Current Affairs The Labour Party

[catcherintherye]

Indeed. My point however was not about debating the Troubles (it's own thread indeed), but rather I disapprove with the pacifist view of Corbyn.

He can talk about non-military response to Syria and proclaim his desire global discussions for peace all he likes; for me it doesn't wash.

Corbyn has always leaned towards and praised groups who were involved in death and destruction here and abroad: PIRA; Hamas; Hezbollah et al.

That has to be better than a PM who is arming groups like ISIS though?

I'd rather have a PM who praises the exemplary work groups like Hezbollah are partaking in to challenge the dominance of Sunni Islam in a region, than a cretin of a PM who arms the same people who then use their arms to attack the West. We should have no problems in praising groups Hezbollah, in fact I am deeply suspicious of the motivations behind those that don't.

 

[JonS]

Well, at a Wolfe Tone Society Meeting in 1987 he joined a minutes silence for the dead of Loughall and then proclaimed he was happy to...

"Commemorate all those who died fighting for an Independent Ireland". That's after using a bomb in a digger to blow up an RUC police station.

Personally, for me, that's as close as you can get to supporting their most 'extreme' means as you can get without out-right praising it.

I haven't got an issue with a desire of Irish Independence or challenging other issues by the way. There's just other ways of going about it...

I don't know mate. Maybe. I'm not sure I can see that commemorating those who died is the same as supporting the killing though I guess it might be. For me one deliberate killing of innocent people is one too many and I am just glad there is peace there now

 

[Seanjd]

Indeed. My point however was not about debating the Troubles (it's own thread indeed), but rather I disapprove with the pacifist view of Corbyn.

He can talk about non-military response to Syria and proclaim his desire global discussions for peace all he likes; for me it doesn't wash.

Corbyn has always leaned towards and praised groups who were involved in death and destruction here and abroad: PIRA; Hamas; Hezbollah et al.

Retrospect is great, but I think leaders at the time could have done well to adopt Corbyn's views stay out of foreign conflicts, namely in the Middle East.

 

[ToffeeTim]

Retrospect is great, but I think leaders at the time could have done well to adopt Corbyn's views stay out of foreign conflicts, namely in the Middle East.

He openly praised and supported people who were murdering others. You can't support the IRA, be best pals with Mcguiness and Adams and then claim you're a pacifist.

 

[The binman chronicles]

That has to be better than a PM who is arming groups like ISIS though?

I'd rather have a PM who praises the exemplary work groups like Hezbollah are partaking in to challenge the dominance of Sunni Islam in a region, than a cretin of a PM who arms the same people who then use their arms to attack the West. We should have no problems in praising groups Hezbollah, in fact I am deeply suspicious of the motivations behind those that don't.

Whoa whoa whoa there. Should never praise groups that commit acts of terrorism. You can praise groups that want the same thing perhaps but don't use explosives and guns to make the point.

 

[Seanjd]

He openly praised and supported people who were murdering others. You can't support the IRA, be best pals with Mcguiness and Adams and then claim you're a pacifist.

Without leading this into a conversation about Irish politics, let me try to explain why Corbyn is not a terrorist sympathiser, or an IRA supporter as such.

There is a simple question to be asked when it comes to viewpoint on the politics of the Troubles; are you in favour of continued British rule over Northern Ireland, or are you in favour of unity? That's essentially what it comes down to. Corbyn, along with many other Labour MP's, believe in unity by consent. Corbyn, like others, could sympathise with the reasons why the IRA felt the need to fight against colonial rule. He started to become actively involved with it when it looked as though there could be a transition from unity by violence to unity by peace and politics. He and others, if you like, offered a hand at this time towards the IRA and were influential in their decision to go down the political route, rather than continue with terrorist attacks.

Corbyn has done more for the peace process than the majority of politicians. He obviously doesn't condone terrorism as means to an end, or he wouldn't be considered a pacifist.

He won't get elected, though.

 

[Seanjd]

Whoa whoa whoa there. Should never praise groups that commit acts of terrorism. You can praise groups that want the same thing perhaps but don't use explosives and guns to make the point.

Corbyn and others have realised that the best chance we have of helping marginalised groups see a better way than violence is by talking and getting sympathising with their aims. That doesn't make them terrorists or terrorist sympathisers.

 

[roydo]

Corbyn has done more for the peace process than the majority of politicians.

Really?

Was he involved in the, then, secret talks between all parties in the Thatcher, Major, and Blair administrations? Or did he have the ear of the IRA and "suggest" the political route was a better one?

Honest question. Not a dig at the bloke.

 

[Jib in lad]

He openly praised and supported people who were murdering others. You can't support the IRA, be best pals with Mcguiness and Adams and then claim you're a pacifist.

So what would you say about Ian Paisley who became good a friend of Mcguiness.

 

[roydo]

So, just heard on 5 Live that the Labour Party will support renewal of Trident, but Corbyn is a long term and avowed opponent to it.

How does that play out then?

 

[The binman chronicles]

Corbyn and others have realised that the best chance we have of helping marginalised groups see a better way than violence is by talking and getting sympathising with their aims. That doesn't make them terrorists or terrorist sympathisers.

Not arguing about opening dialog, my point was the notion of praising a militant group. You can understand the cause you can empathise with struggles, but any act of terrorism should be condemned and by association you can't pat the people who have ordered those killings on the back.

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

So, just heard on 5 Live that the Labour Party will support renewal of Trident, but Corbyn is a long term and avowed opponent to it.

How does that play out then?

The same way he publicly opposed Brexit during the referendum (though I've no doubt that he privately voted for it) after decades of arguing for the exact opposite. He'll talk the big game but end up towing the party line.

 

[PhilM]

Without leading this into a conversation about Irish politics, let me try to explain why Corbyn is not a terrorist sympathiser, or an IRA supporter as such.

There is a simple question to be asked when it comes to viewpoint on the politics of the Troubles; are you in favour of continued British rule over Northern Ireland, or are you in favour of unity? That's essentially what it comes down to. Corbyn, along with many other Labour MP's, believe in unity by consent. Corbyn, like others, could sympathise with the reasons why the IRA felt the need to fight against colonial rule. He started to become actively involved with it when it looked as though there could be a transition from unity by violence to unity by peace and politics. He and others, if you like, offered a hand at this time towards the IRA and were influential in their decision to go down the political route, rather than continue with terrorist attacks.

Corbyn has done more for the peace process than the majority of politicians. He obviously doesn't condone terrorism as means to an end, or he wouldn't be considered a pacifist.

Strange, as Corbyn played a significant role in a 1980s Labour magazine labelled Labour Briefing. In fact, he was on the editorial board of it.

Their rhetoric was: Labour briefing stands for peace, but we are not pacifists. They also chose to align with Sinn Fein IRA rather than the SDLP.

A political party with clear ties with the PIRA, whereas the SDLP also campaigned for a united Ireland without the blatant support for violence.

In addition, Corbyn and McDonnell on numerous occasions aired their negatives views toward the Anglo-Irish Treaty, a major aspect of future peace.

His Shadow Chancellor even remarked how, 'The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA.' - that's not the stance of a pacifist is it?

As mentioned earlier, there was his (Corbyn's) open support for those involved in the attack on an RUC station and praised their sacrifice.

As I said earlier, I have no issue with desiring Irish Independence but to claim he doesn't condone terrorism and is a pacifist are questionable.

 

[tsubaki]

Not arguing about opening dialog, my point was the notion of praising a militant group. You can understand the cause you can empathise with struggles, but any act of terrorism should be condemned and by association you can't pat the people who have ordered those killings on the back.

It would be more correct to say one should not be seen to pat the people who have ordered those killings on the back.

Whilst Corbyn was turning up at Wolfe Tone Night, lets not forget that the British government was probably already negotiating with PIRA and that it did go on to bring them into the fold, let loads of them out of prison, void any future convictions that their antics might have deserved and legalize them to the point that the sane people over there (the SDLP especially) got politically destroyed. There are people on both sides over there who have made a fortune and political careers out of the process.

That was the price of peace, and it was worth paying - but it really should mean that the state and its supporters shouldn't then criticize people as some how traitorous or wrong just because they went along with a minutes silence and spoke well of the dead.

 

[roydo]

The same way he publicly opposed Brexit during the referendum (though I've no doubt that he privately voted for it) after decades of arguing for the exact opposite. He'll talk the big game but end up towing the party line.

Not exactly Leadership is it?