Right, and I wholeheartedly agree with him that while engaging in dubious wars of aggression leaves us open to being targeted by lunatics those lunatics should nevertheless be condemned. How gobsmacking it would be though, having expressed those sentiments, to then find him praying at the foot of their graves.
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.
Right, and I wholeheartedly agree with him that while engaging in dubious wars of aggression leaves us open to being targeted by lunatics those lunatics should nevertheless be condemned. How gobsmacking it would be though, having expressed those sentiments, to then find him praying at the foot of their graves.
It’s not whataboutery, rather a comparison to what a genuine endorsement of terrorism would look like. If Corbyn advocated sending weapons and fighter jets to Hamas the same way the British government does so for the Saudis then you have grounds for accusing him of endorsement.
Also I don’t buy your notion of staying neutral to advocate peace. To assume a passive role would do nothing but advocate the status quo. And it’s not about ‘taking sides’ either. You can propose dialogue with factions without swearing your allegiance to them.
You have to see both sides of the argument though. Corbyn only sees one side. The protestants in NI and the Israelis are human beings too. With aspirations and a desire to live peacefully. If you are going to make a positive contribution to peace you need to talk to both sides. Lining up with one cause will get you nowhere.
Agreed. The trouble is by default we’re not seeing both sides. In the case of Northern Ireland the default sentiment from Britain’s perspective was to always endorse the loyalist stance for obvious reasons, meaning that the opposing viewpoint was always going to be distorted or drowned out. Hence it was imperative there be some initiative to reach out to the other side.
The same applies to Israel. This country and more so it’s closest ally the US has decided to heavily weigh the narrative in Israel’s favour. What I imagine Corybn’s approach to be here is to level the field allowing there to be a more balanced garnering of perspectives.
Benjamins intervention hasn't gone quite how he hoped
A line in the sand? Enough is enough? I wonder what this is supposed to mean.
I’m fascinated to know what you think Corbyn will do as PM that you have to be so afraid of?
After all his comments on foreign policy and the fact he’s so obviously a pacifist, what is it you’re scared of?
I mean, the most likely thing he’d do would be to begin nuclear disarmament for the U.K., yet you seem to be under the illusion he supports terrorist violence?
Very little would change with Emily Thornberry as leader. She’s ideologically aligned with Corbyn, backed by Momentum and, if memory serves, is not a member of Labour Friends of Israel which would leave her facing the same opposition from within her party from Jess Philips et al.
He has sympathy for the oppressed in whatever circumstance. That is because his policies are founded in the ideology he clearly supports which depends on having oppressed people.
This is good for protesting and turning the light on matters but is is not good for governing a country like the UK.
Tax the rich into oblivion.
Be unwilling to press the button even if we are attacked.
Let any faction with a beef about their lot have their way.
All very admirable but totally unworkable.
oh my god, what a dick
I don't think, at heart, she is that aligned with Corbyn
Odd response. Everything about her would suggest you’re wrong but you obviously know her ‘heart’ better.
Wow. All I can say is, try reading a bit wider than your current choices. That’s a lot of Daily Mail.
No I don't. But i have watched and listened to her quite a bit. Can't quite put my finger on it but she doesn't convince that she is as left wing as she says. She would I reckon be open to more centrist opinions.
I don't read the DM. I don't read any paper.
Corbyn and McDonnell subscribe to Marxist ideals and I don't agree with them. End of.
Well phew, as they say. A line in the sand normally means 'If you cross it I'll twat you', so I was starting to wonder what his plans were.Don't be mean to our Jezza!
he doesn't speak to factions, that he deems "adversarial". He speaks to factions (and declares solidarity with them), that he believes are on the right side of a conflict/struggle. He is a consistent activist for the side, that he sees as oppressed. He is pretty consistent in this regard and thats fine. Most people explicitly or implicitly take a side in these conflicts. To re-brand that as "speaking with all side, even those he disagrees with" is simply false.
btw:
Trump supporters: mainstream media is dominated by liberals, who just slander/smear Trump to advance a liberal agenda.
Corbyn supporters: mainstream media is dominated by right-wingers, who just slander/smear Corbyn to advance a corporate agenda.
Both are also equally conspiratorial. The only difference is, that Trump & supporters are a lot more vulgar.
One of the great ironies of the last few years. The “MSM” is being accused of being simultaneously biased against the left and the right. Which probably means they’re getting things more or less correct.
I mean...in the context of the British printing press, this pretty much is true. The biggest publications such as the DM, Sun and Express are quite genuinely vehemently against him and anyone who's even remotely left. On his own side he's got The Guardian, who aren't even that strongly for him at best but who more align to a vaguely liberal platform when it suits them.
The constant claims of bias concerning the BBC come from all sides and so tend to hold a lot less weight, even if there are sometimes fair issues raised, but it can't really be doubted that a huge portion of the media is biased against him. Even if (in cases like this) he's got a lot to answer for himself.
There is some truth to that, but its more a question of degree and responds to it.
Many of the mainstream US print-media publications tends to favour a centrist liberal cause (and the majority of writers/editors self-identify as liberal) and they don't always give divergent views a fair hearing. They certainly loathe Trump and their writing reflects that to some extend. That doesn't mean, that everything they write is false or that the reasonable responds is to gravitate to publications, that are far more tribal/one-sided.
I don't know much about british print media. They are probably on average centrist-right and don't like Corbyn. At times their writing seems to be pretty one-sided and unfair. That doesn't mean, that all their opinions/criticisms are wrong. It certianly doesn't mean, that one should totally disregard their writings and only turn to publications, that are at least as biased and act as uncritical cheerleader.
TheGuardian is the only UK media that I read frequently; they are no cheerleaders for corbyn, but frequently publish articles, that portrait him in a positive light. Corbyn is no centrist (that isn't meant as value-judgement, but as descriptive observation). On many topics, inlcluding foreign policy, he is certainly outside the mainstream consensus. Consequently fewer writers agree with him and he'll face more criticism.
So, I am not disagreeing with you and your observation. Papers like the DM, Sun or the Express probably scandalize and exaggerate when it comes to Corbyn. Nontheless, Corbyn is a controversial figure with a lot of baggage. Answering any critical journalism with fundamental outrage about bias in not a constructive way forward. That just copies the tribalism (incl. unquestioned loyalty one's side) of the other side.
------
I don't want to imply that Corbyn and Trump are treated equally unfair. They are not.
+
Similar issues also happen in other countries with non-mainstream candidates/parties, that challange the political centrist mainstream (e.g. AfD, M5S).
Can't/won't give a straight answer:
He looks stressed as feck.
He looks stressed as feck.
The Daily Mail, Sun and Express all go beyond mild centre-right sentiment. Especially in the wake of Brexit. Not all of their criticisms will necessarily be incorrect but they deliberately employ bias against Corbyn (as well as Labour and general liberal sentiment) to the extreme with sensationalised stories, and tend to be among the most popular papers.
The Guardian's coverage of him is mild at best, but he doesn't really have any mainstream publication that's fervently for him in the way that various are against him. This can be said for Labour in general ever since Murdoch shifted back to the Tories.
Like you say a lot of the criticism made of him is fair, but the initial point suggesting that citing the mainstream media are biased against Corbyn as a conspiracy doesn't really work for me, because to a significant extent it genuinely is true. Bias shouldn't be called out at every turn (and this story is a perfect example because it's legitimate and fair to call Corbyn out here) but saying that the mainstream media is generally against Corbyn isn't at all conspiratorial - to a significant extent they'd openly admit that's the case. Broadcast is a bit different right enough.
Pretty much admits it in that interview, surely?
Blimey!
He knew there were pictures of him holding the wreath at the ceremony yesterday. Why lie about not participating at that point only to roll it back 24 hours later?
Or you could have spoken to the SDLP, the other actually more representative Irish nationalist party in the 1980s. Which Corbyn never did.
Bloody hell his handling of this is bizarre.
Just front up and be consistent to what was photo'd and what you previously wrote yourself. Feign ignorance when it comes to the identities of who was buried there and apologise for it. Really isn't complicated is it.
Just front up and be consistent to what was photo'd and what you previously wrote yourself. Feign ignorance when it comes to the identities of who was buried there and apologise for it. Really isn't complicated is it.
Probably lots of PR bickering behind the scenes about what is more damaging to the Corbyn “brand”, coming out of this looking ignorant or looking sneaky.
The SDLP are not and were not republicans though and took their seats in Westminster unlike Sinn Fein. Any suggestion that there could have been the peace process we enjoy today without the back channel engagement with Sinn Fein and the IRA during the troubles is simply naive.
Also the idea that Corbyn didn't have talks with the SDLP when the SDLP take the Labour whip in parliament and he was involved with the campaign for the inquest into Bloody Sunday is pretty absurd. Here he is with John Hume himself.
Not sure his answers could be any straighter, unless you mean not allowing his answers to be manipulated to suit the journos agenda, then yea... I agree though he looks very stressed. I think the fact hes being Interviewed by someone who must share the same IQ as a potato may have some bearing on his mood.
Some interesting replies to the Video, Including this one...
"There are no Munich terrorists in the cemetery Jeremy Corbyn visited at the Peace conference in Tunisia.
The 8 terrorists who committed the Munich Massacre were: Luttif Afif – Killed by West German Police at the scene Yusuf Nazzal – Killed by West German Police at the scene Afif Ahmed Hamid – Killed by West German Police at the scene Khalid Jawad – Killed by West German Police at the scene Ahmed Chic Thaa – Killed by West German Police at the scene Mohammed Safady – Captured by West German Police Adnan Al-Gashey – Captured by West German Police Jamal Al-Gashey – Captured by West German Police Just a month after the capture of Mohammed Safady, Adnan Al-Gashey and his brother Jamal Al-Gashey, all three were released by West German authorities in a hostage swap.
However, in 1972, the Israeli Security service Mossad instigated a secret Operation, code-named Wrath of God, in which both Mohammed Safady and Adnan Al-Gashey were allegedly tracked down and murdered by Mossad agents. The final terrorist, Jamal Al-Gashey, was last known to be alive in 1999, hiding in either North Africa or Syria, and living in fear of retribution from Israeli security services.
Of the 8 terrorists listed above who perpetrated the atrocity, NONE are buried at the cemetery in Tunisia that Corbyn visited: Luttif Afif – Buried at Sidi Munaidess Cemetery, Libya Yusuf Nazzal – Buried at Sid Munaidess Cemetery, Libya Afif Ahmed Hamid – Buried at Sid Munaidess Cemetery, Libya Khalid Jawad – Buried at Sid Munaidess Cemetery, Libya Ahmed Chic Thaa – Buried at Sid Munaidess Cemetery, Libya Mohammed Safady – Allegedly killed by Mossad, unknown grave Adnan Al-Gashey – Allegedly killed by Mossad, unknown grave Jamal Al-Gashey – Was reportedly still alive in 1999"
Who said they were buried there?
He could simply answer whether or not the wreath he laid was at the graves of the men in question.
The claim is not that the men who actually carried out the attack are there. The men in question were members of the same organisation and involved in planning the operation.
