Corbyn And His Support For The IRA

Watch
This discussion is closed.
PilgrimOfTruth
Badges: 16
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
I'm curious.

Do the younger students here know anything about the terrorism suffered through the 80s with the IRA?

Do people realise how Corbyn sympathised and supported the IRA, attended the funerals of IRA members and so on?

Some useful info here:

Jeremy Corbyn can’t rewrite his reprehensible IRA history

http://www.cityam.com/265655/jeremy-...le-ira-history
0
acd55
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
(Original post by PilgrimOfTruth)
I'm curious.

Do the younger students here know anything about the terrorism suffered through the 80s with the IRA?

Do people realise how Corbyn sympathised and supported the IRA, attended the funerals of IRA members and so on?

Some useful info here:

Jeremy Corbyn can’t rewrite his reprehensible IRA history

http://www.cityam.com/265655/jeremy-...le-ira-history
I don't actually know that much information about it but I do know about corbyn's link to IRA


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Castro Saint
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
He does not support the IRA. Stop spreading this horse **** smear campaign, it has gone on far too long.
6
tresmellon
Badges: 7
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
My only thought is do British people actually know the history of Ireland though because I'm pretty sure it was British people blowing Irish people up, taking away their culture (e.g. stopping them speaking their own language which is why the country speaks English now, stopping them being educated, etc.), and invading the country.

Britain has a knack for picking and choosing what parts of history they want to be a part of and they forget that they were, in fact, absolute terrorists.

This isn't me saying that the things that the IRA did weren't horrific, because they were. But the UVF, the British Army, the parliamentary police, etc. were just as bad, if not worse.

Ireland had been oppressed by England for centuries. Violence was not the first option, it was the only option after being rejected and rejected by the British. The difference was that the IRA were fighting for a cause. The British were fighting because they were oppressing Irish people and wanted to keep it that way.

The protestants of the North were treated fine, however the catholic nationalists were not. They were still being oppressed. Gerrymandering was in place to ensure that nationalist parties did not get the representation in parliament so that the unionist parties didn't have an opposition.

In order to vote in Northern Ireland, one needed a house, but houses were always just given to the unionists. Several nationalist groups campaigned for one man, one vote, which meant that every adult in Northern Ireland would have a vote. They wanted to create fair housing for all in Northern Ireland. They tried to achieve all this via peace and talking. English people refused to listen to them. There was significant discrimination in place against the Irish people in Northern Ireland.

The Troubles started in the 60's. At the same time, the NICRA was set up, which was heavily influenced by the American civil rights act. They wanted to achieve rights for Catholic people being discriminated against in the North, in the areas of housing, employment, voting, etc. The police were also very biased against the Catholic people.

THE PROVISIONAL IRA WAS NOT THE ONLY PARAMILITARY GROUP IN NORTHERN IRELAND.

In fact, Britain had three groups involved; the UVF, the RIC, and the Army.

-The UVF petrol bombed Catholic houses
-A firebomb killed an elderly widow
-Four men were fatally shot, three of which were just leaving the pub
-RUC officers attacked marchers protesting for rights. The RUC were not provoked by these protesters. This was broadcasted and caused outrage, leading the two days of Derry rioting
-People's Democracy did a 4-day march from Belfast to Derry, which was attacked by loyalists. They were attacked by about 200 loyalists. Once they reached Derry, they were again attacked. The police didn't help them, and in fact, also attacked.
-RUC rampaged in the Bogside
-Loyalists bombed water and electricity installations
-RUC went into Catholic houses and beat them, including teenagers. Some were beaten fatally.
-Battle of the Bogside included RUC using CS gas and water cannons against nationalists
-Loyalists burned houses
-RUC opened fire in nationalist areas multiple times. They killed at 9 year old boy.
-83% of homes and businesses destroyed were Catholic
-UVF bombed the Republic after the RUC were forced to be unarmed and the B-Specials disbanded. They protested these actions. The first RUC officer shot dead was by the UVF.
-3000 troops were deployed in the Falls curfew. 4 were killed in a gun battle between the IRA and these British troops.
-Internment without trial was introduced, none of the initial internees were loyalists. Once this had been established further, over 1,400 were republicans, with about 300 being loyalists.
-BLOODY SUNDAY: BRITISH KILLED 13 PEOPLE IN DERRY WITH ANOTHER PERSON DYING SHORTLY AFTER FROM THEIR WOUNDS. 14 OTHERS WERE INJURED.

That's just 1966-1970.

Yes the IRA did wrong too. I don't support their actions. But they were mainly in place at the beginning as a defender to the Catholics from the British paramilitary groups. I condemn the IRA bombings, but I also condemn the British role in the Troubles too.
9
Chewer
Badges: 3
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
All this IRA stuff is ********. He held meetings for them to open peace talks. Because he believes in peace. There's more fuss over these Tory lies than the deals Theresa May is making with the Saudis this year
5
Diogenes4
Badges: 3
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
If Corbyn wanted peace why did he vote against the peace process and the Anglo-Irish Agreement in Parliament. He clearly supported the IRA by attending and speaking at annual pro-IRA commemorations for terrorists between 1986 and 1992. He also could have supported the SDLP (Northern Ireland’s Social Democratic and Labour Party) who wanted to unify ireland through a democratic process, instead he supported the IRA terrorists.
His front bench is full of IRA and terrorist sympathisers. Here is Corbyn's shadow chancellor John McDonnell in 2003: " It’s about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA. Because of the bravery of the IRA and people like Bobby Sands we now have a peace process."
Dianne Abbott declared her support for the IRA in 1980's too, and claimed "every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us".

Disgraceful.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34285308
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...IRA-links.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...have-splendid/
0
Chewer
Badges: 3
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by Diogenes4)
If Corbyn wanted peace why did he vote against the peace process and the Anglo-Irish Agreement in Parliament. He clearly supported the IRA by attending and speaking at annual pro-IRA commemorations for terrorists between 1986 and 1992. He also could have supported the SDLP (Northern Ireland’s Social Democratic and Labour Party) who wanted to unify ireland through a democratic process, instead he supported the IRA terrorists.
His front bench is full of IRA and terrorist sympathisers. Here is Corbyn's shadow chancellor John McDonnell in 2003: " It’s about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA. Because of the bravery of the IRA and people like Bobby Sands we now have a peace process."
Dianne Abbott declared her support for the IRA in 1980's too, and claimed "every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us".

Disgraceful.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34285308
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...IRA-links.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...have-splendid/
Whether you believe the IRA **** or not, how come the whole country cares more about things that happened 20-30 years ago more than the deals Theresa May is literally doing this year with the Saudis. They defend it's for 'business' when it's these deals that eventually put us under threat.

Tories also met with IRA but secretly. No surprise this gets no publicity at all.
0
tresmellon
Badges: 7
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
If we're talking about IRA support, why not mention Maria Gatland who actually was an IRA member?
0
Diogenes4
Badges: 3
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by Chewer)
Whether you believe the IRA **** or not, how come the whole country cares more about things that happened 20-30 years ago more than the deals Theresa May is literally doing this year with the Saudis. They defend it's for 'business' when it's these deals that eventually put us under threat.

Tories also met with IRA but secretly. No surprise this gets no publicity at all.
First, there are many families in Britain who still feel the effects of IRA terrorism, that's like somebody in 2050 saying 'who cares if a politician had once supported ISIS about thirty years ago', the IRA link is a fact whether you believe it or not.

This is about Corbyn's support for the iRA. If you want to deal in whataboutism I'm afraid you'd lose. You can't defend Corbyn's past - or that of his cronies.
0
PilgrimOfTruth
Badges: 16
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#10
The attempts at revisionism by the Labourites is frankly embarrassing.

There is just too much info out there that supports the notion that Corbyn supported the IRA and did little for the peace process.

This article explains:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/0...et-peacemaker/
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
It's not just the IRA he supported, he supports Hamas
0
username2808800
Badges: 6
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
Terrorist sympathisers
0
TurboWarrior
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
Corbyn is not fit to be PM!
1
Raptor11
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
Some of these have already stated before, but to put my two pence in;

1. He could easily have supported more negotiations with the SDLP, which at the time was a legitimate pro-United Ireland party which condemned the IRA activities, and was the second largest party in Northern Ireland at the time. But he chose to "talk" to the IRA instead. For such a non violent man, I have to ask why?

2. The blog already posted here demonstrates his clear lack of involvement in the Good Friday Agreement, something he ironically voted against.

3. He has said on numerous occasions that he believes MI5 to be above all laws. He's mentioned his wish to either curb it's power or eradicate it completely. Why would MI5 spook him so much? Maybe because he fears they have something on him that completely undermines his history rewrite, but thanks to the peace deal no one will likely know that truth. Conveniently getting rid of MI5 would go a long way to ensuring nothing got out don't you think?

4. During the Brighton bombings he was an editor of a very left wing magazine/journal that advocated the bombings.

5. To answer the post about the Croydon councillor who was Ex IRA. She was only ever an escort/interpreter for weapons deals and at least decided to leave once they began targeting civilians, willingly giving information to the security services and being given an effective death sentence by the IRA. Also, she is a councillor, with no effective power, whilst Corbyn is at the moment an opposition leader with his sights on running the country.

6. Did he ever actually come out and publically condemn the bombings of the IRA during the 70's or 80's, or is he merely doing it now to appease people? I wonder how he would have reacted if the British security forces have beaten the IRA by force? My bet is he'd claim peace talks to try and save his arse. After all it is possible he could've been tried for crimes against the state if the IRA were defeated.
0
Chewer
Badges: 3
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
Good job this IRA card can't be brought up anymore now that the Tories are going into government with the DUP who literally support terrorists
1
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
The Tories claimed that Corbyn's economic policies would be too far left for the British people but when they realised that actually a lot of people agree with him they retreated to the smear strategy:
Corbyn hates Britain
Corbyn supports IRA
Corbyn supports Hamas
etc etc

This 'message' was repeated over and over again and people didn't believe it, or worse, they believed it and thought well I'd still vote for him over the Conservatives.

Now I am sure they will carry on saying it but it doesn't bring anything new to the table. "Conservatives claim Corbyn hates Britain and supports terror..." just like they did before. It isn't giving any new messaging to the electorate.
3
Stevenmidlands9
Badges: 6
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by Diogenes4)
First, there are many families in Britain who still feel the effects of IRA terrorism, that's like somebody in 2050 saying 'who cares if a politician had once supported ISIS about thirty years ago', the IRA link is a fact whether you believe it or not.

This is about Corbyn's support for the iRA. If you want to deal in whataboutism I'm afraid you'd lose. You can't defend Corbyn's past - or that of his cronies.

??
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by tresmellon)
My only thought is do British people actually know the history of Ireland though because I'm pretty sure it was British people blowing Irish people up, taking away their culture (e.g. stopping them speaking their own language which is why the country speaks English now, stopping them being educated, etc.), and invading the country.

Britain has a knack for picking and choosing what parts of history they want to be a part of and they forget that they were, in fact, absolute terrorists.

This isn't me saying that the things that the IRA did weren't horrific, because they were. But the UVF, the British Army, the parliamentary police, etc. were just as bad, if not worse.

Ireland had been oppressed by England for centuries. Violence was not the first option, it was the only option after being rejected and rejected by the British. The difference was that the IRA were fighting for a cause. The British were fighting because they were oppressing Irish people and wanted to keep it that way.

The protestants of the North were treated fine, however the catholic nationalists were not. They were still being oppressed. Gerrymandering was in place to ensure that nationalist parties did not get the representation in parliament so that the unionist parties didn't have an opposition.

In order to vote in Northern Ireland, one needed a house, but houses were always just given to the unionists. Several nationalist groups campaigned for one man, one vote, which meant that every adult in Northern Ireland would have a vote. They wanted to create fair housing for all in Northern Ireland. They tried to achieve all this via peace and talking. English people refused to listen to them. There was significant discrimination in place against the Irish people in Northern Ireland.

The Troubles started in the 60's. At the same time, the NICRA was set up, which was heavily influenced by the American civil rights act. They wanted to achieve rights for Catholic people being discriminated against in the North, in the areas of housing, employment, voting, etc. The police were also very biased against the Catholic people.

THE PROVISIONAL IRA WAS NOT THE ONLY PARLIAMENTARY GROUP IN NORTHERN IRELAND.

In fact, Britain had three groups involved; the UVF, the RIC, and the Army.

-The UVF petrol bombed Catholic houses
-A firebomb killed an elderly widow
-Four men were fatally shot, three of which were just leaving the pub
-RUC officers attacked marchers protesting for rights. The RUC were not provoked by these protesters. This was broadcasted and caused outrage, leading the two days of Derry rioting
-People's Democracy did a 4-day march from Belfast to Derry, which was attacked by loyalists. They were attacked by about 200 loyalists. Once they reached Derry, they were again attacked. The police didn't help them, and in fact, also attacked.
-RUC rampaged in the Bogside
-Loyalists bombed water and electricity installations
-RUC went into Catholic houses and beat them, including teenagers. Some were beaten fatally.
-Battle of the Bogside included RUC using CS gas and water cannons against nationalists
-Loyalists burned houses
-RUC opened fire in nationalist areas multiple times. They killed at 9 year old boy.
-83% of homes and businesses destroyed were Catholic
-UVF bombed the Republic after the RUC were forced to be unarmed and the B-Specials disbanded. They protested these actions. The first RUC officer shot dead was by the UVF.
-3000 troops were deployed in the Falls curfew. 4 were killed in a gun battle between the IRA and these British troops.
-Internment without trial was introduced, none of the initial internees were loyalists. Once this had been established further, over 1,400 were republicans, with about 300 being loyalists.
-BLOODY SUNDAY: BRITISH KILLED 13 PEOPLE IN DERRY WITH ANOTHER PERSON DYING SHORTLY AFTER FROM THEIR WOUNDS. 14 OTHERS WERE INJURED.

That's just 1966-1970.

Yes the IRA did wrong too. I don't support their actions. But they were mainly in place at the beginning as a defender to the Catholics from the British parliamentary groups. I condemn the IRA bombings, but I also condemn the British role in the Troubles too.
In Northern Ireland, they have a wonderful term: "whataboutery". This is an excellent example. You've gone to quite some length there to try to smudge things over by pointing to other people being bad with the aim of lessening or obscuring the crimes of the IRA.

In any case, simply listing the actions of others does not justify supporting a terrorist organisation.

Incidentally, what I found most objectionable was your assertion that the IRA were some sort of "defender to the Catholics". The IRA killed literally hundreds of Catholics: not just in its indiscriminate bombings against the entirety of the people of Northern Ireland, but worse yet in the gangsterism it attempted to enforce over people it disgustingly saw an entitlement to "rule" over.

This included not people it considered minor nuisances - who often found themselves at the wrong end of a gun - but also people going about their business. Mothers who objected that their children had been murdered, women who had done their civic duty and reported crimes to the police, Catholic members of the police, people who tried to stop violence, Catholics who tried to stand up to what the IRA was doing to their communities - and on many occasions, people who were murdered for reasons that defy any sort of explanation. Elderly people, women and children; people subject not only to being kidnapped or murdered, but beatings, torture and deliberate maiming.

So please don't try to pretend that they were some sort of force for good: if anything, Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland suffered disproportionately from their actions.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
Oh for pity's sake, can we stop resurrecting dead threads. Inevitably, someone (in this case me) ends up not noticing the dates and replying.
2
tresmellon
Badges: 7
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by L i b)
In Northern Ireland, they have a wonderful term: "whataboutery". This is an excellent example. You've gone to quite some length there to try to smudge things over by pointing to other people being bad with the aim of lessening or obscuring the crimes of the IRA.

In any case, simply listing the actions of others does not justify supporting a terrorist organisation.

Incidentally, what I found most objectionable was your assertion that the IRA were some sort of "defender to the Catholics". The IRA killed literally hundreds of Catholics: not just in its indiscriminate bombings against the entirety of the people of Northern Ireland, but worse yet in the gangsterism it attempted to enforce over people it disgustingly saw an entitlement to "rule" over.

This included not people it considered minor nuisances - who often found themselves at the wrong end of a gun - but also people going about their business. Mothers who objected that their children had been murdered, women who had done their civic duty and reported crimes to the police, Catholic members of the police, people who tried to stop violence, Catholics who tried to stand up to what the IRA was doing to their communities - and on many occasions, people who were murdered for reasons that defy any sort of explanation. Elderly people, women and children; people subject not only to being kidnapped or murdered, but beatings, torture and deliberate maiming.

So please don't try to pretend that they were some sort of force for good: if anything, Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland suffered disproportionately from their actions.
Hiya!

Never said I agreed, I wrote that I condemn the IRA. And to clarify, they were somewhat of a defender in the beginning (which I think I mentioned in my original post, but honestly it's been donkeys and I may be wrong there!) but you're certainly right with what you're saying too! Just wanted to show a different perspective.

And yes, I agree with your last post on the thread, people reviving old threads is annoying!
0
X
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

When did you submit your Ucas application if you applied to go to university this year?

September 2021 (14)
6.57%
October 2021 (105)
49.3%
November 2021 (22)
10.33%
December 2021 (31)
14.55%
January 2021 (16)
7.51%
I still haven't submitted it yet! (20)
9.39%
Something else (5)
2.35%

Watched Threads

View All