Sohail Speaks Yasir's Blog Fazeer's Focus

User Tag List

Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1
    Debut
    Aug 2010
    Venue
    Sheffield
    Runs
    35,188
    Mentioned
    1196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    12 Thread(s)

    UKIP Immigration Spokesman retweets "If you want a Jihadi for a neighbour, Vote Labour"

    UKIP's immigration spokesman and party treasurer John Bickley has just retweeted this.

    This is of course a spin on the notorious racist slogan used by the victorious Conservative candidate in the 1964 Smethwick by-election - "if you want a N*****" for a neighbour, vote Labour."

    Name:  C4fPexlWQAA8fi7.jpg
Views: 624
Size:  265.7 KB

    This makes a mockery of UKIP's recent "outreach" towards Muslims before the Stoke Central by-election. For those who don't know, UKIP won 3.8m votes at the last General Election and came second in many Northern England seats so we're not talking about a fringe party here.
    Last edited by Muhammad10; 13th February 2017 at 03:03.

  2. #2
    Debut
    Nov 2011
    Runs
    9,336
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    and retweeted approvingly by major UKIP funder Arron Banks

    they are a party of racists and nutjobs

  3. #3
    Debut
    Jan 2010
    Runs
    37,478
    Mentioned
    747 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    It's very sad so many Brits voted for such a party, not only are they racist but very stupid too. Using the hammer and sickle which is a communist symbol just goes to show their lunacy.


    Lions don't lose sleep over the opinions of Sheep

  4. #4
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    29,425
    Mentioned
    1024 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Straight out of the 1970s..... only then the n-word was used instead of 'jihadi'.

    This is full-on racism. Abominable in 2017 in the U.K.

  5. #5
    Debut
    Nov 2014
    Runs
    2,213
    Mentioned
    134 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by KingKhanWC View Post
    It's very sad so many Brits voted for such a party, not only are they racist but very stupid too. Using the hammer and sickle which is a communist symbol just goes to show their lunacy.
    Haven't British civilians voted for politicians killing thousands of Muslims outside their country, posing no threat whatsoever to the UK ? Here it seems innocent as a comparison.

  6. #6
    Debut
    Jan 2010
    Runs
    37,478
    Mentioned
    747 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by enkidu_ View Post
    Haven't British civilians voted for politicians killing thousands of Muslims outside their country, posing no threat whatsoever to the UK ? Here it seems innocent as a comparison.
    Yes they have but every party would follow the same foreign policy unless we have a leader such as Corbyn come in to power. Overall democracy is just a pantomime for the foolish to feel they are taking part in shaping the future when they are only being used to justify criminal governments. Most people in the western world are too brainwashed to realise something so obvious.


    Lions don't lose sleep over the opinions of Sheep

  7. #7
    Debut
    Nov 2014
    Runs
    2,213
    Mentioned
    134 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by KingKhanWC View Post
    Yes they have but every party would follow the same foreign policy unless we have a leader such as Corbyn come in to power. Overall democracy is just a pantomime for the foolish to feel they are taking part in shaping the future when they are only being used to justify criminal governments. Most people in the western world are too brainwashed to realise something so obvious.
    A spoiler : Corbyn wouldn't change anything. The capitalist system is built upon expanding predation, as Lenin said, imperialism is linked with capitalism. No politician within the system could change anything before it totally defuses the wider liberal order (which includes parliamentary democracy). The only reason the West didn't kill Muslims for decades was because the Soviet Union was a counter-weight to its criminal foreign policy. But since the 90s, you can see how well fed the US military industrial complex has been, with its European lackeys, travelling thousands of miles to kill peoples while they themselves host millions of poors and dropping in 2016 +26 000 bombs in 6 Muslim countries with which they're not at war (in the military history of the world, that's probably a first).

    There's no reason it'll will change with Corbyn.

  8. #8
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    29,425
    Mentioned
    1024 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by KingKhanWC View Post
    Yes they have but every party would follow the same foreign policy unless we have a leader such as Corbyn come in to power. Overall democracy is just a pantomime for the foolish to feel they are taking part in shaping the future when they are only being used to justify criminal governments. Most people in the western world are too brainwashed to realise something so obvious.
    You mean a pacifist? The Biritsh people have never and will never vote for such a person. We require our leaders to be strong enough to defend us on the world stage. There are nations competing with us for international influence, and they will invade us given the chance.

    The only way you will have the leader you want is if there is a fundamental change in the human condition, and that won't happen because of billions of years of evolutionary programming.

  9. #9
    Debut
    May 2010
    Venue
    UK
    Runs
    30,338
    Mentioned
    277 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    You mean a pacifist? The Biritsh people have never and will never vote for such a person. We require our leaders to be strong enough to defend us on the world stage. There are nations competing with us for international influence, and they will invade us given the chance.

    The only way you will have the leader you want is if there is a fundamental change in the human condition, and that won't happen because of billions of years of evolutionary programming.
    I don't really know much about Corbyn, other than the media portrayal of him which is not flattering, but is it true that he is a pacifist? Would he dismantle our defence capabilities to such a degree that other nations would invade us? Who are these other nations? I've never really considered Britain to be a country that would be targeted for invasion in the modern era.


    I for one welcome our new In____ overlords - Kent Brockman

  10. #10
    Debut
    Jan 2017
    Runs
    626
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cpt. Rishwat View Post
    I don't really know much about Corbyn, other than the media portrayal of him which is not flattering, but is it true that he is a pacifist? Would he dismantle our defence capabilities to such a degree that other nations would invade us? Who are these other nations? I've never really considered Britain to be a country that would be targeted for invasion in the modern era.
    Vladmir

  11. #11
    Debut
    May 2010
    Venue
    UK
    Runs
    30,338
    Mentioned
    277 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Nonsense.


    I for one welcome our new In____ overlords - Kent Brockman

  12. #12
    Debut
    Nov 2014
    Runs
    2,213
    Mentioned
    134 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cpt. Rishwat View Post
    I don't really know much about Corbyn, other than the media portrayal of him which is not flattering, but is it true that he is a pacifist? Would he dismantle our defence capabilities to such a degree that other nations would invade us? Who are these other nations? I've never really considered Britain to be a country that would be targeted for invasion in the modern era.
    When like the US you consider the whole world to be your potential playground it's not that hard to see an invasion when peasants turn religious conservatives in faraway Afghanistan.

  13. #13
    Debut
    May 2010
    Venue
    UK
    Runs
    30,338
    Mentioned
    277 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by enkidu_ View Post
    When like the US you consider the whole world to be your potential playground it's not that hard to see an invasion when peasants turn religious conservatives in faraway Afghanistan.
    I don't really see the connection. Afghanistan is a poverty stricken 3rd world country on the other side of the world. Britain is a well armed first world country by international standards. Realistically where is the invasion going to come from? Are the Vikings going to land again in modern system longboats?


    I for one welcome our new In____ overlords - Kent Brockman

  14. #14
    Debut
    Nov 2014
    Runs
    2,213
    Mentioned
    134 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cpt. Rishwat View Post
    I don't really see the connection. Afghanistan is a poverty stricken 3rd world country on the other side of the world. Britain is a well armed first world country by international standards. Realistically where is the invasion going to come from? Are the Vikings going to land again in modern system longboats?
    Well, that's what the Western public believes : that the Muslamic radicals want to take over their country, or that they hate their "way of life" (for the average American that'd be the epiphany of eating at MacDonald's' in the morning I guess, something I'm sure a peasant in Iraq or Afghanistan can only envy.)

    Before that they used to talk of the yellow peril, namely that East Asians dream of flooding and destroying Western countries, which was also a quite useful justification Western imperialistic presence in the region.

  15. #15
    Debut
    Aug 2016
    Venue
    Islamabad, Pakistan.
    Runs
    7,123
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Isn't this the same guy who called Hitler the greatest person in all of History?

  16. #16
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    29,425
    Mentioned
    1024 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cpt. Rishwat View Post
    I don't really know much about Corbyn, other than the media portrayal of him which is not flattering, but is it true that he is a pacifist? Would he dismantle our defence capabilities to such a degree that other nations would invade us? Who are these other nations? I've never really considered Britain to be a country that would be targeted for invasion in the modern era.
    He would never use and would divest us of nuclear weapons. He said he would build up our conventional forces instead, so we could defend our islands but not get involved in other nations' affairs. So far so good.

    But that would leave us dependent on the US and French nuclear deterrent within NATO. We would also get laughed off the UNSC and be diminished in the world.

    We are pretty hard to get at, given that there are lots of other countries between us and the one existential threat to us - Russia. The concern is more that some our European allies' territory would be easier for Russia to absorb if we have a PM unprepared to commit forces to their aid. See Poland and Chamberlain.

  17. #17
    Debut
    May 2010
    Venue
    UK
    Runs
    30,338
    Mentioned
    277 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    He would never use and would divest us of nuclear weapons. He said he would build up our conventional forces instead, so we could defend our islands but not get involved in other nations' affairs. So far so good.

    But that would leave us dependent on the US and French nuclear deterrent within NATO. We would also get laughed off the UNSC and be diminished in the world.

    We are pretty hard to get at, given that there are lots of other countries between us and the one existential threat to us - Russia. The concern is more that some our European allies' territory would be easier for Russia to absorb if we have a PM unprepared to commit forces to their aid. See Poland and Chamberlain.
    So we are less concerned about being invaded ( which is as I thought) and more concerned at lack of power and influence abroad, especially in Europe. Somewhat ironic considering we voted to leave the EU. This is the perennial problem with wanting our footprint all over the world, but at the same time pulling up the drawbridge at home. Maybe it was more workable a century ago in the days of Empire, probably not so workable now.


    I for one welcome our new In____ overlords - Kent Brockman

  18. #18
    Debut
    Jan 2007
    Runs
    13,699
    Mentioned
    229 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    He would never use and would divest us of nuclear weapons. He said he would build up our conventional forces instead, so we could defend our islands but not get involved in other nations' affairs. So far so good.

    But that would leave us dependent on the US and French nuclear deterrent within NATO. We would also get laughed off the UNSC and be diminished in the world.

    We are pretty hard to get at, given that there are lots of other countries between us and the one existential threat to us - Russia. The concern is more that some our European allies' territory would be easier for Russia to absorb if we have a PM unprepared to commit forces to their aid. See Poland and Chamberlain.
    OK, suggest a realistic scenario whereby Britain would use it's "independent" nuclear weapons (In reality there is nothing "independent" about them since, for example, the maintenance, design, and testing of UK nuclear submarines is dependent upon the USA, and the nuclear missiles aboard them are leased from the USA.).

    But lets say that the UK does have the control to use the UK's nukes without the go ahead from the Americans. Can you think of a realistic scenario whereby the USA does not use it's nukes against anybody but the UK does? And if so, who could that be against?

    The fact of the matter is that the UK's possession of nuclear weapons is just posturing. The UK will never use them unless the USA also has a need to use them. And that in itself will be just a token gesture since the USA has such a large number of nukes that the extra few that the UK could provide would make virtually zero difference overall.


    “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule”

  19. #19
    Debut
    Jan 2010
    Runs
    9,955
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Cameron was right, this is a party of racists, fruit cakes and loons. The media needs to give less space to this party, they thrive on the oxygen provided by the media.

  20. #20
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    29,425
    Mentioned
    1024 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    @Yossarian,

    Of course we can fire the Tridents without Us permission. You think there are US Marines guarding the silos? No clue where this nonsense comes from, except maybe Russia Today or some Russian-backed fake news site. The Vanguard-class boats were built in the UK and are maintained up at Faslane, not in the US.

    The only scenario I can think of would be if Trump withdraws from NATO, Putin attacks a NATO state and conventional NATO forces collapse in its defence. The PM, and the French President too, would have to be prepared to fire for deterrence to be meaningful.


  21. #21
    Debut
    Jan 2007
    Runs
    13,699
    Mentioned
    229 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    @Yossarian,

    Of course we can fire the Tridents without Us permission. You think there are US Marines guarding the silos? No clue where this nonsense comes from, except maybe Russia Today or some Russian-backed fake news site. The Vanguard-class boats were built in the UK and are maintained up at Faslane, not in the US.

    The only scenario I can think of would be if Trump withdraws from NATO, Putin attacks a NATO state and conventional NATO forces collapse in its defence. The PM, and the French President too, would have to be prepared to fire for deterrence to be meaningful.
    From the House of Commons website,


    Select Committee on Defence Written Evidence

    Annex B

    UK'S TRIDENT SYSTEM NOT TRULY INDEPENDENT

    33. Acquiring Trident gave the UK a greater nuclear weapons capability than it could ever have achieved on its own. This enhanced capacity, however, had significant consequences.

    34. The fact that, in theory, the British Prime Minister could give the order to fire Trident missiles without getting prior approval from the White House has allowed the UK to maintain the faade of being a global military power. In practice, though, it is difficult to conceive of any situation in which a Prime Minister would fire Trident without prior US approval. The USA would see such an act as cutting across its self-declared prerogative as the world's policeman, and would almost certainly make the UK pay a high price for its presumption. The fact that the UK is completely technically dependent on the USA for the maintenance of the Trident system means that one way the USA could show its displeasure would be to cut off the technical support needed for the UK to continue to send Trident to sea.

    35. In practice, the only way that Britain is ever likely to use Trident is to give legitimacy to a US nuclear attack by participating in it. There are precedents for the USA using UK participation in this way for conventional military operations. The principal value of the UK's participation in the recent Iraq war was to help legitimise the US attack. Likewise the principal value of the firing of UK cruise missiles as part of the larger US cruise missile attack on Baghdad was to help legitimise the use of such weapons against urban targets.

    36. The most likely scenario in which Trident would actually be used is that Britain would give legitimacy to a US nuclear strike by participating in it.

    37. The well-established links between the US Strategic Command (STRATCOM), in Omaha Nebraska and the UK's Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood, London would facilitate the planning of such attacks. In a crisis the very existence of the UK Trident system might make it difficult for a UK prime minister to refuse a request by the US president to participate in an attack.

    38. The UK Trident system is highly dependent, and for some purposes completely dependent, on the larger US system. The assembling of information available in the USA, but kept secret in Britain, by John Ainslie in his 2005 report The Future of the British bomb, shows how extensive this dependency is (see table below).

    39. The UK's dependency on the USA has operational significance. For example, the UK's reliance on US weather data and on navigational data provided by the US Global Positioning System (GPS) means that, should the USA decide not to supply this data, the capacity of the UK's Trident missiles to hit targets would be degraded.

    40. Conversely, the close relationship between US and UK systems also means that the upgrades to the US Trident system have already been incorporated into the UK Trident system. The Royal Navy's adoption of the new US fire control system has most likely already improved its capacity to retarget its Trident missiles rapidly in order to hit a range of targets outside Russia—thereby adding to other states' concerns that they could be the target of a combined US/UK Trident strike.

    System Degree of dependency

    Warhead The UK warhead is a copy of the US W76 warhead.
    Arming, fusing and firing system This triggers the explosion. The model used in UK warheads was designed by the US Sandia Laboratory and is almost certainly procured from the USA.

    High-explosive (HE) This starts the nuclear explosion. The UK uses a different HE to the USA. Key explosives calculations for the US warhead cannot simply be duplicated so US labs assess the UK HE's long-term performance.

    Neutron generator This initiates nuclear fission. The neutron generator used in UK warheads is the MC4380, which is manufactured in the USA and acquired "off the shelf".

    Gas reservoir This supplies tritium to boost the fission process. It is most likely that the reservoir used in UK warheads is manufactured in the USA. UK gas reservoirs are filled with tritium in the USA.

    Re-entry body shell This is the cone-shaped body which contains the warhead. The UK purchases the Mark 4 re-entry body shell from the USA.


    The D5 missile
    The UK does not own its Trident missiles—they are leased from the USA. UK Trident submarines must regularly visit the US base at King's Bay, Georgia to return their missiles to the US stockpile for maintenance and replace them with others.

    Guidance system The Mark 6 guidance system used on the UK's Trident D5 missiles is designed and made in the USA by Charles Stark Draper Laboratories.

    Submarines UK Vanguard-class Trident submarines are UK-made, but many aspects of the design are copied from US submarines and many components are bought from the USA.

    Navigation The high accuracy of the Trident D5 missile depends on the submarine's position being precisely determined. This is achieved using two systems: GPS, which relies on satellites, and the Electrostatically Supported Giro Navigation System (ESGN), which uses gyroscopes. In both cases UK Trident submarines uses the same US system as the US Navy submarines. The USA has the ability to deny access to GPS at any time, rendering that form of navigation and targeting useless if the UK were to launch without US approval.

    Targeting Target packages are designed and formatting tapes produced on shore, then stored on the submarine—using US software at each stage.

    Onshore targeting The software installed in the computers at the Nuclear Operations and Targeting Centre in London is based on US models and is probably derived from the US Navy's Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile Integrated Planning System.

    Weather and gravity data The US Navy supplies local gravitational information and forecasts of weather over targets, both of which are vital to high missile accuracy, to US and UK submarines.

    Fire control system (FCS) Used to assign targets to the warheads on the submarines. UK submarines carry a slightly different model to that on US submarines. However, all the hardware and software used by the system is US-produced. The hardware is produced by General Dynamics Defense Systems. The contracts show that the UK uses similar, if not quite identical, software.

    Management
    British nuclear warheads are designed and made at Aldermaston near Reading. Aldermaston is part managed by the US corporation Lockheed Martin. Repairs to Britian's Trident submarine are carried out at Devonport, which is part managed by another US corporation, Halliburton.

    Research and development There is extensive cooperation between Aldermaston and America's nuclear weapon laboratories—Los Alamos in New Mexico and Sandia and Lawrence Livermore in California.

    Testing The W76 warhead was tested at the US nuclear test site in Nevada in the early 1990s. The UK has no test site of its own. The missiles are test launched from British submarines under US supervision at Cape Canaveral off the Florida coast. These tests are analysed by the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) at Johns Hopkins University and by the Charles Stark Draper Laboratories.

    https://www.publications.parliament....86/986we13.htm
    @Robert
    Still believe that, in reality "we can fire the Tridents without Us permission"?


    “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule”

  22. #22
    Debut
    Jan 2005
    Runs
    3,203
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Shameless.

    This is exactly the kind of irresponsible rhetoric that is fanning the flames of White Far-right terror and extremism.

  23. #23
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    29,425
    Mentioned
    1024 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Yossarian View Post
    From the House of Commons website,


    @Robert
    Still believe that, in reality "we can fire the Tridents without Us permission"?
    Yes, section 3.4 states that by implication. The Yanks might not like it, but we can do it.

  24. #24
    Debut
    Jan 2007
    Runs
    13,699
    Mentioned
    229 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    Yes, section 3.4 states that by implication. The Yanks might not like it, but we can do it.
    And how likely do you think that would be bearing in mind the rest of that extract from the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence? And then still think it's worth spending 31 Billion (+ 10 Billion in contingencies) in just the replacement costs, and that's without even allowing for the many Billions every year in the running, maintenance and periodic refurbishment costs for the submarines and missiles, plus the port side infrastructure and support costs?

    Wouldn't those astronomical figures be better used in upgrading and maintaining the conventional forces, which, in reality, are far more likely to be used in actual conflicts?

    One last point:
    Already there are question marks over the main advantages of nuclear submarine based nukes, ie the ability of these submarines to evade detection and then retaliate with nukes if need be. With newer technologies, including such as swarms of automated underwater drones, this advantage disappears. And the new subs won't even be operational for almost another decade, with a further 30+ year lifespan. Can you imagine the advances in submarine detection capabilities that are likely over the next 30 odd years?

    "These include small handheld drones that the U.S. military is designing to operate in swarms, air-launched drones like the U.S. Coyote that can be dropped by ASW aircraft, and sonar-equipped underwater robot gliders that quietly search the ocean.

    Small unmanned platforms can carry many types of sensors active and passive sonar, magnetic anomaly detectors, wake detection LIDAR, thermal sensors, laser-based optical sensors capable of piercing seawater and others," Hambling writes. "A submarine which can be seen by any one of these will cease to be invisible. A submarine whose location is exposed is highly vulnerable to instant attack. If submarines are easily detectable, they lose all their advantages as strategic weapons platforms."

    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/...obsolete-15412
    Last edited by Yossarian; 16th February 2017 at 14:37.


    “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule”

  25. #25
    Debut
    Oct 2015
    Venue
    Andromeda
    Runs
    4,207
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    When I read stuff like this I wanna move to UK just to spite these racists


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •