[Politics] Corbyn backing the other side..........again

[midnight_rendezvous]

Ah right, it was all the Tories fault, not Blair and his socialist chums. Thanks for putting me right.

Did I say it was the Tories fault? No. I said it was backed by the Tories after you correctly pointed out it was Labour that lead us to war. What you failed to point out though, totally accidentally I’m sure, is that it was strongly opposed by Corbyn.

And Blair a socialist?

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Yeah, because rushing in to war with no evidence has never had consequences before has it? It definitely hasn’t increased the likelihood of a terrorist attack in the country. Oh... wait...

I'll re-quote you, I see no evidence of you speaking about Corbyn in that post. With a massive majority and the socialist PM misleading the house, it was voted in, by a Labour Govt. As for Corbyn, hardly worth a thread about him, he'll never be PM.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

I'll re-quote you, I see no evidence of you speaking about Corbyn in that post. With a massive majority and the socialist PM misleading the house, it was voted in, by a Labour Govt. As for Corbyn, hardly worth a thread about him, he'll never be PM.

You really are going to great lengths to try and mention Labour aren’t you? I assume you’re desperately trying to imply that because it was a Labour government that lead us in to Iraq that is some how discredits Corbyn’s evidence based approach, which was the same back then as it is now.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

You really are going to great lengths to try and mention Labour aren’t you? I assume you’re desperately trying to imply that because it was a Labour government that lead us in to Iraq that is some how discredits Corbyn’s evidence based approach, which was the same back then as it is now.

As I said, pointless thread really, he'll never get his power wish.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

As I said, pointless thread really, he'll never get his power wish.

Perhaps not. However, the point of this thread is to try and discredit him because he’s waiting for evidence before possibly starting a war. I have merely suggested that Corbyn’s approach of wanting to wait for evidence is a good thing. And, as the Iraq war proved, rushing in because the U.S clicked their fingers has a history of not working out so well, ultimately causing bigger issues further down the line.

 

[rogersix]

IRA, Hamas, PLO, Saddam, Ghadaffi, etc etc, and even now when he is as close to power as he has ever been, this......

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48645280

you've been metaphorically gang-raped on here today, haven't you; smirk!

 

[stewart_weir]

IRA, Hamas, PLO, Saddam, Ghadaffi, etc etc, and even now when he is as close to power as he has ever been, this......

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48645280

There is zero absolute proof that Iran did this.. Trump wants a conflict with Iran to deflect from what's going on in USA and his own troubles. Even the owner of the Japanese tanker doesn't agree with Iran being responsible. Unfortunately there are stupid people who believe rubbish from places which prey on the stupid to believe them!

I don't agree with everything Corbyn has said and done but one thing is for sure.. his record on not wanting conflict is 100% whereas the Tory party/Blair have a very big record on conflict.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/oil-tanker-owner-disagrees-with-us-that-mine-caused-blast-near-iran.html

 

[highflyer]

Not sure who this 'other side' is meant to be that Corbyn is/was backing?

Germany is taking the same position as Corbyn (eg 'don't jump to conclusions based on insufficient evidence', which for the hard of thinking is NOT the same as 'Iran didn't do it'). Apart from the UK not one other nation has come out and agreed with Trump that it was definitely Iran. It may have been Iran. I suspect it probably was Iran. But given what is at stake, and given the US leadership's current level of trustworthyness, Corbyn's position of relative caution seems like common sense to me.

https://www.newsweek.com/iran-gulf-oman-germany-trump-administration-1444112

 

[Mellotron]

I'll re-quote you, I see no evidence of you speaking about Corbyn in that post. With a massive majority and the socialist PM misleading the house, it was voted in, by a Labour Govt. As for Corbyn, hardly worth a thread about him, he'll never be PM.

Referring to Tony Blair as a socialist suggests you don't know what some very basic terms actually mean.

 

[Mellotron]

Also, use your brains, it's obvious that Trump is desperate to manufacture a war with someone, ANYONE, as Presidential approval pretty much always goes up when a war starts. He knows that as things stand he's losing in 2020. He will do anything to stay out of prison, understandably.

Hence the need for caution when the only leader who is vehemently trying to start a war is a known liar with very strong vested interests in doing so.

****'s sake just use your brains when looking at this situation, rather than just being triggered by Corbyn immediately.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Referring to Tony Blair as a socialist suggests you don't know what some very basic terms actually mean.

From the socialist bible: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/20/new-labour-neoliberal-left-tony-blair

I'd rather believe them than you. No offence like.

 

[Mellotron]

From the socialist bible: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/20/new-labour-neoliberal-left-tony-blair

I'd rather believe them than you. No offence like.

Good for you.

 

[highflyer]

From the socialist bible: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/20/new-labour-neoliberal-left-tony-blair

I'd rather believe them than you. No offence like.

Referring to the Guardian as the socialist bible suggests you don't know what some very basic terms actually mean...

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Referring to the Guardian as the socialist bible suggests you don't know what some very basic terms actually mean...

Bless, the gang is here.

 

[A1X]

The Guardian is liberal to social liberal. It's not "socialist" in any way.

 

[carlzeiss]

Israel responsible for oil tanker attacks: ex-diplomat

https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/436999/Israel-responsible-for-oil-tanker-attacks-ex-diplomat

On Thursday morning, two commercial oil tankers were hit in the Gulf of Oman, prompting the evacuation and rescue of dozens of crew members.

The United States has blamed Iran for the attacks.

In an interview with Iran Online, Asefi said Israel benefits the most from such accusations against Iran, hence “logically the Zionist regime is the agent of this incident.”

“I think the directing of such incidents in the region are done by the Zionist regime and this has no hidden dimensions,” he stated.

Asefi, who served as Iran’s ambassador to France and Foreign Ministry spokesman, argued that Israel intends to draw the Islamic Republic into a tense and anti-diplomatic atmosphere to justify its stance against Iran.

Pointing to Japanese Prime Minister Shizo Abe’s visit to Tehran, he said the oil tankers attacks were aimed at impacting the trip.

“I was surprised when the Foreign Ministry said the attack was suspicious, because there’s nothing suspicious about it and it’s clear,” he stated.

Soon after the attacks, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo appeared in the State Department Briefing Room to significantly raise the stakes.

“It is the assessment of the United States government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today,” Pompeo said.

He cited intelligence, weapons used, the required expertise and sophistication of the assault and previous attacks to conclude it was the latest assault by Iran on “freedom-loving nations.”

Asefi rejected Pompeo’s rash decision to accuse Iran, arguing that it is not rational to think Iran would benefit from such acts while hosting the Japanese premier.

 

[fork me]

IRA, Hamas, PLO, Saddam, Ghadaffi, etc etc, and even now when he is as close to power as he has ever been, this......

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48645280

Really? When Blair accepted American intelligence claims without question and went to war with Iraq, he was accused (rightly, IMO) of being a war criminal and all sorts of things.

Now Corbyn is asking for evidence foor American claims (which, incidentally, contradict evidence provided byu the ship's owners) he's accused of being a traitor.

He's quite right to ask for evidence it is the JOB of the leader of the opposition to hold the government to account.

 

[fork me]

I would agree that asking for verification is ok, and not backing the other side, but he's not done that. He's stated that there isn't credible evidence. Where does he get that information from?

No, he's stating that credible evidence has not been shown, which is a very different thing. It hasn't.

The same as it wasn't when Blair went to war with Iraq on the back of phony US claims.

 

[fork me]

Blair didn't lie, he was given misleading info from the Americans

Good to see that Corbyn has learned from that mistake and is questioning.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

No, he's stating that credible evidence has not been shown, which is a very different thing. It hasn't.

The same as it wasn't when Blair went to war with Iraq on the back of phony US claims.

Why would any credible evidence be shown to such an insignificant politician?