What UK Prime Minister lost their office because they were rude and patronising to women?
Starmer is still in office, Sunak lost because the Tories were unpopular and because he didn’t win an election to get the Prime Ministership, Johnson lost because during Covid people stayed at the office a little bit longer and had a birthday party, teresa May lost because she couldn’t deliver Brexit, Cameron lost because he gave people a vote on Brexit, Brown lost for the same reasons as Sunak, Blair lost because of the Iraq war.
You left out Liz Truss, which is understandable really.
Liz Truss lost because she was barking mad, manifestly wildly out of her depth and her and her think tank buddies tanked the economy. She was rude and patronising to women (but only because she was rude and patronising to everyone).
PM Gordon Brown did call a female voter "bigoted" on a hot mic (1) - with some justification actually, as she did say some unpleasant anti-immigrant rhetoric. Mr Brown lost an election shortly after, but this incident was not in itself what brought him down.
The Iranian regime funded Hamas that started the last major war and the regime was responsible for the mass slaughter 30 to 40,000 people a few weeks ago.
What I am claiming isn't even controversial. It's quite well known and accepted. So much so all the standard search engines will confirm it, and search engines typically reflect a consensus view of crawlable documents.
This is what I get when I pose the question
"Yes, Israeli officials have acknowledged providing covert financial support to Sheikh Ahmed Yassin’s Islamist networks in Gaza during the late 1970s and 1980s. This was done to bolster religious groups as a counterweight to the secular Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which was viewed as the primary adversary at the time"
This is a common talking point, but if we look at the underlying facts of what Israel did to "support" or "set up" Hamas, they... allowed Qatar to provide aid to Gaza to fund some infrastructure and civil servants' salaries. Would you have preferred that they block the aid and Gaza's governance collapse?
You claimed that "It's Israel that set up Hamas". Now you're talking about Israel supporting a charity that ran schools and mosques before Hamas existed. That doesn't support your claim.
Doesn't change the other side of the equation either: it is also not controversial that the KGB and the Soviets are financially behind the PLO (now PA), that Yasser Arafat ("the wise Egyptian") was a Soviet agent.
First time hearing about it, so cannot comment without reading further.
KGB and CIA had their noses in the affairs of every country, more so in the mid east, so cannot be ruled out.
Historical interest aside, that was not the point I made on this thread.
The point was justifying war on Iran upon the reason that they funded Hamas. So did Israel, they pretty much helped birth it. KGB may or may not be funding PLA, but that doesn't change who set up Hamas in the first place.
If reminding Arafat's Egyptian origin is to caste a shade, many in the Israeli government have European (often Polish) origin and surnames that they changed to fit their political career. Netanyahu included. So that cuts bothway.
So what? It's an argument that maybe we should do something, for the American people's consideration, but it doesn't change the fact that this war has been started without Congressional approval by a president who IIRC explicitly campaigned on "no new wars" or something to that effect. As far as I can tell, he has stated no consistent or coherent justification for any of this.
If we are going to engage in brute force regime change on the other side of the world, regardless of how bad the current regime is (yes, they are evil), this is not how it should happen. And everyone should take a moment to remind themselves why the term "regime change" carries the connotations it does.
The campaign promises from Trump were "no new wars" and "America First" along with a bunch rhetoric saying that his political opponents were war mongers.
What do Hamas or Iran protestors have to do with America? I agree that it's bad but you have to admit that it goes against literally all the "peace" talk that MAGAs were pushing.
Since when do American deaths (in an attack that happened 2+ years ago mind you) mean you can unilaterally go to war with an entire country?
> and Iran constantly threatens to hit America (and about everyone else) with nuclear weapons
Okay, but he campaigned as the peace ticket so presumably he'd be able to figure that out without resorting to military action, no? Obama managed to work out a deal with them (that Trump then tore to pieces in 2018)
Your second question isn't coherent and I didn't see it as relevant regardless. I think Republicans are sycophantic MAGAs at this moment, does that answer it? You're not answering any of my questions, though and instead just word vomiting about a hostage release deal under Biden.
No. The other poster already did a fine job about pointing out that Islamic terror groups typically use guerilla warfare which frequently involves fleeing, not wearing a uniform, hiding among civilians, etc.
reply