Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

4 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Seriously, who else can it possibly be referring to?

"Western colonial rule" refers to the colonial rule by the Western powers - specifically, the British Mandate in Palestine.

So... still no mention of "the Jews".

 

You've got to try harder.  Maybe spend more than 5 minutes on your next search, you cunt.

[SasaS]

15 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

This is why context is important.

 

Imagine someone seeing that post - with all the Rep it's got - in isolation!

 

Well, I hear we are trending on the Al Ahed FC forum with this. They are fellow league leaders.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

I really have not.

 

That said, you're all a bunch of tarts who take things way too seriously.

You've called a few of us anti-Semitic and hinted that we'd drive the Jews out of the country if someone who wants to nationalise railways and reopen libraries becomes PM.

 

You've been a proper cunt.

[Strontium]

11 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

"Western colonial rule" refers to the colonial rule by the Western powers - specifically, the British Mandate in Palestine.

So... still no mention of "the Jews".

 

You've got to try harder.  Maybe spend more than 5 minutes on your next search, you cunt.

 

Bullshit.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

11 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Bullshit.

Oh, please, explain.

 

How does a reference to "Western colonial rule" refer to anyone other than the Westerners who were the colonial rulers of the fucking place?

[Strontium]

13 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Oh, please, explain.

 

How does a reference to "Western colonial rule" refer to anyone other than the Westerners who were the colonial rulers of the fucking place?

 

It seeks to portray Jews as puppets of Western powers, as if a Middle Eastern people returning to their proper place is some kind of colonial project.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

6 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

It seeks to portray Jews as puppets of Western powers, as if a Middle Eastern people returning to their proper place is some kind of colonial project.

No. It. Fucking. Doesn't. 

 

Do you deny that the British Empire was a colonial power? Or that a bunch of people moving into a country, driving the inhabitants out by force and then claiming the land as their own is a wee bit, y'know, colonial.

 

(Incidentally, I can only imagine the well-justified howls if any lefties suggested that the Middle East was the "proper place" for European Jews!)

[sir roger]

9 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

It's not that, it's just this was addressed in the excellent article linked by Rico yesterday, which I rather foolishly assumed was read by more than just me:

 

Whenever people have asked me for “evidence” of Labour’s antisemitism I’ve baulked — not because it can’t be provided, but because it’s like saying “show me evidence of the patriarchy” and expecting an answer that fits into a soundbite. And also because those demanding evidence rarely genuinely want to see it when it’s provided.

It wasn't excellent at all. It started with the author stressing how long and arduous her investigation for the piece had been , and then just regurgitated every single piece of ( mainly debunked) MSM stories over the past 3/4 years. She could have 'investigated' more quickly by reading this thread as 90% of the stuff she quotes has already been pushed by you or Rico. 

 

The above quote by the author is risible as anti-Semitism is illegal in this country and it would therefore be neither here nor there whether we want to acknowledge the evidence or not , as the police certainly would if it exists.

 

The total vibe of Palestinian bad / Israel good also took away any suggestion that she was genuinely looking at the matter without jaundiced views.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

7 hours ago, sir roger said:

The above quote by the author is risible as anti-Semitism is illegal in this country and it would therefore be neither here nor there whether we want to acknowledge the evidence or not , as the police certainly would if it exists.

 

Also, if someone said "show me evidence of the patriarchy" would it really be that difficult to collate a bunch of demonstrable facts about pay gaps; about the share of housework done by women; about the lack of women's representation in boardrooms, in politics, in the news media, etc; about violence and harassment against women; etc?

 

If Labour really was "institutionally anti-Semitic" it would be equally easy to find compelling evidence (rather than "Jeremy Corbyn made a Facebook post about censorship 6 years ago").

[Dougie Do'ins]

JC on bbc breakfast now. 

[Strontium]

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/108448/labour-urged-suspend-candidate-who-shared-message

 

Quote

Labour urged to suspend candidate who shared message questioning Nick Robinson's Jewish heritage

A Scottish Labour candidate has come under fire after she shared a message suggesting Nick Robinson was biased due to his Jewish heritage.

The party is under pressure to dump West Dunbartonshire candidate Jean Anne Mitchell for sharing the "clearly anti-semitic" message about the senior BBC journalist.

Ms Mitchell sent the message to a WhatsApp group with other Labour candidates, which claimed Mr Robinson had "gone easy" on Boris Johnson while chairing a head-to-head debate with Jeremy Corbyn on Friday night.

It said: "We watched the BBC Leadership Debate chaired by Nick Robinson. Throughout the debate we felt that Robinson gave Johnson an easy time, allowing him to avoid answering the audience's questions and instead giving him free reign to attack Corbyn. We thought he was biased. And then we Googled him."

It added: "His mother was born in Shanghai, where her German-Jewish parents fled during the 1930s.

"That makes him Jewish".

[aRdja]

He might well have been biased but most likely due to his background as a Tory Youth activist, not his mother’s religion.

[Bjornebye]

I didn't think he was overly biased anyway. Apart from allowing the fucking yeti to avoid a couple of questions he was pretty impartial I thought. 

[Jairzinho]

Yes, he was okay on that programme I thought. But any bias is because he's a Tory cunt. Why in the name of fuck anyone would think it's because he's Jewish I don't know.

[Bjornebye]

15 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Yes, he was okay on that programme I thought. But any bias is because he's a Tory cunt. Why in the name of fuck anyone would think it's because he's Jewish I don't know.

Because Corbyn kills and eats Jewish babies in their sleep? 

[Jairzinho]

Just now, Bjornebye said:

Because Corbyn kills and eats Jewish babies in their sleep? 

I think they're jelly babies, mate.

[aRdja]

Uncanny.

 

[Anubis]

He should give Corbyn a ring for a head’s-up on what’s coming.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Isn’t Sanders Jewish?

[moof]

3 minutes ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

Isn’t Sanders Jewish?

Yep, brought up in Brooklyn. The idea that he can’t recognise or doesn’t understand antisemitism is obviously grossly offensive and probably antisemitic in itself 

[Skidfingers McGonical]

So that’s Chomsky, Sanders, Margoyles and Sayle who are Anti-Semite Jews then?

 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

43 minutes ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

Isn’t Sanders Jewish?

Doesn't matter. In the warped minds of the right-wing witch-hunters anyone can be anti-Semitic. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

7 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/108448/labour-urged-suspend-candidate-who-shared-message

 

What a fucking idiot.

 

It's worth pointing out  (again) that if the liars and witch-hunters hadn't hounded Labour into dropping the NEC's proposed Code of Conduct  - or if Labour had had the spuds to do the right thing and and resist their pressure - it would be far easier to drive dangerous, hateful bullshit like this out of our party.

[sir roger]

I thought Robinson started well but let Johnson waffle more and more as the debate went on , although I blame Corbyn also for being a bit too passive. The one section I thought he was pretty poor was the religious one where he specifically said he wanted both to cover their own issue ( A/S and Islamophobia ) and he would then bring them in on the other's issue and then just stood back and let Johnson say they were having an independent investigation and then go onto Labour's problems within 10 seconds. Maybe that is what the Scots lady picked up on.

[aRdja]

Travelling fans know.