[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Yeah, none of this changes the fact you're essentially telling people that they can't argue against what Jet is saying just 'cus.

That is just utter nonsense and not what Livia is saying at all. She’s saying that I have more knowledge and experience of the troubles because I lived in the midst of them for 30 years, therefore I will know more than someone who hasn’t so my words shouldn’t just be summarily dismissed as you and Kizzy have dismissed them. That is just common sense.
You choose to cast aside anything I say as emotive and not based on fact - well, you are wrong. Emotion and facts are not exclusive of one another.

Whereas this quote from Kizzie about Corbyn:

he was guilty of nothing then and he is guilty of nothing now.

Is based on nothing at all but an opinion with no personal knowledge or experience or any facts to support it. Surely you see the difference and yet you say nothing as to this. Why not?

But really, I don’t need or want your support. In fact I’d be in shock if you ever agreed with me on anything, or had a kind word to say to me.


Those I respect and admire on here give my posts consideration and thought and that is more than enough for me.
A big thank you to them all.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

That is just utter nonsense and not what Livia is saying at all. She’s saying that I have more knowledge and experience of the troubles because I lived in the midst of them for 30 years, therefore I will know more than someone who hasn’t so my words shouldn’t just be summarily dismissed as you and Kizzy have dismissed them. That is just common sense.
You choose to cast aside anything I say as emotive and not based on fact - well, you are wrong. Emotion and facts are not exclusive of one another.

Whereas this quote from Kizzie about Corbyn:


Is based on nothing at all but an opinion with no personal knowledge or experience or any facts to support it. Surely you see the difference and yet you say nothing as to this. Why not?

But really, I don’t need or want your support. In fact I’d be in shock if you ever agreed with me on anything, or had a kind word to say to me.


Those I respect and admire on here give my posts consideration and thought and that is more than enough for me.
A big thank you to them all.

Because I don't really give a **** about this grating argument, I just take issue with the fact that people think your views can't be argued against because they sure as hell can.

It's actually got very little to do with you in all honesty and more to do with Livia using your apparent experiences to try to shut down someone she hates without putting in the effort of an actual argument.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jet

That is just utter nonsense and not what Livia is saying at all. She’s saying that I have more knowledge and experience of the troubles because I lived in the midst of them for 30 years, therefore I will know more than someone who hasn’t so my words shouldn’t just be summarily dismissed as you and Kizzy have dismissed them. That is just common sense.
You choose to cast aside anything I say as emotive and not based on fact - well, you are wrong. Emotion and facts are not exclusive of one another.

Whereas this quote from Kizzie about Corbyn:


Is based on nothing at all but an opinion with no personal knowledge or experience or any facts to support it. Surely you see the difference and yet you say nothing as to this. Why not?

But really, I don’t need or want your support. In fact I’d be in shock if you ever agreed with me on anything, or had a kind word to say to me.


Those I respect and admire on here give my posts consideration and thought and that is more than enough for me.
A big thank you to them all.

I haven't dismissed them, all I have suggested is that yours is an emotive response due to your life. Your perspective will be more one sided due to the impact on your community.

There will be though another man sat a few miles away who has had similar experiences to you aside from the fact he is catholic and all the trauma he has suffered at the hands of unionists?.... He may know victims young and old of the troubles, we shouldn't just whitewash those away because you don't feel that the groups who created tragedy in his life weren't as bad.

I appreciate too that you feel betrayed that a British MP shared a platform with the IRA, yet reading of plans for the repartition of Northern Ireland I wonder if this wasn't to highlight the urgency needed to stave of what would effectively be a full blown civil war?

Had the IRA not been willing to commit to peace wouldn't they have just killed Corbyn as a representative of the unionist establishment?

[jet]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I haven't dismissed them, all I have suggested is that yours is an emotive response due to your life. Your perspective will be more one sided due to the impact on your community.

There will be though another man sat a few miles away who has had similar experiences to you aside from the fact he is catholic and all the trauma he has suffered at the hands of unionists?.... He may know victims young and old of the troubles, we shouldn't just whitewash those away because you don't feel that the groups who created tragedy in his life weren't as bad.

I appreciate too that you feel betrayed that a British MP shared a platform with the IRA, yet reading of plans for the repartition of Northern Ireland I wonder if this wasn't to highlight the urgency needed to stave of what would effectively be a full blown civil war?

Had the IRA not been willing to commit to peace wouldn't they have just killed Corbyn as a representative of the unionist establishment?

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 most of their own side had long turned 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 instead 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/

It cannot be said too often that there is nothing intrinsically objectionable about supporting the idea of a united Ireland. But if you did – or still do – support that goal you had a choice. You could ally yourself with the SDLP or you could chum around with Sinn Fein and the IRA. The choice mattered because it was a choice between decency and indecency, between constitutional politics and paramilitary politics. Corbyn, like his Shadow Chancellor, made his choice and chose indecency.

There is no room for doubt about this and no place for after-the-fact reinterpretations of Corbyn’s ‘role’ in the Irish peace process. That role was limited to being a cheerleader for and enabler of the Republican movement. No-one who was seriously interested in peace in the 1980s spoke at Troops Out rallies. The best that could be said of those people was that they wanted ‘peace’ on the IRA’s terms.

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:

because he’s lived it and because he’s lived Jeremy’s name being attached in support of what he’s lived through…

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 to this or that, 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.

[Kizzy]

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.

[jet]

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.

Why is objectivity needed here? They are saying it is wrong to go the route of a terrorist organization and their official represenatives, Sinn Fein, like Corbyn did, rather than the route of a consitutional political party wanting to achieve their aims by peaceful means. Do you disagree with that?

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0...t-for-the-ira/

For the truth, we need to listen to the real architects of the peace process who insist that these men had nothing at all to do with it.

Former deputy first minister of Northern Ireland, Seamus Mallon, said “I never heard anyone mention Corbyn at all. He very clearly took the side of the IRA and that was incompatible, in my opinion, with working for peace.

Even Labour sympathisers found it hard to stomach Corbyn’s infatuation with the IRA. A 1996 editorial in the left-leaning Guardian, of all places, denounces his “romantic support for Irish Republicans” and states unequivocally: “Mr Corbyn's actions do not advance the cause of peace in Northern Ireland and are not seriously intended to do so”.

Working for peace does not involve only supporting and talking to one side, attending and speaking at the rallies and funerals of only one side and talking at Troops Out meetings and rallies.
He had to find some justification for all this, so 'I was in peace talks' was the weak excuse. It's laughable.

The people in peace talks had the authority, expertise and experience to do so, they didn't need a back bencher with anti British sentiments to do it for them.

The ‘digging’, which didn’t have to go very deep, has clearly shown that he was an IRA supporter. Many people accept that. Apart from my own knowledge there is plenty out there in big neon lights pointing directly at it if you didn't just see every single word and article as all lies and some evil conspiracy against him. It just isn't feasible.

But really Kizzy, there is no point in any further discussion. I know what I know and I’m not going to say anything different as I would be lying and you have your own views which you are entitled to.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jet

Why is objectivity needed here? They are saying it is wrong to go the route of a terrorist organization and their official represenatives, Sinn Fein, like Corbyn did, rather than the route of a consitutional political party wanting to achieve their aims by peaceful means. Do you disagree with that?

Are we to believe that Sinn Fein went from a cover for terrorism to reputable political force overnight?






https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0...t-for-the-ira/



[/B]

Working for peace does not involve only supporting and talking to one side, attending and speaking at the rallies and funerals of only one side and talking at Troops Out meetings and rallies.
He had to find some justification for all this, so 'I was in peace talks' was the weak excuse. It's laughable.

The people in peace talks had the authority, expertise and experience to do so, they didn't need a back bencher with anti British sentiments to do it for them.

The ‘digging’, which didn’t have to go very deep, has clearly shown that he was an IRA supporter. Many people accept that. Apart from my own knowledge there is plenty out there in big neon lights pointing directly at it if you didn't just see every single word and article as all lies and some evil conspiracy against him. It just isn't feasible.

But really Kizzy, there is no point in any further discussion. I know what I know and I’m not going to say anything different as I would be lying and you have your own views which you are entitled to.

Who else was talking... Overtly talking and trying to facilitate change and peace from within the establishment?
There was a dialogue but who was involved at that time, is Corbyn the fall guy as he openly campaigned for what we now know to be injustices to be recognised..

Here he is discussing Ireland in an interview. (from 6.35)

Youtube video

Is entirely feasible there is a conspiracy against him, that is being ramped up to max at the moment, it appears to me there is one slur after another in the hope that without analysis the accusations are acknowledged... That is not happening any longer which is why there is a constant change of tack in the vain hope that public confidence will be shaken in this man.
It appears however the contrary is happening in the main as nobody has the assurances they need that there has been sufficient evidence provided for any of these suggested betrayals.

I don't have views, I have researched.. I see the campaigns of violence on both sides, the innocents involved and the injustice, as well as the proposals for repartition that were frankly murderous.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Who else was talking... Overtly talking and trying to facilitate change and peace from within the establishment?
There was a dialogue but who was involved at that time, is Corbyn the fall guy as he openly campaigned for what we now know to be injustices to be recognised..

Here he is discussing Ireland in an interview. (from 6.35)

Youtube video

Is entirely feasible there is a conspiracy against him, that is being ramped up to max at the moment, it appears to me there is one slur after another in the hope that without analysis the accusations are acknowledged... That is not happening any longer which is why there is a constant change of tack in the vain hope that public confidence will be shaken in this man.
It appears however the contrary is happening in the main as nobody has the assurances they need that there has been sufficient evidence provided for any of these suggested betrayals.

I don't have views, I have researched.. I see the campaigns of violence on both sides, the innocents involved and the injustice, as well as the proposals for repartition that were frankly murderous.

Oh that interview where Corbyn is talking about Corbyn and the origins of his hatred of Britain, laying out all their wrongs. I’ve already seen it. The problem with him is he’s living in the past. Corbyn clearly shows here where his IRA sympathies originated from and his avid desire for a United Ireland, which was exactly what the IRA were blowing up innocent civilians to achieve.. He talks about injustices in Ireland going back 100 years and beyond. Move on, Jeremy dear, this is the 21st century, and the murderers causing massive mayhem and death in Ireland in this day and age were your friends the IRA.
What he's doing here is trying to justify the IRA's violence but its a poor excuse that innocent people were made to suffer today because of what the British did over 100 years ago.

And of course once again he slips in his self praise of being a vital player in the peace process in the early days. That's pretty impressive for a lowly backbencher in opposition who actually voted against the first peace treaty in the 80's, the Anglo - Irish Agreement, because it didn't make provisions for what the IRA wanted, a United Ireland. The actual Peace Process occurred in the 90’s.. Lol.

What you are attempting to prove isn't working, because it isn't the truth.

Just give it up now please Kizzy. We are just going round and round in circles and its pointless. We'll just have to agree to disagree once and for all.