Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Corbyn wins again! Watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    The Troubles initially grew out of the struggle over civil rights in Northern Ireland, and the institutional discrimination against and disenfranchisement of Northern Irish Catholics. Indeed, the NI civil rights movement didn't even initially demand power sharing, just an end to their hugely unfair treatment. When activists attempted to march peacefully for these demands, they were stoned and beaten by loyalist thugs.
    That's why I referred to the Northern Ireland system of government pre-72 as being almost apartheid-like. There were very real and valid grievances in the Catholic community around their civil rights. Once the UK abolished the Northern Ireland parliament and ministry, and took them into direct rule, many of those issues were dealt with as the London government had a very strong interest in resolving those issues.

    It should be remembered that when British troops first arrived in significant numbers in Northern Ireland, in 1969, they were for the most part welcomed by the Catholics who felt they would help protect them.

    After 1972, there really was no justification for the IRA campaign and it could not seriously be said to be based on the Catholic community's civil rights struggle. The British government in the early 1970s was willing to offer the sort of deal they ended up agreeing to in 1998. That means every IRA-caused death between 1972 and 1998 was fundamentally illegitimate. They weren't seeking an amelioration of the abuse of their rights, they wanted a united Ireland. The two goals are fundamentally distinct.

    Also, the people referred to as "combatants" by the IRA were often Catholics who joined the army like many working-class people did, for a better life, and in many cases never served in Northern Ireland. They were police officers, as if every member of the RUC was some kind of evil loyalist murderer, rather than the majority of them being involved in normal law enforcement. They even killed postmen and local magistrates.

    The British army was present in Northern Ireland lawfully, with the support of a majority of the community, and necessarily as the result of terrorist campaigns. Therefore there is no justication for the killing of soldiers simply on the basis that they were "combatants", they were 19 and 20 year olds mostly who were sent there and in the legal and moral sense had every right to be there. Also keep in mind that the murder of "British" soldiers (many of whom were from Northern Ireland) necessarily meant the deaths of innocent civilians; many died at the hands of IRA snipers when hit by "stray" bullets.

    Every claim the IRA makes for somehow fighting for the rights of the Catholic community are bull ****, they could have agreed a deal back in the 1970s that would have seen powersharing and a fair distribution of resources and power. The fact that the IRA was supported by only a minority of the catholic community speaks volumes about how they were seen by the people for whom they were supposed to be "protectors". I accept Sunningdale collapsed because of unionist action (which in itself shows the British government was genuinely trying to bring about a fair resolution), but the nationalist community did not want that outcome to mean a resumption of bombings and shootings by the IRA. If anything, the British government's mistake was making Sunningdale too pro-Nationalist by having the Council of Ireland where a provincial power-sharing agreement was far more preferable. But the British government's attempts should have seen the IRA attempt to work with the government, not act as unreasonably as the loyalist extremists.

    In the end the IRA accepted partition. That shows their campaign was fundamentally unjust.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snufkin)
    Sure. :rolleyes::rofl:
    Name:  image.png
Views: 30
Size:  118.7 KB

    Attachment 582742582744*
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    Why do you care so much about the personal life of a random guy on the internet?
    It doesn't matter usually but in this case the person has been caught out lying their arse off to support their argument. It destroys their credibility
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Name:  image.png
Views: 30
Size:  118.7 KB
    *
    :lol: Sprung!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S1939)
    Are you writing headlines for the Daily Mail?
    Well, that was rather rude!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    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
    Studied, historically accurate, and beautifully, sequentially prosed. This is why I pop onto TSR every now and again. Because you can stumble across such an articulate and historically deep post like this. Thank you. Respect!
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Corbyn a man of principles not a career politician. The establishment and media hate him and would do anything to keep him from power.
    • Community Assistant
    • Very Important Poster
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Account sharing would not get me banned from the MHoC, where did you get that assumption from?
    The MHoC employs a "one person, one account" policy. Anyway, we both know you're not account sharing.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by suky321)
    Corbyn a man of principles not a career politician. The establishment and media hate him and would do anything to keep him from power.
    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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snufkin)
    The MHoC employs a "one person, one account" policy. Anyway, we both know you're not account sharing.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by suky321)
    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?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iainvg)
    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.
    Quite. Mine was just a few examples and wasn't intended to be an exhaustive list.

    He also wants discussions with IS. One wonders which idiot will volunteer. Will an IS war criminal risk arrest by leaving the caliphate to hold talks? Or will one of Corbyn's henchmen volunteer for a suicide mission to Raqqa?
    • Community Assistant
    • Very Important Poster
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snufkin)

    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.
    Yes, because the term is used in reference to multiple accounts - one user. There is no advantage to attempted cheaters by all using one account. If you wanted to raise your objection with the Speaker I'm more than happy to send you his way:http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=4171388

    Frantically grabbing at straws to make yourself look smart. Smooth. I'm sure Teemore Shamrocks will be surprised to hear I'm actually still underage rather than senior despite them having my birth certificate :eek:
    Breaching my privacy to try and undermine my argument, as well as a personal attack? I think we just found the ad hominem argument.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by Good bloke)
    2. The attempted scam on a train - lies all the way.
    Oh please. The reality was that Seamus Milne did some of his usual overhyping, but the basic facts are with Corbyn and actually tend to show him as a nice guy - if Milne would keep a bit quieter at times, that would come out more.


    (Original post by Good bloke)
    4. His occupation of the leadership role in an organisation that officially supports renewing Trident, while personally working against it.
    Oh no! So different to Theresa May, for example, who opposes Brexit whilst publicly claiming to be in favour, etc, etc.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    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.
    They are mainly career politicians. If Corbyn has remained a backbencher all his life while (as we now know) he had ambitions to be a party leader, and not be just a good constituency MP as many do, it merely shows he was a failed career politician.

    He achieved his current position only because of the crass stupidity of some of his opponents who negated the purpose-built rules that prevented MPs without strong parliamentary support from getting nominated. This exposed the Labour party to the unwanted effects of the other aspect of the rules that allowed extremists to have their say and elect someone who has little support in the parliamentary party, and who is doomed, therefore, to fail in leading it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iainvg)
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by suky321)
    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.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.