A Political Thread

[Ragey Erasmus]

Trump basically just offered out Joe Biden

We live in such crazy times

I would love it if those 2 were in a ring together... Trump acts the hard man but I bet he would go down like a sack of spuds.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43489457

So EU seem to be backing UK stance v Russia. My reading is that Russian state deliberately brought about this attack to test the response of UK and EU whilst Brexit negotiations are going on. If it is then Putin is one manipulative twisted MF.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43489457

So EU seem to be backing UK stance v Russia. My reading is that Russian state deliberately brought about this attack to test the response of UK and EU whilst Brexit negotiations are going on. If it is then Putin is one manipulative twisted MF.

I read that he did it to start conflict with Britain so he would go into the election claiming Russia was being victimised by a foreign power again. They already knew from the previous assassination that our response would be feeble and were banking on Brexit and the fragility of the EU, along with our less than brilliant relations with the USA as a way to isolate us.

Trump has obviously danced the dance his puppet master wanted but the EU has probably been more firm than he expected, particularly the likes of Poland.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I read that he did it to start conflict with Britain so he would go into the election claiming Russia was being victimised by a foreign power again. They already knew from the previous assassination that our response would be feeble and were banking on Brexit and the fragility of the EU, along with our less than brilliant relations with the USA as a way to isolate us.

Trump has obviously danced the dance his puppet master wanted but the EU has probably been more firm than he expected, particularly the likes of Poland.

Yep I think this poisoning incident was meant to work on so many levels and at exactly the point when Britain is at its weakest when negotiating Brexit. As you said just before the Presidential election to get voters out to maximise Putin's legitimacy, to kill off a traitor on British soil ( his daughter was an acceptable collateral loss) which would in turn send a message to any dissident living abroad that the Russian state could come after them and their family. In addition it served as a warning to any of those working within the Russian security services what happens if they were thinking of defecting and betraying Mother Russia.

The pattern of behaviour from Russia is also becoming self evident: action followed by denial that they were behind it, followed by playing the victim card that they are being framed by the West who have an agenda against them, then release conflicting stories to create doubt that it was other nations who were involved and obstruct/refuse to cooperate and so on and so on. Litvinenko poisoning, MH17, Sochi Games institutionalised drug cheating being other prime examples.

At the exact point when EU don't trust UK after Brexit and it's worrying how easily Putin has been able to exploit the situation. To use a chemical weapon that the Soviets made, but also would need someone of specialist knowledge of how to weoponise is either sloppy from Putin or deliberately to prevocative knowing Porton Down lab would identify it and know where it came from.

Galloway appearing on RT news to defend Russia is hilarious. How he has any credibility left after Celebrity Big Brother is beyond me.
But more worrying are the comments in the comments section which 95% seem to support his lunatic stance that it had nothing to do with Russia. Either it's Russian Trolls deliberately filling the comment section or there really are people out there that prefer the narrative that it was our UK government who did it or even one suggesting it was Mossad so they can get the Jewish angle in.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Yep I think this poisoning incident was meant to work on so many levels and at exactly the point when Britain is at its weakest when negotiating Brexit. As you said just before the Presidential election to get voters out to maximise Putin's legitimacy, to kill off a traitor on British soil ( his daughter was an acceptable collateral loss) which would in turn send a message to any dissident living abroad that the Russian state could come after them and their family. In addition it served as a warning to any of those working within the Russian security services what happens if they were thinking of defecting and betraying Mother Russia.

The pattern of behaviour from Russia is also becoming self evident: action followed by denial that they were behind it, followed by playing the victim card that they are being framed by the West who have an agenda against them, then release conflicting stories to create doubt that it was other nations who were involved and obstruct/refuse to cooperate and so on and so on. Litvinenko poisoning, MH17, Sochi Games institutionalised drug cheating being other prime examples.

At the exact point when EU don't trust UK after Brexit and it's worrying how easily Putin has been able to exploit the situation. To use a chemical weapon that the Soviets made, but also would need someone of specialist knowledge of how to weoponise is either sloppy from Putin or deliberately to prevocative knowing Porton Down lab would identify it and know where it came from.

Galloway appearing on RT news to defend Russia is hilarious. How he has any credibility left after Celebrity Big Brother is beyond me.
But more worrying are the comments in the comments section which 95% seem to support his lunatic stance that it had nothing to do with Russia. Either it's Russian Trolls deliberately filling the comment section or there really are people out there that prefer the narrative that it was our UK government who did it or even one suggesting it was Mossad so they can get the Jewish angle in.

Yep the Kremlin has obviously been working overtime for a few years now creating this atmosphere that the West is a massive conspiracy filled mess with governments out to get them and that nothing our media says is true. They then just play the victim and pretend it is western fabrication again as they go around doing **** like this.

Unfortunately some of the suggestible people have bought into this and seem to think Russia is more trustworthy than their own government. It's not helped by the Republican attitude in the US for the last few years of just encouraging blind dismissal of facts, constantly attacking the integrity of their own leader and fostering paranoia. Ironic really that they have created a perfect breeding ground for people to actually start committing the acts they falsely accused others of doing. But then Republicans never really think.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

It's crazy how much Putin can manipulate the public's opinion/nationalistic pride to (quite literally) get away with murder.
In the JRE with Bryan Fogel, who is the guy behind the Icarus documentary, he spoke about how Russia used their massive success at the Sochi Olympics to get away with invading the Crimea.

 

[Which Tyler]

Well, that's a relief then.
https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/976955650667417600

Any of you military folks checked out Iran in the Autumn?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Well, that's a relief then.
https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/976955650667417600

Any of you military folks checked out Iran in the Autumn?

Technically only Congress can declare war and, as he is not a member of Congress, he doesn't have the power to start wars. Now conflicts, police actions, interventions, support etc are all not "wars" but still involving blowing **** up. Wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to discover he was still happy to start those.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Technically only Congress can declare war and, as he is not a member of Congress, he doesn't have the power to start wars. Now conflicts, police actions, interventions, support etc are all not "wars" but still involving blowing **** up. Wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to discover he was still happy to start those.

I think the fact that there was been only two US "wars" in the past century says a lot about that power and it's practical use

 

[unrated]

Yep the Kremlin has obviously been working overtime for a few years now creating this atmosphere that the West is a massive conspiracy filled mess with governments out to get them and that nothing our media says is true. They then just play the victim and pretend it is western fabrication again as they go around doing **** like this.

Russia has stated multiple times in public and infront of International media that they are seeking better relations with both the EU and the US. Why would they not? Good relations will be great for all parties involved both economically and militarily.

Please dont just automatically dismiss the idea that western media portrays Russia as a worse role player than they are. It goes both ways, yes they do stupid **** sometimes and deserve international condemnation ( just like the US or any other nation) but sometimes the western media can also be overly sensational towards Russia for a variety of reasons that's in line with their government.

We should look at both sides and then critique both. Lets use that new pipeline that Russia and Germany was in the process of constructing between Russia and the EU. This was a move that obviously would have benefited Russia as they now would have had access to the European market but it also would have been great for Europe as they would have more options for oil purchases and to make them less reliant on foreign imports as they would now have a stable pipeline connection into Europe. Lets not deny that the USA did not like this decision and has been doing anything in their power to stop this with a combination of Media attacks and economic sanctions against Russia and german companies involved in this project.

This specific case scenario was only discussed as to highlight the following: {The notion that Russia is creating a narrative of International conspiracy against them is fake}. There really is a media war being waged and to dismiss the one side seems to me like your (British, US etc.) media has done a splendid job in its other role of shaping societal opinion.

In another example when i as a South African here on this isolated part of the world and completely separated from the global geopolitical evens between Russia and the USA heard that Trump is looking for better relations with Russia and Putin stated that he seeks the same, then i thought this could only be good for the world. Why is it that various forces such as those from American democrats AND their controlled media are actively trying to prevent better relations between these nations?

Im not attacking you guys or your media or your governments im merely stating that Russia is not the SOLE evil role players that they are made out to be.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Russia has stated multiple times in public and infront of International media that they are seeking better relations with both the EU and the US. Why would they not? Good relations will be great for all parties involved both economically and militarily.

Please dont just automatically dismiss the idea that western media portrays Russia as a worse role player than they are. It goes both ways, yes they do stupid **** sometimes and deserve international condemnation ( just like the US or any other nation) but sometimes the western media can also be overly sensational towards Russia for a variety of reasons that's in line with their government.

We should look at both sides and then critique both. Lets use that new pipeline that Russia and Germany was in the process of constructing between Russia and the EU. This was a move that obviously would have benefited Russia as they now would have had access to the European market but it also would have been great for Europe as they would have more options for oil purchases and to make them less reliant on foreign imports as they would now have a stable pipeline connection into Europe. Lets not deny that the USA did not like this decision and has been doing anything in their power to stop this with a combination of Media attacks and economic sanctions against Russia and german companies involved in this project.

This specific case scenario was only discussed as to highlight the following: {The notion that Russia is creating a narrative of International conspiracy against them is fake}. There really is a media war being waged and to dismiss the one side seems to me like your (British, US etc.) media has done a splendid job in its other role of shaping societal opinion.

In another example when i as a South African here on this isolated part of the world and completely separated from the global geopolitical evens between Russia and the USA heard that Trump is looking for better relations with Russia and Putin stated that he seeks the same, then i thought this could only be good for the world. Why is it that various forces such as those from American democrats AND their controlled media are actively trying to prevent better relations between these nations?

Im not attacking you guys or your media or your governments im merely stating that Russia is not the SOLE evil role players that they are made out to be.

Russia also stated multiple times that they had no troops in Crimea, did not interfere in the US election, did not poison Litvinenko, have not carried out the nerve agent attack, have not supported rebels in Ukraine, have not rigged elections, were not involved in widespread drug abuse at the Olympics... How can you take anything they say as true? It's the way they operate, deny everything. They may say they want good relations, that doesn't mean they are actually doing anything to achieve it. You do realise we aren't talking about just some "stupid ****", we are talking about the annexation of 2 foreign territories in the last decade and assassination using nuclear material and banned nerve agents. This goes WAAAY beyond just "stupid ****".

Nobody is saying they are the sole evil but we are saying that their government will lie through their teeth without shame. We know they miss the days of USSR power and we know they want to reassert themselves in what they deem their traditional sphere of influence. They don't have the clout to directly take on the west so they are using subterfuge. They are trying to undermine western countries the disinformation campaigns and carrying out all their actions under the protection of implausible deniability. You seem to forget that the West has made numerous attempts to improve relations with Russia and every time it has broken down because of them.

 

[unrated]

Russia also stated multiple times that they had no troops in Crimea, did not interfere in the US election, did not poison Litvinenko, have not carried out the nerve agent attack, have not supported rebels in Ukraine, have not rigged elections, were not involved in widespread drug abuse at the Olympics... How can you take anything they say as true? It's the way they operate, deny everything. They may say they want good relations, that doesn't mean they are actually doing anything to achieve it. You do realise we aren't talking about just some "stupid ****", we are talking about the annexation of 2 foreign territories in the last decade and assassination using nuclear material and banned nerve agents. This goes WAAAY beyond just "stupid ****".

Nobody is saying they are the sole evil but we are saying that their government will lie through their teeth without shame. We know they miss the days of USSR power and we know they want to reassert themselves in what they deem their traditional sphere of influence. They don't have the clout to directly take on the west so they are using subterfuge. They are trying to undermine western countries the disinformation campaigns and carrying out all their actions under the protection of implausible deniability. You seem to forget that the West has made numerous attempts to improve relations with Russia and every time it has broken down because of them.

All fair point you made, In my reply though i would like to break down a few point you made.

Firstly i agree with the following points as it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
1. Russia claimed they were not involved in widespread drug abuse at the Olympics.
I remember they denied it, got caught out and was left red faced. I am of the opinion that Russia has its fair share of shady dealings in world politics. This was one of them, shame on them. The poor few clean athletes who now suffer as a result of the wide ranging participation ban that is not on.

Here is the points you made that i either do not agree on or i believe there just isn't conclusive evidence to make such a claim.

1.Russia stated multiple times that they had no troops in Crimea. {This point is also linked to point 8}
This was a while ago and i can't remember what politicians confirmed and denied what. What i can remember is widespread reports that Russia stationed its troops on the Ukrainian border during that time. International media and the uKraine government accused them of preparing an invasion. Russia denied it. Did they actually invade Ukraine? I know of no evidence. Did they Support rebels in Ukraine? yes they did. This is what a few political observers would call proxy warfare where two nations support opposing sides of a conflict. Russia backed the rebels and the US backed the government. Is the government always the right side though? As they are sovereign and all that and its sovereignty has to be respected. But then... the US is also involved in this kind of warfare. Remember how they supported libyan rebels in order to overthrow the government? So what i'm getting at is that the media portrayed the supporting of the libyan rebels as a liberation of the libyan people from an oppressive dictatorship. But the Crimean case was a brutal act by Russia to grab more land. What if the Crimean people wanted to be part of Russia? If the majority votes in favour of succession then let them go where they please. Screw sovereignty. Im saying the annexation (or liberation) might have been justified as long as it was the will of the majority of Crimeans. The Catalan, Scottish and Kurdish referendums spring to mind. If the Catalan people want to secede from Spain then let them, If the Scottish choose to stay part of the UK then so be it.

2.Russia claims it did not interfere in the US election.
The US specifically the democrats who was the losing party in the latest election claimed Russia was involved in election meddling. That's one side. It might be true, who am i to make that conclusion. On the other side Russia denies it. Now you say Russia is untrustworthy and can't be trusted. But does that make them automatically guilty in this affair? These are alleged actions. Its unproven the US investigations aren't exactly impartial, a scapegoat was needed. Maybe an International Criminal court investigation might have been the best solution. The media talks about reports of Russian meddling in the election and they take it as fact to relay it to their audience. Lets for a moment look past the fact that these are alleged accusations. What could have been the motive for Russia to interfere in US elections? According to the reports they backed Trump right? To back a candidate that pledged to improve Russian relations? If Russia's goal in the alleged interference was to get a candidate that improves relations between the two nations them i'm all for it.

3. Russia claims it did not poison Litvinenko.
One side denies the other accuses. Do we write off the Russian denial because of them lying to us in the past? Has the other government in contrast been truthful to its voting public, to us?
I concede though that this whole case looks a bit suspicious. I mean the guy got killed once he jumped ship. So i lean towards the UK on this one. Russia can't exactly claim the attack as you can guess what issues that will cause. As i said though Russia is involved in its fair share of shady dealings, But so is the other governments in the world.

4.Have not carried out the nerve agent attack.
This is linked to point 3 as far as i know?

5. Russia claims not to have supported rebels in Ukraine.
See point 1
6. Russia claimed not to have not rigged elections
You did not make clear what elections you are talking about. Since you already mentioned the US i would assume you're talking about Putin somehow managing to stay in power despite the Russian constitution limiting the amount of terms that a person can serve as the president. As far as i know Putin makes use of a loophole where he can alternate between being the Prime minister and the President. When he is PM the president is only ceremonial and vice versa. I don't necessarily think its ethical. Actually i believe a president should respect the constitution otherwise the country risks becoming a dictatorship. In Africa this is a real danger. Russia is a bit more developed, and you get the sense that Russian people really really really like Putin. How does German chancellor Angela Merkel stay in power for so long? Is there nothing in the German constitution that limits the terms a leader can serve?

8.The annexation of 2 foreign territories in the last decade.
I know of Crimea. What was the other territory? Other Nations such as China is starting to claim whole seas and building islands with military bases in the South China Sea. That's much worse than taking over a territory of people who wants to be part of your nation.



You seem to forget that the West has made numerous attempts to improve relations with Russia and every time it has broken down because of them.
Such as when Obama expelled hundreds of Russian diplomats just before Trump assumed office in order to undermine US, Russian relations? These were based on allegations of Russian meddling that led to the democrats losing. A democrat president then goes and expels russian diplomats as one of his last actions as president. Russia then condemns and there you have it the vicious cycle of *** for tat continues.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

The shooting down of MH17 should be added to the list above.

Litvinenko - the two FSB operatives who met and poisoned him left traces of Polonium at the hotels they stayed at before they met Litvenenko. One is now a Russian MP in the Duma and immune from extradition and the other returned to Moscow and had to be hospitalised for radioactive poisoning. Hmmm very suspicious. But yes let's give them both benefit of the doubt.

The other territory was Georgia.

I'd also add the nerve agent attack is "highly likely" and by that 99% Russia because of the Novichok agent and expertise needed to weaponise it and that only Russia would have the expertise to do this. May was not getting support of Merkel or Macron until British intelligence shared the intelligence on the nerve agent in question. Only then when German intelligence had evaluated it did they also reach the same conclusion that it could only be Russia.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

All fair point you made, In my reply though i would like to break down a few point you made.

And in response:

1. There were what Putin called "Little green men" operating in Crimea before the annexation. These were soldiers with no national flag and Putin denied they were Russian. Post annexation these same soldiers had Russian flags on their uniforms and were identified as Russian units, therefore Russian soldiers were operating in another country unmarked with the aim of annexing territory in a referendum that they organised and oversaw. Whether the result was a reflection of what the Crimean people wanted or not is irrelevant, you don't walk into another country, take control of an area and then annex it when the referendum gives you the result you set it up to give. There really is no wiggle room here at all, it was a Russian invasion and land grab. Not wanting to use Hitler analogies but Hitler used EXACTLY the same justification for his early invasions and there is a good reason why such reasons are not recognised as legitimate.

2. No it isn't just Democrats saying that. Funny enough the claim it is just Democrats is also a piece of propaganda the Russians have been spreading. The CIA and NSA have both confirmed beyond reasonable doubt there was Russian intervention including but not limited to: Hacking machines involved in the process, a massive spam/bot campaign demonising Hillary and supporting Trump, funding for pro-Trump elements and of course the potential collusion. Now why would the 2 major US intelligence agencies say Russia did interfere if it's just Democrats sour grapes?

3. Ok let me put this simply, we KNOW the Russians did it. The Russian denial is the equivalent of Creationists denying the evidence of Evolution.

4. We also identified the nerve agent as being one produced by the USSR. That either means the Russian government directly authorised it or they allowed one of the most deadly weapons in the world to fall into someone elses hands. The latter seems extremely unlikely.

5. We know the Russians supported the rebels, there is video footage of Russian tanks crossing the border from Russia to Ukraine, the aircraft that was shot down was a Russian system, there is photographic evidence of Russian artillery firing at Ukrainian positions and the Russians have even admitted they have "volunteers" fighting in Ukraine. What's there to argue?

6. Their own elections. They have rigged them and been caught doing it but still deny it. Nothing to do with the loophole, although that also makes a joke of the system. You haven't seen the footage of a Russian working in a polling station intentionally moving some balloons so they blocked the observer camera? Don't even try to claim it may have been accidental if you haven't seen the video.

7. The other territory was Georgia. Forgotten about that land grab already? Same thing, they claimed they we ethnically Russian and so just waltzed in and took it. You know quite a few Eastern European countries have areas with a lot of ethnic Russians, think on that for a moment. We've got to a stage where Russia thinks all it needs to do is say there are Russians living in said country therefore that territory is actually Russian. Latvia and Estonia are both small countries with sizeable Russian populations. Russian won't dare directly annex them as they are in NATO, instead they demand NATO reduce their presence in Eastern European countries as such things are "provocative" and then start efforts to dismantle the country from within, Ukraine being an example of what they go for.

8. You kinda proved my points, Obama expelled diplomats BECAUSE OF RUSSIAN MEDDLING! Again it was Russia ******* around that threw a spanner in the works. Obama also had that big "reset" button with Putin. What happened next? He annexed Crimea and supported an uprising in Ukraine. How about the Russians sending their submarine into Swedish territorial waters?

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

All fair point you made, In my reply though i would like to break down a few point you made.

Firstly i agree with the following points as it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
1. Russia claimed they were not involved in widespread drug abuse at the Olympics.
I remember they denied it, got caught out and was left red faced. I am of the opinion that Russia has its fair share of shady dealings in world politics. This was one of them, shame on them. The poor few clean athletes who now suffer as a result of the wide ranging participation ban that is not on.

Here is the points you made that i either do not agree on or i believe there just isn't conclusive evidence to make such a claim.

1.Russia stated multiple times that they had no troops in Crimea. {This point is also linked to point 8}
This was a while ago and i can't remember what politicians confirmed and denied what. What i can remember is widespread reports that Russia stationed its troops on the Ukrainian border during that time. International media and the uKraine government accused them of preparing an invasion. Russia denied it. Did they actually invade Ukraine? I know of no evidence. Did they Support rebels in Ukraine? yes they did. This is what a few political observers would call proxy warfare where two nations support opposing sides of a conflict. Russia backed the rebels and the US backed the government. Is the government always the right side though? As they are sovereign and all that and its sovereignty has to be respected. But then... the US is also involved in this kind of warfare. Remember how they supported libyan rebels in order to overthrow the government? So what i'm getting at is that the media portrayed the supporting of the libyan rebels as a liberation of the libyan people from an oppressive dictatorship. But the Crimean case was a brutal act by Russia to grab more land. What if the Crimean people wanted to be part of Russia? If the majority votes in favour of succession then let them go where they please. Screw sovereignty. Im saying the annexation (or liberation) might have been justified as long as it was the will of the majority of Crimeans. The Catalan, Scottish and Kurdish referendums spring to mind. If the Catalan people want to secede from Spain then let them, If the Scottish choose to stay part of the UK then so be it.

2.Russia claims it did not interfere in the US election.
The US specifically the democrats who was the losing party in the latest election claimed Russia was involved in election meddling. That's one side. It might be true, who am i to make that conclusion. On the other side Russia denies it. Now you say Russia is untrustworthy and can't be trusted. But does that make them automatically guilty in this affair? These are alleged actions. Its unproven the US investigations aren't exactly impartial, a scapegoat was needed. Maybe an International Criminal court investigation might have been the best solution. The media talks about reports of Russian meddling in the election and they take it as fact to relay it to their audience. Lets for a moment look past the fact that these are alleged accusations. What could have been the motive for Russia to interfere in US elections? According to the reports they backed Trump right? To back a candidate that pledged to improve Russian relations? If Russia's goal in the alleged interference was to get a candidate that improves relations between the two nations them i'm all for it.

3. Russia claims it did not poison Litvinenko.
One side denies the other accuses. Do we write off the Russian denial because of them lying to us in the past? Has the other government in contrast been truthful to its voting public, to us?
I concede though that this whole case looks a bit suspicious. I mean the guy got killed once he jumped ship. So i lean towards the UK on this one. Russia can't exactly claim the attack as you can guess what issues that will cause. As i said though Russia is involved in its fair share of shady dealings, But so is the other governments in the world.

4.Have not carried out the nerve agent attack.
This is linked to point 3 as far as i know?

5. Russia claims not to have supported rebels in Ukraine.
See point 1
6. Russia claimed not to have not rigged elections
You did not make clear what elections you are talking about. Since you already mentioned the US i would assume you're talking about Putin somehow managing to stay in power despite the Russian constitution limiting the amount of terms that a person can serve as the president. As far as i know Putin makes use of a loophole where he can alternate between being the Prime minister and the President. When he is PM the president is only ceremonial and vice versa. I don't necessarily think its ethical. Actually i believe a president should respect the constitution otherwise the country risks becoming a dictatorship. In Africa this is a real danger. Russia is a bit more developed, and you get the sense that Russian people really really really like Putin. How does German chancellor Angela Merkel stay in power for so long? Is there nothing in the German constitution that limits the terms a leader can serve?

8.The annexation of 2 foreign territories in the last decade.
I know of Crimea. What was the other territory? Other Nations such as China is starting to claim whole seas and building islands with military bases in the South China Sea. That's much worse than taking over a territory of people who wants to be part of your nation.



You seem to forget that the West has made numerous attempts to improve relations with Russia and every time it has broken down because of them.
Such as when Obama expelled hundreds of Russian diplomats just before Trump assumed office in order to undermine US, Russian relations? These were based on allegations of Russian meddling that led to the democrats losing. A democrat president then goes and expels russian diplomats as one of his last actions as president. Russia then condemns and there you have it the vicious cycle of *** for tat continues.

Whilst it may be true that Russia has been demonized by the west at numerous points over the past century, that suggests it is likely to be justified. Because Russia has repeatedly lied in the past, it means that their word is worth basically nothing.. Also we dont generally like Commies in the west. Also Corbyn is a russian spy

 

[Bada-Bing!]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-accused-of-being-figurehead-for-antisemitism

So Corbyn's pretty much lost the Jewish vote then.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-accused-of-being-figurehead-for-antisemitism

So Corbyn's pretty much lost the Jewish vote then.

After his Hammas and hezoballah connections, I'm surprised it's taken this long tbh

 

[Gavin]

Yeah Corbyn clear does not stand up against it

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Yeah Corbyn clear does not stand up against it View attachment 5758

He literally called Hammas "friends" and called for them to be removed from the banned terror list...

 

[Bada-Bing!]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43540795

Here is the full text of the open letter to the Labour Party by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council.

Today, leaders of British Jewry tell Jeremy Corbyn that enough is enough. We have had enough of hearing that Jeremy Corbyn "opposes anti-Semitism", whilst the mainstream majority of British Jews, and their concerns, are ignored by him and those he leads.

There is a repeated institutional failure to properly address Jewish concerns and to tackle anti-Semitism, with the Chakrabarti Report being the most glaring example of this.

Jeremy Corbyn did not invent this form of politics, but he has had a lifetime within it, and now personifies its problems and dangers. He issues empty statements about opposing anti-Semitism, but does nothing to understand or address it. We conclude that he cannot seriously contemplate anti-Semitism, because he is so ideologically fixed within a far left worldview that is instinctively hostile to mainstream Jewish communities.

When Jews complain about an obviously anti-Semitic mural in Tower Hamlets, Corbyn of course supports the artist. Hizbollah commits terrorist atrocities against Jews, but Corbyn calls them his friends and attends pro-Hizbollah rallies in London. Exactly the same goes for Hamas. Raed Salah says Jews kill Christian children to drink their blood. Corbyn opposes his extradition and invites him for tea at the House of Commons. These are not the only cases. He is repeatedly found alongside people with blatantly anti-Semitic views, but claims never to hear or read them.

Again and again, Jeremy Corbyn has sided with anti-Semites rather than Jews. At best, this derives from the far left's obsessive hatred of Zionism, Zionists and Israel. At worst, it suggests a conspiratorial worldview in which mainstream Jewish communities are believed to be a hostile entity, a class enemy.

When Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party, Jews expressed sincere and profound fears as to how such politics would impact upon their wellbeing. Our concerns were never taken seriously. Three years on, the party and British Jews are reaping the consequences.

Routine statements against anti-Semitism "and all forms of racism" get nowhere near dealing with the problem, because what distinguishes anti-Semitism from other forms of racism is the power that Jews are alleged to hold, and how they are charged with conspiring together against what is good.

This is not only historic, or about what Jeremy Corbyn did before being party leader. It is also utterly contemporary. There is literally not a single day in which Labour Party spaces, either online or in meetings, do not repeat the same fundamental anti-Semitic slanders against Jews. We are told that our concerns are faked, and done at the command of Israel and/or Zionism (whatever that means); that anti-Semitism is merely "criticism of Israel"; that we call any and all criticism of Israel "anti-Semitic"; that the Rothschilds run the world; that Isis terrorism is a fake front for Israel; that Zionists are the new Nazis; and that Zionists collaborate with Nazis.

Rightly or wrongly, Jeremy Corbyn is now the figurehead for an anti-Semitic political culture, based on obsessive hatred of Israel, conspiracy theories and fake news that is doing dreadful harm to British Jews and to the British Labour Party.

Jeremy Corbyn is the only person with the power to demand that it stops. Enough is enough.