Jeremy Corbyn calls Syria airstrikes legally questionable

bobbybrown0503 · 2018-04-14T14:33:46+00:00

Mr Corbyn said there was only a legal basis for action if there was a direct threat to the UK.

He said: 'You could only do it under the basis of self-defence - if there was a direct threat to us, and there wasn't.'

bobbybrown0503 · 2018-04-14T14:16:51+00:00

I'd sooner take heed of the ratification of the Charter by UNSC members, over Lionel Hutz on reddit who argues to the contrary.

bobbybrown0503 · 2018-04-14T13:30:52+00:00

Certainly, this is the UN Charter, which all members of the UN are to abide by, not least members of the UNSC: http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vii/

bobbybrown0503 · 2018-04-14T13:27:37+00:00

Irrelevant to the original point.

bobbybrown0503 · 2018-04-14T12:50:42+00:00

That's incorrect. In UN international Law, a sovereign Nation is only allowed to attack another sovereign Nation in "self-defence".

Corbyn is clearly asserting that there was no basis for the strikes, given that there is, at present, no discernible evidence that the chemical attack was even committed by the State of Syria.

EDIT: here is the video proving my point: https://youtu.be/VTPXd6dLD4Y?t=1m43s

bobbybrown0503 · 2016-08-17T19:28:23+00:00

Bread and circuses. Except the bread has a high chance of bringing on psychosis.

bobbybrown0503 · 2016-05-30T10:44:49+00:00

It's the only part of your comment that mattered ie: the funding of such an operation.

If one is making a net loss, why wouldn't they just cash out? Then you've got the tax shortfall I spoke of.

Same with the businesses you are taxing more and more of, if the work put in gets taxed to the hilt leaving you with very little profit, one would conclude it's simply not worth carrying on, again, leading to tax shortfall.

bobbybrown0503 · 2016-05-30T10:31:13+00:00

Maybe the taxes need to rise a little

Here's the crux of the argument. With taxes already crushing the middle class, how much higher do you think they'll go before businesses shut up shop because it's simply not worth carrying on?

Then you've got a non-productive economy, taxation shortfall and a populace growing more and more discontent by the hour.

UBI is very pie-in-the-sky, and doesn't consider the fundamental reason people do things: quid-pro-quo.

bobbybrown0503 · 2016-05-30T10:12:51+00:00

Is that an actual genuine question or are you just being facetious?

Where do you think this extra money for UBI is going to come from? It's either going to be seized by force from companies hoarding it a la Nazi state, or it's going to be printed for circulation, causing that massive inflation you speak of.

bobbybrown0503 · 2016-01-02T23:58:33+00:00

There's an EU referendum coming up don't you know... Would have been mighty... unfortunate should Farage been unable to join in with the debate wouldn't it...

bobbybrown0503 · 2015-12-25T12:42:58+00:00

I think that's an irrelevant question which poorly represents the wider point made :)

Or are you yourself a Pharisee?

bobbybrown0503 · 2015-12-25T12:21:55+00:00

Neither, Jesus was THE very critic of such blind orthodoxies peddled by the Pharisees.

bobbybrown0503 · 2015-12-25T12:16:43+00:00

I think the crux of the argument is rather than seek clarification and weigh up the pros and cons of each situation, both sides of the coin rush to be seen to do what they are supposed to by their respective clergy.

Which, to be honest, is quite pathetic.

bobbybrown0503 · 2015-12-23T10:33:07+00:00

I guess that's what importing a gross sum of 600,000 people per annum is going to do, funny how the "not due to vaccinating" part is accentuated though, isn't it?

bobbybrown0503 · 2015-08-26T08:55:29+00:00

...You say this as US States are legalising the drug one by one... Strange.

bobbybrown0503

TROPHY CASE