Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[SasaS]

11 hours ago, viRdjil said:

Yeah I don’t know mate, i’d probably take Chomsky’s word over erm... yours.

 

Noam Chomsky said of Pilger: "John Pilger's work has been a beacon of light in often dark times. The realities he has brought to light have been a revelation, over and over again, and his courage and insight a constant inspiration”

 

His role on Milošević and giving support to Srebrenica deniers has indeed been particularly inspiring. As Noam says, over and over again.

[Numero Veinticinco]

11 hours ago, Captain Howdy said:

Is Chomsky the defining word on everything? Who decided that?

People who have read Chomsky, generally. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

10 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

It’s almost as if he’s stuck his stupid fucking head over the parapet because it’s a midlde East country.  The UK statement is fucking vanilla in the extreme. The foreign office issued it - the same diplomats and civil servants he may be in charge of in a few months.  And of course the investigation has stopped. Oh no, it’s carrying on. He’s fucking dumb. 

You’re dumb. You don’t even know the ways in which your lack of mental ability and lack of critical thinking skills leads you to believe some half-baked shit you hear in a podcast or read on Twitter. You parrot stuff you hear because it’s delivered in a way you’re incapable of breaking down and refuting on your own. It lead you to vote Tory, because you were incapable of seeing past the ‘won’t raise my tax so I will be better off’ argument, lacking the basic knowledge of all the great many ways in which your pocket and your standard of living will be hit. You attack people’s intelligence but if you really understood just how ignorant you sound on here, you’d hang your head in shame. There’s nothing people can learn from you that they couldn’t learn from reading The Times retweets. 

[aRdja]

46 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

His role on Milošević and giving support to Srebrenica deniers has indeed been particularly inspiring. As Noam says, over and over again.

You might have mixed up Bosnia and Kosovo there SasaS. The ICC exonerated Milosevic from any responsibility for Srebrenica

 

Re Chomsky he’s an ardent defender of freedom of speech. You can dislike it of course, but that’s what he is. He never ‘denied’ Srbrenica, and the Guardian actually pulled the interview and made a public apology for it.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/nov/17/pressandpublishing.corrections

[SasaS]

17 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

You might have mixed up Bosnia and Kosovo there SasaS. The ICC exonerated Milosevic from any responsibility for Srebrenica

 

Re Chomsky he’s an ardent defender of freedom of speech. You can dislike it of course, but that’s what he is. He never ‘denied’ Srbrenica, and the Guardian actually pulled the interview and made a public apology for it.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/nov/17/pressandpublishing.corrections

 

I was talking about Pilger.

[Captain Turdseye]

 

[aRdja]

11 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

I was talking about Pilger.

I’m not aware of Pilger ever denying Srebrenica massacre. I might be wrong on this, happy to read through articles if you send me some.

 

John Pilger (like Chomsky) was against the bombing of Yugoslavia under the pretences of a humanitarian intervention in the Kosovo war. He wrote an article about that in the aftermath titled “the genocide that never was”, not Srebrenica.

 

http://johnpilger.com/articles/reminders-of-kosovo

[SasaS]

5 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

I’m not aware of Pilger ever denying Srebrenica massacre. I might be wrong on this, happy to read through articles if you send me some.

 

John Pilger (like Chomsky) was against the bombing of Yugoslavia under the pretences of a humanitarian intervention in the Kosovo war.

 

Google it. Pilger has acted as one of the most prominent Miošević apologist for years, probably because he simply sides with whoever happens to clash with American foreign policy. If he had been around in Normandy 75 years ago, he would most likely protest against the American occupation of Western Europe under the pretense of liberation.

[aRdja]

5 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

Google it. Pilger has acted as one of the most prominent Miošević apologist for years, probably because he simply sides with whoever happens to clash with American foreign policy. If he had been around in Normandy 75 years ago, he would most likely protest against the American occupation of Western Europe under the pretense of liberation.

You’re the one making the assertion that he denied Srebrenica ever happened. Surely you’re not asking me to do your research for you?

 

With regards to your last sentence, fucking hell... now he’s Nazi apologist too?

[SasaS]

12 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

You’re the one making the assertion that he denied Srebrenica ever happened. Surely you’re not asking me to do your research for you?

 

With regards to your last sentence, fucking hell... now he’s Nazi apologist too?

I don't want to enter into a big argument over somebody like Pilger with you, I said he supported Srebrenica deniers, a quick search would return results I am sure, he's your man not mine, I have very little time for him any more. 

Second part, really, this is how you read it?

[Numero Veinticinco]

Classic belittlement tactic is as follows:

 

1) Take position in argument.

2) Read authoritative source in opposition to your view.

3) Discount entire work of said source.

4) Misrepresent one thing they did. Repeatedly. 

5) Act as if this somehow discredits everything they've ever said.

6) Feel comfortable in your position outlined in step 1.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

That's just the internet. The problem lies in what's considered an authoritative source. For some it's official accounts, others investigative journalists, and others still conspiracy theorists.

 

There are grains of truth and massive holes everywhere; scepticism of everyone is the soundest starting position. As a species, we're all questionable.

[A Red]

The £20k spent on Corbyn by Iran seems like a good deal for them now. Pay back time.

[Jairzinho]

24 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

That's just the internet. The problem lies in what's considered an authoritative source. For some it's official accounts, others investigative journalists, and others still conspiracy theorists.

 

There are grains of truth and massive holes everywhere; scepticism of everyone is the soundest starting position. As a species, we're all questionable.

And which group would you say Pilger is in?

[Babb'sBurstNad]

1 minute ago, Jairzinho said:

And which group would you say Pilger is in?

Investigative journalists. You?

 

He has his own natural biases, largely in favour of anyone / anything that could be considered opposed to what he perceives as Western imperialism, but that's nothing new. In a similar vein, I'm not about to discount everything Gore Vidal wrote just because he tried too hard to make the case for America allowing Pearl Harbour to happen as a catalyst for war. Take their work on a case by case basis, and keep in mind where it creeps towards the polemical.

[sir roger]

45 minutes ago, A Red said:

The £20k spent on Corbyn by Iran seems like a good deal for them now. Pay back time.

Considering he has condemned Iran in the HoC more times than 548 of the other 549 mp's , they might be wanting the money back.

 

Anyway, I thought it was Czechoslovakia he spied for.

[Numero Veinticinco]

51 minutes ago, A Red said:

The £20k spent on Corbyn by Iran seems like a good deal for them now. Pay back time.

Wait a minute, you're suggesting that Corbyn wasn't actually paid 'upto £5000' for being interviewed on PressTV four times, but rather he is being bought by the Iranian regime to do their bidding should, in a decade's time, they do something that reqiures somebody in parliament saying 'let's see evidence' before rushing to judgement. 

 

Well, I'm convinced. I wish he would stop supporting the disgusting treatment of gays in Iran by being interviewed by a PressTV. THE CUNT. 

 

Out of interest, is everybody who is interviewed by PressTV - no, any organisation - immediately in league with them and guilty of supporting everything they've ever done or ever will do? I need to know this, so I can then credibly rip... well, everyone to shreds for supporting... well, anything I want to pin on them. 

 

Fucking pathetic on here at the moment. 

[Babb'sBurstNad]

For clarity, he wasn't merely being interviewed. He hosted a show, and appeared on phone ins.

[Rico1304]

27 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

For clarity, he wasn't merely being interviewed. He hosted a show, and appeared on phone ins.

And what he said is freely available.  He’s openly supportive of them.  

[Strontium]

Let he who has never hosted a show for a regime that hangs gay people from cranes cast the first stone.

[Numero Veinticinco]

31 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

For clarity, he wasn't merely being interviewed. He hosted a show, and appeared on phone ins.

The expenses list it quite clearly as him being paid for interviews upto £4000. Not that I mind the distinction. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Sixtimes Dog said:

Let he who has never hosted a show for a regime that hangs gay people from cranes cast the first stone.

You should know about that, supporting a party lead by somebody who worked for murdering terrorists. Why do you support murder and terrorism, Stronts? 

 

 

[aRdja]

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just like presenting a show for a state broadcaster doesn't make you believe in everything the state does, being right about apartheid doesn't mean you're going to be right about... anything else ever. People are so quick to get entrenched in their positions. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

I wonder if, hypothetically, Corbyn would've continued to work for Shell in the 1990s when they were tangled up in murky and murderous business in the Niger Delta?