Corbyn wins again!

Scroll to see replies

*Jeremy Corbyn, by contrast, is a crabby old throwback to the 1970s who shouts at journalists who ask him unwanted questions, takes thousands of pounds as payment to be a television shill for a regime that lynches gay men from cranes, and has happily allowed a cult of personality to grow around him both for reasons of vanity and to have a political attack force to menace his enemies. *

he has his bad points too *

Reply 61

Snufkin

Universities Forum Helper

Original post by DMcGovern

That was the definition of an ad hominem argument, directed at people who hold an opinion rather than actually dissecting their argument.

Ad hominem simply means attacking the person making an argument, rather than addressing their argument. AlexanderHam hasn't personally attacked you, he is criticising Corbyn supporters in general, that is different. By your logic, I would be guilty of ad hominem if I said 'all ISIS members are loonies'.

Reply 62

GaelicBolshevik

Original post by Snufkin

So because he's not attacked me but a group I am part of, it doesn't count?

You clearly don't understand how it works...

Ad hominem tu quoque arguments against Occupy protestors saying that they buy coffee from Starbucks and having iPhones, or the arguments criticising left-wing protestors last November when some of them were wearing Levi jeans.

For a better explanation under a different name:
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/louise-mensch-fallacy-capitalism-coffee.html

Reply 63

Snufkin

Universities Forum Helper

Original post by DMcGovern

So because he's not attacked me but a group I am part of, it doesn't count?

You clearly don't understand how it works...

I couldn't be less interested in what some random blog says. In the comment you quoted he was not making an argument - he was expressing an opinion about a group of people. It isn't ad hominem, it isn't an argument, it isn't an ad hominem argument. End of discussion.

Reply 64

GaelicBolshevik

Original post by Snufkin

Another case of a smartarse escaping after making an argument about something they know nothing about.

Reply 65

sleepysnooze

and so begins labour's 2nd journey into the deep political wilderness, confining themselves to the electoral outskirts and burying their hopes of popular support. corbyn throw away your compass and rip up your map - the only thing you need to be your guide is your own smug socialist sneer. never crack a genuine smile again, just like crash gordon - make that rattish firm frown intensely, because at this point in political history, it suits you.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 66

KimKallstrom

Original post by AlexanderHam

Thanks! Owen Smith is not perfect, there are quite a few areas on which he and I would disagree.

But fundamentally speaking, he is actually a genuinely nice guy. He and I and two other people were together in a doorknocking team in Brent Central in the election in May last year, we were out pretty much all day and had some great conversation about socialism, about the political implications of automation and unemployment, and many other things.

He is really intelligent and one of the most optimistic and upbeat people I've ever met. And that really comes across in interviews, I think in normal times as a Labour leader he would do quite well.

The ugly slanders against him by Momentum (that having worked for a pharmaceutical company somehow makes him a bad person... but Corbyn working for an LGBT-murdering regime doesn't), the attacks, the pathetic "They're both unelectable" dismissals that are invariably based on not having bothered to actually spend any time watching Smith interviews... it's all really unpleasant. I'm very disappointed.

To be fair, Smith didn't help himself with statements like how he's just as radical as Corbyn (which isn't true, obviously, but that's not what people hoping for a good shot at winning an election want to hear).

But yes, I do feel sympathy for him having to deal with the Momentum attack dogs throughout all this.

Reply 67

KimKallstrom

Original post by 303Pharma

Dunno. Seems to bland so far She hasn't been clear about on ethic, an ideology she is rooted in. Unlike Thatcher, for all her faults and mistakes, she actually believed in something, even if many totally disagreed with her views.

But I do still hope she has the potential to by one of our great PM's

True enough, but the point is she doesn't have to be anything special given the opposition.

Reply 68

KimKallstrom

Original post by S1939

Are you writing headlines for the Daily Mail?

He's not wrong though is he? Unless you're actually suggesting Corbyn has a legitimate shot at winning the general election?

Reply 69

AlexanderHam

Original post by DMcGovern

Examples? Which "terrorists"? and which things he's "said and done"?

The Irish Republican Army. In 1987, eight IRA terrorists attacked a police station with machine guns and a car bomb in an attempt to demolish it and kill all the police officers inside; thankfully the SAS had intelligence of an attack and ambushed them, killing all eight. Corbyn held a minute's silence for these terrorist murderers, proclaiming "I'm happy to commemorate anyone who dies fighting for a united Ireland".

In 1984 the IRA bombed the Grand Hotel in Brighton during the Tory conference, coming very close to killing the Prime Minister (the ensuite 8 feet away from where she was standing was obliterated and the floor fell out and collapsed), and killing a Conservative MP, an aide and three wives of MPs. Following that, in the journal of which Corbyn was editor, it pointedly refused to condemn the attack, blaming the government and published a "joke"; "What do you call five dead Tories? A good start". Those women were somebody's mother, somebody's wife, as the men were fathers, brothers, friends, husbands. It was a vicious attack, and Corbyn's indifference to the horror of it speaks volumes about the kind of man he is.

In 1985, Corbyn sided with both republican terrorists and extremist unionists in opposing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which was a major building block that eventually led to the Good Friday Accords. He opposed it on the basis that "It won't lead to a united Ireland". The extremists on both sides were opposed to it, the republicans because it didn't automatically lead to a united Ireland and the loyalists because it wouldn't return to their almost Apartheid-like regime of pre-72.

Corbyn supported violent extremists in the IRA and spurned the Labour Party's sister socialist party in Northern Ireland, the non-violent SDLP.

Corbyn, unctuously and hypocritically as usual, claimed that somehow he was a great peacemaker in Northern Ireland, and that he was far ahead of his time in talking to the IRA. This is an outrageous rewriting of history. The British government had backchannel communications with the IRA all the way from 1972 until the IRA was disbanded. In 1972, the Tory Home Secretary Willie Whitelaw had an IRA leadership delegation to his flat in London (including a very young Gerry Adams); he asked them on what terms they might end the conflict. They offered terms they knew he couldn't accept, and the conflict continued for another 26 years.

All through the 1970s and 1980s, HMG had a backchannel to the IRA through MI6 officer Michael Oatley. So it's totally untrue for Corbyn to claim that somehow he was ahead of his time and talking to the IRA and the government wasn't. The difference was that every time the UK government engaged with the IRA, it was to try to persuade them to put down their guns, agree to a ceasefire and engage in the political process. Every time Corbyn engaged with them, it was to egg them on; to tell them he was in total support of them, and to show that there was support for them on the left of the Labour Party and that if they could hang on long enough, they could prevail through violence.

In the end, the UK government was right. The IRA agreed to an end to the conflict on terms that were no more ambitious than what was on offer in 1972. The IRA accepted the continuation of Northern Ireland as part of the UK, they accepted the principle of non-violence and the need to achieve their case through persuasion and democratic means. In other words, the entire IRA campaign after 1972 was for nothing; thousands of lives were lost needlessly.

In fact, we now know that in 1990 Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness contacted the British government through Michael Oatley to say something along the lines of, "We know the conflict is essentially over. We need your help to bring it to an end". The 1980s had not been kind to the IRA; the extensive use of the SAS, the increasingly effective use of informants, of electronic surveillance, and the close cooperation with the Gardai (Irish Police) following the Anglo-Irish Agreement (that Corbyn opposed) had pushed the IRA into a corner. Increasingly it was the SAS he were clipping IRA terrorists and not IRA terrorists knocking off British soldiers.

The reason Adams and McGuinness said "We know the conflict is over, we need your help" was that they were acknowledging that they could not win through violence, that democratic means was the only effective and legitimate way forward. At the same time, Adams and McGuinness had very real concerns that if they moved too quickly towards ending the conflict and an accomodation with the British government, the hardliners on the IRA would blow their head off. All the way up until, and after, the Good Friday Accords one of Adams and McGuinness biggest concerns was being killed by their own people for being seen to "surrender" to the British.

And all through that period, Corbyn was obliviously continuing to support the armed struggle, to use rhetoric that tended to encourage the hardliners, to say and do things that would not assist Adams and McGuinness in their attempt to bring the conflict to an end. It took another 8 years, and quite a few more bombings and murders by the IRA, before the conflict did end.

Anyone who is aware of those facts, of the actual history of the Troubles, cannot say with a straight face that Corbyn was a peacemaker. He was a complete disgrace, a man who obliviously and selfishly promoted a violent terrorist organisation while he sat safe and comfortable in London and the Northern Irish lived in terror.

Corbyn has also expressed his very clear support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah, saying that they were "dedicated to peace and social justice", "honoured guests" and "friends". This is an organisation that suicide bombed a tourist coach in Bulgaria solely on the basis that the people on board were Jews. We're not talking about something that happened 20 years ago, it happened in 2012.

Corbyn also expressed his admiration for the "freedom fighters" opposing the Americans in Iraq; we're talking about Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the organisation that evolved into ISIS. The Stop the War Coalition, of which he was head, repeatedly said similar things. He called the killing of Bin Laden a "tragedy".

It's quite clear where Corbyn's sympathies lie. He will support any organisation, no matter how violent, if he perceives it as "anti-imperialist" or it violently opposes Israel or the United States. That is a very serious moral blindness which ordinary voters will not appreciate when it is brought to their attention in a general election. There are many other comparable instances of moral blindness; the £20,000 he accepted in payment to shill on TV for a regime that lynches gay men from cranes. This stuff will sink him, and Labour, in a general election.

Of course it's absolutely impossible to get through to Corbynites on that score; they prefer excuses and victimhood to actually taking responsibility for their own incompetence and unelectability and doing something about it

It's not an invalid ad hominem argument to point out positions Corbynites have actually taken and things they've actually said where these things have a negative impact on the Labour Party. Just because a fact is unfavourable to Corbynites doesn't make it ad hominem

@JRKinder @KimKallstrom @Snufkin

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 70

AlexanderHam

Original post by Napp

You say that but clearly the majority of the labour party and its members think your idea is complete horse **** son.

The fact that 300,000 johnny-come-lately Labour members think so has no actual bearing on whether the proposition is factual.

Reply 71

KimKallstrom

Original post by DMcGovern

They're only unelectable if people are persuaded by the right-wing media that they're unelectable and so don't vote for them.

I hope you can see the gaping hole in your "look how smart I am by repeating the mass media rhetoric" statement.

Ah so that's what it is. The only reason to not want to vote for Corbyn is the people are brainwashed by da media because - unlike you - they're too stupid to think for themselves. If they were above it all like you, they'd surely vote for Corbyn because there isn't a litany of reasons why he's not worth voting for,

Do you realise how much delusional you sound?

Reply 72

Napp

Original post by AlexanderHam

The fact that 300,000 johnny-come-lately Labour members think so has no actual bearing on whether the proposition is factual.

Actually it has a rather strong bearing as evidently 1/3 million people beg to differ.

Reply 73

GaelicBolshevik

Original post by KimKallstrom

You mean the mass hysteria promoted and spread by the mass media isn't because they're right-wing and instituionally biased against the left?

Do you realise how delusional you sound?

Reply 74

KimKallstrom

Original post by Snufkin

Yeah Another Angry Voice is a blog written by little hate-filled creature who's living on another planet to most people, hence why most of its readership (have you ever read its comment sections?) are idiots.They buy into this narrative that the only people in the world who aren't brainwashed people who are incapable of thinking for themselves are.....you guessed it.....people who happen to share their point of view. It's an arrogance and a delusion evolved from a cowardice to face up to the possibility that the reason most people disagree with them is because their views might actually be dumb.

Vox and The Canary are similar.

Reply 75

AlexanderHam

Original post by Napp

Actually it has a rather strong bearing as evidently 1/3 million people beg to differ.

How does the fact that 300,000 of them believe something make it therefore true? Many people believe many things that are untrue.

Corbyn's massive unpopularity with the electorate as a whole, his approval rating of minus 41% (far worse than Michael Foot ever had), the fact that one third of 2015 Labour voters prefer Theresa May over him... these facts speak for themselves.

That 300,000 Corbyn extremists are unable to come to grips with reality doesn't have any bearing on the factual nature of the points I've raised. Though many Corbynites do seem to believe that their feelings override facts, that enthusiasm makes up for competence. These people seem to have a very difficult relationship with the truth, that they believe any particular proposition would not, for me, be a very strong argument in its favour

Reply 76

KimKallstrom

Original post by AlexanderHam

In 1984 the IRA bombed the Grand Hotel in Brighton during the Tory conference, coming very close to killing the Prime Minister (the ensuite 8 feet away from where she was standing was obliterated and the floor fell out and collapsed), and killing a Conservative MP, an aide and three wives of MPs. Following that, in the journal of which Corbyn was editor, it pointedly refused to condemn the attack, blaming the government and published a "joke"; "What do you call five dead Tories? A good start". Those women were somebody's mother, somebody's wife, as the men were fathers, brothers, friends, husbands. It was a vicious attack, and Corbyn's indifference to the horror of it speaks volumes about the kind of man he is.

@JRKinder @KimKallstrom @Snufkin

That publication - The Morning Star - also made gags about the Tory MP's wife who was left permanently disabled from the attack. Lovely people.

Original post by AlexanderHam

Hmmm. Normally Corbynites refer to facts unfavourable to Corbyn as "smears" :tongue:

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 77

Carpe Diem Jay

I'm glad he won. Hoping for an early election.

Reply 78

AlexanderHam

Original post by DMcGovern

You mean the mass hysteria promoted and spread by the mass media isn't because they're right-wing and instituionally biased against the left?

The only hysteria is that which we see among Momentum members vitriolically attacking anyone who fails to support the Dear Leader.

Of course print media is biased against the Labour Party; it has always been that way. It was even more blatantly biased against Labour in the 1920s, the 1940s and 1960s/70s when Labour won government. What a successful Labour leader like Harold Wilson or Tony Blair does is accept that there is an inherent handicap for Labour, but there are ways to cultivate the media and to communicate your message even with that bias.

What an incompetent Labour leader, and his supporters, do is to blame the media for their lack of success. A shoddy workman always blames his tools.

Do you realise how delusional you sound?

You are definitely the delusional one. Instead of coming to grips with what everyone outside the Labour Party and around half of those inside the Labour Party can see very clearly, you will instead cleave to embittered conspiracy websites like The Canary and Novara.

Yup, everyone else is wrong and Cult of the Blessed Jeremy is right. You are the only ones who are clever enough to see the truth :rolleyes:

Reply 79

AlexanderHam

Original post by KimKallstrom

That publication - The Morning Star - also made gags about the Tory MP's wife who was left permanently disabled from the attack. Lovely people.

In this particular case the publication in question was the London Labour Briefing, an extreme left paper that is now defunct. But the Morning Star is equally obnoxious, as you rightly point out.

I note they have scrubbed all the columns Corbyn wrote for them from their website. You can't go back and get hold of them anymore, which is sad because there was so much there that was worth bringing up, like this little piece (speaking of the US and UK presence in Afghanistan supporting the elected government);

“This is a war of colonial occupation that can only suck in more and more troops as the Taliban increasingly represents nationalist feelings, even if there are disagreements about the social attitudes of its leadership.”