Another day and another statement from Jeremy Corbyn which has to be explained, or 'Corbynsplained' as DPJ Hodges so neatly coined.
Today it was that a diplomatic channel should be opened with Islamic State and that they have "strong points". Thus hashtag #ISISstrongpoints trending all day today in the UK.
In the same interview with Andrew Marr Corbyn refused to say that the Falklands Islanders deserved the right to determine their future.
It so happened that I noticed that James Bloodworth had retweeted Harry Phibbs pointing to a exchange in the House of Commons:
Corbyn wants to close down NATO: "Why did NATO continue at that point when its cold war raison d’être had gone?" https://t.co/nDlgAYgEOw— Harry Phibbs (@harryph) January 17, 2016
(Bloodworth commented that this was "such a dishonest argument when he was against NATO *during* the Cold War.")
So, as you do, I went to have a read of said exchange (from, as John Rentoul pointed out, July 4 2013) and found it awash with gobsmacking statements from Corbyn.
I'm leaving out commenting much on the ones on NATO as I have covered that nonsense in earlier posts on Corbyn (see 'Corbyn and Ukraine: It's not pretty'). But there's him. complaining about NATO going outside the North Atlantic. In response to Labour MP Jon Spellar, he says about the anti-piracy operation off Somalia:
Of course piracy off the coast of Somalia is not a good thing. Instability in Somalia is very bad, but surely one solves that problem by political support for changes in Somalia—to some extent that is happening and considerable changes are taking place.'Surely.' This is a prime example of the fake 'Man Of Peace', virtue signalling Corbyn.
Where to start. So the solution to the piracy is an elusive 'political solution'? What about the here and now Jeremy? (And doesn't that sound a lot like his proposals for Syria?)
He obviously is unaware that the NATO operation was started to protect World Food Programme shipments of relief. Or that the navies of Russia, China, India and 15 other non-NATO countries are involved.
No, the operation is about NATO "looking for something to do" - 'surely'.
Complaining that NATO is presenting itself as the "armed wing of the United Nations" - when? where? - he actually said:
It may be that the UN should have its own force.Great idea! Why didn't anyone else think of that!?
Scrolling down comes this gem in his rant about Afghanistan:
Al-Qaeda was founded by US trainers.This is an urban myth. It never happened. You can read the vast swathes of evidence confirming this as myth on Wikipedia, including this from CNN journalist Peter Berger (who interviewed Bin Laden):
The story about bin Laden and the CIA — that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden — is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.@Twidun also noted that "he conflates the mujahideen with the Taliban (formed in 1992)." Of course its a convenient myth for Corbyn to propagate. But not one he's likely to be challenged over unless a journalist does and I would very much doubt they ever will. (Talking to you, Andrew Marr, et al.)
Carrying on ranting against NATO I am at an utter loss as to what he is on about here (highlight mine):
A whole new scenario seems to be being built up, namely that China will somehow occupy the Arctic and invade us from the Arctic ocean, and therefore we must develop a new missile shield—as we already have aimed against Russia—to protect ourselves.China? The Arctic?
I would normally think this was a slip of the tongue but then literally the next thing he says is:
The USA is moving more into the Asia-Pacific region.Eh? 'More'? Like it wasn't before?
And who among us cannot see this proposal as a contribution to world peace:
We have a growing arms race between NATO and Russia, despite the apparently cosy chats between members of the Russian Communist party and delegates to the NATO Assembly. I absolutely welcome those and wish they could be videoed and portrayed to the whole world. The same applies to China.That was part of a rant about arms, something he has an obsession with, and I would note from my coverage of his views on Russia and Ukraine that he thinks the evil NATO is about:
Advancing military technology and a military presence further and further eastwards in order to create this ghastly scenario of some kind of hi-tech war with Russia in the future.The war in fascist-run (Corbyn said that too) Ukraine is all about NATO trying out 'hi-tech' weapons? This will be news to the Ukrainians complaining about supplies to them from the West of non-lethal weapons, unless Corbyn thinks night vision goggles constitute that 'hi-tech'.
This daft idea you will not be surprised to learn comes from Seumas 'Uncle Joe' Milne but it also appears on the websites of Ron Paul fanboys and the pro-Kremlin conspiracist website globalresearch.ca.
Maybe the wingnut conspiracists are also writing about China invading the Arctic?
This was all from just one House of Commons session. There is lots more, of course, such as the Commons appearance where he goes on about how the world hates Britain cos Iraq when the truth is the opposite. Actual polling shows the UK is among the most respected countries in the World.
But these are facts and the
Paging the News Quiz, Private Eye and satirists everywhere. The material writes itself, people.