UKC

DUP terrorist links

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
edwardgrundy 09 Jun 2017
So, looks like the Tories are going to need the DUP to form a government. Is this acceptable? Is it rank hypocrisy after the campaign against Corbyn?

Imagine this was the other way round with Corbyn and Sinn Feinn.
10
Gone for good 09 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:

> So, looks like the Tories are going to need the DUP to form a government. Is this acceptable? Is it rank hypocrisy after the campaign against Corbyn?Imagine this was the other way round with Corbyn and Sinn Feinn.

What are you going on about?
Sinn Fein were/are the political wing of the IRA.
Remember them? The biggest perpetrators of mass murder and violence ever seen in the UK.
There really isn't a comparison is there.
41
edwardgrundy 09 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:

The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one ^^

4
 lummox 09 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:

There's a lovely similarity between the DUP and the Cons' Saudi chums : religious bigots who support terrorists, hate gay people and are anti-women's rights. At least they are being consistent in their choice of allies.
3
Gone for good 09 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:

> The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one ^^

How so?
edwardgrundy 09 Jun 2017
In reply to lummox:

> There's a lovely similarity between the DUP and the Cons' Saudi chums : religious bigots who support terrorists, hate gay people and are anti-women's rights. At least they are being consistent in their choice of allies.

Yes, good consistency. Plus it's totally fine and not like that nasty Corbyn at all because the terrorists these guys were pals with didn't killl as many people as the IRA and were kind of on our side. And the links weren't as strong either. So it's fine, totally fine because this kind of thing is all a matter of degree. I forget exactly how many people loyalist terrorists killed and I'm not sure just how strong the links were with the DUP, but they're definitely below the threshold required for people we can be pals with. Nothing hypocritical to see here at all
3
 krikoman 09 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:

Genuinely laugh out load, thanks.

I'm going to steal this though.
 Neil Williams 09 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:

> What are you going on about?

While it was the IRA who bombed the UK, the Unionists were certainly engaging in violence in NI as well.
Gone for good 09 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:

What a childish idiotic response.
Im guessing there's a bit if love going on between you and Sinn Fein?
51
Gone for good 09 Jun 2017
In reply to Neil Williams:

The violence perpetrated by the IRA was against the British nation as a whole. Institutions, infrastructure, innocent members of the public.

The violence perpetrated by the Loyalists was against the IRA.

There is a world of difference between the 2 political parties and the fact that Sinn Fein still refuse to engage in any kind of politics in Westminster whilst feeding from the expenses trough speaks for it self. They represent damage and division.
59
 lummox 09 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:

.The violence perpetrated by the Loyalists was against the IRA.

Errant nonsense.

3
Gone for good 09 Jun 2017
In reply to lummox:

> Errant nonsense.

Would you care to elaborate?
5
jjmacewan 09 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:

"The violence perpetrated by the Loyalists was against the IRA. "

Incorrect. They only killed a small number of republican terrorists, vast majority of the people killed were random (catholic) civilian targets.

"According to the Sutton database of deaths at the University of Ulster's CAIN project,[48] the UDA was responsible for 259 killings during the Troubles. 208 of its victims were civilians (predominantly Catholics), 12 were civilian political activists (mainly members of Sinn Féin), 37 were other loyalist paramilitaries (including 30 of its own members), three were members of the security forces and 11 were republican paramilitaries. A number of these attacks were carried out with the assistance or complicity of the British Army, the RUC, or both, according to the Stevens Enquiry, although the exact number of people killed as a result of collusion has not been revealed. The preferred modus operandi of the UDA was individual killings of civilian targets in nationalist areas, rather than large-scale bomb or mortar attacks."
 lummox 09 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:

Many innocents were murdered by Loyalist paramilitaries, off duty RUC members and colluding British soldiers. To suggest otherwise is wilfully ignorant.
 winhill 09 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:

> I'm not sure just how strong the links were with the DUP, but they're definitely below the threshold required for people we can be pals with.

Surely the point of the OP was that you did have some idea of the links to terrorism?

If you don't know that how do you know that they're below some threshold?

FWIW the DUP really only gained support after the GFA, not before and weren't linked to the UVF or the UDA and aimed to sidetrack all the paramilitaries by not signing the GFA.

OTOH Martin McGuinness was head of the IRA Army Council when he was Minister for Education.
1
edwardgrundy 09 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:

The cognitive dissonance is getting stronger
3
edwardgrundy 09 Jun 2017
In reply to winhill:

From wiki for Peter Robinson former DUP leader... "In 1980, Robinson was elected as the deputy leader of the DUP. In 1986, he helped establish Ulster Resistance, a loyalist paramilitary group. Following the re-establishment of devolved government in Northern Ireland as a result of the Good Friday Agreement, Robinson was elected in 1998 as the Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) for Belfast East.

I think you're missing the point re threshold...
1
 winhill 09 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:

What did Ulster Resistance do?
edwardgrundy 09 Jun 2017
In reply to winhill:

A quick google says they helped run guns for the UVF and UDA.

You're still missing the point
2
edwardgrundy 09 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

Cheers
 ebdon 09 Jun 2017
In reply to winhill:

I take it you are not familiar with northern Ireland? Loyalist paramilitary groups were responsible for a great deal of death and distruction against civilians. I think few people would view the IRA as 'baddies' but loyalists groups as 'goodies' both were terrorist organistions.
1
 lummox 09 Jun 2017
In reply to winhill:

apart from gun running for other Loyalist paramilitaries ? Not sure, but I know that the DUP were explicitly supported by the paramilitaries on 6th June.
1
 winhill 09 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:

> A quick google says they helped run guns for the UVF and UDA.You're still missing the point

How many deaths?

How many deaths linked to the DUP?

How are you comparing UR to Sinn Fein?

That was the point of the OP, shirley?
4
 winhill 09 Jun 2017
In reply to ebdon:

> I take it you are not familiar with northern Ireland?

Why?

Which deaths were the DUP linked to?

4
Gone for good 09 Jun 2017
In reply to jjmacewan:

Thanks for that.
So I was right. They were not engaged in the biggest ever mass murder or terror campaign on British territory against the British government and its peoples.
28
 ebdon 09 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:

Maybe not but they did have strong links to organistions who were as has been clearly documented.
Gone for good 09 Jun 2017
In reply to ebdon:

> Maybe not but they did have strong links to organistions who were as has been clearly documented.

The OP tried to draw a direct link between the IRA/ Sinn Fein and the DUP. In my opinion that's nonsense. At no point did I say that the Loyalists were not engaged in violence.
25
 Luke90 09 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:
> Thanks for that.So I was right. They were not engaged in the biggest ever mass murder or terror campaign on British territory against the British government and its peoples.

That's a generous bit of self-assessment.

Yes, the DUP's links to terrorism are arguably somewhat less direct than Sinn Fein's but the links indisputably still exist. It's hardly an argument in their favour to point out that the attacks linked to the DUP weren't on the British mainland or British government. The Unionists obviously weren't going to attack those they supported union with but the location of their attacks doesn't make them any more defensible. (Unless, of course, you're so blindly jingoistic that only attacks that directly harm "our" people have any relevance.)
Post edited at 11:26
1
edwardgrundy 09 Jun 2017
In reply to winhill:

> How many deaths?How many deaths linked to the DUP?How are you comparing UR to Sinn Fein?That was the point of the OP, shirley?

Point of OP was to ask what people think.

I don't think you can to say it's okay because the terrorists these guys were friends with killed less civilians, or the links were less close. It's not just the UR they're linked to - it's obviously loylasist terrorists generally; the UR (one the guy helped found) was running guns for other paramilitaries.

My point about the threshold is this: What number of deaths is small enough that it's okay to be friends with these terrorists? At what distance must links be for them not to matter?
1
edwardgrundy 09 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:

What number of deaths is small enough that it's okay to be friends with these terrorists? At what distance must links be for them not to matter?
1
 MG 09 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:

Who said anything about being friends? Isn't this a proposal to form a government that can pass legislation? As far as I am aware the DUP don't advocate violence so calling them terrorists seems a bit odd. That said, they are reactionary bigots in many ways so I hope they don't have that much influence.
6
edwardgrundy 09 Jun 2017
In reply to MG:

Sorry, bady phrased question. I meant DUP being friends with terrorists.

I'm not against them forming a governement with the DUP - they've got seats, it's democracy, they're probably not pals with terrorists anymore, we have peace, someone needs to form a goevrnement. I just think hypocritical given the campaign they just ran against Corbyn.
 winhill 09 Jun 2017
In reply to Luke90:

> It's hardly an argument in their favour to point out that the attacks linked to the DUP weren't on the British mainland or British government.

What attacks were linked to the DUP?

What was the link?
4
 galpinos 09 Jun 2017
In reply to MG:

> That said, they are reactionary bigots in many ways so I hope they don't have that much influence.

Without their votes, the Tories will struggle to get any legislation/bills passed. That already sounds like quite a bit of influence.....

 winhill 09 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:

> What number of deaths is small enough that it's okay to be friends with these terrorists?

Considering the number of deaths is zero, that seems to be the lowest number we can reasonably ask for, expecting less would require them to have found a way to create life, to have solved the puzzle of abiogenesis?

11
edwardgrundy 09 Jun 2017
In reply to winhill:

DUP members founded the UR. DUP were also friends with loyalist terrorists generally... eg the UR helped run guns for them. So the number of deaths from groups the DUP were friends with is far from zero.
Gone for good 09 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:

Let's do some straight talking.

Martin McGuiness. Terrorist. Commander of the Belfast battalion of the IRA.

Gerry Adams. Terrorist. Interned twice. Advocate of murder. A repugnant moral pygmy.

Arlene Foster. The IRA tried to kill her Father. His apparent crime was to be an RUC reservist.

Her school bus was bombed by the IRA. She was on the bus, a teenager at the time.Yes, the IRA thought nothing of bombing school buses.

Don't tell me you place them all together in the cesspit of cruelty and nastiness that 2 of them should occupy unless of course you have sympathies with the IRA in which case I'm sure you bursting to justify the hypocrisy of your own ill conceived arguments.
25
 ebdon 09 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:
I really dont get where youre coming from. no one is disputing the IRA weren't a big bunch of bastards or even the biggest buch of bastards but the DUP were still an organisation with strong links to terrorst organisations and thus the attacks on Corbyn seem pretty hypocritical.
Perhaps I'm not understanding your point?
Post edited at 13:47
 bouldery bits 09 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:

> What are you going on about?Sinn Fein were/are the political wing of the IRA.Remember them? The biggest perpetrators of mass murder and violence ever seen in the UK. There really isn't a comparison is there.

The Vikings?
The Romans?
The Normans?




1
 lummox 09 Jun 2017
In reply to bouldery bits:

> The Vikings?The Romans?The Normans?

Oliver Cromwell ?

The Luftwaffe ?

I don't think Wanderer has a very firm grasp of history.
 Shani 09 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:

It gets worse than terrorism; They are so fundie' in religious terms that they used to chain up the swings on parks, on a Sunday!
1
 elsewhere 09 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:
Group linked to UDA rents office to DUP politician Stalford
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/group-linked-to-uda-rents-off...

Arlene Foster criticised after meeting UDA leader days after loyalist murder
http://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2017/06/01/news/arlene-fo...

Nice bedfellows.
 Tony Jones 09 Jun 2017
In reply to galpinos:

> Without their votes, the Tories will struggle to get any legislation/bills passed. That already sounds like quite a bit of influence.....

They're going to struggle to get any English domestic legislation passed anyway as their new tranche of Scottish MPs will be prevented from voting on such issues by EVEL (English Votes for English Law, introduced by the Tories to prevent those pesky Nats from meddling in stuff) thus reducing their majority further.

Interesting times.

Now, what if Corbyn could persuade his alleged chums in Sinn Fein to sit at Westminster...
 bouldery bits 09 Jun 2017
In reply to Tony Jones:

> They're going to struggle to get any English domestic legislation passed anyway as their new tranche of Scottish MPs will be prevented from voting on such issues by EVEL (English Votes for English Law, introduced by the Tories to prevent those pesky Nats from meddling in stuff) thus reducing their majority further.

Oh yes, I'd forgotten bout that!

That may well end up providing some excellent conundrums.

 Martin Hore 09 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:

Time to accept surely that both Sinn Fein and the DUP have moved on from their past.

I hope that Sinn Fein do now abandon their policy of not taking seats at Westminster as if they stick to this policy they are helping Teresa May govern badly. But there is logic in their position as they believe their seats should be in Dublin not London, and so do most of those who vote for them.

Martin


 winhill 09 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:

> DUP members founded the UR. DUP were also friends with loyalist terrorists generally... eg the UR helped run guns for them. So the number of deaths from groups the DUP were friends with is far from zero.

I surprised you don't think that this has been gone over in some depth, cabinet papers from the time showed that the British regarded the UR as a civil disobedience group, little more than flying pickets, the history of any weapons used has been well established and the DUP not linked to them at all. It's well accepted that they broke from the UR in 1987 before any weapons were bought. Otherwise it would have been discovered.

Noel Little's daughter has just won a seat, if there was any shit to throw it has been thrown.
2
 RKernan 09 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:

McGuinness was from Derry, not Belfast.
You're also missing the bit about how McGuinness and Adams brought the entire Republican movement to heel in the 90s and got them to agree to the peace process. Meanwhile, the loyalist gangsters who endorsed the DUP LAST WEEK control effectively control vast swathes of the country with their drug dealing and general criminality.
The context of how the troubles started in the 1960s isn't black and white - while the IRA morphed into something grotesque, the beginnings of the PIRA occured at a time of state-sponsored collusion, pogroms, discrimination, when the police force itself was an instrument of oppression.

The DUP are an aberration and a humiliation to the rest of us in NI. Sinn Fein are a bunch of idealistic eejits but they have renounced violence definitively. Their abstentionist policy is stupid, mind, and their economics are weak. But when presented with the alternative of the DUP there's very little other option. I do not want live in the DUP's vision of the union.

One advantage of the DUP involvement with the Tories is that England will now pay attention to NI and realise the sh*te we have to put up with from these dinosaurs day in,day out - and will maybe help us do something about them.
 winhill 09 Jun 2017
In reply to Tony Jones:

> They're going to struggle to get any English domestic legislation passed anyway as their new tranche of Scottish MPs will be prevented from voting on such issues by EVEL (English Votes for English Law, introduced by the Tories to prevent those pesky Nats from meddling in stuff) thus reducing their majority further.

But the other SNP and Labour MPs also won't be able to vote, making their majority larger.

Maffs innit.
Gone for good 09 Jun 2017
In reply to bouldery bits:

Well done for completely missing the original comparison between Sinn Fein and the DUP.
6
 Tony Jones 09 Jun 2017
In reply to winhill:

There is that, I suppose.

Sleep deprivation and general exuberance is taking its toll today...
 Luke90 09 Jun 2017
In reply to Tony Jones:

> They're going to struggle to get any English domestic legislation passed anyway as their new tranche of Scottish MPs will be prevented from voting on such issues by EVEL (English Votes for English Law, introduced by the Tories to prevent those pesky Nats from meddling in stuff) thus reducing their majority further.

Sadly, although that would have been amusing, I don't think it's actually a problem for them. If you only count non-Scottish MPs, the Tories have 305 out of 591 seats, giving them a comfortable majority even without any DUP votes. (If my maths is correct. Out of 59 Scottish MPs, the Tories only had 13. They'd have to do much better in Scotland and much worse in England before EVEL did them any harm.)
 Shani 09 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:

TM warned us about a coalition of chaos. I didn't realise she meant the Conservatives and the DUP.
 MG 09 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:

Fair enough, although I don't quite agree its hypocritical. I think partnering Seinn Feinn now, would be very different to talking to the IRA and sympathising with their cause to the extent of overlooking their methods 25+ years ago are rather different things..

Actually I see May does want to be friends with them. Oh well.
 bouldery bits 09 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:

> Well done for completely missing the original comparison between Sinn Fein and the DUP.

Don't go round stating that something is the biggest something in history when it plainly aint.
I'm not here to compare millipedes with centipedes if you're telling me your centipede is bigger than a lion.

Jeez.
 krikoman 09 Jun 2017
In reply to MG:

> Fair enough, although I don't quite agree its hypocritical. I think partnering Seinn Feinn now, would be very different to talking to the IRA and sympathising with their cause to the extent of overlooking their methods 25+ years ago are rather different things..Actually I see May does want to be friends with them. Oh well.

Overlooking their methods!! WTF

If you can say one thing about Jeremy, it's that he's always been anti-violence. Come on now, get a grip.
1
 krikoman 09 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:

DUP seem like a very nice bunch of people. here's some of their views.

Climate change is a fiction of course; describing the Paris Agreement as “window dressing for climate chancers”.

Against abortion, though abortion in rape might be OK

Called for Creationism to be taught in schools.
children had been “corrupted by the teaching of evolution”.

DUP assembly member Trevor Clarke admitted that he had thought only gay people could be infected with HIV, until a charity explained otherwise.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2134162-five-things-you-need-to-know-a...
1
Gone for good 09 Jun 2017
In reply to bouldery bits:

> Don't go round stating that something is the biggest something in history when it plainly aint.I'm not here to compare millipedes with centipedes if you're telling me your centipede is bigger than a lion.Jeez.

I don't think you'll find I used the phrase "biggest ....... in history". Admittedly I didn't use the phrase "living memory" but go ahead and pretend you are right.
7
 krikoman 09 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:

> I don't think you'll find I used the phrase "biggest ....... in history". Admittedly I didn't use the phrase "living memory" but go ahead and pretend you are right.

my living memory is getting shorter by the day! Sometimes it's a matter of minutes.
1
Gone for good 09 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> my living memory is getting shorter by the day! Sometimes it's a matter of minutes.

Im happy for you.
4
 Yanis Nayu 09 Jun 2017
In reply to MG:

> Who said anything about being friends? Isn't this a proposal to form a government that can pass legislation? As far as I am aware the DUP don't advocate violence so calling them terrorists seems a bit odd. That said, they are reactionary bigots in many ways so I hope they don't have that much influence.

It's the irony of the Tories and the right wing press attacking Corbyn for his "links" to Sinn Fein, the getting into bed with the DUP at the first sign of it being in their self-interest, when there appears to be links or have been links between the DUP and terrorists.
 rocksol 09 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:

Whatever people think the Tories will form the next government and we're stuck with it, backed by the DUP Previously in a minority government they were backed by LibDems and it worked well Many governments in Europe have worked like this
There's no way Labour can form a government as the figures don't add up As well as all other MPs support they would still need DUP support which would never happen
It may be good for BREXIT and to force a little humane awareness on the Tories to alter their policies
1
 Timmd 09 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:
> The violence perpetrated by the IRA was against the British nation as a whole. Institutions, infrastructure, innocent members of the public.The violence perpetrated by the Loyalists was against the IRA. There is a world of difference between the 2 political parties and the fact that Sinn Fein still refuse to engage in any kind of politics in Westminster whilst feeding from the expenses trough speaks for it self. They represent damage and division.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/adam-ramsay/so-who-are-dup

There are people who have been members of the DUP who have also been Loyalist paramilitary figures, seeing them as being similar to Sinn Fein seems to be pretty apt.

''Theresa May's new partners in government have strong historical links with Loyalist paramilitary groups. Specifically, the terrorist group Ulster Resistance was founded by a collection of people who went on to be prominent DUP politicians. Peter Robinson, for example, who was DUP leader and Northern Ireland’s first minister until last year, was an active member of Ulster Resistance. The group’s activities included collaborating with other terrorist groups including the Ulster Volunteer Force, to smuggle arms into the UK, such as RPG rocket launchers.

Of course, Northern Ireland has moved towards peace, and the DUP, like their opponents in Sinn Fein, have rescinded violence. As part of that normalisation, the fact that parties which include people who have abandoned civil war can be brought into the democratic process is a good thing. But for the Tories to end an election campaign which they spent attacking Corbyn for his alleged links to former Northern Irish terrorists by going into coalition with a party founded by former Northern Irish terrorists would be a deep irony.''
Post edited at 18:57
1
Jim C 09 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> my living memory is getting shorter by the day! Sometimes it's a matter of minutes.

You and me both!
Gone for good 09 Jun 2017
In reply to Timmd:
I am expressing my views. You are of course entitled to yours.

I doubt we will ever convince the other to change those views.

There is a significant difference between having links to terrorist groups (Peter Robinson) and being a murdering terrorist. (Adams and McGuiness)
Post edited at 20:15
5
 Shani 10 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:

> There is a significant difference between having links to terrorist groups (Peter Robinson) and being a murdering terrorist. (Adams and McGuiness)

Yeah, I think that comes under Secondary Liability in Criminal Law.
1
 Timmd 10 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:
> I am expressing my views. You are of course entitled to yours. I doubt we will ever convince the other to change those views.There is a significant difference between having links to terrorist groups (Peter Robinson) and being a murdering terrorist. (Adams and McGuiness)

I don't have set views on this, I'm forming them as I come across information prompted by this thread. I would entirely agree that Adams and McGuiness are/were murdering terrorists, where as information on Peter Robinson only seems to go as far as saying was an active member of the Ulster Resistance, that he aided the trafficking of weaponry, some of which could have been used to kill people.

Post edited at 01:18
2
 winhill 10 Jun 2017
In reply to Timmd:

> where as information on Peter Robinson only seems to go as far as saying was an active member of the Ulster Resistance, that he aided the trafficking of weaponry

Where on earth have you come across this information? The Police Ombudsman found the complete opposite.

As Robinson may possibly be offered a peerage for saving May's butt, I recommend you let the PSNI know the source as soon as possible:

https://www.psni.police.uk/contact-us/
 Timmd 10 Jun 2017
In reply to winhill:

I was clumsy with my wording, you could blame a lack of sleep and having got in from a night out. This puts it better than I currently can.

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/no-dup-apology-for-ulster-resistance-despi...
In reply to edwardgrundy:

I always like to think that no-one despises the Tories more than me, and certainly the DUP are a pack of contemptible and murderous nutters.

However, I still don't agree with you. The entire point of the Good Friday agreement, which was a fine and necessary political achievement, was that we re-admit scum like the DUP and Sinn Fein to normal civilised life.

That being so, there's no reason why the Tories shouldn't associate with them, if they don't have more pride than that, which is obviously a matter for them. It's entirely acceptable, in the sense that it's no worse than being a Tory in the first place.

jcm
 FactorXXX 10 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:

Quick question. How many current DUP MP's have got any connections to terrorist activities, both present and historical?
Post edited at 02:34
 Billhook 10 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:

Time to move on.

I lived in Eire and a couple of our councillors were Sinn Fein members. I had dealings with a couple and they were perfectly pleasant and a darn sight more helpful than some of the self serving career politicians I've met..
edwardgrundy2 10 Jun 2017
In reply to Dave Perry:

> Time to move on.

Totally agree.... but seperate issue

edwardgrundy2 10 Jun 2017
In reply to FactorXXX:

Don't know
edwardgrundy2 10 Jun 2017
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> I always like to think that no-one despises the Tories more than me, and certainly the DUP are a pack of contemptible and murderous nutters.However, I still don't agree with you.

Not sure we do disagree! I've no problem with the Tories associating with them, someone's got to form a governement. I just think they're hypocrites given the campaign against Corbyn.
edwardgrundy2 10 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:

> Don't tell me you place them all together in the cesspit of cruelty and nastiness that 2 of them should occupy unless of course you have sympathies with the IRA in which case I'm sure you bursting to justify the hypocrisy of your own ill conceived arguments.

I've not been saying anything about the relative cruelty and nastiness of different sides on the troubles. Both sides were awful, I understand the republican side were worse. But the unionist side were still awful and the DUP apparently had strong links to the. Unless you think there's some kind of threshold of deaths where below which it's okay to be pals with terrorists and the IRA were above this threshold and the unionists terroits below then you are a hypocrite. If you do think there's such a threshold, please let us know where it is?

I don't have any sympathy for the IRA at all.

edwardgrundy2 10 Jun 2017
In reply to Martin Hore:

> Time to accept surely that both Sinn Fein and the DUP have moved on from their past.

Totally agree.

 wercat 10 Jun 2017
In reply to Shani:

That's mild. At Kishorn I worked with a man whose dad had been physically thrown back into a boat on Skye for daring to wear shorts on the Sabbath. When I lived in Applecross in the 80s the elders went round enforcing the Sabbath unenjoyment therof
 Shani 10 Jun 2017
In reply to wercat:
> That's mild. At Kishorn I worked with a man whose dad had been physically thrown back into a boat on Skye for daring to wear shorts on the Sabbath. When I lived in Applecross in the 80s the elders went round enforcing the Sabbath unenjoyment therof

Jeepers. That reminds me of the 'Beer' episode of Blackadder with Lady Whiteadder (Miriam Margolyes). Skip to 60s:

youtube.com/watch?v=krgUVduKFL4&
Post edited at 12:56
In reply to edwardgrundy:
New Tory election poster in Belfast.

https://www.facebook.com/anticonservative/photos/a.490702301102844.10737418...
Post edited at 13:09
 FactorXXX 10 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:

So, looks like the Tories are going to need the DUP to form a government. Is this acceptable? Is it rank hypocrisy after the campaign against Corbyn?

How can you compare the two?
Corbyn was in communication with active terrorists. He might not have condoned the killing of civilians, but I don't think it's unfair to say that he sympathised with their aims.
The Conservatives are in communication with a political party that hasn't got MP's that are linked to terrorism. The DUP might well have had links to terrorism in the past, but the vital difference is that they haven't now.
7
 wbo 10 Jun 2017
In reply to FactorXXX: they're very easy to compare.

The DUP were in communication with active terrorists. They supported their aims. And a lot more

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/adam-ramsay/so-who-are-dup

Bewailing Jeremy Corbyn for being a terrorist sympathiser is hypocrisy of the first order.
3
 winhill 10 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy2:

> Unless you think there's some kind of threshold of deaths where below which it's okay to be pals with terrorists and the IRA were above this threshold and the unionists terroits below then you are a hypocrite. If you do think there's such a threshold, please let us know where it is?I don't have any sympathy for the IRA at all.

Yeah, it's zero deaths. You're still not getting the point.
 winhill 10 Jun 2017
In reply to Mr Lopez:

>.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2017/06/01/news/arlene-foster-criticised-after-mee...

That's been posted already, she was buttonholed when going to meet other people.
 winhill 10 Jun 2017
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> was that we re-admit scum like the DUP and Sinn Fein to normal civilised life.

Depends why we're calling the DUP scum, if it's because they're 'just like' Sinn Fein it's demonstrably false.


> That being so, there's no reason why the Tories shouldn't associate with them, if they don't have more pride than that, which is obviously a matter for them. It's entirely acceptable, in the sense that it's no worse than being a Tory in the first place.

There is a very good constitutional reason, in that HMG is supposed to be neutral in Northern Ireland, difficult to claim that if one side is offered a special relationship with HMG.

 FactorXXX 10 Jun 2017
In reply to Mr Lopez:

http://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2017/06/01/news/arlene-fo...

Someone bumped into someone else and talked to them?
 FactorXXX 10 Jun 2017
In reply to wbo:

The DUP were in communication with active terrorists. They supported their aims. And a lot more.

Were in communication with active terrorists historically.
As far as I can tell, none of the current DUP MP's have connections with terrorists and are in essence just MP's with particular political views.
Corbyn did have talks with known terrorists and it's up to the individual to interpret his reasons for doing so...
3
 Mr Lopez 10 Jun 2017
In reply to winhill:

>.That's been posted already, she was buttonholed when going to meet other people.

You are just making excuses and apologising for terrorism. You are a terrorist sympathiser who hates the country and are trying to excuse the killings of 400 innocent people. You obviously agree with the DUP/UDA aims and methods of violence and terrorism.

Or something like that. Isn't that how it works? I'm new at making far fetched accusations and hypocritical statements based on tribalism and political point-scoring, so any advise from you guys is appreciated.
 Mr Lopez 10 Jun 2017
In reply to FactorXXX:

The DUP has links to the UDA, which is an active terrorist group. No past tense on those verbs

In reply to FactorXXX:

> The DUP were in communication with active terrorists. They supported their aims. And a lot more.Were in communication with active terrorists historically.As far as I can tell, none of the current DUP MP's have connections with terrorists and are in essence just MP's with particular political views.Corbyn did have talks with known terrorists and it's up to the individual to interpret his reasons for doing so...

OK, so why are their huge UDA murals in Belfast with a hooded UDA gunman on one side and the woman from the DUP on the other?

https://www.facebook.com/anticonservative/photos/a.490702301102844.10737418...
 MG 10 Jun 2017
In reply to Mr Lopez:

This is a bit childish don't you think. If Corbyn were criticised for associating with Sinn Feinn now, a party like the DUP with historical links to terror groups but now committed to peaceful means , that would be hypocritical. Or if May had had links with the DUP 25+ years ago, that would be hypocritical. But neither is the case. There are enough reasons to criticise the partnership of Tories and DUP without mock objections about hypocrisy.
4
 MG 10 Jun 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Actually that and other stuff is rather concerning. I'll back off from the post above for now and read a bit more
 IM 10 Jun 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> OK, so why are their huge UDA murals in Belfast with a hooded UDA gunman on one side and the woman from the DUP on the other? https://www.facebook.com/anticonservative/photos/a.490702301102844.10737418...

This pic is doing the rounds on FB etc but others show that it is a photoshop job. https://seachranaidhe1.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/wpid-udamur.jpeg?w=840

The DUP being a shower of reactionary cretins is real of course.
Post edited at 14:24
 FactorXXX 10 Jun 2017
In reply to Mr Lopez:

The DUP has links to the UDA, which is an active terrorist group. No past tense on those verbs

What are these links?
 MonkeyPuzzle 10 Jun 2017
In reply to MG:

So Corbyn had links with the IRA and is beyond the pale and the DUP had links with the UDA but that's all water under the bridge?
 MG 10 Jun 2017
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

No. Read what I wrote. Also the next post
 elsewhere 10 Jun 2017
In reply to FactorXXX:

> The DUP has links to the UDA, which is an active terrorist group. No past tense on those verbsWhat are these links?

Is May/June 2017 recent enough?

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2017/dup-chief-arle...
 TobyA 10 Jun 2017
In reply to winhill:

> Yeah, it's zero deaths. You're still not getting the point.

Is your point that the Tories are not only looking for support from a party with direct links to a terrorist group, but it's a party that could only get links to a really crap terrorist group?

A bit like if you are going to fall in love with your prison penpal, at least find one who was sent down for some 'proper' crime like GBH and not just a bit of petty shoplifting.
1
 FactorXXX 10 Jun 2017
In reply to elsewhere:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2017/dup-chief-arle...

Is that it?
Someone bumps into someone in a public place...
1
 FactorXXX 10 Jun 2017
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

So Corbyn had links with the IRA and is beyond the pale and the DUP had links with the UDA but that's all water under the bridge?

The difference is that Corbyn is still an active MP and was in contention to be PM.
2
 Frank4short 10 Jun 2017
In reply to FactorXXX:

Arlene Foster as leader of the DUP would know exactly who Jackie MacDonald is. THe bumping into him in public excuse just doesn't hold water as she should have left immediately otherwise. It's no more credible than Donald Trump's "didn't know how things work" excuse for asking everyone to leave the room when asking Comey to drop the investigation into Mike Flynn.
 krikoman 10 Jun 2017
In reply to FactorXXX:

> So, looks like the Tories are going to need the DUP to form a government. Is this acceptable? Is it rank hypocrisy after the campaign against Corbyn?How can you compare the two?Corbyn was in communication with active terrorists. He might not have condoned the killing of civilians, but I don't think it's unfair to say that he sympathised with their aims.

What would you say of supporters of Nelson Mandela, during the apartheid era?
1
 MG 10 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:
Did Mandela bomb and kill indiscriminately?
Post edited at 17:36
 krikoman 10 Jun 2017
In reply to MG:

> Did Mandela bomb and kill?

The ANC did yes?
 MG 10 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

Did it ? I thought it was essentially non violent. Could be wrong.
 FactorXXX 10 Jun 2017
In reply to Frank4short:



That would mean leaving the building/area at an event organised for her to meet people and one of which was Jackie MacDonald.
Hardly a realistic proposition.
1
 Roadrunner5 10 Jun 2017
In reply to Timmd:

I thought as part of the Good Friday agreement WestMinster had to be impartial towards the main NI parties.
 nastyned 10 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:

DUP MP William McCrea shared a platform with LVF terrorist Billy Wright.
 MonkeyPuzzle 10 Jun 2017
In reply to Roadrunner5:

It does and that's why this is more proof that the Tories under Theresa May will do anything to save their jobs, even to the detriment of the country. The threat of direct rule still looms over Northern Ireland (they've extended the deadline twice already, not to mention this crisis being brought about by the DUP themselves) and in that event do we really expect Sinn Fein to accept Westminster's impartially with the DUP being part of that national government? It's so, so irresponsible and ill-thought through.
 thomasadixon 10 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:

To be fair to him he was in jail at the time, and had been for some time. Also, South Africa at the time was hardly comparable to NI, so it's a silly comparison to make - but then the IRA are seen in some quarters as equivalent to the resistance in WWII.

The photoshopped picture above is being lapped up on Facebook.
 FactorXXX 10 Jun 2017
In reply to nastyned:

DUP MP William McCrea shared a platform with LVF terrorist Billy Wright.

...and isn't a current MP in the DUP.
1
Gone for good 10 Jun 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

I wasn't trying to make a comparison. Just showing MG that the ANC did engage in a violent terrorist campaign.
One man's terrorist etc etc..



 thomasadixon 10 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:

Oh agreed, there's justifiable violence against the state too (not including church street there!).
 winhill 10 Jun 2017
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> I'm new at making far fetched accusations and hypocritical statements based on tribalism and political point-scoring,

No you're not, it's what you do.

Trying to pretend that the DUP are like Sinn Fein is a case in point, it's just to whitewash Corbyn's horrific promotion of the IRA.
7
 krikoman 10 Jun 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> To be fair to him he was in jail at the time, and had been for some time. Also, South Africa at the time was hardly comparable to NI, so it's a silly comparison to make - but then the IRA are seen in some quarters as equivalent to the resistance in WWII.

But the ANC, of which he was a member was called a terrorist organisation by OUR government too at the time.

The point being, when is TALKING to someone, the same as supporting them. It doesn't always follow.

Contrary to the belief of some people, you don't gain peace by killing people and inflicting retribution on them. Peace begins by talking to them.
2
 FactorXXX 10 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

Contrary to the belief of some people, you don't gain peace by killing people and inflicting retribution on them. Peace begins by talking to them.

Is that what Corbyn was doing then?
 thomasadixon 10 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> But the ANC, of which he was a member was called a terrorist organisation by OUR government too at the time.

So? If they'd only attacked the state I have said their violence was justified. I'd not say the same of the IRA, they're very different circumstances.

> The point being, when is TALKING to someone, the same as supporting them. It doesn't always follow.

Absolutely, again though, so?

> Contrary to the belief of some people, you don't gain peace by killing people and inflicting retribution on them. Peace begins by talking to them.

I expect you've heard of WWII, for example. Generalisations like that are just waffle. Anyway, we all know that talking to his enemies is not what JC was doing. He was chatting to fellow travellers.
1
 Oldsign 10 Jun 2017
In reply to edwardgrundy:

Here's some info from back in the day that casts light on the kind of people involved in the DUP. This one's Dad also did time for terrorist offences and went on to be a DUP politician, serving for a decade according to records.

http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/former-dup-council-ca...
 krikoman 10 Jun 2017
In reply to FactorXXX:
> The difference is that Corbyn is still an active MP and was in contention to be PM.

I don't hear you losing it over this http://evolvepolitics.com/realise-current-conservative-politician-literally...

Or does your disgust only apply to Labour MPs

Remember Maggie and her friend Pinochet
Post edited at 23:15
1
 krikoman 10 Jun 2017
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Contrary to the belief of some people, you don't gain peace by killing people and inflicting retribution on them. Peace begins by talking to them.Is that what Corbyn was doing then?

I have no idea what he was saying, but I very much doubt it was "good on you lads, can you plant some more bombs in London, I love seeing bits people spread around the capital".

Since his consistently voted against violence it, hard to see why he'd change his mind for the IRA, but that doesn't suit what you WANT to think, so I suspect facts wont make a difference anyway.
1
 TobyA 10 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

That's such a bollocks story though isn't it? I don't know that website but I kept seeing links to it from Corbynista Facebook friends during the campaign. Up there with the Canary for general level of left-leaning crapness. They aren't running Louise Mensch stories as well are they?
 thomasadixon 10 Jun 2017
In reply to TobyA:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/maria-gatland-from-terrorist-to-tory-28457193.html

This one that it links to is quite good I thought.
Post edited at 23:57
 FactorXXX 11 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

Or does your disgust only apply to Labour MPs

You do know that she's at an extremely low level of politics, whereas Corbyn isn't...
2
 FactorXXX 11 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

I have no idea what he was saying, but I very much doubt it was "good on you lads, can you plant some more bombs in London, I love seeing bits people spread around the capital".

I too haven't got a clue what he was saying with his meetings with IRA terrorists, but to suggest, as Corbyn does, that he was initiating the peace process is pure fantasy.
1
In reply to FactorXXX:

>I too haven't got a clue what he was saying with his meetings with IRA terrorists, but to suggest, as Corbyn does, that he was initiating the peace process is pure fantasy.

Is it? Why so?

It seems to me that history has comprehensively proved Corbyn right on this issue. In the end we talked to the IRA and the result was the Good Friday agreement and twenty years' comparative peace in Northern Ireland. I'm rather surprised that attacking him for this is even a thing; it seems rather obviously counterproductive outside the usual meatheads. All it does is remind people that on the question of how best to end republican terrorism he was right and the right wing were wrong. It's one of the best aspects of his political record.

jcm

1
Pan Ron 11 Jun 2017
In reply to FactorXXX:

> I have no idea what he was saying, but I very much doubt it was "good on you lads, can you plant some more bombs in London, I love seeing bits people spread around the capital".I too haven't got a clue what he was saying with his meetings with IRA terrorists, but to suggest, as Corbyn does, that he was initiating the peace process is pure fantasy.

You seem to be saying though that Corbyn should have had zero contact and been a million metaphorical miles from the IRA. That just isn't realistic and is at odds with how our government operates itself.

It is entirely understandable that Corbyn could or should side with the Republican cause. In doing so, it is next to impossible to not be seen in some way sympathetic to the IRA, be that their underlying cause or their methods. He is quite clear however that he didn't support their methods.

As an analogy, I vehemently opposed the war in Iraq, could quite understand why individual Iraqis might blow up the "invading" armies, would do so myself if I was in their shoes. Yet that doesn't necessarily mean I revel in or support the deaths of British or American military or civilians.

To claim that Corbyn supports IRA acts of terrorism is to try and paint him in to a corner because he opposed English policy in Ireland. It is disingenuous and all the more so given that UK governments of all colours, directly and indirectly, support despots, dictators and a host of nasty characters worldwide on an ongoing basis. That might be for reasons of realpolitik, necessity, partial alignment in aims, ensuring open dialogue, or simply misguided policy. Corbyn seems to not be given an inch of the latitude normally given to government daily.
Gone for good 11 Jun 2017
In reply to David Martin:

No one has said Corbyn supports acts of IRA violence. What he did was give them comfort and succour at the time when they were doing their best to bomb Britain into fear and submission. He wasnt representative of anyone, certainly not the government and was doing what he has always done which is support organisations that were using terrorism as a means to an end.
To this day he point blank refuses to specifically condemn the IRA for the murderous violence they brought to this country.
2
 TobyA 11 Jun 2017
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

>Is it? Why so?It seems to me that history has comprehensively proved Corbyn right on this issue.

He was pro Republican, so he wasn't 'on the right side of this' because NI is still part of the UK.

For me, the central question is whether Corbyn really cares about what some (him?) see as the British imperialist occupation of the northern counties of Ireland, or whether he's just an insatiable contrarian trying to annoy whoever is in power at the time. Neither seem great options should he become PM, but when he focuses on domestic issues, and promotes policies many of us can get behind, these kind of questions can be politely ignored and left to the momentum and Tory hardliners to scream at each other about.
1
In reply to TobyA:

>He was pro Republican, so he wasn't 'on the right side of this' because NI is still part of the UK.

On the issue of whether or not we should talk to/negotiate with the IRA, I mean.

jcm
 TobyA 11 Jun 2017
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

My rough remembrance of the timeline was that the UK govt. had back channel negotiations via MI6 by the early 80s or even late 70s - someone who has studied this more can correct me if that's wrong, but the UK govt. and the PIRA were negotiating behind the scenes from very early on. As Corbyn was a back bench opposition MP back then, one not taken seriously by his own party's leadership, let alone by the government I can't really see what he had to offer for Irish republicans, political/non-violent or not, besides support for their aims.

Didn't the IRA actually run some mainland operations using English radical leftists with no connection to Ireland/NI who were attracted to them as an ideological 'cause'?
1
 TobyA 11 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

It's maybe worth people listening to Corbyn's speech where he used the word "friends" a number of times to describe Hezbollah and Hamas. youtube.com/watch?v=pGj1PheWiFQ&

His argument was that you have to talk to all sides to have a peace process which seems perfectly rational to me, and of course the Mail, the Sun, and all the right and far-right blogs use those few words as the basis of a million hit pieces on Corbyn, and he did try to walk it back later https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/jeremy-corbyn-says-he-regr... but his description of Hamas is at best hugely naive and at worse very disingenuous.

If it was the PA/PLO that he was arguing for very few people would be bothered by his words, but Hamas? And particularly Hamas nearly a decade ago...
 winhill 11 Jun 2017
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> It seems to me that history has comprehensively proved Corbyn right on this issue. In the end we talked to the IRA and the result was the Good Friday agreement

John Hume was trying to undermine support for the IRA long before he got the Nobel for the GFA. The New Ireland Forum (1983) tried to get Nats from North and South Ireland to turn away from the IRA. He ceased to deal with Sinn Fein over the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which Corbyn opposed because it wouldn't bring about a united Ireland.

2/3 of NI Nats supported the Anglo-Irish Agreement, so Corbyn was more Nationalist than the Nats!

Supporting the IRA/Sinn Fein against John Hume and his attempts to end the violence, suggests the way to sue for peace is to bomb the opposition to the negotiating table. John McDonnell articulated this principle nicely in 2003. Blessed are the Bombmakers?

Tragic this year that the 2 parties responsible for the GFA, SDLP and UUP have been wiped off the landscape in NI, leaving a polarised choice between SF or the DUP.

If you're a working class/progressive protestant in NI you really have no representation. Of course the Labour Party in general has a problem with working class NI protestants, even Gordon Brown advising them to vote SDLP.

There's an interesting POV from the Communist Party persuading Mo Mowlem drop support for Republicanism.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/ruth-dudley-edwards/co...
 krikoman 11 Jun 2017
In reply to FactorXXX:

So where's your cut off point, for some contact / no contact / and should never have had contact?

You seem to be splitting hairs to make one thing acceptable and another abhorrent.

Is there a time limit you would find acceptable, or once you talked tot a terrorist, are you tainted forever?

It happened again today on a Radio 4 interview with some Conservative bloke, the interviewer asked him about possible DUP terrorist links, the Tory comes back with maybe you should ask JC about his links with the IRA, FFS!!

The interviewer did go on to ask about the DUP MP who met with someone fro the UDA (I think) 2 days after they'd murdered someone.

He didn't however tell the MP that we all know JC repudiated any violence. So once again not only did he let him off the hook, but managed to allow the lie to be perpetuated.


 TobyA 11 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> So once again not only did he let him off the hook, but managed to allow the lie to be perpetuated.

What is the lie precisely?
1
Gone for good 11 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

>He didn't however tell the MP that we all know JC repudiated any violence. So once again not only did he let him off the hook, but managed to allow the lie to be perpetuated.

JC continues to specifically refuse to condemn the IRA for the murderous violence they brought to this country. His blanket statement is a feeble cop out and whilst that may be acceptable to you and his other blinkered supporters it is not acceptable to me and many others who can see through his facade of acceptability. He is forever tainted by his self seeking acquaintance and sooner or later the gullible Labour resurgence will see him for what he is.
 TobyA 11 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:

> He is forever tainted by his self seeking acquaintance and sooner or later the gullible Labour resurgence will see him for what he is.

Perhaps for people of certain age, but the youngsters don't seem to give a crap about Corbyn's views on the Troubles. Labour wouldn't have done as well as they did if more people were worried about this issue.

 krikoman 11 Jun 2017
In reply to TobyA:

Not to excuse the term friends, a poor choice of words, ( I'm not sure I'd have used "friends") but he was trying to gain some insight into the issues in the ME and it would hardly be conducive to an honest and open meeting, by saying, "thanks for turning up you murdering bastards".

Remember Hamas, we elected to power in 2006. Israel didn't want there to be elections and it was the US that helped the elections to take place hoping (maybe expecting) the PLO would win.

So if you love democracy the Hamas SHOULD be in power in Gaza.

If you're hoping for peace then maybe not.

I still think the issue is the constant attempts to try and paint JC as some sort of supporter of terrorism, is wrong and deceitful, and worse than that the majority who keep this meme alive are people that usually do know better.


 krikoman 11 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:

> >He didn't however tell the MP that we all know JC repudiated any violence. So once again not only did he let him off the hook, but managed to allow the lie to be perpetuated.JC continues to specifically refuse to condemn the IRA for the murderous violence they brought to this country. His blanket statement is a feeble cop out and whilst that may be acceptable to you and his other blinkered supporters it is not acceptable to me and many others who can see through his facade of acceptability. He is forever tainted by his self seeking acquaintance and sooner or later the gullible Labour resurgence will see him for what he is.

And what would YOU say to people who supported Nelson Mandela, are they all terrorist sympathisers?

He's consistently renounced violence, and voted against many of the military interventions we've managed to entrap ourselves in over the last 30 years.

But you seem determined to link him to people killing other people.

Luckily, most people don't believe the constant drip drip of bullshit, no more than the did "strong and Stable", it has an effect but, you only need to be able to think and read to realise your either being duped or don't care about the truth.

1
 RKernan 12 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:
and what about the murderous violence that Unionist rule brought to NI from partition to the start of the Troubles, or Bloody Sunday, or bla, bla, bla...

Interesting to see the tired and never-endling debates that we in NI have been having for the last 20 years now surfacing in Britain with regards to JC/SF and Tories/DUP

Forgive and move on is what the vast majority of NI have done, largely thanks to the GFA. Things have changed a lot since the 80s and Sinn Féin now are not what they were then, likewise, the DUP are a lot more moderate than they used to be!
All of this legacy stuff is really stifling things in NI and needs to be put behind us/forgotten about.
Amongst those of us who want to move past it and only caught the tail end of the Troubles/missed them entirely there's a realisation that things won't change until all those involved die off/give over!
Post edited at 00:33
 Jon Stewart 12 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:

> JC continues to specifically refuse to condemn the IRA for the murderous violence they brought to this country. His blanket statement is a feeble cop out and whilst that may be acceptable to you and his other blinkered supporters it is not acceptable to me and many others who can see through his facade of acceptability.

I don't understand why it isn't acceptable to condemn violence from both sides, the condemnation must be for one organisation specifically.

The "terrorist sympathiser" line of attack on Corbyn is fatuous tabloid crap, which in its naked political motivation is an insult to the victims of terrorism. Your argument displays a complete lack of intellectual honesty; it isn't remotely credible from any standpoint other than the extreme political perspective you seek to defend.
 Ridge 12 Jun 2017
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> I don't understand why it isn't acceptable to condemn violence from both sides, the condemnation must be for one organisation specifically.The "terrorist sympathiser" line of attack on Corbyn is fatuous tabloid crap, which in its naked political motivation is an insult to the victims of terrorism. Your argument displays a complete lack of intellectual honesty; it isn't remotely credible from any standpoint other than the extreme political perspective you seek to defend.

It depends on the definition of 'both sides'.

Were the UVF as bad as the IRA? - Yes, pretty much no argument to be made there.

RUC / Army as bad as the IRA? - a bit more difficult. There certainly were RUC members who were loyalist paramilitaries and collusion, and events like bloody sunday. But moral equivalence? Given the massive difference in firepower the army would have had to behave like Chilean death squads with thousands 'disappeared' to be as bad as the paramilitaries.

Allies as bad as the Nazis? (Sorry about bringing Godwin into this). I think someone brought RAF Bomber command into one of these threads. I think you'd have to completely ignore the context of World War Two to come to that conclusion.

People chucking bottles and chairs as bad as the London Bridge attackers? Both sides used violence, and if violence is bad then it would be intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise. (Which 40 years from now someone will be claiming on UKC without understanding the context).

For what it's worth I agree with you, and the "Corbyn is a terrorist" articles are what finally swung me to vote Labour. However you can't apply pure logic to all situations. Try telling a Far East POW or one of their family that he was just as bad as the Japanese and see how that goes down. Context is everything.
Post edited at 06:56
edwardgrundy2 12 Jun 2017
In reply to winhill:

> Yeah, it's zero deaths. You're still not getting the point.

Loylist terrorists killed quite a lot of people. The DUP had links to them.

The Tories have run a campaign against Corbyn because he had links to terrorists.

Not really sure whatelse there is to say.

 krikoman 12 Jun 2017
In reply to Ridge:

> People chucking bottles and chairs as bad as the London Bridge attackers? Both sides used violence, and if violence is bad then it would be intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise. (Which 40 years from now someone will be claiming on UKC without understanding the context).

I think there's a difference between violence, when defending yourself and violence for a "cause".

My take on this is, "There a many causes for which I might be prepared to die, I don't think there are any for which I would be prepared to kill".
 krikoman 12 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:

Why specifically do you need him to denounce the IRA?

What has their violence got the the Loyalist terrorists have that they don't?

Since our MPs are supposed to be impartial since the GFA, why would you possibly want to risk a schism by not remaining so?

How would YOU reconcile the problems in Ireland?
Gone for good 12 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

If JC came out and said something like "I condemn the violence brought to our country by both the IRA and the Loyalist paramilitaries" I think a lot of people would allow this issue to move on.
The fact that he refuses to condemn the IRA in name will always leave a big question mark over his trustworthiness and his ability to see the big picture rather than just his own narrow view of the world.
 Ridge 12 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:

It would be better to simply condemn Republican and Loyalist paramilitary groups than just PIRA.
 bouldery bits 12 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:


> How would YOU reconcile the problems in Ireland?

I'd divide Ireland in to 117 different countries. Each of those countries then divided in to a further 5.

Sorted.
 krikoman 12 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:

> If JC came out and said something like "I condemn the violence brought to our country by both the IRA and the Loyalist paramilitaries" I think a lot of people would allow this issue to move on.

But then you're leaving out some other terrorist group(s) which SOMEONE would undoubtedly say well he must support the XYZ because he only condemned the IRA and the Loyalists, "I bet he secretly supports the "real" IRA"

Why isn't ALL terrorists acts better / enough?

You've just accused him of having a narrow view, and yet his WIDER view of ALL terrorism being bad isn't good enough for you, because it's too WIDE?
 krikoman 12 Jun 2017
In reply to bouldery bits:

> I'd divide Ireland in to 117 different countries. Each of those countries then divided in to a further 5.

> Sorted.

Would they each have to have their own passports and border control?
Gone for good 12 Jun 2017
In reply to Ridge:

> It would be better to simply condemn Republican and Loyalist paramilitary groups than just PIRA.

His links to Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams are what requires an explicit condemnation.
1
 elsewhere 12 Jun 2017
Jeremy Corbyn Condemning IRA Bombing in a 1996 Interview

youtube.com/watch?v=RHbB90TS8oQ&
 Ridge 12 Jun 2017
In reply to Gone for good:

> His links to Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams are what requires an explicit condemnation.

Then someone would say "But what about INLA, OIRA, CIRA, I can't believe it's not IRA and all the other splinter groups?"
 bouldery bits 12 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Would they each have to have their own passports and border control?

Absolutely!
Gone for good 12 Jun 2017
In reply to elsewhere:

Sorry Not good enough.
1

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...