Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The reason I ask is that during his time as leader of the UK Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn said he would if becoming Prime Minister refuse
to retaliate if the UK was attacked with nuclear weapons by a foreign power.
We love Jeremy in the UK but was he right?
Much criticism resulted by those who said he was a threat to National Security and also because he had previously had talks with both Hamas and the IRA.
During the 1970's it was estimated the 8 well placed Nuclear Missiles would wipe out all life in the British Isles.
Consider that a full-scale nuclear attack on the US would involve both first & second wave strikes.
All life in the North & Central American continent will be dead within half an hour - there is no escape!
If the President launches a full-scale retaliation along with NATO allies you will kill not just millions of innocent Russians, but put so much radiation into the atmosphere that within a short time all life on Earth will have perished.
The answer of course from both a morality and Christian ethics point of view is of course Jeremy Corbyn is right!
How can we even consider being jointly responsible for destroying all life on earth barring perhaps only the cockroaches?
All Nations must unilaterally get rid of their Nuclear Weapons whether the Russians & Chinese do or not!
How about the people in Iran who yell, "Death to America" while the 1/2 white faggot Obammy gave them billions of dollars so they can continue with their nuclear enhancements? Do you think that was a really good deal, or could it be that one day, the voters of that fag might rue the day?
Purely from memory, It wasn't just Obama the EU countries are all co sigs to the deal and the EU are trying to carry on with it. Trump said they were not sticking to the deal but the EU said their total compliance was independently verified. Now they are back to processing Uranium that could be used in nuclear weapons.
Good work Trump.
Obama should apologize for shameful cash payment to Iran
In a pathetic attempt to hide behind semantics, the Obama administration finally did acknowledge that $400 million was delayed as “leverage” until the Americans were allowed to leave Iran.
While the Obama White House hid from the true definition of the word “leverage,” Iran’s state-run media was more than happy to brag that Iran had just forced the United States to pay a ransom.
Do you think that Iran who lies just as much as Joe Biden did, was telling the truth that they were going to not continue with Nuclear Enhancement? If so, why did they continue chanting Death to America, while sending missile into Iraq and other places, that ended up killing infidels?
The reason I ask is that during his time as leader of the UK Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn said he would if becoming Prime Minister refuse
to retaliate if the UK was attacked with nuclear weapons by a foreign power.
We love Jeremy in the UK but was he right?
Much criticism resulted by those who said he was a threat to National Security and also because he had previously had talks with both Hamas and the IRA.
During the 1970's it was estimated the 8 well placed Nuclear Missiles would wipe out all life in the British Isles.
Consider that a full-scale nuclear attack on the US would involve both first & second wave strikes.
All life in the North & Central American continent will be dead within half an hour - there is no escape!
If the President launches a full-scale retaliation along with NATO allies you will kill not just millions of innocent Russians, but put so much radiation into the atmosphere that within a short time all life on Earth will have perished.
The answer of course from both a morality and Christian ethics point of view is of course Jeremy Corbyn is right!
How can we even consider being jointly responsible for destroying all life on earth barring perhaps only the cockroaches?
All Nations must unilaterally get rid of their Nuclear Weapons whether the Russians & Chinese do or not!
How about the people in Iran who yell, "Death to America" while the 1/2 white faggot Obammy gave them billions of dollars so they can continue with their nuclear enhancements? Do you think that was a really good deal, or could it be that one day, the voters of that fag might rue the day?
Purely from memory, It wasn't just Obama the EU countries are all co sigs to the deal and the EU are trying to carry on with it. Trump said they were not sticking to the deal but the EU said their total compliance was independently verified. Now they are back to processing Uranium that could be used in nuclear weapons.
Good work Trump.
Obama should apologize for shameful cash payment to Iran
In a pathetic attempt to hide behind semantics, the Obama administration finally did acknowledge that $400 million was delayed as “leverage” until the Americans were allowed to leave Iran.
While the Obama White House hid from the true definition of the word “leverage,” Iran’s state-run media was more than happy to brag that Iran had just forced the United States to pay a ransom.
Do you think that Iran who lies just as much as Joe Biden did, was telling the truth that they were going to not continue with Nuclear Enhancement? If so, why did they continue chanting Death to America, while sending missile into Iraq and other places, that ended up killing infidels?
According to the EU, their compliance with the terms of the treaty was verified as I've already said.
As for the Iranian people occasionally getting hot under the collar and chanting "Death to America" It is usually after the US does something like sending drones over sovereign territory to kill their Generals.
Don't know why you're surprised?
The reason I ask is that during his time as leader of the UK Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn said he would if becoming Prime Minister refuse
to retaliate if the UK was attacked with nuclear weapons by a foreign power.
We love Jeremy in the UK but was he right?
Much criticism resulted by those who said he was a threat to National Security and also because he had previously had talks with both Hamas and the IRA.
During the 1970's it was estimated the 8 well placed Nuclear Missiles would wipe out all life in the British Isles.
Consider that a full-scale nuclear attack on the US would involve both first & second wave strikes.
All life in the North & Central American continent will be dead within half an hour - there is no escape!
If the President launches a full-scale retaliation along with NATO allies you will kill not just millions of innocent Russians, but put so much radiation into the atmosphere that within a short time all life on Earth will have perished.
The answer of course from both a morality and Christian ethics point of view is of course Jeremy Corbyn is right!
How can we even consider being jointly responsible for destroying all life on earth barring perhaps only the cockroaches?
All Nations must unilaterally get rid of their Nuclear Weapons whether the Russians & Chinese do or not!
A nuclear arsenal is essentially a major deterrent to all out war but when you announce you would never use it, it kinda loses it's purpose. What an idiotic announcement to make, even if he has strong convictions against their use.
It's like going into a fight after you announced you'll only throw light slaps no matter what they do.
No, it isn't!
I would, and expect everybody else to defend themselves with whatever degree of violence necessary if someone has made it clear they are going to kill you, no matter how slight your chances of overcoming them.
Under nuclear attack, there is not a snowball's chance in hell you are going to survive. Retaliation is pointless unless you want to kill people who are totally innocent and risk killing all life on Earth.
Are you saying it was a good idea to neuter his nuclear deterrent so his enemies know he is too weak to respond to an all out attack? So lay down and die?
This doesn't make any sense but since I don't speak p*$$y, maybe it's a simple miscommunication
The reason I ask is that during his time as leader of the UK Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn said he would if becoming Prime Minister refuse
to retaliate if the UK was attacked with nuclear weapons by a foreign power.
We love Jeremy in the UK but was he right?
Much criticism resulted by those who said he was a threat to National Security and also because he had previously had talks with both Hamas and the IRA.
During the 1970's it was estimated the 8 well placed Nuclear Missiles would wipe out all life in the British Isles.
Consider that a full-scale nuclear attack on the US would involve both first & second wave strikes.
All life in the North & Central American continent will be dead within half an hour - there is no escape!
If the President launches a full-scale retaliation along with NATO allies you will kill not just millions of innocent Russians, but put so much radiation into the atmosphere that within a short time all life on Earth will have perished.
The answer of course from both a morality and Christian ethics point of view is of course Jeremy Corbyn is right!
How can we even consider being jointly responsible for destroying all life on earth barring perhaps only the cockroaches?
All Nations must unilaterally get rid of their Nuclear Weapons whether the Russians & Chinese do or not!
A nuclear arsenal is essentially a major deterrent to all out war but when you announce you would never use it, it kinda loses it's purpose. What an idiotic announcement to make, even if he has strong convictions against their use.
It's like going into a fight after you announced you'll only throw light slaps no matter what they do.
No, it isn't!
I would, and expect everybody else to defend themselves with whatever degree of violence necessary if someone has made it clear they are going to kill you, no matter how slight your chances of overcoming them.
Under nuclear attack, there is not a snowball's chance in hell you are going to survive. Retaliation is pointless unless you want to kill people who are totally innocent and risk killing all life on Earth.
Are you saying it was a good idea to neuter his nuclear deterrent so his enemies know he is too weak to respond to an all out attack? So lay down and die?
This doesn't make any sense but since I don't speak p*$$y, maybe it's a simple miscommunication
No, because he takes us out of the game.
No point in wasting nuclear missiles attacking the UK cos they are not going to reply,
The reason I ask is that during his time as leader of the UK Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn said he would if becoming Prime Minister refuse
to retaliate if the UK was attacked with nuclear weapons by a foreign power.
We love Jeremy in the UK but was he right?
Much criticism resulted by those who said he was a threat to National Security and also because he had previously had talks with both Hamas and the IRA.
During the 1970's it was estimated the 8 well placed Nuclear Missiles would wipe out all life in the British Isles.
Consider that a full-scale nuclear attack on the US would involve both first & second wave strikes.
All life in the North & Central American continent will be dead within half an hour - there is no escape!
If the President launches a full-scale retaliation along with NATO allies you will kill not just millions of innocent Russians, but put so much radiation into the atmosphere that within a short time all life on Earth will have perished.
The answer of course from both a morality and Christian ethics point of view is of course Jeremy Corbyn is right!
How can we even consider being jointly responsible for destroying all life on earth barring perhaps only the cockroaches?
All Nations must unilaterally get rid of their Nuclear Weapons whether the Russians & Chinese do or not!
A nuclear arsenal is essentially a major deterrent to all out war but when you announce you would never use it, it kinda loses it's purpose. What an idiotic announcement to make, even if he has strong convictions against their use.
It's like going into a fight after you announced you'll only throw light slaps no matter what they do.
No, it isn't!
I would, and expect everybody else to defend themselves with whatever degree of violence necessary if someone has made it clear they are going to kill you, no matter how slight your chances of overcoming them.
Under nuclear attack, there is not a snowball's chance in hell you are going to survive. Retaliation is pointless unless you want to kill people who are totally innocent and risk killing all life on Earth.
Are you saying it was a good idea to neuter his nuclear deterrent so his enemies know he is too weak to respond to an all out attack? So lay down and die?
This doesn't make any sense but since I don't speak p*$$y, maybe it's a simple miscommunication
No, because he takes us out of the game.
No point in wasting nuclear missiles attacking the UK cos they are not going to reply,
The reason I ask is that during his time as leader of the UK Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn said he would if becoming Prime Minister refuse
to retaliate if the UK was attacked with nuclear weapons by a foreign power.
We love Jeremy in the UK but was he right?
Much criticism resulted by those who said he was a threat to National Security and also because he had previously had talks with both Hamas and the IRA.
During the 1970's it was estimated the 8 well placed Nuclear Missiles would wipe out all life in the British Isles.
Consider that a full-scale nuclear attack on the US would involve both first & second wave strikes.
All life in the North & Central American continent will be dead within half an hour - there is no escape!
If the President launches a full-scale retaliation along with NATO allies you will kill not just millions of innocent Russians, but put so much radiation into the atmosphere that within a short time all life on Earth will have perished.
The answer of course from both a morality and Christian ethics point of view is of course Jeremy Corbyn is right!
How can we even consider being jointly responsible for destroying all life on earth barring perhaps only the cockroaches?
All Nations must unilaterally get rid of their Nuclear Weapons whether the Russians & Chinese do or not!
The reason I ask is that during his time as leader of the UK Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn said he would if becoming Prime Minister refuse
to retaliate if the UK was attacked with nuclear weapons by a foreign power.
We love Jeremy in the UK but was he right?
Much criticism resulted by those who said he was a threat to National Security and also because he had previously had talks with both Hamas and the IRA.
During the 1970's it was estimated the 8 well placed Nuclear Missiles would wipe out all life in the British Isles.
Consider that a full-scale nuclear attack on the US would involve both first & second wave strikes.
All life in the North & Central American continent will be dead within half an hour - there is no escape!
If the President launches a full-scale retaliation along with NATO allies you will kill not just millions of innocent Russians, but put so much radiation into the atmosphere that within a short time all life on Earth will have perished.
The answer of course from both a morality and Christian ethics point of view is of course Jeremy Corbyn is right!
How can we even consider being jointly responsible for destroying all life on earth barring perhaps only the cockroaches?
All Nations must unilaterally get rid of their Nuclear Weapons whether the Russians & Chinese do or not!
A nuclear arsenal is essentially a major deterrent to all out war but when you announce you would never use it, it kinda loses it's purpose. What an idiotic announcement to make, even if he has strong convictions against their use.
It's like going into a fight after you announced you'll only throw light slaps no matter what they do.
No, it isn't!
I would, and expect everybody else to defend themselves with whatever degree of violence necessary if someone has made it clear they are going to kill you, no matter how slight your chances of overcoming them.
Under nuclear attack, there is not a snowball's chance in hell you are going to survive. Retaliation is pointless unless you want to kill people who are totally innocent and risk killing all life on Earth.
Are you saying it was a good idea to neuter his nuclear deterrent so his enemies know he is too weak to respond to an all out attack? So lay down and die?
This doesn't make any sense but since I don't speak p*$$y, maybe it's a simple miscommunication
No, because he takes us out of the game.
No point in wasting nuclear missiles attacking the UK cos they are not going to reply,
You sound like Neville Chamberlain.
The reason I ask is that during his time as leader of the UK Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn said he would if becoming Prime Minister refuse
to retaliate if the UK was attacked with nuclear weapons by a foreign power.
We love Jeremy in the UK but was he right?
Much criticism resulted by those who said he was a threat to National Security and also because he had previously had talks with both Hamas and the IRA.
During the 1970's it was estimated the 8 well placed Nuclear Missiles would wipe out all life in the British Isles.
Consider that a full-scale nuclear attack on the US would involve both first & second wave strikes.
All life in the North & Central American continent will be dead within half an hour - there is no escape!
If the President launches a full-scale retaliation along with NATO allies you will kill not just millions of innocent Russians, but put so much radiation into the atmosphere that within a short time all life on Earth will have perished.
The answer of course from both a morality and Christian ethics point of view is of course Jeremy Corbyn is right!
How can we even consider being jointly responsible for destroying all life on earth barring perhaps only the cockroaches?
All Nations must unilaterally get rid of their Nuclear Weapons whether the Russians & Chinese do or not!
A nuclear arsenal is essentially a major deterrent to all out war but when you announce you would never use it, it kinda loses it's purpose. What an idiotic announcement to make, even if he has strong convictions against their use.
It's like going into a fight after you announced you'll only throw light slaps no matter what they do.
No, it isn't!
I would, and expect everybody else to defend themselves with whatever degree of violence necessary if someone has made it clear they are going to kill you, no matter how slight your chances of overcoming them.
Under nuclear attack, there is not a snowball's chance in hell you are going to survive. Retaliation is pointless unless you want to kill people who are totally innocent and risk killing all life on Earth.
Are you saying it was a good idea to neuter his nuclear deterrent so his enemies know he is too weak to respond to an all out attack? So lay down and die?
This doesn't make any sense but since I don't speak p*$$y, maybe it's a simple miscommunication
No, because he takes us out of the game.
No point in wasting nuclear missiles attacking the UK cos they are not going to reply,
It's easy for you nutless brits to say they wont strike back when you rely on the US to protect you.
The reason I ask is that during his time as leader of the UK Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn said he would if becoming Prime Minister refuse
to retaliate if the UK was attacked with nuclear weapons by a foreign power.
We love Jeremy in the UK but was he right?
Much criticism resulted by those who said he was a threat to National Security and also because he had previously had talks with both Hamas and the IRA.
During the 1970's it was estimated the 8 well placed Nuclear Missiles would wipe out all life in the British Isles.
Consider that a full-scale nuclear attack on the US would involve both first & second wave strikes.
All life in the North & Central American continent will be dead within half an hour - there is no escape!
If the President launches a full-scale retaliation along with NATO allies you will kill not just millions of innocent Russians, but put so much radiation into the atmosphere that within a short time all life on Earth will have perished.
The answer of course from both a morality and Christian ethics point of view is of course Jeremy Corbyn is right!
How can we even consider being jointly responsible for destroying all life on earth barring perhaps only the cockroaches?
All Nations must unilaterally get rid of their Nuclear Weapons whether the Russians & Chinese do or not!
A nuclear arsenal is essentially a major deterrent to all out war but when you announce you would never use it, it kinda loses it's purpose. What an idiotic announcement to make, even if he has strong convictions against their use.
It's like going into a fight after you announced you'll only throw light slaps no matter what they do.
No, it isn't!
I would, and expect everybody else to defend themselves with whatever degree of violence necessary if someone has made it clear they are going to kill you, no matter how slight your chances of overcoming them.
Under nuclear attack, there is not a snowball's chance in hell you are going to survive. Retaliation is pointless unless you want to kill people who are totally innocent and risk killing all life on Earth.
Are you saying it was a good idea to neuter his nuclear deterrent so his enemies know he is too weak to respond to an all out attack? So lay down and die?
This doesn't make any sense but since I don't speak p*$$y, maybe it's a simple miscommunication
No, because he takes us out of the game.
No point in wasting nuclear missiles attacking the UK cos they are not going to reply,
It's easy for you nutless brits to say they wont strike back when you rely on the US to protect you.
We neither want nor need the US and it is highly questionable whether under Trump the US would even support his NATO allies against his mate Putin. Trump is NATO's weakest link.
Military conquest belongs to a long-gone era. War is simply too expensive and unpredictable for any leading economy to partake in it especially if both protagonists are equally matched.The U.K. and U.S. allied well against Russia of an nuclear war????
The reason I ask is that during his time as leader of the UK Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn said he would if becoming Prime Minister refuse
to retaliate if the UK was attacked with nuclear weapons by a foreign power.
We love Jeremy in the UK but was he right?
Much criticism resulted by those who said he was a threat to National Security and also because he had previously had talks with both Hamas and the IRA.
During the 1970's it was estimated the 8 well placed Nuclear Missiles would wipe out all life in the British Isles.
Consider that a full-scale nuclear attack on the US would involve both first & second wave strikes.
All life in the North & Central American continent will be dead within half an hour - there is no escape!
If the President launches a full-scale retaliation along with NATO allies you will kill not just millions of innocent Russians, but put so much radiation into the atmosphere that within a short time all life on Earth will have perished.
The answer of course from both a morality and Christian ethics point of view is of course Jeremy Corbyn is right!
How can we even consider being jointly responsible for destroying all life on earth barring perhaps only the cockroaches?
All Nations must unilaterally get rid of their Nuclear Weapons whether the Russians & Chinese do or not!
The reason I ask is that during his time as leader of the UK Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn said he would if becoming Prime Minister refuse
to retaliate if the UK was attacked with nuclear weapons by a foreign power.
We love Jeremy in the UK but was he right?
Much criticism resulted by those who said he was a threat to National Security and also because he had previously had talks with both Hamas and the IRA.
During the 1970's it was estimated the 8 well placed Nuclear Missiles would wipe out all life in the British Isles.
Consider that a full-scale nuclear attack on the US would involve both first & second wave strikes.
All life in the North & Central American continent will be dead within half an hour - there is no escape!
If the President launches a full-scale retaliation along with NATO allies you will kill not just millions of innocent Russians, but put so much radiation into the atmosphere that within a short time all life on Earth will have perished.
The answer of course from both a morality and Christian ethics point of view is of course Jeremy Corbyn is right!
How can we even consider being jointly responsible for destroying all life on earth barring perhaps only the cockroaches?
All Nations must unilaterally get rid of their Nuclear Weapons whether the Russians & Chinese do or not!
My last remarks were for Crusader Frank.Not a clue to whom you are referring to?
Like Joe Bidon I am a custodian of democratic values.
Freedom of thought and expression. Government by and for the people. Liberty, Fraternity & Equality are all written into both Joe's and my DNA.
The reason I ask is that during his time as leader of the UK Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn said he would if becoming Prime Minister refuse
to retaliate if the UK was attacked with nuclear weapons by a foreign power.
We love Jeremy in the UK but was he right?
Much criticism resulted by those who said he was a threat to National Security and also because he had previously had talks with both Hamas and the IRA.
During the 1970's it was estimated the 8 well placed Nuclear Missiles would wipe out all life in the British Isles.
Consider that a full-scale nuclear attack on the US would involve both first & second wave strikes.
All life in the North & Central American continent will be dead within half an hour - there is no escape!
If the President launches a full-scale retaliation along with NATO allies you will kill not just millions of innocent Russians, but put so much radiation into the atmosphere that within a short time all life on Earth will have perished.
The answer of course from both a morality and Christian ethics point of view is of course Jeremy Corbyn is right!
How can we even consider being jointly responsible for destroying all life on earth barring perhaps only the cockroaches?
All Nations must unilaterally get rid of their Nuclear Weapons whether the Russians & Chinese do or not!
A nuclear arsenal is essentially a major deterrent to all out war but when you announce you would never use it, it kinda loses it's purpose. What an idiotic announcement to make, even if he has strong convictions against their use.
It's like going into a fight after you announced you'll only throw light slaps no matter what they do.
No, it isn't!
I would, and expect everybody else to defend themselves with whatever degree of violence necessary if someone has made it clear they are going to kill you, no matter how slight your chances of overcoming them.
Under nuclear attack, there is not a snowball's chance in hell you are going to survive. Retaliation is pointless unless you want to kill people who are totally innocent and risk killing all life on Earth.
Are you saying it was a good idea to neuter his nuclear deterrent so his enemies know he is too weak to respond to an all out attack? So lay down and die?
This doesn't make any sense but since I don't speak p*$$y, maybe it's a simple miscommunication
No, because he takes us out of the game.
No point in wasting nuclear missiles attacking the UK cos they are not going to reply,
It's easy for you nutless brits to say they wont strike back when you rely on the US to protect you.
We neither want nor need the US and it is highly questionable whether under Trump the US would even support his NATO allies against his mate Putin. Trump is NATO's weakest link.
