that seems perfectly reasonable to me, he went on to talk about human rights and stopped when they wanted something else from him
it's literally what we pretend our foreign policy is
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
it's literally what we pretend our foreign policy is
Why take the handsome fees from deplorable regimes if he is so saintly pure?
And it was still a lie. We know that the Government has lied about this we do not know any true evidence. That's my point.
Not crywanking draped in a Union Flag whilst God Save The Queen plays.
Where have I told people that - in that precise context?
I am opposed to Left wing politics and especially the extreme version that is currently being espoused.
That does not mean that I agree with everything the government say's or does.
Or that by being opposed to Labours world view it necessarily follows that I must be a stinking bourgeois and totally heartless.
He's to blame for a weak, and poorly chosen initial response to a chemical weapons attack which affected some 500 British citizens.
Let's not let Boris Johnson's idiocy make Corbyn's initial response look better than it deserves. It was the wrong response for the moment.
because appearing on tv is work, he's a social democrat not a unicorn
making up your mind before you've seen the evidence isn't strong, it's fecking stupid
I thought it was for crywanking into a hammer and sickle flag whilst singing the State Anthem of the Soviet Union wearing only in his little Lenin hat.
There was sufficient evidence to make a political judgement. That's the point. Corbyn flunked it.
Splinters up his arse
no there wasn't, he asked to see the evidence which any reasonable leader of the opposition should do
That's exactly my point.
As for your second point I'm saying that the only real evidence that we have been given that Russia actually manufactured the chemical was a lie told by BoJo.
There may be other evidence but we don't know it. To tar and feather Corbyn on evidence we don't have seems just wrong to me.
Exactly.
Not the most compelling defence of the Corbyn's (allegedly) impeccable moral integrity tbh.
why should anyone defend asking the government for evidence?
Hmm, but he's totally shitting himself over Boris Johnson and Theresa May's accusations, our relatively insignificant military and our increasingly isolated international relations.
Current version isn't really that extreme - just standard left-wing social democracy for the most part.
We were talking about him taking handsome payments from the state owned television companies of deplorable regimes.
You explained this by claiming that he isn't a unicorn.
He believes that to change someones opinion you have to enter into discourse with them. Going to Iran and talking about human rights is part of that belief system. Not taking the money would make it look as he thought that they were beneath him that is no way to hold a civilised dialogue.
sorry I thought you replied to a different post
everyone gets paid for TV work, he went on Iranian TV to talk about human rights, how is that a bad thing? because he took standard appearance fees?
Yeah, not really. He just wanted to get paid a lot of money for doing very little. His appearances on RT amounted to him being an unwitting shill for Russian anti Western rhetoric. Anne Applebaum described him as 'the latest in a long line of useful idiots' for the Kremlin.
He's taking money from a deplorable regime. If it is someone like Farage or Johnson then you expect it but Jeremy is supposed to be different. If he had donated that money to charity then fine but pocketing such a large fee from such a regime seems off for someone of Jeremy's supposed superior moral dimensions.
Well it's too far left for at least 60% of the PLP
Some examples of this extremeness please.
well if Anne said so
An old Tory trick. Did it with Benn too.
That's your view. One that I don't agree with.
He's really damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
Go in strong against Russia with the poisoning like Johnson and the Tories = Bad
Be calm and ask for the experts to obtain evidence = Bad
What exactly should have his reaction have been? The most sane and adult thing to do in that situation is to not to jump to conclusions. Last thing you want to do (like Bush did after 9/11) is do something stupid based on bad intelligence.
Go in strong against Russia with the poisoning like Johnson and the Tories = Bad
Be calm and ask for the experts to obtain evidence = Bad
What exactly should have his reaction have been? The most sane and adult thing to do in that situation is to not to jump to conclusions. Last thing you want to do (like Bush did after 9/11) is do something stupid based on bad intelligence.
As I said over in the Fox News thread it's alright listening to the views of social commentators but at the end of the day you have to weight up all the evidence and go with your own opinion not somebody else's.
Exactly.
Last edited:
Especially if the alternative to saying 'clearly this points towards Russian, but let's wait for some concrete evidence' is to say 'it was definitely Putin and we have evidence' and not actually do anything other than later being proven a fecking lair about the evidence. Why are we even talking about Corbyn here? It's just a new stick for the right and centre right to beat him with after they used all their old sticks in the last election.
Makes you wonder what the Government are doing. Probably have circumstantial evidence pointing too Russia and used Porton Down as the public evidence thinking it was safe to do so. I'm hoping thats the case and it's not that the Government gambled on a very early conclusion without letting Porton Down do the full analysis.
To be honest, I'm really trying to tar and feather Johnson. Corbyn's just an unwitting benefactor of Johnson's incompetence. I don't think Johnson being wrong makes Corbyn right - I think they were both wrong. The evidence is the evidence, it hasn't changed as a result of the Porton Down thing.
well that changes everything, we've got a member of COBR here folks
What is it?
These are the facts:
- Obscure russian chemical weapon design
- Last seen stocked in Russia
- Hard to come by, hard to make
- State sponsor likely needed to make it and deliver it
- Enemy of Russian state the target
- Russia has recently done this before with similarly obscure type of weapon only available in Russia, requiring similar types of state sponsored support and they were caught doing it
- 28 countries have kicked out Russian diplomats because it's fecking obvious who did it
False flag.