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

Corbyn insults 9/11 victims

    Offline

    2
    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. 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.
    If by the first incident you mean the 1991 Gulf War then you'd be totally wrong; that conflict went a heck of a lot better than anyone dared to dream about. It clearly demonstrated the superiority of Western military technology & tactics over Soviet era doctrine & weaponry. Apparently, one of the reasons that the Coalition didn't go all the way to Baghdad in 1991 was because they suspected that Saddam was only thing keeping Iraq together & therefore removing him could be counter productive even if you could argue it was ethical after the use of chemical weapons on his own population. Obviously, Bush junior thought differently & I agree with the rest of your post regarding the 2003 conflict.

    I think the problem is with Western foreign policy towards nations like Saudi Arabia comes from oil but I'd also say that Western leaders acknowledged during the Cold War & beyond that they needed at least some allies in the Middle East. The problem is that there aren't that many "good" ones to choose from, only the best of the worst. With the natural tension between Iran & Saudi Arabia due to Sunni & Shia divides, it makes sense for the West to ally itself with the KSA (although I imagine oil & the wealth of that nation also made it very attractive also) after the Iranian Revolution.
    The issue is that we're still stuck supporting Middle Eastern countries now who don't share our view of the world; some even provide directly to rebel groups who actively fight against the Western backed groups but also are opposed to ISIS. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of arms, including advanced Russian/Chinese produced MANPADS, being channeled into places like Libya by the Gulf states to rebel groups.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Bachar and Saddam were doing a fine job killing their own people before the American invasion of Irak. Blaming them for all the deaths that have occurred in this area is slightly exaggerated.
    This is an interesting point. How many of their own people would Assad and Saddam have killed if left to their own devices? Saddam had already undertaken an attempted genocide of the Kurdish people killing over 100,000 and was in the process of committing genocide against the Madan people . The Assad family have a history of putting down brutally any uprisings, such as the 1982 Hama massacre where up to 40,000 civilians were massacred. With the arrival of the Arab spring, both of these leaders would have had no qualms killing as many people as possible in order to quash the Arab spring.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    9/11 is not a historic event
    and I am Lady Gaga
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-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/commenti...-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.
    Offline

    2
    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.
    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.*
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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?*
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Neither was Chairman Mao. What's your point?*
    Do not insult Jezza like that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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*
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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*
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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. *
    *
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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?*
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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-...orture-record/
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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...rnalist-2016-6
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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...rnalist-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.
 
 
 
Poll
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?
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.