Corbyn wins again!

Why do you care so much about the personal life of a random guy on the internet?

*

Are you writing headlines for the Daily Mail?

The Irish Republican Army. In 1987, eight IRA terrorists attacked a police station with machine guns and a car bomb in an attempt to demolish it and kill all the police officers inside; thankfully the SAS had intelligence of an attack and ambushed them, killing all eight. Corbyn held a minute's silence for these terrorist murderers, proclaiming "I'm happy to commemorate anyone who dies fighting for a united Ireland".

In 1984 the IRA bombed the Grand Hotel in Brighton during the Tory conference, coming very close to killing the Prime Minister (the ensuite 8 feet away from where she was standing was obliterated and the floor fell out and collapsed), and killing a Conservative MP, an aide and three wives of MPs. Following that, in the journal of which Corbyn was editor, it pointedly refused to condemn the attack, blaming the government and published a "joke"; "What do you call five dead Tories? A good start". Those women were somebody's mother, somebody's wife, as the men were fathers, brothers, friends, husbands. It was a vicious attack, and Corbyn's indifference to the horror of it speaks volumes about the kind of man he is.

In 1985, Corbyn sided with both republican terrorists and extremist unionists in opposing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which was a major building block that eventually led to the Good Friday Accords. He opposed it on the basis that "It won't lead to a united Ireland". The extremists on both sides were opposed to it, the republicans because it didn't automatically lead to a united Ireland and the loyalists because it wouldn't return to their almost Apartheid-like regime of pre-72.

Corbyn supported violent extremists in the IRA and spurned the Labour Party's sister socialist party in Northern Ireland, the non-violent SDLP.

Corbyn, unctuously and hypocritically as usual, claimed that somehow he was a great peacemaker in Northern Ireland, and that he was far ahead of his time in talking to the IRA. This is an outrageous rewriting of history. The British government had backchannel communications with the IRA all the way from 1972 until the IRA was disbanded. In 1972, the Tory Home Secretary Willie Whitelaw had an IRA leadership delegation to his flat in London (including a very young Gerry Adams); he asked them on what terms they might end the conflict. They offered terms they knew he couldn't accept, and the conflict continued for another 26 years.

All through the 1970s and 1980s, HMG had a backchannel to the IRA through MI6 officer Michael Oatley. So it's totally untrue for Corbyn to claim that somehow he was ahead of his time and talking to the IRA and the government wasn't. The difference was that every time the UK government engaged with the IRA, it was to try to persuade them to put down their guns, agree to a ceasefire and engage in the political process. Every time Corbyn engaged with them, it was to egg them on; to tell them he was in total support of them, and to show that there was support for them on the left of the Labour Party and that if they could hang on long enough, they could prevail through violence.

In the end, the UK government was right. The IRA agreed to an end to the conflict on terms that were no more ambitious than what was on offer in 1972. The IRA accepted the continuation of Northern Ireland as part of the UK, they accepted the principle of non-violence and the need to achieve their case through persuasion and democratic means. In other words, the entire IRA campaign after 1972 was for nothing; thousands of lives were lost needlessly.

In fact, we now know that in 1990 Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness contacted the British government through Michael Oatley to say something along the lines of, "We know the conflict is essentially over. We need your help to bring it to an end". The 1980s had not been kind to the IRA; the extensive use of the SAS, the increasingly effective use of informants, of electronic surveillance, and the close cooperation with the Gardai (Irish Police) following the Anglo-Irish Agreement (that Corbyn opposed) had pushed the IRA into a corner. Increasingly it was the SAS he were clipping IRA terrorists and not IRA terrorists knocking off British soldiers.

The reason Adams and McGuinness said "We know the conflict is over, we need your help" was that they were acknowledging that they could not win through violence, that democratic means was the only effective and legitimate way forward. At the same time, Adams and McGuinness had very real concerns that if they moved too quickly towards ending the conflict and an accomodation with the British government, the hardliners on the IRA would blow their head off. All the way up until, and after, the Good Friday Accords one of Adams and McGuinness biggest concerns was being killed by their own people for being seen to "surrender" to the British.

And all through that period, Corbyn was obliviously continuing to support the armed struggle, to use rhetoric that tended to encourage the hardliners, to say and do things that would not assist Adams and McGuinness in their attempt to bring the conflict to an end. It took another 8 years, and quite a few more bombings and murders by the IRA, before the conflict did end.

Anyone who is aware of those facts, of the actual history of the Troubles, cannot say with a straight face that Corbyn was a peacemaker. He was a complete disgrace, a man who obliviously and selfishly promoted a violent terrorist organisation while he sat safe and comfortable in London and the Northern Irish lived in terror.

Corbyn has also expressed his very clear support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah, saying that they were "dedicated to peace and social justice", "honoured guests" and "friends". This is an organisation that suicide bombed a tourist coach in Bulgaria solely on the basis that the people on board were Jews. We're not talking about something that happened 20 years ago, it happened in 2012.

Corbyn also expressed his admiration for the "freedom fighters" opposing the Americans in Iraq; we're talking about Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the organisation that evolved into ISIS. The Stop the War Coalition, of which he was head, repeatedly said similar things. He called the killing of Bin Laden a "tragedy".

It's quite clear where Corbyn's sympathies lie. He will support any organisation, no matter how violent, if he perceives it as "anti-imperialist" or it violently opposes Israel or the United States. That is a very serious moral blindness which ordinary voters will not appreciate when it is brought to their attention in a general election. There are many other comparable instances of moral blindness; the £20,000 he accepted in payment to shill on TV for a regime that lynches gay men from cranes. This stuff will sink him, and Labour, in a general election.



It's not an invalid ad hominem argument to point out positions Corbynites have actually taken and things they've actually said where these things have a negative impact on the Labour Party. Just because a fact is unfavourable to Corbynites doesn't make it ad hominem

@JRKinder @KimKallstrom @Snufkin

You don't seriously expect people to believe that? In April this year you said you were 18. That same day you were posting in the MHoC, so either you lied about your age / living through the Troubles or you're account sharing, which would get you banned from the MHoC. Which is it?

Account sharing would not get me banned from the MHoC, where did you get that assumption from?

Corbyn a man of principles not a career politician. The establishment and media hate him and would do anything to keep him from power.

The MHoC employs a "one person, one account" policy. Anyway, we both know you're not account sharing.

Corbyn a man of principles not a career politician.

How can you sensibly describe someone who has never earned his living in any other way than being a paid politician as not a career politician? Think before you write.

As for his principles, I would just point out:

1. While on the back benches (and even as late as August 2015) he called for annual elections for the Labour leadership. Now, he and his henchmen denounce attacks to unseat him before the next election takes place.

2. The attempted scam on a train - lies all the way.

3. His hypocrisy in denouncing personal attacks while getting his henchmen to make personal and even physical attacks on his Labour colleagues.

4. His occupation of the leadership role in an organisation that officially supports renewing Trident, while personally working against it.

Are those the acts of a man of principle?

5. He used to consider Hamas & Hezbollah as friends.

6. He openly supported IRA bombings when he was associated with "The Supporter"

Definitely a man of principle and sound judgement...not.

Actually, the MHoC Guidelines say that in the case of one person using duplicate accounts in the MHoC. There is no interpretation or explicit guidelines to prevent multiple users on a single account, since it cannot be used to cheat, even if both of us had been participating in the MHoC, which my brother wasn't interested in.

7) The use of duplicate accounts in order to compromise the spirit of the game is not permitted. The MHoC is strictly a 'one-person, one-account' community.

No, it clearly says one person, one account. There is no possible way of interpreting that clause in a way which supports account sharing. I'm not going to derail this thread even more - you said you lived through the Troubles, that was a lie; you said you were a mature student, that was a lie. You have lost all credibility. This discussion is over.

I agree with some of your points about Corbyn, but it's weak stuff to single him out for this - nearly all of the current leaderships of all the main parties in Parliament are basically full time, lifelong politicians, invariably they have been SPADs at some point and then gone on to be a PPS or whatever. Arguably, Corbyn is less of a careerist than them because he was 'happy' (or forced) to remain a backbencher.

He is a career politician, he started out as a politician at age 24, with more dubious principles than most of the current ones in power.

8 years of voting Labour (and Labour party membership) - I'm out.

He stands up for what he believes in rather than tow the establishment line. Not like some of the PLP who are part of the establishment - Tory Lites, Blairites.

As a major political party leader - and the leader of her Majesty's official Opposition and a Privy Council member, no less - he is part of the establishment.

The Establishment want to go to wars in other countries pretending it's for "humanitarian crisis", overthrowing Governments, killing their leaders, leaving power vacuums causing ISIS and Al Qaeda to take a stronghold. Causing all sorts of problems, resulting in refugee crisis's.

I don't see Corbyn backing illegal wars or overthrows of Governments in other countries.