General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Letwin_Larry

bren2001 wrote: »

He didn't deny anything, he questioned it.

If I question the existence of Northern Ireland, am I anti-protestant? If I question the existence of the Vatican City, am I anti-catholic? If I disagree with the Catalonians that they should be independent from Spain am I anti-catholic?

No because there are some legitimate reasons to questions the existence of some states. Most of the arguments won't be convincing but they are not inherently racist. Israel is no different and the legitimacy of the state can be questioned like every other country in the world. Questioning the state of Israel is not inherently anti-semetic. There could be some other credible arguments.

i actually agree with you. nothing should be above scrutiny imo. you might be correct in what you say, but everybody knows what the reaction from Jewish people will be if you question it (Israel). a people who have been hounded and persecuted since Biblical times.
the only parallel i can think of would be for Boris to question the existence of Allah, and not to expect Muslims to react.
is Corbyn that insensitive and/or that inept?

prawnsambo

bren2001 wrote: »

The IHRA defintion of anti-semitism does not say you cannot question the state of Israel. There are a million plausible reasons as to why you can question that state that has nothing to do with religion. That is the beginning and end of it.

You've given no credible reason as to why questioning the state of Israel is inherently anti-semitic.

Questioning the actions of the state of Israel are fine or more properly the government of the state of Israel. Denying its right to exist is not fine. As I have pointed out. And which you denied earlier. And are now trying to cover up in a smokescreen of whataboutery and disingenuous post facto editing of what you said. Which was (in context):

eskimohut wrote:

But yes, stating that Israel does not have a right to exist is de facto anti-Semitism.

bren2001 wrote:

No it's not.

You've been all over the shop trying to back away from this. Firstly denying that it's anti-semitic, then by quoting the wrong bit of the IHRA definitions, then by questioning the IHRA definitions and finally distorting what you said, to mean "questioning the state of Israel".

Disingenuous is about the nicest way I can put it.

prawnsambo

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i actually agree with you. nothing should be above scrutiny imo. you might be correct in what you say, but everybody knows what the reaction from Jewish people will be if you question it (Israel). a people who have been hounded and persecuted since Biblical times.
the only parallel i can think of would be for Boris to question the existence of Allah, and not to expect Muslims to react.
is Corbyn that insensitive and/or that inept?

And as I said before, it's actually not difficult. It's not even as though there aren't Israeli citizens who disagree with how their government is acting. I don't know if it's deliberate, but it's either that or mind-numbingly stupid.

bren2001

prawnsambo wrote: »

Questioning the actions of the state of Israel are fine or more properly the government of the state of Israel. Denying its right to exist is not fine. As I have pointed out. And which you denied earlier. And are now trying to cover up in a smokescreen of whataboutery and disingenuous post facto editing of what you said. Which was (in context):
You've been all over the shop trying to back away from this. Firstly denying that it's anti-semitic, then by quoting the wrong bit of the IHRA definitions, then by questioning the IHRA definitions and finally distorting what you said, to mean "questioning the state of Israel".

Disingenuous is about the nicest way I can put it.

The argument doesn't change. If I deny the right of Northern Ireland to exist am I anti-protestant? No. Denying the right of a country to exist is the exact same as questioning it's existence. No country should be above the scrutiny and anyone should be allowed hold that view. The reasons as to why you want to deny it are what determine if it's anti-semitic or not, not the viewpoint itself. That's the nugget of my point.

I've read the IHRA definitions several times and still see nothing in there that points to Corbyn being anti-semitic.

bren2001

bren2001 wrote: »

The argument doesn't change. If I deny the right of Northern Ireland to exist am I anti-protestant? No. Denying the right of a country to exist is the exact same as questioning it's existence. No country should be above the scrutiny and anyone should be allowed hold that view. The reasons as to why you want to deny it are what determine if it's anti-semitic or not, not the viewpoint itself. That's the nugget of my point.

I've read the IHRA definitions several times and still see nothing in there that points to Corbyn being anti-semitic.

Israel is recognized under international law as a sovereign nation-state.

Are you against international law now, too?

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

Israel is recognized under international law as a sovereign nation-state.

Are you against international law now, too?

Israel is certainly against international law.

Bannasidhe

sid waddell wrote: »

Israel is certainly against international law.

In 2018 out of a total of 28 Condemnations issued by the UN - 21 were against Israel.

prawnsambo

bren2001 wrote: »

The argument doesn't change. If I deny the right of Northern Ireland to exist am I anti-protestant? No. Denying the right of a country to exist is the exact same as questioning it's existence. No country should be above the scrutiny and anyone should be allowed hold that view. The reasons as to why you want to deny it are what determine if it's anti-semitic or not, not the viewpoint itself. That's the nugget of my point.

I've read the IHRA definitions several times and still see nothing in there that points to Corbyn being anti-semitic.

Please stop with your strawmanning and deflection. I have said nothing about Corbyn. I even clearly stated I had not even watched that clip. What you said and what I took issue with is clearly posted above. Couldn't be clearer.

You don't like the IHRA definitions? Fine. Take it up with them. But let me remind you that you denied what was in them. And once that was proven, you set off to muddy the waters as to what they meant. First by using the example as a ridiculous yardstick and secondly by trying to apply it to other nations that are not covered by the IHRA. It's no longer disingenuous at this stage, but outright lying.

Mr.Nice Guy

Richard Tice coming across very rude in this BBC debate.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

More whataboutery, rather than dealing with and accepting my substantive point.

Ah, so now you are against whataboutery. It is very hard to keep up with your ever changing position on debate and values within it.

I was simply responding in the manner you seem most comfortable with. I will note your new aversion to it and ensure that all debate now deals with the substantive point and not be allowed veer off in whataboutery.

Leroy42

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Richard Tice coming across very rude in this BBC debate.

Are you surprised? Have you never watched him in a debate before.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ah, so now you are against whataboutery. It is very hard to keep up with your ever changing position on debate and values within it.

I was simply responding in the manner you seem most comfortable with. I will note your new aversion to it and ensure that all debate now deals with the substantive point and not be allowed veer off in whataboutery.

Ironic, even more whataboutery.

Mr.Nice Guy

Leroy42 wrote: »

Are you surprised? Have you never watched him in a debate before.

I know what he's like but I figured he'd be coached to tone it down a bit. Sturgeon has had the measure of him all night. Was great when he shouted at her to stop lying to the British people and she replied 'you've got form on that.'

Here's the clip:

https://twitter.com/indeox/status/1200512951586885632

Aidric

That was fairly weak sauce.

Joe_ Public

Wasnt a bad watch overall though felt long enough for what they had to offer. Sturgeon good again and so were lucas and price. Tice was terrible, sunak at least didnt drop any clangers and long bailey not up to much. Dont rate her highly on what I've seen.

Mr.Nice Guy

Thought Sturgeon was by far the most polished performer. Caroline Lucas and Adam Price also did well. The rest were poor.

A Dub in Glasgo

Liberal Democrats in Scotland

[Head of Scottish Liberal Democrats] has said he would put stopping [Scottish] independence ahead of stopping Brexit if the general election results in a hung parliament.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Allegations of anti semitism and their potential impact on the election is on topic. Discussing a definition of anti semtism etc is off topic. I shouldnt have to remind people - before you post, ask yourself if what you want to say is related to the upcoming election.

Corbyn in the firing line again, this story is rapidly becoming one of the most read on the BBC news site. (from 2015)



https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34832023

Jeremy Corbyn says he is "not happy" with UK police or security services operating a "shoot-to-kill" policy.
In an interview three days after the Bataclan attacks in Paris, the Labour leader told the BBC such an approach could "often be counter-productive".
He also declined to answer what he called the "hypothetical question" of whether he would ever back military intervention against extremists.
"I'm not saying I would or I wouldn't," he said.
Mr Corbyn stressed the need for a political resolution to be found in Syria and repeated his criticism of previous Western interventions in the Middle East, saying they had "unleashed forces" and boosted extremists.

After todays terrorist attack in London, this story will almost certainly depress the Labour vote even more.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Corbyn in the firing line again, this story is rapidly becoming one of the most read on the BBC news site. (from 2015)

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34832023

After todays terrorist attack in London, this story will almost certainly depress the Labour vote even more.

Corbyn previously stated that he is in favour of the UK armed forces being disbanded. Furthermore, he almost always sides with the UKs enemies.

He is simply not fit to take the role of UK Prime Minister.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

Corbyn in the firing line again, this story is rapidly becoming one of the most read on the BBC news site. (from 2015)



https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34832023





After todays terrorist attack in London, this story will almost certainly depress the Labour vote even more.

What from 4 years ago? and is now being shared amongst all the lemmings

Rjd2

I have issues with Jez, but his overseas stance isn't awful and slagging foreign interventionism is not a far left position anymore.

You see plenty of criticism from the right also these days, heck one of Trump's strong points was he constantly mocked the Republican war mongers.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

What from 4 years ago? and is now being shared amongst all the lemmings

Yeah, the story is trending and is in the top 10 most read UK stories, so someone pushed it up there.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, the story is trending and is in the top 10 most read UK stories, so someone pushed it up there.

The dirty tricks are all over the place. There was (unrelated) a Twitter storm earlier about Ivanka Trump buying voting machines from China and getting them installed in 18 or 19 states. Obviously false, but it had got a huge amount of traction in a very short space of time.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Corbyn previously stated that he is in favour of the UK armed forces being disbanded.

He is simply not fit to take the role of UK Prime Minister.

Throw up a non-partisan link to prove it please.

sid waddell

Perpetrator of the London Bridge attack was an Islamist, tagged, and known to authorities.

Priti Patel reduced the terror threat as recently as November 4th.

Oh dear.

This is all on Johnson and the Tories.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm in favour of NHS privatisation. I'm in favour of the concept of privatisation generally.

Privatisation of essential services like water, transport and energy in the UK provide lots bad examples.

prawnsambo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Privatisation of essential services like water, transport and energy in the UK provide lots bad examples.

To be fair, he said the "concept" of privatisation. The reality being a horror story, the conceptual space is probably the best place to have it.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

Perpetrator of the London Bridge attack was an Islamist, tagged, and known to authorities.

Priti Patel reduced the terror threat as recently as November 4th.

Oh dear.

This is all on Johnson and the Tories.

Short of introducing internment, there is little that can be done to stop this type of lone wolf attacks.

The threat was reduced simply because they believed there were no clear active threats from the usual suspects.

Being on constant high alert is more disruptive and can cause unnecessary anxiety in the general population.

Strazdas

Johnson by no means home and dry. Poll of polls suggests his predicted majority is rapidly shrinking :

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/29/boris-johnsons-predicted-commons-majority-slashed-80-12-week/