Keir Starmer

[hilts]

Hopefully Starmer explains that to his concerned constituents and they are alleviated of the misunderstanding, cause at the moment that message has not come across clearly.

EDIT: FYI Keir isn’t the only guilty western leader of this misunderstanding. Many others thought war crimes can be excused under certain contexts.

Explain what? That he will say/not say anything to get elected? I think everyone knows that by now. It just appears some in his party are not happy with that stance.

 

[Johnny Mars Bar]

Personally I’d rather a leader who made a minor overcorrection and supports Israeli defence than a communist who shared platforms with Hamas and the IRA and is a Russia apologist who wanted to scrap the UK’s nuclear defence infrastructure at a time of increasing geopolitical instability.

Just for a bit of context like.

 

[BayernMan]

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

I don't think it was the right thing to say, but he was asked once, not several times, and his answer was a sentence which specifically said that Israel shouldn't break international law.

He clearly says throughout that Hamas should be targeted, rather than Palestinians, and later on, when talking about the govt cracking down on support for Palestinian says that it's important we don't conflate discussion about Palestine [in the context of demonstrations], with Hamas.

I’m with you, I just don’t get it.

Maybe I’m not close enough to it but I’m struggling to find anything he’s said that’s in any way controversial.

In the interview he bungles his answer and then qualifies it with “obviously, everything should be done within international law”. That’s a pretty fucking important part of his statement. Yet all the clips I’ve seen online, including ones shared on this thread, seem to strategically cut out this very important piece of information. And now people seem to be just pretending he never said it.

So where is the part where he’s tacitly advocating war crimes, collective punishment and genocide? At worst I can say his delivery of his position was muddled and poor but let’s be straight… saying “Israel has a right to defend itself within the confines of international law” is a world away from advocating the deaths of children. The former is exactly the same position as basically every world leader.

Like I said I just don’t get it. Maybe somebody can point out the error of my ways.

 

[Bournemouth Blue]

I think Sir Kier is in danger of repeating Neil Kinnock

 

[hilts]

I think Sir Kier is in danger of repeating Neil Kinnock

Needs to stay off any beaches:-)

 

[Rascal]

Personally I’d rather a leader who made a minor overcorrection and supports Israeli defence than a communist who shared platforms with Hamas and the IRA and is a Russia apologist who wanted to scrap the UK’s nuclear defence infrastructure at a time of increasing geopolitical instability.

Just for a bit of context like.

What an astonishingly dimwitted post.

Its not your fault you have been gaslit so much by our media, they love gullible idiots like you.

 

[mexico1970]

I think Sir Kier is in danger of repeating Neil Kinnock

Sturgeon was asked a question about trans people and she just couldn't answer it, what she should have done is answered just honestly.

Starmer should wear his heart on his sleeve because whatever way he leans he's going to be heavily criticised.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

I’m with you, I just don’t get it.

Maybe I’m not close enough to it but I’m struggling to find anything he’s said that’s in any way controversial.

In the interview he bungles his answer and then qualifies it with “obviously, everything should be done within international law”. That’s a pretty fucking important part of his statement. Yet all the clips I’ve seen online, including ones shared on this thread, seem to strategically cut out this very important piece of information. And now people seem to be just pretending he never said it.

So where is the part where he’s tacitly advocating war crimes, collective punishment and genocide? At worst I can say his delivery of his position was muddled and poor but let’s be straight… saying “Israel has a right to defend itself within the confines of international law” is a world away from advocating the deaths of children. The former is exactly the same position as basically every world leader.

Like I said I just don’t get it. Maybe somebody can point out the error of my ways.

In all honesty I’ve not seen or heard the footage as been very busy but I did hear a phone-in on LBC hosted by somebody called Shiela/Shayla. A lady came on and absolutely tore the story apart saying exactly what you did and that it was Ferrari and LBC who had confused things by asking the question in numerous different ways until they got the sound bite that they wanted. The host came back and said that she had the quote with guest retorting ‘Can we have the full one because Starmer caveated his stance of ‘Within international law’ on numerous occasions, not just once.

The next caller backed this up, saying that he basically muddled it up and the part that LBC were quoting didn’t have the full context. The host went very quiet on each occasion, seemingly not having an answer to what they had stated.

Let‘s be fair, stations like LBC are there to get those sound-bites to distort truths and keep their listeners engaged, regardless of background.

On Starmer, he needs to get out of this loop of not trying to upset people, we need away from populist politics and get back to the real need to solve the UKs problems.

 

[Don Karleone]

He's specifically asked whether Israel has the right to cut power and water, and he says "Israel does have that right". It doesn't matter if he says it should be done within International law. He knows they don't.

He's only rolled back on it because he thinks he'll lose Muslim votes, hence the photo op at the South Wales Mosque.


Vote for him if you like, I don't care. Don't make shit up though.