Is there anything left of The Left?

[Cope]

Try again.

"Not everyone" supported action against ISIS: what of it? "Not everyone" doesn't include Donald Trump and "not everyone" is suited to be prime minster of the United Kingdom. Your point is a dead end.

I've read all the links and none of them have anything substantive. One would have to be presented with something substantive to change their mind.

Yes Sukiyama, demanding an end to NATO and the UK's nuclear deterrent isn't anti-western; covering for the Kremlin and Tehran isn't anti-western; aligning oneself with IRA sympathizing Marxists and Middle Eastern terrorist groups isn't anti-western; refusing to sanction military action against Islamic State isn't anti-western; persistently criticizing the US and outraging Jewish communities to the point that your party has to be investigated by the ECHR isn't anti-western; and attacking the central pillars of the British constitution by sharing a platform with Irish nationalists and supporting legislation to destroy the monarchy isn't anti-western.

It's all just insubstantial smears from "tabloids" (even though its all true).

Though I find it amusing to find the accusation from you, considering your ad naseum defense of Trump in the impeachment thread.

I did not "defend" Trump. I opposed - and continue to oppose - the nonsense attempt to infer motive/intent from hearsay evidence presented in a compromised, partisan "investigation". That has nothing to do with Corbyn.

[Love Mountain]

"Not everyone" supported action against ISIS: what of it? "Not everyone" doesn't include Donald Trump and "not everyone" is suited to be prime minster of the United Kingdom. Your point is a dead end.

I'm not the one making a point. Whether Corbyn is suited to be Prime Minister or not is not really an interest of mine. Unnecessary depiction of Corbyn as some kind of a violent, and insidious leftist extremist, is.

Yes Sukiyama, demanding an end to NATO and the UK's nuclear deterrent isn't anti-western; covering for the Kremlin and Tehran isn't anti-western; aligning oneself with IRA sympathizing Marxists and Middle Eastern terrorist groups isn't anti-western; refusing to sanction military action against Islamic State isn't anti-western; persistently criticizing the US and outraging Jewish communities to the point that your party has to be investigated by the ECHR isn't anti-western; and attacking the central pillars of the British constitution by sharing a platform with Irish nationalists and supporting legislation to destroy the monarchy isn't anti-western.

It's all just insubstantial smears from "tabloids" (even though its all true).

You haven't shown that Corbyn does any of those things. As Corbyn himself explained, numerous times when asked directly on the issue, he recognizes the need to work with unsavory organizations for the sake of resolving conflict. So yes, these are insubstantial smears as far as any impartial observer is concerned.

I did not "defend" Trump. I opposed - and continue to oppose - the nonsense attempt to infer motive/intent from hearsay evidence presented in a compromised, partisan "investigation". That has nothing to do with Corbyn.

Hundreds of pages of official investigatory evidence, live witness testimonies, and plain common sense that makes your cries of "p-p-p-partisanship" look hilarious in contrast to your indictment of Corbyn, which is based on your distaste for his politics rather than anything substantive. Second, a lot of evidence, including evidence strong enough to convict somebody of murder, is hearsay. Video footage is hearsay, corroborative documentation is hearsay, witness testimony is hearsay. So if you want to talk about "nonsense", it's the implication that one cannot reasonably infer motive/intent from sufficient hearsay evidence.

[Aexodus]

Are you insinuating that the Irish have no case whatsoever?

What do you mean? Not all Irish are nationalists. I’m not.

Blaming UK is hardly equivalent to condoning violence. Though I'm not surprised that people immediately jump to this conclusion.

He’s not condoning violence. He’s blaming the UK because of his blinkered anti-imperialist worldview which is completely at odds with the average Brit. Not to mention, it’s untrue, and was extremely ill-timed given the recent Enniskillen bombing which caused the death of a Tory MP.

And finally claiming the UK ‘occupies’ Northern Ireland is absolutely ludicrous and should be rightfully laughed at. It demonstrates the extreme corner of politics he occupies, which sees him in the same corner as Sinn Fein. His own party the Labour Party disavowed him mate, the likes of Kinnock, Blair etc.

[Love Mountain]

What do you mean? Not all Irish are nationalists. I’m not.

He’s not condoning violence. He’s blaming the UK because of his blinkered anti-imperialist worldview which is completely at odds with the average Brit. Not to mention, it’s untrue, and was extremely ill-timed given the recent Enniskillen bombing which caused the death of a Tory MP.

And finally claiming the UK ‘occupies’ Northern Ireland is absolutely ludicrous and should be rightfully laughed at. It demonstrates the extreme corner of politics he occupies, which sees him in the same corner as Sinn Fein. His own party the Labour Party disavowed him mate, the likes of Kinnock, Blair etc.

I quite agree with your assessment, but I would not describe his politics as extreme, as in violent or dangerous. I will agree that his world-view is either laughably naive, or simply unworkable. There is a difference between pointing out a politician's shortcomings, and the things levied against him in the thread however. Let me put it this way, I don't believe that Corbyn's flawed political ideology warrants the vitriol that's targeted at him by the media and other politicians. As an impartial observer who's peered into the validity of those claims, they don't look substantiated whatsoever. He has never called for destruction of Israel, nor schemed with terrorist organization, nor called the country to "seize the means of production" in any meaningful way. His absurd willingness to work with extremists, his rejection of supranational organizations like NATO and EU, and his refusal to understand the necessity of military strength are all things that stand out to me. None of the antisemite, antiwestern, anticapitalist stuff though. All of that looks either hyperbolic or untrue to me.

[Cope]

I'm not the one making a point. Whether Corbyn is suited to be Prime Minister or not is not really an interest of mine. Unnecessary depiction of Corbyn as some kind of a violent, and insidious leftist extremist, is.

No one has claimed that the dear leader was himself a "violent extremist": the claim is that he's an anti-western, terrorist sympathizer who, were he to have become prime minister, would have posed a threat both to national security and the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom. And that's before we get to the role he played in enabling, either wittingly or not, the institutional spread of antisemitism within the Labour Party in a way we've never seen before.

You haven't shown that Corbyn does any of those things. As Corbyn himself explained, numerous times when asked directly on the issue, he recognizes the need to work with unsavory organizations for the sake of resolving conflict. So yes, these are insubstantial smears as far as any impartial observer is concerned.

All of the things listed (and more) have been demonstrated. Blindly denying them isn't an argument.

This new excuse that Corbyn was acting as some sort of necessary intermediary with international terrorist organizations can be dismissed as the insipid nonsense that it is. His unsolicited associations with the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah - all of which occurred when he was an unqualified, irrelevant backbencher - were nothing more than a product of his hard-left, anti-American, anti-imperialist fantasies. His links with these groups served no diplomatic purpose whatsoever, and, far from "resolving" anything, all they did was insult the opponents and victims of his "social justice" pursuing terrorist "friends".

Hundreds of pages of official investigatory evidence, live witness testimonies, and plain common sense that makes your cries of "p-p-p-partisanship" look hilarious in contrast to your indictment of Corbyn, which is based on your distaste for his politics rather than anything substantive. Second, a lot of evidence, including evidence strong enough to convict somebody of murder, is hearsay. Video footage is hearsay, corroborative documentation is hearsay, witness testimony is hearsay. So if you want to talk about "nonsense", it's the implication that one cannot reasonably infer motive/intent from sufficient hearsay evidence.

My "indictment" of Corbyn has nothing to do with a legal/constitutional process: no one is accusing him of being a criminal. We're discussing why he was so electorally toxic and unsuitable to lead the United Kingdom. Frothing about Trump's impeachment has nothing to do with this topic.

[Love Mountain]

No one has claimed that the dear leader was himself a "violent extremist": the claim is that he's an anti-western, terrorist sympathizer who, were he to have become prime minister, would have posed a threat both to national security and the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom. And that's before we get to the role he played in enabling, either wittingly or not, the institutional spread of antisemitism within the Labour Party in a way we've never seen before.

When has he condoned terorrism? What exactly is “antiwestern”? And lastly, what is the connection between Corbyn and antisemitism?

All of the things listed (and more) have been demonstrated. Blindly denying them isn't an argument.

This new excuse that Corbyn was acting as some sort of necessary intermediary with international terrorist organizations can be dismissed as the insipid nonsense that it is. His unsolicited associations with the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah - all of which occurred when he was an unqualified, irrelevant backbencher - were nothing more than a product of his hard-left, anti-American, anti-imperialist fantasies. His links with these groups served no diplomatic purpose whatsoever, and, far from "resolving" anything, all they did was insult the opponents and victims of his "social justice" pursuing terrorist "friends".

So what did they do aside from insulting your sensibilities? You have a long list of things to substantiate.

My "indictment" of Corbyn has nothing to do with a legal/constitutional process: no one is accusing him of being a criminal. We're discussing why he was so electorally toxic and unsuitable to lead the United Kingdom. Frothing about Trump's impeachment has nothing to do with this topic.

No you weren’t. When I categorized accusations of antisemitism, anticapitalism, and antiwesternism to a baseless smear campaign, you gleefully responded that his own actions are what’s responsible for his unpopularity. Yet a dozen posts in, I have yet to find Corbyn advocating for terrorists, for dismantling of current supranational institutions, and for any of his rhetoric to be profoundly dangerous rather than naively anti war. Nor did this seeming “dangerous” history seem to deter voters from handing Labour a respectable win in 2017, or from producing dozens of articles, some of which you cited, that do a poor job of making the accusations stick. Corbyn has apologized or explained the most egregious of his guffaws. His ties to terrorists are seemingly naive rather than insidious, and his anti war rhetoric is simply idiotic rather than inspiring any sort of dangerous discourse.

This has much less to do with me being “blind” and denying everything, than you making an exceptionally poor characterization of Corbyn. I recall someone calling him a crazy, well-meaning grandpa, which sounds far more accurate than the ridiculous hyperbole Ive read so far.

[Gromovnik]

How is being anti-monarchy a proof of someone being anti-western?

[Cope]

When has he condoned terorrism? What exactly is “antiwestern”? And lastly, what is the connection between Corbyn and antisemitism?

1. No one has claimed that Corbyn has openly condoned terrorism: the allegation is that he's a terrorist sympathizer. This has been substantiated by the evidence.

2. Read the dossier compiled by the Jewish Labour Movement which provides the basis for the EHRC investigation. Everyone knows that Corbyn's latent anti-Zionism, connections with Palestinian terror groups and opposition to American-style capitalism has encouraged the spread of far-left, and Arab nationalist, antisemitism within the party.

So what did they do aside from insulting your sensibilities? You have a long list of things to substantiate.

Corbyn's self-indulgent fraternization with terrorist groups and their sympathizers - again, as evidenced - demonstrates that he is unfit to be prime minster of the United Kingdom.

No you weren’t. When I categorized accusations of antisemitism, anticapitalism, and antiwesternism to a baseless smear campaign, you gleefully responded that his own actions are what’s responsible for his unpopularity.

Which they are.

Yet a dozen posts in, I have yet to find Corbyn advocating for terrorists, for dismantling of current supranational institutions, and for any of his rhetoric to be profoundly dangerous rather than naively anti war. This has much less to do with me being “blind” and denying everything, than you making an exceptionally poor characterization of Corbyn. I recall someone calling him a crazy, well-meaning grandpa, which sounds far more accurate than the ridiculous hyperbole Ive read so far.

You can keep denying the evidence, but that won't change reality. Sources demonstrating his opposition to NATO, the European Union and the monarchy have already been provided, as has evidence detailing his associations with, and refusal to act against, a variety of terrorist organizations. Even if you want to excuse Corbyn by pretending that his zealous anti-imperialism is simple naivety (which it isn't), that still doesn't mean having him as leader of the United Kingdom wouldn't be "profoundly dangerous". It'd be like having a toddler at the wheel of a 10,000 pound pickup truck.

Nor did this seeming “dangerous” history seem to deter voters from handing Labour a respectable win in 2017

The Labour Party won nothing in 2017. I know the Corbyn crew paraded around acting as if coming a distant second was a huge victory, but it wasn't. Thankfully Corbyn came completely unstuck this time around, in large part because people began to realize how unsuitable he was as a leader.

This has much less to do with me being “blind” and denying everything, than you making an exceptionally poor characterization of Corbyn. I recall someone calling him a crazy, well-meaning grandpa, which sounds far more accurate than the ridiculous hyperbole Ive read so far.

This is yet another insipid excuse. Corbyn has been a parliamentarian since the early 80's: he's not some "well-meaning grandpa" who was tricked into his views by a telephone scammer or YouTube grifter. Many of the scandals he's been involved with happened years, if not decades, ago when he was hidden from scrutiny.

[sumskilz]

When has he condoned terorrism?

For years, Corbyn campaigned for the release of Jawad Botmeh and Samar Alami who were convicted for their roles in the bombing of a Jewish charity building and the Israeli embassy in London. He referred to their incarceration as "a miscarriage of justice". It's possible Corbyn actually believed they were innocent, despite two UK courts and one EU court clearly deciding otherwise, but that would make no difference regarding whether or not he condones terrorism, since Botmeh and Alami's defense for why they had some of the same explosives used in the bombings in London was that they were actually planning to carry out bombings in Israel. The case is summarized here, in the ruling of the appeals court.

Likewise:

UK Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn attended a 2012 conference that included speeches by Hamas terrorists released under the 2011 Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange deal, and later described their remarks as “fascinating and electrifying,” according to a report in The Daily Telegraph on Sunday.

Corbyn hosted a two-hour panel discussion at a conference on Palestinian refugees, which was held in April 2012 in Doha, Qatar, according to video obtained by the Telegraph.

The staunch Israel opponent shared a platform with former Hamas head Khaled Mashaal and former Hamas military commander in the Samaria Husam Badran, among others.

Badran, who was given a 17-year prison sentence in Israel for terror attacks carried out during the Second Intifada, was expelled to Qatar upon his release, where he acted as the terror group's spokesperson.

He was responsible for the Dolphinarium discotheque massacre carried out by Hamas in Tel Aviv on June 1, 2001, which left 21 Israelis dead, as well as the Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing on August 1, 2001, which left 15 Israelis dead.

Badran also ordered the Passover massacre in 2002, in which a Hamas suicide bomber blew himself up at the Park Hotel in Netanya while Jews were celebrating Seder night, killing 30 Israelis and injuring 140...

Another participant in the conference was Abdul Aziz Umar, who was given seven life sentences for his role in the 2003 bombing of Jerusalem’s Cafe Hillel, which claimed seven Israeli lives.

Corbyn’s complimentary reflections on the conference, which he wrote in his regular column in the Morning Star newspaper, were published earlier this month on Iranian state television.

"I met many of the brothers, including the brother who’s been speaking here...when I was in Doha earlier this year," Corbyn told the Iranian PressTV, referring to Umar.

[Cope]

Blair telling the truth for once in his life:

[Love Mountain]

1. No one has claimed that Corbyn has openly condoned terrorism: the allegation is that he's a terrorist sympathizer. This has been substantiated by the evidence.

2. Read the dossier compiled by the Jewish Labour Movement which provides the basis for the EHRC investigation. Everyone knows that Corbyn's latent anti-Zionism, connections with Palestinian terror groups and opposition to American-style capitalism has encouraged the spread of far-left, and Arab nationalist, antisemitism within the party.

1. You have yet to show me a case where he is sympathetic with terrorists. You showed me a link of where Corbyn referred to Hamas and Hezbollah as "friends", something he said was a mistake later. You showed him present at a wreath laying ceremony, that commemorated the 1985 bombing of PLO headquarters in Tunisia. You showed a report about an investigation being made into Corbyn over his connections to the IRA, yet you have not showed me the results of this investigation that would indicate that Corbyn has done anything morally, let alone, criminally, wrong. You showed me a link where Corbyn opposed bombing of ISIS. Considering Corbyn's anti-war stance that's consistent throughout his entire career, and that the stance is not exactly unique to him or extremists, I don't really see how this paints him in a bad light. You've showed me that Corbyn opposes the monarchy, again, not something that I would find unnatural coming from a Labour party. You showed me two instances where Corbyn demands absolute evidence. This exposes flaws of his firm anti-war stance, rather than a secret ideological preference for Iran and Russia over the West. You've shown me links to an EHCR investigaiton, that again, I don't see the results of, and you've shown me an article about a Jewish MP where a subtitle reads, "Ruth Smeeth says she is afraid to leave home, won’t go out alone due to abuse from both far-left and far-right".

Oh and I suppose sumskilz has shown me an instance where two would-be bombers have been arrested because of a car bombing that they did not commit. Now granted, I disagree with Corbyn's defense of them and campaigning on their behalf for years, but while rather stupid, not exactly stinking of terrorist sympathies or anti-westernism.

2. I am not reading a 58 page document for the sake of satisfying your sensibilities. Either point to the highlights, or provide evidence. Since Corbyn took office, allegations of antisemitism have resulted in several investigations that have found little concrete evidence. Corbyn's political stances encouraging antisemitism to rise in the Labour party, is different from him being directly responsible for a rise in antisemitism in his party. At worst, your observation is simply a result of increased scrutiny. After all, if Corbyn is an antisemite, he has been in the Labour party for over two decades. Moreover, to mirror this with American politics. Donald Trump is reviled and attacked for his associations with white nationalists because of his quasi-open endorsement of their support. Not because he simply benefits from it. I have yet to see Corbyn make an openly, or even implied, anti-semite statement. Unless of course pursuing dialogue with Hamas and other anti-Israeli organizations is antisemitism. I didn't realize that the history of Israel was uncontroversial and clear-cut.

Corbyn's self-indulgent fraternization with terrorist groups and their sympathizers - again, as evidenced - demonstrates that he is unfit to be prime minster of the United Kingdom.

We have gone over the evidence. I have yet to see you double down on it or argue its merit. Calling my posts "blindly denying" isn't a refutation. Especially when one of your responses is to claim that Corbyn has been "aligning oneself with IRA sympathizing Marxists and Middle Eastern terrorist groups". Corbyn's controversial acts include pursuing dialogue with Middle Eastern terrorists groups, pointing out UK shortcomings in Northern Ireland is "alignment". In that case all anti-war activists consist entirely of Communist sympathizers, and Vietnamese sleeper cells.

You can keep denying the evidence, but that won't change reality. Sources demonstrating his opposition to NATO, the European Union and the monarchy have already been provided, as has evidence detailing his associations with, and refusal to act against, a variety of terrorist organizations. Even if you want to excuse Corbyn by pretending that his zealous anti-imperialism is simple naivety (which it isn't), that still doesn't mean having him as leader of the United Kingdom wouldn't be "profoundly dangerous". It'd be like having a toddler at the wheel of a 10,000 pound pickup truck.

There is a difference between opposite NATO, and being antiwestern.
There is a difference between pursuing dialogue with IRA and being "linked to IRA".
There is a difference between criticism of Israel and being an antisemite.
There is a difference between criticism of capitalism and plotting to destroy capitalism.

Your accusations are based on the most uncharitable construction of Corbyn based on his actions. One could conclude from my posts that I am a Russian shill, a Marxist, a neoliberal, a racist, an antisemite, a black supremacist, a Black Lives Matter activist, a Republican, a Democrat, or any combination of the above or some other designation. All based on factual things I wrote.

The Labour Party won nothing in 2017. I know the Corbyn crew paraded around acting as if coming a distant second was a huge victory, but it wasn't. Thankfully Corbyn came completely unstuck this time around, in large part because people began to realize how unsuitable he was as a leader.

So, your opinion? Helpful, thanks.

This is yet another insipid excuse. Corbyn has been a parliamentarian since the early 80's: he's not some "well-meaning grandpa" who was tricked into his views by a telephone scammer or YouTube grifter. Many of the scandals he's been involved with happened years, if not decades, ago when he was hidden from scrutiny.

I don't see how this is an "excuse", it's not. It's a characterization and there's no "apologism" in this particular section of my post. Nobody claimed he was "tricked" into his views, you simply misrepresent them.

For years, Corbyn campaigned for the release of Jawad Botmeh and Samar Alami who were convicted for their roles in the bombing of a Jewish charity building and the Israeli embassy in London. He referred to their incarceration as "a miscarriage of justice". It's possible Corbyn actually believed they were innocent, despite two UK courts and one EU court clearly deciding otherwise, but that would make no difference regarding whether or not he condones terrorism, since Botmeh and Alami's defense for why they had some of the same explosives used in the bombings in London was that they were actually planning to carry out bombings in Israel. The case is summarized here, in the ruling of the appeals court.

So who committed the bombings?

[Heathen Hammer]

The most uncharitable construction of Corbyn was made by Corbyn himself. He knew what he was doing and he didn't care, probably hoping that British working class is still uneducated and politically immature enough to still support him as part of some Stockholm syndrome. That clearly didn't work out, but Labor has nobody to blame but itself.

[sumskilz]

So who committed the bombings?

The police believed Botmeh and Alami may have detonated the bombs by remote control (both admitted to having experimented with delivering and detonating bombs via remote-control) though timers could have been used. The police arrested a Palestinian named Nadia Zekra who they believed had parked the car containing one of the bombs. She spent something like six months in jail, but was eventually released due to lack of sufficient evidence for a trial. Mahmoud Abu-Wardeh was likewise arrested but was acquitted since all they had on him was that he had rented the van that was used to pick up the chemicals used to make the bombs. Jawad Botmeh matched the description of the person who actually signed for the chemicals when they were picked up. Botmeh and Alami claimed that they were set up by an Arab guy named Reeda Moghrabi. Quoting the appeal denial: “The principal issue for the jury was whether, as both appellants claimed, Reeda existed. There was a great deal of evidence entitling the jury to conclude that he did not.”

Because the likely fictional Reeda Moghrabi was never found, because the human cost was limited to 20 injuries but no deaths, and because a former MI5 agent claimed MI5 had received a tip beforehand that they had failed to act upon, various conspiracy theories have developed. If one is the type to believe that the UK’s domestic counter-intelligence agency and Mossad would collaborate to bomb British Jews and an Israeli embassy for reasons, then I’m sure such conspiracy theories are compelling, which is why I conceded the possibility of Corbyn actually believing they were innocent (though it makes no difference to whether or not Corbyn condones terrorism, just to whether he is dishonest vs naive and/or an idiot). The evidence is solid regarding Botmeh and Alami being involved in acquiring the vehicles and the chemicals used. Their defense appears to have been tailored to account for just how much evidence against them there was that couldn't be denied. They couldn't credibly claim that they weren't planning to bomb Israelis, so they admitted it. However, the bomb recipe in Alami's notes that matched the explosives used, some of which was found in her possession, involved chemicals that were available to them in England, but would not be in Israel/Palestine, and were purchased by a person matching Botmeh's description just prior to the bombing, and just after Alami had withdrawn £4000 from her account.

[Love Mountain]

Fascinating. +Rep