Quote:
Originally Posted by Toy Santa
You keep posting this video but it really doesn't demonstrate what you're saying at all. I can accept having issue with what he DOES have to say in it if, for example, you don't believe there is equivalence between the violence on either side but... to say that he doesn't condemn IRA violence in this clip... is simply false.
"My point was always that there had to be a political peace process, to avoid the violence, avoid the bloodshed and avoid the deaths."
"I condemn all bombing - it's not a good idea, it's terrible what happened."
"The whole violence issue was terrible, was appalling."
He quite explicitly does condemn the violence of the troubles and therefore, he does condemn many of the actions of the IRA. Now... I think what you - and importantly here, the interviewer in this video - are looking for is not actually for him to condemn it, but to "admit that it's worse". And while that is a perfectly valid standpoint too, it's not the same as saying he refuses to condemn the violence at all. The interviewer's goal seems to be to push him into making a definitive statement on what he considers to be a very nuanced political minefield so... I personally can't blame him for not being pushed into answering the question. It's an aggressive, bullying interview style designed to prove some sort of point and frankly I'd have hung up on him too. Like I said - holding the stance that the IRA's actions were far worse IS totally valid - but he was clearly not interested in a full discussion at all.
|
No, I did not expect him to say it was worse - the thought never even entered my mind...and that is not what he was being asked.
He faffed around like the usual politician and avoided answering the question 5 times just like I knew he would.
He was asked a simple question - 'do you condemn the actions of the IRA'.
The question was
specific, and needed a specific answer. Why? Because he wants to be the next Prime Minister and he has all the IRA stuff surrounding him. It's relevant and important that the distinction should be made.
He could simply have said,
'Of course I condemn the actions of the IRA, like I condemn all bombings'. Ah, now that would be different altogether, don't you think? A crucially important distinction. But he refused to condemn them OUTRIGHT as I knew he would - because as an IRA supporter he doesn't! - and the blanket statement of 'all bombings' was his get out. Then when it gets too hot he hangs up - because he knows the interviewer has his measure. Slimy, lying little coward.
I'm surprised even you fell for it,TS, surely you recognise the dodges of politicians when you hear them? I can't quite believe you really did though.
Just look at the sample of the IRA bombings I posted above - how could ANY right minded person NOT condemn them OUTRIGHT! Only an callous dedicated IRA sympathiser and supporter would not.