Quote:
Originally Posted by jet
See, you really don't listen, do you?
I have whitewashed nothing away, I will repeat that elsewhere on this forum, as well as in this thread, I have condemned the actions of the Loyalist Para's, my argument was that they didn't deliberately and consistently target civilians including young children in mass bomb atrocities. How many times have I said it, what is it about that that you don't get?
You also ignore that I am Catholic myself and not unionist, I am and always have been SDLP, like my father before me. You have no idea how many Catholics hate the IRA with a passion. They killed and maimed as many Catholics as they did Protestants.
The IRA committed to peace because they were running out of new recruitments and materials for mass murder and their own side were turning vehemently against them. They knew the government would never give in to their demands against what the majority of people in N.Ireland wanted and voted for democratically. The Gov. had stood firm against them for 30 years and they knew their time was up. They had nowhere else to go.
You also don't seem to get that I talk about Corbyn and the IRA because that is who he supported. If he had supported the Loyalist Paramiltaries I'd be talking about Corbyn and how he supported those murderers, but as he didn't, they are not the topic. You keep bringing other organizations up to avert the discussion away from Corbyn and the IRA.
The IRA used Corbyn as a useful mp with known anti British sentiments (along with his great friend McDonnell) who wanted the same as they did - a United Ireland against the will of the majority of the people.
This says it well:
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0...t-for-the-ira/
I and others in N. Ireland knew of Corbyn in the 80's and 90's, I suspect before many here ever heard of him. N. Ireland was a surprisingly small place when it came down to who was who in the Troubles. He, (and his great friend McDonnell) along with others were well known avid IRA supporters. Some people not believing it or not caring won’t change that. I forgot he even existed until he came to the fore as a future PM, and the memories of him came rushing back.
I have no interest in politics in general, just N. Ireland politics, and had never posted in any of the serious debate political threads in all the time I have been a member here, not even during any elections and not during Brexit. I’m pretty uninformed about all that. Whether a Conservative or Labour Gov. was in power has never made one iota of difference to my life. So really, why would I out of the blue start posting about Corbyn and his IRA affiliations?
Like Ammi wisely said:
That's it, and the hero worship of the man quite naturally makes me sick. The thought of such a man becoming the PM makes me sick and I really don't believe he would be up to the job. Corbyn's forte has always been in opposition, never in charge; always railing against something or other to boost his morale and self importance but never in the dangerous position of the front line himsef. Be careful what you wish for. |
Sorry I didn't mean to suggest you were a unionist I was just using that analogy to make my point in that post.
I do understand you condemn the killings on both sides, the only issue I have is that there is a demarcation drawn there in relation to the victims, which looking at the history of the troubles doesn't seem to be as clearly defined as you are saying here.
Whether you are Catholic or not is irrelevant my point was and is that there will be those who feel as passionately as you do but due to experiences of violence from other terrorist organisations.
I don't feel a spectator blog would be impartial in this matter, it's not an excuse either that source clearly has an evident political leaning therefore can't be relied upon if you want to look at an issue with any degree of objectivity.
I understand you see him and others as collaborators, I can see why and yet there may be have been a reason, to facilitate change? should there have been a definitively sinister motive then that surely would have more doggedly been seized upon by the opposition and the media now as they have dug and dug into his past affiliations and have come up with nothing that can with any clarity say that this man was instrumental in anything.
He may have been the only MP who publicly was seen to be in talks with the IRA that is not to say he was the only govt representative in discussion with them at that time.
With politics and violence being so intertwined both then and now it would be impossible to say who was wrong to support any individual? And with the passing of time even those convicted and jailed have been admonished, those who campaigned at the time for justice will have been seen as simply sympathisers and yet today it wold seem they are entirely vindicated in their judgement.
Far from hero worship this would appear that many still have in my vision blind faith when it comes to decisions taken by the establishment, it takes a lot to push for what you believe to be right if it is counter to what the majority are suggesting, that said if it goes against your personal ethics not to then I feel it is important to do so.
Corbyn is now very much in charge and is railing against more things than ever... Although as far as I can see these are all things that to coin a phrase benefit the many not the few, as a morale boosting exercise what have the opposition got, nothing there is nothing whatsoever moral or ethical about anything they have pushed as policy for almost a decade.... Least of all the 'deal' with the DUP, which surprisingly hasn't had a mention yet in this thread, the affiliations there are a grey area I've read, however it was a means to an end for the govt and they were happy to compromise any principles they may have to secure a majority but that's another story clearly.