hypocrisy and lack of realism in the ideals of the wartime propaganda . Tory Mendacity on "The Troubles" #Corbyn4PM

If the ex Head of Mi5 holds this view too then why is Mr Corbyn supposed to see it differently? He is TWO weeks away from possibly being PM should those who are about to vote not know what his views and policies are on Terrorism are?...I appreciate that no one is supposed to talk about Brexit anymore but don't its supporters want to know about anything at all now?
-2:05
8,854 Views
The People's Britain
Ex-MI5 chief: a few among a whole generation have been radicalised because of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
LikeShow more reactions
Comment
Comments
Ellie Baker While you all get upset about Corbyn and his non existent IRA connections .. let me remind you of our Conservatives governments involvement with human rights abusers and dictators openly funding ISIS .. Happening right now 


Theresa May hosted the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Al Thani, saying that his country was a ‘natural partner’ of the UK which was seeking to promote investment and ‘defence’ (i.e., arms exports)The meeting followed Defence Secretary Michael Fallon hosting Qatar’s Defence Minister to discuss joint military training in which Fallon also announced the creation of a new Deputy Defence Attaché role in Qatar ‘which will ensure strong and continued defence engagement’.
Qatar has been accused of financially supporting radical opposition groups in Syria and Iraq and has allowed private fundraising for Al Qaeda, the Islamic State group and other jihadist organisationshttp ://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-saudi-qatar-idUSBREA2806S20140309

Theresa May also hosted the King of Bahrain, Hamad bin Isa al Khalifa, notorious for his country’s brutal crackdown on dissidents and the Shia community. 

The Prime Minister reiterated the UK’s ‘firm commitment to the security of the Gulf’ - government code for continuing support for the regime. 
Royal visits have also been made to Oman and the United Arab Emirates and the government has reaffirmed its commitment to building two new military bases in Bahrain and Oman…
The current King of Bahrain, Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa is a descendent of the long-ruling Al Khalifa dynasty, which has held power in the country since 1783. Al Khalifa is a tactical partner of the United States in the Gulf region, yet his reign since 2002 has nonetheless administered violent repression of anti-monarchy activists
Interesting point the UK spent £2m in aid money last year to support humanitarian reform in the Bahrain, there was still widespread evidence of the use of torture by security services
…so we give them money to stop human rights abuses and then sell them weapons and cosy up 


Meanwhile, Britain has struck an extraordinary new special relationship with the military rulers of Egypt, who overthrow a democratically-elected government in 2013. In August, Theresa May spoke with Egyptian military ruler General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and ‘discussed a new chapter in bilateral relations between the UK and Egypt’. Since late 2015 numerous ministerial meetings have been held to promote military
cooperationr
Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt has presided over the flagrant abuse of human rights since taking office a year ago pledging to restore stability. Violence by armed groups and the government has escalated.
The United States and European governments should stop overlooking Egyptian government abuses, including a lack of accountability for many killings of protesters by security forces, mass detentions, military trials of civilians, hundreds of death sentences, and the forced eviction of thousands of families in the Sinai Peninsula.

.https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/06/08/egypt-year-abuse
LikeShow more reactions
Reply4 hrs
Dave Evans Any point you may have had disintegrates if you start it with a lie, Ellie. 

Corbyn's connections with the IRA are a matter of record.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
3 hrs
Ellie Baker please show me ..because i don't think its true ..because if it was you;d have evidence .. but of course ignore the government selling arms to dictators and regimes that support isis .. some facts for you ..https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/868167966063558656
“Several factual inaccuracies in Andrew Neil's assertions this evening around the Northern…
TWITTER.COM
LikeShow more reactions
Reply33 mins
Dave Evans Eoin is 

a) not a great source - he doesn't do things like 'fact checking'
...See More
LikeShow more reactions
Reply31 mins
Dave Evans But if your assertion is that Corbyn has never had contact with the IRA? 

That's trivial to disprove, Ellie.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply30 mins
Ellie Baker research the facts yourself ..its all there..still waiting for the evidence..do you honestly think if they had anything on Corbyn they wouldn't have used it so far ?..and please check the dates of this photographs .long after the good friday agreement...See More
LikeShow more reactions
Reply26 mins
LikeShow more reactions
Reply25 mins
Dave Evans You'll note that I provided a different photograph, Ellie. From the 1980s. 

Do I need to explain the differences between those two photographs, or can you work them out for yourself?


Not that Corbyn meeting with Gerry Adams shortly before the IRA detonated their largest bombing of mainland Britain EVER is a particularly *great* photo... 

(and *after* that terrorist attack, Corbyn invited Adams to Parliament YET AGAIN - to sell his autobiography...)
LikeShow more reactions
Reply23 minsEdited
Ellie Baker and in our manifesto .."A Labour government will immediately recognise the state of Palestine."..about time huh ?..
LikeShow more reactions
Reply23 mins
Ellie Baker you mean after he was fully accepted into parliament and became part of the political world .. you really are silly .. again don't you think if they had anything credible on Corbyn .. they would use it .. you have your opinion ..but facts don't back your opinion up .. read the facts
LikeShow more reactions
Reply21 minsEdited
Dave Evans It might nice if you could stay on topic for just this once, Ellie. 

Stop trying to deflect, stop trying to tell us how nasty the Tories are. 
...See More
LikeShow more reactions
Reply20 mins
LikeShow more reactions
Reply20 mins
Dave Evans I mean - do you not know who Gerry Adams is? 

Do you not know who Martin McGuinness was?
...See More
LikeShow more reactions
Reply17 mins
Ellie Baker If the Catholics had been allowed civil rights from the start there would have been no violence. Internment of over 3000 Catholic men was the best recruiting sergeant for the IRA. If you codem the IRA you need to condemn the Army and RUC paramilitary police for their murders as well.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply16 mins
Ellie Baker Corbyn condemned both the IRA and the British Army.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply16 mins
Dave Evans These aren't responses to what I'm saying, Ellie. 

Nor are they relevant to what you said. 


The question at hand isn't whether Corbyn has condemned the IRA. 

You claimed he had no connection whatsoever with the IRA. 

What's your basis for that claim? Given that there are, y'know, photos of him with them.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply14 mins
Dave Evans You know what? Don't answer me. 

But have a good hard think about it. 


Because you need to know the answer to this.

If a blog or a meme got you *so* convinced about this that you're willing to argue so vociferously about it - even in the face of photographic evidence and contemporaneous news articles - then you really need to stop and think about how readily you believe things you *want* to believe. 

And whether facts matter to you, or not.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply12 mins
Ellie Baker you're talking silly and you know it .. corny is a man of peace
LikeShow more reactions
ReplyJust now
Andrew Sheldon Enlighten us...what are they? Evidence would be appreciated if available.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply3 hrs
Tim Light I'm waiting too... Given that Corbyn was under seveilence by MI5, for pretty much all of that time and they couldn't find anything which they could arrest him for.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply3 hrsEdited
LikeShow more reactions
ReplyRemove Preview3 hrs
Roger Lewis http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/.../the... 
In 1992, Ramadan Abedi was sent back to Libya by Britain’s MI6 and was involved in a British-devised plot to assassinate Muammar Gaddafi. The operation having been readily exposed, he was exfilt
...See More
LikeShow more reactions
Reply3 hrs
Dave Evans And we're shifting the goalposts again. 

Who claimed that Corbyn committed a criminal offence? 


That he met with IRA members is a matter of record. It's in Hansard. There are several photographs of him chatting with divisional commanders of the provisional IRA. 

He's admitted himself to attending memorial services for IRA martyrs (and described it as "an honour" to be invited).
LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
3 hrs
Dave Evans By all means think that Corbyn's support of the IRA doesn't matter. 

By all means think that it was years ago, or that you agree with him. 
...See More
LikeShow more reactions
Reply3 hrs
Roger Lewis http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/.../the...
ROD LIDDLE This is the worst Tory election campaign ever Theresa May has the warmth, wit and oratorical ability of a fridge-free...
LETTHEMCONFECTSWEETERLIES.BLOGSPOT.COM
LikeShow more reactions
ReplyRemove Preview2 hrs
Dave Evans Take your conspiracy theories and shove them up your arse, Roger 
LikeShow more reactions
Reply2 hrs
Roger Lewis Dave Evans This is evidence based upon facts Dave, the truth is like that it sets you free but only after it pisses you off. Google SCADS Lance de Haven.
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/.../hangin... You´re welcome, no need to say thank you Dave.
LikeShow more reactions
ReplyRemove Preview2 hrs
Stuart Gregory Jeremy Corbyn has never met anyone from the IRA Dave

In your haste to stick the boot into Corbyn, you are confusing Sinn Fein with the IRA.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1 hr
Tim Light I agree that it's wrong to claim that connections are "non existent" (as in the first comment above) but, at the same time, it's wrong to exaggerate those connections. Which, is something which we often see. It's more accurate to say that Corbyn had a 'pro-unionist' stance on Northern Ireland, rather than 'pro-IRA'. He's also on record condemning the violence there, at that time, by all perpetrators. But, this seldom gets mentioned by those who dislike him and use he's opinions of the troubles in Northern Ireland and what should have been done to achieve peace, against him.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply2 hrsEdited
Dave Evans It was an explicitly pro-IRA stance, Tim

(and you mean 'Republican' rather than 'Unionist'...)


Certainly his overall stance has always been in support of a united Ireland (which is a perfectly valid political position to hold), but he's also regularly expressed that support *through support of the Provisional IRA*. 

He's met with senior members (repeatedly), he's attended memorials for their dead, he's protested their trials and the magazine he edited eulogised their terrorism (and, most notoriously, even celebrated the Brighton Bombing - and the deaths it caused - in an editorial)

We can't pretend he was a distant supporter of their cause. He was an active supporter of the IRA as an entity, and a supporter of many of them as individuals. 



Again - these are perfectly valid positions to hold (although in some cases a bit distasteful). There's nothing criminal about any of it. 

It's also perfectly valid to suggest that, given the current political situation, none of this matters any more. 

My issue is that far too many Corbyn supporters are eager to rewrite history on his behalf, inventing a perfect, flawless Jeremy Corbyn who has never done anything questionable. 

(we see a similar thing with regard to expenses claims, where "he has low travel expenses claims" (true) has been twisted to "he always has the lowest expenses claims of any MP" (an outright lie))
LikeShow more reactions
Reply
2
2 hrs
Tim Light Yeah, I often do that. In the case of N.I., I often think of 'unionism' to mean the union of N.I. and the Republic. It's made more confusing that the pro-British in N.I. are often referred to as 'loyalists' rather than 'unionists'. I usually see my mis...See More
LikeShow more reactions
Reply2 hrs
Dave Evans The only republicans he met with were members of the provisional IRA, the only arguments he advanced were those aligned with Sinn Fein and the provisional IRA. 

He definitely attended events relating to IRA terrorist members - so his contact wasn't just with the 'political wing'.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1 hr
Andrew Sheldon Opinion is good but it isn't evidence Dave...where are the quotes and their sources which have him expressing support for PIRA and it's campaign of violence?
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1 hr
Dave Evans Again with the goalpost-moving, Andrew.

The thing is, you've had Corbyn's IRA connections proved to you repeatedly. What would be the point in providing the same links to you again? 


You're just going to force the same argument again in a subsequent thread. 

Honestly, the bigger issue for me is the way you lot have so much difficult acknowledging Corbyn's background, and the things he's championed over his political career. 

This shouldn't be controversial stuff. Most of it should be stuff you agree with, even.

(or at least aren't bothered about)
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1 hrEdited
Roger Lewis http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/.../ira-uda... Try some facts Dave, just for a change.
DO you suppose that all conflict ends by the bad guys walking out with white flags and saying do with us as you will? DO grow up.


Quiggleys words.p.232 tragedy and Hope.
´´but criticism should have been directed rather at the hypocrisy and lack
of realism in the ideals of the wartime propaganda and at the lack of honesty of the chief negotiators in carrying on the pretense that these ideals were still in effect while they violated them daily, and necessarily violated them. The settlements were clearly made by secret negotiations, by the Great Powers exclusively, and by power politics. They had to be. No settlements could ever have been made on any other bases. The failure of the chief negotiators (at least the Anglo-Americans) to admit this is regrettable, but behind their
reluctance to admit it is the even more regrettable fact that the lack of political experience and political education of the American and English electorates made it dangerous for the negotiators to admit the facts of life in international political relationships.”
LikeShow more reactions
Reply58 mins
Dave Evans Do feel free to stop stalking me like a total fucking mentalist, Roger.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply55 mins
Andrew Sheldon How has this Goalpost shifted..this is all I have said " Enlighten us...what are they? Evidence would be appreciated if available." There is no evidence in any of the above it is interesting but it is opinion.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1 hr
Dave Evans When the initial claim was "Corbyn had no IRA connections at all", asking for proof that he "supported the PIRA's campaign of violence" is rather more significant, wouldn't you say? 

Almost like you're asking me to prove something that wasn't alleged 
in the first place, in fact.

You're also well aware - as am I - that the evidence has been presented to you previously, Andrew.

Why would I waste my time presenting it again?
LikeShow more reactions
Reply54 minsEdited
Dave Evans I mean - are you actually contesting that Corbyn had no connection whatsoever with the Provisional IRA?

Or just that he never supported them or their goals?


Or both?
LikeShow more reactions
Reply53 mins
Andrew Sheldon No I am saying, to be clear, he appeared on platforms and he spoke to Sinn Fein, and to the IRA. He never condoned violence from anyone, Loyalist, Republican or British as he is opposed to violence in virtually every conceivable circumstance as he believes that it occurs when politics fail.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply45 mins
Nick Machnik-Foster He has never once during The Troubles or since specifically condemned the violence of the IRA even when given 5 chances to do so recently.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply39 mins
Andrew Sheldon Neither would if I were in a position of responsibility for maintaining a still fragile Peace process.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply38 mins
Dave Evans Well that's rather different from what Ellie claimed (and what is being claimed on various pro-Corbyn blogs), and what I was initially arguing against. 

I'd contend that his mourning of IRA 'martyrs' was condoning their terrorism, as did his position 
on the editorial board of 'Labour Briefing' when they published their vile celebratory editorial about the Brighton Bombing, and his protest of the trial of IRA terrorists. 

But that is debatable. You might think he had other reasons for those actions, or that there's still a certain distance between his behaviour and 'supporting violence'. 

I'd also suggest that his inability to condemn IRA violence without equivocation is worrying. 

(he does a similar thing when asked about anti-Semitism - he won't condemn it, but he will condemn "all acts of bigotry") 

Again, you might be satisfied with an equivocal condemnation and think it's splitting hairs to want him to be specific. 

But it's saying that these things *never happened* that's my main concern. 

In order to have room for debate, we need to acknowledge the basic historical facts.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply37 minsEdited
Nick Machnik-Foster Then you're an idiot Andrew.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply37 mins
Andrew Sheldon No..I was a Soldier and I KNOW that Peace is more important than Pride.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply36 mins
Dave Evans (Corbyn isn't - and never has been - responsible for maintaining the peace process in Northern Ireland)
LikeShow more reactions
Reply36 minsEdited
Nick Machnik-Foster He is not and has never been in any position in the Peace Process and condemning IRA violence is something that some former IRA members will do.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply35 minsEdited
Nick Machnik-Foster The only reason to not condemn IRA violence is because you support it.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply34 mins
Andrew Sheldon NO it isn't Nick. The reason the IRA came to the table was that it was allowed do so without admitting either defeat or being held solely responsible for the carnage it had caused. It needed to save face and it was allowed to do so as it comprises mostly of posturing idiots to whom such things matter more than even innocent peoples lives. It had proven that already by the thousand.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply29 minsEdited
Nick Machnik-Foster The IRA came to the table because the whole thing was going fucking nowhere and the UK government reached out to end it. There were more grasses at some IRA meetings than there were members by the 1990s.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply29 mins
Roger Lewis http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/.../ira-uda...
Beofre examioning those stuboirn things ´´Facts´´Lets take a look at Boris´s first Run out as Sec of state Theresa Mays ´´Incitatus´´ ...
LETTHEMCONFECTSWEETERLIES.BLOGSPOT.COM
LikeShow more reactions
ReplyRemove Preview28 mins
Nick Machnik-Foster Roger do you mind coming back when you stop posting bollocks and can join in conservation with the adults.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
24 mins
Roger Lewis Nick one man's fish is another man's, Poisson. What I am posting is relevant to both the security services and what they know of radicalisation but further, what they do in their black operations and further with the attacks on Corbyn regarding IRA/SinnFein the UDA and MI% involvement with it activities in Ulster.
Failing to understand both the present but historical context of UK foreign and domestic policy leads to the sort of Guff that passes for critical comment. SO if its all the same to you I will continue to post, you can decide if you wish to click on and engage with the information.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply19 minsEdited
Nick Machnik-Foster No it's bollocks.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply18 mins
Roger Lewis Nick Machnik-Foster I disagree , you may disagree with or dislike the content or wish that it is not aired , but that is another question. Calling it "Bollocks" is not an argument.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply17 mins
Nick Machnik-Foster Calling it bollocks is stating a fact.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply15 minsEdited
Nick Machnik-Foster Calling it bollocks is stating a fact.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply15 mins
Roger Lewis Nick Machnik-Foster no it is stating an opinion , quite a different thing.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply14 mins
Nick Machnik-Foster No you thinking that it has any use beyond filling the Internet with shit is an opinion, stating that it is bollocks is a fact.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
13 mins
Roger Lewis Your statement is only a fact in so much that it is the fact of your opinion or even the opinion of many. To engage with the material and analyse its factual content and demonstrating where it is incorrect or incorrect to the point that it is absurd would establish to the extent that you engaged in sufficient analysis that some or all of the content could be categorised as Bollocks. You have not supported your opinion that it is Bollock. The Panorama Programme is clearly not Bollocks it has many facts supported by evidence. The Wikipedia Articles on the UDA and IRA are also full of supported facts, Encyclopaedias are full of facts.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply6 mins
Andrew Sheldon I appreciate that Nick (the SAS had killed dozens and it was on its knees) but it was more to do with ending it for good than defeating its existing ASU's as they would simply seed into the next generation. We had the opportunity we don't have with IS and we took it. Sometimes it is necessary to shake hands whilst holding one's nose as the prize is worth it.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply16 minsEdited