[jet]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

He was at a rally, he didn't mastermind Bloody Sunday did he?

No, he did not. His sins came after that event.

This is the third time in our rare discourses that you have slipped Bloody Sunday into the equation and it comes across as an excuse for the thousands of deaths caused by the IRA. Why do you keep referring to Bloody Sunday and never ever mention the thousands of deaths in the following years?
I have wondered for some time if you have the same sympathies as Corbyn....which may be one of the reasons why you support someone so unproven with such blindness and passion.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jet

No, he did not. His sins came after that event.

This is the third time in our rare discourses that you have slipped Bloody Sunday into the equation and it comes across as an excuse for the thousands of deaths caused by the IRA. Why do you keep referring to Bloody Sunday and never ever mention the thousands of deaths in the following years?
I have wondered for some time if you have the same sympathies as Corbyn....which may be one of the reasons why you support someone so unproven with such blindness and passion.

I'm going to be honest from the off, I've reported the comment in bold TWICE as I don't appreciate with you suggesting I'm an IRA sympathiser simply because I disagree with your view on Corbyn. But seeing as it's still here I feel I have a right to reply.

I keep reiterating the Bloody Sunday murder of innocents, as that's what it was of course in the hope that you will see that whatever sins came before he is not party to them nor does he have blood on his hands....Unlike the govt of the day, now you can gaslight all you like but the fact remains that we were up to our neck in it well before any involvement from Corbyn, where's the 'sympathy for them?

Terrorism isn't something that just happens... there were years of murder, injustice, false imprisonment, marginalisation and misinformation which led to factions on both sides forming.

It's impossible to just jump to a point in history and start tub thumping... you have to look at the picture as a whole and assess accountability.
Please stop with your irrational accusations please and attempt to maintain a little objectivity here.

'In all 19 people were killed in 1969, 14 of them civilians. They included a nine-year-old schoolboy, struck by a police bullet as he lay in his bedroom. An Irish Republican Army (IRA) member died in a car crash and a teenage member of the Fianna, the IRA’s junior wing, was shot by loyalists. A member of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) was killed by his own bomb - just one of many paramilitaries to die accidental deaths. The first Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officer killed was shot on the Shankill Road by the UVF.

Each death was a terrible event for family, friends and neighbours. Within a short period, events would dictate a pattern of conflict spanning decades. There were phases to the bloodshed.

British Home Secretary Reginald Maudling declared that he would settle for an "acceptable level of violence" at the start of 1971, but within a year the introduction of internment (imprisonment without trial) and the events of Bloody Sunday served to recruit large numbers of young nationalists into republican paramilitary groups.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/topics/troubles_violence

[jet]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I'm going to be honest from the off, I've reported the comment in bold TWICE as I don't appreciate with you suggesting I'm an IRA sympathiser simply because I disagree with your view on Corbyn. But seeing as it's still here I feel I have a right to reply.

I keep reiterating the Bloody Sunday murder of innocents, as that's what it was of course in the hope that you will see that whatever sins came before he is not party to them nor does he have blood on his hands....Unlike the govt of the day, now you can gaslight all you like but the fact remains that we were up to our neck in it well before any involvement from Corbyn, where's the 'sympathy for them?

Terrorism isn't something that just happens... there were years of murder, injustice, false imprisonment, marginalisation and misinformation which led to factions on both sides forming.

It's impossible to just jump to a point in history and start tub thumping... you have to look at the picture as a whole and assess accountability.
Please stop with your irrational accusations please and attempt to maintain a little objectivity here.

'In all 19 people were killed in 1969, 14 of them civilians. They included a nine-year-old schoolboy, struck by a police bullet as he lay in his bedroom. An Irish Republican Army (IRA) member died in a car crash and a teenage member of the Fianna, the IRA’s junior wing, was shot by loyalists. A member of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) was killed by his own bomb - just one of many paramilitaries to die accidental deaths. The first Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officer killed was shot on the Shankill Road by the UVF.

Each death was a terrible event for family, friends and neighbours. Within a short period, events would dictate a pattern of conflict spanning decades. There were phases to the bloodshed.

British Home Secretary Reginald Maudling declared that he would settle for an "acceptable level of violence" at the start of 1971, but within a year the introduction of internment (imprisonment without trial) and the events of Bloody Sunday served to recruit large numbers of young nationalists into republican paramilitary groups.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/topics/troubles_violence

Sadly, I see nothing here that tells me you condemn the IRA, as you have never done in any of your replies to me.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jet

Sadly, I see nothing here that tells me you condemn the IRA, as you have never done in any of your replies to me.

I have, several times I'm no advocate of terrorism no matter what your implications previously.

Have you publicly condemned the loyalists, govt and security forces for their role in the troubles?

[jet]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I have, several times I'm no advocate of terrorism no matter what your implications previously.

Have you publicly condemned the loyalists, govt and security forces for their role in the troubles?

You have never condemned the IRA by name in any replies to me, and you still haven't, but yes, they use the govt and the security forces as well as an excuse for their 30 year slaughter of thousands of innocents. Just like Corbyn the little jumped up revolutionary did. It appears to me that you think the IRA's future actions were somehow justified because of Bloody Sunday. That is the impression you give me.
I have condemned both the IRA and Loyalists Paramilitaries in previous replies to you. Those posts are here on this forum in black and white if you wish to remind yourself. But Corbyn didn't support the Loyalists did he? If my knowledge of him and his actions had been of his involvement with them instead of the IRA, I would still feel the same about him. It doesn't matter to me which murderous side he cosied up to, but the fact that he did at all.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jet

You have never condemned the IRA by name in any replies to me, and you still haven't, but yes, they use the govt and the security forces as well as an excuse for their 30 year slaughter of thousands of innocents. Just like Corbyn the little jumped up revolutionary did. It appears to me that you think the IRA's future actions were somehow justified because of Bloody Sunday. That is the impression you give me.
I have condemned both the IRA and Loyalists Paramilitaries in previous replies to you. Those posts are here on this forum in black and white if you wish to remind yourself. But Corbyn didn't support the Loyalists did he? If my knowledge of him and his actions had been of his involvement with them instead of the IRA, I would still feel the same about him. It doesn't matter to me which murderous side he cosied up to, but the fact that he did at all.

I have.. I'll do it again I condemn the IRA, UVF, govt or military persons who carry out acts of terrorism.
I'm not trawling the forum to find anything you have the opportunity to clarify here don't you?
He has consistently rejected all acts, he has never been asked if he condemns loyalist violence which personally I find odd in of itself... The traffic of questioning on this issue only ever flows one way, have you never noticed that?

If you care not about sides then why are you not as vocal about other politicians who are intrinsically linked to decisions that specifically targeted civilians for harm?

[jet]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I have.. I'll do it again I condemn the IRA, UVF, govt or military persons who carry out acts of terrorism.
I'm not trawling the forum to find anything you have the opportunity to clarify here don't you?
He has consistently rejected all acts, he has never been asked if he condemns loyalist violence which personally I find odd in of itself... The traffic of questioning on this issue only ever flows one way, have you never noticed that?

If you care not about sides then why are you not as vocal about other politicians who are intrinsically linked to decisions that specifically targeted civilians for harm?

I'll say it once again then....I condemn the IRA and Loyalist Paramilitary's. If the Govt and security forces deliberately set out to harm innocent people during the Troubles then I condemn that too. However, I doubt that happened on anything but an extremely small scale. You seem to think the Govt and military were somehow responsible for 'making' the IRA slaughter thousands of innocents...that they should just have stood by and let them get on with it and give in to their reign of terror.

As for your next paragraph, Corbyn was asked did he now condemn the IRA because he was a known IRA apologist and supporter. I would have thought that was obvious. And he refused to do so.
I'm not vocal about other politicians because they are not hoping to become the next PM - and I don't have personal information about 'others' whoever these others are supposed to be, that I do about Corbyn.
What other politicians are you talking about anyway, and what decisions are you claiming they made that targeted innocent civilians during the troubles? Name them and their perceived crimes.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I'm going to be honest from the off, I've reported the comment in bold TWICE as I don't appreciate with you suggesting I'm an IRA sympathiser simply because I disagree with your view on Corbyn. But seeing as it's still here I feel I have a right to reply.

I keep reiterating the Bloody Sunday murder of innocents, as that's what it was of course in the hope that you will see that whatever sins came before he is not party to them nor does he have blood on his hands....Unlike the govt of the day, now you can gaslight all you like but the fact remains that we were up to our neck in it well before any involvement from Corbyn, where's the 'sympathy for them?

Terrorism isn't something that just happens... there were years of murder, injustice, false imprisonment, marginalisation and misinformation which led to factions on both sides forming.

It's impossible to just jump to a point in history and start tub thumping... you have to look at the picture as a whole and assess accountability.
Please stop with your irrational accusations please and attempt to maintain a little objectivity here.

'In all 19 people were killed in 1969, 14 of them civilians. They included a nine-year-old schoolboy, struck by a police bullet as he lay in his bedroom. An Irish Republican Army (IRA) member died in a car crash and a teenage member of the Fianna, the IRA’s junior wing, was shot by loyalists. A member of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) was killed by his own bomb - just one of many paramilitaries to die accidental deaths. The first Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officer killed was shot on the Shankill Road by the UVF.

Each death was a terrible event for family, friends and neighbours. Within a short period, events would dictate a pattern of conflict spanning decades. There were phases to the bloodshed.

British Home Secretary Reginald Maudling declared that he would settle for an "acceptable level of violence" at the start of 1971, but within a year the introduction of internment (imprisonment without trial) and the events of Bloody Sunday served to recruit large numbers of young nationalists into republican paramilitary groups.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/topics/troubles_violence

Oh come of it Kizzy - that is just another shut-down tactic. Jet has just given an honest opinion on what he sees from your words, or lack of them. He has not stated anything as fact.

If people can blatantly and repeatedly throw racist and homophobic allegations about based purely on their own opinion and interpretation of another’s words, not facts, and get away with it - they are in no position to object to another’s interpretation of their words expressed in a far less offensive and insulting manner.