Portland Bill Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 Actually, I believe strongly that we should do precisely this. The minute's silence is our way of showing respect for our own people.What others, ISIS or whoever, think about it is of no concern to me. It will interesting to see what happens when we get the next one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 Why not? Sixty seconds of respectful silence is a small gesture to make, but does show as a country we stand shoulder to shoulder I'm not saying it shouldn't necessarily be done, but how many people have to die in one incident to qualify for a national minutes silence? If one person gets shot by an Isis gunman will it happen then? If not then why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 This is a little bit more than just a tragedy don't you think Bill?, Brand could have made his political point without insulting the dead and the relatives of the dead, but he deliberately chose no to. and with an even more major degree of self promotion, I know it's what 'they' do but this was not the subject to do it with. PS:- I believe you do him a major injustice, I would say that he infuriates ALL of the major papers and they believe him to be a ****, let's be honest even some of the people he claims to champion think that he is a ****.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-r_C7bJP60 Well, a lot of people just go along with received opinion of him. Witness the poster here who said he was "a hypocrite" (how?) You do get a better idea of him when you read the autobiographies then you'd get reading the right-wing press. Of course - and he'd say this himself - he's a substantial part buffoon. But paradoxically not a stupid man. We mostly seem to agree that he made the wrong call here though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC Jimmer Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 He can be a bit annoying but he deserves to be commended for exposing important issues to young people and the general public. If you are smart enough to ignore some of his more extreme views and still think for yourself he has been consistently on the money in regards to the failire of the bank system, austerity cuts etc. I have also read his books and he is a fantastic writer. Also worth noting that in his latest book he explained why he is doing this. He wasnt happy living the LA lifestyle which he so longed for growing up, he found it to be so fake and a shallow existence. It makes me laugh that when he makes a mistake or takes it a bit far he gets hammered by the Daily Mail. Not suprising as he exposed the editor for tax evasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YorkshireSection Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 Why would he want to go to Syria? He wasn't supporting the Tunisian gunman. He was pointing out that announcing the minute's silence was an opportunistic bit of political theatre by Cameron: a man who's done nothing to make Britons safe around the globe. It was Brand's timing that was crass. He might be a humourous writer, but his politics are of the Rik from the Young Ones school. Well Blair jumped on Bushs' back and got us into this problem, but hey let's forget about his war crimes and jump on Cameron's back because he's a "Tory", Brand is a puppet trying to win imaginary popularity contest that he's got going on inside his head. He's got too many demons and contradictions to start singing along to pseudo socialist propaganda, leave that to the politicians and maybe try and focus on whatever he's supposed to be good at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted July 7, 2015 Admin Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 If anyone has seen his latest video where he is stopped by someone in there van, but amazingly someone happens to be there to record it, they will see his theory is full of holes again ! Hadn't realised that our government had supplied the Tunisian terrorists with kalashnikov's !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screech Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 If anyone has seen his latest video where he is stopped by someone in there van, but amazingly someone happens to be there to record it, they will see his theory is full of holes again ! Hadn't realised that our government had supplied the Tunisian terrorists with kalashnikov's !!! He'll be saying Tony Blair was not responsible for disposing middle east dictators and opening the flood gates for mass terrorism next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 He should throw his support behind Cameron, it worked wonders when he threw his support behind Ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe jordans teeth Posted July 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 That's not going to happen,Agent brand should continue backing labour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 If anyone has seen his latest video where he is stopped by someone in there van, but amazingly someone happens to be there to record it, they will see his theory is full of holes again ! Hadn't realised that our government had supplied the Tunisian terrorists with kalashnikov's !!! "Man walks with mate who happens to have camera phone" is hardly an unlikely headline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hortonred Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 It may be highly controversial, but what he said isn't far from the truth. It's just the way he said it that has correctly riled a lot of people. He shouldn't have abused the deceased and their minutes silence, that is callous and very bad taste. However, take that bit out, the rest of if should be listened to. Don't get me wrong, I think the bloke is a nob, but his points are valid. It was just unnecessary and wrong to make the points off the back of 38 innocent lives How is it possible or acceptable to listen to this scumbag when he disrespects innocent British holidaymakers that have been butchered and says their minutes silence should not take place.Try telling their grieving relatives that some of what he said was reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 How is it possible or acceptable to listen to this scumbag when he disrespects innocent British holidaymakers that have been butchered and says their minutes silence should not take place.Try telling their grieving relatives that some of what he said was reasonable. Why do their deaths warrant a silence when there are thousands murdered every day that do not? That may sound harsh and I hope didn't come across as disrespectful but when you think about it, why do they? As far as I can see, dozens of innocent people were tragicly killed in Tunisia. People who had no right to have their lives taken from them. However what about the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who have also been killed by ISIS who are not British? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Why do their deaths warrant a silence when there are thousands murdered every day that do not? That may sound harsh and I hope didn't come across as disrespectful but when you think about it, why do they? As far as I can see, dozens of innocent people were tragicly killed in Tunisia. People who had no right to have their lives taken from them. However what about the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who have also been killed by ISIS who are not British? Jesus what have you been drinking?, that is ridiculous. Although a minutes applause for Brand when he ***** off to Syria first class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Well Blair jumped on Bushs' back and got us into this problem, but hey let's forget about his war crimes and jump on Cameron's back because he's a "Tory", Brand is a puppet trying to win imaginary popularity contest that he's got going on inside his head. He's got too many demons and contradictions to start singing along to pseudo socialist propaganda, leave that to the politicians and maybe try and focus on whatever he's supposed to be good at. He says he's an anarchist not a socialist. Bit of a mish-mash of ideas in that post, YS. Brand, who has frequently spoken and tweeted about the hypocrisy of our tabloid press, has become a massive folk devil for them. Everything the bloke does gets ripped to pieces by them. Therefore he's promoted to some figure of national significance rather than a confused comedian who was on telly last decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 He'll be saying Tony Blair was not responsible for disposing middle east dictators and opening the flood gates for mass terrorism next. Blair in charge when Gadhaffi fell was he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Blair in charge when Gadhaffi fell was he? Just the peace envoy by then and as usual doing sterling work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 I agree with some of what brand said but he is crass and a complete nob jockey so far up his own ass that he will implode and disappear from existence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Jesus what have you been drinking?, that is ridiculous. Although a minutes applause for Brand when he ***** off to Syria first class. What is ridiculous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Just the peace envoy by then and as usual doing sterling work. As much as I loathe Blair, it is a bit of a misrepresentation to suggest he was somehow charged with bringing peace to the Middle East. What his job was, was as the observer of the Arab-Israeli peace talks on behalf of the G8 countries. That peace process failed largely because of Netanyahu's intransigence. I think if Jesus re-emerged linking arms with Mohammed right now, they'd not be able to bring peace yo the Middle East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 As much as I loathe Blair, it is a bit of a misrepresentation to suggest he was somehow charged with bringing peace to the Middle East. What his job was, was as the observer of the Arab-Israeli peace talks on behalf of the G8 countries. That peace process failed largely because of Netanyahu's intransigence. I think if Jesus re-emerged linking arms with Mohammed right now, they'd not be able to bring peace yo the Middle East. You're right Tony did a marvellous job, as always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 You're right Tony did a marvellous job, as always. Try reading posts before you reply to them, then you're response will look less silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Try reading posts before you reply to them, then you're response will look less silly. Jesus lighten up slick, it was a ******* joke about another ******* joke, I couldn't give a **** about Blair or Brand, one can rot hell and the other can rot in Syria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screech Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Blair in charge when Gadhaffi fell was he? By getting rid of Hussein he started the ball rolling, him and Bush destabilised the whole region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 By getting rid of Hussein he started the ball rolling, him and Bush destabilised the whole region.So it wasn't unstable from after the Afghan Civil War and Soviet Invasion then? You present a very common but in my view rather simplistic view of the growth of jihadism - which actually precedes both Blair and Dubya's reckless adventurism ( and that of 25 other allied countries - don't forget them!) The risk to us from jjhad inspired Islamists would have been there had the Second Iraq War not occurred. It's much more nuanced that that. Remember the 9/11 attackers hit America before the War, with military bases in Saudi Arabia their main "grievance". Countries not involved in the Second Iraq War - such as Germany and Belgium - have seen jihadist attacks. It's also untrue to link Gadhaffi's fall to the Second Iraq War. Gadhaffi was ultimately toppled by a rebellion from his own people as part of the so-called Arab Spring. These revolts in North Africa and the Middle East are hardly the work of the CIA or Nato, as paranoists would claim. They toppled Western allies like Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt as well as enemies. See my posts on the thread about the Islamic Threat To Europe for my thoughts on jihadism - and note the interesting quote BB posted from a former jihadist who said he loved it when the English just thought the Iraq War was at the root of jihad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screech Posted July 9, 2015 Report Share Posted July 9, 2015 So it wasn't unstable from after the Afghan Civil War and Soviet Invasion then? You present a very common but in my view rather simplistic view of the growth of jihadism - which actually precedes both Blair and Dubya's reckless adventurism ( and that of 25 other allied countries - don't forget them!) The risk to us from jjhad inspired Islamists would have been there had the Second Iraq War not occurred. It's much more nuanced that that. Remember the 9/11 attackers hit America before the War, with military bases in Saudi Arabia their main "grievance". Countries not involved in the Second Iraq War - such as Germany and Belgium - have seen jihadist attacks. It's also untrue to link Gadhaffi's fall to the Second Iraq War. Gadhaffi was ultimately toppled by a rebellion from his own people as part of the so-called Arab Spring. These revolts in North Africa and the Middle East are hardly the work of the CIA or Nato, as paranoists would claim. They toppled Western allies like Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt as well as enemies. See my posts on the thread about the Islamic Threat To Europe for my thoughts on jihadism - and note the interesting quote BB posted from a former jihadist who said he loved it when the English just thought the Iraq War was at the root of jihad. My opinion of it is that by invading and disposing of their leader, destroying their army and police force we made it so much easier for terrorists to take control in areas where they used to be suppressed. Simplistic it might be, but take away the army and police force in any country and you will end up with lunatics running the asylum in no time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted July 9, 2015 Report Share Posted July 9, 2015 My opinion of it is that by invading and disposing of their leader, destroying their army and police force we made it so much easier for terrorists to take control in areas where they used to be suppressed. Simplistic it might be, but take away the army and police force in any country and you will end up with lunatics running the asylum in no time. We still have an army and Police force!!, look whose running us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 9, 2015 Report Share Posted July 9, 2015 My opinion of it is that by invading and disposing of their leader, destroying their army and police force we made it so much easier for terrorists to take control in areas where they used to be suppressed. Simplistic it might be, but take away the army and police force in any country and you will end up with lunatics running the asylum in no time. Yes, but the invasion of Iraq is not the only reason for the upsurge of global Jihadism. That's what you don't seem to grasp. And while we're on Iraq, do you think Saddam was a popular chap? And immortal? There's a good chance he'd be brown bread anyway by now, and whither Iraq then? The second generation aren't always as successful at keeping the lid on internal dissent as their strongman dads - as Bashar al-Assad can attest. Incidentally, Iraq's Army was never "taken away". It continues to have 800,000 regular soldiers under arms. It's just they are a bit less sure they'll float up to a heavenly gang-bang if they die than those in the ranks of the kiddy-fiddler army who they are fighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.