Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
User avatar
The Prof
Composing a revolutionary symphony
Posts: 44896
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:32
Location: A Metropolis of Discontent

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Postby The Prof » 04 Aug 2017, 10:17



And those two articles, like the other two and many other column inches dedicated to this seem to play down the historical facts (Do any of them even mention the Haavara Agreement?) and concentrate themselves with misinterpreting the word "support", "supporting" or "supported".
Jews wanted to leave Germany because of the Nazis, Nazis wanted Jews to leave Germany because..... well... they were Nazis. Elements of both sides assisted, aided, helped and yes supported each other in this aim.
You want to leave the room because you don't like me. I want you to leave the room because I don't like you - so I'll open the door, kick you on the arse and throw your bags down the hall after you. I have supported you in leaving the room.
I believe the whole thing was cooked up to get at Livingstone and ultimately undermine Corbyn and his leadership.

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 24283
Joined: 23 Jul 2003, 13:31
Location: Up late at night again

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Postby Nick » 04 Aug 2017, 10:37

Livingstone said that Hitler was 'supporting Zionism'.

Zionism as a movement was from the start dedicated to the liberation of the Jewish people, and the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the historic land of Israel. Whether you agree with it or not, it should be recognised as such.

Hitler and Nazism were the worst calamities to ever befall the Jewish people - and that's saying something, when you consider that we're talking about a people who've been persecuted and murdered constantly for two thousand years.

It's not hard to see why Livingstone's choice of words would be considered as grossly offensive by not just Jews, but anyone who knows their history.

And given Livingstone's form for this sort of thing, it's hard to give him the benefit of the doubt. But even if it was simply a poor choice of words, he should have shown some self-awareness and dignity, and apologised. But he didn't, he doubled down on it.
Jeff K wrote:Nick's still the man! No one has been as consistent as he has been over such a long period of time.

User avatar
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 30424
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Postby Goat Boy » 04 Aug 2017, 10:40

The Prof wrote:


And those two articles, like the other two and many other column inches dedicated to this seem to play down the historical facts (Do any of them even mention the Haavara Agreement?) and concentrate themselves with misinterpreting the word "support", "supporting" or "supported".
Jews wanted to leave Germany because of the Nazis, Nazis wanted Jews to leave Germany because..... well... they were Nazis. Elements of both sides assisted, aided, helped and yes supported each other in this aim.
You want to leave the room because you don't like me. I want you to leave the room because I don't like you - so I'll open the door, kick you on the arse and throw your bags down the hall after you. I have supported you in leaving the room.
I believe the whole thing was cooked up to get at Livingstone and ultimately undermine Corbyn and his leadership.


Clearly Bauer, Colin Schindler and Rainer Schulze mention the agreement and discuss it in more detail in the second article providing context and insight. Misinterpreting? I think Livingstone knows exactly what he'd doing in making a statement like that (Hitler bad, Zionism bad, Hitler supporting Zionism obviously makes Zionism even more bad). It is unbelievably crass and stupid. He has form too. I find your explanation laughably reductionist.

I believe the whole thing was cooked up to get at Livingstone and ultimately undermine Corbyn and his leadership


Cooked up by who? The right wing media? Zionists? The "pro-Israeli lobby"? Pass the tin foil hat. Here comes the good stuff!

You still haven't answered why Baddiel would say that by the way.
German Dave wrote:Have a long hard look in the mirror will you

User avatar
Toby
Arsehole all Erect
Posts: 21980
Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
Contact:

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Postby Toby » 04 Aug 2017, 10:49

Douglas Murray (oh no!)

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/04/i-c ... -bury-him/

During this time it has become clear that Ken’s main, perhaps sole, source on Hitler and Zionism is a book by the Marxist writer Lenni Brenner called Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. In the 34 years since its publication, this work has rarely been cited — and never in any serious work of history.

As anybody who has ever talked to Livingstone will know, he is an eager lover of books and ideas. Sadly for him — and as a wiser head might now have worked out — with Brenner he is on to a serious wrong ’un.

As the historian Paul Bogdanor showed in a scholarly article last year, Brenner imbibed his ideas from the well of Soviet propaganda. As opposed to far-right Holocaust fabrications (which either claim that it did not happen, or downplay the numbers), Soviet-inspired anti–Semites tend towards claims that the Jews were themselves involved. Brenner, who was involved in the 1980s with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), clearly helped dig this well, from which Livingstone drank deeply. In Livingstone’s own 2011 memoirs he credited Brenner’s books with having ‘helped form my view of Zionism and its history’.

On international affairs — an area in which he has mercifully never had a meaningful role — Livingstone’s views are a hodge-podge of learning from quacks. But all good quacks lean on nuggets of truth. In the case of Jews in the 1930s, it is true that a small number of Labour Zionists had meetings with Nazi officials in 1933 about helping German Jews emigrate to what was then Palestine. But these were not ‘clandestine’ meetings, as Brenner and Livingstone claim. And their aim was not to cooperate, much less find mutual interest in the creation of a Jewish state, but rather one small part of a desperate scramble to get some people and possessions out of Germany.

Brenner and Livingstone’s take is classic crackpot history. And like Livingstone’s frequent citings of Mosaddegh and the CIA in discussing the wider Middle East, it isn’t that what he’s saying didn’t in any way happen. It’s just that what happened doesn’t remotely support the conclusions he comes to.

Many observers, especially British Jews, wonder why Livingstone wants to keep raking over all this. Is it a demonstration of anti-Semitism? Or senility? Both seem possible. But it is also possible that, armed with his little learning, Livingstone has chosen his version of history, as many people do, and is sticking with it.

He is wildly wrong, of course. If he had any power, his proselytisation on behalf of his theory could be dangerous. But Ken has no power, and his crazy insistence on arguing every inch of ground has instead allowed a public debate about a corner of left-wing pseudo-history that might never otherwise have had a light shone on it to allow for such mainstream debunking.

Whatever happens, it looks as if Livingstone will keep arguing his case, talking Hitler into every microphone he sees and banging on about details of 1933 while schoolgirls walk giggling by. But he’s not such a bad person to watch. He has shown an ambition to get the past right. He has refused to buckle even when the world has told him to. He is a man seeking truth while swimming in error. Perhaps it says something about our age of half-truths and swiftly swapped opinions that, in a certain light, Ken can look almost noble.

User avatar
The Prof
Composing a revolutionary symphony
Posts: 44896
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:32
Location: A Metropolis of Discontent

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Postby The Prof » 04 Aug 2017, 11:50

Goat Boy wrote:You still haven't answered why Baddiel would say that by the way.

I get the feeling that he writes on Jewish matters from a Jewish perspective.

User avatar
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 30424
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Postby Goat Boy » 04 Aug 2017, 12:48

The Prof wrote:
Goat Boy wrote:You still haven't answered why Baddiel would say that by the way.

I get the feeling that he writes on Jewish matters from a Jewish perspective.


And you comment on such things very much from a Left wing perspective (see your conspiratorial comment about this being “cooked up” to get at Corbyn). I can't be bothered explaining why I don't consider such things as "Jewish matters" so I'll leave it there....

I think this article, by one of the historians who is quoted in the link I posted before is worthwhile. The point that the Nazis weren’t actually supporting “Zionism” is an important one. I find some of the semantic dodgeball around his use of the word "supported" odd to say the least.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/adolf-hitler-zionism-zionist-nazis-haavara-agreement-ken-livingstone-labour-antisemitism-row-a7009981.html


The statement originally in question is merely another example of his creepy bullshit. Ken’s not dumb enough to suggest these oligarchs should have been killed, however, by saying he “suspects” that they are undermining things and inferring that Chavez made a mistake somewhere in there is a justification for having them “removed”. Maybe if he’d said “booted out the country” but he didn’t, did he? He mentioned them being killed. So, no, he isn’t saying they should have been killed but it’s there, lurking in the background. Of course it is.

So, yeah, Ken Livingstone: cunt.
German Dave wrote:Have a long hard look in the mirror will you

User avatar
The Prof
Composing a revolutionary symphony
Posts: 44896
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:32
Location: A Metropolis of Discontent

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Postby The Prof » 04 Aug 2017, 13:09

Livingstone didn't say that Nazis were Zionist and, like all the other articles, it seems to be splitting hairs on the meaning of "support".
The two sides to the Haavara Agreement wanted the same outcome for different reasons.
I can't be bothered going round in circles anymore and finding any more analogies so I'll leave this now.

User avatar
Copehead
BCB Cup Stalinist
Posts: 22687
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:51
Location: at sea

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Postby Copehead » 04 Aug 2017, 23:07

Goat Boy wrote:
Copehead wrote:
Goat Boy wrote:And you could start with not being such a condescending twat or dismissing people as "far right" when they aren't just because they give an alternative view on Kens weasly statement.

I should know better by now I guess but there you go.


"Alternative view" as in did not understand in this case it seems.

Still you are not alone David Baddiel didn't seem to understand it either and he went to Oxford so he hasn't got being a thick cunt to fall back on.


I guess Holocaust historian Timothy Snyder didn't either.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36165298?SThisFB%3FSThisFB

Worth reading for Yehuda Bauers comments:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/top-historians-take-down-livingstons-claim-that-hitler-supported-zionism/

Venezuela has a few major problems: Maduro is a useless, feckless idiot compared to Chavez let alone anyone else, the price of oil (especially Venezuelan oil which is heavy oil and cheaper than WTI or Brent) has more than halved, the country is hopelessly split down the middle for and against Maduro, the opposition is in the hands of your typical South American Fascist Junta types rather than some appealing democrats and the USA is on their side obviously.

All in all it is difficult seeing civil war being avoided especially with Trump in the White House.


Well let's just hope that the left learns a lesson from this and kills all oligarchs prior to attempting socialism. Maybe Primal Scream could write a song about just to remind us.


It seems even eminent pro-zionist historians cannot resist attacking a great big straw man.

Because it seems pretty self evident to me that Livingstone never said Hitler supported Zionism just that they shared a common aim of removing Jews from Europe in the 30s.

But then I can read and I am not a shill for the grubby, kleptocratic government Israel sadly votes into power election after election.

I think we can add Livingstone's comments about Venezuela to the list of things too nuanced for you to understand can't we?

How sad that you would feel the need to twist a man's comments because you hate him so much.
You've rendered that scaffolding dangerous

Image

Bear baiting & dog fights a speciality.

User avatar
Copehead
BCB Cup Stalinist
Posts: 22687
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:51
Location: at sea

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Postby Copehead » 04 Aug 2017, 23:14

Nick wrote:Livingstone said that Hitler was 'supporting Zionism'.

Zionism as a movement was from the start dedicated to the liberation of the Jewish people, and the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the historic land of Israel. Whether you agree with it or not, it should be recognised as such.

Hitler and Nazism were the worst calamities to ever befall the Jewish people - and that's saying something, when you consider that we're talking about a people who've been persecuted and murdered constantly for two thousand years.

It's not hard to see why Livingstone's choice of words would be considered as grossly offensive by not just Jews, but anyone who knows their history.

And given Livingstone's form for this sort of thing, it's hard to give him the benefit of the doubt. But even if it was simply a poor choice of words, he should have shown some self-awareness and dignity, and apologised. But he didn't, he doubled down on it.


It isn't even a poor choice of words, it is absolutely the correct word to use. He supported the aims of Zionists to remove Jews from Europe.

He obviously didn't support Zionism as a political philosophy and trying to pretend that that is what Livingstone meant just makes you look like a moron even if you are an "eminent" historian.

The Israeli government is a grubby, Kleptocratic bunch of shroud wavers sadly enabled by people who cannot see a difference between disliking the government of Israel and its policies and attacking Jews in general( even if you are a Jew, see Tony Greenstein ).

It is sad to see people on here indulging in this
You've rendered that scaffolding dangerous

Image

Bear baiting & dog fights a speciality.

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 24283
Joined: 23 Jul 2003, 13:31
Location: Up late at night again

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Postby Nick » 04 Aug 2017, 23:26

Copehead wrote:It seems even eminent pro-zionist historians cannot resist attacking a great big straw man.


Plenty of historians who have no particular position on Zionism have pointed out the idiocy, historical inaccuracy, and wilful offensiveness of Livingstone's comments.


Copehead wrote:Because it seems pretty self evident to me that Livingstone never said Hitler supported Zionism.


But he did. He said EXACTLY that. And if that was not what he meant, why do you think he chose those words, and then refused point blank to apologise for them? Why might he do that, eh?


Copehead wrote:But then I can read and I am not a shill for the grubby, kleptocratic government Israel sadly votes into power election after election.


Are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you on this is shilling for the Israeli government? Because if you are, then there is no end to the distance that you can fuck off, you stupid fucking prick.


Copehead wrote:I think we can add Livingstone's comments about Venezuela to the list of things too nuanced for you to understand can't we?


We understand Livingstone's comments only too well.
Last edited by Nick on 04 Aug 2017, 23:29, edited 1 time in total.
Jeff K wrote:Nick's still the man! No one has been as consistent as he has been over such a long period of time.

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 24283
Joined: 23 Jul 2003, 13:31
Location: Up late at night again

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Postby Nick » 04 Aug 2017, 23:28

Copehead wrote:The Israeli government is a grubby, Kleptocratic bunch of shroud wavers sadly enabled by people who cannot see a difference between disliking the government of Israel and its policies and attacking Jews in general( even if you are a Jew, see Tony Greenstein ).


Who mentioned the government of Israel?

What have they got to do with this, and why are you bringing them up?
Jeff K wrote:Nick's still the man! No one has been as consistent as he has been over such a long period of time.

User avatar
Copehead
BCB Cup Stalinist
Posts: 22687
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:51
Location: at sea

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Postby Copehead » 04 Aug 2017, 23:50

Nick wrote:
Copehead wrote:It seems even eminent pro-zionist historians cannot resist attacking a great big straw man.


Plenty of historians who have no particular position on Zionism have pointed out the idiocy, historical inaccuracy, and wilful offensiveness of Livingstone's comments.


Copehead wrote:Because it seems pretty self evident to me that Livingstone never said Hitler supported Zionism.


But he did. He said EXACTLY that. And if that was not what he meant, why do you think he chose those words, and then refused point blank to apologise for them? Why might he do that, eh?


Copehead wrote:But then I can read and I am not a shill for the grubby, kleptocratic government Israel sadly votes into power election after election.


Are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you on this is shilling for the Israeli government? Because if you are, then there is no end to the distance that you can fuck off, you stupid fucking prick.


Copehead wrote:I think we can add Livingstone's comments about Venezuela to the list of things too nuanced for you to understand can't we?


We understand Livingstone's comments only too well.


Good god man, are you really so blinded by hatred that you cannot simply look at what he wrote uninterpreted by an "eminent historian" and read it that honestly?

No one in their right mind thinks Hitler politically supported Zionism, it is an indisputable fact that he found common ground with them to accomplish an aim they had in removing Jews from Europe.

How you can possibly come to the conclusion reading what he wrote that Livingstone thinks Hitler supported Zionism as a philosophy rather than one of the main aims of Zionism is beyond me.

You don't appear to think the man is a moron and yet you treat his argument as if that was the case in order to attack him and by doing that you think you will harm Corbyn.

Fat chance mate, that boat has sailed no one is buys this dead cat shit anymore.

No one thinks that the Labour Party is a misogynistic band of Jew baiters, not even you.

You have failed and you can sling as many of these dead cats on the table as you want and it doesn't matter anymore

And no I am not suggesting that anyone who disagrees with me is shilling for the Israeli government, because enough people, it seems will do it for free linking to the people who will shill for them.

The fact that you can swallow it uncritically when it is self evidently a pile a shit that a moments thought would reveal as such is both very funny and very sad
You've rendered that scaffolding dangerous

Image

Bear baiting & dog fights a speciality.

User avatar
Copehead
BCB Cup Stalinist
Posts: 22687
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:51
Location: at sea

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Postby Copehead » 05 Aug 2017, 00:04

Nick wrote:
Copehead wrote:The Israeli government is a grubby, Kleptocratic bunch of shroud wavers sadly enabled by people who cannot see a difference between disliking the government of Israel and its policies and attacking Jews in general( even if you are a Jew, see Tony Greenstein ).


Who mentioned the government of Israel?

What have they got to do with this, and why are you bringing them up?


Because that is the bottom line here isn't it?

Painting dislike of the actions of the current Israeli government as anti-semitic and in so doing tying the Labour party ( a party with huge historical links to the Jewish community in the UK and Israel ) to that slur through the misrepresentation of the words of anyone who is critical of them who has party links.

It is the same as the charge of misogyny.

Take your own weakness, the weaknesses of the political right - historical racism, misogyny and homophobia - and tar your opponents with them.

And then people like you can run around with their knickers in a twist shouting " they are all as bad as each other "

Well they aren't; the left in the UK has fought racism, including anti-semitism, misogyny and homophobia for decades when it was supported openly or covertly on the right

So you FUCK RIGHT OFF with that shit.

And it seems a large percentage of the electorate have come to the same conclusion.
You've rendered that scaffolding dangerous

Image

Bear baiting & dog fights a speciality.

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 24283
Joined: 23 Jul 2003, 13:31
Location: Up late at night again

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Postby Nick » 05 Aug 2017, 00:34

Copehead wrote:Good god man, are you really so blinded by hatred that you cannot simply look at what he wrote uninterpreted by an "eminent historian" and read it that honestly?


I don't hate Livingstone. I think he's a pathetic, deluded fool, and a nasty bigoted piece of work. But I don't hate him. I pity him.


Copehead wrote:No one in their right mind thinks Hitler politically supported Zionism, it is an indisputable fact that he found common ground with them to accomplish an aim they had in removing Jews from Europe.


That is an unpleasantly twisted way of viewing it.


Copehead wrote:How you can possibly come to the conclusion reading what he wrote that Livingstone thinks Hitler supported Zionism as a philosophy rather than one of the main aims of Zionism is beyond me.


Again, so why did he say it? And why, if he didn't mean it, didn't he clarify his words accordingly? He is not a stupid man. He must have known how offensive his words would be. So why did he not moderate them? The only logical conclusion is that he meant to use those words, for a specific reason.


Copehead wrote:You don't appear to think the man is a moron and yet you treat his argument as if that was the case in order to attack him and by doing that you think you will harm Corbyn.


I don't think he's a moron, quite the opposite. He knows exactly what he's said. I think he's a cunt. And this has fuck all to do with my view of Corbyn. Knock it off with the strawman accusation bullshit. We're talking about Ken Livingstone, not the Labour Party.


Copehead wrote:No one thinks that the Labour Party is a misogynistic band of Jew baiters, not even you.


I don't believe I ever said it was. Again, knock it off with the strawman accusation bullshit. Again thicko, we're talking about Ken Livingstone, not the Labour Party.


Copehead wrote:And no I am not suggesting that anyone who disagrees with me is shilling for the Israeli government, because enough people, it seems will do it for free linking to the people who will shill for them.


So you do think that then? You've just admitted as much, in your mealy-mouthed way. Paid for or not, you seem to view anyone who stands up for Jews in the face of the vile mudslinging of the likes of Livingstone as nothing more than propagandists and fools. Well, you're wrong. It's a common and unpleasant trope of the left nowadays to attribute to anyone disagreeing with it the lowest and worst possible motive. You exemplify this creepy and unfair trope like nobody else I've ever spoken to.


Copehead wrote:The fact that you can swallow it uncritically when it is self evidently a pile a shit that a moments thought would reveal as such is both very funny and very sad


Again, fuck off.
Jeff K wrote:Nick's still the man! No one has been as consistent as he has been over such a long period of time.

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 24283
Joined: 23 Jul 2003, 13:31
Location: Up late at night again

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Postby Nick » 05 Aug 2017, 00:46

Copehead wrote:Painting dislike of the actions of the current Israeli government as anti-semitic and in so doing tying the Labour party ( a party with huge historical links to the Jewish community in the UK and Israel ) to that slur through the misrepresentation of the words of anyone who is critical of them who has party links.


There's a phrase for that accusation. It is, ironically enough, called 'the Livingstone formulation'. Look it up.
Jeff K wrote:Nick's still the man! No one has been as consistent as he has been over such a long period of time.

User avatar
Copehead
BCB Cup Stalinist
Posts: 22687
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:51
Location: at sea

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Postby Copehead » 05 Aug 2017, 01:01

Nick wrote:
Copehead wrote:Good god man, are you really so blinded by hatred that you cannot simply look at what he wrote uninterpreted by an "eminent historian" and read it that honestly?


I don't hate Livingstone. I think he's a pathetic, deluded fool, and a nasty bigoted piece of work. But I don't hate him. I pity him.


Copehead wrote:No one in their right mind thinks Hitler politically supported Zionism, it is an indisputable fact that he found common ground with them to accomplish an aim they had in removing Jews from Europe.


That is an unpleasantly twisted way of viewing it.


Copehead wrote:How you can possibly come to the conclusion reading what he wrote that Livingstone thinks Hitler supported Zionism as a philosophy rather than one of the main aims of Zionism is beyond me.


Again, so why did he say it? And why, if he didn't mean it, didn't he clarify his words accordingly? He is not a stupid man. He must have known how offensive his words would be. So why did he not moderate them? The only logical conclusion is that he meant to use those words, for a specific reason.


Copehead wrote:You don't appear to think the man is a moron and yet you treat his argument as if that was the case in order to attack him and by doing that you think you will harm Corbyn.


I don't think he's a moron, quite the opposite. He knows exactly what he's said. I think he's a cunt. And this has fuck all to do with my view of Corbyn. Knock it off with the strawman accusation bullshit. We're talking about Ken Livingstone, not the Labour Party.


Copehead wrote:No one thinks that the Labour Party is a misogynistic band of Jew baiters, not even you.


I don't believe I ever said it was. Again, knock it off with the strawman accusation bullshit. Again thicko, we're talking about Ken Livingstone, not the Labour Party.


Copehead wrote:And no I am not suggesting that anyone who disagrees with me is shilling for the Israeli government, because enough people, it seems will do it for free linking to the people who will shill for them.


So you do think that then? You've just admitted as much, in your mealy-mouthed way. Paid for or not, you seem to view anyone who stands up for Jews in the face of the vile mudslinging of the likes of Livingstone as nothing more than propagandists and fools. Well, you're wrong. It's a common and unpleasant trope of the left nowadays to attribute to anyone disagreeing with it the lowest and worst possible motive. You exemplify this creepy and unfair trope like nobody else I've ever spoken to.


Copehead wrote:The fact that you can swallow it uncritically when it is self evidently a pile a shit that a moments thought would reveal as such is both very funny and very sad


Again, fuck off.


No you fuck off.

I have had it with your mealy mouth smearing of the left with all the vices of the right.

It is dead cat politics straight out of the Lynton Crosby hand book and it is foul scummy stuff and if you want to sink in to the shit with those sorts of creeps, low lifes, real racists, crypto-fascists and Tories that is your look out.

Nice company you keep.

When you did your little bit bit about "standing up for the Jews" whilst desperately trying to smear the political party that has done that since its inception ( and anyone else suffering racists attacks ) I think I sicked in my mouth a bit.
You've rendered that scaffolding dangerous

Image

Bear baiting & dog fights a speciality.

User avatar
echolalia
Posts: 4164
Joined: 21 Jul 2006, 02:23
Location: Way Out West

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Postby echolalia » 05 Aug 2017, 01:08

Nick wrote:Zionism as a movement was from the start dedicated to the liberation of the Jewish people, and the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the historic land of Israel. Whether you agree with it or not, it should be recognised as such.

But that gets us nowhere because Zionism means much more nowadays, doesn’t it? As in “aggressive expansionism”.

I read an article in the LRB a few years ago about the reasons the Israelis were winning the land war and the Palestinians losing it and it’s still relevant to the Zionist issue today: the Palestinians invoke all these noble abstractions in their defence such as property and liberty and rights, and make grand statements in the United Nations and the civilized world applauds, while the Israelis quietly serve writs on the Palestinian communities they wish to evict, and wage a war of legal attrition on the poor fuckers until the bulldozers are sent in – because it says so on the piece of paper. Maybe that’s what “Zionism” means to some people? Is your understanding of it better than theirs?

User avatar
Minnie the Minx
funky thigh collector
Posts: 28683
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 16:00
Location: In the naughty North and in the sexy South

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Postby Minnie the Minx » 05 Aug 2017, 01:32

I have no horse in this race, and am very drunk right now, but oh the hilarity in listening to Copehead going on to people about the 'company they keep' after his embarrassing and fervent defence of his multi-gropy French friend as he wandered round a nightclub harassing women cos well you're in Whitley Bay what else is there to do.
I've been saving this all up for a rainy day Copehead you dullard,please PLEASE give me an excuse to go at it full pelt. I'm ready and excited to talk about the company that YOU keep.
You come at the Queen, you best not miss.

Dr Markus wrote:
Someone in your line of work usually as their own man cave aka the shed we're they can potter around fixing stuff or something don't they?

User avatar
Copehead
BCB Cup Stalinist
Posts: 22687
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:51
Location: at sea

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Postby Copehead » 05 Aug 2017, 01:44

TL;DR wrote:I have no horse in this race, and am very drunk right now, but oh the hilarity in listening to Copehead going on to people about the 'company they keep' after his embarrassing and fervent defence of his multi-gropy French friend as he wandered round a nightclub harassing women cos well you're in Whitley Bay what else is there to do.
I've been saving this all up for a rainy day Copehead you dullard,please PLEASE give me an excuse to go at it full pelt. I'm ready and excited to talk about the company that YOU keep.


Blimey you have a memory like an elephant for grudges.

Go ahead I could do with a bit of entertainment

As long as you promise not to delete in a fit of drunkards remorse tomorrow morning.

I am dying to hear about the company I keep and I wonder what you have against Japanese people :lol:
You've rendered that scaffolding dangerous

Image

Bear baiting & dog fights a speciality.

User avatar
Minnie the Minx
funky thigh collector
Posts: 28683
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 16:00
Location: In the naughty North and in the sexy South

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Postby Minnie the Minx » 05 Aug 2017, 01:50

Oh I remember everything - the lies and the backtracking- I'll do this when I'm sober.
See you later!
You come at the Queen, you best not miss.

Dr Markus wrote:
Someone in your line of work usually as their own man cave aka the shed we're they can potter around fixing stuff or something don't they?