The Jeremy Corbyn thread

[midnight_rendezvous]

You’re playing with semantics.

I will happily concede that the event was not just a commemoration of the “Munich terrorism event”; will you concede that a wreath was laid at the graves of the alleged ring-leaders of that event? I ask because JC has said it was.

“Jeremy Corbyn has said he was present but not involved at a wreath-laying for individuals behind the group that carried out the Munich Olympic massacre, a partial admission that has led to a row with Israel’s prime minister.

The Labour leader had been asked if Palestinian leaders linked to the Black September terror group were also honoured at a memorial event he attended in Tunisia in 2014, at which victims of the 1985 Israeli airstrike in Tunis were remembered.

Jeremy Corbyn said “a wreath was indeed laid” for “some of those who were killed in Paris in 1992” and added in response to a question: “I was present at that wreath-laying, I don’t think I was actually involved in it.””

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....volved-munich-olympics-massacre-wreath-laying

There were 8 Munich Terrorists – NONE are buried at the Tunis Cemetery that Jeremy Corbyn visited.

As reported by The Daily Mail in their article smearing Jeremy Corbyn’s attendance at the wreath-laying ceremony at the Hamman Chott Cemetery in Tunis, the graves lining the cemetery canopy contained the bodies of four individuals that are alleged to have had links to Black September, and have also been accused of having involvement in the planning of the attack – accusations which have long been denied and never proven. However, the four men were categorically NOT the terrorists who perpetrated the Munich atrocity, as has been widely suggested by many mainstream media pundits and, most notably, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

And you really believe he supported the IRA? Prove it. With evidence. Actual hard evidence. If you can’t then it’d be your views that are beyond mockery.

Open Your Eyes.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-on-northern-ireland

 

[Chicken Run]

Open Your Eyes.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-on-northern-ireland

View attachment 99750

Oh!!!!!!! Treacherous Scumbag what a ****tt.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

And Theresa May invited the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia to Downing Street in March. The head of a country that is currently committing war crimes in Yemen. Difference is May knows about it whilst JC probably didn’t even know who Taher was. But again, let’s ignore the complicity of our own government in war crimes and continue to scrutinise a picture from 4 years ago.

So just cos May is bad, means Corbyn can get away with it?

Poor argument.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Open Your Eyes.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-on-northern-ireland

View attachment 99750

Controversial sounding, but let's be clear, the 1987 Loughgall ambush incurred civilian casualties and a civilian fatality, also commemorated in the silence. Standing in silence was entirely consistent with Corbyn’s repeatedly expressed opposition to violence as a means of counteracting terrorism. Taking Corbyn’s actions out of context as an expression of support for their cause requires a series of staggering imaginative leaps.



As I said before, there can be no serious claim that Corbyn endorsed or supported IRA violence at the time: because no such evidence exists.The charges against Corbyn are often overinflated: they amount to a solidarity with Irish independence common to the left at the time, a claimed position on the editorial board of Labour Briefing, a magazine which rather tastelessly joked about the Brighton bombing, and invitations of Republican leaders to Westminster and too close an association with them. Taken together, these are used to suggest that Corbyn either approved of the IRA’s bombing and armed struggle, or effectively had no problem with it, and that his statements to the contrary are presented as either lies or self-delusions.

I don’t wish to defend every choice Corbyn made in this period: it would be strange if among the Sinn Féin members he met there were no active IRA members, and certainly the timing of his invitation to Adams after the Brighton bomb was crass. Yet, however unpalatable, it is unquestionably true that Corbyn’s consistent approach of pursuing a dialogue with Republicans, rather than ever harsher war, correctly anticipated the only choice which could lead to peace.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

So just cos May is bad, means Corbyn can get away with it?

Poor argument.

Pointing out the utter hypocrisy of the media and people who would rather condemn Corbyn over laying a wreath four years ago than holding their government to account over complicity of war crimes. On the one hand you have a PM wilfully and knowingly aligning herself with a country committing war crimes with weapons we are selling them RIGHT NOW, and on the other we have the leader of the opposition who happened to be at a memorial with a man who he barely knew who turned out to be a terror chief four years ago. Which one is more pressing? Which one deserves more media attention? But, which one are we continually talking about?

 

[Brian Fantana]

And Theresa May invited the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia to Downing Street in March. The head of a country that is currently committing war crimes in Yemen. Difference is May knows about it whilst JC probably didn’t even know who Taher was. But again, let’s ignore the complicity of our own government in war crimes and continue to scrutinise a picture from 4 years ago.

I'm not commenting on TM, I'm commenting on JC. And for you to say he 'probably didn't even know who Taher was' is totally laughable. You haven't got the first clue whether he knew who he was or not.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

Controversial sounding, but let's be clear, the 1987 Loughgall ambush incurred civilian casualties and a civilian fatality, also commemorated in the silence. Standing in silence was entirely consistent with Corbyn’s repeatedly expressed opposition to violence as a means of counteracting terrorism. Taking Corbyn’s actions out of context as an expression of support for their cause requires a series of staggering imaginative leaps.



As I said before, there can be no serious claim that Corbyn endorsed or supported IRA violence at the time: because no such evidence exists.The charges against Corbyn are often overinflated: they amount to a solidarity with Irish independence common to the left at the time, a claimed position on the editorial board of Labour Briefing, a magazine which rather tastelessly joked about the Brighton bombing, and invitations of Republican leaders to Westminster and too close an association with them. Taken together, these are used to suggest that Corbyn either approved of the IRA’s bombing and armed struggle, or effectively had no problem with it, and that his statements to the contrary are presented as either lies or self-delusions.

I don’t wish to defend every choice Corbyn made in this period: it would be strange if among the Sinn Féin members he met there were no active IRA members, and certainly the timing of his invitation to Adams after the Brighton bomb was crass. Yet, however unpalatable, it is unquestionably true that Corbyn’s consistent approach of pursuing a dialogue with Republicans, rather than ever harsher war, correctly anticipated the only choice which could lead to peace.

You asked for evidence Corbyn supported the IRA

I provide evidence, including a statement from him saying he agrees with IRA policy and mourning those who 'died fighting for (not civilians) an independent Ireland. - If that's not the IRA then I don't know what is!

Instead of accepting you were wrong, you invent alternate facts that the silence mentioned in the article was for civilians killed - when it wasn't, it was for those terrorists that bombed a police station.

It is very clear Corbyn was a supporter of the IRA, and their 'cause', why else would he attend these things!?!

 

[mikeyjh]

So just cos May is bad, means Corbyn can get away with it?

Poor argument.

It's really not, it's pointing out the hypocrisy of the smear campaign against Corbyn - That's effectively what we're talking about here. I have never quite seen anything like this, you may not like Corbyn's policies or indeed the man himself but if you think we should ignore this campaign against him, that's a dangerous direction to head in.

 

[mikeyjh]

Thanks for posting that - I had not actually seen the full list before. It is a rather muddled list of points, tbh

To the man in the street, 'anti-Semitism' means 'racism against Jewish people', surely?

The top three sentences on this list broadly cover it, I'd have thought?

Most of the rest seem less clear, to me.

It talks of the 'right of self-determination' of 'the Jewish people', and uses the existence of the State of Israel as its example, and yet further down it has conflating 'the people' with 'the (actions of) State', itself on the banned list. Which is it to be?

To question the scope or some detail of the Holocaust is not BY DEFINITION anti-Semitic, though the reasons for questioning it might very well be so, in many cases.

It could be that SOME Jewish people actually ARE more loyal to the State of Israel than their own nations? Some might even agree with the suggestion. To ponder that of those individuals surely couldn't be considered anti-Semitic? There are Australian citizens of Italian (only one example) descent who are possibly more loyal to Italy than to Australia. It isn't considered racist to muse on that.

The Nazi one is problematic, too. Taking it to it's logical extreme, Israel could adopt the swastika, build concentration camps, gas gypsies, arrest academics, burn books and invade Poland, and it would be considered 'anti-semitic' to draw comparisons.

I took about a day trying to articulate what you've managed far more succinctly. Thank you.

 

[mikeyjh]

Sadly, this appears to be the case. But I wouldn't even go as far as to say anti-Zionism. It is simply and patently ludicrous to conflate anti-semitism in the UK and worldwide, with legitimate scrutiny and criticism of aspects of Israel's foreign and domestic policy. No one with human rights concerns for what is happening there should automatically be labelled anti-semitic. The fact that this seems to be happening makes you question the real motives of those doing it. Are they trying to bully Corbyn/anyone else in the world from talking about what is going on in Israel at the moment? Anyone else in public office globally thinking of speaking up for the Palestinians must be thinking twice after recent events.

That's precisely what the IHRA definition is doing - They are protecting Israel and Jewish groups from any criticism, that they get away with is staggering and and almost self fulfilling - It's so blatant that you can't helping thinking that Israel and Jewish groups wield influence in the media and in government and there you have it, I'm fulfilling their definition of anti-semitism. Crazy.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Although Corbyn apologists always cry 'smear' and try to deflect any criticism of the Dear Leader It is of course entirely legitimate for any Uk politician that has a long back catalogue of associating with known terrorists (especially ones killing soldiers and civilians in the UK) to come under intense scrutiny. Even more so when they become leader of a Major political party/the official opposition.

The 'he was only engaging with them to advance the peace process line' is laughable. Can someone please explain how peace is progressed by a non-entity back bench MP only associating with and supporting the cause of one side helping anything?

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/...write-the-history-of-his-support-for-the-ira/

Corbyn defenders on here would obviously be equally sanguine/gullible about a Tory MP/Leader that had spent much of his earlier career hanging around with terrorists.

 

[Brian Fantana]

The 'he was only engaging with them to advance the peace process line' is laughable. Can someone please explain how peace is progressed by a non-entity back bench MP only associating with and supporting the cause of one side helping anything?

This is the crux, for me. He was not there to mediate, and no one in the wider population (perhaps even amongst people there) had any clue who he was.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

You asked for evidence Corbyn supported the IRA

I provide evidence, including a statement from him saying he agrees with IRA policy and mourning those who 'died fighting for (not civilians) an independent Ireland. - If that's not the IRA then I don't know what is!

Instead of accepting you were wrong, you invent alternate facts that the silence mentioned in the article was for civilians killed - when it wasn't, it was for those terrorists that bombed a police station.

It is very clear Corbyn was a supporter of the IRA, and their 'cause', why else would he attend these things!?!

Observing a silence for 9 killed in the troubles (one being a civilian which WAS commemorated in the silence) is not evidence of his support of the IRA. It is evidence of his consistent approach throughout that violence begets violence and that violence on both sides should be condemned. You are making huge leaps in order to prove a point. Whilst his actions are questionable and controversial they do not prove he supported the IRA in anyway.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

It's really not, it's pointing out the hypocrisy of the smear campaign against Corbyn - That's effectively what we're talking about here. I have never quite seen anything like this, you may not like Corbyn's policies or indeed the man himself but if you think we should ignore this campaign against him, that's a dangerous direction to head in.

Can you answer my question on which IHRA you disagree with yet?

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

The 'he was only engaging with them to advance the peace process line' is laughable. Can someone please explain how peace is progressed by a non-entity back bench MP only associating with and supporting the cause of one side helping anything?

Well, for a start in 2013 Jeremy Corbyn was awarded the Gandhi Foundation International Peace Award for his efforts to bring about a peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland. So there's that.

And you are aware that he also met plenty of Loyalists too in his campaign for peace, right?

Corbyn met with Gary McMichael and David Ervine (Ervine was a jailed loyalist terrorist turned politician for the PUP), and he also spoke regularly with Ian Paisley who, according to his widow Eileen, considered Corbyn to be "likeable", "courteous", "polite" and "a gentleman".

In light of the indisputable fact that Ian Paisley was a fierce opponent of Irish republicanism, why on earth would he say such things about a guy, who according to you, was undermining the loyalist cause by promoting a peaceful solution to the conflict?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

That's precisely what the IHRA definition is doing - They are protecting Israel and Jewish groups from any criticism, that they get away with is staggering and and almost self fulfilling - It's so blatant that you can't helping thinking that Israel and Jewish groups wield influence in the media and in government and there you have it, I'm fulfilling their definition of anti-semitism. Crazy.

I am not going to explain this for the umpteenth time on here because clearly people such as yourself have your fingers in your ears. I would suggest you do some research on the 19th century origins of your nice little conspiracy theory about Jewish influence on the media and government. When you have done your research, have a think about how the Nazis developed these ideas. I have been as nice as it is possible to be when reading the same old anti Jewish propaganda. I presume that your view is not dissimilar to the one taken by the Labour leadership which is the reason they are held in such contempt both by many Jewish people and by anyone aware of the events that have led to multiple genocides over the last thousand years.

 

[Lower West Stander]

And you really believe he supported the IRA? Prove it. With evidence. Actual hard evidence. If you can’t then it’d be your views that are beyond mockery.

Prove he didn't. Just like you're trying and failing to prove he's not an anti semite.

You are such a slavish follower of this guy, you'll be telling me Maduro is doing a great job in Venezuela next...

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

I'm not commenting on TM, I'm commenting on JC. And for you to say he 'probably didn't even know who Taher was' is totally laughable. You haven't got the first clue whether he knew who he was or not.

Why is it laughable? Because I'm dealing with generalities? Of course I don't know for a fact whether JC knew him or not. But that's not the point is it. The point is that people like you would rather string theories together about Corbyn than look at what is happening in the here and now when our own PM knows EXACTLY who she's dealing with and what they're doing.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Prove he didn't. Just like you're trying and failing to prove he's not an anti semite.

You are such a slavish follower of this guy, you'll be telling me Maduro is doing a great job in Venezuela next...

That's not how it works mate. Innocent until proven guilty and all that

And I'm not a slavish follower in the slightest. I'm just not foolish enough to form an opinion without facts and context.