next labour leader

Classical Mechanic said:
He has dug the holes for himself.

Perhaps the hard left haven't realised that most of the country don't spend their evenings whipping themselves over Britains imperial past. A great deal of people in England are patriotic and Corbyn's rehetoric on these matters is going to go down like a ton of bricks with a very lot of people.
Click to expand...

The imperial present is bad enough. Patriotism is fine... unless it's derived from murder abroad, in which case it becomes slightly sick.

Classical Mechanic said:
Of course the opposition will jump on it. It isn't smear if he says stupid things. His comments on ISIS are a particular horror show against the backdrop of the hostage execution images that have saturated our media in recent times.
Click to expand...

I don't see how what he said was stupid. Most would agree that ISIS do terrible things, which is what he said after-all.

Classical Mechanic said:
If it is true that he has shared platforms with extremists in the past the best you can say about him is that he is naive, which is probably the case, but who elects a naive man to run a G7 nation? He lost his temper with an interviewer on the matter the other day and denied the event ever happened. Only for his team to confirm it shortly after.
Click to expand...

The British public have elected plenty. As for sharing platforms with extremists, well, unless he personally booked these people I don't see the problem. Some of these people weren't as extreme when these events took place. The best you can say about him is that these stories are almost completely irrelevant, albeit a fine example of state-sponsored scare tactics at work.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
The imperial present is bad enough. Patriotism is fine... unless it's derived from murder abroad, in which case it becomes slightly sick.



I don't see how what he said was stupid. Most would agree that ISIS do terrible things, which is what he said after-all.



The British public have elected plenty. As for sharing platforms with extremists, well, unless he personally booked these people I don't see the problem. Some of these people weren't as extreme when these events took place. The best you can say about him is that these stories are almost completely irrelevant, albeit a fine example of state-sponsored scare tactics at work.
Click to expand...
He said "some" of the things they do is terrible. Then in the next sentenced presented the US forces as doing similar. On a Russian propaganda channel.
 
Ubik said:
He said "some" of the things they do is terrible. Then in the next sentenced presented the US forces as doing similar. On a Russian propaganda channel.
Click to expand...
Some of what they do is terrible. Some of what the USA did/does was/is terrible. I can see why some might object to the comparison, but it's not wrong.
 


He makes a good point, also the use of "some" is being misrepresented -- it revolves around emphasis perception.
 
So I've just been emailed my online voting details...except that they're invalid, stellar job so far :rolleyes:
 
Classical Mechanic said:
@Mciahel Goodman

Who are you trying to convince? Politically it is really really bad rhetoric. People don't want to hear 'ISIS are bad but so are we'. You can't sell that.
Click to expand...

He wasn't comparing ISIS to 'us', he was comparing their actions to that of the US troops in Fallujah, who lets not forget had completely decimated the city, used chemical weapons and committed various other atrocities there. Context is everything.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
@Mciahel Goodman

Who are you trying to convince? Politically it is really really bad rhetoric. People don't want to hear 'ISIS are bad but so are we'. You can't sell that.
Click to expand...
I agree that it won't help his cause much, because as you say, in the current climate it is very hard to sell. The thing is, though, there's an awful lot of truth in it. It's a valid, albeit politically naive, comparison.

Also @Kaos is correct. It was a strict comparison between American war crimes in Fallujah and ISIS atrocities.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:


He makes a good point, also the use of "some" is being misrepresented -- it revolves around emphasis perception.
Click to expand...

It's not being misrepresented in the slightest. There's no need to put a "some" in there at all, as if they're on the whole good guys but just occasionally behead a captive, film it and upload it to the internet. Or maybe if they're feeling it that day, set them on fire instead. Yeah, let's have a political solution with those guys. Americans are just as bad and they're our main allies, right?
 
I was talking about how it looks to the wider English electorate, as was clear from my first post. We are allies with America and have been involved in those war efforts so it will equate to being a comparison to Britain in the eyes of many.

This on a Russian propaganda station too?!

It looks bad and is great ammunition for his rivals, an example of his nativity. I can't see how you could deny that.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
I was talking about how it looks to the wider English electorate, as was clear from my first post. We are allies with America and have been involved in those war efforts so it will equate to being a comparison to Britain in the eyes of many.

This on a Russian propaganda station too?!

It looks bad and is great ammunition for his rivals, an example of his nativity. I can't see how you could deny that.
Click to expand...
A Corbyn nativity, that would be something. Jebus was a bit of a socialist after all, second coming perchance?
 
Ubik said:
It's not being misrepresented in the slightest. There's no need to put a "some" in there at all, as if they're on the whole good guys but just occasionally behead a captive, film it and upload it to the internet. Or maybe if they're feeling it that day, set them on fire instead. Yeah, let's have a political solution with those guys. Americans are just as bad and they're our main allies, right?
Click to expand...
People use filler words all of the time without giving much thought to their potential for interpretation/distortion.

Americans killed more efficiently (also many more, of course). I condemn them both as reprehensible.
 
Anyway, the Corbyn volunteer team just rang me and asked if I'd received my ballot papers and if I had, had I voted? I said yes and yes, for Corbyn. The guy seemed genuinely delighted and was full of thanks. Really nice telephone manner.

This is new to me in elections, I have to say. When I used to doorstep-canvass, it was often little more adversarial.
 
Ubik said:
It's not being misrepresented in the slightest. There's no need to put a "some" in there at all, as if they're on the whole good guys but just occasionally behead a captive, film it and upload it to the internet. Or maybe if they're feeling it that day, set them on fire instead. Yeah, let's have a political solution with those guys. Americans are just as bad and they're our main allies, right?
Click to expand...

Over the years our political leaders have made allies of people just as bad or worse than IS, never mind talking to them. How is suggesting talking to ISIS any worse than selling weapons to Gaddafi, Saddam or the Saudis, backing Pinochet, backing Stroessner, supporting apartheid-era south Africa, or backing Reagan when he was arming the Taliban, funding mass-murder in Central America and invading sovereign nations?

The right-wing media (and some in the Labour Party) seem to have a very selective memory when it comes to foreign policy. If it were up to them we'd have been arming the people we now call IS in order to oust Assad, I'm sure that would have been great for national security.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
People use filler words all of the time without giving much thought to their potential for interpretation/distortion.

Americans killed more efficiently (also many more, of course). I condemn them both as reprehensible.
Click to expand...
It's possible that he just thought he could say whatever he liked to please the Russia Today audience as he was an unknown to the British public at large and thought no-one would ever watch it anyway. And that previous sentence alarms me almost as much as the idea that he genuinely thinks only some of what ISIS does to be reprehensible, and that they're comparable to the US army.

Like, I know a lot of people have settled on him now as the answer and are probably quite excited about his rise (I'm not belittling that, I can understand it and empathise with it), but does none of this ring any alarm bells whatsoever? It's getting more like Galloway than Foot.

jeff_goldblum said:
Over the years our political leaders have made allies of people just as bad or worse than IS, never mind talking to them. How is suggesting talking to ISIS any worse than selling weapons to Gaddafi, Saddam or the Saudis, backing Pinochet, backing Stroessner, supporting apartheid-era south Africa, or backing Reagan when he was arming the Taliban, funding mass-murder in Central America and invading sovereign nations?

The right-wing media (and some in the Labour Party) seem to have a very selective memory when it comes to foreign policy. If it were up to them we'd have been arming the people we now call IS in order to oust Assad.
Click to expand...
ISIS are expansionist and have a firm desire to destroy the west. They have murdered our citizens on film and celebrated it. They have tortured, raped and murdered anyone who thinks differently to them, and to all intents and purposes are fascists in the same manner as the Nazis. They are not open to reason, and I do not want them to have a state, I want them destroyed. I do not want them appeased. Listing terrible foreign policy decisions of old as if to say "so at least Corbyn isn't any worse" isn't a convincing argument. Attlee would be spinning in his grave.
 
@corbynites

How exactly do you defend the man for allowing himself to be used as a pawn in Putin's propaganda machine? We know why the Russians ask him on 'I'm not joking, there is this British MP that will come on and tell us how bad the West is' but what exactly is Corbyn's motivation for letting himself be used in that way?
 
Classical Mechanic said:
@corbynites

How exactly do you defend the man for allowing himself to be used as a pawn in Putin's propaganda machine? We know why the Russians ask him on 'I'm not joking, there is this British MP that will come on and tell us how bad the West is' but what exactly is Corbyn's motivation for letting himself be used in that way?
Click to expand...

So because he's opposed to US-led foreign policy it makes him a Putin puppet by default? :rolleyes:
 
Ubik said:
It's possible that he just thought he could say whatever he liked to please the Russia Today audience as he was an unknown to the British public at large and thought no-one would ever watch it anyway. And that previous sentence alarms me almost as much as the idea that he genuinely thinks only some of what ISIS does to be reprehensible, and that they're comparable to the US army.

Like, I know a lot of people have settled on him now as the answer and are probably quite excited about his rise (I'm not belittling that, I can understand it and empathise with it), but does none of this ring any alarm bells whatsoever? It's getting more like Galloway than Foot.
Click to expand...

I'd contend that his views on this issue are somewhat analogous to the views of Russia Today, but for different reasons. RT is one of the most blatant propaganda machines currently in existence, I wouldn't disagree with that in the slightest. Their motive is easy to discern. However, I think the notion of Corbyn playing to the gallery is wide of the mark
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Why do you think the Russians book him? He is being used. What is Corbyn's motivation for going on those shows?
Click to expand...

Russia Today will interview anyone who's views oppose current US foreign affairs. Are you saying the likes of Noam Chomsky, Oliver Stone and Jill Stein are Russia's puppets?

You can be opposed to US and neocon foreign policy without being a Putin sympathiser.
 
Last edited:
Ubik said:
ISIS are expansionist and have a firm desire to destroy the west. They have murdered our citizens on film and celebrated it. They have tortured, raped and murdered anyone who thinks differently to them, and to all intents and purposes are fascists in the same manner as the Nazis. They are not open to reason, and I do not want them to have a state, I want them destroyed. I do not want them appeased. Listing terrible foreign policy decisions of old as if to say "so at least Corbyn isn't any worse" isn't a convincing argument. Attlee would be spinning in his grave.
Click to expand...

Again, this is a case of grossly oversimplifying what IS is, just as the media grossly oversimplified what the Taliban was in 2001. I can't be arsed to rehash what I wrote on the previous page so I'll just quote it.

We shouldn't get into this mindset that IS is a homogeneous entity, much of its 'membership' consists of opportunistic rebel groups who've tacked onto IS in order to pursue their own agendas and, like the Taliban 10 years ago, many of its foot-soldiers are motivated by economic factors as much as by ideology. Whilst it may go against our natural, 'kill 'em all' response, attempting some sort of diplomatic solution isn't a ridiculous idea.
Click to expand...

If there's one thing we should have learnt over the last 30 years of conflict in the Middle East it's that you can't bomb ideology or extremism out of existence. The sort of solutions you appear to be championing have consistently caused more bloodshed than they've prevented, which is what I was trying to elucidate with the examples in my last post.

A diplomatic route doesn't meet appeasement, it means engaging in talks with the factions within IS for whom ideology is not the primary motive, isolating the extremist element at the heart of the organisation which commits the worst of the atrocities and chipping away at the support base which allows it to do so with impunity. Whether it would work is another issue, but dismissing it outright in favour of military action would be yet another victory for policy which exists to look good rather than to actually save lives.

As an aside, Clement Atlee's not the best person to cite when talking foreign policy, his government did a whole lot of awful shit abroad despite everything they did for Britain.
 
Kaos said:
Russia Today will interview anyone who's views opposes current US foreign affairs. Are you saying the likes of Noam Chomsky, Oliver Stone and Jill Stein are Russia's puppets?

You can be opposed to US and neocon foreign policy without being a Putin sympathiser.
Click to expand...

How are they analogous to a politician aspiring to be the Prime Minister of Great Britain?

I didn't speculate on Corbyn's motivations. I am simply interested to hear what you and his supporters think are his motivations for appearing on a channel like that?

Do you agree that he is being used by the station to criticise the West for the benefit of the Russian audience? I certainly do and I think that is a very questionable position for Corbyn to put himself in.

I would actually tend to lean towards Corbyn being a naive idealist hoping perhaps to give a balanced impression of Western attitudes to the Russian people. Would I want such a person to sit down with a guy like Putin to negotiate terms of cooperation? No is the answer, he would get eaten alive.

To me it is just another reason why Corbyn is well out of his depth even as the leader of the Labour party.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
Again, this is a case of grossly oversimplifying what IS is, just as the media grossly oversimplified what the Taliban was in 2001. I can't be arsed to rehash what I wrote on the previous page so I'll just quote it.

If there's one thing we should have learnt over the last 30 years of conflict in the Middle East it's that you can't bomb ideology or extremism out of existence. The sort of solutions you appear to be championing have consistently caused more bloodshed than they've prevented, which is what I was trying to elucidate with the examples in my last post.

A diplomatic route doesn't meet appeasement, it means engaging in talks with the factions within IS for whom ideology is not the primary motive, isolating the extremist element at the heart of the organisation which commits the worst of the atrocities and chipping away at the support base which allows it to do so with impunity. Whether it would work is another issue, but dismissing it outright in favour of military action would be yet another victory for policy which exists to look good rather than to actually save lives.

As an aside, Clement Atlee's not the best person to cite when talking foreign policy, his government did a whole lot of awful shit abroad despite everything they did for Britain.
Click to expand...
So what do we offer these non-ideologue segments of ISIS in return for downing guns? Their state is basically a vacuum, and you're correct in that it's our fecking around that's made it that way. If they think this new path is actually getting them results, how do we turn them away from it? What is, realistically, going to tempt them?

Kaos said:
Russia Today will interview anyone who's views oppose current US foreign affairs. Are you saying the likes of Noam Chomsky, Oliver Stone and Jill Stein are Russia's puppets?

You can be opposed to US and neocon foreign policy without being a Putin sympathiser.
Click to expand...
He did actually encourage people to watch it a few years back, which doesn't help matters.
 
Also, if anyone wants to see how much of a clown Louise Mensch is, look no further:

 
Ubik said:
So what do we offer these non-ideologue segments of ISIS in return for downing guns? Their state is basically a vacuum, and you're correct in that it's our fecking around that's made it that way. If they think this new path is actually getting them results, how do we turn them away from it? What is, realistically, going to tempt them?
Click to expand...

I can't give you a definitive answer, ironically, the only way to find out whether a diplomatic route is workable is by engaging in the discussions in the first place.

What I can say is that in the case of the Taliban a lot of people signed up simply because fighting for them guaranteed a pay-packet, or because they were coerced into doing so either by threats to their person or threats to their family or community. Also, as I said before, some joined up because their aims, rather than their ideologies, partially overlap with those of IS (i.e - fighting Assad). To use your Nazi analogy, not everyone who fought for the Germans in WW2 did so because they were card-carrying Nazis. The sorts of people I mention above aren't necessary evil and talking to them isn't the same as sitting down for tea with the Fuhrer.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
I can't give you a definitive answer, ironically, the only way to find out whether a diplomatic route is workable is by engaging in the discussions in the first place.

What I can say is that in the case of the Taliban a lot of people signed up simply because fighting for them guaranteed a pay-packet, or because they were coerced into doing so either by threats to their person or threats to their family or community. Also, as I said before, some joined up because their aims, rather than their ideologies, partially overlap with those of IS (i.e - fighting Assad). To use your Nazi analogy, not everyone who fought for the Germans in WW2 did so because they were card-carrying Nazis. These people aren't necessary evil and talking to them isn't the same as sitting down for tea with the Fuhrer.
Click to expand...

The idea of ISIS becoming a legitimate Middle Eastern power is absolutely unthinkable, no matter what the motivations of soldier a,b or c are. If Corbyn wants to sit down with ISIS I would rather vote Tory.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
The idea of ISIS becoming a legitimate Middle Eastern power is absolutely unthinkable, no matter what the motivations of soldier a,b or c are. If Corbyn wants to sit down with ISIS I would rather vote Tory.
Click to expand...

Straw man 101. No-one's ever suggested making IS a 'legimitate Middle Eastern power'.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
Straw man 101. No-one's ever suggested making IS a 'legimitate Middle Eastern power'.
Click to expand...

What are you suggesting then? Why do you even want to sit down with them.

Their ideology, aims and methods to achieve those have already been clearly delineated. In light of that I am very confused by your desire for dialogue. I can only deduce that you are talking your way this ridiculous idea to try in some way to give credibility to Corbyn's methods.

Incidentally, does he actually want to sit down with ISIS?
 
Classical Mechanic said:
What are you suggesting then? Why do you even want to sit down with them.

Their ideology, aims and methods to achieve those have already been clearly delineated. In light of that I am very confused by your desire for dialogue. I can only deduce that you are talking your way this ridiculous idea to try in some way to give credibility to Corbyn's methods.

Incidentally, does he actually want to sit down with ISIS?
Click to expand...

Again, you're missing the point - I'm not saying you sit down with one of the people beheading people. Many of the different elements within what is referred to as IS don't resemble the oversimplified view you have of a unified band of religious fundamentalists. The fundementalists can operate because they can pay or coerce people to fight for them as well as calling on the support of a variety of other groups who share the odd strategic goal e.g - opposition to Assad. It's these people you can deal with to undermine the power base of the extremists.

I don't know Corbyn's views on the matter, Ubik was the one who brought it up so ask him.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
Again, you're missing the point - I'm not saying you sit down with one of the people beheading people. Many of the different elements within what is referred to as IS don't resemble the oversimplified view you have of a unified band of religious fundamentalists. The fundementalists can operate because they can pay or coerce people to fight for them as well as calling on the support of a variety of other groups who share the odd strategic goal e.g - opposition to Assad. It's these people you can deal with to undermine the power base of the extremists.

I don't know Corbyn's views on the matter, Ubik was the one who brought it up so ask him.
Click to expand...

ISIS is a caliphate. They are a united group under one leader that believe they are the divine appointed authority over all the world's Muslims.

OK, you have a point that some of the pragmatically affiliated members might be open to persuasion but it seems it would be an extremely unlikely approach to solving the ISIS problem, or at least to weaken them into irrelevance.

I should have followed your conversation closer. One too many glasses of red wine you see.
 
I didn't realise the above video wasn't the full vid, I'd watched it yesterday so was doing it from memory:



Just after 4 mins in if my attempts to auto-start it there get buggered up due to incompetence (of myself). (EDIT - they did.)
 
jeff_goldblum said:
We shouldn't get into this mindset that IS is a homogeneous entity, much of its 'membership' consists of opportunistic rebel groups who've tacked onto IS in order to pursue their own agendas and, like the Taliban 10 years ago, many of its footsoldiers will be motivated by economic factors as much as by ideology. Whilst it may go against our natural, 'kill 'em all' response, attempting some sort of diplomatic solution isn't a ridiculous idea. Whilst he's often portrayed as an idealist, on this issue Corbyn actually has a far more pragmatic approach that do his detractors to the right.
Click to expand...

He's not motivated by pragmatism. He's driven by an instinctive fellow feeling with those who hate his own country, America and the West in general.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
Over the years our political leaders have made allies of people just as bad or worse than IS, never mind talking to them. How is suggesting talking to ISIS any worse than selling weapons to Gaddafi, Saddam or the Saudis, backing Pinochet, backing Stroessner, supporting apartheid-era south Africa, or backing Reagan when he was arming the Taliban, funding mass-murder in Central America and invading sovereign nations?

The right-wing media (and some in the Labour Party) seem to have a very selective memory when it comes to foreign policy. If it were up to them we'd have been arming the people we now call IS in order to oust Assad, I'm sure that would have been great for national security.
Click to expand...

Good post. I despise ISIS and what they've done, as they're a terrifying, evil organisation. But we have made allies with plenty of nations who have done some awful shit over the years as well. We're practically buddies with Saudi Arabia: a country with an Islamic regime whose actions and beliefs, in many respects, are similar to ISIS. Like ISIS, they're not at all fond of free speech, will happily flog those who disagree with them, and have appalling views on women.

I think we'll struggle in trying to have any discourse with ISIS, but there sometimes seems to be a weird culture in our country wherein it's politically unacceptable to even suggest talking with one country/organisation that commits atrocities, but it's perfectly fine to be allies with others which have done awful shit themselves.
 
Cheesy said:
Good post. I despise ISIS and what they've done, as they're a terrifying, evil organisation. But we have made allies with plenty of nations who have done some awful shit over the years as well. We're practically buddies with Saudi Arabia: a country with an Islamic regime whose actions and beliefs, in many respects, are similar to ISIS. Like ISIS, they're not at all fond of free speech, will happily flog those who disagree with them, and have appalling views on women.

I think we'll struggle in trying to have any discourse with ISIS, but there sometimes seems to be a weird culture in our country wherein it's politically unacceptable to even suggest talking with one country/organisation that commits atrocities, but it's perfectly fine to be allies with others which have done awful shit themselves.
Click to expand...


I think there's a big difference in how it's accepted when it's done to the citizens of western countries, as a foreign policy you might say, rather than doing it to your own people, or people within your region.
 
Ubik said:
Also, if anyone wants to see how much of a clown Louise Mensch is, look no further:

Click to expand...

:lol: what a nonce. Her twitter feed will be my bed time reading also. Also, and username of @LizforLeader. Good grief.
 
Cheesy said:
Good post. I despise ISIS and what they've done, as they're a terrifying, evil organisation. But we have made allies with plenty of nations who have done some awful shit over the years as well. We're practically buddies with Saudi Arabia: a country with an Islamic regime whose actions and beliefs, in many respects, are similar to ISIS. Like ISIS, they're not at all fond of free speech, will happily flog those who disagree with them, and have appalling views on women.

I think we'll struggle in trying to have any discourse with ISIS, but there sometimes seems to be a weird culture in our country wherein it's politically unacceptable to even suggest talking with one country/organisation that commits atrocities, but it's perfectly fine to be allies with others which have done awful shit themselves.
Click to expand...
But I still don't understand how having made plenty of dodgy foreign policy decisions in terms of who we've allied with in the name of stability, means it's then a good idea to come to an understanding with an organisation that's more vile than the rest of them combined and would still consider us its sworn enemy. What are we going to offer the guys that beheaded the 80-year-old archaeologist for refusing to tell them where he'd hidden ancient artefacts to prevent them being destroyed? "Here you are lads, you've got your statues now calm down a bit, eh?" These aren't sane, rational individuals.
 
saivet said:
:lol: what a nonce. Her twitter feed will be my bed time reading also. Also, and username of @LizforLeader. Good grief.
Click to expand...
In the interests of impartiality - https://twitter.com/Corbyn4Leader https://twitter.com/Andy4Leader

Liz gets plus points for at least spelling "for".

EDIT - Oh GOD, in possibly my favourite and perfect Burnham moment of this campaign, I just realised his "Andy4Leader" account is actually following more people than he has followers :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.