RugbyRebels

If he didn’t have any previous with siding with those against the U.K. Govt then people might be more inclined to believe him. That he has met and invited to Parliament so many people and organisations that are the UK’s enemies means people will rightly question his reasons for laying the wreath. Reasons for which we’ve had about six iterations of, ranging from I wasn’t me guv to I don’t think it was me guv to, eventually, it was me guv but I’ve nothing to hide. It doesn’t immediately strike you as the actions of somebody with nothing to hide.

At best it was incredibly naive and stupid - not qualities anybody wants in a leader - at worst it was another piece of evidence, in a long line of evidence, that the UK’s enemies are his friends.

Mellsblue wrote:At best it was incredibly naive and stupid - not qualities anybody wants in a leader - at worst it was another piece of evidence, in a long line of evidence, that the UK’s enemies are his friends.

Are the PLO the UK's enemy?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:At best it was incredibly naive and stupid - not qualities anybody wants in a leader - at worst it was another piece of evidence, in a long line of evidence, that the UK’s enemies are his friends.

Are the PLO the UK's enemy?

Puja

You're missing the point. Not everyone is buying his reason for being there. This is due to his long history of siding with Hamas, IRA etc and because that reason is only the final version, I assume, that he and Labour finally arrived at. I'm not inclined to believe him for those two reasons and because an article he wrote about the wreath laying just after the event doesn't really support it. Therefore, worst case is you don't believe him, as I and many don't, and it's therefore another piece of evidence that he's against almost everything this country has stood for since goodness knows when.

If we believe Corby and he's just a harmless old duffer who never knows there'll be others in attendance with more dubious motives then he's got the political instincts of a dead trout

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:At best it was incredibly naive and stupid - not qualities anybody wants in a leader - at worst it was another piece of evidence, in a long line of evidence, that the UK’s enemies are his friends.

Are the PLO the UK's enemy?

Puja

You're missing the point. Not everyone is buying his reason for being there. This is due to his long history of siding with Hamas, IRA etc and because that reason is only the final version, I assume, that he and Labour finally arrived at. I'm not inclined to believe him for those two reasons and because an article he wrote about the wreath laying just after the event doesn't really support it. Therefore, worst case is you don't believe him, as I and many don't, and it's therefore another piece of evidence that he's against almost everything this country has stood for since goodness knows when.

I think you've missed mine - the terrorist that he's accused of honouring was a leader in the PLO. So even if you don't buy his reason for being there, the accusation is associating with and sympathising with the PLO, which I don't think is a huge surprise for Corbyn.

My question is why associating with the PLO (even though some of them are murdering fuckheads) is beyond the pale when our politicians regularly associate with many murdering fuckheads. I'm not trying to be whatabouttist; I'm trying to understand why his actions put him against everything this country stands for, but selling weapons to Saudi Arabia that we know will be immediately used in Yemen does not put May in the same position.

Tl;dr - all politicians deal and have dealt with awful people, why is he worse?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
Are the PLO the UK's enemy?

Puja

You're missing the point. Not everyone is buying his reason for being there. This is due to his long history of siding with Hamas, IRA etc and because that reason is only the final version, I assume, that he and Labour finally arrived at. I'm not inclined to believe him for those two reasons and because an article he wrote about the wreath laying just after the event doesn't really support it. Therefore, worst case is you don't believe him, as I and many don't, and it's therefore another piece of evidence that he's against almost everything this country has stood for since goodness knows when.

I think you've missed mine - the terrorist that he's accused of honouring was a leader in the PLO. So even if you don't buy his reason for being there, the accusation is associating with and sympathising with the PLO, which I don't think is a huge surprise for Corbyn.

My question is why associating with the PLO (even though some of them are murdering fuckheads) is beyond the pale when our politicians regularly associate with many murdering fuckheads. I'm not trying to be whatabouttist; I'm trying to understand why his actions put him against everything this country stands for, but selling weapons to Saudi Arabia that we know will be immediately used in Yemen does not put May in the same position.

Tl;dr - all politicians deal and have dealt with awful people, why is he worse?

Puja

I’m not missing your point. I’m well aware that is how Labour are spinning it. Well, spin mk IV. Unfortunately, others are spinning it a different way, and therefore Labours reason isn’t believed by all/most/many because it is excuse mk IV and because he has form for meeting terrorists and because it doesn’t tally with the article he wrote about the event.
You may choose to believe him but many believe he was there honouring the masterminds of the Munich Olympics terror attack, which is worst case scenario.
Yep, many politicians have met many evil people but not many have met people deemed to be terrorists. Even less have met to honour the death of a terrorist. If you believe he was there laying a wreath for the masterminds of the Munich terror attack then it’s really no different to laying a wreath at the site Osama Bin Laden was dropped in the sea or where Jihadi John was obliterated by a missle. That really is worst case scenario.
To cut a long story short, it doesn’t matter what you believe is worst case scenario. Worst case scenario is the worst case scenario that gains traction and at the moment that is that he was there to honour the death of terrorist.
Just because it’s now on my predictive text: worst case scenario.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: You're missing the point. Not everyone is buying his reason for being there. This is due to his long history of siding with Hamas, IRA etc and because that reason is only the final version, I assume, that he and Labour finally arrived at. I'm not inclined to believe him for those two reasons and because an article he wrote about the wreath laying just after the event doesn't really support it. Therefore, worst case is you don't believe him, as I and many don't, and it's therefore another piece of evidence that he's against almost everything this country has stood for since goodness knows when.

I think you've missed mine - the terrorist that he's accused of honouring was a leader in the PLO. So even if you don't buy his reason for being there, the accusation is associating with and sympathising with the PLO, which I don't think is a huge surprise for Corbyn.

My question is why associating with the PLO (even though some of them are murdering fuckheads) is beyond the pale when our politicians regularly associate with many murdering fuckheads. I'm not trying to be whatabouttist; I'm trying to understand why his actions put him against everything this country stands for, but selling weapons to Saudi Arabia that we know will be immediately used in Yemen does not put May in the same position.

Tl;dr - all politicians deal and have dealt with awful people, why is he worse?

Puja

I’m not missing your point. I’m well aware that is how Labour are spinning it. Well, spin mk IV. Unfortunately, others are spinning it a different way, and therefore Labours reason isn’t believed by all/most/many because it is excuse mk IV and because he has form for meeting terrorists and because it doesn’t tally with the article he wrote about the event.
You may choose to believe him but many believe he was there honouring the masterminds of the Munich Olympics terror attack, which is worst case scenario.
Yep, many politicians have met many evil people but not many have met people deemed to be terrorists. Even less have met to honour the death of a terrorist. If you believe he was there laying a wreath for the masterminds of the Munich terror attack then it’s really no different to laying a wreath at the site Osama Bin Laden was dropped in the sea or where Jihadi John was obliterated by a missle. That really is worst case scenario.
To cut a long story short, it doesn’t matter what you believe is worst case scenario. Worst case scenario is the worst case scenario that gains traction and at the moment that is that he was there to honour the death of terrorist.
Just because it’s now on my predictive text: worst case scenario.

No, really, you definitely have missed my point - the head of the PLO that I'm referring to and the mastermind of the Munich terror attack are one and the same.

UK politicians laid a wreath on Sharon's grave and he was a war criminal. They laid a wreath on Arafat's grave and he was a terrorist. We as a country have dealt with and honoured many terrorists and war criminals - even if you take the worst case scenario (it's on mine now), why is this one beyond the pale?

Puja

Sandydragon wrote:I’d suggest there is a big difference to negotiating with a head of state compared to encouraging a terrorist organisation by given th some veneer of legitimacy.

I believe the commereration was for more than one terrorist hence my comment about a group of terrorist, even if it were one grave.

PLO aren't terrorists (since Oslo Accords)

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
I think you've missed mine - the terrorist that he's accused of honouring was a leader in the PLO. So even if you don't buy his reason for being there, the accusation is associating with and sympathising with the PLO, which I don't think is a huge surprise for Corbyn.

My question is why associating with the PLO (even though some of them are murdering fuckheads) is beyond the pale when our politicians regularly associate with many murdering fuckheads. I'm not trying to be whatabouttist; I'm trying to understand why his actions put him against everything this country stands for, but selling weapons to Saudi Arabia that we know will be immediately used in Yemen does not put May in the same position.

Tl;dr - all politicians deal and have dealt with awful people, why is he worse?

Puja

I’m not missing your point. I’m well aware that is how Labour are spinning it. Well, spin mk IV. Unfortunately, others are spinning it a different way, and therefore Labours reason isn’t believed by all/most/many because it is excuse mk IV and because he has form for meeting terrorists and because it doesn’t tally with the article he wrote about the event.
You may choose to believe him but many believe he was there honouring the masterminds of the Munich Olympics terror attack, which is worst case scenario.
Yep, many politicians have met many evil people but not many have met people deemed to be terrorists. Even less have met to honour the death of a terrorist. If you believe he was there laying a wreath for the masterminds of the Munich terror attack then it’s really no different to laying a wreath at the site Osama Bin Laden was dropped in the sea or where Jihadi John was obliterated by a missle. That really is worst case scenario.
To cut a long story short, it doesn’t matter what you believe is worst case scenario. Worst case scenario is the worst case scenario that gains traction and at the moment that is that he was there to honour the death of terrorist.
Just because it’s now on my predictive text: worst case scenario.

No, really, you definitely have missed my point - the head of the PLO that I'm referring to and the mastermind of the Munich terror attack are one and the same.

UK politicians laid a wreath on Sharon's grave and he was a war criminal. They laid a wreath on Arafat's grave and he was a terrorist. We as a country have dealt with and honoured many terrorists and war criminals - even if you take the worst case scenario (it's on mine now), why is this one beyond the pale?

Puja

I’m aware of those points but it goes back to spin. You call him a member of the PLO others say he’s a terrorist mastermind. Worst case scenario is that he is honouring a terrorist mastermind, plus all the other factors I mention. It doesn’t matter what others have done, and that’s not part of the argument here (though it should be), the worst case scenario that has traction is that he is honouring the death of a terrorist mastermind.
For me, I didn’t believe it originally, just as I didn’t believe the Czech (?) spy story, but his wriggling on why he was there has put doubt in my mind, and his past behaviour means I think it’s credible he was there to honour a person in their capacity as a terrorist. That is worst case scenario.

Just stumbled across this on Twatter. Pretty much sums it up for me.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ssion=true

Mellsblue wrote:Just stumbled across this on Twatter. Pretty much sums it up for me.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ssion=true

That is a very good article indeed and a very sensible set of arguments to finish this conversation on. Good find.

Puja

We're maybe a day away from Corby admitting a brunch date with Darth Vader

Digby wrote:We're maybe a day away from Corby admitting a brunch date with Darth Vader

And Osama Bin Laden.



Just as well Corbyn only turns up to gatherings of the dodgy when its anti-Western, or we'd probably have had photos of Corbyn and Bin Laden together by now.

Which leads me to semi-serious points in refutation of Puja.

1) The PLO (and other organisations of the same ilk) while not direct enemies of the UK, receive friendship and aid from those who wish us harm, and direct harm at those who don't, and therefore are broadly hostile to us. I don't have to be an ultra-patriotic mood to consider them unfit company for a servant of the British people who has nothing to gain for the British people in that association.

2) And there is the difference between our Government representatives honoring Sharon/Arafat/the Saudis and Corbyn with any whoever.

The Government has to play nice with the various gits out there (starting with Boris...). Its part of the job to join in with global hypocrisy at the right moments, to move on past violence at others. And so on.

Corbyn doesn't have to do that. It is his choice to make nice with them. I suppose you could applaud his extra-curricular attempts to gain experience for a government role?

It's a thin difference - thin enough that many don't care - but a difference nevertheless.

Made worse by the fact that, as Friedland says, he's hemming and hawing and equivocating rather than making a case for his principles. It looks shifty, indecisive and above all, stupid.

If Corbyn has come clean on all this and admitted this, and other, meetings and just made the argument that it was in the cause of peace, then it wouldn’t have been so bad for him. But the shiftiness is what’s killing him as much as anything.

Personally I don’t believe the peacemaker argument. To bring peace to a conflict you need to engage both sides, Corbyn has firmly nailed his colours to one specific mast.

Digby wrote:Will lying about a wreath lay to rest Corbyn's time as leader, or like Trump can he do as he wants and take no hit to his base? And even if they ditch the walking apology machine for terrorism would the next leader be any better?

Corbyn is bullet proof until he crosses a substantial part of his base on some matter of highly important policy.

Which is why nobody knows his Brexit policy.



(well, that or fail utterly).

Peat wrote:

Digby wrote:We're maybe a day away from Corby admitting a brunch date with Darth Vader

And Osama Bin Laden.



Just as well Corbyn only turns up to gatherings of the dodgy when its anti-Western, or we'd probably have had photos of Corbyn and Bin Laden together by now.

Which leads me to semi-serious points in refutation of Puja.

1) The PLO (and other organisations of the same ilk) while not direct enemies of the UK, receive friendship and aid from those who wish us harm, and direct harm at those who don't, and therefore are broadly hostile to us. I don't have to be an ultra-patriotic mood to consider them unfit company for a servant of the British people who has nothing to gain for the British people in that association.

2) And there is the difference between our Government representatives honoring Sharon/Arafat/the Saudis and Corbyn with any whoever.

The Government has to play nice with the various gits out there (starting with Boris...). Its part of the job to join in with global hypocrisy at the right moments, to move on past violence at others. And so on.

Corbyn doesn't have to do that. It is his choice to make nice with them. I suppose you could applaud his extra-curricular attempts to gain experience for a government role?

It's a thin difference - thin enough that many don't care - but a difference nevertheless.

Made worse by the fact that, as Friedland says, he's hemming and hawing and equivocating rather than making a case for his principles. It looks shifty, indecisive and above all, stupid.

The PLO, while containing a wide variety of fuckers and being associated with other reprobates, is also the major point of leadership and organisation for the Palestinian people. I don't have any problem with supporting the Palestinians who, whilst far from being completely innocent in the conflict, have been getting an increasingly shittier end of the stick over the years. I would imagine Corbyn's argument is that it wasn't so much "extra-curricular attempts to gain experience for a government role" as supporting people who no-one else will, given that he's a fluffy, hippie, internationalist sort of socialist.

Or, at least it should have been. You're absolutely right -he should've just fronted up and said, "Yes, I support the Palestinians and here's why," rather than attempting to hedge his bets and avoid standing up for a principle that might've been politically awkward, but was probably right. Or at least more right than hemming and hawing and disavowing knowledge of it.

Puja

Puja wrote: Corbyn's argument is that it wasn't so much "extra-curricular attempts to gain experience for a government role" as supporting people who no-one else will, given that he's a fluffy, hippie, internationalist sort of socialist.

Puja

Who after saying over and over the base of the party should have more control over the executive now with the large growth of pro European young members refuses to even have brexit discussed at conference.

I suppose he can cite he meant the members should have more control back when he could more reliably trust they'd vote in line with him

Whether one likes him or not he's no fluffy hippy

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote: Corbyn's argument is that it wasn't so much "extra-curricular attempts to gain experience for a government role" as supporting people who no-one else will, given that he's a fluffy, hippie, internationalist sort of socialist.

Puja

Who after saying over and over the base of the party should have more control over the executive now with the large growth of pro European young members refuses to even have brexit discussed at conference.

I suppose he can cite he meant the members should have more control back when he could more reliably trust they'd vote in line with him

Whether one likes him or not he's no fluffy hippy

To be fair, it's a sensible decision - picking a side on Brexit would only be self-destructive, as his MPs come equally from leave and remain areas so even if he applied the whip and enough Tories rebelled to lose the DUP majority, he'd have enough rebelling on his side to make the whole thing moot. He's got absolutely no power on Brexit, the same as all the other politicians, due to the split in the country. The best thing he can do is be vague and non-committal while standing back to let the Tories take the blame until it's happened, Project Fear turns out to be entirely true, and the other half of the country realises that they might have been wrong.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote: Corbyn's argument is that it wasn't so much "extra-curricular attempts to gain experience for a government role" as supporting people who no-one else will, given that he's a fluffy, hippie, internationalist sort of socialist.

Puja

Who after saying over and over the base of the party should have more control over the executive now with the large growth of pro European young members refuses to even have brexit discussed at conference.

I suppose he can cite he meant the members should have more control back when he could more reliably trust they'd vote in line with him

Whether one likes him or not he's no fluffy hippy

To be fair, it's a sensible decision - picking a side on Brexit would only be self-destructive, as his MPs come equally from leave and remain areas so even if he applied the whip and enough Tories rebelled to lose the DUP majority, he'd have enough rebelling on his side to make the whole thing moot. He's got absolutely no power on Brexit, the same as all the other politicians, due to the split in the country. The best thing he can do is be vague and non-committal while standing back to let the Tories take the blame until it's happened, Project Fear turns out to be entirely true, and the other half of the country realises that they might have been wrong.

Puja

The only trouble is he blatantly has picked a side on brexit, but like his work as a middle east peace envoy is hoping not to be called out on it. He is essentially gutless

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote: Corbyn's argument is that it wasn't so much "extra-curricular attempts to gain experience for a government role" as supporting people who no-one else will, given that he's a fluffy, hippie, internationalist sort of socialist.

Puja

Who after saying over and over the base of the party should have more control over the executive now with the large growth of pro European young members refuses to even have brexit discussed at conference.

I suppose he can cite he meant the members should have more control back when he could more reliably trust they'd vote in line with him

Whether one likes him or not he's no fluffy hippy

To be fair, it's a sensible decision - picking a side on Brexit would only be self-destructive, as his MPs come equally from leave and remain areas so even if he applied the whip and enough Tories rebelled to lose the DUP majority, he'd have enough rebelling on his side to make the whole thing moot. He's got absolutely no power on Brexit, the same as all the other politicians, due to the split in the country. The best thing he can do is be vague and non-committal while standing back to let the Tories take the blame until it's happened, Project Fear turns out to be entirely true, and the other half of the country realises that they might have been wrong.

Puja

a) If the Guardian's article about a 100 constituencies having swung from Leave to Remain, mainly in the north and Wales, this may no longer be true.
b) Regardless of their constituencies, Labour's MPs are fairly staunchly anti-Brexit and wouldn't need much whip to get them through such a thing despite the risk to their seats. Only 4 Labour MPs voted for the Chequers plan iirc.
c) The Labour party member base is still heavily pro-EU and this is the one thing that could drag him down. You're still right about the stalling being sensible in a lot of ways, but one day (possibly soon) it may not be and the longer he stalls the harder his task might be that day

I think the most sensible thing about what he's doing is that its better for a chance of reversing Brexit if he keeps his mouth shut a while longer and lets people make their own minds up.

As for your other post - in broad agreement.

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote: Corbyn's argument is that it wasn't so much "extra-curricular attempts to gain experience for a government role" as supporting people who no-one else will, given that he's a fluffy, hippie, internationalist sort of socialist.

Puja

Who after saying over and over the base of the party should have more control over the executive now with the large growth of pro European young members refuses to even have brexit discussed at conference.

I suppose he can cite he meant the members should have more control back when he could more reliably trust they'd vote in line with him

Whether one likes him or not he's no fluffy hippy

To be fair, it's a sensible decision - picking a side on Brexit would only be self-destructive, as his MPs come equally from leave and remain areas so even if he applied the whip and enough Tories rebelled to lose the DUP majority, he'd have enough rebelling on his side to make the whole thing moot. He's got absolutely no power on Brexit, the same as all the other politicians, due to the split in the country. The best thing he can do is be vague and non-committal while standing back to let the Tories take the blame until it's happened, Project Fear turns out to be entirely true, and the other half of the country realises that they might have been wrong.

Puja

Is this the ‘Straight talking, honest politics’ he promised when running for leader?

Peat wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
Who after saying over and over the base of the party should have more control over the executive now with the large growth of pro European young members refuses to even have brexit discussed at conference.

I suppose he can cite he meant the members should have more control back when he could more reliably trust they'd vote in line with him

Whether one likes him or not he's no fluffy hippy

To be fair, it's a sensible decision - picking a side on Brexit would only be self-destructive, as his MPs come equally from leave and remain areas so even if he applied the whip and enough Tories rebelled to lose the DUP majority, he'd have enough rebelling on his side to make the whole thing moot. He's got absolutely no power on Brexit, the same as all the other politicians, due to the split in the country. The best thing he can do is be vague and non-committal while standing back to let the Tories take the blame until it's happened, Project Fear turns out to be entirely true, and the other half of the country realises that they might have been wrong.

Puja

a) If the Guardian's article about a 100 constituencies having swung from Leave to Remain, mainly in the north and Wales, this may no longer be true.
b) Regardless of their constituencies, Labour's MPs are fairly staunchly anti-Brexit and wouldn't need much whip to get them through such a thing despite the risk to their seats. Only 4 Labour MPs voted for the Chequers plan iirc.
c) The Labour party member base is still heavily pro-EU and this is the one thing that could drag him down. You're still right about the stalling being sensible in a lot of ways, but one day (possibly soon) it may not be and the longer he stalls the harder his task might be that day

I think the most sensible thing about what he's doing is that its better for a chance of reversing Brexit if he keeps his mouth shut a while longer and lets people make their own minds up.

As for your other post - in broad agreement.

While I'd really like to believe a) is true and that the consequences of a Brexit led by this load of donkeys (ie all of our politicians) are actually sinking in, it does feel like wishful thinking research, carried out by people who already know which answer they'd like to see. People have become tribal over Brexit and facts are increasingly bouncing off. We could end up in penury and there'll still be those arguing that it was because we didn't take a hard enough line and let those nasty Europeans run all over us instead of Doing Brexit Right (TM).

B) may be true, but politicians are greedy opportunists with an eye for self-preservation who know that voting against the dreams of their leave constituents will see them turfed out next election. Only 4 voted for the Chequers plan, but that was a mess at the best of times and easy to vote against. How many voted against or abstained from the amendment to stay in the Single Market?

C) is absolutely true and is why what little policy Labour have on the subject (other than "Laugh at the Conservatives") is as soft Brexit as they can get without losing plausible deniability that they would "deliver the will of the people" if voted for in the next election.

Digby's right - it's utterly gutless, but it's the most politic thing to do right now.

Puja

Being gutless only works until he's in a position to do something at which point he'd have no mandate

Would now be opportune to mention that the only reason this particular Corbyn issue is in the news is to distract the feeble minded from the utter cuntery of Boris Johnson?

Nope, they're both pricks, and one doing something to grab some media attention doesn't suddenly validate the other