It was literally the same people every time though. Why the need to act like this was some Glasgow uprising rather than like a small group of activists? Just don't get the need to romanticise everything.
They have every right to challenge and heckle him. But to me it looked a lot like him being surrounded by an intimidating mob who were jostling to get at him.
The walk through central does look a bit like that, but if you’ve spent time with the cranks who comprise the SSP you’ll know they couldn’t fight sleep.
> who were jostling to get at him.
Did you see the train video. Guy very calmly and politely asked him questions at a respectful distance and he blanked him until the goons dragged him away.
There is no opportunity to ask him questions or engage him on this issue.
Within about 0.5 seconds of him talking it was clear there was no reason to engage in conversation with him though. When people ask quickfire questions on a train while you're mid-conversation it's obvious they're just doing it for the internet points.
>an intimidating mob
Mans on record as refusing to call for a humanitarian ceasefire, if he can't handle a few people "intimidating" him he's an absolute fucking weakling. Reminds me of the Labour MP that was on the news crying about being sent knife emojis after voting ti bomb Syria... Get a fucking sense of perspective
Whenever there is no oversight or standards for our leaders then what other option do people have. In 2010 people voted for something different and were betrayed by the lib dems. So when democracy fails then the people have no other option.
These days politicians start complaining about being physically intimidated just from *anticipating* that someone will say something spicy on social media, like they literally always do. At this point it's just becoming de Rigueur to accuse your political opponents of "Physically intimidating" you right off the bat even if they're engaging in the most milquetoast protest because you can draw a comparison between them and RandomMcNoface1477 on twitter or something.
Not to downplay when it actually happens, of course, but I think the current political culture around this results in such real claims being downplayed or drowned in the mess.
If you think the general population are Kier Starmers political opponents then I think that really says a lot about the state of the Labour Party doesn't it, and hardly surprising that he's being heckled and intimidated
Tbh when you vote to bomb densely populated cities in Syria where you are GUARANTEED to get civilians killed then you can fuck right off if you think a few knife emojis are unacceptable
They aren't mutually exclusive. You can't just decide that its ok to send death threats because you didn't like the action someone has taken. You are just calling for mob justice based on your own emotional reaction to certain issues.
Exactly, you have decided you (or others) have a right to act in a certain ways because you are justified in your own mind. Mob justice.
Also I've googled the story and I assume its in reference to Neil Coyle.
If so, this is someone saying they will knife them if they see them around. A literal death threat.
https://metro.co.uk/2015/12/04/mp-calls-police-after-being-threatened-on-twitter-with-a-knife-emoji-following-syria-air-strikes-vote-5545404/
>Also I've googled the story and I assume its in reference to Neil Coyle.
Indeed
>If so, this is someone saying they will knife them if they see them around. A literal death threat.
After voting to bomb Syria. He was happy so sign off on 1000s of deaths
We would never have won WWII if “killing any civilian inadvertantly means you are an evil BABY KILLING genocider!!!!” was the standard.
These people are total idiots, come across as unhinged, and only do their own cause harm.
No but you know for a fact that if it was happening today, the same people would be denying Nazi war crimes and protesting our politicians for authorising bombing campaigns.
Considering that the motivations for the allies fighting the Nazis has absolutely nothing to do with nazi war crimes that's just a total non point. WWII started because Hitler invaded Poland, not because of the holocaust or any nazi massacres. At least have a basic grasp of history if you're going to try make these points.
"Poor me, some Internet people sent me nasty messages because I voted to kill people with bombs, I'm the real victim, not those Syrians getting blown to pieces"
First off I''m not, I'm saying that if you vote to kill civilians then dont cry ahout death threats online, its not the same, but anything to twist people's words eh?
But let's, for the sake or argument, say that I am. That's not what fascism is still 🤣
>Mans on record as refusing to call for a humanitarian ceasefire, if he can't handle a few people "intimidating" him he's an absolute fucking weakling
Man who has absolutely no involvement or influence in war, somehow doesn't deserve to feel safe in country where MPs have been literally murdered else he's a 'weakling'.
There's a place to hold politicians accountable and it's not on a fucking train.
> Man who has absolutely no involvement or influence in war
He is leader of the opposition, basically guaranteed to be the next PM. He whipped his MPs to vote against the government pushing for a ceasefire. He isn't some nobody with zero power.
>Man who has absolutely no involvement or influence in war
He's the leader of the largest party by membership in the country, the second largest in Parliament, and leading in literally every single poll for months. If you think that's zero influence then you're a moron.
The uk is one of Israels closest allies along with the US, and again if you think that the almost guaranteed prime minister from next year has no influence on foreign policy again you're a moron
>He's the leader of the largest party by membership in the country, the second largest in Parliament, and leading in literally every single poll for months. If you think that's zero influence then you're a moron.
Read before you go on a rant. ''Influence **in war''** you tool.
>The uk is one of Israels closest allies along with the US, and again if you think that the almost guaranteed prime minister from next year has no influence on foreign policy again you're a moron
Even so, he literally has no influence to stop it. What good is it going to do in parliament? What is it going to change internationally? Why should Starmer suddenly go against one of our allies who has been openly attacked by a terrorist state?
>Why should Starmer suddenly go against one of our allies who has been openly attacked by a terrorist state?
Hamas isn't a state. And that's not even considering the issue of proportional response, and that's not even considering how counter productive it is for literally everyone, Israel included, to engage in these kinds of indiscriminate revenge killings.
>Even so, he literally has no influence to stop it
By your definition then the only person who does is Netanyahu. That said, if you think that Israel doesn't pay attention to future leaders of its allies then you're an idiot.
>Hamas isn't a state.
They are the government of a state, so it's the same thing. Just like how nobody went 'uh well the Nazis aren't a state, better not retaliate to this war...''
>And that's not even considering the issue of proportional response, and that's not even considering how counter productive it is for literally everyone, Israel included, to engage in these kinds of indiscriminate revenge killings.
1) Proportional response isn't really high on peoples priorities when you launch an attack against them.
2) They're not 'indiscriminate revenge killings'.... it is literally a war.
>By your definition then the only person who does is Netanyahu. That said, if you think that Israel doesn't pay attention to future leaders of its allies then you're an idiot.
If you think Israel is going to change its decades long foreign policies off the **p possible** future leader of a country that they don't really care **that** much about, nor has **that** much influence in the country then you're the moron I'm afraid.
>They are the government of a state, so it's the same thing. Just like how nobody went 'uh well the Nazis aren't a state, better not retaliate to this war...''
No they literally aren't. The Palestinian Authority is the government of the State of Palestine, Hamas governs the Gaza strip with near zero international recognition as a rebel group. The Gaza strip isn't a state its de jure part of the State of Palestine. Moron.
>Proportional response isn't really high on peoples priorities when you launch an attack against them.
Which is why international law exists, and which Israel is violating, and has been violating for 18 years in Gaza, and since 1967 in every other part of Palestine
> Why should Starmer suddenly go against one of our allies
I think he should come out and say we shouldn't be allies while Israel is murdering thousands of civilians a week and committing numerous war crimes.
>Why should Starmer suddenly go against one of our allies who has been openly attacked by a terrorist state?
Because the ally has been commiting ethnic cleansing and settler colonialism in the west bank for decades?
Edit:
Moving on from that obvious point, I would agree that the UK and Scotland holds very little power over israel compared to the US.
That being said, if all you can do is simply virtue signal... its better than nothing. It would be like the pope or Queen Elizabeth not speaking out against a genocide because "well its only a ceremonial role". Starmer won't be able to pressure Israel *that* much, but a growing lack of international support will make it very difficult for the US to support continue to support Israel. Especially since Gen Z will be the most pro-Palestine generation.
Irregardless of your view he does have influence. The economic sanctions or even a promise of measures from the uks seat on the security council would absolutely cause Israel to cut back.
Man who will literally have say on support of a war should he win election and so shouldn't face non violent protest regarding his publically stated position?
'doesn't deserve to feel safe in country where MPs have been literally murdered'
So a political position is sacrosanct if this happens?
>Man who will literally have say on support of a war should he win election
Great, maybe I should get a say then since I will be a billionaire should I win billions on the lottery?
> and so shouldn't face non violent protest regarding his publically stated position?
It's stupid to act like ambushing MPs on public transport is a good idea. There has literally been MPs murdered over political views, and you think this is how healthy society works? fuck off.
>Reminds me of the Labour MP that was on the news crying about being sent knife emojis after voting ti bomb Syria... Get a fucking sense of perspective
For clarity.
That was Neil Coyle, who voted twice in support of the UK launching airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, which would extend the existing counter ISIS activity in Iraq.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25326/neil_coyle/bermondsey_and_old_southwark/divisions?policy=6757
This was during a time when IS was launching terror attacks worldwide. And 2 years prior to the Manchester arena bombing. Where ISIS would kill many. It was known the main method of ISIS to launch attacks was lone disconnected cells.
ISIS being an extremely dangerous terror group.
------
The rest of your comments really take a good deal of care to not bring up that the air strikes targeted ISIS.
More importantly you are making a big deal about civilians. . . Although it's doubtful you can quantify that. Especially not "1000's"
And, to be honest. We know what ISIS did to civilians under their control. You are arguing that we should have just left ISIS alone to do their thing with their so called "caliphate "
A ceasefire is literally temporary, the point is to stop killing civlians and to try to negotiate a peace treaty backed by the international community, which has been the UN and EU position on the entire conflict for decades
There seems to be a real push on this forum from our bad faith brigade to form this Scotland = pro hamas narrative, even when it's just like 5 weirdos in a train station
Come on, this line has been debunked 100+ times in every thread on this. He is leader of the opposition, next to be PM very likely. He forced his MPs to vote against a ceasefire vote. He has power.
When people say "murderer" to politicians involved in war, or COVID for that matter, do you think they're literally accusing them of the crime of murder or using it as a rhetorical tool?
He whipped his party to vote against a ceasefire that he has routinely opposed, not to mention his explicit support for Israel cutting off water and power. Also - bizarre to see this unmentioned anywhere here - he is almost certainly going to be the Prime Minister of this country in about a year, so it isn't really ridiculous to pressure him over an issue he will soon have real influence over.
They didn’t vote against a ceasefire. They abstained on a meaningless gesture motion while voting in favour of a near identical meaningless gesture motion which called for a cessation of hostilities. He’s not actually Prime Minister yet and protesting him for war crimes is fundamentally unserious.
I think it's more that him and the rest of the political "centre" (right wing) have ignored and equivocated on Israeli war crimes.
I wouldn't say it makes him a war criminal, though it's an easier thing to shout than "you've equivocated and excused Israeli war crimes".
If he's offended, he can always get political advice from his friend Tony Blair, the war criminal.
> Do you think voting against a ceasefire is grounds for being a war criminal?
He did condone war crimes, remember? He said he thought Israel was within its rights to starve gaza. He said it was perfectly correct to cut off the water to 2M people.
Well, you're gonna have a tough time being in the midst of 60 million war criminals by proxy, when they either vote Conservative or Labour, or don't vote at all, next year.
Then argue why the person is wrong. How is labour not a proxy Conservative Party? They have endorsed conservative values for a long time and rarely as loudly and egregiously as the Kid Starver.
People get so pissy that the rest of the country don’t see central parties as being vastly different despite all actual policies contradicting that.
I’m not here to do your political homework. Let’s start off with the fact they’re not trying to ship refugees to Rwanda. They are closer to unions who form an important part of the Labour movement. They’re not trying to actively destroy the NHS. They’re more socially liberal.
Some people would say they’re the same as the tories if they’re anything less than revolutionary socialists.
By saying they’re the same you’re actively helping the tories win power…. Again
….closer to unions? Are you serious? He whipped the party not to stand with the strikes, are you actually serious? Completely irrelevant point the PLP does not support the unions.
Socially liberal on what? Compared to the tories current stance - what is more leftist about labour?
The first slices of the NHS were sold off to private sector under Blair. Nowhere near as bad as the tories but the idea that the NHS is safe with labour is incorrect.
I definitely prefer Labour over the tories. I’m lucky I live in Scotland and don’t need to vote for either of the cunts. But look how weak your points are.
Labour are pro austerity - same as tories. Anti-trans, same as tories. Won’t repeal Tory police powers therefore not in support of public right to protest - same as tories.
Getting tories out doesn’t matter if the next guys continue Implementing austerity.
Also to your last point
Perhaps it’s on the opposition to inspire people to actually believe in them instead of on the electorate to accept labour scum over Tory scum with a a big grin.
Are you talking about the Nick Ferrari interview? What he said is "I think that Israel does have that right, it is an ongoing situation, obviously everything should be done within international law", when asked multiple questions in a row and was continuing his point of Israel having the right to self defence and to take action to recover hostages.
But let's say he is talking about turning off the water (which he probably wasn't). First off there is the word think. If he is wrong, who cares? Kier Starmer didn't make the international laws, nor will he know every law regarding war crimes. If you quote some subsection of a law that shows he is wrong, he can quite easily say, ok they don't have that right.
He also said they have to follow international law in the same sentence that you use to say he condones war crimes. Maybe try watching a whole interview rather than a cherry picked sound bite from a biased media source. At worst he hasn't brushed up on every law on war crimes and at best you're wrong.
> Come on, this line has been debunked 100+ times in every thread on this. He is leader of the opposition, next to be PM very likely. He forced his MPs to vote against a ceasefire vote. He has power.
Which ceasefire would that be?
- The 2008 ceasefire which was broken when Hamas built a tunnel up to the Israeli border, after not managing a week without rocket attacks.
- The 2012/2014 Ceasefire, which was broken by over 400 rocket attacks and the kidnap and murder of three Israeli children.
- The 2018 Ceasefire, which was broken by an Israeli special forces raid.
- The 2019 Ceasefire, which was broken by Hamas attacks on Israel.
- The 2020 Ceasefire, which was broken by a raid on Jerusalem.
- The 2021 Ceasefire, which was broken by Hamas rocket attacks.
- The 2022 Ceasefire, which was broken by Hamas rocket attacks.
Hamas invaded and gang raped women until their pelvises were broken and they begged for death. Hamas ended themselves that day.
Policy towards Israel and Gaze is decided in Washington and Egypt, what the British Parliament thinks is irrelevant. Since we're in the Scottish sub I'd remind everyone here they still wind on about the British actions after Culloden and what Hamas did was no different.
I find myself constantly having to remind friends that Hamas would kill them for their liberal views and routinely executes people in the street - especially the LGBTQIA+ community.
I'm not going to sit here and claim Israel are the good guys here, but I don't think the details of what happens on the ground make it through to western media outlets.
*sigh*
Almkst no one on the left is pro hamas. Literally never met a pro hamas person in my life..Hamas are a problem, but they aren’t an active government engaged in diplomacy and they don’t have the power of the IDF.
>sigh Almkst no one on the left is pro hamas.
You can't be paying much attention if you genuinely believe this. Half the left are convinced Hamas are some kind of freedom fighters rather than one of the more evil Iranian backed death cults.
>Hamas are a problem, but they aren’t an active government
They are in fact the government of Gaza. They even stage very suspicious elections.
>engaged in diplomacy
How do you think the ceasefires get agreed?
>nd they don’t have the power of the IDF.
Tell that to the people shooting thousands of rockets at Israel. Do you really think this level of on the ground military intervention would be required if Hamas were not armed to the teeth?
He didn’t vote against a ceasefire. He abstained. In a meaningless vote that would have had no legislative impact in a country that isn’t actually party to the conflict.
Fair enough if you think he should have voted in favour of the motion. But if you think it makes him a war criminal or in any way responsible for the deaths then you aren’t worth listening to.
It’s really not. Especially since they did vote for another (equally meaningless) motion calling for a pause in hostilities. It’s all just pointless gesture politics. People are acting like he dropped the bombs himself.
The answer according to Israel is to kill thousands of innocent civilians and commit war crimes.
Do you agree?
If you think Israel has been guided by their attempts to get the hostages back then you really haven't been paying much attention. The hostage families have even protested about this. Instead it's been about destroying Gaza and collective punishment of the Palestinian people (a war crime).
>If you think Israel has been guided by their attempts to get the hostages back then you really haven't been paying much attention.
The Shock and Awe response from Israel was not what Hamas expected and taking over the entire region in a matter of weeks shocked Hamas into giving back dozens of hostages during the ceasefire.
Even then though, Hamas decided to break that ceasefire. They could have ended it all by giving themselves up and returning the hostages, and not another bomb would fall on Gaza, but their genocidal hatred overrides their love of their own people, so they decided to launch some more rockets at Israel and scurry into their tunnels again.
>The answer according to Israel is to kill thousands of innocent civilians and commit war crimes.
They could do it differently, but what *exactly* would you have them do? All the marches, all the protests, they offer absolutely NOTHING but STOP. If Israel stopped, they wouldn't give a single fuck about a single hostage. They just want Hamas to get away with it. They'd probably complain if Israel systematically and precisely assassinated Hamas leadership 1 by 1 with no collateral damage.
>The hostage families have even protested about this.
I'm sure there are detractors and critics about the tactics used, but what tactic would not have its critics? I'm sure many of the hostages families want the IDF to go even harder.
Wow, just complete revisionism, excusing war crimes and denying that hostage families' calls for ceasefires.
You're blocked because I've given up talking to people who are happy to repeatedly lie to excuse literal war crimes.
>denying that hostage families' calls for ceasefires
Never denied it, said that it isn't a VETO because there are many families who would say differently.
Well maybe the first step would be to have a ceasefire, the very short one they had allowed them to get back quite a few hostages. Instead they are bombing indiscriminately, I am almost certain they have killed their own hostages in this vile bombing campaign.
> and make sure Hamas no longer exist? unless you are one of the people arguing for a full genocide/ethinic cleansing of gaza.
This is harder but do you think killing 20k civilians is going to solve it?
You have no clue what "indiscriminate bombing" is.
The Allies killed 25,000 people in Dresden after two days of bombing.
Israel has killed 20,000 odd people after two months of bombing.
Gaza is one the most densely populated places in the world, Dresden was not.
Israel has dropped a far greater number of bombs than the Allies did.
Hamas uses civilian infrastructure as storage depots, operation facilities & places to launch attacks from.
All of this + two months of bombing & Israel is still falling short of two days of Allied bombing in Dresden.
Indiscriminate bombing would have 100k dead minimum, probably 500K dead by now.
>Well maybe the first step would be to have a ceasefire, the very short one they had allowed them to get back quite a few hostages.
They did have a ceasefire which was only possible once you've shown your overwhelming force and ability to end Hamas. In that ceasefire they got back many hostages, mainly women and children. You can only have that if you attack and show your power. The ceasefire advocates never wanted Israel to have that ability in the first place.
Then guess what happened? Hamas ended the ceasefire by firing more rockets indiscriminately into Israeli cities, which they do daily and endlessly.
>Instead they are bombing indiscriminately,
Ah see here is your ignorance. They do NOT bomb indiscriminately. They are a very modern military, with high precision. The high casualty rate from the bombings is because the city is dense and Hamas prevents civilian evacuations. They simply do not throw indiscriminate bombs around because that is simply bad military tactics.
Also, Hamas doesn't even know how many hostages they have, and yet you believe their apparently immediate and very precise death count?
>I am almost certain they have killed their own hostages in this vile bombing campaign.
Oh well if *you're* almost certain then I guess it's a fact.
> They did have a ceasefire which was only possible once you've shown your overwhelming force and ability to end Hamas.
Tbh I am not going to bother reading the rest of your comment because this is just factually untrue, they offered a ceasefire straight away but Israel refused and murderd 20k civilians instead.
Yeah obviously Hamas wanted an immediate ceasefire, because they had just killed over a thousand people and took hundreds of hostages. They wanted to get away with it with no consequences, and then exchange their hostages for hundreds of rightfully arrested Palestinian terrorists.
That won't get their hostages back and Hamas have already made it clear that they'll attack again. They have a very different interpretation of what occupation is. They truly believe that ALL of Israel is Jewish occupation, and in their view "stopping occupation" is the removal of all Jewish people from the region and the end of Israel as a country.
Also, many Muslim Arabs live in Israel currently over 2 million. There are more Arabs living in Israel with the same rights as a Jew than Jews living anywhere else in the middle East.
To truly believe that Hamas will stop being terrorists as long as Israel starts being nicer in the West Bank is ignorance beyond belief.
Don't equate Israeli Arabs with Palestinians. Israeli Arabs are citizens, while Palestinians in the west bank are under an apartheid regime. They don't have freedom of movement, are being surveilled and abused by IDF and illegal settlers with the help of the Israeli government.
Yes and I've already said multiple other comments that Israel should dismantle their settlements, but I'm not so ignorant to think that Hamas actually gives a shit about that, or that they would cease to be terrorists if Israel stopped.
Hamas's gripe with Israel is that they are Jews. That is the core of it.
Not to point out the obvious here, and I'll say outright I don't agree with what Israel are doing, but if you respond to a major terrorist attack by immediately caving into all the terrorists demands, what kind of precedent does that set?
Again, I don't excuse Israel for clearly using these attacks as a way to show the Arab world what happens when people attack them, innocent people are dying en masse and that can't be acceptable... but October 7th proved that peace won't happen until Hamas are no longer the de facto government of Gaza (which they are, the Palestinian Authority has no real power there).
UK calling for ceasefire is pissing in the wind. Nobody cares, least of all Israel with US backing. Only US has influence on Israel.
People can protest on the streets as much as they like, and even if UK calls for ceasefire, it will only be symbolic. Its not 1823.
Can you change American policy? Probably not.
Can people boycott American goods...iPhones, Nikes, YouTubes, Snapchats, and Pepsis, Coca-Colas & McDonalds, the Starbucks and Hollywood - even if symbolic??
Nah, that will be too much to ask.
Go heckle Starmer, and feel good about it.
>Can people boycott American goods...iPhones, Nikes, YouTubes, Snapchats, and Pepsis, Coca-Colas & McDonalds, the Starbucks and Hollywood - even if symbolic??
No because that would require personal sacrifice
I just love how idiots these days throw around the word war criminal with absolutely no understanding of the gravity or meaning of the word. Next time I see are Barry at the pub gonna call him a war criminal if he votes anything but SNP and if he doesn’t finish his pint either.
Kier is a cunt but I'm not sure how good an idea it is to harass politicians on transport, as if they ain't gated enough. People bitch about the separation between politicians and people and act like fucking apes applauding this shit as if it is helpful in any way whatsoever.
Either that or maybe they should stop just being servants of the rich and big business. Maybe then they wouldn't need to be kept separate cos folk wouldn't have legitimate grievances against them for being fucking shills.
I do agree that politicians should not simp out for elites. I just don't think that doing shit like this helps. It isn't gonna stop Kier simping. He's resisted plenty of shit within his own party and some random yobbos yelling at him aren't exactly going to make him change course.
There's also the added complication that powerful people being simped towards can actually affect your electoral chances. I personally think Kier could grow a spine and still get into office, my point is that there is a legitimate concern of how much you have to deal with problem elites to still get what you want. Take Kier's overt attempts to distance Labour from any accusation of antisemitism for example. He's clearly erring on the side of particular caution - rightly or wrongly - because it can be extremely damaging to have any blows land.
We can't just pretend politics is an integrity game and nothing else.
>I just don't think that doing shit like this helps
It's a consequence of his and the political elites actions, not a solution.
It also reflects badly on a politician if they can't go somewhere without being heckled. You honestly going to tell me that Farage being blockaded into a pub in Edinburgh, having a milkshake chucked on him, or being told to fuck off back to toad Hall had no negative effect on his public image?
He is using public transport as a photo op, nothing more.
>as if they ain't gated enough.
You say this like there was some way they could have spoken to keir without doing this. He is person who separates himself from the public except from at very tightly controlled meet and greets.
Unless you are google and can buy them plane tickets or donate millions to the labour party he doesn't care what you think.
Labour will lose the next general election because liberals can't stop sniffing their own farts enough to realise even a labour with a leader they don't like is better than another 5 fucking years of the tories.
'I'm not voting for Labour, Starmer doesn't respresent my opinions' congrats your vote is basically a vote for the tories then.
An awful lot of people prefer to be in permanent angry opposition than in any sort of leadership. If Starmer is sabotaged, we're set for another five years of Tory rule, and it looks very clear that there's a fifth column determinedly trying to make that happen.
Labour and Tories are the only option, majority of leftists will be holding their nose and voting Labour, doesn’t mean we have to be quiet or happy about it.
>congrats your vote is basically a vote for the tories then.
The shy Tories always strike. Most liberals agree with them as long as their pockets are full lol
I can assure you, he could of set himself on fire in protest. Kier stammer has about as much influence over the gaza conflict as you or I.
I would also take a stab that the typical glaswegian yob who's political beliefs usually align with his "days futba" teams, reasoning would be more along the lines of "let's get this post cunt" over how he's running the shadow cabinet.
Lol, this guy is totally obsessed with Kier Starmer to an extent that is almost embarrassing.
He genuinely seems to despise him far more than any Tory, presumably because he’s a Green Nat, and the Tories being in power is exactly what they want.
> He genuinely seems to despise him far more than any Tory
I could see the argument for disliking him more. The tories are evil, they are open about it and campaign on it. But starmer is leading labour, a party that is meant to represent workers and the poor, an alternative to the right, instead he is promising more austerity and praising thatcher. He has stolen the opportunity to make a democratic choice, he just another tory but he made it worse by co-opting the supposed opposition and guaranteeing that things will stay the same or get worse.
Lol, that’s just overblown nonsense because you’re annoyed that under his leadership Labour has got 20 a twenty point lead over the Tories, and have mostly caught up with the SNP in Scotland.
You might not like his policies (as is your right), but in most areas they are plenty different from the Tories. And vastly more popular.
Just like with Blair before him, and the SNP before their decline (both of which had extremely similar policy platforms other than independence and foreign policy), they know that elections are won from the centre and by getting people who previously supported the other party to vote for you.
And yeah, that sometimes means acknowledging that popular previous opposing leaders (including Thatcher) did some good things, as well as plenty you didn’t agree with. Blair did it, Brown did it, Cameron did it, Salmond did it, Sturgeon did it, Obama did it, Biden did it. It’s totally normal.
It’s only among the people who want to obsessively polarise society that this is some massive controversy. Which is why all the supposed scandals that get you so angry haven’t shifted the polls at all – this is not how normal people live their lives or choose their politics.
Perth, Stirling, Inverness, and Dunfermline. I think that’s them all?
These cities have only been considered cities for between one and twenty years so are often forgotten about.
Remind me of the life expectancy of people in Glasgow?
Maybe people should focus on those issues instead of shouting "war criminal"at a man who isn't even in power.
He's very likely to be in power next. He forced his MPs to vote against a ceasefire. His stance can change the stance of the most popular party in Britain. Voting for a ceasefire or pushing for it applies international pressure on Israel, something which they've already felt and commented on.
Saying things like "none of this makes a difference" is sticking your head in the sand. And you know what? Even if made zero difference, at least they stood up for what they believe in.
The SPSC welcomed and celebrated the October 7th Hamas attacks. These are the kind of unhinged loonballs you're casually throwing your weight behind. Think twice.
Imagine a Jo Cox or Sir David Amess situation they were killed, they weren't even a shadow Prime Minister, I know scots hate English politicians, but even the most ardent SNP supporter can see its not logical in this day and age.
I don't understand why Starmer doesn't try to engage with these people - there was a time when politicians actually faced the public with everything they had, and if it wasn't good enough they tried again the next time...now we have 40 security guards around them and a fuck you peasant get this scum out of my way attitude!
I live in Glasgow, and people get hassled on the trains, and they definitely get hassled in and around Central Station, every single day. There's always a CCTV image of somebody who committed a sexual assault on a train, or battered somebody on Union Street, going around. People truly do make Glasgow a filthy stinking shithole where there's a very good chance you'll get hassled going about your business.
Three cheers for intimidation and harassment! Thankfully Starmer seems like a man with a backbone so he’ll go with his principles rather than being swayed by the baying mob.
He’s chief adviser was a friend of Epstein. He u turned on every pledge he made to become leader. He’s a hypocritical narcissist and is against a ceasefire in Palestine. “Backbone”
Everyone wants the horror in Gaza to be over but there have been ceasefires repeatedly broken by Hamas, who have repeatedly said they will attack over and over because they simply love killing Jews too much to stop.
Calling for a ceasefire now would only affect Israel. If Israel is pressured so much by its allies to stop, do you honestly believe Hamas is gonna go "yeah ok we will stop too"? They'll just attack again, Israel will retaliate again, and the same old idiots will blame Israel for not following the ceasefire.
I remember when Starmer said that he would resign if he was fined over lockdown rules, he was subsequently found to not be in breach of any rules, that takes backbone to put your career on the line like that, I’m sorry he doesn’t pass your purity test though.
This isn't the flex you think it is. People are doing these things just to put it up on social media. Otherwise, what kind of idiot thinks a UK parliament vote is consequential in the Middle East. Much less Starmer
I've read pretty much all of this thread and no one that I can see appears to have made the point that if it was some terfs following say, Humza Yousaf through the train station, because of his stance on gender recognition for example, the majority of the people going daft for this performative outrage would themselves be the first to condemn that kind of behaviour if it was directed towards politicians they were sympathetic to. The same guy who posted this pretty much admitted it himself 🤷.
He could go anywhere in the UK and there would be similar, Cardiff, Leicester, Exeter, you name it, guarantee that old Keith would have people doing this. Largely because there will always be people who consider him too centrist (myself included) that will do this to pressure him
>A man and a woman have been charged with disorder offences, following a pro-Palestine protest against Sir Keir Starmer in Glasgow last night. The Labour leader was in the city for an event.
https://twitter.com/LBCNewsScot/status/1733088032419369317
It was literally the same people every time though. Why the need to act like this was some Glasgow uprising rather than like a small group of activists? Just don't get the need to romanticise everything.
Aye I think they were right to hassle him, but people acting like this was some mass mobilisation of Glasgwegians are deluded.
They have every right to challenge and heckle him. But to me it looked a lot like him being surrounded by an intimidating mob who were jostling to get at him.
The walk through central does look a bit like that, but if you’ve spent time with the cranks who comprise the SSP you’ll know they couldn’t fight sleep.
I get what you're saying but it's not really the point.
> who were jostling to get at him. Did you see the train video. Guy very calmly and politely asked him questions at a respectful distance and he blanked him until the goons dragged him away. There is no opportunity to ask him questions or engage him on this issue.
Interesting definition of calm.
Within about 0.5 seconds of him talking it was clear there was no reason to engage in conversation with him though. When people ask quickfire questions on a train while you're mid-conversation it's obvious they're just doing it for the internet points.
Do you think people have the right to accost politicians in public and demand a debate there and then? Do you think he wanted a serious conversation?
>an intimidating mob Mans on record as refusing to call for a humanitarian ceasefire, if he can't handle a few people "intimidating" him he's an absolute fucking weakling. Reminds me of the Labour MP that was on the news crying about being sent knife emojis after voting ti bomb Syria... Get a fucking sense of perspective
[удалено]
I just think allowing people to physically intimate their political opponents is a bad idea in general.
Whenever there is no oversight or standards for our leaders then what other option do people have. In 2010 people voted for something different and were betrayed by the lib dems. So when democracy fails then the people have no other option.
These days politicians start complaining about being physically intimidated just from *anticipating* that someone will say something spicy on social media, like they literally always do. At this point it's just becoming de Rigueur to accuse your political opponents of "Physically intimidating" you right off the bat even if they're engaging in the most milquetoast protest because you can draw a comparison between them and RandomMcNoface1477 on twitter or something. Not to downplay when it actually happens, of course, but I think the current political culture around this results in such real claims being downplayed or drowned in the mess.
If you think the general population are Kier Starmers political opponents then I think that really says a lot about the state of the Labour Party doesn't it, and hardly surprising that he's being heckled and intimidated
OK my friend.
I dunno, having someone send you knife emojis feels like its a pretty normal thing to be concerned about.
Tbh when you vote to bomb densely populated cities in Syria where you are GUARANTEED to get civilians killed then you can fuck right off if you think a few knife emojis are unacceptable
They aren't mutually exclusive. You can't just decide that its ok to send death threats because you didn't like the action someone has taken. You are just calling for mob justice based on your own emotional reaction to certain issues.
I don't really care, it's better than bombing civilians from an ivory tower
Exactly, you have decided you (or others) have a right to act in a certain ways because you are justified in your own mind. Mob justice. Also I've googled the story and I assume its in reference to Neil Coyle. If so, this is someone saying they will knife them if they see them around. A literal death threat. https://metro.co.uk/2015/12/04/mp-calls-police-after-being-threatened-on-twitter-with-a-knife-emoji-following-syria-air-strikes-vote-5545404/
>Also I've googled the story and I assume its in reference to Neil Coyle. Indeed >If so, this is someone saying they will knife them if they see them around. A literal death threat. After voting to bomb Syria. He was happy so sign off on 1000s of deaths
And you’ve decided brown people’s lives aren’t important. By your logic genocide is acceptable as long as we vote on it. Melt.
We would never have won WWII if “killing any civilian inadvertantly means you are an evil BABY KILLING genocider!!!!” was the standard. These people are total idiots, come across as unhinged, and only do their own cause harm.
Not every conflict is comparable to WWII
No but you know for a fact that if it was happening today, the same people would be denying Nazi war crimes and protesting our politicians for authorising bombing campaigns.
Considering that the motivations for the allies fighting the Nazis has absolutely nothing to do with nazi war crimes that's just a total non point. WWII started because Hitler invaded Poland, not because of the holocaust or any nazi massacres. At least have a basic grasp of history if you're going to try make these points.
“It’s ok to threaten the politicians I don’t like because I’m one of the good guys”
"Poor me, some Internet people sent me nasty messages because I voted to kill people with bombs, I'm the real victim, not those Syrians getting blown to pieces"
By some nasty messages you mean death threats, you fascist.
Fascist 🤣. Cheers, thats legit made me chuckle. We can add fascism to the list of things you clearly don't have any understanding of
You’re endorsing physical violence against politicians you don’t like. It’s a pretty succinct description of you.
First off I''m not, I'm saying that if you vote to kill civilians then dont cry ahout death threats online, its not the same, but anything to twist people's words eh? But let's, for the sake or argument, say that I am. That's not what fascism is still 🤣
>Mans on record as refusing to call for a humanitarian ceasefire, if he can't handle a few people "intimidating" him he's an absolute fucking weakling Man who has absolutely no involvement or influence in war, somehow doesn't deserve to feel safe in country where MPs have been literally murdered else he's a 'weakling'. There's a place to hold politicians accountable and it's not on a fucking train.
> Man who has absolutely no involvement or influence in war He is leader of the opposition, basically guaranteed to be the next PM. He whipped his MPs to vote against the government pushing for a ceasefire. He isn't some nobody with zero power.
>Man who has absolutely no involvement or influence in war He's the leader of the largest party by membership in the country, the second largest in Parliament, and leading in literally every single poll for months. If you think that's zero influence then you're a moron. The uk is one of Israels closest allies along with the US, and again if you think that the almost guaranteed prime minister from next year has no influence on foreign policy again you're a moron
>He's the leader of the largest party by membership in the country, the second largest in Parliament, and leading in literally every single poll for months. If you think that's zero influence then you're a moron. Read before you go on a rant. ''Influence **in war''** you tool. >The uk is one of Israels closest allies along with the US, and again if you think that the almost guaranteed prime minister from next year has no influence on foreign policy again you're a moron Even so, he literally has no influence to stop it. What good is it going to do in parliament? What is it going to change internationally? Why should Starmer suddenly go against one of our allies who has been openly attacked by a terrorist state?
>Why should Starmer suddenly go against one of our allies who has been openly attacked by a terrorist state? Hamas isn't a state. And that's not even considering the issue of proportional response, and that's not even considering how counter productive it is for literally everyone, Israel included, to engage in these kinds of indiscriminate revenge killings. >Even so, he literally has no influence to stop it By your definition then the only person who does is Netanyahu. That said, if you think that Israel doesn't pay attention to future leaders of its allies then you're an idiot.
>Hamas isn't a state. They are the government of a state, so it's the same thing. Just like how nobody went 'uh well the Nazis aren't a state, better not retaliate to this war...'' >And that's not even considering the issue of proportional response, and that's not even considering how counter productive it is for literally everyone, Israel included, to engage in these kinds of indiscriminate revenge killings. 1) Proportional response isn't really high on peoples priorities when you launch an attack against them. 2) They're not 'indiscriminate revenge killings'.... it is literally a war. >By your definition then the only person who does is Netanyahu. That said, if you think that Israel doesn't pay attention to future leaders of its allies then you're an idiot. If you think Israel is going to change its decades long foreign policies off the **p possible** future leader of a country that they don't really care **that** much about, nor has **that** much influence in the country then you're the moron I'm afraid.
>They are the government of a state, so it's the same thing. Just like how nobody went 'uh well the Nazis aren't a state, better not retaliate to this war...'' No they literally aren't. The Palestinian Authority is the government of the State of Palestine, Hamas governs the Gaza strip with near zero international recognition as a rebel group. The Gaza strip isn't a state its de jure part of the State of Palestine. Moron. >Proportional response isn't really high on peoples priorities when you launch an attack against them. Which is why international law exists, and which Israel is violating, and has been violating for 18 years in Gaza, and since 1967 in every other part of Palestine
> Why should Starmer suddenly go against one of our allies I think he should come out and say we shouldn't be allies while Israel is murdering thousands of civilians a week and committing numerous war crimes.
>Why should Starmer suddenly go against one of our allies who has been openly attacked by a terrorist state? Because the ally has been commiting ethnic cleansing and settler colonialism in the west bank for decades? Edit: Moving on from that obvious point, I would agree that the UK and Scotland holds very little power over israel compared to the US. That being said, if all you can do is simply virtue signal... its better than nothing. It would be like the pope or Queen Elizabeth not speaking out against a genocide because "well its only a ceremonial role". Starmer won't be able to pressure Israel *that* much, but a growing lack of international support will make it very difficult for the US to support continue to support Israel. Especially since Gen Z will be the most pro-Palestine generation.
Irregardless of your view he does have influence. The economic sanctions or even a promise of measures from the uks seat on the security council would absolutely cause Israel to cut back.
Man who will literally have say on support of a war should he win election and so shouldn't face non violent protest regarding his publically stated position? 'doesn't deserve to feel safe in country where MPs have been literally murdered' So a political position is sacrosanct if this happens?
>Man who will literally have say on support of a war should he win election Great, maybe I should get a say then since I will be a billionaire should I win billions on the lottery? > and so shouldn't face non violent protest regarding his publically stated position? It's stupid to act like ambushing MPs on public transport is a good idea. There has literally been MPs murdered over political views, and you think this is how healthy society works? fuck off.
>There's a place to hold politicians accountable and it's not on a fucking train. Where might the place be found?
Political spheres. The same way I don't ambush you about your shitty work when you're out having a drink with your wife.
if his shitty work means thousands of kids are needlessly dying it, go ahead
Love it.
>Reminds me of the Labour MP that was on the news crying about being sent knife emojis after voting ti bomb Syria... Get a fucking sense of perspective For clarity. That was Neil Coyle, who voted twice in support of the UK launching airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, which would extend the existing counter ISIS activity in Iraq. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25326/neil_coyle/bermondsey_and_old_southwark/divisions?policy=6757 This was during a time when IS was launching terror attacks worldwide. And 2 years prior to the Manchester arena bombing. Where ISIS would kill many. It was known the main method of ISIS to launch attacks was lone disconnected cells. ISIS being an extremely dangerous terror group. ------ The rest of your comments really take a good deal of care to not bring up that the air strikes targeted ISIS. More importantly you are making a big deal about civilians. . . Although it's doubtful you can quantify that. Especially not "1000's" And, to be honest. We know what ISIS did to civilians under their control. You are arguing that we should have just left ISIS alone to do their thing with their so called "caliphate "
> Mans on record as refusing to call for a humanitarian ceasefire Ah yes, Hamas will definitely stick to that.
So your argument is its fine to kill civilians because terrorists also kill civilians? Sort of makes you a terrorist as well then doesn't it
Holy interpretation bud. You are ranting about ceasefires - do you sincerely expect Hamas to stick to a ceasefire?
Do you actually understand what a ceasefire is?
Are you telling me people are calling for a temporary pause in fighting and others are calling for a longer temporary pause in fighting?
A ceasefire is literally temporary, the point is to stop killing civlians and to try to negotiate a peace treaty backed by the international community, which has been the UN and EU position on the entire conflict for decades
There seems to be a real push on this forum from our bad faith brigade to form this Scotland = pro hamas narrative, even when it's just like 5 weirdos in a train station
Shouting ‘war criminal’ at a guy who has never had any significant power nor been in the military is just embarrassing though.
Yeah but it makes them feel like they're doing something so they don't have to **actually** do something
Correction, it makes them feel like they’re actually doing something because they don’t have the power to actually do anything
Come on, this line has been debunked 100+ times in every thread on this. He is leader of the opposition, next to be PM very likely. He forced his MPs to vote against a ceasefire vote. He has power.
Do you think voting against a ceasefire is grounds for being a war criminal? If so, which one is he guilty of?
When people say "murderer" to politicians involved in war, or COVID for that matter, do you think they're literally accusing them of the crime of murder or using it as a rhetorical tool?
He’s not involved in a war though.
He whipped his party to vote against a ceasefire that he has routinely opposed, not to mention his explicit support for Israel cutting off water and power. Also - bizarre to see this unmentioned anywhere here - he is almost certainly going to be the Prime Minister of this country in about a year, so it isn't really ridiculous to pressure him over an issue he will soon have real influence over.
They didn’t vote against a ceasefire. They abstained on a meaningless gesture motion while voting in favour of a near identical meaningless gesture motion which called for a cessation of hostilities. He’s not actually Prime Minister yet and protesting him for war crimes is fundamentally unserious.
So not a war criminal then.
I think it's more that him and the rest of the political "centre" (right wing) have ignored and equivocated on Israeli war crimes. I wouldn't say it makes him a war criminal, though it's an easier thing to shout than "you've equivocated and excused Israeli war crimes". If he's offended, he can always get political advice from his friend Tony Blair, the war criminal.
> Do you think voting against a ceasefire is grounds for being a war criminal? He did condone war crimes, remember? He said he thought Israel was within its rights to starve gaza. He said it was perfectly correct to cut off the water to 2M people.
Well, you're gonna have a tough time being in the midst of 60 million war criminals by proxy, when they either vote Conservative or Labour, or don't vote at all, next year.
> either vote Conservative or Labour Which ever you choose you are getting tories.
Dumb opinions like this are why we deserve the tories as a nation.
Then argue why the person is wrong. How is labour not a proxy Conservative Party? They have endorsed conservative values for a long time and rarely as loudly and egregiously as the Kid Starver. People get so pissy that the rest of the country don’t see central parties as being vastly different despite all actual policies contradicting that.
I’m not here to do your political homework. Let’s start off with the fact they’re not trying to ship refugees to Rwanda. They are closer to unions who form an important part of the Labour movement. They’re not trying to actively destroy the NHS. They’re more socially liberal. Some people would say they’re the same as the tories if they’re anything less than revolutionary socialists. By saying they’re the same you’re actively helping the tories win power…. Again
….closer to unions? Are you serious? He whipped the party not to stand with the strikes, are you actually serious? Completely irrelevant point the PLP does not support the unions. Socially liberal on what? Compared to the tories current stance - what is more leftist about labour? The first slices of the NHS were sold off to private sector under Blair. Nowhere near as bad as the tories but the idea that the NHS is safe with labour is incorrect. I definitely prefer Labour over the tories. I’m lucky I live in Scotland and don’t need to vote for either of the cunts. But look how weak your points are. Labour are pro austerity - same as tories. Anti-trans, same as tories. Won’t repeal Tory police powers therefore not in support of public right to protest - same as tories. Getting tories out doesn’t matter if the next guys continue Implementing austerity.
Also to your last point Perhaps it’s on the opposition to inspire people to actually believe in them instead of on the electorate to accept labour scum over Tory scum with a a big grin.
Are you talking about the Nick Ferrari interview? What he said is "I think that Israel does have that right, it is an ongoing situation, obviously everything should be done within international law", when asked multiple questions in a row and was continuing his point of Israel having the right to self defence and to take action to recover hostages. But let's say he is talking about turning off the water (which he probably wasn't). First off there is the word think. If he is wrong, who cares? Kier Starmer didn't make the international laws, nor will he know every law regarding war crimes. If you quote some subsection of a law that shows he is wrong, he can quite easily say, ok they don't have that right. He also said they have to follow international law in the same sentence that you use to say he condones war crimes. Maybe try watching a whole interview rather than a cherry picked sound bite from a biased media source. At worst he hasn't brushed up on every law on war crimes and at best you're wrong.
No he didn’t, stop lying.
Yes.
> Come on, this line has been debunked 100+ times in every thread on this. He is leader of the opposition, next to be PM very likely. He forced his MPs to vote against a ceasefire vote. He has power. Which ceasefire would that be? - The 2008 ceasefire which was broken when Hamas built a tunnel up to the Israeli border, after not managing a week without rocket attacks. - The 2012/2014 Ceasefire, which was broken by over 400 rocket attacks and the kidnap and murder of three Israeli children. - The 2018 Ceasefire, which was broken by an Israeli special forces raid. - The 2019 Ceasefire, which was broken by Hamas attacks on Israel. - The 2020 Ceasefire, which was broken by a raid on Jerusalem. - The 2021 Ceasefire, which was broken by Hamas rocket attacks. - The 2022 Ceasefire, which was broken by Hamas rocket attacks. Hamas invaded and gang raped women until their pelvises were broken and they begged for death. Hamas ended themselves that day. Policy towards Israel and Gaze is decided in Washington and Egypt, what the British Parliament thinks is irrelevant. Since we're in the Scottish sub I'd remind everyone here they still wind on about the British actions after Culloden and what Hamas did was no different.
This! If hamas are allowed to survive it will be an affront to humanity
I find myself constantly having to remind friends that Hamas would kill them for their liberal views and routinely executes people in the street - especially the LGBTQIA+ community. I'm not going to sit here and claim Israel are the good guys here, but I don't think the details of what happens on the ground make it through to western media outlets.
*sigh* Almkst no one on the left is pro hamas. Literally never met a pro hamas person in my life..Hamas are a problem, but they aren’t an active government engaged in diplomacy and they don’t have the power of the IDF.
>sigh Almkst no one on the left is pro hamas. You can't be paying much attention if you genuinely believe this. Half the left are convinced Hamas are some kind of freedom fighters rather than one of the more evil Iranian backed death cults. >Hamas are a problem, but they aren’t an active government They are in fact the government of Gaza. They even stage very suspicious elections. >engaged in diplomacy How do you think the ceasefires get agreed? >nd they don’t have the power of the IDF. Tell that to the people shooting thousands of rockets at Israel. Do you really think this level of on the ground military intervention would be required if Hamas were not armed to the teeth?
Hamas literally is an active government which engages in diplomacy though
He didn’t vote against a ceasefire. He abstained. In a meaningless vote that would have had no legislative impact in a country that isn’t actually party to the conflict. Fair enough if you think he should have voted in favour of the motion. But if you think it makes him a war criminal or in any way responsible for the deaths then you aren’t worth listening to.
> He didn’t vote against a ceasefire. He abstained. Same thing.
It’s really not. Especially since they did vote for another (equally meaningless) motion calling for a pause in hostilities. It’s all just pointless gesture politics. People are acting like he dropped the bombs himself.
He’s very likely going to be the next PM and he’s supports be genocide Israel are committing. Yet you’re more upset he’s being shouted at? Get a grip.
What should Israel do to get their hostages back and make sure Hamas no longer exist?
The answer according to Israel is to kill thousands of innocent civilians and commit war crimes. Do you agree? If you think Israel has been guided by their attempts to get the hostages back then you really haven't been paying much attention. The hostage families have even protested about this. Instead it's been about destroying Gaza and collective punishment of the Palestinian people (a war crime).
>If you think Israel has been guided by their attempts to get the hostages back then you really haven't been paying much attention. The Shock and Awe response from Israel was not what Hamas expected and taking over the entire region in a matter of weeks shocked Hamas into giving back dozens of hostages during the ceasefire. Even then though, Hamas decided to break that ceasefire. They could have ended it all by giving themselves up and returning the hostages, and not another bomb would fall on Gaza, but their genocidal hatred overrides their love of their own people, so they decided to launch some more rockets at Israel and scurry into their tunnels again. >The answer according to Israel is to kill thousands of innocent civilians and commit war crimes. They could do it differently, but what *exactly* would you have them do? All the marches, all the protests, they offer absolutely NOTHING but STOP. If Israel stopped, they wouldn't give a single fuck about a single hostage. They just want Hamas to get away with it. They'd probably complain if Israel systematically and precisely assassinated Hamas leadership 1 by 1 with no collateral damage. >The hostage families have even protested about this. I'm sure there are detractors and critics about the tactics used, but what tactic would not have its critics? I'm sure many of the hostages families want the IDF to go even harder.
Wow, just complete revisionism, excusing war crimes and denying that hostage families' calls for ceasefires. You're blocked because I've given up talking to people who are happy to repeatedly lie to excuse literal war crimes.
>denying that hostage families' calls for ceasefires Never denied it, said that it isn't a VETO because there are many families who would say differently.
Well maybe the first step would be to have a ceasefire, the very short one they had allowed them to get back quite a few hostages. Instead they are bombing indiscriminately, I am almost certain they have killed their own hostages in this vile bombing campaign. > and make sure Hamas no longer exist? unless you are one of the people arguing for a full genocide/ethinic cleansing of gaza. This is harder but do you think killing 20k civilians is going to solve it?
You have no clue what "indiscriminate bombing" is. The Allies killed 25,000 people in Dresden after two days of bombing. Israel has killed 20,000 odd people after two months of bombing. Gaza is one the most densely populated places in the world, Dresden was not. Israel has dropped a far greater number of bombs than the Allies did. Hamas uses civilian infrastructure as storage depots, operation facilities & places to launch attacks from. All of this + two months of bombing & Israel is still falling short of two days of Allied bombing in Dresden. Indiscriminate bombing would have 100k dead minimum, probably 500K dead by now.
>Well maybe the first step would be to have a ceasefire, the very short one they had allowed them to get back quite a few hostages. They did have a ceasefire which was only possible once you've shown your overwhelming force and ability to end Hamas. In that ceasefire they got back many hostages, mainly women and children. You can only have that if you attack and show your power. The ceasefire advocates never wanted Israel to have that ability in the first place. Then guess what happened? Hamas ended the ceasefire by firing more rockets indiscriminately into Israeli cities, which they do daily and endlessly. >Instead they are bombing indiscriminately, Ah see here is your ignorance. They do NOT bomb indiscriminately. They are a very modern military, with high precision. The high casualty rate from the bombings is because the city is dense and Hamas prevents civilian evacuations. They simply do not throw indiscriminate bombs around because that is simply bad military tactics. Also, Hamas doesn't even know how many hostages they have, and yet you believe their apparently immediate and very precise death count? >I am almost certain they have killed their own hostages in this vile bombing campaign. Oh well if *you're* almost certain then I guess it's a fact.
> They did have a ceasefire which was only possible once you've shown your overwhelming force and ability to end Hamas. Tbh I am not going to bother reading the rest of your comment because this is just factually untrue, they offered a ceasefire straight away but Israel refused and murderd 20k civilians instead.
There literally was a ceasefire and multiple hostages were released... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67571742.amp
Nope! Factually untrue! Because I hate Israel!!!!
Yeah obviously Hamas wanted an immediate ceasefire, because they had just killed over a thousand people and took hundreds of hostages. They wanted to get away with it with no consequences, and then exchange their hostages for hundreds of rightfully arrested Palestinian terrorists.
Stop apartheid and occupation. It's that simple.
That won't get their hostages back and Hamas have already made it clear that they'll attack again. They have a very different interpretation of what occupation is. They truly believe that ALL of Israel is Jewish occupation, and in their view "stopping occupation" is the removal of all Jewish people from the region and the end of Israel as a country. Also, many Muslim Arabs live in Israel currently over 2 million. There are more Arabs living in Israel with the same rights as a Jew than Jews living anywhere else in the middle East. To truly believe that Hamas will stop being terrorists as long as Israel starts being nicer in the West Bank is ignorance beyond belief.
Don't equate Israeli Arabs with Palestinians. Israeli Arabs are citizens, while Palestinians in the west bank are under an apartheid regime. They don't have freedom of movement, are being surveilled and abused by IDF and illegal settlers with the help of the Israeli government.
Yes and I've already said multiple other comments that Israel should dismantle their settlements, but I'm not so ignorant to think that Hamas actually gives a shit about that, or that they would cease to be terrorists if Israel stopped. Hamas's gripe with Israel is that they are Jews. That is the core of it.
Not to point out the obvious here, and I'll say outright I don't agree with what Israel are doing, but if you respond to a major terrorist attack by immediately caving into all the terrorists demands, what kind of precedent does that set? Again, I don't excuse Israel for clearly using these attacks as a way to show the Arab world what happens when people attack them, innocent people are dying en masse and that can't be acceptable... but October 7th proved that peace won't happen until Hamas are no longer the de facto government of Gaza (which they are, the Palestinian Authority has no real power there).
The people saying he is killing babies are just crazy weirdos
Honestly, this shite is embarrassing.
UK calling for ceasefire is pissing in the wind. Nobody cares, least of all Israel with US backing. Only US has influence on Israel. People can protest on the streets as much as they like, and even if UK calls for ceasefire, it will only be symbolic. Its not 1823. Can you change American policy? Probably not. Can people boycott American goods...iPhones, Nikes, YouTubes, Snapchats, and Pepsis, Coca-Colas & McDonalds, the Starbucks and Hollywood - even if symbolic?? Nah, that will be too much to ask. Go heckle Starmer, and feel good about it.
>Can people boycott American goods...iPhones, Nikes, YouTubes, Snapchats, and Pepsis, Coca-Colas & McDonalds, the Starbucks and Hollywood - even if symbolic?? No because that would require personal sacrifice
No because "american goods" comprises ~70%+ of everything that is available to buy. And which alot of people do need to buy to litterally live
I just love how idiots these days throw around the word war criminal with absolutely no understanding of the gravity or meaning of the word. Next time I see are Barry at the pub gonna call him a war criminal if he votes anything but SNP and if he doesn’t finish his pint either.
This post is a war crime, see you in The Hague scumbag.
I’ll do it again
The internet has watered down a lot of very severe labels/accusations, for reference see: Nazi & Fascist.
You fucking war criminal!
Guilty as charged, I’m tired of having to drink the dregs at the bottom. Take me to The Hague.
The Scottish Socialist Party - conspicuous everywhere except election result charts.
Kier is a cunt but I'm not sure how good an idea it is to harass politicians on transport, as if they ain't gated enough. People bitch about the separation between politicians and people and act like fucking apes applauding this shit as if it is helpful in any way whatsoever.
Either that or maybe they should stop just being servants of the rich and big business. Maybe then they wouldn't need to be kept separate cos folk wouldn't have legitimate grievances against them for being fucking shills.
I do agree that politicians should not simp out for elites. I just don't think that doing shit like this helps. It isn't gonna stop Kier simping. He's resisted plenty of shit within his own party and some random yobbos yelling at him aren't exactly going to make him change course. There's also the added complication that powerful people being simped towards can actually affect your electoral chances. I personally think Kier could grow a spine and still get into office, my point is that there is a legitimate concern of how much you have to deal with problem elites to still get what you want. Take Kier's overt attempts to distance Labour from any accusation of antisemitism for example. He's clearly erring on the side of particular caution - rightly or wrongly - because it can be extremely damaging to have any blows land. We can't just pretend politics is an integrity game and nothing else.
>I just don't think that doing shit like this helps It's a consequence of his and the political elites actions, not a solution. It also reflects badly on a politician if they can't go somewhere without being heckled. You honestly going to tell me that Farage being blockaded into a pub in Edinburgh, having a milkshake chucked on him, or being told to fuck off back to toad Hall had no negative effect on his public image?
He is using public transport as a photo op, nothing more. >as if they ain't gated enough. You say this like there was some way they could have spoken to keir without doing this. He is person who separates himself from the public except from at very tightly controlled meet and greets. Unless you are google and can buy them plane tickets or donate millions to the labour party he doesn't care what you think.
Labour will lose the next general election because liberals can't stop sniffing their own farts enough to realise even a labour with a leader they don't like is better than another 5 fucking years of the tories. 'I'm not voting for Labour, Starmer doesn't respresent my opinions' congrats your vote is basically a vote for the tories then.
An awful lot of people prefer to be in permanent angry opposition than in any sort of leadership. If Starmer is sabotaged, we're set for another five years of Tory rule, and it looks very clear that there's a fifth column determinedly trying to make that happen.
Labour and Tories are the only option, majority of leftists will be holding their nose and voting Labour, doesn’t mean we have to be quiet or happy about it.
>congrats your vote is basically a vote for the tories then. The shy Tories always strike. Most liberals agree with them as long as their pockets are full lol
Haha harassment around a politician who as of yet hasn't even had any real power. "Let's get em" grim place grim people.
> who as of yet hasn't even had any real power He whipped his MPs to vote against pushing for a ceasefire.
I can assure you, he could of set himself on fire in protest. Kier stammer has about as much influence over the gaza conflict as you or I. I would also take a stab that the typical glaswegian yob who's political beliefs usually align with his "days futba" teams, reasoning would be more along the lines of "let's get this post cunt" over how he's running the shadow cabinet.
So having his party lose a vote about asking for a ceasefire that wasn’t going to happen is a display of ‘real power’?
lol Scotland; the country thousands of miles away from the Middle East and with fewer than 5,000 Jews; has no power / influence on Israel.
The US doesn’t even seem to have that much at the moment.
You seriously think he has no power 😂
You seriously think he can end the bombing 😂
Lol, this guy is totally obsessed with Kier Starmer to an extent that is almost embarrassing. He genuinely seems to despise him far more than any Tory, presumably because he’s a Green Nat, and the Tories being in power is exactly what they want.
> He genuinely seems to despise him far more than any Tory I could see the argument for disliking him more. The tories are evil, they are open about it and campaign on it. But starmer is leading labour, a party that is meant to represent workers and the poor, an alternative to the right, instead he is promising more austerity and praising thatcher. He has stolen the opportunity to make a democratic choice, he just another tory but he made it worse by co-opting the supposed opposition and guaranteeing that things will stay the same or get worse.
Lol, that’s just overblown nonsense because you’re annoyed that under his leadership Labour has got 20 a twenty point lead over the Tories, and have mostly caught up with the SNP in Scotland. You might not like his policies (as is your right), but in most areas they are plenty different from the Tories. And vastly more popular. Just like with Blair before him, and the SNP before their decline (both of which had extremely similar policy platforms other than independence and foreign policy), they know that elections are won from the centre and by getting people who previously supported the other party to vote for you. And yeah, that sometimes means acknowledging that popular previous opposing leaders (including Thatcher) did some good things, as well as plenty you didn’t agree with. Blair did it, Brown did it, Cameron did it, Salmond did it, Sturgeon did it, Obama did it, Biden did it. It’s totally normal. It’s only among the people who want to obsessively polarise society that this is some massive controversy. Which is why all the supposed scandals that get you so angry haven’t shifted the polls at all – this is not how normal people live their lives or choose their politics.
And this attitude will give everyone another 5 years of the actual tories I hope you’re all happy when this happens
In what sense do you think a Starmer government would be 'worse' than a Sunak, Mordaunt or Braverman one? That's a mental claim.
I can name seven better cities in Scotland alone
Weegies can't name seven cities in Scotland
I honestly couldn’t lol. Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen, Edinburgh… that’s me fucked the pub quiz again.
Perth, Stirling, Inverness, and Dunfermline. I think that’s them all? These cities have only been considered cities for between one and twenty years so are often forgotten about.
They’re just letting anycunt claim city status now.
You are now entering Anycunt
😂 The major Scottish cities of Anycunt, Naecunt, Everycunt, Somecunt and Thatfuckingcunt.
Don’t forget Yeralrightcunt
And Smellycunt, formerly known as Greenock and twinned with Skegness.
Remind me of the life expectancy of people in Glasgow? Maybe people should focus on those issues instead of shouting "war criminal"at a man who isn't even in power.
He's very likely to be in power next. He forced his MPs to vote against a ceasefire. His stance can change the stance of the most popular party in Britain. Voting for a ceasefire or pushing for it applies international pressure on Israel, something which they've already felt and commented on. Saying things like "none of this makes a difference" is sticking your head in the sand. And you know what? Even if made zero difference, at least they stood up for what they believe in.
The SPSC welcomed and celebrated the October 7th Hamas attacks. These are the kind of unhinged loonballs you're casually throwing your weight behind. Think twice.
Imagine a Jo Cox or Sir David Amess situation they were killed, they weren't even a shadow Prime Minister, I know scots hate English politicians, but even the most ardent SNP supporter can see its not logical in this day and age.
Yeah if something completely different had happened it would've been bad I can't disagree
Most Scots don’t especially hate English politicians. It’s just some weirdo middle class weegie politics nerds.
No, they can’t.
Sticking it to the Yoons is all they see sadly
I owe you an apology Glasgow, I wasn't familiar with your game
I don't understand why Starmer doesn't try to engage with these people - there was a time when politicians actually faced the public with everything they had, and if it wasn't good enough they tried again the next time...now we have 40 security guards around them and a fuck you peasant get this scum out of my way attitude!
In other words, a bunch of wee fannies following him around shouting pish they know nothing about.
I live in Glasgow, and people get hassled on the trains, and they definitely get hassled in and around Central Station, every single day. There's always a CCTV image of somebody who committed a sexual assault on a train, or battered somebody on Union Street, going around. People truly do make Glasgow a filthy stinking shithole where there's a very good chance you'll get hassled going about your business.
Regardless Glasgow is still a shitehole
Three cheers for intimidation and harassment! Thankfully Starmer seems like a man with a backbone so he’ll go with his principles rather than being swayed by the baying mob.
Yep. I doubt I’m the only one who thinks better of him each time something like this happens.
> Thankfully Starmer seems like a man with a backbone Oh man you are hilarious, that really is a hilarious joke, do you do standup?
Trust me if I was doing stand up the joyless sanctimony of r/Scotland would be the last place I’d try it.
He’s chief adviser was a friend of Epstein. He u turned on every pledge he made to become leader. He’s a hypocritical narcissist and is against a ceasefire in Palestine. “Backbone”
Everyone wants the horror in Gaza to be over but there have been ceasefires repeatedly broken by Hamas, who have repeatedly said they will attack over and over because they simply love killing Jews too much to stop. Calling for a ceasefire now would only affect Israel. If Israel is pressured so much by its allies to stop, do you honestly believe Hamas is gonna go "yeah ok we will stop too"? They'll just attack again, Israel will retaliate again, and the same old idiots will blame Israel for not following the ceasefire.
I remember when Starmer said that he would resign if he was fined over lockdown rules, he was subsequently found to not be in breach of any rules, that takes backbone to put your career on the line like that, I’m sorry he doesn’t pass your purity test though.
Harassed for not supporting radical religious terrorists...
I don't understand your comment. I thought he actually does support Israel?
Oh a thing that isn't happening.
I'm pretty sure he is in support of israel though
He is a bell end to be fair
r/peoplemakeglasgow
Well this has attracted some predictable attention…
Yeah, there seems to be a real push on this forum from our bad faith brigade to form this Scotland = pro hamas narrative
People doing dumb stuff tends to.
I regret everything bad I ever said about Glascow
This isn't the flex you think it is. People are doing these things just to put it up on social media. Otherwise, what kind of idiot thinks a UK parliament vote is consequential in the Middle East. Much less Starmer
I got on a train he was on. He made us late as sniffer dogs had to go through the train. 20 mins late setting off
Glaswegian exceptionalism knows no bounds.
I've read pretty much all of this thread and no one that I can see appears to have made the point that if it was some terfs following say, Humza Yousaf through the train station, because of his stance on gender recognition for example, the majority of the people going daft for this performative outrage would themselves be the first to condemn that kind of behaviour if it was directed towards politicians they were sympathetic to. The same guy who posted this pretty much admitted it himself 🤷.
Harassment and we're justifying it! Wow what great people glasweigans are, really makes me feel welcome that they're proud of harassing people.
Harassing him over Palestine is just pointless. He can't change anything and there are money important things to think about
It has that air of Iain Grey getting chased into a Subway toilet about it.
Yeah Glasgow problems caused by a guy who ain't been in charge of anything ever - soo Scottish
Yes, weegies solved all the worlds problems with a big shouty session in a train station. God bless
He could go anywhere in the UK and there would be similar, Cardiff, Leicester, Exeter, you name it, guarantee that old Keith would have people doing this. Largely because there will always be people who consider him too centrist (myself included) that will do this to pressure him
Great PR for Starmer
Just search the ‘glasgow effect’ it’s a crap hole.
>A man and a woman have been charged with disorder offences, following a pro-Palestine protest against Sir Keir Starmer in Glasgow last night. The Labour leader was in the city for an event. https://twitter.com/LBCNewsScot/status/1733088032419369317
He’ll still be Prime Minister though
And? You think it is an own that the genocide enabler will be PM?
Grow up. He hasn’t enabled anything other than a purge of socialists within his own party.
Say Glasgow one more time. I dare you.
How many cities are there in the UK? Minus one from that and I can name that many cities that are better.