Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[lifetime fan]

32 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

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

 

Brilliant. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 hours 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

Well, that’s not quite true but he’s not a war criminal. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

.

[Pureblood]

4 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Well, that’s not quite true but he’s not a war criminal. 

Only judicially because he hasn't been tried.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

There's nothing to see here... 

 

Apart from a speaker at the Board Of Deputies calling for the "sacrifice" (or, if you will, murder) of Jeremy Corbyn. 

 

Great bunch of lads, etc, etc... 

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/luqmankhan555/status/1134113618499448835

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

21 hours ago, Section_31 said:

Has anyone posted that vid of the old bloke in the pink kecks saying he should be killed yet?

I've just seen what you were on about (see above).

 

It's mad. As is the chair not condemning his words, but instead being more concerned about the words being captured on a live stream!

[Numero Veinticinco]

35 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Only judicially because he hasn't been tried.

And on the technicality that he hasn’t actually committed any war crimes. 

[Pureblood]

22 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

And on the technicality that he hasn’t actually committed any war crimes. 

Well, yeah, in the same way that OJ Simpson is technically innocent.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, TK421 said:

Well, yeah, in the same way that OJ Simpson is technically innocent.

Which war crime, exactly, did he commit? 

[Pureblood]

1 minute ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Which war crime, exactly, did he commit? 

His role in the illegal war against Iraq should be prosecuted, in my opinion.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, TK421 said:

His role in the illegal war against Iraq should be prosecuted, in my opinion.

Which war crime, exactly, did he commit? I mean, it’s a fairly strong claim. Surely there’s some specific war crime he has commit for him to be called a war criminal. You say ‘his role’. He, a press secretary, commit what war crime? 

 

 

[Pureblood]

Just now, Numero Veinticinco said:

Which war crime, exactly, did he commit? I mean, it’s a fairly strong claim. Surely there’s some specific war crime he has commit for him to be called a war criminal. You say ‘his role’. He, a press secretary, commit what war crime? 

 

 

Those that moof referred to earlier.  There is a prima facie case against Campbell which is more than sufficient to bring a prosecution under principles of international law flowing from Nuremberg. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, TK421 said:

Those that moof referred to earlier.  There is a prima facie case against Campbell which is more than sufficient to bring a prosecution under principles of international law flowing from Nuremberg. 

No, there isn’t, this is why I’m asking for specifics. I’m asking specifically what he did and which war crime/s he committed, only then can I make a counter argument or accept that he has committed war crimes.

 

I’d suggest you click the link moof posted, then go to the section below and read about war crimes. 

[Section_31]

43 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

I've just seen what you were on about (see above).

 

It's mad. As is the chair not condemning his words, but instead being more concerned about the words being captured on a live stream!

Wasn't sure who the bloke was, saw some Twitter fume but he just looked like a mental old fella to me.

[Boss]

2 hours ago, Jairzinho said:

 

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.

 

You can have doubts about something personally but when your own intelligence agencies are telling you that a nuclear attack could be imminent you tend to go with what's on the table.

 

You're making a lot of assumptions here. Just because one person sent him a memo saying that the "intelligence and facts may be fixed around the policy" doesn't mean that the intelligence is bullshit. It means that they are pushing an angle to try and get the UN security council to allow the invasion. They are focusing on the threat Saddam imposes.

 

It's not like Saddam was an honourable man in all this. He committed genocide on his own people by gassing hundreds of thousands of Kurds. He invaded Kuwait illegally and also tried to assassinate George Bush. This man was perpetually and flagrantly in defiance of every UN resolution against him, using trucks to drive armaments away from UN inspectors whenever they'd show up.

 

[Pureblood]

35 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

No, there isn’t, this is why I’m asking for specifics. I’m asking specifically what he did and which war crime/s he committed, only then can I make a counter argument or accept that he has committed war crimes.

 

I’d suggest you click the link moof posted, then go to the section below and read about war crimes. 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/britain-loves-war-criminal/

[Numero Veinticinco]

4 minutes ago, TK421 said:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/britain-loves-war-criminal/

I guess I’ll read all that and guess at the specifics then? Then it will be easier to say ‘no, that’s not what I meant’. Cool waste of my time. 

 

Is there, at least, a list of specific war crimes committed by Campbell in that link? 

[Pureblood]

Just now, Numero Veinticinco said:

I guess I’ll read all that and guess at the specifics then? Then it will be easier to say ‘no, that’s not what I meant’. Cool waste of my time. 

You won't need to guess.  It's perfectly clear in the text and takes five minutes to read.

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, TK421 said:

You won't need to guess.  It's perfectly clear in the text and takes five minutes to read.

 

 

Shall I have the discussion with you or the author of the article? 

[Pureblood]

Just now, Numero Veinticinco said:

Shall I have the discussion with you or the author of the article? 

Which would you prefer?

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, TK421 said:

Which would you prefer?

You, as you are the one I’ve been talking to. But you seem completely unwilling to directly answer my question. 

[Pureblood]

5 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

You, as you are the one I’ve been talking to. But you seem completely unwilling to directly answer my question. 

It's my view, shared by the author, that Campbell was complicit in a "common plan or conspiracy" (Nuremberg) relating to "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression" (Nuremberg again).  Due to his role in sexing up the dossier presented to Parliament. 

[Pureblood]

A dossier of evidence produced before the invasion, in September 2002, declared intelligence had established "beyond doubt" that Iraq's leader Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons and was making efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

It also claimed Iraq could deploy biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so.

 

 

"We didn't find weapons of mass destruction there and that was the basis by which we went in. so on that basis, we weren't right to go in." (Lord Falconer)

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33198974

[Numero Veinticinco]

4 minutes ago, TK421 said:

It's my view, shared by the author, that Campbell was complicit in a "common plan or conspiracy" (Nuremberg) relating to "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression" (Nuremberg again).  Due to his role in sexing up the dossier presented to Parliament. 

Final time. Which specific war crime did Campbell commit? Because what you’re describing isn’t a war crime. As for the ‘we didn’t find WMDs’... yes, that’s not Campbell committing a war crime. I’ll read the article later and respond in full. 

[Pureblood]

20 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Final time. Which specific war crime did Campbell commit? Because what you’re describing isn’t a war crime. As for the ‘we didn’t find WMDs’... yes, that’s not Campbell committing a war crime. I’ll read the article later and respond in full. 

I think we're just arguing over semantics here and what constitutes a war crime.  I've answered your question to the best of my knowledge and ability, and do not appreciate your sardonic tone.

 

I only have a lay interest in this and accept the distinction of war crimes vs crimes against peace, as defined following Nuremberg.  I would say that Campbell has a case to answer for in respect of crimes against peace and believe he should be prosecuted on the evidence available.