I do recognise, however, that it doesn't provide in-line citations, and is in most respects an opinion piece. But the author is writing sincerely and pretty reasonably.
I think it is a nice piece of "we can't deny that Corbyn was linked to this terrorist group so let's play all down"
Even in this peice defending Jeremy it says
"The more reasonable version of this claim runs thus: that Corbyn was either too romantic or sentimental about the Republican movement, too trusting of its claims to want only peace, and too lax on connections between the political and armed wings of the movement.
It amounts less to a political endorsement of terrorism than a question of his political judgement. I don’t wish to defend every choice Corbyn made in this period: it would be strange if among the Sinn Féin members he met there were no active IRA members, and certainly the timing of his invitation to Adams after the Brighton bomb was crass."
So even his friends question his political judgement and call his invitation to Adams so soon after an attack "crass".
And this is from someone trying to defend him!
None of this is even disputed, not his involvement in labour briefings that @Stu_of_Kunming pointed out was pretty full on earlier when you tried to dismiss it, not his meeting with IRA members nor his invitation to Adams.
And I repeat, this is someone trying to defend him.
All sound evidence for his friendship with terrorists at that time.
So maybe it was his youth only he was 35 at the time of the Brighton bomb.
Oh man. This isn't in order but yeah:
- I never tried to dismiss or downplay any links he had to the LLB? I asked what they were, because *and I cannot stress this enough* I'm trying to approach this critically rather than with an agenda.
- Again, you are highlighting parts of the article without proper context to further your view. I understand this. This is very VERY common practice. But it's not actually engagement. The contextualisation provided by the author of the Ireland-UK relationship is really important and very much worth reading.
- "But look, even his apologists are admitting he's a friend of terrorists!" - BUT THEY'RE NOT. They're contextualising the actions he took at the time, which are consistent with the far/hard left's views at the time.
- Following on from the above point, your use of the word "evidence" is inaccurate.
- In fairness this piece isn't even a defence, really. It's an example of nuance.
- To quote from the article: "If Corbyn’s views during the Troubles were sometimes too forgiving of Republican misdeeds, then his consistent position throughout, that peace would come of dialogue and the fostering of mutual solidarity, rather than unceasing war, was eventually proven right."
You appear to be disregarding the subtleties consistently in order to further your view on Corbyn. You even do so when presented with a question like Callum's regarding nuclear warfare, which is not a simple "Yes/No" question, even if you're trying to claim it is.
Adding qualifiers (i.e. "I'd only launch nukes if it was the only viable option to safeguard the UK's future because XYZ") and understanding reasons behind actions being taken is all nuance.
Much like deciding whether to press the big red nuclear button is not a simple yes/no, nor is the Corbyn situation black or white. Like I said before, he has explicitly condemned anti-Semitism, for instance. If you refuse to or cannot see this, then it calls your in many ways justified criticism of Corbyn into question as it can look editorialised and as peddling an agenda (which I don't particularly want to accuse you of, as it's unconstructive).
I absolutely believe that contemplation of Corbyn's judgement is totally valid. It is that kind of thing that guides the votes of individuals. It is also in the realm of personal opinion. For example to read in that article that Michael Gove described the Good Friday Agreement as a 'mortal stain' and a 'humiliation' for the British Army would influence my vote if Gove ever decided to stand in Lewisham East.
Start a Michael Gove thread and I'll agree with you but this is the Corbyn thread : - )
We can get on to the links with dictatorships and overseas terrorists later.
You're obsessed.
I would say more passionate than obsessed.
Henry clearly has very strong views about Corbyn's behaviour insofar as terrorism and antisemitism is concerned. Views that I share, even if not as passionately.
Thank you. If being passionate about opposing antisemitism and terrorism is a crime then I plead guilty.
@iainment it's a thread about Corbyn. @leuth asked for evidence so I gave some.
What is sad is that your only response is the say "you're obsessed". Why not refute the evidence given? Maybe because you can't.
I try not to argue with people who have a fixed viewpoint. It's not worth it. You won't take any notice of any view but your own because you're obsessed about Corbyn. It'd be like trying to have a conversation with a creationist about Darwin's theory of evolution.
Maybe you won't change my mind but maybe others reading this will see the wisdom of your arguments and change their minds.
Or maybe it is rather than you'd prefer not to shine so much light on Corbyn and his real views so duck the debate.
Or maybe it is easier to put those people who tell you uncomfortable truths that disturb YOUR fixed viewpoint into a neat box so you can dismiss them. That is usually the Corbyn cult way. All those who disagree are red tories/blairites/Zio-nazies/etc etc. Some on here tried that telling me I was a tory and brexiter, when I'm neither. Haven't you either thought that maybe it's you, not everyone else, who's got it wrong. Maybe the Hackney Council view isn't real.
But if you don't want to debate that is fine. Lots of free space for me, @kentaddick and everyone one else with their eyes open to expose Corbyn for what he is.
Do you honestly think there is anyone on this site without a well formed opinion about politics and politicians? Do you think anyone has had a Damascus moment because of something said in the political threads? I don't and because of that I now try not to engage with the political stuff. All it becomes is stupid mud slinging or lists of "evidence" to justify a point of view.
idk, I've realised some things thanks to CL. my other online haunts tend to be Corbyn echo chambers, so it's nice to know exactly what he's up against in terms of centrist sentiment (and of course, the actual failings he's therefore demonstrated - many of these, the SHGs of this world, are people he really should have been able to win over)
I mean, one of the biggest problems with Corbyn, that CL has made me aware of, is the people he pushes forward to greet the public - the Burgons and Williamsons of this world (Abbott is a special case - no jokes lol - and a net bonus I think). I wouldn't be half as aware of these clots without you lot mocking them four times a week
I do recognise, however, that it doesn't provide in-line citations, and is in most respects an opinion piece. But the author is writing sincerely and pretty reasonably.
I think it is a nice piece of "we can't deny that Corbyn was linked to this terrorist group so let's play all down"
Even in this peice defending Jeremy it says
"The more reasonable version of this claim runs thus: that Corbyn was either too romantic or sentimental about the Republican movement, too trusting of its claims to want only peace, and too lax on connections between the political and armed wings of the movement.
It amounts less to a political endorsement of terrorism than a question of his political judgement. I don’t wish to defend every choice Corbyn made in this period: it would be strange if among the Sinn Féin members he met there were no active IRA members, and certainly the timing of his invitation to Adams after the Brighton bomb was crass."
So even his friends question his political judgement and call his invitation to Adams so soon after an attack "crass".
And this is from someone trying to defend him!
None of this is even disputed, not his involvement in labour briefings that @Stu_of_Kunming pointed out was pretty full on earlier when you tried to dismiss it, not his meeting with IRA members nor his invitation to Adams.
And I repeat, this is someone trying to defend him.
All sound evidence for his friendship with terrorists at that time.
So maybe it was his youth only he was 35 at the time of the Brighton bomb.
Oh man. This isn't in order but yeah:
- I never tried to dismiss or downplay any links he had to the LLB? I asked what they were, because *and I cannot stress this enough* I'm trying to approach this critically rather than with an agenda.
- Again, you are highlighting parts of the article without proper context to further your view. I understand this. This is very VERY common practice. But it's not actually engagement. The contextualisation provided by the author of the Ireland-UK relationship is really important and very much worth reading.
- "But look, even his apologists are admitting he's a friend of terrorists!" - BUT THEY'RE NOT. They're contextualising the actions he took at the time, which are consistent with the far/hard left's views at the time.
- Following on from the above point, your use of the word "evidence" is inaccurate.
- In fairness this piece isn't even a defence, really. It's an example of nuance.
- To quote from the article: "If Corbyn’s views during the Troubles were sometimes too forgiving of Republican misdeeds, then his consistent position throughout, that peace would come of dialogue and the fostering of mutual solidarity, rather than unceasing war, was eventually proven right."
You appear to be disregarding the subtleties consistently in order to further your view on Corbyn. You even do so when presented with a question like Callum's regarding nuclear warfare, which is not a simple "Yes/No" question, even if you're trying to claim it is.
Adding qualifiers (i.e. "I'd only launch nukes if it was the only viable option to safeguard the UK's future because XYZ") and understanding reasons behind actions being taken is all nuance.
Much like deciding whether to press the big red nuclear button is not a simple yes/no, nor is the Corbyn situation black or white. Like I said before, he has explicitly condemned anti-Semitism, for instance. If you refuse to or cannot see this, then it calls your in many ways justified criticism of Corbyn into question as it can look editorialised and as peddling an agenda (which I don't particularly want to accuse you of, as it's unconstructive).
"An agenda" is a meaningless phrase unless you or whoever can actually say what this agenda is? What is hidden about what I say? What am I trying to gain or play here? What do I win?
The piece is written by one of the founders of Novora Media. They are a hard core communist pro-Corbyn site that really got their big break by interviewing one of the candidates for the labour leadership. Have a wild guess at which one. It is they who have the agenda. They are Corbyn loyalists. They are defending him. They can't deny the IRA links happened (too much evidence) so they have to deflect it.
You are trying to make it about subtleties or nuance but it isn't. He is what he is. He has condemned anti-semitism. I'm sure Nigel Farage has condemned racism (he even attacked Yaxley-Lennon). Are we saying "oh, nice bit of nuance there Nigel, you can't be a racist despite all your other statements if you have condemned racism".
"But look, even his apologists are admitting he's a friend of terrorists!" - BUT THEY'RE NOT. They're contextualising the actions he took at the time, which are consistent with the far/hard left's views at the time."
You say contextualising, I say make excuses. The hard left's views at the time were as stupid and wrong as they are now (the names have changed, that is all, the support and blind eye turned for "anti-imperialist" groups hasn't.
As for the nuclear debate with Cullum it IS a yes or not question. You are either prepared to press the button or you're not. There are no other choices.
Every sane leader with their finger on the button (ie not Trump, Kim and maybe Putin) would have reservations and conditions about when to press the button but the answer is still, at the final count, YES or NO.
If Corbyn said "let's scrap trident and all nuclear weapons, let's spend the money of conventional weapons and a small but high quality army/navy/RAF and the proper care of veterans" that might actually be a vote winner, it might even sway me but he needs to be honest just like he needs to be honest about being pro-Brexit.
There is no room for nuance in a debate in a 21st century democracy.
And too fucking right...after the numerous revelations of recent years about the amount of alleged nuances in politics in the 70s and 80s and celebrities like Saville it's only a good thing there's no longer room for them I say!
Yes Leuth - Corbyn isn't perfect. To be honest he has spent his career fighting for what he believes is right against the establishment. If anybody told me he would be in the running to be the next Prime Minsiter of this country a few years ago I would have booked them a ticket for the funny farm. I always had an admiration for his dogged determination though. In teh same way everybody smiles when Dennis Skinner speaks.
Before that last election I didn't have a good word to say about him. Not as bad as some on here but I thought he would only cost Labour power because he was unelectable. I have always tilted to the left a bit, but I consider myself a capitalist too. However, I haven't failed to notice that the world is changing. Trump and Brexit are symptoms of it. I think we live in dangerous times and capitalism without controls is showing itself to be incapable of addressing them.
The nationalist sparks that so many have in them have been encouraged to flourish for political gain. It isn't racist to be against immigration, Well that is true in certain circumstances, but the statement is seen by the racists as permission to be racists. When you let these things out of the box, they are hard to put back in and even control. The evidence throughout the world is a shift to the right. Whilst some may bemoan the lack of a centrist party that represents them, they fail to see the pattern. There has been a beacon of light though. Bernie Sanders in America and Corbyn here have shown that popularism needn't lead us into a bad place but could lead us into a better place.I suppose the poingt is whether you think we need leading there or not.
What turned me towards Corbyn was a good long read of the last Labour election manifesto. The one a few on here quote without reading a word of it. Of course it lacked detail in parts, but was in all honesty the clearest and most costed manifesto from any party in my memory. And it made sense to me. I have an interest in economics and the manifesto followed the lines of many eminent economists who I admire. Then he got close enough to power to show he could gain power. Sure somebody else would get more votes, but that is missing the point. He can gain power - it is now possible.
I am reminded of a statement about Thatcher. That is that she became electable, not because she changed, but because she stayed the same and the world changed around her. I think the same could be said of Corbyn. I am not sure if I think he is a temporary cure or something longer lasting, but if we are moving to popularism, I feel safer going left than right! Living in a world where capital is just not trickling down as Thatcher believed it should, there is a powder keg that is going to explode. My hope, and it is a hope, is that Corbyn is our cure. We might just need him now as we probably needed Thatcher then - much as it pains me to say it. Anyway if that makes me a cult member, I am happy to be one.
As for the IRA. I was shocked that some on here had no understanding that there were Unionist terrorists as well as republican ones. The history of the British and Ireland is not one to take a lot of pride in. But terrorism is wrong - killing innocent people is wrong and I salute the brave politicians from the Conservative party and the Labour party who did the unthinkable and negotiated with the terrorists and brought peace to both sides. Not a perfect peace but something much better than what we had.
Without denying that there is anti-semitism within the Labour party, the same way that I think there is racism within the Tory party - Corbyn actually supports there being a state of Isreal which is strange anti-semitism. I think he understands that Israel needs to live in peace with its neighbours and believes it is possible. If that is achievable, it would make the world a little more stable. But the actions of Israel in current times move us further away from this. You can be sympathetic to the Palestinians - they had their country taken from them and are a desperate people. If you talk to them and understand them, you may be able to help them find a peaceful path. Nuance is a word that probably won't be in the dictionary a lot longer the way we are going.
I do recognise, however, that it doesn't provide in-line citations, and is in most respects an opinion piece. But the author is writing sincerely and pretty reasonably.
I think it is a nice piece of "we can't deny that Corbyn was linked to this terrorist group so let's play all down"
Even in this peice defending Jeremy it says
"The more reasonable version of this claim runs thus: that Corbyn was either too romantic or sentimental about the Republican movement, too trusting of its claims to want only peace, and too lax on connections between the political and armed wings of the movement.
It amounts less to a political endorsement of terrorism than a question of his political judgement. I don’t wish to defend every choice Corbyn made in this period: it would be strange if among the Sinn Féin members he met there were no active IRA members, and certainly the timing of his invitation to Adams after the Brighton bomb was crass."
So even his friends question his political judgement and call his invitation to Adams so soon after an attack "crass".
And this is from someone trying to defend him!
None of this is even disputed, not his involvement in labour briefings that @Stu_of_Kunming pointed out was pretty full on earlier when you tried to dismiss it, not his meeting with IRA members nor his invitation to Adams.
And I repeat, this is someone trying to defend him.
All sound evidence for his friendship with terrorists at that time.
So maybe it was his youth only he was 35 at the time of the Brighton bomb.
Oh man. This isn't in order but yeah:
- I never tried to dismiss or downplay any links he had to the LLB? I asked what they were, because *and I cannot stress this enough* I'm trying to approach this critically rather than with an agenda.
- Again, you are highlighting parts of the article without proper context to further your view. I understand this. This is very VERY common practice. But it's not actually engagement. The contextualisation provided by the author of the Ireland-UK relationship is really important and very much worth reading.
- "But look, even his apologists are admitting he's a friend of terrorists!" - BUT THEY'RE NOT. They're contextualising the actions he took at the time, which are consistent with the far/hard left's views at the time.
- Following on from the above point, your use of the word "evidence" is inaccurate.
- In fairness this piece isn't even a defence, really. It's an example of nuance.
- To quote from the article: "If Corbyn’s views during the Troubles were sometimes too forgiving of Republican misdeeds, then his consistent position throughout, that peace would come of dialogue and the fostering of mutual solidarity, rather than unceasing war, was eventually proven right."
You appear to be disregarding the subtleties consistently in order to further your view on Corbyn. You even do so when presented with a question like Callum's regarding nuclear warfare, which is not a simple "Yes/No" question, even if you're trying to claim it is.
Adding qualifiers (i.e. "I'd only launch nukes if it was the only viable option to safeguard the UK's future because XYZ") and understanding reasons behind actions being taken is all nuance.
Much like deciding whether to press the big red nuclear button is not a simple yes/no, nor is the Corbyn situation black or white. Like I said before, he has explicitly condemned anti-Semitism, for instance. If you refuse to or cannot see this, then it calls your in many ways justified criticism of Corbyn into question as it can look editorialised and as peddling an agenda (which I don't particularly want to accuse you of, as it's unconstructive).
"An agenda" is a meaningless phrase unless you or whoever can actually say what this agenda is? What is hidden about what I say? What am I trying to gain or play here? What do I win?
The piece is written by one of the founders of Novora Media. They are a hard core communist pro-Corbyn site that really got their big break by interviewing one of the candidates for the labour leadership. Have a wild guess at which one. It is they who have the agenda. They are Corbyn loyalists. They are defending him. They can't deny the IRA links happened (too much evidence) so they have to deflect it.
You are trying to make it about subtleties or nuance but it isn't. He is what he is. He has condemned anti-semitism. I'm sure Nigel Farage has condemned racism (he even attacked Yaxley-Lennon). Are we saying "oh, nice bit of nuance there Nigel, you can't be a racist despite all your other statements if you have condemned racism".
"But look, even his apologists are admitting he's a friend of terrorists!" - BUT THEY'RE NOT. They're contextualising the actions he took at the time, which are consistent with the far/hard left's views at the time."
You say contextualising, I say make excuses. The hard left's views at the time were as stupid and wrong as they are now (the names have changed, that is all, the support and blind eye turned for "anti-imperialist" groups hasn't.
As for the nuclear debate with Cullum it IS a yes or not question. You are either prepared to press the button or you're not. There are no other choices.
Every sane leader with their finger on the button (ie not Trump, Kim and maybe Putin) would have reservations and conditions about when to press the button but the answer is still, at the final count, YES or NO.
If Corbyn said "let's scrap trident and all nuclear weapons, let's spend the money of conventional weapons and a small but high quality army/navy/RAF and the proper care of veterans" that might actually be a vote winner, it might even sway me but he needs to be honest just like he needs to be honest about being pro-Brexit.
100% this.
There is a lot of what Corbyn says that as a socialist I really quite like. What worries me a lot is what he doesn’t say. The man is as far as I can see completely untrustworthy.
We can get on to the links with dictatorships and overseas terrorists later.
You're obsessed.
I would say more passionate than obsessed.
Henry clearly has very strong views about Corbyn's behaviour insofar as terrorism and antisemitism is concerned. Views that I share, even if not as passionately.
I do recognise, however, that it doesn't provide in-line citations, and is in most respects an opinion piece. But the author is writing sincerely and pretty reasonably.
I think it is a nice piece of "we can't deny that Corbyn was linked to this terrorist group so let's play all down"
Even in this peice defending Jeremy it says
"The more reasonable version of this claim runs thus: that Corbyn was either too romantic or sentimental about the Republican movement, too trusting of its claims to want only peace, and too lax on connections between the political and armed wings of the movement.
It amounts less to a political endorsement of terrorism than a question of his political judgement. I don’t wish to defend every choice Corbyn made in this period: it would be strange if among the Sinn Féin members he met there were no active IRA members, and certainly the timing of his invitation to Adams after the Brighton bomb was crass."
So even his friends question his political judgement and call his invitation to Adams so soon after an attack "crass".
And this is from someone trying to defend him!
None of this is even disputed, not his involvement in labour briefings that @Stu_of_Kunming pointed out was pretty full on earlier when you tried to dismiss it, not his meeting with IRA members nor his invitation to Adams.
And I repeat, this is someone trying to defend him.
All sound evidence for his friendship with terrorists at that time.
So maybe it was his youth only he was 35 at the time of the Brighton bomb.
Oh man. This isn't in order but yeah:
- I never tried to dismiss or downplay any links he had to the LLB? I asked what they were, because *and I cannot stress this enough* I'm trying to approach this critically rather than with an agenda.
- Again, you are highlighting parts of the article without proper context to further your view. I understand this. This is very VERY common practice. But it's not actually engagement. The contextualisation provided by the author of the Ireland-UK relationship is really important and very much worth reading.
- "But look, even his apologists are admitting he's a friend of terrorists!" - BUT THEY'RE NOT. They're contextualising the actions he took at the time, which are consistent with the far/hard left's views at the time.
- Following on from the above point, your use of the word "evidence" is inaccurate.
- In fairness this piece isn't even a defence, really. It's an example of nuance.
- To quote from the article: "If Corbyn’s views during the Troubles were sometimes too forgiving of Republican misdeeds, then his consistent position throughout, that peace would come of dialogue and the fostering of mutual solidarity, rather than unceasing war, was eventually proven right."
You appear to be disregarding the subtleties consistently in order to further your view on Corbyn. You even do so when presented with a question like Callum's regarding nuclear warfare, which is not a simple "Yes/No" question, even if you're trying to claim it is.
Adding qualifiers (i.e. "I'd only launch nukes if it was the only viable option to safeguard the UK's future because XYZ") and understanding reasons behind actions being taken is all nuance.
Much like deciding whether to press the big red nuclear button is not a simple yes/no, nor is the Corbyn situation black or white. Like I said before, he has explicitly condemned anti-Semitism, for instance. If you refuse to or cannot see this, then it calls your in many ways justified criticism of Corbyn into question as it can look editorialised and as peddling an agenda (which I don't particularly want to accuse you of, as it's unconstructive).
I do recognise, however, that it doesn't provide in-line citations, and is in most respects an opinion piece. But the author is writing sincerely and pretty reasonably.
I think it is a nice piece of "we can't deny that Corbyn was linked to this terrorist group so let's play all down"
Even in this peice defending Jeremy it says
"The more reasonable version of this claim runs thus: that Corbyn was either too romantic or sentimental about the Republican movement, too trusting of its claims to want only peace, and too lax on connections between the political and armed wings of the movement.
It amounts less to a political endorsement of terrorism than a question of his political judgement. I don’t wish to defend every choice Corbyn made in this period: it would be strange if among the Sinn Féin members he met there were no active IRA members, and certainly the timing of his invitation to Adams after the Brighton bomb was crass."
So even his friends question his political judgement and call his invitation to Adams so soon after an attack "crass".
And this is from someone trying to defend him!
None of this is even disputed, not his involvement in labour briefings that @Stu_of_Kunming pointed out was pretty full on earlier when you tried to dismiss it, not his meeting with IRA members nor his invitation to Adams.
And I repeat, this is someone trying to defend him.
All sound evidence for his friendship with terrorists at that time.
So maybe it was his youth only he was 35 at the time of the Brighton bomb.
Oh man. This isn't in order but yeah:
- I never tried to dismiss or downplay any links he had to the LLB? I asked what they were, because *and I cannot stress this enough* I'm trying to approach this critically rather than with an agenda.
- Again, you are highlighting parts of the article without proper context to further your view. I understand this. This is very VERY common practice. But it's not actually engagement. The contextualisation provided by the author of the Ireland-UK relationship is really important and very much worth reading.
- "But look, even his apologists are admitting he's a friend of terrorists!" - BUT THEY'RE NOT. They're contextualising the actions he took at the time, which are consistent with the far/hard left's views at the time.
- Following on from the above point, your use of the word "evidence" is inaccurate.
- In fairness this piece isn't even a defence, really. It's an example of nuance.
- To quote from the article: "If Corbyn’s views during the Troubles were sometimes too forgiving of Republican misdeeds, then his consistent position throughout, that peace would come of dialogue and the fostering of mutual solidarity, rather than unceasing war, was eventually proven right."
You appear to be disregarding the subtleties consistently in order to further your view on Corbyn. You even do so when presented with a question like Callum's regarding nuclear warfare, which is not a simple "Yes/No" question, even if you're trying to claim it is.
Adding qualifiers (i.e. "I'd only launch nukes if it was the only viable option to safeguard the UK's future because XYZ") and understanding reasons behind actions being taken is all nuance.
Much like deciding whether to press the big red nuclear button is not a simple yes/no, nor is the Corbyn situation black or white. Like I said before, he has explicitly condemned anti-Semitism, for instance. If you refuse to or cannot see this, then it calls your in many ways justified criticism of Corbyn into question as it can look editorialised and as peddling an agenda (which I don't particularly want to accuse you of, as it's unconstructive).
"An agenda" is a meaningless phrase unless you or whoever can actually say what this agenda is? What is hidden about what I say? What am I trying to gain or play here? What do I win?
The piece is written by one of the founders of Novora Media. They are a hard core communist pro-Corbyn site that really got their big break by interviewing one of the candidates for the labour leadership. Have a wild guess at which one. It is they who have the agenda. They are Corbyn loyalists. They are defending him. They can't deny the IRA links happened (too much evidence) so they have to deflect it.
You are trying to make it about subtleties or nuance but it isn't. He is what he is. He has condemned anti-semitism. I'm sure Nigel Farage has condemned racism (he even attacked Yaxley-Lennon). Are we saying "oh, nice bit of nuance there Nigel, you can't be a racist despite all your other statements if you have condemned racism".
"But look, even his apologists are admitting he's a friend of terrorists!" - BUT THEY'RE NOT. They're contextualising the actions he took at the time, which are consistent with the far/hard left's views at the time."
You say contextualising, I say make excuses. The hard left's views at the time were as stupid and wrong as they are now (the names have changed, that is all, the support and blind eye turned for "anti-imperialist" groups hasn't.
As for the nuclear debate with Cullum it IS a yes or not question. You are either prepared to press the button or you're not. There are no other choices.
Every sane leader with their finger on the button (ie not Trump, Kim and maybe Putin) would have reservations and conditions about when to press the button but the answer is still, at the final count, YES or NO.
If Corbyn said "let's scrap trident and all nuclear weapons, let's spend the money of conventional weapons and a small but high quality army/navy/RAF and the proper care of veterans" that might actually be a vote winner, it might even sway me but he needs to be honest just like he needs to be honest about being pro-Brexit.
100% this.
There is a lot of what Corbyn says that as a socialist I really quite like. What worries me a lot is what he doesn’t say. The man is as far as I can see completely untrustworthy.
I'm not a million miles from that position.
I've been Labour all my life - bit of a Marxist when a student but like many have moved to the centre/centre left as I've got older. But I cannot vote for Corbyn's Labour Party and I would be physically sick if I ever thought of putting my cross against a Tory candidate. So I am without any real choice.
I do recognise, however, that it doesn't provide in-line citations, and is in most respects an opinion piece. But the author is writing sincerely and pretty reasonably.
I think it is a nice piece of "we can't deny that Corbyn was linked to this terrorist group so let's play all down"
Even in this peice defending Jeremy it says
"The more reasonable version of this claim runs thus: that Corbyn was either too romantic or sentimental about the Republican movement, too trusting of its claims to want only peace, and too lax on connections between the political and armed wings of the movement.
It amounts less to a political endorsement of terrorism than a question of his political judgement. I don’t wish to defend every choice Corbyn made in this period: it would be strange if among the Sinn Féin members he met there were no active IRA members, and certainly the timing of his invitation to Adams after the Brighton bomb was crass."
So even his friends question his political judgement and call his invitation to Adams so soon after an attack "crass".
And this is from someone trying to defend him!
None of this is even disputed, not his involvement in labour briefings that @Stu_of_Kunming pointed out was pretty full on earlier when you tried to dismiss it, not his meeting with IRA members nor his invitation to Adams.
And I repeat, this is someone trying to defend him.
All sound evidence for his friendship with terrorists at that time.
So maybe it was his youth only he was 35 at the time of the Brighton bomb.
Oh man. This isn't in order but yeah:
- I never tried to dismiss or downplay any links he had to the LLB? I asked what they were, because *and I cannot stress this enough* I'm trying to approach this critically rather than with an agenda.
- Again, you are highlighting parts of the article without proper context to further your view. I understand this. This is very VERY common practice. But it's not actually engagement. The contextualisation provided by the author of the Ireland-UK relationship is really important and very much worth reading.
- "But look, even his apologists are admitting he's a friend of terrorists!" - BUT THEY'RE NOT. They're contextualising the actions he took at the time, which are consistent with the far/hard left's views at the time.
- Following on from the above point, your use of the word "evidence" is inaccurate.
- In fairness this piece isn't even a defence, really. It's an example of nuance.
- To quote from the article: "If Corbyn’s views during the Troubles were sometimes too forgiving of Republican misdeeds, then his consistent position throughout, that peace would come of dialogue and the fostering of mutual solidarity, rather than unceasing war, was eventually proven right."
You appear to be disregarding the subtleties consistently in order to further your view on Corbyn. You even do so when presented with a question like Callum's regarding nuclear warfare, which is not a simple "Yes/No" question, even if you're trying to claim it is.
Adding qualifiers (i.e. "I'd only launch nukes if it was the only viable option to safeguard the UK's future because XYZ") and understanding reasons behind actions being taken is all nuance.
Much like deciding whether to press the big red nuclear button is not a simple yes/no, nor is the Corbyn situation black or white. Like I said before, he has explicitly condemned anti-Semitism, for instance. If you refuse to or cannot see this, then it calls your in many ways justified criticism of Corbyn into question as it can look editorialised and as peddling an agenda (which I don't particularly want to accuse you of, as it's unconstructive).
"An agenda" is a meaningless phrase unless you or whoever can actually say what this agenda is? What is hidden about what I say? What am I trying to gain or play here? What do I win?
The piece is written by one of the founders of Novora Media. They are a hard core communist pro-Corbyn site that really got their big break by interviewing one of the candidates for the labour leadership. Have a wild guess at which one. It is they who have the agenda. They are Corbyn loyalists. They are defending him. They can't deny the IRA links happened (too much evidence) so they have to deflect it.
You are trying to make it about subtleties or nuance but it isn't. He is what he is. He has condemned anti-semitism. I'm sure Nigel Farage has condemned racism (he even attacked Yaxley-Lennon). Are we saying "oh, nice bit of nuance there Nigel, you can't be a racist despite all your other statements if you have condemned racism".
"But look, even his apologists are admitting he's a friend of terrorists!" - BUT THEY'RE NOT. They're contextualising the actions he took at the time, which are consistent with the far/hard left's views at the time."
You say contextualising, I say make excuses. The hard left's views at the time were as stupid and wrong as they are now (the names have changed, that is all, the support and blind eye turned for "anti-imperialist" groups hasn't.
As for the nuclear debate with Cullum it IS a yes or not question. You are either prepared to press the button or you're not. There are no other choices.
Every sane leader with their finger on the button (ie not Trump, Kim and maybe Putin) would have reservations and conditions about when to press the button but the answer is still, at the final count, YES or NO.
If Corbyn said "let's scrap trident and all nuclear weapons, let's spend the money of conventional weapons and a small but high quality army/navy/RAF and the proper care of veterans" that might actually be a vote winner, it might even sway me but he needs to be honest just like he needs to be honest about being pro-Brexit.
100% this.
There is a lot of what Corbyn says that as a socialist I really quite like. What worries me a lot is what he doesn’t say. The man is as far as I can see completely untrustworthy.
I'm not a million miles from that position.
I've been Labour all my life - bit of a Marxist when a student but like many have moved to the centre/centre left as I've got older. But I cannot vote for Corbyn's Labour Party and I would be physically sick if I ever thought of putting my cross against a Tory candidate. So I am without any real choice.
If there was to be a general election at some point before 2022 which I doubt if I’m honest, what I would like to see is a Labour government returned but one that needs the support of others in order to govern. Something to check the excesses if you like. Much in the same way that the Lib Dem’s were in part able to do when in coalition.
This would be far preferable in my eyes to seeing another Tory government elected. They have been an unmitigated disaster for this country. We cannot have that continue. I will undoubtedly vote labour and I’ll admit have my fingers crossed.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
The war against Japan did not end because of nuclear weapons. Japan was already defeated and seconding out peace feelers before the bombs were dropped and all of Americas top military leaders advised Truman that the use of the bomb was not necessary. But Truman ignored them and under the influence of his Secretary of State, Byrnes, went ahead for two main reasons. One to forestall Soviet territorial gains in east Asia when it entered the war against Japan by invading Manchuria, and secondly to provides a 'real world' demonstration of the power of the new weapon to make the Soviets more 'amenable' in negotiations over territory in Europe – and the populations of two cities were sacrificed for it.
I certainly wouldn’t say you are 100% wrong but I thought that Truman was told that an invasion of Japan would be too costly in American soldiers lives to undertake. There was of course a lack of real understanding of the consequences of the action by most people other than within the scientific community. I would imagine the real reason is as always somewhere in between.
That is one view but it is disputed that 1. Japan was already defeated. They still had large armies in Japan and in China and Burma. 2. that the "peace feelers" were from the ruling military group. Truman couldn't know what was going on with the Emperor and the various peace and war parties. Certainly there were strong parties wanting to continue the war. Peace might have come without the bomb or an invasion but that is clear only with hindsight.
I don't doubt that Truman wanted to use and test the bomb both to impress the Soviets (Stalin hadn't been that impressed when told and maybe already knew) but also to show the Japanese what would happened if they didn't surrender.
Re read Anthony Beevor's "The Second World War" tonight (ok, not all 950 pages but the relevant parts) and takes the same stance ie the the army were very reluctant to surrender and it was only the 2nd bomb that made the Emperor force the army to accept terms. The war was far from over.
Even then some army officers tried to stop the broadcast of Emperor's surrender.
I had forgotten the extent to which the Japanese used chemical warfare.
@seth plum - after a mundane day at the big house I’ve just read through this thread. To you sir, my hat is off. You have raised an intelligent, decent son.
I am aware of Japanese actions. My father was in Burma, and my Chinese wife has knowledge of the Japanese behaviour in China, which piqued my interest before. Whether all that justifies the Americans using two nuclear weapons I am not so sure. As has been alluded to earlier it is also a case of signalling stuff to Russia at that time, and also a desire to try the weapons out. The effect was certainly to negate the need for an American invasion of the Japanese home islands that is true, but there may have been other ways to avoid invasion too, yet still bring the war to an end.
Yes Leuth - Corbyn isn't perfect. To be honest he has spent his career fighting for what he believes is right against the establishment. If anybody told me he would be in the running to be the next Prime Minsiter of this country a few years ago I would have booked them a ticket for the funny farm. I always had an admiration for his dogged determination though. In teh same way everybody smiles when Dennis Skinner speaks.
Before that last election I didn't have a good word to say about him. Not as bad as some on here but I thought he would only cost Labour power because he was unelectable. I have always tilted to the left a bit, but I consider myself a capitalist too. However, I haven't failed to notice that the world is changing. Trump and Brexit are symptoms of it. I think we live in dangerous times and capitalism without controls is showing itself to be incapable of addressing them.
The nationalist sparks that so many have in them have been encouraged to flourish for political gain. It isn't racist to be against immigration, Well that is true in certain circumstances, but the statement is seen by the racists as permission to be racists. When you let these things out of the box, they are hard to put back in and even control. The evidence throughout the world is a shift to the right. Whilst some may bemoan the lack of a centrist party that represents them, they fail to see the pattern. There has been a beacon of light though. Bernie Sanders in America and Corbyn here have shown that popularism needn't lead us into a bad place but could lead us into a better place.I suppose the poingt is whether you think we need leading there or not.
What turned me towards Corbyn was a good long read of the last Labour election manifesto. The one a few on here quote without reading a word of it. Of course it lacked detail in parts, but was in all honesty the clearest and most costed manifesto from any party in my memory. And it made sense to me. I have an interest in economics and the manifesto followed the lines of many eminent economists who I admire. Then he got close enough to power to show he could gain power. Sure somebody else would get more votes, but that is missing the point. He can gain power - it is now possible.
I am reminded of a statement about Thatcher. That is that she became electable, not because she changed, but because she stayed the same and the world changed around her. I think the same could be said of Corbyn. I am not sure if I think he is a temporary cure or something longer lasting, but if we are moving to popularism, I feel safer going left than right! Living in a world where capital is just not trickling down as Thatcher believed it should, there is a powder keg that is going to explode. My hope, and it is a hope, is that Corbyn is our cure. We might just need him now as we probably needed Thatcher then - much as it pains me to say it. Anyway if that makes me a cult member, I am happy to be one.
As for the IRA. I was shocked that some on here had no understanding that there were Unionist terrorists as well as republican ones. The history of the British and Ireland is not one to take a lot of pride in. But terrorism is wrong - killing innocent people is wrong and I salute the brave politicians from the Conservative party and the Labour party who did the unthinkable and negotiated with the terrorists and brought peace to both sides. Not a perfect peace but something much better than what we had.
Without denying that there is anti-semitism within the Labour party, the same way that I think there is racism within the Tory party - Corbyn actually supports there being a state of Isreal which is strange anti-semitism. I think he understands that Israel needs to live in peace with its neighbours and believes it is possible. If that is achievable, it would make the world a little more stable. But the actions of Israel in current times move us further away from this. You can be sympathetic to the Palestinians - they had their country taken from them and are a desperate people. If you talk to them and understand them, you may be able to help them find a peaceful path. Nuance is a word that probably won't be in the dictionary a lot longer the way we are going.
I am aware of Japanese actions. My father was in Burma, and my Chinese wife has knowledge of the Japanese behaviour in China, which piqued my interest before. Whether all that justifies the Americans using two nuclear weapons I am not so sure. As has been alluded to earlier it is also a case of signalling stuff to Russia at that time, and also a desire to try the weapons out. The effect was certainly to negate the need for an American invasion of the Japanese home islands that is true, but there may have been other ways to avoid invasion too, yet still bring the war to an end.
I wasn't referencing the Japanese atrocities (and Russian and Chinese) at the ending of the war to justify the atom bombs. Sorry if it read that way.
There may have been another way have brought the war to an end but if we agree with Beevor's view not as quickly or without many more lives lost.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
The war against Japan did not end because of nuclear weapons. Japan was already defeated and seconding out peace feelers before the bombs were dropped and all of Americas top military leaders advised Truman that the use of the bomb was not necessary. But Truman ignored them and under the influence of his Secretary of State, Byrnes, went ahead for two main reasons. One to forestall Soviet territorial gains in east Asia when it entered the war against Japan by invading Manchuria, and secondly to provides a 'real world' demonstration of the power of the new weapon to make the Soviets more 'amenable' in negotiations over territory in Europe – and the populations of two cities were sacrificed for it.
I certainly wouldn’t say you are 100% wrong but I thought that Truman was told that an invasion of Japan would be too costly in American soldiers lives to undertake. There was of course a lack of real understanding of the consequences of the action by most people other than within the scientific community. I would imagine the real reason is as always somewhere in between.
That is one view but it is disputed that 1. Japan was already defeated. They still had large armies in Japan and in China and Burma. 2. that the "peace feelers" were from the ruling military group. Truman couldn't know what was going on with the Emperor and the various peace and war parties. Certainly there were strong parties wanting to continue the war. Peace might have come without the bomb or an invasion but that is clear only with hindsight.
I don't doubt that Truman wanted to use and test the bomb both to impress the Soviets (Stalin hadn't been that impressed when told and maybe already knew) but also to show the Japanese what would happened if they didn't surrender.
Re read Anthony Beevor's "The Second World War" tonight (ok, not all 950 pages but the relevant parts) and takes the same stance ie the the army were very reluctant to surrender and it was only the 2nd bomb that made the Emperor force the army to accept terms. The war was far from over.
Even then some army officers tried to stop the broadcast of Emperor's surrender.
I had forgotten the extent to which the Japanese used chemical warfare.
Some horrific stuff about the end of war in China too @Stu_of_Kunming
Gar Alperovitz's book 'The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb' is the most thorough and forensic analysis of events and decisions that led up to the use of the atomic bomb on Japan and all of it's 864 pages are relevant to that decision.
I'm not suggesting that Japanese conduct during the second world war wasn't barbaric or denying that there was a diehard kamikaze faction in the army that opposed any surrender - but, as I've pointed out, most leading US military, political, and diplomatic figures believed that Japan was on the brink of collapse and that offering to allow the emperor to remain would have brought about surrender, without a need to use the bomb, or a contested invasion.
And if Roosevelt had lived a little longer and Truman not taken over that might have happened:
Comments
mythe Universe ya mug!- I never tried to dismiss or downplay any links he had to the LLB? I asked what they were, because *and I cannot stress this enough* I'm trying to approach this critically rather than with an agenda.
- Again, you are highlighting parts of the article without proper context to further your view. I understand this. This is very VERY common practice. But it's not actually engagement. The contextualisation provided by the author of the Ireland-UK relationship is really important and very much worth reading.
- "But look, even his apologists are admitting he's a friend of terrorists!" - BUT THEY'RE NOT. They're contextualising the actions he took at the time, which are consistent with the far/hard left's views at the time.
- Following on from the above point, your use of the word "evidence" is inaccurate.
- In fairness this piece isn't even a defence, really. It's an example of nuance.
- To quote from the article: "If Corbyn’s views during the Troubles were sometimes too forgiving of Republican misdeeds, then his consistent position throughout, that peace would come of dialogue and the fostering of mutual solidarity, rather than unceasing war, was eventually proven right."
You appear to be disregarding the subtleties consistently in order to further your view on Corbyn. You even do so when presented with a question like Callum's regarding nuclear warfare, which is not a simple "Yes/No" question, even if you're trying to claim it is.
Adding qualifiers (i.e. "I'd only launch nukes if it was the only viable option to safeguard the UK's future because XYZ") and understanding reasons behind actions being taken is all nuance.
Much like deciding whether to press the big red nuclear button is not a simple yes/no, nor is the Corbyn situation black or white. Like I said before, he has explicitly condemned anti-Semitism, for instance. If you refuse to or cannot see this, then it calls your in many ways justified criticism of Corbyn into question as it can look editorialised and as peddling an agenda (which I don't particularly want to accuse you of, as it's unconstructive).
I don't and because of that I now try not to engage with the political stuff. All it becomes is stupid mud slinging or lists of "evidence" to justify a point of view.
The piece is written by one of the founders of Novora Media. They are a hard core communist pro-Corbyn site that really got their big break by interviewing one of the candidates for the labour leadership. Have a wild guess at which one. It is they who have the agenda. They are Corbyn loyalists. They are defending him. They can't deny the IRA links happened (too much evidence) so they have to deflect it.
You are trying to make it about subtleties or nuance but it isn't. He is what he is. He has condemned anti-semitism. I'm sure Nigel Farage has condemned racism (he even attacked Yaxley-Lennon). Are we saying "oh, nice bit of nuance there Nigel, you can't be a racist despite all your other statements if you have condemned racism".
"But look, even his apologists are admitting he's a friend of terrorists!" - BUT THEY'RE NOT. They're contextualising the actions he took at the time, which are consistent with the far/hard left's views at the time."
You say contextualising, I say make excuses. The hard left's views at the time were as stupid and wrong as they are now (the names have changed, that is all, the support and blind eye turned for "anti-imperialist" groups hasn't.
As for the nuclear debate with Cullum it IS a yes or not question. You are either prepared to press the button or you're not. There are no other choices.
Every sane leader with their finger on the button (ie not Trump, Kim and maybe Putin) would have reservations and conditions about when to press the button but the answer is still, at the final count, YES or NO.
If Corbyn said "let's scrap trident and all nuclear weapons, let's spend the money of conventional weapons and a small but high quality army/navy/RAF and the proper care of veterans" that might actually be a vote winner, it might even sway me but he needs to be honest just like he needs to be honest about being pro-Brexit.
Before that last election I didn't have a good word to say about him. Not as bad as some on here
The nationalist sparks that so many have in them have been encouraged to flourish for political gain. It isn't racist to be against immigration, Well that is true in certain circumstances, but the statement is seen by the racists as permission to be racists. When you let these things out of the box, they are hard to put back in and even control. The evidence throughout the world is a shift to the right. Whilst some may bemoan the lack of a centrist party that represents them, they fail to see the pattern. There has been a beacon of light though. Bernie Sanders in America and Corbyn here have shown that popularism needn't lead us into a bad place but could lead us into a better place.I suppose the poingt is whether you think we need leading there or not.
What turned me towards Corbyn was a good long read of the last Labour election manifesto. The one a few on here quote without reading a word of it. Of course it lacked detail in parts, but was in all honesty the clearest and most costed manifesto from any party in my memory. And it made sense to me. I have an interest in economics and the manifesto followed the lines of many eminent economists who I admire. Then he got close enough to power to show he could gain power. Sure somebody else would get more votes, but that is missing the point. He can gain power - it is now possible.
I am reminded of a statement about Thatcher. That is that she became electable, not because she changed, but because she stayed the same and the world changed around her. I think the same could be said of Corbyn. I am not sure if I think he is a temporary cure or something longer lasting, but if we are moving to popularism, I feel safer going left than right! Living in a world where capital is just not trickling down as Thatcher believed it should, there is a powder keg that is going to explode. My hope, and it is a hope, is that Corbyn is our cure. We might just need him now as we probably needed Thatcher then - much as it pains me to say it. Anyway if that makes me a cult member, I am happy to be one.
As for the IRA. I was shocked that some on here had no understanding that there were Unionist terrorists as well as republican ones. The history of the British and Ireland is not one to take a lot of pride in. But terrorism is wrong - killing innocent people is wrong and I salute the brave politicians from the Conservative party and the Labour party who did the unthinkable and negotiated with the terrorists and brought peace to both sides. Not a perfect peace but something much better than what we had.
Without denying that there is anti-semitism within the Labour party, the same way that I think there is racism within the Tory party - Corbyn actually supports there being a state of Isreal which is strange anti-semitism. I think he understands that Israel needs to live in peace with its neighbours and believes it is possible. If that is achievable, it would make the world a little more stable. But the actions of Israel in current times move us further away from this. You can be sympathetic to the Palestinians - they had their country taken from them and are a desperate people. If you talk to them and understand them, you may be able to help them find a peaceful path. Nuance is a word that probably won't be in the dictionary a lot longer the way we are going.
There is a lot of what Corbyn says that as a socialist I really quite like. What worries me a lot is what he doesn’t say. The man is as far as I can see completely untrustworthy.
Proves that whoever is in power, the Civil Service really run the Country.
I've been Labour all my life - bit of a Marxist when a student but like many have moved to the centre/centre left as I've got older. But I cannot vote for Corbyn's Labour Party and I would be physically sick if I ever thought of putting my cross against a Tory candidate. So I am without any real choice.
This would be far preferable in my eyes to seeing another Tory government elected. They have been an unmitigated disaster for this country. We cannot have that continue. I will undoubtedly vote labour and I’ll admit have my fingers crossed.
So much so, that I bought one of his trouser presses.
Even then some army officers tried to stop the broadcast of Emperor's surrender.
I had forgotten the extent to which the Japanese used chemical warfare.
Photos available if any of @micks1950 @Leuth @seth plum @ShootersHillGuru want them.
Some horrific stuff about the end of war in China too @Stu_of_Kunming
Whether all that justifies the Americans using two nuclear weapons I am not so sure.
As has been alluded to earlier it is also a case of signalling stuff to Russia at that time, and also a desire to try the weapons out. The effect was certainly to negate the need for an American invasion of the Japanese home islands that is true, but there may have been other ways to avoid invasion too, yet still bring the war to an end.
There may have been another way have brought the war to an end but if we agree with Beevor's view not as quickly or without many more lives lost.
I'm not suggesting that Japanese conduct during the second world war wasn't barbaric or denying that there was a diehard kamikaze faction in the army that opposed any surrender - but, as I've pointed out, most leading US military, political, and diplomatic figures believed that Japan was on the brink of collapse and that offering to allow the emperor to remain would have brought about surrender, without a need to use the bomb, or a contested invasion.
And if Roosevelt had lived a little longer and Truman not taken over that might have happened:
https://www.garalperovitz.com/atomic-bomb/
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm