Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2

[Sway]

djc206 said:

I think the important difference that eludes Momentum/Corbynistas is that when Corbyn did these things he was an irrelevant backbench MP. When Blair sent his love letters to Gaddafi he was PM. When senior government officials were meeting the IRA in secret they were doing so at the behest of HMG. Corbyns actions were not sanctioned by his party either in opposition or in government, he was an irrelevance for 32 years of his ministerial career.

Indeed. His support have revisited history, and twisted the interpretation to the point that over the weekend I read a statement on Facebook that JC was 'pivotal to bringing peace to NI'...

Which is of course utter bullst.

He was, for decades, a complete irrelevance. A dyed in the wool protester with zero influence, authority or power. Who welcomed and loved spending time with anyone who also hated the Government and sought to bring it down.

Since gaining the leadership, the momentum efforts have been to warp this obvious truth into something more noble, when the reality is that Corbyn has been an enemy of the State (as is McDonnell) for decades. He only doesn't want to pull Parliament down now that he has the potential to take control of it.

[Halb]

Sway said:

Indeed. His support have revisited history, and twisted the interpretation to the point that over the weekend I read a statement on Facebook that JC was 'pivotal to bringing peace to NI'...

Which is of course utter bullst.

It does seem like ridiculous hyperbole, to suggest JC was 'pivotal.' But it does bring he IRA thing into the chat, the peace process being the fruit of chats that the government of the time had with the actual IRA from the 80s, at a time when JC gets lambasted for talking to SInn Fein, and actual Palestinian terrorist organisations from ten years ago.

[Sway]

Halb said:

Sway said:

Indeed. His support have revisited history, and twisted the interpretation to the point that over the weekend I read a statement on Facebook that JC was 'pivotal to bringing peace to NI'...

Which is of course utter bullst.

It does seem like ridiculous hyperbole, to suggest JC was 'pivotal.' But it does bring he IRA thing into the chat, the peace process being the fruit of chats that the government of the time had with the actual IRA from the 80s, at a time when JC gets lambasted for talking to SInn Fein, and actual Palestinian terrorist organisations from ten years ago.

He did nothing to 'bring the IRA to chats'. He was talking with them in support of their aims and methods - not to try and change them into something more constructive.

That's why he gets lambasted - as said earlier, Blair met Gaddafi to try and change behaviours, not to condone them. Corbyn did fk all to support peace - just the opposite (and there are IRA members saying that too).

[Efbe]

Halb said:

Efbe said:

Whether he should or should not have been supporting the PLO is a bit more of an obvious issue with him. I really don't think it's even a slightly sensible idea to be doing that kind of st. But, this does not make it anti-semetic.

I think not when the PLO was a secular organisation. Hamas and Hezbollah being more religious in creation/mode. The 'friends' thing, which he regrets but does not apologise over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_...

That's a bit more useful stuff there.

The guy certainly is an idiot and really doesn't know whom to align with. Just because you don't like whats happening in Israel/palestine, doesn't mean you should side with nut jobs on either side!

Bad judgement is really not something you want in a leader

[Dr Jekyll]

Halb said:

It does seem like ridiculous hyperbole, to suggest JC was 'pivotal.' But it does bring he IRA thing into the chat, the peace process being the fruit of chats that the government of the time had with the actual IRA from the 80s, at a time when JC gets lambasted for talking to SInn Fein, and actual Palestinian terrorist organisations from ten years ago.

It's not just hyperbole, it's flat out wrong. JC resolutely opposed the peace process because it left NI as part of the UK.

[anonymous-user]

techiedave said:

Do people think this is a turning point for a Corbyn backlash.
Is he too secure too entrenched to be obliged to go

I don’t think he’ll ever quit but this must be having a negative effect on him and his popularity.

[irocfan]

Efbe said:

Gargamel said:

Efbe

He is a known supporter of the Palestinian cause, he has attended the funeral of a PLO terrorist, he has shared a platform with Palestinian groups, he was in two facebook groups which regularly spout and anti semitic views. He is a close friend of one of the founders of that group.

He has NOT apologised for his comments on the mural, just said he should have looked closer. Why not apologise if he caused offence ?

Now, I appreciate you can be anti zionist with being anti semitic, and you can dislike the Israeli government without by racist.

But, the evidence mounts up, and the continual news around this points pretty heavily to the fact the JC and Labour have a problem with anti antisemitism in the party.

well they do now anyway, as a number of Jewish organisation have openly accused the Labour Party of racism.

Thanks Gargamel, this is the first useful post in these claims.

i'm not sure I can associate being a supporter of the palestinian cause with being anti-semetic. As far as I can tell Israel's actions are pretty st.
The mural is a red herring too. His comments were pretty much nothing, and I couldn't tell the mural was anti-semetic. just looks like crap graffiti to me.

However, the PLO funeral may be interesting. He seems to have attended a wreath laying commemorating the bombing of the PLO headquarters in 1985. In the same cemetery was the grave of the Atef Bseiso who was head of intelligence for the PLO during the Munich Bombing, and so must be partially responsible for it.
I have read about 20 news stories of what happened. they seem to fall into two camps, either a vaguely worded piece insinuating he placed a wreath on this guys grave, but not specifically saying it, and others equally vaguely worded saying it was a commemoration of an attack on the PLO and the wreath laying was nothing to do with Bseiso's grave.

Whether he should or should not have been supporting the PLO is a bit more of an obvious issue with him. I really don't think it's even a slightly sensible idea to be doing that kind of st. But, this does not make it anti-semetic.

In the back of my mind, these anti-semetic slurs seem to be aimed at him supporting opposition to Israel.
Now I think it's a really st idea for Corbyn to be so involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict. It's obviously something he feels strongly about but it has put him in a really bad situation politically.

It's enough for me to think he would make a crap leader, but there is nothing to suggest he is anti-semetic.


...so moving on from that...

I'm sure someone mentioned facebook groups. what was that about?

the issue is however if you go out with a group of friends who turn out to be overtly racist do you still associate with them on a regular basis? If you constantly choose friendships with racists and/or vile, violent people should we not then question whether or not you may also be racist and/or a vile person?

Furthermore if your moral compass is so skewed that you constantly mix with these types - are you really the sort of person we need leading our country?

[Halb]

Sway said:

Halb said:

Sway said:

Indeed. His support have revisited history, and twisted the interpretation to the point that over the weekend I read a statement on Facebook that JC was 'pivotal to bringing peace to NI'...
Which is of course utter bullst.

It does seem like ridiculous hyperbole, to suggest JC was 'pivotal.' But it does bring he IRA thing into the chat, the peace process being the fruit of chats that the government of the time had with the actual IRA from the 80s, at a time when JC gets lambasted for talking to SInn Fein, and actual Palestinian terrorist organisations from ten years ago.

He did nothing to 'bring the IRA to chats'. He was talking with them in support of their aims and methods - not to try and change them into something more constructive.
That's why he gets lambasted - as said earlier, Blair met Gaddafi to try and change behaviours, not to condone them. Corbyn did fk all to support peace - just the opposite (and there are IRA members saying that too).

YOu misunderstand me, I meant bringing the subject of the IRA into the current chat. JC talked to SInnFein back then, openly, this seemingly played little to no pat at all in what happened later, the government talked to the IRA, secretly, which ultimately, led to what happened in 1997. Which is why the lambasting, if only aimed at him, is either wrong or hypocritical.

[Deptford Draylons]

El stovey said:

I don’t think he’ll ever quit but this must be having a negative effect on him and his popularity.

Probably with the old Labour vote, but his newer fan base are likely to be in full agreement with him. Certain sections of the press will now feel obliged to write something criticising him, but very reluctantly and downplaying it.

[Halb]

Efbe said:

That's a bit more useful stuff there.

The guy certainly is an idiot and really doesn't know whom to align with. Just because you don't like whats happening in Israel/palestine, doesn't mean you should side with nut jobs on either side!

Bad judgement is really not something you want in a leader

Was/is he a useful fool? He states that one needs to chat to both sides. The peace process in Ireland is proof of that. His problem is that he does it openly, and so, gets lambasted. But the secret talks that UKG had with the IRA had a real outcome...many years down the line, which Tony Blair won all/most of the credit for. Was it bad judgement to talk to the IRA, I would say not.

[irocfan]

Halb said:

Efbe said:

That's a bit more useful stuff there.

The guy certainly is an idiot and really doesn't know whom to align with. Just because you don't like whats happening in Israel/palestine, doesn't mean you should side with nut jobs on either side!

Bad judgement is really not something you want in a leader

Was/is he a useful fool? He states that one needs to chat to both sides. The peace process in Ireland is proof of that. His problem is that he does it openly, and so, gets lambasted. But the secret talks that UKG had with the IRA had a real outcome...many years down the line, which Tony Blair won all/most of the credit for. Was it bad judgement to talk to the IRA, I would say not.

I guess it depends on your reason for chatting to the provos. I rather suspect that jezza did not do it for the same reasons that Thatcher/Major/Blair did it

[Halb]

irocfan said:

Halb said:

Efbe said:

That's a bit more useful stuff there.

The guy certainly is an idiot and really doesn't know whom to align with. Just because you don't like whats happening in Israel/palestine, doesn't mean you should side with nut jobs on either side!

Bad judgement is really not something you want in a leader

Was/is he a useful fool? He states that one needs to chat to both sides. The peace process in Ireland is proof of that. His problem is that he does it openly, and so, gets lambasted. But the secret talks that UKG had with the IRA had a real outcome...many years down the line, which Tony Blair won all/most of the credit for. Was it bad judgement to talk to the IRA, I would say not.

I guess it depends on your reason for chatting to the provos. I rather suspect that jezza did not do it for the same reasons that Thatcher/Major/Blair did it

But this is to prejudge/load what you believe his motives are, which is grist to the mill for this thread. He has certain socio-economic targets/goals, which people can attack him over, that's part of differing world views, that's fine. I don't see any reasonable person wanting to bring out anything else than peace in a situation like Northern Ireland (or other places). There doesn't seem to be anything to suggest he didn't want peace.

[Russian Troll Bot]

Halb said:

Efbe said:

That's a bit more useful stuff there.

The guy certainly is an idiot and really doesn't know whom to align with. Just because you don't like whats happening in Israel/palestine, doesn't mean you should side with nut jobs on either side!

Bad judgement is really not something you want in a leader

Was/is he a useful fool? He states that one needs to chat to both sides. The peace process in Ireland is proof of that. His problem is that he does it openly, and so, gets lambasted. But the secret talks that UKG had with the IRA had a real outcome...many years down the line, which Tony Blair won all/most of the credit for. Was it bad judgement to talk to the IRA, I would say not.

If he says you need to talk to both sides, presumably there will be several instances of him meeting Unionist groups or the Israelis?

[jakesmith]

Russian Troll Bot said:

If he says you need to talk to both sides, presumably there will be several instances of him meeting Unionist groups or the Israelis?

I wouldn't have thought so

Sadly I am in a situation where I am faced with the decision of ending a friendship of 20 years with a good friend of mine from university over this issue, he is convinced the mural isn't antisemitic as he has quickly read some comments by the person who painted it, despite accepting that he doesn't know about the Nazi era imagary which it copies. As a Jew it is a red line for me and I have ignored his ignorant comments about politics for some time (Manchester bombing was a result of our foreign policy apparently for example) but I can't ignore this.

I also fear that if this latest attempt to shame / oust Corbyn fails, it will just embolden the anti-semites. If it succeeds it will strengthen their conspiratorial narrative.

[slow_poke]

irocfan said:

Halb said:

Efbe said:

That's a bit more useful stuff there.

The guy certainly is an idiot and really doesn't know whom to align with. Just because you don't like whats happening in Israel/palestine, doesn't mean you should side with nut jobs on either side!

Bad judgement is really not something you want in a leader

Was/is he a useful fool? He states that one needs to chat to both sides. The peace process in Ireland is proof of that. His problem is that he does it openly, and so, gets lambasted. But the secret talks that UKG had with the IRA had a real outcome...many years down the line, which Tony Blair won all/most of the credit for. Was it bad judgement to talk to the IRA, I would say not.

I guess it depends on your reason for chatting to the provos. I rather suspect that jezza did not do it for the same reasons that Thatcher/Major/Blair did it

His chats were probably to egg them on. The durty running-dog!

[Russian Troll Bot]

jakesmith said:

Russian Troll Bot said:

If he says you need to talk to both sides, presumably there will be several instances of him meeting Unionist groups or the Israelis?

I wouldn't have thought so

Sadly I am in a situation where I am faced with the decision of ending a friendship of 20 years with a good friend of mine from university over this issue, he is convinced the mural isn't antisemitic as he has quickly read some comments by the person who painted it, despite accepting that he doesn't know about the Nazi era imagary which it copies. As a Jew it is a red line for me and I have ignored his ignorant comments about politics for some time (Manchester bombing was a result of our foreign policy apparently for example) but I can't ignore this.

I also fear that if this latest attempt to shame / oust Corbyn fails, it will just embolden the anti-semites. If it succeeds it will strengthen their conspiratorial narrative.

Amazing how the same people who can pick out minute differences that prove Newsnight photoshopped a hat cannot find a single thing wrong with a mural depicting hook-nosed bankers using a secret society to rule the world. Good twitter thread here listing about 30 examples of blatant Antisemitism within the party:

https://twitter.com/Mendelpol/status/9780098554778...

[oyster]

Halb said:

El stovey said:

I’m not sure it is looking good for the conservatives
If it is though, it’s because Corbyn and McDonnell are the alternative.
I think pretty much any other labour leader would actually be ahead in the polls.
Like the end of the Major era, the time is ripe for another Blair type leader to win a landslide but labour look set on Corbyn till he dies. The conservatives are getting away with loads at the moment, because they’ve simply not got an effective opposition.

Things don't look good for the torys, they don't look bad. No-one knows how things ook, I think anyone that thinks they know is kidding themselves.

But are the torys better off because of JC? The downturn for Labour started happening at the Iraq war, eventually it hit the point where they lost power, and it was still going down with MiIlliband, it started to go up around the time JC became leader, was it JC becoming leader that did this, was it causal or connected, or was he simply riding that eventual rebound, would any other leader have done the same? JC was nominated as a 'joke', and then everything was done to try and get rid of him, for a few years, and yet despite that Labour grew in support and numbers. So would Owen SMith, or Chukka or any of the others be ahead in the polls? I'm not sure. Cameron was a Blair clone, he went, the personality free Maybot may be the best sort of leader for the torys for now, the genuine JC may be the best sort of leader for labour.

You seem to have forgotten that Labour lost the Copeland by-election in February 2017. A seat they held since 1935. Labour were on their knees, they were not in the ascendancy at all. Many in the Labour party at the time held Corbyn personally responsible for letting Leave win the EU referendum. His 'absence' and 'silence' from a lot of campaigning being to blame.

A few weeks later opinion polls put the Tories nearly 25% ahead of Labour.

25%.



People feared Corbyn at that point. He didn't have a strong platform of support and he didn't have much of a voice either. The media (including the BBC) hardly featured him.


Then May called the snap election. And now Corbyn, because of media impartiality, had his voice and platform. So he got seen and heard a lot more. People feared him less.

The rest is history.





May's greed in April 2017 is why Corbyn is so strong now.

[Halb]

oyster said:

You seem to have forgotten that Labour lost the Copeland by-election in February 2017. A seat they held since 1935. Labour were on their knees, they were not in the ascendancy at all. Many in the Labour party at the time held Corbyn personally responsible for letting Leave win the EU referendum. His 'absence' and 'silence' from a lot of campaigning being to blame.
A few weeks later opinion polls put the Tories nearly 25% ahead of Labour.
25%.
People feared Corbyn at that point. He didn't have a strong platform of support and he didn't have much of a voice either. The media (including the BBC) hardly featured him.
Then May called the snap election. And now Corbyn, because of media impartiality, had his voice and platform. So he got seen and heard a lot more. People feared him less.
The rest is history.
May's greed in April 2017 is why Corbyn is so strong now.

I had forgotten, along with the 6 other by-elections that labour won since JC became the leader of the labour party, but that doesn't alter anything I posted. Labour downturn was going down until around JC took over. and there was a lot of action against JC by elements in his own party as labour's popularity rose. Copeland has specific issues which an anti-JC platform played to.
Labour were on their knees pre-JC, what is intangible is when they started to get up. It certainly started to happen around the same time as JC, something reinvigorated the party as a whole.
So you say that the media didn't feature JC and then snap, the media is impartial and featured him too much?
May believed the polls, many did, showed the polls up to be useless. She gambled she lost, what the election did show is that labour under JC was far stronger than people though at that point, from an independent view it was most interesting to watch it unfurl on the night, people really were caught unawares (save for the mad BBC prof bloke), sadly Paddy Pantsdown did not eat a hat.

[Sway]

Halb said:

Sway said:

Halb said:

Sway said:

Indeed. His support have revisited history, and twisted the interpretation to the point that over the weekend I read a statement on Facebook that JC was 'pivotal to bringing peace to NI'...
Which is of course utter bullst.

It does seem like ridiculous hyperbole, to suggest JC was 'pivotal.' But it does bring he IRA thing into the chat, the peace process being the fruit of chats that the government of the time had with the actual IRA from the 80s, at a time when JC gets lambasted for talking to SInn Fein, and actual Palestinian terrorist organisations from ten years ago.

He did nothing to 'bring the IRA to chats'. He was talking with them in support of their aims and methods - not to try and change them into something more constructive.
That's why he gets lambasted - as said earlier, Blair met Gaddafi to try and change behaviours, not to condone them. Corbyn did fk all to support peace - just the opposite (and there are IRA members saying that too).

YOu misunderstand me, I meant bringing the subject of the IRA into the current chat. JC talked to SInnFein back then, openly, this seemingly played little to no pat at all in what happened later, the government talked to the IRA, secretly, which ultimately, led to what happened in 1997. Which is why the lambasting, if only aimed at him, is either wrong or hypocritical.

The lambasting is entirely appropriate.

Corbyn spoke openly with them, because he supported them. No one is criticising him for meeting, they're criticising him for supporting.

Same as the rhetoric that he 'supports open dialogue' is revisionist bullst too - he's not interested in talking with anyone who disagrees with him, see how there's zero evidence of him talking with Israelis, or Unionists. Or how angry he gets if he's questioned by reporters beyond banal meaningless rhetoric.

[Gargamel]

irocfan said:

I guess it depends on your reason for chatting to the provos. I rather suspect that jezza did not do it for the same reasons that Thatcher/Major/Blair did it

Certainly inviting Convicted IRA Terrorists to lunch in the House of Commons, three weeks after the IRA attempt to assassinate the Cabinet at the Tory Conference in the Brighton Bombing can never be portrayed as "talking to both sides "

What could you say , I think the IRA made it pretty clear what they wanted...


Here is another fairly conclusive piece of evidence on this one


The Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed by the British government of Margaret Thatcher and her Irish counterpart Garret Fitzgerald in 1985, and is seen by some as an important stepping-stone in the peace process.

But at the time, the treaty was opposed by many unionists as well as Sinn Fein and the IRA, and it failed to stop paramilitary violence in the province.

Corbyn voted against it and spoke against it in parliament, saying: “We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the 26 counties, and those of us who wish to see a United Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason.”



So when Corbyn says he was talking to the IRA, he wasn't negotiating an end to violence, he was agreeing with their aims.