Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[sir roger]

Got to admire Campbell's front to be fair , dragging in the anti-semitism slurs as he slinks out , having seen his earlier contributions to the fight included producing election posters showing Michael Howard as Fagin & posters showing Howard and Oliver Letwin's faces over the faces of pigs.

 

When pulled up on the obvious connotations, SD's favourite martyr's apology was fulsome ' Fuck off and cover something important you twats ' he offered.

 

 

[Jose Jones]

37 minutes ago, skend04 said:

If people still believe Corbyn is the man to lead a political party, can you just translate this for all the voters who decided not to vote for Labour in the last 2 elections.

 

Asked if a second referendum was now the only way forward for the UK, Mr Corbyn said: “The referendum would be on a negotiated deal or alternatives to that. It’s not a re-run of 2016.”

 

Obfuscation wins votes...

What’s wrong with that?

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

6 minutes ago, Jose Jones said:

What’s wrong with that?

 

I think Skend is reading 'alternatives to that' as 'no deal'. But I think Corbyn is saying negotiated deal or remain. That would be consistent with what has previously been said. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

15 hours ago, moof said:

The Principles applied at Nuremberg in 1945-6 make clear that “complicity in the commission of a crime against peace … is a crime under international law”. A “crime against peace”, these Principles state, means one of two things: “(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances”; or “(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).”

 

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/INTRO/390

Nope. 

 

Do you really want to get into this? It's going to be a massive waste of time, considering both the position he held and the rest of the law - and the meaning of war criminal - but I suppose I could make a coffee and waste an hour. Or... you could just (please) say... nah, fuck it. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Nice to see that Captain Freedom negs posts about laws and rules not operating retrospectively. 

 

He's a shining example of libertarianism, negging posts championing that rules shouldn't go against all the norms of natural justice and posts about slaughtered children. 

 

What an awful human being. 

[Strontium]

1 hour ago, sir roger said:

Got to admire Campbell's front to be fair , dragging in the anti-semitism slurs as he slinks out , having seen his earlier contributions to the fight included producing election posters showing Michael Howard as Fagin & posters showing Howard and Oliver Letwin's faces over the faces of pigs.

 

When pulled up on the obvious connotations, SD's favourite martyr's apology was fulsome ' Fuck off and cover something important you twats ' he offered.

 

SD's favourite martyr? No, I don't like the guy and never have, and him being excluded from Labour unquestionably aids my party's prospects.

 

But if you only criticise unfair treatment of people you like, then you're not being principled, you're being partisan.

[Numero Veinticinco]

8 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

SD's favourite martyr? No, I don't like the guy and never have, and him being excluded from Labour unquestionably aids my party's prospects.

 

But if you only criticise unfair treatment of people you like, then you're not being principled, you're being partisan.

I question it. Leaving aside my view that you are, by a significant margin, the most partisan person on this site and possibly the most partisan person I've ever spoken to online, how does the expulsion of a single member, one as widely hated as Campbell, aid your party's prospects? 

 

Those already swayed by the 'Lib Dems are the party of remain' claptrap will already have switched. Those who know that Labour are the only chance of either a softer Brexit or remain are already voting for Labour and are unlikely to be swayed by the likes of Campbell being booted. 

 

You and those who want to stay in Europe, or at least stay in many of the important parts of it, should - if you really care about staying in Europe, and you're not partisan - should temporarily switch your vote to Labour. I'm not talking in the irrelevant European Parliamentary election, but the ones that actually make a difference to whether or not we will avoid this Brexit/No-deal disaster. 

 

For the avoidance of doubt, my question was... how does it aid the Lib Dems? 

[Pureblood]

16 hours ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

The problem is, "peace" is not a term that would be applied easily under international law to a murderous dictatorship, hence the reason interventionist wars tend not to lead to war crimes tribunals, no matter how bloody they become. If any act of force, interceding on the behalf of others, were to be considered a crime, then practically all participants in wars would be prosecuted. 

But the interventionism was built on a demonstrable lie relating to non-existent WMDs. 

 

Definite war criminals in that Labour administration.  

[Strontium]

3 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I question it. Leaving aside my view that you are, by a significant margin, the most partisan person on this site and possibly the most partisan person I've ever spoken to online, how does the expulsion of a single member, one as widely hated as Campbell, aid your party's prospects? 

 

Those already swayed by the 'Lib Dems are the party of remain' claptrap will already have switched. Those who know that Labour are the only chance of either a softer Brexit or remain are already voting for Labour and are unlikely to be swayed by the likes of Campbell being booted. 

 

You and those who want to stay in Europe, or at least stay in many of the important parts of it, should - if you really care about staying in Europe, and you're not partisan - should temporarily switch your vote to Labour. I'm not talking in the irrelevant European Parliamentary election, but the ones that actually make a difference to whether or not we will avoid this Brexit/No-deal disaster. 

 

For the avoidance of doubt, my question was... how does it aid the Lib Dems? 

 

It aids the Lib Dems because it makes Labour look like an even narrower church than before, one where dissent is increasingly not tolerated. Which is the message I'm picking up from all the people leaving Labour for us in the wake of the Campbell furore.

 

You know I don't deny being partisan, but there is a difference between being partisan and treating people in a partisan manner. Fairness is at the heart of liberalism and my beliefs.

 

Definitely not the most partisan person here though. I reckon there's a few dozen lefties who wouldn't piss on a Tory if they were on fire who are ever so slightly more partisan than me.

 

And I reject the idea that Remainers should switch their vote to a pro-Brexit party like Labour. Labour have done nothing to merit my vote. Not Being The Tories might be enough of a reason for some, but not me.

[Rico1304]

39 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

It aids the Lib Dems because it makes Labour look like an even narrower church than before, one where dissent is increasingly not tolerated. Which is the message I'm picking up from all the people leaving Labour for us in the wake of the Campbell furore.

 

You know I don't deny being partisan, but there is a difference between being partisan and treating people in a partisan manner. Fairness is at the heart of liberalism and my beliefs.

 

Definitely not the most partisan person here though. I reckon there's a few dozen lefties who wouldn't piss on a Tory if they were on fire who are ever so slightly more partisan than me.

 

And I reject the idea that Remainers should switch their vote to a pro-Brexit party like Labour. Labour have done nothing to merit my vote. Not Being The Tories might be enough of a reason for some, but not me.

I think the ones who wouldn’t drink with a Tory, couldn’t have a Tory as a friend, want to hang them from the lampposts may qualify - is it them you’re refering to? 

[moof]

2 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Nope. 

 

Do you really want to get into this? It's going to be a massive waste of time, considering both the position he held and the rest of the law - and the meaning of war criminal - but I suppose I could make a coffee and waste an hour. Or... you could just (please) say... nah, fuck it. 

He fabricated a dossier to take us into an illegal war that killed a million Iraqis, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. I honestly don’t give a fuck what you want to call it

[lifetime fan]

34 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

I think the ones who wouldn’t drink with a Tory, couldn’t have a Tory as a friend, want to hang them from the lampposts may qualify - is it them you’re refering to? 

 

I'll have a beer with you as you're hanging from a lampost mate. 

[Boss]

19 minutes ago, moof said:

He fabricated a dossier to take us into an illegal war that killed a million Iraqis, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. I honestly don’t give a fuck what you want to call it

He didn't fabricate the dossier. The dossier was re-drafted to correspond with American intelligence at the time.

[Boss]

2 minutes ago, Istvan Kosma said:

That were known to be false

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/10/alastair-campbell-iraq-dossier-inquiry

 

If you read the article, it makes no mention whatsoever to any intelligence being known to be false. Bush gave a speech to the UN claiming Saddam could make a nuclear bomb in one year. British Intelligence predicted two. The dossier was changed with reference to the CIA findings and Bush's speech to include this new figure. It's asinine really because Blair when presenting the dossier to the house claimed "Saddam might get a bomb within a year or two" which is really just an approximation between the two intelligence estimates.

 

It's hardly fabrication or falsification because Campbell wouldn't have known that the intelligence was false on either side. So he's clearly not a war criminal because the pre-requisite of that is that he knew it was all bullshit, which he didn't. 

 

 

[Jairzinho]

Just now, Boss said:

 

 

It's hardly fabrication or falsification because Campbell wouldn't have known that the intelligence was false on either side. So he's clearly not a war criminal because the pre-requisite of that is that he knew it was all bullshit, which he didn't. 

 

 

 

Do you really believe that?

[Red Phoenix]

Campbell would have a job on getting done by the ICC for war crimes anyway, you usually have to be African for that joke of a set up to even care.

[Boss]

2 minutes ago, Istvan Kosma said:

 

 

Fresh evidence has emerged that Tony Blair's discredited Iraqi arms dossier was "sexed up" on the instructions of Alastair Campbell, his communications chief, to fit with claims from the US administration that were known to be false.

 

 

Written = 2010 

Time in question = 2002

[Boss]

Just now, Istvan Kosma said:

And relevant info was available to them in 2002 they ignored it as it didn't suit.... you know shit often comes out in the wash... 

Where is this relevant information that you speak of in 2002?

[Boss]

41 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

 

Do you really believe that?

 

How would Alister Campbell get the whole of MI6 to concoct completely false intelligence, on his behalf, so he could take the country into an unnecessary war?

[Jairzinho]

Just now, Boss said:

 

How would Alister Campbell get the whole of MI6 to concoct completely false intelligence, on his behalf, so he could take the country into an unnecessary war?

What are you on about? Was this meant as a reply to a different post?

[Boss]

2 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

What are you on about? Was this meant as a reply to a different post?

 

No, it's in reply to your post asking whether I really believed that Campbell didn't know, at the time, that the intelligence was false. You're presumably claiming he did know it was false, so he'd either have information that MI6 didn't have, or he'd be orchestrating MI6 to concoct false dossiers. Which one is it?

[Pureblood]

[Strontium]

59 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Campbell would have a job on getting done by the ICC for war crimes anyway, you usually have to be African for that joke of a set up to even care.

 

Think they're too busy with the World Cup at the moment anyway.

[Jairzinho]

 

Just now, Boss said:

 

No, it's in reply to your post asking whether I really believed that Campbell didn't know, at the time, that the intelligence was false. You're presumably claiming he did know it was false, so he'd either have information that MI6 didn't have, or he'd be orchestrating MI6 to concoct false dossiers. Which one is it?

No, it doesn't necessarily have to be either. And it certainly doesn't need to be the second one. I honestly thought you were replying to someone else or joking as you'd taken such a bizarre leap.

 

He could have simply had doubts about the validity of the information. He could have simply realised that certain people wanted war (or, want war all the time). He isn't a fucking imbecile. The idea that he was "duped" is hilarious. Well, it would be if the lying cunt's actions hadn't lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. 

 

He knew it was a load of shite, but it was his job to sell the war. To sell a war that would lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. He's a vile, deceitful, sociopathic, fucking cunt, and if he was from the Middle East, Africa or the Balkans he'd be spending the rest of his life behind bars.

 

I have zero interest in whether he technically qualifies as a war criminal or not. Due to where he was born, and who he represented, he'd never be found guilty of being one.

[sir roger]

3 hours ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

SD's favourite martyr? No, I don't like the guy and never have, and him being excluded from Labour unquestionably aids my party's prospects.

 

But if you only criticise unfair treatment of people you like, then you're not being principled, you're being partisan*

* In 4 years of constant personal attacks in the media, often quickly discredited , in hundreds of posts on here  I can't ever remember you criticise any unfair treatment towards Corbyn.