Jack the Sipper

You're the thin-skinned cultist that keeps telling me to 'move on' whenever I mention Him, and you call me upset? Still, thanks for the cream. Here's a photo to help you generate some of your own.

I'll say what I want on here, not that it's nearly as offensive as the bollocks you regularly post, and no shitty fucking clique is going to bully me into silence.

Sorry Arnie, but where in that text, or any other text on the subject, does it talk about the British leaving NI as part of the GFA? They've reduced their influence and numbers, for sure, that was part of the agreement, but they're still there, they still have a secretary of state for NI, there are still NI politicians sitting at Westminster, they can still exercise power from Westminster if Stormont is suspended (as often happens, and I think is the case right now). From my understanding, there is no timetable for the UK to withdraw completely. It's completely dependent on separate votes for direct Irish rule in both NI and Ireland, which may or may not ever happen.

No. Where did you hear that, and what time frame did you hear?

From yesterday's tweet: "For the only path to a just & lasting peace: an end to the occupation of Palestine." From his frst tweet since the current events started: "ending the occupation is the only means of achieving a just and lasting peace." Granted, he doesn't state back to 1967, but he also doesn't qualify his remarks with anything else, just a repeated reference to 'an end to occupation'. I think I'm entitled to assume he's talking about an end to the Israeli occupation full stop, not some occupation in certain areas, or even a settlement, neither of which he refers to. What makes you think he's not talking about a total withdrawal, given what he's said? At the very least, he needs to be more explicit if he's not talking abut that. And, as I asked Arniepie, do you think a total withdrawal by the Israelis (if that's what Corbyn or anyone else is demanding for peace) is at all likely? An agreed settlement could be a million different things in practice, but in essence it will mean compromise on both sides, and something that both sides can live with, with peace and some or, ideally for me, total Palestinian independence at its core. It's really not for me to say what the Palestinians should be accepting, just as it shouldn't be for Corbyn either.

I rarely post about him, and when I do it's in response to what someone else has posted about him. he's really not in my thoughts much these days. Try it.

Of course it is, but to say that the only solution is for complete withdrawal, as Corbyn does, is not realistic. Don't you agree? Or do you think that there's a chance that Israel agrees to go back to 1967 borders? Occupation was also the cause of the Troubles in NI. But Sinn Fein and the IRA accepted a peace that wasn't conditional on a complete withdrawal of the UK from NI. Who in NI, or even in Ireland wants to go back to what went before because the British are still there? Why would Corbyn even think that this has to be the case in Palestine.? Why would he argue that there can't be peace unless this happens? It doesn't sound like the argument of a pacifist to me.

I've already said, I disagree with him that the only path to a just peace is for a rollback of the occupations going back 55 years, to 67. I would rather there was no occupation in the first place, but we are where we are, and a complete withdrawal is not going to happen. It just isn't and anyone who really believes that Israel would do that is deluded. Does Corbyn believe that? I doubt it, so what to read from his comments about it being the only way? What about an agreed settlement that gives neither all of what they want but gives both of them a far better situation than what they have now, something that might actually be achievable, once rationale trumps ideology?

A few of us also called out the racist @Planet Origi for repeatedly calling Jews rats. Some of the 'committed anti-racists' on here turned the other cheek, as Jesus would.

You don't really have anything to say though, do you. Posting a thousand times a day doesn't equate to saying anything meaningful. It's all 'cunts', 'Tory cunts', evil', 'scum cunts', 'evil Tory scum cunts' , 'rats' or variations thereof with you. You've got tourettes of the keyboard. And about as much self-awareness as that other soft-headed cultist on here, who you're joining on my block list. Unlike you, I'm not into derailing threads with week-long beer-fuelled arguments on the fucking internet with strangers because they dared to express a view I didn't agree with. Now begone, Foghorn.

Is calling people who criticise Him 'weird' the new thing for the cultists? And what a weird question to ask about the man who was recently leader of the opposition in this country for 4 years, who's word is held as good among his disciples, and whose social media post that I commented on (and drew the predictable reaction from his fans) was put on this site, on this thread, only yesterday. Do you ask the 'weirdos' that stick his banal utterances on here with approving regularity why they care so much what an elderly man has posted on social media? He's gone, get over it.

"your type"? What, a Tory? Yeah. You're even further down the rabbit hole than I realised if you've come to that conclusion based on my posts on here. It's a real laugh seeing you taking the righteous moral high ground, though, on every fucking thing going on in the world and every person in it, you 'decent' person... Corbyn's post is an appeal to emotion, not to reason. And I've already said, twice now, what I find wrong with his insistence that there is only way path to peace in that region.

You're a fucking caricature, a really shit Wolfie Smith. Anyone who doesn't share your views is a Tory, or a cunt of some kind. You literally can't go a single fucking day on here without kicking off with someone. Haven't you learnt anything about yourself yet? You get emotional whenever someone disagrees with you. You just told me to shut up for dissing your leader, you weak-minded cultist.

Oh fuck off you intolerant over-emotional waltzer-pushing gobshite.

He sounds like a fucking emo. And, again, his insistence that the "only path to a just & lasting peace: an end to the occupation of Palestine." What, a rollback on 55 years of Israel occupation? Or what? No deal? Let the fighting and the deaths and the misery continue? No agreed settlement that both sides, save for the ideologues/extremists on both sides can live with? No compromise for the sake of humanity? This is where being wedded to dogma gets you.

Another one, from Shitebox. This site in particular is a real fucking cesspit. Just as sensationalist, populist, tabloidly and as loose with the facts as anything you'll find from the right.

A glance at those sites just confirms what I said about the left in Britain today. 13 years into a Tory government with all the trimmings - austerity and the decimation of the NHS, schools, local authority services; War on Woke; the war on immigrants, Rwanda and Stop the Boats; a divided society; jingoism; corruption on a massive scale; law-breaking and cover-ups in Downing St; a disastrous exit from the EU* - and these twats and their audience think it's all about the Middle East and Labour. I'm old enough to remember when the ire of left was directed at the Conservative Party, not the mob trying to get them out. Fucks sake, if all I wanted to know about was how hard done by Palestine is and how shit Starmer is I would just stick to the politics threads on here. *and I'm well aware that a lot of the commentators from these outlets supported the withdrawal from the EU, which tells its own story about how much they should be trusted to look out for the interests of the British people when it brushes up against their ideology.

Reading the last few pages of this thread reminds of why the left in this country are destined to remain in perpetual opposition, shouting from the sidelines, eternally angry, influencing nothing because they've 'got principles'. Their views, their priorities, their principles aren't shared by the majority of the electorate in this country, and they either just can't get around that concept and accept compromise because, well, they're so obviously right, or they do get it, but just don't care about power. Power's for cowards and establishment stooges. Waving banners and being right is enough. I used to be in the latter camp. Then I woke up.

I think both are highly likely. Because they (Hamas) want the world to believe Israel did it (and perhaps they did). Because Hamas has told the world that Israel did it. Of course. Anyone who thinks either side in a war are interested in giving out fair figures or accurate appraisals really needs to think again, IMO.

On a completely unrelated note, that's an almost Joycean sentence.

I don't know for sure whose rockets destroyed that hospital (although the Israeli denials don't count for much given their proven history of lying about previous attacks) but, as tragic as the loss of civilian life here was, I do feel this has become something of a headline grabber, albeit for understandable reasons, that detracts from the far greater impending humanitarian disaster if the millions, literally millions of innocent Palestinians suffering in Gaza aren't immediately given food, water, shelter, electricity and access to medical care.

Hang on, hang on, I replied to you because you were stating that anyone who voted Starmer must be feeling conned. You were trying to guess why others voted for him and speaking for them.

If Starmer does get elected (keeping aside the fact that he's only the leader of the party) it will be because he's compromised, reached out to parts of the country that Corbyn didn't, and yes, spoke to the right wing press. Basically played politics when the cards are stacked against him. All the thing that he gets lambasted for on here. And when you talk about preferring principles over power, that sounds like sneering to me.

Some people who claim to care about other people would rather watch those people suffer mightily under the Tories than do anything or make any compromise that might make them appealing and electable, and sneer from the sidelines about 'principle' and superior morality. And when it's pointed out to them how ridiculous and self-defeating their stance is, they start talking about how Labour are actually just like the Tories, which is, of course, bollocks. Others would rather compromise to get elected and have the power do some of what this country and its people needs.

Depends why they voted him. If they were hoping he'd give Labour a great chance of reserving that massive swing to the Tories at the last election and kicking the Tories out I'd imagine they're pretty happy right now. If, on the other hand, they were hoping he'd do a Corbyn and flop against a tired Tory old party riven with infighting, then they'd be feeling gutted at developments.