Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Corbyn insults 9/11 victims

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    He's right though.

    Also Corbyn's views on these matters are hardly surprising yet there's an uproar whenever he speaks.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Corbyn praising as "dedicated to peace and social justice" an Islamist organisation that called for all Jews worldwide to be killed is not "wanky SJW" stuff, it's fascist pro-Islamist crap that should be called out. As is his repeated befriending, associating with and defending Islamists who want Jews and homosexuals to be put to death.

    Also, how is Corbyn a socialist in a way that Miliband wasn't? Please be specific. And if all leaders before Blair were "proper socialists", why did Corbyn oppose them all? John Smith got 91% of the vote in a leadership election; two months later Corbyn called for a leadership challenge. In other words, given he's always banging on about his "massive" mandate and how this means everyone should shut up and get in line, that makes him a complete hypocrite and self-absorbed ****.
    Ah, politics, eh?
    What I can't understand is why people from different positions always seem to be arguing and making stuff up about the other side, trying to score political points.
    That's why I now vote Green.

    In any case, last time you started saying weird pro-Islamist crap it was because that girl had taken over your account. I suspect that's probably you. Not sure why he lets you use his account and say things that will lower people's opinion of him. Probably pussy-whipped him
    No idea what this is about :confused:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Ah, politics, eh?
    What I can't understand is why people from different positions always seem to be arguing and making stuff up about the other side, trying to score political points.
    That's why I now vote Green.

    No idea what this is about :confused:
    Yup, you're definitely not QE2. He doesn't even like going on the politics forums and usually stays on the religion forums. And then you're making other comments like that the 7/7 attacks had nothing to do with Islam... you're definitely the hard left pro-Islamist woman who sometimes gets to use his account, no doubt about it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Don't you remember that time QE2 started saying pro-Islamic crap and being highly offensive about the victims of the Paris attacks? I thought something was really wrong. There's a girl who uses his account.

    You can kind of tell the difference because he's highly intelligent, articulate and quite circumspect in his opinions (and doesn't really go on the politics forums) whereas she is gobby and opinionated and trolls the politics forums with anti-Israel, anti-Western pro-Al Qaeda propaganda. I'm guessing the reason she wants to use his account is because of all those gems, she wants to be able to say things and be taken seriously. Unfortunately he doesn't change his password, which leads me to guess he's been whipped by the poon-tang

    Edit: to the real QE2, I'm sorry dude, but I can't let pro-Islamist propaganda be allowed to propagate on these forums without an emphatic counterattack. I do like all of your other stuff
    I think you may be confusing me with someone else.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    I think you may be confusing me with someone else.
    Nope, I've got you 100%,
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Isn't it interesting, though, that the hard left attack the West when they interfere in other countries (like Iraq), when the West sanctions them and refuses to trade with them, but the hard left also goes on the attack because we don't try to undermine and topple the House of Saud.

    The mindset of most Islamists and fellow travellers is that they absolutely hate the House of Saud and attack the West for associating with it, but if the West ever tried to undermine or attack Saud they would immediately flock to the Saudi banner. All they care about is opposing the West, and where has it got them? The Middle East has been devastated by their bloodlust and sectarianism
    Yeah I mean going back further the Islamist's hatred for the West is supposedly rooted in its support of Israel, yet they were happy to get into bed with the devil and declare a Jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. That would be the very same Soviet Union who backed Syria and Egypt in the Arab-Israeli wars and whose satellite state(the GDR) supported the PLO. Al-Qaida also cited US troops near their holy ground as a reason for declaring war against the USA, yet they were there to protect them from Saddam Hussein and Bin-Laden offered his fighters to the Saudis for that purpose as well.

    The whole situation is drawn from the paranoid notion that the world is against them, just like Corbynistas who feel "the establishment" and "the media" are against them, this shared and irrational paranoia is (I suspect) why they find common ground with each other.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Yup, you're definitely not QE2. He doesn't even like going on the politics forums and usually stays on the religion forums. And then you're making other comments like that the 7/7 attacks had nothing to do with Islam... you're definitely the hard left pro-Islamist woman who sometimes gets to use his account, no doubt about it.
    Do you mean this?...

    Good point. Only attacks claimed by ISIS kill and maim and foment suspicion and division. The 7/7 attacks had nothing to do with Islamism and violent jihad.
    The bombers even left videos where they specifically stated that their actions had nothing to do with Islam or martyrdom, and contained no Islamist imagery or references to Allah and Muhammad.
    Sometimes, I think that a post is sooo obviously sarcasm that a little winky face or "LOL" isn't necessary.

    Apparently, I was wrong.
    :o:S
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    This. It's the element that he knew his words would get closely scrutinised yet still decided to go with something that would get certain factions foaming at the mouth.

    It's not vicious, just thick.

    And, btw, you could easily decide to interpret the words as being directed at the victims of, amongst other incidents, the 7/7 bombings. Or the lives of the servicemen and women lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. Odd how you all don't instantly jump to that thought, isn't it...?
    +1
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    We are attacking him because he is disgustingly shoehorning his far left politics on a day that is supposed to be about the victims, not about him and his extremism. And Corbyn has form for this, he always obnoxiously shoehorns his politics into these things with a churlish little bit of whataboutery.

    So when he was asked (reasonably, given his history supporting them) to condemn the IRA, he merely said "I condemn all forms of violence, including violence by the British military". When asked to condemn anti-semitism, he says "I condemn all forms of racism". It's a pathetic, immature little move that's like "I'm not going to be told what to say by anyone". It also shows how completely inflexible and dogmatic he is, and ultimately how little he cares about things like anti-semitism and people whose family members have been killed by terrorists.

    It's also very revealing how dismissive you are of their deaths. By the way, it was close to 3,000 not 2,000. But let's not allow your aching ignorance of the history of the last 15 years to get in the way, shall we? By the way, there's absolutely nohting wrong with caring more about people who are closer to you, whether family, friends or countrymen. British Muslims do that all the time; they care more about what happens in Palestine than in Peterborough. And unless you cry just as much about a random dead person as you would for your own parents, then you're hypocrite for asserting that somehow those 2,997 killed and 6,000 seriously injured should mean no more to us than anyone else in the world.
    I'm assuming you watched the recent question time show here, but he did condemn antisemitism if you'd paid attention, then condemned all forms of racism right after. What's wrong with that? The smug prick in the audience then said "why do you support Hamas who want to kill all jews", taken right out of the pro-Zionist handbook, to which Corbyn honestly replied he DID meet with them to talk about peace. And that he doesn't agree with their party policies. What would you expect him to do, take out a gun and shoot them in the head?

    And if he did do a remembrance tweet of those who died post 9/11 on a different day as you suggested, I'm sure you'd criticise him for that too, saying how dare he "equate 9/11" to the Iraqi deaths that followed, due to your xenophobic political stance. Don't deny it.

    There's no two ways around it with people like you, you just don't want the left in any position of power, ever.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Many of his followers probably think the Jews did it...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    He just couldn't bring himself to memorialise their death without shoehorning in some anti-Western crap

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b0d45ff8722418

    It's because of nonsense like this that he'll never be Prime Minister. He's simply incapable of behaving like a normal person.
    Not sure what you expected to be honest. He's not going to suddenly alter his anti-Western, terrorist-sympathising paradigm over night. It's everything he stands for. Still, completely classless*
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    So you're complaining about a politician tweeting something that was very slightly political?

    I can't say I like Corbyn or Labour, but the hate campaign against the man is getting ridiculous.
    Slightly political? He yeah-butted a memorial to a terrorist attack. You can't defend that. What's wrong with you?*
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    Criticising the War on Terror is 'nonsense' and 'crap'? Let's get one thing straight: 9/11 was a bad thing, an attack on innocent people.But it's not even in the same league of evil as the War on Terror, the worst calamity of the 21st Century so far. And I'm not trying to defend terrorists: I am against terrorism in all its forms. Sometimes when you try to fight fire with fire, all you get is more fire. And the War on Terror wasn't so much fighting fire with fire, as finding out that your chip pan is on fire, then going to your neighbour's house, shooting them in the head, stealing their jewelry and credit card, then uprooting the mains gas pipe and blowing your whole street to kingdom come to cover the evidence of your crime.
    This isn't the time or the place for that. He has 364 days of the year to s lag off America and call them the bad guys. It's like speaking to memorialise the victims of Hiroshima on its anniversary and goimg " rest in peace to the victims of the bomb....but also the Chinese the Japanese massacred during the war."

    Drop that crap for 2 seconds and have some respect*
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    The whole "West attacking Islam" narrative in nonsensical as well.

    It clearly ignores the fact that NATO's last two interventions pre-2001 were to prevent genocide and ethnic cleansing against Muslims.
    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. In a way though, if it proves anything, it proves that the US grip on global media has some big holes in it and one is the Middle East. The other thing is that there is some truth in the narrative from a historical perspective, because the West has long sponsored and defended the Arab plutocracies in Saudi and the Gulf that are indescribably corrupt and anti-progressive.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Do you mean this?...

    Apparently, I was wrong.
    :o:S
    Yup, you're definitely a girl and displaying the same sort of airhead-y mentality we saw last time his account was taken over.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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. In a way though, if it proves anything, it proves that the US grip on global media has some big holes in it and one is the Middle East.
    Yeah and then you've got the far-right nutters who lapped up the Islamist rhetoric and think every Muslim wants to kill us, when most just want to get on with life. So both sets of fruitcakes fuel each other's nonsense.

    The other thing is that there is some truth in the narrative from a historical perspective, because the West has long sponsored and defended the Arab plutocracies in Saudi and the Gulf that are indescribably corrupt and anti-progressive.
    I wouldn't say this is connected to religion though, just oil and who happens to be sitting on it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Yup, you're definitely a girl and displaying the same sort of airhead-y mentality we saw last time his account was taken over.
    Are you high? WTF you on about? When was my account taken over? Link to some posts.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    This isn't the time or the place for that. He has 364 days of the year to s lag off America and call them the bad guys. It's like speaking to memorialise the victims of Hiroshima on its anniversary and goimg " rest in peace to the victims of the bomb....but also the Chinese the Japanese massacred during the war."

    Drop that crap for 2 seconds and have some respect*
    That is not a valid comparison. Hiroshima came at the end of WW2 and memorialising its victims is remembering a historic event. But 9/11 is not a historic event. Until George Bush and Tony Blair are convicted for the war crimes they used 9/11 to justify, and until NATO works to heal rather than destroy the Middle East, 9/11 is a current affairs issue. A better comparison is WW1 in 1930s Germany: a tragic recent event which must at all costs be defended against hijackers trying to create an even more tragic event.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    putting on the same level terrorist organisations and democratic States (whatever their defaults) is terminally absurd
    What is terminally absurd is thinking that democracy has anything whatsoever to do with foreign policy, let alone that it excuses state-sponsored terrorism. Foreign policy exists in a totally separate domain to democracy, because there isn't a voting populace in the world which gives a damn about people in other countries to the extent that they would be prepared to oppose a foreign war at the expense of damaging their own prosperity (the sole exception being the Scottish electorate. We are the ancient Greece of the modern world, the shining light of reason and hope for a better future).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    Foreign policy exists in a totally separate domain to democracy,
    wrong. Governments in democratic States are judged by their electorate also on the basis of their foreign policy
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    because there isn't a voting populace in the world which gives a damn about people in other countries to the extent that they would be prepared to oppose a foreign war at the expense of damaging their own prosperity (the sole exception being the Scottish electorate. We are the ancient Greece of the modern world, the shining light of reason and hope for a better future).
    I didn't know that La-la Land was in Scotland. Thanks for informing us

    best
 
 
 
Poll
Do you have exam superstitions?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.