He did. There's an actual quote of the exchange where he denounces them.
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Because he's not quite as nice as people like to make out. His beloved Stop the War, of which Andrew Murray was Chair, have previously come in support for terrorists and mass murderers.
With (continuing to arm Saudi Arabia doesn't count) in tiny text I assume?
Like Blair and Thatcher?
People who killed British citizens, British military personnel, not to mention thousands of Iraqi civilians. This is supposed to be honourable, peace loving Jeremy, no?
Last edited:
Yeah, but Blair killed far more of all three groups (as the first two intersect) than any of the terrorists you could care to name.
The point is that Corbyn's peace credentials are as good as any politician currently in mainstream politics. He denounces all violence, which isn't something you're likely to get from the other side. The motto there is that "our" violence is justified, "theirs" is terrorism. Corbyn takes the viewpoint that all violence is terrorism by different means, but that dialogue is better than war. His record on these issues (and these issues only, to be honest) is close to impeccable as far as I can see.
Blimey, it didn't take much for the definition of terrorism to get awfully narrow. Luckily its victims still doesn't include the people of Yemen so you can happily vote for the definitely not terrorist sympathising Tories.
The problem is most people aren't thinking like the Canary wants them to and being seen to apparently refuse to condemn the IRA looks really, really, really fecking bad.
That's not even debatable. People aren't going to look at that and go "oh well, Blair killed more and I guess in the overall scheme of things thinking about it logically....." they're going to see the man who wants to be PM having a hard time when asked to condemn the IRA. You'd have to be wearing glasses tinted with some pretty potent roses to think that looks anything but absolutely terrible.
That's not even debatable. People aren't going to look at that and go "oh well, Blair killed more and I guess in the overall scheme of things thinking about it logically....." they're going to see the man who wants to be PM having a hard time when asked to condemn the IRA. You'd have to be wearing glasses tinted with some pretty potent roses to think that looks anything but absolutely terrible.
Oh god you're one of those people that actually eats up these Telegraph articles. They're getting more ridiculous by the day. I was on the comment section of their Facebook page and there is numerous Conservatives on there commenting that they wish the Telegraph wasn't resorting to this pathetic character assassination as it's so transparent it's getting embarrassing for them. They're following the same model as the right wing news corps in America such as InfoWars and Brietbart who used fabricated or tenuous links to implicate Clinton in the most preposterous scandals.
Ask yourself why they're resorting to these tactics.
Corbyn did denounce them in the show you are talking about. It is a straight up lie that he did not.
He also denounced the UDA, something no tory has ever done. They, in case you are to young to remember, carried out the worst single bombing of the entire troubles.
Good to see you've really looked into the issue. No comparison to a deadly disease or people with learning difficulties this time though, are you going soft on Corbyn?
Again how many people sitting at home do you think will see Corbyn's comments and think "Well the Tories haven't condemned the UDA!"
This is what I mean when I talk about the goldfish bowl the left seem to live in nowadays. You might be perfectly valid to raise that as an issue/rebuttal but there isn't a single floating voter who'll think about that. This is Corbyn's problem, his electoral fate doesn't depend on people happy to go to great lengths to support him.
Corbyn is dyslexic AIDS
that interview was hilarious, he said "of course I condemn it" in his first response but she just kept on asking him
What, al-Qaeda in Iraq doesn't count?
Yes, i might well vote for my local Tory MP on this occasion, i am ye to decide. Not that Labour give people hereabouts much reason to believe in them.
That makes no sense.
He was asked a question, he answered it, by denouncing not just the IRA but all terrorism in the troubles.
The tories straight up lie about it.
And this is corbyn's fault?
Last edited:
The good christian may currently has feet on the ground assisting the saudi armed forces in Yemen.
The saudis are deliberately targeting civilians, trying to starve an entire nation, and we are helping them do it.
But hey, corbyn tries to broker peace in the 80's and unlike Maggie Thatcher did not lie about doing so 'we will not negotiate' she said, in parliament. It was another straight up lie. Talks had been ongoing since the Heath government.
We're seriously debating whether being portrayed as refusing to condemn the IRA is a bad look?
Get the feeling if Corbyn ate his own shit his supporters would refuse to see it as an issue citing nutritional benefits
Corbyn's not really the one with a problem on it, McDonnell is. And it seems Abbott.
But he did appoint them to major positions, which was dumb.
But he did appoint them to major positions, which was dumb.
He did condemn it. Though, when the chief commander of the IRA is meeting the Queen for tea, and the political wing of that organisation is now in a tenuous power sharing situation with the unionists, which is always on a knife edge, you have to wonder just how irresponsible the press is that they're willing to ask for pointless condemnations just to vilify the leader of a party which is going to lose anyway. And it's done solely to appease an intellectually bankrupt readership.
He did condemn the IRA.
So the idea that he did not is a lie. That is, someone, other than corbyn, simply making it up.
And you are blaming him for it.
The man wants to be prime minister in a little over 3 weeks and yet can't even manage to make it through an interview without giving detractors ammunition to suggest he refuses to condemn the IRA. The fact people think this isn't a problem is just nuts.
Besides why does omission of something mean you condone it? He knows the media play this game. He could have said "yes, I condemn the actions of the IRA" and left it at that. If you condemn rape nobody thinks you condone murder by its omission.
He's the leader of a political party. The fact he doesn't know how to answer these questions now to minimise/eliminate embarrassing or unwanted fall out is ridiculous.
Besides why does omission of something mean you condone it? He knows the media play this game. He could have said "yes, I condemn the actions of the IRA" and left it at that. If you condemn rape nobody thinks you condone murder by its omission.
He's the leader of a political party. The fact he doesn't know how to answer these questions now to minimise/eliminate embarrassing or unwanted fall out is ridiculous.
Yeah but the title says he's refused to condemn the IRA so clearly the title is right and the first 5 seconds are wrong.
Which part don't you understand?
Firstly, it's a loaded interview (courtesy of Murdoch's Sky). The interviewer doesn't want him to condemn violence perpetrated by the IRA (which he does anyway), she wants him to condemn that organisation solely because it drives the narrative that the IRA had no legitimate cause, and that the British were correct in everything they did in Northern Ireland (as well as forcing Corbyn into a retreat he shouldn't have to make). It's not that simple. Both sides committed gross atrocities. To condemn either side at this juncture is politically dangerous, and not in a personal sense, but in a very tangible sense. The only way you could not understand Corbyn's actions would be if you were entirely ignorant of the situation at Stormont as of now.
There is no need to make anything up, a myriad statements over the years do the job just fine. Genuine doubts exist surrounding 'his' (not Labour as a party necessarily) competence to lead the country.
This isn't an easy election for anyone: while the Tories offer the best hope for a true Brexit (JMO), i am also concerned about what course Theresa May might pursue should there be a landslide. And if Labour do find themselves on the opposition benches again, i want to see them with an unencumbered, innovating leader of broad appeal. The latter isn't Corbyn, nor those closest to him.
Last edited:
Oh for God sakes.
People will wake up tomorrow with likely the big political narrative being: Corbyn refuses to condemn the IRA.
In what world could you possibly think: "I fail to see the problem"
People will wake up tomorrow with likely the big political narrative being: Corbyn refuses to condemn the IRA.
In what world could you possibly think: "I fail to see the problem"
Yeah, but the only ones who'll believe it are those who fail to grasp the notion of context and believe everything the Telegraph/Sun/Sky News/Daily Mail tells them. Admittedly, that's quite a large proportion of people, but they're the ones who already have no intention of voting Labour.
You mean someone who can make it through a day of campaigning without answering questions in an interview in a way that gives the opposition and largely hostile media the opportunity to portray them as being uncomfortable with condemning the IRA without qualification?
I'm not sure such a level of competence exists.
Tomorrow's front pages: https://twitter.com/i/moments/866406694359904257
I'm worried about that deadly virus in sausages. Thanks Daily Express.
I'm worried about that deadly virus in sausages. Thanks Daily Express.
The gymnastics really are a sight to behold.
that happens when you're looking through a goldfish bowl!
Corbyn engulfed in IRA furor... that doesn't exist, except in right wing tabloids.
Daily Star above it has done a similar trick. Though the difference between its real price and headline price isn't as big as the Express.That express cover is a work of art
NOW 10p
cheaper than the Mail
Highly influential right wing tabloids. Are we even going to pretend that this isn't the case?
The real issue is that the Telegraph and Daily Mail are reporting in big headlines something that did not happen. It is literally 'fake news'.
They've done this purely to sway the electorate. This sort of awful journalism should concern everyone regardless of political affiliation. Rather than condemn this kind of irresponsible and quite shameful reporting though... you'd prefer to blame Corbyn for something that didn't even happen. You really are a Daily Mail writers wet dream...
They do have influence, but undecided voters don't tend to listen solely to one end of the spectrum. And Corbyn isn't going to win any Tory votes, except for maybe some elderly voters due to triple lock, but that's a money issue, not an ideological one.
He isn't going to win anyway, so why pander to the right?
I'm interested to hear what people's thoughts are on McDonnell's past statements, though, as that's the next stage for the right wing papers (then bring up Abbott again and tie it back on to Corbyn's decision making).