Nope. You said they were his “best buddies”. That is to say, in only the second sentence of your response, you’d already started dissembling and exaggerating. If your argument had any merit, you wouldn’t have felt the need to do that.
Yes, he called them ‘friends’. That is regrettable and I’m not defending it. However: it’s a very, very strange kind of world in which someone who calls those groups ‘friends’ is apparently beyond the pale, the lowest of the low, a terrible danger… while someone else, whose government actively profits from mass slaughter in Yemen, apparently gets a free pass. What’s worse? A few unfortunate words — or death, on an industrial scale, which the UK profits from?
With regard to that: it’s quite bizarre that you highlight the horrific human rights records of Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Iran — yet not our own government, which enables the first of those to a quite grotesque extent. We help them kill others; we help them create the worst humanitarian catastrophe on the planet; we bury the evidence of their support for Islamist terror. Yet you focus on Corbyn, not the government?! What level of cognitive dissonance must it take to do that?
And to top it all off, you add a complete strawman. When did I say either Hizbollah or Hamas were “OK” please? I loathe both of them. Indeed, I’ve long regarded Hamas as a far, far worse problem for the Palestinians than Israel is. But then, maybe it’d help if Israel hadn’t, er, created Hamas to begin with.
Delightful.
