Shootings and explosions in Paris this evening

[Hoboh]

I like Corbyn. A principled and dignified gentleman. I abhor the way people have a go at him for absolutely anything - that business at the Cenotaph being a case in point. In fact, if he wasn't so naive I'd consider voting for him.

[thebish]

I don't see why your bothered. Wasn't your clever plan for his leadership supposed to be for him to be leader for a while, fck it up and then be replaced by a more acceptable face of leftism (Keir Starmer being your choice) ? Jeremy seems to be hurtling toward your preferred solution ... if rather more quickly than you thought.

not sure that was my "clever plan"... merely what I thought was quite possible... I still think it is.

I don't think Jeremy is hurtling that way at all...

but if you think Cameron is in some way NOT a "professional stance taker" - then I think you are (touchingly) but blindly loyal!

the only difference between the stances Corbyn takes and the stances Cameron takes is that Corbyn actually believes in the stances he takes. As for him changing his position in response to his party - I think that's great - don't you? Or would you rather political parties were basically one bloke/woman with opinions acting on his/her opinions regardless of what the party thinks? A balanced and reasonable debate in a party and a leader willing to accomodate and adjust within the bounds of his/her own conscience is surely a positive trait - no?

I'll applaud Cameron when he takes a stance and sticks with it because he believes in it. A great example was his pushing through of same-sex marriage against the wishes of a big rump of his own party - that was brave and principled and I will always be garteful to him for that. I'd be much more sympathetic to your own political outbursts if I had EVER seen you criticise any UK politician other than a non-Tory one or ever praise a labour one. I may be wrong - but I am struggling to remember a time when you have ever done that. neither party - labour or tory is always right or wrong - to read your politics posts - you wouldn't come away with that impression. that's why i prefaced my remarks with the fairly dismissive comment - perhaps it was immoderate of me to do so - and so I am sorry - but that's the place it comes from...

[thebish]

I like Corbyn. A principled and dignified gentleman. I abhor the way people have a go at him for absolutely anything - that business at the Cenotaph being a case in point. In fact, if he wasn't so naive I'd consider voting for him.

bruce - given hoboh's reaction to your post - you can rest easy, being sure you must be talking sense!

this whole - oft-repeated - "naive" charge...

I get that it has traction in the tabloids and is often said - but what its it exactly that Corbyn is reckoned to be so naive about? He's far from naive - in fact he's slated for not knee-jerkedly calling for a falsely-simple solution in Syria.. to say "bombing won't solve it" is not naive - it's the opposite of naive - it's recognising that the issue is much bigger and more complex than a few more bombs will solve..

who was naive over Iraq and Blair's adventure? virtually the whole country who jingoistically cheered him on at the time - or those (like Corbyn) - who loudly opposed it.
who was naive over apartheid? - those who said that it was simply realpolitic and we should allow business interests to dictate our policy - or those (like Corbyn) - who loudly opposed it

two things that were thought of as naive and minority interest - not real-world politics - which are both now looked back on almost universally with opinions that almost identically match what Corbyn was saying at the time...

whatever Corbyn is I don't think he is naive - he's grown up in and spent years in left-wing politics - a place you can't really afford to be naive - to have survived it as long as he has suggests some steel and a real grasp of how things work! left-wing politics can be a cut-throat world!! I'll grant that he is poor at presenting to the media/public the face of a politician-type they have grown to recognise/expect - and maybe that will be his downfall - but that's not naivety, i think it is a genuine desire to break free of that whole slick spin-doctory approach that we all SAY we hate - but we still take and expect as the norm - and do politics differently. maybe there is some naivety in hoping that voters will see past the empty political shell they have been persuaded to look for in politicians and see summat real - who knows - the next election is still a long way off - but I, for one, am glad he's at least trying it...

[Prufrock]

He blamed the victims of 9/11 for being complicit in the crimes of the West that led to the attacks. I can't find the article (because googling "Noam Chomskey 9/11" brings you a world of fruitloops and nutjob 9/11 truthers who think he sold them out by deciding he did think bin Laden was behind it after all) but I remember reading it. Everytime one of these attacks happens he's first in the queue to write an op-ed piece about how it's not really their fault and it's actually western democracy (which he thinks is a synonym for "Western Capitalism") that is to blame for terrorism.

His talent as a linguist and a writer isn't enough to mitigate his jeb-endedness.

Well, I've now read several of Chomsky's articles on 9/11 starting with the one published on 9/12 and can find no trace of sympathy for the perpetrators but plenty of evidence of his denunciation of them and their actions, or any attempt to blame the victims of 9/11 for their fate, and a consistent pouring out of scorn on the 'truthers'.

I have found a polemical exchange between Chomsky and Hitchens and I wondered if this was your real source? Since I know you share with me an enthusiasm for Hitchens work (one that in my case diminished rapidly when he supported the invasion of Iraq). It is a sharp exchange and we (you and I) might find ourselves on different sides in this debate or might not (I can't remember if you support the invasion, but I thought not).

However, I think your summary of Chomsky's position is not sustainable if this is, in fact, your source.

http://humanities.psydeshow.org/political/chomsky-1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In my view Chomsky is a genuine public intellectual, whose dissenting ideas offer a vitally necessary critique of American power.

You don't have to agree with him to support that view. You may remember I described Hitch as 'our Orwell' - I'm not the only one to express that. I'll always regret his conversion to Bush's politics and view this polemic with the thought of how enthusiastically recent converts often denounce those who they once revered - and so denounce the 'bad self' that once was them.

It's not that^. I thought it was Nick Cohen I'd read quoting the article recently, but it might have been Hitch now you mention it. An exchange between them sounds familiar. Unfortunately his collections of essays don't have indexes and as I say, Google is a rabbit-hole on that front. I'll have a look at the weekend to see if I can find it.

I'm not, by the way, saying he justified the attacks. His sort of people always start with a perfunctory note about how nothing justifies terrorism before getting onto the meaty topic of how this is all the west's fault really. Witness Corbyn the other day. It's always Iraq, but that can't explain 9/11, nor can the response to 9/11. It's always Western Imperialism, despite one of the reasons al-Qaeda actually gave for its existence being Australia's role in fighting an anti-colonial war in East Timor. It's Palestine despite al-Qaeda never supporting Palestine (that being because it doesn't support Palestine, Palestine would just be subsumed into the whole of the Caliphate). ISIS apparently gave as a reason for targetting France something that happened in 1035. That sounds like a Chomskey parody.

As for Iraq I supported the invasion. Still do, broadly. I have nothing but contempt for the attitude on the left (and right, but you expect it from "realpolitik") in the late 80s and through the 90s that was happy to let the perpetrator of the last genocide of the 20th century stay in power. There is no doubt whatsoever that Saddam had WMDs. Whether or not he still had the in 2003 matters to some people, but it's quibbling over tenses for me. 5,000 Kurds didn't gass themselves to death in Halabja. It's not good enough to argue "he didn't have WMDs anymore". It's clear that we f*cked up post invasion, and I'm happy to hear arguments that there were alternatives even to invasion (and here I agree with bish that it's unlikely bombing the f*ck out of Raqqa is likely to sort this), but any position that left Saddam in charge was morally bankrupt.

The accepted position also forgets that things looked to be getting better for while, tourism even started returning to Baghdad, until the Islamists started fighting back and realised we didn't have the stomach for the fight. So yet again, we failed the democrats with brown faces. The Islamists were fighting "American Imperialism" though, so those democrats got no solidarity from their brothers in the West. They were American shills and so Chomskeys crew threw their lot in with misogynisitc, homophobic authoritarian anti-democratic bigots because the real fight for that type of leftists isn't defined by what it is for, but what it is against, capitalism. Literally anything, including authoritarian theocracy, is better than American Capitalism. Well, no.

[Hoboh]

I like Corbyn. A principled and dignified gentleman. I abhor the way people have a go at him for absolutely anything - that business at the Cenotaph being a case in point. In fact, if he wasn't so naive I'd consider voting for him.

bruce - given hoboh's reaction to your post - you can rest easy, being sure you must be talking sense!

this whole - oft-repeated - "naive" charge...

I get that it has traction in the tabloids and is often said - but what its it exactly that Corbyn is reckoned to be so naive about? He's far from naive - in fact he's slated for not knee-jerkedly calling for a falsely-simple solution in Syria.. to say "bombing won't solve it" is not naive - it's the opposite of naive - it's recognising that the issue is much bigger and more complex than a few more bombs will solve..

who was naive over Iraq and Blair's adventure? virtually the whole country who jingoistically cheered him on at the time - or those (like Corbyn) - who loudly opposed it.
who was naive over apartheid? - those who said that it was simply realpolitic and we should allow business interests to dictate our policy - or those (like Corbyn) - who loudly opposed it

two things that were thought of as naive and minority interest - not real-world politics - which are both now looked back on almost universally with opinions that almost identically match what Corbyn was saying at the time...

whatever Corbyn is I don't think he is naive - he's grown up in and spent years in left-wing politics - a place you can't really afford to be naive - to have survived it as long as he has suggests some steel and a real grasp of how things work! left-wing politics can be a cut-throat world!! I'll grant that he is poor at presenting to the media/public the face of a politician-type they have grown to recognise/expect - and maybe that will be his downfall - but that's not naivety, i think it is a genuine desire to break free of that whole slick spin-doctory approach that we all SAY we hate - but we still take and expect as the norm - and do politics differently. maybe there is some naivety in hoping that voters will see past the empty political shell they have been persuaded to look for in politicians and see summat real - who knows - the next election is still a long way off - but I, for one, am glad he's at least trying it...

Or maybe a brown nose and a sore tongue!

[thebish]

yep - cos being a "brown nose" is entirely consistent with your earlier gripe that he "spent all his life fecking moaning and being a rebel against anything"... brown noses spend most of their time obsequiously AGREEING with people...

get your own deluded story straight!!

[William the White]

Chomskeys crew threw their lot in with misogynisitc, homophobic authoritarian anti-democratic bigots

Who are Chomsky's crew? What do you mean 'threw their lot in with' ? What did they write, do, say? time for chapter and verse - or you are on the level of smear.

and if you are going to smear someone - do try to get the name right.

[thebish]

Chomskeys crew threw their lot in with misogynisitc, homophobic authoritarian anti-democratic bigots

Who are Chomsky's crew? What do you mean 'threw their lot in with' ? What did they write, do, say? time for chapter and verse - or you are on the level of smear.

and if you are going to smear someone - do try to get the name right.

it does sound a bit like irrational vague smearing...

(though - Will - if you ARE smearing, then it is quite fun to get the name wrong on purpose!)

[Worthy4England]

Can someone explain to me why I should give a flying fook about what Chomsky thinks?

[William the White]

Can someone explain to me why I should give a flying fook about what Chomsky thinks?

I don't think you should. Or anyone else should. Unless they are interested in the debate.

[thebish]

and - let's face it - the forum is studiously and enthusiastically concentrating on talking about ANYTHING other than the forthcoming Reading game!!

[Worthy4England]

Can someone explain to me why I should give a flying fook about what Chomsky thinks?

I don't think you should. Or anyone else should. Unless they are interested in the debate.

Good - I'll stick to reading Hoboh. Thanks!

It is possible to be interested in the debate and not at all interested in what Chomsky may or may not think about it.

[thebish]

we shouldn't presume to know what chomsky thinks of the debate - but I suspect he thinks Pru is a knob!

[bobo the clown]

.... aaaaaand back on topic. Interesting developments today in Paris. It seems that this second bunch were planning a quite separate attack in the Business District.

When they went to the flat they (correctly) suspected was being used they failed to get the door bashed open, even with explosives, as it was a reinforced metal one and it took a full hour to get it down. But that only eventually happened when the woman inside, deliberately or otherwise, blew an explosive vest and the floor caved in and into the apartment below.

During that time a fire-fight occurred and over 5,000 shots fired by the Police alone.

B-hell, it's not a small event all this, is it ?

[Worthy4England]

5,000 shots? At 8 people?

It's not a small event, it does make you wonder whether they have got the information (somehow) as a result of Friday's attack? Or whether it was something they already knew (but hadn't joined the dots...)

[thebish]

The Vice-President of the European Commission, Federica Mogherini, stating quite categorically that what happened in France on Friday was largely a matter of ‘internal domestic security’. She said,

Let me underline; the profile of the terrorists so far identified tells us this is an internal threat. It is all EU citizens so far.

Here is a rundown of the attackers definitely identified so far, and where they originated:

ABDELHAMID ABAAOUD – Belgium
SALAH ABDESLAM – Belgium
IBRAHIM ABDESLAM – Belgium
ISMAEL MOSTEFAI – France
SAMY AMIMOUR – France
BILAL HADFI – France

[TANGODANCER]

The Vice-President of the European Commission, Federica Mogherini, stating quite categorically that what happened in France on Friday was largely a matter of ‘internal domestic security’. She said,

Let me underline; the profile of the terrorists so far identified tells us this is an internal threat. It is all EU citizens so far.

Here is a rundown of the attackers definitely identified so far, and where they originated:

ABDELHAMID ABAAOUD – Belgium
SALAH ABDESLAM – Belgium
IBRAHIM ABDESLAM – Belgium
ISMAEL MOSTEFAI – France
SAMY AMIMOUR – France
BILAL HADFI – France

I make no apologies for not understanding the logic there. Belgian and French terrorists carrying out bomb attacks in France on behalf of whom and for what? Where these people born in Belgium and France and have ISIS not already claimed responsibility?

[bobo the clown]

I guess making the point that it has nothing to do with migrants or the migration crisis Tango.

It has, of course, but just making the point.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

The Vice-President of the European Commission, Federica Mogherini, stating quite categorically that what happened in France on Friday was largely a matter of ‘internal domestic security’. She said,

Let me underline; the profile of the terrorists so far identified tells us this is an internal threat. It is all EU citizens so far.

Here is a rundown of the attackers definitely identified so far, and where they originated:

ABDELHAMID ABAAOUD – Belgium
SALAH ABDESLAM – Belgium
IBRAHIM ABDESLAM – Belgium
ISMAEL MOSTEFAI – France
SAMY AMIMOUR – France
BILAL HADFI – France

You'd be amusing if you weren't such a wazzock. I believe you were the pillock leading the arse over tit charge claiming some poet was Somalian, really honest guv...

[Beefheart]

The Vice-President of the European Commission, Federica Mogherini, stating quite categorically that what happened in France on Friday was largely a matter of ‘internal domestic security’. She said,

Let me underline; the profile of the terrorists so far identified tells us this is an internal threat. It is all EU citizens so far.

Here is a rundown of the attackers definitely identified so far, and where they originated:

ABDELHAMID ABAAOUD – Belgium
SALAH ABDESLAM – Belgium
IBRAHIM ABDESLAM – Belgium
ISMAEL MOSTEFAI – France
SAMY AMIMOUR – France
BILAL HADFI – France

You'd be amusing if you weren't such a wazzock. I believe you were the pillock leading the arse over tit charge claiming some poet was Somalian, really honest guv...

What has that got to do with anything?