Red Ken suspended

Author
Discussion

MarshPhantom

9,658 posts

136 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
Mr_B said:
MarshPhantom said:
Mr_B said:
MarshPhantom said:
Mr_B said:
FredClogs said:
Why was it anti semitic, this is a delicate topic even for idiots like me on the internet let alone members of parliament, but she didn't say that they should be, she offered a tongue in cheek hyperbolic solution to the age old question of how to solve the Palestinian conflict, on her Facebook a year or two before she was a parliamentarian. I suspect the original point of which was to highlight the amount of money the US spends supporting the state of Israel rather than anything anti semitic.

It's PC gone mad.
Great excuse for anyone, that - ' oh I wasn't being vile, just tongue in cheek you silly delicate petals'.
So are we not even allowed to make jokes about Israel?

If it was a serious suggestion then I'm not sure Shah had considered the logistics of moving an entire country 10000 miles across the Atlantic.

Interesting the right wing press are far more vexed about this than they managed to be about Hillsborough the other day.
You can make all the jokes you wish. I made the point it doesn't look like much of a joke and the reaction would be very different had it been someone else talking of doing the same. You and Fred do you yourself no favours by lowering the bar. My point being you are selectively doing so.
How exactly have I lowered the bar?
You've tried to make out she is joking when the evidence says not, or why you think it's automatically a joke. I'm not totally sure in a same situation with someone else you would move to laugh it off and make excuses first. Particularly given Fred and yours history on here, posting with some glee on commenting on Ukip style morons sticking their foot in it in similar style cases. Lets have a bar that's the same for all and not a moving one going up and down.
This whole stupid student politics style on Palestine and the election of Corbyn and his group of dolts has contributed to making the thick end of the pro Palestine movement slip over the line of legitimate criticism into outright racism under the guise just be critical of the Israeli government.
Please don't compare me to UKIP style morons, I have no problem with the Jews, only the actions Israel.

If you can point towards anything I've said anything that is anti-semitic I'd love to see it. It's these attempts to close down any debate in this way that gets people's backs up.

MarshPhantom

9,658 posts

136 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
Guybrush said:
I think its clear who are the real 'nasty party'. It's Labour.
What a ludicrous suggestion, the PM, Boris and Zack Goldsmith have all been accused of racism in the last few weeks. Have there been any calls for their resignation from within the Tory party?

No.

It must have also passed you by that Labour's last leader was Jewish?

Edited by MarshPhantom on Saturday 30th April 08:45

RottenIcons

625 posts

97 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
s2art said:
RottenIcons said:
s2art said:
RottenIcons said:
You are correct and it should end there. But having failed to establish that KL was a liar and was factually correct with regard to the entire Haavara Agreement, the antagonistic have no where else to go but to the race card.
Factually correct? I think I will believe a real historian.

http://capx.co/ken-livingstone-gets-the-history-wr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement

The same goal, a homeland for the Jews in the Bible Lands, Hitler's and Zionists. Remember the entire Haavara process was RUN by Jews. The money, the transfer of goods the purchase of property all in the hands of jews, not a single German was in charge, the costs were covered by Rudolf Hess's budget given to Dr. Robert Ley. all known and well documented. Go read. Don't be a robot, find the truth it's all out there.
You take a wiki article over a respected historian?
No, I take my info from my own research and by researching 'pre-internet edited' books on the subject. That way this all pervasive and easily and conveniently edited medium is treated with a properly evinced eye.

Why the truth is so hurtful is the fascinating thing here.

RottenIcons

625 posts

97 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
davepoth said:
RottenIcons said:
For me the most startling thing about vile Ken's treatment is that he is cast as racist and evil for telling a simple truth, for exposing something that doesn't sit comfortably within the Hitler mythology.
I'm just going to pop a thought in your head:

Hitler wasn't a Zionist. He just wanted the Jews to not be in the Reich, and for a little while Zion was the easiest way of doing it. He then found "other" ways.
You are absolutely correct! That has been known contemporaneously since each more ghastly step was taken. But at the beginning, right at the start he tried to persuade not kill, thousands left, the Reich gave them vehicles, gave them fuel and sustenance along the way He shared the same goal, the help was present, the Reich kept meticulous records, it is a matter of record.

It was the 'first solution'; get them into the Holy Lands, the War intervened. The 'second solution'; put them to work within his stratified National Socialist Dictatorship, the final solution; under the hierarchy of Himmler, Heidrich and Globocnik; exterminate them.

I'm sad that I have to use such stark language, but plain words need be said, it was called the 'Final Solution' because other solutions were tried. Long ago, even to the 9yo child that was me it was obvious that if there was a Final Solution there had to have been others and the useless shrugs of the shoulder at my simple enquiry lead me to read to find out.

Answer me this, assuming you have heard of the Final Solution, can you tell me what you think the previous solutions were? Assuming you disagree with what I and the ever putrescent Ken has stated. Please answer, I am genuinely intrigued.


Edited by RottenIcons on Saturday 30th April 07:34

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
MarshPhantom said:
Guybrush said:
I think its clear who are the real 'nasty party'. It's Labour.
What a ludicrous suggestion, the PM, Boris and Zack Goldsmith have all been accused of racism in the last few weeks. Have there been any calls for their resignation from within the Tory party?

No.
If the accusations are true, which is another matter given the Boris episode was a farcical case courtesy of the professionally offended, they're clearly not nasty enough sonar as it takes real effort to try matching McPoison in the nasty Labour Party ranks.

MarshPhantom

9,658 posts

136 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
MarshPhantom said:
Guybrush said:
I think its clear who are the real 'nasty party'. It's Labour.
What a ludicrous suggestion, the PM, Boris and Zack Goldsmith have all been accused of racism in the last few weeks. Have there been any calls for their resignation from within the Tory party?

No.
If the accusations are true, which is another matter given the Boris episode was a farcical case courtesy of the professionally offended, they're clearly not nasty enough sonar as it takes real effort to try matching McPoison in the nasty Labour Party ranks.
Boris criticized Obama for being Kenyan, the PM and Goldsmith have been playing the Islamophobia card regarding the London Mayoral race, not exactly accusations that need to be proved true.
546

Edited by MarshPhantom on Saturday 30th April 08:14

princealbert23

2,574 posts

160 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
MarshPhantom said:
What a ludicrous suggestion, the PM, Boris and Zack Goldsmith have all been accused of racism in the last few weeks. Have there been any calls for their resignation from within the Tory party?

No.
Which just goes to show that Labour and it's fellow travellers have been so quick to fling unfounded racism accusations around at the slightest provocation. Now the boot is on the other foot, watching you and others trying to squirm your way out is highly amusing.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
MarshPhantom said:
turbobloke said:
MarshPhantom said:
Guybrush said:
I think its clear who are the real 'nasty party'. It's Labour.
What a ludicrous suggestion, the PM, Boris and Zack Goldsmith have all been accused of racism in the last few weeks. Have there been any calls for their resignation from within the Tory party?

No.
If the accusations are true, which is another matter given the Boris episode was a farcical case courtesy of the professionally offended, they're clearly not nasty enough sonar as it takes real effort to try matching McPoison in the nasty Labour Party ranks.
Not sure what point you're trying to make. What, as you see it, was Ken's big crime?
Big 'crime'?

Being in the Labour Party and speaking his mind could be it.

The Left has more than its fair share of intolerant folks. You may recall an entire thread containing lots of examples alongside a few Labour supporters trying to pretend all the documented hate slogans and spitting and criminal damage by left-wing activists is pure imagination.

Ken might want to move to a more tolerant Party, or if there isn't one at least the Greens should welcome him as he hates cars.

andy_s

19,397 posts

258 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
Je suis Ken Livingstone....

cardigankid

8,849 posts

211 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
avinalarf said:
What I find difficult to fathom is why anyone might call another person a "concentration camp guard."
What mindset would one have to think to use that phrase either to admonish or curse.
If someone upset me I might say " fk of you ahole" or "bks you old ".
I have been told,in confidence,that Livingstone has a little red book containing phrases that he has composed especially designed to insult/cajole/threaten persons of the Jewish persuasion.
Have you now? What utter st. You know, that is the only piece of slam dunk actionable libel I have ever seen posted on PH. I don't expect that you have a shred of evidence for making a statement like that.

I interpret that KL comment as likening a journalist to a concentration camp guard, on the basis that he is doing something evil and indefensible because it is his job, and he was told to do it. This is the 'Nuremberg Defence'.

With regard to the Hitler remark, most politicians are too sophisticated to ever mention Hitler. However, the following are simple matters of historic fact. Prominent Jews tried since at least the late 19th century to establish a Jewish homeland in Israel, and lobbied politicians notably in the USA and Britain, the world powers of the era, to bring this about. Adolf Hitler was looking for a practical solution to what he perceived as the 'Jewish Problem' from the time he came into power. One of the options actively pursued was the creation of the Palestine Homeland. To that end there were extensive negotiations between high ranking Nazis, and members of the SS, including Adolf Eichmann, and members of the Zionist faction, however one defines that term. In that late imperialist era (Hitler was seeking to create a German Empire, the Third Reich) the interests of the indigenous Palestinian people were ignored. That hardly reflects any credit on Hitler. The creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine represented a political solution to the problem which the Nazis had created. Hitler did not personally regard the creation of a state of Israel as a good thing, so can hardly be described as a supporter of it.

So how can KL be described as a Nazi apologist? What really worries me about all this, is that it appears that these days you cannot state a simple historic fact without being branded an AntiSemite. Are the public so stupid and the politicians so corrupt that it is unacceptable to state the truth because someone finds it politically inconvenient? Are we saying, as it sounded from an interview given yesterday on BBC Radio 4 by a rather overbearing spokesman of the Board of British Jewish Deputies, that it is unacceptable / antisemitic to criticise the State of Israel? I regard that as an assault on free speech, and one which those arguing it will come to regret, because it is over the top and it will generate a reaction.

Let me tell you what I thing, then , Avinalarf, you can call me an anti Semite, a Nazi apologist, a traitor to the Labour Party or anything you like, and all you are doing is making yourself look ridiculous. I regard Zionism as the unquestioning Jewish fundamentalist support for the State of Israel. No doubt there is a better technical definition. Anything unquestioning is however a problem, whether it is Islam, Northern Irish Loyalists, German National Socialists, the IRA, or whatever. The Palestinians have been dispossessed and are living in an effective prison camp. The Israelis are equipped with huge funding and a near unlimited array of the most sophisticated and destructive weapons on the planet. The Palestinians are equipped with stones, sticks and home made bombs. If I were a Palestinian I would be enraged. There needs to be a fair, reasonable and generous settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, and in my view the main obstacle to that is in reality the Israelis because all of the power is in their hands. In this respect George Galloway talks a lot of sense, because he distinguishes Jews from Zionists, and he is well qualified to speak on the subject, having many prominent Jewish friends. To criticise Jews for being Jews is antisemitic. To criticise Zionism is not, particularly when it, with extraordinary irony given the history, is verging on Fascism. Support Israel, by all means, but try to be fair, for Jesus sake! And don't brand every opponent you have as an AntiSemite because if you do, the term will cease to have any meaning.



Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 30th April 09:42

andymadmak

14,482 posts

269 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
MarshPhantom said:
Boris criticized Obama for being Kenyan, the PM and Goldsmith have been playing the Islamophobia card regarding the London Mayoral race, not exactly accusations that need to be proved true.
546

Edited by MarshPhantom on Saturday 30th April 08:14
Wow, thats a new level of stupid even from you. As you very well know Boris suggested that Obama's hostile attitude to the UK may have been influenced by the British treatment of his father in Kenya. That is NOT the same as criticising Obama for being Kenyan!
Likewise, even Labour party members are concerned about Khans links to islamic extremists! Yep, methinks you have just proved the point that tne Labour party is REALLY the nasty party

Joey Ramone

2,150 posts

124 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
RottenIcons said:
It was the 'first solution'; get them into the Holy Lands, the War intervened. The 'second solution'; put them to work within his stratified National Socialist Dictatorship, the final solution; under the hierarchy of Himmler, Heidrich and Globocnik; exterminate them.

I'm sad that I have to use such stark language, but plain words need be said, it was called the 'Final Solution' because other solutions were tried. Long ago, even to the 9yo child that was me it was obvious that if there was a Final Solution there had to have been others and the useless shrugs of the shoulder at my simple enquiry lead me to read to find out.

Answer me this, assuming you have heard of the Final Solution, can you tell me what you think the previous solutions were? Assuming you disagree with what I and the ever putrescent Ken has stated. Please answer, I am genuinely intrigued.


Edited by RottenIcons on Saturday 30th April 07:34
God, not this codswallop again.

Hitler perceived the Judeo-Bolshevik threat as a GLOBAL menace. this requiring a GLOBAL response. That is clear from his earliest writings. For instance

"In the same way the Jew will never spontaneously give up his march towards the goal of world dictatorship or repress his external urge. He can be thrown back on his road only by forces that are exterior to him, for his instinct towards world domination will die out only with himself. The impotence of nations and their extinction through senility can come only when their blood has remained no longer pure. And the Jewish people preserve the purity of their blood better than any other nation on earth. Therefore the Jew follows his destined road until he is opposed by a force superior to him. And then a desperate struggle takes place to send back to Lucifer him who would assault the heavens".

I could repeat similar extracts ad nauseam but I can't be bothered. And since, from the moment Hitler gained power in 1933 and embarked upon a full blooded re-armament programme that was calculated to do nothing other than realise the aims set out in Mein Kampf, the notion that he was content to act as some sort of travel agent for the Jewish people is an utter fiction. As is the notion that what he wrote in 1924 was the angry ramblings of a disillusioned political failure who suddenly adopted far more reasonable behaviours when in power. Mein Kamp is nothing other than a blueprint for German domestic and foreign policy post 1933. The only reason some Jews would have been sent to Palestine would have been the fact that it was not only a convenient if temporary solution to a far bigger problem, but it handily provided the opportunity to create a Jewish enclave that could be fixed in space, and marked out for subsequent eradication.

Like I said, Agent of destruction. Not a travel agent.

cardigankid

8,849 posts

211 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
I would also say, that given KL's propensity to self publicise (and he's not stupid, because on this one, he knows that he is right), and the all too predictable response of the Israeli lobby, that what is really going on here is an attempt to unseat Jeremy Corbyn by casting him as the protector of the anti Semites.

The spokesman for the BBJD was calling for KL's 'expulsion not suspension'. Corbyn is not going to expel KL for making a statement which is inconvenient embarrassing and tasteless, but basically truthful. All right thinking people are now supposed to take to the streets and lynch Corbyn for being some sort of neo-Nazi. You would laugh if it weren't so serious.

I disagree fundamentally with Corbyn on almost every political issue, but he is a man of principle, he believes what he says, he is trying to do the right things and he is a breath of fresh air at Westminster. He is far preferable to the nakedly power hungry, insincere, hypocritical bung takers of the Blairite type, who are shocked at their removal from influence. He came into power democratically. What has happened since, by way of public and private efforts to discredit and remove him is a disgrace to the supposed mother of parliaments and the British nation.

Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 30th April 09:38

skyrover

12,668 posts

203 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
Joey Ramone said:
"In the same way the Jew will never spontaneously give up his march towards the goal of world dictatorship or repress his external urge. He can be thrown back on his road only by forces that are exterior to him, for his instinct towards world domination will die out only with himself."
Incredibly ironic statement.

Just goes to show what hate can do.

cardigankid

8,849 posts

211 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
Joey Ramone said:
God, not this codswallop again.

Hitler perceived the Judeo-Bolshevik threat as a GLOBAL menace. this requiring a GLOBAL response. That is clear from his earliest writings. For instance

"In the same way the Jew will never spontaneously give up his march towards the goal of world dictatorship or repress his external urge. He can be thrown back on his road only by forces that are exterior to him, for his instinct towards world domination will die out only with himself. The impotence of nations and their extinction through senility can come only when their blood has remained no longer pure. And the Jewish people preserve the purity of their blood better than any other nation on earth. Therefore the Jew follows his destined road until he is opposed by a force superior to him. And then a desperate struggle takes place to send back to Lucifer him who would assault the heavens".

I could repeat similar extracts ad nauseam but I can't be bothered. And since, from the moment Hitler gained power in 1933 and embarked upon a full blooded re-armament programme that was calculated to do nothing other than realise the aims set out in Mein Kampf, the notion that he was content to act as some sort of travel agent for the Jewish people is an utter fiction. As is the notion that what he wrote in 1924 was the angry ramblings of a disillusioned political failure who suddenly adopted far more reasonable behaviours when in power. Mein Kamp is nothing other than a blueprint for German domestic and foreign policy post 1933. The only reason some Jews would have been sent to Palestine would have been the fact that it was not only a convenient if temporary solution to a far bigger problem, but it handily provided the opportunity to create a Jewish enclave that could be fixed in space, and marked out for subsequent eradication.

Like I said, Agent of destruction. Not a travel agent.
God, not this codswallop again!

The trouble with gross oversimplification is that it ends up in talking nonsense. Nazi efforts to assist in the creation of a Jewish homeland are incontrovertible facts. Enough already of all this Agent of Destruction and Travel Agent rubbish.


Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 30th April 09:33

Captain Smerc

3,015 posts

115 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
Mr Whippy said:
We should celebrate KL for being a bit of a dhead, and celebrate the fact lots of people are offended.

That is how a healthy society should work.

People being honest about their feelings and getting it out of their systems and being able to accept different views in a healthy way is good.

Trying to tell people this is bad and suggesting it's unacceptable is bad in my view.


Feel free to tell me I'm wrong, or if you really want you can offend me for my views. I'd rather you do that an express yourself, than feel you have to supress your feels for my benefit!



Dave
I agree , well said .


Edited by Captain Smerc on Saturday 30th April 09:27

Pooh

3,692 posts

252 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
MarshPhantom said:
It's these attempts to close down any debate in this way that gets people's backs up.
rofl Pot kettle? You (and the rest of the loony left) are quite happy to shout about racism at every opportunity.

avinalarf

6,438 posts

141 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
I really think many of you are missing the point.
When one gets a complex problem such as the Israel/Palestine there are only two possible solutions.
1) Go to war.
2) Sit around a table and sort things out.
I think it would be a better World if we chose option 2.
I would hope that the people we elect to lead us would do everything in their power to also achieve option 2.
How then is it helpful when politicians deliberately use language that will only fuel the fires of hatred and mistrust.
Particularly in the whole of the ME which is obviously going through a huge transition.
When politicians of the left,centre,or right speak it is of great importance the the language they choose does not inflame any situation.
Particularly in the ME where enmities have existed for centuries it is pointless to rehash that history whether "true" or "false".
History can be interpreted in different ways often depending on ones own entrenched bias and prejudice.
There have been few conflicts in modern history,WW11 excepted,where the issues have been clear cut.
In short if KL really wants to see a peaceful solution to the Israel/.Palestine problem he should avoid playing schoolboy politics.




glazbagun

14,257 posts

196 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
avinalarf said:
How then is it helpful when politicians deliberately use language that will only fuel the fires of hatred and mistrust.
Particularly in the whole of the ME which is obviously going through a huge transition.
When politicians of the left,centre,or right speak it is of great importance the the language they choose does not inflame any situation.

There have been few conflicts in modern history,WW11 excepted,where the issues have been clear cut.
In short if KL really wants to see a peaceful solution to the Israel/.Palestine problem he should avoid playing schoolboy politics.
Out of curiosity, do you feel the same about the way that Corbyn was hounded for calling Hamas members at a conference "friends" and was labeled a Terrorist Sympathiser by none other than our own PM because he was against bombing Syria?


cardigankid

8,849 posts

211 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
And that just illustrates how corrupt politics is. Cynical as I am about this, I was astonished how easily David Cameron and Hilary Benn toed the American line, taking the UK further into a war that is not its business, risking British lives and certainly costing many Syrian lives, most of them civilians rather than ISIS, while offering the nation no sound justification whatsoever. I never realised until now what a true hero Harold Wilson was for refusing to take the UK into the Vietnam War, against no doubt colossal pressure from the States. No wonder he never ended up as a director of Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan.

Avinalarf is now sounding reasonable, or trying to, which is a start. We are now not allowed to speak the truth because it will upset the delicate balance of peace in the Middle East. FFS give over with that stuff.


Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 30th April 10:04