[Brillopad]

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.

That is the crux of it I'm afraid, people refuse to hear and let it affect their lives unless it's personal. They care, but not enough to let it affect their pockets.

[joeysteele]

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.

Just take care there jet in your biased generalisation.

I didn't know them as I was only born in the 90s.
However 2 of my family died in the troubles.

However NONE of my family see Corbyn as a terrorist threat despite those losses.
Some even voted Labour this time too.

Moving on has been the only way they have coped with the losses,they are hopeful for more coming together and the peace process continuing.
A peace process,no matter your own view about him,that Corbyn fully supports and wants continued too.

[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.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

A peace process,no matter your own view about him,that Corbyn fully supports and wants continued too.

So you believe. That is not fact.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Being an affiliate or member of risk groups is an automatic fail. So, with his current associations he would fail, that's without even looking at anything historical.

Anyway, i'm done with this, if people don't want to accept information that is their right of course

Yes but I'm not asking whether or not he would fail because of his affiliation with those groups, as I fully believe that his affiliation with those groups was with a view to promoting peace, not promoting violence.

I'm not interested in technicalities that mean he would be an "automatic fail" I'm asking for some sort of evidence that he supports violence, wants to further terrorism, and is a realistic risk to the public.

You're not giving me any information beyond that to "accept" or otherwise?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

That is the crux of it I'm afraid, people refuse to hear and let it affect their lives unless it's personal. They care, but not enough to let it affect their pockets.

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.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yes but I'm not asking whether or not he would fail because of his affiliation with those groups, as I fully believe that his affiliation with those groups was with a view to promoting peace, not promoting violence.

I'm not interested in technicalities that mean he would be an "automatic fail" I'm asking for some sort of evidence that he supports violence, wants to further terrorism, and is a realistic risk to the public.

You're not giving me any information beyond that to "accept" or otherwise?

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

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 . 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?

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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 . 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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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;

The fact is Corbyn supporters just don't seem to care that he was a friend and sympathiser of murderers

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.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

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.

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.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by jet

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.
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.

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.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

Call it sheer frustration. 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?

[user104658]

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.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

Call it sheer frustration. 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 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?

"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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

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.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"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.

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

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.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

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?

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by jet

Call it sheer frustration. 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 feel your frustrations so much, Jet....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.....

...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.....

........

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

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?

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?

[Tom4784]

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.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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?

...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....