PDA

View Full Version : Jeremy Corbyn



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

glasshand
18-08-2015, 01:16 PM
let's av it

glasshand
18-08-2015, 01:19 PM
gettin angry at guru murthy


https://youtu.be/QZAn7ZEvwek


being a 'marxist'


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7MT0AVR2kI

glasshand
18-08-2015, 01:28 PM
who shares Corbyn's belief that Labour lost the last election because they were Tory lite? (i do)

is Corbyn being painted by media as way more left wing than the policies he supports really seem to be? (seems so)

what would/will happen if/when he becomes party leader?

if you don't like him which of the others are you least appalled by?

how sick of corbyn guardian articles are you?


craner i've seen you going in for the slow steady social democracy cause (ie seatbelts), be interested to know your thoughts

Mr. Tea
18-08-2015, 01:35 PM
I'm sure you all remember what happened the last time a bearded man with the initials "J.C." championed the poor and downtrodden while criticizing the rich and powerful. Jussayin'.

Mr. Tea
18-08-2015, 01:53 PM
who shares Corbyn's belief that Labour lost the last election because they were Tory lite? (i do)


Labour lost the election because they didn't get enough votes. Any further analysis than that will depend on your own beliefs and prejudices.

The great majority of English voters who voted Labour in 2010 but didn't in 2015 voted Tory instead, so for them at least, the problem clearly wasn't that Miliband and his shadow cabinet weren't sufficiently left-wing. Of course, even this large bloc of voters is outnumbered many times over by those who didn't vote and have never voted, so rather than trying to win back fair-weather ex-Labour voters who switched to the Tories, it would be better for a Corbyn-led Labour party to try and woo these vote-virgins, who tend to be young and are often economically marginalized and, if they can be persuaded to engage in politics at all, are more likely to vote for a party that represents their own interests.

At least, that's the theory. Thing is, there's so much anti-immigration/anti-Europe rhetoric around these days, from all the major parties as well as most of the press, that a lot of these non-voters might be more inclined to vote UKIP than Labour.

glasshand
19-08-2015, 01:11 AM
Labour lost the election because they didn't get enough votes. Any further analysis than that will depend on your own beliefs and prejudices.

I did say belief... but you could do further analysis with some sort of research or evidence ofc. altho i spose those kinda polls aren't being done and would be incredibly hard to interpret.

putting forward some ideas


The great majority of English voters who voted Labour in 2010 but didn't in 2015 voted Tory instead, so for them at least, the problem clearly wasn't that Miliband and his shadow cabinet weren't sufficiently left-wing.

maybe i shoulda been clearer in that corbyn's position on labour's loss isn't that ed miliband and the sc were defeated because they weren't left enough, it was because they just didn't offer anything different to the tories, in terms of voice and narrative.

i reckon in these neoliberal centreground times the typical notions of left and right didn't mean that much to voters in the last couple elections. maybe this is patronising of me but i think a lot of people don't know what left and right really means now. neoliberal and rightwing ideology set the terms of the debate during the election. the story of the deficit as the cause of the financial crisis and the return to the thatcherite analogy of a national economy to the finances of a household was so powerful and labour did so little to challenge it they walked into it.


it would be better for a Corbyn-led Labour party to try and woo these vote-virgins, who tend to be young and are often economically marginalized

from what he's saying about young people in interviews i think this might be the strategy.

Mr. Tea
19-08-2015, 09:55 AM
maybe i shoulda been clearer in that corbyn's position on labour's loss isn't that ed miliband and the sc were defeated because they weren't left enough, it was because they just didn't offer anything different to the tories, in terms of voice and narrative.

Yes, I would agree with this. Left-wing people don't want "Tory Lite", they want a proper Labour party, and right-wing people - for the most part - don't want it either, because they're happy voting for the original, full-sugar, caffeinated Tory party.

I think the blunt terms "left" and "right" are nearing the end of their useful life, if they haven't already outstayed their usefulness by several decades. For one thing, most people who think of themselves as left-wing support the free movement of people, not least because the Right is almost uniformly anti-immigration. And yet the free movement of people - which means the free movement of labour - is about as neoliberal a principle as you can get. The interaction of economics with culture and belief is complex, too - religious voters are often said, on the whole, to be economically progressive but socially conservative - so are they "left-wing" or "right-wing"?

Slothrop
19-08-2015, 10:20 AM
I guess the argument is that the Tories and the right-wing press have been selling the idea that "austerity" is synonymous with "economic responsibility" and hence that any deviation from their austerity programme constitutes irresponsibly profligate overspending that will destroy the economy.

The right-wing Labour approach has been to respond to this by trying to be almost as pro-austerity as the Tories in the hopes of being seen as being almost as economically responsible. The Corbynite position is that this loses the left wing voters by being too Tory and doesn't actually succeed with right-wing voters either because "only slightly more likely to balls up the economy than the Tories" still isn't a particularly strong offer, and maybe it'd be more useful to actually try to attack the basic premise that equates "austerity" with "responsibility" and "social democracy" with "destroying the economy".

baboon2004
19-08-2015, 03:07 PM
If Labour offer Tory Lite, they'll get in in 2025 at best, by the law of people-getting-bored-with-the-same-party-after-a-while. Given that they've lost Scotland for the foreseeable future (for ever?), even that might be optimistic.

sufi
20-08-2015, 05:24 PM
‎& now #LabourPurge (Apparently o the anniversary of the trotsky icepick)

glasshand
21-08-2015, 05:51 PM
The interaction of economics with culture and belief is complex, too - religious voters are often said, on the whole, to be economically progressive but socially conservative - so are they "left-wing" or "right-wing"?

in this case i think there's a bit of a false separation of social life and economic life. for me these people are basically stuck in a contradiction. give charitably to try to alleviate some social problems on a case by case basis without fundamentally challenging the economic conditions that usually cause them.



i can really see the press and establishment trying to bring Corbyn down when he becomes party leader. the shit is going to hit the fan

glasshand
24-08-2015, 06:42 PM
weak start tbf

Prime-Minister-Corbyn-1-000-days-destroyed-Britain-brilliant-imagining-Corbyn-premiership-reveals-Tories-gloat-Labour-s-woe-careful-wish-for (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3207363/Prime-Minister-Corbyn-1-000-days-destroyed-Britain-brilliant-imagining-Corbyn-premiership-reveals-Tories-gloat-Labour-s-woe-careful-wish-for.html)

glasshand
24-08-2015, 06:43 PM
orrr right on the money..

David Thomas envisualises a future where Jeremy Corbyn has taken the reigns of power following a second banking crash in 2016

stock-up-on-canned-food-for-stock-market-crash-warns-former-gordon-brown-advisor- (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/stock-up-on-canned-food-for-stock-market-crash-warns-former-gordon-brown-advisor-10469509.html)

Mr. Tea
24-08-2015, 06:48 PM
in this case i think there's a bit of a false separation of social life and economic life. for me these people are basically stuck in a contradiction. give charitably to try to alleviate some social problems on a case by case basis without fundamentally challenging the economic conditions that usually cause them. To the extent that they might vote for a Labour party led by an avowedly anti-austerity politician, perhaps.


Oh I dunno, I think quite a lot of church-going people (don't know about other religions but there's no reason to assume they're not similar in this regard) are broadly anti-austerity, in favour of proper taxation for corporations and rich individuals, and so on.

Certainly, church leaders have been pretty harsh critics of austerity, much to the government's embarrassment and in contradiction of the old cliché about the C of E being "the Tory party at prayer".

glasshand
24-08-2015, 07:36 PM
Certainly, church leaders have been pretty harsh critics of austerity, much to the government's embarrassment and in contradiction of the old cliché about the C of E being "the Tory party at prayer".

true yeh. i sorta had catholics more in mind when i was writing that reply because i have had more experience of catholicism and it seems to be very socially conservative and contradictory. i know there is a tendency for catholics to vote on the left, but i find this at odds with their views on sexual desire and emphasis on children as the responsibility of parents>church and not the state. i was maybe extrapolating unfairly onto all christians.

Mr. Tea
24-08-2015, 08:40 PM
true yeh. i sorta had catholics more in mind when i was writing that reply because i have had more experience of catholicism and it seems to be very socially conservative and contradictory. i know there is a tendency for catholics to vote on the left, but i find this at odds with their views on sexual desire and emphasis on children as the responsibility of parents>church and not the state. i was maybe extrapolating unfairly onto all christians.

Are you talking specifically about the UK, though? The conjunction of Catholicism with Irishness surely has a lot to do with that.

Patrick Swayze
25-08-2015, 11:39 PM
Catholics' views on sexual desire and emphasis on children


lol

glasshand
28-08-2015, 10:50 AM
Will Self with a couple points


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6nbZWfg8R8

among others i find this recent jeremy bashing article enraging:

jeremy-corbyn-is-a-stranger-to-responsibility-and-will-loathe-leadership- (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/jeremy-corbyn-is-a-stranger-to-responsibility-and-will-loathe-leadership-10471438.html)

extremely patronising article from a dude who writes books about Labour and apparently considers himself immersed in Labour party politics. he predicts that Labour ministers will turn against Corbyn because they're career politicians, and then defends that position. exactly the thing (defense of middle ground political class) Will Self points out of John McTernan in the above vid. no integrity

Mr. Tea
28-08-2015, 11:28 AM
extremely patronising article


But this is a man whose life has been spent avoiding tiresome responsibility. He is like an adolescent with a head full of ideas who is not in the least interested in how his cherished principles impact on the outside world.

Fucking hell, it almost reads like a parody of the world-weary realist trying to disabuse the naive young idealist, with his beret, bumfluff moustache, Palestine-flag pin badge and FREE NELSON MANDELA T-shirt...

trza
31-08-2015, 07:11 PM
I don't follow uk politics, has this guy said anything funny in the past?

glasshand
01-09-2015, 01:31 PM
dyou mean funny ha ha or funny not alright?

not exactly hilarious but...


https://youtu.be/wZsYvkTw4Rg?t=35s

baboon2004
01-09-2015, 03:32 PM
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/142553/anti-israel-activists-attack-jc-challenging-jeremy-corbyn

this covers the main controversy.

Though the main reason that Corbyn is getting so much heat and micro-examination in the first place (not that I think he's dealt with the allegations particularly well) is that he's anti-austerity, and the Labour Party 'grandees' and UK media are engaged in a quite extraordinary two-pronged character assassination, painting Corbyn in whatever negative ways they can, including war criminal and satanic marionette Tony Blair repeating every hour, on the hour, the allegation that Corbyn's election will lead to the downfall of civilisation as we know it (of which Blair apparently believes he is actually a part - go figure).

glasshand
01-09-2015, 07:36 PM
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/142553/anti-israel-activists-attack-jc-challenging-jeremy-corbyn

this covers the main controversy.

Though the main reason that Corbyn is getting so much heat and micro-examination in the first place (not that I think he's dealt with the allegations particularly well) is that he's anti-austerity, and the Labour Party 'grandees' and UK media are engaged in a quite extraordinary two-pronged character assassination, painting Corbyn in whatever negative ways they can, including war criminal and satanic marionette Tony Blair repeating every hour, on the hour, the allegation that Corbyn's election will lead to the downfall of civilisation as we know it (of which Blair apparently believes he is actually a part - go figure).

response to that:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_Jaw_pJq50

Mr. Tea
01-09-2015, 10:58 PM
I think most 'centrists' have already written Corbyn off, so further propaganda (from e.g. Blair) to try and put them off is unnecessary. I don't for one moment think Blair is stupid, so I can only assume it's his monstrous ego that makes him think him sticking his oar in is going to alienate Corbyn supporters from their darling rather than make them consider his dire warnings the best possible endorsement for an anti-war, social-democratic candidate.

griftert
02-09-2015, 01:08 PM
I thought Ummuna's response to Corbyn's rise as reported in the Guardian today was the most sensible thing I've heard from the centre of the party in relation to him.

John McTernan is a fucking scumbag arsewipe half-wit cunt of the highest order, and stands out in a field of them. One of the worst people.

glasshand
03-09-2015, 02:29 PM
i'd agree about Umunna, nice bit of backpedalling

channel 4 hustings from the other night:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=996Lnep7Hfk

nothing major to watch out for in there, still stands out as the one who seems to be the most clear about what he's actually for and voices the most things i agree with. debate put me off Burnham even more than i was already, seems a bit dim

Woebot
11-09-2015, 01:26 PM
on the way back from work on my bike - spotted this man being driven in a cab (i know! i was horrified! exploitation of the working classes! :p) by the pentonville road.

i have history when it comes to misidentifying well-known people - but i do know that owing to the blanket corbyn coverage he was at a hustings in north islington in the afternoon. perhaps late from the commons?

Mr. Tea
15-09-2015, 11:00 PM
So apparently Jezzer is some sort of awful misogynist dinosaur because his shadow cabinet is less that 117% female.

Fucksake. GO TEAM COUNTERPRODUCTIVE LEFTIST INFIGHTING!

baboon2004
16-09-2015, 01:56 PM
Exactly. What worries me is that it seems the Corbyn leadership didn't see this media storm coming, and pre-empt it with a statement about the importance of appointing women to senior roles (and maybe an idea of how many women would be in the shadow cabinet - it's about a 50-50 gender split, isn't it?), rather than letting the right wing press have a field day with it.

Maybe they did send out such a statement and the press ignored it, I dunno. But it would be great if Corbyn Labour could be both straight-talking and have a basic level of media savviness

griftert
16-09-2015, 06:35 PM
Fucksake. GO TEAM COUNTERPRODUCTIVE LEFTIST INFIGHTING!I don't think it's exactly the left that are gunning for him with this tack, though I'm sure there are some.

He's going to get a pounding if the last couple of days are anything to go by. Is he really electable? I was thinking about how many people that singing the national anthem without prompting is a prerequisite for the role. Must be a large chunk of the electorate.

Mr. Tea
16-09-2015, 08:43 PM
I don't think it's exactly the left that are gunning for him with this tack, though I'm sure there are some.


Well Suzanne Moore in the Grauniad used the term "brocialism" the other day, apparently without even trying to be funny or ironic, and Helen Lewis in TNS was fulminating about the lack of women in the four "top roles" in the shadow cabinet - while calling the rest of the cabinet, which is 51% female - "backfill".

Now Corbyn has said he's going to make education and health his top priorities, so that makes those two roles pretty "top", doesn't it? The idea that Foreign Sec is one of the most important jobs in government dates back to a time when Britain had about a bazillion times more global clout than it does now, and as a pacifist and anti-imperialist, Corbyn is surely looking to move on from that legacy rather than cling on to it?

Babs - yes, I agree there is surely some ideal middle ground between all-spin-no-substance and being almost wilfully media-naive, but perhaps he and his team will tighten their act up a bit as he starts getting used to this level of scrutiny.

you
16-09-2015, 11:29 PM
Suzanne Moore is an awful writer.

baboon2004
17-09-2015, 12:16 AM
She is remarkably terrible.

I can't remember - was the shadow cabinet announced all at once, or were the supposedly 'top roles' announced prior to the rest? I thought that was part of the furore, that the initial jobs announced were all given to men, thus playing along with the idea that those were the top roles.

The national anthem question is a bit difficult. I really don't want Corbyn to become massively unpopular over something so meaningless. On the other hand, it's vastly depressing if a lot of people (some of whom might have quite decent views in other areas) are vexed enough about something so ridiculous to hate Corbyn as a result.

you
17-09-2015, 01:10 PM
On the anthem thing.

It's just another register of middle England's absurdist post empire pathology (further to Bake Off, Strictly, Churchill etc). England is like a fidgetting rose-coloured glasses housewife who continues to cook more and more elabourate dinners for the 'wonderful husband' who abandoned her years previously after years of abuse. The more the crown estate is sold off to China and Russia the more we love the monarchy. As the UK's economic and politcial status wanes union jack bunting is decorated in a delusional attempt to re-live the imagined (and it is an imagining a past to a large extent) good times.

I mean 'God save the Queen?' - who on earth can take that seriously?

sufi
17-09-2015, 03:09 PM
Exactly. What worries me is that it seems the Corbyn leadership didn't see this media storm coming, and pre-empt it with a statement about the importance of appointing women to senior roles (and maybe an idea of how many women would be in the shadow cabinet - it's about a 50-50 gender split, isn't it?), rather than letting the right wing press have a field day with it.

Maybe they did send out such a statement and the press ignored it, I dunno. But it would be great if Corbyn Labour could be both straight-talking and have a basic level of media savviness
I'm on some mailing lists full of Corbyn supporters, i think they anticipated this and much worse, which I expect may yet come to pass...

baboon2004
17-09-2015, 03:32 PM
Certainly his supporters anticipated it, but it looks like his 'media team' (whatever/whoever this might be) isn't strong/preemptive enough - he has to win some battles in the press if he's not to be a very short-term leader.

This is sterling media work though, trying to reclaim 'patriotism' and turn the (perception of the) issue on its head. Except it needs to be in the Mail or the Mirror:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/17/jeremy-corbyn-patriot-war-tony-blair-iraq-labour

Patrick Swayze
18-09-2015, 12:28 AM
He spoke about how he planned to have a gender balanced cabinet on numerous occasions throughout his campaign and released a strategy document (https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/jeremyforlabour/pages/87/attachments/original/1438076296/WorkingWithWomen.pdf?1438076296) detailing his aims

From 28th July:

http://labourlist.org/2015/07/the-time-for-timid-measures-is-over-corbyn-publishes-gender-equality-strategy/


Upon publishing a strategy to achieve gender equality, entitled Working with Women, Corbyn has pledged that his shadow cabinet would be 50% women, and that he would work towards a gender balanced Parliamentary Labour Party

griftert
18-09-2015, 08:38 AM
That's absolutely brutal chat from Suzanne Moore. I wish there was another paper to read that wasn't the Guardian.

Woebot
18-09-2015, 02:44 PM
On the anthem thing.

It's just another register of middle England's absurdist post empire pathology (further to Bake Off, Strictly, Churchill etc). England is like a fidgetting rose-coloured glasses housewife who continues to cook more and more elabourate dinners for the 'wonderful husband' who abandoned her years previously after years of abuse. The more the crown estate is sold off to China and Russia the more we love the monarchy. As the UK's economic and politcial status wanes union jack bunting is decorated in a delusional attempt to re-live the imagined (and it is an imagining a past to a large extent) good times.

I mean 'God save the Queen?' - who on earth can take that seriously?

it really is a storm in a wedgewood china teacup isn't it. i can't see who would genuinely care.

i thought it was interesting that two of the biggest recent corbyn controversies centred on pieces of music though. GSTQ and the red flag.

trza
25-10-2015, 07:59 PM
Okay, what is the deal with Seamas Milne? What am I supposed to know about this guy?

droid
25-10-2015, 09:51 PM
Typical Guardian liberal, though more radical than the likes of Wheen.

Mr. Tea
28-10-2015, 12:55 PM
Okay, what is the deal with Seamas Milne? What am I supposed to know about this guy?

Living caricature of an "anti-imperialist" armchair jihadi.

droid
28-10-2015, 01:03 PM
lol. Dont make me start defending him. There's been some appalling hatchet jobs about him the last while.

Mr. Tea
28-10-2015, 01:10 PM
lol. Dont make me start defending him. There's been some appalling hatchet jobs about him the last while.

Everything I've read by him makes him sound like the sort of notionally anti-war journalist who in fact just fucking loves war, because the more chaos and misery there is the Middle East, the more right it makes him about the wrongness of the Iraq invasion and the incomparable evil of "The West" in general.

He's as bad as Pilger is (or has become) regarding Russia.

droid
28-10-2015, 02:04 PM
Yeah sure. He obviously loves war, which is why he went against 90% of the British and American press and his own newspaper by opposing the Iraq war.

Lot of guff being written about Russia which completely ignores NATO and US provocation and their attempts to neutralise their military threat - going back 2 decades. The fact that Putin is a c*** doesnt change this fact.

Mr. Tea
28-10-2015, 03:17 PM
Lot of guff being written about Russia which completely ignores NATO and US provocation and their attempts to neutralise their military threat - going back 2 decades. The fact that Putin is a c*** doesnt change this fact.

Right, but if you believe Pilger, poor li'l old beleaguered Putin is merely defending his country against totally unilateral aggression by America and the EU and was left with literally no choice but to annex parts of Ukraine that should probably belong to Russia anyway. Any and all anti-Russian forces in the region are either Western puppets or neo-Nazis. Or both.

So, guff on both sides, as is often the case.

droid
28-10-2015, 03:25 PM
Sure, but what would the reaction be if Mexico signed a defense pact with Russia, and Russian missiles were placed near the US border ala Poland & Romania in '08 and the current plans for Lithuania, Estonia & Latvia?

droid
28-10-2015, 03:31 PM
The big problem here is that Russia is acting like *us* after the relative restraint of the USSR during the late cold war.

Mr. Tea
28-10-2015, 04:48 PM
Sure, but what would the reaction be if Mexico signed a defense pact with Russia, and Russian missiles were placed near the US border...?

Probably something a bit like what happened - or nearly happened - when this exact scenario occurred 50-odd years ago, but with Cuba instead of Mexico...

Look, I'm not defending American expansionism here - whereas Pilger is most blatantly defending Russian expansionism. And in the broader picture, doesn't Ukraine have the right, as a sovereign state, to align itself with whichever allies it chooses? Surely it's no big puzzle as to why the country might prefer to be part of NATO rather than fall (further) back under Russia's sphere of influence.

Mr. Tea
28-10-2015, 04:51 PM
The big problem here is that Russia is acting like *us* after the relative restraint of the USSR durng the late cold war.

Haha, I love the all-important qualifier "late" in this sentence. I.e when their economy had completely collapsed, the government didn't have two brass kopeks to rub together and most everyone had lost any enthusiasm for the Soviet project anyway.

droid
28-10-2015, 05:07 PM
Haha, I love the all-important qualifier "late" in this sentence.

:D I almost left it out but I didn't want to start another digression.

BUT

Its a simple matter to compare the historical record from 1945 on, or certainly post Korea. No matter how you swing it, the USSR was a model of restraint IN COMPARISON (before you say it) to a rampant, provocative US and NATO. had the shoe been on the other foot we all would have died in a nuclear hellstorm sometime in the 80's if not sooner.

droid
28-10-2015, 05:10 PM
Probably something a bit like what happened - or nearly happened - when this exact scenario occurred 50-odd years ago, but with Cuba instead of Mexico...

Look, I'm not defending American expansionism here - whereas Pilger is most blatantly defending Russian expansionism. And in the broader picture, doesn't Ukraine have the right, as a sovereign state, to align itself with whichever allies it chooses? Surely it's no big puzzle as to why the country might prefer to be part of NATO rather than fall (further) back under Russia's sphere of influence.

Why are we talking about Pilger anyway? I haven't seen the piece you're referring to, but the point stands - US/NATO putting missile defence systems designed to facilitate a first strike on Russia = no need for evil Putin to throw his toys out of the pram, but Russian missiles in mexico = a threat to civilisation and armageddon is a preferable alternative etc.

Slothrop
28-10-2015, 05:20 PM
Why are we talking about Pilger anyway? I haven't seen the piece you're referring to, but the point stands - US/NATO putting missile defence systems designed to facilitate a first strike on Russia = no need for evil Putin to throw his toys out of the pram, but Russian missiles in mexico = a threat to civilisation and armageddon is a preferable alternative etc.

But to look at it the other way, if you've been vocally critical of US actions in South and Central America during the Cold War, shouldn't you be equally critical of Russian "preemptive self defence" in Eastern Europe now?

The fact that Western governments and media are inconsistent one way doesn't oblige you to be inconsistent the opposite way.

Sectionfive
28-10-2015, 05:28 PM
Milne is a fantastic appointing judging by the sort of people going apeshit about it

firefinga
28-10-2015, 06:30 PM
:D I almost left it out but I didn't want to start another digression.

BUT

Its a simple matter to compare the historical record from 1945 on, or certainly post Korea. No matter how you swing it, the USSR was a model of restraint IN COMPARISON (before you say it) to a rampant, provocative US and NATO. had the shoe been on the other foot we all would have died in a nuclear hellstorm sometime in the 80's if not sooner.

Hungary 1956, Berlin Wall Crisis, Crushing of the Chech uprising of '68, Aethiopia (Mengistu), Poland 1981, Afghanistan 1979-1988, The Baltic states, arming Egypt, The Iraq, Syria ....

yeah a model of rapant restraint indeed.

firefinga
28-10-2015, 06:53 PM
Sure, but what would the reaction be if Mexico signed a defense pact with Russia, and Russian missiles were placed near the US border ala Poland & Romania in '08 and the current plans for Lithuania, Estonia & Latvia?

All these countries have been invaded/ovccupied by Russia repeatedly in their past. Not surprising they have different views than you, namely that NATO to them means protection instead of provocation.

Mr. Tea
28-10-2015, 07:09 PM
...but Russian missiles in mexico = a threat to civilisation and armageddon is a preferable alternative etc.

And if the USA were to try to forestall this by supporting anti-government rebels, annexing parts of the country or attempting to instigate a coup, left-wing commentators would be screaming "IMPERIALISM!!!" until they were coughing blood - and justifiably so. But when it's Russia engaging in what you might call 'assertive defence', the boot is most assuredly on the other foot.

Mr. Tea
28-10-2015, 07:10 PM
The fact that Western governments and media are inconsistent one way doesn't oblige you to be inconsistent the opposite way.

This is the crux of it.

Mr. Tea
28-10-2015, 07:17 PM
Milne is a fantastic appointing judging by the sort of people going apeshit about it

Ah, the infallible logic of my-enemy's-enemy...

Sectionfive
28-10-2015, 08:01 PM
Well watching the charlatan's that make up the British media throw their collective toys from pram is entertaining, is it not. Put it this way. It's not Milne's opinions on foreign policy they are worried about. It's the fact his appointment is another breach of boundary of acceptable choice they work so hard to police.

There are much more mundane reasons too. Think off all the hacks who woke up on the 12th September to suddenly find their contact book worthless. They wouldn't have crossed the road to speak to someone like Corbyn six months ago. Instead the people whose arses they spent so long kissing aren't within a sniff of influence. From a professional point of view this is not a welcome development and Milne being put in charge of the Labour Party press office just underlines how much they have been wrongfooted. Long may it continue.

droid
28-10-2015, 08:35 PM
But to look at it the other way, if you've been vocally critical of US actions in South and Central America during the Cold War, shouldn't you be equally critical of Russian "preemptive self defence" in Eastern Europe now?

The fact that Western governments and media are inconsistent one way doesn't oblige you to be inconsistent the opposite way.

Its such an obvious truth that I dont think it needs repeating, but the primary responsibility of journalists and activists is to call their own governments to account. If your only concern is the official enemy then you are Pravda.

This is also a moral truism. You are primarily responsible for your own actions and the actions of those over whom you have influence.

So this point is completely backward. Journalists have an obligation foremost to critique their own societies. The caricature of the self hating intellectual who blames their own government far all of the ills in the world and absolves everyone else of all crimes is a mostly mythical creation of propaganda systems, and one of the laziest and most common slurs. It almost universally works the other way around.

droid
28-10-2015, 08:40 PM
All these countries have been invaded/ovccupied by Russia repeatedly in their past. Not surprising they have different views than you, namely that NATO to them means protection instead of provocation.

"Hey guys, Russia has been a historic threat to our security - whats the best way to deal with them?"

"I know - why dont we host a missile defense system, designed to allow the West to launch a first strike against Russia whilst neutralising their response, therefore acting as a massive provocation to a dangerous regime but offering us absolutely no protection in the event of a conflict."

"Brilliant. What could go wrong?"

firefinga
28-10-2015, 08:44 PM
"Hey guys, Russia has been a historic threat to our security - whats the best way to deal with them?"

"I know - why dont we host a missile defense system, designed to allow the West to launch a first strike against Russia whilst neutralising their response, therefore acting as a massive provocation to a dangerous regime but offering us absolutely no protection in the event of a conflict."

"Brilliant. What could go wrong?"

And your point here is? Face it, the majority, possibly a vast majority of the citizens in these countries consider NATO a protective force, despite your ignorance of those poeple's mistrust of Russia - and looking at the history, rightly so.

droid
28-10-2015, 09:43 PM
Hungary 1956, Berlin Wall Crisis, Crushing of the Chech uprising of '68, Aethiopia (Mengistu), Poland 1981, Afghanistan 1979-1988, The Baltic states, arming Egypt, The Iraq, Syria ....

yeah a model of rapant restraint indeed.

Youve left out several minor African conflicts there as well, espionage, assassination etc. but lets look at the most egregious examples of direct intervention as a basic indicator.

Hungary: 2500 dead
Czechoslovakia: 72 dead
Afghanistan 1.5 million dead

The US during the same period - by no means an exhaustive list:

Angola, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Zaire, British Guiana, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Panama, Libya, Libya (again), Iraq, Iraq (again), Greece, East Timor, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Grenada, Afghanistan, Haiti, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sudan, Angola, Chad, Guatemala, Honduras, South Africa, Lebanon, Laos, Puerto Rico, Oman, Yemen, Syria.

The casualties from just one of these conflicts - Vietnam 5 million+ dwarfs the total of all direct Soviet interventions. In fact the number of people who have died from unexploded ordnance or poisoning by chemical agents in Vietnam SINCE the war ended dwarfs the numbers of dead in hungary and Czechoslovakia.

We could continue to discuss the reckless provocations by NATO and the US including the U2 spy program, Able Archer (which nearly killed us all), placing of missiles in turkey which provoked the Cuban missile crisis...


But you'll notice I put the word 'COMPARATIVELY' in huge letters, so Im surprised you didnt notice.

droid
28-10-2015, 09:45 PM
And your point here is? Face it, the majority, possibly a vast majority of the citizens in these countries consider NATO a protective force, despite your ignorance of those poeple's mistrust of Russia - and looking at the history, rightly so.

lol. OK.

firefinga
28-10-2015, 10:41 PM
Youve left out several minor African conflicts there as well, espionage, assassination etc.

But you'll notice I put the word 'COMPARATIVELY' in huge letters, so Im surprised you didnt notice.

I didn't leave anything out, I merely stopped listing - that's where the "..." come into play. As well as I refrained from listing body counts. If we wanna go there, Mao's China is clearly taking the crown.

I did notice, but I consider the COMPARATIVELY a somewhat apologetic strategy I don't buy.

At least you seem to concede the USSR (itself a higly imperialist state) wasn't at all a hippie Commune.

droid
28-10-2015, 10:49 PM
You actually know nothing at all about history do you?

Can you conceive of the idea that one may be well aware of the myriad of crimes committed by the USSR, perhaps the greatest of which are the crimes against the people of Russia itself, whilst also concluding that the crimes of the US exceed them? Is that within your capability?

But please, continue to list the crimes of the official enemy whilst ignoring the far worse crimes of the West.

Sectionfive
28-10-2015, 10:51 PM
Face it, the majority, possibly a vast majority of the citizens in these countries consider NATO a protective force

Even if this was true it would have sweet fuck all to do with NATO's intentions or scrutiny of them.

Mr. Tea
28-10-2015, 10:51 PM
Its such an obvious truth that I dont think it needs repeating, but the primary responsibility of journalists and activists is to call their own governments to account. If your only concern is the official enemy then you are Pravda.

So it's the solemn moral obligation of a British-domiciled Australian to blame the USA and most of Eastern Europe for allegedly bringing the world to the brink of WWIII? Endlessly regurgitating Putin's own propaganda - now that makes you Pravda. Except, a sort of Pravda that is for some reason taken seriously by a worrying number of British people who apparently consider themselves "left-wing" and "anti-imperialist".


The caricature of the self hating intellectual who blames their own government far all of the ills in the world and absolves everyone else of all crimes is a mostly mythical creation of propaganda systems, and one of the laziest and most common slurs.

Bullshit. You can read it in the Guardian on an almost daily basis. Putin's programme to re-establish the Soviet empire is entirely defensive and entirely the fault of America and those countries in eastern Europe who for some weird reason would rather have stronger links with western Europe and the USA than be reabsorbed by the country that has threatened - or trampled underfoot - their national sovereignty for centuries. Citizens of France - a country whose government not only refused to be involved in the invasion of Iraq but vociferously opposed it - are somehow justified targets for jihadis on account of belonging to that monolithic bloc called "The West". And every other bad thing happening in the world is the fault of Israel, obviously.

This isn't a straw man, it's there and it's absolutely endemic to how much of the "left" thinks.

trza
28-10-2015, 11:00 PM
I thought we were talking about Jeremy Corby and his choice for a press secretary. If he answers every question with some list of Western Atrocities or shows up to work in a Che Guevera t-shirt.......

droid
28-10-2015, 11:01 PM
Right. Ive let you away with it so far. Quotes and examples please to illustrate this endemic, self hating, monster absolving, victim blaming strain of leftism.


Bullshit. You can read it in the Guardian on an almost daily basis. Putin's programme to re-establish the Soviet empire is entirely defensive and entirely the fault of America and those countries in eastern Europe who for some weird reason would rather have stronger links with western Europe and the USA than be reabsorbed by the country that has threatened - or trampled underfoot - their national sovereignty for centuries. Citizens of France - a country whose government not only refused to be involved in the invasion of Iraq but vociferously opposed it - are somehow justified targets for jihadis on account of belonging to that monolithic bloc called "The West". And every other bad thing happening in the world is the fault of Israel, obviously.

And seriously. You can conduct yourself better than this. You've gone from criticizing Milne without anything to support your claims, segued into some apocryphal Pilger, and now you're channeling a Telegraph editorial.

Rant all you like, but its not a good argument. In fact, its not even an argument.

droid
28-10-2015, 11:04 PM
Even if this was true it would have sweet fuck all to do with NATO's intentions or scrutiny of them.

Yeah, this is why only 49% of Poles think that the US would support them if Russia attacked, and only 48% would support a military action if Russia DID attack.

But lets not let facts get in the way of Eastern Europeans basking under the beneficent cloak of NATO protection.

Mr. Tea
28-10-2015, 11:09 PM
Right. Ive let you away with it so far. Quotes and examples please to illustrate this endemic, self hating, monster absolving, victim blaming strain of leftism.

Well there's fair few in here, for a start: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2015/10/i-wanted-believe-jeremy-corbyn-i-cant-believe-seumas-milne - but what else do you expect from a mouthpiece for reactionary neoliberal hegemony like the New Statesman, eh.

[cue detailed character assassination of the piece's author]

Mr. Tea
28-10-2015, 11:14 PM
You can conduct yourself better than this.

And a hearty lol at this, coming from someone who'd prefer to play Genocide Top Trumps.

droid
28-10-2015, 11:23 PM
Ahaha. Oliver Bullough. I was just reading this earlier.

Would you be surprised to learn that I met him a few years back when he spoke at the launch of my mate Naphta's album about Chechnya? Nice guy. His book on the Caucasus is excellent, hes a very good journalist and he knows a lot about Russia, but he's also very conservative wrt 'geopolitics', with a very traditional establishment view of media. I asked him about the Russian apartment bombings and how they had affected Putin's image and he dismissed the whole thing as conspiracy theory - yknow, those same bombings during which FSB agents were caught red handed with a basement full of explosives and which sparked the 2nd Chechnan war?

He was also banging the 'Corbyn is anti-semetic' drum not so long ago. Brilliant journalist, crap political commentator, and not to be trusted in that arena IMHO.


Feel free to post an example of an actual article btw. After all, the guardian publishes them every day doesnt it?

firefinga
29-10-2015, 07:14 AM
Yeah, this is why only 49% of Poles think that the US would support them if Russia attacked, and only 48% would support a military action if Russia DID attack.

But lets not let facts get in the way of Eastern Europeans basking under the beneficent cloak of NATO protection.

See here:

http://trends.gmfus.org/transatlantic-trends/country-profiles-2014/country-profiles-poland-2014/

The following copy n pasted from the above link

TRANSATLANTIC SECURITY COOPERATION

The number of respondents in Poland who felt that NATO is still essential for their country’s security increased dramatically from 2013, by 15 percentage points to 62%. Eighty-two percent of Polish respondents said that NATO should be engaged in the territorial defense of Europe. Fifty-eight percent of Poles said that NATO should provide arms and training to help other countries defend themselves, while 52% of European respondents disagreed. But when Ukraine was mentioned, Polish support dropped somewhat, to 52%. Poles were split on out-of-area operations by NATO, with 43% saying the alliance should conduct such operations, and 42% said it should not. Fifty-two percent of Poles, however, said NATO should attempt to establish stability in places like Afghanistan.

Polish respondents showed the most favorable opinion of Ukraine in the entire survey (56%). Poland was among the countries with the most respondents in favor of providing economic and political support to Ukraine even if it risks increasing conflict with Russia (67%, second only to Sweden’s 73%). Sixty-three percent of Poles supported offering NATO membership to Ukraine (EU average: 46% in favor and 47% opposed). Polish respondents also registered the highest support for offering EU membership to Ukraine (69%), as opposed to 52% of Europeans. When asked about economic support for Ukraine, Polish respondents were also more enthusiastic than the European average(78% of Poles, compared to 68% of Europeans). Poland was the only country in which a majority (52%) supported sending military supplies and equipment to Ukraine. Seventy-seven percent of Poles supported stronger economic sanctions against Russia, the highest support registered for this option.

firefinga
29-10-2015, 07:17 AM
You actually know nothing at all about history do you?

But please, continue to list the crimes of the official enemy

I carry a university degree in history so I know a lot about history.

The post I took the liberty to reply to was about russia/USSR and not "The West". I have no "official enemy".

firefinga
29-10-2015, 07:22 AM
So it's the solemn moral obligation of a British-domiciled Australian to blame the USA and most of Eastern Europe for allegedly bringing the world to the brink of WWIII? Endlessly regurgitating Putin's own propaganda - now that makes you Pravda. Except, a sort of Pravda that is for some reason taken seriously by a worrying number of British people who apparently consider themselves "left-wing" and "anti-imperialist".



Bullshit. You can read it in the Guardian on an almost daily basis. Putin's programme to re-establish the Soviet empire is entirely defensive and entirely the fault of America and those countries in eastern Europe who for some weird reason would rather have stronger links with western Europe and the USA than be reabsorbed by the country that has threatened - or trampled underfoot - their national sovereignty for centuries. Citizens of France - a country whose government not only refused to be involved in the invasion of Iraq but vociferously opposed it - are somehow justified targets for jihadis on account of belonging to that monolithic bloc called "The West". And every other bad thing happening in the world is the fault of Israel, obviously.

This isn't a straw man, it's there and it's absolutely endemic to how much of the "left" thinks.

Nailed it.

Since France gets mentioned, an interesting sidenote: the "Anti-Imperialists" have a funny blind spot regarding the French. After all, the only Western country still maintaining actual colonies in 2015, and conducting military interventions in Africa roughly every three years.

Apparently, if the French do it, it's of no concern.

droid
29-10-2015, 09:49 AM
See here:

http://trends.gmfus.org/transatlantic-trends/country-profiles-2014/country-profiles-poland-2014/

The following copy n pasted from the above link

TRANSATLANTIC SECURITY COOPERATION

The number of respondents in Poland who felt that NATO is still essential for their country’s security increased dramatically from 2013, by 15 percentage points to 62%. Eighty-two percent of Polish respondents said that NATO should be engaged in the territorial defense of Europe. Fifty-eight percent of Poles said that NATO should provide arms and training to help other countries defend themselves, while 52% of European respondents disagreed. But when Ukraine was mentioned, Polish support dropped somewhat, to 52%. Poles were split on out-of-area operations by NATO, with 43% saying the alliance should conduct such operations, and 42% said it should not. Fifty-two percent of Poles, however, said NATO should attempt to establish stability in places like Afghanistan.

Polish respondents showed the most favorable opinion of Ukraine in the entire survey (56%). Poland was among the countries with the most respondents in favor of providing economic and political support to Ukraine even if it risks increasing conflict with Russia (67%, second only to Sweden’s 73%). Sixty-three percent of Poles supported offering NATO membership to Ukraine (EU average: 46% in favor and 47% opposed). Polish respondents also registered the highest support for offering EU membership to Ukraine (69%), as opposed to 52% of Europeans. When asked about economic support for Ukraine, Polish respondents were also more enthusiastic than the European average(78% of Poles, compared to 68% of Europeans). Poland was the only country in which a majority (52%) supported sending military supplies and equipment to Ukraine. Seventy-seven percent of Poles supported stronger economic sanctions against Russia, the highest support registered for this option.

So what? Here is the relevant quote from the 2015 Pew Survey.


But when it came to committing to upholding Article 5—the alliance’s sacred cow, which requires NATO members to defend an ally if it is attacked—the results were devastating. The Pew poll showed that among Europeans, a median of 49 percent of respondents thought their country should not defend an ally, a response that exposes a lack of commitment to collective defense. Not only that: the majority of Europeans (67 percent), with the surprising exception of the Poles (49 percent), believed the United States would come to the defense of its allies...

...Of the Europeans polled, the Brits were the most in favor of the use of force to defend their allies (49 percent). As for the Poles, of whom a whopping 70 percent saw Russia as a major military threat to neighboring countries, only 48 percent of those surveyed supported military action in case of an attack.

http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=60389

droid
29-10-2015, 09:54 AM
I carry a university degree in history so I know a lot about history.

The post I took the liberty to reply to was about russia/USSR and not "The West". I have no "official enemy".

Ahaha. Really? Stop carrying it and give it back to whoever owns it.

droid
29-10-2015, 09:55 AM
And a hearty lol at this, coming from someone who'd prefer to play Genocide Top Trumps.

And yet again, no argument.

Youve actually degraded since the last time we had this almost exact conversation.

droid
29-10-2015, 10:07 AM
Nailed it.

Since France gets mentioned, an interesting sidenote: the "Anti-Imperialists" have a funny blind spot regarding the French. After all, the only Western country still maintaining actual colonies in 2015, and conducting military interventions in Africa roughly every three years.

Apparently, if the French do it, it's of no concern.

You're confusing 'Im not aware of it' with 'it doesnt exist'.

http://links.org.au/node/3281
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/08/mali
http://socialistworker.org/2011/01/19/crisis-in-ivory-coast

And there are countless books, papers and articles on the subject, presumably many more in French which I dont have access to, but unsurprisingly, the few English speaking journalists who are consistently critical of interventions concentrate on their own governments.

sadmanbarty
29-10-2015, 11:04 AM
Putin's programme to re-establish the Soviet empire is entirely defensive and entirely the fault of America and those countries in eastern Europe who for some weird reason would rather have stronger links with western Europe and the USA than be reabsorbed by the country that has threatened - or trampled underfoot - their national sovereignty for centuries. obviously.

Irregardless of the morality of these actions, the west and their eastern european allies need to recognise the inevitability of Russian dominance of its neighbours. the north European plane has been the corridor to ground invasion by Napoleon and during the two world wars and as such presents a threat to Russia (of course it has also been the corridor to russian expansion) . Russia has the power to protect it's interests in these areas and as such western policy should not be to try to encircle it in these countries. Instead policy needs to focus on a finland style solution; guaranteeing political and economic freedom of these countries while simultaneously guaranteeing russian security. Furthermore pro-western governments need to grant russian diaspora populations freedom and allow them to have a say in there government; federalism I assume would be the best way of achieving this.

Mr. Tea
29-10-2015, 11:09 AM
Ahaha. Oliver Bullough. I was just reading this earlier.

I just think you're congenitally incapable of agreeing about politics with anyone called Oliver.


He was also banging the 'Corbyn is anti-semetic' drum not so long ago.

As I understand it, Corbyn was peripherally involved some time ago with Deir Yassin Remembered, either before it was infiltrated by anti-Semitic loonies or before it became widely known that Paul Eisen was a Holocaust-denying fuckhead. It would hardly be the first time a hard-left politician has associated with anti-Semites, so it's not entirely surprising people are wary of this, but I believe (and sincerely hope) the accusations are basically muck-raking and that there's no reason to think Corbyn himself holds these views.


Feel free to post an example of an actual article btw.

I might dig some up over lunch - there are plenty to choose from.

droid
29-10-2015, 11:15 AM
Irregardless of the morality of these actions, the west and their eastern european allies need to recognise the inevitability of Russian dominance of its neighbours. the north European plane has been the corridor to ground invasion by Napoleon and during the two world wars and as such presents a threat to Russia (of course it has also been the corridor to russian expansion) . Russia has the power to protect it's interests in these areas and as such western policy should not be to try to encircle it in these countries. Instead policy needs to focus on a finland style solution; guaranteeing political and economic freedom of these countries while simultaneously guaranteeing russian security. Furthermore pro-western governments need to grant russian diaspora populations freedom and allow them to have a say in there government; federalism I assume would be the best way of achieving this.

Precisely. NATO and US military and geopolitical policy since the fall of the Soviet Union has been one of encirclement, with aggressive deregulation as the economic arm of attempts at domination. This has led to a predictable spiralling cycle of provocation and escalation on both sides.

Putin is a butcher and a deeply cynical war criminal, this doesn't change the fact that the West had a chance at genuine detente with Russia after '91, which it deliberately chose to squander.

droid
29-10-2015, 11:27 AM
As I understand it, Corbyn was peripherally involved some time ago with Deir Yassin Remembered, either before it was infiltrated by anti-Semitic loonies or before it became widely known that Paul Eisen was a Holocaust-denying fuckhead. It would hardly be the first time a hard-left politician has associated with anti-Semites, so it's not entirely surprising people are wary of this, but I believe (and sincerely hope) the accusations are basically muck-raking and that there's no reason to think Corbyn himself holds these views.

Im not looking for your opinion. Unless its claimed that Corbyn can predict the future then the accusations are utter bollocks and a cliched smear that discredits the accuser more than the accused. No one with an ounce of sense should entertain them, let alone a political commentator - unless they have an axe to grind.

The logic displayed in attempts to smear Corbyn here would also lead you to smear thatcher as a supporter of paedophiles, although in her case there is actually some evidence to suggest she had knowledge of what her friends and party members were up to.

Mr. Tea
29-10-2015, 11:39 AM
Irregardless of the morality of these actions, the west and their eastern european allies need to recognise the inevitability of Russian dominance of its neighbours. the north European plane has been the corridor to ground invasion by Napoleon and during the two world wars and as such presents a threat to Russia (of course it has also been the corridor to russian expansion) . Russia has the power to protect it's interests in these areas and as such western policy should not be to try to encircle it in these countries. Instead policy needs to focus on a finland style solution; guaranteeing political and economic freedom of these countries while simultaneously guaranteeing russian security. Furthermore pro-western governments need to grant russian diaspora populations freedom and allow them to have a say in there government; federalism I assume would be the best way of achieving this.

Now that is what I call Realpolitik! "Sorry Lithuania, Poland, Romania: Uncle Sam has his 'back yard', Uncle Joe has his, and you quite clearly fall into the latter."

I'm interested in what you mean by "federalism", and also "a Finland-style solution" - presumably you mean a brutal war for the survival of their country against a Soviet invasion? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War)

droid
29-10-2015, 11:44 AM
Its fascinating... ....how far will this regression go? Will you be eating rusks and shitting in a nappy by years end?

firefinga
29-10-2015, 11:57 AM
So what? Here is the relevant quote from the 2015 Pew Survey.

The quote is irrelevant regarding the claims in some of the above posts, namely that there is no majority for NATO membership in Poland (and likely in other former Warsaw Pact countries as well) . There clearly is.

It's even debatable that those 49 respectively 48 % are indeed a relative majority (Given the fact that within such polls there's always some % saying to have no opinion at all)

droid
29-10-2015, 11:59 AM
The quote is irrelevant regarding the claims in some of the above posts, namely that there is no majority for NATO membership in Poland (and likely in other former Warsaw Pact countries as well) . There clearly is.

It's even debatable that those 49 respectively 48 % are indeed a relative majority (Given the fact that within such polls there's always some % saying to have no opinion at all)

That claim was never made. The claim that was made is that Poles do not believe that the US will support them in the event of an attack and that they would not support military action in the event of an attack.

I can really see those critical reading skills at work there.

firefinga
29-10-2015, 12:01 PM
That claim was never made. The claim that was made is that Poles do not believe that the US will support them in the event of an attack and that they would not support military action in the event of an attack.

I can really see those critical reading skills at work there.

That's open to interpretation.

For English being not my first language, I do pretty well.
Let's continue in German and we have an even playfield.

droid
29-10-2015, 12:07 PM
No, its not open to interpretation. That was the result of the poll.

Your English is very good. Kudos.

firefinga
29-10-2015, 12:10 PM
Your English is very good. Kudos.

Thank you.

sadmanbarty
29-10-2015, 12:35 PM
Now that is what I call Realpolitik! "Sorry Lithuania, Poland, Romania: Uncle Sam has his 'back yard', Uncle Joe has his, and you quite clearly fall into the latter."

I'm interested in what you mean by "federalism", and also "a Finland-style solution" - presumably you mean a brutal war for the survival of their country against a Soviet invasion? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War)

Yes it is realpolitik.

As for Finland, I'm referring to the non-alignment policies adopted during the cold war that have prevented another such war occurring, while at the same time leading to the economic prosperity and democratic freedom of it's population.

Federal Ukraine:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/03/19/building-a-federal-ukraine/

Mr. Tea
29-10-2015, 01:31 PM
Its fascinating... ....how far will this regression go? Will you be eating rusks and shitting in a nappy by years end?

I might have to concede at this point - you know what they say, you can always tell someone has won an argument when they start slinging around ad-hominem insults.

I asked sadmanbarty what he meant by "a Finland-style solution" and he - unlike you - responded reasonably and told me what he meant. And since the discussion is about Russian expansionism, it's hardly irrelevant to bring up the fact that Finland only exists as an independent country because it fought off a Soviet invasion.

As for examples of the kind of article I was talking about, here's Pilger (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukraine-us-war-russia-john-pilger) in fine form, giving pro-Russian forces unlimited benefit of the doubt* - hey, they only want self-determination, and who could be against that?! (never mind the fact that many of them are only there in the first place because their grandparents were transplanted there as settlers following the genocide of the former populace) - while slandering their opposition uniformly as "neo-Nazis" and, of course, blaming the USA for sticking its oar in and messing up what would otherwise be the perfectly peaceable and routine reabsorption of Ukraine into Greater Russia. (Note, too, the wonderful line about how the only reason anyone could have a less than entirely rosy view of Hugo Chavez or Vladimir Putin (!) is because of propaganda in the form of Western media. Which, amazingly, apparently isn't even meant as a joke.)

If I can be arsed, I'll see if I can find that piece by Milne in which he's quite clearly rooting for those plucky mujahideen lads killing coalition and Afghan troops with IEDs...

*to be fair, the article came out a couple of months before that bothersome business with Flight MH17

craner
29-10-2015, 01:34 PM
Isn't this (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/04/demonisation-russia-risks-paving-way-for-war) one of the famous columns you're looking for?

Edit: to be fair to Milne, he does say, in passing, "Putin’s authoritarian conservatism may offer little for Russia’s future..."

Mr. Tea
29-10-2015, 01:38 PM
Yes it is realpolitik.

As for Finland, I'm referring to the non-alignment policies adopted during the cold war that have prevented another such war occurring, while at the same time leading to the economic prosperity and democratic freedom of it's population.

Federal Ukraine:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/03/19/building-a-federal-ukraine/

OK thanks, I understand what you mean now.

droid
29-10-2015, 01:50 PM
I might have to concede at this point - you know what they say, you can always tell someone has won an argument when they start slinging around ad-hominem insults.


Tea, you've been flinging ad hominems around for the last three pages. You've yet to make a coherent argument. Your response to sadmanbarty was sneering and insulting and Ive actually lost count of the amount of fallacies you've committed, so yes, Im going to take the piss.

droid
29-10-2015, 02:09 PM
Isn't this (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/04/demonisation-russia-risks-paving-way-for-war) one of the famous columns you're looking for?

Edit: to be fair to Milne, he does say, in passing, "Putin’s authoritarian conservatism may offer little for Russia’s future..."

Hmmm... Milne seems to me to be extremely careful in his use of language. There is nothing there that is not reasonable, and afaik, true. In fact, in general the tone seems fairly restrained and sensible. He doesn't lambast Putin, but nor does he absolve him of any crimes.


...That doesn’t justify less extreme Russian violations of international law, but it puts them in the context of Russian security. While Putin is portrayed in the west as a reckless land-grabber, in Russian terms he is a centrist. As the veteran Russian leftist Boris Kagarlitsky comments, most Russians want Putin to take a tougher stand against the west “not because of patriotic propaganda, but their experience of the past 25 years”.

In the west, Ukraine – along with Isis – is being used to revive the doctrines of liberal interventionism and even neoconservatism, discredited on the killing fields of Iraq and Afghanistan. So far, Angela Merkel and François Hollande have resisted American pressure to arm Kiev. But when the latest Minsk ceasefire breaks down, as it surely will, there is a real risk that Ukraine’s proxy conflict could turn into full-scale international war.

The alternative is a negotiated settlement which guarantees Ukraine’s neutrality, pluralism and regional autonomy. It may well be too late for that. But there is certainly no military solution. Instead of escalating the war and fuelling nationalist extremism, western powers should be using their leverage to wind it down. If they don’t, the consequences could be disastrous – far beyond Ukraine.

sadmanbarty
29-10-2015, 02:12 PM
OK thanks, I understand what you mean now.

No problem. I'd also add that the mutually beneficial trade between Finland and the Soviet Union/Russia is another contributing factor to the balance Finland has achieved and is something that can be applied to other countries. This appears to be what Russia is gunning for (excuse the pun) in the region with things like the Eurasian Economic Union.

Mr. Tea
29-10-2015, 03:25 PM
Tea, you've been flinging ad hominems around for the last three pages.

Huh? I've dissed a couple of journalists who, as far as I know, don't post on this forum. I haven't insulted you. You've called firefinga ignorant and me a baby.

And I've made my argument that there are prominent figures on the hard left who are obsessed with the misdeeds of Western governments to the point that they end up apologizing for, if not actively supporting, highly reactionary states and non-state groups just because they also oppose "The West". You clearly don't agree but it's not "incoherent" and it's a position shared by a great many people, not all of whom are bellicose neocons or messianic liberal-interventionists, as much as you might like to imagine they are.

droid
29-10-2015, 03:39 PM
'Genocide top trumps'? Do you even know what you're doing? Do you understand that you can commit an ad hominem fallacy without directing it at the person you're speaking to?


Everything I've read by him makes him sound like the sort of notionally anti-war journalist who in fact just fucking loves war, because the more chaos and misery...

Ad Hominem, not even an attempt to back it up with evidence.


Putin's programme to re-establish the Soviet empire... ....And every other bad thing happening in the world is the fault of Israel, obviously.

Ad Hominem, Straw man, Willful Misrepresentation, Assertion without evidence.


I'm interested in what you mean by "federalism", and also "a Finland-style solution" - presumably you mean a brutal war for the survival of their country against a Soviet invasion?... Now that is what I call Realpolitik! "Sorry Lithuania, Poland, Romania: Uncle Sam has his 'back yard', Uncle Joe has his, and you quite clearly fall into the latter."

Wilful Misrepresentation, Straw man, Borderline Ad Hominem.


You've called firefinga ignorant and me a baby.

Is it still an insult if its true? :p

Sectionfive
29-10-2015, 04:10 PM
This is all besides the point anyway. It's not Milne's or even Corbyn's opinions per say that are making people shit the bed. There are hundreds of people of with odious views and dubious pedigree in positions of power and influence that these people would never utter a word about. There was none of this posturing when Andy Coulson walked straight out of Murdoch's arse and into Downing street, for example. Look how long the hacking stuff was ignored before people were forced to acknowledge it. It's not Seumas Milne's press ethics they are worried about.

The press and wider bubble are losing the rag because there is a loss of certainty that comes with having your worldview challenged in the way it has been by Corbyn's elections. Not a single one of these people paid to hang around Westminster all day getting selfies at the number 10 xmas party predicted it would happen. All this shitting on about Putin and the IRA is just cover for the same old turf wars and the in gang are in meltdown having grown too comfortable having it their own way.

droid
29-10-2015, 04:20 PM
Indeed.

In fact, Id say Milne's appointment was primarily pragmatic - he knows the media, obvs has contacts in the industry. The fact that he shares Corbyn's politics is mostly incidental, and is a symbol of trust more than anything else.

craner
29-10-2015, 04:49 PM
There was none of this posturing when Andy Coulson walked straight out of Murdoch's arse and into Downing street

Are you mad? Everybody was talking about Coulson's murky past right off the bat. It was a controversial and risky appointment from Day 1 of the Coalition. Everybody knew it would end badly and constantly talked and wrote about how badly it would end. Then it ended badly.


In fact, Id say Milne's appointment was primarily pragmatic - he knows the media, obvs has contacts in the industry

This is just wilfully obtuse. I mean, what you're saying is true, he will have impeccable left-wing media contacts, but it is also blantantly (and successfully) a political and even iconoclastic appointment. Milne is an important and in some ways symbolic precense in the Corbyn world for, as much as anything, his investigative work into the fight against the NUM.

Sectionfive
29-10-2015, 04:51 PM
Are you mad? Everybody was talking about Coulson's murky past right off the bat. It was a controversial and risky appointment from Day 1 of the Coalition. Everybody knew it would end badly and constantly talked and wrote about how badly it would end. Then it ended badly.

sure but nothing approaching the sort shrill baying hysteria from every angle we are seeing at the moment

droid
29-10-2015, 04:53 PM
This is just wilfully obtuse. I mean, what you're saying is true, he will have impeccable left-wing media contacts, but it is also blantantly (and successfully) a political and even iconoclastic appointment. Milne is an important and in some ways symbolic precense in the Corbyn world for, as much as anything, his investigative work into the fight against the NUM.

Also pragmatic in the sense that the field of potential candidates would have been absolutely down to about two, and I don't think monbiot would have taken the job.

droid
29-10-2015, 04:57 PM
sure but nothing approaching the sort shrill baying hysteria from every angle we are seeing at the moment

That Bullough article is a good example actually.

"I wanted to believe in David Cameron, but the appointment of Andy Coulson has shattered my dreams"

Sectionfive
29-10-2015, 06:46 PM
We're in for five years of this basically. Everyone writing their own personal 60,000 word rationalisation of why they will be lining up behind Boris with a clear conscience.

"Look I'm a reasonable honest ordinary lefty bloke but there comes time when you have to use the brain instead the heart and admit that we just can't afford the NHS, after all sometimes the best medicine is the hardest to swallow"

" I used to believe in trade unions, in my heart I still do, but y'know who needs old fashioned workers rights in the nightmarish silicon valley owned G4s run death pit we have to work eighteen hours a day in now"

"Why twitter trolls mean we should invade Russia: Aren't I brave for speaking out against the politically correct Islamofascist corbynites who would silence me"


yada yada yada.

Mr. Tea
29-10-2015, 11:14 PM
'Genocide top trumps'? Do you even know what you're doing? Do you understand that you can commit an ad hominem fallacy without directing it at the person you're speaking to?

"You're shit" is ad-hominem, "Your argument is shit" isn't. It's really pretty straightforward. And as far as slinging insults at people involved in this thread goes, you're the only one doing it. Why you're taking issue with me saying mean things about a couple of guys you don't know and (AFAIK) have no personal affection for, I don't know. Especially when I've explained in some depth why I have the problem with them that I do.

And genocide top trumps is precisely what you were doing. firefinga was talking about countries that were invaded, attacked or otherwise meddled with by the USSR in the context of why some of those countries might justifiably be worried about Putin flexing his muscles - you then leapt into "Yeahbutwhatabout..." mode and started banging on about the Vietnam war! If I wanted to play that game I could have mentioned the Holodomor, which is a damn sight more relevant to a discussion of Russian aggression in eastern Europe than Vietnam is.

Mr. Tea
29-10-2015, 11:29 PM
We're in for five years of this basically. Everyone writing their own personal 60,000 word rationalisation of why they will be lining up behind Boris with a clear conscience.

"Look I'm a reasonable honest ordinary lefty bloke but there comes time when you have to use the brain instead the heart and admit that we just can't afford the NHS, after all sometimes the best medicine is the hardest to swallow"

" I used to believe in trade unions, in my heart I still do, but y'know who needs old fashioned workers rights in the nightmarish silicon valley owned G4s run death pit we have to work eighteen hours a day in now"

"Why twitter trolls mean we should invade Russia: Aren't I brave for speaking out against the politically correct Islamofascist corbynites who would silence me"


yada yada yada.

Haha, who is this fictional turncoat hate-puppet supposed to represent, apart perhaps from Nick Cohen? At this juncture I'm pretty sure no-one who would bother even trying to pretend to be a "lefty" would remotely consider voting for the shower of cunts currently ruining this country, whether led by Totes Ledge Bants Johnson or anyone else. The Tories-at-heart still carrying a torch for Blair, who maybe gave Labour "one last chance" in 2010, already defected to the Conservatives in their droves in this year's election.

Personally I think appointing someone as blatantly partisan as Milne as his comms bod is a mistake for Corbyn, and I hope it doesn't prove too costly for him. Making a militant vegan who wants to treat meat like a harmful, addictive drug his farming minister wasn't the smartest move either. But really these are side issues - most of his ideas about the economy, the welfare state and so on seem pretty sound and I'm still planning to vote for him.

droid
29-10-2015, 11:55 PM
"You're shit" is ad-hominem, "Your argument is shit" isn't. It's really pretty straightforward. And as far as slinging insults at people involved in this thread goes, you're the only one doing. Why you're taking issue with me saying mean things about a couple of guys you don't know and (AFAIK) have no personal affection for, I don't know. Especially when I've explained in some depth why I have the problem with them that I do.

Im taking issue with the fact that you're seemingly now incapable of constructing an argument without resort to endless logical fallacies. Its a regression.


And genocide top trumps is precisely what you were doing. firefinga was talking about countries that were invaded, attacked or otherwise meddled with by the USSR in the context of why some of those countries might justifiably be worried about Putin flexing his muscles - you then leapt into "Yeahbutwhatabout..." mode and started banging on about the Vietnam war! If I wanted to play that game I could have mentioned the Holodomor, which is a damn sight more relevant to a discussion of Russian aggression in eastern Europe than Vietnam is.

Another distortion. I actually said that Russia was, historically, comparatively restrained compared to the US. Firefinga then said "Yeahbutwhatabout..." and I responded with a comparison of the two, yknow - comparatively.

Here's exactly what I said:


Its a simple matter to compare the historical record from 1945 on, or certainly post Korea. No matter how you swing it, the USSR was a model of restraint IN COMPARISON (before you say it) to a rampant, provocative US and NATO. had the shoe been on the other foot we all would have died in a nuclear hellstorm sometime in the 80's if not sooner.

So you cant talk about the Holdomer all you want, it's another attempt at distraction and has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made.

Sectionfive
30-10-2015, 03:28 AM
Haha, who is this fictional turncoat hate-puppet supposed to represent,

All of them, they're all coming out as Tories by 2020. Not full tories mind, just realistic pragmatism, you see. Some may hang on to fill the place vacated by departing pet Blairites. Someone has to churn out the "why the left must.." columns but many, despite their "solid working class background", the youngest of eighteen children raised by a single mum inside a miners shirt pocket, despite not having written anything positive about the left in two decades will, after much soul searching, being hopping straight aboard the aspiration train. The fact that their haters and Chilcot won't shut up about that bloody war will push a few more over the edge.

craner
30-10-2015, 09:36 AM
The fact that their haters and Chilcot won't shut up about that bloody war

Wait, I thought Chilcot was the bad guy, because he hasn't released his 2-million word report when everybody stamped their feet and demanded he do so?


Personally I think appointing someone as blatantly partisan as Milne as his comms bod is a mistake for Corbyn, and I hope it doesn't prove too costly for him.

I do.

droid
30-10-2015, 09:56 AM
Wait, I thought Chilcot was the bad guy, because he hasn't released his 2-million word report when everybody stamped their feet and demanded he do so?


Getting worried? Are you mentioned in there somewhere?

baboon2004
30-10-2015, 02:11 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/oct/30/martin-amis-jeremy-corbyn-humour-jonathan-coe

Maritn Amis displaying his famous sense of irony.

Mr. Tea
30-10-2015, 04:13 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/oct/30/martin-amis-jeremy-corbyn-humour-jonathan-coe

Maritn Amis displaying his famous sense of irony.

Does anyone other than Martin Amis listen to Martin Amis these days?

vimothy
31-10-2015, 12:11 PM
I recently discovered that Seamus Milne is the son of the late Alasdair Milne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alasdair_Milne), former Director-General of the BBC.

comelately
01-11-2015, 11:07 AM
"You're shit" is ad-hominem, "Your argument is shit" isn't. It's really pretty straightforward.


And a hearty lol at this, coming from someone who'd prefer to play Genocide Top Trumps.

1. Saying 'Your argument is shit' may not ad hominem, but it remains pretty fallacious and uncivil.

2. When you are questioning someone's motives for making an argument, as you have clearly done, then many would consider this an ad hominem (see the wikipedia entry). Others might prefer to list that as a separate fallacy of relevance, but it's all pretty similar stuff.

Slothrop
17-11-2015, 11:50 AM
"Jeremy Corbyn supports terrorists. The papers say so."
"That's blatant misrepresentation."
"Yeah, but the papers also say that if he was More Statesmanlike and Knew How To Handle The Media then they wouldn't be able to blatantly misrepresent him. And you can't be a good leader without being Statesmanlike and Knowing How To Handle The Media."

Repeat x 1,000,000.

This conversation is seriously doing my head in right now.

glasshand
29-11-2015, 07:38 PM
Jeremy Corbyn on the Andrew Marr show today talking about his view on possible airstrikes on Syria



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqqzytMzOfY

sadmanbarty
30-11-2015, 10:42 AM
Well he's right to oppose cameron's strategy:

https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/291209463?access_key=key-wWmOF3IlMYn56JB9fgXx&allow_share=true&escape=false&show_recommendations=false&view_mode=slideshow


That being said Kurdish success in Kobani and Tal Abyad as well as the capture of Brigade 93 display the effectiveness of air support when coupled with an effective ground force.

FSA's withdrawal from Ayn Issa due to lack of air support shows that air strikes are decisive in this regard.

Proposing this policy would make sense politically too. Maintaining our alliance with France and the US, placating the hawks in Labour, discrediting Corbyn's lefty-pacifist image and generally portraying labour's foreign policy as more level-headed then the tory's.

baboon2004
02-12-2015, 02:10 AM
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/01/cameron-accuses-corbyn-of-being-terrorist-sympathiser

Wow. The Tories constantly find ways to sink yet lower.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-calls-for-sanctions-against-banks-and-countries-funding-isis-a6739081.html

sensible thoughts, and surely this is the line of counterattack that Corbyn needs to make his primary one against the Tories to put them on the back foot, showing that there is a clear alternative plan of action for fatally weakening support for Isis; rather than making his primary counter about the Vienna peace talks and the end of the Syrian war, which looks incredibly optimistic at best as a solution to Isis - does anyone think Russia is going to give up Assad any time soon?

craner
02-12-2015, 10:02 PM
Hilary Benn just destroyed Corbyn. Brilliant speech. The only new war being declared tonight is within the Labour Party. The debate was not about a new war, but a war that has been being fought for 14 years. (Badly, sadly.) It's a new campaign in the fourth world war in our collective lifetime.

sadmanbarty
03-12-2015, 09:56 AM
I think a big problem was Corbyn made it a debate about whether the abstract notion of bombing I.S. in syria is a good idea or not. Because of that the commons debate (including Benn's speech) was of the calibre you'd get in a sixth form common room. If it had focused on tangible military and strategic concerns, the results would have been far more constructive.

While I agree with bombing I.S in Syria, Cameron's plan is an utter shambles. A level-headed counter proposal by the opposition could have done some real good.

droid
03-12-2015, 10:30 AM
Hilary Benn just destroyed Corbyn. Brilliant speech. The only new war being declared tonight is within the Labour Party. The debate was not about a new war, but a war that has been being fought for 14 years. (Badly, sadly.) It's a new campaign in the fourth world war in our collective lifetime.

Amazing, simply amazing that anyone believes in the idea that morals play a factor in the actions of great (or not so great) powers. Especially in the case of the murderous cretins who run the UK and who are culpable for every death caused by IS.

If Franco was alive today Benn would be denouncing the international brigades as terrorists. A laughable performance aimed at the historically illiterate and the ethically bereft.

sadmanbarty
03-12-2015, 10:45 AM
Amazing, simply amazing that anyone believes in the idea that morals play a factor in the actions of great (or not so great) powers.


I agree that for the most part they don't. However the 2003 Iraq invasion was motivated by neo-conservative idealism rather than realism of Thucydides, kenneth waltz, et al. Likewise there have been a few cases of humanitarian intervention, which don't particularly serve the intervening countries interests.

droid
03-12-2015, 11:02 AM
I agree that for the most part they don't. However the 2003 Iraq invasion was motivated by neo-conservative idealism rather than realism of Thucydides, kenneth waltz, et al. Likewise there have been a few cases of humanitarian intervention, which don't particularly serve the intervening countries interests.

Jus bellum iustum? Possibly two cases in history, and even then, dubious.

luka
03-12-2015, 11:03 AM
Craner is a troll. He's been trolling himself for 15 years.

luka
03-12-2015, 11:04 AM
It's possible to get so bored and contemptuous of your own self that you start trolling yourself. Its a recognised psychological phenomenon

luka
03-12-2015, 11:58 AM
I wonder how many of you would accept craners premise, that the fight against Muslims is WWIV? Barty clearly does. I wonder how different people characterise our engagement with the Muslim world and the Middle East in particular
This is the essay in which craner lays out his thesis. He considers it a work of outstanding insight and oracular prescience https://kirkpatrickmission.wordpress.com/2004/10/28/world-war-four/
Please familiarise yourselves with it

sadmanbarty
03-12-2015, 12:53 PM
I wonder how many of you would accept craners premise, that the fight against Muslims is WWIV? Barty clearly does. I wonder how different people characterise our engagement with the Muslim world and the Middle East in particular
This is the essay in which craner lays out his thesis. He considers it a work of outstanding insight and oracular prescience https://kirkpatrickmission.wordpress.com/2004/10/28/world-war-four/
Please familiarise yourselves with it

I don't think there is or should be a fight against Muslims (I was proposing air support for Kurds, who are predominantly Muslim). I don't think jihadism is in accordance with Quranic teachings and as such shouldn't be equated with Islam.

Using the following definitions you could argue it's a world war:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/world-war

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/world%20war

In the colloquial sense of "world war" however the phrase doesn't fit; there are low casualties, the threat to most nations involved isn't existential, widespread use of non-conventional warfare, the prominence of non-state actors, the use of proxy's, etc.

craner
03-12-2015, 01:23 PM
Classic essay.

luka
03-12-2015, 01:35 PM
BARTYMAN WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF CRANERS ESSAY? GIVE A FULL CONSIDERED AND COGENT RESPONSE

sadmanbarty
03-12-2015, 01:56 PM
BARTYMAN WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF CRANERS ESSAY? GIVE A FULL CONSIDERED AND COGENT RESPONSE

Bartyman = battyman?

It's unfair to judge something with over a decade's hindsight, but I thought it was good.

Again, I disagree with the use of "world war"; I consider neither the Cold War nor the "War on terror" to be world wars, but the taxonomy isn't particularly significant.

I think the House of Saud has always been fairly stable (even in '79).

Proliferation of chemical and biological weapons was overstated at the time (though some are suggesting that Al Nusra has developed Sarin in the last few years).

baboon2004
03-12-2015, 02:16 PM
Hilary Benn just destroyed Corbyn. Brilliant speech.

It wasn't even a particularly good speech - which we know to be an objective fact, as Michael Fallon said it was brilliant. Noticeable also that he (Fallon) waited until this morning to highlight the elephant in the room yesterday - that the bombing campaign will be going on for years, rather than months.

IdleRich
03-12-2015, 02:16 PM
"Amazing, simply amazing that anyone believes in the idea that morals play a factor in the actions of great (or not so great) powers."
This is it basically isn't it? Once you realise this then it's hard not to become cynical about everything. But although I'm sure there was a time before I'd realised that I can't really remember it unfortunately.

droid
03-12-2015, 02:18 PM
It wasn't even a particularly good speech - which we know to be an objective fact, as Michael Fallon said it was brilliant. Noticeable also that he (Fallon) waited until this morning to highlight the elephant in the room yesterday - that the bombing campaign will be going on for years, rather than months.


Hilary Benn's speech was not the masterstroke of a consummate statesman; it was disingenuous nonsense. Even on the level of pure rhetoric: he imitated better speakers by occasionally varying his tone, rising from a sincere whisper to tub-thumping declamation without much regard for the actual content of what he was saying; this is now apparently what passes from great oratory. The speech was liberally garnished with dull clichés: "clear and present danger", "safe haven", "shoulder to shoulder", "play our part", "do our bit". He said "Daesh" a lot, and mispronounced it every time.

And then there's what he actually said. Hilary Benn has form here: he voted for the 2003 war in Iraq (making him far more responsible for the rise of Isis than some of the people who will die in the airstrikes he's so passionately promoting) and the disastrous 2011 air war in Libya. Much of his speech is familiar invocation of the just war doctrine: laying out the brutality of Isis, as if the eight British jets we're sending could put an end to it; asking "what message would [not acting] send?", as if the self-image of the British state were worth a single innocent life.


http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/hilary-benns-speech-930

baboon2004
03-12-2015, 02:20 PM
I think a big problem was Corbyn made it a debate about whether the abstract notion of bombing I.S. in syria is a good idea or not. Because of that the commons debate (including Benn's speech) was of the calibre you'd get in a sixth form common room. If it had focused on tangible military and strategic concerns, the results would have been far more constructive.

While I agree with bombing I.S in Syria, Cameron's plan is an utter shambles. A level-headed counter proposal by the opposition could have done some real good.

Agree with this apart from your support for bombing - which I don't understand anyway, as surely you're making the issue into an abstract question again. Presume you mean in certain, very particular circumstances?

baboon2004
03-12-2015, 02:21 PM
This is it basically isn't it? Once you realise this then it's hard not to become cynical about everything. But although I'm sure there was a time before I'd realised that I can't really remember it unfortunately.

and we know this very clearly because the UK ruling class doesn't give a shit about poor people in its own country, let alone poor people in Syria.

Nothing wrong with being cynical about a form of politics where shark-eyed careerists raised on spin are overwhelmingly the type who rise to the top.

luka
03-12-2015, 02:46 PM
For the record I think bombing Syria is moronic.

luka
03-12-2015, 02:47 PM
It's moronic even if you sincerely believe we're currently embroiled in WWIV

sadmanbarty
03-12-2015, 02:47 PM
Agree with this apart from your support for bombing - which I don't understand anyway, as surely you're making the issue into an abstract question again. Presume you mean in certain, very particular circumstances?

Kurdish success in Kobani and Tal Abyad as well as the capture of Brigade 93 display the effectiveness of air support when coupled with an effective ground force. FSA's withdrawal from Ayn Issa due to lack of air support shows that air strikes are decisive in this regard.

So I'm pro-bombing in support for Kurdish operations.

If the west were to reengage with the Souther Front, I'd be in support of air strikes against I.S. in Daraa (though their presence is minimal there).

If at some point in the future a credible Sunni-Arab group were recapturing I.S. areas along the Euphrates and around Palmyra, I'd support UK air strikes with them as well.

luka
03-12-2015, 02:47 PM
Which is a moronic thing to believe

sadmanbarty
03-12-2015, 02:48 PM
For the record I think bombing Syria is moronic.

Why?

luka
03-12-2015, 02:56 PM
It depends on what your goals are. For example Craner is very concerned with Islam as an existential threat to Western Civ, and more mundanely, the containment of Iran and the security of Israel. Woebot is largely concerned with energy security.
I can't see what is to be gained by a bit of aimless bomb lobbing. That's why I think it's moronic. Im also broadly opposed to killing people.

droid
03-12-2015, 03:15 PM
Bombing ISIS whilst giving arms and military support to the Saudis and their allies is ridiculous.

Also, 60,000+ sorties flown already.

Britain is the tardy lickspittle leaping over the other boys into the midst of a good schoolyard beating so he can snivel at the bully's feet.

baboon2004
03-12-2015, 03:19 PM
And it's been totally mis-sold. Three fucking years of bombing? That suggests that all this talk of the precision effectiveness of UK weapons is, well, a big fucking lie.

I can see the point about support for Kurdish ground forces, but in that case why isn't the UK (at least not publicly) demanding that Turkey stop its embargo on Kurdish Syria, and stop indirectly/directly supporting Isis?

As for a credible Sunni Arab group - well, that seems to be pie in the sky at the moment. And on that note, what diplomacy work is going on with Saudi Arabia to stop them propping up fundamentalist, Salafist (if that's the right word) interpretations of Sunni Islam? Well, as Droid says, probably none because it would upset 'our' weapons contracts.

60 000 sorties? where's the info on that, cos if even half true, that's nuts

droid
03-12-2015, 03:29 PM
And it's been totally mis-sold. Three fucking years of bombing? That suggests that all this talk of the precision effectiveness of UK weapons is, well, a big fucking lie.

I can see the point about support for Kurdish ground forces, but in that case why isn't the UK (at least not publicly) demanding that Turkey stop its embargo on Kurdish Syria, and stop indirectly/directly supporting Isis?

As for a credible Sunni Arab group - well, that seems to be pie in the sky at the moment. And on that note, what diplomacy work is going on with Saudi Arabia to stop them propping up fundamentalist, Salafist (if that's the right word) interpretations of Sunni Islam? Well, as Droid says, probably none because it would upset 'our' weapons contracts.

60 000 sorties? where's the info on that, cos if even half true, that's nuts

It was 44,000 US sorties alone by June IIRC. Then there's everybody else. I think that number is approximately correct.

sadmanbarty
03-12-2015, 03:30 PM
It depends on what your goals are. For example Craner is very concerned with Islam as an existential threat to Western Civ, and more mundanely, the containment of Iran and the security of Israel. Woebot is largely concerned with energy security.
I can't see what is to be gained by a bit of aimless bomb lobbing. That's why I think it's moronic. Im also broadly opposed to killing people.

I only skimmed through Craner's blog, so if he was saying what you're saying he was, then I retract my previous comments about it being a good piece.

Regardless of the conflict as a whole do you think that the recapture of the Kobani canton was 1) a good thing and 2) in part thanks to air support?

baboon2004
03-12-2015, 03:38 PM
Does the Free Syrian Army exist in any real sense? The name is being dredged up again now.

craner
03-12-2015, 03:43 PM
Islamic State is what it states it is, a state. And the most important asset a terror organisation can have is a safe territory from which to operate. Given the threat they pose, the very least that should be done is to undermine their control of that territory, like the 2001 campaign in Afghanistan did to al-Qaeda (at least temporarily). So, yes, I reckon air strikes will have a significant role to play in the destruction of Islamic State, but absolutely nobody in yesterday's debate claimed that bombs alone will do it.

craner
03-12-2015, 03:44 PM
Does the Free Syrian Army exist in any real sense?

Yes, it does. It existed all along.

droid
03-12-2015, 03:45 PM
like the 2001 campaign in Afghanistan did to al-Qaeda (at least temporarily).

Ahahahaha. And what happened next Oliver?

craner
03-12-2015, 03:47 PM
Well, yeah, the US fucked it up afterwards, but that doesn't really alter the argument.

sadmanbarty
03-12-2015, 03:48 PM
Does the Free Syrian Army exist in any real sense? The name is being dredged up again now.

Only really in the Daraa, it's called the Southern Front, supposedly 25,000 strong. That being said it's debatable as to whether it's militarily successful without fighting alongside jihadist groups. The MOC has stopped supporting it this year, so it seems to be disbanding; the leaders are escaping to Europe and other members are either joining jihadi's or defecting back to the Syrian army. It was never particularly cohesive due to tribal rivalry's etc.

craner
03-12-2015, 03:50 PM
They have suffered from years of neglect.

baboon2004
03-12-2015, 03:53 PM
Yes, it does. It existed all along.

ok, let me rephrase. is it used as a shifting umbrella term for groups the west likes at any given time? says here

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/free-syrian-army-decimated-desertions-151111064831800.html

that it's made up of over 2,000 factions. Doesn't sound like a genuine cohesive entity to me.

craner
03-12-2015, 04:02 PM
Well, I don't know much about its current configuration, but in 2013 is was made up of numerous brigades of varying quality, but it had some form of command structure linked to the then Supreme Military Council. The main worry at that time was the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood on the FSA, due to the strong paternal role of Turkey. It was cohesive to an extent, but fragile, which is why it has always been so weak in comparison to Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham and Islamic State.

Frankly, the West wasted its only opportunity to nurture a decent and effective opposition to Assad and the Islamists back in 2012, and the moderate brigades and politicians got smashed and/or fled sharpish.

luka
03-12-2015, 04:09 PM
Regardless of the conflict as a whole do you think that the recapture of the Kobani canton was 1) a good thing and 2) in part thanks to air support?

Lol! How am I supposed to know?

Mr. Tea
03-12-2015, 04:09 PM
Bombing ISIS whilst giving arms and military support to the Saudis and their allies is ridiculous.


"Giving"? Ahem, selling, surely. We're not a fucking charity, you know.

droid
03-12-2015, 04:09 PM
Well, yeah, the US fucked it up afterwards, but that doesn't really alter the argument.

Sure, because that's not going to happen again, nor is it what happens after ever single intervention.

Mr. Tea
03-12-2015, 04:13 PM
I wonder how many of you would accept craners premise, that the fight against Muslims is WWIV?

Oh who's trolling now? Come on Luke, you can do better than that.

sadmanbarty
03-12-2015, 04:30 PM
Lol! How am I supposed to know?

Well you might want to retract your pro-bombing = moron stance.

Or let me know that I'm a moron because you've been trolling me this whole time and I keep responding.

luka
03-12-2015, 04:32 PM
Not trolling anyone don't know what you're talking about. Your question was very funny that's all. How do you expect me to respond?

sadmanbarty
03-12-2015, 04:38 PM
Not trolling anyone don't know what you're talking about. Your question was very funny that's all. How do you expect me to respond?


If you can't answer that question, why take such a strong stance?

luka
03-12-2015, 04:40 PM
It's the most ridiculous question I've ever been asked

Mr. Tea
03-12-2015, 04:41 PM
Regardless of the conflict as a whole do you think that the recapture of the Kobani canton was 1) a good thing and 2) in part thanks to air support?

It's of course possible that air strikes may, in some instances, have had a measurable positive effect with regard to assisting anti-ISIS action on the ground - and at the same time killed large numbers of civilians and disrupted civilian infrastructure, thus doing ISIS's work for them and helping to keep the steady stream of recruits coming. It doesn't have to be either/or.

sadmanbarty
03-12-2015, 04:44 PM
killed large numbers of civilians and disrupted civilian infrastructure, thus doing ISIS's work for them and helping to keep the steady stream of recruits coming. It doesn't have to be either/or.

No sunni-arab civilians were killed in that operation

luka
03-12-2015, 04:45 PM
You're at university 🎓 so it's permissable to be ridiculous btw

craner
03-12-2015, 04:47 PM
helping to keep the steady stream of recruits coming.

Yet, surely it's feasible that many of these recruits are attracted to the romantic and violent cause and ideology of a successful and thriving terrorist organisation. Fighting IS is not going to stop that, at least not until they're are so disabled they lose that lustre of the victor and the attraction of the insurgent which they currently project in their glossy, pornographic propaganda.

droid
03-12-2015, 04:51 PM
in their glossy, pornographic propaganda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOhvjBwuix4

sadmanbarty
03-12-2015, 04:51 PM
You're at university 🎓 so it's permissable to be ridiculous btw

I left school after GCSE's, so no uni for me. I must have been born ridiculous.

craner
03-12-2015, 04:54 PM
Ok, so the advert for the British Army is glossy.

I suppose I meant, the snuff movies of IS.

craner
03-12-2015, 05:00 PM
I feel like we have only a few minutes until Droid posts an old Abu Ghraib picture.

droid
03-12-2015, 05:01 PM
Im just waiting on you to implode under the weight of historical irony.

luka
03-12-2015, 05:17 PM
I left school after GCSE's, so no uni for me. I must have been born ridiculous.

Ok fair enough. Thats a point in your favour

baboon2004
03-12-2015, 05:38 PM
syria bombing campaign ignites dissensus

quality trolling all round

Mr. Tea
03-12-2015, 06:50 PM
No sunni-arab civilians were killed in that operation

Is that known for a fact? And was it because of superb intelligence and great tactical thinking, or did it have more to do with blind luck?

Even if it's true, one bombing campaign that helped an anti-ISIS mission on the ground and had no civilian casualties does not make a persuasive case for air campaigns per se. It still has to be weighed up against all the other airstrikes that have caused massive civilian casualties (not just in Iraq/Syria, but Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya...). Not to mention The Whole Iraq Thing that allowed ISIS to come into being (as it exists now, at least) in the first place.

HMGovt
03-12-2015, 08:03 PM
Bombing is moronic. The next superpower will be the first to deploy and operate indefatigable hordes of killer land, air and sea drones that can interdict classes of activity in a given territory. Activities like hooning around in armed Toyota pick ups, throwing people off of towers, blowing up relics. Big Brother with teeth and claws and 4K video feeds. Doesn't even need AI, urban youth could earn good money knocking off Jihadis thousands of miles away. ISIS would be fucked up against that. China and Russia are the only ones immoral and technologically advanced to do it, so the West might as well back the fuck off.

That's my rosy vision of the future anyway.

PS this is the War of Gog & Magog rather than Armageddon, apparently. Interesting.

luka
03-12-2015, 08:35 PM
this is the War of Gog & Magog rather than Armageddon, apparently. Interesting.

Link 🔗 to further 📖 reading please

HMGovt
03-12-2015, 09:17 PM
this is the War of Gog & Magog rather than Armageddon, apparently. Interesting.

Link 🔗 to further 📖 reading please

This is where i started last night http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/50054/surprising-connections-between-sukkot-war-gog-magog-jewish-world/#1BBcu2Yig4hw4BAx.97

A bunch of bible code, talmud nonsense, but all self-evidently true ;)

Russia is vanquished just north of the Sea of Galilee when pushing out of the Golan Heights south into Israel. It is written.

Mr. Tea
03-12-2015, 09:20 PM
I thought Gog and Magog were Saddam and Bush Snr during Gulf War I?

luka
03-12-2015, 09:49 PM
I can't get enough of this gear

HMGovt
03-12-2015, 11:56 PM
I thought Gog and Magog were Saddam and Bush Snr during Gulf War I?

No mate. Got and magic implies a. Nuclear exchange, gog and Magog lasts precisely 12 minutes

baboon2004
04-12-2015, 12:32 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIm6eJWV4yc
This guy has worked through dozens of atlases (all put together by teams of highliy interdisciplinary scholars) to get to the truth

HMGovt
04-12-2015, 12:50 AM
No mate. Got and magic implies a. Nuclear exchange, gog and Magog lasts precisely 12 minutes

^gnomic shit

dert
04-12-2015, 02:20 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOhvjBwuix4

i would play the shit out of this track, who's the producer?

droid
04-12-2015, 01:10 PM
Man tries to put out garbage fire by driving over it in a van loaded with ammunition


http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/vqu60t/picture39003900/ALTERNATES/FREE_960/filed%20fire

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article39003903.html#storylink=cpy

sadmanbarty
04-12-2015, 01:29 PM
Man tries to put out garbage fire by driving over it in a van loaded with ammunition


http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/vqu60t/picture39003900/ALTERNATES/FREE_960/filed%20fire

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article39003903.html#storylink=cpy

I can't find a link to a human interest story that acts as an amusing metaphor for consistent Kurdish wins, backed by airstrikes, against jihadi's in northern Syria. I guess that means I've lost the debate.

droid
04-12-2015, 01:31 PM
No, you've lost the debate for other reasons entirely.

sadmanbarty
04-12-2015, 01:34 PM
No, you've lost the debate for other reasons entirely.

Which are?

droid
04-12-2015, 11:40 PM
Immoral, illegal, ineffective, unnecessary, hypocritical.

Mr. Tea
27-12-2015, 02:12 PM
The caricature of the self hating intellectual who blames their own government far all of the ills in the world and absolves everyone else of all crimes is a mostly mythical creation of propaganda systems, and one of the laziest and most common slurs.

Droid: please do me a quick favour. Take a couple of minutes to read this story (https://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2015/12/03/a-mad-world-my-mistresses/) and then come back here and tell me that self-loathing, fascist-loving, academic "loony lefties" are a figment of my febrile, reactionary imagination.

droid
27-12-2015, 02:37 PM
Droid: please do me a quick favour. Take a couple of minutes to read this story (https://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2015/12/03/a-mad-world-my-mistresses/) and then come back here and tell me that self-loathing, fascist-loving, academic "loony lefties" are a figment of my febrile, reactionary imagination.

Two points.

1. You don't get to slink off mid discussion when faced with hard questions and then return later and demand responses.

2. Try reading the point you're trying so hard to refute I said: a mostly mythical creation. You know what that is? Its a minor caveat, as, of course, you cant account for everybody and everything.

Mr. Tea
27-12-2015, 08:24 PM
Two points.

1. You don't get to slink off mid discussion when faced with hard questions and then return later and demand responses.

2. Try reading the point you're trying so hard to refute I said: a mostly mythical creation. You know what that is? Its a minor caveat, as, of course, you cant account for everybody and everything.

1. "Slink off"? I got bored of your pigheaded refusal to engage with any of the facts I was presenting and insistence on repeating the same claim over and over again long after I'd abundantly debunked it. Still, chalk it up as a victory if you like, I don't really care.

2. It's far more prevalent that you're prepared to allow. The egregious Goldsmith's case is merely the thick end of the wedge - it's a spectrum that includes an awful lot of high-profile opinions on Russia and a wide variety of other states and non-state groups, both Islamist and otherwise. I mean, I think I deserve a small prize for having made it this far in a thread of this sort without mentioning George Galloway, "Respect" or StW (woops, blown it now, never mind). It wouldn't bother me if you'd simply disagreed with my arguments and then, without being any more of a condescending dick than was strictly necessary, told me why I was wrong - but instead you just kept telling me I hadn't made an argument in the first place, which contributed somewhat to point 1.

droid
27-12-2015, 10:41 PM
Its funny, was reading some old threads recently, and gavin nailed this nearly 10 years back:


My truck with Tea is not only his beliefs, but his maddening way of debating once you corner him: suddenly clear statements don't mean what they mean, all sorts of distracting flailing takes place, and then the discussion becomes a very boring game of points-scoring and irrelevant tangents. It's incredibly disingenuous to not engage with the substantive content of others' posts -- either defend yourself or concede the point, possibly change your mind about things. That's the point, right? To think about these things, not just bolster your ego. Other conservative posters at least make an attempt to debate the issues at hand, even if I disagree with them. And I usually learn something from those discussions, even if my worldview isn't shattered.

I don't have any 'truck' per se, but the thing that really annoys me these days is not an opinion I disagree with, its the intellectual dishonesty and bad arguments - and the pattern here is clear by now.

Im not saying this out of malice, you're a nice guy and all, but its just pointless.

Mr. Tea
28-12-2015, 07:47 PM
Funny that you should cite Gavin, of all people. I always found him notably slippery and intellectually dishonest.

Mr. Tea
28-12-2015, 09:29 PM
He was also, as I recall, a prime example of the sort of "lefty" I've complained about in this thread, who defines his "leftiness" less through dowdy old concepts like equality and human rights than through an unqualified hostility to "the West".

baboon2004
06-01-2016, 03:47 PM
I'm sure Corbyn was being derided a few months ago as not having the necessary leadership strengths to steer Labour. Now he's a bully, apparently.

I mean, I find parliamentary party politics ridiculous in terms of the lack of scope it gives for individuals to act according to their principles.But then, Corbyn not tolerating open dissent, and sacking or silencing those who do show it, is surely simply in keeping with the core traditions of British politics.

rubberdingyrapids
07-01-2016, 01:11 PM
the media are basically colluding in some sort of long running smear campaign against corbyn. quite interesting to see. hes not blameless obv, and has said some truly stupid dyed in the wool leftie things, (who is working his media campaign i wonder) but its still pretty revealing to see.

baboon2004
07-01-2016, 01:30 PM
Indeed. it's remarkable, though I was heartened recently to see an editorial in the Times praising him as a politician (admittedly before this celebrated reshuffle)

It's interesting to see the repetition of the same old logic to vilify anything or anyone progressive - resistance must reach an impossible standard of purity, otherwise it cannot be allowed. Happens with every protest or civil disobedience that's too effective. Since Corbyn is human, he says daft things occasionally. And therefore the 'desired' standard of purity is not reached.

glasshand
11-01-2016, 12:44 AM
Corbs hacked

http://www.theladbible.com/articles/jeremy-corbyn-s-just-been-hacked-on-twitter-and-it-s-brilliant

Corbs writing for the guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/09/jeremy-corbyn-on-middle-britain-labour-beating-the-tories?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


In some ways i'm looking forward to financial crisis 2k16..

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/09/2016-world-tumbles-back-economic-crisis

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/12083108/This-investor-called-the-financial-crisis-and-is-predicting-market-falls-again.html

what will the tories be saying when it happens? surely can't keep repeating 'economy..stability..economy..security..' after this one happens on their watch

Mr. Tea
11-01-2016, 09:50 AM
what will the tories be saying when it happens? surely can't keep repeating 'economy..stability..economy..security..' after this one happens on their watch

I expect Gideon will bravely take it on the chin, accept full responsibility and apologize to us all for not making big enough spending cuts. But give him another few years and he'll have it all sorted out, promise.

sadmanbarty
23-01-2016, 11:31 AM
Earlier in the thread there was discussion about whether to bomb Syria and if so, in what way should the air campaign be carried out. I'm surprised to see that Chomsky of all people has the same opinion I do in endorsing air support for the Kurds.

2.49:

https://youtu.be/hSvGxC85n78?t=2m49s

griftert
23-01-2016, 10:29 PM
My brother has been talking about how he reckons a lot of the geopolitics only makes sense in a context of a mobilisation against the kurds, turkey being brought into the EU, support for Iran and the Saudis...hmm. Going to read some stuff about Ocalan and hope I don't get shot up.

craner
24-01-2016, 08:47 PM
Well (deep breath) your brother sounds slightly nuts, but interesting. Ocalan is not the best place to start if you want to understand Kurdish history, though. Try David McDowall's 'Modern History of the Kurds': it has many things to recommend it, for example you get a clear and concise precis of Kurdish origins, you learn to sympathise with their cause while also being inoculated against the blind Kurd-worship that plagues certain quarters, my quarter included.

sadmanbarty
25-01-2016, 10:24 AM
My brother has been talking about how he reckons a lot of the geopolitics only makes sense in a context of a mobilisation against the kurds, turkey being brought into the EU, support for Iran and the Saudis...hmm. Going to read some stuff about Ocalan and hope I don't get shot up.

Turkey's Syria policy is in large part centred on resisting Kurdish autonomy in Syria, however this isn't isn't a huge concern for any other actors involved.

Erdogan is less West leaning than previous Turkish governments, however placating Europe, Nato and America are concerns that he is trying to balance their interests with his ambitions of regional leadership.

Allegiances to Iran and Saudi Arabia are on of the biggest factors in the current situation in the middle-east.

Mr. Tea
25-01-2016, 03:55 PM
What do people make of the allegations that Turkey is buying ISIS's smuggled oil?

HMGovt
25-01-2016, 07:59 PM
What do people make of the allegations that Turkey is buying ISIS's smuggled oil?

Peaked! Doubt it's happening to same extent after the attentions of the RuAF.

Mr. Tea
25-01-2016, 08:47 PM
Ha, peak oil smuggling, I like it.

HMGovt
28-01-2016, 11:16 PM
Ha, peak oil smuggling, I like it.

More evidence for that than actual peak oil
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2716
http://www.ukgameshows.com/atoz/programmes/b/blankety_blank/blanketyblank_onions.jpg

rubberdingyrapids
28-04-2016, 12:22 PM
anyone have any thoughts on the current labour-is-anti-semitic hysteria?

ive not followed every development, but bit shocked that just cos ken mentions hitler (which was staggeringly stupid of him), that it means he should be booted out of the party.

funny how its okay for tory mps to say things about migrants, muslims, and whoever else, but anything resembling anti semitism and you lose your right to a political life.

i do think people conflate hatred of israels occupation with jewish people as a whole though, which is unfair, and this is something corbyn and his party need to actually think about. otherwise every time they say anything critical of israel its just going to be used against them.

luka
28-04-2016, 12:39 PM
in light of how the tories are running the mayoral election it points to a power/influence differential but equally ken has been around long enough to be more astute.

droid
28-04-2016, 12:48 PM
The Labour is anti-semitic line is pretty much entirely laughable.

rubberdingyrapids
28-04-2016, 12:49 PM
the evening standard is basically zac goldsmith propaganda


The Labour is anti-semitic line is pretty much entirely laughable.


its being seized upon though

first time i heard about it i think was a newsnight piece a few months ago - the aggression behind the report was as if they had been given orders from cameron.

luka
28-04-2016, 12:50 PM
yeah it was the standards headline from the other day that really pushed me over the edge like how tf do you get away with that?

droid
28-04-2016, 01:29 PM
the evening standard is basically zac goldsmith propaganda



its being seized upon though

first time i heard about it i think was a newsnight piece a few months ago - the aggression behind the report was as if they had been given orders from cameron.

Originally it was 'Corbyn once knew a guy who said something anti-semitic a decade later', now its 'Labour MP criticises Israel'. Same old guff.

droid
28-04-2016, 01:33 PM
Jewish Chronicle Letters page:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3geoClBBjrM/VxFYEIiBBsI/AAAAAAAABKo/4UvDBK7xmP8obFXsk7uXqcP9GNJoA143ACLcB/s1600/klug.jpg

rubberdingyrapids
28-04-2016, 02:54 PM
and now sadiq khan has to call for kens head as hes already been tarred as a friend of extremists (thanks evening standard). hes muslim so of course we all know that hes anti semitic. :rolleyes:

ive not seen any advance voter surveys but i cant imagine goldsmith losing now.

Mr. Tea
28-04-2016, 03:25 PM
Originally it was 'Corbyn once knew a guy who said something anti-semitic a decade later', now its 'Labour MP criticises Israel'. Same old guff.

Well hang on a sec, criticizing Israel is one thing - if you're talking about the case I think you're talking about (and there's been a spate of them lately), Naz Shah did a bit more than that: she suggested deporting Israel's entire Jewish population to the US!

Look, the fact that the Right loves to beat Labour with the anti-Semitism stick doesn't mean that the accusation is never justified. And of course they're not MPs but a number of Labour councillors has said some absolutely shocking things.

Leo
28-04-2016, 03:56 PM
viewing this from afar and obviously not plugged in like you all, but from here this sounds oddly similar to when UKIP would have occasional MPs saying "outrageous" things and farage would repeatedly have to say "oh, this is just a random comment that doesn't represent an institutional problem with the party and they will be dealt with", etc.

is it different? not trolling, just a dumb yank asking.

droid
28-04-2016, 04:03 PM
Well hang on a sec, criticizing Israel is one thing - if you're talking about the case I think you're talking about (and there's been a spate of them lately), Naz Shah did a bit more than that: she suggested deporting Israel's entire Jewish population to the US!

I think she suggested relocating Israel to the US, and shes not the first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slattery_Report

Not something I would see as a reasonable position, but I don't see how, in isolation it is anti semitic.

Mr. Tea
28-04-2016, 04:14 PM
Yep, those touchy Jews with their persecution complex, eh? I mean she's only talking about rounding up Jews from their homes and forcibly transplanting them, you'd pretty much have to go out of your way to find that offensive or insensitive.

Christ on a bike, droid, does this honestly not strike you as a fundamentally pretty fucked-up thing for a politician to say?

luka
28-04-2016, 04:19 PM
it was certainly impolitic

luka
28-04-2016, 04:21 PM
naturally the labour party contains anti semites. anti semitism is fairly widespread across all sections of british society, no reason why labour should be immune. the recent upsurge in reporting about it is surely to be viewed more as part of labours civil war than as tories vs labour though.

luka
28-04-2016, 04:27 PM
not that theyre likely to miss an opportunity to stick the boot in

droid
28-04-2016, 04:28 PM
Yep, those touchy Jews with their persecution complex, eh? I mean she's only talking about rounding up Jews from their homes and forcibly transplanting them, you'd pretty much have to go out of your way to find that offensive or insensitive.

Christ on a bike, droid, does this honestly not strike you as a fundamentally pretty fucked-up thing for a politician to say?

I can hear the kettle of indignation boiling there Tea, but before you go all in you might want to consider what she actually did - posted this picture on facebook:

https://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1510725/naz-shah.png?w=400

And then consider what i said - that in isolation this is not anti-semitic - it is an attack on Israel and not Jews, and also echoes many pre '48 zionist proposals. Impolitic sure, but she did not call for 'the rounding up of jews' - that is your hyperbolic invention.

droid
28-04-2016, 04:30 PM
Not that I have any horse in this race and its not a suggestion Id support btw, but it is ironic that every bullet point there is mostly true.

droid
28-04-2016, 04:40 PM
I havent been following the Livingstone thing though. What's he been up to this time?

luka
28-04-2016, 04:44 PM
being a dick basically.

luka
28-04-2016, 04:45 PM
i was winding up craner last night by saying moving Israel to the us was a perfectly reasonable idea. it was fun while it lasted.

sadmanbarty
28-04-2016, 04:46 PM
Livingston transcript:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-anti-semitism-row-full-transcript-of-ken-livingstones-interviews-a7005311.html

Mr. Tea
28-04-2016, 04:50 PM
viewing this from afar and obviously not plugged in like you all, but from here this sounds oddly similar to when UKIP would have occasional MPs saying "outrageous" things and farage would repeatedly have to say "oh, this is just a random comment that doesn't represent an institutional problem with the party and they will be dealt with", etc.

is it different? not trolling, just a dumb yank asking.

Not trolling or dumb, this is a reasonable question. If anything, the difference is that Farage actually goes to the bother of rebuking his more vocally bigoted colleagues (how sincere the rebukes are is of course another matter) whereas when Corbyn is faced with accusations of being anti-Semitic by default on account of failing to castigate or discipline Labour MPs who've said things anti-Semitic things, he shrugs it off with a bland statement of "I'm not anti-Semitic" and the true believers are perfectly happy with that.

droid
28-04-2016, 04:54 PM
i was winding up craner last night by saying moving Israel to the us was a perfectly reasonable idea. it was fun while it lasted.

In principle it is reasonable, validated by the fact that pre-Balfour, other options were seriously considered by Zionists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_a_Jewish_state). It is far less radical than the essentially mainstream Israeli (and US) opinion that there is no such thing as a Palestinian people and they should be happy in Jordan (No additional state etc.).

Obv in practise it is far less reasonable.

Mr. Tea
28-04-2016, 04:57 PM
naturally the labour party contains anti semites. anti semitism is fairly widespread across all sections of british society

It certainly seems to be more common among both the far Right - obviously - and the hard Left than among people closer to the political centre.

It's also unfortunately pretty common among Muslims. Cuts both ways, of course - many Jews have a big anti-Muslim prejudice too.

rubberdingyrapids
28-04-2016, 04:58 PM
naturally the labour party contains anti semites. anti semitism is fairly widespread across all sections of british society, no reason why labour should be immune. the recent upsurge in reporting about it is surely to be viewed more as part of labours civil war than as tories vs labour though.

im not backing what she shared on facebook. you cant really go round making 'jokes' about things like that. esp if youre an MP. she sounds immature.

but if an MP shared something on facebook to the effect of 'ship muslims in england back to pakistan and save money!', i cant imagine it causing this kind of a furore. sad to say, there is one rule in british society for anti semitism, and another for islamaphobic commentary. and the only reasons these TWO year old facebook posts are resurfacing now are reasons that have nothing to do with anyone actually caring about anti semitism.

Mr. Tea
28-04-2016, 05:12 PM
if an MP shared something on facebook to the effect of 'ship muslims in england back to pakistan and save money!', i cant imagine it causing this kind of a furore.

You are having a fucking laugh, mate.

luka
28-04-2016, 05:15 PM
of course rdr, you're absolutely right and if tea thinks anti semitism isn't rife in the conservative party he's kidding himself. all this is taking place becasue of a determined attemot by a faction of the labour party to unseat corbyn. as you say the facebook post predates corbyns leadership.

droid
28-04-2016, 05:15 PM
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/sam-kriss-the-right-has-an-anti-semitism-problem


It really shouldn't have to be repeated at this point, but anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. Israel is a foreign country, halfway across the world, with a long history of carrying out some extremely unpleasant acts on its three and a half million captive Palestinians. While it may claim to be Jewish, that does not mean it can then use an entire global Jewish diaspora as one vast human shield. The Jewish people have been around for much longer than Israel; most of us never asked for it, and many of us would like to have as little to do with it as possible. When opponents of Israel treat Jews in general and the government in Jerusalem as if they were the same thing, blaming one for the actions of the other, they are rightfully condemned. Why should it be any different when the same line's coming from people who claim to support us?

Mr. Tea
28-04-2016, 05:54 PM
of course rdr, you're absolutely right and if tea thinks anti semitism isn't rife in the conservative party he's kidding himself.

When did I ever say that? The hard Right isn't limited to the BNP and UKIP, there are still plenty of nutters in the Tory party.

Nonetheless, these kinds of overt displays of anti-Semitism do seem to be a Labour speciality at the moment. The Right is, on the whole, far more concerned about Muslims.

Edit: oh great, here's a Sam Kriss article to clear everything up for us, lol.

luka
28-04-2016, 06:04 PM
I don't mean the tory hard right I.mean the establishment

Mr. Tea
28-04-2016, 06:26 PM
I don't mean the tory hard right I.mean the establishment

OK but whatever they may think, do they make public pronouncements of this kind? I mean, maybe they do and the media just don't pick up on it, I dunno. Are there any recent examples of Tory MPs saying stuff like this and getting away with it? Honest question there.

luka
28-04-2016, 06:33 PM
Who's 'getting away with it'

Mr. Tea
28-04-2016, 06:55 PM
Who's 'getting away with it'

OK, I probably didn't explain very well. You said the mainstream Tory party - not 'fringe nutters' or anything like that - contains loads of anti-Semites, yet it's the Labour party that has the perennial problem of being called anti-Semitic. So either these Tory Jew-haters are keeping their thoughts to themselves, or they're broadcasting them for all to see but no-one is picking up on it and giving them a hard time about it.

I mean, I certainly had the impression the Tory party was overwhelmingly pro-Israel (e.g. the law banning the boycotting of Israeli businesses) and therefore presumably has a generally favourable disposition to Jews generally.

luka
28-04-2016, 07:35 PM
I wouldnt conflate support for Israel with philosemitism, there all sorts of other factors involved as you must know. I don't think the establishment is full of rabid nazis either just that a kind of reflex distrust of Jews is to be expected across all sections of British society not least amongst our betters.

Mr. Tea
28-04-2016, 08:07 PM
Fair enough. Lol at 'betters', I like it.

droid
28-04-2016, 08:41 PM
I wouldnt conflate support for Israel with philosemitism.

Why not? If being anti-Israel = to anti-semitism, then surely being pro-Israel = philosemitism?

droid
28-04-2016, 08:47 PM
'ship muslims in england back to pakistan and save money!'

I know you're not making a direct comparison, but the statements are not equivalent.

Which of these statements are Islamophobic/anti-Semitic, and which are political criticisms of a state?

Pakistan is a rogue state which should be sanctioned.
British Muslims are terrorists who should be sent back to Pakistan.

It makes more sense for Israel to be located in the US than the middle East
British Jews control Britain and they should be sent to Israel.

Mr. Tea
28-04-2016, 09:36 PM
It makes more sense for Israel to be located in the US than the middle East


Weasel words. 'Makes more sense' - to whom? Some hypothetical perfectly impartial arbiter? A British Muslim with a very obvious antipathy towards Israel as it exists today? The Israeli-in-the-street? Any given American, who may love Jews, hate them or be totally indifferent to them?

I agree that it would have made far more sense (edit: objectively benefited more people, and objectively harmed far fewer) for a Jewish homeland to have been established in the USA after WWII. But the past cannot be undone.