Now, I would struggle to ever stop laughing if Ken Livingstone

[Monty92]

died a horrible death, but I cannot see a single thing in any of his comments today that come even close to anti-semitism.

Seems like a certain faction within Labour is using this whole episode to purge the party of people they don't like. Which is fine, but let's be honest, there's nothing anti-semitic going on in any of this.

[Burney]

died a horrible death, but I cannot see a single thing in any of his comments today that come even close to anti-semitism.

Seems like a certain faction within Labour is using this whole episode to purge the party of people they don't like. Which is fine, but let's be honest, there's nothing anti-semitic going on in any of this.

Nothing anti-semitic in suggesting the forcible deportation of 8 million Jewish people?

You'll have to try harder than that, m.

[Monty92]

Nothing anti-semitic in suggesting the forcible deportation of 8 million Jewish people?

You'll have to try harder than that, m.

The suggestion that Jews should be relocated is an intellectual thought experiment made by people of every political hue.

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

I'd quite like to see you relocated to the bottom of a lake with a large lump of concrete tied to your enormous great schnozz

[Burney]

The suggestion that Jews should be relocated is an intellectual thought experiment made by people of every political hue.

Do stop being silly, m.

[redgunamo]

The suggestion that Jews should be relocated is an intellectual thought experiment made by people of every political hue.

Your mum is an intellectual thought experiment made by people of every political hue.

[TheCurly]

Your mum is an intellectual thought experiment made by people of every political hue.

Right I feel the need to level with everyone here.
Ken Livingstone and the people trying to make political gain over some comment he made make me sick.As far as I'm concerned every politician can go **** themselves as they're horrible thieving mother****ing ******* **** whores to a man.

[Monty92]

Do stop being silly, m.

I just don't think "our" side are doing ourselves any favours with all this race card business. It puts us in he same camp as anyone who calls someone who doesn't slavishly adhere to the tenets ofidentity politics a bigot.

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

Blimey curly - you're like a character in Father Ted gently snoozing in the corner who occasionally jumps awake, issues a stream of fine expletives before lapsing back into slumber again.

[71 Guns - channeling the spirit of Mr Hat]

Right I feel the need to level with everyone here.
Ken Livingstone and the people trying to make political gain over some comment he made make me sick.As far as I'm concerned every politician can go **** themselves as they're horrible thieving mother****ing ******* **** whores to a man.
wd TC - taking full advantage of the lack of sweary censorship on awimb mk 3.7 :clap:

[TheCurly]

Blimey curly - you're like a character in Father Ted gently snoozing in the corner who occasionally jumps awake, issues a stream of fine expletives before lapsing back into slumber again.

Just letting people know where I stand Herb

[Burney]

I just don't think "our" side are doing ourselves any favours with all this race card business. It puts us in he same camp as anyone who calls someone who doesn't slavishly adhere to the tenets ofidentity politics a bigot.

No. It's different for a couple of reasons. First, because the left's whole schtick is to pretend it comes from a position of perfect virtue in terms of attitudes to race, sexuality, gender, etc, etc and to pretend that it is axiomatic that anyone who opposes them is therefore a racist/sexist/homophobe. Their assumed virtue is a deliberate rhetorical device and it is therefore important to prick that particular bubble whenever and wherever possible.

Second, this is not merely a question of race. The fact that Labour and the left have made themselves some deeply unpleasant bedfellows in radical Islam is a genuinely concerning matter, since it serves to legitimise the viewpoints of these people, whose views on many matters are genuinely medieval. Highlighting that stress point is both valid and necessary. And, since their explicit anti-semitism is the most easily attacked aspect of their belief systems, that is where the attack can and should be made in undermining these people and their relationships with one of the two biggest parties in this country.

[The Jorge]

Fine, I get that it's politically expedient to do so but it does remove any moral highground, and god knows the right needs some, when calling out "the left" on their oversensitivity/overreliance on stuff like this.

Also, and I do feel this is a crucial point, if you stifle all debate with cries of antisemite/homophobe/racist/whateverist it completely closes down any sane, reasonable discourse and only allows the millitant pros and cons to prosper.

[Burney]

Fine, I get that it's politically expedient to do so but it does remove any moral highground, and god knows the right needs some, when calling out "the left" on their oversensitivity/overreliance on stuff like this.

Also, and I do feel this is a crucial point, if you stifle all debate with cries of antisemite/homophobe/racist/whateverist it completely closes down any sane, reasonable discourse and only allows the millitant pros and cons to prosper.

Of course it's politically expedient, but you clearly missed the second part of what I said, where I pointed out that there is a very real public interest in exposing the links between the second most popular political party in this country and the views and posturing of radicalised Islam.

[Monty92]

No. It's different for a couple of reasons. First, because the left's whole schtick is to pretend it comes from a position of perfect virtue in terms of attitudes to race, sexuality, gender, etc, etc and to pretend that it is axiomatic that anyone who opposes them is therefore a racist/sexist/homophobe. Their assumed virtue is a deliberate rhetorical device and it is therefore important to prick that particular bubble whenever and wherever possible.

Second, this is not merely a question of race. The fact that Labour and the left have made themselves some deeply unpleasant bedfellows in radical Islam is a genuinely concerning matter, since it serves to legitimise the viewpoints of these people, whose views on many matters are genuinely medieval. Highlighting that stress point is both valid and necessary. And, since their explicit anti-semitism is the most easily attacked aspect of their belief systems, that is where the attack can and should be made in undermining these people and their relationships with one of the two biggest parties in this country.

I get all that. I just think we're creating a race to the bottom that, ultimately, only contributes to a poisonous and intractable climate of political discourse.

[redgunamo]

I get all that. I just think we're creating a race to the bottom that, ultimately, only contributes to a poisonous and intractable climate of political discourse.

At least it would never happen in football. I mean, no manager or supporter would ever blandly dismiss those who disagreed with them as know-nothing ****s, for example, ultimately contributing to a poisonous and intractable climate of discourse, would they.

[TheCurly]

Fine, I get that it's politically expedient to do so but it does remove any moral highground, and god knows the right needs some, when calling out "the left" on their oversensitivity/overreliance on stuff like this.

Also, and I do feel this is a crucial point, if you stifle all debate with cries of antisemite/homophobe/racist/whateverist it completely closes down any sane, reasonable discourse and only allows the millitant pros and cons to prosper.

Ah but is it any worse for the political jibes aimed at Cameron when HE ****ED A PIG RIGHT IN THE MOUTH?

[Monty92]

At least it would never happen in football. I mean, no manager or supporter would ever blandly dismiss those who disagreed with them as know-nothing ****s, for example, ultimately contributing to a poisonous and intractable climate of discourse, would they.

Yes, very good, except:

1) Football fans are a lost cause.
2) Even if politics is also a lost cause, what is at stake is too important to give up on

[Burney]

I get all that. I just think we're creating a race to the bottom that, ultimately, only contributes to a poisonous and intractable climate of political discourse.

Ultimately, such arguments come down to what you believe and the belief that you are right and the other ****'s wrong. It's only a race to the bottom if you believe that the point of political discourse is to kick ideas around rather than get **** done. In this instance, the idea is to expose, discredit, de-legitimise and marginalise those elements within Labour who have a particularly unpleasant ideological bent. Now I don't know about you, but I happen to think that that is a valid aim worth achieving.

[The Jorge]

Of course it's politically expedient, but you clearly missed the second part of what I said, where I pointed out that there is a very real public interest in exposing the links between the second most popular political party in this country and the views and posturing of radicalised Islam.

Yeah, I'd like someone to explain those links a little better but all I hear is noise and dog-whilstles about "friends" and "bedfellows" whilst at the same time the Tory PM is bowing to Saudi kings and ignoring their funding of pretty much every major terror group and the bombing of the yazidis.

Strange bedfellows indeed

[The Jorge]

Ah but is it any worse for the political jibes aimed at Cameron when HE ****ED A PIG RIGHT IN THE MOUTH?

Well that was Lord Ashcroft who claimed that all happened.

[SWv2]

died a horrible death, but I cannot see a single thing in any of his comments today that come even close to anti-semitism.

Seems like a certain faction within Labour is using this whole episode to purge the party of people they don't like. Which is fine, but let's be honest, there's nothing anti-semitic going on in any of this.

I prefer it when you are kind enough to share with us, and in turn educate us, your views on football.

[TheCurly]

Well that was Lord Ashcroft who claimed that all happened.

I assume he's a politician? Ergo a vile ****.

[Monty92]

Yeah, I'd like someone to explain those links a little better but all I hear is noise and dog-whilstles about "friends" and "bedfellows" whilst at the same time the Tory PM is bowing to Saudi kings and ignoring their funding of pretty much every major terror group and the bombing of the yazidis.

Strange bedfellows indeed

Tory MPs bowing to Saudi kings is political expedience, not only economically but if there is any hope of improving the situation in the Middle East now or ever, not least because some form of Sunni led coalition with the west is essential to that goal.

What is the political expedience of saying Bin Laden's death was a tragedy?

[Burney]

Yeah, I'd like someone to explain those links a little better but all I hear is noise and dog-whilstles about "friends" and "bedfellows" whilst at the same time the Tory PM is bowing to Saudi kings and ignoring their funding of pretty much every major terror group and the bombing of the yazidis.

Strange bedfellows indeed

Foreign relations are always grubby and compromising and there isn't much you can do about that, I'm afraid. Good luck having a foreign policy that doesn't involve being nice to Saudi. It's not nice, but it's a reality. :shrug:

However, Labour and the left have very deliberately made friends domestically with some deeply unpleasant people and tolerated and been complicit in some repellent attitudes that run contrary to those they purport to defend purely and simply in order to gain blocks of votes - nothing to do with the interests of the country - just sheer, naked electioneering.

[redgunamo]

Yes, very good, except:

1) Football fans are a lost cause.
2) Even if politics is also a lost cause, what is at stake is too important to give up on

That's why we leave all the real important political stuff to the military. Everyone else is just pissants looking for the biggest anthill they can find to piss from, to make themselves seem more important.

Football supporters don't do any *real* harm, at least.

[The Jorge]

Tory MPs bowing to Saudi kings is political expedience, not only economically but if there is any hope of improving the situation in the Middle East now or ever, not least because some form of Sunni led coalition with the west is essential to that goal.

What is the political expedience of saying Bin Laden's death was a tragedy?

The political expedience is you using less than half the quote, he said it was a tragedy for justice, that he doesnt believe in extra-judicial killings and that he shouldve faced trial. Hard to disagree really, especially if we do want to at least pretend to be better than them

[Monty92]

The political expedience is you using less than half the quote, he said it was a tragedy for justice, that he doesnt believe in extra-judicial killings and that he shouldve faced trial. Hard to disagree really, especially if we do want to at least pretend to be better than them

This is a pretty comprehensive dissection of Corbyn's quotes. There's two parts...

https://daviddpaxton.com/2015/12/20/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden-part-1-killcapture/

[The Jorge]

We're back on to "friends" and "bedfellows" again here, arent we? Are you also running Zac "Jamie Lannister" Goldsmith's campaign?

[The Jorge]

This is a pretty comprehensive dissection of Corbyn's quotes. There's two parts...

https://daviddpaxton.com/2015/12/20/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden-part-1-killcapture/

I'm aware of how it has been spun, and I also think it's pretty shameful. Are you for extra-judicial killings then?

[redgunamo]

I'm aware of how it has been spun, and I also think it's pretty shameful. Are you for extra-judicial killings then?

According to the rules, everyone is. Whether they happen or not largely depends on the psychology of the individuals in question, the chaps we're after. We always give them a chance to put their hands up. Or get the f*** out.

[Luis Anaconda]

We're back on to "friends" and "bedfellows" again here, arent we? Are you also running Zac "Jamie Lannister" Goldsmith's campaign?

Being Jaime Lannister's righthand man seems to me like a dangerous occupation, j

[Monty92]

I'm aware of how it has been spun, and I also think it's pretty shameful. Are you for extra-judicial killings then?

If the law is so important to you and you think the raid broke it when it killed Bin Laden, why would you support his kidnapping for trial from a foreign country (which we know you do)? What is it that makes the latter legal but the former an abandonment of the rule of law? Is the rule of law something that gets broken in degrees?

[The Jorge]

If the law is so important to you and you think the raid broke it when it killed Bin Laden, why would you support his kidnapping for trial from a foreign country (which we know you do)? What is it that makes the latter legal but the former an abandonment of the rule of law? Is the rule of law something that gets broken in degrees?

That's a spectacular dodging of the question, bravo. You almost deserve me answering your question, and with the huge assumption too, almost.

[TheCurly]

According to the rules, everyone is. Whether they happen or not largely depends on the psychology of the individuals in question, the chaps we're after. We always give them a chance to put their hands up. Or get the f*** out.

That's not really true though is it?

[redgunamo]

That's not really true though is it?

Or to put it another way, not enough people are *that* interested in changing the rules.

[TheCurly]

Or to put it another way, not enough people are *that* interested in changing the rules.

Indeed.Load of old bollox really.Rules are broken/bent when it suits.It's the hypocrisy that bugs me.

[redgunamo]

Indeed.Load of old bollox really.Rules are broken/bent when it suits.It's the hypocrisy that bugs me.

I agree 100%. The problem is, nothing would ever get done without it, the hypocrisy :-\

[The Jorge]

I know it's bad form to set up your own jokes but it's even more bad form to nick it from a chap. Bloody nugent-esque.


https://youtu.be/p2FRRJrTc5E?t=85

[Monty92]

That's a spectacular dodging of the question, bravo. You almost deserve me answering your question, and with the huge assumption too, almost.

Forgive me for directing you to other sources, but I tend to agree with this article on "extra-judicial killings"

http://www.headoflegal.com/2015/09/11/if-you-think-it-was-murder-say-so/

[The Jorge]

You do realise it's a short step from there to agreeing with the murder of Lee Rigby, or even 911, dont you?

[Monty92]

You do realise it's a short step from there to agreeing with the murder of Lee Rigby, or even 911, dont you?

If you want to play the moral relativism game, then yes, I do realise that. And it changes absolutely nothing.

[The Jorge]

If you want to play the moral relativism game, then yes, I do realise that. And it changes absolutely nothing.

Well no, it's moral equivalence if you want to be correct with your terminology. It's all very well preaching the superiority of your democratic, western enlightenment values - and perhaps invading other countries to enfoce them even - but when you abandon them at the first sign of the chance of a good old fashioned lynching it does tend to devalue the whole business somewhat.

[Luis Anaconda]

I know it's bad form to set up your own jokes but it's even more bad form to nick it from a chap. Bloody nugent-esque.


https://youtu.be/p2FRRJrTc5E?t=85

Malcolm McDonald :cloud9:

[TheCurly]

Well no, it's moral equivalence if you want to be correct with your terminology. It's all very well preaching the superiority of your democratic, western enlightenment values - and perhaps invading other countries to enfoce them even - but when you abandon them at the first sign of the chance of a good old fashioned lynching it does tend to devalue the whole business somewhat.

Ahhh the old freedom fighter/terrorist question.The answer to the question is in the eye of the beholder which leads to the question never being answered.Or something.

[Monty92]

Here's some key passages from that article I assume you've not read. Thoughts?

****

I’ve heard this a lot:

"Corbyn didn’t say killing OBL was a tragedy, he said not putting him on trial was."

Sure, but it’s the same thing. If not achieving Outcome A (a trial) = Tragedy then Outcome B-Z (not a trial) = Tragedy. There’s not a lot you can do against that. If Jeremy Corbyn said that not putting Bin Laden on trial is a tragedy then all other outcomes are, to him, a ‘tragedy’. This saves somebody like Cameron from the accusation of a ‘lie’.

Is that too lawyerly? Too sneaky? Perhaps you think in accusing him of calling the killing a ‘tragedy’people are allowing the uninformed audience to assume that Corbyn was lamenting the death of a close chum or something. This would mean we were being asked to think Corbyn felt the absence of a living Bin Laden was the tragedy rather than Western civilisation’s missed opportunity in putting the man on trial. In this regard I wonder if Cameron have been less criticised if he had said ‘the killing’ of Bin Laden rather than ‘the death’?

Regardless, if this is the case it is, at worst, a bit of sharp practice. Though I for one never thought that this is what was meant or insinuated and nor was it why Corbyn’s comments angered me. I need no strawmanning. What Corbyn said is worthy of condemnation when steelmanned. It sounded bad when Cameron and so many others said it because it is bad.

If you do object to an apparently misplaced implication in the criticism of Corbyn, if that is the basis of your defence of him, then it demands us to ask ourselves what he did in fact mean.

Tragedy Upon Tragedy Upon a Tragedy

Here’s the rub, Corbyn didn’t just call the absence of an ‘attempt to arrest him’ a tragedy. He called it a tragedy like 9-11 was. Therein is where all known defences of Corbyn fall to ****.

He said:

"This was an assassination attempt and is yet another tragedy upon a tragedy upon a tragedy. The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack in Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy."

How exactly is the result of the raid on Bin Laden a tragedy like 9-11? If they are all tragedies then what is the tragic strand that unites them? What is the underlying and consistent theme of tragedy?

This needs to be answered by anybody stating he was taken out of context. If you have no reasonable explanation for this you are best to keep quiet when tempted to say you understand what Corbyn meant and that the rest of us are being unfair to him.

Hitchens’ ill-considered stab at Cameron provides us with a nice point to work around. And, for what it’s worth, I think Cameron was being clever.

Hitchens said:

"The false and cheap suggestion that Mr Corbyn does not regard the events of September 11, 2001 as a tragedy – when he specifically said that he did – was a disgrace for which Mr Cameron should quickly make amends."

Ok. But Corbyn called them both tragedies. Cameron suggested 9-11 was a tragedy because of human reasons such as:

A tragedy is nearly 3,000 people murdered one morning in New York.

A tragedy is the mums and dads who never came home from work that day.

A tragedy is people jumping from the towers after the planes hit.

There is a choice. Did Corbyn call Bin Laden’s death a tragedy due to the sadness and horror of the act or did he call a 9-11 a tragedy due to the ‘perfectly reasonable and civilised objection’ to its lawlessness? You can have one or the other. And I suggest you want neither.

Cameron knew what he was doing. The 9-11 reference wasn’t ‘false and cheap’, it was a move of wit and sophistication from a politician making a political speech. It spoke a truth about Corbyn and it left open the chance for people, who were so keen to have a crack at Cameron they couldn’t be bothered to consider what Corbyn actually said before they leapt to his defense, to be reduced to spouting nonsense. Further analysis ends up making him look worse and his defenders silly while all the while keeping the conversation on Corbyn and security.

You may have preferred if Cameron had taken the time to lay all this out at length and in depth. But he was making a podium speech to his troops which excuses brevity and some level of simplicity. Does it excuse lying and falsehoods? No. But I think I have demonstrated that that simply didn’t occur.

In short – Corbyn said Bin Laden’s death was a tragedy like 9-11. If he thinks it was a tragedy in the way Cameron describes 9-11 then he wasn’t being misrepresented or taken out of context, smeared, or slandered. He is guilty as hell and all the **** slung his way was well deserved.

[redgunamo]

Ahhh the old freedom fighter/terrorist question.The answer to the question is in the eye of the beholder which leads to the question never being answered.Or something.

Nation building begins at home, as they say. We know we're not perfect.

[Pokster]

Here's some key passages from that article I assume you've not read. Thoughts?

****

I’ve heard this a lot:

"Corbyn didn’t say killing OBL was a tragedy, he said not putting him on trial was."

Sure, but it’s the same thing. If not achieving Outcome A (a trial) = Tragedy then Outcome B-Z (not a trial) = Tragedy. There’s not a lot you can do against that. If Jeremy Corbyn said that not putting Bin Laden on trial is a tragedy then all other outcomes are, to him, a ‘tragedy’. This saves somebody like Cameron from the accusation of a ‘lie’.

Is that too lawyerly? Too sneaky? Perhaps you think in accusing him of calling the killing a ‘tragedy’people are allowing the uninformed audience to assume that Corbyn was lamenting the death of a close chum or something. This would mean we were being asked to think Corbyn felt the absence of a living Bin Laden was the tragedy rather than Western civilisation’s missed opportunity in putting the man on trial. In this regard I wonder if Cameron have been less criticised if he had said ‘the killing’ of Bin Laden rather than ‘the death’?

Regardless, if this is the case it is, at worst, a bit of sharp practice. Though I for one never thought that this is what was meant or insinuated and nor was it why Corbyn’s comments angered me. I need no strawmanning. What Corbyn said is worthy of condemnation when steelmanned. It sounded bad when Cameron and so many others said it because it is bad.

If you do object to an apparently misplaced implication in the criticism of Corbyn, if that is the basis of your defence of him, then it demands us to ask ourselves what he did in fact mean.

Tragedy Upon Tragedy Upon a Tragedy

Here’s the rub, Corbyn didn’t just call the absence of an ‘attempt to arrest him’ a tragedy. He called it a tragedy like 9-11 was. Therein is where all known defences of Corbyn fall to ****.

He said:

"This was an assassination attempt and is yet another tragedy upon a tragedy upon a tragedy. The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack in Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy."

How exactly is the result of the raid on Bin Laden a tragedy like 9-11? If they are all tragedies then what is the tragic strand that unites them? What is the underlying and consistent theme of tragedy?

This needs to be answered by anybody stating he was taken out of context. If you have no reasonable explanation for this you are best to keep quiet when tempted to say you understand what Corbyn meant and that the rest of us are being unfair to him.

Hitchens’ ill-considered stab at Cameron provides us with a nice point to work around. And, for what it’s worth, I think Cameron was being clever.

Hitchens said:

"The false and cheap suggestion that Mr Corbyn does not regard the events of September 11, 2001 as a tragedy – when he specifically said that he did – was a disgrace for which Mr Cameron should quickly make amends."

Ok. But Corbyn called them both tragedies. Cameron suggested 9-11 was a tragedy because of human reasons such as:

A tragedy is nearly 3,000 people murdered one morning in New York.

A tragedy is the mums and dads who never came home from work that day.

A tragedy is people jumping from the towers after the planes hit.

There is a choice. Did Corbyn call Bin Laden’s death a tragedy due to the sadness and horror of the act or did he call a 9-11 a tragedy due to the ‘perfectly reasonable and civilised objection’ to its lawlessness? You can have one or the other. And I suggest you want neither.

Cameron knew what he was doing. The 9-11 reference wasn’t ‘false and cheap’, it was a move of wit and sophistication from a politician making a political speech. It spoke a truth about Corbyn and it left open the chance for people, who were so keen to have a crack at Cameron they couldn’t be bothered to consider what Corbyn actually said before they leapt to his defense, to be reduced to spouting nonsense. Further analysis ends up making him look worse and his defenders silly while all the while keeping the conversation on Corbyn and security.

You may have preferred if Cameron had taken the time to lay all this out at length and in depth. But he was making a podium speech to his troops which excuses brevity and some level of simplicity. Does it excuse lying and falsehoods? No. But I think I have demonstrated that that simply didn’t occur.

In short – Corbyn said Bin Laden’s death was a tragedy like 9-11. If he thinks it was a tragedy in the way Cameron describes 9-11 then he wasn’t being misrepresented or taken out of context, smeared, or slandered. He is guilty as hell and all the **** slung his way was well deserved.

It's good to see that the new board can be just as boring as the old one.. wd all of you

[TheCurly]

Here's some key passages from that article I assume you've not read. Thoughts?

****

I’ve heard this a lot:

"Corbyn didn’t say killing OBL was a tragedy, he said not putting him on trial was."

Sure, but it’s the same thing. If not achieving Outcome A (a trial) = Tragedy then Outcome B-Z (not a trial) = Tragedy. There’s not a lot you can do against that. If Jeremy Corbyn said that not putting Bin Laden on trial is a tragedy then all other outcomes are, to him, a ‘tragedy’. This saves somebody like Cameron from the accusation of a ‘lie’.

Is that too lawyerly? Too sneaky? Perhaps you think in accusing him of calling the killing a ‘tragedy’people are allowing the uninformed audience to assume that Corbyn was lamenting the death of a close chum or something. This would mean we were being asked to think Corbyn felt the absence of a living Bin Laden was the tragedy rather than Western civilisation’s missed opportunity in putting the man on trial. In this regard I wonder if Cameron have been less criticised if he had said ‘the killing’ of Bin Laden rather than ‘the death’?

Regardless, if this is the case it is, at worst, a bit of sharp practice. Though I for one never thought that this is what was meant or insinuated and nor was it why Corbyn’s comments angered me. I need no strawmanning. What Corbyn said is worthy of condemnation when steelmanned. It sounded bad when Cameron and so many others said it because it is bad.

If you do object to an apparently misplaced implication in the criticism of Corbyn, if that is the basis of your defence of him, then it demands us to ask ourselves what he did in fact mean.

Tragedy Upon Tragedy Upon a Tragedy

Here’s the rub, Corbyn didn’t just call the absence of an ‘attempt to arrest him’ a tragedy. He called it a tragedy like 9-11 was. Therein is where all known defences of Corbyn fall to ****.

He said:

"This was an assassination attempt and is yet another tragedy upon a tragedy upon a tragedy. The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack in Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy."

How exactly is the result of the raid on Bin Laden a tragedy like 9-11? If they are all tragedies then what is the tragic strand that unites them? What is the underlying and consistent theme of tragedy?

This needs to be answered by anybody stating he was taken out of context. If you have no reasonable explanation for this you are best to keep quiet when tempted to say you understand what Corbyn meant and that the rest of us are being unfair to him.

Hitchens’ ill-considered stab at Cameron provides us with a nice point to work around. And, for what it’s worth, I think Cameron was being clever.

Hitchens said:

"The false and cheap suggestion that Mr Corbyn does not regard the events of September 11, 2001 as a tragedy – when he specifically said that he did – was a disgrace for which Mr Cameron should quickly make amends."

Ok. But Corbyn called them both tragedies. Cameron suggested 9-11 was a tragedy because of human reasons such as:

A tragedy is nearly 3,000 people murdered one morning in New York.

A tragedy is the mums and dads who never came home from work that day.

A tragedy is people jumping from the towers after the planes hit.

There is a choice. Did Corbyn call Bin Laden’s death a tragedy due to the sadness and horror of the act or did he call a 9-11 a tragedy due to the ‘perfectly reasonable and civilised objection’ to its lawlessness? You can have one or the other. And I suggest you want neither.

Cameron knew what he was doing. The 9-11 reference wasn’t ‘false and cheap’, it was a move of wit and sophistication from a politician making a political speech. It spoke a truth about Corbyn and it left open the chance for people, who were so keen to have a crack at Cameron they couldn’t be bothered to consider what Corbyn actually said before they leapt to his defense, to be reduced to spouting nonsense. Further analysis ends up making him look worse and his defenders silly while all the while keeping the conversation on Corbyn and security.

You may have preferred if Cameron had taken the time to lay all this out at length and in depth. But he was making a podium speech to his troops which excuses brevity and some level of simplicity. Does it excuse lying and falsehoods? No. But I think I have demonstrated that that simply didn’t occur.

In short – Corbyn said Bin Laden’s death was a tragedy like 9-11. If he thinks it was a tragedy in the way Cameron describes 9-11 then he wasn’t being misrepresented or taken out of context, smeared, or slandered. He is guilty as hell and all the **** slung his way was well deserved.

"Tragedy:An event causing great suffering, destruction, and distress, such as a serious accident, crime, or natural catastrophe"
I think one can safely say OBL death's would fall under this definition

[The Jorge]

Farkin ell, can you not precis this a bit? I mean I skimmed it and it sort of sounds like Cameron is right and Corbyn is wrong, is that the idea?

Does this stuff count for anything? Listen to the interview, see what the main said. Why are these people even relevant?

[The Jorge]

"Tragedy:An event causing great suffering, destruction, and distress, such as a serious accident, crime, or natural catastrophe"
I think one can safely say OBL death's would fall under this definition

No, but it's not the same, see? www.linktothewhole****inginternet.com

[The Jorge]

It's good to see that the new board can be just as boring as the old one.. wd all of you

Yeah, but now you have to click down six layers to see Monty making the same point again and again and again

[Monty92]

Farkin ell, can you not precis this a bit? I mean I skimmed it and it sort of sounds like Cameron is right and Corbyn is wrong, is that the idea?

Does this stuff count for anything? Listen to the interview, see what the main said. Why are these people even relevant?

Here's the concluding passage:

*****

The negative reactions to the ‘tragedy’ comment were quickly written off by Corbyn admirers as almost any criticism of him is. But I also found lots of fairly impartial people did the same. Even before Cameron mentioned it. People were instantly convinced he had been smeared and that closer examination would reveal nuance that exculpates him. I looked at the nuance and it doesn’t.

The comedic ramblings of the 62 year-old adolescent should have remained ignored in the depths of YouTube, but somehow 250,000+ people, apparently intent on us virtue signalling our way to impotence and defeat, elected him leader of a great political party. It become worthy of attention.

Corbyn has some detailed explaining to do. His appearance on such a show and on such a channel is a problem anyway but his specific comments were shameful. The childish moral wailing, or as Peter Htichens describes it, the “perfectly reasonable and civilised objections to the extrajudicial killing of Osama Bin Laden”, were sandwiched between low conspiracism and worthless conjecture.

To have a public attack of the vapours when a man who declares war on the United States, who murdered thousands of her citizens, who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of others around the world, who still planned attacks, who claimed to love death, who begged to fight, lived to fight, and then eventually got a fight and lost… is perverse. It is pure masochism.

Shooting Bin Laden may not have been your perfect outcome and I won’t begrudge anybody for wishing he currently sat stateside in a supermax prison. But his killing wasn’t a descent into lawlessness or barbarism or anything close. The children in the compound lived and the minimum damage was done to complete the task. In hunting down and killing Osama bin Laden the United States demonstrated something laudable.

They showed that justice will catch up with you in one form or another. They showed that dilgent, thorough, hard working people were willing to dedicate a good portion of their careers, on civil service wages, to tracking down the culprit and the threat. Then they showed they were willing to take physical and political risks to move the task to completion.

Perhaps a trial would have shown something better on top, perhaps a different conclusion might have been preferable. But wildly so? At what risk is this advantage to be acheived. Should they retrain troops to the point that their lives are worth less than the public relations potential of putting a man, who didn’t want to come quietly, on trial? How many trained and willing soldiers should be risked? What punishment would we suggest after the first one or two are shot the third kills the target?

A man who worshiped death, killed countless and swore he would never surrender was dispatched. And if you think I am getting to close to sanitised euphemisms, he was dispatched by a bullet cracking open his skull and emptying the contents onto his bedroom floor. Force is ugly. But this was no tragedy and nor was it a further descent in cycles of violence. It was a disciplined, professional, controlled and considered act that was sensible, proportionate, necessary and had no credible alternatives to it suggested. It’s difficult to escape the conclusion that those stating otherwise are one of the following: anti-American, masochistic, foolish, naive, working to an agenda, sympathetic to terrorists, or in the tragic case of Jeremy Corbyn, most of the above.

[redgunamo]

"Tragedy:An event causing great suffering, destruction, and distress, such as a serious accident, crime, or natural catastrophe"
I think one can safely say OBL death's would fall under this definition

He was asking for it, I reckon.

[TheCurly]

He was asking for it, I reckon.

Oh absolutely he was.And a squaddie getting his legs blown off with a landmine in Afghanistan isn't.
Back to the old hypocrisy thing again.

[The Jorge]

Fine, call me "anti-American, masochistic, foolish, naive, working to an agenda, sympathetic to terrorists or most of the above." then. But you remain the person justifying killing, whether it be in retribution or not, here.

Are you in favour of the death penalty too? You're becoming very reactionary in your dotage, monts

[Monty92]

Fine, call me "anti-American, masochistic, foolish, naive, working to an agenda, sympathetic to terrorists or most of the above." then. But you remain the person justifying killing, whether it be in retribution or not, here.

Are you in favour of the death penalty too? You're becoming very reactionary in your dotage, monts

Sorry, I'm slightly reeling here. Are you actually saying you think it was morally unjustifiable for Bin Laden to have been killed without trial?

[The Jorge]

Sorry, I'm slightly reeling here. Are you actually saying you think it was morally unjustifiable for Bin Laden to have been killed without trial?

Not really, I'm sure you could justify it, I just dont think it was the right thing to do. He wasnt killed in a firefight, they broke into his house and shot him. They should have tried him for his crimes but instead they chose to show they were no better than what they were fighting.

[Luis Anaconda]

Here's the concluding passage:

*****

The negative reactions to the ‘tragedy’ comment were quickly written off by Corbyn admirers as almost any criticism of him is. But I also found lots of fairly impartial people did the same. Even before Cameron mentioned it. People were instantly convinced he had been smeared and that closer examination would reveal nuance that exculpates him. I looked at the nuance and it doesn’t.

The comedic ramblings of the 62 year-old adolescent should have remained ignored in the depths of YouTube, but somehow 250,000+ people, apparently intent on us virtue signalling our way to impotence and defeat, elected him leader of a great political party. It become worthy of attention.

Corbyn has some detailed explaining to do. His appearance on such a show and on such a channel is a problem anyway but his specific comments were shameful. The childish moral wailing, or as Peter Htichens describes it, the “perfectly reasonable and civilised objections to the extrajudicial killing of Osama Bin Laden”, were sandwiched between low conspiracism and worthless conjecture.

To have a public attack of the vapours when a man who declares war on the United States, who murdered thousands of her citizens, who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of others around the world, who still planned attacks, who claimed to love death, who begged to fight, lived to fight, and then eventually got a fight and lost… is perverse. It is pure masochism.

Shooting Bin Laden may not have been your perfect outcome and I won’t begrudge anybody for wishing he currently sat stateside in a supermax prison. But his killing wasn’t a descent into lawlessness or barbarism or anything close. The children in the compound lived and the minimum damage was done to complete the task. In hunting down and killing Osama bin Laden the United States demonstrated something laudable.

They showed that justice will catch up with you in one form or another. They showed that dilgent, thorough, hard working people were willing to dedicate a good portion of their careers, on civil service wages, to tracking down the culprit and the threat. Then they showed they were willing to take physical and political risks to move the task to completion.

Perhaps a trial would have shown something better on top, perhaps a different conclusion might have been preferable. But wildly so? At what risk is this advantage to be acheived. Should they retrain troops to the point that their lives are worth less than the public relations potential of putting a man, who didn’t want to come quietly, on trial? How many trained and willing soldiers should be risked? What punishment would we suggest after the first one or two are shot the third kills the target?

A man who worshiped death, killed countless and swore he would never surrender was dispatched. And if you think I am getting to close to sanitised euphemisms, he was dispatched by a bullet cracking open his skull and emptying the contents onto his bedroom floor. Force is ugly. But this was no tragedy and nor was it a further descent in cycles of violence. It was a disciplined, professional, controlled and considered act that was sensible, proportionate, necessary and had no credible alternatives to it suggested. It’s difficult to escape the conclusion that those stating otherwise are one of the following: anti-American, masochistic, foolish, naive, working to an agenda, sympathetic to terrorists, or in the tragic case of Jeremy Corbyn, most of the above.

Whichever way you look at it, it's a pretty ****e article trying to prove your point of view, m, tbf. I would imagine the writer is unaware of irony when he dismisses Corbyn's remarks as ramblings

[TheCurly]

Sorry, I'm slightly reeling here. Are you actually saying you think it was morally unjustifiable for Bin Laden to have been killed without trial?

Monty: It was morally ok to kill Bin Laden
Some Arab bloke:It was morally ok to kill all those people in the London bombings
Both in their own minds are right
Doesn't really hel all the dead people though does it?

[The Jorge]

Monty: It was morally ok to kill Bin Laden
Some Arab bloke:It was morally ok to kill all those people in the London bombings
Both in their own minds are right
Doesn't really hel all the dead people though does it?

I cant believe you said that Bin Laden deserves help #extrapolation

[Burney]

Monty: It was morally ok to kill Bin Laden
Some Arab bloke:It was morally ok to kill all those people in the London bombings
Both in their own minds are right
Doesn't really hel all the dead people though does it?

That is ultimately a cop-out, though, isn't it? It suggests both views are equally valid and that neither has more or less merit than the other. Ultimately, if you believe the society we live in is fundamentally better than the one that radical Islam proposes we live in, then you don't get to play the moral relativism game.

Whether you like it or not, you have to decide which side you're on. Sorry, but you do. :shrug:

[TheCurly]

That is ultimately a cop-out, though, isn't it? It suggests both views are equally valid and that neither has more or less merit than the other. Ultimately, if you believe the society we live in is fundamentally better than the one that radical Islam proposes we live in, then you don't get to play the moral relativism game.

Whether you like it or not, you have to decide which side you're on. Sorry, but you do. :shrug:

Sorry,I was being a bit cynical.
Of course I know where I stand.OBL was a mighty **** and deserved 5 or 6 in the face and I'd have British democracy over radical Islam every day of the week.Alls I'm trying to say is if you kill some of theirs you have no real complaints when they kill some of yours.I was more complaining of the hypocrisy.

[Burney]

Not really, I'm sure you could justify it, I just dont think it was the right thing to do. He wasnt killed in a firefight, they broke into his house and shot him. They should have tried him for his crimes but instead they chose to show they were no better than what they were fighting.

Well strictly speaking - if we're going to pretend that this isn't a war we're engaged in - the US should have got him extradited from Pakistan and then tried. How do you think that would have gone?

Basically, you refuse to accept that we are in a state of war with the various elements of violent extremist Islam. Despite them making it abundantly clear that they have declared war on us, you and Mr Corbyn exist in some fantasy world where we should play nice and legal with these people who avowedly want to kill our citizens wherever they can and arrest them all and put them on trial. It's childish, irresponsible bull**** that you know can never work and yet you still advocate it? Why?

[The Jorge]

No, ultimately you have to decide whether you are on the side of a rational, western democracy or a vengeful death cult. Pick whatever side you want but dont start trying to scramble back up for some moral highground after youve decided the best way to do it is by killing people and then dumping the body at sea so nobody can call you out on anything. Either you believe in the rule of law or you dont, in which case you're one of them.


Well strictly speaking - if we're going to pretend that this isn't a war we're engaged in - the US should have got him extradited from Pakistan and then tried. How do you think that would have gone?

Basically, you refuse to accept that we are in a state of war with the various elements of violent extremist Islam. Despite them making it abundantly clear that they have declared war on us, you and Mr Corbyn exist in some fantasy world where we should play nice and legal with these people who avowedly want to kill our citizens wherever they can and arrest them all and put them on trial. It's childish, irresponsible bull**** that you know can never work and yet you still advocate it? Why?

[Burney]

No, ultimately you have to decide whether you are on the side of a rational, western democracy or a vengeful death cult. Pick whatever side you want but dont start trying to scramble back up for some moral highground after youve decided the best way to do it is by killing people and then dumping the body at sea so nobody can call you out on anything.

So you genuinely think that, after he had overseen and sponsored the murder of 3,000 people in New York (not to mention all his other crimes), the United States had no moral justification for finding and (in the immortal words of John Cena) 'compromising to a permanent end' Osama Bin Laden? Seriously? How can your moral compass be that far off?

[Burney]

Sorry,I was being a bit cynical.
Of course I know where I stand.OBL was a mighty **** and deserved 5 or 6 in the face and I'd have British democracy over radical Islam every day of the week.Alls I'm trying to say is if you kill some of theirs you have no real complaints when they kill some of yours.I was more complaining of the hypocrisy.

Sure. We're in a war. They're going to get some of ours and we're going to get a lot more of theirs. However, it seems to me that there is a desire on j's part to draw moral equivalence between the deliberate murder on 9/11 of thousands of US citizens and the decision by the US to kill the guy who did it. No such equivalence exists and to suggest it does strikes me as part absurd, part obscene.

[The Jorge]

So you genuinely think that, after he had overseen and sponsored the murder of 3,000 people in New York (not to mention all his other crimes), the United States had no moral justification for finding and (in the immortal words of John Cena) 'compromising to a permanent end' Osama Bin Laden? Seriously? How can your moral compass be that far off?

Nice Cena quote, it seems like everyone is a little bit Fash nowadays.

Call me old fashioned but I've never been too convinced that killing people is the best way to demonstrate to people that killing people is wrong. I'd go as far as to say that killing him was an act of moral cowardice, at the very least. That's before we even go into martyrdom and how that sort of thing is very unhelpful when dealing with religious zealots.

[redgunamo]

Nice Cena quote, it seems like everyone is a little bit Fash nowadays.

Call me old fashioned but I've never been too convinced that killing people is the best way to demonstrate to people that killing people is wrong. I'd go as far as to say that killing him was an act of moral cowardice, at the very least. That's before we even go into martyrdom and how that sort of thing is very unhelpful when dealing with religious zealots.

:nod: I know who John Cena is.

[Ash]

Monty: It was morally ok to kill Bin Laden
Some Arab bloke:It was morally ok to kill all those people in the London bombings
Both in their own minds are right
Doesn't really hel all the dead people though does it?

Conflation of these two misses the distinction between the leader of a violent organisation and civilians. Surely no-one is suggesting they are equivalent.

[Burney]

Nice Cena quote, it seems like everyone is a little bit Fash nowadays.

Call me old fashioned but I've never been too convinced that killing people is the best way to demonstrate to people that killing people is wrong. I'd go as far as to say that killing him was an act of moral cowardice, at the very least. That's before we even go into martyrdom and how that sort of thing is very unhelpful when dealing with religious zealots.

It's nothing to do with demonstrating that killing people is wrong - we were past that stage a long time ago. It's about doing what is necessary to minimise and eliminate future threats and also to demonstrate to those who would take us on that you cannot attack us with impunity.

It's not a debate, an election or a popularity contest we're looking to win here - it's a war. You seem to think that fighting that war somehow removes any moral weight we might have. Your alternative, presumably, would be that we keep taking the kickings radical Islam wants to dole out without fighting back - thus maintaining our spotless reputation while our citizens are killed.

[Ash]

Call me old fashioned but I've never been too convinced that killing people is the best way to demonstrate to people that killing people is wrong.

What's old-fashioned about that? Capital punishment was the norm in them days.

[The Jorge]

doing what is necessary to minimise and eliminate future threats

well that went well.

[Burney]

well that went well.

It's still ongoing. And actually, yes, it is going pretty well. Al Qaeda was basically destroyed root and branch. Now ISIS are being rolled back pretty steadily.

[Ash]

Alls I'm trying to say is if you kill some of theirs you have no real complaints when they kill some of yours.I was more complaining of the hypocrisy.

What you should know, Curly, as that Burnley has no problem with hypocrisy, when his side does it. Only when the other chaps do.

Though in this case I don't think it's hypocrisy to oppose the mass slaughter of civilians while supporting the excecution of the perp.

[redgunamo]

What you should know, Curly, as that Burnley has no problem with hypocrisy, when his side does it. Only when the other chaps do.

Though in this case I don't think it's hypocrisy to oppose the mass slaughter of civilians while supporting the excecution of the perp.

You wouldn't think football supporters would need this explaining, would you.

[Burney]

What you should know, Curly, as that Burnley has no problem with hypocrisy, when his side does it. Only when the other chaps do.

Though in this case I don't think it's hypocrisy to oppose the mass slaughter of civilians while supporting the excecution of the perp.

There is no hypocrisy in this case since I believe sincerely that we are - if not the good guys - then most definitely the lesser of two evils by a country mile.

[The Jorge]

It's still ongoing. And actually, yes, it is going pretty well. Al Qaeda was basically destroyed root and branch. Now ISIS are being rolled back pretty steadily.

It's the only language they understand, I suppose

[Burney]

It's the only language they understand, I suppose

I don't give a **** what language they do or don't understand. We're not trying to persuade them or negotiate with them here, we're trying to kill them.

[Ash]

Here's the concluding passage:

*****

{really long, boring and badly-written rant snipped}



That was supposed to be a conclusion? A precis? All it showed was that the writer was a dickhead, even if JC's choice of vocabulary was inadvisable (though I find his position of preferring a trial to be reasonable).

[TheCurly]

What you should know, Curly, as that Burnley has no problem with hypocrisy, when his side does it. Only when the other chaps do.

Though in this case I don't think it's hypocrisy to oppose the mass slaughter of civilians while supporting the excecution of the perp.

I only really got involved when Monty said OBL's death wasn't a tragedy.I only pointed out that by the OED definition of the word it was.I shouldn't really get involved in these intellectual debates as I fick.

[The Jorge]

I don't give a **** what language they do or don't understand. We're not trying to persuade them or negotiate with them here, we're trying to kill them.

Yes, death to the infidels!

[Ash]

There is no hypocrisy in this case since I believe sincerely that we are - if not the good guys - then most definitely the lesser of two evils by a country mile.

I'm very firmly on our side too on this, though your reply did nicely illustrate my point. I drew the distinction between the acts themselves. You drew the distinction between the people doing them.

[Burney]

I'm very firmly on our side too on this, though your reply did nicely illustrate my point. I drew the distinction between the acts themselves. You drew the distinction between the people doing them.

Killing is killing. :shrug: Ultimately the only meaningful distinction lies in who's doing it and why.

[Ash]

I only really got involved when Monty said OBL's death wasn't a tragedy.I only pointed out that by the OED definition of the word it was.I shouldn't really get involved in these intellectual debates as I fick.

Of course if one was to have said that OBL's death was a tragedy ... because DEATH's TOO GOOD FOR 'IM! the ensuing debate would have been very different.

"Nnnn, nnn, nnnnot as nn, nnnot as nnnaaasty as something I just thought up, sir!"

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/u88kf1J6Kv4/hqdefault.jpg