[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Corbyn-economics aren't perfect... far from it. I'm wholly against and baffled by this hypothecated tax for the NHS, but I'm not going to agree with everything they suggest or do. On the whole though, I believe their economic strategy is the soundest thing we've seen for nearly two decades.

Good luck to you - but many don’t.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Good luck to you - but many don’t.

So if you and many don't like Corbyn-economics, please can you explain why?

What is it specifically you don't like?
We know the Lib Dems and the Green Party are behind Labour's economic policies but those are two parties adamantly against how the Tories run the economy, so if you don't agree with this Labour's style of economics you can't be Lib Dem or Green either.

How do you propose we can fix what's broken or do you even believe its broken?

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

Got to agree with Livia here DM. Lots of people in this section start threads and then class them as their own. Look back and you will see its the truth

I'll test that out some time in the near future

[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.

[Livia]

All violence in Northern Ireland should be condemned, but just for record - and I know that jet will already know this - the IRA were responsible for the most deaths during The Troubles- 49%, with the UDF responsible for 11% and the British Army 9%, No one killed more Irish people - Catholics and Protestants - than the IRA. At the time of Corbyn's support the IRA were blowing up civilians on the mainland as well as in NI. He's also a big fan of Hamas and other terrorist groups. I don't want a terrorist sympathiser in No. 10, and I don't want the staggeringly inept Diane Abbott in charge of the army, the police and national security in general. I want a strong Labour party, an electable Labour party. Because right now the Tories - who seem to be the only other option - are lurching from one cluster-**** to the next.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jet

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.

You're making these bizarre accusatory comments again....Please don't put words in my mouth!
I'm not going into chapter and verse on the history of the troubles, I feel you have a have a rather blinkered perception is all.
There is a wealth of information that has come to light in recent years concerning injustices sanctioned by the govt at that time.
You will have to educate yourself and consider if you feel there is any wrongdoing by any other public figures.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

All violence in Northern Ireland should be condemned, but just for record - and I know that jet will already know this - the IRA were responsible for the most deaths during The Troubles- 49%, with the UDF responsible for 11% and the British Army 9%, No one killed more Irish people - Catholics and Protestants - than the IRA. At the time of Corbyn's support the IRA were blowing up civilians on the mainland as well as in NI. He's also a big fan of Hamas and other terrorist groups. I don't want a terrorist sympathiser in No. 10, and I don't want the staggeringly inept Diane Abbott in charge of the army, the police and national security in general. I want a strong Labour party, an electable Labour party. Because right now the Tories - who seem to be the only other option - are lurching from one cluster-**** to the next.

Have you been googling again?... Is there a percentage that is ok, if they had all killed the same amount of people would they be any less condemned as a terrorist organisation? :/
We have armed more terrorists in modern times and been the catalyst for more civilian deaths, the last 'electable' Labour leader was Blair...
I agree entirely on your description of the current govt, clustr******* is apt, corrupt cluster*******s is also accurate.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Livia

All violence in Northern Ireland should be condemned, but just for record - and I know that jet will already know this - the IRA were responsible for the most deaths during The Troubles- 49%, with the UDF responsible for 11% and the British Army 9%, No one killed more Irish people - Catholics and Protestants - than the IRA. At the time of Corbyn's support the IRA were blowing up civilians on the mainland as well as in NI. He's also a big fan of Hamas and other terrorist groups. I don't want a terrorist sympathiser in No. 10, and I don't want the staggeringly inept Diane Abbott in charge of the army, the police and national security in general. I want a strong Labour party, an electable Labour party. Because right now the Tories - who seem to be the only other option - are lurching from one cluster-**** to the next.

Exactly, and isn't it amazing how people turn and look the other way and just go on happily supporting the terrorist sympathiser Corbyn and his like - minded cronies. It's frightening, and no good can come of it.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

Exactly, and isn't it amazing how people turn and look the other way and just go on happily supporting the terrorist sympathiser Corbyn and his like - minded cronies. It's frightening, and no good can come of it.

But UK governments (of both parties) have been arming terrorists for years? Multiple billions of pounds worth of weapons are sold to dictatorships and oppressive regimes every year... and this isn't throwback stuff: it has increased under the Tories since 2010, and has increased even faster specifically under Theresa May. So... we already have terror / violence supporters in Westminster and we've been looking the other way for decades. I'm not saying that makes it OK just... well... if you really don't want to look the other way, you need to open your eyes to the fact that Corbyn's support of questionable groups is far from isolated in UK politics. I guess maybe it seems different because it's so close to home (Ireland) rather than far overseas in the Middle East and Africa... but yeah. Theresa May's government sells weapons to despots and warlords. They specifically invite them along to big events, to show off all of the fun new death toys that those people might want to buy, and they do buy them, and they use them to suppress and murder untold numbers of innocent people.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You're making these bizarre accusatory comments again....Please don't put words in my mouth!
I'm not going into chapter and verse on the history of the troubles, I feel you have a have a rather blinkered perception is all.
There is a wealth of information that has come to light in recent years concerning injustices sanctioned by the govt at that time.
You will have to educate yourself and consider if you feel there is any wrongdoing by any other public figures.

Did the big bad government sometimes not play fair with the poor ickle terrorists? The heart bleeds.
Spare me your ignorance on the actions of the terrorists during the Troubles and, on the whole, the positive role of the Govt. Go and do some serious reading and educate yourself.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Have you been googling again?... Is there a percentage that is ok, if they had all killed the same amount of people would they be any less condemned as a terrorist organisation? :/
We have armed more terrorists in modern times and been the catalyst for more civilian deaths, the last 'electable' Labour leader was Blair...
I agree entirely on your description of the current govt, clustr******* is apt, corrupt cluster*******s is also accurate.

Some of us actually know stuff, Kizzy. My Dad served in Northern Ireland.

The rest of your post is a but hysterical and hard to comprehend.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

But UK governments (of both parties) have been arming terrorists for years? Multiple billions of pounds worth of weapons are sold to dictatorships and oppressive regimes every year... and this isn't throwback stuff: it has increased under the Tories since 2010, and has increased even faster specifically under Theresa May. So... we already have terror / violence supporters in Westminster and we've been looking the other way for decades. I'm not saying that makes it OK just... well... if you really don't want to look the other way, you need to open your eyes to the fact that Corbyn's support of questionable groups is far from isolated in UK politics. I guess maybe it seems different because it's so close to home (Ireland) rather than far overseas in the Middle East and Africa... but yeah. Theresa May's government sells weapons to despots and warlords. They specifically invite them along to big events, to show off all of the fun new death toys that those people might want to buy, and they do buy them, and they use them to suppress and murder untold numbers of innocent people.

We're talking about Northern Ireland TS. You may recall that there has been Labour governments during The Troubles. You're turning it into a debate about how the Tories arm terrorists.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Livia

We're talking about Northern Ireland TS. You may recall that there has been Labour governments during The Troubles. You're turning it into a debate about how the Tories arm terrorists.

I thought we were talking about why a Corbyn Labour government would be worse than a May Tory government. If we are going to talk about British leaders and terrorism, why just limit ourselves to Corbyn

[Livia]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I thought we were talking about why a Corbyn Labour government would be worse than a May Tory government. If we are going to talk about British leaders and terrorism, why just limit ourselves to Corbyn

Because of the thread title.

And we have someone on the forum who is actually from Northern Ireland and it's been a refreshing change to have someone speak from that perspective.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

But UK governments (of both parties) have been arming terrorists for years? Multiple billions of pounds worth of weapons are sold to dictatorships and oppressive regimes every year... and this isn't throwback stuff: it has increased under the Tories since 2010, and has increased even faster specifically under Theresa May. So... we already have terror / violence supporters in Westminster and we've been looking the other way for decades. I'm not saying that makes it OK just... well... if you really don't want to look the other way, you need to open your eyes to the fact that Corbyn's support of questionable groups is far from isolated in UK politics. I guess maybe it seems different because it's so close to home (Ireland) rather than far overseas in the Middle East and Africa... but yeah. Theresa May's government sells weapons to despots and warlords. They specifically invite them along to big events, to show off all of the fun new death toys that those people might want to buy, and they do buy them, and they use them to suppress and murder untold numbers of innocent people.

Yes, I know that, and obviously I don’t agree with it. The USA does the same. Their reasons for doing this seem to be many and varied, and mostly for gain I'm sure. As all govt's have done this it is a govt policy and we can't say is is because they are terrorist supporters or any particular person has been a terrorist supporter.

So, no past or present PM or person aiming to be PM, has, as an individual, been personally involved with any terrorist group as a supporter. I have never heard of May or Cameron or Blair attending terrorist rallies or attending the funerals of terrorists. I have never heard of them cosily hanging around with terrorists, having them as friends and championing their causes against democracy. I have no personal info on any other PM past or present.

Lets say that a person leading a main party and aiming to be the next PM had exactly the same involvement with ISIS that Corbyn had with the IRA and was a known terrorist sympathiser along with like minded people close by his side - would people still turn away?
Would they say "Oh well, what of it? sure look at who the Govt sell arms to".
I KNOW what Corbyn was (and a liar and fraud to boot) therefore I detest him and nothing is going to change that.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

Because of the thread title.

Did you actually check the thread title or the first post before saying this? Because the thread isn't specifically about N.I, the IRA or Terrorism at all.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Did you actually check the thread title or the first post before saying this? Because the thread isn't specifically about N.I, the IRA or Terrorism at all.

It's about Corbyn and his clique, so it could be said it is.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

Yes, I know that, and obviously I don’t agree with it. The USA does the same. Their reasons for doing this seem to be many and varied, and mostly for gain I'm sure. As all govt's have done this it is a govt policy and we can't say is is because they are terrorist supporters or any particular person has been a terrorist supporter.

So, no past or present PM or person aiming to be PM, has, as an individual, been personally involved with any terrorist group as a supporter. I have never heard of May or Cameron or Blair attending terrorist rallies or attending the funerals of terrorists. I have never heard of them cosily hanging around with terrorists, having them as friends and championing their causes against democracy. I have no personal info on any other PM past or present.

Lets say that a person leading a main party and aiming to be the next PM had exactly the same involvement with ISIS that Corbyn had with the IRA and was a known terrorist sympathiser along with like minded people close by his side - would people still turn away?
Would they say "Oh well, what of it? sure look at who the Govt sell arms to".
I KNOW what Corbyn was (and a liar and fraud to boot) therefore I detest him and nothing is going to change that.

Oh I get that entirely, but there's surely plenty of room in our hearts for detesting lots of people, especially the shower of vipers in politics. The horrible situation at the end of the day, is that in most cases anyone who rises through the ranks in politics is going to be a ruthless sh**.

But then what are voters to do? Surely all that can really be done is to try to vote for a party based on their policies and hope that they adhere to them (even though that's highly unlikely). In most of the UK for anyone who is wholeheartedly against current Tory policies and the things that are happening to certain demographics in the UK because of those policies, there is only ONE alternative to vote for... no matter who their leader is. I'm lucky enough not to have to make that call when I vote but if I was in England - although as I've said before I am now no Corbyn supporter at all - I would simply HAVE to support Labour because there is no viable alternative to the Tories... and the very real effects that Tory policies are having come before any personal dislike of a shady politician.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

It's about Corbyn and his clique, so it could be said it is.

Only if you believe that Corbyn's N.I. activities are the full extent of a discussion about Corbyn in general (obviously this is not the case), and only if you believe that a discussion involves only mentioning one side of the coin and never including the other (in this case, the Tories) which obviously is also not the case because that is not a discussion; that is a blog.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Oh I get that entirely, but there's surely plenty of room in our hearts for detesting lots of people, especially the shower of vipers in politics. The horrible situation at the end of the day, is that in most cases anyone who rises through the ranks in politics is going to be a ruthless sh**.

But then what are voters to do? Surely all that can really be done is to try to vote for a party based on their policies and hope that they adhere to them (even though that's highly unlikely). In most of the UK for anyone who is wholeheartedly against current Tory policies and the things that are happening to certain demographics in the UK because of those policies, there is only ONE alternative to vote for... no matter who their leader is. I'm lucky enough not to have to make that call when I vote but if I was in England - although as I've said before I am now no Corbyn supporter at all - I would simply HAVE to support Labour because there is no viable alternative to the Tories... and the very real effects that Tory policies are having come before any personal dislike of a shady politician.

So, hypothetically speaking, would you vote for the hypothetical ISIS supporting leader of a party which I spoke of above, if his policies appealed to you over that of the Tories?

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by jet

Yes, I know that, and obviously I don’t agree with it. The USA does the same. Their reasons for doing this seem to be many and varied, and mostly for gain I'm sure. As all govt's have done this it is a govt policy and we can't say is is because they are terrorist supporters or any particular person has been a terrorist supporter.

So, no past or present PM or person aiming to be PM, has, as an individual, been personally involved with any terrorist group as a supporter. I have never heard of May or Cameron or Blair attending terrorist rallies or attending the funerals of terrorists. I have never heard of them cosily hanging around with terrorists, having them as friends and championing their causes against democracy. I have no personal info on any other PM past or present.

Lets say that a person leading a main party and aiming to be the next PM had exactly the same involvement with ISIS that Corbyn had with the IRA and was a known terrorist sympathiser along with like minded people close by his side - would people still turn away?
Would they say "Oh well, what of it? sure look at who the Govt sell arms to".
I KNOW what Corbyn was (and a liar and fraud to boot) therefore I detest him and nothing is going to change that.

In November last year, May made a three day visit to SA and Jordan to raise humanitarian issues about Yemen but the reality was, she wanted to forge a bold confident future with those countries as we head towards Brexit. She refused to reject the continuation of arms sales knowing those weapons are being used to kill hundreds and thousands of innocents.

We are the second biggest arms dealer in the world and most of the weapons we sell are fueling deadly conflicts. We sell them to oppressive countries like SA who are using those weapons to obliterate Yemen and deliberately taking out civilian targets. Our government often holds the hand of a terrorist... greed will see to that.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

So, hypothetically speaking, would you vote for the hypothetical ISIS supporting leader of a party which I spoke of above, if his policies appealed to you over that of the Tories?

If the level was similar to that of what has been evidenced of Corbyn and the IRA? And the surrounding party wasn't also implicated? Yes. Because the UK parliament is set up in such a way that the Prime Minister's individual agenda is really not all that relevant in terms of what will realistically happen while they are in power... that is to say... a closet ISIS violence supporting PM would have absolutely no power to help ISIS gain any sort of foothold in the UK, without the backing of the rest of their party and probably other parties, which is never going to happen.

In the meanwhile, in realistic day-to-day life in the UK, the Tories are punitively crushing the vulnerable and the disabled, ruining real lives and causing thousands of families huge amounts of struggle on a daily basis. Not hypothetically; that is happening, right now, and will only get worse under Tory ideology. If the only alternative is a party with a dodgy leader and a VERY UNREALISTIC idea that said dodgy leader could actually impose his dodgy will on the rest of the country in some way... then yes I would have to vote for it, unfortunately.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Only if you believe that Corbyn's N.I. activities are the full extent of a discussion about Corbyn in general (obviously this is not the case), and only if you believe that a discussion involves only mentioning one side of the coin and never including the other (in this case, the Tories) which obviously is also not the case because that is not a discussion; that is a blog.

Really valid point again.

I've been through this many times and got nowhere.
Just constant one-sided put-down.

My whole Mothers side is Irish,I have family who also have lived in N Ireland near all their lives.
Although my mother hails from the South.

I get a different take on it from them from the one-sided presentation here that only suits their side of the issue.
No wanting to even consider the other take on things.

I got sick of the usual bandwagon presenting only one side.
Gave up on it.

Good luck with your efforts.

Unbelievable,someone,another agrees with because they are from N Ireland are considered an expert on Corbyn and the troubles.
I as a member of the Labour party,are deemed to know nothing as to Corbyn and then be classed as a supporter of terrorists or in a Jewish hating party.

They call that debate.
All powers that be help us.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

If the level was similar to that of what has been evidenced of Corbyn and the IRA? And the surrounding party wasn't also implicated? Yes. Because the UK parliament is set up in such a way that the Prime Minister's individual agenda is really not all that relevant in terms of what will realistically happen while they are in power... that is to say... a closet ISIS violence supporting PM would have absolutely no power to help ISIS gain any sort of foothold in the UK, without the backing of the rest of their party and probably other parties, which is never going to happen.

In the meanwhile, in realistic day-to-day life in the UK, the Tories are punitively crushing the vulnerable and the disabled, ruining real lives and causing thousands of families huge amounts of struggle on a daily basis. Not hypothetically; that is happening, right now, and will only get worse under Tory ideology. If the only alternative is a party with a dodgy leader and a VERY UNREALISTIC idea that said dodgy leader could actually impose his dodgy will on the rest of the country in some way... then yes I would have to vote for it, unfortunately.

Wow. See, I could never back someone who individually personally supported terrorists who murdered innocent men, woman and children going about their daily business....and Corbyn isn't alone in his support, he has John McDonnell and Diane Abbott as like minded cronies...could be others.
I guess that's my fantasy of Corbyn being outed at an ISIS terrorists funeral and being overthrown gone up in smoke then. Damnit.

But at least you gave an honest answer.