heart.
anan
I've looked at the interview in which Corbyn is supposed to have proposed negotiations with ISIS. He didn't. He talked about looking for a solution to a sectarian war which ISIS is exploiting.
Is the Iraqi government sectarian? Yes. Why does an Islamophobe, with a particular hatred for Iran and for the adherents of Shia, suddenly start spouting about democracy and elected government? Why does an individual who hates Palestinians and has in the past expressed racist opinions in praising Israel, want to divert our attention from the genocide of the Palestinian people? (I've answered my own question there.)
Right, you creepy calumniator, there's some unsettled business between us. You asserted more than once online that I was a supporter of a Pakistani murder gang. Do you remember that? You claimed that I had posted comments to that effect online. I call you damned liar, which you are of course, and demanded that you produce the evidence for this claim. You did not. You could not, because such comments never existed.
Now, I'm calling on you once more to withdraw your libel and make a grovelling apology.
I await your response.
You use to write comments that implied that you supported the "Taliban" against the Afghan Government (GIRoA), Afghan Army, Afghan Police and NDS. The "Taliban", as you know as well as anyone, is a proxy force created and controlled by the Pakistani Army. In fact they appear to have ruled the "Taliban" for lack of a better phrase for two and a half years on behalf of a dead person. To the point of issuing statements in his name, and negotiating in his name, securing the release of Bergdahl etc.
It is widely believed in Afghanistan that the English support Pakistan (and by extension the Pakistani proxy "Taliban") against Afghanistan. This perception carries from English support for Jinnah against Afghans and the Pashtuns. England is generally perceived to have supported Pakistan against Afghanistan ever since 1947.
I have never understood this English policy, or what the English hope to achieve by it. (Perhaps inertia related to English support for Pakistan in border disputes with Afghanistan since the Durand Line was formed.) But this is the context by which it is reasonable for anyone to interpret your comments.
By far the largest military force within the "Taliban" coalition was the Sirajuddin Haqqani led Miram Shah Shura. They were the biggest threat to the Afghan Government, Afghan Army and Afghan Police. They were referred to as a "veritable wing" of the {Pakistani Army] Inter-Services-Intelligence [Directorate] by the former US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under oath before the US Congress. I mention this because in the eyes of some English people, all Afghans, Indians, Russians and Iranians are liars and not trust worthy. Presumably even you would give some credibility to the words of a US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under oath.
I made some comments about Haqqani, and how Haqqani was how the Pakistani Army ISI Directorate controlled the remnants of Osama Bin Laden's organizations [Al Qaeda, Jaish e Mohammed, Lashkar e Taiba, Sipah e Sahaba/Laskhar e Jhanvi, Harakat al Mujahadeen etc.] I also mentioned that Sirajuddin was a major threat to the whole world, not just to Afghans, Pakistanis, Indians, Iranians, Russians. I mentioned that there was a major risk of Sirajuddin being complicit in terrorist attacks on the English homeland and European homelands.
You wrote one comment about Haqqani that I found offensive (in retrospect I think it was intended as a joke). I believe that you don't remember your comment about Haqqani. I was not able to find it again while trying to review old comments from previous articles. I think your intent was different from how I interpreted it. You were probably trying to joke in a humorous way that I was being paranoid about Haqqani and that Haqqani was not a big threat. I can't clearly remember your comment about Haqqani any more. I think it had something to do with how I should do something with Haqqani, and how Haqqani might get me.
In retrospect, I think you have extremely different assumptions and ideas about how the world works. Finkelstein says not to underestimate the ability of people for self deception (please watch the whole thing):
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12940
I don't think you agree with Sirajuddin Haqqani about a global caliphate or support Siraj linked terrorist attacks against civilians in several parts of the world. Perhaps you were not then aware that many Takfiris have dreams of conquering and ruling the world, and are willing to murder millions of muslims and nonmuslims alike to do it. Perhaps you did not believe that the Takfiri posed a credible threat to implementing their global vision.
If so, then I apologize for believing that you supported Haqqani, versus just joking about him.
++++++++++++++++
Look forward to leaving a post regarding Corbyn's views regarding negotiations with ISIS another time.
Further proof that you are full of shit. How convenient that this comment I'm alleged (by a notorious liar) to have made cannot be found. Allow me to suggest that it never existed.
My comments "implied" that I supported the Taliban, did they? But now you can't find them. Search your twisted mind, the source of all your troll's mythologising.
My comments about the US Empire's Afghan debacle were anti-American, or more specifically, against the war-mongering neo-con imperialists, the ratpack on whose behalf you subserviently troll. I never wrote one word in favour of the Taliban, but don't let that stop you fantasising that I did.
As I recall, I'd never heard the name Haqqani, or heard of the murder gang to whom it was attached, before you wrote your damnable lies. You still haven't produced one iota of evidence for this shit. You never will, you never can, and the old Nazi tactic of repeating a lie until people begin to accept it is not going to work for you.
Do you know why? Because your credibility rating stands at zero. Nobody on the internet who has read a few sentence of your malicious tripe accepts anything you utter. Do you keep count of the websites and forums that have blocked you?
Finally, you presume too much when you expect me to believe "the words of a US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff" because they were spoken under oath.
These agents of the Military-Industrial Complex lie all the time in public hearings. It's part of their job. As a neo-con sock-puppet you should be well aware of that. You have no problem lying constantly and slandering whole nations and ethnicities as well as individuals such as myself. So stop pretending that your political masters are more honest than your vile self. People with a modicum of sense know better.
Jimmy gets worked up into a frenzy over a blog post that 3.5 people will ever see....LOL
Nooooo, you called someone a raicst! Thats ithe end of the argument right there. I mean, that trumps everything because it grants you automatic moral superiority, huh Jemmy?
Pathetic, Go ahead, contiunue with the name calling and "scathing" invectives. It is a perfectly appropriate response for your kind.
Reread your post and let me know what argument there is to debate. You made a sneering comment about the blog, and I made a sneering comment about you. I called you a racist twat because your previous comments have been interspersed with racist epithets. You have racially insulted other visitors to this site whose comments you didn't like. All of this makes you in my opinion a tiresome troll and a twat.
Racist twat, fair comment.
Weren't you whining recently about ad hominem comments, bollock-brain?
I adjust to the level of my opponent Jemmy. You're the name calling twit who brings dialogue down into the sewer because you can't actually compose a reasoned and substantial argument. All you've got is bullying, abusive comments and smart assery by the ton. It's a useful approach when rabble rousing but not when trying to engage in respectful debate. You're a thug Jemmy, it's all you know, and it's the way you've gotten everything you have. Face it Jemmy, if you or your kind were ever to be in charge, you'd be a brutally repressive, savage and cruel ruler. It's your innate nature. (And you'd do it with an unctious righteousness that would make Stalin appear charming.)
I leave the tour of sewers to your psychoanalyst, poor fellow. You are so full of shit that your natural home would be a sewage farm.
Anyway, this exchange of insults is beginning to pall. I've had enough so I'm shutting you off. No more, you understand, no Moore (oops! Typo).
It works every time. I tell him I'm not letting any more of his lunatic ravings through and he spews out all the filth that is his first language. Here he is in all his glory.
Post a Comment