Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
I'm suggesting it was a shameful surrender.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Labour Leadership Contest
- Thread starter Yerda
- Start date
I'm suggesting it was a shameful surrender.
Yerda
Veteran Member
Pally as in meeting at the pub for a pint? Or meeting on political business that happens to be their jobs.
I've heard it claimed but I've neve seen any evidence..Jeremy Taylor said:
Depends what you meant by pally. Given that neither of us knows whether Adams is really a provo I have to say that you're argument that Corbyn is sympathetic to terrorism is shaky and bordering on completely invalid.Jeremy Taylor said:
I can't see a single thing that Corbyn has done or said that indicates that this is true.Jeremy Taylor said:
Did anyone see the C4 debate/hustings the other day? None of the candidates came across that well. None of them had much to say that was worth hearing.
- Burnam seemed to be suggesting he wants to make peace with Corbyn which I think might mean he (Burnam) thinks the old man has already got this wrapped up. You don't stick around in the Labour party without spotting a potential pole you can grease.
- Cooper claimed we have to take more refugees which I agree with. I can't recall anything else she said. She clearly has no time for Corbyn's policy proposals.
- Liz Kendall makes me embarrassed for her every time she says anything.
- Corbyn souded like he couldn't be bothered being there and was nowhere near as clear, radical, dangerous or interesting as people keep making out.
Altfish
Veteran Member
You ignored my question. Are both NI and the rest of the UK better off since the deal?
Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
It was clearly neither of these. It was certainly not Corbyn's job. This is why he got pressured by his own party not to do it.
Even the BBC, no friend of Ulster Unionists, recently confronted Adams about it. McGuiness was literally an IRA commander and was at the Bloody Sunday march, despite claiming for a long time not to be there.
The argument doesn't really on Adams himself being a terrorist, that is just an extra tidbit. The point is certain Sinn Fein was always known as a front for the IRA. Corbyn, at the height of the troubles, was meeting with Sinn Fein, on his own volition, against his party's wishes, to show his solidarity with them and their side. This shows, not only an absurd disregard for his own nation and its interests, but at least a lack of care about the terrorist nature of the IRA.
Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
Probably. But Syria was better off before the Civil War and Iraq was better off under Saddam than it has been for a lot of the time since his fall. Peace usually has benefits, but that doesn't mean there can't be a shameful and ignoble peace.
The irony is that the IRA always got a lot of support from America. They didn't know it, but if Major and Blair had held out until after 9/11, they might not have needed to surrender in such a way.
Altfish
Veteran Member
So, Blair and Major were not forward thinking enough to wait for 9/11
Why was it a surrender? Why does one side have to win? Wasn't it really a draw?
The alternative being to continue with army in NI, fear of bombs in London, Birmingham, Manchester, etc.
No the peace deal benefitted the UK and NI in particular has benefitted.
Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
So, Blair and Major were not forward thinking enough to wait for 9/11
Why was it a surrender? Why does one side have to win? Wasn't it really a draw?
The alternative being to continue with army in NI, fear of bombs in London, Birmingham, Manchester, etc.
No the peace deal benefitted the UK and NI in particular has benefitted.
It was surrender because we gave into a terrorist organisation, let out convicted terrorists from prison, and have all but guaranteed Ulster will become part of Ireland.
What you are saying is we should give in to terrorism, literally. You are saying that the IRA attacked us, this was costing us, so it is good we gave in and now they have stopped.
Who isn't worth surrendering to for peace then? Perhaps, as well as Remembrance Day, we could have an occasion to celebrate surrender, where we can celebrate retreat, running away, and general cowardice.
Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
The IRA will likely achieve its aim. The territory is in perpetual limbo now.
Nelson Mandela did engage in terrorist activities. It is open to question whether his cause was enough to justify his early acts. Are you suggesting that the IRA were in justified? Why would you compromise with people who kill civilians and police? And what sort of precedent is that? If anyone blows up and assassinates enough people, we will compromise with you.
Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
How were their aims justified? You mean the aim of taking majority loyalist Ulster from Britain? And does this matter if they resort to what even you admit are unjustified means?
Should we generally sue for peace whenever we meet committed terrorist opposition? How about with Al Qaeda and ISIS?
In many ways, the troubles were most severe in the 70s and 80s. The IRA wasn't actually the force it once was by the mid-90s.
Should we generally sue for peace whenever we meet committed terrorist opposition? How about with Al Qaeda and ISIS?
In many ways, the troubles were most severe in the 70s and 80s. The IRA wasn't actually the force it once was by the mid-90s.
Altfish
Veteran Member
As usual with these things it goes back to the formation of the IRA in the early 20th Century the rest of the UK had a very chequered history in the way it treated Ireland, the Black and Tans and the like. Westminster annexed Northern Ireland and kept it that way by force. The means they resort to are all that is left when they face a vastly superior fire power and all political attempts have failed. If you want a solution you have to look forward not backwards.
It will be a long time coming but the only resolution to Al Qaeda and ISIS will be some sort of appeasement; the West will not defeat them despite what the US and its allies say. You may not like it but they are not defeatable, the best you can hope for is to constrain them. But even then they will have successful attacks.
Yes, it was tailing off in the 90s but that was primarily due to ceasefire and peace initiatives. There were still more than 500 killed in the 90s
It will be a long time coming but the only resolution to Al Qaeda and ISIS will be some sort of appeasement; the West will not defeat them despite what the US and its allies say. You may not like it but they are not defeatable, the best you can hope for is to constrain them. But even then they will have successful attacks.
Yes, it was tailing off in the 90s but that was primarily due to ceasefire and peace initiatives. There were still more than 500 killed in the 90s
Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
That is a warped leftist, and strangely anti-British, take on the course of the troubles. Britain didn't annex Northern Ireland in the early twentieth century. It (or England) did so in twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Of course, Britain did much to be ashamed of in Ireland over the centuries, but this does not mean that the Ulster is not British. Ulster was part of Britain and it did not wish to be part of the Republic. This was not annexation. Besides, although the British did wrong in the Irish war of Independence, so did the Republic, which used terrorism itself.
The nationalists had genuine grievances in the 60s and early 70s, but it you border on excusing terrorism to say their only means were terrorism. The IRA have no excuse for the means they chose, and, also, their ends were illegitimate - to reunite Ireland despite the wishes of the majority of Ulster.
The ceasefire was as much to do with lack of success for the IRA, and being disrupted, as anything else. The Republic had been growing tired of the IRA. The real problem was American support. If Britain could have got the American government to be more proactive in weeding it out, the IRA would have declined terminally.
The nationalists had genuine grievances in the 60s and early 70s, but it you border on excusing terrorism to say their only means were terrorism. The IRA have no excuse for the means they chose, and, also, their ends were illegitimate - to reunite Ireland despite the wishes of the majority of Ulster.
The ceasefire was as much to do with lack of success for the IRA, and being disrupted, as anything else. The Republic had been growing tired of the IRA. The real problem was American support. If Britain could have got the American government to be more proactive in weeding it out, the IRA would have declined terminally.
Yerda
Veteran Member
I don't want to argue about Sinn Fein and Irish history so I will say no more on this other than I believe Corbyn's willingness to speak to some unsavoury characters seems to be motivated by a genuine desire for dialogue and peace. The peace process seems to validate his instincts. So it is not reasonable to claim he supports or sympathises with terror and terrorists.Jeremy Taylor said:
Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
And I think it shows he has that unsavoury modern left-wing trait of seeing everyone who is anti-British and anti-Western as good and Britain and the West as always the bad guys. I think he didn't care that these people were terrorists, or heavily linked to them, and terrorists against his nation. Galloway is obviously the supreme example of such base idiocy, but it is quite prevalent on the left. The anti-Israel nonsense is an obvious example, as is the false equivalence sometimes made between the West and the likes of ISIS by idiot leftists.
What you say might be true if there was evidence that Corbyn was looking for a proper negotiated peace, and was not sympathetic to the IRA/Sinn Fein cause. This doesn't seem the case. He seems to have wished to show solidarity, rather than just get both sides to come together. This is terrorist sympathising and it is more or less treasonous.
What you say might be true if there was evidence that Corbyn was looking for a proper negotiated peace, and was not sympathetic to the IRA/Sinn Fein cause. This doesn't seem the case. He seems to have wished to show solidarity, rather than just get both sides to come together. This is terrorist sympathising and it is more or less treasonous.
Altfish
Veteran Member
It is a terrible trait of the left that they do not want to send thousands of young people to war and kill many thousands of innocents in collateral damage. Instead they try to negotiate a peace. What folly! How the hell will the arms firms that fund my party survive if we don't spend billions and billions on their weapons.
Discourse will not always work but it is certainly worth trying and not being condemned as idiocy.
Discourse will not always work but it is certainly worth trying and not being condemned as idiocy.
Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
Except that often you have to fight or worse will come. If you surrender to terrorism, often, you invite more. Imagine the signal that would go out if one backed down immediately any time one was attacked. Is that what you are advocating? As I said, perhaps we could have a surrender day to go with Remembrance Day, where we all wave white flags and have a minutes running away. Would you like to organise that?
Also, I just don't believe Corbyn was simply wishing for peace. I think he held the all too common left-liberal position, that was highly sympathetic to the enemies of Britain and the West, excusing their evil, and saw Britain and the West as generally the bad guys. This seems a more realistic interpretation of his comments and actions, and the response to them from his own party, as well as his latter career where he has a habit of being sympathetic to dubious causes and groups, than the suggestion it was just an idealistic peace outreach.
From what you have said, and your insistence on excusing Corbyn, I can't help but think you also share his views about the IRA. Such views are unfortunately far too common on the left.
Last edited:
Altfish
Veteran Member
You don't half talk some rubbish at times
Surrender Day!!! How does that come from what I have said. It is you again insisting that there has to be winners and losers.
The example we were talking about was Ireland, try reading your history books the 'evil' was initially on one side only, and it wasn't the Republicans it was the Brits.
btw I am NOT a Corbyn supporter or apologist for him, I'm just trying to put some perspective into the vitriol that you see fit to post..
Surrender Day!!! How does that come from what I have said. It is you again insisting that there has to be winners and losers.
The example we were talking about was Ireland, try reading your history books the 'evil' was initially on one side only, and it wasn't the Republicans it was the Brits.
btw I am NOT a Corbyn supporter or apologist for him, I'm just trying to put some perspective into the vitriol that you see fit to post..
Well, the result wil be announced today. its expected to be Corbyn. I'm sceptical where Labour will go from here but will try to keep an open mind.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...esult-with-corbyn-tipped-to-win-politics-live
Here's Owen Jones take on it. He's Pro-Corbyn, but is remarkably candid assessment of what they'd have to over-come.(I still think it's a bit on the optimistic side, but I'll have to watch this space).
https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/my-...-overcoming-formidable-obstacles-de81d4449884
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...esult-with-corbyn-tipped-to-win-politics-live
Here's Owen Jones take on it. He's Pro-Corbyn, but is remarkably candid assessment of what they'd have to over-come.(I still think it's a bit on the optimistic side, but I'll have to watch this space).
https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/my-...-overcoming-formidable-obstacles-de81d4449884