Jeremy Corbyn (Vol. 3)

[irocfan]

57 Chevy said:

Hayter's gonna hate

deserves a

[Mousem40]

loafer123 said:

zygalski said:

What do you guys think about Zionist expansion into the occupied territories and the regular flouting of UN resolutions by Israel?
I'm interested to know.

I would imagine most Labour MP's are anti-zionist, but very few are actually anti-semitic.

It is possible to support the existence of the State of Israel, disagree with unauthorised expansion of that State and the behaviour of it, and regard anti-semitism as the disgusting abhorrence that all racism is.

All of these things are compatible.

The problem for Labour is that many in the party don’t agree that Israel should exist and that Jews are to blame for all of the worst bits of Capitalism.

Agreed. Israel is a complete red herring. There are literally hundreds of human rights violations on a much larger scale (whatever your view of the human rights infractions are in Israel) happening all over the world, all the time. Do you ever see Corbyn stand side by side with his subjugated Uyghur comrades in China that are being interred and 're-educated'? They number between 1.5-3 million.

Let's not worry ourselves about the UN and their resolutions either. Nearly 50% of them concern Israel. Have a look at how many resolutions they've had on despotic regimes such as North Korea, Iran, Syria, South Sudan etc.

Why's Israel such a priority for our Marxist friend? Because as has been sad before the Jews are known as the capitalist, all powerful, media ruling oppressors. Israel is just a tool used to legitimise their hatred for the Jew with their oft spouted mantra that they stand by the Jews, it's just Israel that's the problem. Of course it is.

[NoNeed]

biggbn said:

I just think he is a crap leader massively out of his depth, but am more than aware many think there is a more sinister agenda.

He does have a sinister agenda and it is all on record.

You don't mix with these peoole unless you support them.



There are just too many examples for it to be anything other than support

[Sway]

Could you imagine today's press and social media having a chief whip called Cocks?

[Thorodin]

The trouble with courting notoriety by association with terrorists is that they of all people realise it is merely a carpet-bagging attempt that can be put to good use when the time arrives. Those that can do the most terrible things to innocents have precisely no morals and will always call on their so-called 'friends' when the time comes. Corbyn lacks similar cunning, he is all dogma, and because of that he will fail.

[SpeckledJim]

Sway said:

Could you imagine today's press and social media having a chief whip called Cocks?

Since the glory days of a Shadow Chancellor called Balls, nothing else is funny any more.

[Mothersruin]

SpeckledJim said:

Sway said:

Could you imagine today's press and social media having a chief whip called Cocks?

Since the glory days of a Shadow Chancellor called Balls, nothing else is funny any more.

The whole 'Balls' thing never really got used - I guess it was too easy.

[biggbn]

NoNeed said:

biggbn said:

I just think he is a crap leader massively out of his depth, but am more than aware many think there is a more sinister agenda.

He does have a sinister agenda and it is all on record.

You don't mix with these peoole unless you support them.



There are just too many examples for it to be anything other than support

So politicians should never have met with the ira or other organisations to further dialogue and help bring about the peace process?

[s2art]

Mothersruin said:

SpeckledJim said:

Sway said:

Could you imagine today's press and social media having a chief whip called Cocks?

Since the glory days of a Shadow Chancellor called Balls, nothing else is funny any more.

The whole 'Balls' thing never really got used - I guess it was too easy.

Didnt Heseltine use it? 'Its not Browns its Balls' quite good.

[avinalarf]

biggbn said:

So politicians should never have met with the ira or other organisations to further dialogue and help bring about the peace process?

These meetings are usually held in secret and in a discrete manner.
It is only when a form of agreement is in the offing that they become visible.
JC is notorious for being in the company of dubious characters, let alone fellow MPs.

[P5BNij]

avinalarf said:

biggbn said:

So politicians should never have met with the ira or other organisations to further dialogue and help bring about the peace process?

These meetings are usually held in secret and in a discrete manner.
It is only when a form of agreement is in the offing that they become visible.
JC is notorious for being in the company of dubious characters, let alone fellow MPs.

Let's not forget that Corbyn has never been part of the peace process, officially or otherwise and that two days after the Brighton bomb in '84 he praised the IRA in the editorial of a left wing rag he was writing for (if I recall correctly someone posted a link on this thread or in one of the previous volumes a while ago) He's had countless opportunities to specifically denounce the IRA but still refuses to do so and his occasional vague spoutings of 'condemnation of all violence' is meaningless in this context. He is a spineless liar, a hypocrite and not fit for office.

[Johnnytheboy]

avinalarf said:

These meetings are usually held in secret and in a discrete manner.

What? In two separate rooms?

[biggbn]

P5BNij said:

avinalarf said:

biggbn said:

So politicians should never have met with the ira or other organisations to further dialogue and help bring about the peace process?

These meetings are usually held in secret and in a discrete manner.
It is only when a form of agreement is in the offing that they become visible.
JC is notorious for being in the company of dubious characters, let alone fellow MPs.

Let's not forget that Corbyn has never been part of the peace process, officially or otherwise and that two days after the Brighton bomb in '84 he praised the IRA in the editorial of a left wing rag he was writing for (if I recall correctly someone posted a link on this thread or in one of the previous volumes a while ago) He's had countless opportunities to specifically denounce the IRA but still refuses to do so and his occasional vague spoutings of 'condemnation of all violence' is meaningless in this context. He is a spineless liar, a hypocrite and not fit for office.

Now this I have a problem with. In what world is a denouncement of all violence not acceptable? Because he does not specifically denounce violence that goes against your beliefs? Because his holistic denouncement must include illegal violence from all, including our armed forces? What's the problem?

[Dr Jekyll]

biggbn said:

Now this I have a problem with. In what world is a denouncement of all violence not acceptable? Because he does not specifically denounce violence that goes against your beliefs? Because his holistic denouncement must include illegal violence from all, including our armed forces? What's the problem?

Because he specifically uses the formula to avoid denouncing violence from those he agrees with.

[NoNeed]

biggbn said:

Now this I have a problem with. In what world is a denouncement of all violence not acceptable? Because he does not specifically denounce violence that goes against your beliefs? Because his holistic denouncement must include illegal violence from all, including our armed forces? What's the problem?

So where and when did he meet our armed forces or unionist para militaries?

[avinalarf]

Johnnytheboy said:

avinalarf said:

These meetings are usually held in secret and in a discrete manner.

What? In two separate rooms?

In my shed at the bottom of my garden.
It's very discrete and partially hidden by an old oak tree.
When I was in a certain service, no names no pack drill, I would receive a communication and I would leave the key to the shed underneath a flower pot.

[djc206]

biggbn said:

So politicians should never have met with the ira or other organisations to further dialogue and help bring about the peace process?

The government yes. An insignificant opposition bank bencher, no. Totally beyond his remit and not at all helpful for the country.

[biggbn]

Dr Jekyll said:

biggbn said:

Now this I have a problem with. In what world is a denouncement of all violence not acceptable? Because he does not specifically denounce violence that goes against your beliefs? Because his holistic denouncement must include illegal violence from all, including our armed forces? What's the problem?

Because he specifically uses the formula to avoid denouncing violence from those he agrees with.

I denounce all violence does not cover all violence? I'm sorry, we will have to agree to disagree about this. I think he has been a dreadful leader although I had high hopes and I feel let down by him.

[biggbn]

djc206 said:

biggbn said:

So politicians should never have met with the ira or other organisations to further dialogue and help bring about the peace process?

The government yes. An insignificant opposition bank bencher, no. Totally beyond his remit and not at all helpful for the country.

For what it's worth I suspect his parading them around the house of commons was a move intended to agitate the establishment and publicise the cause.

[biggbn]

NoNeed said:

biggbn said:

Now this I have a problem with. In what world is a denouncement of all violence not acceptable? Because he does not specifically denounce violence that goes against your beliefs? Because his holistic denouncement must include illegal violence from all, including our armed forces? What's the problem?

So where and when did he meet our armed forces or unionist para militaries?

You are claiming corbyn has never met with members of our armed forces?