Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[mikey mikey]

The city of Aleppo is in the news. Most readers and viewers will be unaware that the majority of the population of Aleppo lives in the government-controlled western part of the city. That they suffer daily artillery bombardment from western-sponsored al-Qaida is not news. On 21 July, French and American bombers attacked a government village in Aleppo province, killing up to 125 civilians. This was reported on page 22 of the Guardian; there were no photographs.

The immediate aim is to destroy the government in Damascus, which, according to the most credible poll (YouGov Siraj), the majority of Syrians support, or at least look to for protection, regardless of the barbarism in its shadows.

Provoking nuclear war by media

From: To: Date: 2001-01-01 03:00 Subject: NEW IRAN AND SYRIA 2.DOC

Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel's leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN's Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that "the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran.... It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world...and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza." Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel's security, it would also ease Israel's understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly.

WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive

 

[The39thStep]

Do they agree with him on core principle, though?

• Full employment and an economy that works for all: based around a £500bn public investment via the planned national investment bank.

• A secure homes guarantee: building 1m new homes in five years, at least half of them council homes. Also rent controls and secure tenancies.

• Security at work: includes stronger employment rights, an end to zero hours contracts and mandatory collective bargaining for companies with 250 or more employees.

• Secure our NHS and social care: end health service privatisation and bring services into a “secure, publicly-provided NHS”.

• A national education service: includes universal public childcare, the “progressive restoration” of free education, and quality apprenticeships.

• Action to secure our environment: includes keeping to Paris climate agreement, and moving to a “low-carbon economy” and green industries, in part via national investment bank.

• Put the public back into our economy and services: includes renationalising railways and bringing private bus, leisure and sports facilities back into local government control.

• Cut income and wealth inequality: make a progressive tax system so highest earners are “fairly taxed”, shrink the gap between the highest and lowest paid.

• Action to secure an equal society: includes action to combat violence against women, as well as discrimination based on race, sexuality or disability, and defend the Human Rights Act.

• Peace and justice at the heart of foreign policy: aims to put conflict resolution and human rights “at the heart of foreign policy”

Unfortunately the elephant in the room is Brexit. The lib Dems are taking some of Labours Remain voters and UKIP the leavers.

 

[J Ed]

Unfortunately the elephant in the room is Brexit. The lib Dems are taking some of Labours Remain voters and UKIP the leavers.

Yes, this Third Way Brexiting strategy doesn't seem to be working for Labour. I have no idea what they could do instead at this point though.

 

[kebabking]

To be fair, its hard to see what else to see him as if he is going to make demands for air-drops over Aleppo.

Actually, the term you're looking for is 'imbecile'. On the other hand one of the normal bits inherent within 'warmongering' is that you'd quite like to win - the only people calling for air drops over Allepo are people who either don't understand what happens when a massively unstealthy, huge, slow and low flying aircraft traveling in a straight line meets a modern air defence system, or who don't care...

Tatchell is an idiot on this, but then so is Corbyn - Corbyn however wins because his idiocy is accompanied by a pretty unpleasant moral compass.

 

[Geri]

Peter Tatchell invades Jeremy Corbyn's stage to protest his 'lack of response' over Aleppo

Peter either didn't do his homework, or just didn't care.

Syria Solidarity UK invited Peter Tatchell to do this with them. He has done a lot of work with Syria solidarity groups.

 

[Mr Moose]

Actually, the term you're looking for is 'imbecile'. On the other hand one of the normal bits inherent within 'warmongering' is that you'd quite like to win - the only people calling for air drops over Allepo are people who either don't understand what happens when a massively unstealthy, huge, slow and low flying aircraft traveling in a straight line meets a modern air defence system, or who don't care...

Tatchell is an idiot on this, but then so is Corbyn - Corbyn however wins because his idiocy is accompanied by a pretty unpleasant moral compass.

Corbyn = unpleasant moral compass? How so?

I thought he was all moral compass, which in itself is a recipe for disaster in a road to hell/good intentions sort of way. But generally he appears a moral being.

 

[Dandred]

Fuck me, Jeremy looks useless now...

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Tatchell is an attention seeking bellend. He must have forgotten it's the tories in Government.

At least Corbyn handled it sensibly. Tatchell would probably be getting roughed up in a police van by thugs now if he'd tried it on Treesa.

 

[kebabking]

Corbyn = unpleasant moral compass? How so?

I thought he was all moral compass, which in itself is a recipe for disaster in a road to hell/good intentions sort of way. But generally he appears a moral being.

He appears to have something of a blindside when it comes to the less attractive foibles of those who - he believes - share his world view.

He, from what I can see, is simply unable to condemn the actions of those he considers on his side without playing whataboutary, and to equate them with the actions of those he opposes, even when the actions of those he supports, or sympathises with, massively outweighs whatever those he dislikes have done.

The obvious example is Syria - he will only condemn Assad and the Russians if he can condemn the Americans as well, and he explicitly equates their misdemeanours even when the Assad regime is probably responsible for the deaths of 400,000 Syrians and the Americans a tiny fraction of that.

He claims to be a man of peace who speaks to warring parties in an effort to bring about resolution - he'll talk to Hamas and call them 'friends' yet you wouldn't catch him talking to Likud and calling them 'friends', he'll have lunch with the Argentine Ambassador within a week of becoming Leader of the Labour party, yet a year later he's not met anyone from the Falkland Islands representative office in London. He'll meet with Sinn Fein while PIRA are blowing up NI and call them friends in the name of peace (and absolutely not because he supports them) - but did he meet people from the UDA or UVF and call them friends in the name of peace while they were slaughtering Catholics?

It's almost as if his definition of peace is a very much one sided affair, and the side he chooses to share a platform with - in the name of peace - is laughably predicable.

No doubt he is all about the moral compass - but the needle of that compass points in some very odd directions.

 

[Mr Moose]

Yes, he can be a bit of an old tankie, another hole below the waterline.

 

[mikey mikey]

Syria Solidarity UK invited Peter Tatchell to do this with them. He has done a lot of work with Syria solidarity groups.

SSUK were created by members of the British Socialist Workers Party (SWP): Mark Boothroyd, James Bloodworth, Razan Ghazzawi, Clay Claiborne, Kyle Orton and Paul Canning who had all, coincidentally, supported the NATO bombing of Libya. Now they are calling for the arming of "moderate rebels" who are, of course, nothing of the sort. They split with the British Stop the War Coalition when the latter opposed UK military intervention in Syria.

It should come as no surprise that Tatchel also supported the bombing of Libya.

Libya: Shami Chakrabarti and Peter Tatchell are at odds over Gaddafi

 

[butchersapron]

These people you mention are not members of the SWP (the first is a labour party member for example) and the SWP is not behind SSUK- the SWP position on Syria is pretty much identical to Corbyn's with a slightly less pronounced tendency to let Assad off the hook publicly. Where do you think the STWC who are pretty much openly pro-assad came from btw?Just about everything in that short paragraph is wrong. SSUK didn't come out of STWC, the people involved had been openly criticising STWC for years for their positions before February 2016 (that is, the constitution of the group, the vote on Syria was 3 month before that). You are spreading propaganda from very dodgy people - this one is taken direct from the disgraced loon tim anderson given it simply quotes his words without attribution - and then adds some untrue facts.

 

[mikey mikey]

No, I didn't.

Countering Peter Tatchell’s pro-war anti-war arguments on Syria
The strange advocacy of pro-war anti-war activist Peter Tatchell

 

[Geri]

Half of them are American, you idiot! I am in Syria Solidarity UK and I can assure you that only one of the people you mention (Mark Boothroyd) is a member, and he has just joined the Labour Party.

 

[butchersapron]

No, I didn't.

Countering Peter Tatchell’s pro-war anti-war arguments on Syria
The strange advocacy of pro-war anti-war activist Peter Tatchell

I just linked to where you copied the words of loon Tim Anderson then added a fistful of untrue facts:

SSUK were created by members of the British Socialist Workers Party (SWP): Mark Boothroyd, James Bloodworth, Razan Ghazzawi, Clay Claiborne, Kyle Orton and Paul Canning who had all, coincidentally, supported the NATO bombing of Libya. Now they are calling for the arming of "moderate rebels" who are, of course, nothing of the sort. They split with the British Stop the War Coalition when the latter opposed UK military intervention in Syria.

Spokesperson for the SSUK and SWP member Mark Boothroyd was joined by a number of his party comrades – including James Bloodworth, Razan Ghazzawi, Clay Claiborne, Kyle Orton and Paul Canning – in opposing my presentation at the conference. They had all backed the NATO bombing of Libya and now urge western arming of the al Qaeda linked groups and direct western intervention in Syria...the SSUK split from the British Stop the War Coalition, which they criticised for ‘opposing any UK military involvement’ in Syria

You really don't know what's going on here, the people you copied/listed, what role they play in SSUK if any, their political history and affiliations - or, equally importantly, the same of the people whose words you're uncritically parroting.

 

[butchersapron]

Apols for going on about Syria into this thread again btw - but correcting the narratives and the agendas behind them is pretty much all that's left.

 

[kebabking]

If I recall correctly, that nice Mr Corbyn was friends with that nice Mr Gaddafi when that nice Mr Gaddafi was the Lion of Africa, but that nice Mr Corbyn stopped being his friend when that nice Mr Blair and that nice Mr Gaddafi became friends - then when that nice Mr Cameron and that nice Mr Gaddafi stopped being friends that nice Mr Gaddafi and that nice Mr Corbyn became friends again.

Is anyone familiar with the work of Dave Spart in Private Eye..?

 

[butchersapron]

One of those dodgy types i mentioned above - note the rothschilds bit at the end . Easy enough to ignore the attempted smear in the title. There's also some disappointing comments below from some people who really should know better that it's not so easy to ignore. Is this bloke a known?

 

[mikey mikey]

Tatchell calling to arm "moderate rebels".

Long article makes for interesting reading.

The horrors of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya alone ought to be enough proof, if proof is actually needed, that western “intervention” is a failure (for the victims caught in the crossfire and trapped on the ground). Those calling for another “no fly zone”, as Abdulaziz Almashi and his friends on the radical left do, either have appalling amnesia, or else are acting in extremely bad faith.

Julie Burchill | wall of controversy

 

[butchersapron]

Jay Taber - from the same conspiracy sewer as Vanessa Beeley (substantial originator of defender of 'the white helmets are ISIS/AQ' thesis, which i expect will be given an airing soon) - friend and co-activist of fascists like Alain Soral and Holocaust deniers and Tony 'protocols' Gosling. Who i'm sure you are aware of.

 

[mikey mikey]

No, and I have argued for years against holocaust deniers and anti-semites using this very username.

 

[kebabking]

No, and I have argued for years against holocaust deniers and anti-semites using this very username.

With respect, given the profusion of such views within the sector of the left that supports Corbyn, you've not been particularly successful have you?

25 years ago if you even alluded to the now standard anti-Semitic tropes within SWSS (or at least within the SWSS branch that I was a sometime member of, mainly in truth because I fancied one of the local organisers...) there would have been a punch up and instant expulsions. Care to take a stab in what the language within an average SWSS branch on such issues is like now?

(Apart, of course, from 'helllooooooooo, is there anyone there..?' and 'would you mind stumping for this round mate, the capitalist hegemon and it's lacky running dogs have left me a bit short this month?')

 

[mikey mikey]

How to spot an anti-Semite in the 21st Century

1) They support Corbyn
2) They oppose hawkish neo-con foreign policy.

er..that's it.

So it's more invasions and neo-liberal economics for us and a free pass to actual neo-Nazis in Ukrain for them.

 

[teqniq]

What.

 

[mikey mikey]

Just that it doesn't take more than supporting Corbyn or not wanting to bomb Syria to get accused by cynical folks while real Nazis run riot in Kiev.

See above.

 

[rekil]

No, and I have argued for years against holocaust deniers and anti-semites using this very username.

Did you even read your shit link? Taber is a loon that's quoted within it. And putting Burchill's name in the title makes it look like she wrote it. Do you think she did?

 

[butchersapron]

Just that it doesn't take more than supporting Corbyn or not wanting to bomb Syria to get accused by cynical folks while real Nazis run riot in Kiev.

See above.

Arguing that the white helmets are a Rothschild front or that the holocaust didn't happen - or that if it did, it was a good thing - or that the protocols are a true description of jewish malevolence are not the things you mention. No one at all would call a corbyn supporter who opposed hawkish neo-con foreign policy (whatever you may mean by that) an anti-semite for those things.I'm not sure what you understand by 'bomb syria' either. And you're certainly wrong on just who is turning a blind eye to fascists in the ukraine. Anyone doing any of the above that i list are 100% anti-semites.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Fuck me, Jeremy looks useless now...

Now?

 

[Sasaferrato]

He appears to have something of a blindside when it comes to the less attractive foibles of those who - he believes - share his world view.

He, from what I can see, is simply unable to condemn the actions of those he considers on his side without playing whataboutary, and to equate them with the actions of those he opposes, even when the actions of those he supports, or sympathises with, massively outweighs whatever those he dislikes have done.

The obvious example is Syria - he will only condemn Assad and the Russians if he can condemn the Americans as well, and he explicitly equates their misdemeanours even when the Assad regime is probably responsible for the deaths of 400,000 Syrians and the Americans a tiny fraction of that.

He claims to be a man of peace who speaks to warring parties in an effort to bring about resolution - he'll talk to Hamas and call them 'friends' yet you wouldn't catch him talking to Likud and calling them 'friends', he'll have lunch with the Argentine Ambassador within a week of becoming Leader of the Labour party, yet a year later he's not met anyone from the Falkland Islands representative office in London. He'll meet with Sinn Fein while PIRA are blowing up NI and call them friends in the name of peace (and absolutely not because he supports them) - but did he meet people from the UDA or UVF and call them friends in the name of peace while they were slaughtering Catholics?

It's almost as if his definition of peace is a very much one sided affair, and the side he chooses to share a platform with - in the name of peace - is laughably predicable.

No doubt he is all about the moral compass - but the needle of that compass points in some very odd directions.

Succinctly put. You have outlined why I support no political party any more. I can't stomach the 'not so good bits'.

Is there anything bad about the Lib Dems?

 

[jcsd]

My own opinion is that people like Jezzer need to exist in order to be that nagging voice on issues that it is often inconvenient to nag about. Unfortunately his qualities don't translate well into leadership qualities and he's been pretty poor in providing leadership to make Labour into an effective opposition and even poorer in persuading people that he would make a good leader for the country.