BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Oct 16 - 07:43 AM

McGrath of Harlow - 14 Oct 16 - 05:59 PM

The 9000 jihadis in Aleppo are indeed not Isis - they are Al Qaeda

Are they really Kevin? Where did you get this information from? The same Labour spokesperson with the track record of coming out with unverified, incorrect, inaccurate, misrepresentative and irresponsible statements. WOW 9,000 people inside Aleppo fighting against Assad and they are all members of Al-Qaeda. Any idea of the number and make-up of the multiplicity of groups fighting against Assad Kevin - if not I would suggest that you do some research of your own.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Oct 16 - 04:31 AM

Raggytash - 14 Oct 16 - 03:50 PM

Sadly the mentally of some of the people on this forum seem to consider that if YOU killed 99 of OUR people and WE managed to 100 of YOUR people that WE have won.

Really Raggy? Who on this forum has stated anything even remotely like that? Or are these your famous lack of comprehension skills being demonstrated again?

Mind you there have been historical precedents under which such a claim to victory could be made if the conflict was of the same type as "The Clan Fight at Perth" where if both sides consisted of 100 men then the side who did kill 100 would undoubtedly and justifiably claim victory.

What has been pointed out here Raggy is that the Russians and Assad are deliberately targeting and killing civilians in Syria, while others are not. If you doubt that then take it up with the organisation monitoring civilian deaths in Syria, the chaps name is Chris Woods of Airwars, perhaps you should read their Report entitled "A Reckless Disregard" that covered civilian deaths during the first three months of Russian airstrikes in Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 05:59 PM

The 9000 jihadis in Aleppo are indeed not Isis - they are Al Qaeda. That why I said that they essentially had the same ideology as Isis.

Yes, hospitals have been bombed in Aleppo. That also happened in Afghanistan, with the Americans, in Yemen, with the Saudis and in Gaza with the Israelis. No one has clean hands.

It is clear that there were people on both sides who wanted the recent ceasefire to fail, and they succeeded. Sooner or later there will be a ceasefire that holds, because that's the only way wars end, and all wars do end eventually. The priority on both sides needs to be to identify those who wrecked the ceasefire and neutralize them.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 03:50 PM

Sadly the mentally of some of the people on this forum seem to consider that if YOU killed 99 of OUR people and WE managed to 100 of YOUR people that WE have won.

Pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 06:14 AM

"Shouldn't that be - "It has,"
No it most certainly does not
Tha Labour Party seem to be regarding all killing of civilian as reprehensible unlike yourself, who has to count the bodies before deciding whether it should be condemned.
The U.S's track record of killing whoever gets in the way goes before them - they've even invented new terms - "collateral damage" and "friendly fire" to make it sound less serious than it is.
No need to mention the Russians - we see it on our television screens and Russia isn't considered an ally, as America is.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 03:36 AM

Semantics Kevin, there may well be 9,000 Rebel fighters in Aleppo but as far as anyone knows the ISIS flag has never been seen in Aleppo. There are no ISIS targets in Aleppo which is under constant attack by Assad and the Russian Air force so far they have bombed hospitals and aid convoys and have been directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of Syrian civilians who they are deliberately targeting according to Chris Woods, the director of Monitoring group Airwars.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 16 - 06:08 PM

l understand, from UN news sources, that there at least 9,000 jihadist troops in Aleppo, with much the same ideology as Isis, and that they are understood to be the most effective fighting forces on the rebel side, and the backbone of the continued resistance.

That may or may not be true. That's what I meant - we don't know so many things you'd need to know. Stopping all outside intervention would seem to make sense. But it's not going to happen. All increased intervention just threatens to make things worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Oct 16 - 02:46 PM

McGrath of Harlow - 13 Oct 16 - 01:24 PM

"We never know the actual truth about all this kind of thing until many years later, if then."

If that is the case Kevin where is your rightful condemnation of Labour Party "spokesmen" making inaccurate, misleading and irresponsible pronouncements as though they were fact.

While US and others have been attacking ISIS target very successfully the Russians and Assad have been attacking Aleppo - what ISIS targets are there in Aleppo Kevin?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 16 - 01:24 PM

We never know the actual truth about all this kind of thing until many years later, if then.

While our eyes are focussed on Aleppo, in Yemen the Saudis are busily doing precisely the same kind of thing.

And in Syria, while the Russians join in on one side, the Saudis join in on .the other, ensuring that the war keeps going.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Oct 16 - 12:33 PM

"Has it, and does it matter that one side kills more than the other"

Shouldn't that be - "It has, and does matter to mention and make the differentiation that one side {The Russians} deliberately targets kills civilians causing eight times the death toll than the other side {US & UK} who make all possible efforts to avoid civilian casualties and target ISIS" - see the difference Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Oct 16 - 10:21 AM

"The Labour Party has trouble with arithmetic does it Jim?"
Has it, and does it matter that one side kills more than the other - aren't they both reprehensible and worthy of your condemnation - or, like your obsession with semantics, are you happy to excuse morder because there aren't enough dead?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Oct 16 - 08:53 AM

"The Labour party has implied that the civilian death toll from coalition bombings is comparable to that from Russian ones"

The Labour Party has trouble with arithmetic does it Jim?


Quote 1:
"The coalition kills too many civilians but it is clear they are trying to limit those deaths, while everything we understand about the way Russia is behaving shows they are deliberately targeting civilians, civilian infrastructure," said Chris Woods, the director of Monitoring group Airwars.

Quote 2:
"That means the Russians' death rate probably outpaces the coalition by a rate of eight to one," Woods said.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Oct 16 - 08:32 AM

What Corbyn is actually saying - bot to "alance" criticism, but to ascertain that all war crimes and abuses are dealt with
Jim Carroll

Jeremy Corbyn believes Boris Johnson's focus on halting Russian airstrikes in Syria "diverts attention" from other atrocities in the country, including those committed by the US-led coalition, a spokesman for the Labour leader has said.
Corbyn had condemned the Russian attacks, "as he has condemned the intervention by all outside forces in the Syrian civil war", the spokesman said, but warned that "the focus on Russian atrocities in Syria sometimes diverts attention from other atrocities that are taking place".
Analysis Reality check: are US-led airstrikes on Syrians as bad as Russia's?
The Labour party has implied that the civilian death toll from coalition bombings is comparable to that from Russian ones
The remarks were made at a briefing of journalists after prime minister's questions in the House of Commons on Wednesday.
"Independent assessments are that there have been very large-scale civilian casualties as a result of the US-led coalition bombing. There are several cases of large numbers of deaths in single attacks, and there hasn't been as much focus on those casualties," the spokesman said.
The foreign secretary had called for protests outside the Russian embassy in London in response to the bombing of Aleppo and to put pressure on Moscow to agree to a ceasefire.
The Labour spokesman said said he wasn't drawing a "moral equivalence" between Russia's actions and those of the US, but when asked whether it was as equally legitimate for the public to protest outside the US embassy as the Russian, he replied: "People are free to protest outside the intervening powers' embassies, and there are a number of them." Asked if that included the US, he said, "obviously".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Oct 16 - 12:58 PM

See Corbyn is calling for demonstrations outside the American Embassy, to balance criticism of Russia's efforts in Syria. Surprised that he hasn't also called for demonstrations outside the Houses of Parliament to protest our involvement.

Needless to say he ignores the fact that:

1: Russia is supplying the weaponry that Assad needs to prosecute the war against his own population

2: Russian efforts since they involved themselves has been more against moderate rebel forces and the civilian population that support them than against ISIS.

3: That many accuse Russian Forces of war crimes against the Syrian people.

Can anybody tell me if "The Leader" has criticised Russian actions in Syria?

Has he any comments related to Putin's desire to acquire a permanent Russian Naval Base in Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Oct 16 - 07:45 AM

"to become capitalists and didn't they just dive for the trough?"
Your contempt for working people who attempt to better themselves in the prevailing system is palpable.
What did you expect them to do - sit on their hands and wait for the next bus to your 'Big Rock Candy Mountain'?
Your understanding of the term "capitalism" is just as risible - to be a "capitalist" you need to be living off the proceeds of invested capital - that's what the term means.
Owning your own home doesn't enter into the equation.
Your ignorance of politics rivals that of Teribus's, and is just as archaic - and that's saying something
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 07:27 PM

For Corbyn to be blamed by Tory Remainers wouldn't really matter - you'd expect that from them. But for Labour MP's to pretend that he was was responsible for failing to turn that 69% into 100% or whatever, was pretty absurd and completely irresponsible.

Corbyn's recognition that the EU is far from perfect, but that it should be supported was in fact the best way to convince doubters to opt for Remain - and it very largely succeeded.If MPs in constituencies with heavy Brexit voting had been more effective in persuading their constituencies of this, the result would have been different.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 02:27 PM

Indeed. The Prime Minister's policy was to remain. Only 43% of 2015 Tory voters followed him. Jeremy Corbyn's policy was to remain. 69% of 2015 Labour voters followed him. Another piece of right-wing media bullshit blown out of the water.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 01:32 PM

it is becoming apparent, that the Labour parties support of the remain campaign was played down in the UK Media, and then Corbyns so called lack of enthusiasm for remain[ a media myth] was used afterwards to attack his leadership

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 01:22 PM

This adds up to a new way of understanding the old maxim of Proudhin - "Property is Theft".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 01:19 PM

The sale of council houses involves massive discounts to tenants, at the expense of the owners. The owners being the community as a whole. A very significant reason for imposing this policy was in order to influence voting choice. This was admitted by Margaret Thatcher and others.

A similar policy applied to private housing, with landlords compelled to sell property at significantly less than that properties cost, would be described as theft, and almost certainly be deemed illegal in court.

All this was made worse by policies by governments for decades which forbade councils from using the money received in these confiscatory cutprice sales to build new houses.

The more recent twist is where councils are compelled to sell any houses which have higher market value, and for this money to be confiscated to provide sizeable discounts to tenants of housing associations, which are compelled to sell these properties to tenants.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 12:50 PM

Mrs Thatcher only provided the opportunity for "socialists" to become capitalists and didn't they just dive for the trough?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 12:22 PM

"THIS IS THE CRISIS THAT MAGGIE BUILT"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 11:52 AM

Simple questions for you T.

1.Were council houses sold off at a discount to sitting tenants.

2. Were those houses replaced with new stock by said councils.

A yes or No will suffice.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 11:38 AM

"But Raggy, the hypocrites in the Labour Party at the time were all for forcing right to buy for tenants in privately owned property that was rented out "
The target of the "Right-to-buy" scheme was aimed at ending Council Housing - nothing to do with private landlords.
That was why it was opposed by the "hypocrites"
END OF COUNCIL HOUSING
Socialism has s.f.a to do with "sharing out" - that is a Tory myth ad a very outdated one.
It is about equality of opportunity, not of possessions not wealth.
Who said dinosaurs were extinct?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 11:29 AM

But Raggy, the hypocrites in the Labour Party at the time were all for forcing right to buy for tenants in privately owned property that was rented out - "Do as I say, not as I do", coupled with another good "socialist" maxim, "Everything must be shared, until it's our stuff that has to be shared".

Their own rent acts meant that they could not maintain their housing stock that was rapidly turning into post-war slums.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 08:12 AM

"I repeat.....We need to reform ourselves!"
And what exactly - we act on our own principles and our children suffer - until when???
Till they decide to give us a better system presumably - your Pie in the Sky again
You are suggesting we play by the rules and live under what they decide to dish out to us.
I have no idea which planet your "socialism" comes from but it certainly isn't part of this Galaxy
I've asked you to propose alternatives in the past - you decline to do so.
Now you suggest that we just do as we are told.
Sheesh!!!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 08:11 AM

As ever, your utter confusion about all this precludes any possibility of a productive conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 08:06 AM

The only way we will ever change this society is through principle and real socialism means the abdication of "self" in the common good how many really even understand that principle never mind put it into practice......I am fortunate to remember such a society it was full of socialists who thought they were Tories.

Now we have political parties full of Tories who think they are socialists......or rather pretend they are socialists.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 07:53 AM

They are hypocrites because they like to enjoy all the trappings of living in a wealthy country, NHS OR private, public schools OR state, big houses that attract hardly any more council tax than much smaller ones, second homes that leave "desirable" villages and seaside towns like ghost towns for eleven months of the year (and,naturally, their accountants will look after their tax avoidance schemes), yet when lefties try to intrude in any way on this lush set of choices, they're "abandoning their principles!" The only "principles" Tories have are those relating to looking after number one. They find them very hard to "abandon," of course, so THEY, unlike those pesky and vociferous lefties (who probably live on benefits anyway) remain above criticism for being hypocrites.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 07:40 AM

BTW.....Tories are not hypocrites, they actually believe in this economic system. They may be right, most of us are better off financially than when I was a boy, but are we "happier"....and is it sustainable?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 07:36 AM

But that is the point Jim, the more you try to "reform" the system the less wealth is produced and the poorest always suffer.

I repeat.....We need to reform ourselves!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 06:53 AM

"Funny, innit, that when Labour people buy houses or send their kids to public schools they're hypocrites, etc., yet no-one criticises Tories for doing the same things "
Just going to say that
When you consider Tory Duck Palaces paid for out of Parliamentary expenses, claims for accommodation that didn't exist, offshore accounts and lobbying, hypocrisy (which is what it is) measures extremely small.
Labour proposes a system whereby all children are given an equal opportunity at getting an education; until we get that, it is understandable that anybody under the present system does their best for their children
We live under the system we live under
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 06:34 AM

doing, not diving

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 06:33 AM

Funny, innit, that when Labour people buy houses or send their kids to public schools they're hypocrites, etc., yet no-one criticises Tories for doing the same things - or for exercising the same free choice when it comes to choosing the best STATE school for their kids (you can always move house or give the parish priest a sweetener...), or for CHOOSING whether or not they bypass the NHS queues they've done so much to create. One lot gets to "exercise free choice" with impunity yet the other lot are castigated for diving the same thing. They've "abandoned their principles." Well if you're so keen on their "principles," how come you don't follow them yourselves! The air is polluted yet we all have to breathe it. The fact that right-wingers jeer at lefties for wanting the same choices that they exercise show where the real hypocrisy lies - us and them - sauce for the goose, etc....

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 06:16 AM

Must have been different where you are to the Salford I lived in, in the late 70's early 80's. The council there sold houses off at a discount depending on your length of tenure. Thus some people paid just 50% of the market value of the house.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 06:07 AM

Most Labour voters round this area immediately took out mortgages to buy their council houses, at extortionate rates.

Some bought and re-sold quickly, they made a huge profit, but those who saw out their mortgage till the housing bubble burst made a bad deal. my old uncle used to say to me, "forget yer Communism" we're aw Tories under the skin"......he was right, we need to reform ourselves.

Of course most of the Labour hypocrisy pertains to education and private medicine.

I think our leaders are well aware of this innate hypocrisy, it shows a lack of self belief in most of their speech's and pronouncements. That is why people respond to folk like Thatcher and Farage.....they actually believe what they say.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 05:31 AM

As far as I recall Ake, the Labour Party has never said you cannot own a house. It had said, and rightly so in my mind, you cannot own a council house.

However that experiment was blown out of the water, most notably of Margaret Thatcher.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 05:14 AM

Both Chakrabarti and Diane Abbott send their own children to private schools.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 05:04 AM

I'm sorry to say it Raggytash, but Teribus is right, hypocrisy does abound in the Labour party, especially regarding housing.

That is why I believe that any move towards a proper sustainable society will be a long term journey....any talk of reforming the system is bound to fail, as reform is not recognised by capitalism.
When it becomes unprofitable or uncompetitive to operate, it moves on.

There must be a real will to change society, with all of the sacrifices that entails......more evolution than revolution these days. The sixties generation are old people now.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 04:54 AM

McGrath of Harlow - 10 Oct 16 - 03:42 PM

I repeat my suggestion - no question of dictating, Teribus.

Not you attempting to dictate anything Kevin, but others of a political persuasion similar to your own are rather vehemently.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 04:48 AM

I would have thought that anyone could see the difference between owning a house and owning a COUNCIL house built for the specific purpose of providing decent affordable RENTED accommodation.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 04:21 AM

Back to the Labour Party.

Your latest, fast tracked Labour Peer seems to have been exposed as the hypocrite she undoubtedly is. Another classic "socialist" of the "Do as I say, not as I do" variety. Labour fights against selective education and seeks to deny parents any choice or say for that matter in the education of their children, yet she sees nothing wrong at all in her exercising what she sees as her right to place her children in fee paying schools, because she is doing what she sees as doing the best for her children - the rest of us given the Labour Party line on this have to make do with what they say is the best for our children.

This by the way is the same woman who gave everyone a free pass on past transgressions while at the same time complains about "racist" and "misogynist" hate mail she has received from those within her own party. Yet according to Steve Shaw and Jim Carroll who of course know better than anybody else what is going on in the Labour Party, even those in charge of the Labour Party - and Jim Carroll says he isn't even a member of it - that there are no problems in the Labour Party. Baroness Chakrabarti however describes it as a Party that is in "Civil War" - no problems indeed eh?

Same with houses wasn't it? "Do as I say, Not as I do", you couldn't own your own Council House under Labour, you had no right to something that you'd paid for all your life. At that time Wilson owned what? Five houses wasn't it? Callaghan owned three Healey two?

Hypocrites the lot of them, they always have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 04:02 AM

You should know Raggy, you should know.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 03:50 AM

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 02:25 AM

"Perhaps Teribus you could look back through your posts over the past two years or so."

If I did Raggy I think that they would show the opposite.

As to "rational discussion", you and the others commonly referred to by me as "the usual suspects" have never been interested in "rational discussion" - the aim stated on numerous threads was simply "to take the piss" - do you want quotes?

You and your pals for reasons best known to yourselves decided to "mob" a couple of other members of this forum. It is something that is very ugly and disturbing to watch, something that I certainly was not going to let stand without a challenge.

So far on every thread you and your "pals" have invaded you have been made to look foolish and your supposed arguments have been demolished by recorded and documented fact, reason and logic - every time Raggy. The latest trolling exercise above the line by two of your troll pals who have to sign in as GUESTS now is a classic case in point.

Now if you, or anyone else, wishes to point out where in this this post, I have displayed bad temper, or have been belligerent or aggressive I would like them to explain where and how. I ask because past experience has shown me that you and the others I speak of are very good at throwing out accusations and allegations that none of you, for what I think are very obvious reasons, can ever seem to substantiate. In writing the above I have only described as I have found to be the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 01:50 AM

" It's more about good manners, and respect towards other people. "

Funny thing about that Kevin is that both are a two-way street.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 04:35 PM

Teribus. It's more about good manners, and respect towards other people.

Some hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 03:42 PM

I repeat my suggestion - no question of dictating, Teribus. It's more about good manners, and respect towards other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 03:23 PM

Perhaps Teribus you could look back through your posts over the past two years or so.

They have become increasingly aggressive and increasingly belligerent (agreed, sometimes with provocation)

It has come to a stage where now I, and I suspect many others, merely anticipate not a rational discussion but yet another tirade of bitterness and vitriol.

As this is apparent to myself and other people, nothing you post has any impact at all other than to confirm our suppositions.

In other words your contributions are seen as worthless. A huge change from just a short time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 03:02 PM

"One rule for all Carroll -"
And you were doing so well - doesn't take long for the civilised mask to slip and we're back to the neanderthal.
The OP opened a ew thread in order that those of us who wished to discuss Israel should use it while those who wished to continue with the Labour Party could stay with this one.
As we've all played our part in ***** up threads, this seemed reasonable to me - not a rule, just consideration for others.
I'm happy to discuss Atisemitism on this thread as it has a direct relevance to the subject, what happened in Israel in the 8th century. or 1920, or whenever does not, and I'm happy to accept that, though I'm sure you are not, being the feller you seem to be.
Keith is one of those who happily yomps his way through any thread discussing whatever takes his fancy until he paints himself into a corner, then she squeals "thread drift" - it happens a lot.
Enjoy
Jim Carroll