Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Politics] Corbyn backing the other side..........again



midnight_rendezvous

midnight_rendezvous

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2012
3,737
The Black Country
Sussex Nomad said:
Ah right, it was all the Tories fault, not Blair and his socialist chums. Thanks for putting me right.
Click to expand...

Did I say it was the Tories fault? No. I said it was backed by the Tories after you correctly pointed out it was Labour that lead us to war. What you failed to point out though, totally accidentally I’m sure, is that it was strongly opposed by Corbyn.

And Blair a socialist? :lolol:
 




S

Sussex Nomad

Well-known member
Aug 26, 2010
18,185
EP
midnight_rendezvous said:
Yeah, because rushing in to war with no evidence has never had consequences before has it? It definitely hasn’t increased the likelihood of a terrorist attack in the country. Oh... wait...
Click to expand...

I'll re-quote you, I see no evidence of you speaking about Corbyn in that post. With a massive majority and the socialist PM misleading the house, it was voted in, by a Labour Govt. As for Corbyn, hardly worth a thread about him, he'll never be PM.
 


midnight_rendezvous

midnight_rendezvous

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2012
3,737
The Black Country
Sussex Nomad said:
I'll re-quote you, I see no evidence of you speaking about Corbyn in that post. With a massive majority and the socialist PM misleading the house, it was voted in, by a Labour Govt. As for Corbyn, hardly worth a thread about him, he'll never be PM.
Click to expand...

You really are going to great lengths to try and mention Labour aren’t you? I assume you’re desperately trying to imply that because it was a Labour government that lead us in to Iraq that is some how discredits Corbyn’s evidence based approach, which was the same back then as it is now.
 


S

Sussex Nomad

Well-known member
Aug 26, 2010
18,185
EP
midnight_rendezvous said:
You really are going to great lengths to try and mention Labour aren’t you? I assume you’re desperately trying to imply that because it was a Labour government that lead us in to Iraq that is some how discredits Corbyn’s evidence based approach, which was the same back then as it is now.
Click to expand...

As I said, pointless thread really, he'll never get his power wish.
 


midnight_rendezvous

midnight_rendezvous

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2012
3,737
The Black Country
Sussex Nomad said:
As I said, pointless thread really, he'll never get his power wish.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not. However, the point of this thread is to try and discredit him because he’s waiting for evidence before possibly starting a war. I have merely suggested that Corbyn’s approach of wanting to wait for evidence is a good thing. And, as the Iraq war proved, rushing in because the U.S clicked their fingers has a history of not working out so well, ultimately causing bigger issues further down the line.
 






stewart_weir

stewart_weir

Well-known member
Mar 19, 2017
1,000
wellquickwoody said:
IRA, Hamas, PLO, Saddam, Ghadaffi, etc etc, and even now when he is as close to power as he has ever been, this......

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48645280
Click to expand...

There is zero absolute proof that Iran did this.. Trump wants a conflict with Iran to deflect from what's going on in USA and his own troubles. Even the owner of the Japanese tanker doesn't agree with Iran being responsible. Unfortunately there are stupid people who believe rubbish from places which prey on the stupid to believe them!

I don't agree with everything Corbyn has said and done but one thing is for sure.. his record on not wanting conflict is 100% whereas the Tory party/Blair have a very big record on conflict.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/oil-tanker-owner-disagrees-with-us-that-mine-caused-blast-near-iran.html
 


highflyer

highflyer

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2016
2,434
Not sure who this 'other side' is meant to be that Corbyn is/was backing?

Germany is taking the same position as Corbyn (eg 'don't jump to conclusions based on insufficient evidence', which for the hard of thinking is NOT the same as 'Iran didn't do it'). Apart from the UK not one other nation has come out and agreed with Trump that it was definitely Iran. It may have been Iran. I suspect it probably was Iran. But given what is at stake, and given the US leadership's current level of trustworthyness, Corbyn's position of relative caution seems like common sense to me.

https://www.newsweek.com/iran-gulf-oman-germany-trump-administration-1444112
 




Mellotron

Mellotron

I've asked for soup
Jul 2, 2008
31,841
Brighton
Sussex Nomad said:
I'll re-quote you, I see no evidence of you speaking about Corbyn in that post. With a massive majority and the socialist PM misleading the house, it was voted in, by a Labour Govt. As for Corbyn, hardly worth a thread about him, he'll never be PM.
Click to expand...

Referring to Tony Blair as a socialist suggests you don't know what some very basic terms actually mean.
 


Mellotron

Mellotron

I've asked for soup
Jul 2, 2008
31,841
Brighton
Also, use your brains, it's obvious that Trump is desperate to manufacture a war with someone, ANYONE, as Presidential approval pretty much always goes up when a war starts. He knows that as things stand he's losing in 2020. He will do anything to stay out of prison, understandably.

Hence the need for caution when the only leader who is vehemently trying to start a war is a known liar with very strong vested interests in doing so.

****'s sake just use your brains when looking at this situation, rather than just being triggered by Corbyn immediately.
 














A1X

A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
17,758
Deepest, darkest Sussex
The Guardian is liberal to social liberal. It's not "socialist" in any way.
 


carlzeiss

carlzeiss

Well-known member
May 19, 2009
5,845
Amazonia
Israel responsible for oil tanker attacks: ex-diplomat

https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/436999/Israel-responsible-for-oil-tanker-attacks-ex-diplomat

On Thursday morning, two commercial oil tankers were hit in the Gulf of Oman, prompting the evacuation and rescue of dozens of crew members.

The United States has blamed Iran for the attacks.

In an interview with Iran Online, Asefi said Israel benefits the most from such accusations against Iran, hence “logically the Zionist regime is the agent of this incident.”

“I think the directing of such incidents in the region are done by the Zionist regime and this has no hidden dimensions,” he stated.

Asefi, who served as Iran’s ambassador to France and Foreign Ministry spokesman, argued that Israel intends to draw the Islamic Republic into a tense and anti-diplomatic atmosphere to justify its stance against Iran.

Pointing to Japanese Prime Minister Shizo Abe’s visit to Tehran, he said the oil tankers attacks were aimed at impacting the trip.

“I was surprised when the Foreign Ministry said the attack was suspicious, because there’s nothing suspicious about it and it’s clear,” he stated.

Soon after the attacks, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo appeared in the State Department Briefing Room to significantly raise the stakes.

“It is the assessment of the United States government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today,” Pompeo said.

He cited intelligence, weapons used, the required expertise and sophistication of the assault and previous attacks to conclude it was the latest assault by Iran on “freedom-loving nations.”

Asefi rejected Pompeo’s rash decision to accuse Iran, arguing that it is not rational to think Iran would benefit from such acts while hosting the Japanese premier.
 


fork me

fork me

I have changed this
Oct 22, 2003
2,127
Gate 3, Limassol, Cyprus
wellquickwoody said:
IRA, Hamas, PLO, Saddam, Ghadaffi, etc etc, and even now when he is as close to power as he has ever been, this......

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48645280
Click to expand...

Really? When Blair accepted American intelligence claims without question and went to war with Iraq, he was accused (rightly, IMO) of being a war criminal and all sorts of things.

Now Corbyn is asking for evidence foor American claims (which, incidentally, contradict evidence provided byu the ship's owners) he's accused of being a traitor.

He's quite right to ask for evidence it is the JOB of the leader of the opposition to hold the government to account.
 


fork me

fork me

I have changed this
Oct 22, 2003
2,127
Gate 3, Limassol, Cyprus
Triggaaar said:
I would agree that asking for verification is ok, and not backing the other side, but he's not done that. He's stated that there isn't credible evidence. Where does he get that information from?
Click to expand...

No, he's stating that credible evidence has not been shown, which is a very different thing. It hasn't.

The same as it wasn't when Blair went to war with Iraq on the back of phony US claims.
 






Green Cross Code Man

Green Cross Code Man

Wunt be druv
Mar 30, 2006
19,707
Eastbourne
fork me said:
No, he's stating that credible evidence has not been shown, which is a very different thing. It hasn't.

The same as it wasn't when Blair went to war with Iraq on the back of phony US claims.
Click to expand...
Why would any credible evidence be shown to such an insignificant politician?
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here