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

[OutByEaster?]

It's really difficult I think sometimes to walk the line between opposing the abhorrent apartheid Israeli state and it's appalling record on human rights and becoming entangled with those who hate Jewish culture and Jewish people generally, I'd agree that there are people in the organisations that are seeking a solution (or at least the implementation of the solution everyone agreed to in the late 60's) to Israel's actions that overstep that mark from time to time. It's why it's vital that the impetus of those in the Jewish population that oppose the actions of the Israeli state are encouraged and reported on.

 

I'm not sure the bloke that Corbyn is linked to here quite fits that description, I think he's deliberately over that line, but I don't think Jeremy is, I think he's caught out by people who very deliberately want to profit from the fine line between opposing the disgraceful and supporting the unwelcome - anyone who looks into Corbyn's history and associations will know on which side of that line he operates.

 

Edit: CED put it better!

[HanoiVillan]

^ I totally agree with all of that. 

[Awol]

So, put another way: "sure, he knocks about with racists from time to time, speaks with them at public events and sometimes invites them to work to talk to his colleagues, but you know, he's a decent fella and it shouldn't be held against him. He's got principles, y'know?"

Yeah, roger that one fellas...

More seriously let's be VERY generous and say the thrust of CED's and OBE's post are correct about him. His previous associations do, on security grounds alone, preclude him from receiving the kind of security briefs he would need to get as leader of the opposition.

A well intentioned man? Okay. One with good judgement and fit to lead the country? GTFO of town. That being the case what is the point of Jeremy Corbyn leading the Labour Party?

[snowychap]

When the leader of HM's Official Opposition has a list of associates that reads more like the population of A Wing in HMP Belmarsh the media will quite rightly take it all apart forensically.  Rupert will regret this one.

As per a previous post, it would be a very welcome thing if the media (and political commentators and politicians themselves) would examine those people with whom they, and their colleagues, have relationships (whatever the reason may be - purely expedient economic reasons, due to the necessities imposed by the circumstances, through choices made under the cloak of 'national interest', and so on.)

And before I get accused of whatabouttery, I think a fair few of Corbyn's choices are very poor at best. It would be great, however, for the media (and the public) to scrutinize all people in positions of power in the same way and with the same intensity. As for doing it forensically? There's two hopes of that.

I'm quite concerned about this 'booked to appear on the same platform as' stuff and where that is meant to go. If one believes that someone shares the opinions of others or is advocating them then say so and provide evidence - don't just say shared a platform or, as in the piece, gave a platform and leave it there: a clear but deniable implication.*

*That's not directed at you, Jon - it's a general point (whilst also being a little specific to Mensch's blog).

Edited August 20, 2015 by snowychap

[OutByEaster?]

More seriously let's be VERY generous and say the thrust of CED's and OBE's post are correct about him. His previous associations do, on security grounds alone, preclude him from receiving the kind of security briefs he would need to get as leader of the opposition.

Maybe the very fact that he doesn't follow the same line as others involved should make it even more important that he does receive this type of briefing - isn't the point of opposition to oppose where necessary?

[mjmooney]

He may as well get used to these hatchet jobs from the press, because they won't let up.

[Awol]

More seriously let's be VERY generous and say the thrust of CED's and OBE's post are correct about him. His previous associations do, on security grounds alone, preclude him from receiving the kind of security briefs he would need to get as leader of the opposition.

Maybe the very fact that he doesn't follow the same line as others involved should make it even more important that he does receive this type of briefing - isn't the point of opposition to oppose where necessary?

Mate, he lied (yesterday, not last year or last decade) about knowing and inviting a guy to Parliament who gloried in the murder of British soldiers - and I'm not talking about his old mates Jerry and Martin. He did this knowingly during his campaign to be leader of the opposition.

You think that's the kind of bloke who can be trusted with highly sensitive information relating to national security? Just no, no way.

[Mantis]

Good. It's taken them long enough to properly challenge him on his dodgy connections.

[HanoiVillan]

So, put another way: "sure, he knocks about with racists from time to time, speaks with them at public events and sometimes invites them to work to talk to his colleagues, but you know, he's a decent fella and it shouldn't be held against him. He's got principles, y'know?"

Yeah, roger that one fellas...

More seriously let's be VERY generous and say the thrust of CED's and OBE's post are correct about him. His previous associations do, on security grounds alone, preclude him from receiving the kind of security briefs he would need to get as leader of the opposition.

A well intentioned man? Okay. One with good judgement and fit to lead the country? GTFO of town. That being the case what is the point of Jeremy Corbyn leading the Labour Party?

 

I was about to scoff at this suggestion - former associations with left-wing groups need hardly disqualify someone from security briefings, after all, Tony Blair used to be a member of CND - and then I remembered Lord Mountbatten and Harold Wilson, and I wonder if a line like this will be used as a vague threat of the security services 'stepping in', out of necessity of course, in the event of a Corbyn win. 

[OutByEaster?]

 

 

More seriously let's be VERY generous and say the thrust of CED's and OBE's post are correct about him. His previous associations do, on security grounds alone, preclude him from receiving the kind of security briefs he would need to get as leader of the opposition.

Maybe the very fact that he doesn't follow the same line as others involved should make it even more important that he does receive this type of briefing - isn't the point of opposition to oppose where necessary?

Mate, he lied (yesterday, not last year or last decade) about knowing and inviting a guy to Parliament who gloried in the murder of British soldiers - and I'm not talking about his old mates Jerry and Martin. He did this knowingly during his campaign to be leader of the opposition.

You think that's the kind of bloke who can be trusted with highly sensitive information relating to national security? Just no, no way.

 

Yes.

 

Are you suggesting he would deliberately endanger the lives of British troops? That he'd rejoice in our losses? That's absurd.

 

I think he'd disagree with military policy, I think he'd attempt to stop the deployment of British troops in support of corporate interest and I think he'd cut budgets - Do I think he would deliberately put lives at risk? Of course I don't.

 

I think he'd be a welcome change from those that are very happy to watch our troops die to support the bottom lines of major energy companies and to keep things ticking over at the arms manufacturers.

[Awol]

So, put another way: "sure, he knocks about with racists from time to time, speaks with them at public events and sometimes invites them to work to talk to his colleagues, but you know, he's a decent fella and it shouldn't be held against him. He's got principles, y'know?"

Yeah, roger that one fellas...

More seriously let's be VERY generous and say the thrust of CED's and OBE's post are correct about him. His previous associations do, on security grounds alone, preclude him from receiving the kind of security briefs he would need to get as leader of the opposition.

A well intentioned man? Okay. One with good judgement and fit to lead the country? GTFO of town. That being the case what is the point of Jeremy Corbyn leading the Labour Party?

I was about to scoff at this suggestion - former associations with left-wing groups need hardly disqualify someone from security briefings, after all, Tony Blair used to be a member of CND - and then I remembered Lord Mountbatten and Harold Wilson, and I wonder if a line like this will be used as a vague threat of the security services 'stepping in', out of necessity of course, in the event of a Corbyn win.

CND were mostly harmless idealists although obviously well penetrated by the Soviets and their useful idiots.

Being close to people with Islamist connections is not in the least a scoffing matter, but you're right, the security services will be having kittens over this bloke who has consistently positioned himself closer to HM's enemies than her subjects. With full respect to you, it would be naive to think how that couldn't be a concern.

On the upside I really do think Murdoch has massively miscalculated here and hopefully it will cost the old goat heavily.

[HanoiVillan]

 

 

So, put another way: "sure, he knocks about with racists from time to time, speaks with them at public events and sometimes invites them to work to talk to his colleagues, but you know, he's a decent fella and it shouldn't be held against him. He's got principles, y'know?"

Yeah, roger that one fellas...

More seriously let's be VERY generous and say the thrust of CED's and OBE's post are correct about him. His previous associations do, on security grounds alone, preclude him from receiving the kind of security briefs he would need to get as leader of the opposition.

A well intentioned man? Okay. One with good judgement and fit to lead the country? GTFO of town. That being the case what is the point of Jeremy Corbyn leading the Labour Party?

I was about to scoff at this suggestion - former associations with left-wing groups need hardly disqualify someone from security briefings, after all, Tony Blair used to be a member of CND - and then I remembered Lord Mountbatten and Harold Wilson, and I wonder if a line like this will be used as a vague threat of the security services 'stepping in', out of necessity of course, in the event of a Corbyn win.

CND were mostly harmless idealists although obviously well penetrated by the Soviets and their useful idiots.

Being close to people with Islamist connections is not in the least a scoffing matter, but you're right, the security services will be having kittens over this bloke who has consistently positioned himself closer to HM's enemies than her subjects. With full respect to you, it would be naive to think how that couldn't be a concern.

On the upside I really do think Murdoch has massively miscalculated here and hopefully it will cost the old goat heavily.

 

 

So, cards on the table time, would you support a military coup to remove Corbyn from power in the unlikely event of his winning a general election? 

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

This 'left wing politician as threat to national security' talk is so very cliche at this point. The same unsubstantiated gibberish has been thrown at anyone with a contrary view to bombing or invading other sovereign nations, or find it distasteful that UK foreign policy often supports brutal oppression, for years now. What he is is a threat to corporate interest, and that is why he'll never get close to No.10.

Edited August 20, 2015 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[Richard]

[Richard]

A well intentioned man? Okay. One with good judgement and fit to lead the country? GTFO of town. That being the case what is the point of Jeremy Corbyn leading the Labour Party?

to hopefully destroy it

[Awol]

Before anyone suggests another media hatchet job, this like the last damning article is from another well established Labour site called Left Foot Forward. It highlights his links with and support for some utterly foul Islamists:

 

An open letter to Jeremy Corbyn

 

 

snip/

....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 decided that ‘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 enthusiasticallyslaughtering 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 withLabour 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 theIsraeli 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.

/snip

 

I've no doubt he will get the leadership, the Labour movement currently seems to have taken leave of its collective senses, powers of reasoning and moral compass.  However once this level of detail gets out to the wider electorate I am certain they will reject both him and the party that was batsh*t crazy enough to support him. Any party that was serious about leading the country just wouldn't do such an obviously stupid thing.

[Richard]

AWOL you're only saying that because your a Tory scared of him winning!

[Awol]

AWOL you're only saying that because your a Tory scared of him winning!

Naughty Richard.. Not a Tory, but yes I'm actually scared of him destroying the Labour Party for a generation which wouldn't be a good thing at all. We need a strong opposition, not a crowd of muppets lifted from an episode of Spitting Image.

The UK is crying out for a credible alternative to Cameron and his clique but to my mind Corbyn is not it. That said the other three are soulless puppets who have never had an original thought between them.

[Richard]

 

AWOL you're only saying that because your a Tory scared of him winning!

Naughty Richard.. Not a Tory, but yes I'm actually scared of him destroying the Labour Party for a generation which wouldn't be a good thing at all. We need a strong opposition, not a crowd of muppets lifted from an episode of Spitting Image.

The UK is crying out for a credible alternative to Cameron and his clique but to my mind Corbyn is not it. That said the other three are soulless puppets who have never had an original thought between them.

 

My view is he will destroy the current labour party / the left wing argument totally and from that a better opposition will emerge.  I'm with you there needs to be a good opposition for good government. Governments are only as good as the opposition generally speaking.  And i hope what emerges will prove to be a good opposition for many many years to come

[Mantis]

I do find it pretty sad that anybody, even other Labour supporters, highlighting Corbyn's links to homophobes/racists/holocaust deniers etc is automatically dismissed by his supporters as trying to "smear" him.