Jeremy Corbyn (Vol. 3)

[zygalski]

P5BNij said:

avinalarf said:

biggbn said:

So politicians should never have met with the ira or other organisations to further dialogue and help bring about the peace process?

These meetings are usually held in secret and in a discrete manner.
It is only when a form of agreement is in the offing that they become visible.
JC is notorious for being in the company of dubious characters, let alone fellow MPs.

Let's not forget that Corbyn has never been part of the peace process, officially or otherwise and that two days after the Brighton bomb in '84 he praised the IRA in the editorial of a left wing rag he was writing for (if I recall correctly someone posted a link on this thread or in one of the previous volumes a while ago) He's had countless opportunities to specifically denounce the IRA but still refuses to do so and his occasional vague spoutings of 'condemnation of all violence' is meaningless in this context. He is a spineless liar, a hypocrite and not fit for office.

To bne fair though, a few weeks after the Brighton bombing Thatcher's government began talks with the IRA, and all the while Thatcher was saying, if I recall, 'we will never negotiate with terrorists' or words to that effect.
Did that make Thatcher a spineless liar too?

[zygalski]

P5BNij said:

avinalarf said:

biggbn said:

So politicians should never have met with the ira or other organisations to further dialogue and help bring about the peace process?

These meetings are usually held in secret and in a discrete manner.
It is only when a form of agreement is in the offing that they become visible.
JC is notorious for being in the company of dubious characters, let alone fellow MPs.

Let's not forget that Corbyn has never been part of the peace process, officially or otherwise and that two days after the Brighton bomb in '84 he praised the IRA in the editorial of a left wing rag he was writing for (if I recall correctly someone posted a link on this thread or in one of the previous volumes a while ago) He's had countless opportunities to specifically denounce the IRA but still refuses to do so and his occasional vague spoutings of 'condemnation of all violence' is meaningless in this context. He is a spineless liar, a hypocrite and not fit for office.

To be fair though, as has now been made public, a few weeks after the Brighton bombing Thatcher's government began talks with the IRA, and all the while Thatcher was saying, if I recall, 'we will never negotiate with terrorists' or words to that effect.
Did that make Thatcher a spineless liar too?

[NoNeed]

biggbn said:

NoNeed said:

biggbn said:

Now this I have a problem with. In what world is a denouncement of all violence not acceptable? Because he does not specifically denounce violence that goes against your beliefs? Because his holistic denouncement must include illegal violence from all, including our armed forces? What's the problem?

So where and when did he meet our armed forces or unionist para militaries?

You are claiming corbyn has never met with members of our armed forces?

No you seem to be claiming he has as he was persuing peace, I asked where and when

[P5BNij]

zygalski said:

P5BNij said:

avinalarf said:

biggbn said:

So politicians should never have met with the ira or other organisations to further dialogue and help bring about the peace process?

These meetings are usually held in secret and in a discrete manner.
It is only when a form of agreement is in the offing that they become visible.
JC is notorious for being in the company of dubious characters, let alone fellow MPs.

Let's not forget that Corbyn has never been part of the peace process, officially or otherwise and that two days after the Brighton bomb in '84 he praised the IRA in the editorial of a left wing rag he was writing for (if I recall correctly someone posted a link on this thread or in one of the previous volumes a while ago) He's had countless opportunities to specifically denounce the IRA but still refuses to do so and his occasional vague spoutings of 'condemnation of all violence' is meaningless in this context. He is a spineless liar, a hypocrite and not fit for office.

To be fair though, as has now been made public, a few weeks after the Brighton bombing Thatcher's government began talks with the IRA, and all the while Thatcher was saying, if I recall, 'we will never negotiate with terrorists' or words to that effect.
Did that make Thatcher a spineless liar too?

It makes her a liar, but she was far from spineless.

[djc206]

biggbn said:

For what it's worth I suspect his parading them around the house of commons was a move intended to agitate the establishment and publicise the cause.

No doubt. His whole political career has been about him causing trouble for the establishment. That’s my biggest issue with him is that he doesn’t actually have a set of principles he just opposes whatever it is the sitting government support or stand for even if he’s part of that government. Opposition for oppositions sake is not a tenable position for a leader.

[djc206]

zygalski said:

To be fair though, as has now been made public, a few weeks after the Brighton bombing Thatcher's government began talks with the IRA, and all the while Thatcher was saying, if I recall, 'we will never negotiate with terrorists' or words to that effect.
Did that make Thatcher a spineless liar too?

A little white lie to avoid causing outrage thereby jeopardising the talks. Seems like a smart move even if it did involve lying to us plebs.

Funnily enough though Corbyn wouldn’t have been able to accuse of her lying because he didn’t think of them as terrorists....

[jakesmith]

biggbn said:

So politicians should never have met with the ira or other organisations to further dialogue and help bring about the peace process?

This is a blatant lie pushed by Corbyn and McDonnell to naive and ignorant people to try and justify his despicable actions and associations now he has profile and is being held to account.

Evidence in 2 parts:

1) he only meets with the side opposed to U.K. / western interests. For example for someone as passionate about Palestinian causes that he can attempt to justify meeting some of the most unpleasant terror groups in the region, when has he met the Israelis or their representatives? Never

2) he was not involved in any way in any peace processes and was not a representative of the government, and had no capacity to negotiate or deliver anything

[biggbn]

NoNeed said:

biggbn said:

NoNeed said:

biggbn said:

Now this I have a problem with. In what world is a denouncement of all violence not acceptable? Because he does not specifically denounce violence that goes against your beliefs? Because his holistic denouncement must include illegal violence from all, including our armed forces? What's the problem?

So where and when did he meet our armed forces or unionist para militaries?

You are claiming corbyn has never met with members of our armed forces?

No you seem to be claiming he has as he was persuing peace, I asked where and when

I have made no such claims, although I find it somewhat incongruous to think that someone who has served as an MP so long has never met with any of our armed forces. I know he spent a long time with wartime veterans after the armistice day service he was criticised for attending, when Cameron nodded briefly at the old heroes and pi$$ed of back to downing street for an official reception.

We will never agree in this regard, and that's cool. O have always found him to be a passionate person, and essentially a decent man. But his politics of protest in no way prepared him for leadership and the party missed the open goal provided by Mrs May, the gift that keeps on giving, and their time is gone I feel. He was the reason I joined the labour party, and the reason I left. Am no blind fanboy, he reinvigorated the party and now seems to be destroying it.

[George Smiley]

P5BNij said:

It makes her a liar, but she was far from spineless.

Are you suggesting she should have announced we are in talks with a terrorist organisation? That would have worked, there are lies, then there are lies.

[NoNeed]

biggbn said:

I have made no such claims, although I find it somewhat incongruous to think that someone who has served as an MP so long has never met with any of our armed forces. I know he spent a long time with wartime veterans after the armistice day service he was criticised for attending, when Cameron nodded briefly at the old heroes and pi$$ed of back to downing street for an official reception.

We will never agree in this regard, and that's cool. O have always found him to be a passionate person, and essentially a decent man. But his politics of protest in no way prepared him for leadership and the party missed the open goal provided by Mrs May, the gift that keeps on giving, and their time is gone I feel. He was the reason I joined the labour party, and the reason I left. Am no blind fanboy, he reinvigorated the party and now seems to be destroying it.

The point I was making is quite simply meeting one group when several are at war will not deliver peace, I therefore concluded he supports that one group that he met so often as I see no evidence he met with any of the others

[biggbn]

NoNeed said:

biggbn said:

I have made no such claims, although I find it somewhat incongruous to think that someone who has served as an MP so long has never met with any of our armed forces. I know he spent a long time with wartime veterans after the armistice day service he was criticised for attending, when Cameron nodded briefly at the old heroes and pi$$ed of back to downing street for an official reception.

We will never agree in this regard, and that's cool. O have always found him to be a passionate person, and essentially a decent man. But his politics of protest in no way prepared him for leadership and the party missed the open goal provided by Mrs May, the gift that keeps on giving, and their time is gone I feel. He was the reason I joined the labour party, and the reason I left. Am no blind fanboy, he reinvigorated the party and now seems to be destroying it.

The point I was making is quite simply meeting one group when several are at war will not deliver peace, I therefore concluded he supports that one group that he met so often as I see no evidence he met with any of the others

No problem man, I see your point though, have a great day.

[biggbn]

jakesmith said:

This is a blatant lie pushed by Corbyn and McDonnell to naive and ignorant people to try and justify his despicable actions and associations now he has profile and is being held to account.

Evidence in 2 parts:

1) he only meets with the side opposed to U.K. / western interests. For example for someone as passionate about Palestinian causes that he can attempt to justify meeting some of the most unpleasant terror groups in the region, when has he met the Israelis or their representatives? Never

2) he was not involved in any way in any peace processes and was not a representative of the government, and had no capacity to negotiate or deliver anything

Jake, am not suggesting he was part of the peace process, but that he has always campaigned for peace and dialogue throughout his career. We have had this discussion before you and I, and I seem to remember you said you did not think he was a racist or anti Semitic either, perhaps am wrong. No point conducting this discussion again and again, hope life is treating you well, have a great day, gbn

[P5BNij]

George Smiley said:

P5BNij said:

It makes her a liar, but she was far from spineless.

Are you suggesting she should have announced we are in talks with a terrorist organisation? That would have worked, there are lies, then there are lies.

I'm not suggesting anything, simply answering zyg's question.

[motco]

Did Corbyn condemn the implied violence of McDonnell's call for a Day of Rage, and did Corbyn condemn the actual violence of the student riots which McDonnell described as 'The best of our movement'?

[irocfan]

actually I DO now believe that he is anti-semitic. For some time I could give him the benefit of the doubt but that time has passed - mind you there is the train of thought "...Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity..."

Either way - not fit for office

[biggbn]

irocfan said:

actually I DO now believe that he is anti-semitic. For some time I could give him the benefit of the doubt but that time has passed - mind you there is the train of thought "...Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity..."

Either way - not fit for office

I like that quote!!

[768]

I struggle to attribute it to stupidity at this point. Normally he makes that very easy.

[Mothersruin]

Hmmmmm!

[NoddyonNitrous]

biggbn said:

irocfan said:

actually I DO now believe that he is anti-semitic. For some time I could give him the benefit of the doubt but that time has passed - mind you there is the train of thought "...Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity..."

Either way - not fit for office

I like that quote!!

Hanlon's Law.

[biggbn]

This used to remind me of Theresa May...now it reminds me of corbyn also....and I suspect it will resonate with the impending Boris premiership...


The fence post tortoise.




While stitching a cut on the hand of a 75 year old farmer, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man.

Eventually the topic got around to politicians and their role as our leaders.

The old farmer said, " Well, as I see it, most politicians are 'Fence Post Tortoises'.''

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'fence post tortoise' was.

The old farmer said: "When you're going down a country road and you come across a fence post with a tortoise balanced on top, that's a fence post tortoise."

The old farmer saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face so he continued to explain.

"You know he didn't get up there by himself.
He doesn't belong up there,
He doesn't know what to do while he's up there,
He's elevated beyond his ability to function, and you just wonder what kind of idiot put him up there to begin with."