Turn on thread page Beta

Al-Corbyn in foreign policy rant, gets things very wrong. watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Jeremy Al-Corbyn in an anti-American rant, seems to not have a clue what he's talking about. (surprise, surprise)

    At 0:44 he says that the US has destroyed and used up its own resources and is having to go further and further away looking for oil etc

    Does this blithering idiot not know that America is not only heading for complete energy independence, but will become a huge exporter?

    This guy is genuinely unhinged.

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    'Jeremy Al-Corbyn' and you call him unhinged?
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    He's not an idiot: he probably does know but he knows that the Russell brand generation will lap it up anyway.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    'Jeremy Al-Corbyn' and you call him unhinged?
    This :lol:
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Law-Hopeful)
    This :lol:
    To be fair, OP's idiotic hyperbolic comments aside some of Corbyn's comments are pretty stupid. His ability to link a nuclear arsenal to lectures on democracy and the state of Healthcare in America is just bizarre rhetoric. As well as talking about America destroying it's own resources?

    I also think comparing a reaction in Norway to the deaths of 77 people to 3000 dead in America, an attack on one of the worlds most iconic cities and the existence of a global terror threat is perverse.

    I mean really, NATO drains are welfare spending? Has he ever looked at the budget of the NHS (Before we even get into the wider welfare state) in comparison to the military, the whole military not just NATO contributions?

    I don't like insulting politicians, I like to imagine the majority do want what is best for the country. But when Corbyn makes speeches like this I could see him destroying this country just to appease his warped world view.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    'Jeremy Al-Corbyn' and you call him unhinged?
    The TSR lunatics are hilarious, but they really do reach a new level of idiocy when they start suggesting that just because Corbyn does not follow the Tony
    Blair neo-liberal script sheet means that he is essentially an apologist for terrorism.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by YellowWallpaper)
    The TSR lunatics are hilarious, but they really do reach a new level of idiocy when they start suggesting that just because Corbyn does not follow the Tony
    Blair neo-liberal script sheet means that he is essentially an apologist for terrorism.
    No, he is an apologist for terrorism because he associates with known terrorists and supports terrorist groups.

    Hamas, Gerry Adams... the list goes on.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cacra)
    No, he is an apologist for terrorism because he associates with known terrorists and supports terrorist groups.

    Hamas, Gerry Adams... the list goes on.
    He believes you have to have these groups (however deplorable they are) at the table if you want an agreement or things to change. Read about Gershon Baskin, the Israeli who enabled the release of Gilad Shalit by negotiating with Hamas, or for example when the British negotiated with the IRA. That's not the same e as supporting these groups. It's called being a realist. The people of Gaza elected Hamas. You can't ignore that. I'm also sure that the UK at one point negotiated with Hamas for the release of a UK citizen.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LockheedSpooky)
    JeremyAl-Corbyn
    Youve got a mental problem lol
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by YellowWallpaper)
    He believes you have to have these groups (however deplorable they are) at the table if you want an agreement or things to change. Read about Gershon Baskin, the Israeli who enabled the release of Gilad Shalit by negotiating with Hamas, or for example when the British negotiated with the IRA. That's not the same e as supporting these groups. It's called being a realist. The people of Gaza elected Hamas. You can't ignore that. I'm also sure that the UK at one point negotiated with Hamas for the release of a UK citizen.
    He supports 'returning' Northern Ireland to ROI. That isn't bringing terrorists to the table, that is surrendering to the terrorists.

    His position with regards to Israel, i.e supporting a boycott of Israel, is not bringing undesirables to the table, it is persecuting perhaps the most repressed people in the history of the world.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    He's not an idiot: he probably does know but he knows that the Russell brand generation will lap it up anyway.
    they won't make him prime minister.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cacra)
    He supports 'returning' Northern Ireland to ROI. That isn't bringing terrorists to the table, that is surrendering to the terrorists.
    With a referendum? If they could self-determine it would be hard to argue against wouldn't it?

    And are you talking about the Israelis being repressed?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cacra)
    He supports 'returning' Northern Ireland to ROI. That isn't bringing terrorists to the table, that is surrendering to the terrorists.

    His position with regards to Israel, i.e supporting a boycott of Israel, is not bringing undesirables to the table, it is persecuting perhaps the most repressed people in the history of the world.
    Not really surrendering to terrorists when he actually agrees with their ideas. Also there are unionist terrorists so all unionist politicians must be surrendering to them.

    Yes, we all know the fact Jews have historically been persecuted but this does not give Israel the right to illegally blockade Gaza and treat palestinians as second class citizens.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cacra)
    He supports 'returning' Northern Ireland to ROI.
    As do the SDLP and every political party in the Republic of Ireland - indeed, the Irish constitution officially supports and obligates all Irish governments to work towards unification (though it has been reworded as part of the GFA).

    That isn't bringing terrorists to the table, that is surrendering to the terrorists.
    So agreeing with the end goal of terrorists means you are "surrendering to the terrorists"?

    Suppose a terrorist group sprung up in Saudi Arabia or North Korea, perpetrating acts of terrorism with the stated aim and goal of bringing about democratic countries with constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. By your logic, would actually introducing these things now be "surrendering to the terrorists"?

    His position with regards to Israel, i.e supporting a boycott of Israel, is not bringing undesirables to the table, it is persecuting perhaps the most repressed people in the history of the world.
    Aside from anything else, a state =/= a people.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)


    Aside from anything else, a state =/= a people.
    Don't be absurd. When a country boycotts a state, it is the people who suffer. Just ask Iran.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by YellowWallpaper)
    He believes you have to have these groups (however deplorable they are) at the table if you want an agreement or things to change.
    Did he ever invite the BNP or the older NF to the table? or the Rabid Zionists he claims to hate so much

    you see this argument only works if he invited everyone to the table and not just the local jihadis and the IRA
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cacra)
    Don't be absurd. When a country boycotts a state, it is the people who suffer. Just ask Iran.
    Yes but Jews =/= Israel
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cacra)
    Don't be absurd. When a country boycotts a state, it is the people who suffer. Just ask Iran.
    Would you have opposed the boycotts of South Africa or Rhodesia on those grounds?

    Also, you're playing bait and switch with what you mean by people here. You said that a boycott of Israel would be hurting a people. Initially, you seemed to imply you meant the Jews, but here you seem to mean simply the Israeli population, and the two are of course not the same, despite a significant overlap.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Would you have opposed the boycotts of South Africa or Rhodesia on those grounds?

    Also, you're playing bait and switch with what you mean by people here. You said that a boycott of Israel would be hurting a people. Initially, you seemed to imply you meant the Jews, but here you seem to mean simply the Israeli population, and the two are of course not the same, despite a significant overlap.
    The left wing fascist boycott of "Israel" has become a boycott of Jews, as could be seen from the recent Matisyahu situation whereby an AMERICAN Jewish performer was banned from a music festival unless he signed a statement denouncing Zionism and supporting 'palestine'.

    If that's not anti-semitic in your view, then you must be a raging racist.

    It's like barring a Muslim from Philly playing at the festival unless he signs a statement denouncing Boko Haram.

    The boycott is racist in every aspect and has proven to be so.

    Al-Corbyn, that loathsome left wing friend of militant Islam, supports it and more.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LockheedSpooky)
    The left wing fascist boycott of "Israel" has become a boycott of Jews, as could be seen from the recent Matisyahu situation whereby an AMERICAN Jewish performer was banned from a music festival unless he signed a statement denouncing Zionism and supporting 'palestine'.

    If that's not anti-semitic in your view, then you must be a raging racist.

    It's like barring a Muslim from Philly playing at the festival unless he signs a statement denouncing Boko Haram.

    The boycott is racist in every aspect and has proven to be so.

    Al-Corbyn, that loathsome left wing friend of militant Islam, supports it and more.
    Yes thats anti-semetic but its a bit like calling all rich people paedophiles it's not representitive.

    The boycott is not anti-semetic.

    Also stop using Al-Corbyn it massively devalues any point you make.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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.

Updated: August 25, 2015
Poll
Do protests make a difference in political decisions?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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