The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Chindie]

The cynicism of the anti-Semitism 'crisis' is astounding.

It's the golden calf. Until a group thinks it's a useful tool.

[magnkarl]

49 minutes ago, bickster said:

This just highlights what is going on here, in one tweet

Some missing facts here, as far as I'm aware, totally unreported by the BBC

The person at the said event that likened Israel's treatment of the Palestinians for being like Nazi Germany was, in fact, an ACTUAL HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR

Louise Ellman actually attended this event herself and was at the said event for a longer period of time than Corbyn himself.

She's a hypocrite with an agenda

This also highlights why the IHRA definition's examples are complete and utter bollocks that only serve to stifle debate on Israel and its illegal actions

Corbyn can compare Israel to Nazi-Germany all he wants, though in any honesty it's a hyperbolic statement. Nazi-Germany cleared much of Europe of Jews, Romani, men of combat age and anyone with a disability while Israel has been at war with its neighbours and put through some stupid and over nationalistic laws since the Western allies decided that it was a good place to home the Jews. If he doesn't understand that there's a difference between the issues then he shouldn't be Labour's leader.

Just like in the general population there's Jews who are for or against Israel. Corbyn calling Hamas prisoners being released "brothers" says it all about the man. Hamas is a terrorist organisation and a huge part of the prisoners exchanged were convicted of firing rockets and committing crimes within both Palestinian areas and Israeli areas.

The issue for Corbyn is that being a leader requires nuance in issues like this. He's so partisan to one side that he's dug a hole so deep that he can't get out. The fact that this thing has gone on for so long and he's got such a speckled past makes it extremely hard for him to get out of the frying pan. 

Corbyn seems to think that Hamas is faultless here, that is the issue that I have with the man. There is no "good" side in this conflict - especially not Hamas.

Edited August 2, 2018 by magnkarl

[StefanAVFC]

14 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Corbyn can compare Israel to Nazi-Germany all he wants

When did he do this?

14 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Corbyn seems to think that Hamas is faultless here,

When did he do this?

I don't even like Corbyn, nor would I vote Labour but ffs.

[bickster]

20 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Corbyn can compare Israel to Nazi-Germany all he wants, though in any honesty it's a hyperbolic statement. Nazi-Germany cleared much of Europe of Jews, Romani, men of combat age and anyone with a disability while Israel has been at war with its neighbours and put through some stupid and over nationalistic laws since the Western allies decided that it was a good place to home the Jews. If he doesn't understand that there's a difference between the issues then he shouldn't be Labour's leader.

Just like in the general population there's Jews who are for or against Israel. Corbyn calling Hamas prisoners being released "brothers" says it all about the man. Hamas is a terrorist organisation and a huge part of the prisoners exchanged were convicted of firing rockets and committing crimes within both Palestinian areas and Israeli areas.

The issue for Corbyn is that being a leader requires nuance in issues like this. He's so partisan to one side that he's dug a hole so deep that he can't get out. The fact that this thing has gone on for so long and he's got such a speckled past makes it extremely hard for him to get out of the frying pan. 

Corbyn seems to think that Hamas is faultless here, that is the issue that I have with the man. There is no "good" side in this conflict - especially not Hamas.

Maybe if I do this, you'll actually read the posts you are responding to

 לא דווחו כלל על ידי ה- BBC

האדם באירוע האמור, המשווה את יחסה של ישראל לפלשתינאים על היותה גרמניה הנאצית, היה למעשה משמר של ניצולי השואה בפועל

לואיז אלמן ממש השתתפה באירוע זה בעצמה, והיא היתה באירוע האמור במשך תקופה ארוכה יותר מאשר קורבין עצמו.

היא צבועה עם סדר יום

זה גם מדגיש מדוע הדוגמאות של ההגדרה של IHRA הן שלמות מוחלטות וגדולות שמשמשות רק כדי להחניק את הוויכוח על ישראל ופעולותיה הבלתי חוקיות

[magnkarl]

2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

When did he do this?

When did he do this?

I don't even like Corbyn, nor would I vote Labour but ffs.

To answer you first question Corbyn hosted a whole bunch of "debates" throughout his time as a back bencher where the "panel" had been filled with people who were only critical of Israel. For example there was a whole series of debates on the subject around 2010 when Hamas called the second intifada where generally the panel would use Hajo Meyer as their token holocaust survivor, a man who's spent the latter part of his life deeply funded by the anti-Zionist movement that several of the current Labour heads were also part of, while other people were not allowed to attend or got booted out. Jeremy Corbyn ca. 2010 was a staunch anti-Israel supporter who often muddled his words as he had no clue he'd be Labour leader.

Second, Corbyn calling 1000 convicted Hamas supporters being released brothers:

Quote

Mr Corbyn said: “Well, you have to ask the question why they’re in prison in the first place and since the releases that took place after the hunger strike I met many of the brothers including the brother who has been speaking here when they came out of prison when I was in Doha earlier this year, and you just realise that this mass imprisonment of Palestinians is actually part of a much bigger political game.

Amongst the 1000 people released as part of this prison swap was Abdul Aziz Umar who produced the vests used to kill 7 people at a cafe in Jerusalem in the early naughties. He's also said several similar things about Hezbollah, calling them "friends" as late as 2009 as per the video below 13-14 seconds in.

Though I'm sure it's all just some crazy Trump supporting Jews thinking that this is a bit silly for a labour leader to say, as Peter Willsman would have it.

Edited August 2, 2018 by magnkarl

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, magnkarl said:

Corbyn can compare Israel to Nazi-Germany all he wants, though in any honesty it's a hyperbolic statement.

Has he done this? As far as I can see, he hosted an event at which someone else said this, which isn't the same thing.

And I agree, it's a (very) hyperbolic statement. The problem is, we've been asked over the last few weeks to let the victims of oppression define their suffering. If a victim of the actual Holocaust, which this man apparently is, chooses to make that comparison, then it can't be offensive if he's allowed to define his own suffering. 

[blandy]

2 hours ago, magnkarl said:

The issue for Corbyn is that being a leader requires nuance in issues like this. He's so partisan to one side that he's dug a hole so deep that he can't get out. The fact that this thing has gone on for so long and he's got such a speckled past makes it extremely hard for him to get out of the frying pan. 

Exactly. His judgement and his leadership and his biases and hypocrisy make him wholly inadequateto be a leader of any party.

[peterms]

On 02/08/2018 at 11:04, magnkarl said:

 

You quote Ellman being "disturbed" to find that Corbyn hosted this event.

Are you aware that she attended it?  And that her "dusturbance" manifested itself several years later, and seemingly not at the time?

She may well be disturbed.  Possibly not in the sense she means to convey.

[peterms]

On 02/08/2018 at 13:41, magnkarl said:

To answer you first question Corbyn hosted a whole bunch of "debates" throughout his time as a back bencher where the "panel" had been filled with people who were only critical of Israel. 

Your comment reveals much about the issue.

It is not at all about anti-semitism; few people, no MPs, and none of the noisy critics of Corbyn, can evidence such a history of visible and vocal anti-racism as he.

It is all, and only, about whether criticism of fhe current Israeli regime is to be permitted.

[magnkarl]

7 hours ago, peterms said:

Your comment reveals much about the issue.

It is not at all about anti-semitism; few people, no MPs, and none of the noisy critics of Corbyn, can evidence such a history of visible and vocal anti-racism as he.

It is all, and only, about whether criticism of fhe current Israeli regime is to be permitted.

Yep, because saying that the issues within labour are made up by "Trump Loving Jews", peddling conspiracy theories that Hitler worked with the Jews and denying that the holocaust existed clearly has nothing to do with antisemitism. The issue here is that people can't seem to separate criticism of Israel and that of being a Jew, which is dangerous and has created a lot of issues for Corbyn and his hard-left bandwagon.

By all means though - let's keep repeating that it's all a made up thing when even the deputy leader gets harassed by activists for saying that labour needs to start taking this thing seriously and Jewish MP's get told they need to get "showered" on twitter on a daily basis.

The issue with Corbyn's "anti-racism" is that it is partisan, it quite clearly has a penchant for only talking about the people that he deems worthy of solidarity. This is why he's said some incredibly stupid things about Hamas and Hezbollah amongst others and keeps putting his foot in it when new videos of him saying stupid things emerges.

[peterms]

6 hours ago, magnkarl said:

The issue here is that people can't seem to separate criticism of Israel and that of being a Jew

I agree criticism of Israel and antisemitism are different things, and should be separated.  Many people in the Jewish community say the same.  I think the very big problem is that the current Israeli regime is seeking to conflate the two things, in order to stifle criticism of their actions.  Their supporters here are following their lead.

Parts of the Labour right wing have seized on it as stick with which to beat Corbyn, cynically, and knowing that they are misrepresenting his views for their own political gain.

A group called "Independent Jewish Voices" stated last week that

Quote

... Whatever our views on the Labour Party and its handling of the antisemitism allegations, we consider that the demand to “implement IHRA in full or be seen by all decent people as an institutionally racist and anti-Semitic party” and the prediction of “the existential threat to Jewish life in this country that would be posed by a Jeremy Corbyn-led government” go beyond the boundaries of acceptable political discourse. Worse, they could help to create a climate of fear among many in the Jewish community and by conflating real antisemitism with what they call “political anti-Semitism targeting Israel”, jeopardise prospects for a just and peaceful solution in the Middle East. ..

That seems a fair and balanced view to me.

[blandy]

18 hours ago, peterms said:

It is all, and only, about whether criticism of fhe current Israeli regime is to be permitted.

I don’t see it that way. I see much of the criticism of Labour and Corbyn’s stance, actions, divide etc. as wholly valid. Corbyn and Labour has both a longstanding real problem with Antisemitism and shorter term, self created, shitstorm problem with it. I like this letter from 2015, before Corbyn became leader, because it shows it’s not all about plots to get Jezza, it’s not all Tories, it’s not all people wanting to stop legitimate criticism of Israel’s government or the IDF.  Anyway

Alan Johnston

Quote

Congratulations!

By securing a place on the ballot to become the next Labour leader you have put a spring in the step of many party members and trade unionists who feel that you embody their values better than any other candidate. (You embody only some of mine, trampling on some others, but I will get to that.)

You represent a clear alternative to the suffocating consensus that says there is no alternative to neoliberalism: marketisation, deregulation, privatisation, financialisation, an assault on the bargaining power of labor, regressive tax regimes, and cuts to welfare.

You will not tell us to be ‘intensely relaxed’ about people getting ‘filthy rich’ and you will not sneer at the trade union movement.

You are acutely aware that the transformation of European social democracy into a political force pursuing only a slightly kinder and a slightly gentler neoliberalism has caused the erosion of the emotional connection between the party and the working-class.

And you know that neoliberalism has eroded local democracy and the public realm, pushing aside actors other than those at the center, and then micro-managing Britain through a grim and relentless bureaucratising cult of quasi-government bodies.

On that basis you will secure the votes of many party members and trade unionists.

But you won’t get my vote.

You won’t get it because Labour’s best traditions also include anti-fascism and internationalism while your support – to me, inexplicable and shameful –  for the fascistic and antisemitic forces of Hezbollah and Hamas flies in the face of those traditions. In particular, your full-throated cheer-leading for the vicious antisemitic Islamist Raed Salah is a deal-breaker.

Why did you lend your support to Raed Salah? No, he is not a ‘critic of Israel’, but a straight-up Jew hater.

You said in 2012, ‘Salah is far from a dangerous man’, even though the left-wing, anti-Netanyahu Israeli newspaper of record, Ha’aretz, reported that Salah was first charged with inciting anti-Jewish racism and violence in January 2008.

You said ‘Salah is a very honoured citizen’, even though Salah was found guilty of spreading the blood libel – the classic antisemitic slander that Jews use the blood of gentile children to make their bread. He did so during a speech on 16 February 2007 in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Wadi Joz.

I mean, just listen to Salah: ‘We have never allowed ourselves to knead [the dough for] the bread that breaks the fast in the holy month of Ramadan with children’s blood’, he said. ‘Whoever wants a more thorough explanation, let him ask what used to happen to some children in Europe, whose blood was mixed in with the dough of the holy bread.’ (The UK Appeal Court decidedthat ‘We do not find this comment could be taken to be anything other than a reference to the blood libel against Jews.’ It also decided that this would ‘offend and distress Israeli Jews and the wider Jewish community.’)

You said: ‘Salah represents his people extremely well’, even though after the 9/11 terrorist attacks Salah wrote this in the October 5, 2001 issue of the weekly Sawt al-Haq w’al-Huriyya (Voice of Justice and Freedom): ‘A suitable way was found to warn the 4,000 Jews who work every day at the Twin Towers to be absent from their work on September 11, 2001, and this is really what happened! Were 4,000 Jewish clerks absent [from their jobs] by chance, or was there another reason? At the same time, no such warning reached the 2,000 Muslims who worked every day in the Twin Towers, and therefore there were hundreds of Muslim victims.’

You said ‘Salah’s is a voice that must be heard’ even though he has called homosexuality a ‘great crime’ and recently [preached that ‘Jerusalem will soon become the capital of the global caliphate’ which will ‘spread justice throughout the land after it was filled with injustice by America, the Zionist enterprise, the Batiniyya, reactionism, Paganism and the Crusaders.’ i.e. everyone who does not follow his brand of Sunni Islam.

You said ‘I look forward to giving you tea on the terrace because you deserve it!’, even though the Islamic Movement [the northern branch of which Salah heads] has eulogised Osama bin Laden and Salah has incited Muslims against Jews by writing incendiary lies such as this: ‘The unique mover wanted to carry out the bombings in Washington and New York in order to provide the Israeli establishment with a way out of its entanglements.’ Who do you think he meant by ‘the unique mover’?

Why is that kind of conspiratorial antisemitism, dripping with threat and menace, worthy of tea on the terrace?

And it isn’t just a problem with Salah, is it? You said it was ‘my pleasure and my honour’ to host ‘our friends from Hezbollah and our friends from Hamas’ in the Commons.

Really?

Why do you not care that the Hamas Charter states that ‘Islam will obliterate Israel’ and enjoins all good Muslims to kill Jews, whom it blames for all the wars and revolutions in classic antisemitic fashion?

Why don’t you challenge your ‘friends in Hamas’ about the inclusion in their Charter of this canonical Hadith: ‘The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’

And why are Hezbollah your friends? They are an antisemitic Islamist goose-stepping ‘Party of God’ who persecute (and assassinate) liberals and democrats in Lebanon whenever they can. The Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said ‘If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.’ (NY Times, May 23, 2004, p. 15, section 2, column 1.)  Your ‘friends’ were enthusiastically slaughtering Syrian civilians on behalf of the Assad regime long before ISIS or Jabhat Al-Nusra joined the fray.

Yes, you will say I am part of the Israel lobby and people should pay no heed. Yes, I work at the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre. But here’s the thing. I have the same views now about the Israel-Palestine conflict as I did when I was a member of the Socialist Organiser Editorial Board and you were with Labour Briefing back in the 1980s. (I think our two organisations may have even ‘fused’ at some point, though those days are a bit hazy now.)

My views have not changed since I was a member of the editorial board of Historical Materialism. They are the same views I had when we debated each other at Birmingham University some years ago: I believe in two states for two people, a secure Israel and a viable Palestine, a democratic solution to an unresolved national question based on mutual recognition and support for the right to national self-determination of both peoples.

I edit a journal, Fathom, which publishes many voices critical of the current Israeli government, from the Israeli left, from Israel’s Arab citizens, and from Palestinians.

I just do not understand how you can support so unthinkingly those political forces which oppose to their dying breath everything  – literally, everything – the labour movement has ever stood for: trade union rights, freedom of speech and organisation, women’s equality, gay and lesbian rights, anti-racism, the enlightenment, and reason.

But as long as you do support those forces you will not get my vote. As long as you do, I will just have to remain politically homeless. Which is a pity, because there you are on the TV screen, talking with élan like a proper social democrat about full employment.

I want to cheer you on. Can you respond in such a way that I can?

 

[peterms]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

I don’t see it that way. I see much of the criticism of Labour and Corbyn’s stance, actions, divide etc. as wholly valid. Corbyn and Labour has both a longstanding real problem with Antisemitism and shorter term, self created, shitstorm problem with it. I like this letter from 2015, before Corbyn became leader, because it shows it’s not all about plots to get Jezza, it’s not all Tories, it’s not all people wanting to stop legitimate criticism of Israel’s government or the IDF.  Anyway

Alan Johnston

 

It's a bit of a shocker that Johnson can't spell the word "labour", isn't it?

As for not wanting to stop legitimate criticism of Israel's government and the IDF, I see that the article Johnson links to is by someone who was literally a paratrooper with the IDF, and who takes a comment from a lawyer saying "...the government’s relationship to the pro-Israeli lobby..." and presents it as "Labour MP calls for public inquiry into Jewish influence in the Conservative Party".  Another example of trying to present criticism of Israel and antisemitism as one and the same, by misrepresentation.  I expected better of Mr Johnson.

[magnkarl]

14 hours ago, peterms said:

It's a bit of a shocker that Johnson can't spell the word "labour", isn't it?

As for not wanting to stop legitimate criticism of Israel's government and the IDF, I see that the article Johnson links to is by someone who was literally a paratrooper with the IDF, and who takes a comment from a lawyer saying "...the government’s relationship to the pro-Israeli lobby..." and presents it as "Labour MP calls for public inquiry into Jewish influence in the Conservative Party".  Another example of trying to present criticism of Israel and antisemitism as one and the same, by misrepresentation.  I expected better of Mr Johnson.

 

Though in all honesty, Corbyn's support for Hamas, Hezbollah and people like Salah have nothing to do with Israel and the IDF and all to do with his inability to see extremism in his own "wing".

With the side stepping Labour and its supporters are doing around people like Salah it's almost like saying that preaching the blood libel is the same as criticizing Israel. We need to be much better at separating issues like this, and Corbyn should be an expert at it by now. How you can call an organisation that wants to eradicate all Jews your friends is beyond me.

If the IDF put "our aim is to eradicate all Palestinians and Arabs" in their ethos, charter or principles there would literally be world war 3, yet Hamas has this in their charter and people like Corbyn doesn't bat an eyelid.

Edited August 8, 2018 by magnkarl

[Xann]

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

Corbyn's support for Hamas, Hezbollah and people like Salah have nothing to do with Israel and the IDF and all to do with his inability to see extremism in his own "wing".

KInd of, I think. But I'd put it differently. I think he (rightly) has sympathised with the Palestinian people and their cause since forever, basically. I think the same is true of his associations with IRA people back when - he sympathised with the cause of the Republicans. And because of these sympathies, and because of his poor judgement, he's long term turned a blind eye/overlooked/deliberately ignored/ sort of surreptitiously agreed with* people who share the same views and wish to bring about their cause by violence - a kind of "I think you have a just cause, and therefore I'll pretend your violence, murder racism etc. just doesn't exist"

It's been going on for decades, and is well documented. To me it's completely hypocritical, two faced and an example of his utter unsuitability to be a party leader or God forbid PM. His judgement and double standards are attrocious.

People say he's a kindly soul, and he appears so much of the time. He's more human than some other politicans, but this other side to him, this turning a blind eye (and more) to hideous violence, anti-semitism and discrimination when associated with some causes is the flip side. He's a wrong un in sheeps clothing. Always has been, always will be.

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

KInd of, I think. But I'd put it differently. I think he (rightly) has sympathised with the Palestinian people and their cause since forever, basically. I think the same is true of his associations with IRA people back when - he sympathised with the cause of the Republicans. And because of these sympathies, and because of his poor judgement, he's long term turned a blind eye/overlooked/deliberately ignored/ sort of surreptitiously agreed with* people who share the same views and wish to bring about their cause by violence - a kind of "I think you have a just cause, and therefore I'll pretend your violence, murder racism etc. just doesn't exist"

People across the political spectrum recognise that in a situation of armed conflict, unless you can eradicate one side or the other (unlikely), then there has to be a political process which involves dealing with people who have done some pretty bad things.  Taking your Irish comparison, that is why people with such different positions as Corbyn, Blair and Thatcher were prepared to work with people who used extreme violence to achieve their goals.

In South Africa (a much better comparator with Israel than is Nazi Germany, as an aside), we saw Mandela transformed from a perceived terrorist to world saint.  There was a time when people were vilified for supporting him, now it's beyond debate that he was one of the good guys.

In Israel, successive UK governments were prepared not only to work with, but actively support the terrorists who founded the country and who murdered UK nationals.  We are now actively supporting Saudi in their indiscriminate slaughter of Yemenis.

In the cases of Ireland and SA, the process was one of moving towards a negotiated peace.  With the latter two, the countries we support are doing the opposite, seeking to crush a feeble opponent.  That seems much more deserving of condemnation, to me.

Corbyn supports the BDS movement, as a far preferable way to try to move Israel away from its racist and apartheid oppression than armed struggle.  Israel is seeking to undermine him because he supports BDS.  I would have thought he should be celebrated for trying to work towards peace, rather than vilified for doing that while also recognising and accepting, like everyone else who seriously wishes for political solutions, that you also have to work with people who engage in armed resistance if you are to move away from armed conflict.

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, peterms said:

People across the political spectrum recognise that in a situation of armed conflict, unless you can eradicate one side or the other (unlikely), then there has to be a political process which involves dealing with people who have done some pretty bad things.  Taking your Irish comparison, that is why people with such different positions as Corbyn, Blair and Thatcher were prepared to work with people who used extreme violence to achieve their goals.

It's obviously a complex and multi layered thing, the resolution of conflicts and injustice, as you indicate. I agree "working with" unsavoury sorts is sometimes necessary to help bring about resolution. Where I differ with your take, and your examples is that while you may Credit the witch or Blair, as Prime Ministers in using their positions and working through a structured peace process, with "enemies", it would also be fair to criticise their warm relationship with I dunno, Pinochet, say, or Gaddaffi, say. And of course Corbyn wasn't Prime Minister, he wasn't acting in any official role (other than as MP for Islington) when he was chummying up to all these Hamas, IRA, Hezbollah types. He was, as ever, just kind of acting out his blinkered and binary "the enemy of your enemy is your friend" worldview.

You're right with South Africa and Apartheid , Corbyn has always been on the right side, always opposed it, and well done to him for that. Genuinely. His absolute opposition to tolerating racism and discrimination against the Black Majority of South Africans, and black people generally is to his immense credit. Funnily enough, he's never seemed to share cosy chats, with White Supremacist and racist "friends and brothers", in the same way he did with the IRA or Hamas etc. Must be just an anomaly., surely.  Just a quirk, right?

Though when you think about it he refused to share a platform with the likes of Gordon Brown, or Balir or Cameron during the EU referendum - clearly they were too much even for someone who is as open to dealing with utter scrotes for the greater good of whay he believes, as you identify. Well either that or he's a double standards kinda guy.

I don't accept the narrative of him dealing with murderers and racists etc. fro mHamas or IRA is part of an overall approach of "working with people you disagree with" to get to a greater good. Because, like I said, it's only ever been anti-semites and Terrorists from 2 causes. Anything else, and his behaviour is very different. It's not "pinch your nose tolerance", it's willingness to ignore horrors because you share the same view on a cause.

[OutByEaster?]

I think it's as simple for him as believing in the side he believes is right in a dispute and then trying to negotiate with whatever the people that are right are represented by - that puts him in difficult positions, but I think it's an admirable principle.

I think that's different to for example cosying up to Pinochet - nobody believed that what Pinochet was doing was right, we cosied up to him for the money, for financial benefit. I've seen nothing from Corbyn that suggests he's in bed with anyone for anything other than what he believes to be the right reasons.

He wasn't cosying up to white supremacists because he didn't agree with their cause - I think he believes in a united Ireland, in a resolution to the Palestine/Israeli conflict based on the internationally agreed borders by the UN (vetoed by the US), he believed in a racially free South Africa - in each of those cases, he's had to work with people whose position includes violent resistance or terrorism depending on your perspective - but his position in each is that he believed something to be right and was going to work to find a way to resolve that. He's not an advocate for violence, but he's prepared to speak to those that are in order to find peaceful resolutions. 

I can understand those that disagree with his choices on what is and isn't right, but his consistency is admirable.

 

 

[Xann]

42 minutes ago, blandy said:

... it's willingness to ignore horrors because you share the same view on a cause.

To me his view seems to be 'stop the shooting'.

As such his enemy would be the war industry.