National Union of Students elects Malia Bouattia as president.

Scroll to see replies

I'd distinguish nut job people like her who are probably the type that want to stop us saying 'he and she' from the mainstream 'left' and centre left. Just like we should distinguish the nutters in the BNP from the mainstream right.

The NUS is totally irrelevant and i'm not sure why anyone gets so invested in it. It has no real power, it's just a symbol and a bad one at that. It has no relevance in the real world and just seems to satisfy peoples' need to feel important.

I always do find it funny when at university someone announces that they are 'resigning' from a student soceity committee.When I was in the Labour society our events office resigned ffs! I mean what are they resigning from? Organizing a piss up once a month?
Another incident was when the society had far left nutjobs accusing its members of being war mongerers!

It's just people wanting to feel important and they aren't.
I don't know why anyone gets so invested in it.

It is a great springboard. NUS Presidents can subsequently become figures of national importance...

https://www.complicity.co.uk/blog/2013/10/political-careers-of-nus-presidents-1969-present/

Malia Bouattia hasn't got the smarts to do anything like as well as some on that list of course, but you can see what she is in it for. It is naked careerism on her part.

If she presides over an unintended partial break up of the NUS however her national prominence may prove a liability to her career progression.

Let's hope so. It couldn't happen to a nicer gal...

Reply 161

username2228735

Original post by Happy97

I don't agree with you on this matter. Let's just keep it at that. If you insist on ignoring the numerous amounts of evidence I have provided, I will not waste any more of my time debating with you.

Good night.

That is very much the issue, Happy97. I have requested evidence on a number of issues, which you have not provided. Your 'logic' will not do here.

Reply 162

Erebor

Original post by Happy97

As I said before, The Guardian is a balanced and fair newspaper.

Reply 163

BaconandSauce

Original post by Aceadria

That is very much the issue, Happy97. I have requested evidence on a number of issues, which you have not provided. Your 'logic' will not do here.

'if you can't see it' or 'If only you'd open your mind', or 'when you thinks about it'

Sadly these are all the 'evidence' some people can provide

Reply 164

username2228735

Original post by BaconandSauce

'if you can't see it' or 'If only you'd open your mind', or 'when you thinks about it'

Sadly these are all the 'evidence' some people can provide

Indeed. His/Her replies have always been based around the idea that there is a conspiracy theory against all Muslims in the West.

Reply 165

Happy97

Factual evidence, common sense and logic is thrown out of the window, when it doesn't agree with the opinions of certain individuals What can I say :colonhash:

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 166

anarchism101

Original post by Observatory

If one believes Palestine has a right to carpet bomb Israeli cities, one should believe Israel has a right to carpet bomb Palestinian cities. Or one could believe that no one has this right, but doesn't have to respect any such restriction if one's opponent breaches it first. That was our position in WWII.

There is no Palestinian carpet bombing of Israeli cities. If you define the missiles from Gaza as "carpet bombing", you're rendering the term meaninglessly broad.

You reply that you don't support genocide of Israelis, because your support for Palestinian carpet bombing of Israel is contingent on it killing relatively few people. I do not find support for killing small but not large numbers of people morally plausible.

Firstly, to go back to the original point, this isn't about what I support, but about what Malia Bouattia might support (which is heavily clouded by people trying to infer what they want to hear from what was actually a pretty abstract speech). It is possible to disagree with a position, but still defend it from unjustified or exaggerated attacks.

Secondly, we're back to the question of support vs acceptance. In particular, context is important. Now, you can phrase this in many ways. You could say the ends justify the means, or that atrocities are merely an unfortunate by-product of a campaign, or even just portray it in lesser evil terms, but in a sense they're all the same - that the context of the struggle overrides that of individual atrocities (though they differ on whether it justifies them or merely minimises them).

This is hardly a novel idea, it's been accepted in the cases of various armed struggles throughout history. Even Israel accepts it through the official rehabilitations and venerations of Irgun and Lehi terrorism.

Thirdly (and this is more of a side-point), genocide is not a moral concept, but a legal and sociological one. You might well hold the opinion that killing a small number of people is no morally different to killing a large number, but that has no bearing on the question of genocide.

Reply 167

anarchism101

Original post by BeastOfSyracuse

She said she supports the armed resistance; currently the only group that fits that description is Hamas.

She never actually used the phrase "the armed resistance" in her speech. She referred to things like 'armed struggle', 'resistance', etc, but in quite abstract terms. Also, PFLP still exist, as do other smaller groups, and at times (most notably during the Second Intifada, but on other occasions as well)

Just because you've "explained" it doesn't mean your explanation was accepted, or valid.

I've stated it several times, and never got a response yet. But here goes again. Article 31 of the Hamas Charter says "Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other." That's a blatant contradiction to a supposed desire to kill all Jews.

If this obscene part of their charter is "irrelevant" (at least, when he's speaking to Western journalists), why don't they amend it? Other Hamas leaders have said it is impossible to amend it for political reasons, which shows the kind of organisation they are if they can't muster enough support to remove a call for racist genocide in their charter

The PLO have never formally amended their charter, just declared they regard certain parts of it as null, and the PLO's was far more of a binding constitution than Hamas', yet no-one really cares about that because everyone knows the PLO has de facto changed its positions anyway.

From what I've gathered there seem to be two different political reasons behind not amending (though I've seen some say it's merely a manifesto written in 1988 which can no more be 'amended' than any political party can 'amend' past manifestos to fit in with what they support now). One, yes, is that they don't want to lose certain hardline Islamist supporters (though it's worth pointing out that if Hamas did lose them, they'd simply go to an even more extreme Islamist faction). The other is that they see it essentially is a bargaining chip that they don't want to concede if they don't see what they're going to get for it.

Because in targeting Israelis, Hamas does not seek to target Arab Israelis. They are only interested in killing Jewish Israelis. Say you have a scenario where there's a Hamas terrorist with a rifle; in front of him are two Israeli citizens. One is a Jewish Israeli, the other an Arab Israeli. Which one will he kill? The answer is obvious; the Jewish one. And the only reason he will kill the Jew rather than the Arab is because of his religious/ethnic identity.

That is the true face of Hamas

Aside from anything else, that doesn't answer my question. You've just said what you think Hamas are likely to do, not why that is inherent to armed resistance in general.

Reply 168

anarchism101

This article is a pretty good response to the attacks on Bouattia, certainly a better one than I can give: https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jamie-stern-weiner/new-accusations-of-anti-semitism-thrown-at-left-are-flimsy

Reply 169

Grand High Witch

Original post by anarchism101

The left are being hoisted by their own petard. They constantly go nuts when any comment that can loosely be interpreted as negative is directed towards a minority, and in particular they have conflated criticism of Islam as an ideology with being anti-Muslim for a while now. Accusations of antisemitism thrown at the left may be flimsy, but they are coming from a culture that the left have created.

Reply 170

win7sony

I am going to clear this up for everyone, in a simple format of bullet points:

- There are Zionists lobbying and twisting everything. At every level of education, employment, society, and government. You can see some in this thread. They will spread pro-Israel propaganda, and accuse anyone who disagrees of anti-Semitism. They even make fake anti-Semitic pro-Palestine posts, to prove their agenda.

- Zionists and Jews are totally different things. The majority of Zionists are actually of non-Jewish faith.

- Israel is in breach of a lot of international law, and is a highly unethical country. Just because being [...] is legal in Israel, but not next-door in [...], it doesn't mean it is tolerated. That is more Zionist propaganda.

- If you are sure you do not work for Mossad or Shin Bet, but are pro-Israel, you need to understand that their propaganda has worked on you, and yes, you are brainwashed.

- There is no anti-Semitism in any mainstream political party. In fact, there is a lot of pro-Zionism. See how the youth wings of many parties responded to a non-Zionist being elected as NUS chair? You must understand that all supposed anti-Semitism in mainstream politics is false flag Zionist propaganda.

I hope this educates you. Of course, it will anger the Mossad & Shin Bet agents on this thread. I have esteemed credentials as a politics student, and am very politically active. I hope you can learn.

Reply 171

Good bloke

Original post by win7sony

There is no anti-Semitism in any mainstream political party.

It is ironic that you post this on the day that Naz Shaz resigns as John McDonnell's aide as a result of her anti-semitism.

The Guardian, that bastion of the extreme right, had Jonathan Friedland, a liberal Zionist, say this a little while ago:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/18/labour-antisemitism-jews-jeremy-corbyn

At the same time, in the Daily Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12193925/The-Labour-Party-is-increasingly-anti-Semitic.html

And John McDonnell himself called for more action against anti-Semitism by Labour:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-party-members-anti-semitic-banned-for-life-john-mcdonnell-a6951371.html

It doesn't appear to me as though the Labour party thinks it doesn't have a problem, so I think you are alone in your views.

Reply 172

Start the Fire

Why doesn't anyone just admit the truth, Labour has been co-opted by Muslims which is why they hate Jews now

Reply 173

HucktheForde

Original post by Omen96

like it or not, the people who represent you are all pro Islam and pro Islamism. I used to believe "it's not all of them" or "it's not representative" but every left winger I meet and every left wing representative I meet is pro Islam, pro Islamic terrorism and pro extremism. I hate Islam as much as I hate Christianity or any of these vile ideologies but no not left wingers, they all defend it all the time by declaring it "the religion of peace and tolerance", pathetic all of them. I was never angry or this stereotypical towards left leaning voters but recent years has shown me the true face of left wing politics and vile it is. I can't believe I once associated with these people because of my concern for animal rights, women rights, Environmental rights ect. but that is not what the left stand for, just a pro-Islam group, and to think I thought we were moving away from religion in politics :/

I don't get the remark about the Tories, I hate the Tories

Im left and I don't love islam.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 174

win7sony

Original post by Good bloke

Re-read my points. You didn't understand them. Anybody who dares to criticise the Zionist apartheid is made into an antisemite by the Zionists within everywhere. There are false flag antisemitism incidents Are you one of them, or are you just one of their brainwashed subjects? Tony Blair infected the party with Zionists. They run the mainstream media, too. This transcends left and right. Zionists and their agents are everywhere.

Reply 175

Good bloke

Original post by win7sony

Re-read my points. You didn't understand them.

I must be stupid then, and can't give a valid opinion for that reason. Reading your posts again won't change that.

Reply 176

win7sony

[Q
UOTE=Good bloke;64421979]I must be stupid then, and can't give a valid opinion for that reason. Reading your posts again won't change that.

Are you a Mossad agent, or are you just one of their tools? Pro-Zionism is not an opinion, it's a state of psychological conditioning. They have weaved their way into every large organisation, to spread propaganda. Some people submit to it, others don't.

Reply 177

Observatory

Original post by anarchism101

There is no Palestinian carpet bombing of Israeli cities. If you define the missiles from Gaza as "carpet bombing", you're rendering the term meaninglessly broad.

I define carpet bombing as the saturation of an area with munitions with the main goal being to maximise casualties and property damage, regardless of military significance. That is what the Palestinians do. And I do not believe that they do this for lack of technology, because before the fence was built when they were able to launch suicide bomb attacks, they chose the most populated and valuable of sufficiently lightly defended targets, not militarily significant targets.

Malia Bouattia has expressed her support for current Palestinian carpet bombing tactics.

Secondly, we're back to the question of support vs acceptance. In particular, context is important. Now, you can phrase this in many ways. You could say the ends justify the means, or that atrocities are merely an unfortunate by-product of a campaign, or even just portray it in lesser evil terms, but in a sense they're all the same - that the context of the struggle overrides that of individual atrocities (though they differ on whether it justifies them or merely minimises them).

This is hardly a novel idea, it's been accepted in the cases of various armed struggles throughout history. Even Israel accepts it through the official rehabilitations and venerations of Irgun and Lehi terrorism.

None of which is exclusive to Palestine. Nazis bombed London as an unfortunate by-product of a campaign to conquer Europe for what they regarded as good motives. Britain bombed Dresden as an unfortunate by-product of a campaign to conquer Germany for what they regarded as good motives.

Either you have to accept reciprocity - in which case Israel wins the war in 5 minutes by using Palestinian carpet bombing and other brutal tactics - or you have to make an argument that the Palestinian cause is of superior moral worth to the Israelis, granting them the right to use more brutal tactics than the Israelis. This second one in fact is what Bouattia believes.

Thirdly (and this is more of a side-point), genocide is not a moral concept, but a legal and sociological one. You might well hold the opinion that killing a small number of people is no morally different to killing a large number, but that has no bearing on the question of genocide.

I do not think this is right, as otherwise genocide boils down to a time limit. If the Nazis had set up death camps that killed people only 1/10th as quickly, would it have ceased to be genocide? 1/100th? The idea is the thing.

Now you later point out that the Palestinians would accept Israel's reconstitution as an Islamic State, in which of course Jews would have the right to live as supplicant Dhimmis in accordance with Islamic law. This is a much stronger argument that what the Palestinians are doing is not genocide. However it obviously still makes them look terrible, basically what the Germans planned to do to Britain, and makes more clear the Israel case for responding to Palestinian actions as Britain responded to German.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 178

MildredMalone

Original post by Happy97

Factual evidence, common sense and logic is thrown out of the window, when it doesn't agree with the opinions of certain individuals What can I say :colonhash:

What factual evidence have you provided?

Reply 179

KimKallstrom

Original post by win7sony

[Q
UOTE=Good bloke;64421979]I must be stupid then, and can't give a valid opinion for that reason. Reading your posts again won't change that.

Are you a Mossad agent, or are you just one of their tools? Pro-Zionism is not an opinion, it's a state of psychological conditioning. They have weaved their way into every large organisation, to spread propaganda. Some people submit to it, others don't.

"He doesn't agree with my opinion. Must either not understand it or he is a Mossad mind control agent"