Berlin this time

[Husar]

I think you just proved his point.

Blatant lie.

The problem is that advocates of the most outrageous positions on the Left are in charge of the mainstream Left in Britain. List all the ridiculous positions that the fringes of the British Left have taken in the past, all the cosying up to terrorists and whatnot as long as they were anti-Anglo-America, and you have a list of friends of Jeremy Corbyn. And not just Corbyn, but also the current occupiers of the top jobs in the Shadow Cabinet. Out of the top four jobs in HM's opposition, only Thornberry (shadow Foreign Secretary) doesn't have that history, and probably only because she hasn't been in politics as long as the other three have. Appeasers and friends of Islamofascism? Seems an accurate description of the positions taken by Corbyn (Leader of opposition), McDonnell (shadow Chancellor) and Abbott (shadow Home Secretary).

Now you make this about Britain and Corbyn again.
As if all the references to crazy island politics in IA's terrible link weren't enough already.
Can't British people talk about anything without constantly drawing parallels to their own island?
No wonder you left the EU to be alone with yourselves. And then you blame Middle Easterners for inbreeding...

Is that offensive? Well, IA's link taught me that appeasement is not a viable tactic...
May also explain Corbyn's actions while we're at it.

[Pannonian]

Blatant lie.

Now you make this about Britain and Corbyn again.
As if all the references to crazy island politics in IA's terrible link weren't enough already.
Can't British people talk about anything without constantly drawing parallels to their own island?
No wonder you left the EU to be alone with yourselves. And then you blame Middle Easterners for inbreeding...

Is that offensive? Well, IA's link taught me that appeasement is not a viable tactic...
May also explain Corbyn's actions while we're at it.

The kind of appeasement that's offensive to most Britons is the kind that blames the host culture for not being accepting enough of the incoming culture, when the incoming culture are the ones acting. Eg. the Rotherham child abuse scandal where councillors feared being called racist if they drew attention to the network of Asian males. Not an unreasonable fear if you look at the professional offence takers. Go a bit further and look at groups like Stop the War, which are notorious for having been taken over by Islamists and Islamism sympathisers. These are the groups that the current Labour leadership travelled in for decades (there was a furore over a planned appearance at an SWP do a couple of months back, which was too far even for some of Corbyn's diehard supporters, but Corbyn went anyway). These are groups that take positions that are patently outrageous to the vast majority of British people. But they're the heart and soul of Labour's leadership. So to disclaim IA's article to argue that taking an outrageous position and claiming it to represent the Left in general is unfair. They do represent the British Left's mainstream leaders, at present.

See also the guy who accosted the British Jewish Labour MP with classic anti-semitic comments, at the launch of Labour's study on anti-semitism in Britain. Corbyn took his side of course, since he was a longtime friend and supporter of his. These "outrageous" people are friends of the leader of the mainstream Left, a man who, as his ministerial appointments show, values his friends above everything else.

[Husar]

So to disclaim IA's article to argue that taking an outrageous position and claiming it to represent the Left in general is unfair. They do represent the British Left's mainstream leaders, at present.

So it is merely completely misplaced in a discussion about this particular event and German politics?
Given that IA's article blamed Merkel in stark contradiction to the events as outlined in Beskar's article, I am now left to wonder why the article references the German attack at all if it is merely about British politics? Could have saved himself the embarassment.

I am not sure why an attack in Germany is brought into an article about how terrible British people are. It doesn't get better if the author gets basic facts wrong:

Only it wasn’t, it was all too comprehensible to those who predicted that her decision to open Germany’s borders was a monumental misjudgement. Incomprehensible are the blunders made by the German security services who had been tracking Anis Amri since March; incomprehensible are the German privacy laws that meant the media wasn’t able to show a photograph of Amri; incomprehensible were the words of a German journalist who tweeted that the best response to the massacre was ‘patience, empathy and humanity’.

First he talks about the troubles of appeasement and then he wishes for a German surveillance state and makes a completely misplaced statement about Angela Mekrle inviting all the foreigners. The perp entered Europe in 2011 and Germany a month before Angela Merkel "invited everyone". the attack on our privacy laws is completely unfounded and neither does he explain what he thinks the fault of German securiity services was. If he wants a Gestapo back that puts people in front of fake courts and executes them for talking the wrong way, then he should stop whining about Hitler and just say so.

[LittleGrizzly]

The other topics which Corbyn was mentioned in went quiet so this was seen as the best place to link it in...

Terrorism in Germany? Probably Corbyn's fault.

If you think about Corbyn has constantly opposed Western policy in the Middle East. The West's ME policies have been hugely successful, look what we have achieved. So any problems still existing in the Middle East are the fault of people like Corbyn...

It makes perfect sense to me.

I would like to offer a personal apology as a Corbyn supporter Husar, I'm clearly culpable.

[Montmorency]

To oppose a policy is not to convey a better one.

[Pannonian]

To oppose a policy is not to convey a better one.

Particularly as Corbyn has consistently appeared on the same platforms as those who have it in for the west. I'm not a fan of Israel, same as Corbyn. But I'm aware that the others are worse. Corbyn and his ilk work on the basis that, if Israel are bad, then those who oppose Israel must therefore be good. Hence his support of Islamists. Leftists everywhere should beware of the road taken by the British Left.

[LittleGrizzly]

His opposition of constant Western mistakes in the Middle East actually does convey another position.

Instead of supporting Israel and cheering them on enthusiastically he proposes we don't.

Instead of invading Iraq and turning the place into some kind of terrorist hellhole, he proposes we don't.

These are far better ideas, not invading Iraq is as much a policy as invading Iraq, just an infinitely better policy.

Pannonian again in your rush to dismiss Corbyn you've made a mistake, Corbyn ruled out talking to ISIS whilst New Labour candidate Smith said he would talk to them.

In fairness I think the New Labour guy was just saying what he thought might help him win, rather than any sensible well thought out policy, which Is probably why he was picked as the New Labour candidate!

Edit: Could we split this into a new topic or maybe just put these last few replies into the other topic regarding Corbyn, I feel a bit wrong ranting about new Labour on a topic about the Berlin attacks.

[Montmorency]

His opposition of constant Western mistakes in the Middle East actually does convey another position.

Instead of supporting Israel and cheering them on enthusiastically he proposes we don't.

Instead of invading Iraq and turning the place into some kind of terrorist hellhole, he proposes we don't.

These are far better ideas, not invading Iraq is as much a policy as invading Iraq, just an infinitely better policy.

Pannonian again in your rush to dismiss Corbyn you've made a mistake, Corbyn ruled out talking to ISIS whilst New Labour candidate Smith said he would talk to them.

In fairness I think the New Labour guy was just saying what he thought might help him win, rather than any sensible well thought out policy, which Is probably why he was picked as the New Labour candidate!

Edit: Could we split this into a new topic or maybe just put these last few replies into the other topic regarding Corbyn, I feel a bit wrong ranting about new Labour on a topic about the Berlin attacks.

I don't agree that the negations of current or past policies would count as better alternatives. It's worth pointing out that you don't think much of concrete American inaction in the matter of the recent UN resolution. This has wider significance for the uses of policy beyond the specific issues named. The contrapositive or negation of a bad policy is not a good policy, and those who criticize bad policies better have something else to present.