Jeremy Corbyn Says 9/11 A Conspiracy, Attacks Manipulated To Blame Osama Bin Laden

[letmein]

https://prod01-cdn04.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2015/09/GettyImages-487150840-promo.jpg

It appears you can add Jeremy Corbyn to the list of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, as a new report has revealed that the Labour leader once claimed that the September 11 terrorist attacks were “manipulated” by the West so it could go to war with Afghanistan.

Corbyn made the conspiracy theory claims in an article he wrote 12 years ago, in which he criticised Tony Blair and George W Bush for using the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York as an excuse to go to war.

The now-66-year-old added that Osama bin Laden was made to look responsible to facilitate the UK Prime Minster and U.S. President’s aims.

http://cdn.unilad.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/corbyn-911-3.jpg

In the 2003 piece for The Morning Star, Corbyn wrote:

"Historians will study with interest the news manipulation of the past 18 months. After September 11, the claims that bin Laden and al-Qaida had committed the atrocity were quickly and loudly made. This was turned into an attack on the Taliban and then, subtly, into regime change in Afghanistan."

In a number of prior articles, Corbyn appeared to endorse the controversial conspiracy theories about the ‘New World Order’.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/files/2015/09/osama.jpg

In 2011, Corbyn famously said that it was “a tragedy” that Bin Laden was never put on trial, a statement he was recently misquoted on by those who oppose him.

In that interview, he said:

"There was no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him, to put him on trial, to go through that process. This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy. The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died. Torture has come back on to the world stage, been canonised virtually into law by Guantanamo and Bagram. Can’t we learn some lessons over this?"

Jeremy Corbyn is conducting his first Labour conference as leader today, already calling for a crackdown on tax avoidance but admitting that he will face a battle convincing MPs that the UK’s Nuclear Trident plans should be scrapped.

http://www.unilad.co.uk/articles/jeremy-corbyn-says-911-a-conspiracy-attacks-manipulated-to-blame-osama-bin-laden/

[JoshBB]

This is all rubbish scaremongering.

[Northern Monkey]

This is all rubbish scaremongering.

Let's hope so!
A man with views like that has no business running a country.Which is what he aspires to.

[Samuel.]

It's probably the least crazy conspiracy theory

[Scarlett.]

Well, at least he didn't **** a dead pig in the mouth.

[Northern Monkey]

Well, at least he didn't **** a dead pig in the mouth.

Haha!Someone had to.

[Mystic Mock]

yet if it was someone like the leader of ukip saying this, you'd be eating this all up, wouldn't you?

Tbh they'd be an idiot like Corbyn is if they wanted to lead the country and then attack what is perceived by many as the UK and USA's “greatest” moment in the 21st century.

I personally think that there's two sides to a story so I can understand where Corbyn and other people are coming from in that it's not all necessarily Al Quaeda's the bad guys whilst us and America are the saints, but I do think that we need to go with the evidence that has been given to us and that's Al Quaeda bombed America so America was right to go into war with Afghanistan.

Although America does need to stop trying to interfere so much with the Middle East, they're just gonna make them resent us more every time that they try to interfere.

[Shaun]

Are we really citing a website called 'Unilad' now

[Kizzy]

:joker:

[arista]

Are we really citing a website called 'Unilad' now



You Are Most Wise

[user104658]

The deliberate assassination (rather than capture) of Bin Laden and then the convenient "dumping" of his body in the sea before anyone outside of the military so much as glanced at it... Is one of the most ludicrous narratives of the last hundred years.

But it's one of those things that you're "not allowed" to talk about. You just have to accept it as a perfectly normal sequence of events, or else you're branded a loony conspiracy theorist.

[kirklancaster]

I personally don't give a flying feck how the evil psychopathic bastard was killed just as long as he was. God Bless America.

[joeysteele]

Tbh they'd be an idiot like Corbyn is if they wanted to lead the country and then attack what is perceived by many as the UK and USA's “greatest” moment in the 21st century.

I personally think that there's two sides to a story so I can understand where Corbyn and other people are coming from in that it's not all necessarily Al Quaeda's the bad guys whilst us and America are the saints, but I do think that we need to go with the evidence that has been given to us and that's Al Quaeda bombed America so America was right to go into war with Afghanistan.

Although America does need to stop trying to interfere so much with the Middle East, they're just gonna make them resent us more every time that they try to interfere.

Good post Mock, I agree with all that.

[user104658]

I personally don't give a flying feck how the evil psychopathic bastard was killed just as long as he was. God Bless America.
But if he was who he supposedly was, and they had every chance to take him alive (which they did), then he would potentially have been an absolute goldmine of anti-terrorist intelligence? Yet he was "oops" killed in, supposedly, some sort of trigger-happy raid where he may or may not have been holding a potato gun.

And then the body was "disposed of" very quickly, in questionable circumstances, with near nonsensical excuses.

It just doesn't make any sense. The story doesn't add up, at all. What's the real reason for the body dump? I'm not quite on board with the idea that it wasn't him (some people suggest it was all PR and he had actually randomly died months earlier) but my personal suspicion is that forensic examination of the body wouldn't have matched up with the story that was given about how he was killed. For example, if he was shot from behind while running away, or if he was already tied up and then executed.

[joeysteele]

But if he was who he supposedly was, and they had every chance to take him alive (which they did), then he would potentially have been an absolute goldmine of anti-terrorist intelligence? Yet he was "oops" killed in, supposedly, some sort of trigger-happy raid where he may or may not have been holding a potato gun.
And then the body was "disposed of" very quickly, in questionable circumstances, with near nonsensical excuses.

It just doesn't make any sense. The story doesn't add up, at all. What's the real reason for the body dump? I'm not quite on board with the idea that it wasn't him (some people suggest it was all PR and he had actually randomly died months earlier) but my personal suspicion is that forensic examination of the body wouldn't have matched up with the story that was given about how he was killed. For example, if he was shot from behind while running away, or if he was already tied up and then executed.

Totally agree with all that.

[DemolitionRed]

The deliberate assassination (rather than capture) of Bin Laden and then the convenient "dumping" of his body in the sea before anyone outside of the military so much as glanced at it... Is one of the most ludicrous narratives of the last hundred years.

But it's one of those things that you're "not allowed" to talk about. You just have to accept it as a perfectly normal sequence of events, or else you're branded a loony conspiracy theorist.

:clap1:

[Niamh.]

But if he was who he supposedly was, and they had every chance to take him alive (which they did), then he would potentially have been an absolute goldmine of anti-terrorist intelligence? Yet he was "oops" killed in, supposedly, some sort of trigger-happy raid where he may or may not have been holding a potato gun.

And then the body was "disposed of" very quickly, in questionable circumstances, with near nonsensical excuses.

It just doesn't make any sense. The story doesn't add up, at all. What's the real reason for the body dump? I'm not quite on board with the idea that it wasn't him (some people suggest it was all PR and he had actually randomly died months earlier) but my personal suspicion is that forensic examination of the body wouldn't have matched up with the story that was given about how he was killed. For example, if he was shot from behind while running away, or if he was already tied up and then executed.

The series of events was a little strange I have to admit. I don't know why questioning it should make anyone think you're a crazy conspiracy theorist but you're right it does

[DemolitionRed]

So many questions regarding Osam Bin Laden's death remain unanswered.

[kirklancaster]

There are people out there who are oh so willing to believe the most ludicrous, uncorroborated rubbish about ANYONE just as long as it suits their own political stance:

"Nigel Farage Ate My Albanian Immigrant Hamster"

But let genuine reportage surface which speaks the CORROBORATED truth about one of their political dah-lings and they are up in arms decreeing it all "Fake", "Character Assassination", and "Lies", or worse - they lambaste the sources of the reports as; "Right Wing Propagandists".

It does not matter what colour Paul Revere's horse was when he announced that "The British Are Coming" - 'The British' were, indeed, 'Coming', and it does not matter what political bias (if any) the media has which reports these unsavoury facts about Corbyn - He SAID them. Provable, checkable - He SAID them.

I do not give a hoot what Corbyn and/or his PR Machine say now about;

"That was a long time ago and Jeremy's changed", "Oh, Jeremy was deliberately misquoted" etc. etc. The man is a treacherous fifth columnist who wishes to gain the most powerful political position in the UK so that he can render this country totally defenseless against threats from without, and totally defenseless to insurrection from within due to the unprecedented numbers of ANT-BRITISH immigrants he will have let flood into the UK with his nefarious policies.

"Jeremy's changed" :nono:

That's like the 'Zeus' virus - reputedly the most lethal 'Trojan Horse' virus known - suddenly saying (if it could talk) "I'm no longer a threat to your PC, I've changed. Let me in. Put me in charge of your PC's security".

Oh yeah. Jeremy. Sure.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I thought it was IKEA that did 9/11

:suspect:

[kirklancaster]

But if he was who he supposedly was, and they had every chance to take him alive (which they did), then he would potentially have been an absolute goldmine of anti-terrorist intelligence? Yet he was "oops" killed in, supposedly, some sort of trigger-happy raid where he may or may not have been holding a potato gun.

And then the body was "disposed of" very quickly, in questionable circumstances, with near nonsensical excuses.

It just doesn't make any sense. The story doesn't add up, at all. What's the real reason for the body dump? I'm not quite on board with the idea that it wasn't him (some people suggest it was all PR and he had actually randomly died months earlier) but my personal suspicion is that forensic examination of the body wouldn't have matched up with the story that was given about how he was killed. For example, if he was shot from behind while running away, or if he was already tied up and then executed.

I simply do not care T.S. As far as I am concerned it is one terrorist less and many innocent people can sleep more safely in their beds with each terrorist who is disposed of the same way - no matter in which manner that was.

[Niamh.]

I simply do not care T.S. As far as I am concerned it is one terrorist less and many innocent people can sleep more safely in their beds with each terrorist who is disposed of the same way - no matter in which manner that was.

For me, it's not because I care about Osama Bin Laden, I'm just wondering what the Americans wanted covering up (if anything of course)

[user104658]

I simply do not care T.S. As far as I am concerned it is one terrorist less and many innocent people can sleep more safely in their beds with each terrorist who is disposed of the same way - no matter in which manner that was.
The thing that saves the most lives is counter intelligence and the information that, presumably, could have been gotten from Bin Laden - a supposed head of the snake - would have been worth infinitely more than one dead terrorist.

That's somewhere we'll always differ though Kirk. I'd rather live and die hearing the truth than be safer in ignorance.

[kirklancaster]

I thought it was IKEA that did 9/11

:suspect:

:laugh: The way the towers collapsed, it could have been MFI who built them.

[Ammi]

The thing that saves the most lives is counter intelligence and the information that, presumably, could have been gotten from Bin Laden - a supposed head of the snake - would have been worth infinitely more than one dead terrorist.

That's somewhere we'll always differ though Kirk. I'd rather live and die hearing the truth than be safer in ignorance.

...it is all odd and this isn't something I've given though to until just now but because of his 'value', would they have thought that him being alive and captured could just lead to many hostage situations to get him back../released..?..

[kirklancaster]

The thing that saves the most lives is counter intelligence and the information that, presumably, could have been gotten from Bin Laden - a supposed head of the snake - would have been worth infinitely more than one dead terrorist.

That's somewhere we'll always differ thoufacing gh Kirk. I'd rather live and die hearing the truth than be safer in ignorance.

I do not hold with being ignorant T.S. - not in any way. I absorb as much knowledge as I can, about all subjects.

However, I was not the ones with Bin Laden that night in a terrorist-friendly country, faced with potentially overwhelming odds and the job of capturing the world's No. 1 Murdering Terrorist at the time.

I do not know - no more than you or anyone else does - exactly what happened that night.

Perhaps Bin Laden went for a gun. Perhaps he went to scratch his dick. I don't know and I do not care.

I PRESUME that the US Military who were there WOULD have taken him alive IF they had the choice, but with spilt second decisions to make, if the ONLY resort was to kill him then I'm happy to leave it at that.

If someone could hold up Jihadi John's dead body somewhere in the world, I would not care either if they had shot him with a whaling harpoon gun while was sitting on the toilet or in the back while was running away.

Personally, I hope that if the day comes when Jihadi John gets his, that he is shot straight between the eyes while he is knelt, unharmed, and begging for his miserable life.

But, hey ho - that's me.

[Tom4784]

I'm loving this desperation from the media to smear Corbyn in any way possible. Their fear is real.

[user104658]

I do not hold with being ignorant T.S. - not in any way. I absorbe as much knowledge as I can, about all subjects.

However, I was not the ones with Bin Laden that night in a terrorist-friendly country, faced with potentially overwhelming odds and the job of capturing the world's No. 1 Murdering Terrorist at the time.

I do not know - no more than you or anyone else does - exactly what happened that night.

Perhaps Bin Laden went for a gun. Perhaps he went to scratch his dick. I don't know and I do not care.

I PRESUME that the US Military who were there WOULD have taken him alive IF they had the choice, but with spilt second decisions to make, if the ONLY resort was to kill him then I'm happy to leave it at that.

If someone could hold up Jihadi John's dead body somewhere in the world, I would not care either if they had shot him with a whaling harpoon gun while was sitting on the toilet or in the back while was running away.

Personally, I hope that if the day comes when Jihadi John gets his, that he is shot straight between the eyes while he is knelt, unharmed, and begging for his miserable life.

But, hey ho - that's me.
And the reasoning for dumping the body? You're happy to buy into that, too? I don't know exactly what happened there that night either, obviously, but the only reason I can think of for the swift and secretive disposal of the body is that they don't want anyone to know how it went down. That bothers me. You're happy to accept it at face value "for the greater good". That's fine, but in my opinion, it's willful ignorance.

As for how I know that it's not all what it seems to be at face value? That one's easy. Simply nothing EVER is. Never. Not in interactions between individuals, not in politics, and certainly not in war.

[kirklancaster]

I'm loving this desperation from the media to smear Corbyn in any way possible. Their fear is real.

:laugh: The only desperation I discern is from Corbyn and his PR Machine trying to defend his indefensible position - an increasingly precarious position at that.


The truth is out there Mulder - Read it and weep.

http://http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3249892/Corbyn-s-conspiracy-theory-9-11-attacks-manipulated-make-look-like-Osama-Bin-Laden-responsible.html

[kirklancaster]

And the reasoning for dumping the body? You're happy to buy into that, too? I don't know exactly what happened there that night either, obviously, but the only reason I can think of for the swift and secretive disposal of the body is that they don't want anyone to know how it went down. That bothers me. You're happy to accept it at face value "for the greater good". That's fine, but in my opinion, it's willful ignorance.

As for how I know that it's not all what it seems to be at face value? That one's easy. Simply nothing EVER is. Never. Not in interactions between individuals, not in politics, and certainly not in war.

Yep - I agree with you, so with so many other 'lies' and 'mysteries' to try to fathom, why the war dance over a piece of scum killer like Bin Laden?

I have my own mystery concerning this:

Our local council use to empty my bins EVERY week - now, despite ever greater increases in Council Tax, they only empty them every 4 weeks - and that leaves my Bin not only Laden, but over laden. It's a mystery. :laugh:

[Tom4784]

:laugh: The only desperation I discern is from Corbyn and his PR Machine trying to defend his indefensible position - an increasingly precarious position at that.


The truth is out there Mulder - Read it and weep.

http://http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3249892/Corbyn-s-conspiracy-theory-9-11-attacks-manipulated-make-look-like-Osama-Bin-Laden-responsible.html

How exactly is it indefensible?

A lot of people think that 9/11 was an inside job, I don't personally believe that's the case but I believe that it could be possible so I'm not gonna crucify someone for believing it.

He's right on the money when it comes to his comments about Bin Laden's assassination, it was dumb and overly emotional and we could have eradicated Al Quaeda using intel we could have gained from a living and incarcerated Bin Ladin. Killing him like they did just meant that the cat and mouse game began anew.

There is a lot to be learned from it all.

[Northern Monkey]

Personally i hope those SEALS tortured the **** out of Bin Laden before they killed him.

[kirklancaster]

Personally i hope those SEALS tortured the **** out of Bin Laden before they killed him.

:clap1::clap1::clap1: Me too.

[the truth]

agree with all the cynicism about the dumping of bin ladens body.....it stinks ...the west spent billions, a decade of time, thousands of lives were lost and we didn't even get to witness a body? it stinks and I don't believe a word of it

[Kazanne]

Well, at least he didn't **** a dead pig in the mouth.

Well we don't actually know that for sure,do we:laugh:

[JoshBB]

I'm loving this desperation from the media to smear Corbyn in any way possible. Their fear is real.

A true anti-establishment politician.

[user104658]

agree with all the cynicism about the dumping of bin ladens body.....it stinks ...the west spent billions, a decade of time, thousands of lives were lost and we didn't even get to witness a body? it stinks and I don't believe a word of it
Exactly, it doesn't make sense at all, so much so that part of me DOES believe the theory that he was already dead.

That is, Bin Laden died of natural causes before he was found... Something which wouldn't sit well with the American public (as it would mean he got away with his supposed mass murder and died comfortably in his bed) and so they invented a scenario where they "found him" but he was killed during the raid and they then disposed of the "wrapped up" body before anyone could see it and said "yaaay we got him!".

[Northern Monkey]

Exactly, it doesn't make sense at all, so much so that part of me DOES believe the theory that he was already dead.

That is, Bin Laden died of natural causes before he was found... Something which wouldn't sit well with the American public (as it would mean he got away with his supposed mass murder and died comfortably in his bed) and so they invented a scenario where they "found him" but he was killed during the raid and they then disposed of the "wrapped up" body before anyone could see it and said "yaaay we got him!".I also actually believe that is a possibility too.Only a possibility though.
I am more inclined to believe they got him and were'nt very 'humane' with him and were'nt relishing the outcome of the autopsy.If that is the case i have no sympathy for him.It is one of Obama's great achievements or is it?
The American people needed a feeling of justice regarding 9/11 and it did nothing but good for Obama.

[kirklancaster]

But, I mean, really - Who cares?

[smudgie]

Perhaps they shot him in case he had a bomb strapped to him, take no chances.
Then feed him to the fish so he has no grave to be worshipped at.:shrug:
Whatever way he died, Good riddance.

[kirklancaster]

Perhaps they shot him in case he had a bomb Then feed him to the fish so he has no grave to be worshipped at.:shrug:
Whatever way he died, Good riddance.

In admiration, I've just penned this quickie for you Smudgie:

"When tha thinks all but thee's insane
and thar at thi own wit's end,
Up pops Smudgie - another Yorkshire Brain,
Who talks same Yorkshire sense. "

Thank you Smudgie.

And **** Bin Laden.

[Livia]

Whether he said this or not is just a side issue. Some of his documented serious opinions and intentions are far more left field... I'm sure there will be more threads as his unworkable ideology goes on...

[kirklancaster]

Whether he said this or not is just a side issue. Some of his documented serious opinions and intentions are far more left field... I'm sure there will be more threads as his unworkable ideology goes on...

You are correct - This thread has been deflected away from nutjob Corbyn - a live threat to the UK - onto DustBin Laden - a dead ex-threat to the UK.

[Livia]

You are correct - This thread has been deflected away from nutjob Corbyn - a live threat to the UK - onto DustBin Laden - a dead ex-threat to the UK.

Ahhh yes, Bin Laden. No expensive trial, no grave for his followers to make into a shrine. Works for me.

[kirklancaster]

Ahhh yes, Bin Laden. No expensive trial, no grave for his followers to make into a shrine. Works for me.

And no live prisoner that his demented followers can take hostages for in exchange for his release. Good job done all round Liv.

[DemolitionRed]

But let genuine reportage surface which speaks the CORROBORATED truth about one of their political dah-lings and they are up in arms decreeing it all "Fake", "Character Assassination", and "Lies", or worse - they lambaste the sources of the reports as; "Right Wing Propagandists".

Do you mean the corroborated truth from the Daily Mail?

These stories are edited to reflect an agenda and depending on which paper you read and depending on whether you have a capitalist or socialist view on politics, then these stories will reflect or oppose your opinions. Ultimately this isn't about simple capitalism or socialism, its about whether or not you and your loved ones feel looked after. What I mean by 'looked after' is of course subjective.

Some people with a keen political interest, won't take anything a right wing or a left wing story tells us without going off and digging a little deeper. There are quite a few examples over the past few weeks where popular tabloids have taken only part of a whole story and turned it into something it isn't....Corbyn's support of Islamic extremists and the IRA is a case in point.

As a right wing thinker, you likely want to believe these stories because they give you the ammunition you need to demonise this man. I, on the other hand worry that such stories may or may not be true so I go about searching for the full story and the truth behind the headlines. Only the bigger picture shows truth and not some sensational headline from the right wing/left wing propaganda machine.

Any political opinion, whether right wing or left wing, should never be held with dogmatism and rigidity. Growth of knowledge is what's important here because if we can't have an intelligent political debate, all we can do is hit stalemate.

[Mitchell]

If Corbyn thinks he will be elected in 2020...

[Tom4784]

If Corbyn thinks he will be elected in 2020...

I hope he is. A much better prospect than another four hellish years under a bunch of pig ****ers.

[Northern Monkey]

But let genuine reportage surface which speaks the CORROBORATED truth about one of their political dah-lings and they are up in arms decreeing it all "Fake", "Character Assassination", and "Lies", or worse - they lambaste the sources of the reports as; "Right Wing Propagandists".

Do you mean the corroborated truth from the Daily Mail?

These stories are edited to reflect an agenda and depending on which paper you read and depending on whether you have a capitalist or socialist view on politics, then these stories will reflect or oppose your opinions. Ultimately this isn't about simple capitalism or socialism, its about whether or not you and your loved ones feel looked after. What I mean by 'looked after' is of course subjective.

Some people with a keen political interest, won't take anything a right wing or a left wing story tells us without going off and digging a little deeper. There are quite a few examples over the past few weeks where popular tabloids have taken only part of a whole story and turned it into something it isn't....Corbyn's support of Islamic extremists and the IRA is a case in point.

As a right wing thinker, you likely want to believe these stories because they give you the ammunition you need to demonise this man. I, on the other hand worry that such stories may or may not be true so I go about searching for the full story and the truth behind the headlines. Only the bigger picture shows truth and not some sensational headline from the right wing/left wing propaganda machine.

Any political opinion, whether right wing or left wing, should never be held with dogmatism and rigidity. Growth of knowledge is what's important here because if we can't have an intelligent political debate, all we can do is hit stalemate.
You are very wise.

[letmein]

But if he was who he supposedly was, and they had every chance to take him alive (which they did), then he would potentially have been an absolute goldmine of anti-terrorist intelligence? Yet he was "oops" killed in, supposedly, some sort of trigger-happy raid where he may or may not have been holding a potato gun.

And then the body was "disposed of" very quickly, in questionable circumstances, with near nonsensical excuses.

It just doesn't make any sense. The story doesn't add up, at all. What's the real reason for the body dump? I'm not quite on board with the idea that it wasn't him (some people suggest it was all PR and he had actually randomly died months earlier) but my personal suspicion is that forensic examination of the body wouldn't have matched up with the story that was given about how he was killed. For example, if he was shot from behind while running away, or if he was already tied up and then executed.

They did everything in keeping with Islamic law; not providing Islamic extremists ammunition to kill troops. It's the same reason why Hitler's bunker's location is also kept a secret by the German government. Everything was done correctly. Yes, it fuels conspiracy theories, but conspiracy theorists will always come up with something no matter what.

[letmein]

I'm loving this desperation from the media to smear Corbyn in any way possible. Their fear is real.

Corbyn's fangurls are impossible. The man is a scumbag.

[letmein]

A true anti-establishment politician.

A true nutcase.

[Samuel.]

Corbyn's fangurls are impossible. The man is a scumbag.

What about him makes you feel that?

Just out of curiosity. I've seen people call him delusional but scumbag or words to that effect, not so much.

[Mitchell]

I hope he is. A much better prospect than another four hellish years under a bunch of pig ****ers.

IMO he is completely the wrong choice for a labour leader, as was Ed Miliband (and Brown tbh), I believe in a lot of labours views, but 1. I couldn't justify not voting for my Tory MP who is amazing in our constituency and actually cares about our opinions and represents us rather than herself and 2. I couldn't trust Ed Miliband running a powerpoint presentation in year 4's assembly, let alone the country.

[user104658]

They did everything in keeping with Islamic law; not providing Islamic extremists ammunition to kill troops. It's the same reason why Hitler's bunker's location is also kept a secret by the German government. Everything was done correctly. Yes, it fuels conspiracy theories, but conspiracy theorists will always come up with something no matter what.
http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1328955548/014/6404014.jpg

...

In all seriousness though, I wish I could be like you, it would certainly make life a whole lot simpler.

[kirklancaster]

You are very wise.

Paul, correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are complimenting Demolition Red for her post in error. I believe that you read the emboldened section believing it to be her view, when in reality, it was part of my post which she was quoting and which was in fact, the polar opposite of her views.

Here is my post in its entirety:

"There are people out there who are oh so willing to believe the most ludicrous, uncorroborated rubbish about ANYONE just as long as it suits their own political stance:

"Nigel Farage Ate My Albanian Immigrant Hamster"

But let genuine reportage surface which speaks the CORROBORATED truth about one of their political dah-lings and they are up in arms decreeing it all "Fake", "Character Assassination", and "Lies", or worse - they lambaste the sources of the reports as; "Right Wing Propagandists".

It does not matter what colour Paul Revere's horse was when he announced that "The British Are Coming" - 'The British' were, indeed, 'Coming', and it does not matter what political bias (if any) the media has which reports these unsavoury facts about Corbyn - He SAID them. Provable, checkable - He SAID them.

I do not give a hoot what Corbyn and/or his PR Machine say now about;

"That was a long time ago and Jeremy's changed", "Oh, Jeremy was deliberately misquoted" etc. etc. The man is a treacherous fifth columnist who wishes to gain the most powerful political position in the UK so that he can render this country totally defenseless against threats from without, and totally defenseless to insurrection from within due to the unprecedented numbers of ANT-BRITISH immigrants he will have let flood into the UK with his nefarious policies.

"Jeremy's changed"

That's like the 'Zeus' virus - reputedly the most lethal 'Trojan Horse' virus known - suddenly saying (if it could talk) "I'm no longer a threat to your PC, I've changed. Let me in. Put me in charge of your PC's security".

Oh yeah. Jeremy. Sure."

If I am wrong, and you are indeed applauding Red's post, then I apologise.

[DemolitionRed]

Yes but my post came after reading numerous posts from you spouting off about what Corbyn is and what left wing thinkers are, based on right wing propaganda.

You, possibly more than anyone else here, belittle and make nonsense of every serious political debate we attempt to have.

[kirklancaster]

Do you mean the corroborated truth from the Daily Mail?

These stories are edited to reflect an agenda and depending on which paper you read and depending on whether you have a capitalist or socialist view on politics, then these stories will reflect or oppose your opinions. Ultimately this isn't about simple capitalism or socialism, its about whether or not you and your loved ones feel looked after. What I mean by 'looked after' is of course subjective.

Some people with a keen political interest, won't take anything a right wing or a left wing story tells us without going off and digging a little deeper. There are quite a few examples over the past few weeks where popular tabloids have taken only part of a whole story and turned it into something it isn't....Corbyn's support of Islamic extremists and the IRA is a case in point.

As a right wing thinker, you likely want to believe these stories because they give you the ammunition you need to demonise this man. I, on the other hand worry that such stories may or may not be true so I go about searching for the full story and the truth behind the headlines. Only the bigger picture shows truth and not some sensational headline from the right wing/left wing propaganda machine.

Any political opinion, whether right wing or left wing, should never be held with dogmatism and rigidity. Growth of knowledge is what's important here because if we can't have an intelligent political debate, all we can do is hit stalemate.
............................... End Of Quote.............................................

Wow - 'The Ego Has Landed'. I'm sorry, but EGO permeates every sentence of your post.

"As a right wing thinker, you likely want to believe these stories because they give you the ammunition you need to demonise this man. I, on the other hand worry that such stories may or may not be true so I go about searching for the full story and the truth behind the headlines.]Only the bigger picture shows truth and not some sensational headline from the right wing/left wing propaganda machine."

Just where, in the many posts which I have contributed to this forum, do you educe that I am so poorly read or narrowly informed, that I formulate my opinions from just one source?

I have repeatedly stressed that I do not make up my mind based upon the first thing I read or see, and that I cross-reference and research further before forming an opinion - and this includes directly informing you of these facts on other threads.

I certainly do not need lessons from you on this subject - especially in such a patronising post which seems as if it has been written by a pompous Primary School teacher for the benefit of her class of 7 year olds.

"Ultimately this isn't about simple capitalism or socialism, its about whether or not you and your loved ones feel looked after. What I mean by 'looked after' is of course subjective."

Subjective, it certainly is. 'Looked after'? Now let me see:

Would I feel my children and grandchildrens future would be assured and that they would be 'looked after' under Corbyn's ideal United Kingdom?

No Nuclear Deterrent at a time when more than ever we need one - because of the threat from insane Islamic Terrorists who will stop at nothing to destroy our Christian Western Demoracy and rebuild another Mecca Phoenix-like from the ashes?

No Military Services at all, or a decimated token 'Banana Republic' army at best, where 'Boots On Ground' means very few boots, and severely worn, ill-fitting ones at best?

Oh I could go on-and-on, but no need, because MY answer is - No. I would NOT feel that I or my loved ones would be 'Looked after'. NEXT:

"Some people with a keen political interest, won't take anything a right wing or a left wing story tells us without going off and digging a little deeper. There are quite a few examples over the past few weeks where popular tabloids have taken only part of a whole story and turned it into something it isn't....Corbyn's support of Islamic extremists and the IRA is a case in point."

Here, I will simply challenge you to abandon your rhetoric and debate me on whether Corbyn is an anti-UK terrorist sympathiser or not, and whether he has, indeed, said the things he is quoted in MANY media reports of having said.

Incidentally, your: "Some people with a keen political interest, won't take anything a right wing or a left wing story tells us without going off and digging a little deeper." is offensive and arrogant. You are not the only one who has "a keen political interest", though your sentence is 'self-elevating' in this respect.

"Any political opinion, whether right wing or left wing, should never be held with dogmatism and rigidity. Growth of knowledge is what's important here because if we can't have an intelligent political debate, all we can do is hit stalemate."

I could not agree more, but "intelligent political debate" does not mean ignoring FACTS - CORROBORATED HARD TRUTHS - once presented by the other side, and continuing on with views which such hard facts have demolished as wrong.

So let us debate.

[kirklancaster]

Yes but my post came after reading numerous posts from you spouting off about what Corbyn is and what left wing thinkers are, based on right wing propaganda.

You, possibly more than anyone else here, belittle and make nonsense of every serious political debate we attempt to have.

Not based upon 'Right Wing propaganda - or any other 'propaganda', only upon unimpeachable hard historical FACT. Corbyn's personal ideologies are transparent by his own words and deeds, and are historically documented for the world to see and read and hear.

No one has fabricated all the videos featuring this dangerous idiot, and no one has forged all the written words he has uttered in public.

[Northern Monkey]

Paul, correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are complimenting Demolition Red for her post in error. I believe that you read the emboldened section believing it to be her view, when in reality, it was part of my post which she was quoting and which was in fact, the polar opposite of her views.

Here is my post in its entirety:

"There are people out there who are oh so willing to believe the most ludicrous, uncorroborated rubbish about ANYONE just as long as it suits their own political stance:

"Nigel Farage Ate My Albanian Immigrant Hamster"

But let genuine reportage surface which speaks the CORROBORATED truth about one of their political dah-lings and they are up in arms decreeing it all "Fake", "Character Assassination", and "Lies", or worse - they lambaste the sources of the reports as; "Right Wing Propagandists".

It does not matter what colour Paul Revere's horse was when he announced that "The British Are Coming" - 'The British' were, indeed, 'Coming', and it does not matter what political bias (if any) the media has which reports these unsavoury facts about Corbyn - He SAID them. Provable, checkable - He SAID them.

I do not give a hoot what Corbyn and/or his PR Machine say now about;

"That was a long time ago and Jeremy's changed", "Oh, Jeremy was deliberately misquoted" etc. etc. The man is a treacherous fifth columnist who wishes to gain the most powerful political position in the UK so that he can render this country totally defenseless against threats from without, and totally defenseless to insurrection from within due to the unprecedented numbers of ANT-BRITISH immigrants he will have let flood into the UK with his nefarious policies.

"Jeremy's changed"

That's like the 'Zeus' virus - reputedly the most lethal 'Trojan Horse' virus known - suddenly saying (if it could talk) "I'm no longer a threat to your PC, I've changed. Let me in. Put me in charge of your PC's security".

Oh yeah. Jeremy. Sure."

If I am wrong, and you are indeed applauding Red's post, then I apologise.
IIRC i was complementing the very last paragraph of Reds post.IIRC,It was late.I use my phone on here though and don't know how to embolden.But you're right i did'nt know that was a quote from your post.

[DemolitionRed]

I'm taking a quick coffee break from work, which is just about over, so I don't have time to properly respond at this moment in time.

I'm not ignoring this and will respond later. :)

[user104658]

Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that whilst I actually like and agree with a lot of what Corbyn has to say and what he stands for... He is actually pretty awful at expressing himself and his intentions clearly and his good messages are ham-fisted (wahey Dave...) and end up swaying between extreme and naive.

It's a shame. What we need is a Corbyn 20 years younger with a stronger, clearer voice.

[MTVN]

Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that whilst I actually like and agree with a lot of what Corbyn has to say and what he stands for... He is actually pretty awful at expressing himself and his intentions clearly and his good messages are ham-fisted (wahey Dave...) and end up swaying between extreme and naive.

It's a shame. What we need is a Corbyn 20 years younger with a stronger, clearer voice.

That's part of the reason no one had really heard of him before the leadership campaign. He wasn't mainstream enough to be offered a role in government but he also wasn't charismatic enough to become a prominent left-winger in his own right like Tony Benn was and, to a lesser extent, someone like Dennis Skinner. Corbyn has just floated around for thirty odd years not making much of an impact on anyone. Yes he has now mobilised a certain demographic but I think that was more a case of being in the right place at the right time for him.

[DemolitionRed]

That's part of the reason no one had really heard of him before the leadership campaign. He wasn't mainstream enough to be offered a role in government but he also wasn't charismatic enough to become a prominent left-winger in his own right like Tony Benn was and, to a lesser extent, someone like Dennis Skinner. Corbyn has just floated around for thirty odd years not making much of an impact on anyone. Yes he has now mobilised a certain demographic but I think that was more a case of being in the right place at the right time for him.

There are many reasons Corbyn hasn't been in the lime light regarding front row politics. New Labour put Corbyn where he would be most useful but because of his brand of left wing politics they needed to ensure they kept him busy.

Corbyn was used (along with others) on behalf of the labour party, to set about peace talks with Sinn Fein, Jerry Adams, Fatah, Hezbollah and Hamas. He's the man who has made a life long commitment to 'his' cause; the man who was Islington North local MP for 32 years; the man with the lowest expenses claims of any MP on record and a champion of controversial causes.

Even if people hate Corbyn's ideas, He's the fly in the ointment that will bring the Tory's racing back towards middle ground. He is a kick up the ass and just what the Tories needed.

[DemolitionRed]

Wow - 'The Ego Has Landed'. I'm sorry, but EGO permeates every sentence of your post.

Ego is Ego; it’s neither negative or positive and its something we all poses because its what forms our personality so yes, my ego represented what I said in my post and your ego represents your response to me.

I was deliberately careful with my words; tiptoed on eggshells if you like, NOT to overly offend you but for someone who is so easily offended (by me), I may as well of pitched a tent on your property and thrown your kittens down the well.

I certainly do not need lessons from you on this subject - especially in such a patronising post which seems as if it has been written by a pompous Primary School teacher for the benefit of her class of 7 year olds.

For goodness sake, calm down. You, the man who has done little more than patronize virtually everything I’ve ever had to say on here, is now getting a monk on because he himself feels patronized...how very dare I?!?!. If you can’t take a taste your own medicine, then I suggest you stop baiting me at every opportunity. Unlike you, I rarely get personal but that doesn’t mean I can’t.

Would I feel my children and grandchildrens future would be assured and that they would be 'looked after' under Corbyn's ideal United Kingdom?

Like I said, its subjective. You have every right to feel the way you do; the same goes for me.

Here, I will simply challenge you to abandon your rhetoric and debate me on whether Corbyn is an anti-UK terrorist sympathiser or not, and whether he has, indeed, said the things he is quoted in MANY media reports of having said.

Incidentally, your: "Some people with a keen political interest, won't take anything a right wing or a left wing story tells us without going off and digging a little deeper." is offensive and arrogant. You are not the only one who has "a keen political interest", though your sentence is 'self-elevating' in this respect.


Here we go again. You really do need to calm down and stop taking things SO personally.
I’ve already written about the ‘lies’ regarding Corbyn being an anti-UK terrorist sympathizer but I’ll say this one more time.

The Tory party were the ones who started the peace talks with NI. When Labour got elected in 1997 Corbyn was asked (on behalf of the government) to act as 'go between'. The big sticking point was the release of political prisoners because without that, there would be no peace talks. Corbyn and his staff, under direct government instruction, spent months talking to both prisoners and their reps regarding the proposed 'prisoner release scheme'. This was his key role in getting the Good Friday agreement. Without talking to the Sinn Fein the IRA could not of agreed to any peace agreement.

I can't prove this is true, just as you can't prove this is untrue but this was well documented long before you or I had ever heard of Corbyn.

I can show you words written and voiced by Corbyn regarding the reasons behind his assosiation with Raed Salah, Hamas, Hezbollah but I can't categorically tell you he's speaking the truth, though understanding his involvement in The Good Friday Agreement, I could probably summarise his words are truth.

Do you have proof that this man is a traitor? If so I'm all ears.

[MTVN]

There are many reasons Corbyn hasn't been in the lime light regarding front row politics. New Labour put Corbyn where he would be most useful but because of his brand of left wing politics they needed to ensure they kept him busy.

Corbyn was used (along with others) on behalf of the labour party, to set about peace talks with Sinn Fein, Jerry Adams, Fatah, Hezbollah and Hamas. He's the man who has made a life long commitment to 'his' cause; the man who was Islington North local MP for 32 years; the man with the lowest expenses claims of any MP on record and a champion of controversial causes.

Even if people hate Corbyn's ideas, He's the fly in the ointment that will bring the Tory's racing back towards middle ground. He is a kick up the ass and just what the Tories needed.

Admittedly Corbyn became an MP at the height of defeat for Labour's left but he was still an MP for years before the birth of New Labour, he never made an impact then and he never made an impact after.

Corbyn has always been ideologically predisposed to Irish republicanism and lets be clear that his position on the IRA was always well removed from any British government in power throughout the Troubles. The same is true of Hezbollah and Hamas. Did he ever actually engage with those latter two in an official capacity?

[Livia]

The Tories are delighted with Corbyn. There were stories of Tories signing up to Labour just to vote him in and I believe that to be true. It couldn't have worked out better for them.

[kirklancaster]

Wow - 'The Ego Has Landed'. I'm sorry, but EGO permeates every sentence of your post.

Ego is Ego; it’s neither negative or positive and its something we all poses because its what forms our personality so yes, my ego represented what I said in my post and your ego represents your response to me.

I was deliberately careful with my words; tiptoed on eggshells if you like, NOT to overly offend you but for someone who is so easily offended (by me), I may as well of pitched a tent on your property and thrown your kittens down the well.

I certainly do not need lessons from you on this subject - especially in such a patronising post which seems as if it has been written by a pompous Primary School teacher for the benefit of her class of 7 year olds.

For goodness sake, calm down. You, the man who has done little more than patronize virtually everything I’ve ever had to say on here, is now getting a monk on because he himself feels patronized...how very dare I?!?!. If you can’t take a taste your own medicine, then I suggest you stop baiting me at every opportunity. Unlike you, I rarely get personal but that doesn’t mean I can’t.

Would I feel my children and grandchildrens future would be assured and that they would be 'looked after' under Corbyn's ideal United Kingdom?

Like I said, its subjective. You have every right to feel the way you do; the same goes for me.

Here, I will simply challenge you to abandon your rhetoric and debate me on whether Corbyn is an anti-UK terrorist sympathiser or not, and whether he has, indeed, said the things he is quoted in MANY media reports of having said.

Incidentally, your: "Some people with a keen political interest, won't take anything a right wing or a left wing story tells us without going off and digging a little deeper." is offensive and arrogant. You are not the only one who has "a keen political interest", though your sentence is 'self-elevating' in this respect.


Here we go again. You really do need to calm down and stop taking things SO personally.
I’ve already written about the ‘lies’ regarding Corbyn being an anti-UK terrorist sympathizer but I’ll say this one more time.

The Tory party were the ones who started the peace talks with NI. When Labour got elected in 1997 Corbyn was asked (on behalf of the government) to act as 'go between'. The big sticking point was the release of political prisoners because without that, there would be no peace talks. Corbyn and his staff, under direct government instruction, spent months talking to both prisoners and their reps regarding the proposed 'prisoner release scheme'. This was his key role in getting the Good Friday agreement. Without talking to the Sinn Fein the IRA could not of agreed to any peace agreement.

I can't prove this is true, just as you can't prove this is untrue but this was well documented long before you or I had ever heard of Corbyn.

I can show you words written and voiced by Corbyn regarding the reasons behind his assosiation with Raed Salah, Hamas, Hezbollah but I can't categorically tell you he's speaking the truth, though understanding his involvement in The Good Friday Agreement, I could probably summarise his words are truth.
w
Dao you have proof that this man is a traitor? If so I'm all ears.

:laugh: Laughing My Old Black Ass Off. Utter meaningless twaddle.

Please show me proof where I have 'baited' you 'at every opportunity'?

"tiptoed on eggshells if you like, NOT to overly offend" me? :laugh: B.S.

You mean you spout 'Leftie' rhetoric then when challenged with the truth, you get the jitters through having no appropriate response - as now; a whole lotta typing which says zilch.

As for; "Calm down, stop taking things so personally", I am calm, but do take things personally when things are personal - no matter what you say now.

And: "I’ve already written about the ‘lies’ regarding Corbyn being an anti-UK terrorist sympathizer but I’ll say this one more time."

:laugh: Listen to yourself! Do you think that because you call the truth a lie that this convinces? WHO are you. We can read, listen, and watch with our own senses, just as we can evaluate the information that we absorb from reading, listening and watching to formulate our own opinions on what is the truth or not.

And I am not some fat French cafe owner called Renee Artois, so you can save the; "Listen carefully, I will say this only once" routine.

In addition, how old are you, because - again - you presume too much when you state: "... but this was well documented long before you or I had ever heard of Corbyn." because I am old enough to have been well aware of Corbyn decades ago when I was actually a staunch Labour supporter and activist.

Your apologetics for Corbyn's involvement with murdering IRA terrorists and Hezbollah and Hamas won't wash with me I'm afraid, because logical fool that I am, I trust 30 years of Corbyn's own words and deeds far more than I trust 10 minutes of hastily cabbaged together white-washing and damage limitation now that the perennial shadow-dweller has been afforded the spotlight and a chance to become PM.

Finally luvvie, as far as providing you with proof that Corbyn is a traitor - define 'traitor', because your leftie definition will definitely be far removed from mine.

The truth is out there - Google it.

[DemolitionRed]

Admittedly Corbyn became an MP at the height of defeat for Labour's left but he was still an MP for years before the birth of New Labour, he never made an impact then and he never made an impact after.

Corbyn has always been ideologically predisposed to Irish republicanism and lets be clear that his position on the IRA was always well removed from any British government in power throughout the Troubles. The same is true of Hezbollah and Hamas. Did he ever actually engage with those latter two in an official capacity?

The Tories were the ones who started peace talks in Northern Ireland. Prior to that though, John Hume and Gerry Adams had already started peace talks and were negotiating a ceasefire. All of this has stalled before the Labour party were elected in 1997. This is when Mo Mowlan, on behalf of the British Government asked for Corbyn to be go between.

This is a question put to Corbyn by the Jewish Chronicle and beneath is Corbyn's reply

Why do you associate with Hamas and Hezbollah and refer to them as your “friends”?

The term ‘friends’ was used purely as diplomatic language in the context of dialogue, not an endorsement of a particular set of views. In the difficult quest of establishing a peace, it is common for the term “friend” to be used as part of the process. “Friend” in this case becomes a term of diplomacy as an aid to dialogue between disparate groups rather than a description of a relationship or an endorsement of a set of views.

Jeremy has met many people with whom he profoundly disagrees, in order to try to promote a peace process. He has supported and continues to support peace and reconciliation processes in South Africa, Latin and Central America, Ireland and of course in the Middle East. He believes it is necessary to speak to people with whom there is disagreement – merely talking to people who already agree won't bring about a settlement.

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/142656/jeremy-corbyn-responds-jc%E2%80%99s-seven-questions

[DemolitionRed]

This ones for you Kirk :joker:

[kirklancaster]

The Tories were the ones who started peace talks in Northern Ireland. Prior to that though, John Hume and Gerry Adams had already started peace talks and were negotiating a ceasefire. All of this has stalled before the Labour party were elected in 1997. This is when Mo Mowlan, on behalf of the British Government asked for Corbyn to be go between.

This is a question put to Corbyn by the Jewish Chronicle and beneath is Corbyn's reply

Why do you associate with Hamas and Hezbollah and refer to them as your “friends”?

The term ‘friends’ was used purely as diplomatic language in the context of dialogue, not an endorsement of a particular set of views. In the difficult quest of establishing a peace, it is common for the term “friend” to be used as part of the process. “Friend” in this case becomes a term of diplomacy as an aid to dialogue between disparate groups rather than a description of a relationship or an endorsement of a set of views.

Jeremy has met many people with whom he profoundly disagrees, in order to try to promote a peace process. He has supported and continues to support peace and reconciliation processes in South Africa, Latin and Central America, Ireland and of course in the Middle East. He believes it is necessary to speak to people with whom there is disagreement – merely talking to people who already agree won't bring about a settlement.

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/142656/jeremy-corbyn-responds-jc%E2%80%99s-seven-questions

Corbyn - NOW says - So what?

Did he once during those same speeches call the Israelis our 'FRIENDS'?

Did he hell - he called them; 'The Israelis'

And that was AFTER he insinuated that they were at fault for not granting one of his terrorist 'friends' leave to come here.

You can fool yourself but you ain't gonna fool old Kirk. Give me an Israeli any day and you can have Hezbollah and Hammas round to yours for tea - as long as it's not in this country.

[user104658]

You're fighting a losing battle there DR. Some people will never understand why Corbyn would want to engage diplomatically with terrorist leaders using gentle language, because they don't believe that those terrorists "deserve" the language of peace over bullets and bombs "because of the things they have done", perhaps because they see it as weak, or pandering. Even if that staunch refusal to engage in such communication means risking the lives of thousands more innocent people.

People prefer revenge but... meh. People are generally vengeful in all aspects of life.

[JoshBB]

People are really clutching at straws to criticise JC aren't they :joker:

[kirklancaster]

You're fighting a losing battle there DR. Some people will never understand why Corbyn would want to engage diplomatically with terrorist leaders using gentle language, because they don't believe that those terrorists "deserve" the language of peace over bullets and bombs "because of the things they have done", perhaps because they see it as weak, or pandering. Even if that staunch refusal to engage in such communication means risking the lives of thousands more innocent people.

People prefer revenge but... meh. People are generally vengeful in all aspects of life.

:laugh: Come off it T.S, it has zilch to do with a 'statesman' engaging diplomatically with terrorists for the 'greater good' - Corbyn admires and identifies with these murdering bastards. He has never once called the Israelis his 'friends' and is pro-Palestinian anti-Israeli in thought word and deed just as much as he was pro IRA before that.

[kirklancaster]

People are really clutching at straws to criticise JC aren't they :joker:

And a lot of 'people' are too blind to see the Haystack let alone where there is a straw to clutch.

Should have gone to specsavers.

[user104658]

[emoji23] Come off it T.S, it has zilch to do with a 'statesman' engaging diplomatically with terrorists for the 'greater good' - Corbyn admires and identifies with these murdering bastards. He has never once called the Israelis his 'friends' and is pro-Palestinian anti-Israeli in thought word and deed just as much as he was pro IRA before that.

There is honestly little to zero evidence that he admires or identifies with terrorists... You can state that there is hard evidence that he does, but there just isn't. Might it suggest that he does? Certainly it's not impossible, but to state that it's obvious or a certainty... Is skewed, to say the least.

As for his stance on Israel / Palestine... :shrug:. I'm far from being a "Palestine supporter" and certainly not a supporter of many of the methods used, or a supporter of the militarised groups within Palestine that would undoubtedly take full control if Israel was not present. However, that's a pragmatic "we're here now so what would actually happen if..." view. I wouldn't want Israel to fall because of the people who would fill the power vacuum. However, taking that out of the equation? I am 100% ideologically opposed to Israel in concept. I think it was an inflammatory mistake, no matter how you look at it.

Being anti-Israel does not alone make one a supporter of Islam or of Terrorism.

[user104658]

Oh, as for why he might not use the "friends" approach equally that should be fairly evident. It's a pacification technique and Israelis were not the ones he wished to pacify?

[MTVN]

The Tories were the ones who started peace talks in Northern Ireland. Prior to that though, John Hume and Gerry Adams had already started peace talks and were negotiating a ceasefire. All of this has stalled before the Labour party were elected in 1997. This is when Mo Mowlan, on behalf of the British Government asked for Corbyn to be go between.

This is a question put to Corbyn by the Jewish Chronicle and beneath is Corbyn's reply

Why do you associate with Hamas and Hezbollah and refer to them as your “friends”?

The term ‘friends’ was used purely as diplomatic language in the context of dialogue, not an endorsement of a particular set of views. In the difficult quest of establishing a peace, it is common for the term “friend” to be used as part of the process. “Friend” in this case becomes a term of diplomacy as an aid to dialogue between disparate groups rather than a description of a relationship or an endorsement of a set of views.

Jeremy has met many people with whom he profoundly disagrees, in order to try to promote a peace process. He has supported and continues to support peace and reconciliation processes in South Africa, Latin and Central America, Ireland and of course in the Middle East. He believes it is necessary to speak to people with whom there is disagreement – merely talking to people who already agree won't bring about a settlement.

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/142656/jeremy-corbyn-responds-jc%E2%80%99s-seven-questions

Well throughout the Troubles there will have been government dialogue with the IRA and loyalist forces. That's what governments do but it's very different to the romantic platitudes that Corbyn's team have bestowed on the IRA in the past.

Surely even the most dogmatic of Corbyn supporters will accept that he was no neutral intermediary in the Troubles. He opposed the 1985 Anglo-Irish agreement specifically because it accepted Northern Ireland as part of the UK, something he could never support. To say that Sinn Fein were people he 'profoundly disagrees' with is just disingenuous. Maybe he could say that if he was also meeting with Ian Paisley and David Irvine but he never did, did he? As I've posted before, I've seen all of Corbyn's explanations, listened to the half-apologies given by McDonnell, and I am still unconvinced by them. Again, he uses the term 'friend' about Hamas while simultaenously arguing that Netanyahu be detained for war crimes and that the Israeli football team should not be allowed to play a match in Cardiff. If this is his idea of peacemaking then it is horribly imbalanced.

[kirklancaster]

Well throughout the Troubles there will have been government dialogue with the IRA and loyalist forces. That's what governments do but it's very different to the romantic platitudes that Corbyn's team have bestowed on the IRA in the past.

Surely even the most dogmatic of Corbyn supporters will accept that he was no neutral intermediary in the Troubles. He opposed the 1985 Anglo-Irish agreement specifically because it accepted Northern Ireland as part of the UK, something he could never support. To say that Sinn Fein were people he 'profoundly disagrees' with is just disingenuous. Maybe he could say that if he was also meeting with Ian Paisley and David Irvine but he never did, did he? As I've posted before, I've seen all of Corbyn's explanations, listened to the half-apologies given by McDonnell, and I am still unconvinced by them. Again, he uses the term 'friend' about Hamas while simultaenously arguing that Netanyahu be detained for war crimes and that the Israeli football team should not be allowed to play a match in Cardiff. If this is his idea of peacemaking then it is horribly imbalanced.

Simply brilliant. :worship:

[empire]

the fact that bin laden was on america's payroll for some years, he was nothing but a puppet figure in a boogeyman organisation that may never of existed, because back in the late 90s, clinton wanted to reduce the size of their armed forces, and cut their huge funding, their generals where not happy about that and needed another war, but thats not proof in what had happend,

[DemolitionRed]

You're fighting a losing battle there DR. Some people will never understand why Corbyn would want to engage diplomatically with terrorist leaders using gentle language, because they don't believe that those terrorists "deserve" the language of peace over bullets and bombs "because of the things they have done", perhaps because they see it as weak, or pandering. Even if that staunch refusal to engage in such communication means risking the lives of thousands more innocent people.

People prefer revenge but... meh. People are generally vengeful in all aspects of life.

I'm quite enjoying myself TS ;)

[DemolitionRed]

Well throughout the Troubles there will have been government dialogue with the IRA and loyalist forces. That's what governments do but it's very different to the romantic platitudes that Corbyn's team have bestowed on the IRA in the past.

Surely even the most dogmatic of Corbyn supporters will accept that he was no neutral intermediary in the Troubles. He opposed the 1985 Anglo-Irish agreement specifically because it accepted Northern Ireland as part of the UK, something he could never support. To say that Sinn Fein were people he 'profoundly disagrees' with is just disingenuous. Maybe he could say that if he was also meeting with Ian Paisley and David Irvine but he never did, did he? As I've posted before, I've seen all of Corbyn's explanations, listened to the half-apologies given by McDonnell, and I am still unconvinced by them. Again, he uses the term 'friend' about Hamas while simultaenously arguing that Netanyahu be detained for war crimes and that the Israeli football team should not be allowed to play a match in Cardiff. If this is his idea of peacemaking then it is horribly imbalanced.

The problem is, there are so many blog writers like Anthony Breach and Steve Moore, (the later who writes on a personal emotional level) in breach of the real facts.

Sinn Fein is the second largest political party in NI. They are a party who have always fought for a ‘United Ireland.’ Corbyn has always been a staunch supporter for a ‘United Ireland’ and why not? Southern Ireland, who became independant in 1920 have peacefully co-exhisted (Catholics and Protestants). If Britain had, had the foresight to hand back the whole colony to the Irish people back in 1920, like they did with all the other colonies, then Britain and Ireland would of been friendly neighbors and none of this bloodshed would of happened.

What Corbyn didn’t support was the blood shed. Before his peace talks with Sinn Fein and Gerry Adams, he had, on numerous occasions condemned the bombings. Neither did he support the blood shed on Bloody Sunday and openly condemned the shooting of protestors.
The Anglo Irish Agreement was a huge stepping stone in bringing about the Good Friday Agreement and so what Corbyn’s political views regarding a ‘United’ or ‘Dis-United’ Northern Ireland are mute.

It was John Hume who started a public inquiry (something John Major had halted) into the deaths of protestors and passers by in the BS massacre and Corbyn, along with others, under the direct instructions from John Hume and Mo Mowlam were the men and women who instigated talks with Sinn Fein and Gerry Adams (not Ian Paisley and David Irvine because this was not a party political thing). Without all of these things, instigated by both the Tories and the Labour party, there would of been no agreement.

[Livia]

Well throughout the Troubles there will have been government dialogue with the IRA and loyalist forces. That's what governments do but it's very different to the romantic platitudes that Corbyn's team have bestowed on the IRA in the past.

Surely even the most dogmatic of Corbyn supporters will accept that he was no neutral intermediary in the Troubles. He opposed the 1985 Anglo-Irish agreement specifically because it accepted Northern Ireland as part of the UK, something he could never support. To say that Sinn Fein were people he 'profoundly disagrees' with is just disingenuous. Maybe he could say that if he was also meeting with Ian Paisley and David Irvine but he never did, did he? As I've posted before, I've seen all of Corbyn's explanations, listened to the half-apologies given by McDonnell, and I am still unconvinced by them. Again, he uses the term 'friend' about Hamas while simultaenously arguing that Netanyahu be detained for war crimes and that the Israeli football team should not be allowed to play a match in Cardiff. If this is his idea of peacemaking then it is horribly imbalanced.

My favourite post of the thread.

[Nedusa]

To be honest the whole official story of 911 is the actual Conspiracy theory and anyone who believes it needs to have their hooves cleaned and their coat sheared.....

[MTVN]

The problem is, there are so many blog writers like Anthony Breach and Steve Moore, (the later who writes on a personal emotional level) in breach of the real facts.

Sinn Fein is the second largest political party in NI. They are a party who have always fought for a ‘United Ireland.’ Corbyn has always been a staunch supporter for a ‘United Ireland’ and why not? Southern Ireland, who became independant in 1920 have peacefully co-exhisted (Catholics and Protestants). If Britain had, had the foresight to hand back the whole colony to the Irish people back in 1920, like they did with all the other colonies, then Britain and Ireland would of been friendly neighbors and none of this bloodshed would of happened.

What Corbyn didn’t support was the blood shed. Before his peace talks with Sinn Fein and Gerry Adams, he had, on numerous occasions condemned the bombings. Neither did he support the blood shed on Bloody Sunday and openly condemned the shooting of protestors.
The Anglo Irish Agreement was a huge stepping stone in bringing about the Good Friday Agreement and so what Corbyn’s political views regarding a ‘United’ or ‘Dis-United’ Northern Ireland are mute.

It was John Hume who started a public inquiry (something John Major had halted) into the deaths of protestors and passers by in the BS massacre and Corbyn, along with others, under the direct instructions from John Hume and Mo Mowlam were the men and women who instigated talks with Sinn Fein and Gerry Adams (not Ian Paisley and David Irvine because this was not a party political thing). Without all of these things, instigated by both the Tories and the Labour party, there would of been no agreement.

I don't really see the relevance of most of this to my post. I read neither of those blogs you speak of, I don't really need the very basic history lesson and I know that both Labour and the Tories played an important role in peace talks at different times. Mind you I would like a source for these statements about Mo Mowlam asking Corbyn on behalf of the government to contact Sinn Fein. Googling it I find it mentioned only in a couple of blog comments by the same commenter.

All I was saying was that Corbyn very clearly did sympathise with the militant Republican movement - even if he did not support violence himself - he was close to Gerry Adams and co throughout the Troubles and he was not a neutral party reluctantly engaging with those he 'profoundly disagreed' with for the sake of peace.

[DemolitionRed]

I don't really see the relevance of most of this to my post. I read neither of those blogs you speak of, I don't really need the very basic history lesson and I know that both Labour and the Tories played an important role in peace talks at different times. Mind you I would like a source for these statements about Mo Mowlam asking Corbyn on behalf of the government to contact Sinn Fein. Googling it I find it mentioned only in a couple of blog comments by the same commenter.

All I was saying was that Corbyn very clearly did sympathise with the militant Republican movement - even if he did not support violence himself - he was close to Gerry Adams and co throughout the Troubles and he was not a neutral party reluctantly engaging with those he 'profoundly disagreed' with for the sake of peace.

I agree, Corbyn did sympathise with the republican movement and no, he didn't support the violence.

Mo Mowlam herself was very involved with the political prisoners in Northern Ireland. Corbyn was merely her errand boy.
http://www.history.co.uk/biographies/mo-mowlam
In early 1998, when negotiations in Northern Ireland had reached an impasse, Mowlam took a significant political risk. She entered the Maze Prison near Belfast, to speak to convicted Irish paramilitaries face-to-face, when it became apparent that the peace process required their backing. Following her visit with the prisoners, their political representatives announced they were rejoining the talks. Shortly after, the Good Friday Agreement for Ireland was secured on 10th April 1998.

As for finding it on the web, I doubt you will. I can only reiterate what I've been told. Because this story made a lot of sense and because I wasn't told this by someone in the Labour party, I have no reason to question it.