I read through your exchange with Imp Saint last week (hilarious) and it's pretty clear you will say anything if you think it will win you the argument. It was full of the usual diversions, what ifs and irrelevancies. Your reply here is more of the same but I will answer anyway because I don't want anyone to be unclear about where I stand on terrorists.
You can troll back as far as you like, my opinions on the IRA are consistent. That you think criticism of terrorist supporters is crazy is for you to reconcile with yourself but a disturbing comment nontheless . They, like Hamas are murdering terrorist scum and anyone who supports them are just as bad. That includes Brendon O'Neill if that is what he has done. However, despite your feeble attempts it doesn't exclude him from making observations about the situation in Gaza and I'm sure if there were any untruths in that article you would have found them for me.
Corbyn though is an elected member of the UK parliament and is supposed to look after the interests of all those he represents. Instead he has acted out his personal agenda by cosying up to terrorists. Terrorists who have executed at least 150 innocent people here on the mainland and countless others in NI. The much quoted excuse for him being part of the peace process is contemptable. I can only guess those same people think he was trying to resolve the middle east crisis when he invited Hamas backers to the HoP and called Hezbollah his friends. So rather than take anything back, I maintain everything previously posted and I'll add that he is a wholly despicable person. I will also add that anyone who has disputed those well proven connections in order to justify voting for him are short of morals.
Oh how lovely. Yet again you sit back and don’t engage in debate, before sniping in a few cheap shots.
But you asked, so I will provide:
“The latter [his fave topic of Western elites, teehee]
are ensconced in the airless ivory towers of the West, prepping hyperbolic claims bordering on misinformation”
Let’s start here, shall we? Cast the first stone all who are without sin and all that? Ensconced in airless ivory towers… hyperbole. Oh, this guy likes his big metaphors. They are hyperbolic and… careful to ALMOST accuse all these brainy types of lying. But he doesn’t. He says ‘bordering on’. Bad journalism- hypocrisy, stick waving and saying nothing at all.
“The West-Hamas alliance is undeniable now.“ Oh, he meant he was the one going to be lying. At best this is his warped opinion. The west is very clearly anti-Hamas. The people of Palestine are not Hamas, whether or not you think they are all religious extremists.
“They’re in league in all but name, united by a merciless antipathy for the Jewish State.” Again, the inability to separate condemnation of a state’s actions from condemnation of a state. But then he has no interest in being fair - this guy has been rage baiting for 40 years. He is the classic elite, uni graduate who got off on contrarian ideas when he was in his teens and never grew out of it.
“Netanyahu says it will be Israel’s ‘Battle of Berlin’.” Very interesting recall of WW2. We are supposed to link this with his comments about anti-zionism, yet how do we pair this off with the images of people suffering in Palestine who look appallingly like the Jewish survivors of the holocaust? Which side is Netanyahu on?
“The genocide libel will become unsustainable in the face of what promises to be brutal urban conflict between two parties.” It is funny seeing a man whose previous magazine folded for genocide libel make this claim. What isn’t funny is that it is yet another assertion based on no facts. He isn’t there. He presents no inside knowledge. This is the sick wish fulfilment of a man who makes his career arguing ‘the other side’.
The next paragraph he is back on his ‘elites’ rhetoric, ****ing off his right wing ‘these uni liberals are idiots’ fanclub. He uses all the buzzwords of the kangaroo court, building up the strawman of what his has decided the world sees in typically hyperbolic tones. He even uses the phrase kangaroo court and, of course, hysteria. Because an alternate point of view must originate in the wandering womb of liberal emotions.
In the next paragraph he performs a statistic trick for idiots. He says 5/6 of the dead are not civilians, it is just that 1/6 of the dead are named combatants. Okkkkaayyyy. So, actually since we don’t know who they are we should suppose they are combatants. This continues for three paragraphs. This man who claims the left make it all up… is again relying on probably’ and his own wish fulfilment as rebuttal. Very poor show.
I could go on? We could discuss the ways he dips into attacking the contributors to reports rather than find contrary evidence? We could look at the edges of dog whistling he falls into at the end?
So, I am afraid this article is trash. You should go back to uni and do some studying so you can appreciate just how poor it is.