Verbal

Or dumbass money, as it turns out.

False flag conspiracy theories are for simpletons. Such 'ideas' convince those who repeat them that their self-esteem can be restored by claiming they see something that's invisible to all the 'sheeple'.

That's hardly all he said though, is it. There's also this: "I asked the Russians be given a sample so that they can say categorically one way or the other." There's every chance Corbyn is actually as dim as some of his fans on here.

Millbrook is perfectly correct, fanboy. The government shared secret information with Corbyn. This is information he's entitled to as a privy councillor. What they didn't do is share top secret information with him, which they did with foreign leaders. This was in part to lure him into the mess he got himself into in the Commons recently, and which his loyal lemmings still happily repeat. We're here for your education.

Ok, so [deep breath] your contention is that the 'false flag' this 'more and more looks like' involves the British deep state intentionally launching a chemical weapons attack on its own soil. Those damned Brits then stupidly nurse one of the victims back to health. The British deep state also proves so omnipotent as to fool all of their allies into believing that this this was a Russian attack, and yet so incompetent that it lets Porton Down issue a 'we only do the science not lay blame' statement. So your turn - lay out the 'false flag operation'. Tell us what do you think happened. And please do it with pictures that have lots of pointy arrows, like all the other false flag geniuses. We love those.

How do you know that the government 'presumed Russian guilt first'? The 'presumption', as you call it, would have been made on a combination of evidence from Porton Down, the police investigation, electronic and human surveillance from the intelligence community, mixed in with Putin's and others' own direct threats prior to the attack. And as for compiling a 'list of suspects', how's that going, exactly? Who do you have in the frame for this? You know full well that's not true. The 'government' isn't BoJo. Many others have had their say about this. It's just that BoJo seems to have caught your attention because for some reason you've been taken by surprise that he's capable of saying utterly stupid things. It is perfectly possible, you know, for Russia to have committed the attack and for BoJo to be talking ********. The two are not mutually exclusive. Again, tell us what this evidence is that points to non-Russian chemical attackers. No one's asking you to throw your support 'blindly' anywhere, just to reflect on what is becoming a bit preposterous. If you're like this with Salisbury, are you still open to the idea that the polonium attack on Litvinenko was carried out by anyone other than the Russians? Are you still open to the idea that the attack on Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was carried out by anyone other than Russian separatist militias armed with Russian missiles? The evidence is overwhelming that Putin's Russia is responsible for both. No one but conspiro-loons thinks otherwise. Yet Putin and his apparatchiks continue to pump out the nonsense that in both cases they're victims of Western black ops. My guess is that so long as Putin et al continue to try the muddy the waters, there'll be a willing pool of useful idiots prepared to dive in and swallow whole anything a rogue regime says that conflicts with the hated West. That's not 'skepticism'. Nor is it about keeping an open mind. It's about an adolescent desire - dressed up with fancy words like 'cui bono' - to revolt against the late-capitalist neo-liberal new world order from behind the safety barrier of the computer keyboard.

If I ever commit a murder I really hope you're the investigating detective. The cui bono fallacy is the last refuge of conspiro-loons. The minute you buy into the whole 'who benefits?' guff, it's like having an evidential lobotomy. To follow it through you have to argue that umbrellas cause rain. Or that 9/11 was an inside job. Or Lee Rigby's family were crisis actors for the British deep state. Or, to put it in reverse, that Assad couldn't have used chemical weapons because it was against his interests... and so, on ad nauseum. The other thing about the cui bono fallacy is that it's a keyboard warrior's dream, because it requires no evidence whatsoever, just the laser-like intelligence of the warrior himself (always a him), who, with unique x-ray specs, can see what all the pathetic sheeple cannot. So who do I get to kill?

Any political leader with good judgement would have learned after the attack that Novichok is produced by Russia, which also had the means, method and motive. No one else does. All the work now is focused on putting the pieces of the puzzle of how exactly the attack was conducted, and within the Kremlin by whom (not a simple answer). Corbyn's not an enemy of the state, just an incompetent old fool who can't resist his knee-jerk anti-Western responses. As the Jewdas affair demonstrates, where he was 'present but not singing along with the "**** the police, etc" song', he has not an ounce of political sense.

Conclusion: BoJo is a ****wit. The same ****wit who 'confirmed' the false and hugely damaging story that Nazinin Zadari-Radcliffe was 'training journalists' in Iran. Anything beyond that is a stretch. Porton Down have confirmed that the agent could only be manufactured by a 'state actor'. Porton Down are not GCHQ or MI6. Intelligence, as well as chemical analysis, feeds into any evidence passed on to other countries about the attack. It's fine to be sceptical, but also worth remembering that it's the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons that is the final arbiter - an organisation that Russia is currently being uncooperative with.

No, I meant what I said. It's inherent in the far-left's virtue-signalling politics that it produces anti-Semitic acolytes - and it is a mirror of the far-right's nativist politics that inevitably produces Islamophobia. And both demand that the respective out-groups - Jews/Muslims - to take responsibility and apologise for Israel/Terrorism. Here's a slightly different take on it but much better expressed, by Gideon Rachman, in the FT: The far-Left and the far-Right like to think of themselves as bitter enemies. But they have similarities that make them breeding grounds for anti-Semitism. The link is their fondness for identity politics. Some on the far-right refer to themselves as 'identitarians' and believe they are fighting for white culture against Islam. The far-left also instinctively think in terms of communities, with their own spokesmen and lists of grievances. So 'some of' grows out of 'all' - the 'anti-Zionist' politics as expounded with unbelievable ignorance by so many on the far-left has given rise to the most putrid Jew-hatred. The NEC's attempts to limit voting was to try to shut the door on precisely those who flooded in after the £3 membership gimmick and from whom the anti-Semitism problem has emerged. If you think otherwise, you're welcome to examine the provenance of some of the most vehement and vicious anti-Semitism now found within the party. In any case, even Momentum has publicly - though grudgingly - stated that complaints about anti-Semitism are not a 'smear'. Oh, and as for Corbyn meeting with Jewdas, this is very much him deciding between Good Jews and Bad Jews. Good Jews make their 'anti-Zionism' front-and-centre - doing the very thing we've been discussing: taking responsibility and apologising for the state of Israel. But even they - as self-described anarchist pranksters - call for the expulsion of Ken Livingstone, which Corbyn plainly is reluctant to do. Bad Jews, on the other hand, remain such organisations as the JLM, which, as I've said, has been affiliated to the Labour party since well before the establishment of Israel in 1948. Corbyn has ignored repeated invitations from them, no doubt because, for all their criticism of the actions of the Israeli state, they are and always have been avowedly Zionist. Corbyn is effectively saying: 'I've met some Jews, now **** off.' Hardly the solid judgement of a future political leader of this country - something that won't go unnoticed. Sadly, all this means is it'll increase the chances that we'll have yet more painful years of some sort of May-Johnson-Mogg-DUP horror show.

Alternatively you could confront the evidence. You didn't comment on the Birkenhead resolution, about the Jewish Labour Movement (not, as minuted, the 'Jewish Labour Group'). The JLM, which has been affiliated to the Labour party since 1920, can only have 'links' to the Israeli state and ISIS if you are steeped in Jew-hating tropes. JLM are avowedly Zionist - they're part of the Poale Zion movement, a socialist organisation with roots in the East End of London, which defends the right of Israel to exist but has long propounded the two-state solution, and has staunchly defended Palestinians against the brutalism of the Israeli military. JLM has been affiliated to the Labour party since 1920. JLM's position on Israel is also, so it happens, official Labour party policy. Of course, not a single piece of evidence that JLM are in cahoots with ISIS or the Netanyahu regime is offered. The real problem here - why it is that the far Left can scream 'Zionist!' and not think it's being anti-Semitic - is partly an historical one. The term 'anti-Zionist' didn't just spring from mid-air. It has a long history of being used against Jewish groups and individuals in socialist-bloc states, beginning with Stalin in 1953, and the so-called 'doctors' plot'. The argument runs like this: enemies of the state have allegiances to foreign powers; Jews have allegiance to Israel; therefore Jews are the enemies of the state. This argument is still commonly found among Corbynistas and the like. You don't have to look far from this forum to find this kind of sentiment: A foreign state masterminding a continuous campaign of lies against the Labour Party, offering vast amounts of money to anyone who can dig the dirt on any MP who dares to raise their head above the parapet and speak out in support of Palestinian human rights, and draws attention to the flouting of international law and brutality of the State of Israel in their treatment of them. All supported by their acolytes in the 'Friends of Israel' groups, who are basically fifth columnists, for many of them their first allegiance is to Israel not the citizens of this country they are elected to represent. No man can serve two masters. *(a Jew-hating rant, incidentally, endorsed by the site owner). As for Labour being institutionally anti-Semitic, are you really trying to say that Michele Grant's case is just some instance of 'bad apples'? It indicates institutional anti-Semitism because Corbynistas now control many of the key institutions within the Labour party, including the complaints and appeals committees. That a series of travesties befell Grant, at a time when the party is supposed to be on alert about anti-Semitism, is astounding. Hers is not an isolated case. Sadly, these are just snapshots. The evidence pile grows every day.

Then there's probably a perfectly innocent explanation for this excerpt from the minutes of the Birkenhead CLP (Frank Field's local party): “Diversity and equality training to be offered by the NEC. The proposed training by the Jewish Labour Group is not going ahead due to possible links with ISIS and the Israeli government." In other words, that old anti-Semitic conspiracy-theory canard that Jews carry collective responsibility for causing and controlling the world's problems. And did you watch the video I posted earlier, illustrating Corbynista-Labour's institutional anti-Semitism? Or are you doing the three monkeys thing? Here it is again. https://twitter.com/joedgoldberg/status/979656183026978816

Quite so. Far-Left anti-Semites are no different in this sense than far-Right Islamopohobes. Just as the far-Right demand that all Muslims take responsibility and apologise for all acts of Islamist terrorism, so too do the far-Left demand that all Jews take responsibility and apologise for the Israeli state's murderous behaviour against Palestinians.

For anyone in any doubt that Corbyn's Labour party is in danger of becoming institutionally anti-Semitic: https://twitter.com/joedgoldberg/status/979656183026978816 This is stunningly awful - and it gets worse as the story unfolds.

Heaven forbid that I would ever defend a political leader as useless and ruinous as Corbyn, but your argument isn't about lack of principles but the unworkable contradiction between them. On the one hand, Corbyn, on the principle that he's an unreconstructed Bennite still fighting the 70s, believe that the Common Market, EEC, EU is/are all a 'bad thing'. In his mind (and a small collection of ****wits towards the weirder end of Momentum), it's all an anti-socialist conspiracy. There is little doubt that Corbyn voted to Leave, and has certainly acted in a way that's consistent with that ever since. On the other hand, as an unreconstructed supporter of Trotskyist entryists from the 80s, he's a believer in the idea - contrary to the founding principles of the Labour party - of the primacy of party members over the PLP. The problem is that the overwhelming majority of members, and Labour voters, are Remainers. Here's a summary of the track of YouGov polling, which shows 70% Labour voters opposing Brexit. https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/979323292476755968 So how can Corbyn square those two contradictory 'principles'? Basically, he can't, and has to resort to mumbling into his beard and continuing to sabotage remainers - the majority at every level (unions, members, PLP, voters) - in the party, while also giving lip service to the democratic mandate (which he seems to interpret means he can whatever the **** he wants - see also the issue of Trident, for example). So principles, yes; but judgment, precious little. He's political toddler who can only think in absolutes and is floored when those absolutes are contradictory.

He's clearly principled, however misguided those principles might be. What he lacks is judgment - a disastrous weakness in political leadership.

Quite. It's newsworthy in good measure because Jew-hating shouldn't exist in Labour at all. Dimwitted Corbynistas have now taken to quoting research that shows that anti-Semitism is no stronger on the Left than on the Right. That's actually a damning conclusion for a faction of the party that has stood on an anti-racist platform. So why does it exist? One problem is virtue signalling, which is endemic among Corbynistas. The rush to ally with any anti-Western, anti-capitalist figure leads someetimes into trouble. The arch virtue signaller Corbyn himself is a repeat offender with this. He wrote a letter of support to a vicar who then argued that Israel was behind 9/11. He was 'delighted' when an Islamist cleric won an appeal to travel to the UK - a man who said that Jews kill Christian children to drink their blood. And he donated to a group called Deir Yassin Remembered, a perfectly good cause in itself (google it), except that its leading figure, Paul Elsen, is a Holocaust denier. Then there was the mural... Overlaid with this is what you might call the Virtue Delusion, which is the belief that as my intentions are pure I can do no wrong. (Actually Corbyn shares this delusion with Blair). This ends up being straightforward denial. So whenever anyone highlights anti-Semitic behaviour in the Labour party, there's a Corbynista rush to claim it's all smears and lies. The collateral damage of this is to those Jewish Labour party activists and members who are consequently accused of manipulating a media witch hunt (itself a trope in Jew-hating rhetoric). Then there's the problem of local political alliances. Local Labour parties in certain parts of Britain have close relations with communities among whom Jew hating is of epidemic proportions, and Jew hating becomes a sort of infectious disease. This is essentially what happened with Naz Shah. You get so used to Jew-hating rhetoric in everyday conversation that it's so easy to blurt out repeats of it in public. (I don't believe that Naz Shah is an anti-Semite by inclination.) Then there's the "anti-Semitism is not anti-Zionism" argument, the basic logic of which might look sound, but it's an awful mess (this post would be too long to explain why). Under this heading is the preposterous Ken Livingstone argument about Hitler being a Zionist, and any number of Corbynistas inadvertently targeting Jews on the grounds that their fighting the good fight. And finally there's just good old-fashioned Jew-hating for its own sake, which, inside the Labour party or out, really is depressing. There are hundreds of examples of this in Corbyn-era Labour, and they're detailed at length - and with copious corroborating evidence - in Dave Rich's excellent book, 'The Left's Jewish Problem'.

Oh yes, whataboutery - the great intellectual peak of political argument. What in your paranoid worldview counts as an argument that Jew hating in the Labour party must be stamped out?

RIP Lounge. 27.3.17

Yes, you should hang on, because there's an awfully long drop from that high horse you're on. Jess Phillips is not Jewish. I know who Duckhunter meant but I'm not going to give you her name because you'll just find some other pathetic excuse to abuse her. Those Jews, eh? What shall we do with them? You do understand that there was an unprecedented protest outside Parliament of leading British Jewish groups - including the Jewish Labour movement (founded 1903). Because if you don't get it, Corbyn himself is certainly getting the message, and has apologised for the regular doses of Jew-hating abuse emerging from some pockets of the Labour party. He and the Labour leadership were ashamed that it had come to this. That's because the protesters were real people, with a real grievance. Dismissing them as part of a plot to discredit Corbyn is a bit whiffy in the circumstances, don't you think? I bet they were all bankers...and you know what that means. Oh, and Jess Philips actually does have something to say about that, and depressingly it applies to your post (and to the cult-crazed fanboy and whoever the **** the other one is with his unhinged "so what if Corbyn believes Jews control the world") https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/776325544547876864?lang=en

No, not 'whatever people say.' It's when people say, as one prize fool did on here: 'Even if Corbyn believes in the theory that some Jewish bankers are controlling everything or whatever, that doesn’t make him antisemitic.' That - as bonkers and ignorant as it is - is to repeat and defend one of the most classic forms of Jew hatred. McCathyism, on the other hand (since you evidently have no clue), was the paranoid victimisation of supposed enemies of the state - many, incidentally, Jewish. Aside from your evident paranoia, this is pure victim-blaming. Even your idol has apologised and admitted that the party has a problem with Jew hating. And you would be right. This fu ckwit also babbles on about the disproven and discredited conspiracy theories associated with Seth Rich and Pizzagate. The former has caused immense distress to Rich's family (remember a similar consequence with Lee Rigby's family?), and the latter got someone killed (at the hands of a lunatic who actually believed Pizzagate to be true). It's mad - real 'no blood Bazza' mad.

Which of course is the classic anti-Semitic trope. Do you honestly not know that?

A rare example of self-awareness that you accept that Corbynism is a religion. Carry on with the bowing and scraping.

Jesus H Christ. How much lower are you prepared to stoop in defence of your idol? And yet he's now been reported to the NEC for bringing the Labour party into disrepute. Think about that for a second. And he's been caught out not just once but twice in the last ten days. I used to think he wasn't personally a Jew hater. My view now is that he's not a Jew hater in the sense that he doesn't support Brexit.

Jew haters: tolerated. Remainers: sacked.