Jeremy Corbyn joins hundreds of pro-Iran protesters in London carrying banners of the Ayatollah

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15602313/Jeremy-Corbyn-joins-hundreds-pro-Iran-protesters-London-carrying-banners-Ayatollah-demand-end-Trumps-wars.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=social-twitter_mailonline

Posted by CarlxtosWay

28 Comments

  1. Inevitable_Driver291 on

    Every single time. Corbyn’s love for the West’s enemies is impressive in its consistency.

  2. It is possible to be against foreign intervention, without directly expressing support for the Iranian regime. Don’t understand why so many seem to think they have to choose one.

  3. Iran bad.. America bad… we don’t have to support a bloodthirsty dictator to think USA shouldn’t have the right to assassinate leaders at will

  4. I don’t think this is true at all, the right wing media will always twist things. I’m not seeing any pro Ayatollah banners, only anti war.

  5. The problem with Corbyn is he sees a nation being anti-UK as them somehow being anti-imperialism, which is a very immature way to look at the world. 

    The fact he has continuously attacked the government for helping Ukraine after being invaded does never ending damage to the political left in this country.

  6. Supporting someone who literally ordered protesters to be gunned down isn’t a good look… Even if it took Trump being a megalomaniac to potentially take him down.

    FFS, read the room Corbyn.

  7. This is why the left can never make any progress. Most of its participants are just holding “stop the war” type banners, but no one has the confident to tell the supporters of the regime to fuck off. So “stop the war” gets mixed in with “I love brutal theocracies” and becomes the crazy position.

  8. Lost_in_Limgrave on

    Why is everyone in this thread taking a daily mail headline at face value? I’m no fan of the man, but per his statement on social media earlier it looks like the protest was “anti war” and not pro the Iranian government.

  9. So what he actually did was join a protest against the strikes on Iran. That protest included some (“hundreds” out of thousands) pro-regime protestors as well as many general anti-war and anti-trump protestors.

  10. Old_Highlight6749 on

    I think most people are against what the US and Israel are currently doing, Trump and Netanyahu are waging a war of aggression, and belong in the Hague. But they should be sharing that cell in the Hague with Iranian leaders for their crimes against their own citizens. I hope the Iranian people are freed from their current tyranny, but I suspect if they are, another tyranny will be imposed on them. Whether it’s an Ayatollah or a Shah, or whatever megacorporatist monster Trump presumably wants, a tyrant is a tyrant.

  11. BerrymanDreamSong14 on

    If you believe the framing of this Daily Mail headline you are probably too stupid to safely leave the house

  12. He’s not there to support the Iranian regime or the Ayatollah. He’s there because he is, and has always been, anti-war.

    You can protest war and be against a damaging regime. It’s not either/or. He recognises that peace comes through dialogue, always. And that means talking to people you don’t necessarily like.

  13. The Americans want to install a puppet Iran government and bring the offspring of The Shah back. That is what Corbyn is railing against. Don’t let the right wing press drown out the reason for this march.

  14. CensorTheologiae on

    Ooh, a story about Corbyn in the Mail. This couldn’t possibly be a shit-stirring ragebait post, could it? Surely not

  15. Famously anti-war politician attends large anti-war protest.
    A couple of people in that crowd have placards supporting the Ayotollah.

    The Daily Mail and the weird enlightened centrists in this sub “HO HO! That must mean Corbyn supports Ayotollah!”

    Jesus fucking Christ.