Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
paranoid android

Corbyn and the IRA

Recommended Posts

A lot of folk I know (who I suspect would probably otherwise vote Labour), are saying they'll never vote for Labour while Corbyn is in charge because he was pictured shaking hands with adams and mcguiness.

What are folks' thoughts on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an alumnus of another Inverness secondary school, I have absolutely no time for anyone who indulges the IRA. He's dead to me.

Edited by yoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tory policy in the last decade has killed up to 30 times as many people as The Troubles did so if they are saying that in the knowledge that that's effectively what they're voting for continuing, it's not on moral grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, paranoid android said:

A lot of folk I know (who I suspect would probably otherwise vote Labour), are saying they'll never vote for Labour while Corbyn is in charge because he was pictured shaking hands with adams and mcguiness.

What are folks' thoughts on this?

That's not very comradely of them. bQshDtu.png

I've also had people who say that they "used to support Labour", but are now fully fledged islamophobic, zionist loving, austerity enabling tories, as they feel anything to the left of that is just "too much". b9rreGI.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

I've also had people who say that they "used to support Labour", but are now fully fledged islamophobic, zionist loving, austerity enabling tories, as they feel anything to the left of that is just "too much". 

This is it - a lot of folk who used to vote Labour are now more likely to vote tory or lib/dem than for a Socialist, despite the fact they the tories/libdems pushed through the austerity. measures. c***s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, paranoid android said:

A lot of folk I know (who I suspect would probably otherwise vote Labour), are saying they'll never vote for Labour while Corbyn is in charge because he was pictured shaking hands with adams and mcguiness.

What are folks' thoughts on this?

 

As has the Queen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, paranoid android said:

and prince Charles, and Obama, and Teresa may...

 

And Spike Milligan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, paranoid android said:

A lot of folk I know (who I suspect would probably otherwise vote Labour), are saying they'll never vote for Labour while Corbyn is in charge because he was pictured shaking hands with adams and mcguiness.

What are folks' thoughts on this?

To achieve relative peace in Northern Ireland it was always necessary to talk to some contraversial people on both sides.  However this had to be done in a delicate manner so as not to upset the victims of the troubles.

My criticism of Corbyn would be that he was indelicate and managed to upset a lot of people while at the same time achieving nothing for it (since one side were unwilling to see him as an honest broker).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Fullerene said:

To achieve relative peace in Northern Ireland it was always necessary to talk to some contraversial people on both sides.  However this had to be done in a delicate manner so as not to upset the victims of the troubles.

The UK government had had contacts with the PIRA since 1972. It had negotiated two previous ceasefires with them in 1972 and 1975. There were a number of people within Northern Ireland and the Republic who could have been used as go betweens for various factions who were in conflict and needed to open to discussions.

There is not a single shred of evidence that Corbyn had any role in any negotiations. 

His meetings were all much more easily categorised as a supporter meeting people he agreed with to encourage them than a man of peace seeking to bring messages between waring factions.

In short it is a lie to try to make his support more politically palatable. 

In the past I have provided clear documentary evidence that he simply regurgitated PIRA demands and did not call for democratisation and politicisation of the dispute beyond what the IRA publicly demanded. 

He has only rarely and in the most equivocal of manners condemned PIRA violence. All of this when there was a clear democratic process operating in the province. 

That people with actual authority in governments and on behalf of governments met with the PIRA does not suddenly make him some sort of Nelson Mandela. Those were people who were negotiating, not supporters. 

This was all discussed recently and a variety of excuses offered for his behaviour. 

And again, the Conservatives plans to prevent investigation of possible unlawful killings by UK soldiers and their alliance with the DUP means that they have little claim to moral superiority on this issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To achieve relative peace in Northern Ireland it was always necessary to talk to some contraversial people on both sides.  However this had to be done in a delicate manner so as not to upset the victims of the troubles.

My criticism of Corbyn would be that he was indelicate and managed to upset a lot of people while at the same time achieving nothing for it (since one side were unwilling to see him as an honest broker).

That will be the side that had intimate contacts with the British establishment, security services, military and police.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, welshbairn said:
39 minutes ago, Fullerene said:
To achieve relative peace in Northern Ireland it was always necessary to talk to some contraversial people on both sides.  However this had to be done in a delicate manner so as not to upset the victims of the troubles.
My criticism of Corbyn would be that he was indelicate and managed to upset a lot of people while at the same time achieving nothing for it (since one side were unwilling to see him as an honest broker).

That will be side that had intimate contacts with the British establishment, security services, military and police.

Yes.  There were others who were compromised in a similar manner.  I do not dispute that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fullerene said:

Yes.  There were others who were compromised in a similar manner.  I do not dispute that. 

The "i'm voting tory because Corbyn is a pure commie IRA sympathizer" brigade are clearly trying to dispute it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

The "i'm voting tory because Corbyn is a pure commie IRA sympathizer" brigade are clearly trying to dispute it though.

Yeah and I'm not voting for Johnson because he (allegedly) touched a woman's knee.  Total scum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that when asked to condemn PIRA violence, he stated that he condemned all violence in Northern Ireland. 

I believe he said this only a couple of years after the government at Westminster allowed 13 , I think it was, prisoners to starve to death in Northern Ireland.

With the behaviour of Crown forces in , for example, the murder of innocents by the Paratroopers, and the actions of Loyalist paramilitary groups.....

no right thinking person would do anything other than condemn all violence there. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dorlomin said:

The UK government had had contacts with the PIRA since 1972. It had negotiated two previous ceasefires with them in 1972 and 1975. There were a number of people within Northern Ireland and the Republic who could have been used as go betweens for various factions who were in conflict and needed to open to discussions.

There is not a single shred of evidence that Corbyn had any role in any negotiations. 

His meetings were all much more easily categorised as a supporter meeting people he agreed with to encourage them than a man of peace seeking to bring messages between waring factions.

In short it is a lie to try to make his support more politically palatable. 

In the past I have provided clear documentary evidence that he simply regurgitated PIRA demands and did not call for democratisation and politicisation of the dispute beyond what the IRA publicly demanded. 

He has only rarely and in the most equivocal of manners condemned PIRA violence. All of this when there was a clear democratic process operating in the province. 

That people with actual authority in governments and on behalf of governments met with the PIRA does not suddenly make him some sort of Nelson Mandela. Those were people who were negotiating, not supporters. 

This was all discussed recently and a variety of excuses offered for his behaviour. 

And again, the Conservatives plans to prevent investigation of possible unlawful killings by UK soldiers and their alliance with the DUP means that they have little claim to moral superiority on this issue. 

Correct.

Edited by Jacksgranda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, paranoid android said:

A lot of folk I know (who I suspect would probably otherwise vote Labour), are saying they'll never vote for Labour while Corbyn is in charge because he was pictured shaking hands with adams and mcguiness.

What are folks' thoughts on this?

...and the moral of the story is be more careful about who you select as a leader. Somebody long viewed as being on the lunatic fringes of a party is probably there for a reason and usually should be left there because of baggage like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of folk I know (who I suspect would probably otherwise vote Labour), are saying they'll never vote for Labour while Corbyn is in charge because he was pictured shaking hands with adams and mcguiness.
What are folks' thoughts on this?
Pretty shit thread are my thoughts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same old "this person is our enemy!" routine that's growing increasingly thin.

Why exactly is Corbyn the enemy? Truthfully, it's because he doesn't just blindly go along with British imperial rhetoric like most politicians do.

Simply put, it's easier to call Corbyn an IRA terrorist than to comes to terms with how evil Britain has consistently been throughout history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HibsFan said:

It's the same old "this person is our enemy!" routine that's growing increasingly thin.

Why exactly is Corbyn the enemy? Truthfully, it's because he doesn't just blindly go along with British imperial rhetoric like most politicians do.

Simply put, it's easier to call Corbyn an IRA terrorist than to comes to terms with how evil Britain has consistently been throughout history.

It's heehaw to do with imperial rhetoric.  We all know that the South Irish loved Empire almost as much as we Scotch and many a fortune was made in Dublin and Galway on the back of slavery.  There's a decent case for it to be renamed  The British and Irish Empire along the lines of the rugby team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...