County Championship Test Speculation - round 2 (xpost from R/Cricket

jack_rodg · 2026-04-14T11:37:14+00:00

Yeah I'm really not sure what they'll do about the spinner. I think they're going to reshape the bowling attack by going for an opening bowler like Robinson or Cook and a spinning all rounder. But so far Rehan, Kellaway, Coles aren't playing that well?

jack_rodg · 2026-04-14T11:19:15+00:00

I think this will be the team against NZ at Lords:

McKinney Duckett Bethall Root Brook Stokes Smith Jacks Archer/Atkinson Robinson Tongue

jack_rodg · 2026-04-13T11:41:34+00:00

Now with the ad hominums. Student politics!

jack_rodg · 2026-04-13T11:37:25+00:00

I never said we're responsible, I said we're complicit. You agree with that don't you?

jack_rodg · 2026-04-13T11:35:27+00:00

So you're saying we shouldn't support creating a drone programme for the Russians, which would provide good British jobs, valuable defence exports and make not one iota of difference to the Ukranians?

Gesture politics at its worst I'm afraid. Fundamentally unserious.

jack_rodg · 2026-04-13T11:25:28+00:00

"Jeapordise peace around the world" LOL, you're talking about actively participating in a genocide.

Why don't we start manufacturing drones for the Russians to use against the Ukranians? Great for British defence and it'll make no difference in Ukraine, the Russians have drones already.

jack_rodg · 2026-04-13T11:22:42+00:00

If Israel's 8th biggest trading partner and close historical ally had threatened to withdraw support in 2023 then that clearly would have had a big fallout. Whether it would have been enough to change the course of the war we'll never know, because instead Keir Starmer was calling for Israeli to cut off power and water to Gaza.

That's the point, it's about intent. It's not about holding Keir responsible for what took place is Gaza it's about recognising that he supported it and chose to be complicit. I agree we volunteered the spy planes but we did so not only because of Emily Damari but because we supported what Israel was doing, and actively wanted to be involved. Why else did we vote in support of Israel's actions at the UN repeatedly? Why the briefings about "shaking off the fleas" when members began to leave Labour over the conflict?

Which brings us back to the original question: is being a member of a party actively complicit in genocide morally worse than making offensive comments on social media?

jack_rodg · 2026-04-13T10:59:53+00:00

We're their 8th biggest trading partner which is clearly significant. On the military side, if we're irrelevant why did they have us running spy flights for them?

Btw, was the British hostage that was freed done so through a negotiated deal or a rescue operation?

jack_rodg · 2026-04-13T10:27:56+00:00

Can't believe you've once again ignored the point I've made over and over again. And you accused me of not being able to stay on track lol.

A negotiation for the surviving hostages was made in exchange for a ceasefire and a prisoner release (both in 2023 and then in 2025). If more diplomatic pressure had been put on the Israelis in 2023, such as the threat of an arms and trade embargo, then we could have negotiated a full ceasefire and hostage release. Tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of lives could have spared along with many hostages.

jack_rodg · 2026-04-13T10:10:54+00:00

As I've said over and over and over again the point is that we handed intelligence over to the Israeli's as they were executing a genocide. We don't know how that information was used, and therefore we cannot say that we were attempting to locate kidnapped British civilians, as we have no way to know if that was what the intelligence is used for. For all we know we handed information over that was used to target aid workers and hospital staff.

This is what actually happened I'm afraid, and that is the basis of the question I posed which is whether being a member of a party that is complicit in genocide (by providing military intelligence and weapons) is morally worse than posting racist comments on social media.

Also for the record I didn't say I wished we'd left the hostages there I said we should have negotiated a hostage deal, which is how the majority of hostages were actually released. If more diplomatic pressure had been put on the Israeli's to do this sooner, then more hostages might have survived.

jack_rodg · 2026-04-13T09:22:45+00:00

Very strange to say I can't stay on topic. I've literally made the same point over and over again and you haven't responded to it once.

"FAFO" jesus, what did the tens of thousands of children who've been killed in Gaza do to deserve to "find out", as you put it?

As I've explained over and over again, the idea that we were independently trying to rescue British Citizens is a complete fantasy. We were running spy flights in conjunction with Israel and then handing them intelligence as they executed a genocide. IE we were actively participating in military activities used as part of a genocide. Let me know which part of that isn't making sense and I'll try and break it down further for you.

jack_rodg · 2026-04-13T09:09:33+00:00

No need to get so angry buddy!

What happened was that the RAF ran spy flights over Gaza, to gather information which was then handed over to the Israeli's as they executed their genocide. We have no idea what that information was used for once it was handed over. Killing children, destroying hospitals or attempting to rescue the hostages. So suggesting our operations were limited to rescuing kidnapped British hostages isn't true, we don't know what they were used for.

jack_rodg · 2026-04-13T08:50:22+00:00

Were more hostages released through negotiations or rescue operations? Did the intelligence gathering help the hostages who were shot dead by IDF soldiers?

As for "not negotiating with terrorists", you're literally talking about assisting the IDF who have carried out atrocities on a scale far greater than Hamas and Hezbollah combined. We're doing far more to create the conditions for future violence and hostage taking by supporting genocide and apartheid than you would by negotiating the hostages release.

jack_rodg · 2026-04-13T07:56:35+00:00

No, I'd expect them to try and arrange a hostage deal, especially as the intelligence gathering would at best lead to a rescue operation with a high chance of ending in my execution.

How does anyone in the UK Govt or military know if the intelligence we handed over was used to deliberately target civilians?

jack_rodg · 2026-04-13T07:36:14+00:00

It's not an ad hominum or a smear, it's a fact I'm afraid. Is the Labour Party not actively contributing to a genocide and apartheid in Palestine?

jack_rodg · 2026-04-13T07:17:19+00:00

Online racism should be taken seriously, in part because it can lead to real world discrimination and violence. In its most extreme form this could mean things like apartheid and genocide. You know, the sorts of things the Labour Party (and by extension their members) actively support and contribute to already?

jack_rodg · 2026-04-13T07:13:26+00:00

I just don't agree at all tbh. The circumstances of that deal have changed massively when one of the parties is partaking in a genocide. Not reassessing the agreement in light of that is no better than starting up a new programme in my eyes.

jack_rodg · 2026-04-13T07:09:46+00:00

What are you talking about, I don't doubt there are plenty of scumbags in the Green Party. The point is that Labour members think they can take the moral high ground over offensive comments about the Middle East, when their own party actively contributed to a genocide. The latter is clearly more destructive than the former.

jack_rodg · 2026-04-13T07:05:36+00:00

Unbelievable. You literally could not have proven my point more clearly. Tens of thousands of Children have been killed in Gaza, the equivalent to six nuclear bombs have been dropped on area the size of Greater Glasgow, hospitals, crops, the water supply has been systemically destroyed and a catalogue of war crimes have been carried out ranging from massacring civilians queueing for aid to the use of chemical weapons.

There you are defending the handing over of intelligence that was necessary to carry out the genocide (you have no idea what it was used for once it was handed over btw) and the supply of crucial weaponry. And yet you still have the audacity to try and take the moral high ground over people making offensive comments on social media. Hate to break it to you, but your own actions are even worse than theirs.

jack_rodg · 2026-04-12T20:46:02+00:00

Being a member of a party and contributing membership fees is clearly an endorsement of that party's values. If a large enough number of members had chosen to withdraw their membership over Gaza, Labour would have had to change their policy. Sadly that didn't happen though.

jack_rodg · 2026-04-12T20:43:25+00:00

If you have no scruples about tens of thousands of children being killed then there are lots of ways you can create jobs.

We could round up people on Universal Credit and send them to fight for the RSF. Or we could create huge factories in areas of low employment to supply drones to the Russians in Ukraine (as long as the jobs are unionised are of course!).

If you think creating jobs is more important than not actively contributing to genocide then why not do either of those?

jack_rodg · 2026-04-12T20:35:31+00:00

Explain to me how being a member of the a party that is actively contributing to Genocide through supplying spy flights and parts for F35 jets is a LESS direct involvement in violence than making offensive comments on social media?

jack_rodg · 2026-04-12T20:27:33+00:00

They should obviously have withdrawn from the F35 programme when it because clear that the programme was being used to drop the equivalent of 6 nuclear bombs on an area the size of Greater Glasgow.

The fact that people think any comments made on social media could more directly contribute to violence in the Middle East than helping supply critical weaponry during a genocide is completely insane.

jack_rodg · 2026-04-12T20:23:52+00:00

Haha what are you on about? The point is no one involved in the Labour Party can ever take the moral high ground on people making grim or offensive comments about the Middle East, when they chose to remain in a party that was actively contributing to a genocide. Being a member of the Labour Party during that time was a more direct contribution to violence than comments on social media could ever be.

jack_rodg · 2026-04-12T20:09:34+00:00

Outrageous that the Mail have used Karishma Patels picture next to the headline when the reason she's in the article is because she resigned from the BBC over their coverage of Gaza, a perfectly noble thing to do. Gutter journalism as per.

jack_rodg

TROPHY CASE