|
|
Post by dodgydave on Feb 14, 2024 12:58:48 GMT
You being quite naive on this one. It is an antisemtic conspiracy because (a) it seeks to blame the victim and thus justify the crime (b) it says Jewish people are so evil that it is plausible that they would do something like this. It is from the same place as Holocaust denial. I mean come on, I've heard people trot out this conspiracy on radio phone ins and pretend they are not antisemitic, then when they are challenged over the raping of women and children they say that never happened and it is IDF lies. They don't give a damn about fellow Muslims, as demonstrated by no Muslim countries wanting Palestinian refugees. I don't see Chinese restaurants being attacked over the persecution of the Uyghur people. Muslims obsess over Israel because of long-standing religious reasons, and the far-lefties hate Israel because they see Jews as a symbol of capitalism. It really is that simple. Your first paragraph really is nonsense, Dave. In respect of a) clearly the victims of the dreadful events in Israel were entirely innocent going about their daily lives. Nowhere have I remotely suggested anything else.. Nor would I ever justify rape and murder of innocent civilians. Your point is without any basis whatsoever. In respect of b) I made it very clear that in my view some human beings are "evil" and capable of dreadful acts and jewish people are just human beings exactly the same as those from other religions. you may well find the suggestion that it is implausible that a well funded highly skilled very alert very well connected intelligence service could miss such a large attack in the planning inaccurate, you are entitled to hold that opinion, I suspect you are wrong but it is not remotely antisemetic. That is not to say of course that some people who are antisemetic may hold that opinion as well. I wasn't having a pop at your personally, I was explaining the context of these types of conspiracies. In isolation one might argue that his words were not antisemtic, but they are not in isolation. The "sneaky Jew" conspiracies have been around for centuries, that is why Labour leadership have labelled it as such! This particular conspiracy is designed to deny the seriousness of what Hamas did, in attempt to make Israel's response seem (a) planned and (b) unwarranted. It is literally blaming a women for being raped because she wore a short skirt! |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 14, 2024 15:39:17 GMT
Your first paragraph really is nonsense, Dave. In respect of a) clearly the victims of the dreadful events in Israel were entirely innocent going about their daily lives. Nowhere have I remotely suggested anything else.. Nor would I ever justify rape and murder of innocent civilians. Your point is without any basis whatsoever. In respect of b) I made it very clear that in my view some human beings are "evil" and capable of dreadful acts and jewish people are just human beings exactly the same as those from other religions. you may well find the suggestion that it is implausible that a well funded highly skilled very alert very well connected intelligence service could miss such a large attack in the planning inaccurate, you are entitled to hold that opinion, I suspect you are wrong but it is not remotely antisemetic. That is not to say of course that some people who are antisemetic may hold that opinion as well. I wasn't having a pop at your personally, I was explaining the context of these types of conspiracies. In isolation one might argue that his words were not antisemtic, but they are not in isolation. The "sneaky Jew" conspiracies have been around for centuries, that is why Labour leadership have labelled it as such! This particular conspiracy is designed to deny the seriousness of what Hamas did, in attempt to make Israel's response seem (a) planned and (b) unwarranted. It is literally blaming a women for being raped because she wore a short skirt! That doesn't work either, Dave. I wasn't responding to a conspiracy theory. I was stating my independently held view that it is hard to comprehend how the well funded always alert highly competent intelligence service of a country knowing it must be on the alert for attack could possibly miss preparations for an attack on this scale. It doesn't feel credible. As I say you may disagree with that analysis but even if you do and even if you are right, that doesn't remotely make my suspicions antisemetic. Those suspicions only become antisemetic if those suspicions came from a background of believing Jewish people more likely to behave in such a fashion than non Jewish people. I don't believe that at all. In terms of Mr Ali, I suspect until a few days ago few if any of us had ever heard of him. I certainly hadn't. So I have no idea whether his apparent similar suspicions come from an antisemitic viewpoint or from a similar viewpoint to my own. You seem to have jumped to the antisemetic conclusion simply because he is of muslim faith. That is anti-islamic prejudice. Some people may wish to exploit these doubts to "deny the seriousness of what Hamas did". If that is their aim they have failed. Regardless of whether the Israeli government turned a blind eye, Hamas are still responsible for their actions which were plainly disgusting and appalling. With respect your last sentence is silly. You are better than that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2024 15:40:32 GMT
The Labour candidate crossed a line when he went beyond merely criticising Israel to invoke conspiracy theories.
Yet it took Starmer two whole days to renounce him and then he only did it because he was bounced into it by the media. Why?
I can tell you based upon my own former experience in the party. The rule book is not applied evenly. It is used as a tool against left wingers rapidly and on the slightest pretext whilst Blairites and centrists and those on the right of the party are protected. The rules have long been used in a partisan way to wage a factional campaign against left wingers whilst right wingers get a free pass. Indeed, in my experience any complaints against right wingers breaking the rules tend to be ignored. One right wing Labour councillor down here even assaulted a party member, yet because he was of the correct faction no action was taken. Had a left winger done that he would have been suspended almost immediately and shortly kicked out of the party. The rules are rarely enforced even-handedly. They are enforced much less severely and often not at all against those of the correct faction.
This is why those of us who were once inside the party hold it and it's rules in utter contempt. Anyway, the above needs to be understood to understand why it took two whole days for Starmer to act, and why he only did so when media criticism forced him to. You see, the candidate is a party right winger, a centrist, a Blairite. The rules don't exist to sanction their own faction, merely the left. Doing absolutely nothing about this candidate because he is on the right of the party is actually their default reaction. Only when the media forced his hand did Starmer react.
And this is the problem in Labour. Those in charge do not see the rules as a set standard for all, to be enforced even-handedly in the interests of natural justice. The rules are seen as a partisan tool to wage factional war against internal party enemies. They tend to not enforce them against their own unless they have to.
Having seen numerous instances of this up close and personal is a major reason why I do not trust, and never will trust, the bastards currently in charge of the party. Many of them in my experience are in it for themselves, with few principles not up for sale, no compromise they will not make to get where they want to be.
Understand what I have said about the way they see the rules as a factional tool only to be deployed against their internal enemies and you understand why Starmer took so long to take action.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2024 15:47:20 GMT
Labour are down from 46% to 41% after this debacle. The pre-election slide has started - another Kinnock type event, perhaps?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 14, 2024 16:31:15 GMT
Starmer is in the firing line once again... and the worst is yet to come - analysis by Millie Cooke..... The last few weeks have been difficult for the Labour Party. First, the party leadership was forced into amassive U-turn on its plan to put £28billion towards green investment after months of leaks. Instead, the party will put £23.7billion towards green investment over five years.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 14, 2024 16:35:25 GMT
Starmer is in the firing line once again... and the worst is yet to come - analysis by Millie Cooke..... The last few weeks have been difficult for the Labour Party. First, the party leadership was forced into amassive U-turn on its plan to put £28billion towards green investment after months of leaks. Instead, the party will put £23.7billion towards green investment over five years.....
LOL... if Starmer was pinocchio his nose would be touching Neptune. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Feb 14, 2024 16:54:19 GMT
I wasn't having a pop at your personally, I was explaining the context of these types of conspiracies. In isolation one might argue that his words were not antisemtic, but they are not in isolation. The "sneaky Jew" conspiracies have been around for centuries, that is why Labour leadership have labelled it as such! This particular conspiracy is designed to deny the seriousness of what Hamas did, in attempt to make Israel's response seem (a) planned and (b) unwarranted. It is literally blaming a women for being raped because she wore a short skirt! That doesn't work either, Dave. I wasn't responding to a conspiracy theory. I was stating my independently held view that it is hard to comprehend how the well funded always alert highly competent intelligence service of a country knowing it must be on the alert for attack could possibly miss preparations for an attack on this scale. It doesn't feel credible. As I say you may disagree with that analysis but even if you do and even if you are right, that doesn't remotely make my suspicions antisemetic. Those suspicions only become antisemetic if those suspicions came from a background of believing Jewish people more likely to behave in such a fashion than non Jewish people. I don't believe that at all. In terms of Mr Ali, I suspect until a few days ago few if any of us had ever heard of him. I certainly hadn't. So I have no idea whether his apparent similar suspicions come from an antisemitic viewpoint or from a similar viewpoint to my own. You seem to have jumped to the antisemetic conclusion simply because he is of muslim faith. That is anti-islamic prejudice. Some people may wish to exploit these doubts to "deny the seriousness of what Hamas did". If that is their aim they have failed. Regardless of whether the Israeli government turned a blind eye, Hamas are still responsible for their actions which were plainly disgusting and appalling. With respect your last sentence is silly. You are better than that. The last sentence is silly??? ... yet your entire post is blaming the victim because you believe either (a) Israel allowed it, or (b) failed to stop it. Your suspicions make zero sense. The number one aim of a state is to protect its citizens. Netanyahu will never be elected again because he failed so spectacularly, likewise any legacy he had is in ruins. IT WILL FOREVER BE REMEMBERED that the slaughter happened under his watch, who the fuck would want as their legacy? He destroys his legacy for the chance to invade lands they gave up 20 years ago??? it makes ZERO SENSE. Unless you want to tag one of the other antisemitic conspiracies onto it... like the "sneaky Jews have done it to get their hands on the oil". Again, it is not me that is jumping to antisemitic conclusions, it is his own party leadership, the media, political commentators. Only the usual crackpots are disagreeing. If 99 people have the same opinion, and only 1 disagrees, what are the chances the 1 person is right? |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 14, 2024 16:56:38 GMT
The Labour candidate crossed a line when he went beyond merely criticising Israel to invoke conspiracy theories. Yet it took Starmer two whole days to renounce him and then he only did it because he was bounced into it by the media. Why? I can tell you based upon my own former experience in the party. The rule book is not applied evenly. It is used as a tool against left wingers rapidly and on the slightest pretext whilst Blairites and centrists and those on the right of the party are protected. The rules have long been used in a partisan way to wage a factional campaign against left wingers whilst right wingers get a free pass. Indeed, in my experience any complaints against right wingers breaking the rules tend to be ignored. One right wing Labour councillor down here even assaulted a party member, yet because he was of the correct faction no action was taken. Had a left winger done that he would have been suspended almost immediately and shortly kicked out of the party. The rules are rarely enforced even-handedly. They are enforced much less severely and often not at all against those of the correct faction. This is why those of us who were once inside the party hold it and it's rules in utter contempt. Anyway, the above needs to be understood to understand why it took two whole days for Starmer to act, and why he only did so when media criticism forced him to. You see, the candidate is a party right winger, a centrist, a Blairite. The rules don't exist to sanction their own faction, merely the left. Doing absolutely nothing about this candidate because he is on the right of the party is actually their default reaction. Only when the media forced his hand did Starmer react. And this is the problem in Labour. Those in charge do not see the rules as a set standard for all, to be enforced even-handedly in the interests of natural justice. The rules are seen as a partisan tool to wage factional war against internal party enemies. They tend to not enforce them against their own unless they have to. Having seen numerous instances of this up close and personal is a major reason why I do not trust, and never will trust, the bastards currently in charge of the party. Many of them in my experience are in it for themselves, with few principles not up for sale, no compromise they will not make to get where they want to be. Understand what I have said about the way they see the rules as a factional tool only to be deployed against their internal enemies and you understand why Starmer took so long to take action. You mean lefties are hypocrites, Shrieks? Who'da thunk it?  |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 14, 2024 17:38:40 GMT
Can Starmer ever really deliver on his antisemitism promise?.....
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 14, 2024 18:04:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Feb 14, 2024 22:55:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 14, 2024 23:28:52 GMT
That doesn't work either, Dave. I wasn't responding to a conspiracy theory. I was stating my independently held view that it is hard to comprehend how the well funded always alert highly competent intelligence service of a country knowing it must be on the alert for attack could possibly miss preparations for an attack on this scale. It doesn't feel credible. As I say you may disagree with that analysis but even if you do and even if you are right, that doesn't remotely make my suspicions antisemetic. Those suspicions only become antisemetic if those suspicions came from a background of believing Jewish people more likely to behave in such a fashion than non Jewish people. I don't believe that at all. In terms of Mr Ali, I suspect until a few days ago few if any of us had ever heard of him. I certainly hadn't. So I have no idea whether his apparent similar suspicions come from an antisemitic viewpoint or from a similar viewpoint to my own. You seem to have jumped to the antisemetic conclusion simply because he is of muslim faith. That is anti-islamic prejudice. Some people may wish to exploit these doubts to "deny the seriousness of what Hamas did". If that is their aim they have failed. Regardless of whether the Israeli government turned a blind eye, Hamas are still responsible for their actions which were plainly disgusting and appalling. With respect your last sentence is silly. You are better than that. The last sentence is silly??? ... yet your entire post is blaming the victim because you believe either (a) Israel allowed it, or (b) failed to stop it. Your suspicions make zero sense. The number one aim of a state is to protect its citizens. Netanyahu will never be elected again because he failed so spectacularly, likewise any legacy he had is in ruins. IT WILL FOREVER BE REMEMBERED that the slaughter happened under his watch, who the fuck would want as their legacy? He destroys his legacy for the chance to invade lands they gave up 20 years ago??? it makes ZERO SENSE. Unless you want to tag one of the other antisemitic conspiracies onto it... like the "sneaky Jews have done it to get their hands on the oil". Again, it is not me that is jumping to antisemitic conclusions, it is his own party leadership, the media, political commentators. Only the usual crackpots are disagreeing. If 99 people have the same opinion, and only 1 disagrees, what are the chances the 1 person is right? Your last sentence was silly. As I say you are better than that. Again I am certainly not blaming the victims. The victims were ordinary people living their lives minding their own business who in the main happened to be of Jewish faith. The guilty, regardless of whether the Israeli leadership calculated that they would turn a blind eye, were Hamas. They committed the atrocity. I do think it is possible perhaps likely that Netanyahu was made aware of an impending attack but chose to do nothing. He was politically unpopular facing corruption charges and may have calculated that it would do him no harm to unite the country behind a just war again response to a terrorist attack. If that is the case I suspect the scale of the atrocity was not expected (as I suspect it’s “success” came as a surprise to Hamas). To me that feels less implausible that the highly professional Israeli intelligence services - which we know has heavily infiltrated Hamas - was completely unaware. You think the opposite. That’s cool. Who knows you may be right. But that of course is not the essence of our debate. You go on to claim that having the suspicions I do is anti-Semitic. That can only be the case if I base my suspicions on a belief that Jewish people are different to the rest of humanity, more scheming, more devious, lacking human empathy and therefore worthy of contempt. I don’t think that at all. Netanyahu is of course a Jew but I base my suspicions not on that fact but on the fact that he is human and humans can be power crazy and inhumane and narcissistic and calculating and evil and I happen to think Netanyahu the human being (and incidentally a Jew) is a bit of a c@nt. whether you agree or not, that is not anti semetic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2024 23:45:38 GMT
Labour are down from 46% to 41% after this debacle. The pre-election slide has started - another Kinnock type event, perhaps? I think you are indulging in wishful thinking based on one poll. I do think the public are far, far more motivated by an intense desire to get rid of the Tories than by any love of Labour. There is comparatively little active support for Labour, not least because no one knows what it stands for now. In this sense, Labour's lead is potentially soft but I doubt their ratings will fall so far to allow a Tory victory\ The Tories are too hated by too many for that now. I would however like to see Labour support fall sufficiently for us to have a hung parliament, though. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 15, 2024 7:58:09 GMT
Fresh embarrassment for Labour as party leaflets praising Rochdale candidate Azhar Ali land on doormats days after he is suspended over Israel conspiracy theory... Labour has been handed fresh embarrassment over its Rochdale by-election campaign today after party leaflets featuring candidate Azhar Ali landed on voters doormats days after he was suspended. The mailout in the Greater Manchester seat pictures him with a red labour rosette and praises him as a 'strong voice' for the town if elected...
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Feb 16, 2024 13:08:47 GMT
Mr Ali is still campaigning... although I doubt he will allowed back into Labour after distributing this poster lol:  |
|
