Red Ken suspended
Discussion
andymadmak said:
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
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! 546
Edited by MarshPhantom on Saturday 30th April 08:14
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
glazbagun said:
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?
How should one feel about an individual proclaiming an openly anti Semitic organization as 'friends' ?Pooh said:
MarshPhantom said:
It's these attempts to close down any debate in this way that gets people's backs up.
Pot kettle? You (and the rest of the loony left) are quite happy to shout about racism at every opportunity.MarshPhantom said:
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'. It's PC gone mad.
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.
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.
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.
You also weren't accused of anything anti-semitic. So given the Ukip confusion and this, you either can't read or being utterly dishonest in what I wrote.
MarshPhantom said:
Nice attempt at defending the indefensible, Ken has done no worse than Boris, Zack or Dave. Ken has gone but they remain.
If you want a real laugh, I got an email from Zac Goldsmith the other day asking for financial support for his campaign. Why that zillionaire member of the glitterati is asking me for money beats me.By the way, and at risk of going off piste, why would Cameron want to remove Corbyn, who is a gift to Tory PR? Because he is an effective proponent of not spending tens of billions on an American nuclear weapons system. If Cameron didn't back Trident 2 and hadn't taken the UK into Syria would O'Bampot have come over and done his little publicity spiel for the EU? That on its own would push me to vote leave what is little more than a politicians retirement club funded by the Fourth Reich.
This whole storm in a teacup is a set up to damage Corbyn. The fact that it also involves a grotesque effort to suppress open discussion is just an unfortunate byproduct.
Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 30th April 11:27
cardigankid said:
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.
So you genuinely believe that the creation of a Jewish homeland was, in Hitler's eyes, a suitable response to the problem of a global Jewish conspiracy which, in his opinion, sought the utter destruction of Germany as its ultimate objective? A belief that he adhered to from the very beginning of his political awakening to his death. You don't think, perhaps, that his dalliance with zionist elements was a matter of temporary expediency?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
No one is disputing the fact that German Jews were encouraged to leave Germany for Palestine in the mid 1930s, and were assisted by Nazi officials in doing so. That's not my point. My point is the end-game in that respect was not the creation of a Jewish state. The ultimate end game was the destruction of the Jewish people. Thus to call Hitler a Zionist is pure lunacy, a logical fallacy. It would be like calling Neville Chamberlain a Fascist for coming to an agreement with Hitler at Munich.
Joey old son, kindly don't tell me or the assembled PH Massive what I genuinely believe.
What I am saying is that you are creating an argument by oversimplifying an enormous and complex piece of history, and turning into a piece of melodrama. It is erroneous to conflate a political manifesto written by Hitler and Hess in the wilderness in 1924 with the pragmatic issues of running a nation state and managing the expectations not only of the German people but of hundreds of thousands of hotheads who suddenly found themselves in positions of power between 1933 and 1939. That is not to say that the one did not have a major bearing on the other, but that reality overtakes political manifestos.
Look at the Liberal bloody Democrats for example.
What I am saying is that you are creating an argument by oversimplifying an enormous and complex piece of history, and turning into a piece of melodrama. It is erroneous to conflate a political manifesto written by Hitler and Hess in the wilderness in 1924 with the pragmatic issues of running a nation state and managing the expectations not only of the German people but of hundreds of thousands of hotheads who suddenly found themselves in positions of power between 1933 and 1939. That is not to say that the one did not have a major bearing on the other, but that reality overtakes political manifestos.
Look at the Liberal bloody Democrats for example.
glazbagun said:
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?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.
It should be the responsibility of any politician of any party to seek a peaceful solution to conflict.
Unfortunately this is not always possible.
For instance I am not a fan of Netanyahu or the extreme right or left wing of Israeli politics.
Labelling Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser ?
How would I know his innermost thoughts or beliefs.
As regards bombing Syria.
As the wars in Iraq and Libya have shown,the outcome of our intervention in those countries have been catastrophic.
It is exactly the same in Syria.
Do we bring down Assad and create a power vacuum that is filled by say ISIS ?
It really is a long discussion and may involve the choice between the lesser of two evils.
I have just listened to KL on LBC on the radio where he compared his comments with as similar to those of Netanyahu .
That's typical Ken....both are misguided and does that mean that KL and Netanyahu are bedfellows .......I think not.
I class both as equally devious and dangerous.
Edited by avinalarf on Saturday 30th April 10:58
Joey Ramone said:
1 So you genuinely believe that the creation of a Jewish homeland was, in Hitler's eyes, a suitable response to the problem of a global Jewish conspiracy which, in his opinion, sought the utter destruction of Germany as its ultimate objective?
2 A belief that he adhered to from the very beginning of his political awakening to his death. You don't think, perhaps, that his dalliance with zionist elements was a matter of temporary expediency?
3 No one is disputing the fact that German Jews were encouraged to leave Germany for Palestine in the mid 1930s, and were assisted by Nazi officials in doing so. That's not my point.
4 My point is the end-game in that respect was not the creation of a Jewish state. The ultimate end game was the destruction of the Jewish people.
5 Thus to call Hitler a Zionist is pure lunacy, a logical fallacy. It would be like calling Neville Chamberlain a Fascist for coming to an agreement with Hitler at Munich.
I have taken the liberty of breaking down your post into paragraphs to allow a fulsome reply.2 A belief that he adhered to from the very beginning of his political awakening to his death. You don't think, perhaps, that his dalliance with zionist elements was a matter of temporary expediency?
3 No one is disputing the fact that German Jews were encouraged to leave Germany for Palestine in the mid 1930s, and were assisted by Nazi officials in doing so. That's not my point.
4 My point is the end-game in that respect was not the creation of a Jewish state. The ultimate end game was the destruction of the Jewish people.
5 Thus to call Hitler a Zionist is pure lunacy, a logical fallacy. It would be like calling Neville Chamberlain a Fascist for coming to an agreement with Hitler at Munich.
1 Yes, it was. The historical facts back this up. Quoting his thoughts from 10 years earlier is foolish, do the same with Churchill and you get a similar flick-flack of stances and ideas in that time. Judge by what he actually attempted to do in office, not by what he wrote whilst in jail.
2 He held that belief and that is why he militarised Germany as he did, not for a World War but for rapid response to attacks from the jews and their supporters. Let me quote one of the greatest Historians that has ever lived, AJP Taylor: "Even in 1939 the German army was not equipped for a prolonged war; and in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French in everything except leadership" That is from his finest and most praised work of his lifetime The Origins of the Second World War page 104. We make a big deal of him getting ready for a World War, he did not and any military man who knows his onions will tell you that he was preparing for an entirely different war.
3 That is the point, but even you in finally accepting Haavara happened and despite me pointing out the fact still want to call it as if the Germans ran it, they did not, it was run by Jews themselves, they had access to 3rd Reich money, they were given all the transport facilities and every German Embassey along the land route was a 'free' way station. It wasn't some half-hearted 'go away' it was a fulsome "You wanna go, we've spoken to the Grand Mufti and arranged for you to have land, your own money and we'll get you there safely and at zero cost" I know it doesn't fit with the narrative of the last 70yrs but victors tell the stories of victory. Until now.
4 No, it was the creation of a home in the Holy Lands, the Jews greatest yearning at the time. He facilitated that and put the 3rd Reich's power behind it.
5 The same goal was shared by both, they were allies, medals were struck that had both the Star of David on one side and a Swastika on the other, a commemoration of the outcome of 2 years secret talks between the Reich and Jewish leaders in reaching the Haavara Agreement.
Please read my reply above, read it carefully, none of it is wrong.
MarshPhantom said:
Pooh said:
MarshPhantom said:
It's these attempts to close down any debate in this way that gets people's backs up.
Pot kettle? You (and the rest of the loony left) are quite happy to shout about racism at every opportunity.Pooh said:
MarshPhantom said:
Pooh said:
MarshPhantom said:
It's these attempts to close down any debate in this way that gets people's backs up.
Pot kettle? You (and the rest of the loony left) are quite happy to shout about racism at every opportunity.The problem is that these days the accusation of racism by some hysterical individual (not aimed at MP) is then taken up by the professionally offended as though merely being accused of racism is an offence in itself.
I'm reminded to point out that this isn't helped by the silly police definition of racism which basically says it's anything that anyone thinks is racist. Such levels of intellectual bankruptcy and politicised chicanery are part of the problem.
turbobloke said:
I'm reminded to point out that this isn't helped by the silly police definition of racism which basically says it's anything that anyone thinks is racist. Such levels of intellectual bankruptcy and politicised chicanery are part of the problem.
^^^ Post of the Week ^^^I don't think that KL actually called Hitler a Zionist, did he? That would not only be lunacy as Joey states, but factually untrue. Many lunatic things are true, not least racially motivated mass murder. What I also believe to be true is that Hitler, and many others, wanted to remove Jews from Germany wholesale, and one way of doing that was for them to move to a homeland in Palestine, which Hitler did in fact refer to as Israel. Germany was not alone in considering this, though it was in fact inflicting huge damage on itself in the process. To this end he or rather his minions negotiated with and assisted Zionists in achieving a Zionist objective. Nevertheless he disliked and mistrusted Jews, with the exception of the Jewish doctor who treated his mother for cancer when he was a young man. None of that is in debate so far as I can judge, and that is consistent with what KL said. So why get excited?
Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 30th April 11:18
cardigankid said:
lots of hsitory stuff and...
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.
Thanks for the history stuff, and I agree.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.
cardigankid I am grateful for your post as it has jogged my memory regarding this 'Israel' thing, you are right Hitler did tend to refer to a homeland for Jews as Israel, it's used in exactly in that manner in Mein Kampf, referring to it as a Country.
Hitler did not foresee the future, he was using the term coined by (Louie?) Rothschild when in 1895 the Rothschild family tried, but failed, to buy a huge tract of 'The Holy Land' with the intention of naming it after the Twelve Tribes of Israel, unifying them and calling 'his' purchase 'Israel' (Like Xanadu in Citizen Kane, but much bigger) it took hold and was the name of a Country that didn't yet exist.
In 1933 Hitler did what Rothschild failed to do and what's more he did it without spending a single penny of jewish money, he convinced the Grand Mufti of Palestine to give away land for the settlement of the German Jews. FREE.
Edit. Note the manner in which Israel today repays that original generosity from the people of Palestine. KL is in possession of this knowledge just as much as I am as is anyone who reads this.
Hitler did not foresee the future, he was using the term coined by (Louie?) Rothschild when in 1895 the Rothschild family tried, but failed, to buy a huge tract of 'The Holy Land' with the intention of naming it after the Twelve Tribes of Israel, unifying them and calling 'his' purchase 'Israel' (Like Xanadu in Citizen Kane, but much bigger) it took hold and was the name of a Country that didn't yet exist.
In 1933 Hitler did what Rothschild failed to do and what's more he did it without spending a single penny of jewish money, he convinced the Grand Mufti of Palestine to give away land for the settlement of the German Jews. FREE.
Edit. Note the manner in which Israel today repays that original generosity from the people of Palestine. KL is in possession of this knowledge just as much as I am as is anyone who reads this.
Edited by RottenIcons on Saturday 30th April 11:33
RottenIcons said:
I have taken the liberty of breaking down your post into paragraphs to allow a fulsome reply.
1 Yes, it was. The historical facts back this up. Quoting his thoughts from 10 years earlier is foolish, do the same with Churchill and you get a similar flick-flack of stances and ideas in that time. Judge by what he actually attempted to do in office, not by what he wrote whilst in jail.
2 He held that belief and that is why he militarised Germany as he did, not for a World War but for rapid response to attacks from the jews and their supporters. Let me quote one of the greatest Historians that has ever lived, AJP Taylor: "Even in 1939 the German army was not equipped for a prolonged war; and in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French in everything except leadership" That is from his finest and most praised work of his lifetime The Origins of the Second World War page 104. We make a big deal of him getting ready for a World War, he did not and any military man who knows his onions will tell you that he was preparing for an entirely different war.
3 That is the point, but even you in finally accepting Haavara happened and despite me pointing out the fact still want to call it as if the Germans ran it, they did not, it was run by Jews themselves, they had access to 3rd Reich money, they were given all the transport facilities and every German Embassey along the land route was a 'free' way station. It wasn't some half-hearted 'go away' it was a fulsome "You wanna go, we've spoken to the Grand Mufti and arranged for you to have land, your own money and we'll get you there safely and at zero cost" I know it doesn't fit with the narrative of the last 70yrs but victors tell the stories of victory. Until now.
4 No, it was the creation of a home in the Holy Lands, the Jews greatest yearning at the time. He facilitated that and put the 3rd Reich's power behind it.
5 The same goal was shared by both, they were allies, medals were struck that had both the Star of David on one side and a Swastika on the other, a commemoration of the outcome of 2 years secret talks between the Reich and Jewish leaders in reaching the Haavara Agreement.
Please read my reply above, read it carefully, none of it is wrong.
I never denied the agreement happened. Track back through my statements. My point that the Haavara agreement does not make Hitler a Zionist because his interpretation of the Jewish-Bolshevik menace as the defining aspect of Nazi Weltenshauung makes no room for accommodation in this respect.1 Yes, it was. The historical facts back this up. Quoting his thoughts from 10 years earlier is foolish, do the same with Churchill and you get a similar flick-flack of stances and ideas in that time. Judge by what he actually attempted to do in office, not by what he wrote whilst in jail.
2 He held that belief and that is why he militarised Germany as he did, not for a World War but for rapid response to attacks from the jews and their supporters. Let me quote one of the greatest Historians that has ever lived, AJP Taylor: "Even in 1939 the German army was not equipped for a prolonged war; and in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French in everything except leadership" That is from his finest and most praised work of his lifetime The Origins of the Second World War page 104. We make a big deal of him getting ready for a World War, he did not and any military man who knows his onions will tell you that he was preparing for an entirely different war.
3 That is the point, but even you in finally accepting Haavara happened and despite me pointing out the fact still want to call it as if the Germans ran it, they did not, it was run by Jews themselves, they had access to 3rd Reich money, they were given all the transport facilities and every German Embassey along the land route was a 'free' way station. It wasn't some half-hearted 'go away' it was a fulsome "You wanna go, we've spoken to the Grand Mufti and arranged for you to have land, your own money and we'll get you there safely and at zero cost" I know it doesn't fit with the narrative of the last 70yrs but victors tell the stories of victory. Until now.
4 No, it was the creation of a home in the Holy Lands, the Jews greatest yearning at the time. He facilitated that and put the 3rd Reich's power behind it.
5 The same goal was shared by both, they were allies, medals were struck that had both the Star of David on one side and a Swastika on the other, a commemoration of the outcome of 2 years secret talks between the Reich and Jewish leaders in reaching the Haavara Agreement.
Please read my reply above, read it carefully, none of it is wrong.
As for AJP Taylor, you're quoting a historian so out of date that no modern historians reference him in any serious analysis of the origins of the Second world war, particularly with respect to Nazi foreign policy. Seeing as he published that work in 1961, you may want to check out some rather more up to date works, by, I dunno, Gerhard Weinberg or Andrews Hillgruber, or just those who spent years painstakingly going through documentation in the archives. Adam Tooze (Formerly Cambridge, now at Yale) won the Wolfson prize in 2007 for ''The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy'. As he states in the introduction to this mammoth analysis of Nazi economic and military policy:
"It is hard to imagine now, but there was a time, not so long ago, when Historians routinely dismissed Mein Kampf as a historical source (looking at AJP Taylor here) and thought it reasonable to treat Hitler as just another opportunistic imperialist. Now, thanks to the work of two generations of historians we have a far better understanding of the way in which Nazi ideology conditioned the thoughts and actions of the Nazi leadership and wider German society'."
That Nazi ideology was absolutist is Fundamentally recognised nowadays. Again, as Tooze states,
'Hitler's conduct of the war involved risks so great that they defy rationalisation in terms of pragmatic self interest. And it is with this question that we reconnect to mainstream historiography and its insistence on the importance of Ideology. it was ideology which provided Hitler the lens through which he understood the international balance of power and the unfolding of the increasingly globalised struggle that began with the Spanish Civil War in 1936. in Hitler's mind, the threat posed by the United States was not just that of a conventional superpower. The threat was existential, and bound up with Hitler's abiding fear of the world Jewish conspiracy. It was this fantastical interpretation of the real balance of power that gave Hitler's decision-making its volatile, high risk quality. Germany could not simply settle down to become an affluent satellite of the United States, as had seemed to be the destiny of the Weimar Republic, as this would result in enslavement to the world jewish conspiracy and, ultimately, race-death. Given the pervasive influence of the Jews, as revealed by the mounting international tension of the late 1930's, a prosperous future of capitalist partnership with the West was seemingly impossible, War was inevitable. The question was when, not if"
Ultimately, Hitler was guided by ideology. And guess what? It wasn't Zionism.
Edited by Joey Ramone on Saturday 30th April 11:38
RottenIcons said:
cardigankid I am grateful for your post as it has jogged my memory regarding this 'Israel' thing, you are right Hitler did tend to refer to a homeland for Jews as Israel, it's used in exactly in that manner in Mein Kampf, referring to it as a Country.
Hitler did not foresee the future, he was using the term coined by (Louie?) Rothschild when in 1895 the Rothschild family tried, but failed, to buy a huge tract of 'The Holy Land' with the intention of naming it after the Twelve Tribes of Israel, unifying them and calling 'his' purchase 'Israel' (Like Xanadu in Citizen Kane, but much bigger) it took hold and was the name of a Country that didn't yet exist.
In 1933 Hitler did what Rothschild failed to do and what's more he did it without spending a single penny of jewish money, he convinced the Grand Mufti of Palestine to give away land for the settlement of the German Jews. FREE.
Edit. Note the manner in which Israel today repays that original generosity from the people of Palestine. KL is in possession of this knowledge just as much as I am as is anyone who reads this.
Since Palestine was a mandate ,the land was not the grand mufti's to give away ,and if you want to bring him not it it would be shameful not to talk about his plans to build gas chambers to exterminate the Jews,or does that just slip your mind ?Hitler did not foresee the future, he was using the term coined by (Louie?) Rothschild when in 1895 the Rothschild family tried, but failed, to buy a huge tract of 'The Holy Land' with the intention of naming it after the Twelve Tribes of Israel, unifying them and calling 'his' purchase 'Israel' (Like Xanadu in Citizen Kane, but much bigger) it took hold and was the name of a Country that didn't yet exist.
In 1933 Hitler did what Rothschild failed to do and what's more he did it without spending a single penny of jewish money, he convinced the Grand Mufti of Palestine to give away land for the settlement of the German Jews. FREE.
Edit. Note the manner in which Israel today repays that original generosity from the people of Palestine. KL is in possession of this knowledge just as much as I am as is anyone who reads this.
Edited by RottenIcons on Saturday 30th April 11:33
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff