Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

isn't it just an easy way to assert solidarity with the people - just by showing the flag of that country?

Personally I hate flags and I hate nationalism, but I'm not going to infer from the presence of the Syrian flag that John McDonnell is pro-Assad, that's ridiculous!
so you think flying the regime flag was showing solidarity with the Syrians who are fighting the regime? :confused:
 
I'm telling you what that flag means and what is behind the flying of it as you seemed unaware. I'm not saying that you support the assad regime. It doesn't mean what you think - that's all.

JM knows what it means as well. That's probably why he made sure it was not in his tweet of the pictures of the speech. But he knew when he made that speech and he could have asked for its removal. The london-labour-union left is riddled with these assad regime supporting stalinists and red-brown and conspiracy types.

You didn't say which flag that was. I've never seen that before.

If you have evidence, beyond this supposition, that JmD supports Assad then I'm happy to look at it. Pointing to him as standing next to a flag and drawing an inferrence is not evidence.

Which people?

The Syrian people.
 
You didn't say which flag that was. I've never seen that before.

If you have evidence, beyond this supposition, that JmD supports Assad then I'm happy to look at it. Pointing to him as standing next to a flag and drawing an inferrence is not evidence.



The Syrian people.
It's the flag of the FSA - if you've never seen it before that would go some way to explaining why you don't realise what flying the regime flag means politically.

What supposition that JM supports the assad regime? I said that he was happy to speak in front it despite knowing what it stands for. As it goes, i think his position on assad is better than most of the labour-left leadership - corbyn in particular.
 
Then you've made my point.
How so?

so you think flying the regime flag was showing solidarity with the Syrians who are fighting the regime? :confused:

No, I simply think that John is trying to show support for the victims of the civil war, particularly comrades he perhaps personally knows within trying to stay alive. I've seen nothing that compels me to think he supports Assad and I see no reason to join in a witch hunt. Nor do I particularly care to be labelled the bad guy for thinking better of someone than it appears others do.

If I'm wrong, then I'm happy to see the evidence. But I'll be damned if I'm going to be made the bad guy in this thread for making a perfectly reasonable statement.
 
It's the flag of the FSA - if you've never seen it before that would go some way to explaining why you don't realise what flying the regime flag means politically.

What supposition that JM supports the assad regime? I said that he was happy to speak in front it despite knowing what it stands for. As it goes, i think his position on assad is better than most of the labour-left leadership - corbyn in particular.
fair enough.
 
How so?



No, I simply think that John is trying to show support for the victims of the civil war, particularly comrades he perhaps personally knows within trying to stay alive. I've seen nothing that compels me to think he supports Assad and I see no reason to join in a witch hunt. Nor do I particularly care to be labelled the bad guy for thinking better of someone than it appears others do.

If I'm wrong, then I'm happy to see the evidence. But I'll be damned if I'm going to be made the bad guy in this thread for making a perfectly reasonable statement.
you don't stand under the flag of one side if you're trying to show support or sympathy for the victims of the war as a whole.
 
So?

I was invited to the House of Lords not so long ago.

I declined the invitation.
So? So what? If he was invited it means that they want him to speak. So he did. He probably had nothing to do with the flag display too.
 
So? So what? If he was invited it means that they want him to speak. So he did. He probably had nothing to do with the flag display too.
It was the annual mayday commemoration/march in london. The flags are supposed to represent the history celebration and future commitment to worker solidarity. Whether JM had anything to do with the flags pledging commitment to the exact opposite that were behind him when he delivered his speech or not he could have and should have asked for their removal before he spoke.
 
So? So what? If he was invited it means that they want him to speak. So he did. He probably had nothing to do with the flag display too.

He didn't have to accept.

He didn't have to speak with the Syrian and CPGB-ML flags framing him.

He didn't have to even attend the rally.

He chose to.
 
It was the annual mayday commemoration/march in london. The flags are supposed to represent the history celebration and future commitment to worker solidarity. Whether JM had anything to do with the flags pledging commitment to the exact opposite that were behind him when he delivered his speech or not he could have and should have asked for their removal before he spoke.

It's entirely possible that the organisers didn't know or don't believe this interpretation of the position of the Syrian flag. Maybe they should have, but i'm not prepared to throw the man under the bus because he didn't speak out.
 
It's entirely possible that the organisers didn't know or don't believe this interpretation of the position of the Syrian flag. Maybe they should have, but i'm not prepared to throw the man under the bus because he didn't speak out.
Every single organiser - and JM - knew exactly what that flag means and what it represents politically. And he chose to speak with it there. The purpose of it being there was to suggest a wider commitment on the part of what's left of the labor movement to what it represents. By allowing it to stand when he spoke JM helped further this agenda.

Who is talking of throwing him under the bus? Is that all that political criticism can be? Is that really it - full agreement or war to the death?
 
Every single organiser - and JM - knew exactly what that flag means and what it represents politically. And he chose to speak with it there. The purpose of it being there was to suggest a wider commitment on the part of what's left of the labor movement to what it represents. By allowing it to stand when he spoke JM helped further this agenda.

Who is talking of throwing him under the bus? Is that all that political criticism can be? Is that really it - full agreement or war to the death?
Of course not.
 
Well that puts paid to the notion that they were there to represent solidarity with the syrian people doesn't it - when JM attacks the flag and what it stands for!

As if, he didn't know or see anyway. Those people holding them are there to be visible and they make damn sure they are.
 
Back
Top Bottom