Chat Forum
It is currently Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:47 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6519 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141 ... 163  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 6:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53111
Insane_Homer wrote:
David Mitchell in the Guardian this weekend

Quote:
Don’t get me wrong: if there was an election tomorrow, I’d probably still vote for what most people reckon is the more antisemitic of the two main parties, in preference to the one most people reckon is the more racist in other ways. That feels like the public-spirited thing to do: to vote for the ones being racist to the fewest people. Though, of course, antisemites would be being racist to many more people if it weren’t for the success that that prejudice has enjoyed in recent history



"Most people reckon" is a f ucking obscenity though , dirty c unt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 10:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5742
Location: LOL! WISDOM!
SaintK wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
No, I didn't say anything about that, I was just backing up another poster asking for the rabid Bimbo to quote an anti-semitic comment uttered by Corbyn.




Indeed you'd have to be "rabid" to think Corbyn has a problem with anti semitism.

Two years ago shameless chakrabati was employed to investigate allegation about the party under Corbyn having an issue.

Two years later even Jon Lansman suggests Jezza should attend "anti semetic " training courses, Jezza himself admits there's a problem and 80 of his own MP's publically protest on the issue on Parliament square.

But I'm rabid. ? :lol: , get a grip, your man has just been caught out with his revolting views and "friends" again , but nothing to see here is the response, a defence of checking if he's actually said anything "anti semetic" rather than see the actual problem.

Good on you guys. Blame "rabid" posters rather than look at the slightly more obvious problems.

Not quite what Lansman suggested.
Quote:
Momentum founder Jon Lansman suggested that members of Labour’s ruling national executive committee, including Jeremy Cobryn, should attend a training course on “unconscious bias”. He said:
Unfortunately in the Labour party it seems, and maybe elsewhere, many people do not seem to be willing to confront this unconscious bias in themselves. We need a big programme of education and training to make people aware of that.
He said that “all people who participate in making decisions about the cases” should go on a course. He went on
People use words like Zionism without understanding how those words are seen by some people. Some people use the word Zionism to mean the politics of Benjamin Netanyahu but most Jews in Britain see Zionism as meaning support for a state of Israel living in peace and security, rather than a discrete ideology.


Lansman certainly follows the script.

Goebbels 19th principle: Propaganda cannot immediately affect strong counter-tendencies; instead it must offer some form of action or diversion, or both.

In this case diversion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 10:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 35322
Location: For Wales the Welsh and Leinster
message #2527204 wrote:
SaintK wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
No, I didn't say anything about that, I was just backing up another poster asking for the rabid Bimbo to quote an anti-semitic comment uttered by Corbyn.




Indeed you'd have to be "rabid" to think Corbyn has a problem with anti semitism.

Two years ago shameless chakrabati was employed to investigate allegation about the party under Corbyn having an issue.

Two years later even Jon Lansman suggests Jezza should attend "anti semetic " training courses, Jezza himself admits there's a problem and 80 of his own MP's publically protest on the issue on Parliament square.

But I'm rabid. ? :lol: , get a grip, your man has just been caught out with his revolting views and "friends" again , but nothing to see here is the response, a defence of checking if he's actually said anything "anti semetic" rather than see the actual problem.

Good on you guys. Blame "rabid" posters rather than look at the slightly more obvious problems.

Not quite what Lansman suggested.
Quote:
Momentum founder Jon Lansman suggested that members of Labour’s ruling national executive committee, including Jeremy Cobryn, should attend a training course on “unconscious bias”. He said:
Unfortunately in the Labour party it seems, and maybe elsewhere, many people do not seem to be willing to confront this unconscious bias in themselves. We need a big programme of education and training to make people aware of that.
He said that “all people who participate in making decisions about the cases” should go on a course. He went on
People use words like Zionism without understanding how those words are seen by some people. Some people use the word Zionism to mean the politics of Benjamin Netanyahu but most Jews in Britain see Zionism as meaning support for a state of Israel living in peace and security, rather than a discrete ideology.


Lansman certainly follows the script.

Goebbels 19th principle: Propaganda cannot immediately affect strong counter-tendencies; instead it must offer some form of action or diversion, or both.

In this case diversion.

Pmsl, really ffs.
You are joking aren't you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 10:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5742
Location: LOL! WISDOM!
a bit maybe ..

well, I guess a lot.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21281
c69 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
SaintK wrote:
Keith wrote:
Sefton wrote:
The Sunday Times has really gone to town on the true believer Facebook pages finding a couple of thousand racist, mysoginistic and anti-Semitic comments.

Face facts, the labour party and its supporters are toxic.

Really! All of them?


And all the Tory party are as pure as distilled water.

At the moment I feel sorry for Labour centralists, though they may be happy this is finally a way to get on the front foot attacking Corbyn's nutty supporters who have been attacking them for ages. Though I complained about the looney left way back in Blair and Brown's days when they were a small but mild influence and headed up b the likes of Harriet Harman's warped ideas on equality. Now it's the hard intolerant left.

There are a massive amount of traditional left wingers that hate Momentum and their tactics with venom.
They are trendy metropolitan scum and do not represent working class values at all.


Are they? I find Labour fractured into 3 right now:

1) Crazed hard left Momentum kinds. Who are also a bit trendy middle class metropolitan types pretenting to be hard done by at Glastonbury.
2) "Centralist" or centre-left sometimes trendy, middle class metropolitan types.
3) Traditional working class, often northern traditional Labour types. Despised by both of the above but entirely dependent on their vote


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5769
Insane_Homer wrote:
David Mitchell in the Guardian this weekend

Quote:
Don’t get me wrong: if there was an election tomorrow, I’d probably still vote for what most people reckon is the more antisemitic of the two main parties, in preference to the one most people reckon is the more racist in other ways. That feels like the public-spirited thing to do: to vote for the ones being racist to the fewest people. Though, of course, antisemites would be being racist to many more people if it weren’t for the success that that prejudice has enjoyed in recent history


The same obfuscation that allows born-again's to justify a vote for Trump will see Corbyn voted for despite the obvious antisemitism of the Labor party


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 12:28 am
Posts: 16573
_fatprop wrote:
Insane_Homer wrote:
David Mitchell in the Guardian this weekend

Quote:
Don’t get me wrong: if there was an election tomorrow, I’d probably still vote for what most people reckon is the more antisemitic of the two main parties, in preference to the one most people reckon is the more racist in other ways. That feels like the public-spirited thing to do: to vote for the ones being racist to the fewest people. Though, of course, antisemites would be being racist to many more people if it weren’t for the success that that prejudice has enjoyed in recent history


The same obfuscation that allows born-again's to justify a vote for Trump will see Corbyn voted for despite the obvious antisemitism of the Labor party

I mean, Boris Johnson is Home Sec. Should be voting Green anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21281
TheDocForgotHisLogon wrote:
So can anyone here quote an anti-Semitic statement from Jeremy Corbyn?


No,he's rather like that nice guy Father Fitzpatrick in Father Ted. Nice chap and all who just s happens that he and his partner have collected all the Nazi memorabilia over the years.

Asking for a anti-semetic statement from Corbyn is a strawman. No one has claimed he has said anything. What people are pointing to is the fact he ignores anti-semtism and fosters it in his politic umbrella pretending it's not there when he obviously knows it is, largely because he doesn't give much of a shite about it. That is the issue Corbyn is being criticised for.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21281
echo wrote:
Corbyn is not being accused individually of anti-semitism. He is being accused of demonstrating excessive tolerance of anti-semitism. Any leader that embraces the frothing extremes of the political spectrum and beds them in as their core will inevitably have to accept some guilt by association for their constituents' views. Trump is in the same boat. Except Trump is repulsive and Corbyn is merely "meh".


Well put.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21281
unseenwork wrote:
_fatprop wrote:
Insane_Homer wrote:
David Mitchell in the Guardian this weekend

Quote:
Don’t get me wrong: if there was an election tomorrow, I’d probably still vote for what most people reckon is the more antisemitic of the two main parties, in preference to the one most people reckon is the more racist in other ways. That feels like the public-spirited thing to do: to vote for the ones being racist to the fewest people. Though, of course, antisemites would be being racist to many more people if it weren’t for the success that that prejudice has enjoyed in recent history


The same obfuscation that allows born-again's to justify a vote for Trump will see Corbyn voted for despite the obvious antisemitism of the Labor party

I mean, Boris Johnson is Home Sec. Should be voting Green anyway.


Foreign sec you mean?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 8:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 4:55 pm
Posts: 4176
Location: God's own country
Insane_Homer wrote:
David Mitchell in the Guardian this weekend

Quote:
Don’t get me wrong: if there was an election tomorrow, I’d probably still vote for what most people reckon is the more antisemitic of the two main parties, in preference to the one most people reckon is the more racist in other ways. That feels like the public-spirited thing to do: to vote for the ones being racist to the fewest people. Though, of course, antisemites would be being racist to many more people if it weren’t for the success that that prejudice has enjoyed in recent history

What an awful article. It's all about how conservatives hate change and want to take us back to yesteryear whilst conveniently forgetting Corbyn's policy of "bring back the 70's". Not forgetting the "I've always voted labour and will continue to do so despite the fact the party is run by incompetents and anti-Semites" line. Typical lefty Guardian bollocks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 8:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20267
eldanielfire wrote:
unseenwork wrote:
_fatprop wrote:
Insane_Homer wrote:
David Mitchell in the Guardian this weekend

Quote:
Don’t get me wrong: if there was an election tomorrow, I’d probably still vote for what most people reckon is the more antisemitic of the two main parties, in preference to the one most people reckon is the more racist in other ways. That feels like the public-spirited thing to do: to vote for the ones being racist to the fewest people. Though, of course, antisemites would be being racist to many more people if it weren’t for the success that that prejudice has enjoyed in recent history


The same obfuscation that allows born-again's to justify a vote for Trump will see Corbyn voted for despite the obvious antisemitism of the Labor party

I mean, Boris Johnson is Home Sec. Should be voting Green anyway.


Foreign sec you mean?

Tbf, Boris himself seems unsure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:36 pm
Posts: 13663
Location: Above you chatting wisdom with Copper Jesus
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/jeremy-corbyn-passover-jewdas-good-news

Jezza spending Passover with Jews.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:04 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 8072
Plato'sCave wrote:


Jezza tries to mollify Jews that he has offended by spending time with Jews he hasn't offended who also go out if their way to offend the ones he has offended. It's a strange approach. I hope it works out for him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10794
Location: Coalfalls
HurricaneWasp wrote:
Frodder wrote:
HKCJ wrote:
Why does it not surprise me that Silver is a Corbyn loon/fan



What makes Corbyn a 'loon'?


His communist, terrorist supporting, open borders, anti-army, Pro-Palestine views make him an absolute plum. I don't understand why anyone would agree with anything he says.

Lets not forget that socialism is taking from those who've earned money, and giving it to those who haven't. Its is fundamentally flawed, and defies all common sense.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3095
:lol:

It's the '"Newspaper" Of the Year' that really makes it for me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:08 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5951
rather good

https://www.ft.com/content/825b2518-38b ... 31af407cc8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 6:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22291
Location: SOB>Todd
Looking forward to Jeremy's unequivocal condemnation of the chemical weapons attack.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 6:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53111
Floppykid wrote:
Looking forward to Jeremy's unequivocal condemnation of the chemical weapons attack.



He will condem ALL chemical weapon attacks and mention the palastinians ....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 6:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22291
Location: SOB>Todd
bimboman wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
Looking forward to Jeremy's unequivocal condemnation of the chemical weapons attack.



He will condem ALL chemical weapon attacks and mention the palastinians ....

He has to leave it a week or so first I'd say.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22291
Location: SOB>Todd
bimboman wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
Looking forward to Jeremy's unequivocal condemnation of the chemical weapons attack.



He will condem ALL chemical weapon attacks and mention the palastinians ....

https://twitter.com/labourpress/status/ ... 7896595456

Not far off, terrible statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11249
Floppykid wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
Looking forward to Jeremy's unequivocal condemnation of the chemical weapons attack.



He will condem ALL chemical weapon attacks and mention the palastinians ....

https://twitter.com/labourpress/status/ ... 7896595456

Not far off, terrible statement.

That's grim. :(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13497
Location: South Oxfordshire
Wendigo7 wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
Looking forward to Jeremy's unequivocal condemnation of the chemical weapons attack.



He will condem ALL chemical weapon attacks and mention the palastinians ....

https://twitter.com/labourpress/status/ ... 7896595456

Not far off, terrible statement.

That's grim. :(


Holy shit - someone senior in the Labour party approved that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:16 am
Posts: 1873
Location: I raro i te maunga
Wtf is wrong with it, exactly?


Last edited by Thai guy on Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11249
If the Labour party didn't have any identity politics and just focused on increasing wages and helping people/infrastructure, they would rout the tories right now.

I'm a natural tory voter and tbh I'd vote for it and Labour if they did, but all these ridiculous situations and statements made and Corbyn's anti-UK/heavy pacifist stance to everything is ridiculous. How does he have such a following?

He's genuinely a baffling phenomenon. :| :(


Last edited by Wendigo7 on Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11249
Thai guy wrote:
Wtf is wrong with it, exactly?

It's a load of rubbish.

It's bureaucracy but recognising nothing and waiting for a conclusion except for seeing 7 years of assad using chemical weapons on his own people. I loathe what happened in Libya like most but if there was a good reason to help a country who largely can't help themselves and stop Assad, this would be it and you'd expect a man who says he's "for the many, not the few" to be on our side. In this case he's for a few... ie. Assad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3983
Location: Monmouthshire
Saint wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
Looking forward to Jeremy's unequivocal condemnation of the chemical weapons attack.



He will condem ALL chemical weapon attacks and mention the palastinians ....

https://twitter.com/labourpress/status/ ... 7896595456

Not far off, terrible statement.

That's grim. :(


Holy shit - someone senior in the Labour party approved that?


Can one of you please detail your objections to statement?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 35322
Location: For Wales the Welsh and Leinster
Wendigo7 wrote:
Thai guy wrote:
Wtf is wrong with it, exactly?

It's a load of rubbish.

It's bureaucracy but recognising nothing and waiting for a conclusion except for seeing 7 years of assad using chemical weapons on his own people. I loathe what happened in Libya like most but if there was a good reason to help a country who largely can't help themselves and stop Assad, this would be it and you'd expect a man who says he's "for the many, not the few" to be on our side. In this case he's for a few... ie. Assad.

Why do you believe from that statement he is supporting Assad?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22291
Location: SOB>Todd
:uhoh:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:26 pm
Posts: 102
c69 wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
Thai guy wrote:
Wtf is wrong with it, exactly?

It's a load of rubbish.

It's bureaucracy but recognising nothing and waiting for a conclusion except for seeing 7 years of assad using chemical weapons on his own people. I loathe what happened in Libya like most but if there was a good reason to help a country who largely can't help themselves and stop Assad, this would be it and you'd expect a man who says he's "for the many, not the few" to be on our side. In this case he's for a few... ie. Assad.

Why do you believe from that statement he is supporting Assad?




Assad is in Putin's pocket. Who do you think Corbyn would side with?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 35322
Location: For Wales the Welsh and Leinster
Pruim wrote:
c69 wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
Thai guy wrote:
Wtf is wrong with it, exactly?

It's a load of rubbish.

It's bureaucracy but recognising nothing and waiting for a conclusion except for seeing 7 years of assad using chemical weapons on his own people. I loathe what happened in Libya like most but if there was a good reason to help a country who largely can't help themselves and stop Assad, this would be it and you'd expect a man who says he's "for the many, not the few" to be on our side. In this case he's for a few... ie. Assad.

Why do you believe from that statement he is supporting Assad?




Assad is in Putin's pocket. Who do you think Corbyn would side with?

Just asking Wendigo7 a question about his assessment of the statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11249
c69 wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
Thai guy wrote:
Wtf is wrong with it, exactly?

It's a load of rubbish.

It's bureaucracy but recognising nothing and waiting for a conclusion except for seeing 7 years of assad using chemical weapons on his own people. I loathe what happened in Libya like most but if there was a good reason to help a country who largely can't help themselves and stop Assad, this would be it and you'd expect a man who says he's "for the many, not the few" to be on our side. In this case he's for a few... ie. Assad.

Why do you believe from that statement he is supporting Assad?

The attacks have historically only ever been one way and this attack was in his rivals main area. If he thought by giving a neutral statement was the correct thing to do, that's stupidly naive. It's the same with the russian issue, he initially didn't want to give an answer, he stayed neutral (despite heavy evidence to the quandary) which was also stupid. It can also lead to a link between the 2. Assad and Putin are fairly well known in supporting each other, Corbyn not decrying/coming out against either of them despite basically all evidence pointing to them paints a picture that he's slightly supportive* of them.

*I don't believe he's that naive to give the same answer twice, he knew the history of assad and putin and yet still gave a neutral answer which personally for me raises alot of questions on where he stands etc. I don't believe he's that into bureaucracy, it's just a guise and a sly dig at our own government and their stance in previous wars and using it in this one etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:16 am
Posts: 1873
Location: I raro i te maunga
c69 wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
Thai guy wrote:
Wtf is wrong with it, exactly?

It's a load of rubbish.

It's bureaucracy but recognising nothing and waiting for a conclusion except for seeing 7 years of assad using chemical weapons on his own people. I loathe what happened in Libya like most but if there was a good reason to help a country who largely can't help themselves and stop Assad, this would be it and you'd expect a man who says he's "for the many, not the few" to be on our side. In this case he's for a few... ie. Assad.

Why do you believe from that statement he is supporting Assad?
Exactly. Zero evidence of that. Tories are obsessed with seeing things in Corbyn which simply aren't there. Bendigo repeatedly calls that statement and others neutral yet claims Corbyn is "for Assad". :?


Last edited by Thai guy on Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:26 pm
Posts: 102
Thai guy wrote:
Zero evidence of that. Tories are obsessed with seeing things in Corbyn which simply aren't there.



Labour/Momentum describes Assad opposition as 'Jihadists'.

:roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3983
Location: Monmouthshire
Wendigo7 wrote:
c69 wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
Thai guy wrote:
Wtf is wrong with it, exactly?

It's a load of rubbish.

It's bureaucracy but recognising nothing and waiting for a conclusion except for seeing 7 years of assad using chemical weapons on his own people. I loathe what happened in Libya like most but if there was a good reason to help a country who largely can't help themselves and stop Assad, this would be it and you'd expect a man who says he's "for the many, not the few" to be on our side. In this case he's for a few... ie. Assad.

Why do you believe from that statement he is supporting Assad?

The attacks have historically only ever been one way and this attack was in his rivals main area. If he thought by giving a neutral statement was the correct thing to do, that's stupidly naive. It's the same with the russian issue, he initially didn't want to give an answer, he stayed neutral (despite heavy evidence to the quandary) which was also stupid. It can also lead to a link between the 2. Assad and Putin are fairly well known in supporting each other, Corbyn not decrying/coming out against either of them despite basically all evidence pointing to them paints a picture that he's slightly supportive* of them.

*I don't believe he's that naive to give the same answer twice, he knew the history of assad and putin and yet still gave a neutral answer which personally for me raises alot of questions on where he stands etc.


What action would you suggest? More air raids? ground invasion? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya has understandably made us cautious with good reason

Not sure how he supports Assad by stating whether by Assad or Jihadist militias (Isis have also been caught with chemical weapons). As for international proxies i think everyone knows Russia is involved but so are Iran, Turkey (certainly against Kurdish forces), Saudi Arabia are also knee deep in blood again (still dropping clusterbombs in yemen?) with their continual proxy wars with Iran. There really isn't a good or bad side ala starwars just varying levels of awful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:16 am
Posts: 1873
Location: I raro i te maunga
Pruim wrote:
Thai guy wrote:
Zero evidence of that. Tories are obsessed with seeing things in Corbyn which simply aren't there.



Labour/Momentum describes Assad opposition as 'Jihadists'.

:roll:
Read it again. That is not what the statement said.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:26 pm
Posts: 102
Thai guy wrote:
Pruim wrote:
Thai guy wrote:
Zero evidence of that. Tories are obsessed with seeing things in Corbyn which simply aren't there.



Labour/Momentum describes Assad opposition as 'Jihadists'.

:roll:
Read it again. That is not what the statement said.




:roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:16 am
Posts: 1873
Location: I raro i te maunga
Pruim wrote:
Thai guy wrote:
Pruim wrote:
Thai guy wrote:
Zero evidence of that. Tories are obsessed with seeing things in Corbyn which simply aren't there.



Labour/Momentum describes Assad opposition as 'Jihadists'.

:roll:
Read it again. That is not what the statement said.




:roll:
Or don't. Whatever.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 35322
Location: For Wales the Welsh and Leinster
Petej wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
c69 wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
Thai guy wrote:
Wtf is wrong with it, exactly?

It's a load of rubbish.

It's bureaucracy but recognising nothing and waiting for a conclusion except for seeing 7 years of assad using chemical weapons on his own people. I loathe what happened in Libya like most but if there was a good reason to help a country who largely can't help themselves and stop Assad, this would be it and you'd expect a man who says he's "for the many, not the few" to be on our side. In this case he's for a few... ie. Assad.

Why do you believe from that statement he is supporting Assad?

The attacks have historically only ever been one way and this attack was in his rivals main area. If he thought by giving a neutral statement was the correct thing to do, that's stupidly naive. It's the same with the russian issue, he initially didn't want to give an answer, he stayed neutral (despite heavy evidence to the quandary) which was also stupid. It can also lead to a link between the 2. Assad and Putin are fairly well known in supporting each other, Corbyn not decrying/coming out against either of them despite basically all evidence pointing to them paints a picture that he's slightly supportive* of them.

*I don't believe he's that naive to give the same answer twice, he knew the history of assad and putin and yet still gave a neutral answer which personally for me raises alot of questions on where he stands etc.


What action would you suggest? More air raids? ground invasion? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya has understandably made us cautious with good reason

Not sure how he supports Assad by stating whether by Assad or Jihadist militias (Isis have also been caught with chemical weapons). As for international proxies i think everyone knows Russia is involved but so are Iran, Turkey (certainly against Kurdish forces), Saudi Arabia are also knee deep in blood again (still dropping clusterbombs in yemen?) with their continual proxy wars with Iran. There really isn't a good or bad side ala starwars just varying levels of awful.

Good Post.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11249
Petej wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
c69 wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
Thai guy wrote:
Wtf is wrong with it, exactly?

It's a load of rubbish.

It's bureaucracy but recognising nothing and waiting for a conclusion except for seeing 7 years of assad using chemical weapons on his own people. I loathe what happened in Libya like most but if there was a good reason to help a country who largely can't help themselves and stop Assad, this would be it and you'd expect a man who says he's "for the many, not the few" to be on our side. In this case he's for a few... ie. Assad.

Why do you believe from that statement he is supporting Assad?

The attacks have historically only ever been one way and this attack was in his rivals main area. If he thought by giving a neutral statement was the correct thing to do, that's stupidly naive. It's the same with the russian issue, he initially didn't want to give an answer, he stayed neutral (despite heavy evidence to the quandary) which was also stupid. It can also lead to a link between the 2. Assad and Putin are fairly well known in supporting each other, Corbyn not decrying/coming out against either of them despite basically all evidence pointing to them paints a picture that he's slightly supportive* of them.

*I don't believe he's that naive to give the same answer twice, he knew the history of assad and putin and yet still gave a neutral answer which personally for me raises alot of questions on where he stands etc.


What action would you suggest? More air raids? ground invasion? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya has understandably made us cautious with good reason

Not sure how he supports Assad by stating whether by Assad or Jihadist militias (Isis have also been caught with chemical weapons). As for international proxies i think everyone knows Russia is involved but so are Iran, Turkey (certainly against Kurdish forces), Saudi Arabia are also knee deep in blood again (still dropping clusterbombs in yemen?) with their continual proxy wars with Iran. There really isn't a good or bad side ala starwars just varying levels of awful.

Well put and good comeback Petej. We're caught in a rock and a hard place though. We... the west, whichever you prefer, have the resources to resolve the crisis in Syria but it probably will end up as a war pretty much regardless. Staying out doesn't help and the issue is if we don't do something, we will look weak. History isn't on our side but doing nothing isn't on our side either.

That being said, the poor media coverage and lack of funding the military has received in the last decade probably puts paid to any military acts. Really need them to gain more of a positive image and more money put into expanding the military back to a respectable level.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6519 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141 ... 163  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: akann, Bayern, Bing [Bot], BokJock, Da iawn diolch, Derwyn, de_Selby, easyray, Edinburgh01, EverReady, Gazzamonster, Google Adsense [Bot], Kanbei, KnuckleDragger, koroke hangareka, Leffe, Lobby, Mad-Scientist, ManInTheBar, Mr Fedora, nardol, obelixtim, OomPB, PCPhil, P in VG, Plastic Sarrie, Podge, PornDog, Rossco, shabadoo, Theflier, zzzz and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group