I'm not sure if you actually believe this or you're just trying to make a point of some sort, but the suggestion that "folks don't care that Corbyn is a terrorist because money" is so far wide of the mark it's not even worth addressing.

I think more to the point is that many don't trust him and therefore have no confidence in him and it us up to him and his suppporters, if they want more to vote for him, to prove he is not a security risk.

It isn't up to others to prove he is. He needs to take some responsibility here. He has to earn that trust - he can neither demand or expect it.

Actually, in the context of this thread, the security risk issue was brought up by someone insisting that he is a risk. Therefore, the onus is on that person (and those who have agreed with the statement) to provide something that backs up that claim if they want it to be believed.

I think the rest of us were quite comfortable moving on with the discussion :shrug:. It's not something we haven't all heard before, unless there's something compelling to be shared on the subject, it's a bit of a pointless distraction. Or is that maybe the point?

Unfortunately for him many consider the issue more than a 'pointless distraction'. If he wants more support he has to clarify the situation and address in detail all the evidence out there that he is a sympathiser rather that a negotiator. He wants to be PM - the onus is on him.

Right but, again, that has very little to do with jet's claims on this specific thread;

This is the only question I am addressing by point ting out that it's simply a false statement that people "don't care" or (in your presumably intentionally offensive words) "will overlook it for money in their pockets"... But rather that plenty of people simply do not believe that he is a supporter of violence in any way. There's no evidence for it and, if there is, I'm asking for that evidence to be provided.


Anyway, I'm sure there's plenty of discussion to be had about it on another thread that specifically asks that question? I'm saying it's being used to distract from the very current issue of May, her ability and credibility to lead, and the DUP.

Of course concessions and diplomacy are better ways, and you obviously still believe this is what he was doing despite all the evidence to the contrary of his sympathy and patronage of the IRA. You just ignore the numerous sources and the people who knew of him and his activities in this country before some people here were even born.
Tony Blair was very active in peace talks with the IRA, so was Margaret Thatcher, but were they ever seen attending a funereal for an IRA terrorist? Did they attend rallies and give speeches commemorating the IRA dead? Were they pals with numerous IRA men who at the time were bombing the UK mainland? Corbyn was, and you can forget about the idea that he was in any way important to the peace process, he was not. He even was against the first attempt at peace with the Anglo Irish Agreement. Have you even bothered to read the numerous articles going back before this election mess detailing his involvement with the IRA?

I have no idea if he is a threat anymore, but he's certainly not the kind of person I would want as my Prime Minister.
The way this country is going we'll have an Isis supporting Prime Minister in 40 years time. But as long as they promise more dosh in our wallets, it's all good.
But you believe what you believe and there is no point in trying to change your mind or anyone else's. So peace to all and have a good day.

You were actually starting to bend my ear slightly until you kicked in with this hysteria, and the deberately offensive (and entirely false) jibe about "Mo Money" to try to support it. Now I'm struggling to take the rest of it as seriously.

I think people already have their concerns on whether we already have an ISIS supporter on our hands. Given his past history with the IRA, his refusal to clarify this issue and his open border policies - it is something to think about. Hasn't there also been some evidence of him attending ISIS rallies/funerals? I seem to remember seeing something.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...olitical-views

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...ed-expressing/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...errorists.html

Terrorist sympathizing seems to be a hobby of his.

Call it sheer frustration. :fist: Nobody will believe Corbyn is anything but a peacemaker despite all the evidence to the contrary, so I can choose to believe people must be in it for the money as I don't see any other reason people think a sympathiser of IRA murderers of their own country's citizens is a good candidate for Prime Minister. Isn't more money in peoples pockets what he's promised?

I genuinely think you've lost sight of reality Brillo. You might not agree with or understand many of Corbyn's attitudes towards the political issues surrounding terrorism, and that's fair enough really, but this idea that he's actually some sort of ISIS sleeper agent who has slithered to the top of UK politics and hoodwinked 40%+ of the population... It's just pure fantasy. Ludicrous fantasy.

Did he not say that we should alliow Jihadist fighters who have most likely killed Members of the British armed forces, or if not, not through want of trying, back into our country. Do you really not think that such people pose a threat to all of us? I really cannot fathom that thought process.

Corbyn does sound like a terrorist sympathiser to me.

"More money in your pocket" is a gross oversimplification; what he's promising is to stop the process of all of the money being syphoned off to the already-rich and Friends of the Tories.

The destruction of the NHS, the cruel and uncaring attitudes towards the disabled, and the clear bias towards the super-rich and landed gentry over... Well... Everyone and anyone else... demonstrated by the Conservative Party - topped off with the brand new cherry of a quite clearly arrogant yet incompetent leader in Theresa May - might have something to do with it people's choices more than literal money in their back pocket?

I didn't vote for Corbyn, I've been slowly swayed from believing that Scottish independence is necessarily the best path right now but I voted, and will continue to vote, SNP as they are the best option for protecting the interests of Scotland whether that's within the UK or not.

I even - as much as my skin crawls to say it, quite like Ruth Davidson and find the Scottish Conservatives message to overall be far more progressive and positive than the grey clouds that pour out of Westminster. But the Westminster Tories - for many - are just straight up toxic. Their message is of a selfish, uncaring and bleak future and its delivered by May like a talking wooden spoon reading from an out of focus autocue.

Rwlly take a hard look at the alternative before being baffled about why people would be starting to drift back to Labour.

I'll give you this much Brillo: I'm at least starting to understand that you have genuine fears that fuel your political beliefs and you're not just typing to score points. So that's progress, I suppose.

However I think, from now several months of experience on these forums (years? I can't remember when you rejoined tbh) that you have a very black and white view of the issues at hand and see it all as being "really quite simple" when they are actually, without exception, really very complex. I think by extension of that, you also assume that those who have opposing views to you also see things as being black and white / simple?

I am aware that Corbyn is not a perfect choice. I didn't and haven't ever voted Labour. However I am also aware that the SNP and their policies are far from perfect; they are my BEST choice but in all honesty I wish I had a better one. I am also aware that there are Conservative MPs who have the best of intentions for their constituents.

But the overall trajectory of the Conservative Party under Theresa May, their pandering to authoritarian sensibilities, their deliberate destruction to pave the way for privatisation that benefits them and those close to them directly... None of that can be safely ignored, either?

You have a stance of "defending them no matter what", spinning everything into a positive no matter how obviously negative it is, and it makes it impossible to have any sort of genuine political discussion.

If I resided in the UK, I wouldn't have voted for Conservative and I wouldn't have voted for Labour under Corbyn. Here in N.Ireland I didn't vote for Sinn Fein or the DUP and voting for any other party would have been a wasted vote. I only vote for someone I can have at least some respect and trust for, as much as you can respect and trust a politician.
You are fortunate to support a party that you believe in and that doesn't have a leader who supports murderers (Corbyn) or doesn't look after the more vulnerable members of your country (May).
I'd rather not vote at all than vote for a lesser of two evils.

The problem with that though is that "no vote" is effectively a vote for the party that is currently in power, and there's no point pretending otherwise. At least, this is the case in a first-past-the-post democratic system. If the party that is in power is your WORST option, the only real choice is to vote however you can to remove them from power, otherwise you might as well be voting FOR them.

For what it's worth though; I think first-past-the-post is deeply flawed in several basic ways. But it's the system we have and the one we have to work with, and unfortunately, that often means tactical voting.

Indeed it does, its a disturbing weakness of his.
Having an Isis sympathiser as PM in the future doesn't seem such a ludicrous theory, given that Isis haven't killed a fraction of our citizens that the IRA have and yet there is Corbyn, the IRA sympathiser being hailed as the saviour of our democracy and seen as a great choice for PM by many. So why not overlook that they are an Isis supporter if we like their social policies?

..I feel your frustrations so much, Jet..:hug:..it's always been a difficult one for me as well with Jeremy Corbyn because of personal reasons and connections with NI and I make no excuses for him at all..(other than..)...people/situations/world events etc are so complicated as to make people so multi-dimensional...for us living in England, I guess you could say that it's less 'black and white'..?...as unpopular as this will be, I don't really want a government head of Jeremy Corbyn but not because of any IRA links he's had, more because I just don't feel he's the answer to the (..well grim mess..)...we all find ourselves in...he's too 'left' and too much the opposite of Theresa May and what our present government have been with the extreme austerity in this country...no 'extreme' is good and we've certainly had an extreme government to prove that..what I feel we need is a leader to bring it all back toward the centre...not pull in the opposite direction, you know...that for me will only continue problems and a divided country but just a different set of problems...I think we need a Labour government so much right now, but I'm so not sure about him being the person to lead it....having said that, we still have to experience the difference he would make as a leader/good/bad/or indifferent whereas with Theresa May and the Conservatives, we've had that experience and it's fairly rubbish..:laugh:...

...this country is so much in divide at atm..and I think more than anything else, that's what is weakening us and making it all feel impossible...there is very little tolerance from anyone, the intolerance is just directed at different things and in different directions is all...and the 'sides' are just pushing further and further apart in a 'split country'...I guess I just can't see that changing with Jeremy Corbyn as PM if it ever happens..(but we'll see, if it does..)...Brexit really was the thing that showed how divided we were with such a close vote...and the closeness of the voting in this election has showed that the 'coming together' is still a far off 'dream'...it's really hard for anyone who is more in the centre to have their voice heard with all of the screaming at each other of the 'left and right'...(and very little listening' with minds already made up..)...actually strangely one of the things I liked most of all that Jeremy said during the campaign...that we need ears to communicate and understand as well...the silly thing is, is that we all want the same thing, don't we, were our fears and concerns come from are the only thing that really differs...I know the Conservative party with their present policies and leader can't bring us what we need and sadly I don't think Jeremy can either...but if he could and if he did..?...that would also balance some of the things of his past..?..for me it would anyway, but we're all going to be different in our personal painful experiences....


...anyways, I think that I've just droned on and made no sense at all but I'd read your posts in this thread...and as always, they made me think so much and are such thought provoking reads...I completely, completely, completely understand your frustrations my friend...you take care, ok/I hope you're enjoying BB and have chosen a good favourite for me to champion..:laugh:...

...:hug:..:love:...

It seems that people pick and choose on this a bit though. People are constantly overlooking our government's support of certain states in the middle east - and their haste to sell arms in the middle east - even though it is perfectly well known that this directly and indirectly supports terrorist groups. Is the message here, then, that it's OK to support terrorism so long as when you stand up in public, you say otherwise?

All this Corbyn stuff is just plain silly, people are clinging onto things that happened 20+ years ago which have been blown out of proportion and even presented in a false manner for purposes of character assassination all while ignoring the fact that May is arming the middle east which has the effect of stirring that volatile pot and is actually, in this day and age, is in talks of forming an actual coallition with a party that ACTUALLY has links to terrorism.

You can't make up this level of rampant hypocrisy.

...we all pick and choose our 'hypocrisies' though..I mean we all do, it's called being human..things are never black and white so we factor other stuff in as well, plus we do 'excuse' or 'overlook' or find justifications etc f something tends to lean with our own thought processes and mind-sets but another situation that is more opposed to what our beliefs are...well, our judgements can be quite different...how much an individual person might do that/whether they're 'prone' to type thing might vary...but we all do it..each and every one of us as Tiny Tim would say....throwing it' at others only has those others (correctly) throwing it back and so and so go one the circles...endlessly and pointlessly....anyways, I'm done/I'm tired, I need a sleep..I must be getting old....

You'd never guess coming to this page that this is a thread made about a Con MP stating that Mrs May has to go this year.

What has been done is sidetrack it onto Corbyn and spout off things all covered in the election and before from a personal hate perspective only.
Quoting the Mail and Express for goodness sake.

Anyway,has anyone any real thoughts on what the Con MP said as to Mrs May having to go backed up by Anna Soubry too today too.
Rather than hide the failure of Mrs May and the mess she has brought to govt.

You can't have it every way though, a lot has been said about how he is a principled man and has stuck to his beliefs all his life. So, if that were the case, then what he did 20+ years ago is very relevant.

I am a firm believer in democracy, and if enough people vote for him, and bring him to power, then I will accept it, but I won't ever agree with him or support him.

I would never support a Tory led government by May now either, she is damaged goods and needs to go.

If either of the 2 parties genuinely learn anything, it should have been that the country is divided and moving further to the left or right and becoming less rather than more inclusive is not the answer.

:fist: Don't you quote me with your reasonableness Ms Ammi I'm the one on this thread already saying that it's not all black and white. [emoji14]

All I can do now is laugh at the sheer refusal to face the facts :laugh: ....and as much as I dislike the bigoted DUP, their links to terrorism is a drop in the ocean compared to those of the IRA. Further, Arlene Foster wasn't running for British Prime Minister and getting great support, Corbyn was.

Who is being hypocritical again?

TBH it's not so much defending Tories as protecting us from Labour. I do feel safer with the Tories. I am not rich, I'm ok, although I have struggled in the past, but I feel on more solid ground with them. I don't particularly like May, I would rather see David Davis as PM, but she is PM ATM so I will support her.

Like most I want more money spent our public services, especially the NHS, but not at the cost of our security and freedoms and, ATM, I feel the tories and their policies are the most likely to do that. I also want to see a fairer society but the way Labour are going about it with policies that will break the bank and put us further in debt is not the way to do it. Corbynis full of promises, like he thinks he has all the answers, but with nothing substantial to back them up in my book. Add that to the security risk I feel he poses I don't want anything to do with him.

I care about the future of my children and their families and with Corbyn and his views I fear for the future for all our children. I feel he cares more about minority groups than the majority of people in this country. There is of course nothing wrong with caring about the less fortunate or excluded in our society but I sometimes feel he takes it to extremes and sees himself, rather arrogantly, as some kind of saviour for all mankind - he us not - and I think this blinds his viewpoint and makes him potentially dangerous - hence his sympathetic views on terrorists.

He seems to see terrorism as some kind of understandable fight against injustice and it isn't. Terrorism is never justified. I think he may have a chip on his shoulder about his privileged upbringing and some kind of 'issue' with the way he was brought up. But then again, like many politicians, maybe he is simply on a power trip, but is better as disguising his motives. Anyway there are too many maybe's in my mind to trust him.

Then or course there is Brexit, God help us if he gets his hands on that, is all I can say. I want the tories for that.

A heavy bias is starting to show now here, jet, and it's a real disservice to the measured and balanced posts you were making just yesterday. You've prompted me to pencil in a time to honestly, genuinely and openly look into Corbyn's history with the IRA when I get the time to give it the attention it deserves (currently being intermittently pestered by two bored children).

But your posts today are a world apart and the balance has completely disappeared? It's a shame, is all I'm saying really, and I hope your earlier posts were the genuine ones.

[edited to add] I'm not on a high horse here, I'm no stranger to having my posts dip (or plummet) in quality for emotional reasons. Dunno if anyone has noticed though fingers crossed.

Ammi, you have the ability to calm and make things seem that they are not worth getting all tied up in knots over. Have I told you lately that I love you? :love:

I haven't been watching much of BB yet and I haven't a favourite...I better get with it and stick to posting in the BB forum, it's a lot less stressful. I think it's time for me to be done in here. :laugh:

There were 3 sources all saying the same thing so what a moot point. Besides I did a check on the Express for it's bias and it was classed as centre right, from memory, and a newspaper known for producing fact based articles - but don't let your own bias get in the way of that. :shrug:

Most of that is pretty reasonable, I suppose. I do think you maybe overlook the dramatic impact that Conservative "over-cutting" could have on public services - I think they have the real potential to do irreversible damage there that will affect everyone at some point, and there are definitely more than a couple of characters high up in the party who are purely self-serving (Johnson, Gove, Hunt, quite honestly May, etc.). If the party could cut out that element, they would be much stronger for it.

In terms of Corbyn I suppose I can appreciate the concern that he might not take external threats seriously enough, for those who see those threats as the most pressing issue we currently face. I genuinely don't, and I think the current "unyielding" approach needs some serious thought in order for truly effective solutions to be found, but I can see why people who think otherwise would find Corbyn worrying. I still maintain though, that the idea that he actively WANTS to see people harmed by terrorist attacks is highly, highly unlikely. I'm sure that at the very least he does believe that he is a pacifist who seeks peace and the most that can be said about that is that he's misguided in how far he's willing to take that (by truly befriending violent individuals - if he indeed has - like I said I'm going to properly look into it at some point for myself because being honest, I haven't much and I'm obviously not interested in what "the papers" have to say about it).

I honestly think Brexit should be a separate issue at this point, it's muddying the waters for one and also, party politics is disrupting the issue. My honest belief is that some sort of cross-party group outside of election politics needs to take over handling the Brexit process or it is going to go absolutely horribly for everyone. We all know it's happening now, everyone wants the best possible outcome... electioneering needs to be kept AWAY from it completely. At the very least, May has to be kept right out of the process. WHether you're a Conservative supporter or not... the bare fact is, she does not have what it takes to go into negotiations with the EU heavy hitters and come away with a good deal for the country. She simply can't do it. She couldn't back when it was looking like she had a huge majorty of the country behind her... and she doesn't even have that to prop her up now. They will never take her seriously.

The IRA did murder civilians over the years as did the Loyalist paramilitaries on the other side. Murders should never be condoned or justified, which ever side they were on. Nobody is suggesting the IRA were angels but if we are going to call them evil murderers then we must also accept that both sides had blood on their hands and all of that has been recorded in history.

We too suffered the bombings in the UK. We too suffered the loss of loved ones; be them civilians or British soldiers in NI. We had to bury our dead just as Ireland had to.

We also need to include the U.S government for funding the IRA. Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and Reagan all had strong ancestral heritage with Ireland and they certainly didn't like the way the Catholics were being treated in the North. Does that make Nixon, Carter, Kennedy and Reagan terrorists? And what about Blair who did so much to bring about a peace treaty in NI. Was he a terrorist for joining forces with the U.S lie and helped bring about a war that killed hundreds and thousands of innocents. Should we call Cameron and May terrorists for funding the Saudi's who in turn fund ISIS and who also support and fund the Israeli apartheid?

Twenty years is really not that long ago, although of course it seems it when you are only in your early twenties - but Corbyn knows Better.

Terrorism is a heinous crime and any sympathy for it, no matter how long ago, can ever be ignored. He has also demonstrated similar views much more recently regarding ISIS so as a supporter of his your own rampant hypocrisy does not go unnoticed.

Yes, I would agree with you that my posts are becoming more emotional and probably just plain bloody minded due to frustration. I have very personal reasons for getting so emotional about Corbyn and I can't expect anyone to feel what I feel, that's impossible and unfair. So if I can't maintain balance I should opt out of the discussion, and I will.

A much bigger post than most on here. Hat off to you Jet. But your opinions are as valid as anyone else's, probably more so because of your experience, so please come back.

If any of this is true then why hasn't he been forced to resign? People have been outcast from politics for less so, if he truly was a terrorist sympathiser, then how has he managed to stay in politics for so long? It doesn't make much sense if what you are saying is true.

Then again, your definition of 'terrorist sympathiser' has always been a bit wonky, just because he isn't bloodthirsty and values peace over war doesn't make him a terrorist sympathiser.

What you just said is really important in this discussion. There is a difference between a terrorist sympathiser and a person who has sympathy with a cause. The IRA has fought against British rule in Northern Ireland. Ironic as this may sound, when the British army drove into Northern Ireland, it did so to protect the Catholics. The IRA at that time had no popular support and were tiny in number but within a year of the British Army going in, the discontent against British rule had nationalism grow enormously.

The Nationalists/Republicans have always stood for an independent Ireland. The Loyalists/Unionists want to remain part of the UK. What Corbyn is sympathetic to, is an Irish right to unity, independence and freedom like they have in the rest of Ireland. None of us should be fooled into believing all of Northern Ireland want to live in a duplicated bureaucracy with political solutions effectively imposed upon them and the British state.

And you know what I find really alarming... Most of us Brits know little to nothing about Northern Ireland. It was hammered down our throats in school that the IRA were bad and the Unionists were good. Other than that we are told the words of Reginald Maudling when he flew back from a meeting with Unionist politicians and declared to us all what an awful place Northern Ireland is.

Indeed.
Who knew so many could be bought.

Is this the new rhetoric now? That anyone who doesn't vote Tory is greedy and moneygrubbing and just wants more money in their own back pocket? Petty and untrue, is all there really is to say about that. I can't imagine those saying it even believe it, just deliberately trying to be offensive :facepalm:.

It's the same deal as Brexit. Anyone who doesn't share the same opinion as Leavers were often branded 'undemocratic' and 'traitors'.

I don't think they realised the irony of it.

Given that Corbyn was preaching anti austerity and he was basically handing out £10 notes, people did vote because he was giving out free money. That was the whole platform that he stood on. To suggest anything else is pure denial.

Amen to that... And still that is not being highlighted in the press, out current govt is a lying, hypocritical, shambles and thank god people have woken up to that!