Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Corbyn's cultists cried, shrieked and whined in the Commons the other day, using up valuable debate time on Syria to demand an apology from the Prime Minister. What is entirely unclear, apart from why Corbo's hurt feelings should take precedence over actual debate, is precisely why the Prime Minister should apologise.

    Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser. His record on that could not be clearer. In the 1980s the journal he was editing, in the aftermath of the Brighton hotel bombing that killed an MP, a Conservative party chair and the wives of three others, published the "joke"; "What do you call four dead Tories? A start.". The same journal praised the attack and gave succour to further IRA outrages.

    Corbyn spoke at numerous events hosted by the Irish Republican Army during the "armed struggle", and even called for a minute's silence to commemorate dead IRA operatives killed an a Counter-Terrorism operation. Corbyn praised Hamas and their "dedication to peace and social justice".

    He took wads of cash from the governments of Qatar and Iran, two of the worst state sponsors of terror, on the sunni and shi'a side respectively. He opposed the Anglo-Irish accords in the 1980s that was the seminal step towards the Good Friday Accord that ended the conflict. In fact, he opposed every measure that finally forced the IRA to put down their weapons and come to the negotiating table.

    The man's record on terrorism is obscene, the PM has nothing to apologise for.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    The PM basically labelled everyone against bombing a terrorist sympathiser. He said 'Corbyn and terrorist sympathisers' not 'Corbyn the terrorist sympathiser'. Saying that everyone against bombing is a terrorist sympathiser does need an apology.

    Also on your Qatar/Iran point it's highly hypocritical to criticise JC for that when Cameron is bowing and scraping to Saudi. He might want to rethink next time he spouts stuff like that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Christ, why do you care? Live your life instead of getting caught up in this political *******s
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Have a day off mate
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    The PM basically labelled everyone against bombing a terrorist sympathiser. He said 'Corbyn and terrorist sympathisers' not 'Corbyn the terrorist sympathiser'. Saying that everyone against bombing is a terrorist sympathiser does need an apology.
    He didn't say that anyone who opposed it was a terrorist sympathiser. He asked his MPs not to walk through the lobbies with Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers. It is clear who he is referring to; Corbyn, MaoDonnell and others in the Corbyn clique.

    Anybody with even a basic understanding of the English language would be able to parse the correct meaning from the words. Do you deny Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser?

    Also on your Qatar/Iran point it's highly hypocritical to criticise JC for that when Cameron is bowing and scraping to Saudi. He might want to rethink next time he spouts stuff like that.
    Actually no, it makes you (and he) a hypocrite. I criticise both Cameron and Corbyn for their involvement with middle eastern governments. The difference is that Cameron has never personally taken money from those people, what he is doing is in his capacity as Prime Minister consistent with the long-term policy of this country viz. the Gulf States.

    Corbyn criticises Cameron and others for our national relationship with the House of Saud when he personally pocketed money from Qatar and Iran. That makes him a massive hypocrite, and it's frankly odious that you're incapable of seeing how disgusting that is.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zaclowton)
    Have a day off mate
    What does that even mean? I know the Corbo cultists are pretty desperate at this point, but as far as responses go it's pretty weak given that, aside from yesterday, I haven't posted anything on TSR for weeks.

    Perhaps it should be read as, "I lack the wit and intellect to respond in a substantive way"
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TornadoGR4)
    Christ, why do you care?
    Why do I care that the leader of my party is a terrorist sympathiser? Hmmm. That's a tough one.

    Live your life instead of getting caught up in this political *******s
    Isn't that a slightly odd comment given you've spent every day of the last two weeks commenting on TSR on this kind of stuff?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woIfie)
    What does that even mean? I know the Corbo cultists are pretty desperate at this point, but as far as responses go it's pretty weak given that, aside from yesterday, I haven't posted anything on TSR for weeks.

    Perhaps it should be read as, "I lack the wit and intellect to respond in a substantive way"
    It means you need to chill the **** out spouting political bull**** on TSR.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zaclowton)
    It means you need to chill the **** out spouting political bull**** on TSR.
    Calm down, dear. I'm allowed to post a couple of times every few weeks on TSR. If it upsets you, don't read it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woIfie)
    Why do I care that the leader of my party is a terrorist sympathiser? Hmmm. That's a tough one.



    Isn't that a slightly odd comment given you've spent every day of the last two weeks commenting on TSR on this kind of stuff?
    Lmao 'your party'. Yeah, I'm sure you're an MP.

    Most of my posts are in football or miscellaneous threads dotted about around the site. Though the fact I work for the government means I should have some kind of interest in current affairs involving the military. Appreciate you looking through my posts though x
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woIfie)
    He didn't say that anyone who opposed it was a terrorist sympathiser. He asked his MPs not to walk through the lobbies with Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers. It is clear who he is referring to; Corbyn, MaoDonnell and others in the Corbyn clique.

    Anybody with even a basic understanding of the English language would be able to parse the correct meaning from the words. Do you deny Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser?

    Actually no, it makes you (and he) a hypocrite. I criticise both Cameron and Corbyn for their involvement with middle eastern governments. The difference is that Cameron has never personally taken money from those people, what he is doing is in his capacity as Prime Minister consistent with the long-term policy of this country viz. the Gulf States.

    Corbyn criticises Cameron and others for our national relationship with the House of Saud when he personally pocketed money from Qatar and Iran. That makes him a massive hypocrite, and it's frankly odious that you're incapable of seeing how disgusting that is.
    The implication was that people who opposed bombing was a terrorist sympathiser. Of course, it's all down to interpretation, people interpret things in different ways and the way you and I interpreted it is clearly different.

    When did I ever say anything re: the bolded text? I've never defended JC's views or opinions on these things; the only things I've ever actually said on these topics are when people have taken what he said out of context and made it worse than it was (although what he said was already kinda bad). I've never pretended the man's perfect, nor have I ever so much as implied that I believe he's the most perfect man who has ever walked this earth, which is what you seem to be saying about me. I can support someone yet still criticise them for their actions I don't agree with. I can also criticise DC's actions re: Saudi because I personally find it disgusting how he can go on about stuff like this and support a nation that uses the death penalty for homosexuality and is more likely than not supporting ISIS financially. Surprisingly, my views aren't as black and white as you seem to be making out.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TornadoGR4)
    Lmao 'your party'. Yeah, I'm sure you're an MP.
    I'm a member of the Labour Party. Therefore, "my party". Surely it's not that difficult a concept? I suppose it wouldn't be for someone of average intelligence.

    Most of my posts are in football or miscellaneous threads dotted about around the site
    I'm really not sure why you think I care? I looked on your history, you comment all day every day on TSR. Which makes your whining about my comment bizarre and boorish.

    Though the fact I work for the government means I should have some kind of interest in current affairs involving the military
    It's really not that important for cleaners and porters at the MoD have an interest in current affairs. Though, the idea that people outside Whitehall shouldn't have an interest in current affairs, even military affairs, is pretty funny in and of itself.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woIfie)
    I'm a member of the Labour Party.
    I'm curious as to why so many Labour Party members are so hell bent on the party's self-destruction. As long as the in-fighting and *****ing continues along the lines of your post, you will not have a hope of winning the next election.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    The implication was that people who opposed bombing was a terrorist sympathiser. Of course, it's all down to interpretation, people interpret things in different ways and the way you and I interpreted it is clearly different.
    No, the clear implication was that his MPs shouldn't embarrass themselves by walking through the lobbies with terrorist sympathisers. He didn't say "If you walk through the No lobby you will be a terrorist sympathiser", he was saying that it was disreputable to walk through the same lobby as such people.

    I've never pretended the man's perfect, nor have I ever so much as implied that I believe he's the most perfect man who has ever walked this earth, which is what you seem to be saying about me.
    You would deny that's clearly what many of his supporters believe about him? And given he clearly does hold himself out as a great moral teacher and exemplar, then he has to be whiter than the driven snow. His previous relationship with the governments of Qatar and Iran (taking money from them to act as a propaganda mouthpiece), his close friendship with (in his words, "my good friend" ) Ibrahim Hewitt who said that gay people and adulterers should be put to death, these are unforgivable

    I can support someone yet still criticise them for their actions I don't agree with. I can also criticise DC's actions re: Saudi because I personally find it disgusting how he can go on about stuff like this and support a nation that uses the death penalty for homosexuality and is more likely than not supporting ISIS financially. Surprisingly, my views aren't as black and white as you seem to be making out.
    Well, I'm pleased you have said that. Many Corbynites I've encountered have simply responded that it's okay for Corbyn to do it because other politicians do similar things (though I'm unaware of any other British politicians who have directly accepted money from Gulf States or the Iranian government). Frankly, I don't see how any person of principle could accept that blood money
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quantex)
    I'm curious as to why so many Labour Party members are so hell bent on the party's self-destruction. As long as the in-fighting and *****ing continues along the lines of your post, you will not have a hope of winning the next election.
    What will destroy the party is Corbyn and his cultists. Corbyn is now the most unpopular opposition leader in history. Labour is now consistently 8 or 9 points behind the conservatives, 13 points in some polls.

    Labour has no hope of winning the next election if it goes to it with Corbyn, it could well be the end of the party. On the other hand, if Corbyn can be pushed out, and a strong and sensible frontbench of slate can be put together (my ideal slate, Hilary Benn for leader, Dan Jarvis for Deputy + Foreign Sec, Eagle for Chancellor, Watson for Home Sec, Burnham Defence, Chuka Business, Tristram Education and Keir Starmer Lord Chancellor), then Labour has an exceptionally good chance at the next election.

    If anything, there will be a honeymoon amongst moderates if such a leadership group is put together; the contrast as against the chaos and far left mania of the Corbyn era would be palpable.

    Allowing Corbyn to continue in power is simply out of the question. The only reason I remain a party member is the knowledge that people will need to be there to pick up the pieces when the Trotskyite circus moves on.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woIfie)
    No, the clear implication was that his MPs shouldn't embarrass themselves by walking through the lobbies with terrorist sympathisers. He didn't say "If you walk through the No lobby you will be a terrorist sympathiser", he was saying that it was disreputable to walk through the same lobby as such people.



    You would deny that's clearly what many of his supporters believe about him? And given he clearly does hold himself out as a great moral teacher and exemplar, then he has to be whiter than the driven snow. His previous relationship with the governments of Qatar and Iran (taking money from them to act as a propaganda mouthpiece), his close friendship with (in his words, "my good friend" Ibrahim Hewitt who said that gay people and adulterers should be put to death



    Well, I'm pleased you have said that. Many Corbynites I've encountered have simply responded that it's okay for Corbyn to do it because other politicians do similar things (though I'm unaware of any other British politicians who have directly accepted money from Gulf States or the Iranian government). Frankly, I don't see how any person of principle could accept that blood money
    Yes, because through guilt by association they would have the same label. And also there's the negative connotation he enforced - don't walk through the no lobby with the terrorist sympathisers, i.e. the two are related.

    Definitely not, but I wouldn't deny that people who support Nigel Farage deny that he's a sexist, racist, homophobic tw*t. You get people like that from all parties.
    I'm not really a fan of moral absolutism; if you're going to go with the idea that everyone who's significant, either because they've held themselves to that ideal or because we've lauded them to that, has to be perfect, you have no one left. The good that someone does in the world isn't always automatically negated by the bad; look at Martin Luther King, who cheated on his wife, or Ghandi, who was pretty creepy and slept naked with young girls. You can do bad things and be a good person, like you can do good things and be a bad person. There's a mix of the two in everyone; no one is one or the other imo.

    Cannot deal with tribalism. Like I said before, no one's perfect, and ignoring someone's faults because you agree with the majority of the things they say/do is naive.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    I'm not really a fan of moral absolutism; if you're going to go with the idea that everyone who's significant, either because they've held themselves to that ideal or because we've lauded them to that, has to be perfect, you have no one left.
    I myself completely agree with that sentiment. The far left does not. They expect politicians to be absolutely perfect, and Corbyn has been part of that mindset. I mean, the Stop the War coalition went and protested against the Labour Party last week ffs. They have their man in the leadership, and if he doesn't do exactly what they want, they denounce him.

    Corbyn has been part of that mindset; it's a matter of live by the sword, die by the sword. If Corbyn was the sort of person who said, "Well, being in government is tremendously complex. There are always shades of gray, almost everything you do will displease someone" then I might have some sympathy for him. But he doesn't; he has been at the forefront of the faction that claim that everything is a conspiracy, that any politician who doesn't do precisely what they demand is not just wrong but evil/immoral. They have set up a tremendously high standard, and it is not at all improper to hold them to the standard to which they hold others.

    The good that someone does in the world isn't always automatically negated by the bad; look at Martin Luther King, who cheated on his wife, or Ghandi, who was pretty creepy and slept naked with young girls. You can do bad things and be a good person, like you can do good things and be a bad person. There's a mix of the two in everyone; no one is one or the other imo.
    I think there's a big difference between such personal failings, and Corbyn's repeated choice to associate himself with men of violence, to associate himself with people who call for the death of homosexuals.

    It would be like if someone is close friends with a Ku Klux Klan leader. That person is certainly free to have such a friendship, but they shouldn't then pretend they are some great friend of the black community. You make your choices about how important such associations are. Corbyn and his supporters astonishingly claim this high moral ground in every sphere. When you actually tally it up, it is very clear that Corbyn chooses violence over peace, that he chooses murderous homophobia over standing up for gay rights
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woIfie)
    It's really not that important for cleaners and porters at the MoD have an interest in current affairs. Though, the idea that people outside Whitehall shouldn't have an interest in current affairs, even military affairs, is pretty funny in and of itself.
    Mate it's not hard to be on TSR on my phone whilst watching TV. You make it seem like it's an effort to post daily on here. It isn't.

    Naturally that'll go down when my leave is over & I go back to my job as a professional serving member of the Royal Air Force. Little bit more than just a cleaner you see.

    Though this sorta tells me what kind of person you are if you consider a cleaner or a porter to be insignificant and beneath you.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TornadoGR4)
    Naturally that'll go down when my leave is over & I go back to my job as a professional serving member of the Royal Air Force. Little bit more than just a cleaner you see.
    Transferred in through the Asda fast track, eh?

    I have quite a few friends in the forces and in the MoD. Unlike you, they despise ISIL and they see how much of a threat Corbyn and his sympathiser friends are to the security of this country.

    In any case, your tacit contention that only those in the forces are permitted to have an interest in current affairs and military/security policy is bizarre and betrays a massively inflated sense of self-regard
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woIfie)
    Transferred in through the Asda fast track, eh?

    I have quite a few friends in the forces and in the MoD. Unlike you, they despise ISIL and they see how much of a threat Corbyn and his sympathiser friends are to the security of this country.
    Yeah, they let anyone in these days. Find it hard to believe you have friends. How do you know I don't despise ISIS? I don't think many join that are fond of them tbh
 
 
 

1,228

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
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

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.