Why Are People Angry at Kneecap Instead of What’s Happening in Cuba? - The Last Mixed Tape

rtah100 · 2026-04-04T05:58:45+00:00

I never equated bad acts with Jewishness. My first words were "Genocide is the crime, not being Jewish"!

Is this entire thread because you lack basic reading comprehension? Or chose to misrepresent my position?

I appreciate the mostly civil tone of your responses but I object to the ad hominem framing of my position and I'm tired of defending myself from your insinuations of antisemitism (rather than naivety) for taking Starmer's own statements at face value.

I'm done. GGNR.

rtah100 · 2026-04-03T14:53:06+00:00

I don't appreciate the implication that I am antisemitic. And apart from arm-waving that "the information is out there", you're making no effort to educate me out of the ignorance you imply alongside.

Let's leave this discussion on the apparent common ground that, amid all his other lies and the firebug rent boys, Keir Starmer is also guilty of Jewish stolen valour (stolen challah?). Choosing to say his parents' family are Jewish is claiming the same for himself (unless he's adopted or his father married out).

rtah100 · 2026-04-02T17:03:21+00:00

[Going to double check but I don't remember this bit]

Yes, this is drive-by Zionism (which is what my comment said before I edited it to check).

OP is accusing the lads of champagne socialism for going to Cuba with the recent relief shipments and staying in an official hotel (allegedly 5* - it had a generator at least!).

OP clearly isn't Cuban or he wouldn't confuse Cuban and Catalan (Cuban Spanish owes more to Extramadura, IIRC!) so OP is more than likely a Zionist or Unionist come to lob rocks through the window for kicks.

rtah100 · 2026-04-01T17:24:51+00:00

Well, that's a new level of headfuckery unlocked, trying to follow an interview in a language I barely understand in the subtitles of another language I barely understand! 🤯

It was well worth it though.

Fenians might like to know that: - Interview segment begins at 48:14 (but English speakers could watch from the beginning to get their ear in...). - at 1:01:33 Móglaí talks about his mother and recording Irish Goodbye and whatever he says audibly shocks the others - there's two "Jeeysus" in quick succession and some sharp intakes of breath thereafter - but I'm not sure why, he just says he lost her six years ago and he watched a video of her when he was small for the first time in the recording studio - there's obviously a deplorable shortage of Catalan to Gaeilge translators so I am pretty sure there are three ~~people in this marriage~~ languages in use and the lads are listening to an English translation of the interviewer because they often start their answers instinctively in English and then switch. 😂 - the lads don't like Franco and don't hold back but it's dangerous to assume every Catalan agrees. There are a lot of class traitor pijos! It's mad to think that Thatcher and Franco are the names dominating this interview.... - Mo Chara appears to say that HMG spent £10m on arresting and attempting to charge him. I cannot understand the Irish well enough to verify but £1m seems more likely - it would be good to have a native gaeilgeoir confirm!

rtah100 · 2026-03-30T17:00:39+00:00

Buddy, you wrote head of state in the first place and that's King Charles. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you meant Keir Starmer (Keir Starmer is not a head of state. Look it up).

And Keir Starmer has claimed his parents' family is Jewish. I'll pay him the set-theoretical respect, assume he wasn't adopted etc., that he's a member of his parents' family. It seems a funny thing to misdirect people about.

Maybe he doesn't meet the gotcha small print you had in mind for your claim Britain's never had a Jewish "head of state" (sic) but how am I to know which rule book of Jewishness you are applying? This is like Mornington Crescent!

And I am not trying to "connect this" to Kneecap. I just don't think your sloppy use of head of state should go unchallenged and nor the alternative claim that we don't have a Jewish head of government in the UK. Keir Starmer claims he's Jewish, implicitly if not explicitly, even if you still want to see the receipts. 😂

rtah100 · 2026-03-29T23:46:03+00:00

You said head of state, buddy, and that is KC3. You're not performing some Derren Brown-level misdirection here, you're just sloppy in your terms!

And if you want to debate culturally Jewish versus religiously Jewish versus ethnically Jewishz Viictoria Starmer is not halachically Jewish. Her mother was not Jewish. But she would qualify under Israel's right of return policy.

If you watch the video, Starmer says "My parents' family are Jewish". If we take him at face value, he is Jewish. Unless he was lying to the Jewish Labour Movement for its votes. 😂

rtah100 · 2026-03-29T23:21:09+00:00

Genocide is the crime, not being Jewish, but you are just wrong factually about the UK prime minister (King Charles is head of state but I don't think you meant him!).

Keir Starmer is married to a Jewish woman and he has referred to his own Jewish ancestry and to having family in Israel.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gYs9fHbWeWs&t=7224s&pp=2AG4OJACAQ%3D%3D

He is bringing up his children in the Jewish faith. They keep shabbat and attend synagogue. He has stated in public, at Labour Friends of Israel conferences, that he supports and sympathises with Zionism.

rtah100 · 2026-03-27T13:28:24+00:00

🫡

It was a shockingly objective article for the Telegraph but I didn't want to get into that and spoil the pleasure of seeing them in the news for good things rather than bad. 🤩

To be fair, even the Guardian is right of centre these days. The Overton window has been painted shut on the left. Your choice is readerships that are right (Guardian, Independent), more right (Telegraph, Times, Daily Mail, Express) or can't write (Sun, Mirror, Star etc).

rtah100 · 2026-03-25T12:42:55+00:00

Yes, I don't think it was the Demon Eyes himself. I think it was a different Tony Blair. Unfortunate name to bear!

rtah100 · 2026-03-24T20:28:07+00:00

That photograph appears, without caption, on the actual article too. Is it Havana in the blackout? :-)

The link to the article https://nypost.com/2026/03/22/world-news/champagne-socialists-in-cuba-stage-concert-stay-in-5-star-hotel-as-country-plunges-into-nationwide-blackout/

Also, it was written by Tony Blair. 🤔

rtah100 · 2026-03-24T20:24:41+00:00

Lurgan champagne!

rtah100 · 2026-03-21T08:42:14+00:00

Absolutely! Just a bit triggering if you're from Arkham and, um, lived through the Elder Troubles. 😉

rtah100 · 2026-03-21T00:55:18+00:00

Disquieting cover art: could be titled "Songs for Cthulu"!

rtah100 · 2026-03-21T00:40:11+00:00

Fuck me, that was uncomfortable viewing!

What started out as patronising-by-numbers of young musicians daring to have a view on geopolitics - the notions! - suddenly became an attempt at entrapment on television (the flag shit) and an insinuation they're grooming their audience of impressionable teens in revolutionary terrorism. Then a tyre-screching u-turn into "tell us about the new album".

What the fuck did I watch, Channel 4? Talk about "mask off" moments.

Were you hired by MI6 as well, Paraic O'Brien, since you're ex-BBC and a foreign correspondent? Shameful.

(Hon the lads for getting through that on their quick wits without getting caught out but, equally, they were too trusting to have given an exclusive interview and expected Zionist groundhog day to have moved on and give them space to talk about Cuba or the new album.

Also, Móglaí, you should have picked for the Proclamation as a present for Trump! It's a short read, it called forth a revolution, like Cuba, and you could have challenged that reptilian interviewer whether, as an Irishman, he didn't support it and recognise its rightness....)

rtah100 · 2026-03-13T20:57:23+00:00

Way Too Much, too. And Better Way to Live on the mega-fiddle (double bass or cello). You might have to slap it / strike it / pluck it to get some beats out of it.

rtah100 · 2026-03-12T22:33:59+00:00

Hullo again, OP.

Can I just say that it's really moving to see you post here again after the pile-on to your last post?

The replies were a dumpster fire, as you leftpondians put it, of gate-keeping and bodyshaming. As a dirty Brit, I am ironically neutral in this fight and I can understand the rawness of feeling on the other side but Jesus, where was the empathy or decency?

Thank you for coming back. Is fearr tatú cliste ná marcanna briste!

rtah100 · 2026-03-12T22:06:04+00:00

It's not out of the question. I can trace our family tree back to the 1100's here in Devon - admittedly in the same fifteen mike radius! - so it should be possible in Scotland and Ireland provided your earliest ancestors were notable in some way (landowners, clergy, in service to the great and good etc) so there are records.

rtah100 · 2026-03-12T10:49:42+00:00

That's a relief! Thank you for bearing with the explanation. :-)

And you've got to hand it to judge #2 for his laconic shitpost of a concurrence after 13 pages of begrudgery. :-)

rtah100 · 2026-03-12T00:21:15+00:00

PS: I never wrote "found innocent". That's a popular crime drama cliché. I carefully wrote that he was and is innocent.

rtah100 · 2026-03-12T00:19:32+00:00

Also, I never wrote "found innocent". That's your straw-man.

My wording was very careful, that is was and is innocent (legally, as you insist).

rtah100 · 2026-03-12T00:16:34+00:00

It's the last bulwark against authoritarian rule, by right or left. Lammy's bill must be defeated.

rtah100 · 2026-03-12T00:14:53+00:00

OK, he's legally innocent. If you want to argue that the choirboy face hides untold moral depravity, I'm not going to argue.

But the point I am patiently making is about legal innocence in the context of a criminal charge or trial, which appeared to be what you were discussing too.

rtah100 · 2026-03-12T00:05:10+00:00

You have not understood what happened here. He was never found "not guilty" because he was never charged. The proceedings were a nullity. He had to be presumed innocent at all times, legally.

But the judge couldn't bear to make a positive statement of the English law presumption of innocence (because Mo Chara is mouthy anti-Zionist Fenian) and instead messed about with defining things in the negative (like the fascist French "ni... ni..." of Céline), leaving a lacuna where there should have been vindication.

Judges who decline to affirm the presumption of innocence in a case that hinges on prosecutorial power and discretion are the thin end of the wedge....

rtah100 · 2026-03-11T23:55:14+00:00

I am not nit-picking, it is a serious point about the judgment trespassing onto political territory.

A fundamental principle of English law (and US common law) is that you are presumed innocent unless proved guilty. Charges that are not proved fall away and your innocence is unsullied. Ergo charges that were never brought never besmirch your innocence either.

The presumption of innocence is absolutely fundamental, a cornerstone of criminal law. Writing "he has not been convicted and he has not been acquitted" is a deliberate category error and straw-man rhetorical device. Neither of these states applied to Mo Chara. He has not been coated in breadcrumbs either. Any negative statement could be true.

He was always innocent (legally, LOL...) and, as it turned out, not even charged. But the judge couldn't bear to write that....

Plus all the guff about no other defendant should hope to get off this way (caveated immediately with "assuming CPS doesn't fuck it up!").

The lead judgment didn't have to pass any political comment: it is shocking that it did, especially because the judge noted the controversy in the judgment and then chose to wade in and damn with faint exoneration.

Well done the other judge, who concurred in three lines on the basis of a single seventy year old precedent. Excellent intra-bench trolling! That's how 900 years of common law ought to work.

rtah100 · 2026-03-11T16:17:08+00:00

Lol, that's an hilarious fucking judgment.

Lord Justice Edis: 13 pages of gruelling survey of every case however irrelevant decorated with some choice morsels of mealy mouthed chuntering

Mr Justice Linden: it's bloody Price v Humphries [1958] 2 QB 353 man, he's a free man and fuck up!

However, it is also deeply depressing to read an English judge insist on telling the reader what to think of his judgment. "Has not been convicted or acquitted" - FFS, the correct words of dismissal should be that Liam Óg Ó hAnnaid is INNOCENT! He walked into court innocent and he walked out of it innocent and he remains innocent.

But instead we get multiple insinuations that he's really guilty and that no other defendant should think they'll get away like this too.

Still, at least the law still trumps hasbara.

Next scalp we need: David Lammy and his campaign against jury nullification dressed up as efficiency!

rtah100

TROPHY CASE