• Jeremy Corbyn refuses to denounce terrorist 'friends' Hamas and Hezbollah while Labour suspends two
    50 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50245761]I find it disgusting that people are conflating listening to opposing views with open support. I would be the first to support trying to understand your opposition, regardless of how barbaric or inhumane their actions are. But understanding is a far cry from openly parroting their propaganda and treating them like allies. We need to understand people like Hamas, because our only options going forward are to understand and address the things that lead them to exist in a humane and just manner, or to crush them through military force, and in doing so create untold misery and the potential for future conflict. That doesn't mean they will ever be our friends, nor should it.[/QUOTE] We already know what they want and that they have no interest in real discussion. To talk with them at this point just gives them more legitimacy. It's like saying that the UK needed to talk with Nazi Germany (I rarely make comparisons to Hitler or the Nazis, but it applies in this case) to understand why they wanted to kill the Jews in order to move forward. The only thing stopping a genocide from Hamas is ability, not desire.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50245767]We already know what they want and that they have no interest in real discussion. To talk with them at this point just gives them more legitimacy.[/QUOTE] I disagree. I cannot think of any situation in which you should refuse categorically to speak with an enemy, regardless of how bitter the hatred between you is or how untrustworthy they've proven to be. Unless speaking itself poses some sort of measurable risk you cannot afford to take. That doesn't mean we ought to make unstipulated deals with them, or that we ought to treat them as though they're speaking truthfully, or that we ought to afford them any more than the bare minimum respect. But conversation itself should always be an open possibility. If it isn't, the only alternative is military conquest.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50245796]If it isn't, the only alternative is military conquest.[/QUOTE] Or military control, which is exactly what's happening right now.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50245767]We already know what they want and that they have no interest in real discussion. To talk with them at this point just gives them more legitimacy. It's like saying that the UK needed to talk with Nazi Germany (I rarely make comparisons to Hitler or the Nazis, but it applies in this case) to understand why they wanted to kill the Jews in order to move forward. The only thing stopping a genocide from Hamas is ability, not desire.[/QUOTE] If someone else is willing to talk while you're moving to fight back against their aggression, I see no reason why you shouldn't oblige them. Again, talking doesn't mean tolerating monstrous actions. It just means you're willing to accept that there [I]might[/I] be a peaceful solution. It doesn't mean you stop responding to their actions. [editline]3rd May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;50245814]Or military control, which is exactly what's happening right now.[/QUOTE] If no diplomatic actions are taken, eventually it's going to end in military conquest. It's the only available course of action if peaceful resolution isn't seen as a possibility by both sides.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50245822]If someone else is willing to talk while you're moving to fight back against their aggression, I see no reason why you shouldn't oblige them. Again, talking doesn't mean tolerating monstrous actions. It just means you're willing to accept that there [I]might[/I] be a peaceful solution. It doesn't mean you stop responding to their actions.[/QUOTE] There are certain actions, like terrorism, that everyone knows must stop in order for a peaceful resolution. If a group is not willing to stop terrorism, then by talking you're just telling them that there might be a possible solution without stopping their current actions completely. No one should be allowed to make demands without following the simplest and all agreed upon minimum standards.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50245847]There are certain actions, like terrorism, that everyone knows must stop in order for a peaceful resolution. If a group is not willing to stop terrorism, then by talking you're just telling them that there might be a possible solution without stopping their current actions completely.[/QUOTE] I don't think that's true. I think you can engage in civil discussion with someone, even while you're moving to fight against them. If nothing comes of it because they refuse to cease their actions, then so be it. Having the option for peaceful resolution open and nothing coming of it is better than not having the option at all. [editline]3rd May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;50245847]No one should be allowed to make demands without following the simplest and all agreed upon minimum standards.[/QUOTE] We can't forbid people from making ridiculous and unthinkable demands. Though we certainly can, and should, refuse to comply.
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;50244242]Trying to understand Palestinians is anti-Semitic, duh, this is Svinnik you're talking to.[/QUOTE] When have I said something like that before? [editline]2nd May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Mesothere;50244226]Nice sensationalist headline. [/QUOTE] I combined headlines from the sources.
So instead of having peace talks, people want him to be an idiot and denounce the very people he's having peace talks with? [QUOTE=Svinnik;50246056]I combined headlines from the sources.[/QUOTE] This sounds fun. "Apple CEO Tim Cook under fire for racist comments" [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ceo-tim-cook-on-mad-money-2016-5[/url] [url]http://globalnews.ca/video/2604430/apple-under-fire-for-latest-update[/url] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-hulkhogan-idUSKCN0XT1UY[/url]
Well when hrs described both of them as friends, well yes, he's an idiot.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50246109] This sounds fun. "Apple CEO Tim Cook under fire for racist comments" [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ceo-tim-cook-on-mad-money-2016-5[/url] [url]http://globalnews.ca/video/2604430/apple-under-fire-for-latest-update[/url] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-hulkhogan-idUSKCN0XT1UY[/url][/QUOTE] Where's the common link between Cook and Hogan?
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50246109]So instead of having peace talks, people want him to be an idiot and denounce the very people he's having peace talks with? This sounds fun. "Apple CEO Tim Cook under fire for racist comments" [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ceo-tim-cook-on-mad-money-2016-5[/url] [url]http://globalnews.ca/video/2604430/apple-under-fire-for-latest-update[/url] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-hulkhogan-idUSKCN0XT1UY[/url][/QUOTE] No, he literally put both complete titles with the word "while" in between. A comparable example from the articles you've given would be: "Apple CEO Tim Cook appeared on Jim Cramer's TV show to tell investors they got it all wrong while Hulk Hogan seeks second slam of Gawker over racist comments leak"
and my title is just as misleading as his
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50246799]and my title is just as misleading as his[/QUOTE] I mean, it clearly isn't. His title says exactly what happened in two related situations while yours just explicitly changed the meaning of the titles in question.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50246805]I mean, it clearly isn't. His title says exactly what happened in two related situations while yours just explicitly changed the meaning of the titles in question.[/QUOTE] two related situations? excuse me? They're unrelated to eachother in the broader sense, and they're merged into one thread as part of his stupid agenda.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50246860]two related situations? excuse me? They're unrelated to eachother in the broader sense, and they're merged into one thread as part of his stupid agenda.[/QUOTE] They aren't unrelated, they are connected by a political party.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50245185]Firstly, the phrase: goes far beyond diplomatic niceties. [url]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/13/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-foreign-policy-antisemitism[/url] [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11749043/Andrew-Gilligan-Jeremy-Corbyn-friend-to-Hamas-Iran-and-extremists.html[/url] How could anyone possibly think he agreed with Hamas? And after all, he is of course meeting with both Hamas and far-right Israeli nationalists... right...? He is clearly holding his nose here, no agreement at all! [editline]2nd May 2016[/editline] A good summary and comparison. You wouldn't make these excuses for the right, so don't make them for the left. [editline]2nd May 2016[/editline] Thanks for that, now I can dump more shit against Corbyn. Stop the War are a disgrace. [url]https://archive.is/ir6e8[/url] Deleted poem inspired by the supposed killing of Ahmad Saleh Manasra, a 13 year old Palestinian boy who attempted to knife to death a 13 year old Israeli boy during the spree of attacks on Israeli civilians [url]https://web.archive.org/web/20150924090937/http://stopwar.org.uk/news/the-missing-facts-of-the-1972-munich-olympics-massacre-israelis-weren-t-the-only-victims[/url] 'The goal of the Munich hostage-taking was not to kill them; it was to return the athletes to Israel in return for Israel returning its Palestinian prisoners.' [url]https://web.archive.org/web/20150929182614/http://stopwar.org.uk/news/why-it-s-not-anti-semitic-to-say-the-state-of-israel-should-not-exist[/url] enough said [url]http://web.archive.org/web/20140722040605/http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/time-to-go-to-war-with-israel-as-the-only-path-to-peace-in-the-middle-east[/url] ''Legitimacy war', combining the mobilization of a movement from below with global solidarity, is the best prospect for realizing Palestinian self-determination, says Richard Falk' Aw gee, how could anyone doubt his pursuit of peace?[/QUOTE] Your sources are smear propaganda from the tabloid press. Lol. Ok, so other than that drivel what you have are tangential implications from a group that includes its fair share of ultra left/pro Palestinian nutcases. It doesn't prove anything about Corbyn. And nothing whatsoever proving Corbyn openly and knowingly, directly endorsed terrorism against Israel. Nothing that takes into account his political career of arguing against all wars or directly implicates him as not wanting peace. Corbyn wanted dialogue; to that end he brought over a person of respect in the Hamas/Palestinian side where respect is basically measured in how much you hate Israel, which is a symptom of the conflicts long term bitterness. It was a diplomatic nicety to welcome him. The evidence is so overwhelmingly in favour of Corbyn wanting peace in the region you would have to be a conspiracy theorist or just ignoring the facts to believe he thinks violence is the answer, or that Hamas terrorism is the answer. That, is simply put, bullshit. [editline]3rd May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;50245767]We already know what they want and that they have no interest in real discussion. To talk with them at this point just gives them more legitimacy. It's like saying that the UK needed to talk with Nazi Germany (I rarely make comparisons to Hitler or the Nazis, but it applies in this case) to understand why they wanted to kill the Jews in order to move forward. The only thing stopping a genocide from Hamas is ability, not desire.[/QUOTE] Youve opened up a huge complicated historical can of worms Hitler was an Anglophile. The British people had a decent amount of respect for the Germans prewar and the fact the Daily Mail at the time had the balls to openly endorse Hitler and the Nazis says a lot. The British people didn't have a clue about the Holocaust in 1940, and basically until the very end of the war. There are more obvious reasons why the Brits didn't propose peace - splendid isolation doctrine, the fact their ally just got stomped, loss of prestige. I could equally direct you to Communist China where 1949-1969 and even after there were huge anti American and anti capitalist propaganda campaigns. The Americans were considered babykillers and all sorts of shit. Mao openly attacked the USSR for being soft with peaceful coexistence and by backing down in the Cuban Missile Crisis that almost killed everyone. Yet, 3 years after the Sino Soviet split, in 1972, in the middle of the Cold War, they start negotiating with the Americans. Exactly the sort of shit Mao condemned. Look up Ping Pong diplomacy and the accounts of the Chinese Ping Pong player who was genuinely timid about approaching his counterpart. Compare 60s China to today. Huge international cooperation. Significant cultural shift away from hate. Yet still Communist. If you give diplomacy and peace a chance, you'll see changes in attitude. It's a no brainer
[QUOTE]Your sources are smear propaganda from the tabloid press. Lol. Ok, so other than that drivel what you have are tangential implications from a group that includes its fair share of ultra left/pro Palestinian nutcases. It doesn't prove anything about Corbyn. And nothing whatsoever proving Corbyn openly and knowingly, directly endorsed terrorism against Israel. Nothing that takes into account his political career of arguing against all wars or directly implicates him as not wanting peace. Corbyn wanted dialogue; to that end he brought over a person of respect in the Hamas/Palestinian side where respect is basically measured in how much you hate Israel, which is a symptom of the conflicts long term bitterness. It was a diplomatic nicety to welcome him. The evidence is so overwhelmingly in favour of Corbyn wanting peace in the region you would have to be a conspiracy theorist or just ignoring the facts to believe he thinks violence is the answer, or that Hamas terrorism is the answer. That, is simply put, bullshit.[/QUOTE] Guardian and Telegraph = tabloid press. you're completely special Corbyn was chair(?) of Stop the War, he was presumably heavily involved in approving the shit they published. You certainly can claim guilt by association in this case. The evidence is overwhelmingly [I]against[/I] Corbyn, you just dismiss it because it doesn't fit what you want to believe. He never says anything to Israeli extremists. Why is he including Hamas and not them? You have NEVER EXPLAINED THIS. He is only speaking to Hamas! This makes no sense if he is simply pursuing peace. [editline]3rd May 2016[/editline] anyone who says 'smear propaganda' is generally an idiot, and you're included. 'smear propaganda' =/= something you don't like
[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;50247487]Your sources are smear propaganda from the tabloid press. Lol. [/QUOTE] Since when Guardian and Telegraph are tabloid press what in the name of fuck? They're the one of the most reputable sources of news in the UK...
[QUOTE=Crhem van der B;50247881]Since when Guardian and Telegraph are tabloid press what in the name of fuck? They're the one of the most reputable sources of news in the UK...[/QUOTE] well all print media in the UK has gone down the drain but yeah the only better British news are The Times and The Economist
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50247715]Guardian and Telegraph = tabloid press. you're completely special Corbyn was chair(?) of Stop the War, he was presumably heavily involved in approving the shit they published. You certainly can claim guilt by association in this case. The evidence is overwhelmingly [I]against[/I] Corbyn, you just dismiss it because it doesn't fit what you want to believe. He never says anything to Israeli extremists. Why is he including Hamas and not them? You have NEVER EXPLAINED THIS. He is only speaking to Hamas! This makes no sense if he is simply pursuing peace. [editline]3rd May 2016[/editline] anyone who says 'smear propaganda' is generally an idiot, and you're included. 'smear propaganda' =/= something you don't like[/QUOTE] Yeh mang the telegraph is a bastion of unbiased and valuable news: [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12104166/Jeremy-Corbyn-wont-name-his-cat-and-instead-simply-calls-it-the-cat.html[/url] The opinion blog you linked contained a video which you were presumably too excited to watch, but in it Corbyn says (something to the effect of, i cant watch right now) “sadly the israelies were not able to make it”, which doesnt suggest intentional exclusion, does it? Youre tossing about all of these insults without realising they apply to you as well. You're so factionalised that you've made your opinion and you refuse to concede to the fact that there is literally no evidence in support of your accusations - just other opinions. Your assertion that there is no grievance to be had with “smear propaganda” is worrying, because there is plenty evidence of this government (and past ones, including labour) engineering smear stories for political capital. There is a mighty good reason these stories are only appearing so close to the election period - and it isn't because they are full of truths
[QUOTE=Mesothere;50248008]The opinion blog you linked contained a video which you were presumably too excited to watch, but in it Corbyn says (something to the effect of, i cant watch right now) “sadly the israelies were not able to make it”, which doesnt suggest intentional exclusion, does it?[/QUOTE] That isn't what he said. 'unfortunately, the Israelis wouldn't allow them to travel here so it will only be friends from Hezbollah' is the wording, with no mention of Israeli representatives.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.