O/T Jeremy corbyn

[KerrAvon]

What a shamelessly one dimensional post that was. You can sometimes carry arguments that show some elements of being able to understand nuance and complexity in political ideas. This one was pure 'Daily Express'.

Anger for the victims of abimanable IRA terrorist actions yet no thought at all for the innocent lives lost over the years to the victims of the British state in successive governments. Likewise you repeatedly post about abominable actions of the Palestinians without any acknowledgement of the abominable actions of the Israeli state. You profess to be a reader of The Guardian paper which in fairness generally shows two sides to each narrative. I see no rub off of such sophistication from you here. You'll of course claim to be independent and above such influences. But it honestly would do you good to read both sides of political history, but just the UK imperialist one that you continually spout.

And most offensively of all you claim you "don't know what the evidence was" of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that sent our soldiers to their deaths. Absolute shame on you.

There was none.

We went to war based on knee jerk, erroneous evidence that played, as we always do, to the imperialist gut of our idiot leaders (and followers, shame on us too) And we wandered, blindly into it killing our own and creating circumstances that fuelled terrorist revenge that we still suffer from. Corbyn wanted further evidence of these "weapons of mass destruction", as did most right thinking snowflake libtards. Grist and Fire will be very proud of your post. And for that you should feel quite ashamed.

So rather than deal with the fact that the leader of your party and his pick for Home Secretary have acted as apologists for terrorists you resort to the - oh so inevitable - whatabouttery and personal attacks that you rely upon to try to distract attention from inconvenient truths.

Quick, get the thread back onto your endless posts about why Farage is far right. That's far more comfortable ground for you. Obviously Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell are preferable to him.

Lol.

[ragingpup]

So rather than deal with the fact that the leader of your party and his pick for Home Secretary have acted as apologists for terrorists you resort to the - oh so inevitable - whatabouttery and personal attacks that you rely upon to try to distract attention from inconvenient truths.

Quick, get the thread back onto your endless posts about why Farage is far right. That's far more comfortable ground for you. Obviously Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell are preferable to him.

Lol.

There is no personal attack in saying that you should be ashamed for not supporting seeking greater evidence before triggering a way that led to our soldiers getting killed.

You persist in your tabloid-esque chest beating about Corbyn et al being apologists for terrorism but refuse to engage in the discussion about their reasons for historically opposing the British State and supporting the cause (though crucially not the terrorism in support of the cause) with the intention of stopping the conflicts and saving human lives. You are as blinkered as a tabloid reader manipulating headlines in favour, unquestioning, in support of the British state. Corbyn is absolutely right to be suspicious of any evidence and request that the evidence provided before international intervention is robust. I don’t trust Palestine leaders and more than I trust Israeli leaders, I don’t trust Russian leaders and more than I trust American leaders and it is wise to always be suspicious of your own leaders, not just Corbyn.

The bottom line is that Corbyn is a genuine pacifist. That will alarm the twitching red faced tabloid fodder that want a twitching finger on our nuclear button and are convinced that foreigners are out to get them, but that is bottom line what he is.
It is ridiculous to think that he would support any actions of violence for a cause, but that mean that the cause itself shouldn't still be supported. He has condemned the IRA and any terrorist organisation for its murderous approach to political troubles (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...ists-1.3091883) I judge a person on their voting record over history and their actions over history. Corbyn has made some stupid errors of judgement in his 50 years of activity that will continue to haunt him (appearing on Iran TV, defending the Mural) but your statement that he apologises for terrorists is just plain ignoring the facts and history, twisting one dimensionally in favour of your own agenda. Just as bad as Grist and Fire. It can never win around people that only take on the side of the State of the country that they live in, but Corbyn’s belief that you have to take evidence and sides as you see them, and talk to your ‘enemies’ is correct if you want to bring about a change from a position of war. It is a shame that unthinking, blinkered people who can’t look beyond the relentless propaganda of their own state immediately call such people ‘apologists’ and ‘terrorist sympathisers’ but we have to be pragmatic and try and stop the conflict. This worked in Ireland to a greater extent. It has far from worked in the middle East and won’t for a long time to come. But the more we acknowledge the history of the problem and the grievances of both sides, not just the Israeli one, and the more you encourage the leaders of both sides to enter a room to talk, the closer peace will come.

I’m perfectly comfortable on this topic but happy to do Farage any time the cynical bigot comes into view. But you’re the one that expresses blinkered, ill researched views so I’m focusing on that. And I repeat, Corbyn would have avoided the Iraq war by asking for clear evidence of Blair’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’, and he would not have sent our troops to their deaths. You appear content that this happened and perfectly happy to make the same mistakes again. Not personal, but again, shame on you for that.

[KerrAvon]

There is no personal attack in saying that you should be ashamed for not supporting seeking greater evidence before triggering a way that led to our soldiers getting killed.

You persist in your tabloid-esque chest beating about Corbyn et al being apologists for terrorism but refuse to engage in the discussion about their reasons for historically opposing the British State and supporting the cause (though crucially not the terrorism in support of the cause) with the intention of stopping the conflicts and saving human lives. You are as blinkered as a tabloid reader manipulating headlines in favour, unquestioning, in support of the British state. Corbyn is absolutely right to be suspicious of any evidence and request that the evidence provided before international intervention is robust. I don’t trust Palestine leaders and more than I trust Israeli leaders, I don’t trust Russian leaders and more than I trust American leaders and it is wise to always be suspicious of your own leaders, not just Corbyn.

The bottom line is that Corbyn is a genuine pacifist. That will alarm the twitching red faced tabloid fodder that want a twitching finger on our nuclear button and are convinced that foreigners are out to get them, but that is bottom line what he is.
It is ridiculous to think that he would support any actions of violence for a cause, but that mean that the cause itself shouldn't still be supported. He has condemned the IRA and any terrorist organisation for its murderous approach to political troubles (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...ists-1.3091883) I judge a person on their voting record over history and their actions over history. Corbyn has made some stupid errors of judgement in his 50 years of activity that will continue to haunt him (appearing on Iran TV, defending the Mural) but your statement that he apologises for terrorists is just plain ignoring the facts and history, twisting one dimensionally in favour of your own agenda. Just as bad as Grist and Fire. It can never win around people that only take on the side of the State of the country that they live in, but Corbyn’s belief that you have to take evidence and sides as you see them, and talk to your ‘enemies’ is correct if you want to bring about a change from a position of war. It is a shame that unthinking, blinkered people who can’t look beyond the relentless propaganda of their own state immediately call such people ‘apologists’ and ‘terrorist sympathisers’ but we have to be pragmatic and try and stop the conflict. This worked in Ireland to a greater extent. It has far from worked in the middle East and won’t for a long time to come. But the more we acknowledge the history of the problem and the grievances of both sides, not just the Israeli one, and the more you encourage the leaders of both sides to enter a room to talk, the closer peace will come.

I’m perfectly comfortable on this topic but happy to do Farage any time the cynical bigot comes into view. But you’re the one that expresses blinkered, ill researched views so I’m focusing on that. And I repeat, Corbyn would have avoided the Iraq war by asking for clear evidence of Blair’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’, and he would not have sent our troops to their deaths. You appear content that this happened and perfectly happy to make the same mistakes again. Not personal, but again, shame on you for that.

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.

[ragingpup]

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.

[Exiletyke]

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

[KerrAvon]

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.

That’s all good stuff, raging, but it doesn’t help you. It simply catches you in the same moral morass that your top table has found itself – trying to excuse terrorism.

You haven’t bothered to try to determine my position on Ireland before criticising it and it may be that I agree that the actions of successive British regimes and governments and discrimination by Loyalists resulted in the PIRA and INLA campaigns, but unlike you, I’m not willing to justify killings or to slip them under the carpet with a casual ‘Every death a human tragedy of course’, which could have come straight from the Corbyn playbook. Perhaps I’m more of a pacifist than you.

I love the way that you excuse the Abbott comment. Apparently it was said in anger and had its genesis in her family history… Why then when she was asked about it did she not mention any of that and simply refer to the history of her hairstyles instead? You talk about wanting evidence and then simply make it up when it suits you.

I love the way too that you try to shift the argument to the UK’s colonial past, doubtless seeing that as a happier hunting ground than actually addressing the actions of your top table. As I say, you’ve got all the moves.

You haven’t answered how Corbyn’s pacifism driven desire for peace only seems to involve talking to one side of the conflict.

On the issue of Palestine, I see that you are marking your own homework again. If we are getting into the characterisation of each other’s positions, I could be unkind and say that yours carries all the balance and factual basis of a Dave Spart inspired leaflet handed out on the steps of a Student Union, but that would be unkind and so I won’t.

Do pacifists refer to active terrorist groups as ‘friends’ and attend wreath layings for fallen terrorists (present, but not participating of course - as per the Labour spin machine doctors)? Doesn’t that smack of tacit support and make it highly unlikely that the pacifist in question could then be taken seriously in any supposed attempt to secure peace?

They say that you can judge a man by the company he keeps – in Corbyn’s case that appears to be anti-Semites, PIRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranian state (although he was paid handsomely to do that) and, it seems genocide deniers:

https://blog.politicsmeanspolitics.c...s-8ebee1ed9572

And yes, I know that Rob Francis doesn’t like the current Labour Party.

[ragingpup]

That’s all good stuff, raging, but it doesn’t help you. It simply catches you in the same moral morass that your top table has found itself – trying to excuse terrorism.

You haven’t bothered to try to determine my position on Ireland before criticising it and it may be that I agree that the actions of successive British regimes and governments and discrimination by Loyalists resulted in the PIRA and INLA campaigns, but unlike you, I’m not willing to justify killings or to slip them under the carpet with a casual ‘Every death a human tragedy of course’, which could have come straight from the Corbyn playbook. Perhaps I’m more of a pacifist than you.

I love the way that you excuse the Abbott comment. Apparently it was said in anger and had its genesis in her family history… Why then when she was asked about it did she not mention any of that and simply refer to the history of her hairstyles instead? You talk about wanting evidence and then simply make it up when it suits you.

I love the way too that you try to shift the argument to the UK’s colonial past, doubtless seeing that as a happier hunting ground than actually addressing the actions of your top table. As I say, you’ve got all the moves.

You haven’t answered how Corbyn’s pacifism driven desire for peace only seems to involve talking to one side of the conflict.

On the issue of Palestine, I see that you are marking your own homework again. If we are getting into the characterisation of each other’s positions, I could be unkind and say that yours carries all the balance and factual basis of a Dave Spart inspired leaflet handed out on the steps of a Student Union, but that would be unkind and so I won’t.

Do pacifists refer to active terrorist groups as ‘friends’ and attend wreath layings for fallen terrorists (present, but not participating of course - as per the Labour spin machine doctors)? Doesn’t that smack of tacit support and make it highly unlikely that the pacifist in question could then be taken seriously in any supposed attempt to secure peace?

They say that you can judge a man by the company he keeps – in Corbyn’s case that appears to be anti-Semites, PIRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranian state (although he was paid handsomely to do that) and, it seems genocide deniers:

https://blog.politicsmeanspolitics.c...s-8ebee1ed9572

And yes, I know that Rob Francis doesn’t like the current Labour Party.

You’re sounding desperate now Kerr. All of a sudden, you may disagree with actions of the British State but you’re not willing to justify killings against it.

You completely miss the point: the British state were the first with the killings that led to the formation of the PIRA. We started it with the killing of civilians (yes including children if you’re going to use child deaths to try and emote your case) and then after the escalation (after 1968) we continued to work with the police forces in Ulster to organise and carry out the deaths of catholic civilians in Northern Ireland. This started and fuelled the retaliation from unionist forces throughout the troubles. But you are condemning the actions of only the unionist side, but not the exact equivalent barbarism of the British State organised and funded loyalists. We were just as much the terrorists as they were.

As I said, MacDonnell and the Labour Party do take sides on this against the British State as they were part of the NI Labour Party that in 1968 tried to organise protest actions to support the NI Catholics that were effectively living in apartheid conditions since the NI land carve up and found that these actions were met with violence and terrorist action (if we’re going down that road of language) that culminated in Bogside, machine guns and unionist deaths, including the child. But if you want the clearest evidence of British state sponsored terrorism against innocent civilians, you might just want to look at the 120 deaths in Glennane in many separate incidents. So yes, the left at the time took up strong solidarity with Catholics, they were there at the time in the NI Labour Party and they felt the British State brutality that then launched ‘the troubles’ into armed combat, with terrorism from both sides.

So, to be clear, and in sequence to help you understand:
1. British state form Northern Ireland as predominantly protestant state and create conditions for resident Catholics that resemble apartheid
2. NI Labour Party organise protests for Catholic civil rights
3. British State use violence and ultimately murder of Catholic civilians
4. The PIRA is formed as counter resistance to the British State
5. Both PIRA and the British State continue terrorist tit for tat atrocities for the next 20 years until the peace process evolved and political solution found

That leads to the question of ‘terrorism’ in the name of a cause with which you identify. You appear to be suggesting that the use of terrorism in the name of a cause invalidates that cause, or at least that people who act in non-violent terms for that cause must somehow withdraw their support? Is that what you’re saying? Are you one of those thick headed ****s that say “Mandela was a terrorist and therefore should have died in jail”? Should the AFC have downed their anti-apartheid protest just because ‘terrorists’ like Mandela worked for their cause? The British State actions in Ireland is just another damning part of British history going all the way back to the formation of the Empire, that is rightfully opposed, and that is what Abbot was referring to 30 years ago. Further to this, and for the very same reasons Corbyn tends to side with the Palestinian cause but has been clear in condemning all murders in that cause. There are many people fighting the Palestinian cause, most are committed to peaceful means but some are committed to violence and extremities. Just like Ireland. Just like South Africa. The fact that some people use violence in the name of a cause does not mean that the cause is wrong. And just because a country’s state is dominant as it defines it’s treatment of people who live within it, it does not excuse their own appalling actions from being labelled acts of terrorism. Even if we happen to now live in that state.

(I wish Abbot had talked more in that interview about her old feelings of the British State and it’s own terrorist actions. For intelligent self critical people, who can detatch themselves from nationalistic jingoism, she would have made a very strong case. But you know as well as I do that any such comments would have been immediately jumped on as blatant anti-British, terrorist supporting and plastered all over the tabloids. That’s how we roll).

And further desperation: Let’s just clear it up. Corbyn has not condoned Iranian actions in any way. He has not denied the dreadful actions in Sarajevo in any way. He did not oppose intervention in Sierra Leonne. Your pulling up of a blog from an anti-Corbynist that simply shows Corbyn on holiday having a photo taken with an idiot does not suggest anything. You should go with stated words, wise or questionable) and policies that come direct from Corbyn, now just imply and infer just because it suits your colonialist blinkered world view.

(And in relation to Exile’s post on Slavery. The very fact that you can interject into a discussion onto the British Empire and it’s involvement with slavery by a “whataboutery” ‘but it happens in all nations’ as your first thought says everything about your thinking. I would suggest that you first of all brush up on all that knowledge of Irish History that you have clearly “forgotten” and then look up some history of the British Empire, the slave trade and its repercussions that affect us now. I would recommend Akala’s “Natives race and class in the ruins of empire” to see how it impacts on Black communities still in the UK and beyond. You might actually learn something.)

[great_fire]

And further desperation: Let’s just clear it up. Corbyn has not condoned Iranian actions in any way.

He presented a call-in show on the Iranian state news channel.

Here he is saying the BBC are biased for saying that Israel has a right to exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJOZG50EuAg

In 2014 he made a speech at London Islamic centre to mark the twenty fifth anniversary of the Iranian Revolution.

At this event, he praised Iran’s, "Tolerance and acceptance of other faiths, traditions and ethnic groupings in Iran."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8138696.html

[Exiletyke]

You’re sounding desperate now Kerr. All of a sudden, you may disagree with actions of the British State but you’re not willing to justify killings against it.

You completely miss the point: the British state were the first with the killings that led to the formation of the PIRA. We started it with the killing of civilians (yes including children if you’re going to use child deaths to try and emote your case) and then after the escalation (after 1968) we continued to work with the police forces in Ulster to organise and carry out the deaths of catholic civilians in Northern Ireland. This started and fuelled the retaliation from unionist forces throughout the troubles. But you are condemning the actions of only the unionist side, but not the exact equivalent barbarism of the British State organised and funded loyalists. We were just as much the terrorists as they were.

As I said, MacDonnell and the Labour Party do take sides on this against the British State as they were part of the NI Labour Party that in 1968 tried to organise protest actions to support the NI Catholics that were effectively living in apartheid conditions since the NI land carve up and found that these actions were met with violence and terrorist action (if we’re going down that road of language) that culminated in Bogside, machine guns and unionist deaths, including the child. But if you want the clearest evidence of British state sponsored terrorism against innocent civilians, you might just want to look at the 120 deaths in Glennane in many separate incidents. So yes, the left at the time took up strong solidarity with Catholics, they were there at the time in the NI Labour Party and they felt the British State brutality that then launched ‘the troubles’ into armed combat, with terrorism from both sides.

So, to be clear, and in sequence to help you understand:
1. British state form Northern Ireland as predominantly protestant state and create conditions for resident Catholics that resemble apartheid
2. NI Labour Party organise protests for Catholic civil rights
3. British State use violence and ultimately murder of Catholic civilians
4. The PIRA is formed as counter resistance to the British State
5. Both PIRA and the British State continue terrorist tit for tat atrocities for the next 20 years until the peace process evolved and political solution found

That leads to the question of ‘terrorism’ in the name of a cause with which you identify. You appear to be suggesting that the use of terrorism in the name of a cause invalidates that cause, or at least that people who act in non-violent terms for that cause must somehow withdraw their support? Is that what you’re saying? Are you one of those thick headed ****s that say “Mandela was a terrorist and therefore should have died in jail”? Should the AFC have downed their anti-apartheid protest just because ‘terrorists’ like Mandela worked for their cause? The British State actions in Ireland is just another damning part of British history going all the way back to the formation of the Empire, that is rightfully opposed, and that is what Abbot was referring to 30 years ago. Further to this, and for the very same reasons Corbyn tends to side with the Palestinian cause but has been clear in condemning all murders in that cause. There are many people fighting the Palestinian cause, most are committed to peaceful means but some are committed to violence and extremities. Just like Ireland. Just like South Africa. The fact that some people use violence in the name of a cause does not mean that the cause is wrong. And just because a country’s state is dominant as it defines it’s treatment of people who live within it, it does not excuse their own appalling actions from being labelled acts of terrorism. Even if we happen to now live in that state.

(I wish Abbot had talked more in that interview about her old feelings of the British State and it’s own terrorist actions. For intelligent self critical people, who can detatch themselves from nationalistic jingoism, she would have made a very strong case. But you know as well as I do that any such comments would have been immediately jumped on as blatant anti-British, terrorist supporting and plastered all over the tabloids. That’s how we roll).

And further desperation: Let’s just clear it up. Corbyn has not condoned Iranian actions in any way. He has not denied the dreadful actions in Sarajevo in any way. He did not oppose intervention in Sierra Leonne. Your pulling up of a blog from an anti-Corbynist that simply shows Corbyn on holiday having a photo taken with an idiot does not suggest anything. You should go with stated words, wise or questionable) and policies that come direct from Corbyn, now just imply and infer just because it suits your colonialist blinkered world view.

(And in relation to Exile’s post on Slavery. The very fact that you can interject into a discussion onto the British Empire and it’s involvement with slavery by a “whataboutery” ‘but it happens in all nations’ as your first thought says everything about your thinking. I would suggest that you first of all brush up on all that knowledge of Irish History that you have clearly “forgotten” and then look up some history of the British Empire, the slave trade and its repercussions that affect us now. I would recommend Akala’s “Natives race and class in the ruins of empire” to see how it impacts on Black communities still in the UK and beyond. You might actually learn something.)

The very fact that you can interject into a discussion onto the British Empire and it’s involvement with slavery by a “whataboutery” ‘but it happens in all nations’ as your first thought says everything about your thinking. [/quote]

Couldn't have put it better myself
It sums Kerr up to a tee
although he's actually denying that he said it in his usual obfuscatory way
Not only a liar but rather silly
We as a nation have in my view little to be proud of in our Imperialist past
We have fought with, colonised, enslaved & ruled other nations more than any other nation all in the name of Empire I would suggest that joe average didn't particularly benefit but those with power & wealth most certainly did
We even followed the same mantra when subjugating our home nations Scotland,Wales Ireland

[KerrAvon]

You’re sounding desperate now Kerr. All of a sudden, you may disagree with actions of the British State but you’re not willing to justify killings against it.

You completely miss the point: the British state were the first with the killings that led to the formation of the PIRA. We started it with the killing of civilians (yes including children if you’re going to use child deaths to try and emote your case) and then after the escalation (after 1968) we continued to work with the police forces in Ulster to organise and carry out the deaths of catholic civilians in Northern Ireland. This started and fuelled the retaliation from unionist forces throughout the troubles. But you are condemning the actions of only the unionist side, but not the exact equivalent barbarism of the British State organised and funded loyalists. We were just as much the terrorists as they were.

As I said, MacDonnell and the Labour Party do take sides on this against the British State as they were part of the NI Labour Party that in 1968 tried to organise protest actions to support the NI Catholics that were effectively living in apartheid conditions since the NI land carve up and found that these actions were met with violence and terrorist action (if we’re going down that road of language) that culminated in Bogside, machine guns and unionist deaths, including the child. But if you want the clearest evidence of British state sponsored terrorism against innocent civilians, you might just want to look at the 120 deaths in Glennane in many separate incidents. So yes, the left at the time took up strong solidarity with Catholics, they were there at the time in the NI Labour Party and they felt the British State brutality that then launched ‘the troubles’ into armed combat, with terrorism from both sides.

So, to be clear, and in sequence to help you understand:
1. British state form Northern Ireland as predominantly protestant state and create conditions for resident Catholics that resemble apartheid
2. NI Labour Party organise protests for Catholic civil rights
3. British State use violence and ultimately murder of Catholic civilians
4. The PIRA is formed as counter resistance to the British State
5. Both PIRA and the British State continue terrorist tit for tat atrocities for the next 20 years until the peace process evolved and political solution found

That leads to the question of ‘terrorism’ in the name of a cause with which you identify. You appear to be suggesting that the use of terrorism in the name of a cause invalidates that cause, or at least that people who act in non-violent terms for that cause must somehow withdraw their support? Is that what you’re saying? Are you one of those thick headed ****s that say “Mandela was a terrorist and therefore should have died in jail”? Should the AFC have downed their anti-apartheid protest just because ‘terrorists’ like Mandela worked for their cause? The British State actions in Ireland is just another damning part of British history going all the way back to the formation of the Empire, that is rightfully opposed, and that is what Abbot was referring to 30 years ago. Further to this, and for the very same reasons Corbyn tends to side with the Palestinian cause but has been clear in condemning all murders in that cause. There are many people fighting the Palestinian cause, most are committed to peaceful means but some are committed to violence and extremities. Just like Ireland. Just like South Africa. The fact that some people use violence in the name of a cause does not mean that the cause is wrong. And just because a country’s state is dominant as it defines it’s treatment of people who live within it, it does not excuse their own appalling actions from being labelled acts of terrorism. Even if we happen to now live in that state.

(I wish Abbot had talked more in that interview about her old feelings of the British State and it’s own terrorist actions. For intelligent self critical people, who can detatch themselves from nationalistic jingoism, she would have made a very strong case. But you know as well as I do that any such comments would have been immediately jumped on as blatant anti-British, terrorist supporting and plastered all over the tabloids. That’s how we roll).

And further desperation: Let’s just clear it up. Corbyn has not condoned Iranian actions in any way. He has not denied the dreadful actions in Sarajevo in any way. He did not oppose intervention in Sierra Leonne. Your pulling up of a blog from an anti-Corbynist that simply shows Corbyn on holiday having a photo taken with an idiot does not suggest anything. You should go with stated words, wise or questionable) and policies that come direct from Corbyn, now just imply and infer just because it suits your colonialist blinkered world view.

(And in relation to Exile’s post on Slavery. The very fact that you can interject into a discussion onto the British Empire and it’s involvement with slavery by a “whataboutery” ‘but it happens in all nations’ as your first thought says everything about your thinking. I would suggest that you first of all brush up on all that knowledge of Irish History that you have clearly “forgotten” and then look up some history of the British Empire, the slave trade and its repercussions that affect us now. I would recommend Akala’s “Natives race and class in the ruins of empire” to see how it impacts on Black communities still in the UK and beyond. You might actually learn something.)

I’m starting to think that we are not going to agree on Corbs and the Labour top table, raging.

I don’t want to take an unfair point, so I would like to check: Your initial position on the Labour top table and PIRA, Hamas, and Hezbollah was that they were not sympathisers and that Corbs was, instead, actually taking part in a one man peace process that involved talking to only one side of the argument. Your current position seems to be that they were justified in being sympathisers because of ‘British state sponsored terrorism’ and because of the almost-child- like ‘Britain started it’. Is that correct?

My position – again - is that I don’t care who started it – blowing up children in Warrington or people enjoying a drink in Birmingham, Guildford and other similar atrocities weren’t in any way justified. By anything.

I can understand what you would have preferred Abbott to have talked about how it was the trauma of what happened to her ancestors several hundred years ago that caused her to say of PIRA "Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed". If she had said it, you wouldn’t have had to make up that excuse for her.

I don’t want Abbott as Home Secretary – responsible for the safety and security of the citizens of this country - particularly if her unresolved trauma at historic events is clouding her judgement and leaves her desiring defeats for the British state.

On Press TV, we have the line that Corbs used it as an opportunity to raise Human Rights abuses in that country, even though we know that in 2014, he was praising Iran for it’s ‘Tolerance and acceptance of other faiths, traditions and ethnic groupings in Iran’ (no mention there of its lack of tolerance for gay people, women who will not toe the ‘modesty’ line, anyone critical of the Iranian state and others). You’ve clearly been looking to find the EDMs and so I’m sure you’ll be able to find many Press TV clips in which he takes Iran to task on Human Rights for us to enjoy.

What really troubles me is the dishonesty that appears to have become a hallmark of the Labour spin machine. We have the three different explanation for Corbs support of the mural , we have the whitewash job for his association with terrorist groups and his ‘present but not participating’ excuse for his attendance at the wreath laying for dead terrorists. We even have the lies about the lack of seats on a train. You’ll be aware that Corbs went on national TV to say that his association with Press TV ended after the crushing of dissident protestors in 2009. You’ll also be aware that he actually appeared on there until 2012.

I came upon this article: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a3899281.html

I appreciate that it comes from the Evening Standard and so will be dismissed out of hand, but, again, we see support for a convicted terrorist ‘brother’ and the post-truth explanation by Labour. It never ends.