Why would socialists vote Tory?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by L i b
He is on record as a supporter of Irish nationalism
He is a supporter of a united Ireland, just like millions of others around the world, including myself, other British politicians and world leaders.
Being in favour of a united Ireland is not "supporting the IRA".
and has chummed around with Sinn Fein/IRA types at several points in the past, again well documented.
So anyone who has engaged in negotiations or meetings with Sinn Fein or people with IRA connections are "IRA supporters" - correct?
That's really quite a lot of evidence.
Let's hope you never serve on a jury!
Original post by QE2
He is a supporter of a united Ireland, just like millions of others around the world, including myself, other British politicians and world leaders.
Being in favour of a united Ireland is not "supporting the IRA".
So anyone who has engaged in negotiations or meetings with Sinn Fein or people with IRA connections are "IRA supporters" - correct?
Let's hope you never serve on a jury!
Being in favour of a united Ireland is not "supporting the IRA".
So anyone who has engaged in negotiations or meetings with Sinn Fein or people with IRA connections are "IRA supporters" - correct?
Let's hope you never serve on a jury!
There have been attempts to assassinate the Character of Jeremy Corbyn various occasions either by associating him with the IRA, or with Hamas & Hezbollah, etc. Usually these attempts are coming from right wing circles.
However these right wing circles have forgotten that Margaret Thatcher not only associated with regime that has committed crimes against humanity but called Mr Pinochet a true friend and was very sympathetic towards him and his regime making everything possible later on that he won't be prosecuted for his crimes.
@L i b
Original post by Lucifer323
There have been attempts to assassinate the Character of Jeremy Corbyn various occasions either by associating him with the IRA, or with Hamas & Hezbollah, etc. Usually these attempts are coming from right wing circles.
However these right wing circles have forgotten that Margaret Thatcher not only associated with regime that has committed crimes against humanity but called Mr Pinochet a true friend and was very sympathetic towards him and his regime making everything possible later on that he won't be prosecuted for his crimes.
@L i b
However these right wing circles have forgotten that Margaret Thatcher not only associated with regime that has committed crimes against humanity but called Mr Pinochet a true friend and was very sympathetic towards him and his regime making everything possible later on that he won't be prosecuted for his crimes.
@L i b
But Pinochet was a a nice man who used to provide free helicopter rides for people, even if they were his political opponents. Corbyn doesn't even own a helicopter.
Original post by QE2
He is a supporter of a united Ireland, just like millions of others around the world, including myself, other British politicians and world leaders.
Being in favour of a united Ireland is not "supporting the IRA".
Being in favour of a united Ireland is not "supporting the IRA".
Nope, but it certainly speaks to motive and intent.
And should, in a normal political party, have rendered him completely ineligible for being considered as a potential leader.
So anyone who has engaged in negotiations or meetings with Sinn Fein or people with IRA connections are "IRA supporters" - correct?
Nope - but a supporter of their cause attending meetings would, I suspect, be considered at least a prima facie demonstration of the point. Once you factor in sharing a platform with these people at such events, it becomes far more clear cut. When you try to organise a meeting with the sole purpose of giving one of these people a platform to speak, then it becomes unanswerable.
Jeremy Corbyn has suggested he wanted to see an end to the conflict - but it's pretty clear that the only way he saw of ending it was by the United Kingdom losing and a terrorist organisation winning. He has been happy to condemn the British state - and indeed called Northern Ireland being part of the UK an "occupation" - but not the IRA. He attended "Troops Out" demonstrations but never called for the IRA, a criminal organisation, to disband.
That anyone actually buys the "I was just looking for peace" argument is ludicrous. In that interest, would Jeremy Corbyn have invited a Loyalist terrorist to launch a book in the premises of the Houses of Parliament (a move that was thankfully blocked from accomplishing)? No.
Let's hope you never serve on a jury!
Have done, slightly less relevant now given the old LL.B, I suppose.
Original post by Lucifer323
There have been attempts to assassinate the Character of Jeremy Corbyn various occasions either by associating him with the IRA, or with Hamas & Hezbollah, etc. Usually these attempts are coming from right wing circles.
However these right wing circles have forgotten that Margaret Thatcher not only associated with regime that has committed crimes against humanity but called Mr Pinochet a true friend and was very sympathetic towards him and his regime making everything possible later on that he won't be prosecuted for his crimes.
@L i b
However these right wing circles have forgotten that Margaret Thatcher not only associated with regime that has committed crimes against humanity but called Mr Pinochet a true friend and was very sympathetic towards him and his regime making everything possible later on that he won't be prosecuted for his crimes.
@L i b
In Northern Ireland, this is generally known as 'whataboutery'. Nothing here undermines the clear fact that Jeremy Corbyn was a supporter of the IRA.
Original post by L i b
Nope, but it certainly speaks to motive and intent.
It shows that he supported a united Ireland, as many people do. Nothing more.
And should, in a normal political party, have rendered him completely ineligible for being considered as a potential leader.
Why on earth would that be?
Nope - but a supporter of their cause attending meetings would, I suspect, be considered at least a prima facie demonstration of the point. Once you factor in sharing a platform with these people at such events, it becomes far more clear cut. When you try to organise a meeting with the sole purpose of giving one of these people a platform to speak, then it becomes unanswerable.
Jeremy Corbyn has suggested he wanted to see an end to the conflict - but it's pretty clear that the only way he saw of ending it was by the United Kingdom losing and a terrorist organisation winning. He has been happy to condemn the British state - and indeed called Northern Ireland being part of the UK an "occupation" - but not the IRA. He attended "Troops Out" demonstrations but never called for the IRA, a criminal organisation, to disband.
That anyone actually buys the "I was just looking for peace" argument is ludicrous. In that interest, would Jeremy Corbyn have invited a Loyalist terrorist to launch a book in the premises of the Houses of Parliament (a move that was thankfully blocked from accomplishing)? No.
Jeremy Corbyn has suggested he wanted to see an end to the conflict - but it's pretty clear that the only way he saw of ending it was by the United Kingdom losing and a terrorist organisation winning. He has been happy to condemn the British state - and indeed called Northern Ireland being part of the UK an "occupation" - but not the IRA. He attended "Troops Out" demonstrations but never called for the IRA, a criminal organisation, to disband.
That anyone actually buys the "I was just looking for peace" argument is ludicrous. In that interest, would Jeremy Corbyn have invited a Loyalist terrorist to launch a book in the premises of the Houses of Parliament (a move that was thankfully blocked from accomplishing)? No.
So your argument is essentially "Corbyn was opposed to the British military occupation of Northern Ireland, so he is therefore a terrorist supporter." *smh*
Original post by L i b
Nothing here undermines the clear fact that Jeremy Corbyn was a supporter of the IRA.
Au contraire. So far you have produced no evidence to support your claim. Add this to Corbyn's condemnation of IRA bombings, and we can see that there is no substance to your claim.
The entire point of the campaign of lies from the right was to dissuade people from voting Labour in the last election. Corbyn is no longer leader or even in the shadow cabinet, so there is no need to continue the ridiculous charade.
Why on earth would that be?
Because what mainstream political party would put up - in any country - for its head of government, someone who wanted to break up the country or advance the cause of nationalism within it?
So your argument is essentially "Corbyn was opposed to the British military occupation of Northern Ireland, so he is therefore a terrorist supporter." *smh*
To hold that view is inherently to align yourself with terrorism, yes.
Now, objectively, there cannot be an "occupation" of Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom cannot occupy a part of itself. To say that would demonstrates an utter ignorance of the ordinary meaning of "occupation", never mind international law.
So why would anyone say it? Expressly to delegitimise the the lawful forces of the state - be it the armed forces or the police - and to suggest, somehow, that their use of force is illegitimate. And what does that legitimise? The use of force against them, the existence of a rival legitimacy.
But no, that is not my argument. My argument is quite simple, that he supported the IRA in no uncertain terms - and could not have done anything more to demonstrate that short of picking up a rifle and shooting a policeman on the streets of Belfast.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by QE2
Au contraire. So far you have produced no evidence to support your claim. Add this to Corbyn's condemnation of IRA bombings, and we can see that there is no substance to your claim.
I'm afraid "evidence" doesn't mean "something I accept". I have presented as evidence his links with Sinn Fein and the IRA, his acts as a supporter of these organisations, the intent for that support and also the evidence of him opposing the legitimacy of the forces of the state in Northern Ireland. There is no real dispute against any of these actions - they are all well-documented.
The problem is that you don't see to actually take issue with that evidence. Indeed, you justify it - suggesting that all of these things were perfectly acceptable.
The entire point of the campaign of lies from the right was to dissuade people from voting Labour in the last election. Corbyn is no longer leader or even in the shadow cabinet, so there is no need to continue the ridiculous charade.
I'm afraid that's nothing other than a conspiracy theory being promulgated to excuse support for terrorism.
Your point is that motivation is demonstrated because (1) the intent was to dissuade people voting Labour; (2) that it only came about because he was leader or in the shadow cabinet; (3) it only applied when he was presenting himself as leader of the Labour Party to win an election for the Labour Party.
All of these points are easily brushed away:
(1) He has been criticised for his links with Sinn Fein and the IRA by Labour members, Labour politicians, even former Labour Party leaders
(2) He was criticised extensively for these links when he was a backbencher (and, indeed, now he is again - as I am doing).
(3) These criticisms were extensive as far back as the mid-1980s. Again, from Labour politicians and leaders as much as anyone else.
Which is easily demonstrated by the condemnation of Mr Corbyn's links with Sinn Fein and the IRA go
Original post by L i b
I'm afraid "evidence" doesn't mean "something I accept". I have presented as evidence his links with Sinn Fein and the IRA, his acts as a supporter of these organisations, the intent for that support and also the evidence of him opposing the legitimacy of the forces of the state in Northern Ireland. There is no real dispute against any of these actions - they are all well-documented.
The problem is that you don't see to actually take issue with that evidence. Indeed, you justify it - suggesting that all of these things were perfectly acceptable.
The entire point of the campaign of lies from the right was to dissuade people from voting Labour in the last election. Corbyn is no longer leader or even in the shadow cabinet, so there is no need to continue the ridiculous charade.
The problem is that you don't see to actually take issue with that evidence. Indeed, you justify it - suggesting that all of these things were perfectly acceptable.
The entire point of the campaign of lies from the right was to dissuade people from voting Labour in the last election. Corbyn is no longer leader or even in the shadow cabinet, so there is no need to continue the ridiculous charade.
I'm afraid that's nothing other than a conspiracy theory being promulgated to excuse support for terrorism.
Your point is that motivation is demonstrated because (1) the intent was to dissuade people voting Labour; (2) that it only came about because he was leader or in the shadow cabinet; (3) it only applied when he was presenting himself as leader of the Labour Party to win an election for the Labour Party.
All of these points are easily brushed away:
(1) He has been criticised for his links with Sinn Fein and the IRA by Labour members, Labour politicians, even former Labour Party leaders
(2) He was criticised extensively for these links when he was a backbencher (and, indeed, now he is again - as I am doing).
(3) These criticisms were extensive as far back as the mid-1980s. Again, from Labour politicians and leaders as much as anyone else.
Which is easily demonstrated by the condemnation of Mr Corbyn's links with Sinn Fein and the IRA go
Your point is that motivation is demonstrated because (1) the intent was to dissuade people voting Labour; (2) that it only came about because he was leader or in the shadow cabinet; (3) it only applied when he was presenting himself as leader of the Labour Party to win an election for the Labour Party.
All of these points are easily brushed away:
(1) He has been criticised for his links with Sinn Fein and the IRA by Labour members, Labour politicians, even former Labour Party leaders
(2) He was criticised extensively for these links when he was a backbencher (and, indeed, now he is again - as I am doing).
(3) These criticisms were extensive as far back as the mid-1980s. Again, from Labour politicians and leaders as much as anyone else.
Which is easily demonstrated by the condemnation of Mr Corbyn's links with Sinn Fein and the IRA go
Yet again, you have not provided anything to show he is "an IRA supporter". Only that he has had contacts with people connected to the IRA - and as a British politician in favour of a united Ireland, this is exactly what we would expect to see.
I understand that you are vehemently opposed to both a united Ireland and a Labour government, but you really need to try and think a bit more rationally about this.
If the right-wing media weren't only concerned with smearing him, why is there no mention of it now? He is still an MP. Why did all the fuss stop once he was no longer leader?
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by QE2
Yet again, you have not provided anything to show he is "an IRA supporter". Only that he has had contacts with people connected to the IRA - and as a British politician in favour of a united Ireland, this is exactly what we would expect to see.
I understand that you are vehemently opposed to both a united Ireland and a Labour government, but you really need to try and think a bit more rationally about this.
I understand that you are vehemently opposed to both a united Ireland and a Labour government, but you really need to try and think a bit more rationally about this.
Are you familiar with the term 'rose tinted spectacles' or 'tunnel vision'? You seem to be blinded to rather basic facts by your undying admiration for a man who supports the enemies of the country he claims to represent.
It's rather hard to make an honest case that he doesnt/didnt support the IRA when he was bestest buddies with several of their leaders and supports their cause..
In line with his support for terrorists though, you usally go off on one about those mean Lebanese and Palestinians militias and terror outfits yet you've remained extremely quiet on Corbyns stated support for them.. do i smell double standards QE2
.Original post by L i b
I'm afraid "evidence" doesn't mean "something I accept". I have presented as evidence his links with Sinn Fein and the IRA, his acts as a supporter of these organisations, the intent for that support and also the evidence of him opposing the legitimacy of the forces of the state in Northern Ireland. There is no real dispute against any of these actions - they are all well-documented.
The problem is that you don't see to actually take issue with that evidence. Indeed, you justify it - suggesting that all of these things were perfectly acceptable.
The entire point of the campaign of lies from the right was to dissuade people from voting Labour in the last election. Corbyn is no longer leader or even in the shadow cabinet, so there is no need to continue the ridiculous charade. I'm afraid that's nothing other than a conspiracy theory being promulgated to excuse support for terrorism.Your point is that motivation is demonstrated because (1) the intent was to dissuade people voting Labour; (2) that it only came about because he was leader or in the shadow cabinet; (3) it only applied when he was presenting himself as leader of the Labour Party to win an election for the Labour Party.
All of these points are easily brushed away:
(1) He has been criticised for his links with Sinn Fein and the IRA by Labour members, Labour politicians, even former Labour Party leaders
(2) He was criticised extensively for these links when he was a backbencher (and, indeed, now he is again - as I am doing).
(3) These criticisms were extensive as far back as the mid-1980s. Again, from Labour politicians and leaders as much as anyone else.
Which is easily demonstrated by the condemnation of Mr Corbyn's links with Sinn Fein and the IRA go
The problem is that you don't see to actually take issue with that evidence. Indeed, you justify it - suggesting that all of these things were perfectly acceptable.
The entire point of the campaign of lies from the right was to dissuade people from voting Labour in the last election. Corbyn is no longer leader or even in the shadow cabinet, so there is no need to continue the ridiculous charade. I'm afraid that's nothing other than a conspiracy theory being promulgated to excuse support for terrorism.Your point is that motivation is demonstrated because (1) the intent was to dissuade people voting Labour; (2) that it only came about because he was leader or in the shadow cabinet; (3) it only applied when he was presenting himself as leader of the Labour Party to win an election for the Labour Party.
All of these points are easily brushed away:
(1) He has been criticised for his links with Sinn Fein and the IRA by Labour members, Labour politicians, even former Labour Party leaders
(2) He was criticised extensively for these links when he was a backbencher (and, indeed, now he is again - as I am doing).
(3) These criticisms were extensive as far back as the mid-1980s. Again, from Labour politicians and leaders as much as anyone else.
Which is easily demonstrated by the condemnation of Mr Corbyn's links with Sinn Fein and the IRA go
Well put, prsom.
Original post by Napp
Are you familiar with the term 'rose tinted spectacles' or 'tunnel vision'? You seem to be blinded to rather basic facts
...
he was bestest buddies with several of [the IRA] leaders
...
he was bestest buddies with several of [the IRA] leaders
You do seem to be losing the ability to construct cogent arguments.
Are you ok?
Original post by QE2
You do seem to be losing the ability to construct cogent arguments.
Are you ok?
Are you ok?
Ding dong! Irony bell. For a person with your self proclaimed intelligence you dont half use the same boring catchphrase over and over, the mental gymnastics you partake in is staggering.
Well, well for a troll tread solely aimed at baiting and ridiculing me, it's not gone too well for you, another swing and miss again.
https://youtu.be/52r3a7_IWNQ
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by Burton Bridge
Ding dong! Irony bell. For a person with your self proclaimed intelligence you dont half use the same boring catchphrase over and over, the mental gymnastics you partake in is staggering.
Well, well for a troll tread solely aimed at baiting and ridiculing me, it's not gone too well for you, another swing and miss again.
https://youtu.be/52r3a7_IWNQ
Well, well for a troll tread solely aimed at baiting and ridiculing me, it's not gone too well for you, another swing and miss again.
https://youtu.be/52r3a7_IWNQ
I'm sure this all made perfect sense in your head.
Original post by QE2
Yet again, you have not provided anything to show he is "an IRA supporter".
Except for appearing at events supporting the IRA, or working with members of the IRA toward a common objective?
I'm not really sure how else I could show that he was an IRA support bar him actually saying "I am an IRA supporter" (which, as far as I'm aware, he's stopped short of) or by probing his brain.
Only that he has had contacts with people connected to the IRA - and as a British politician in favour of a united Ireland, this is exactly what we would expect to see.
Not "people connected to the IRA", "people in the IRA". And no, that's not at all what I would expect. You can be in favour of a united Ireland - as much as I disagree with it - without being a bomb-in-the-biscuit-tin, oh-sorry-I-kneecapped-your-little-Johnny-Mrs-O'Malley Provo terrorist sympathiser.
I understand that you are vehemently opposed to both a united Ireland and a Labour government, but you really need to try and think a bit more rationally about this.
I, frankly, don't give much of a toss about a Labour government these days. I'd even have voted Labour last time in my constituency if it didn't have Jeremy Corbyn as leader. There were several members of my own family and friends who were actively involved in the Labour movement - and, of those still living, I don't think any of them were anything short of appalled by Jeremy Corbyn becoming leader.
If the right-wing media weren't only concerned with smearing him, why is there no mention of it now?
How about the coverage of the Prime Minister's comments to Keir Starmer in September? Or Ian Austin's comment piece in the Sun a week or so ago? Or Robert Colville in the Sunday Times yesterday (who, admittedly, mentioned IRA links in relation to John McDonnell, but certainly grouped him with Corbyn)?
That Corbyn still maintains the Labour whip is certainly an outrage. But he should've lost in decades ago.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by L i b
Except for appearing at events supporting the IRA,
Like what?
or working with members of the IRA toward a common objective?
So every member of the government and armed forces who was involved in the peace process is an IRA supporter? I'm sure they'll be glad to know that.
I'm not really sure how else I could show that he was an IRA support bar him actually saying "I am an IRA supporter" (which, as far as I'm aware, he's stopped short of) or by probing his brain.
As you claim he is an IRA supporter, it is top to you to show that he is. It is not my problem if you fail to do that.
Not "people connected to the IRA", "people in the IRA". And no, that's not at all what I would expect. You can be in favour of a united Ireland - as much as I disagree with it - without being a bomb-in-the-biscuit-tin, oh-sorry-I-kneecapped-your-little-Johnny-Mrs-O'Malley Provo terrorist sympathiser.
Now you are just being silly. Your inability to demonstrate your claim is obviously getting to you.
He's a Republican, anti-Nato, pacifist, sympathetic to Russia, opposed to the union (i.e. does not even wish to preserve his own nation) and has numerous sympathies for terrorist groups, rogue states and anti-Semitic allies because his anti-west, anti-capitalist world view blinds him.
He is the one Labour leader bar perhaps Wilson who can credibly be considered a threat to our nation given the damage he could do. Hell, even Attlee would roll over in his grave at several of Corbyn's policies.
He is the one Labour leader bar perhaps Wilson who can credibly be considered a threat to our nation given the damage he could do. Hell, even Attlee would roll over in his grave at several of Corbyn's policies.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- Cameron-comeback, opinions?
- 2023–24 by-elections thread
- Working Class / Left wing football clubs?
- Should i vote Labour?
- TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?
- Reshuffle: David Cameron is back and Braverman sacked
- Edexcel A-level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- UK government loses Rwanda scheme appeal in the Supreme Court
- Jeremy Hunt to deliver budget on March 6 as election looms
- Rishi Sunak gives Net Zero speech: PM waters down key policy goals
- Who regrets the outcome of Brexit??
- is it me or is rishi sunak kinda built????
- Lee Anderson defects to reform
- GCSE English Literature AIC
- Rishi Sunak relaunches plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
- How the radical left turned America's cities into slums.
- UK politics AUA (Ask Us Anything) – no question too simple!
- Was Jeremy Corbyn a Better Labour leader than Kier Starmer
- Rochdale By-election: George Galloway elected as new MP
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 2 minutes ago
LSE anthropology and law 2024Last reply 2 minutes ago
went from 3s to 9s with (literally) night before revision - ask me anythingGCSEs
27
Last reply 6 minutes ago
Software Engineering Degree Apprenticeship | Digital & Technology Solutions Level 6Last reply 7 minutes ago
AQA GCSE French Speaking Higher (8658/SH) [Exam Chat]Last reply 9 minutes ago
Anyone been offered a place at Sheffield Hallam for adult nursing?Last reply 9 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A108 (Gateway) 2024 Entry ApplicantsTrending
Last reply 4 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 6 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 1 week ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 6 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 1 week ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?
