Obviously.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Obviously.
I'm baffled why anyone would care that he apparently didn't. Seriously - who cares? It's like intent is just no longer a thing in the UK - it's absolutely mental. He was laying a wreath for goodness sake.
Why?
How do you know what his intent is? He's supported terrorists in the past.
You only have to look at his beloved looney brother to see what might go unspoken.
we know his intentions, because he described them in his own Morningstar article. He specifically included the persons, who are in the graves, that are shown in the pictures. Its also a nice worldview, where the own side by definition has always the best intentions and consequently can't do any wrong, while the other side is not only promoting wrong policies, but has sinister motives. They are by definition evil. I guess when reality doesn't fit one's narrative, reality has to get rebranded. It is reaching Orwellian dimensions.
Last edited:
This again
Care to elaborate on how he’s allegedly supported terrorists in the past?
Typically hard core socialists are like that in my experience - if you disagree with them they at first think you simply don't understand and will try and explain it to you - if you still disagree they will think you are either stupid or evil.
This again
Care to elaborate on how he’s allegedly supported terrorists in the past?
There is plenty of evidence out there that supports this - if you can't be arsed reading about it yourself they why should we bother wasting time trying to convince you? Start by googling Corbyn and IRA and take it from there.
Terrorists have causes.
With regard to said cause you have three choices:
1. You sympathise with or support their cause
2. You are ambivalent towards their cause
3. You are against their cause
If you fit the category of 2 and 3 then the following applies:
A. You do not share a platform with other people who support the cause.
B. You do not march with other people who support the cause.
C. You do not lay wreaths on the graves of people who supported the cause.
Which category does Jeremy fit?
With regard to said cause you have three choices:
1. You sympathise with or support their cause
2. You are ambivalent towards their cause
3. You are against their cause
If you fit the category of 2 and 3 then the following applies:
A. You do not share a platform with other people who support the cause.
B. You do not march with other people who support the cause.
C. You do not lay wreaths on the graves of people who supported the cause.
Which category does Jeremy fit?
This again
Care to elaborate on how he’s allegedly supported terrorists in the past?
I'm slightly surprised that this point is even being debated any more. I thought as long ago as two years ago we all decided that he'd hung around with questionable people, but were arguing about his intentions in doing so.
I'm starting to loose track of the excuses tbh. I think we're on the fourth version of the wreath story by now: 'Yeah, well Corbyn did go there, and he did lay a wreath, and he did say it was for all those who were buried there (please ignore where we said all of those things were smears before), but the terrorists weren't buried there after all, ha!'
I used to find this thread depressing and upsetting. Now, I laugh at the number of posters who’ve bought the Mail’s smears hook, line and sinker. You can see why the media persist when so many of you lot just believe it all. 
I used to find this thread depressing and upsetting. Now, I laugh at the number of posters who’ve bought the Mail’s smears hook, line and sinker. You can see why the media persist when so many of you lot just believe it all.
Ok lets make it simple. There's a footy match. At one end are the Israeli Fans, At the other are Hamas and the Palastinians. Along the sides are the neutral onlookers.
Which end of the ground does Jeremy buy a ticket for?
I used to find this thread depressing and upsetting. Now, I laugh at the number of posters who’ve bought the Mail’s smears hook, line and sinker. You can see why the media persist when so many of you lot just believe it all.
Feel free to expand on that and give us a convincing argument against these smears then rather than a sweeping generalisation about people believeing the daily mail - I can't stand that rag but even I know that Corbyn has a dubious past to say the least.
I used to find this thread depressing and upsetting. Now, I laugh at the number of posters who’ve bought the Mail’s smears hook, line and sinker. You can see why the media persist when so many of you lot just believe it all.
I know what you mean, it's depressing and upsetting seeing so many people I politically align with tying to convince themselves the sky is pink because Corbyn says it is and the Canary contacted a man in a tinfoil hat who told them it was too.
All in defence of a cheerleader for a Tory-led Brexit which all his supporters think is the height of insanity.
And perhaps the most amusing angle of this current thing is that Corbyn supporters are currently attacking anyone that doesn't believe that Corbyn is never wrong for believing 'smears' whilst crucifying Margaret Hodge for words that she never said because a Rupert Murdoch ran news agency put out a tweet which paraphrased her rather than quoted her directly.
Last edited:
Which of the reported words didn't she say?
Well absolutely nothing in that second tweet in their chain.
Now you might have issues with what she did say, and that's a legitimate debate to have. Here's an article which I'm not sure I necessarily agree with which argues one side of that debate.
But considering we've all defended Corbyn in the past for subtle changes in wording between what he said and how it was reported it's disingenuous at best to start attacking those critical of him because Sky News have smashed together quotes from 4 different sentences into a (deliberately?) scandalous paraphrase.
Another day, another terrorist link
I gave up talking to you a week ago when you claimed to never read any newspapers and insisted on ending a discussion with ‘End of.’.
There’s no point, is there?
I don’t believe he gave a terrorist supporting, Muslim Brotherhood salute. I don’t believe the Stasi had a file on him. I don’t believe he was a Czech spy, selling British secrets to the communists. I don’t believe he voted Leave as the Mail reported. I don’t believe, as the Sunday Times reported, that Corbyn colluded with the Russians to win the UK general election. I don’t believe he ‘mourned’ the death of Bin Laden as Cameron suggested.
I believe he’s done more than any other Labour leader to condemn anti-semitism and address the problem and I do believe this has been politicised and used in a massively distasteful way.
No one believes those which is why we're not discussing them. I notice you've missed out the ones people have said they do believe though.
Last edited:
So, is there a different full interview video to the one on their website? Because that's the only one I've seen and I'm not getting the idea that the tweet is a scandalous paraphrase.
Edit: I find it odd that Stephen, who I'm a fan of, didn't include the opening sentence from that video in his article.
Last edited:
I don't believe any of that either - although it is clear he does not want the UK to remain in the EU whether he voted for it or abstained. He has done plenty of other stuff though that I think makes him an absolutely useless opposition leader.
Oh OK. But let’s keep using the same sources and deciding for ourselves which ones we’ll believe in then eh?
Oh OK. But let’s keep using the same sources and deciding for ourselves which ones we’ll believe in then eh?
Same sources? Are you still assuming we are all raving Daily Mail readers? You realise that there are tons of articles from different sources all reporting the same thing over the last couple of decades?
No it’s not clear. There’s absolutely no point discussing anything if you simply make things up.
Give us some examples of smears that actually stick then.
Good grief ok mate. Keep your head in the sand if you want.
Ah right, so the video where she doesn't say what Sky have said that she says is not proof enough that she didn't say what they said she says?
I really don't care if you think she was still wrong or right to say what she did, but it's frankly a load of absolute bollocks that people are perfectly happy to hang people out to dry because of misreported quotes if that person is critical of Corbyn, when the same people have spent years howling into the void that the media misrepresent everything Corbyn says.
Oh OK. But let’s keep using the same sources and deciding for ourselves which ones we’ll believe in then eh?
Err, yeah? That's how critical thinking and source criticism works, obviously. I mean, Christ, I don't think you understand quite how stupid a statement that is, I'm absolutely baffled you could think anything other than that.
Look at the man's history - he has over decades consistently been associated with terrorists - the facts are quite clear. This current nonsense is blown all out of proportion and personally I don't care too much about a wreath getting laid but because of his past - which is a fact - he will forever be tarnished by it and any hint he is acting in the same way now is rightly being highlighted.
Is it that she didn't say the word Nazi? I mean there's a chance she was referring to pre-1933 Germany in her comments regarding 'Germany in the 30s', but she's hardly in a rush to clarify that if she was and comparing that to receiving a letter for swearing in a colleague's face would still be utterly abhorrent.
Obviously this wouldn't be needed if the interviewer had asked for clarification at the time, rather than working on her concerned face for the camera but that's another matter.
Last edited:
This again. What does it even mean? What do people who believe all this - again, set out all along by the right wing press - fear he’s going to do?
He’s a CND supporting peace campaigner who believes that peace comes from negotiations between both sides rather than more bombs.
I’m sure you’ll be horny to find something ooh so sinister and darker than that but I’ll just keep repeating the above response.
‘His past is a fact’. Which bit, and what are you talking about?
No, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest he’s communicated with unsavoury factions, not offering bonafide support in line with their methods.
I’ve already said this - terrorists and those who sympathise with them do not advocate peaceful talks and discussions, they merely embrace and double down on violent means to their ends. Last I checked Corbyn is a pacifist who’s never called on violence as being an acceptable tool to tackle oppression, and he’s been pretty consistent with that stance. Suggesting that we enter peace talks with adversarial factions doesn’t mean he’s a flag bearer for terrorism. If that were the case then pretty much every government in recent history would be labelled as supporters of terrorism.
This government has offered its diplomatic weight behind the Syrian opposition forces, the bulk of which is made up of Al Qaeda affiliated factions, are we going to condemn it a supporter of terrorism?
Simply saying ‘but Hamas! IRA!’ without offering a semblance of context is a lazy stick to beat him with.
Excellent post.
And now we’ve reached peak ludicrous.
Why are you bundling all Palestinians with Hamas?
You’re the ostrich, stuck shouting ‘But he voted Leave, I KNOW it!!’
Paying attention to the things he has said, the causes he has supported, the company he has kept and the people with whom he had chosen to associate over the years is such a lazy stick to beat him with.
We should just stare at the pic of him at the anti apartheid protest and forget everything else.
We should just stare at the pic of him at the anti apartheid protest and forget everything else.
Because I put all the Israelis up the other end.
Corbyn is not a peacemonger, he picks a side!
Just listen to your language: ‘the company he has kept’. ‘The people with whom he has chosen to associate’, ‘the causes he has supported’.
Talk about lazy sticks...