[UK] Jeremy Corbyn: 9/11 was 'manipulated' - Polidicks

"Please forgive the interruption to service while we go out and get a specially crafted bust for the silliest story of a silly season of stories. Step up Peter Dominiczak of the Telegraph. With the headline, 'Jeremy Corbyn: 9/11 was 'manipulated'' you are really spoiling us: Firstly, there is an attempt to paint Jeremy as a '9/11 Truther', based on his use of the term "New World Order". We suspect Peter was the sort of kid that didn't pay much attention in his history classes, because if he had, he would know that the term 'New World Order' was common parlance for the post-Soviet world, where the US had political dominance - simple as that. It was used by respected academics - right, left and centre - the world over, in text books, in speeches by world leaders and most probably, even in his beloved Telegraph. So, nothing to do with the illuminati, truthers or conspiracy theories. Just Jeremy using every day, normal, political references. We would say 'nice try', but it isn't even that. Secondly, there is a further attempt at faux outrage: that Jeremy, in a Morning Star article in 2003, said that the narrative of the 9/11 terrorist attacks was used to justify a military attack on the Taliban and war in Afghanistan. Did we miss something, or isn't this exactly what did happen? Where's the story? Again, it's indisputable that Bush used the atrocity to launch a wider war against the Taliban and then followed it up with a war in Iraq. This is pretty uncontroversial amongst academics and experts of many political hues. So why should we be outraged at Corbyn stating a plain truth in 2003. Is it that he was too farsighted? It's almost funny - except that some will read only the headline and not question the flimsy detail on which it's based. So it's important for us to challenge it nevertheless. So if someone tells you Corbyn is a 9/11 Truther, please put them right." this is from the jeremy corbyn for pm facebook page

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;48775313]He is unelectable, there's literally no denying this.[/QUOTE] You have no idea what you're on about, go back to your cartoons kid.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;48775190]Can we just get rid of this fucking nut, the centre left needs a proper representative unless we want a shitty tory dictatorship.[/QUOTE] Jeremy Corbyn is center-left in relation to the history of British labor and socialism. What you want is just center-right so there's no guarantee the far right comes to power. Democracy in the west as usual. Also, this NWO shit is overblown. In the early 90s after soviet collapse there was indeed a new world order, an end of history, and George Bush Senior even referenced NWO by name in a speech about this new era. Along with Soviet collapse, this era was also indicted by the gulf war. Same deal with 9/11, he's just criticizing US imperialism and its cynical use of radical islam to shape the middle east and central Asia to preference. It's similarly not crazy to point out most of the attackers were Saudi nationals and the Taliban offered Clinton to hand over Bin Laden. It's fucking amazing stating either of these obvious things qualifies as far left or crazy. Mainstream politics and media in today's liberal democracies really rots the brain.

[QUOTE=Canary;48775385]You have no idea what you're on about, go back to your cartoons kid.[/QUOTE] he has the worst ratings for a new leader of a party in years (worse than Miliband - who was also considered unelectable) and is so far to the left of anywhere in England. You can support Corbyn if you want to be a protest party, but pretending he can win an election is moronic.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;48775313]He is unelectable, there's literally no denying this.[/QUOTE] A man who literally just WON an election with a bigger mandate than Tony Blair is unelectable?

He was clearly using the 'new world order' as a way to describe how parts of the western economy have become dependent on being in a constant state of war. Not that 9/11 was an inside job with the desired out come being to start totalitarian world government.

Has everyone come to the conclusion that 9\11 was an inside job by now?

[QUOTE=Coolguy00;48775427]He was clearly using the 'new world order' as a way to describe how parts of the western economy have become dependent on being in a constant state of war.[/QUOTE] But they haven't? This has been one of the most peaceful periods in human history and somehow parts of the western economy are dependent on being in a constant state of war? Military spending itself across the board has either been cut or is frozen right now in much of the west.

[QUOTE=Faunze;48775431]Has everyone come to the conclusion that 9\11 was an inside job by now?[/QUOTE] Nobody is saying that 9/11 itself was an 'inside job' people are saying that the anti Taliban sentiment to leverage support for wars in the middle wars with countries that had no involvement in the attacks, the Iraq war itself would NOT have happened without the 9/11 attacks. look at the patriot act which was also brought due to 9/11

[QUOTE=IAmIchigo;48775419]A man who literally just WON an election with a bigger mandate than Tony Blair is unelectable?[/QUOTE] won an election by a bunch of self-selected raving socialist loons, not the general public

[QUOTE=Faunze;48775431]Has everyone come to the conclusion that 9\11 was an inside job by now?[/QUOTE] Only dumb conspiracy theorists.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48775476]won an election by a bunch of self-selected raving socialist loons, not the general public[/QUOTE] So i'm not a member of the general public? Are you honestly trying to tell me that me caring about the rights of the less fortunate is loony? How many people need to die due to benefit cuts before voting conservative is loony? How many days a week do doctors need to work before this all becomes loony, please tell me because the country now is not stable and honestly makes no sense. but sure im the loony, not the people who are attempting to privatize healthcare

[QUOTE=IAmIchigo;48775419]A man who literally just WON an election with a bigger mandate than Tony Blair is unelectable?[/QUOTE] Winning the internal party election means bugger all, he needs to appeal to others outside of the labour party membership, and currently he doesn't. Michael Foot's policies won the party elections and look how things went for him.

[QUOTE=Coolguy00;48775427]He was clearly using the 'new world order' as a way to describe how parts of the western economy have become dependent on being in a constant state of war. Not that 9/11 was an inside job with the desired out come being to start totalitarian world government.[/QUOTE] It's a pretty sad state of affairs when using a word that was coined to refer to constantly evolving geopolitical dynamics gets you stamped as a tinfoiler. Just discrediting a person altogether for questioning a flawed narrative tells a lot about just how paper thin one's perception of (recent) history is. If it hadn't become obvious by the time Cameron himself called him a security threat, there's huge effort going on on the Tory side to try and discredit this bloke. Now I'm no specialist of 21st century english politics, much less the labor party, but there seems to be a large scale smear campaign centered around this plain chap. I wager they're either scared shitless of him, or percieve him as weak and expect him to cave in.

[QUOTE=.Lain;48775342]alright, tory[/QUOTE] I'm not a Tory and I don't like the Tories or their policy, but Corbyn is unelectable whether you like it or not and some of his ideas are very much irresponsible, such as printing money to pay for nationalisation (and then calling it people's quantitative easing like some crazy soviet plan)

They're not scared, they're having a load of fun with it. They don't need to wait for a bacon sandwich or the SNP anymore - Its all already there for them.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;48775531]Winning the internal party election means bugger all, he needs to appeal to others outside of the labour party membership, and currently he doesn't.[/QUOTE] According to who, the conservatives? Corbyn is pulling in huge crowds when he does speeches, honestly the only people who think he is unelectable are people who weren't going to vote labor either way. Honestly of the other 3 labor candidates who would you rather won, if you want to talk about unelectable lets talk about the flip flop master Andy Burnham, and red Torie Liz Kendall.

[QUOTE=IAmIchigo;48775585]According to who, the conservatives? Corbyn is pulling in huge crowds when he does speeches, honestly the only people who think he is unelectable are people who weren't going to vote labor either way. Honestly of the other 3 labor candidates who would you rather won, if you want to talk about unelectable lets talk about the flip flop master Andy Burnham, and red Torie Liz Kendall.[/QUOTE] According to just about every poll so far, he has a fucking -3 approval rating, which is worse than what Michael Foot had when he first became leader. Corbyn just has a loud cult following that makes him seem more popular than he really is.

[QUOTE=IAmIchigo;48775585]According to who, the conservatives? Corbyn is pulling in huge crowds when he does speeches, honestly the only people who think he is unelectable are people who weren't going to vote labor either way. Honestly of the other 3 labor candidates who would you rather won, if you want to talk about unelectable lets talk about the flip flop master Andy Burnham, and red Torie Liz Kendall.[/QUOTE] For the record, I don't think any other his rivals could have beaten Osborne. But, the losses with Corbyn will be on a whole other scale if he stays as leader.

[QUOTE=Scarabix;48775557]It's a pretty sad state of affairs when using a word that was coined to refer to constantly evolving geopolitical dynamics gets you stamped as a tinfoiler. Just discrediting a person altogether for questioning a flawed narrative tells a lot about just how paper thin one's perception of (recent) history is. If it hadn't become obvious by the time Cameron himself called him a security threat, there's huge effort going on on the Tory side to try and discredit this bloke. Now I'm no specialist of 21st century english politics, much less the labor party, but there seems to be a large scale smear campaign centered around this plain chap. I wager they're scared shitless of him, or percieve him as weak and expect him to cave in.[/QUOTE] Yeah I completely agree. What I think is interesting is how selective the article is in quoting him, it picks odd words and gives them context through their own descriptions. Never allowing the original article to speak for itself. It also doesn't link to the original article so you can't read it yourself. Can anyone actually find the his original article a quick google search turns up nothing.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;48775596]According to just about every poll so far, he has a fucking -3 approval rating, which is worse than what Michael Foot had when he first became leader. Corbyn just has a loud cult following that makes him seem more popular than he really is.[/QUOTE] Approval ratings mean NOTHING, look at the polls during the election which placed labor in a much more favorable position than they actually were and showed the conservatives as not the majority and we saw how that turned out. You are simply looking at a small cross section (Before he has even finalized his policy)of the country which given the current smear campaign against him are also not believable and in all honesty like this telegraph headline are grasping for something to demonize Corbyn with(look at the hamas kerfuffle)

[QUOTE=IAmIchigo;48775653]Approval ratings mean NOTHING, look at the polls during the election which placed labor in a much more favorable position than they actually were and showed the conservatives as not the majority and we saw how that turned out. You are simply looking at a small cross section (Before he has even finalized his policy)of the country which given the current smear campaign against him are also not believable and in all honesty like this telegraph headline are grasping for something to demonize Corbyn with(look at the hamas kerfuffle)[/QUOTE] Saying approval ratings mean nothing is just naive, when a leader has a -3 approval rating something horribly wrong.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48775615]For the record, I don't think any other his rivals could have beaten Osborne. But, the losses with Corbyn will be on a whole other scale if he stays as leader.[/QUOTE] Labor memberships have gone up by over 60,000 people in 2 weeks without solidified policies [editline]28th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;48775663]Saying approval ratings mean nothing is just naive, when a leader has a -3 approval rating something horribly wrong.[/QUOTE] given the recent headlines attempting to smear him can you Honestly tell me you believe these polls are impartial. lets look at what he has been called in the past 3 months;Anti Semite, communist, unelectable nutter, out of touch old man, Terrorist supporter, Security risk, and a cause for a military coup. In the 80s he was mental for protesting the apartheid when the Uk was calling Nelson Mandela a terrorist(whilst Cameron handed out hang Mandela tops), Campaigned for lgbt rights when nobody would talk about it in west minster, was against the iraq war and called for deeper inquiries before military action, on all 3 of these accounts (a small cross section of his political history) he was completely in touch with the British public and CATEGORICALLY right. Corbyn is far more in touch with the British electorate than Cameron or any Tory will ever be.

Can we enter this article as a contender for the 'Most Accurate Portrayal of a Subforum Title' prize

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;48775722]Can we enter this article as a contender for the 'Most Accurate Portrayal of a Subforum Title' prize[/QUOTE] Sure was. But I think it's been an enriching thread as far as getting acquainted with other users' political stances goes. Having no more to say, I'll see myself out. Until the next Corbyn thread, that is. Kisses.

-snip-

If he really feels that way, he should put his money where his mouth is. Here's the step by step process: [code] 1. Build replica Twin Towers based off of official blueprints 2. Buy a few planes identical to the ones used in the attacks, and kit them out with drone control software. 3. Smash them into the towers at the exact same angle of incidence as they initially hit. 4. Keep doing it. 5. Do it some more. 6. Publish a report saying that within a 99% confidence interval, something other than the planes caused the towers to go down. [/code] [editline]28th September 2015[/editline] I will never do this, because I will never have the money or the inclination.

bet £50 if the media span the stories differently that corbyn would be the most electable person in the country also despite all the negative press labour are up 1 point in the polls

I fucking hate the tories and want to 'like' this guy and while this is a sensationalist story he has all but confirmed that he'd get rid of Trident and open our borders letting everyone in. Those 2 points alone makes labor dead to me even if i agree with other policies. [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34361267[/url] i mean holy fuck how ignorant must you be with all this shit going on in the world right now to even consider that losing our nukes is a good idea. This is not an ideal world, there is no trail to blaze , no precedent to be set, no other country will get rid of their nukes meaning all we do is weaken our position on the world stage, it's fucking expensive and nukes are abhorrent but to me they are a necessary evil.

[QUOTE=Blanketspace;48776003]If he really feels that way, he should put his money where his mouth is. Here's the step by step process: [code] 1. Build replica Twin Towers based off of official blueprints 2. Buy a few planes identical to the ones used in the attacks, and kit them out with drone control software. 3. Smash them into the towers at the exact same angle of incidence as they initially hit. 4. Keep doing it. 5. Do it some more. 6. Publish a report saying that within a 99% confidence interval, something other than the planes caused the towers to go down. [/code] [editline]28th September 2015[/editline] I will never do this, because I will never have the money or the inclination.[/QUOTE] he doesn't feel THAT way he even explains it, the events of the twin towers were a terrorist attack we can all agree on that fact, but the events after the attacks were pushed so that illegal wars could be perpetrated and un-constitutional laws could be put in place(the patriot act) that is the orchestration that Corbyn is referring to.