Forum menu
Right....so you don't like his opinions, you tried debating them but didn't convince him to change, hence you reverted to abuse.
Here's a considered debating point re the 9/11 theory: Good Friday Agreement fragile, elements of PIRA and associates only partially bought into the end of the armed struggle, potential for conflict to restart. Support from certain sections of American population for the struggle well known and documented. Easier for PIRA to revert to violence with financial and moral support from this group. 9/11 permanently changes the views of Americans in relation to terrorism (once romantic struggle, now horrifying tragedy in their back yard). US support dries up, calculus for PIRA changes, and resumption of armed struggle now veery unlikely.
Ergo, contributory factor, if not single most important reason for continued peace.
Happy to be contradicted.
Have we done Corbyn appointing a fire-raising peer to Labour's front bench?
Hmm...
As an example Croydon Central is a key marginal which Labour needs to win to form the next government, the Tories won it with a majority of 165. The UKIP vote was 4,810 if a quarter of that goes to Labour they've won, the Green vote was 1,454 if half of that goes to Labour they've won. Turnout was 68%, if Corbyn energizes and motivates a few disillusioned former Labour voters to get out and vote they've won.
However, we both know that things aren't that simple - the effect of a left wing nutter (TM) leading the Labour party is just as likely to galvanise support on the right as it is to motivate support on the left - your own example of UKIP being the perfect on, that even if your Corbyn led Labour party pulled back 1/4 of the UKIP voters, they risk being so much of an anethema/threat to the right wing loons that they rally back the rest of the UKIP nutters into the warm bosom the Tory party - just as happened with the whole 'Labour/SNP coalition' threat.
every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
bainbrge - Member
Teamhurtmore-Member
Hmm...
According to R4 those 30% or so disillusioned voters that didn't turn out at the last General Election are probably more likely to be Labour voters....the problem is they are pretty much all from current Labour seats so wouldn't have made a jot of difference to the GE result if all of them had come out and voted labour. You can't win a set twice.
For Labour to win they need to win back their seats in Scotland and overturn the tories in the seats they already have.
I liked the first line of your link bencooper :
[i]"JEREMY Corbyn has risked serious controversy after...."[/i]
Well I never, Corbyn has risked serious controversy, who would have thought it ?
It's almost as if he doesn't want to play safe.
And almost as shocking as a "drunken Scotsman sets light to curtains" headline.
I dunno ......... *sighs*
According to jambalaya the only thing which kept the IRA going was support from the US. The moment the US stopped supporting the IRA they had to give up.
To be fair the open and generous donating to the IRA in places like Boston and New York did reportedly come to an abrupt end following 9/11.
I thought it was generally accepted that 9/11 dismissed any romantic notions of IRA terrorism the yanks had harbored until then, once they'd experienced terrorism on their own doorstep openly supporting the IRA wasn't viewed in quite the same way....I'm well aware the peace process was under way well before 9/11 though.
I think most people might consider it rather fanciful to claim that the IRA were no longer able to carry on killing people once funding from the US ceased.
Although I know nothing with regards to details of the Provos revenue I doubt that organised criminals such as the IRA were particularly dependent on charity from Boston and New York.
And btw the US had experienced terrorism before 9/11.
it was forcing the IRA to decommission it's arms not a fragile good friday agreement and it wasn't fund raising that forced their hand it was good ol' strong arm tactics from the US state department after a bungled weapons training trip to colombia. Interesting [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/oct/28/northernireland.colombia ]article in the grauniad[/url], 9/11 was quite germane I guess.
The claim wasn't that events associated with 9/11 helped the peace process, it was, quote : "[i]the single biggest factor in the peace was 9-11[/i]"
As has already been pointed out the Good Friday Agreement was 3 years before 9/11.
If you are looking for 'the single biggest factor in the peace process' then I would suggest that it was when both sides finally accepted that there could be no military solution, and the British government finally accepted that it had to talk to Sinn Fein. What Corbyn had been saying for years.
And I wouldn't overstate the importance of support in the US for the IRA. While it is debatable how much of Noraid funds actually went to buying arms what isn't debatable imo is the importance of Libyan support. When the Eksund was intercepted she was carrying 1,000 AK-47 machine guns, a million rounds of ammunition, more than 50 ground-to-air missiles, and 2 tons of Semtex, all from Libya. Plenty of other shipments got through. Semtex was the IRA's most powerful weapon, without it Enniskillen wouldn't have happened, it caused more deaths than anything else. It all came from Libya, none came from Boston.
I've too may friends who've shared stories with me about their lives in the North during the troubles
Not a lot of people know this, but my budgie died on the day JFK was shot, so I understand Jackie O's sense of loss
Well according to latest reports Sinn Fein / ira are back on the
Streets murdering/assassinating people at will...I do wonder what
Fantasy land people like darsy and lynch inhabit
Corbin/McDonnell have associated themselves/ sympathised with
An organisation that waged a campaign of terror over the UK
Murdering, bombing and mutilating innocent British citizens,
The list is endless .... Birmingham pub bombings, Manchester bombings.. Etc
Sinn Fein / Ira murdered and maimed indiscriminately
And we now have a leader of the Labour Party that is sympathetic
To the republican Irish scum that tried to blow us up?
Go @@@@ ya self Corbin
oh dear hand wringing right whingers [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-wont-stop-until-everyone-in-britain-is-offended-10506322.html ]mark steel in the independent[/url]
Murdering, bombing and mutilating innocent British citizens
Ah yes, it only matters when it's British citizens doesn't it.
Can someone fetch bloodynora a vacuum cleaner? He seems to have a fanny absolutely chock full of sand. 😆
nd we now have a leader of the Labour Party that is sympathetic
To the republican Irish scum that tried to blow us up?
Hang on - run that by me again? The evidence for Corbyn being pro IRA is a quip from his mate? Who was at the time trying to stop the IRA ?
o be fair the open and generous donating to the IRA in places like Boston and New York did reportedly come
Thanks @deviant an observation central to my point. When I worked in the US I'd frequently visit Irish pubs in NY and Boston who collected for "the struggle". Add to the finance the other support they received whuch dried up overnight post 9-11.
The haters can hate all they like just look at the timing and the speed of progress post 9-11. You guys can be as abrupt and aggressive as you like, it's just a sign of weakness. That's why make zero effort to engage in the personal abuse and have ever reported a post, why bother when I'm perfectly happy to see you continue with it.
Back I topic I'm delighted Corbyn won and I didn't even have to spend £3 to vote for him. His leadership is going to lurch from one trains smash to another. I mean a shadow chancellor who is on record as saying Bobby Sands should be reconised for his contributions to the peace process, electoral poison.
More smears. More disinformation.
A bit unnecessary imo DD. Bloodynora is entitled to his opinion. If you don't agree then why not challenge or else just simply ignore.
Hang on - run that by me again? The evidence for Corbyn being pro IRA is a quip from his mate? Who was at the time trying to stop the IRA ?
@molgrips consistent with him inviting Hezbollah to the House of Commons he likewise engaged with and gave credibility to Sinn Fein members who everyone knows where in the IRA too.
You guys are going to have to have some better arguments regarding Corbyn's relationships with terrorists to make to voters in the key marginals than what I've seen here. You can take your lead from the Labour Party as they will be working on hard over the coming weeks.
Well according to latest reports Sinn Fein / ira are back on the
Streets murdering/assassinating people at will...I do wonder what
Fantasy land people like darsy and lynch inhabit
Corbin/McDonnell have associated themselves/ sympathised with
An organisation that waged a campaign of terror over the UK
Murdering, bombing and mutilating innocent British citizens,
The list is endless .... Birmingham pub bombings, Manchester bombings.. Etc
Sinn Fein / Ira murdered and maimed indiscriminately
And we now have a leader of the Labour Party that is sympathetic
To the republican Irish scum that tried to blow us up?
Capitals at the start of every line? that is some seriously crap poetry there, no rhymes, no metre and f*** all sense
The haters can hate all they like just look at the timing and the speed of progress post 9-11. You guys can be as abrupt and aggressive as you like, it's just a sign of weakness. That's why make zero effort to engage in the personal abuse and have ever reported a post, why bother when I'm perfectly happy to see you continue with it.
So you would not object if I just said
NURSE 😉
FWIW i dont hate you i just struggle to see what your logic is for your views
Its really is daft to claim the main cause of the peace process is something that happened about a decade after the process started. You can dress this up as haters hating if you like but i only hate opinions that are not supported by the facts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4072261.stm
As the time line will demonstrate they were discussing peace with the first talks 10 years before 9/11. given this is it just temporally impossible that it was the major cause and at best it helped hasten the process once it had started, as you are now claiming, rather than it was the MOST IMPORTANT as you originally claimed
IMO the single biggest factor in the peace was 9-11. It ended all funding from the US and the IRA realised the terrorist narrative was done.
You are always 100% because you move your argument about and just ignore facts
Was 9/11 significant - possibly and certainly US involvement was but it was not what you originally claimed as events a decade afterwards cannot be the cause of a process. ITS IMPOSSIBLE
IMHO both sides realised they could not win by killing each other/armed struggle so they stopped - see the timeline for when that happened - and sought a political peaceful solution.
I think this mainly because it is what happened and not because of what I saw in some bar in the US. You really need to stop thinking your anecdotes/personal experience are facts and that they trump reality or the actual facts.
I see little hope for this happening
As the time line will demonstrate they were discussing peace with the first talks 10 years before 9/11.
And worth noting that Jeremy voted against the Anglo-Irish agreement, the first big step towards the peace process
Jambalaya, do you actually think JC wants/wanted the IRA or Hamas to hurt people?
Your timeline is spot on imo Junkyard. If there was one terrorist incident that was a game changer it was Enniskillen not 9/11.
Enniskillen was a monumental blunder by the IRA that caused widespread revulsion throughout the nationalist community. The IRA was forced to apologize and declare that it was a "mistake". Although to be fair it probably was in terms of the target, but that's irrelevant imo - and the opinions of others including the nationalist community.
The IRA had already previously admitted to "mistakes" including the Harrods bombing. It was now becoming clear to them that continued bombing campaign was simply further alienating people and doing their cause no good.
The game was up and it was time to explore alternatives, progress wasn't going to come from further military action. A war weary Westminster government came to the same conclusion, it was time to talk.
Btw it's worth remembering that in the latter years of the Troubles loyalist terrorists were killing a greater number of people than republican terrorists were, a fact always overlooked by people who are so quick to condemn the IRA.
Eniskillen was a massive PR disaster for the PIRA and changed the game somewhat.ernie_lynch - Member
Your timeline is spot on imo Junkyard. If there was one terrorist incident that was a game changer it was Enniskillen not 9/11.
Tbh whatever you think of the Provo campaign i reckon if they had thought of bombing the likes of canary warf in the 70s I reckon there'd have a UI by now. ie if they directly tried to destabilise the finances of britain. targets in NI and British civilian and miltary targets where never particularly that effective in budging the british state very far.
Although, I don't think ultimately the reason for the cease fire was Enniskillen. I reckon war weary-ness was and is ultimately responsibile for the continuation of ceasfire, essentially there's only so much people can take.
The ceasefire as it stands is a stalemate that won't last forever imo. Not while things like peacewalls remain there needs to be more fundamental change. May be 10 years may be 50 years, but division like that can't remain peacefully forever.
Btw regards to funding of the IRA, i'd be willing to bet Britain was a massive source of income for them, American funding would have been important but it wouldn't have destroyed them if it dried up, the sources would have been pretty diverse.
I should qualify that by adding that I also think civil war would have ensued if Britain had washed its hands of NI under those circumstances.Tbh whatever you think of the Provo campaign i reckon if they had thought of bombing the likes of canary warf in the 70s I reckon there'd have a UI by now
Tbh whatever you think of the Provo campaign i reckon if they had thought of bombing the likes of canary warf in the 70s I reckon there'd have a UI by now. ie if they directly tried to destabilise the finances of britain. targets in NI and British civilian and miltary targets where never particularly that effective in budging the british state very far.
Do you consider Canary Wharf a legitimate target? My FIL and wifes uncle worked there for years. Hardly stalwarts of the British state you loath.
ie if they directly tried to destabilise the finances of britain
The Provos did among their targets choose economic targets, that was the point of hitting shopping centres which also involved issuing warnings before detonation, eg Warrington and Manchester shopping centres.
Btw I find your comment that the IRA would have succeeded in their aims had they had a different policy on selecting targets rather crass. Whatever they were these people weren't stupid and everything they did they thought very carefully about.
If you're looking for knuckle-dragging halfwits during the Troubles I would suggest you focus on the loyalist terrorists, or paramilitaries as our media used to call them. It was reputed that among the prisoners in the Maze the republicans would spend their time educating themselves while the loyalists were down the gym pumping iron.
consistent with him inviting Hezbollah to the House of Commons he likewise engaged with and gave credibility to Sinn Fein members who everyone knows where in the IRA too.
He advocated talking to them as a means to end the fighting. Do you really honestly think that means he supports them? Really?
He's a ****ing peacenik, and you are trying to paint him as a terrorist sympathiser? SERIOUSLY?
If/when Corbyn fails it won't be because of economic policies, it will be because he will grossly underestimate the stupidity of the electorate. People who not only believe stupid shit like this but think it's worthy of discussion and peddling.
A tragedy it will be too.
Well said molgrips. Great advances were made during both Major and Blair to engage those on both sides. Prisoner releases may be unpalatable to some but did seem to help. Currently IMO the stance taken by tbe DUP to walk out of the assembly is an act of petulance that will acheive little.
In a statement, PSNI Det Supt Kevin Geddes said: “It is my assessment that Action Against Drugs are a group of individuals who are criminals, violent dissident republicans and former members of the Provisional IRA.“They are dangerous, they are involved in violence and extortion of the nationalist and republican communities.
“My assessment is that this is a separate group from the Provisional IRA. I have no information at this stage to say whether [the killing] was sanctioned at a command level or not.”
The Provisional IRA was meant to have disbanded as a military force in 2005 and to have decommissioned its entire arsenal as part of moves to build a power sharing coalition with their former unionist enemies.
So former members are now criminals and it was not sanctioned
To an outsider it looks to me like they just want an excuse to flounce and this was it.
Not only that it was an "internal" issue rather than a community one as a former IRA man was killed by former IRA people. Hardly a restarting of the war but not exactly good news
Do you consider Canary Wharf a legitimate target? My FIL and wifes uncle worked there for years. Hardly stalwarts of the British state you loath.
He didn't say anywhere was a legitimate target. He didn't say he loathed the British state. Please pay attention to what was actually written instead of making a lot of stuff up and then asking him to defend it.
If/when Corbyn fails it won't be because of economic policies, it will be because he will grossly underestimate the stupidity of the electorate. People who not only believe stupid shit like this but think it's worthy of discussion and peddling.
I think that, sadly, this is already a certainty. Even on this relatively well-informed forum you can see the half-truths, disrtortions and lies have been repeated so many times that nobody challenges them any more and they become accepted as "fact" - "terrorist sympathiser", "printing money" etc etc.
Together with the British fetish for self-flagellation, you have a potent cocktail that will see the Tories elected again, with their stories of "household economics" being swallowed by the ignorant who see austerity as their moral deserts, and funding the spiralling excesses of the wealthy.
He didn't say anywhere was a legitimate target. He didn't say he loathed the British state. Please pay attention to what was actually written instead of making a lot of stuff up and then asking him to defend it.
I did not accuse him of saying Canary Wharf was a legitimate target. I asked him if he thought it was. Please understand what ? is for.
Ok cool in that case
Are you mental?
Are you an idiot?
Are you on drugs?
Obviously if i do this I am not actually saying anything about your posting I am just asking a question and not really saying you are these
Its not that convincing IMHO but it is arguable.
All of these are examples I am not saying this erm I meant sorry asking this
Yes, I'm very well aware of the education programs in Long Kesh and the likes. I'm obviously very much talking with hindsight as to what I think would have made the British government stand up and take notice and actively want rid of NI.ernie_lynch - Member
ie if they directly tried to destabilise the finances of britain
The Provos did among their targets choose economic targets, that was the point of hitting shopping centres which also involved issuing warnings before detonation, eg Warrington and Manchester shopping centres.Btw I find your comment that the IRA would have succeeded in their aims had they had a different policy on selecting targets rather crass. Whatever they were these people weren't stupid and everything they did they thought very carefully about.
If you're looking for knuckle-dragging halfwits during the Troubles I would suggest you focus on the loyalist terrorists, or paramilitaries as our media used to call them. It was reputed that among the prisoners in the Maze the republicans would spend their time educating themselves while the loyalists were down the gym pumping iron
I think a concerted campaign directed at destabilising the British pound would have been more successful in that respect. I know they targeted shopping centres and stuff, but they aren't really the same as shutting down stock markets on a regular basis and the likes. Then again, maybe that's just a factor of the times, as really, who thought about financial markets and the likes in the 70s. I'm just speculating.
I just reckon if the ceasefire didn't happen that's where the conflict was clearly heading, and I'm just speculating as to what I think would have happend if they used that tactic earlier in a concerted campaign.
I think the major point i'm really making is that money talks and that they had realised that by the mid 90s, I know they were calculating and not unthinking in their strategy. Saying that maybe they came to the same conclusion as me that it would have lead to unacceptable levels of violence and opted for a more protracted campaign, who knows. It's not really anything crass, nor cheerleading I'm doing. Just contemplating a different history.
With regards to loyalist culture, well yip, that's the reason why I think it will explode again in the future if that isn't dealt with.
I'm fully behind the peace process, and believe that a UI would be achieved under it if republicans and nationalists all argued together with a common goal in mind. Ie convincing moderate unionists that their future lies better in a unified ireland and making them realise they need to ostracise the extreme loyalist culture that exists. (Given the lumpen natare of loyalism, it baffles me why more can't see that that's a fairly easy argument, which will be won over time.)
Problem there though within the republican movement, that i see, is there are factions with in it that still believe in the war time propaganda of not recognising the British state, so are very belligerent and un helpful to the goals I mention above. (And they actually give extreme loyalism a very easy target for their hatred, so ultimately counter productive.)
athgray - Member
He didn't say anywhere was a legitimate target. He didn't say he loathed the British state. Please pay attention to what was actually written instead of making a lot of stuff up and then asking him to defend it.
I did not accuse him of saying Canary Wharf was a legitimate target. I asked him if he thought it was. Please understand what ? is for.
Tbh the first target in war are usually communications and supply lines, so under those circumstances you probably could say yes they are legitimate target. I'd guess that'd come under the supply lines part.
Do I condone PIRA violence? no. Do I understand why it developed as it did into conflict? yes. Do I view the the Provo's as monsters? no.
Not, that my opinion matters a jot, I just have alot of interest in it and try and view the whole thing fairly emotionless-ly.
It was genuinely meant as a question. I apologize for the way it came across. I am saying that if the IRA consider financial institutions as legit targets to affect the pound, it affects ordinary people just trying to put food on the table. Although in my opinion not legit, it may have worked.
Do I condone PIRA violence? no. Do I understand why it developed as it did into conflict? yes. Do I view the the Provo's as monsters? no.
I won't disagree with that. Both sides have a dubious history. Talking with those you disagree with is the only way forward. The position that NI is in at the moment, after decades of bombings is pretty good. Not perfect but great strides have been made. Considering PIRA or unionist groups as monsters would not have got us here.
I also have not quibbles with those on both sides who have lost loved ones thinking people monster. Forgiveness like that must be hard.
JY it's my view that 9-11 was the key factor which broke the deadlock in a process that was largely stalled.
@gofaster - to be fair I do not think Corbyn wanted/wants to see people killed and maimed by terrorists but his wilful naivety provides legitimacy to terrorists as they so easily manipulate him. He is spectacularly naive in his statements on Argentina / Falklands and in dealing with Putin / Ukraine.
I see again people here going down a route which suggests people who see Corbyn as a danger are somejow less well informed or indeed less intelligent.
There are no half truths being printed about what Corbyn or McDonald said or who they met. People are absolutely entitled to interpret those events how they wish.
@DrJ you are correct in that most Tories and LibDems see Corbyns election as an huge positive opportunity for them, this is consistent with most Labour MPs being gravely concerned. The Tories speak in household economics as that's the best way to communicate to the majority, simple and very powerful. Yvette Cooper and many others in the Labour Party have critised Corbyns "QE" proposals, they are another golden gift to Labours opponents
I see again people here going down a route which suggests people who see Corbyn as a danger are somejow less well informed or indeed less intelligent.
Can you explain how he is a 'danger' - other than just parroting tabloid headlines?
What @athgray says, as someone who has worked in finance mostly in London for 30 years I have seen first hand the necessary security measures (no bins, road blocks etc), I had colleagues showered with glass shards after the Aldgate bomb, been just a few 100 yards from the St Mary's axe bomb, had to check under my car every morning for bombs when visiting friends in the military plus numerous other non-IRA incidents both in UK and in the Middle East. I can easily see a situation where people live away fromLondon or a major city think terrorism is some thing you justice on TV, but that's not how it is.
It was genuinely meant as a question. I apologize for the way it came across.
How was it meant when you talked about "the British state you loath" ?
@grum if I thought you where actually interested in my reply I'd answer in detail, however think of it in the same way as Labour who lost the last election not least as they lacked credibility on the economy and migration (as per focus group research/debriefs). Corbyn is seen as a danger on these issues, security and more. What is important is not my view but those of the voters in winnable constituencies deciding whether to vote Labour again. It's far too easy to attack Corbyn as his career has been one of protest politics and "sod the consequences" as he never sought a senior position in government or opposition.
The Tories speak in household economics as that's the best way to communicate to the majority, simple and very powerful.
And wrong. But hey, who cares?
JY it's my view that 9-11 was the key factor which broke the deadlock in a process that was largely stalled.
JY already comprehensively refuted that claim - why do you insist on repeating it?
his wilful naivety provides legitimacy to terrorists as they so easily manipulate him
You really have to be f***ing joking! Who is being exploited by ISIS in their current propaganda which has enlisted the support of enough people to take over half the middle east? Is it JC? Or is it the bellicose fools in Washington and Downing Street?