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.