I do not call them "sympathisers". That's your label. I call them people who who take up and argue for a just cause. As I've said repeatedly, just because others take up their cause and use unexcusable violence does not invalidate the cause itself or the people using peaceful means to argue for it. The term "sympathisers" implies that you are an outsider to the cause, watching the events and just sympathising with the cause that the terrorists are fighting. That doesn't apply here as the politicians you are accusing are actively involved with these causes. The difference is that they are using political action as opposed to violent action. And it is perfectly possible to do this whilst condemning those, also fighting for your cause, who use violence.
Of course you now say that it doesn't matter "who started it" now that I have laid the timeline of events down for you. What matters for you is to condemn one side that was carrying out murder of civilians, yet not apply the same condemnation to the other side. To point this out is not to excuse the murders by the PIRA in any way, I condemn them as always. But where's your condemnation of the civilian murders of the British State that started the conflict and then ran throughout?
To the main point. I'll break it down:
1. Are you arguing that Corbyn and others who take the Irish/Palestinian side should cease supporting the historic cause, just because some who argue the same cause happen to use indefensible violence in it's name?
2. Do you condemn the terrorist actions of the British State in their murder of Irish civilians in the troubles?
3. Do you apply the same position to Mandela and those who fought politically against apartheid in South Africa. Including Corbyn who actively demonstrated in this cause whilst the Conservative government took pretty much the same view as you take here? Was Mandela wrong to firstly take up arms for his cause for which he was convicted? And then were the politicians who continued the long fight to end apartheid wrong just because 'terrorists' like Mandela used violence in that cause?
Re: Corbyn's quotes on Iran/Press TV appearances I've covered in post 543 above. It doesn't appear good for Corbyn with info given but can you supply a transcript of these quotes in context of a video longer than the 8 second one I've found that might show further context of what he was saying with these comments? The 8 second video is brutally edited to cut out any other words surrounding just that quote. I would have thought, being a man of rigour, and being so concerned with these words as to repeat them time and again that you would have looked a bit more deeply into this as you are aware how words can be taken out of context, especially when people are looking to do anything to oppose a politician? Please link to the quotes in context that you did find when you went into this, and then I'll comment further.
And by the way, on the Press TV clips, can you also look to find evidence of the "many" TV appearances that Corbyn made on this? I've tried but can only find one clip. This website has investigated the appearances and found only two payment entries made in Corbyn's accounts ledger and that the £20,000 is a work of fiction:
https://skwawkbox.org/2018/01/29/faw...re-iranian-tv/
Like the links that you present, the website is presenting a slant on the argument but as they say, their research is available for you to check if you doubt their word on TheyWorkForYou website. It shows that the last of TWO payments for Corbyn's appearances was in 2010 and the most he could have received was "up to" £10k but could have been £10 for all we know. The specific amount is not recorded. So where do you get your £20,000 from that you keep repeating endlessly?
As you know, I have presented evidence that Iran actually took action against Iran in signing the EDMs in 2009/10. How do you explain that when he is supposedly supporting their actions?
Answers please. If you can.
Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by WanChaiMiller
Hall Of Fame
Posting Permissions