Corbyn on Piers Morgan show

WJH. said:
Haven't the right wing press won if you're doing exactly what they want which is criticising Corbyn for being a weak public speaker rather than focus on what's happening in Gaza?
Click to expand...
People are able to criticise Corbyn and have their own opinion on what is happening in Gaza right now. Doesn’t mean everyone has to agree or course.
 
Millbrook said:
No I think it was legitimate to begin with the atrocities committed by terrorists against civilians in the most barbaric way.
Click to expand...
He condemned Hamas in the House of Commons and then Sunak immediately stood up and said 'he can't bring himself to condemn Hamas' and everyone agrees like nodding dogs. Why should he waste time answering the same idiotic questions. He's performed far better than nearly every MP and on this subject because for one, he isn't compromised and secondly he understands the geopolitics of that area.

I posted on another thread, a link to Starmer being asked a seemingly simple and specific question; does he condemn the use of white phosphorus, the use of collective punishment and the bombing of designated safe routes. A seemingly simple question is made to look much harder than it is though, because Starmer is compromised and you can witness him walking a tightrope between what he, as a highflying human rights lawyer and leader of a socialist party should be saying, and what his Zionist lobby funders want him to say.

Basically, he isn't being asked if an organisation is a terrorist group or a freedom fighter group, but does he condemn war crimes.
He can only waffle.

 
GibbosEmpire said:
Yes, but if the same shows get the same right wing people on all the time with no counter argument, those viewers who watch his shows will never see an alternative view, they'll only see the same rhetoric from people like Farage and Hopkins.
Click to expand...
I think Morgan is a chunt but he has regularly dragged people across the coals from the conservatives
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
Basically, he isn't being asked if an organisation is a terrorist group or a freedom fighter group, but does he condemn war crimes.
He can only waffle.
Click to expand...
A politician giving a "politician's answer"! Well I never.

Let's take an example of Corbyn making an error of judgement and talk about Keir Starmer. Or, to give it a snappy name. Whataboutery.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
He condemned Hamas in the House of Commons and then Sunak immediately stood up and said 'he can't bring himself to condemn Hamas' and everyone agrees like nodding dogs. Why should he waste time answering the same idiotic questions. He's performed far better than nearly every MP and on this subject because for one, he isn't compromised and secondly he understands the geopolitics of that area.

I posted on another thread, a link to Starmer being asked a seemingly simple and specific question; does he condemn the use of white phosphorus, the use of collective punishment and the bombing of designated safe routes. A seemingly simple question is made to look much harder than it is though, because Starmer is compromised and you can witness him walking a tightrope between what he, as a highflying human rights lawyer and leader of a socialist party should be saying, and what his Zionist lobby funders want him to say.

Basically, he isn't being asked if an organisation is a terrorist group or a freedom fighter group, but does he condemn war crimes.
He can only waffle.

Click to expand...
Neither Starmer, nor some on here, are prepared to apply the same outrage and concern by condemning Israeli terrorism against innocent people in Gaza and The West Bank.

Abduction and kidnapping at gunpoint in the West Bank, children shot in Ramallah, innocent people detained en mass in Nablus, forced off their land south of Hebron by armed Israeli extremists, accompanied by armed Israeli soldiers, - this is not a history or debating society. This has been happening for 75+ years. Its happening now. It happened yesterday and it`l happen tomorrow. This is not about Hamas. Its about state terror designed to eliminate a whole people and expell them from their own land. This is colonialism, not Judaism.

Now, if Palestine was doing that to Israel...............put the boot on the other foot.
 
r00fie1 said:
I concur with you sentiments.
Do you condemn the attrocities, murder, torture and collective punishment in the Gaza concentration camp
and the West Bank by Israeli Terrorists?
Click to expand...

If you were to ask me about the situation before the Hamas atrocity then I would have looked at the West Bank and said the Palestinians are being badly treated and oppressed by the Israeli state.

Again before the atrocity I would have looked at Gaza and echoed the words of Golda Meir in 1973 when she said;

'If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.'

Hamas used the water pipes to build rockets and the building materials to build their tunnels while their leaders lived outside the country in luxury. They were abusing the Palestinian people by hiding an offensive force in full sight. Then we had 7/10.

I saw a picture of a Palestinian women who had waited 14 years for a child and she was sat there with her little girl missing both her feet. It haunts me every day. Do I think it fair - NO, or reasonable - NO.

I can't properly answer your point about the 'attrocities, murder, torture and collective punishment in the Gaza concentration camp'
except to say NO in the manner in which you have framed the question.

As I see it Israel has lived with a military force on it's neighbourhood for some time. When 7/10 happened Israel was left with the choice to destroy it completely or live with it and wait for it to happen again in an even more emboldened fashion.

I understand this as well as being appalled at the civilian casualties. I don't agree with the words you have used to describe the situation but I find the events as deplorable as you do.

One of the most difficult things to do is to hold two conflicting opinions in your mind.
 
r00fie1 said:
Neither Starmer, nor some on here, are prepared to apply the same outrage and concern by condemning Israeli terrorism against innocent people in Gaza and The West Bank.

Abduction and kidnapping at gunpoint in the West Bank, children shot in Ramallah, innocent people detained en mass in Nablus, forced off their land south of Hebron by armed Israeli extremists, accompanied by armed Israeli soldiers, - this is not a history or debating society. This has been happening for 75+ years. Its happening now. It happened yesterday and it`l happen tomorrow. This is not about Hamas. Its about state terror designed to eliminate a whole people and expell them from their own land. This is colonialism, not Judaism.

Now, if Palestine was doing that to Israel...............put the boot on the other foot.
Click to expand...
I have no personal knowledge of the events you describe but I would not doubt your accuracy and therefore share your view.
 
Muttley said:
Let's take an example of Corbyn making an error of judgement and talk about Keir Starmer. Or, to give it a snappy name. Whataboutery.
Click to expand...
I don't actually give a s**t about accusations of whataboutery because they are usually meaningless.
Ninety times out of a hundred, people squeal whataboutery because it is shining a light on their hypocrisy. The rest of the time it is merely highlighting that the other person didn't have the killer point that they thought they had. Whataboutery is just an attempt to straightjacket a debate.

You call Starmers response a politicians answer but at least he was allowed to voice it, and what politician or human rights lawyer struggles to condemn war crimes? A compromised one perhaps? One who took the purse offered by lobbyists for the people who are committing the war crimes?
 
GibbosEmpire said:
Yes, but if the same shows get the same right wing people on all the time with no counter argument, those viewers who watch his shows will never see an alternative view, they'll only see the same rhetoric from people like Farage and Hopkins.
Click to expand...
The viewers who watch his shows don't want an alternative view - they want to sit there lapping up the bile spouted by Farage, Hopkins and nod enthusiastically
 
Struggling tv show with a presenter desperate to stay relevant and a politician who is yesterday's man.
It had all the makings of classic TV 🙄
 
I like Corbyn and wish he'd become PM.

But anyone who can't see that he's politically naive at times and walks into traps too easily is living in a fantasy world.

It was a big part of why he's not PM (and yes there are also many other factors).

A massive problem with some on the left is the belief that sticking to your principles and playing everything with a straight bat is definitely going to work next time.

It's a nice sentiment and I do wish the world was like that and our politicians were all grown ups who debated things decently.

But it's not. Some of us have to live in the real world where poverty has increased exponentially, homelessness is on the rise and the NHS is on its knees.

Meanwhile the Tories have continued to govern, winning election after election by lying, cheating and pointedly not playing by the rules.
 
festa5 said:
I like Corbyn and wish he'd become PM.

But anyone who can't see that he's politically naive at times and walks into traps too easily is living in a fantasy world.

It was a big part of why he's not PM (and yes there are also many other factors).

A massive problem with some on the left is the belief that sticking to your principles and playing everything with a straight bat is definitely going to work next time.

It's a nice sentiment and I do wish the world was like that and our politicians were all grown ups who debated things decently.

But it's not. Some of us have to live in the real world where poverty has increased exponentially, homelessness is on the rise and the NHS is on its knees.

Meanwhile the Tories have continued to govern, winning election after election by lying, cheating and pointedly not playing by the rules.
Click to expand...
He gave the people what they wanted.. everything and we could afford it and the manifesto was fully costed.

However.. he was too soft with the self destructive elements within the labour party. The get along gang we certainly were not.. the inclusive approach, the broad church.. simply didn't work when there was a large portion of the party working against him, the membership and the party itself. The coup early doors cost the part credibility, and we paid for that in the 2017 election. Painting the party as the part of remain.. as keir starmer did also massively damaged the party in 2019.

A lot of folks should have been shipped out to the lib dems.. he should have kept a lid on the free Palestine stuff until after the general election. When it came to the Brexit debate he should have stepped up and state his case fully and firmly. CLearly appeasing the momentum lot with this quasi pro eu stance.

A soft brexit in 2019 absolutely wipes the floor with Boris Johnson.. the remainers in the Liberal Democrat party would have found themselves out on their **** as did many red wall labour MPs

I liked JC but think he was too soft.. the best Labour have come up with and Streets ahead of the tories.. but still too soft..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top