Politics

[Rayvin 5183]

5 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

You’re not wrong about lots of this, but it’s whataboutery.

He was a terrorist - why not just say it? Failing to do so while condemning our allies isn’t a vote winner, other than with the stop the war coalition fringe. Must people in this country aren’t pacifists and the next leader has to at least pretend to be tough on defence and security.

 

I don't really think it is whataboutery. I'm questioning the use of the term concerning it's validity in his case given the lack of its use with the US. We cannot say he is one without saying that they are. It is simply not possible.

 

As such, it is a worthless term. The Americans have made it worthless. And like i said, I agree that it isn't a vote winner to be truthful about the galling hypocrisy of the western powers. But that's only because so many people in our countries are absolute children about such things.

 

And also, tbf, because there aren't enough people brave or strong enough to tell it like it is.

[ewerk 30266]

Corbyn and Rayvin sitting in a tree

K-I-S-S-I-N-G

Edited January 8, 2020 by ewerk

[Rayvin 5183]

2 minutes ago, ewerk said:

The truth and Rayvin sitting in a tree

K-I-S-S-I-N-G

 

FYP.

[Alex 34846]

16 hours ago, Dr Gloom said:

i think Thornberry would probably be a disaster too - her comments about flags of st george will go down like a sack of shit with exactly the kind of voter labour needs to come back.

i'm starting to think nandy might be the dark horse. she is the only candidate apparently understands why corbyn failed - she called it before the election tbf

 

I was thinking the same re: Thornberry. Those quotes are saved up to use against her. She was relatively close to Corbyn too so is tainted with that. I like her but she’s definitely ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ at least in terms of perception 

[Dr Gloom 21813]

9 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I don't really think it is whataboutery. I'm questioning the use of the term concerning it's validity in his case given the lack of its use with the US. We cannot say he is one without saying that they are. It is simply not possible.

 

As such, it is a worthless term. The Americans have made it worthless. And like i said, I agree that it isn't a vote winner to be truthful about the galling hypocrisy of the western powers. But that's only because so many people in our countries are absolute children about such things.

 

And also, tbf, because there aren't enough people brave or strong enough to tell it like it is.

That’s fine but you can’t have a go at the US without accepting the man they took out was a terrorist. Why this is beyond Corbyn is beyond me. Not that what he thinks or says matters to anyone anymore. He’s made himself and the Labour movement irrelevant for 5 years 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Dr Gloom

[Alex 34846]

The thing is, if it was still the election campaign Corbyn would’ve given the same answers. Knowing full well it would cost him more votes. It just highlights a complete lack of pragmatism on his part. Anyone within the party or in the wider electorate that wants more of the same might as well vote Tory

[Rayvin 5183]

1 minute ago, Dr Gloom said:

That’s fine but you can’t have a go at the US without accepting the man they took out was a terrorist. Why this is beyond Corbyn is beyond me. Not that what he thinks or says matters to anyone anymore. He’s made himself and the Labour movement irrelevant for 5 years 

 

Gloom, the argument you have just made is exactly the one I was making. I'm not defending Iran. You have just responded to me saying "you can't say Iran are terrorists without saying the US are" by replying that "you can't say the US are without saying Iran are". I know you can't. It's literally my point.

 

I actually don't think either side are terrorists because the word is borderline meaningless since the West doesn't recognise the term in reality, but only in propaganda.

 

It's beyond Corbyn because he can't bring himself to say that the US are terrorists, I would guess. And because he won't do that, he can't say the same for Iran.

[Rayvin 5183]

1 minute ago, Alex said:

The thing is, if it was still the election campaign Corbyn would’ve given the same answers. Knowing full well it would cost him more votes. It just highlights a complete lack of pragmatism on his part. Anyone within the party or in the wider electorate that wants more of the same might as well vote Tory

 

I might as well vote Tory then.

[Dr Gloom 21813]

12 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Gloom, the argument you have just made is exactly the one I was making. I'm not defending Iran. You have just responded to me saying "you can't say Iran are terrorists without saying the US are" by replying that "you can't say the US are without saying Iran are". I know you can't. It's literally my point.

 

I actually don't think either side are terrorists because the word is borderline meaningless since the West doesn't recognise the term in reality, but only in propaganda.

 

It's beyond Corbyn because he can't bring himself to say that the US are terrorists, I would guess. And because he won't do that, he can't say the same for Iran.

i'm was talking about corbyn, not you. he was asked a simple question and once again gave the wrong answer. 

[Rayvin 5183]

Just now, Dr Gloom said:

i'm was talking about corbyn, not you. he was asked a simple question and once again gave the wrong answer. 

 

Yeah but he didn't call the US terrorists either. The problem he has is that he can't say one side are without the other side being the same. So he can't lie, basically.

 

If I was him I would have said "clearly the US defines any group which funds and arms political groups in other states who have the direct intent of carrying out violence against civilian forces with a view to destabilising the country in question, as terrorists. By their definition, Suleimani was indeed a terrorist, and i agree with them that any actors involved in such things should be termed as such. We should stand up against such behaviour wherever and from whoever it manifests."

[ewerk 30266]

Well you've lost my vote.

[Rayvin 5183]

Deep down I would want to say "all the actions that you have suggested Suleimani is guilty of, are also carried out by the US in multiple theatres around the world. If i call this man a terrorist, then by YOUR definition, so must the US be. Is that what you're saying? I can't answer you until you're clear on this point, as my understanding is that both sides are doing the same things.

 

Now fuck off".

[Rayvin 5183]

4 minutes ago, ewerk said:

Well you've lost my vote.

 

A vote for the truth is a vote for the Tories anyway, apparently.

[Dr Gloom 21813]

Q - was this man a terrorist? 

A - yes 

 

 

[Rayvin 5183]

2 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

Q - was this man a terrorist? 

A - yes 

 

 

 

I'm not blind to this, I do get it. I just cannot bring myself to overlook the hypocrisy.

[Rayvin 5183]

RLB has confirmed that she's more than happy to nuke people, if it will win her votes.

 

There you go, she's isn't totally a lost cause.

[Dr Gloom 21813]

10 out of 10 for her 

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3809]

22 hours ago, ewerk said:

She speaks well for someone from Gateshead. She should be doing more than sitting on the back benches.

She’s from Washington 

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3809]

1 hour ago, Dr Gloom said:

Q - was this man a terrorist? 

A - yes 

 

 

Define that answer please.

[Dr Gloom 21813]

it wouldn't have been that difficult to say, the man was a murderer, helped assad slaughter children in syria, backed militias in the region, responsible for deaths of thousands, including an american civilian contractor 

but....the move is reckless, and escalates tension with iran and increases chance of more conflict in the region.

 

 

 

 

[Dr Gloom 21813]

corbyn's stock response: the little guy terrorists aren't terrorists because they're persecuted by the evil western imperialists. 

[Rayvin 5183]

1 minute ago, Dr Gloom said:

corbyn's stock response: the little guy terrorists aren't terrorists because they're persecuted by the evil western imperialists. 

 

Did he actually say that or is that journalistic license?

[Dr Gloom 21813]

that's my analysis, but it's a pretty obvious to reach that conclusion, isn't it. whether it's the IRA, the US in the middle east, Israel and the Palestinians - he always backs the little guy.

Edited January 8, 2020 by Dr Gloom

[Rayvin 5183]

3 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

that's my analysis, but it's a pretty obvious to reach that conclusion, isn't it. whether it's the IRA, the US in the middle east, Israel and the Palestinians - he always backs the little guy.

 

Fair enough it's what you're reading into it, but he didn't say it. His stock response in reality is always to call for restraint and to step back from violence. You can choose to interpret in the way you have, but it's not his stock response. It's your stock assumption.

[Alex 34846]

2 hours ago, Rayvin said:

 

I might as well vote Tory then.

I take your point about wanting someone who questions the hypocrisy of it all. It was more of a wider comment re: his lack of pragmatism though. He gets caught up in the minutiae of how important it is to be even handed with everyone. Even if it’s going to cost him lots of votes. It’s indicative of his failure to see the bigger picture imo. It all gets back to needing someone capable of winning before even being able to think about helping people and changing things. I’m pretty much in agreement with you about that being in large part because of the ridiculous way the electorate views issues like this.