Corbyn insults 9/11 victims

Announcements
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    Massive redress of economic inequality and policies such as nationalization of rail
    You've just revealed your (typical) Corbynite ignorance. You people say things like,. "Previous Labour leaders weren't true socialists; Corbyn is. Look, he plans to nationalise the railways".

    Err, Miliband did too. Unfortunately left-wing conspiracy morons didn't pay attention to politics before May 2015, and then suddenly any policy idea Corbyn takes from Miliband they think it's new because they have absolutely no idea what came before.

    No it's not new, you're just revealing how politically ignorant and utterly clueless you are. And how obnoxious in thinking somehow you people are true pioneers, when in fact there's really not that much different from what Miliband did.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    You've just revealed your (typical) Corbynite ignorance. You people say things like,. "Previous Labour leaders weren't true socialists; Corbyn is. Look, he plans to nationalise the railways".

    Err, Miliband did too. Unfortunately left-wing conspiracy morons didn't pay attention to politics before May 2015, and then suddenly any policy idea Corbyn takes from Miliband they think it's new because they have absolutely no idea what came before.

    No it's not new, you're just revealing how politically ignorant and utterly clueless you are. And how obnoxious in thinking somehow you people are true pioneers, when in fact there's really not that much different from what Miliband did.
    still interested in "real, productive discussion" I see? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    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.
    you are dramatizing things, and you have too much time on your hands

    good night
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Must admit, it doesnt look too good. All he needs to do now is knee a dwarf in the face, and it's curtains.
    The cult would have called the drawf a Blairite red Tory scum bag and applauded Corbyn for it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    you are dramatizing things, and you have too much time on your hands.
    Lol. As it happens, I am (among other things) a non-fiction writer, so writing dramaticised political diatribes is a pretty productive use of my time.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    You've just revealed your (typical) Corbynite ignorance. You people say things like,. "Previous Labour leaders weren't true socialists; Corbyn is. Look, he plans to nationalise the railways".

    Err, Miliband did too. Unfortunately left-wing conspiracy morons didn't pay attention to politics before May 2015, and then suddenly any policy idea Corbyn takes from Miliband they think it's new because they have absolutely no idea what came before.

    No it's not new, you're just revealing how politically ignorant and utterly clueless you are. And how obnoxious in thinking somehow you people are true pioneers, when in fact there's really not that much different from what Miliband did.
    And all from someone who complains about Corbyn's alleged lack of respect for others. Are you being deliberately ironic, or is your hypocrisy genuine?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    The cult would have called the drawf a Blairite red Tory scum bag and applauded Corbyn for it.
    He's not that bad. He wouldn't sing GSTQ, so he can do no wrong in my book. And he looks like a kindly old geography teacher.
    Leave him alone!
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snufkin)
    Not the worst thing he's ever said, but there is an element of naivety about this tweet.



    You're not a Tory, are you? :afraid: The campaign against him is no more ridiculous (and far less vitriolic) than Momentum's campaign against so-called 'Blairite' (read: centre-left) Labour supporters.
    Bull....****.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    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. *
    *
    You literally have a username dedicated to a shite footballer. Imagine thinking anyone would take you seriously.

    I didn't state millions were killed, but over a million have if you take into account the unrest in the region that Iraq caused.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    And all from someone who complains about Corbyn's alleged lack of respect for others. Are you being deliberately ironic, or is your hypocrisy genuine?
    It's not disrespectful to tell the truth about someone. If you have a racist, and someone else calls them a racist, they are not both equally in the wrong. The racist has done something wrong, the person who calls him out hasn't.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    You've just revealed your (typical) Corbynite ignorance. You people say things like,. "Previous Labour leaders weren't true socialists; Corbyn is. Look, he plans to nationalise the railways".

    Err, Miliband did too. Unfortunately left-wing conspiracy morons didn't pay attention to politics before May 2015, and then suddenly any policy idea Corbyn takes from Miliband they think it's new because they have absolutely no idea what came before.

    No it's not new, you're just revealing how politically ignorant and utterly clueless you are. And how obnoxious in thinking somehow you people are true pioneers, when in fact there's really not that much different from what Miliband did.
    'You people'. Attributing statements that some other supposed demographic a I belong to said is not a great argument. I've never said anything of the sort.
    It is however, a disingenuous argument to set up thifs thing about previous left leaders. Of course I knew about Miliband, I also know how the press treated him, as they treat anyone in this country on the economic left because of it's fundamental class-interest mentality. Don't argue with me based on points that couldn't be more different to ones I believe. I've been on about it on here, how Miliband was covered. I've also heard some people on the Blairite wing, and I do0n't know if that's you, setting up odd obtuse comparisons between Foot and Corbyn, it's this attempt to prove that these people now are all just new additions from an extreme position. Totally false because record numbers don't indicate that, they indicate an end to political apathy that is quite mainstream. But anyhow, it's highly disingenuous to set up such past left leaders in support of their case.
    There is no way, in the above example, that that person would have had the time of day for Foot were he around now, or going up against Blair, and there's no way the Blairites had time for Benn, who was highly respected and as a firmly anti-EU, charismatic person, could have been the type to gain a lot of traction right now. So it's a self-deceiving argument and what I'm saying is nothing to do with Corbyns competence as a leader, it is that so many people do, whether indirectyl, tacitly, or directly, want to destroy the arguments of the left, they want to give up on their electability, and they want their cake and eat it, want to feel good and left wing whilst denying to themselves what a puppet the likely 'electable' candidate will be and a veil for the status quo. Because they will be 'electable' because of the fundamental structures of this country, the mentality, and the media, and they don't want to change them.

    You can't attribute these arguments about Benn, Foot, Miliband etc against me because I support all of them unlike Blair, and many on your side want to deny that you would never give the time of day to them with to climate.he political and media climate.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    It's not disrespectful to tell the truth about someone. If you have a racist, and someone else calls them a racist, they are not both equally in the wrong. The racist has done something wrong, the person who calls him out hasn't.
    OK, your hypocrisy is clearly not deliberate. Corbyn looked at the wider context of 9/11 (As you said yourself, "it's not disrespectful to tell the truth") but did not call the victims anything disrespectful and you term that as an 'insult'.
    Then on the same thread you mention "... your (typical) Corbynite ignorance.... left-wing conspiracy morons didn't pay attention to politics before May 2015.... how politically ignorant and utterly clueless you are... how obnoxious..."

    By your standards, telling the truth is fine, unless it's Corbyn in which case it's an insult. And insulting people is wrong, unless, apparently, it's you who is doing the name-calling, in which case it's fine. I believe that satisfies the definition of a hypocrite, and reveals the actual standard of your 'debate'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    OK, your hypocrisy is clearly not deliberate. Corbyn looked at the wider context of 9/11
    It's not an attempt to provide context, it's a spurious attempt by Corbyn to create a false equivalency, to impute a moral turpitude onto America that doesn't allow them ever, even for one day, to be a victim and to grieve. He has always to be pushing his hard left foreign policy views. It's also a contrived and bogus rhetorical tactic to that seeks to characterise on the one hand 9/11, an unprovoked and vicious attack which deliberately targeted civilians in their thousands for not other reason than that they were New Yorkers / Americans, and on the other hand the Invasion of Afghanistan, a lawful and proportionate response under international law to a surprise attack. To raise what came after 9/11 brings in the nauseating implication that somehow America was asking for it or that what came after lessens the tragedy of the day.

    An analogous attempt to provide "context" would be for Corbyn to go to the Battle of Britain memorial (the one where he didn't sing the national anthem and couldn't be bothered to do up his tie... ooh, so edgy, what a rebel) and in a speech say, "I pay tribute to the RAF pilots who gave their lives to defend this country against the Luftwaffe and Hitler's attempt to bully this country into submission... and I also pay tribute to those German civilians who died in RAF bombing raids against Germany". That would be obnoxious; it would be whataboutery of the most dishonest kind.

    It would be just as obnoxious if on Holocaust Memorial day he said, "I pay respects to the memory those who died in the Holocaust.... and all the Palestinian killed by the State of Israel". Would that be improper? Or do you also believe there would be nothing wrong with that?

    By your standards, telling the truth is fine, unless it's Corbyn in which case it's an insult
    How was he "telling the truth"? He wasn't stating a disputed but factual premise; he was expressing an emotion. And he was doing so pursuant to an extremist mentality that means that America can never be considered the victim, it can never be the recipient of genuine sympathy, it can never reflect on its own grief and loss, without having a hard left critique to follow it up to remind them of their alleged awfulness.

    The 9/11 victims and their families didn't kill people in the Middle East. They didn't make decisions about America's response. And ultimately their deaths are not comparable morally to civilians who were inadvertently and unintentionally killed in the US operation to topple the Taliban and clear out the Al-Qaeda training camps.

    A person who doesn't intuitively understand why what he said is ugly and dogmatic is a person who is wholly lacking in class, decency, empathy and emotional intelligence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    If you shoot someone in the head and steal their jewelry and credit card and blow up their house, the least you can do is take care of their children. Being orphaned and watching your parents being blown apart tends to make a person 'sad'.
    The problem is that it also makes them want to shoot us in the head, steal our jewelry and credit card and blow up our house.

    Why are so many refugees adult males? So much so that it causes a problem with sexual assault, to the point where the Germans have to start handing out guides to pulling German women to men who have left their poor sad children at home?

    We'd do more to aid the 'caring for their children' by sending them back to do so.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    It's not even close to "millions".

    And yes, they should be remembered. On any other day than 9/11
    Why? 9/11 marks a historic moment and a turning point in history that started a cycle of death and destruction. Why shouldn't that be recognised? Many innocents were lost that day and many more were lost as a result of the conflict's spawned from it. These are all connected and all these lives matter.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zayn008)
    Ugh. This is disgusting, it's a day to remember the tragedies caused by terrorists and remember their lives. Does he really think it's appropriate to link the death of the victims to the failures of Bush? Is that what he wants their legacy to be? Great way to pay respect. I hate him
    9/11 was a tragedy but so is the fact that as a direct result of it there have been hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed by allied forces as a result of action taken in response to 9/11.

    Of course nobody who died in the 9/11 attacks asked to be killed but none of the innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan who were killed by drone strikes or bombs or foreign soldiers asked to be killed either.

    The death of every single person, anywhere in the world, who has died as a direct result of action taken in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks is just as tragic as the death of anybody who died in the attacks themselves.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Oh who cares. the man can't wake up the morning without you yobos bashing him over the head for something.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by green.tea)
    The problem is that it also makes them want to shoot us in the head, steal our jewelry and credit card and blow up our house.

    Why are so many refugees adult males?
    Because women and children are not so capable of making long dangerous journeys, and asylum rules in many European countries stipulate that if a man makes it here and his application is accepted, his family recieve safe passage over here. Not all migrants have families back home, but a very sizeable proportion do.

    I've met many migrants and I can assure you the vast majority just want to live in a country where they aren't at risk of being bombed or forced to fight for people like ISIS or Assad, they have no interest in attacking innocent civilians.

    We'd do more to aid the 'caring for their children' by sending them back to do so.
    If they go back, they are at risk of being killed. Over 10% of the Syrian population have been made casualties of the war, either killed or seriously injured. If you live in a danger area that figure goes up even further. And many of them don't have anywhere to go back to, their houses have been destroyed or they've been forced out of them. And if they come here, as I say above, they can often bring their children here too. Even if they can't, they can get a job here and send money back: some families are relatively safe in refugee camps or neighbouring countries, but they have no future there as provision for education and employment is virtually non-existent.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 22, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Would you prefer to be told about sex by your:
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.