"Islamists" is not lumping all people of one faith together. "Muslims" would have been.
Islamists are people who practice/follow Islamism, in the same way that Marxists are people who practice/follow the teachings of Marx, and do all they can to further the cause of Marxism. It's not the first Muslims groups have allied themselves with the hard left. Consider the Iranian revolution. (Though the Ayatollah was ideologically opposed to communism and turned on them as soon as he'd consolidated power).

Islamist and Marxists are strange bedfellows indeed, but it is a fact that they have established themselves within the Labour Party. For years, the Labour Party has fought against Entryism (Militant Tendency and all that) - it appears they've lost the battle.

__________________
Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

If you can conflate Zionist and Jewish, I can conflate Islamist and Muslim.

Two days until the polls open. Can't wait to see the electorate's take on a party of terrorist sympathising anti-semites who take inspiration for their economic policy from Mao.

Once upon a time Labour used to represent the working classes, now they just stand for the Public Sector classes and Islington champagne weirdos.

But... Mao really wasn't a champagne socialist.... by any stretch of the imagination.
You can't say the Labour party is both Maoist and centrist. Has to be one or t'other.
Old Labour was left left, New Labour was centrist, and today's Labour is is mix of both, with some wanting to stretch it further in each direction, and others wanting to unite it in the middle.
And no party represents the working classes now... they all represent big money. (except that Corbyn wants to change that.... and also wants to stay away from smears and personal attacks and wants to bring politics back to policy..... but lets not concentrate on the NHS and Schools being privitised now, lets concentrate on what one individual said 2 years ago, and what the Socialist Workers did on University campuses a decade ago... that is much more important).

It's called trust, and you can't trust a party who's leader won't disassociate himself from terrorists and anti-semites, and who's rank and file are clearly being infected by these views. Labour needs to sort itself out first if it wants any credibility. Can't wait for the polls on Thursday myself either!

P.S. It's emerged that Labour suspended 50 people in the past two months because of anti-semitism. How many more do you need, to acknowledge there is REALLY an issue here?

"You can't say the Labour party is both Maoist and centrist. Has to be one or t'other. " There is an implicit assumption here that Labour is an integrated and coordinated Party! It is more like a field of horses wandering around with no common aim; some racing around the edges, some eating the hedges, a couple having a fight in the middle...

It's inevitable, according to Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy - the organisation must eventually exist solely to further itself.

It hasn't happened to the Tories because they've always been in it for themselves.

It hasn't happened to the Liberals, because they've never been organised enough.

And on the other side we have a party led by Old Etonian, descendant of William IV, son-in-law of a baronet who couldn't be more out of touch with the public if he put on a white glove and called himself Michael Jackson.

This is a party that has systematically failed both the working and middle classes (hence the Daily Mail's abject hatred of Cameron), and I feel physically repulsed when I see that smirking front bench of millionaires, jeering and laughing as the problems of the nation are being read out by the opposition leader. This is the contempt by which they rule, and had Labour had a stronger leader than Miliband they would already have been out on their arses.

Can someone please explain how a pacifist is a friend of terrorists? Or did that escape a few people?

Isn't a pacifist someone who likes people from Tonga, Samoa and Fiji?

Why don't you ask him? He calls Hamas and Hezbollah his "friends", and both these groups are internationally recognised as terrorist organisations.

And in 1989 David Cameron went on a sanctions-busting jolly to Apartheid South Africa, whilst a young Tory researcher.
People do things which in hindsight are regrettable, just ask Dave.

Sigh.....usual right wing paper spin then. He was trying to mediate constructive discussions. In the old days mediation and diplomacy was the correct way to resolve issues, just seems the current method is bomb the shit out of places. 30 years of soldiers in NI worked didn't it?

Quote from Corbyn.

"I spoke at a meeting about the Middle East crisis in parliament and there were people there from Hezbollah and I said I welcomed our friends from Hezbollah to have a discussion and a debate, and I said I wanted Hamas to be part of that debate. I have met Hamas in Lebanon and I've met Hezbollah in this country and Lebanon.

"I'm saying that people I talk to, I use it in a collective way, saying our friends are prepared to talk.

"Does it mean I agree with Hamas and what it does? No. Does it mean I agree with Hezbollah and what they do? No. What it means is that I think to bring about a peace process, you have to talk to people with whom you may profoundly disagree.

"There is not going to be a peace process unless there is talks involving Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas and I think everyone knows that."

The D-man doesn't regret having sex with a pig's head.

Q2 - Are members of internationally recognised terrorist organisations.

A) Allowed to enter the UK?
B) WTF are they doing in Parliament?

A bit like going on holiday to Cuba today, as done by so many? Don't try and deflect the conversation with "the other side are at least as worse" type manoeuvres.

Most people don't go to Cuba to show solidarity with a one party communist state.

Lol, trying to mediate discussions. Like anyone in the middle east is going to listen to a bearded oddball that looks like a geography master.

Listen to what the man actually said. He specifically said he doesn't agree to them being labeled terrorist organisations, no matter what the wider international community thinks. It's very easy to say you were misrepresented afterwards. And anyhow, where was Israel's invitation in these ground breaking peace talks?

1. I do not think that Apartheid SA was "a bit like Cuba".
2. Hamas is both a terrorist organisation as well as the democratically elected government of Gaza for the last ten years. While everyone mentions the terrorist bit does this part somehow always get forgotten... so yes, I think it is totally normal that a western politician talks to them, because they are the political representatives of most Palestinians. If you want peace or in fact anything in the region to happen can you not just ignore them.


Let's just get real for a moment:
- calling them "friends" is idiotic
- talking to them is not idiotic, but something absolutely mandatory for a labour leader
- the UK has never had an issue to work with terrorists whenever it fit the political agenda and neither has any of the other Nato powers. The UK actively funded terrorism to overthrow 3rd world governments it did not like, for example in Iran. Look how that turned out... The PKK is for example also a terrorist organization. The German army is currently training Peshmerga fighters (who are very close to the PKK) and equipping them with modern arms to fight IS. The Taleban were trained by the US, IS has a lot of former Iraqi army guys who were trained and equipped by the US and UK after the invasion... I could go on forever.

Most reporting in the UK is owned by the right wing. Seems member of this thread have bought their shit willingly. I'm not saying reading the Guardian is the answer either. We have no truly neutral media left in the UK.

Even the "left leaning BBC" is a merry go round of Tory party ex ministers, think tank members, publicists for the Tory party etc. Robert Preston is a great example, when the finance world collapsed in 2008 and QE was given out by the billions from taxpayers pockets there was little descent from the BBC. It's not left leaning it's just not following the Tory party propaganda line.

This is the goal to destroy the last standing neutral news media to allow the 1% to broadcast their "newsspeak."

In the last 30 years there has been a collective effort to destroy the rights of working people in the UK along with public services based on crackpot ideologies and shift the Overton window to the right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

It's been very successful for the right wing think tanks. Hey lets reduce all taxes and destroy public services, then sell them to our friends. All built on cheap credit and fake feelings of wealth for the general population, which we know in reality does not exist.

Eventually this will rebalance to the left it has to. When the majority of the UK population realise those in power are using smoke and mirrors to keep them from their rights as taxpayers. When they are fed up in visiting the food banks, watching public services destroyed, paying their energy bills or having their pensions plundered. The greed of these crackpots knows no boundaries and ultimately that will cause it to fail.

2M people marched against war in Iraq, how the hell did they get away with it?

In my mind New labour = Tory light (thanks for PFI too, even Thatcher wouldn't have gone for that!)

Corbyn IS on the right path (hes pissing many off) and he should be MORE radical. People want their country back and I unfortunately don't think he has the balls (not Ed) to carry it through.