Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Wow you actually said those things, I thought it was some sort of joke. Bellend.
Broke: Using racist slurs for a laugh. hehe racism.
Woke: Using racist slurs ironically to imply bigotry in others. hehe racism, you racists!
Woke: Using racist slurs ironically to imply bigotry in others. hehe racism, you racists!
Thanks.
Well this is a Corbyn thread....
Only makes sense to act like a Tory in it then. You've done the being racist part at least.
Was in the barbers this morning and well this happened
Customer - What is Remembrance Day about ?
Barber - It's celebration about freedom, its our freedom day.
I'm firmly in the "anti-Corbyn" band but I think to give him credit he fights for groups that he sees as the downtrodden. Unfortunately in doing so he often finds himself on the same side as terrorists who may be oppressed, but ultimately who employ repellant tactics against their oppression. He employs his belief system dogmatically irrespective of whether his "friends" are extremists such as the IRA, Hezbollah, Hamas etc on the one side or far less extreme non-violent groups (e.g. black rights movement, LGBT movement) on the other.
I think his problem is a lack of basic intelligence. Rather than look at situations in a balanced and critical manner to come to a well reasoned point of view; he unequivocally and categorically sides with the party he sees as subjugated. It will always be the subjugator business owner against the subjugated worker; the subjugator US against the subjugated Middle East; the subjugator Israel against the subjugated Palestinians. Politics is far more nuanced than this though.
This is why he won't effectively tackle anti-semitism within Labour, but would tackle other forms of racism with an iron fist. He fundamentally sees Jews as a subjugator and Muslims as the subjugated.
Judging by the state of some of your replies in this thread, I imagine you're going to be surprised and saddened by how much of an idiot you've been again in another 10 years or so. It's almost as if you're still a bit of an idiot, only a little too much to actually realise it.
Perhaps.
This has already been discussed to death here but it seems to come up everytime someone tries to paint Corbyn as some despicable Jew-hating reincarnation of Hitler.
As with everything context is key - this wasn’t Corbyn waving the flags of Hamas and Hezbollah and patting them on the back for their respective ideologies, but rather a call for them to come to the table and discuss a roadmap to peace. Because frankly the alternative would be to double down on the status quo and see more lives taken by the ensuing violence in the Middle East. The same applies to him pleading to reach out to the IRA for peace talks, an initiative dignified by history as being the right call too.
Irrespective of whether you like Corbyn or not, to label the man an anti-Semite is disingenuous slander at best. We’re forgetting he was one of the most vocal critics of South Africa’s apartheid policies during a time Thatcher was shamelessly calling Mandela a terrorist and David Cameron was accepting all expenses paid trips at the behest of the Praetorian government.
And that leads me to another point - much of these accusations have stemmed from the very party who’s own leader has unapologetically called Muslim women letter boxes and speaks of ‘watermelon smiles’ to describe Africans, propagated by a right wing media infamous for its shameless dog whistling. And that’s without mentioning Boris’ ties with Steve Bannon or their shameless support of the Saudi regime, the country responsible for conceiving the most heinous extremism serving as the ideological backbone to factions such as ISIS. You’re lying to yourself if you believe the Tories are on the offensive here on the back of a bonafide belief in tackling bigotry.
It’s of course your prerogative to dislike Corbyn’s policies, but trying to desperately label him a bigot while pretending to be silenced outraged at the Tories’ overt bigotry is shamelessly dishonest.
Correct.
And believe it or not the same applies to his rhetoric regarding Hamas and Hezbollah.
Yep. You can't encourage people to come the table for peace talks without some level of conciliatory language or discourse.
He actively referred to them as 'friends' though - I'd argue that's a step beyond merely trying to bring them to the table. You may want to give him the benefit of the doubt and argue it was just poor word choice or diplomacy on his part - and it wouldn't be an argument I'm entirely against - but I understand why Jewish people are incredibly uneasy about being forgiving to him, or ascribing his actions to those of someone who's just made an honest or silly mistake when the context of other anti-Semitic accusations is included as well. If a right-wing politician had referred to a terrorist group rife with anti-Semitism a 'friend', I sincerely doubt a lot of us would be willing to jump to their defence - and with good reason, because excuses like diplomacy would quite understandably look incredibly stupid.
Similar can be said about McDonnell's IRA comments - he wasn't just trying to be diplomatic but was actively praising them and clearly demonstrated sympathies with them. Again, to try and claim otherwise strikes me as remarkably dishonest.
McDonnell's previous comments on the IRA certainly go beyond that of someone wanting to facilitate a peace process - he'd demonstrated himself to have fairly clear sympathies towards them at one point.
It strikes me as remarkably silly to ascribe such remarks and Corbyn's comments concerning Hamas/Hezbollah to being either conciliatory goodwill statements or silly mistakes, even though I think the discussion surrounding them could do with being a lot more nuanced, and even though I'd confidently argue the Tories have some far worse associations and comments over the years.
Fine. By all means stop referring to them as enemies but don't stand on a platform and refer to them as 'our friends'
I'd argue it was poor-worded diplomacy and can concede why it would provoke uneasy reservations amongst Jewish people. On the other hand in light of the context behind it, it does seem like excessive straw-clutching from those desperately trying to portray an anti-semitic narrative based on the use of the word 'friends'. Without resorting to whatabouttery, we also don't see anywhere near the same level of scrutiny afforded to prominent Tories with their unusual choice of words or frankly more open associations with unsavoury individuals and factions. Why is nothing being made of Johnson's ties to Steve Bannon, a notorious individual with indisputed ties to anti-semitic groups worldwide? Or Tory ministers accepting lavish gifts from Saudi royals, a country unapologetic on its views regarding his despicable views on women's rights and homosexuality. And how at ease are the Muslim community supposed to be when the prime minister simply pulls any inquiry into Islamophobia within Britain's current ruling party. Would Corbyn be afforded the same apathy if he decided to shelf any similar investigations into his party, or made colourful remarks about people of certain religions or races?
If the best Corbyn's critics can come up with is his choice of affectionate language to plead for factions, unsavoury or otherwise to come to the table with the intention to build a roadmap to peace, then its not a convincing one, not when you consider his background as a prominent campaigner against bigotry in his decades of being involved in international politics.
The choice of words was arguably unfortunate and you can argue in poor taste, but does it constitute irrefutable evidence of him being a rabid anti-semite?
McDonnell was actively against the peace process through the GFA wasn't he?
Johnson makes great play of frequently addressing EU representatives as 'our friends'.
I haven't read Johnson's burka article in full but I understand that he was trying to make the case for muslim women to be free to wear it. Poorly chosen words or rabid islamophobe?
They are though aren't they?
I don't believe Johnson is personally an Islamophobe, but I do think he's paying deliberate lip service to a demographic that are. I mean he could have easily made the point without resorting to the colourful name-calling. And what of the water-melon smiles? What was his underlying point with that one?
He's got a funny way of showing it then.
What I meant was the Europeans aren't lobbing rockets into Margate or planting bombs in shopping precinct rubbish bins.
Johnson has a fairly multicultural family, his great grandfather was a Turkish Muslim and the mother of his children is half Indian.
Or carrying out poisonings in Salisbury....
Forgive me - for some reason, if often takes me several attempts to make myself clear. I was basically stating the obvious, I guess: that addressing people of all kinds as 'friends' is merely standard for politicians on public occasions. It's politeness with a view towards improved relations.
I wouldn't address someone that I considered a terrorist who had killed my countrymen as 'friend' nor would I expect them to refer to me as one. I'm sure during the GFA negotiations the word 'friend' wasn't being bandied around. The removal of the word 'ememy' should be all that is needed to negotiate a peace. 'Friends' is for later - or never in some cases.
Quite
White text ?
Boris's real surname is Kemal - Farage's great great grandparents were German - funny old game.
So you're just upset by the terminology and not the action?
Progress relies on conciliation, even if that apparent submissiveness is simply for show.
Peace negotiations should be pragmatic and pay due respect to the other's POV. They should put the common good first. I doubt any peace negotiation has ever been a love-in with people calling one another friends and what not.
Yes the action is fine.
But Corbyn standing on a platform and using the term 'our friends in Hezbollah' is more than a call for peace, it is a statement of solidarity in my view.
It's like the Suarez-Evra incident all over again.
Then you might be a little shocked at the choice of words British Torys MPs used to describe Hitler pre-war...
That's a very simplistic view of a very complex situation.
Ultimately it was a desperate situation over the long term that required people to go above and beyond 'norms' to gain peace, which was the ultimate goal.
Some in public, some in secret talks. Like the UK government, for example in 1981 and 1990 as detailed below. But it was imperative to get peace talks going ahead in the context of mistrust and disillusionment from all parties.
Margaret Thatcher 'negotiated with IRA'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16366413
Thatcher started IRA talks in 1990
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/thatcher-started-ira-talks-in-1990-1305896.html