Jeremy Corbyn hires former IRA member as policy adviser Watch

AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...-corbyns-team/

Oh for ****'s sake. It's almost like this clown wants to lose. He has complete contempt for the party members, for Labour voters and supporters, for anyone who is relying on a labour government to mitigate the incompetent brutality of the Conservatives.

I can already hear the Corbynites whining about how she wasn't Provision IRA, merely Sinn Fein, that she's good at her job. Give me a break. Sinn Fein was/is the political wing of a terrorist movement. Corbyn either knew how this would play, and that the gains from some putatively talented staff member (even that is in doubt, given his hiring decisions like Diane Abbott and Thornberry) would be completely outweighed by again associating himself with republican terrorism, and did it anyway. Or he didn't know, and he's a moron. Either way, unfit to be leader

Are the Corbynites finally starting to get it, or are they still living in their fantasy land? Wake up to yourself
3
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Clickbait title....
1
reply
DetectivePeralta
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
You're so rude to Corbyn lol
What has he done to you
2
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by Trapz99)
You're so rude to Corbyn lol
What has he done to you
Completely ballsed up the concept of a competent and reasonable Opposition party in the House of Commons?
4
reply
DetectivePeralta
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by Drewski)
Completely ballsed up the concept of a competent and reasonable Opposition party in the House of Commons?
Lol I'm not a labour supporter so I'm happy with him in charge
0
reply
username2585877
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
1.) are you acting as if the invading british weren’t terrorists
2.) clickbait title
3.) they worked in association with the PIRA in times where Catholics were prevented access to housing etc. and nationalist/unionist segregation was in place

DMcGovern might wanna see this
1
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by frankielogue)
1.) are you acting as if the invading british weren’t terrorists
Excuse me, the invading British? Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. Sending your own troops to carry out security operations in a part of your own country is not an invasion.

When significant deployments were effected in 1969, the Catholic community welcomed the extra troops, believing they would be honest brokers. And lest you forget (or more likely, you just really don't know that much about the Troubles and the history of Northern Ireland), Roman Catholics and nationalists are and have been a minority in Northern Ireland for centuries. A majority of the population of Northern Ireland wants to remain part of the UK

2.) clickbait title
(1) If you're so upset about it, then blame Corbyn. He's the one who has invited headlines such as this by making such an idiotic decision

(2) Sinn Fein was the political wing of the terrorist Provisional IRA. If you can't deal with that, it's not my problem.

3.) they worked in association with the PIRA
Are you really that stupid? Are you really that poorly informed about the history of Northern Ireland? Sinn Fein was the political wing of PIRA. That is not in dispute by any serious commentator

DMcGovern might wanna see this
In other words, you're incapable of arguing your point so you're hoping someone else who is more articulate and knowledgeable about the troubles will jump in and take up the mantle
1
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by anarchism101)
Clickbait title....
Nope. Sinn Fein was the political wing of the IRA. In fact, when Adams and McGuinness were formally the leaders of Sinn Fein in the 1980s, they were not only on the IRA Army Council but they were actually the primuses inter pares of PIRA's top leadership. They might have stepped back from operational command of territorial brigades but they still controlled the overall strategy, including military strategy, of the PIRA/Sinn Fein movement. No serious observer and no-one who has any knowledge of that period would deny it. To claim the political party that was the "ballot box" half of the "Armalite and the ballot box strategy" was not an integral part of the PIRA entity is laughable on its face

And... if you don't like people pointing out that Corbyn is once again associating himself with terrorists, surely you should take it up with him? It's precisely this kind of idiotic move, one that is guaranteed to attract terrible press and confirm in the minds of many British people their view of him as a terrorist sympathiser, that demonstrates his total unfitness to be party leader. If he really thinks that he's going to ride a populist wave into Downing Street he lacks any grasp of reality. Populism only works when you're perceived as having a degree of patriotism, a connection to the common man (like Bernie Sanders). Corbyn will never have that, and everything he does confirms this fact

It's like he has complete contempt for winning, like he's so churlish and childish that his mindset is, "No-one is going to tell me what to do". Fine, no-one will tell you what to do, but they will ensure Labour gets absolutely smashed at the next election. In the leaders debate, over and over again he will be painted as the man who hates Britain, the friend of terrorists, the man who would allow our citizens to be killed in the streets rather than allow police or military to shoot-to-kill a rampaging jihadi. Whether every single one of those accusations is 100% is immaterial. Perception is what matters, and he regularly acts in a way that tends to confirm in the minds of the people the substance of those accusations.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by Trapz99)
Lol I'm not a labour supporter so I'm happy with him in charge
Neither am I, but the country is better off with a) (at least) two parties debating matters from a similar level and b) if the party in power is realistically at risk of losing to the official opposition.

Neither a) nor b) are the current political reality.
0
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by Drewski)
Neither am I, but the country is better off with a) (at least) two parties debating matters from a similar level and b) if the party in power is realistically at risk of losing to the official opposition.

Neither a) nor b) are the current political reality.
Indeed. I'm a labour member, a former trade union branch secretary, it's very likely I'm heading toward a legal career doing claimant litigation in the employment tribunals. I consider myself a socialist. And at present, there is no way I will vote for the Labour Party at the next election. In fact, it's not out of the question I may resign my membership to cast a vote for the Conservatives (not because I support their ideology or particularly like most of them, but more as an expression of support for the Prime Minister personally, whom I greatly respect and feel that the more power she has, the more she will be able to whip the Conservative Party toward a more populist / redistributive politics that she clearly favours, and also to support her hand in Brexit)

But the fact remains, if Labour can't win someone like me over, they're stuffed. As long as Corbyn is leader, I will not cast a ballot for the labour party. I simply cannot justify voting for a terrorist sympathiser. With Theresa May, the worst we get overall is the status quo, which requires reform but in historical relative terms is pretty good. The worst we get with Corbyn is that control of our foreign policy is turned over to the Russian embassy in Kensington and that our military and intelligence organisations are either shut down or used to assist terrorists. On top of that, the end of the nuclear deterrent. That is something I cannot accept.
0
reply
markova21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
It says she is a former member of Sinn Fein. It's really not the same as being in the IRA; trust me on this. Oh and btw, even if she HAD been a former member of the IRA, they have been on ceasefire since before most people using this forum were born.
1
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by markova21)
It says she is a former member of Sinn Fein. It's really not the same as being in the IRA; trust me on this. Oh and btw, even if she HAD been a former member of the IRA, they have been on ceasefire since before most people using this forum were born.
Actually, it kind of is. Sinn Fein was the political wing of PIRA. It was the ballot box half of the "Armalite and ballot box" strategy. Even when McGuinness and Adams moved into public life at the head of Sinn Fein in the 1980s, they were not only still on the IRA Army Council, they were effectively the leadership of the entire movement and still set overall strategy (including military strategy).

Someone who was a member of Sinn Fein in the 1990s was a part of a terrorist organisation.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by markova21)
Oh and btw, even if she HAD been a former member of the IRA, they have been on ceasefire since before most people using this forum were born.
And what relevance does that have?

Are people not allowed to comment on anything that happened outside their life span?
0
reply
markova21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Actually, it kind of is. Sinn Fein was the political wing of PIRA. It was the ballot box half of the "Armalite and ballot box" strategy. Even when McGuinness and Adams moved into public life at the head of Sinn Fein in the 1980s, they were not only still on the IRA Army Council, they were effectively the leadership of the entire movement and still set overall strategy (including military strategy).

Someone who was a member of Sinn Fein in the 1990s was a part of a terrorist organisation.
Yes everyone knows McGuinness and Adams were on the Army Council. But that's not to say that ordinary members of Sinn Fein are also IRA members. There will be ones who are in both of course. But when you join SF it in absolutely no way also makes you a member of the Provos !
0
reply
username2585877
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Excuse me, the invading British? Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. Sending your own troops to carry out security operations in a part of your own country is not an invasion.

When significant deployments were effected in 1969, the Catholic community welcomed the extra troops, believing they would be honest brokers. And lest you forget (or more likely, you just really don't know that much about the Troubles and the history of Northern Ireland), Roman Catholics and nationalists are and have been a minority in Northern Ireland for centuries. A majority of the population of Northern Ireland wants to remain part of the UK
Yeah, part’s of Africa were part of the British Empire, so they weren’t invaded!!1! Of course a majority want to remain part of the UK, considering the Protestant settlers were planted in Ulster in the 1600s.

Yes, they did welcome them, until Bloody Sunday. You seem to call me historically illiterate yet you omit large details of the story after it’s convenient to you. In fact, 4 out of 6 counties of Northern Ireland are Catholic majority.

(Original post by AlexanderHam)
(1) If you're so upset about it, then blame Corbyn. He's the one who has invited headlines such as this by making such an idiotic decision

(2) Sinn Fein was the political wing of the terrorist Provisional IRA. If you can't deal with that, it's not my problem.


Are you really that stupid? Are you really that poorly informed about the history of Northern Ireland? Sinn Fein was the political wing of PIRA. That is not in dispute by any serious commentator



In other words, you're incapable of arguing your point so you're hoping someone else who is more articulate and knowledgeable about the troubles will jump in and take up the mantle
Reply to (1):
Can’t argue with you here, it is corbyn’s fault.
Reply to (2):
Key word: was. They supported the motives of the PIRA, but only to an extent.

I am not misinformed about the history of Ulster. I’ve spent the past 2 years reading various different books on both sides of the argument. Hell, my family is even split Protestant-Catholic I mean that doesn’t come into it either. “Political wing” is a hugely misinformed idea. Sinn Féin was formed to support Home Rule and was founded in 1905, ages before the PIRA. It took it’s current form in 1970, after it started opposing the actions of the PIRA. In the 1918 general election, Sinn Féin won 73 out of 105 Irish seats. You also seem to forget the UVA, a large unionist group in Ulster.
As well as this, if you look at the statistics for deaths during the Troubles, 55% of those who died during the Troubles from Norther Ireland were Catholic, or 1525 out of 2775.

Finally, I tagged in DMcGovern because he is a Republican who lives in Northern Ireland, whereas you may have some heritage, although I won’t assume, and my parents are from Donegal.

(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Nope. Sinn Fein was the political wing of the IRA. In fact, when Adams and McGuinness were formally the leaders of Sinn Fein in the 1980s, they were not only on the IRA Army Council but they were actually the primuses inter pares of PIRA's top leadership. They might have stepped back from operational command of territorial brigades but they still controlled the overall strategy, including military strategy, of the PIRA/Sinn Fein movement. No serious observer and no-one who has any knowledge of that period would deny it. To claim the political party that was the "ballot box" half of the "Armalite and the ballot box strategy" was not an integral part of the PIRA entity is laughable on its face

And... if you don't like people pointing out that Corbyn is once again associating himself with terrorists, surely you should take it up with him? It's precisely this kind of idiotic move, one that is guaranteed to attract terrible press and confirm in the minds of many British people their view of him as a terrorist sympathiser, that demonstrates his total unfitness to be party leader. If he really thinks that he's going to ride a populist wave into Downing Street he lacks any grasp of reality. Populism only works when you're perceived as having a degree of patriotism, a connection to the common man (like Bernie Sanders). Corbyn will never have that, and everything he does confirms this fact

It's like he has complete contempt for winning, like he's so churlish and childish that his mindset is, "No-one is going to tell me what to do". Fine, no-one will tell you what to do, but they will ensure Labour gets absolutely smashed at the next election. In the leaders debate, over and over again he will be painted as the man who hates Britain, the friend of terrorists, the man who would allow our citizens to be killed in the streets rather than allow police or military to shoot-to-kill a rampaging jihadi. Whether every single one of those accusations is 100% is immaterial. Perception is what matters, and he regularly acts in a way that tends to confirm in the minds of the people the substance of those accusations.
see above

(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Indeed. I'm a labour member, a former trade union branch secretary, it's very likely I'm heading toward a legal career doing claimant litigation in the employment tribunals. I consider myself a socialist. And at present, there is no way I will vote for the Labour Party at the next election. In fact, it's not out of the question I may resign my membership to cast a vote for the Conservatives (not because I support their ideology or particularly like most of them, but more as an expression of support for the Prime Minister personally, whom I greatly respect and feel that the more power she has, the more she will be able to whip the Conservative Party toward a more populist / redistributive politics that she clearly favours, and also to support her hand in Brexit)

But the fact remains, if Labour can't win someone like me over, they're stuffed. As long as Corbyn is leader, I will not cast a ballot for the labour party. I simply cannot justify voting for a terrorist sympathiser. With Theresa May, the worst we get overall is the status quo, which requires reform but in historical relative terms is pretty good. The worst we get with Corbyn is that control of our foreign policy is turned over to the Russian embassy in Kensington and that our military and intelligence organisations are either shut down or used to assist terrorists. On top of that, the end of the nuclear deterrent. That is something I cannot accept.
if you’re a “socialist” and consider voting for the tories, you’re not really a socialist, are you?
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Someone who was a member of Sinn Fein in the 1990s was a part of a terrorist organisation.
No, they were not. "Terrorist organisation" is an official term with a specific meaning. PIRA were and are officially classified as a terrorist group, of whom membership was proscribed. Sinn Fein were and are a legal political party, of whom membership was and is perfectly legal.
1
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Nope. Sinn Fein was the political wing of the IRA.
Yes, and that's still a distinction. Being a member of the IRA was illegal. Being a member of Sinn Fein was not.

Do you really think that the government taking a policy of treating all Sinn Fein civilian members and activists as if they were armed terrorists would have been i) just or ii) effective?

And... if you don't like people pointing out that Corbyn is once again associating himself with terrorists, surely you should take it up with him?
I came onto this thread mostly to point out the inaccurate clickbait. I'm not a member of the Labour Party, and I'm not trying to defend a position on pragmatic electability grounds. If you want to argue that this is a bad decision tactically in terms of election chances for Corbyn and so on, yeah, you're probably right. But I don't think it's a wrong decision morally.
1
reply
GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...-corbyns-team/

Oh for ****'s sake. It's almost like this clown wants to lose. He has complete contempt for the party members, for Labour voters and supporters, for anyone who is relying on a labour government to mitigate the incompetent brutality of the Conservatives.
Yes, because despite her being a Labour member since she was 18, just being affiliated with Sinn Féin means that Labour will soon be calling for a United Ireland and funding a new IRA.

Why does this matter? If you're a Labour member shut up about it and support your leader, you've got him for good so stick with him and don't try to undermine him at every turn.

(Original post by AlexanderHam)
When significant deployments were effected in 1969, the Catholic community welcomed the extra troops, believing they would be honest brokers.
And that went so very well up until the point where these soldiers started interning people without trial and firing on innocent civilians.

And lest you forget (or more likely, you just really don't know that much about the Troubles and the history of Northern Ireland), Roman Catholics and nationalists are and have been a minority in Northern Ireland for centuries.
Centuries? Partition only existed since 1922, someone's a bigger idiot than the people they're being condescending to.

A majority of the population of Northern Ireland wants to remain part of the UK
Britain partitioned Ireland in 1922 in order to create an artificial statelet with a Protestant unionist majority. By retaining the industrially developed northeast corner of the island, which kept its privileged access to the imperial market, Britain continued to exert indirect control of the largely agrarian clericalist backwater in the South. From its inception, the Orange statelet was based on the oppression of the Catholic minority and privileged access for Protestants to housing, education and employment.

(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Indeed. I'm a labour member, a former trade union branch secretary, it's very likely I'm heading toward a legal career doing claimant litigation in the employment tribunals. I consider myself a socialist. And at present, there is no way I will vote for the Labour Party at the next election. In fact, it's not out of the question I may resign my membership to cast a vote for the Conservatives (not because I support their ideology or particularly like most of them, but more as an expression of support for the Prime Minister personally, whom I greatly respect and feel that the more power she has, the more she will be able to whip the Conservative Party toward a more populist / redistributive politics that she clearly favours, and also to support her hand in Brexit)
If you claim to be a socialist and then in the same breath praise/endorse the Conservative Party you're not a socialist.

But the fact remains, if Labour can't win someone like me over, they're stuffed.
Except you will not be won over because you won't even consider voting for Corbyn.

I simply cannot justify voting for a terrorist sympathiser.
Yes, because trying to negotiate peace deals with reasonable "terrorists" is completely unacceptable. The Provisional IRA were always open to peace talks. It's not like he supports Daesh.

With Theresa May, the worst we get overall is the status quo, which requires reform but in historical relative terms is pretty good. The worst we get with Corbyn is that control of our foreign policy is turned over to the Russian embassy in Kensington and that our military and intelligence organisations are either shut down or used to assist terrorists. On top of that, the end of the nuclear deterrent. That is something I cannot accept.
It is clear you've not come on here to actually make any serious debate, nor are you a socialist in any way by thinking the Conservatives are a good alternative or that what they've done is good. Osborne created more debt than any Labour government in history combined, and although they've stopped austerity the cumulative effect of these cuts are going to hit the poorest hardest.
You just seem like a Daily Mail reader from these accusations.
3
reply
username2585877
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by DMcGovern)
Yes, because despite her being a Labour member since she was 18, just being affiliated with Sinn Féin means that Labour will soon be calling for a United Ireland and funding a new IRA.

Why does this matter? If you're a Labour member shut up about it and support your leader, you've got him for good so stick with him and don't try to undermine him at every turn.



And that went so very well up until the point where these soldiers started interning people without trial and firing on innocent civilians.



Centuries? Partition only existed since 1922, someone's a bigger idiot than the people they're being condescending to.



Britain partitioned Ireland in 1922 in order to create an artificial statelet with a Protestant unionist majority. By retaining the industrially developed northeast corner of the island, which kept its privileged access to the imperial market, Britain continued to exert indirect control of the largely agrarian clericalist backwater in the South. From its inception, the Orange statelet was based on the oppression of the Catholic minority and privileged access for Protestants to housing, education and employment.



If you claim to be a socialist and then in the same breath praise/endorse the Conservative Party you're not a socialist.



Except you will not be won over because you won't even consider voting for Corbyn.



Yes, because trying to negotiate peace deals with reasonable "terrorists" is completely unacceptable. The Provisional IRA were always open to peace talks. It's not like he supports Daesh.



It is clear you've not come on here to actually make any serious debate, nor are you a socialist in any way by thinking the Conservatives are a good alternative or that what they've done is good. Osborne created more debt than any Labour government in history combined, and although they've stopped austerity the cumulative effect of these cuts are going to hit the poorest hardest.
You just seem like a Daily Mail reader from these accusations.
when he decides not to reply to any of my or your points
0
reply
TheGreatPumpkin
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Indeed. I'm a labour member, a former trade union branch secretary, it's very likely I'm heading toward a legal career doing claimant litigation in the employment tribunals. I consider myself a socialist. And at present, there is no way I will vote for the Labour Party at the next election. In fact, it's not out of the question I may resign my membership to cast a vote for the Conservatives (not because I support their ideology or particularly like most of them, but more as an expression of support for the Prime Minister personally, whom I greatly respect and feel that the more power she has, the more she will be able to whip the Conservative Party toward a more populist / redistributive politics that she clearly favours, and also to support her hand in Brexit)

But the fact remains, if Labour can't win someone like me over, they're stuffed. As long as Corbyn is leader, I will not cast a ballot for the labour party. I simply cannot justify voting for a terrorist sympathiser. With Theresa May, the worst we get overall is the status quo, which requires reform but in historical relative terms is pretty good. The worst we get with Corbyn is that control of our foreign policy is turned over to the Russian embassy in Kensington and that our military and intelligence organisations are either shut down or used to assist terrorists. On top of that, the end of the nuclear deterrent. That is something I cannot accept.
You sound less like a socialist and more like a one-nation conservative. Why not greens?
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

What's stopping you doing a masters?

It's too expensive (47)
23.86%
My career doesn't need one (27)
13.71%
I'm sick of studying (41)
20.81%
I can't find a course I want to do (5)
2.54%
I don't know enough about them (13)
6.6%
Nothing, I'm going to do it! (64)
32.49%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed