Starmer's vision quest

[multitool]

Now who's doing faux-naiveté? It's in the Tweet. I went to meet some Muslims and repeated my call to release the hostages. Association. Context (sorry, Aurora). Only marginally more subtle than Richard Madeley asking Layla Moran whether she'd heard about the Hamas plan.

How do you know the Muslims didn't agree with him? Why are you holding all Muslims responsible for the actions of a few thousand maniacs?

This is the sort of madness it is only possible to write if you have forgotten what the whole purpose of the 'Labour Antisemitism' scandal was and what Starmer's role in it has been.

That is a really weird response.

Starmer sat on Corbyn's shadow cabinet. He openly endorsed him, because what else could he do. At the same time, I don't doubt that he realised Corbyn was a dick and he probably winced every time St Jeremy handed the Tories an open goal.

It is fairly clear that there were some pretty vile anti-semites on the far left of the party, but it is also true that the AS issue was exploited by Labour's enemies.

To pretend that none of this has left a legacy for Starmer, or that he doesn't have to deal with the outfall in a pragmatic manner not injurious to Labour's electoral chances, is farcical.

 

[albion]

Corbyn just happened to be an end justified the means sort of person.
A simpleton one at that.

 

[winjim]

OK, so you are saying that Starmer was desperate not to appear anti-semtic, but it's hyperbolic to suggest that this was a result of the Corbyn era.

So if this sensitivity was not a result of the Corbyn era, what was it? Because I don't recall it being an accusation made before Corbyn's leadership.

I also said it was tedious.

 

[multitool]

I also said it was tedious.

And you said citing Corbyn as the source of all Labour's antisemitism woes was "hyperbolic", ie. an exagerration.

If the source wasn't Corbyn, what was it? How is it that if it was just shît thrown in the air that it not only stuck but still does?

So come on then, descend from your place of higher wisdom to those of us like me with a tedious, amoebic perception.

I await your munificent wisdom, O Grand Cognescenti.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I went to meet some Muslims and repeated my call to release the hostages.

Would it have been better if he was saying it to a group of jews at a synagogue or Christians at a cathedral, or Buddhists in a temple ( while religion is topical). The symbolism would have upset someone whatever he did.

He said it, and that's what matters, except to those who tediously jump in to criticise everything clumsy he says...the thing that incensed many when applied to Corbyn.

Just more of the internecine war in Labour, like night follows day.

 

[winjim]

And you said citing Corbyn as the source of all Labour's antisemitism woes was "hyperbolic", ie. an exagerration.

If the source wasn't Corbyn, what was it? How is it that if it was just shît thrown in the air that it not only stuck but still does?

So come on then, descend from your place of higher wisdom to those of us like me with a tedious, amoebic perception.

I await your munificent wisdom, O Grand Cognescenti.

It doesn't really matter. What matters is how Starmer's dealing with it. And if he's dealing with it in a way which means he's condoning war crimes, whether deliberately or accidentally, then that's not good.

 

[multitool]

It doesn't really matter. What matters is how Starmer's dealing with it. And if he's dealing with it in a way which means he's condoning war crimes, whether deliberately or accidentally, then that's not good.

"Accidentally condoning war crimes"

 

[winjim]

I mean the dumbfûck stupidity of


"Accidentally condoning war crimes"

OK he did it on purpose. I don't see how that makes it any better.

 

[multitool]

OK he did it on purpose. I don't see how that makes it any better.

I've amended my post. That top line was a remnant of some abuse I was sending ACXRs way

 

[Rusty Nails]

It doesn't really matter. What matters is how Starmer's dealing with it. And if he's dealing with it in a way which means he's condoning war crimes, whether deliberately or accidentally, then that's not good.

The words "he's condoning" implies a present tense continuation of his original statement. He has rowed back on that and is talking about keeping the retaliation towards Hamas and avoiding harm to civilians. Israel has a right to defend its citizens by attacking Hamas, but not at any cost to innocent Palestinians.

Are you aware of any subsequent statements that show he is condoning war crimes, beyond the weasel words of that first interview?

 

[winjim]

I've amended my post. That top line was a remnant of some abuse I was sending ACXRs way

Fair enough.

The words "he's condoning" implies a present tense continuation of his original statement. He has rowed back on that and is talking about keeping the retaliation towards Hamas and avoiding harm to civilians. Israel has a right to defend its citizens by attacking Hamas, but not at any cost to innocent Palestinians.

Are you aware of any subsequent statements that show he is condoning war crimes, beyond the weasel words of that first interview?

There are entire novels written in the present tense, you know.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Fair enough.



There are entire novels written in the present tense, you know.

That's fine as long as you recognise this is not a novel and that he is not condoning war crimes.

From a BBC report of his words today in parliament:

"The Labour party leader goes on to say democracies know innocent lives must be protected, which is why humanitarian corridors must be established for civilians in Gaza trying to escape violence.

Starmer adds that "civilians must not be targeted" and says where Palestinian people have been forced to flee for safety they must not be permanently displaced from their homes.

The UK's most senior opposition politician says international law is clear, as well as saying that basic human needs like water, food and medicine must not be denied to people who need them.

Starmer goes on to discuss the widely reported-on situation in Gazan hospitals, where a lack of supplies and power is leaving many Palestinians at risk of dying.

"Gaza needs aid and it needs to be rapid, safe, unhindered and regular," he adds."

This, of course, will not be enough for some , me included, but it certainly is not condoning war crimes.

 

[albion]

' You are ignoring content by this member. Show ignored content'

Another 'Litter' thread.

 

[winjim]

That's fine as long as you recognise this is not a novel and that he is not condoning war crimes.

From a BBC report of his words today in parliament:

"The Labour party leader goes on to say democracies know innocent lives must be protected, which is why humanitarian corridors must be established for civilians in Gaza trying to escape violence.

Starmer adds that "civilians must not be targeted" and says where Palestinian people have been forced to flee for safety they must not be permanently displaced from their homes.

The UK's most senior opposition politician says international law is clear, as well as saying that basic human needs like water, food and medicine must not be denied to people who need them.

Starmer goes on to discuss the widely reported-on situation in Gazan hospitals, where a lack of supplies and power is leaving many Palestinians at risk of dying.

"Gaza needs aid and it needs to be rapid, safe, unhindered and regular," he adds."

This, of course, will not be enough for some , me included, but it certainly is not condoning war crimes.

I fully agree with your last paragraph.

The fact remains however that he did condone a war crime. Maybe accidentally but he did, and then only gave a really weak sort of retraction and only addressed to a certain segment of society when really pushed on the issue. Now I'm not saying that the LOTO has much influence over the Israeli administration, but he has aspirations to become PM and would surely hope to have some diplomatic power over the actions of other countries. It's possible that his opinions may embolden or discourage foreign governments in the course they plan to take.

The time to unequivocally condemn a war crime is before it happens in the hope that you can discourage or prevent it, talking about protection of civilians a fortnight after Israel has gone full Mumm-Ra is too little, too late.

I've made the point before but I think Starmer tiptoed around the subject and misspoke because he was afraid of appearing antisemitic and that is not a quality I want in the leader of our country.

 

[BoldonLad]

I fully agree with your last paragraph.

The fact remains however that he did condone a war crime. Maybe accidentally but he did, and then only gave a really weak sort of retraction and only addressed to a certain segment of society when really pushed on the issue. Now I'm not saying that the LOTO has much influence over the Israeli administration, but he has aspirations to become PM and would surely hope to have some diplomatic power over the actions of other countries. It's possible that his opinions may embolden or discourage foreign governments in the course they plan to take.

The time to unequivocally condemn a war crime is before it happens in the hope that you can discourage or prevent it, talking about protection of civilians a fortnight after Israel has gone full Mumm-Ra is too little, too late.

I've made the point before but I think Starmer tiptoed around the subject and misspoke because he was afraid of appearing antisemitic and that is not a quality I want in the leader of our country.

Does that mean you want him to appear antisemitic?