[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

The fact is Corbyn supporters just don't seem to care that he was a friend and sympathiser of murderers - I find that chilling, but then it wasn't their relatives or friends his buddies murdered eh? As long as Corbyn sweet talks them with the dubious promises of a lot more pounds in their pockets, he's their man and they will close their eyes and ears and just refuse to believe or care about so called 'slurs' against His Benevolence. Money certainly does talk and it talks louder than respect for human life - the root of all evil indeed.

I get that this is a personally upsetting issue for you but, again, I'd need to see some pretty hard evidence to believe that Corbyn actually supported IRA violence.

From my viewpoint, it seems a lot like personal anger means a lot of people are unwilling to accept that concessions and diplomacy are better ways to END violence and killing than outrage and indignation, no matter how justified. Of course we're seeing the exact same thing with extremist terror now. I fully believe that people would rather have politicians rant, rage and condemn until the cows come home even if it meant 10 more bombings... Than sit around a table and play nice to save lives.

People would rather have Corbyn condemn the IRA now even if it risked poking the wasps nest, than have him refer to them as friends in order to maintain peaceful diplomacy.

I know which tactic I find riskier in terms of truly protecting the public. It might leave a bad taste in people's mouthes but frankly, if Corbyn wants to give out free hand jobs to the IRA in exchange for refraining from violence, that seems like the sensible option.