View Single Post
Old 18-12-2017, 07:13 AM #74
DemolitionRed's Avatar
DemolitionRed DemolitionRed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 6,182
DemolitionRed DemolitionRed is offline
Senior Member
DemolitionRed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 6,182
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jet View Post
Lets get this straight - Corbyn was an out and out IRA sympathiser who spoke at IRA rallies in the 70's, cheering on their bombing campaign and attending the funerals of IRA terrorists. That is well known here in N. Ireland. I know people who knew him well. He was a ****ty wet little nobody who liked playing and associating with the big boys in their 'struggle', which really means 'murderous campaign'. He was a rebel alright - one whose sympathies lay with those who murdered innocent woman and children in cold blood.

It's a shame you can't get N.Ireland local TV which has talked with politicians from all N.I parties at one time or another this past year about the UK elections and Corbyn and none of them, when the topic comes up - not a single one - have cited Corbyn as being in any way involved, never mind influential in the peace process and the Good Friday agreement. Many of them laugh.
In fact, their perception and knowledge of him is very much the same as the countless articles telling of his rewriting of history and how he was very much an IRA supporter, hanging around them and Gerry Adams like a pathetic fanboy, bigging himself up as having importance.

Even members of Sinn Fein scoff and Nationalist Duputy Minister Seamus Mallon, who at the time stepped into John Humes shoes when he became ill, repeatedly says Corbyn had nothing whatsoever to do with the peace process. The consensus is that Corbyn inserted himself into a complex conflict as nothing more than a irrelevant serial glory seeker, and on one side only - the Republican side.

I admit I laughed out loud when I read that you said he was a 'key figure' in it all. But you have obviously ignored the myriad of articles and essays to the contrary and found a few somewhere that insist he was a key figure, like that fake letter on DS a while back, so that is that.
Perhaps you should post those links that give historic accounts of his great contribution to the Good Friday Agreement - if he was a key figure, as you insist, there must be plenty of them about - I have failed to find any, but surely you just don't take his word for it? There are official accounts listing all the key figures, but the Great Jeremy is nowhere to be found.

The actual people and politicians of N.Ireland who know a hellava lot more about the Troubles and what went on than you possibly can are all wrong and you are right. And for the record, as for your 'history lesson' above on my own small country, you've got some of that wrong and left out some very important people who were involved in the process.

Its not all the Irish who think like this though is it? The Irish Republicans generally support Corbyn because they know he was involved in fighting for the Catholic cause. I’m not talking abortion laws, I’m talking community concerns and the Irish reunification and the miscarriages of justice with the Guildford Four and Birmingham six.

You say he was involved in extremism and I say he was involved in meaningful Northern Irish dialogue and advocating a peaceful solution. He didn’t march with Sinn Fein because he was a terrorist supporter, he marched with Sinn Fein because of the endemic bigotry, oppression and persecution of the catholic people.
This wasn’t good against evil, though the Nationalists and the British press would have us think that. There were two evils in that long war; one was the IRA, the other was the British Government.


He has IRA links, He supports Hamas, He is a cheerleader for anti-semites, He has funded Holocaust deniars, He has tolerated anti-semitism in the Labour party, He has been on the payroll of state funded Iranian media

An LSE survey found that 74% of newspaper articles ‘offered either no or a highly distorted account of Corbyn’s views and ideas’ and that only 9% were ‘positive’ in tone. Research carried out at Birkbeck similarly found a strong bias in 'mainstream media coverage'. So how trustworthy are those claims?
https://www.opendemocracy.net/luke-d...us-friendships
https://www.opendemocracy.net/luke-d...us-friendships


I guess you and me will just have to agree to a stalemate.
__________________
No longer on this site.

Last edited by DemolitionRed; 18-12-2017 at 07:20 AM.
DemolitionRed is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote