Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Nobody is claiming that the current situation in Venezuela has anything to do with the British Labour party or Mr Corbyn.

What has and is happening is of International interest as there is significant doubt as to the validity of the electoral process as claims are being made that over a million additional votes for the successful party were "added"

It is not unreasonable to expect that Labour and Mr Corbyn would express their discomfort at this possible tampering with democracy or does he wish to give the impression that as long as it is an ultra left wing party in power none of this matters?

There are suspect election all over the world, I don't remember the tory press demanding Labour or anyone else condemn those?
 
4. .... rightwing loons on forums.

But that's not a very large group, is it?

I mean, probably only a fraction of the 50% of the UK population who are classified as 'rightwing loons' are actually on this forum?
 
There are suspect election all over the world, I don't remember the tory press demanding Labour or anyone else condemn those?

Yes, but then again the Tories do not have a reputation for refusing to condemn oppresive regimes (Iran, Hammas) and terror organisations (IRA, Hezbulla).





PS - I know I know, he applogised for calling Hammas and Hezbulla 'our freinds' and condemnded all violence in NI. See what I did there? I repeated the allegations, and if I do this frequently enough, people will start believing it's true.

A bit like when Corbyn's team keep repeating the nonsensical phrase "Labour's fully-funded manifesto''. And it works! It got some left-leaning forum members to believe it's actually true.
 
Last edited:
There are suspect election all over the world, I don't remember the tory press demanding Labour or anyone else condemn those?

If Corbyn wants to appear to be credible on all stages then he should be condemning all areas where democracy is suspect, denied or otherwise under threat of his own accord but as markjay has pointed out Corbyn has a long history of support for illegal or terrorist organisations.

Oh no, my fault, not illegal or terrorist etc, they are / were "Freedom fighters" so the acts of murder, torture etc they committed were all in a good cause!

Say it enough times and believe, say it enough times and believe........:wallbash::wallbash:
 
Yes, but then again the Tories do not have a reputation for refusing to condemn oppresive regimes (Iran, Hammas) and terror organisations (IRA, Hezbulla).

"Tories have forgotten that Thatcher wasn't just a terrorist sympathiser, but close friends with one"

"Thatcher's support for Chile's former torturer-in-chief General Pinochet is no secret; it was something she was proud of. Despite her assertion that “The United States and Britain have together been the greatest alliance in defence of liberty and justice,” Thatcher refused to back down in her support of a man who overthrew a democratically elected government. This was a man who initiated the notorious Caravan of Death, the army unit that travelled the country by helicopter, murdering and torturing the General's opponents.

Pinochet's rule was inhumane and brutal, but was it terrorism? In the words of a soldier in Chile's Talca Regiment at the time of the abuses: "It seems to me that one of the reasons for the [Caravan of Death] mission was to set a drastic precedent in order to terrorise the presumed willingness of the Chilean people to fight back. But without any doubt, it was also intended to instill fear and terror among the commanders. To prevent any military personnel, down to lowest ranking officers, from taking a false step: this could happen to you!""

Tories have forgotten that Thatcher wasn't just a terrorist sympathiser, but close friends with one | The Independent
 
Yes, but then again the Tories do not have a reputation for refusing to condemn oppresive regimes (Iran, Hammas) and terror organisations (IRA, Hezbulla).

The IRA are terrorists, but Iran is a democratic state, and Hamas and Hezbollah are both political parties born out of the brutal and illegal Israeli occupation.
 
The IRA are terrorists, but Iran is a democratic state, and Hamas and Hezbollah are both political parties born out of the brutal and illegal Israeli occupation.

Err... no. That's just typical Corbyn-style propaganda made-up of the usual half-truths mixed together with political agenda.

I don't want to touch on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because it will see this thread closed. We already has several pages of drivel on this subject removed from this thread by moderators.

But here are some facts:

Hezbolla was born out of the decades-long civil war in Lebanon, Between the Shiite Muslims, Maronite Christians, and Druz. Their first international traget was in fact not Israel, but suicide attacks that killed 241 US and 58 French peacekeepers in Beirut in 1983. For these attacks, Hezbulla's Military Operations Officer, Imad Mughniyah, was on the FBI Most Wanted list with a $5m reward on his head for 25 years until he was finally killed (most probably by Israel) in 2008.

Hammas is an extreme Suni organisation that took power from the miderate PLO in parts of Palestine (Gazza) after winning the elections in 2007. As part of the PLO-Hammas conflict, Hammas militants threw PLO officials of rooftops to their death (all documented). Since then, no more elections were allowed in Gazza again, with Hammas keeping power in Gazza for 10 years now by executing its political opponents.

Yes Israel is a regional player, and yes it got involved in local conflicts, I am not justifying or excusing Israel's actions, I just don't want to discuss this on the UK Politics Threads.

But to suggest that had it not been for Israel's local presence (occupation or otherwise), there would have been ethernal brotherly love between the various warring factions in the region, is absurd.

Both Hezbolla and Hammas are declared as Terrorist Organisations by every Western Government. And Corbyn did well to say that he regrets calling them "our friends" as he did - and actually I give him credit for that.
 
Hezbolla was born out of the decades-long civil war in Lebanon, Between the Shiite Muslims, Maronite Christians, and Druz.

"Hezbollah is an Islamic movement founded after the Israeli military seizure of Lebanon in 1982, which resulted in the formation of Islamic resistance units committed to the liberation of the occupied territories and the ejection of Israeli forces."

Hammas keeping power in Gazza for 10 years now by executing its political opponents.

"Abbas' presidential term officially ended in 2009, but elections have not been held in Palestine since 2006 when Hamas stood for parliamentary elections and won.

Fatah refused to recognise the vote, and Hamas and Fatah have since 2007 ruled the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, respectively."

But to suggest that had it not been for Israel's local presence (occupation or otherwise), there would have been ethernal brotherly love between the various warring factions in the region, is absurd.

Both the groups you mentioned formed due to the illegal occupation/invasion.
 
"Hezbollah is an Islamic movement founded after the Israeli military seizure of Lebanon in 1982, which resulted in the formation of Islamic resistance units committed to the liberation of the occupied territories and the ejection of Israeli forces."

"Abbas' presidential term officially ended in 2009, but elections have not been held in Palestine since 2006 when Hamas stood for parliamentary elections and won.

Fatah refused to recognise the vote, and Hamas and Fatah have since 2007 ruled the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, respectively."

Both the groups you mentioned formed due to the illegal occupation/invasion.


Yeah, right. Hezbulla and Hammas are charitable organisations, and the Middle East was a peaceful paradise until Israel intervened. It's all Israel's fault.... as always. The usual anti-Israeli rant from Corbyn's ranks. Hardly surprising. But as you say, let's get back on topic....
 
'Tax Wealth'...? Are you referring to the single-item economic plan that Corbyn has for the country?

Regardless of your views on the issue, the ideas and comments in that particular article come from a (former) senior Tory policy advisor and are nothing to do with Jeremy Corbyn.
 
Regardless of your views on the issue, the ideas and comments in that particular article come from a (former) senior Tory policy advisor and are nothing to do with Jeremy Corbyn.

My comment above was just banter aimed at NM.... ;)

I actually think it's a very good article, and I agree with most of the points Will Tanner is making.

(In fact I made some of these points myself in previous posts)
 
To be precise....

This article appeared in The Guardian... so not suprisingly they chose the headline 'Tax wealth or lose election, ex-May aide warns Tories".

Had this been the Daily Mail... the headline would probably say 'Nick Timoty warns against the risk of a dangerous leftwing alternative'..... :D

But setting aside the choice of headline, I think that both Will Tanner and Nick Timothy are right.

You don't win elections simply by offering voters what you believe is the best plan for the economy; instead you need to come-up with what voters want to hear and are willing to accept.

Corbyn worked it out. Part of Labour's resurgence in the last elections was due to Corbyn removing some of his more-radical agenda from the manifesto and trading it in for votes.

The Tories should have responded in kind.
 
Last edited:
The IRA are terrorists, but Iran is a democratic state, and Hamas and Hezbollah are both political parties born out of the brutal and illegal Israeli occupation.

Iran has regional political and sectarian interests that are somewhat at odds with some of the other contries in the region.

Hezbollah isn't a political party in the sense that UK voters would understand it. It operates as a militia which is outside the authority of the state in which it resides - and is influenced by a third party state for its own interests.
 
"Tories have forgotten that Thatcher wasn't just a terrorist sympathiser, but close friends with one"

I don't think Mrs Thatcher was necesarily a close friends of General Pinochet. But as usual it suits those on the lef to personalise things at that level.

There is a difference between the likes of Mr Corbyn and Ms Abbot supporting a flawed political setup in Venezuala and a PM engaging in real politik.

In 1982 various nasty things happened in the South Atlantic - the UK engaged with Chile and its government for pragmatic reasons. That created some complications.

Similarly in the early 1940s the UK engaged with the Soviet Union. That also created some complications.

The sad thing is that Mr Corbyn and Ms Abbot felt the need to associate themselves with Venezuala - even when Mr Chavez was on the up it was pretty obvious to somebody with common sense that thing were going to go bad.

But I guess a revolutionary 'socialist' leader who annoys the USA is pretty much like catnip to certain type of UK politician.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom