Corbyn on Piers Morgan show

Perhaps that's exactly what he was going to do, but because of PM we will never know

Looks like we know now - he got us thinking possibilities but ….
nothing to do with his principles, not wanting to hinder the peace process or anything else for that matter.

Maybe he should have just been honest from the start

 
Looks like we know now - he got us thinking possibilities but ….
nothing to do with his principles, not wanting to hinder the peace process or anything else for that matter.

Maybe he should have just been honest from the start

Ok, so when he was allowed to express himself in his own time and in his own words, rather than being shouted down at two second intervals by somebody behaving like an out of control student teacher, he did. Imagine the interview Morgan could have had if he hadn't been so stupid and rude.
 
Ok, so when he was allowed to express himself in his own time and in his own words, rather than being shouted down at two second intervals by somebody behaving like an out of control student teacher, he did. Imagine the interview Morgan could have had if he hadn't been so stupid and rude.

That’s a view
If he’d have answered if first time then no issue

Feels like you will defend JC no matter what
 
That’s a view
If he’d have answered if first time then no issue

Feels like you will defend JC no matter what
That’s the problem with piers Morgan though isn’t it, if Jeremy corbyn says yes or no, corbyn doesn’t get to explain, instead morgan will just jump in
 
That’s a view
If he’d have answered if first time then no issue

Feels like you will defend JC no matter what
Corbyn has consistently condemned violence on all sides. If you read the Tribune alluded to in the Guardian piece (and other pieces he has had published in Tribune and elsewhere, you will see that it is very much in line with his principles.

In the Tribune article mentioned he writes:

"I deplore the targeting of all civilians. That includes Hamas’ attack on 7 October, which I have repeatedly condemned in Parliament, in print and and at every demonstration that I have attended. And that includes that Israeli response; there is no meaningful sense that the Israeli army is avoiding civilian casualties when it drops 25,000 tonnes of bombs onto a tiny strip of land populated by 2.2 million people. If we understand terrorism to describe the indiscriminate killing of civilians, in breach of international law, then of course Hamas is a terrorist group. The targeting of hospitals, refugee camps and so-called safe zones by the Israeli army are acts of terror too; and the killing of more than 11,000 people, half of whom are children, cannot possibly be understood as acts of self-defence."

In an earlier Tribune piece, he writes:

"In July 2023, I spoke in Parliament after the Israeli Defence Force conducted their largest military operation on the West Bank since 2002. Their target was Jenin refugee camp, home to more than 14,000 people, living in less than half a square kilometre in size. In a space this densely populated, there is no such thing as targeted strikes. 12 Palestinians were killed, including 5 children, and more than 100 were injured. I pleaded with MPs on both sides of the House to consider not just the immediate human cost of this attack, but the chain reaction of misery and terror that it would unleash."
That proved quite priscient didn't it?

In an Al Jazeera article Corbyn talks about his visit to Al-Shati refugee camp (otherwise known as “Beach Camp) in 2013.
"Beach Camp was established in 1948 after 750,000 Palestinians were forcibly displaced in the Nakba. Initially, the camp accommodated around 23,000 refugees. In the following seven decades, that number grew to 90,000, cramped inside 0.5 square kilometres (0.2 square miles) of land – 70 times more populated than London’s city centre."

"On October 9, two days after the deplorable attack by Hamas in southern Israel, there were reports of an Israeli air strike on Beach Camp. This wasn’t the first strike on the camp. In May 2021, at least 10 Palestinians, eight of whom were children, were killed in an air strike. Nor was it the last. Beach Camp has been repeatedly targeted in the past three weeks.

When I hear news of bombardment in Gaza, I think about that school at Beach Camp. I don’t know if it is still there. I don’t know if those children and teachers are still alive. I don’t know.

The Israeli army has dropped 25,000 tonnes of bombs onto a tiny strip of land, populated by 2.3 million people. There is no meaningful sense whatsoever that they are trying to avoid civilian deaths. More than 9,900 people in Gaza have been killed, including more than 4,800 children."

"The attack by Hamas, which killed 1,400 Israelis and took 200 hostages, was utterly appalling and must be condemned. The victims and hostages are young people who wanted to listen to music. They are nieces and nephews. They are jewellery designers. They are factory workers. They are peace campaigners. The pain and anguish that their families feel will last forever."

If I feel the need to defend Jeremy Corbyn it is because despite what the media are painting him, he is the only prominent Politician who has been right on point throughout this whole mess. The Guardian article that you linked mentions Starmer's statement that JC's time as a Labour MP is over because of his failure to call Hamas a terrorist organisation Incidentally,that second Tribune piece of Corbyn's is entitled

“I Condemn Violence Against All Civilians, Why Can’t Keir Starmer?”​

This is a pertinent question. Has Starmer condemned Israel as an Apartheid state or a terrorist state? No, he hasn't.
Does this, by the standards that he himself defines, make him unfit to be leader of the Labour Party?
 
Corbyn has consistently condemned violence on all sides. If you read the Tribune alluded to in the Guardian piece (and other pieces he has had published in Tribune and elsewhere, you will see that it is very much in line with his principles.

In the Tribune article mentioned he writes:

"I deplore the targeting of all civilians. That includes Hamas’ attack on 7 October, which I have repeatedly condemned in Parliament, in print and and at every demonstration that I have attended. And that includes that Israeli response; there is no meaningful sense that the Israeli army is avoiding civilian casualties when it drops 25,000 tonnes of bombs onto a tiny strip of land populated by 2.2 million people. If we understand terrorism to describe the indiscriminate killing of civilians, in breach of international law, then of course Hamas is a terrorist group. The targeting of hospitals, refugee camps and so-called safe zones by the Israeli army are acts of terror too; and the killing of more than 11,000 people, half of whom are children, cannot possibly be understood as acts of self-defence."

In an earlier Tribune piece, he writes:

"In July 2023, I spoke in Parliament after the Israeli Defence Force conducted their largest military operation on the West Bank since 2002. Their target was Jenin refugee camp, home to more than 14,000 people, living in less than half a square kilometre in size. In a space this densely populated, there is no such thing as targeted strikes. 12 Palestinians were killed, including 5 children, and more than 100 were injured. I pleaded with MPs on both sides of the House to consider not just the immediate human cost of this attack, but the chain reaction of misery and terror that it would unleash."
That proved quite priscient didn't it?

In an Al Jazeera article Corbyn talks about his visit to Al-Shati refugee camp (otherwise known as “Beach Camp) in 2013.
"Beach Camp was established in 1948 after 750,000 Palestinians were forcibly displaced in the Nakba. Initially, the camp accommodated around 23,000 refugees. In the following seven decades, that number grew to 90,000, cramped inside 0.5 square kilometres (0.2 square miles) of land – 70 times more populated than London’s city centre."

"On October 9, two days after the deplorable attack by Hamas in southern Israel, there were reports of an Israeli air strike on Beach Camp. This wasn’t the first strike on the camp. In May 2021, at least 10 Palestinians, eight of whom were children, were killed in an air strike. Nor was it the last. Beach Camp has been repeatedly targeted in the past three weeks.

When I hear news of bombardment in Gaza, I think about that school at Beach Camp. I don’t know if it is still there. I don’t know if those children and teachers are still alive. I don’t know.

The Israeli army has dropped 25,000 tonnes of bombs onto a tiny strip of land, populated by 2.3 million people. There is no meaningful sense whatsoever that they are trying to avoid civilian deaths. More than 9,900 people in Gaza have been killed, including more than 4,800 children."

"The attack by Hamas, which killed 1,400 Israelis and took 200 hostages, was utterly appalling and must be condemned. The victims and hostages are young people who wanted to listen to music. They are nieces and nephews. They are jewellery designers. They are factory workers. They are peace campaigners. The pain and anguish that their families feel will last forever."

If I feel the need to defend Jeremy Corbyn it is because despite what the media are painting him, he is the only prominent Politician who has been right on point throughout this whole mess. The Guardian article that you linked mentions Starmer's statement that JC's time as a Labour MP is over because of his failure to call Hamas a terrorist organisation Incidentally,that second Tribune piece of Corbyn's is entitled

“I Condemn Violence Against All Civilians, Why Can’t Keir Starmer?”​

This is a pertinent question. Has Starmer condemned Israel as an Apartheid state or a terrorist state? No, he hasn't.
Does this, by the standards that he himself defines, make him unfit to be leader of the Labour Party?
Spot on. Corbyn pilloried for not stating Hamas is a terrorist organisation - which to most peoples minds, including mine, it clearly is - but no one suffers the same fate for not highlighting that if Israel is not a terrorist state, it is at least clearly acting like one.
 
Spot on. Corbyn pilloried for not stating Hamas is a terrorist organisation - which to most peoples minds, including mine, it clearly is - but no one suffers the same fate for not highlighting that if Israel is not a terrorist state, it is at least clearly acting like one.

He wasn’t pilloried for not saying they were or weren’t a terrorist organisation.
He was pilloried for not answering the question.

What on earth was he expecting going on a Piers Morgan show?
Utterly stupid, in my view for giving Morgan oxygen and then falling into the trap.

As you say the predominant view is both Hamas and The Israeli state are terrroists.
 
He wasn’t pilloried for not saying they were or weren’t a terrorist organisation.
He was pilloried for not answering the question.

What on earth was he expecting going on a Piers Morgan show?
Utterly stupid, in my view for giving Morgan oxygen and then falling into the trap.

As you say the predominant view is both Hamas and The Israeli state are terrroists.

I'm pretty sure you were on the old board Finny and you never supported him then

Although correct me if I'm wrong
 
I'm pretty sure you were on the old board Finny and you never supported him then

Although correct me if I'm wrong

Been around a while- yeah.
I voted for him twice supported most of his policies (but not all) and think he has been treated dreadfully by the media.

I don’t believe in blind loyalty to anyone - Corbyn, Starmer et al.
Also don’t believe in blind bigotry - got a few having a go at me lately for saying I thought Sunak (who I despise with a passion) said something fair. about the London March

Sometimes, Corbyn doesn’t do himself any favours, In this instance I think he has been rightly called out.
There are those that don’t like that kind of conversation and support him whatever.
 
Been around a while- yeah.
I voted for him twice supported most of his policies (but not all) and think he has been treated dreadfully by the media.

I don’t believe in blind loyalty to anyone - Corbyn, Starmer et al.
Also don’t believe in blind bigotry - got a few having a go at me lately for saying I thought Sunak (who I despise with a passion) said something fair. about the London March

Sometimes, Corbyn doesn’t do himself any favours, In this instance I think he has been rightly called out.
There are those that don’t like that kind of conversation and support him whatever.

So you're not Finny "the Tory" from the old board?

I never called you that but I remember alot of others doing.

Seems to me if that is you you havent actually changed.
 
So you're not Finny "the Tory" from the old board?

I never called you that but I remember alot of others doing.

Seems to me if that is you you havent actually changed.

your memory must be better than mine - don’t recall being called a Tory by anyone let alone ‘lots’. Feel free to help me out - I’m old and may have forgotten

Never been a Tory So you are right I’ve never changed.
 
Last edited:
Your conversation seems very immature for someone who remembers the old board.

Never been a Tory So you are right I’ve never changed.

Not at all

Immature is pretending you haven't always criticised Corbyn and supported Tory

Anyway I'll let you carry on criticising Corbyn when it's been pointed out numerous times he has condemned Hamas
 
Last edited:
Ah the "All Lives Matter" response.
What do you think that means?

"All Lives Matter" is a cynical attempt to take the spotlight off systemic and institutional racism by suggesting that everyone should be, and is, treated equally. It implies that the status quo is fine despite all evidence to the contrary.

Corbyn condemning all violence, or all racism for that matter, is an attempt to draw attention to the fact that the system, and society (or in the case of Gaza - all parties) are less than perfect. It's the polar opposite of "All Lives Matter".
 
Not at all

Immature is pretending you haven't always criticised Corbyn and supported Tory

Anyway I'll let you carry on criticising Corbyn when it's been pointed out numerous times he has condemned Hamas

Yikes - I’m getting trolled.
Made it into the big time now
 
Yikes - I’m getting trolled.
Made it into the big time now

You're trolling Corbyn by criticising him constantly and everyone on this thread by ignoring that he has condemned Hamas.

And now you've had a go at me but obviously you're above criticism

Sounds like you want to have a pop at everyone but no one is allowed to point out you used to be a Tory or criticise you

Very strange
 
So you're not Finny "the Tory" from the old board?

I never called you that but I remember alot of others doing.

Seems to me if that is you you havent actually changed.
Think you've got him mixed up with someone else.

Don't recall anyone calling him a tory and certainly don't remember thinking he ever was one. Always been a good poster with reasonable views whether I agreed with them or not.

You're barking up the wrong tree.
 
Corbyn condemning all violence, or all racism for that matter, is an attempt to draw attention to the fact that the system, and society (or in the case of Gaza - all parties) are less than perfect. It's the polar opposite of "All Lives Matter".
IMO it isn't, it is a way of tempering criticism of the focus of the question and making it seem as though all violence perpetrated by all parties is equal.

"Do you condemn the violence of x?"
"I condemn all violence"

The condemnation is the same for the person throwing a stone as for the industrial-military complex carpet bombing refugee camps, so it becomes a non-answer.
 
IMO it isn't, it is a way of tempering criticism of the focus of the question and making it seem as though all violence perpetrated by all parties is equal.

"Do you condemn the violence of x?"
"I condemn all violence"

The condemnation is the same for the person throwing a stone as for the industrial-military complex carpet bombing refugee camps, so it becomes a non-answer.
I'd agree if there was no additional comment, but Corbyn will always give a reasoned response on top. Everything has nuance.

I don't think Corbyn should have gone anywhere near Piers Morgan but IMO, Morgan comes off far worse, especially when you consider he chose that section as his highlight. I assume he was even more boorish during the rest of the interview but I've no interest in watching it.
 
Back
Top