O/T Jeremy corbyn

[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.

[rolymiller]

Mr Kerr raison d'etre is to be a critic of the left. He has no interest at all in criticising the right. Why not is a total mystery for someone who purports to be fair minded. His obsession with the Labour party is just so spiteful and unnecessary. Nobody says labour is perfect but neither are the other partys. To say that a Corbyn govt for this country would lead to some sort of cataclysmic economic disaster will just not be true. Even the most biased person realises that there really ain't much difference between the political party's and that is why voters are so pissed off on general with politics and look to nutters like farage as some sort of escape.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

The Guardian is to the left as the Daily Mail is to the right.

You won’t get balanced articles in either.

[ragingpup]

The Guardian is to the left as the Daily Mail is to the right.

You won’t get balanced articles in either.

Independent sourses say not. The Guardian is centre left (often promotes Lib Dems at elections) and the Daily Mail is Right Wing, no centre involves. More importantly, independent sources say that the Guardian is reliable with a high fact check rating whereas the Mail is unreliable with a tendency to use fake or misleading information to slant it's political views.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

Independent sourses say not. The Guardian is centre left (often promotes Lib Dems at elections) and the Daily Mail is Right Wing, no centre involves. More importantly, independent sources say that the Guardian is reliable with a high fact check rating whereas the Mail is unreliable with a tendency to use fake or misleading information to slant it's political views.

"The Guardian backed Labour in 2005. Backed Labour in 2015. Supports anti-Conservative tactical voting with view to pro-electoral reform coalition"

Cut and pasted from one of the many online references that support the view that the Guardian is the most left leaning of the mainstream newspapers.

Anyhow back to the plot, Imam Abdullah Patel, recently carefully chosen by the BBC to ask a question on the leadership debate debacle, is a great admirer of Jeremy Corbyn.

Oh it slipped through the net said the BBC.

Yeah right of course it did.

[ragingpup]

"The Guardian backed Labour in 2005. Backed Labour in 2015. Supports anti-Conservative tactical voting with view to pro-electoral reform coalition"

Cut and pasted from one of the many online references that support the view that the Guardian is the most left leaning of the mainstream newspapers.

Anyhow back to the plot, Imam Abdullah Patel, recently carefully chosen by the BBC to ask a question on the leadership debate debacle, is a great admirer of Jeremy Corbyn.

Oh it slipped through the net said the BBC.

Yeah right of course it did.

Blimey. Ok.

Of 18 general elections since the 2nd war, there have been 18 general elections. Of these, the Guardian have backed Labour 9 times (50%). If you are asserting from your (un-named source, I’d love to see what you’re reading!) that the Guardian is the most left leaning, then that certainly shows the challenge Labour faces in getting it’s message across fairly in the mass media. (although I would say that the Mirror is the one MM outlet that is more left wing)

You could say that they are supporting “anti-conservative tactical voting with a view to pro-electoral reform coalition”. You could also say that they are supporting a fairer voting system that doesn’t work in favour of one party.

If there was an election this year, the Guardian would support the Lib Dems. They have always been eager to criticise Corbyn, not without just cause on many occasions, and this is especially intense as he isn’t caving in to their relentless demands for a 2nd referendum.

I think it’s always wise to know the biases of the papers/media you choose to read and always weigh up their editorial stance against other sources and form your own opinion. But I would always advise avoiding outlets like the Mail/Sun/Mirror (they’re just as bad as the right wing ones with their own agenda) that wilfully mislead their readers when it suits them with false information and deliberately slanted language. All do this to an extent, but these ‘newspapers’ do it repeatedly and in all knowledge that their evidence is frequently fake or slanted to deceive their readers. They know as well as I do that the enforced, tiny apology that is subsequently forced upon them by the media standards watchdog is pissing in the wind compared to the fact that their readership has hungrily swallowed their initial fibs.

But if that floats yer boat.

[BigLadonOS]

Just finished watching Michael Gove on LBC and found myself nodding along with him on almost every answer he gave. WTF!

I have to say that MG has made the most sense out of all the candidates so far. I think I'm going to be sick!!!!!!

[KerrAvon]

You're being very unfair here. His job is to hold the government to account and be the opposition and demand answers and evidence. He's damned if he does damned if he doesn't under your rules of engagement.

He absolutely should be asking these questions, the government can state that sources are sensitive or brief him privately, but to suggest he just shouldn't challenge things because it might be confidential is a bit of a poor argument.

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.

Do you think secret intelligence on Iran could be safely shared with someone who apparently thinks nothing of taking cash from an arm of the Iranian state? Bear in mind some of it may have come from human sources.

[John2]

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.