Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

Ubik said:
Now you're changing your argument. You stated the support for believing it was Russia was based on a lie, and I gave a direct example of someone (Jeremy Corbyn no less) believing the agent was taken from Russia, 5 days prior to Johnson's interview. So what is backing up your idea that it's all based on a lie?
Click to expand...
It was based on the evidence that Boris was touting around. You really think the first time that line was used was in that interview. There was a text from the Forging Office stating what he said which has since been taken down.
 
nickm said:
Only if your point is that we need a smoking gun to draw a conclusion, which we don't. There is sufficient evidence, on the balance of probabilities, to suspect Russian state involvement over other explanations at this point.
Click to expand...
The same kind of evidence as we had against Saddam. Look how that worked out.
 
Silva said:
Yeah, Corbz is a total pussy, he doesn't even line his pockets with Rubles like those tough tories over there, and what even are these economic sanctions against oligarchs he keeps talking about?
Click to expand...

If that's a defence, it's a pretty poor one. And Corbyn pockets Putin's propaganda money, let's not forget, every time he goes on RT.

There's plenty of blame to go around. At the moment, focusing on Corbyn and Johnson - who both aspire to be PMs let's not forget - seems sufficient.
 
Fully Fledged said:
The same kind of evidence as we had against Saddam. Look how that worked out.
Click to expand...
This is silly. We don't need the same evidential standard. We're not going to war, we're telling the Russians to feck off and stop using radioactive poisons and chemical weapons in our country. which I think we are totally entitled to do, on the evidence that we have.
 
Fully Fledged said:
It was based on the evidence that Boris was touting around. You really think the first time that line was used was in that interview. There was a text from the Forging Office stating what he said which has since been taken down.
Click to expand...
The tweet from the foreign office was two days after the Boris interview. So now you're just making up previous briefings where he'd said the same thing (which Corbyn hasn't mentioned happening, as far as I'm aware) to justify your previous statement.
 
Fully Fledged said:
That article proves my point.
Click to expand...

Right, sure, and if your argument is that you strongly suspect Russia did it based on the evidence we have available to us, but aren't convinced that the point is proven then fine.

If you're arguing that the evidence is so weak you don't think the Russia link has any basis whatsoever, as you appear to be, then I would argue you're wrong.
 
Ubik said:
The tweet from the foreign office was two days after the Boris interview. So now you're just making up previous briefings where he'd said the same thing (which Corbyn hasn't mentioned happening, as far as I'm aware) to justify your previous statement.
Click to expand...
And it was still a lie. We know that the Government has lied about this we do not know any true evidence. That's my point.
 
Silva said:
what's patronising is telling people who are struggling in life to work hard like you did, despite them getting fecked in the ass by a broken system you're voting to propagate
Click to expand...

Where have I told people that - in that precise context?

I am opposed to Left wing politics and especially the extreme version that is currently being espoused.

That does not mean that I agree with everything the government say's or does.

Or that by being opposed to Labours world view it necessarily follows that I must be a stinking bourgeois and totally heartless.
 
Silva said:
what is Corbyn to blame for here specifically? calling for calm and a waiting for information?
Click to expand...

He's to blame for a weak, and poorly chosen initial response to a chemical weapons attack which affected some 500 British citizens.

Let's not let Boris Johnson's idiocy make Corbyn's initial response look better than it deserves. It was the wrong response for the moment.
 
nickm said:
He's to blame for a weak, and poorly chosen initial response to a chemical weapons attack which affected some 500 British citizens.

Let's not let Boris Johnson's idiocy make Corbyn's initial response look better than it deserves. It was the wrong response for the moment.
Click to expand...
making up your mind before you've seen the evidence isn't strong, it's fecking stupid
 
Silva said:
making up your mind before you've seen the evidence isn't weak, it's fecking stupid
Click to expand...

There was sufficient evidence to make a political judgement. That's the point. Corbyn flunked it.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Right, sure, and if your argument is that you strongly suspect Russia did it based on the evidence we have available to us, but aren't convinced that the point is proven then fine.

If you're arguing that the evidence is so weak you don't think the Russia link has any basis whatsoever, as you appear to be, then I would argue you're wrong.
Click to expand...
That's exactly my point.

As for your second point I'm saying that the only real evidence that we have been given that Russia actually manufactured the chemical was a lie told by BoJo.

There may be other evidence but we don't know it. To tar and feather Corbyn on evidence we don't have seems just wrong to me.
 
nickm said:
In an information war, in which we are all clearly engaged, PR matters. An obscure Russian chemical weapon, which requires state support to make and store, gets used on an enemy of Putin, in a similar way that other such weapons have been used by Russian agents, putting hundreds of British citizens at risk? And Corbyn's opening response was all about due process? Weak and dangerous. What do you think Putin thinks of Corbyn? A pushover, I'd say.
Click to expand...

Hmm, but he's totally shitting himself over Boris Johnson and Theresa May's accusations, our relatively insignificant military and our increasingly isolated international relations.
 
Honest John said:
Where have I told people that - in that precise context?

I am opposed to Left wing politics and especially the extreme version that is currently being espoused.

That does not mean that I agree with everything the government say's or does.

Or that by being opposed to Labours world view it necessarily follows that I must be a stinking bourgeois and totally heartless.
Click to expand...

Current version isn't really that extreme - just standard left-wing social democracy for the most part.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Not the most compelling defence of the Corbyn's (allegedly) impeccable moral integrity tbh.
Click to expand...
He believes that to change someones opinion you have to enter into discourse with them. Going to Iran and talking about human rights is part of that belief system. Not taking the money would make it look as he thought that they were beneath him that is no way to hold a civilised dialogue.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
We were talking about him taking handsome payments from the state owned television companies of deplorable regimes.

You explained this by claiming that he isn't a unicorn.
Click to expand...
sorry I thought you replied to a different post

everyone gets paid for TV work, he went on Iranian TV to talk about human rights, how is that a bad thing? because he took standard appearance fees?
 
Fully Fledged said:
He believes that to change someones opinion you have to enter into discourse with them. Going to Iran and talking about human rights is part of that belief system. Not taking the money would make it look as he thought that they were beneath him that is no way to hold a civilised dialogue.
Click to expand...

Yeah, not really. He just wanted to get paid a lot of money for doing very little. His appearances on RT amounted to him being an unwitting shill for Russian anti Western rhetoric. Anne Applebaum described him as 'the latest in a long line of useful idiots' for the Kremlin.

Silva said:
sorry I thought you replied to a different post

everyone gets paid for TV work, he went on Iranian TV to talk about human rights, how is that a bad thing? because he took standard appearance fees?
Click to expand...

He's taking money from a deplorable regime. If it is someone like Farage or Johnson then you expect it but Jeremy is supposed to be different. If he had donated that money to charity then fine but pocketing such a large fee from such a regime seems off for someone of Jeremy's supposed superior moral dimensions.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Yeah, not really. He just wanted to get paid a lot of money for doing very little. His appearances on RT amounted to him being an unwitting shill for Russian anti Western rhetoric. Anne Applebaum described him as 'the latest in a long line of useful idiots' for the Kremlin.
Click to expand...
That's your view. One that I don't agree with.
 
He's really damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Go in strong against Russia with the poisoning like Johnson and the Tories = Bad
Be calm and ask for the experts to obtain evidence = Bad

What exactly should have his reaction have been? The most sane and adult thing to do in that situation is to not to jump to conclusions. Last thing you want to do (like Bush did after 9/11) is do something stupid based on bad intelligence.
 
RedSky said:
Last thing you want to do (like Bush did after 9/11) is do something stupid based on bad intelligence.
Click to expand...
Not to derail, but that intelligence was knowingly bad.

Agree with your point though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.