# Do you want the UK to go to war with a Super power?



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Russia has already threatened to 'wipe us off the map' thanks to that idiotic Michael Fallon. Please urge the PM to consult Parliament before backing the unhinged President of the USA.

*Peter Hitchens*‏Verified [email protected] 10h10 hours ago
_As it seems the Prime Minister is under pressure to join an attack on Syria without consulting Parliament,those who prefer caution should write swiftly, politely and concisely to Mrs May, You can e-mail her by going to _https://email.number10.gov.uk/ _& filling in the form you find there._

(And people have been led to believe Corbyn is dangerous)

Jeremy Corbyn demands MPs get a vote on any military action in Syria https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/world-braces-war-russia-triggers-12344867?1…

*British submarines 'ordered to move within missile range of Syria' as Theresa May summons Cabinet to respond to chemical attack*
The world is braced for war as Theresa May calls an urgent Cabinet meeting over the Syrian chemical attack - saying "all indications" point to Assad's regime


SHARE


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*I don't think any war is good, and i don't want us to go to war with anyone. I do wish, those that make the decision to go to war, should be the ones to do the fighting.*


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *I don't think any war is good, and i don't want us to go to war with anyone. I do wish, those that make the decision to go to war, should be the ones to do the fighting.*


My thoughts exactly!!!!


----------



## WillowT (Mar 21, 2015)

I think something has to be done to stop these poor innocent people from being murdered by their own government. It has been going on for a decade and the last time it went to parliamentary vote ( 5 years ago) it was voted against and Obama then backed off too. Just cannot help wondering if this was dealt with in the past then these events would not be happening. 
HOWEVER saying that I’m not sure what the answer is and am generally against war.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

But that being rejected following a parliamentary vote doesn't justify May unilaterally deciding on what action to take. Who the b****y H*** does she think she is?!

How long will it be before she takes action without consulting her cabinet let alone Parliament and acts purely on impulse or on Trump's orders?

Whatever people think about Blair and Iraq at least he put it to a parliamentary vote before acting on Bush's ambitions.

If May puts this Parliament and wins support for military action then so be it. To do this unilaterally shows her to be no better than the tyrants she claims to be defending the victims from.


----------



## Doyley (Aug 23, 2017)

LinznMilly said:


> My thoughts exactly!!!!


And mine!!

No matter which way this situation goes, as with EVERYTHING to do with world leaders, it will be the innocent people that get caught in the crossfire sadly.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

_'The continued use of chemical weapons cannot go unchallenged'_ Theresa May

Someone ought to tell that deluded woman how Depleted Uranium has a chemical toxicity that poses terminal/long term health problems, to an imagined enemy and the users of it. But then, the UK Government doesn't mind using such weaponry when it effin well suits them.


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

Cyprus RAF Akrotiri fighter jets have been put on standby: http://www.ekathimerini.com/227536/article/ekathimerini/news/raf-bombers-on-standby-in-cyprus

I was under the impression the normal proceedure to engage in combat is to have an emergency cabinet meeting before putting this to Parliament for a vote. Theresa May has to have the backing of her Cabinet first. This does not mean she has soley taken the reponsibility to engage our troops in combat. The first stage is happening. Even if she gets the backing of her Cabinet does not necessarily mean she will get the backing of Parliament.

As far as I am aware from what I have read and seen in the news this will be an aerial assult with missiles from ships and submarines and RAF jets from some distance away from Syria using laser guided missiles and even drones.

Personally I'd prefer the UK did not engage in combat of any kind unless we necessarily have to.

The world cannot standby and watch what is going on in Syria by The Syrian Regime Government Troops and Russian Troops. These acts are war crimes. The latest incident last Saturday crossed a redline and the photos online are horrible. WHO and the OPCW have been denied access to investigate what happened last Saturday and to find out what chemical weapon was used. I agree it is not right going to war but condoning the actions of the culprites is not working (diplomacy). There is obviously something the Regime in Syria and its allies are hiding. The options given to the UN to intervine where rejected a couple of days ago. This cannot carry on, innocent civilians being gasses to death or killed by other methods I mean.

So what other options are available apart from engaging in combat (not troops on the ground but an aerial assualt), diplomacy is not working?

I hope the UK Government and Parliament do not vote to engage our troops?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Can anyone explain to me what the point of the UN is if they don't intervene in situations like this and leave it up to individual countries to get involved?


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Can anyone explain to me what the point of the UN is if they don't intervene in situations like this and leave it up to individual countries to get involved?


I thought what happened the other day at the UN was lame and the response they gave 18 months ago was the same.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

The UN is spread very thin . Yesterday they showed a bit on the news about Congo , ethic groups are slaughtering each other , villagers were fleeing for their lives and woman and children were murdered as they couldn't out run them . There is very little publicity about it . I hope it doesnt leas to another Rwanda 
The UN are trying to help them but it seems the leaders of Congo are playing it down and the rest of the world isn't interested.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

stockwellcat. said:


> Theresa May has to have the backing of her Cabinet first. This does not mean she has soley taken the reponsibility to engage our troops in combat. The first stage is happening. Even if she gets the backing of her Cabinet does not necessarily mean she will get the backing of Parliament.


But Theresa May is reportedly considering action WITHOUT parliamentary approval.

Whether people support action or not this is very wrong.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

KittenKong said:


> But Theresa May is reportedly considering action WITHOUT parliamentary approval.
> 
> Whether people support action or not this is very wrong.


Reported by who though? Not sure even she would be that stupid. Is it even lawful?


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Reported by who though? Not sure even she would be that stupid. Is it even lawful?


See Noushka's first post.
Even the BBC have reported this.








http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43733861


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Reported by who though? Not sure even she would be that stupid. Is it even lawful?


The PM does not need parliaments backing for military action. It's covered under royal prerogative. I think Tony Blair started the trend of asking parliament first, but under uk law the PM does not need permission.

Whether she should from a moral point of view I guess is up for debate.


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

Regardless if Parliament is being allowed to vote on this the PM does intend on getting Cabinets approval first. She has an emergency cabinet meeting this afternoon so she isn't doing this without consulting anyone.


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

Don't forget Cameron did not seek Parliaments or Cabinets approval to strike at the British Jihadis with a drone strike claiming it was self defence. So yes I guess TM doesn't have to get permission to do this against Syria.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

KittenKong said:


> See Noushka's first post.
> Even the BBC have reported this.
> View attachment 351371
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43733861


Sources say? Well whoever the sources are lets hope they are wrong.



stuaz said:


> The PM does not need parliaments backing for military action. It's covered under royal prerogative. I think Tony Blair started the trend of asking parliament first, but under uk law the PM does not need permission.
> 
> Whether she should from a moral point of view I guess is up for debate.


Thank you for clearing that up. How scary.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

stockwellcat. said:


> Regardless if Parliament is being allowed to vote on this the PM does intend on getting Cabinets approval first. She has an emergency cabinet meeting this afternoon so she isn't doing this without consulting anyone.


But that's not the point. Parliament exists for a reason. It's not a cabinet room full of like minded ministers or, "Yes men" from the same political party or supporting media interest for that matter.


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

stockwellcat. said:


> Don't forget Cameron did not seek Parliaments or Cabinets approval to strike at the British Jihadis with a drone strike claiming it was self defence. So yes I guess TM doesn't have to get permission to do this against Syria.


TM doesn't have to get the approval of Parliament - it's purely a convention!

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/parliament-royal-prerogative-and-decisions-go-war


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

No, I don’t believe the U.K. should get involved in military action against Syria. Syria’s government has the backing of Russia and other countries, they deny that they’ve used chemicals, there’s no proof that they have and Internationally it shouldn’t be down to us and Donald Trump to police other countries. Look at recent history? When has our charging in all guns blazing done any good anyway?


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

Elles said:


> No, I don't believe the U.K. should get involved in military action against Syria. Syria's government has the backing of Russia and other countries, they deny that they've used chemicals, there's no proof that they have and Internationally it shouldn't be down to us and Donald Trump to police other countries. Look at recent history? When has our charging in all guns blazing done any good anyway?


I think you're a bit behind the times because in the past couple of hours Macron has confirmed that chemicals were used.

http://www.france24.com/en/20180412-france-macron-proof-chemical-weapons-attack-syria-eastern-ghouta

https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...a-attack-and-salisbury-poisoning-live-updates


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

Magyarmum said:


> I think you're a bit behind the times because in the past couple of hours Macron has confirmed that chemicals were used.
> 
> http://www.france24.com/en/20180412-france-macron-proof-chemical-weapons-attack-syria-eastern-ghouta
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...a-attack-and-salisbury-poisoning-live-updates


I saw the update from the OPCW quite a few hours ago on the Salisbury nerve agent.

Thanks for the update on the Syria chemical attack didn't realise there had been this update.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

We have proof in inverted commas and he and trump will let us know when they see fit. They had proof of wmd too. Who are ‘we’ and where did they get this proof that they’re keeping secret.


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

An urgent letter from Ian Blackford representing the SNP has been delivered to the PM requesting a recall of Parliament on Saturday. Only the PM can authorise this.








https://mobile.twitter.com/la_lams

Jeremy Corbyn has asked for a briefing on the Privvy Council terms about the Government's basis for joining any military action against Syria.
https://news.sky.com/story/live-us-russia-crisis-line-active-amid-syria-tensions-11327285


----------



## Boxerluver30 (Jun 14, 2017)

No I don't, I just wish this would all end but I know that isn't going to happen any time soon. I don't know what else would work though to protect the innocent civilians getting caught up in all this.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

I don't want the Uk to be involved but it feels like we are watching and doing nothing while people suffer . Damned if we do , damned if we don't . Assad and Russia wont stop doing this . 

It feels like this - 
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for *good* *men* to *do* *nothing*."


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

The whole situation in Syria has become a proxy war with the regular people living there in the middle of it all. All those poor people are living in a mess. I do not believe government officials in the USA, NATO and elsewhere originally intended for it to become proxy war but it has become one at this point.


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

*LIVE: Cabinet 'agrees on need to take action' over Syria*


> Cabinet 'agrees on the need to take action'
> 
> Downing Street has just released a readout from this afternoon's Cabinet meeting.
> 
> ...


https://news.sky.com/story/live-us-russia-crisis-line-active-amid-syria-tensions-11327285


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/12/tory-mp-soldier-bombing-syria-assad-russia


----------



## Boxerluver30 (Jun 14, 2017)

Can someone explain what this international response would involve if not military? It was on the news earlier and was confusing me, will it be more attempts at diplomacy?


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

KittenKong said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/12/tory-mp-soldier-bombing-syria-assad-russia
> View attachment 351482


Following the post above re Bob Seeley this is the article I read -
_
"Mr Seely has suggested the moment for action has passed and that Western involvement has been slow and disconnected so far.

The debate over intervention in Syria has reared its head following Saturday's chemical weapons attack in Syria, allegedly carried out by Syrian leader, President Bashar Al Assad.
Syria is a contentious battleground involving Russia and the West that has a huge impact on the Middle East.

Mr Seely, who is part of the all-party foreign affairs select committee, said: *"Bombing the regime may make moral sense but it doesn't make strategic sense because the war has already been won by Assad with his Iranian and Russian backers.*

*"Russia has been in a cold war with the West for decades and we need to deal with that without making the problem much more unstable and dangerous."*
_
And I would tend to agree with him - it may make moral sense but it certainly doesn't make strategic sense to 'go to war'.

What else are we left with? Anything that doesn't involve killing.

J


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

Well that's a change of events.

The first team of international chemical weapons inspectors are on the ground in Syria and the 2nd team is due to arrive later today or Saturday. This was an update on the news at 16:33










Russia is claiming they have proof that Britain was behind the alleged chemical attack.








https://news.sky.com/story/live-russia-says-trump-guided-by-morning-mood-11328441


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Elles said:


> We have proof in inverted commas and he and trump will let us know when they see fit. They had proof of wmd too. Who are 'we' and where did they get this proof that they're keeping secret.


We all know very well that the Blair Government sexed up the dossier produced by the security services to justify a war with Iraq led by GW Bush and the Americans. Comparisons between that event and what is happening now with the use of chemical weapons not just in Syria but in the UK too is just an excuse to cast doubt on the governments position. Personally I think its completely pointless to have international rules on the use of these chemicals weapons if we are not prepared to take action when countries break those rules.

And really, what a load of complete and utter crap that the UK was behind the event in Syria.


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

Air Strikes from USA, France and UK took place at 2am this morning hitting specific targets:

https://news.sky.com/story/live-us-uk-and-france-launch-strikes-on-syria-11329799








> MoD reveals details of military operation
> 
> The Ministry of Defence says British forces joined the allied strikes on Syria at 2am UK time.
> 
> ...


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

Just been reported on CNN News.

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/us-trump-syria


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

stockwellcat. said:


> Well that's a change of events.
> 
> The first team of international chemical weapons inspectors are on the ground in Syria and the 2nd team is due to arrive later today or Saturday. This was an update on the news at 16:33
> 
> ...


*GeorgeMonbiot*‏@GeorgeMonbiot Apr 11
As the late great Bill Hicks said: How do we know they have weapons of mass destruction?

"Uh, well...we looked at the receipts." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28212724…

*Syrian conflict: Key sarin ingredients sold by UK firms*


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)




----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Good point!

eter Oborne Retweeted
*Matt Zarb-Cousin*‏Verified [email protected] 20h20 hours ago
Has anyone who wants to bomb Syria actually made the case for bombing: which targets, how it fits into a roadmap to peace,
how they'd mitigate risking an escalation of tensions between powers in the region..... or is their argument just
"well if we don't bomb we're doing nothing"


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Bombs and bullets never solved anything. They just provided even more reasons for even more resentment and even more hatred and even more wars.

Why can't we all just get along.


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

First footage of the air strike.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-images-syria-pouring-social-media/516808002/


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

kimthecat said:


> I don't want the Uk to be involved but it feels like we are watching and doing nothing while people suffer . Damned if we do , damned if we don't .[/B]."


Sounds all too familiar. I wonder what would have happened if Blair refused to back the US in Iraq. He would have lost the following election no doubt with calls of being weak and a traitor.

As it was, this was debated in Parliament and went to a vote whatever anyone says. No lectures on lies, dodgy dossiers please. I believe Parliament would have voted to back the US regardless anyway.

Now we see a PM who acts on the request of a US President without debating it in Parliament. A cabinet is no substitute.

This has set a very dangerous precedent in my view.


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

KittenKong said:


> Sounds all too familiar. I wonder what would have happened if Blair refused to back the US in Iraq. He would have lost the following election no doubt with calls of being weak and a traitor.
> 
> As it was, this was debated in Parliament and went to a vote whatever anyone says. No lectures on lies, dodgy dossiers please. I believe Parliament would have voted to back the US regardless anyway.
> 
> ...


The Prime Minister is under no obligation to take the matter to Parliament!

Try reading this PDF "Parliamentary Approval for Military Action" if you need clarification..

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/CBP-7166.pdf

You seem to ignore the fact that France was also party to the decision and if anything Macron of all three leaders was the one who was the most keen to take action. Rather than the PM taking action at the request of POTUS it's feasible they both made the decision at the request of Macron and France?

From the 12th March https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ms-sites-if-used-to-kill-macron-idUSKCN1GO1RP


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Magyarmum said:


> The Prime Minister is under no obligation to take the matter to Parliament!
> 
> Try reading this PDF "Parliamentary Approval for Military Action" if you need clarification..
> 
> ...


What happens and what the French President does is their business so shouldn't concern the UK.

I am well aware of the law as regards taking the matter to Parliament.

But it doesn't make it right.

May has already attempted to pass legislation without Parliamentary approval. That had nothing to do with military action!

What's now going to stop her from unilaterally implementing unpopular legislation such as repealing the hunting with dogs act and the dementia tax in the future?

Perhaps Parliament should be declared obsolete and kept as a museum, being considered no fit for purpose?


----------



## WillowT (Mar 21, 2015)

I don’t agree with war by any means but someone said damned if you do and damned if you don’t. This is so true. 
Would people be happier to know that another countries civilians were being murdered by its own government? Out of sight out of mind approach? But that we do not do anything because it’s not happening to us? Not try to cause an issue just being devils advocate. I think you are always going to have those who do not want war under any situation regardless of what is happening.... and those that agree if people are being murdered and certain government are doing wrong things to its people then something should be done. I think a case could be made for either. There will be strong backlash whatever choice is made I think.


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

KittenKong said:


> What happens and what the French President does is their business so shouldn't concern the UK.
> 
> I am well aware of the law as regards taking the matter to Parliament.
> 
> ...


If you seriously believe that what the French do is their own business then think again. You're obviously unaware the UK and France work closely together on military matters so what the French do and say matters!

https://www.politico.eu/article/bre...eaties-defense-david-cameron-nicolas-sarkozy/

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-france-commit-to-new-defence-cooperation

https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/International Security/0311pp_gomis.pdf


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

WillowT said:


> Would people be happier to know that another countries civilians were being murdered by its own government?


Yes but did they?
Seriously, why on earth would a government attack it's own people in a war that they were winning?

Everything about this stinks to high heaven IMHO
Even if it is all true going in to bomb them achieves what now?

Not picking on your post specifically @WillowT my post is more general


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Magyarmum said:


> If you seriously believe that what the French do is their own business then think again. You obviously are unaware the the UK and France work closely together on military matters so what the French do and say matters!


Perhaps you're right but I'm more concerned about what the UK PM decides to do at the moment.

While Trump is clearly pulling the strings in involving the UK and France the UK government doesn't have to go along with it. If France decides to then it's their business.

That's why I consider it vital not to act unilaterally because an "ally" or two says so.

It should have been put to Parliament as, as I said what's going to stop Theresa May from implementing unpopular legislation in the future without Parliamentary approval, because she thinks she could lose?

A very dangerous precedent in my view.


----------



## WillowT (Mar 21, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> Yes but did they?
> Seriously, why on earth would a government attack it's own people in a war that they were winning?
> 
> Everything about this stinks to high heaven IMHO
> ...


I really do not buy into all of this it never happened it was staged! Stuff. I think it needs to be looked at in a bigger picture issue which is that we have recently had a chemical attack on British soil..... even though it was a former spy it was still able to happen. I think that putin and Assad do need to know that what they are doing is completely unacceptable.

Like I said above it's fine for people to go on protests saying no bombs...... as innocent people get killed but innocent people are being killed regardless. These people through their actions profess to care but don't care to the point where they feel anything needs to be done. Again out of sight out of mind.... not our problem. That is hypocritical in my books.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

WillowT said:


> I don't agree with war by any means but someone said damned if you do and damned if you don't. This is so true.
> Would people be happier to know that another countries civilians were being murdered by its own government? Out of sight out of mind approach? But that we do not do anything because it's not happening to us? Not try to cause an issue just being devils advocate. I think you are always going to have those who do not want war under any situation regardless of what is happening.... and those that agree if people are being murdered and certain government are doing wrong things to its people then something should be done. I think a case could be made for either. There will be strong backlash whatever choice is made I think.


*You could flip your argument around and say, would these people be so keen on war if it was their own people being killed?*


----------



## WillowT (Mar 21, 2015)

JANICE199 said:


> *You could flip your argument around and say, would these people be so keen on war if it was their own people being killed?*


Well that what I'm trying to say. And I know if our country was being poisoned by its our government and another country wanted to intervene to stop that then I would just be happy that another nation out there cared enough to want to stop it. Because I really doubt that any people like living under a dictatorship who will also be too scared to speak out for fear of punishment


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

WillowT said:


> I really do not buy into all of this it never happened it was staged!


I never said it didn't happen or that it was staged. It is very clear that we do not know the whole story and we probably never will...I don't believe that bombing a country should be a knee jerk reaction.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

WillowT said:


> Because I really doubt that any people like living under a dictatorship who will also be too scared to speak out for fear of punishment


Who's to say this won't happen in the UK in the not too distant future?

It's already heading that way by the looks of things.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

WillowT said:


> living under a dictatorship


We already do live in a dictatorship.
We are given several freedoms such as the freedom to choose what we do for a living, and plenty of leisure time, but we are not free.
The EU is a dictatorship, and the UK electoral system is such that we have a "revolving dictatorship".
We live in a cage but there are many distractions to blind us to the existence of the bars of the cage.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

StormyThai said:


> Yes but did they?
> Seriously, why on earth would a government attack it's own people in a war that they were winning?
> 
> Everything about this stinks to high heaven IMHO
> ...


 Why does it stink ?

Some governments don't give a damn about their own people . They don't care for all the ethnic groups. They've razed cities to the ground and already killed their own people. They bombed hospitals and schools etc and starving people in sieges .

They've been "winning " this war for months and years now.
They want it it over and done with, regardless of who does. , the quicker the better for them.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/30/aleppo-fear-safe-passage-trap


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

StormyThai said:


> I never said it didn't happen or that it was staged. It is very clear that we do not know the whole story and we probably never will...I don't believe that bombing a country should be a knee jerk reaction.


I agree with but in this case I wonder if it is a knee jerk reaction . The war in Syria has been going on for years and I guess that they already have plans in place for when this type of thing happens .


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

kimthecat said:


> Why does it stink ?
> 
> Some governments don't give a damn about their own people . They don't care for all the ethnic groups. They've razed cities to the ground and already killed their own people. They bombed hospitals and schools etc and starving people in sieges .
> 
> ...


Trump said that he wants the US out of Syria > immediately, there is a "chemical weapons attack" to draw them back in.

This "chemical weapons attack" was staged by the jihadis. It never happened.
By bombing Syria, it has now been established that all the jihadis have to do is to stage an attack, and we will jump in to help them.

It's about "regime change". Assad said "no" to the Gulf States pipeline and "yes" to the Iranian one. The West wants the Gulf States pipeline in there, which is why we have been helping the jihadis to try and unseat Assad.

Just as in Libya, we have chosen the wrong side.......... again.
Isn't it amazing that our government would prefer not the brutal, secular Assad, but an even more brutal Islamic government?
We really do have to stop voting for these people.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

mewtoo said:


> We already do live in a dictatorship.
> We are given several freedoms such as the freedom to choose what we do for a living, and plenty of leisure time, but we are not free.
> The EU is a dictatorship, and the UK electoral system is such that we have a "revolving dictatorship".
> We live in a cage but there are many distractions to blind us to the existence of the bars of the cage.


A matter of opinion. At least the EU dictatorship, as you call it, allows me full freedom to travel, live and work in other member states.

Theresa May on the other hand has chosen to take these rights away from me and millions of others. Nothing to do with the Brexit vote; they could have chosen the Norway/Swiss methods that allows such freedoms.

I know which "dictatorship" I 'd prefer.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

But nothing like war with Russia, even imaginary, will divert the attention of the spectacular success of Brexit ...
Looks like Britain needs some war pretty quick.
Not sure if Russia, now that World Cup is coming needs that kind of publicity. But once it is over...
Watch that space....


They need some diversion too...

Maybe both govs will stage some little war abroad, say Ukraine?
Then propaganda of both countries will show it as a great success?

When the draw was decided before the game even started?



All smoke, mirrors and a nervous agent....


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

KittenKong said:


> A matter of opinion. At least the EU dictatorship, as you call it, allows me full freedom to travel, live and work in other member states.


You had this freedom before the EU. It's nothing new.
But listen to what you are saying. What you are saying is that you don't mind living in a dictatorship as long as you have the freedom to travel. Is it worth giving up the freedom and basic rights of yourself, your children, your family and your people just so that you believe you can travel around (which you can do anyway)?



KittenKong said:


> Theresa May on the other hand has chosen to take these rights away from me and millions of others. Nothing to do with the Brexit vote; they could have chosen the Norway/Swiss methods .


She has done no such thing, since the freedom to travel and work in the EU provinces exists whether we are in the EU, out of the EU, or the EU even exists.
In any case, Theresa May is the EU's top agent in the UK. When the EU negotiates with her, they are negotiating with themselves. Why do you think we are getting so badly screwed over as regards our exit from the EU?



KittenKong said:


> I know which "dictatorship" I 'd prefer.....


Why are you so keen to live under a dictatorship?
It's not a case of choosing a dictatorship to live under. With Brexit, we have the opportunity to not live under a dictatorship at all.
Will we grasp this opportunity? With people putting their imagined ability to travel to other countries above any concern for the rights of their children, I'm guessing that we won't.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

KittenKong said:


> A matter of opinion.


Actually, it's not.
The EU is what it is, and this doesn't change regardless of what you, or I, or anyone else thinks.

The EU is run from the top, by people who are not elected and, as it happens, cannot be elected anyway in a way which would allow them to represent the people.
The EU has a thing it calls a Parliament, but it is not a parliament, just as the Conservative Party is not a conservative party.
The existence of the EU Parliament is there as a smokescreen, to mask the fact that the EU is run in a dictatorial manner from the top.
A citizen of the EU is a slave, of sorts. That we have some freedom to say what we like, we can travel around, we can choose our job, we have leisure time, and we can travel, does not change what we are.
The difference between us and the slaves in a mine in ancient Egypt is that our chains are not physical ones, but we are still slaves.
We are slaves because we work for the glory of the dictatorship in which we live.


----------



## WillowT (Mar 21, 2015)

mewtoo said:


> We already do live in a dictatorship.
> We are given several freedoms such as the freedom to choose what we do for a living, and plenty of leisure time, but we are not free.
> The EU is a dictatorship, and the UK electoral system is such that we have a "revolving dictatorship".
> We live in a cage but there are many distractions to blind us to the existence of the bars of the cage.


I believe there is a continuim like anything else. We certainly do not live to the extreme dictatorship that some other countries are stuck in. that is pretty clear I think when you see what is going on in other countries around the world


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

WillowT said:


> I believe there is a continuim like anything else. We certainly do not live to the extreme dictatorship that some other countries are stuck in. that is pretty clear I think when you see what is going on in other countries around the world


Dictatorships are not create equal. They come in many flavours.
The EU is very clever, because it has worked out a way to convince people that they are free, when in reality they are slaves being dictated-to.
I'm so glad that we grasped our one chance to get out of this dictatorship, but am saddened that so many people wanted to live under it*. As such, the future, although brighter than it was, is still not very bright.

*I do concede though that most people who voted to stay enslaved had absolutely no clue what the EU is. I also recognise that many people are happy to throw away the rights of their children in return for perceived greater wealth - that's why the main argument for staying in the EU was one of economics, or to put it more simply, "I want to stay in the EU because I want to maintain my lifestyle or become richer, and I am fearful that if we leave the EU then I will not have as many foreign holidays or be able to change my car as often."


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

mewtoo said:


> The EU is very clever, because it has worked out a way to convince people that they are free, when in reality they are slaves being dictated-to.
> I'm so glad that we grasped our one chance to get out of this dictatorship, but am saddened that so many people wanted to live under it*. As such, the future, although brighter than it was, is still not very bright.


_*You made my day... I haven't **laughed** so much in ages*_


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

mewtoo said:


> You had this freedom before the EU. It's nothing new.
> But listen to what you are saying. What you are saying is that you don't mind living in a dictatorship as long as you have the freedom to travel. Is it worth giving up the freedom and basic rights of yourself, your children, your family and your people just so that you believe you can travel around (which you can do anyway)?
> 
> She has done no such thing, since the freedom to travel and work in the EU provinces exists whether we are in the EU, out of the EU, or the EU even exists.
> ...


What complete and utter rubbish. I realise you are probably Theresa May's biggest fan so no need to lecture me how wonderful you think she is.

Freedom to travel, retire, live and work is NOT a dictatorship. I'm sure those who lived behind the Berlin Wall would agree.

Now they lived under a REAL dictatorship. EU membership gave them the freedom to live and work across other member statesm

This is not actually a Brexit thread but I'll say this and I'd think very carefully if I were you.

I'm sure many people in Germany thought dictatorship would never happen to them when Hitler became Chancellor......


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Happy Paws said:


> _*You made my day... I haven't laughed so much in ages*_


I am very disappointed.
EU Super Army Joint Forces not mentioned?

But then I am a watermelon... :Couchpotato


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

This has turned into a Brexit thread. Quelle Suprise. 

Whether it was a set up by militants or Assad did indeed use nerve gas , the Uk has responded( rightly or wrongly )and we can't undo what's been done. I hope it stops future gas attacks and I hope this course of action doesn't rebound on us. 

I'm over 60 and I've seen so much cruelty that has been reported on the news over the years , Pol Pot , Rwanda etc , yet it still shocks me , I'm still bewildered as to why so many human beings are cruel and evil.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

kimthecat said:


> This has turned into a Brexit thread. Quelle Suprise.
> 
> Whether it was a set up by militants or Assad did indeed use nerve gas , the Uk has responded( rightly or wrongly )and we can't undo what's been done. I hope it stops future gas attacks and I hope this course of action doesn't rebound:Muted:Muted:Muted:Muted:Muted on us.
> 
> I'm over 60 and I've seen so much cruelty that has been reported on the news over the years , Pol Pot , Rwanda etc , yet it still shocks me , I'm still bewildered as to why so many human beings are cruel and evil.


Oh well... not really.. Brexit thread is done with but as the topic itself...
Bit of an elephant in the room...
Like in dear old communist times we could not say S word etc... so all spoke in code...
Then even that was not allowed.
I was wearing self made T-shirt with 1984 on it.
When questioned told police it is not a word, but a number!


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

KittenKong said:


> What complete and utter rubbish. I realise you are probably Theresa May's biggest fan so no need to lecture me how wonderful you think she is.
> Freedom to travel, retire, live and work is NOT a dictatorship. I'm sure those who lived behind the Berlin Wall would agree.
> Now they lived under a REAL dictatorship. EU membership gave them the freedom to live and work across other member statesm
> This is not actually a Brexit thread but I'll say this and I'd think very carefully if I were you.
> I'm sure many people in Germany thought dictatorship would never happen to them when Hitler became Chancellor......


Fear not KK, old bean. Yon member speaks Cat language. :Wacky It says so in their avatar.:Wtf

Whatever nonsense yon member posted, was obviously told to them by their cat.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

cheekyscrip said:


> <kimthecat said: ↑
> Whether it was a set up by militants or Assad did indeed use nerve gas , the Uk has responded( rightly or wrongly )and we can't undo what's been done. I hope it stops future gas attacks and I hope this course of action doesn't rebound:Muted:Muted:Muted:Muted:Muted on us. >
> 
> Oh well... not really.. Brexit thread is done with but as the topic itself...
> ...


 Kindly refrain from adding emoticons to my post when you quote me . That is not the purpose of quotes .


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Zaros said:


> Fear not KK, old bean. Yon member speaks Cat language. :Wacky It says so in their avatar.:Wtf
> 
> Whatever nonsense yon member posted, was obviously told to them by their cat.


Actually on reflection I thought it might be Dr. Pepper marking his return.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

kimthecat said:


> Kindly refrain from adding emoticons to my post when you quote me . That is not the purpose of quotes .


My apologies.. they were meant for my post!!! 
No idea how the army of smilies invaded your post!!!

Worse ... not sure how to round them up and chuck them out?
I swear it was not my intention and they did it themselves!

Illegals all of them.
Deport them back.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

So how come we haven’t bombed Russia, China and North Korea to let them know their behaviour is unacceptable? Russia used a nerve agent to kill someone actually in the U.K.? So where’s the bombs?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

KittenKong said:


> Actually on reflection I thought it might be Dr. Pepper marking his return.


Well, good luck to him.

If it is him.

This forum needs a bit of a spark to get it ignited again.:Angelic

I say PF should offer an amnesty to all those who have unfortunately gone where other members fear to tread.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

KittenKong said:


> What complete and utter rubbish. I realise you are probably Theresa May's biggest fan so no need to lecture me how wonderful you think she is.


Theresa May's biggest fan?
I've never voted Conservative and will never do so.
Theresa May is a traitor. She works for the EU and therefore is against the British people.



KittenKong said:


> Freedom to travel, retire, live and work is NOT a dictatorship. I'm sure those who lived behind the Berlin Wall would agree.


It is possible, and is actually our reality, that although we have the freedom to travel, retire, live and work, we still live in a dictatorship. Dictatorships come in various flavours.
The laws which you live under were not decided upon by yourself - you had no say in them - they were handed down by the EU.
I am sorry to have to inform you of this.



KittenKong said:


> Now they lived under a REAL dictatorship. EU membership gave them the freedom to live and work across other member statesm


If a person can work in another country then this means that it is impossible for them to live under a dictatorship.
:Hilarious



KittenKong said:


> This is not actually a Brexit thread but I'll say this and I'd think very carefully if I were you.
> 
> I'm sure many people in Germany thought dictatorship would never happen to them when Hitler became Chancellor......


The process which led the German people to believe that Hitler was on their side is the same as the process which leads people of this day to believe that the EU is on their side.
You will understand this one day.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

mewtoo said:


> Theresa May's biggest fan?
> I've never voted Conservative and will never do so.
> Theresa May is a traitor. She works for the EU and therefore is against the British people.
> 
> ...


EU is not a person or a group but rather 27 or 28 countries that have trading agreement? Very useful if you need to face giants like USA or China.
Which Britain wants to tackle alone.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

cheekyscrip said:


> EU is not a person or a group but rather 27 or 28 countries that have trading agreement? Very useful if you need to face giants like USA or China.
> Which Britain wants to tackle alone.


The EU is not a group which has a trading agreement; the EU is a political entity - a Superstate if you will.
You're thinking of the European Coal and Steel Community, which hasn't existed for a long time, but was the basis for the EU as it is now. It became the EEC, then the EU.
The goal was always to merge the countries of Europe into provinces of an EU superstate. Then after this, to integrate the countries of North Africa, as per the Union for the Mediterranean.
Countries are first brought in under the excuse of a trade agreement, then political union follows.

If you want to merge this country with Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Egypt and Turkey, then you will be pro-EU. If not, then you will be anti-EU.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

mewtoo said:


> The EU is not a group which has a trading agreement; the EU is a political entity - a Superstate if you will.
> You're thinking of the European Coal and Steel Community, which hasn't existed for a long time, but was the basis for the EU as it is now. It became the EEC, then the EU.
> The goal was always to merge the countries of Europe into provinces of an EU superstate. Then after this, to integrate the countries of North Africa, as per the Union for the Mediterranean.
> Countries are first brought in under the excuse of a trade agreement, then political union follows.
> ...


Tbh I wish entire planet Earth was one Super State with no frontiers and all animals were equal.
But not more equal than others.

Same strict rules on pollution, education and health care for everyone. One human race. United to save our planet. 
I am possibly a watermelon. Going to seed.
Maybe Earth is a watermelon too?


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

cheekyscrip said:


> Tbh I wish entire planet Earth was one Super State with no frontiers and all animals were equal.
> But not more equal than others.
> 
> Same strict rules on pollution, education and health care for everyone. One human race.
> ...


Unfortunately, unbeknown to you, you are wishing for war.
And for some other things too, which I won't go into


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

mewtoo said:


> Unfortunately, unbeknown to you, you are wishing for war.
> And for some other things too, which I won't go into


On the contrary. Worldwide peace, freedom and equality.
One Republic Earth.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

kimthecat said:


> This has turned into a Brexit thread. Quelle Suprise.


They can't help themselves!


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

cheekyscrip said:


> Tbh I wish entire planet Earth was one Super State with no frontiers and all animals were equal.
> But not more equal than others.
> 
> Same strict rules on pollution, education and health care for everyone. One human race. United to save our planet.


It would be nice wouldn't it, but while we are around the planet is on a downward spiral.


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

mewtoo said:


> Theresa May's biggest fan?
> I've never voted Conservative and will never do so.
> Theresa May is a traitor. She works for the EU and therefore is against the British people.
> 
> ...


What a load of rubbish! If these are the 14 essential features of a dictatorship explain to me how the EU can possibly qualify as a dictatorship!

http://www.publishyourarticles.net/...tial-features-of-dictatorship-explained/5952/



mewtoo said:


> The EU is not a group which has a trading agreement; the EU is a political entity - a Superstate if you will.
> You're thinking of the European Coal and Steel Community, which hasn't existed for a long time, but was the basis for the EU as it is now. It became the EEC, then the EU.
> The goal was always to merge the countries of Europe into provinces of an EU superstate. Then after this, to integrate the countries of North Africa, as per the Union for the Mediterranean.
> Countries are first brought in under the excuse of a trade agreement, then political union follows.
> ...


Jean-Claude Juncker doesn't appear to agree with you!

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43058087


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Magyarmum said:


> What a load of rubbish! If these are the 14 essential features of a dictatorship explain to me how the EU can possibly qualify as a dictatorship!
> 
> http://www.publishyourarticles.net/...tial-features-of-dictatorship-explained/5952/


http://www.publishyourarticles.net/...tial-features-of-dictatorship-explained/5952/

There aren't 14 essential features of a dictatorship.

The EU is a dictatorship because of what it is and how it behaves, not because of ticking the boxes in some article.
:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious



Magyarmum said:


> Jean-Claude Juncker doesn't appear to agree with you!
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43058087


The man who is creating a superstate but who doesn't want people to get wise that he is creating a superstate, says that he is not creating a superstate.

:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious

This is great stuff. Keep it coming.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

cheekyscrip said:


> On the contrary. Worldwide peace, freedom and equality.
> One Republic Earth.


When people vote Labour, what they *think* they are voting for is "for the many, not the few".
What they are actually voting for is communism and mass misery and death.

When people vote Conservative, what they *think* they are voting for is "strong and stable".
What they are actually voting for is a politically correct police-state and all the horrors which go with it.

When people vote Green, what they *think* they are voting for is a clean environment and nice cuddles for the animals.
What they are actually voting for is communism and the horrors which go with it.

*Thinking* that you want worldwide peace, freedom and equality is an honourable thing, but that's not what you are going to get with open borders and everyone mixed up; instead you'll get misery and war.

People listen to John Lennon's Imagine, and it makes them feel nice, but it's just a song written by a hippie; there's no truth to it.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

Ah I see. We are back to the "you don't know what you voted for but I do" argument. :Yawn


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

mewtoo said:


> People listen to John Lennon's Imagine, and it makes them feel nice, but it's just a song written by a hippie; there's no truth to it.


Strange you should mention John Lennon. Do you not find it a tad ironic that the majority of the generation who made John Lennon's _'Imagine' _a hit was the same generation that voted to leave the EU?

Just sayin':Angelic


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Jonescat said:


> Ah I see. We are back to the "you don't know what you voted for but I do" argument. :Yawn


So did the people who voted for "strong and stable" actually get strong and stable?
I think not.
Politicians never lie.
:Hilarious

It'd be better if they were honest, wouldn't it?

Labour: well, we're actually communists, so if you vote for us then we are going to ruin the economy, make everyone poor (except for our leadership who will live in luxury), then start putting people in camps.
Conservative: we're authoritarian globalists, so if you vote for us then we'll start arresting people for saying things which we don't like, and betraying you all to the EU.
Green: we pretend that we like animals, but really we're just commies. Vote for us or for Labour - no real difference.
SNP: don't be fooled by our claim to be nationalists, because we are not; we just like lots of free money for ourselves and our projects, and we'll sell you out to the EU as well.

Since there is no legal requirement to live up to manifesto pledges, then the parties can say what they like to attract a vote.
Or in other words, a person who takes a party at face value, does not know what they are voting for.
They ought to though.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Zaros said:


> Strange you should mention John Lennon. Do you not find it a tad ironic that the majority of the generation who made John Lennon's _'Imagine' _a hit was the same generation that voted to leave in the EU?
> 
> Just sayin':Angelic


It's almost as if they got wiser as they got older.
Who would have expected such a thing!


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

mewtoo said:


> It's almost as if they got wiser as they got older.
> Who would have expected such a thing!


I happen to like the spirit of community and long for community spirit. One big happy family willing to help one another in times of great need. 

Because without each others help there's not much hope for any of us.

_'You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one' :Singing _John Lennon. 1940-1980


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

According to the ITV news the missiles hit the two targets they were aimed at destroying chemical weapons cache without loss of life. The Westerners are claiming victory , the Syrians are relieved it wasn't worse , Assad has won the battle for the city because of the use of chemical weapons and the Russian are claiming the moral high ground and denying everything .


----------



## Pawscrossed (Jul 2, 2013)

mewtoo said:


> So did the people who voted for "strong and stable" actually get strong and stable?
> I think not.
> Politicians never lie.
> :Hilarious
> ...


Sir, sir you missed out UKIP in your dictatororial... if you're going to take the thread back to Brexit then please do at least include all the parties involved otherwise we may rename you Nigel.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Politicians are people too.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Zaros said:


> I happen to like the spirit of community and long for community spirit. One big happy family willing to help one another in times of great need.
> 
> Because without each others help there's not much hope for any of us.


This is not incompatible with a world of nation states.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Pawscrossed said:


> Sir, sir you missed out UKIP in your dictatororial... if you're going to take the thread back to Brexit then please do at least include all the parties involved otherwise we may rename you Nigel.


I missed out the LibDems and the parties of Northern Ireland as well, but you get the idea.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Calvine said:


> They can't help themselves!


Hey, you can't blame Remainers for this derailment, that honour goes to EU disestablishmentarianist mewtoo 



mewtoo said:


> You will understand this one day.


You seem to use varients of this phrase a lot. Any chance of backing yourself up with links, articles etc.?


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Jesthar said:


> You seem to use varients of this phrase a lot. Any chance of backing yourself up with links, articles etc.?


The moderation policy on this forum doesn't allow for that I'm afraid.
Would love to talk more in depth about it.
What I really hope for in these discussions though is that a person might be intrigued and therefore go off and do their own research.

What I mean when I say things like "you will understand this one day", is that the things I am talking about now will become apparent and noticeable at a later date, and more so as time goes on.

It's like in the 20s and 30s: some Jewish people, who had read Mein Kampf, were saying, "if this Hitler chap ever comes to power, he's going to come after us". Some Jews believed them, or were intrigued enough to go and read that book for themselves, and those Jews got out of Germany and they lived. The ones who said, "stop being such a conspiracy theorist" or who didn't believe them, or couldn't be bothered to find out about it for themselves....... well, it became apparent and noticeable to them that those Jews who had warned them had been correct.

A similar situation exists now in that some people, who went and gained the knowledge, have been warning for decades about what the EU is, or what the British government has been doing, or Western governments have been doing, but were mostly dismissed, and only now is it becoming apparent and noticeable to the "man on the street" that what they had been warning about was true. As time goes on, it'll get more and more apparent and noticeable, so that eventually, even the most stubborn ostrich will not be able hide from reality. By then it will be too late of course.

I find all this stuff fascinating. It really puts historical events in context, and explains the things which are happening today.
I remember when the Cold War ended. I thought we'd won. It wasn't until later that I realised that the West had won in the East, but the East had won in the West. The things which caused the horrors of the 20th Century never went away; they just hid under the surface for a while, and then operated in a more sophisticated way when they were put into play.

If you want to frighten yourself, go and read about the people who created what is now the EU, and about the people who laid the groundwork for it before them. Read about what their visions were for the future of Europe. The reasons for the things which have been happening in the UK post WW2 and for what has been happening across the EU in recent years will become apparent.
Fascinating if you are into things like that, boring if you are not, inconvenient if you prefer the "feel good factor" over cold, hard reality. I have no idea which one you prefer


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

mewtoo said:


> The moderation policy on this forum doesn't allow for that I'm afraid.
> Would love to talk more in depth about it.
> What I really hope for in these discussions though is that a person might be intrigued and therefore go off and do their own research.
> 
> ...


 This thread is about whether the UK should go to war with a superpower. What's that got to do with the EU?

I see on another thread you're a UKIP supporter, so it'll be interesting to hear if you support Theresa May's actions without consulting Parliament first.

Does that make her strong and stable to you or do you share my concerns about her avoiding the issue in Parliament as she thought she might not get their backing?


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Apparently, according to the Independent and Observer/Guardian only a quarter of the UK population support Theresa May's actions in unilaterally joining the US and France in their mission.

I've also heard many in opposition would have backed Theresa May had it gone to Parliament and are understandably angry they weren't allowed this to be debated.

So it could backfire on her big time. Let's hope so.

As I've said before it's not May's backing of military action that concerns me, it's the way she went about it which is unacceptable in what's supposed to be a democratic country.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

mewtoo said:


> The moderation policy on this forum doesn't allow for that I'm afraid.
> Would love to talk more in depth about it.
> What I really hope for in these discussions though is that a person might be intrigued and therefore go off and do their own research.
> 
> ...


Oh, is that all? I don't recall discussions like that being disallowed here. Must be the way you tell 'em!


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

Jesthar said:


> Hey, you can't blame Remainers for this derailment, that honour goes to EU disestablishmentarianist mewtoo
> 
> You seem to use varients of this phrase a lot. Any chance of backing yourself up with links, articles etc.?





Jesthar said:


> Oh, is that all? I don't recall discussions like that being disallowed here. Must be the way you tell 'em!


You beat me to it! I was going to ask since when has substantiating a discussion with factual articles and links been disallowed on PF?

@mewtoo ... You can hardly expect anyone to take your vague, "prophetic" utterings seriously when you don't ,or are not prepared to, back them up with facts!



> "It's like in the 20s and 30s: some Jewish people, who had read Mein Kampf, were saying, "if this Hitler chap ever comes to power, he's going to come after us". Some Jews believed them, or were intrigued enough to go and read that book for themselves, and those Jews got out of Germany and they lived. The ones who said, "stop being such a conspiracy theorist" or who didn't believe them, or couldn't be bothered to find out about it for themselves....... well, it became apparent and noticeable to them that those Jews who had warned them had been correct."
> 
> 
> > This is the wrong thread to start a discussion about how much influence "Mein Kampf" had on Jewish people's decision to quit Germany. Suffice it to say you're not correct in what is a rather naive assumption. There were far more compelling factors that forced the Jewish population to make the decision apart from simply reading a book.


----------



## Pawscrossed (Jul 2, 2013)

mewtoo said:


> I missed out the LibDems and the parties of Northern Ireland as well, but you get the idea.


I 'get the picture' about your political personality, Nigel.


----------



## Pawscrossed (Jul 2, 2013)

Magyarmum said:


> You beat me to it! I was going to ask since when has substantiating a discussion with factual articles and links been disallowed on PF?
> 
> @mewtoo ... You can hardly expect anyone to take your vague, "prophetic" utterings seriously when you don't ,or are not prepared to, back them up with facts!


He makes a great author... MewToo's Far Right Fairy Tales, loosely based on the history of the EU with a foreword from Nigel Farage. The Daily Mail will publish the extracts.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)




----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

mewtoo said:


> The moderation policy on this forum doesn't allow for that I'm afraid.
> Would love to talk more in depth about it.
> What I really hope for in these discussions though is that a person might be intrigued and therefore go off and do their own research.
> 
> ...


Freedom of speech is allowed on the forum. It's a basic Human Right.  The exception being if you post offensive comments, or links to offensive material. Posting links that back up you views (so long as they're not offensive) including links to relevant laws, are allowed, too.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

mewtoo said:


> The moderation policy on this forum doesn't allow for that I'm afraid.


Could you point me to the rule that this relates to please...being a staff member I feel I should be up to date with all the relevant rules of the forum


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

KittenKong said:


> This thread is about whether the UK should go to war with a superpower. What's that got to do with the EU?


Welllllll, it's funny you should ask, because the EU is gearing up for conflict with Russia. It dabbled with this in Ukraine.



KittenKong said:


> I see on another thread you're a UKIP supporter, so it'll be interesting to hear if you support Theresa May's actions without consulting Parliament first.


I used to support UKIP, but not any more. They did their job of getting us out of the EU, and at this point they are irrelevant. I wonder what the future holds for them.
I don't support Theresa May's actions, no.



KittenKong said:


> Does that make her strong and stable to you or do you share my concerns about her avoiding the issue in Parliament as she thought she might not get their backing?


Theresa May is the exact opposite of "strong and stable" which is why people who voted for her on that basis were voting for something which was never on offer.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Jesthar said:


> Oh, is that all? I don't recall discussions like that being disallowed here. Must be the way you tell 'em!


I think you might be right :Hilarious


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Magyarmum said:


> @mewtoo ... You can hardly expect anyone to take your vague, "prophetic" utterings seriously when you don't ,or are not prepared to, back them up with facts!


Of course not. I'm just making an appeal to people's curiosity.

I don't have the time to go and find the links for people to read, nor should I.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

LinznMilly said:


> Freedom of speech is allowed on the forum. It's a basic Human Right.  The exception being if you post offensive comments, or links to offensive material. Posting links that back up you views (so long as they're not offensive) including links to relevant laws, are allowed, too.


*Well i can say 100% this is not true. I think ihave had more threads closed on here than most. And never did i break the rules. *


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Pawscrossed said:


> He makes a great author... MewToo's Far Right Fairy Tales, loosely based on the history of the EU with a foreword from Nigel Farage. The Daily Mail will publish the extracts.


Far right is anarcho-capitalism. I'm not one of those.
However, Nigel Farage is a libertarian, which is close to anarcho-capitalism, so he could well be far right.
Left = big government and socialism/ communism, state is important.
Right = small government and capitalism, individual is important.

PS. The book will be released very soon. On the cover is a picture of Nigel Farage with a machine gun standing over the bodies of Merkel and Juncker. He's got a pint of bitter in his other hand.
It'll be serialised in the Daily Mail and there will be some kind of offer that if you buy three issues you'll get 50% off the price of a family break at Center Parcs or something.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

LinznMilly said:


> Freedom of speech is allowed on the forum. It's a basic Human Right.  The exception being if you post offensive comments, or links to offensive material. Posting links that back up you views (so long as they're not offensive) including links to relevant laws, are allowed, too.


You wrote this: Freedom of speech is allowed on the forum
And then you wrote this: exception being if you post offensive comments

Which means that freedom of speech is not allowed on the forum, as freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend.
There's either freedom of speech or there isn't. There's no such thing as 40% freedom of speech, or 80% freedom of speech.
However, this forum is owned by an entity which is free to decide for themselves what is and isn't allowed to be said, and that's fine.

Since it's based in the UK, and most of the people here are resident in the UK, it would be impossible to have freedom of speech anyway, since freedom of speech does not exist in the UK.

I'm not complaining about it; I'm just saying that it's not possible to have an open discussion unless freedom of speech exists. If we wanted that kind of thing then we'd all have to move to the US and take the server with us.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

mewtoo said:


> The laws which you live under were not decided upon by yourself - you had no say in them - they were handed down by the EU.
> I am sorry to have to inform you of this.


This is an 'interesting' statement, but like a number of others in this thread, it is not backed up by the facts. I see you are reluctant to include links, but here is one that considers EU influence on UK law, as determined by the Full Fact folk.

As you will see from the link

*Estimates range from 13% to 65%, although all *[the estimates]* have problems
13% is likely to be too low, in reality, but 62% is much too high*​
https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/

Your implication of 100% is therefore quite wrong.

Also worth pointing out that "the laws under which (I) live" - i.e. those that actually affect me, are quite unlikely to have emanated in Brussels.

And that I had no say at all in the laws that were decided upon in this country, though - thanks to PR - slightly more for those coming from the EU.

Also worth pointing out - since this thread was about the wider international situation until someone pulled up a spurious soap box and jumped on it - that the rules of which May had to be careful, and may have broken - were decided upon neither nor in the EU.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

:Muted:Muted:Muted


JANICE199 said:


> *Well i can say 100% this is not true. I think ihave had more threads closed on here than most. And never did i break the rules. *


Funny you say that... but I do not remember breaking rules or demanding that insensitive content was posted? Yet my threads were closed . After being summed up by one of the members and mod without even given me the chance to answer closed the thread - because the mentioned member put it so well... ( actually being most pathetically patronizing).
This thread was about such a revolting subject like the origin of dictatorship and censorship, in a very broad meaning.

I still cannot see why satire and cartoons of Certain stories are so insensitive?
While there was no objection to those posted about Current Potus and those offended were happy then?

I think we have kind of selective freedom of speech


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Arnie83 said:


> This is an 'interesting' statement, but like a number of others in this thread, it is not backed up by the facts. I see you are reluctant to include links, but here is one that considers EU influence on UK law, as determined by the Full Fact folk.
> 
> As you will see from the link
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, you have fallen for the "independant fact-checking" scam :Hilarious

The 62% figure includes the EU regulations which bypass Parliament. Parliament doesn't even get to debate those.

So as it was, ~62% of the laws and regulations you must live under were dictated to you.
If we had stayed in the EU, then that number would have increased until 100% of rules and regulations came from the EU.

Thank Farage that we voted to get out of this dictatorship so that our children and grandchildren may have the opportunity to live sovereign and free in their own land once more.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

mewtoo said:


> Unfortunately, you have fallen for the "independant fact-checking" scam :Hilarious
> 
> The 62% figure includes the EU regulations which bypass Parliament. Parliament doesn't even get to debate those.
> 
> ...


You conveniently forgot we had a say in all those regulations?


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

cheekyscrip said:


> You conveniently forgot we had a say in all those regulations?


No, we didn't.
Everything comes from the top of the EU.
You have no say in it and I have no say in it.
It's a dictatorship.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Well i can say 100% this is not true. I think ihave had more threads closed on here than most. And never did i break the rules. *


I'm pretty sure you've posted some contentious things in the past Janice, & you must admit, you often magically appear when there's heated debate, especially when there's a chance to dig at the apparently fascist moderators on here 

Maybe in future us mods should just ignore all reports & evidence sent to us & just let the forum become a free for all for whatever views/grievances/disagreements you'd like to air.

While we're at it we might as well stop moderating Korean spam posts, scammers, liars, trolls & charlatans as surely they have the right to poast whjatever they want as well.

I've said it before but it obviously needs reiterating as those at the back of the class missed it, but this is primarily a forum for *pets*, not heavy political discussion & currently a significant volume of reports come in from General Chat, & specifically these are usually political in nature.

If we don't do anything, we're condoning bullying.

If we do do anything, we're suppressing freedom of speech.

What do you want from the forum, because coming on occasionally just to complain about over moderation is neither nice nor constructive, so please feel free to PM one of us & let us know.

May I also suggest to those of you who hate the way the forum is moderated, please feel free to message Admin to air your grievances, because all of us behind the scenes have been trying & frankly I'm sick of seeing your ungrateful & snide posts dotted around the forum.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

mewtoo said:


> No, we didn't.
> Everything comes from the top of the EU.
> You have no say in it and I have no say in it.
> It's a dictatorship.


Who is the top of EU? I saw quite a few Brits there? Isn't Nigel in their pocket? Handsomely paid as MEP?
Are you trying to tell me that the top of EU are not politicians representing all EU countries? 
Obviously now when UK is out Germany and France will dominate the rest.
Why do you think Thatcher wanted Britain in EU?
Why Heseltine was so furious that Britain will be now marginalized while Germany/ France led EU and Russia would be the Big Players?
Look back at history Russia and Germany will find the way to divide their influence...

We will be just out of the game , little vassals hanging to the sleeve of our Big Brother.
If I were to choose between the Big Orange and Juncker the Drunker I still rather see the later as more sane...


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

:Beaver:Beaver


simplysardonic said:


> I'm pretty sure you've posted some contentious things in the past Janice, & you must admit, you often magically appear when there's heated debate, especially when there's a chance to dig at the apparently fascist moderators on here
> 
> Maybe in future us mods should just ignore all reports & evidence sent to us & just let the forum become a free for all for whatever views/grievances/disagreements you'd like to air.
> 
> ...


My threads were closed and I never in my eight years here bullied anyone.
If someone decide to take general comment personally and run to the Mods?
What then? Close the debate? Clearly those complain first who first run out of arguments.
Some comments are simply sardonic.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

simplysardonic said:


> I'm pretty sure you've posted some contentious things in the past Janice, & you must admit, you often
> Maybe in future us mods should just ignore all reports & evidence sent to us & just let the forum become a free for all for whatever views/grievances/disagreements you'd like to air.
> 
> While we're at it we might as well stop moderating Korean spam posts, scammers, liars, trolls & charlatans as surely they have the right to poast whjatever they want as well.
> ...


*I have had many heated debates on here,but if you can show me where I went against forum rules, i'll give you that.*
*As for me, " magically appearing when there's heated debate, especially when there's a chance to dig at the apparently fascist moderators on here " I come every day, thank you. *
*You ask, what do i wont from a mod. well there's more to being a mod than just closing a thread. If someone takes a thread off topic ( and that's usually when the trouble starts), surely the job of a mod is to pull that person up, not close the whole thread.*
*It seems to me some of you mods are too touchy.*


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

cheekyscrip said:


> Who is the top of EU? I saw quite a few Brits there? Isn't Nigel in their pocket? Handsomely paid as MEP?
> Are you trying to tell me that the top of EU are not politicians representing all EU countries?
> Obviously now when UK is out Germany and France will dominate the rest.
> Why do you think Thatcher wanted Britain in EU?
> ...


The EU Commission (unelected) passes the proposed law to the EU Parliament, which debates this new law. If no changes are proposed, the law goes back up to the Commission to be passed. If changes are proposed, the Commission is under no obligation to accept them.
In other words, whatever the Commission wants to pass, it passes.
You have no say in it, I have no say in it, Nigel Farage has no say in it.

Margaret Thatcher was an EU-sceptic. She was not pro-EU.

Heseltine is a wet. He's pro-EU. It doesn't matter what he says.

Out of the EU we will be better off. We will be a sovereign nation again.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Sorry , Couldn't resist this one , it was on Twitter. :Bag


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

kimthecat said:


> Sorry , Couldn't resist this one , it was on Twitter. :Bag


*Better than sending bombs.*


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Good point this.....


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *I have had many heated debates on here,but if you can show me where I went against forum rules, i'll give you that.*
> *As for me, " magically appearing when there's heated debate, especially when there's a chance to dig at the apparently fascist moderators on here " I come every day, thank you. *
> *You ask, what do i wont from a mod. well there's more to being a mod than just closing a thread. If someone takes a thread off topic ( and that's usually when the trouble starts), surely the job of a mod is to pull that person up, not close the whole thread.*
> *It seems to me some of you mods are too touchy.*


Nothing wrong if threads evolve, though if they tend to gravitate to one big river topic like Brexit it made sense to ask all to just avoid Brexit debates on all other threads as there was one already.

I repeat - no one has to even go to GC and no one has to read or post in political threads if it upsets them.

Members can express what is their opinion on ways of moderating the forum.
Not just in pms but openly.
One of the members here posted I cannot criticise the Mods. But have to do it properly/ in private!!!

Moderators have certain powers/ what wrong in discussion how it should be used?
How that could be offensive?

In every situation if there is a power there is a possibility of misuse or abuse. 
Talking about freedom of speech?
No one should be punished for whistleblowing and the discussion is not ad personam. 
I believe jokes or cartoons have no place in threads about personal loss, death, illness, tragedy.
But unless we qualify Brexit as such then I cannot see how cartoons of dear Nigel can be so insensitive.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *I have had many heated debates on here,but if you can show me where I went against forum rules, i'll give you that.*
> *As for me, " magically appearing when there's heated debate, especially when there's a chance to dig at the apparently fascist moderators on here " I come every day, thank you. *
> *You ask, what do i wont from a mod. well there's more to being a mod than just closing a thread. If someone takes a thread off topic ( and that's usually when the trouble starts), surely the job of a mod is to pull that person up, not close the whole thread.*
> *It seems to me some of you mods are too touchy.*


I don't have time to go through your posting history right now, but it seems whatever the mods do causes you ire in some way as is evident by the digs here & there, and yes they do get drawn to our attention even in threads we don't participate on.

You don't see reports, PMs & all the stuff that goes on behind the scenes to try & keep the forum running smoothly & it's definitely a lot more than just closing threads.

Off topic doesn't always equate to trouble starting, in fact that's quite rare in my experience but I'll happily accept proof to the contrary.

It's usually because the thread is already controversial, if we get reports we have to act, that's what the report button is for.



cheekyscrip said:


> My threads were closed and I never in my eight years here bullied anyone.
> If someone decide to take general comment personally and run to the Mods?


I never said you were, but the classification of bullying is subjective, many people aren't as thick skinned as you or I.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

simplysardonic said:


> I don't have time to go through your posting history right now, but it seems whatever the mods do causes you ire in some way as is evident by the digs here & there, and yes they do get drawn to our attention even in threads we don't participate on.
> 
> You don't see reports, PMs & all the stuff that goes on behind the scenes to try & keep the forum running smoothly & it's definitely a lot more than just closing threads.
> 
> ...


This is why Mods cannot be subjective but objective and sometimes tell the dummy spitter that no one was attacking them sf personam but just expressed their opinions.

Maybe kindly suggest that they go to less contentious topics? Like sofa covers , leggings etc?
No one had to get involved in political debates if they have no stomach for it.
Bit like drinking...


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

simplysardonic said:


> I don't have time to go through your posting history right now, but it seems whatever the mods do causes you ire in some way as is evident by the digs here & there, and yes they do get drawn to our attention even in threads we don't participate on.
> 
> You don't see reports, PMs & all the stuff that goes on behind the scenes to try & keep the forum running smoothly & it's definitely a lot more than just closing threads.
> 
> ...


*If and when i have a dig,have any of you stopped to think i might have a valid reason? Respect works both ways. I don't need to see what goes on behind the scenes, but from my years on here, one thing i do know is, one or 2 people that aren't remotely interested in a thread, complain and the thread gets closed.*


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *If and when i have a dig,have any of you stopped to think i might have a valid reason? Respect works both ways. I don't need to see what goes on behind the scenes, but from my years on here, one thing i do know is, one or 2 people that aren't remotely interested in a thread, complain and the thread gets closed.*


I would call that trolling.

I had it in Games!!!
Threads that were meant as jokes!
Members going there solely to stir trouble and complain. 
Who never contributed to those threads before but appeared there like magic just to moan.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> No one had to get involved in political debates if they have no stomach for it.


And we don't have to allow them at all...in fact many forums ban political threads because of the unrest they cause!
Damned if we do and damned if we don't


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> And we don't have to allow them at all...in fact many forums ban political threads because of the unrest they cause!
> Damned if we do and damned if we don't


*Why have a general chat section then? *


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

''All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others'': (George Orwell, ''Animal Farm''). Or, loosely translated ''All posters are (should be) equal, but some are (obviously) more equal than others. I believe this is what @JANICE199 and @cheekyscrip are both possibly pointing out.



JANICE199 said:


> *Well i can say 100% this is not true. I think ihave had more threads closed on here than most. And never did i break the rules. *





cheekyscrip said:


> My threads were closed and I never in my eight years here bullied anyone.


I have always thought that you two are very reliable and sensible posters. Cheekyscrip: you have never bullied anyone, I saw many of your posts on the (dare I say) BR***T thread and they were always polite and well-mannered. I think it would be a shame if we lost either of you.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

JANICE199 said:


> *Why have a general chat section then? *


There is more to life than political debates 
I would also like to point out that it isn't as simple as complain and a thread gets closed...we do not go around blindly closing threads on anyones say so!


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

JANICE199 said:


> *Why have a general chat section then? *


It's a commercial decision.
It's so that people can stay on the site to talk about things which are not related to the general purpose of the forum, so that they don't go elsewhere to talk about them.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Calvine said:


> ''All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others'': (George Orwell, ''Animal Farm''). Or, loosely translated ''All posters are (should be) equal, but some are (obviously) more equal than others. I believe this is what @JANICE199 and @cheekyscrip are both possibly pointing out.
> 
> I have always thought that you two are very reliable and sensible posters. Cheekyscrip: you have never bullied anyone, I saw many of your posts on the (dare I say) BR***T thread and they were always polite and well-mannered. I think it would be a shame if we lost either of you.


*Thank you Calvine, much appreciated. *


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

cheekyscrip said:


> This is why Mods cannot be subjective but objective and sometimes tell the dummy spitter that no one was attacking them sf personam but just expressed their opinions.
> 
> Maybe kindly suggest that they go to less contentious topics? Like sofa covers , leggings etc?
> No one had to get involved in political debates if they have no stomach for it.
> Bit like drinking...


Trust me I've tried doing that



JANICE199 said:


> *If and when i have a dig,have any of you stopped to think i might have a valid reason? Respect works both ways. I don't need to see what goes on behind the scenes, but from my years on here, one thing i do know is, one or 2 people that aren't remotely interested in a thread, complain and the thread gets closed.*


Yes, respect does work both ways, so how is public digs on various threads, as opposed to, say, a PM to the mod or mods you personally feel most approachable, respectful to the mods?

And it is not just 'one or two' people, it's often multiple reports by multiple different people, who frequent different subforums, & I would have probably been of the same opinion as you prior to moderating on here but seeing behind the scenes does change things.

I'm very pro the 'ignore' button so people on here can coexist without dealing with members they clash with, rather than closing threads & deleting posts, but seemingly this isn't good enough, so it's catch-22.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

mewtoo said:


> Unfortunately, you have fallen for the "independant fact-checking" scam :Hilarious


And, unfortunately, as evidenced above and through many other posts, you've gone for the "treat the poster like he's an idiot and that I know far better" approach to discussion.

It is informative, but it's not something in which I am prepared to engage, so this will be my last post to you.



mewtoo said:


> The 62% figure includes the EU regulations which bypass Parliament. Parliament doesn't even get to debate those.
> 
> So as it was, ~62% of the laws and regulations you must live under were dictated to you.
> If we had stayed in the EU, then that number would have increased until 100% of rules and regulations came from the EU.
> ...


Suffice it to say that your original post implied that all our laws were from the EU. This one says c.62% of laws and regulations.

Perhaps the next one, were I to read it, would lower that even further towards a more sensible figure.

And as I said before, 100% of the laws I live under were dictated to me, and I had no say over the vast majority of them. But to me it makes no difference whatsoever whether the lawmakers are in Westminster, Brussels, or the headquarters of the UN or the WTO.

Any more than I care that England is an artificial, and originally non-consensual amalgamation of different kingdoms. Or that,previously, those kingdoms were also smaller self-governing units.

What I do care about is blurring and eventually removing the man-made barriers between man-made countries so that situations like that in Syria today become less likely, and I think the EU is a flawed, but welcome, step on that path.

One of the more obvious facts about human history is that the more we are split into individual tribal entities with primitive notions of being somehow special - as often expressed in terms such as "our land" and "our people" - the more reasons they will find to fight each other.

I'll leave you to find the many academic studies backing that up, but you could start with Darwin's Origin of Species.

As I say, this will be my last post to you, but please don't take my non-response as an indication that I agree with anything you might say.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Dear God! Who are the people who have the time (or indeed the inclination) to PM someone the minute something upsets them? The only time I have sent a PM to Mods is when the Chinese spam sometimes appears in the early hours. I really could not be arsed with telling them that someone hurt my feelings. I didn't know we had so many snowflakes on the forum; maybe we have? I'm admin on another forum and have never once had a PM from one member complaining about another; nor have I ever had to remove a post or close a thread. I have got rid of ''members'' who joined and never once posted; no point hanging on to dead wood as they clearly had nothing to offer.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

mewtoo said:


> Out of the EU we will be better off. *We will be a sovereign nation again*.


I think you'll find we have always been one.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Why have a general chat section then? *


Because some people on here are friends & sometimes it's nice to talk about other things, maybe meet up, have a bit of banter?

As @StormyThai has pointed out, many forums don't allow political discussion because it tends to bring out the nastier sides of otherwise fairly rational people.

I honestly don't think whatever we do will ever be enough to please some people on here.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

simplysardonic said:


> Because some people on here are friends & sometimes it's nice to talk about other things, maybe meet up, have a bit of banter?
> 
> As @StormyThai has pointed out, many forums don't allow political discussion because it tends to bring out the nastier sides of otherwise fairly rational people.
> 
> I honestly don't think whatever we do will ever be enough to please some people on here.


*Having friends and wanting to have a chat and banter is fine by me. I have spent many a late night on here having a laugh. But there should be room for everyone on here. As was said earlier, if people don't like a subject, then why go into the debate? *


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

mewtoo said:


> It's a commercial decision.
> It's so that people can stay on the site to talk about things which are not related to the general purpose of the forum, so that they don't go elsewhere to talk about them.


That might be a reasonable supposition if the forum was selling anything and the mods were paid...


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I suppose the problem is we are such a hugely diverse group of people who come here because we have pets and presumably love animals (or some animals ) so when we get together in General Chat we are bound to have widely differing views on pretty much any topic from politics to food to how often you wash your bed linen. We are also such a variety of ages and of course some people have thicker skins than others or more easily get hurt by a put down or someone they might view to be harassing them. I do feel sorry for the mods because the forum needs to be welcoming to newcomers as well as to longer term members to survive and remain an interesting place otherwise it will just die like so many other forums have. Sometimes we all need reminding that things we say can hurt other people's feelings, I never thought I would ask for a thread I started to be closed until a few months back when I started one and then realised how much it hurt one member so I deleted my posts from it and asked for it to be closed which made others cross but that is the fine line mods have to tread.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Threads are not locked simply because someone doesn't like a thread.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> Threads are not locked simply because someone doesn't like a thread.


*Months back now i think it was me that started a thread about Princess Dianna. The reason for it being closed was, " it might cause upset), i think i've got the wording right. NOTHING on that thread was nasty, people had different opinions but that was it.*


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Arnie83 said:


> And, unfortunately, as evidenced above and through many other posts, you've gone for the "treat the poster like he's an idiot and that I know far better" approach to discussion.


Aw.
I wasn't treating you like an idiot though.
It's just funny that people fall for the number of "fact checking" sites which have sprung up.
What was realised was that if people of a particular type were to take over, or create, a site which billed itself as one which checks facts, and use words like "independent" and "impartial", then people will believe them due to a condition known as "confirmation bias".
For example: It feels nice to like the EU > therefore I will only visit sources which support my feelings.
Or, I am a Jehovah's Witness > therefore I will only read the Bible and sources which do not disagree with the Bible.
Or, I love Donald Trump > therefore I will pay no attention to any criticism of him.
That's confirmation bias. "Fact-checking" websites exist for this purpose. They don't always get it wrong; it depends on the intellectual honesty of the people running the site.



Arnie83 said:


> It is informative, but it's not something in which I am prepared to engage, so this will be my last post to you.


I appreciate the roundabout compliment.



Arnie83 said:


> Suffice it to say that your original post implied that all our laws were from the EU. This one says c.62% of laws and regulations.


If an EU country wants to create any laws of its own, it can only do so if the proposed law does not contravene EU law or something the EU is now calling "European values". Some Eastern European countries are trying to do this, and the EU is now threatening them as a result.

So in the UK, it's ~62% of laws and regulations, but de facto ~100% if you bear in mind our inability to contravene EU laws or values.



Arnie83 said:


> And as I said before, 100% of the laws I live under were dictated to me, and I had no say over the vast majority of them.


Oh but you did. If you live in a sovereign nation, then you may elect and remove those who make your laws. With the EU, you cannot do this.



Arnie83 said:


> But to me it makes no difference whatsoever whether the lawmakers are in Westminster, Brussels, or the headquarters of the UN or the WTO.


Therein lies your problem.



Arnie83 said:


> What I do care about is blurring and eventually removing the man-made barriers between man-made countries so that situations like that in Syria today become less likely, and I think the EU is a flawed, but welcome, step on that path.


War in the Middle East will happen whatever the border situation is. They will fight among themselves or the people in the country next to them.



Arnie83 said:


> One of the more obvious facts about human history is that the more we are split into individual tribal entities with primitive notions of being somehow special - as often expressed in terms such as "our land" and "our people" - the more reasons they will find to fight each other.


Then you would like to swap war between soldiers for war between civilians.



Arnie83 said:


> As I say, this will be my last post to you, but please don't take my non-response as an indication that I agree with anything you might say.


What has happened is that in reading my posts, you have entered a condition known as "cognitive dissonance", which is painful to go through, and to protect yourself from further pain, you are disengaging from the discussion.
It's understandable. It's the same process which people go through when they begin to reject their religion. Sometimes they come through the other side having rejected their previous beliefs, and sometimes they don't, and entrench themselves further in their beliefs.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Happy Paws said:


> I think you'll find we have always been one.


If you cannot elect nor remove the people who make your laws, then you do not exist in a sovereign nation.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Jesthar said:


> That might be a reasonable supposition if the forum was selling anything and the mods were paid...


I thought this place was owned by Pet Media Ltd. That's a commercial entity isn't it?


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Gosh we've certainly moved on from whether we should bomb Syria.



Calvine said:


> I'm admin on another forum and have never once had a PM from one member complaining about another; nor have I ever had to remove a post or close a thread..


Must be a peaceful board then. I have been Admin on a board and a Mod on very large multi conversational board and we did have to moderate - we often ran shifts so the boards were never without someone to keep an eye on them. You certainly don't become a Mod because you want to be popular you tend to do it because you believe in the ethos of the forum being maintained.

We regularly have rude, personal and offensive posts appearing in the Dog Section, usually when posters don't like the general response to their threads and sometimes simply because they want to rile or get back at individual posters. You could leave such threads to slip in the realms of mud slinging and personal comments or you could pull the poster up before it gets out of hand. I know which I would prefer ....but others may feel different. Mods have to make the decision based on how they see the ethos of the board.

Freedom is always a strange subject. I have big strong dogs. My freedom (and theirs) would be to let them run up to everyone they please when out on a walk. Another persons freedom may be to go for a walk with their more gentle dog without being harassed. So where does my freedom end and theirs begin......

J


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

JANICE199 said:


> *Months back now i think it was me that started a thread about Princess Dianna. The reason for it being closed was, " it might cause upset), i think i've got the wording right. NOTHING on that thread was nasty, people had different opinions but that was it.*


I went back and had a look and it was closed with the statement "Using my judgement"
You don't know how many reports were sent from that thread, you don't know the discussions held about any thread closures, and you seem to be forgetting that in the terms and conditions that you sign up to when you make an account it clearly says that "We reserve the rights to remove or modify any Content submitted for any reason without explanation."

We don't need to offer any reason but we do try to give an explanation when we can.
If you don't like how we run things then why not put yourself forward when another mod is taken on?


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> Gosh we've certainly moved on from whether we should bomb Syria.


Let's let Assad take back his country, and when it's time for him to fight the Turks in a few months or year's time, then we can have another conversation about whether we should bomb the Syrians, the Turks, both, or neither.

By the way, the Americans have been quietly moving their nukes out of Turkey.........


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> I went back and had a look and it was closed with the statement "Using my judgement"
> You don't know how many reports were sent from that thread, you don't know the discussions held about any thread closures, and you seem to be forgetting that in the terms and conditions that you sign up to when you make an account it clearly says that "We reserve the rights to remove or modify any Content submitted for any reason without explanation."
> 
> We don't need to offer any reason but we do try to give an explanation when we can.
> If you don't like how we run things then why not put yourself forward when another mod is taken on?


*And if you look, you will see that the mod that closed it, edited their post. As for reports, if there was nothing in that thread( using as an example why not state the problem? I know i'm not the only one that finds it so frustrating to get a good debate going, loads get involved, only for it to be closed.*


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Because reports are confidential...you are also not privy to the countless reports that are rejected...it isn't as simple as report = closure 
I understand your frustration, I really do but we can't please all of the people all of the time.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

mewtoo said:


> I thought this place was owned by Pet Media Ltd. That's a commercial entity isn't it?


Given that Pet Media Ltd has never tried to sell me anything, whether or not it is a commercial entity is rather moot as far as I am concerned. Been on plenty of forums run just for fun and the love of the topic too, all of which have had general chat sections.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

StormyThai said:


> I went back and had a look and it was closed with the statement "Using my judgement"
> You don't know how many reports were sent from that thread, you don't know the discussions held about any thread closures, and you seem to be forgetting that in the terms and conditions that you sign up to when you make an account it clearly says that "We reserve the rights to remove or modify any Content submitted for any reason without explanation."
> 
> We don't need to offer any reason but we do try to give an explanation when we can.
> If you don't like how we run things then why not put yourself forward when another mod is taken on?


Why plural? Royal "we"? IMO a bit patronizing but it is just IMO.
I think most moderators do a good job, unpaid.

Some better than others.

No point of a anyone getting defensive.
You think that political threads should not be allowed, I think they are the mainstay of GC.
Most interesting. 
We could have a separate sub forum for those , if that helps?

Coming with a warning " not for the fainhearted".

I have many years of experience on pf and there were times the mods were excellent and times they run into trouble aka Adult Chat debacle.
There are mods here I admire and I have a full support for.
And there is one or two that appear weaker and did seem to side with some members or member,
IMO only. 
Sadly if you chose to be a mod you need to put your friendships, your views aside.

If were asked to be a mod?
Try me...:Cigar


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Jesthar said:


> Given that Pet Media Ltd has never tried to sell me anything, whether or not it is a commercial entity is rather moot as far as I am concerned. Been on plenty of forums run just for fun and the love of the topic too, all of which have had general chat sections.


A forum like this does have a good £££ value attached it. I'm glad that it is not covered in ads though, although I use Adblocker so I probably wouldn't see them anyway.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> Why plural? Royal "we"?


We = plural
We = the moderating team...

I am not defensive, I am answering questions.
I didn't even say what my opinion was on political threads.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Having friends and wanting to have a chat and banter is fine by me. I have spent many a late night on here having a laugh. But there should be room for everyone on here. As was said earlier, if people don't like a subject, then why go into the debate? *


You're absolutely right, which is why we do our best to encourage the use of the 'ignore' function but seemingly it's not enough nowadays.

I wish it was, because it would make things so much easier for everyone.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

mewtoo said:


> If you cannot elect nor remove the people who make your laws, then you do not exist in a sovereign nation.


We do (did) vote in our EMPs who make the EU rules.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

cheekyscrip said:


> Why plural? Royal "we"? IMO a bit patronizing but it is just IMO.
> I think most moderators do a good job, unpaid.
> 
> Some better than others.
> ...


I'd be more than happy to have an unmoderated (or probably better- minimally moderated) subforum, either just political or more general, I might actually get all my neglected rescue stickies finished finallyrowning.... but it's not up to me or the other mods.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

simplysardonic said:


> Because some people on here are friends & sometimes it's nice to talk about other things, maybe meet up, have a bit of banter?
> 
> As @StormyThai has pointed out, many forums don't allow political discussion because it tends to bring out the nastier sides of otherwise fairly rational people.
> 
> I honestly don't think whatever we do will ever be enough to please some people on here.





StormyThai said:


> We = plural
> We = the moderating team...
> 
> I am not defensive, I am answering questions.
> I didn't even say what my opinion was on political threads.





simplysardonic said:


> You're absolutely right, which is why we do our best to encourage the use of the 'ignore' function but seemingly it's not enough nowadays.
> 
> I wish it was, because it would make things so much easier for everyone.


@StormyThai - I referred to those.
I honestly wonder if starting any political thread, serious or fun , has any point?
When I talk about the origins of dictatorship in general and it is twisted to criticism of any pf members or mods? Then thread is closed? People read want they want to read, not what was actually written.
I feel like the author of the Bible...

There are many contagious topics in Dog Chat too.. hence then ? Ban those topic, or Dog Chat?


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

simplysardonic said:


> I'd be more than happy to have an *unmoderated (or* *probably better- minimally moderated) subforum, either just political or more general*, I might actually get all my neglected rescue stickies finished finallyrowning.... but it's not up to me or the other mods.


What a good idea, to many threads get closed before I have a chance to say anything.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Another topic is ban for life for old members, who contributed so much to this forum.
Who might be opinionated but not trolls and not underhand. Just outspoken.
I do miss them, no matter what political party they might support.

I understand short time cool off ban. But forever ban?
For those who were genuine pillars of GC?

WHY?
We are not allowed neither to mention them or discuss the decision, which does not seem to be fair .
Forever ban is for nasty trolls.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Nothing shows compassion for the Syrian people as threads quite like this.....:Banghead


----------



## SusieRainbow (Jan 21, 2013)

Zaros said:


> Nothing shows compassion for the Syrian people as threads quite like this.....:Banghead


A good point Zaros.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Zaros said:


> Nothing shows compassion for the Syrian people as threads quite like this.....:Banghead


G*od, grant me the *S*erenity
To accept the things I cannot change...Courage to change the things I can,
And Wisdom to know the difference.*


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Better than sending bombs.*


I dunno , Assad could get a nasty paper cut 

Generally , the UN is powerless because Russia vetos everything.


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

mewtoo said:


> Let's let Assad take back his country, and when it's time for him to fight the Turks in a few months or year's time, then we can have another conversation about whether we should bomb the Syrians, the Turks, both, or neither.
> 
> By the way, the Americans have been quietly moving their nukes out of Turkey.........


Since when have the Americans been moving their nukes out of Turkey? Because if they are it's only been in the last 6 weeks at the longest.

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201802071061441693-turkey-us-nuclear-weapons-incirlik/

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-nuclear-weapons-incirlik-turkey-question-nato-proxy-war-2018-1

Or maybe you know something that neither the Americans nor the Russians, nor anyone else for that matter, knows?


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *And if you look, you will see that the mod that closed it, edited their post. As for reports, if there was nothing in that thread( using as an example why not state the problem? I know i'm not the only one that finds it so frustrating to get a good debate going, loads get involved, only for it to be closed.*


This again. 

I was new to moderating. I used my judgement. You didn't like the reason, so I edited the post. You also accused me of ignoring your PM, but what was VERY convenient for you .., you then ignored mine when I replied. You then brought it up in a thread, but once again, if I recall, you ignored my reply when I pulled you up on your error and told you I had simply been out for the afternoon.

Make sure to post ALL the facts before slinging mud. Not Just the ones convenient for you.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Look , this is just a dog forum , its not the houses of parliament . Its up to the owners and the Mods to decide how it should be run and what can be discussed. If you don't like it then join a forum where you can say what you like or you could join Twitter or start your own forum . 
Its not worth getting your knickers in a knot about it . 
( this isn't aimed at anyone member )


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

LinznMilly said:


> This again.
> 
> I was new to moderating. I used my judgement. You didn't like the reason, so I edited the post. You also accused me of ignoring your PM, but what was VERY convenient for you .., you then ignored mine when I replied. You then brought it up in a thread, but once again, if I recall, you ignored my reply when I pulled you up on your error and told you I had simply been out for the afternoon.
> 
> Make sure to post ALL the facts before slinging mud. Not Just the ones convenient for you.


*I showed respect to you by not naming the mod, lot of good that did. You well and truly peed me off that day, you were under handed when you edited the reason for closing the thread. And you wanted me to show you respect? The ONLY reason i brought the subject up today was to prove that what was being said in this thread was not the truth. *


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> G*od, grant me the *S*erenity
> To accept the things I cannot change...Courage to change the things I can,
> And Wisdom to know the difference.*


And.....There but for the grace of God go I, Janice.

In all probability there's a couple, who have lost their child/children as a result of the aerial bombing, or a child orphaned for the same dreadful and pitiful reason and is left scrambling around in the ruins and the rubble desperately crying out for them.
A man who used to have a family and a house and a purpose, but now has nothing because everything disappeared in the airstrike. For many their lives have been turned to smoke and ashes. There's not even a glimmer of hope in the debris of what was once their lives.

Yet here we all are, safe in our homes discussing whether or not _'Mod rule'_ can be considered fair and just.

Nevertheless, I would dread to think I was in the same situation as the Syrian people and the world was to turn its back leaving me to my fate.
I don't think bombing is the answer and war certainly isn't and never was the answer to men losing logic and reasoning. War was the consequence of men losing logic and reason.
I can't exactly remember who said war was a part of human nature, but whoever it might have been, they were so terribly wrong.
War is the abandonment of human nature.

I don't have a rational solution to such a terrible plight and, sadly, it appears no one else has either.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *I showed respect to you by not naming the mod, lot of good that did. You well and truly peed me off that day, you were under handed when you edited the reason for closing the thread. And you wanted me to show you respect? The ONLY reason i brought the subject up today was to prove that what was being said in this thread was not the truth. *


I'm curious.

If you have so many issues with the moderating on this forum, why do you stay?

You don't have to you know.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Zaros said:


> And.....There but for the grace of God go I, Janice.
> 
> In all probability there's a couple, who have lost their child/children as a result of the aerial bombing, or a child orphaned for the same dreadful and pitiful reason and is left scrambling around in the ruins and the rubble desperately crying out for them.
> A man who used to have a family and a house and a purpose, but now has nothing because everything disappeared in the airstrike. For many their lives have been turned to smoke and ashes. There's not even a glimmer of hope in the debris of what was once their lives.
> ...


If there was a nomination for the best post of a thread then this is it.

Brilliantly said Zaros.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Rafa said:


> I'm curious.
> 
> If you have so many issues with the moderating on this forum, why do you stay?
> 
> You don't have to you know.


*I have " so many issues"? So because i air my views my staying comes into question? How very odd. *


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

kimthecat said:


> Generally , the UN is powerless because Russia vetos everything.


Which is why, regardless of how well intentioned he may be, Corbyn's insistence that no military action should be taken without UN approval is pretty much a free pass for Russia to do whatever it wants.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Zaros said:


> And.....There but for the grace of God go I, Janice.
> 
> In all probability there's a couple, who have lost their child/children as a result of the aerial bombing, or a child orphaned for the same dreadful and pitiful reason and is left scrambling around in the ruins and the rubble desperately crying out for them.
> A man who used to have a family and a house and a purpose, but now has nothing because everything disappeared in the airstrike. For many their lives have been turned to smoke and ashes. There's not even a glimmer of hope in the debris of what was once their lives.
> ...


*Zaros i'm with you in what you say. My heart bleeds for anyone suffering in this world, especially when the hurt is inflicted by another human. But it shouldn't mean the rest of us should not speak up for what we don't agree with. xx*


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Arnie83 said:


> Which is why, regardless of how well intentioned he may be, Corbyn's insistence that no military action should be taken without UN approval is pretty much a free pass for Russia to do whatever it wants.


*I don't think Russia is the problem. More like the USA and the UK. *


----------



## SusieRainbow (Jan 21, 2013)

At the risk of being accused of supression of free speech , can I suggest we keep this thread on track instead of criticising the Moderation team ?


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

Zaros said:


> I can't exactly remember who said war was a part of human nature, but whoever it might have been, they were so terribly wrong.
> War is the abandonment of human nature.


Individual human nature, and I would generally agree with you.

Group human nature seems to me all about competition, tribal wariness / dislike of the other & conflict. Early sapiens did not survive by sharing outside their own group; they did so by defending their territory against all comers and claiming that of others when necessary. The same tribal instinct is still very much within us, and, if we don't recognise it for what it is - a primitive instinct - then we end up behaving just the same way as our ancient ancestors did. It is plainly seen in both Syria and Britain today, one with a terrible conflict and one with a vote.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> *I don't think Russia is the problem. More like the USA and the UK. *


Ukraine? Crimea? Georgia?


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> *Look , this is just a dog forum ,* its not the houses of parliament . Its up to the owners and the Mods to decide how it should be run and what can be discussed. If you don't like it then join a forum where you can say what you like or you could join Twitter or start your own forum .
> Its not worth getting your knickers in a knot about it .
> ( this isn't aimed at anyone member )


Ahem, my feline mistresses would like you to know if they weren't very busy napping they would definitely take issues with that statement 

Look, this is getting daft. What was started as a thread to explore our opinions on whether or not we agree with dropping bombs on yet another country in the Middle East (because THAT'S always gone so well in the past), with a potential side order of WW3 to boot, has descended into a forum war complete with sniping, mod bashing and dirty linen being aired.

So before this becomes something we all regret, how about we take a step back, forgive and forget a few things, and maybe remember that whilst we have the luxury of getting upset over a minor disagreement on an essentially unimportant forum, some poor kids might not be waking up one morning thanks to any number of people firing stuff at them, possibly even their own side wanting to pretend others are making trouble.

If that's not enough to put things into perspective, then I'm not sure what will...


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Zaros said:


> And.....There but for the grace of God go I, Janice.
> 
> In all probability there's a couple, who have lost their child/children as a result of the aerial bombing, or a child orphaned for the same dreadful and pitiful reason and is left scrambling around in the ruins and the rubble desperately crying out for them.
> A man who used to have a family and a house and a purpose, but now has nothing because everything disappeared in the airstrike. For many their lives have been turned to smoke and ashes. There's not even a glimmer of hope in the debris of what was once their lives.
> ...


You're spot on with this @Zaros


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *I know i'm not the only one that finds it so frustrating to get a good debate going, loads get involved, only for it to be closed.*


Agree totally with this, Janice.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Jesthar said:


> Ahem, my feline mistresses would like you to know if they weren't very busy napping they would definitely take issues with that statement


  I forgot what forum I was on . :Facepalm


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *I don't think Russia is the problem. More like the USA and the UK. *


When ever I think of Putin, i think of the song Never smile at a crocodile .
Never smile at a crocodile
No, you can't get friendly with a crocodile
Don't be taken in by his welcome grin
He's imagining how well you'd fit within his skin

The Crocodile's been well and truly tangoed by the Orange man Trump !


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Flipping heck, this morning we had the deeper mysteries of the EU under lords from a maker of cat toys and now it’s abuse a mod in bright blue bold type. Thank goodness you’ve got an internet connection to do that all with eh?


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *Zaros i'm with you in what you say. My heart bleeds for anyone suffering in this world, especially when the hurt is inflicted by another human. But it shouldn't mean the rest of us should not speak up for what we don't agree with. xx*


I hate to be really dull and sensible but threads going totally off track might be a reason that they get closed. Mods are human beings with lives, pets and stuff and dropping them a polite pm often helps smooth the ways. Said I was being dull and sensible  Even more _wacky _volunteer to be a mod maybe?


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> * My heart bleeds for anyone suffering in this world, especially when the hurt is inflicted by another human. But it shouldn't mean the rest of us should not speak up for what we don't agree with. xx*


There is much suffering in this world , Ive already mentioned the slaughter in Congo for example, yet we rarely see threads started about situations like this . . No sympathy for them.
Perhaps because its not contentious enough or not politically interesting enough, denying us the chance to rant and rave and express our political views and opinions about our Governments . We make it all about us .


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Was there no such thing as peaceful tribes who cooperated and traded with each other, or was it all murderous conflict? However did we end up with a welfare state?


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

MollySmith said:


> bright blue bold type.


Interesting - it is deep purple on my screen!



kimthecat said:


> There is much suffering in this world , Ive already mentioned the slaughter in Congo for example, yet we rarely see threads started about situations like this . . No sympathy for them.
> Perhaps because its not contentious enough or not politically interesting enough, denying us the chance to rant and rave and express our political views and opinions about our Governments . We make it all about us .


People react to what they are told, and currently we are dropping bombs on Syria rather than the Congo, so it is natural to discuss that. The Congo doesn't have a lot of oil so it isn't on the front pages (and in some media, doesn't feature at all). Most discussion will be of gorillas rather than people.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Zaros i'm with you in what you say. My heart bleeds for anyone suffering in this world, especially when the hurt is inflicted by another human. But it shouldn't mean the rest of us should not speak up for what we don't agree with. xx*


You'll not win an argument on the internet, Janice. You'll either be removed from it or your thread will be closed. You should know that.
Consider that closure a victory. It means you made folks sit up and think.

Or got on their bleedin' nerves by forcing them to read the things they really didn't want to read.



Arnie83 said:


> Individual human nature, and I would generally agree with you.
> 
> Group human nature seems to me all about competition, tribal wariness / dislike of the other & conflict. Early sapiens did not survive by sharing outside their own group; they did so by defending their territory against all comers and claiming that of others when necessary. The same tribal instinct is still very much within us, and, if we don't recognise it for what it is - a primitive instinct - then we end up behaving just the same way as our ancient ancestors did. It is plainly seen in both Syria and Britain today, one with a terrible conflict and one with a vote.


And we like to consider ourselves so civilised.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Zaros said:


> You'll not win an argument on the internet, Janice. You'll either be removed from it or your thread will be closed. You should know that.
> Consider that closure a victory. It means you made folks sit up and think.
> 
> Or got on their bleedin' nerves by forcing them to read the things they really didn't want to read.
> ...


 You are right Zaros, and your reply made me laugh.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Jonescat said:


> Interesting - it is deep purple on my screen!


Its deep purple on mine too !



> People react to what they are told, and currently we are dropping bombs on Syria rather than the Congo, so it is natural to discuss that. The Congo doesn't have a lot of oil so it isn't on the front pages (and in some media, doesn't feature at all). Most discussion will be of gorillas rather than people.


That's a good point but Congo was only one example . I don't recall anything about the Rohingyas of Burma being discussed yet that was on the news and in the papers.

To be fair though, this thread wasn't started to express sympathy to the Syrian families who suffered from the gas attack . That wasn't the intention of the OP. Its one of the political threads that have popped up recently and end up covering other subjects to .


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*I found this very interesting. And it makes sense to me.*

*



*


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

Zaros said:


> And we like to consider ourselves so civilised.


Some of us, like Mr Rees-Mogg, even dress and speak that way. But it's what he says that gives him away!


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Magyarmum said:


> Since when have the Americans been moving their nukes out of Turkey? Because if they are it's only been in the last 6 weeks at the longest.
> 
> https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201802071061441693-turkey-us-nuclear-weapons-incirlik/
> 
> ...


As far as I am aware, some nukes have been removed, and I assume they have gone back to the US, whilst Jordan and Romania are being evaluated as eventual sites for storage.
Turkey is no longer reliable, and they are trying to retake their old Ottoman area of Aleppo. Should be good.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Arnie83 said:


> Some of us, like Mr Rees-Mogg, even dress and speak that way. But it's what he says that gives him away!


The Moggster showed great promise, but of late he has been politically correct, so he could well be worse than useless after all.
The same happened to Farage.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

JANICE199 said:


> *I found this very interesting. And it makes sense to me.*
> 
> *
> 
> ...


Hmmm. He's mostly talking crap though, but does also make some good points.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Arnie83 said:


> Individual human nature, and I would generally agree with you.
> 
> Group human nature seems to me all about competition, tribal wariness / dislike of the other & conflict. Early sapiens did not survive by sharing outside their own group; they did so by defending their territory against all comers and claiming that of others when necessary. The same tribal instinct is still very much within us, and, if we don't recognise it for what it is - a primitive instinct - then we end up behaving just the same way as our ancient ancestors did.


 Paradoxically , there are also people who risk life and limb to save other people . Perhaps that is an instinct to do with passing on our genes. 
I never got round to reading the selfish gene by Richard Dawkin but it explains a lot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

Times are easier for us in Western countries now but it still is about survival and wanting the best for your offspring.

The Islam militants , to me that seems to be about power rather than survival .

What is one country trying to stop another from gassing its people , is that caring or is it interfering and controlling?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Arnie83 said:


> Some of us, like Mr Rees-Mogg, even dress and speak that way. *But it's what he says that gives him away*!


And does.

I was quite impressed with the way in which the big weed handled himself during the brief skirmish between some of the members of his The Fight Club.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

kimthecat said:


> Paradoxically , there are also people who risk life and limb to save other people . Perhaps that is an instinct to do with passing on our genes.
> I never got round to reading the selfish gene by Richard Dawkin but it explains a lot.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene
> ...


It's informative that a significant majority of the religious militants are young males. When I watch the behaviour of young males in other species I find it hard to think that the human militants are acting out of purely religious conviction, because it all looks very much like would-be alphas showing how powerful they are, and glorying in their membership of a strong tribe. Seems to me that the vast majority of the truly religious are not seeking satisfaction of what are basic animal instincts, and do not, therefore, become militants.

As for one country caring or interfering ... what I find incongruous is that we seem to find it perfectly acceptable for any country to indulge in a civil war and kill thousands, but we think there should be 'civilised' rules about exactly how they do so.

To me it's evident that the notion of a 'country' - which is just an extension of a tribe - is so ingrained in our psyche that we think it somehow outweighs a basic human value that killing is simply wrong, however it is done. The sooner we grow up and act like a civilised species the better, but that will require human rights to be respected and enforced regardless and for the primitive notion of sacrosanct national boundaries to be downgraded to where it belongs in a modern society seeking world peace.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

Zaros said:


> And does.
> 
> I was quite impressed with the way in which the big weed handled himself during the brief skirmish between some of the members of his The Fight Club.


Yes; until he said afterwards that he knew that they weren't going to hit him because 'they were English'. We are, apparently, so much better than those Johnny foreigner chappies.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Arnie83 said:


> Yes; until he said afterwards that he knew that they weren't going to hit him because 'they were English'. We are, apparently, so much better than those Johnny foreigner chappies.


By Jove! He's bally well right you know.ompus

After all, it was those blasted Johnny foreigner chappies who caused two world wars.:Cigar

They obviously like fighting.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Arnie83 said:


> It's informative that a significant majority of the religious militants are young males.


It's straightforward though.
Women are allowed to wage jihad to some degree but there is no requirement for them to do so, since a man can take multiple wives (up to four as long as he can afford their upkeep) but a woman cannot take more than one husband. Therefore, men are there to soak up the excess females created by men dying _fi sabilillah._
In terms of breeding, a woman is far more valuable than a man. In Islam, a single man is able to fulfill the reproductive functions of four males, because he can impregnate four females at once. A woman can only fulfill the reproductive function of a single woman.
Therefore, why waste a womb on an act of armed jihad when you can waste a far less valuable pair of balls instead?
As for the age, young males are more aggressive and better physical specimens than older males. Young men make better cannon fodder.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

mewtoo said:


> It's straightforward though.
> Women are allowed to wage jihad to some degree but there is no requirement for them to do so, since a man can take multiple wives (up to four as long as he can afford their upkeep) but a woman cannot take more than one husband. Therefore, men are there to soak up the excess females created by men dying _fi sabilillah._
> In terms of breeding, a woman is far more valuable than a man. In Islam, a single man is able to fulfill the reproductive functions of four males, because he can impregnate four females at once. A woman can only fulfill the reproductive function of a single woman.
> Therefore, why waste a womb on an act of armed jihad when you can waste a far less valuable pair of balls instead?
> As for the age, young males are more aggressive and better physical specimens than older males. Young men make better cannon fodder.


Why on Earth do you assume all religious militants are islamic?!?


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Jesthar said:


> Why on Earth do you assume all religious militants are islamic?!?


I don't, actually, but because he said this, he must have been talking about Islamic ones:



kimthecat said:


> The *Islam* militants , to me that seems to be about power rather than survival .


:Hilarious


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Arnie83 said:


> As for one country caring or interfering ... what I find incongruous is that we seem to find it perfectly acceptable for any country to indulge in a civil war and kill thousands, but we think there should be 'civilised' rules about exactly how they do so.


 I don't agree that we find civil war perfectly acceptable . We don't . There is a limit to what we can do. 
Again this brings us back to damned if we do , damned if we don't and the fact that the UN can't cope with all the civil /tribal wars in the world etc.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

Jesthar said:


> Why on Earth do you assume all religious militants are islamic?!?


You're right. I specifically did not mention Islam for a very obvious reason.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Arnie83 said:


> You're right. I specifically did not mention Islam for a very obvious reason.


The thing is how ever you look at it religion is behind most wars, what ever the religion, you only have to look back at history.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Arnie83 said:


> You're right. I specifically did not mention Islam for a very obvious reason.


He's wrong, because I didn't say that all religious "militants" are Islamic, and also, the person you replying to was talking about Islamic "militants":



kimthecat said:


> The Islam militants


:Hilarious


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Happy Paws said:


> The thing is how ever you look at it religion is behind most wars, what ever the religion, you only have to look back at history.


In recent times, it is _religious-style thinking_ which is the cause of much conflict.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

kimthecat said:


> I don't agree that we find civil war perfectly acceptable . We don't . There is a limit to what we can do.
> Again this brings us back to damned if we do , damned if we don't and the fact that the UN can't cope with all the civil /tribal wars in the world etc.


You're right, we don't find it acceptable, but to an outside viewer it might seem that we do. Because the limit to what we can do is set only by ourselves - humanity - and it is within our power to challenge those limits. They are built only on the conventional view of the sacrosanct nation state.

To me that view is very backward looking for the reasons I've given, but I appreciate I represent a minority an that any changes aren't going to happen any time soon. Recent events in the UK have certainly confirmed that!


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

_Religious-style thinking_ being thinking with feelings rather than using fact and logic, of course.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

I'm outta here . Its getting a bit too nasty for me .
If we can't get along on a pet forum how come we expect the rest of world to get along?


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

kimthecat said:


> I'm outta here . Its getting a bit too nasty for me .
> If we can't get along on a pet forum how come we expect the rest of world to get along?


The rest of the world has never gotten along and it never will.

"God gave us this land. He gave us your land too!"
"God says that we have to subjugate, rape, enslave and kill you!"
"I want to buy more yachts, so I am going to destroy your society in furtherance of that!"
"My feelings tell me that I must kill you because you don't agree with me!"
"I must emulate my prophet, and he killed people like you and took your wife!"
"I want to create a globalist utopia and your children are going to be collateral damage!"

The best we can hope for is that the people who are less evil are the ones with the biggest guns.

I didn't notice any nastiness in the above thread though.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

Happy Paws said:


> The thing is how ever you look at it religion is behind most wars, what ever the religion, you only have to look back at history.


There is certainly a high correlation. I would argue, though, that religions are in themselves tribal forms. The adherents feel that they belong to a group, identifying with other adherents the world over. They have hierarchies, leaders, and rules; all very human tribal characteristics superimposed on a religious base. And other religions are different, apart, and not as good as 'ours'.

If you accept that, there is a much higher correlation between wars and tribes. Practically every one I can think of (actually _every_ one I can think of, but then I haven't reached the omniscient level of some posters!) are between one identified tribe and another, often simply seen as 'the other'.

I guess what I'm saying is that it is the tribal element of religions that give rise to bloody conflict between them, rather than the religion itself. The majority of religious people are no more inclined to conflict than the non-religious, and in many cases, perhaps, probably less.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

mewtoo said:


> I didn't notice any nastiness in the above thread though.


Me neither!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

kimthecat said:


> I'm outta here . Its getting a bit too nasty for me .
> If we can't get along on a pet forum how come we expect the rest of world to get along?


*Just because people don't agree, it doesn't mean they are being nasty. By having differences we can learn from each other.*
*The trouble starts when people will insist on changing someone else's opinion.*


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

JANICE199 said:


> *By having differences we can learn from each other.*


That's the idea.
However, there is a problem with it.
It's a problem of _non-religious-style thinking_ and _religious-style thinking._
Or in other words, one of intellectual honesty.
Even then, people have different motivations.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

mewtoo said:


> That's the idea.
> However, there is a problem with it.
> It's a problem of _non-religious-style thinking_ and _religious-style thinking._
> Or in other words, one of intellectual honesty.
> Even then, people have different motivations.


*I don't agree. Some people haven't got a religious bone in their body, but they still disagree with other like minded people.*


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

JANICE199 said:


> *I don't agree. Some people haven't got a religious bone in their body, but they still disagree with other like minded people.*


I'm not talking about _religious people_. I'm talking about _religiously-minded people_.
It's not a coincidence that as belief in Christianity waned, belief in the State increased.
People still had the need to think religiously in at least some aspects of their lives; it's just that some of these people transferred this need away from believing in a religion, to believing in pseudo-religion.
It's why communists still exist. Communism cannot work and does not work, but people still believe in it and want it. It's a pseudo-religious belief bourne out of religious-style thinking.
Abandon Christianity > vacuum now exists for something to believe in > reject facts in favour of wishful thinking.

Only a small amount of people don't have a "religious bone in their body": most people base at least some of the things they believe in on feelings rather than facts. It's why there is such polarisation when it comes to political issues, for the most part.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

JANICE199 said:


> *I don't agree. Some people haven't got a religious bone in their body, but they still disagree with other like minded people.*


Agreed, but many of them do use religion to justify their vile actions.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

To answer the original question... you almost certainly want to go to war with a super power. Laser beam vision would be a good one as would lightning bolts coming from your fingers.

If I'm going down I'm going down laughing.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

I think religion is just being twisted and exploited same as patriotism and so on...
Neither Christianity , nor Islam , Hinduism or Buddhism preached violence.
Wars are simply caused by greed and thirst for power.
With more or less sophisticated justifications.
Simply “ us and them” , but “us” are entitled and “ them” are the unworthy.

The best and the worst deeds were committed in the name of religion.

I do not see North Korea as particularly religious, neither is Trump a God fearing man.
On the other hand Amish or Jehova people are deeply religious and do not fight at all.

PS This thread is not nasty, just the topic is rather gruesome.
Still worth discussing.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

mewtoo said:


> I don't, actually, but because he said this, he must have been talking about Islamic ones:


Helps if you quote or reference the original post, then - gets a bit difficult to follow the train of thought and associated assumptions otherwise. Especially as Arnie made a shift from specifc scenario to more general reasoning regarding tribal thinking as a whole.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

cheekyscrip said:


> Neither Christianity , nor Islam , Hinduism or Buddhism preached violence.


:Hilarious


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Jesthar said:


> Helps if you quote or reference the original post, then - gets a bit difficult to follow the train of thought and associated assumptions otherwise. Especially as Arnie made a shift from specifc scenario to more general reasoning regarding tribal thinking as a whole.


People can't quote loads of posts before them as it'd become a quagmire.

The best approach is not to be politically correct because then you won't get upset so easily and make mistakes.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

mewtoo said:


> People can't quote loads of posts before them as it'd become a quagmire.


Not that hard, honest  I do frequently, haven't had a complaint about people not being able to understand me yet! 


mewtoo said:


> The best approach is not to be politically correct because then you won't get upset so easily and make mistakes.


Well, at least you have a sense of humour!


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Jesthar said:


> Not that hard, honest  I do frequently, haven't had a complaint about people not being able to understand me yet!
> Well, the thing is that I did quote the guy I was replying to, but he was replying to someone else, so the reader had to read the thread in order to understand.
> 
> Well, at least you have a sense of humour!


PC is seriuz bizniz. No good can ever come from it.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

mewtoo said:


> PC is seriuz bizniz. No good can ever come from it.


Precisely why I don't do it. Completely different kettle of fish to being respectful.


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Jesthar said:


> Precisely why I don't do it. Completely different kettle of fish to being respectful.


You were doing it without realising it.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Arnie83 said:


> Some of us, like Mr Rees-Mogg, even dress and speak that way


Talking of JR-M; just spotted this in tonight's ES:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...searched-by-police-on-pall-mall-a3814791.html
Love the way they allegedly ''searched him because they didn't like the look of him''! Hahaha!


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

mewtoo said:


> You were doing it without realising it.


No, you have_ assumed _I was both being politically correct and doing so without realising.

In reality I was doing neither, and anyone who knows me well would testify to that.  If believing otherwise is your preference, though, it makes no difference to me


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

Calvine said:


> Talking of JR-M; just spotted this in tonight's ES:
> 
> https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...searched-by-police-on-pall-mall-a3814791.html
> Love the way they allegedly ''searched him because they didn't like the look of him''! Hahaha!


Mrs83 & I were stopped on our way into Gatwick, presumably to check that the pale middle aged couple in the Toyota Auris Hybrid weren't bent on bringing down western democracy.

The cynic in me suggests they - and the Rees-Mogg bobbies - might have had statistics in mind.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

mewtoo said:


> PC is seriuz bizniz. No good can ever come from it.


Actually, that's where you're wrong.

Two weeks ago I won first prize in a political correctness competition. :Smug

Although, to be fair, so did everybody else.:Meh


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Jesthar said:


> No, you have_ assumed _I was both being politically correct and doing so without realising.
> 
> In reality I was doing neither, and anyone who knows me well would testify to that.  If believing otherwise is your preference, though, it makes no difference to me


I shall happily take your word for it that you are not politically correct.
We can have a non-PC alliance


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Zaros said:


> Actually, that's where you're wrong.
> 
> Two weeks ago I won first prize in a political correctness competition. :Smug
> 
> Although, to be fair, so did everybody else.:Meh


Arf :Hilarious


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

kimthecat said:


> There is much suffering in this world , Ive already mentioned the slaughter in Congo for example, yet we rarely see threads started about situations like this . . No sympathy for them.
> Perhaps because its not contentious enough or not politically interesting enough, denying us the chance to rant and rave and express our political views and opinions about our Governments . We make it all about us .


I have sympathy for the people of the Congo. I do lots of threads about blood sports that doesnt mean I'm not heartbroken about Yulin too!. Some of us are more than capable of caring about many different things at the same time, please dont judge people by your own limits. It would be impossible for me to start a thread on everything which upsets me, I already swamp the forum with threads about upsetting issues. Why don't you start a thread on the Congo?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

As May, Trump & Macron care so much about the Syrian people I bloody well hope they're going to open their doors to their fair share of refugees now!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

kimthecat said:


> Its deep purple on mine too !
> 
> That's a good point but Congo was only one example . I don't recall anything about the Rohingyas of Burma being discussed yet that was on the news and in the papers.
> 
> To be fair though, this thread wasn't started to express sympathy to the Syrian families who suffered from the gas attack . That wasn't the intention of the OP. Its one of the political threads that have popped up recently and end up covering other subjects to .


This thread was started because I care about the people of Syria & because I care about my loved ones, humanity & all the life forms we share this beautiful planet with.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> I care about my loved ones.


So do the politicians, Noush'

Trouble is they care more for their loved ones than they do anyone else's.

They care how wealthy they're going to make their children in the sh1t hole they leave behind.:Meh


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> As May, Trump & Macron care so much about the Syrian people I bloody well hope they're going to open their doors to their fair share of refugees now!


That could so easily be Boris instead of Trump.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Arnie83 said:


> That could so easily be Boris instead of Trump.


Boris - Mogg, May pretty much the entire tory government. They have slammed the door on these poor people. Shame on them and like minded individuals. All this fake sympathy makes me feel sick.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

mewtoo said:


> No, we didn't.
> Everything comes from the top of the EU.


mmmmm, Germany?.... let me see.....


----------

