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

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.

a bit maybe ..

well, I guess a lot.

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

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.

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.

Well put.

Foreign sec you mean?

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.

Tbf, Boris himself seems unsure.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/jeremy-corbyn-passover-jewdas-good-news

Jezza spending Passover with Jews.

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.

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

rather good

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

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.

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

Not far off, terrible statement.

That's grim.

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

Wtf is wrong with it, exactly?

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.

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.

Can one of you please detail your objections to statement?

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.

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.

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".

Labour/Momentum describes Assad opposition as 'Jihadists'.

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.

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

Or don't. Whatever.

Good Post.

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.