Our Lord, J.C.

[Idaho]

That same year, he said in Socialist Campaign Group News: “The aim of the war machine of the United States is to maintain a world order dominated by the banks and multinational companies of Europe and North America.”

The Telegraph posts this as proof Corbyn is crazy. Lol.

[Greyblades]

He thinks america gives a shit about european companies and banks, how can you not say he's crazy?!

[Idaho]

He thinks america give's a shit about european companies and banks, how can you not say he's crazy?!

America's what doesn't care about what? I don't follow.

[Greyblades]

Bloody autocorrect. Fixd

[InsaneApache]

LOL

[Beskar]

[Greyblades]

Wow, I cant believe how little I care about political mud slinging, It's almost as little as the amount of answers my questions on this thread have garnered.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Point undermined by title - everything Cameron said can be supported by other Corbyn quotes.

Security-threatening: Wants to cancel Trident, believes Russia is largely benign.

Terrorist-Sympathising: Refuses to condemn the IRA, willing to share a platform with anti-Jewish Middle Eastern Activists with links to terrorism.

British-Hating: For a given value of "British" there is an orgy of evidence but generally Corbyn is very much a "white apologiser" the sort of person who would use tax-payer money to make reparations to Caribbean and African countries.

Nor did Cameron say that Corbyn doesn't think 9/11 was a tragedy, he merely said that the killing of Bin Laden was not.

Frankly, I agree, arrest may have been preferable (I'm in two minds on it) but the man was a monster and he's dead - his killing is far from tragic.

[Beskar]

Point undermined by title - everything Cameron said can be supported by other Corbyn quotes.

Those are basically media spin and further political mud-slinging. (Other than removing Trident, because he does support that.)

But lets look at your two main points:

IRA: He has condemned the use of violence by the IRA, saying that this should be done peacefully but he hasn't condemned the group themselves because without the violence part, is Irish nationalism really such a terrible thing to condemn? Only important thing has been discussed.

He has said that the Peace process should involve Hamas because it wouldn't work without their participation in the talks, because if they agree to them, then they will stop their violence. This is common sense stuff. I put it this way: I am going to do an arrangement with Greyblades where we use your house for Gaming on Saturday nights, lets see how successful we are without your involvement.

[Idaho]

Point undermined by title - everything Cameron said can be supported by other Corbyn quotes.

Security-threatening: Wants to cancel Trident, believes Russia is largely benign.

Terrorist-Sympathising: Refuses to condemn the IRA, willing to share a platform with anti-Jewish Middle Eastern Activists with links to terrorism.

British-Hating: For a given value of "British" there is an orgy of evidence but generally Corbyn is very much a "white apologiser" the sort of person who would use tax-payer money to make reparations to Caribbean and African countries.

Nor did Cameron say that Corbyn doesn't think 9/11 was a tragedy, he merely said that the killing of Bin Laden was not.

Frankly, I agree, arrest may have been preferable (I'm in two minds on it) but the man was a monster and he's dead - his killing is far from tragic.

I find it amazing how we share the same planet and species... Yet I find your mindset so alien and repugnant. You perpetuate untruths because they fit in with your prior beliefs.

Calling Corbyn anti British is just so... So... Tory. It presupposes a static and wholey owned notion of Britishness. It flies in the face of the fact that Corbyn has been a tireless and hardworking champion of British people. It fails to see detail and subtleties with regard to Corbyn's view on Russia and ignores his work with a variety of groups and people over a lifetime.

[Beskar]

I think this article is rather apt.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a6686901.html

At least JC hasn't gone to extremes to secure the rural vote like David Cameron did.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I find it amazing how we share the same planet and species... Yet I find your mindset so alien and repugnant. You perpetuate untruths because they fit in with your prior beliefs.

Calling Corbyn anti British is just so... So... Tory. It presupposes a static and wholey owned notion of Britishness. It flies in the face of the fact that Corbyn has been a tireless and hardworking champion of British people. It fails to see detail and subtleties with regard to Corbyn's view on Russia and ignores his work with a variety of groups and people over a lifetime.

You completely missed the bit where I said "for a certain value of British", or perhaps it just doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions of who I am.

Corbyn is a Republican who joined the Privy Council but failed to actually meet the Queen because he was "busy" - just another example of how he is "British-hating", from a certain perspective. This is, at his core, a man who openly despises parts of the British political settlement and British traditions, you are entitled to think those particular traditions are unimportant but others are equally entitled to be offended.

Cameron's speech can be miss-interpreted, yes, it is even written to be misinterpreted, which betrays a certain cynicism, but at the same time Cameron's opponents have misinterpreted it in exactly the same way as some of the people in that conference hall did - and were likely meant to.

What Cameron ACTUALLY said was that Bin Laden's death was not a tragedy and it was not comparable to 9/11 - Corbyn has said it was a tragedy and made the direct comparison to 9/11.

Beskar then posted something titled "Lies vs Laws" when, in fact, Cameron never lied.

So - how dare you call me "repugnant" for seeing Corbyn as anti-British, given that you have so little regard for our institutions that you refuse to vote OR run for office. Presumably you agree with the Shadow Chancellor and "Insurrection" otherwise known as "direct action" is a legitimate alternative to the ballot box in this country.

I surely hope not.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Those are basically media spin and further political mud-slinging. (Other than removing Trident, because he does support that.)

But lets look at your two main points:

IRA: He has condemned the use of violence by the IRA, saying that this should be done peacefully but he hasn't condemned the group themselves because without the violence part, is Irish nationalism really such a terrible thing to condemn? Only important thing has been discussed.

He has said that the Peace process should involve Hamas because it wouldn't work without their participation in the talks, because if they agree to them, then they will stop their violence. This is common sense stuff. I put it this way: I am going to do an arrangement with Greyblades where we use your house for Gaming on Saturday nights, lets see how successful we are without your involvement.

We should talk about Cameron's statement being "lies" first. At the end of the day it's not actually relevant in what context Corbyn called Bin Laden's death a "tragedy" because for many people, including myself, his death was necessary, even assuming his capture had been possible and we'd actually had evidence that would stand up in a Court of Law his final circumstances would have seen him living much as he had in Pakistan, doubtless after the Hague had convicted him he would have been sent to a European prison where he would have had exercise, been well fed, had access to reading material and at least written correspondence with the outside world, and his incarceration might actually have driven his followers to new terrors in an effort to secure his release.

Now lets talk about Hamas: - they have vowed to destroy Israel, and therefore cannot be negotiated with. I was, however, referring to that one anti-Semitic activist who described Corbyn as a "political friend" or some such after having shared a platform with him. Corbyn said he did not know the man, did not support his views and had not shared a platform with him - only to subsequently admit he HAD shared a platform with him but had completely forgotten about it until reminded by his campaign team.

Now, I ask you, if David Cameron had said that would ANYONE accept it? No, they would not. Jeremy is just a well meaning old duffer though - so it's ok if he forgot.

the IRA: Prior to his election he refused to say that he condemned the actions of the IRA, he just said that violence was wrong - he then went on to condemn the actions of the BRITISH ARMY but still would not condemn the actions of the IRA - then the line cut. Again, he was allowed to get away with that when anyone else would be tarred and feathered. Also - this is another episode that can go in the "British-hating" bag, and I'm inclined to think it should - because he's happier to condemn British soldiers than Irish terrorists.

Now, the question is do you know me well enough to know these things were said, or are you going to make me actually pull the quotes?

P.S. The IRA are NOT Irish nationalism and to suggest such is to spit on the peaceful protesters who were being hounded by Protestants back in the 1970's. People forget that Operation Banner began as an effort to protect Catholics, but then the IRA called it an "invasion" and declared war.

[Beskar]

We should talk about Cameron's statement being "lies" first.

David Camerons speech is a complete misrepresentation of what JC said. You could argue it is not technically a lie, but it is taking a snippet completely out of context and misrepresenting the fact JC was on about the Rule of Law and stooped ourselves into state-sanctioned murder and the opportunity of trial wasn't even considered. Not going to go into a debate about how luxurious you find prison life to be, no matter how malleable your view of the ten commandments are in this circumstance.

Now, I ask you, if David Cameron had said that would ANYONE accept it? No, they would not. Jeremy is just a well meaning old duffer though - so it's ok if he forgot.

Jeremy makes an honest mistake of not remembering sharing a platform with a bunch of people who are most likely strangers, and it is brought up repeatedly. In his circumstances, is understandable, unlike certain Prime Minister and Miss Piggy. (Funnily enough, not heard you bring that up)

Again, he was allowed to get away with that when anyone else would be tarred and feathered.

He was tarred and feathered. Saw the headlines? He is constantly attacked by the media and it reeks of desperation, worse than how it is Farage and that is saying something.

[Montmorency]

Now lets talk about Hamas: - they have vowed to destroy Israel, and therefore cannot be negotiated with.

Aside from all the times that various Western and Israeli governments have found it useful to negotiate with them...

[Brenus]

@ PVC: Cameron said in his conference that the Death of Bin Laden was a tragedy. Yes he did. Shame on him, as he support terrorism in saying this… Ohh, I forget the context, well so do you.

“he then went on to condemn the actions of the BRITISH ARMY but still would not condemn the actions of the IRA” Nope.He refused to follow the line of the interviewer singling out the IRA violence without speaking of the Provost and British Army violence, tactic always used by the British media, forgetting that the institutional violence was from the Protestant Irish as UVF (created in 1966, so before The Troubles -1969-, when the UVF started the killing of Catholic in 1966) and EDA, both organisations used violence. Shouldered then by the British Army when the UK decided to send the troops, which in my opinion, was a mistake as Army is not trained for this kind of things so Bloody Friday (1972) was just at the corner to happen.

“People forget that Operation Banner began as an effort to protect Catholics, but then the IRA called it an "invasion" and declared war.” That can be your point, not the one from the Catholic Irish who think that, after having been and treated as a British Colony, saw it as you describe it in your comment. Then, you admit that the Catholics needed protection: in a country ruled by UK?

From a buyer site (I suspect if not pro IRA, pro-independance): “Between 1968 and 1998, loyalist paramilitaries killed an estimated 864 civilians (most of them Catholic), compared with an estimated 728 civilians (most of them Protestant) killed by the IRA. Experts say loyalist groups have often acted out of religious hatred, while the IRA has more often targeted British security officers—killing more than 1,000 of them—in an effort to further its political goal of ejecting the British from Northern Ireland .”

So, next time, perhaps a independent journalist can perhaps ask the question: Do you condemn the violence in Ireland from IRA, UDA. UVF and the British Army, including SAS operations? Well Corbin did answer this one. BTW, Cameron never.

[Greyblades]

Now, the question is do you know me well enough to know these things were said, or are you going to make me actually pull the quotes?

I wish all of you would pull quotes as I am getting the impression everyone is just parroting biased sources at eachother.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

my point was, simply, that Corbyn's supports appear to believe he is beyond moral reproach yet even loyal Conservatives would look askance if Cameron cut the line after refusing to condemn the IRA or "forgot" he had shared a platform with an anti-Semitic Middle Eastern activist.

Plenty of people take the view that Bin Laden's death was no sort of tragedy and he got what he justly deserved. Corbyn would have preferred to see him on trial, fair enough, but he apparently doesn't want to see IRA commanders on trial.

Beskar's tone makes me think he's drunk the Corbynaid, as the Americans would say, and it seems many others have too.

[Montmorency]

Piecing together what I've read about his past statements and actions compared to his current (sometimes-evasive) statements, I think I understand where Corbyn is coming from.

There are many who would call the US bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc. a "tragedy", but who would nevertheless affirm their importance and refuse to condemn the United States for carrying them out.

Moreover, they would maintain that, while "regrettable" in some abstract sense, the bombings were legitimate and tolerable given the wider circumstances. perhaps in a typical rhetorical move they would deflect toward the 'unsavory' actions of the Nazi and Imperial governments.

Now here I get more speculative, but I suspect such an individual would elaborate that similar events (e.g. carpet bombing) in the present or future day would by default be outright-bad, unjustifiable, a "bad idea", and so on.


At any rate, I think this is analogous to the thrust of his position and accords well with his given ideology. On the other hand, the evasiveness is annoying, but not really anything exceptional when we consider that a centrist or center-right politician with large ambitions would skip around the point I made by analogy above.

[Idaho]

my point was, simply, that Corbyn's supports appear to believe he is beyond moral reproach yet even loyal Conservatives would look askance if Cameron cut the line after refusing to condemn the IRA or "forgot" he had shared a platform with an anti-Semitic Middle Eastern activist.

Plenty of people take the view that Bin Laden's death was no sort of tragedy and he got what he justly deserved. Corbyn would have preferred to see him on trial, fair enough, but he apparently doesn't want to see IRA commanders on trial.

Beskar's tone makes me think he's drunk the Corbynaid, as the Americans would say, and it seems many others have too.

You are contriving scandal by wilfully misinterpreting statements that Corbyn has made, and by taking an aggressive and partisan line on political positions that are both reasonable and adult. Whilst simultaneously ignoring great hypocrisy and injustice perpetrated by the Tories because it isn't championed by the right wing press.

Britain's actions in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq have been incompetent, murderous and disastrous. The only lettuce leaf of a defence is that it "could have been worse".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are contriving scandal by wilfully misinterpreting statements that Corbyn has made, and by taking an aggressive and partisan line on political positions that are both reasonable and adult. Whilst simultaneously ignoring great hypocrisy and injustice perpetrated by the Tories because it isn't championed by the right wing press.

Britain's actions in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq have been incompetent, murderous and disastrous. The only lettuce leaf of a defence is that it "could have been worse".

Well, you are willfully ignoring the balance of probabilities and treating Corbyn like he is "the only honest man in British politics" whilst simultaneously treating the Tories like they are cartoon villains. Refusing to condemn the IRA for its actions during the Troubles, of which it was the primary instigator, is inexplicable - but the interview Corbyn very clearly gave the impression that he was more sympathetic to the IRA than the British soldiers. Likewise, his choice to call Bin Laden's killing a "tragedy" was a poor one and could be said to be deeply insensitive to Bin Laden's victims.

As I said, British soldiers were initially deployed to protect Catholics from marauding Protestants, the fact is the IRA used this as a pretext to launch a 30-year terrorist campaign to try to overturn the result of an historic plebiscite which separated Ireland into Republican and Loyalist parts. Recently the IRA has woken up and as a result the NI Executive has fallen apart. It is in this context that Corbyn refuses to condemn them - and that is wrong.

Of the four wars you mentioned only Libya can be said to be substantially the responsibility of the Conservatives, having been inherited, whilst the House of Commons voted for Operations in Libya and initially voted against operation in Syria which, in fact, remain limited. Further, I would argue that "incompetent" and "murderous" are mutually exclusive in this context.

[Montmorency]

Refusing to condemn the IRA for its actions during the Troubles, of which it was the primary instigator, is inexplicable - but the interview Corbyn very clearly gave the impression that he was more sympathetic to the IRA than the British soldiers. Likewise, his choice to call Bin Laden's killing a "tragedy" was a poor one and could be said to be deeply insensitive to Bin Laden's victims.

Is it more explicable if placed in the context I juxtaposed?

[Brenus]

Clearly your political choice.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is it more explicable if placed in the context I juxtaposed?

No, I don't think sympathy for the IRA, or rather the PIRA, is at all explicable unless you're a Republican who hates the British - which comes back to Cameron's "Britain-hating" jibe.

Bear in mind this is the terrorist group who tried to assassinate Margaret Thatcher and actually did assassinate Lord Mountbatton.

To be clear, the Roman Catholics do have valid gripes with the Parliament of Northern Ireland and over Bloody Sunday that does not justify the PIRA campaign to unite Ireland by force, something which in the late 1960's I don't think the majority of Northern Irish wanted, and something they don't want today.

There were, and still are, peaceful Nationalist groups agitating for Catholic rights as well as political reform, they deverse sympathy for the way they were treated by the "loyalists" and the PIRA.

Anyway, we've gone massively off point -

Beskar posted something headed "lies vs laws" and all I sought to do was demonstrate that Cameron had not lied, at worst his speach was deliberately ambiguous but if you know Corbyn's actual remarks then I would say that Cameron's words gain extra rhetorical force because he makes the point of distinguishing 9/11 as a tragedy in opposition to Bin Laden death which was not.

Later people cut Cameron's speech to make it sound like he said Bin Laden's death was a tragedy, when in fact that is not what he meant - but it is what Corbyn meant. Corbyn meant that we should not be carrying out assassinations and his argument that we should have attempted to arrest Bin Laden prepossesses him not being executed.

Now, if Corbyn takes the position that all deaths, even the deaths of terrorists, are tragedies than, in theory, that is laudable but it is, per-definition, sympathy with terrorists, as is sympathy with the PIRA. As to the other points, I would not say Corbyn "hates Britain" exactly but I would say he is ashamed of Britain, possibly ashamed to be British because in his mind we are not a democracy and he has made numerous complaints about things our society does at home and our government does overseas.

The issue of security is, I think, indisputable - Corbyn is opposed to the UK retaining strategic weapons even as countries like Iran strive to acquire them and he has a dangerously naive view of Putin's Russia.

So Cameron was unfair to Corbyn, but that's politics and he certainly didn't lie - it's not as though he could have believed everyone wouldn't dig up the actual clip and provide the context for he attack on his opponent - this is the age of the internet.

Despite this someone made a poster headed "Lies vs Laws" and ended it with "nobody ever needs to know just one thing" when that is exactly what they were pushing - the uncomplicated idea that Cameron lies and Corbyn follows the law.

That's political spin, plain and simple, and it should not be allowed to pass without comment - I commented that Cameron's views can be defended and you all jump on me and Idaho calls me repugnant.

So, here's the thing - Corbyn's views can also be defended - I personally lean more towards Cameron's viewpoint but I'm not besotted with either.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Clearly your political choice.

I know you can type proper English, start using it instead of making yourself harder to understand with all these non-sequiters.

[Idaho]

You completely missed the bit where I said "for a certain value of British", or perhaps it just doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions of who I am.

Corbyn is a Republican who joined the Privy Council but failed to actually meet the Queen because he was "busy" - just another example of how he is "British-hating", from a certain perspective. This is, at his core, a man who openly despises parts of the British political settlement and British traditions, you are entitled to think those particular traditions are unimportant but others are equally entitled to be offended.

Cameron's speech can be miss-interpreted, yes, it is even written to be misinterpreted, which betrays a certain cynicism, but at the same time Cameron's opponents have misinterpreted it in exactly the same way as some of the people in that conference hall did - and were likely meant to.

What Cameron ACTUALLY said was that Bin Laden's death was not a tragedy and it was not comparable to 9/11 - Corbyn has said it was a tragedy and made the direct comparison to 9/11.

Beskar then posted something titled "Lies vs Laws" when, in fact, Cameron never lied.

So - how dare you call me "repugnant" for seeing Corbyn as anti-British, given that you have so little regard for our institutions that you refuse to vote OR run for office. Presumably you agree with the Shadow Chancellor and "Insurrection" otherwise known as "direct action" is a legitimate alternative to the ballot box in this country.

I surely hope not.

This country is a work in progress. It is a different place to what it was 10, 25, 50, 100 or 500 years ago. It will be different again in another 50 years. Conservatives believe that the country should be stuck in some half remembered/half made up past. I hope that it is totally different in 50 years. Unrecognisable even.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This country is a work in progress. It is a different place to what it was 10, 25, 50, 100 or 500 years ago. It will be different again in another 50 years. Conservatives believe that the country should be stuck in some half remembered/half made up past. I hope that it is totally different in 50 years. Unrecognisable even.

No, Conservative believe in the natural development of society, and sometimes in applying the breaks when change is traumatic - this has been the case since at least Disraeli. What Conservatives do not believe in is change for the sake of change. It's not quite fair to say that this is what the Left believes but I think it is fair to say they believe the country MUST ALWAYS change.

That's rather what you said.

I grew up in a small hamlet and went to school in a small town called Torrington, you may have been there. On balance it's a nice place but since the glove-making industry collapsed it's had very little going for it and this has got worse since the dairy closed and the meat-packing plant burned down. Even so, I don't think the down needs to change - it doesn't need 50 Muslim immigrant families transplanted in to upset the 99.9% white and nominally Christian population, for example, that would just make everyone unhappy - including the transplanted. What it could do with is some money pumped into the hospital and some form of local industry to give people jobs.

To suggest the country is unrecognisable in 50 years is to say that you want me to have no recognisable country to live in - I'll be 78 and if I can't still go to the pub for a decent pint of ale or go to the Cathedral for carols at Christmas what am I going to do as I slip into my dotage?

[Brenus]

"I know you can type proper English, start using it instead of making yourself harder to understand with all these non-sequiters." What did you fail to understand?

[Idaho]

No, Conservative believe in the natural development of society, and sometimes in applying the breaks when change is traumatic - this has been the case since at least Disraeli. What Conservatives do not believe in is change for the sake of change. It's not quite fair to say that this is what the Left believes but I think it is fair to say they believe the country MUST ALWAYS change.

That's rather what you said.

I grew up in a small hamlet and went to school in a small town called Torrington, you may have been there. On balance it's a nice place but since the glove-making industry collapsed it's had very little going for it and this has got worse since the dairy closed and the meat-packing plant burned down. Even so, I don't think the down needs to change - it doesn't need 50 Muslim immigrant families transplanted in to upset the 99.9% white and nominally Christian population, for example, that would just make everyone unhappy - including the transplanted. What it could do with is some money pumped into the hospital and some form of local industry to give people jobs.

To suggest the country is unrecognisable in 50 years is to say that you want me to have no recognisable country to live in - I'll be 78 and if I can't still go to the pub for a decent pint of ale or go to the Cathedral for carols at Christmas what am I going to do as I slip into my dotage?

It MUST always change. It is in the very nature of society to do so. Perhaps there have been times where a government had tried to hold society in stasis - Tokugawa shogunate maybe - but even that created a society vastly different to the one it started with. And societies held in stasis tend to have great pent up stresses that can produce catastrophic results - Iraq is a good example.

There is no reason why there would be an Islamic ghetto in Torrington (yes I do know it). As with all ukip support, the greatest anxiety about the influx of foreigners are in areas with the least incidence of such influxes. Places where new immigrants frequently come are largely relaxed about such things. Why is that?

[rory_20_uk]

It MUST always change. It is in the very nature of society to do so. Perhaps there have been times where a government had tried to hold society in stasis - Tokugawa shogunate maybe - but even that created a society vastly different to the one it started with. And societies held in stasis tend to have great pent up stresses that can produce catastrophic results - Iraq is a good example.

There is no reason why there would be an Islamic ghetto in Torrington (yes I do know it). As with all ukip support, the greatest anxiety about the influx of foreigners are in areas with the least incidence of such influxes. Places where new immigrants frequently come are largely relaxed about such things. Why is that?

Using Iraq as an example is inherently flawed as we do not know without the stasis the problems would not have occurred earlier - is it that the stasis that made them hate each other or their hatred was only kept in check by the stasis? I don't know, but given that Sunnis refer to Shi'ia as apostates doesn't bode well.

I have no problem with a system similar to Australia in place where the numbers and the quality are both assessed. I have no problem with economic migrants as long as we are clear when they are no longer required they return to origin - similar to expats elsewhere in the world.

I do have a problem when we have families in the UK who are British who view the UK as "the enemy" (heard described on the Right Wing BBC Radio 4).

The last case is when people don't want to integrate - a key part of change that both the hosts as well as the immigrants change and meld together and generally this occurs over time, and yes generally quite well.

Are we alone in thinking a massive influx of persons is not desirable? Erm, no - almost all countries on the planet share this outlook.