O/T Jeremy corbyn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragingpup

Specifically which tax plans are you pointing to from the last manifesto GM?

---

haha, don't expect anything more than the vague categories I predicted, he doesn't understand economics anywhere near as well as he thinks he does. A glaring example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in full force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KerrAvon

I wasn't suggesting that he shouldn't challenge, John, but look at the terms of his challenge:

“Without credible evidence about the tanker attacks, the government’s rhetoric will only increase the threat of war.”

Quite apart from the non-sequitur within that statement, he was not asking a question, he was clearly implying that there is no evidence to support the US/UK government's position. He was playing his usual game of attacking anything that involves criticism of one of his chums, with chums being defined as 'anyone who doesn't like the Americans.

---

Again, I'm not someone to spend too much time defending much of Corbyn's actions, I have my skepticism, but its incredible how two people (or just one if you're trapped in Grist's mind ;)) can read the same sentence and make such radically different inferences. We both have our biases, but if you're interpreting something as reasonable that with such strong negative connotations you might want to check yours! You're setting all your Corbyn arguments up into unwinnables, there seems to be almost no path of action free from your criticism.

That's very unfair, John. I have never questioned the notion that any step towards military action or even economic sanctions should be evidence based and think it perfectly reasonable that Corbyn challenges, but his comment was not a question. He had clearly prejudged the issue, which is, of course, a symptom of prejudice.

He could have questioned the evidence upon which the government's position was based. That would have been simply done and entirely reasonable, but he didn't, which is why I criticise his position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KerrAvon

I have to say that you’ve got all the moves, raging. That was an almost seamless shift from whataboutery to wordy flim-flam with a touch of straw man thrown in.

When have I been asked to engage in discussions about the Republican cause, let alone refused? I suspect that I have forgotten more about Irish history and of the troubles in particular than you will ever know, but there is nothing in there that justifies what happened in Warrington, Guildford, Birmingham and a hundred other places or which excuses Abbott’s comment. But that’s only my opinion, so why not apply the ability to understand nuance and complexity in political ideas that was so apparently lacking in my earlier post to the Abbott quote. Was PIRA’s ‘victory’ in killing a 3 year old and a 12 year old in Warrington a ‘victory’ for us all as she would have it?

As for Corbyn’s suppose pacifism, isn’t a bit strange that he only seems to pick one side of a fight to talk to? PIRA, but not the UVF. Hamas and Hezbollah, but not Israel. And how can a pacifist be ‘friends’ with Hamas and Hezbollah – two organisations that are set on genocide, like to kill people- perhaps with a few indiscriminate rockets fired in to Israeli towns - and have probably done more to bring misery to the lives of Palestinians than the Israelis. And is it, do you think, a coincidence that Israel is an American ally whilst Hamas and Hezbollah really don’t like our cousins from across the Atlantic.

Do pacifists attend wreath layings for terrorists? Given that the terrorist movement in question remains active, doesn’t that smack of tacit support? In saying that, I do appreciate that he has explained that he was 'present but not participating'. That sort of thing happens to me all the time.

How, exactly, does ‘supporting a cause’ as you put it demonstrate an intention to 'stop conflict' when it is the cause that drives the conflict?

Why is it that Corbyn, a member of the NUJ apparently finds no difficulty in taking significant sums of money to appear on Iranian state TV, when journalists within that country either toe the line or find life becoming very difficult? Can you apply your understanding of nuance and complexity in political ideas to that one? I note that you try to sweep it under the carpet as an error of judgement, but that is meaningless given that he doesn’t accept that it was. Iran doesn’t like America or the West… Coincidence, no doubt.

As for Corbyn’s support for the blatantly antisemitic mural, at least you have made progress. I recall the good old days when you faithfully stuck to each of the different and evolving explanations put out by your party – dishonesty as well as stupidity on his part on that occasion, it seems. But the question has to be asked, how many errors ‘of judgement’ does it take for you to stop trying to spin him out of the realities of his actions?

On pacifism generally, it has to be said that Corbyn’s usual stance is to want to kick an issue up to the UN – an organisation that has turned inaction into an art form given that all it takes is for a country to have friend on the Security Council for any meaningful action to be taken against it to be vetoed. That was his position with Kosovo, where the Serbs (who, by pure coincidence, I’m sure, are allies of Russia and don’t like the Americans) were engaging in a bit of ethnic cleansing until NATO intervened. He wanted a UN led response – perhaps a UN peacekeeping force like the Dutch soldiers who loaded Muslims onto Serb vehicles in Srebrenica so that they could be driven away and murdered.

Even the successful British intervention in Sierra Leone should have been UN led, apparently (we’d probably still be waiting as the RUF murdered, raped and burnt its way across the country).

Oh, and we had his pacifism when the Argentinians invaded The Falklands and people who lived by consent in a democracy found themselves under the rule of a military junta. That must have been a tough one for Corbs given that the junta in question were far right, but he found a way to oppose the liberation of the Islands by denouncing the whole thing as a ‘Tory plot’. I kid you not.

Keep polishing, raging.

---

LMFAO. “Ive forgotten more on Irish history than you’ll ever know” You are a card Kerr.

Where do you get your Irish history lessons from, David Starkey? Yes, you point to the killing of 2 children by the PIRA. Every death a human tragedy of course. But you mention nothing of the British killings of Catholics and how the British state supported the systematic discrimination against Catholics living in Northern Ireland since the region’s formation that led to Bogside and the British soldier killing an 8 year old Catholic boy by indiscriminate machine gun fire. This escalated the violence with the formation of the PIRA and years of tit for tat violence in which the British State were equally involved with supporting the murder of Irish civilians. There’s even a new documentary out, ‘Unquiet Graves’ that pulls apart what everyone in Ireland already knows focusing on Glenane and the murder of 120 civilians also going about their business in the early part of ‘The Troubles’. You of course, see it only from the point of view of the State, as victim, not the initial aggressor. Corbyn, Abbot and MacDonnell of course had close links with the NILP which formed the NI Civil Rights association aimed at ending the discrimination against Catholics, and who were repeatedly attacked with several murders in their marches by loyalist groups, again with British State support.

Similar mechanics in Palestine, with a land long inhabited over centuries being occupied and carved up against the native will and leading up to the current situation. I’ve schooled (!) you in depth on this before when you tottered hopelessly out of depth on your history, armed only with your one-dimensional colonially favoured readings. Ah yes, the British State, with it’s colonial past, has a long and murderous past steeped in occupation, slavery and murder around the world. If you want to understand Abbot’s anger when she made that quote all those years ago, you have to understand the anger of the people who were victims of the British state through the years. Directly. McDonnell in Ireland. And Abbott, who’s quote so angers you. Are you not able to make the simple connection to Abbot’s family origins? Jamaica? British colonisation? Slavery? F***, wouldn’t you be angry?

So, yes the current Labour leaders have plenty record of opposition to British State policy. And quite right to. But that doesn’t mean that they are hostile to the country they live in and now serve as MPs. It just gives them a different context of our history, they look through a different lens. And for this, they are far less likely to lead us into antagonistic, jingoistic conflicts that cost us British lives like the war in Iraq. They are more likely to seek evidence and use dialogue where possible. But that isn’t to say that international intervention is always bad. Far from it. But country leaders know better than it’s people that a good threat from abroad is a fantastic means to gain insecurity and engage in empty rhetoric and senseless action as a means to consolidate your own popularity. They are far less likely to go down that route. As John said, to ask for more evidence, for that evidence to be clear and agreed by a number of different interests (including opposition leaders) is a very sensible argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KerrAvon

That's very unfair, John. I have never questioned the notion that any step towards military action or even economic sanctions should be evidence based and think it perfectly reasonable that Corbyn challenges, but his comment was not a question. He had clearly prejudged the issue, which is, of course, a symptom of prejudice.

He could have questioned the evidence upon which the government's position was based. That would have been simply done and entirely reasonable, but he didn't, which is why I criticise his position.

---

Is the only way you would accept Corbyn if he ended every sentence with a question mark? Are there not other ways to raise issues? Is a structure of a sentence really such a bad thing if the content is reasonable but it doesn't end with a full stop? Was it not self explanatory that a video of the removal of bombs doesn't conclusively prove the planting of them? Are you holding a prejudice towards Corbyn in this bizarre standard of 'not structuring tweets as questions' you appear to be holding him to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragingpup

LMFAO. “Ive forgotten more on Irish history than you’ll ever know” You are a card Kerr.

Where do you get your Irish history lessons from, David Starkey? Yes, you point to the killing of 2 children by the PIRA. Every death a human tragedy of course. But you mention nothing of the British killings of Catholics and how the British state supported the systematic discrimination against Catholics living in Northern Ireland since the region’s formation that led to Bogside and the British soldier killing an 8 year old Catholic boy by indiscriminate machine gun fire. This escalated the violence with the formation of the PIRA and years of tit for tat violence in which the British State were equally involved with supporting the murder of Irish civilians. There’s even a new documentary out, ‘Unquiet Graves’ that pulls apart what everyone in Ireland already knows focusing on Glenane and the murder of 120 civilians also going about their business in the early part of ‘The Troubles’. You of course, see it only from the point of view of the State, as victim, not the initial aggressor. Corbyn, Abbot and MacDonnell of course had close links with the NILP which formed the NI Civil Rights association aimed at ending the discrimination against Catholics, and who were repeatedly attacked with several murders in their marches by loyalist groups, again with British State support.

Similar mechanics in Palestine, with a land long inhabited over centuries being occupied and carved up against the native will and leading up to the current situation. I’ve schooled (!) you in depth on this before when you tottered hopelessly out of depth on your history, armed only with your one-dimensional colonially favoured readings. Ah yes, the British State, with it’s colonial past, has a long and murderous past steeped in occupation, slavery and murder around the world. If you want to understand Abbot’s anger when she made that quote all those years ago, you have to understand the anger of the people who were victims of the British state through the years. Directly. McDonnell in Ireland. And Abbott, who’s quote so angers you. Are you not able to make the simple connection to Abbot’s family origins? Jamaica? British colonisation? Slavery? F***, wouldn’t you be angry?

So, yes the current Labour leaders have plenty record of opposition to British State policy. And quite right to. But that doesn’t mean that they are hostile to the country they live in and now serve as MPs. It just gives them a different context of our history, they look through a different lens. And for this, they are far less likely to lead us into antagonistic, jingoistic conflicts that cost us British lives like the war in Iraq. They are more likely to seek evidence and use dialogue where possible. But that isn’t to say that international intervention is always bad. Far from it. But country leaders know better than it’s people that a good threat from abroad is a fantastic means to gain insecurity and engage in empty rhetoric and senseless action as a means to consolidate your own popularity. They are far less likely to go down that route. As John said, to ask for more evidence, for that evidence to be clear and agreed by a number of different interests (including opposition leaders) is a very sensible argument.

---

You appreciate of course rp that when the question of British Imperialist slavery round the world arose a short while ago on this board Kerrs' answer was that lots of other countries did the same, or words to that effect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exiletyke

You appreciate of course rp that when the question of British Imperialist slavery round the world arose a short while ago on this board Kerrs' answer was that lots of other countries did the same, or words to that effect

---

Have you got a link to that, Zyles? If not, an apology would be the decent thing for you to do.

Interesting.........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoAYVqdXrTg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KerrAvon

Have you got a link to that, Zyles? If not, an apology would be the decent thing for you to do.

---

Will this do?

It was on Tykesmad board


16-12-2018, 09:33 PM #19

KerrAvon

Slavery is indefensible, but has featured or is featuring in the history of probably every country and people of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exiletyke

Will this do?

It was on Tykesmad board


16-12-2018, 09:33 PM #19

KerrAvon

Slavery is indefensible, but has featured or is featuring in the history of probably every country and people of the world.

---

Slavery is indefensible and has probably featured in every country in the world. What's your point?