The Student Room Group

Corbyn insults 9/11 victims

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Copperknickers
9/11 is not a historic event
and I am Lady Gaga
Original post by AlexanderHam



How paranoid you are. These views have always got an airing in the Green Party, they haven't been banned or anything. So how are these views being kept out?



What policies, specifically?

You've basically just admitted you know he's incompetent and basically unelectable, but that taking control of the Labour Party is more important.


No, economic policy. That is the major elephant in the room, that supporters of a so-called centre/soft left candidate are being disingenuous about, because they know deep down where the die of power is and that they will just be a token figurehead for the lack of electoral choice and the perpetuation of the status quo.

Massive redress of economic inequality and policies such as nationalization of rail

For you people to characterize, following the Tory medias line, anyone who wants to be serious about reversing what is now one of the most unequal countries in the world, according to Oxfam, and smear them relentlessly, when you are not just doing so on policy and fighting a fair fight, is hardly what I would call a great inspiring moral stance of the left, and what's more I think the reason a lot are spiteful is that they know this deep down, beneath the left loving rhetoric, there is some kind of contortion of self-hatred going on with the fact that they know what the media and middle England is like, and they know they have to sell out to get in.

I don't understand the hatred of Tories at all, when what they want in reality is so close to them, and at least they are not endlessly *****ing at each other.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/05/political-establishment-momentum-jeremy-corbyn

Excellent analysis.

As it explains here, it is about wider ideas, not about Corbyn. Excellent article on how the elites hate democracy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/05/political-establishment-momentum-jeremy-corbyn

People are tired of top down politics and the Labour party being hijacked by condescending, smug public schoolies who are stooges for establishment, many of whom were not even alive when Labour represented anything it was roginally supposed. I mean FFS, Tristram Hunt, Ummuna, Mandelson....

Pfft.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
I really hate how cleverly and successfully the Islamist propagandists were able to twist western actions so easily into the "West hates and wishes to destroy Islam" narrative. Of course, it didn't help that the second Bush Iraq campaign was so badly thought through (the first one probably was as well incidentally), but there's a huge failure here to reach the Arab street and explain actions.


I agree with you on your first point but not the second. Let's be honest, there's no way to convince the sort of people who clearly have a paradigm in the first place of the view you describe, despite it being evidently nonsense. That's why the propogandists have been succcesful. We're talking about people who, since pretty much forever, blame all their problems on Jews for example, which is why their take all Western media as false anyway because they genuinely think it's Jews trying to control them. Do you wonder why the Protocols of The Elders of Zion is so fantastically popular with these people and indeed throughout the entire Muslim world? All the evidence and media coverage in the world wouldn't change their entire paradigms.

I've explained in other threads before that media groups sell to people the views they already have, not the other way round as you allude to.*

You then discuss how it doesn't help that there's a grain of truth to it. We can agree to disagree on that. I don't agree with it but to stick to the points, even if we agree, I put it to you that it doesn't make a difference as the Islamist propogandists would manufacturer the narrative anyway if none of it was true. For example, you see even on this forum how these people spout all this crap about things the west and Israel do that's not even got a shred of evidence to support it but they believe it anyway. That's because they very much want to believe it in the first place because it fits in with their ridiculous paradigm. Again, as above, people tend to believe anything if it fits in with the views they already have and believe nothing if it doesn't.*

Look at 9/11 truthers for a topical example. They'll take evidence that clearly and conclusively show that Arab hijackers flew the planes into the twin towers and dismiss it as establishment lies and obsessively overblow any slight chink it in they can latch onto. But they literally don't even bother to fact check the ridiculous "points" made by conspiracy bloggers no matter how detached from actual evidence they may be. All the reality, facts and logic in the world won't sway these people because they've already reached their conclusion and filter into their minds evidence for and against. You'll never convince them in a million years because they so badly want to believe their bizarre narratives. This is a more extreme version of the people we talk about here.*

Look at America. We see loads of people who literally think that cops go around searching for random black people to kill just because. Sure, there is wrong-doing by cops in the way they treat suspects sometimes (maybe). But how insane is the view that they target these people for killings just because? But they believe it because it fits in with their unhinged world view, despite the notion being utterly insane.

So the whole "there's a grain of truth to the Islamist's narrative because America has supported certain uncouth regimes" doesn't explain why people go the next step and think that America is waging war against Islam. Especially when you consider the parts played by sectarianism and corruption in all of this. But they ignore that because it doesn't involve blaming The West and Jews sorry I mean "Zionism" for all their problems.

Do you see what I'm driving at here?*

P.S: which makes it very dangerous to have - as leader - somebody with this same paradigm. Completely crazy in fact. Because no matter what the evidence or reality is, he will blame us for everything and he'll blame us for hardcore Islamists wanting to kill us, even though it evidently isn't the case. Imagine a country where its leadership automatically blames itself for all attacks on it and all hatred towards it, even when it's not true. Completely crazy and extremely unwise for its population - for who the government's first priority is to defend - to vote for them.

This Tweet in the OP is one of millions of clear examples of Corbyn having this anti-western paradigm. So the reason why it's actually not that important is because it's one of countless things.*
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Pinkberry_y
At least Jezza isn't an opinion less puppet like the others


Neither was Chairman Mao. What's your point?*
Original post by KimKallstrom
Neither was Chairman Mao. What's your point?*


Do not insult Jezza like that.
Many have died because of this war on terror and lets be honest many still suspect something fishy went on. I don't believe planes bought those towers down but hey I'm not an expert. Many experts agree that those planes, and also the fire in WTC7 couldn't bring down those structures...
Well the wars and terror that followed were a tragedy. I think he was just subtly stating what most people already know about 9/11 the 'movie' being a complete fantasy.
Original post by AlexanderHam
if you think the Syrian Civil War was caused by America you are a ****ing moron. I mean, you are literally clueless if you believe that


This*
Original post by JamesN88
He claims to be a pacifist while spending his career openly courting violent terrorists. He also spent 30 years as a Eurosceptic and then changed tack overnight.

It's pretty easy to regard him as being disingenuous.


Also this*
Original post by Jimmy Seville
Again, I never claimed that 2 million people died. Moron.


You literally called someone a retard for disputing that "millions" were killed. Do you even know what "millions" mean?*:laugh:

You quite clearly have a mental disability. *
*
Original post by QE2
Absolutely. He does get a bit wanky SJW at times, but at least he is a socialist, unlike the previous 3 Labour leaders.
A man of priciple - unique in today's politics.


What's principled about taking tens of thousands of pounds in bungs from the Iranian propoganda network when they're broadcasting confessions from opposition journos obtained under torture from said regime?*
Original post by mariachi
wrong. Governments in democratic States are judged by their electorate also on the basis of their foreign policy.


Very very few people take foreign policy into account when casting their vote, that's one of the first things you learn in Politics 101. Most people in the UK don't know anything about British foreign policy beyond the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and many people still trust the government enough to swallow its propaganda about the 'War on Terror'. Foreign policy is not really governed by the democratic process at all, it's the one part of government (along with intelligence) that is still decided almost totally behind closed doors on the basis of raw 'national interest'.

For example, the government was forced to admit earlier this year that the Foreign Office suspends consular assistance to people arrested in certain countries such as the UAE and has repeatedly covered up and denied clear evidence of torture and inhumane treatment of British citizens. Why? Because the UAE contributes a lot of money to the British economy as part of its oil money investments.

http://www.reprieve.org.uk/press/uk-supports-dubai-police-fair-despite-uae-torture-record/
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 133
Avatar for QE2
QE2
20
Original post by KimKallstrom
What's principled about taking tens of thousands of pounds in bungs from the Iranian propoganda network when they're broadcasting confessions from opposition journos obtained under torture from said regime?*
Did he? If true, I will reconsider my position - although it doesn't make any real difference as I now vote Green. And feel much cleaner for it.
Original post by QE2
Did he? If true, I will reconsider my position - although it doesn't make any real difference as I now vote Green. And feel much cleaner for it.


Yep, he even appeared on there after they'd been banned by Ofcom for that very reason.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/jeremy-corbyn-paid-iran-press-tv-tortured-journalist-2016-6
Original post by Copperknickers
Very very few people take foreign policy into account when casting their vote, that's one of the first things you learn in Politics 101. Most people in the UK don't know anything about British foreign policy beyond the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and many people still trust the government enough to swallow its propaganda about the 'War on Terror'. Foreign policy is not really governed by the democratic process at all, etc etc
people have varying degrees of information and interest for policies

until recent years, people (in their majority) simply voted according to their (perceived) social class. They basically trusted their respective elites to be their elected representatives (this has now changed, and the situation is much more fluid)

This does not go at all against democratic principles : even if voters may be deeply ignorant of issues, the main democratic principle is that votes are counted, not weighted . The vote of a University professor counts exactly as much as the vote of an illiterate

For this reason, contemporary democracies are based on the assumption that all voters have an equal and adequate knowledge of issues, even in cases where this is, quite obviously, unfounded

so, that's the way our representative democracies work -sorry
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by KimKallstrom
So the whole "there's a grain of truth to the Islamist's narrative because America has supported certain uncouth regimes" doesn't explain why people go the next step and think that America is waging war against Islam. Especially when you consider the parts played by sectarianism and corruption in all of this. But they ignore that because it doesn't involve blaming The West and Jews sorry I mean "Zionism" for all their problems.
of course, the "Islamist" worldview cannot explain why the US bombed "Christian" Serbs both in Bosnia and in Kosovo and saved Muslims from massacres even worse than Srebrenica

but these events are now widely forgotten; and in any case , if the US ever did anything positive, this is because they had dastardly hateful hidden motives

best
Reply 137
Avatar for QE2
QE2
20
Original post by JamesN88
Yep, he even appeared on there after they'd been banned by Ofcom for that very reason.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/jeremy-corbyn-paid-iran-press-tv-tortured-journalist-2016-6
Well, paid TV work is hardly "bungs", but it does indeed look like he was working for Press TV after their license was revoked for dodgyness.

But Corbyn obviously didn't know. It's clearly some kind of Labour Right smear campaign designed to...
Lol, just ****in wicha!
Must admit, it doesnt look too good. All he needs to do now is knee a dwarf in the face, and it's curtains.
Original post by QE2
All he needs to do now is knee a dwarf in the face, and it's curtains.


:lol:

Or run one over on his Commie bike.
Original post by mariachi
people have varying degrees of information and interest for policies

until recent years, people (in their majority) simply voted according to their (perceived) social class. They basically trusted their respective elites to be their elected representatives (this has now changed, and the situation is much more fluid)

This does not go at all against democratic principles : even if voters may be deeply ignorant of issues, the main democratic principle is that votes are counted, not weighted . The vote of a University professor counts exactly as much as the vote of an illiterate

For this reason, democracies are based on the assumption that all voters have an equal and adequate knowledge of issues, even in cases where this is, quite obviously, not the case

so, that's the way our representative democracies work -sorry


This is all very nice but totally irrelevant to the point we were discussing: the lack of accountability of governments for their foreign policy actions, resulting in an opaque and unchecked political environment which is wide open to abuse of power. And it's not enough to say 'that's how representative democracies work'. Democracy is only one element of the systems in place to protect those who need protecting and it is not given free reign.

As you rightly say, people tend to vote for their own interests, and conversely, different interests are catered for by different political parties according to the share of the electorate they can draw out to vote for them. Democracy was invented, we must remember, because previous to democracy, power rested in the hands of an elite minority who would uphold their own interests at the expense of everyone else. In a functioning democracy however, in theory at least, no minority can cater for solely its own interests and expect to be elected by a majority: all political parties must fight to try and win over a majority.

However, this creates a new problem: a situation where you have a 'tyranny of the majority', where minorities are drowned out. Democracy solves the problem of 'tyranny by minority', to an extent (not totally, bearing in mind the strange ability of some modern political parties to convince people to vote against their own interests with cons such as trickle-down economics and thus hand power back to the aristocratic minority voluntarily) but it isn't a magic wand which can guarantee freedom and protection for all. In order to protect minorities from the dangers of democracy, we must put in place some restrictions on it: the most obvious example of this is human rights. Human rights (as demonstrated by the frantic attempts of the Tory elite to scrap the European Human Rights Act) are a major damper on corruption and tyranny, because they mean that no matter how many people vote to infringe minority rights (or are misled into giving power to people who want to do so) this infringement will not succeed.

The key here is having an independent judiciary which acts as a check on the power of the elected government: human rights are enshrined in law which is difficult to change (nigh impossible in countries like the USA where there is a legally binding written constitution). There are numerous other legal provisions designed to protect minorities which are designed partially to check unrestricted democracy. In the UK we also have constitutional protections against tyranny and corruption, such as the House of Lords, and independent regulatory bodies such as the independent police complaints commission, and the council that was recently set up to decide on MPs' pay. There are many others.

The problem is that we don't really have an effective regulatory system as regards foreign affairs, i.e. a system which protects those in other countries and not just our own citizens. All there is is the famously useless UN and the Geneva Conventions (and the EU, soon to be minus Britain, of course). And so the British government has free reign to cause or enable suffering and misery outside of British borders, even to its own citizens.

And so we need a solution to this problem. Since the people of Afghanistan and Syria who are actually affected by our foreign policy decisions don't get to vote in American and British elections, there is a situation one might call 'destruction without representation', not that allowing them to vote would help since they would still be a minority of the electorate. Anyhow, even if this were not true, the problem would remain that democracy functions within a world made up of nation states enshrined with Westphalian sovereignty. But that's an issue for another day.

And so we have three options. Firstly, extend the vote on British foreign affairs to the people our decisions actually affect. Not very realistic. Secondly, try and get democracy to police foreign affairs: well, it's a little unrealistic to expect democracy itself to act as a check on foreign policy excesses, when people aren't likely to vote in the interests of other people if it impacts themselves in any way, and indeed they might actively choose to inflict tyranny on others for various reasons, hence why we restrict democracy so much already as I showed above. A benevolent democracy is about as realistic as benevolent dictatorship, although through education and international bridge-building we can make some steps towards it. And finally, we can restrict the actions of individual countries and their governments (democratically elected or not) on a global scale. I.e., create a functioning UN, similar to a kind of global EU.

Anyway we are getting a little off-topic. All we (by which I mean 'they', the people of Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, and those of us who care for their welfare) have, for the timebeing, is activists who refuse to allow the West to forget the crimes our governments are able to carry out overseas. And given the gravity of the problem, I say again that we must take every opportunity to remind people that the tragedy of 9/11 was exploited as a tool by people wishing not only to callously slaughter their way to wealth and power, but also to sow the seeds of fear back home, in order to further exploit the opportunities which that gives them (everything from unfettered snooping in our online lives, to division and conquest of their political opponents through manufactured polarisation of the political discourse).

Lack of accountability in foreign wars is a gaping hole in the government system of our country, and if the hole is left unplugged, the fetid sludge of corruption and abuse will, like an oil slick, ensnare first the innocents of Syria like seabirds, and then ourselves.
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you