[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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... . 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.

[Toy Soldier]

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]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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/14...even-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]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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.