Instead of reading my views, most on here would prefer to read those of the brilliant Chomsky. Here is the link! CHOMSKY: “If Corbyn had been elected, Britain would be pursuing a much more sane course” (thelondoneconomic.com)
Its not as if they have had 11 years to deliver it. Johnson has managed to somehow create the illusion that this is a new party/government not linked to the exploits of Cameron and May with no responsibility for anything that came before.
Well thankfully the terrorist's friend didn't get elected, he, Abbott and McDonnell proved to be unelectable. About time the Corbynistas got over it, everyone else has moved on.
Nice to know you were thrilled that Corbyn lost. What puzzles me and others here is why Johnson is preferrable to.you when you see a tsunami of an económic catastrophe descending on the UK, and largely caused by his terrible Brexit deal?
I think it is quite fair to suggest that successive UK governments have supported state controlled terrorism, with their support for Saudi Arabia and Israel, in their attacks on the Yemen and the Palestinians respectively. The difference is that the support given by the governments HAS caused thousands of needless deaths, which definitely makes them friends of terrorists.
Again, you are trying to include Johnson into a post about Corbyn. If Nick Griffin (BNP) was the main contender in the next general election, would you vote for him to get Johnson out? And even if Johnson was re elected, would you still be thrilled that someone like Griffin had failed? Not really such a puzzle is it? People who gloss over or deny Corbyn's past are IMO condoning terrorism or at the very least turning a blind eye. So while all you who like to think you are morally superior to Conservative voters are in fact no better or worse if you voted for him.
Oh that's ok then. Perhaps I should have voted for Corbyn as everyone else was at it. Perhaps I should have overlooked that he was backing an organisation that was killing people in this country. Then 30yrs later he stands to represent the same people that organisation was targeting. Some people don't forget acts of treachery like that even if others conveniently do.
My original post was an interview given by Chomsky, who being a brilliant académic mind, applies a considerable amount of analysis when talking about a range of issues, including those that Corbyn identifies with. Perhaps you should ask the question "why Corbyn was talking to terrorists such as the IRA," and repeat the question. You might find you come up with a different answer to the oñe you have submitted here, which seems to be the Daily Mail paraphrased, a paper that uses a lot of cleverly constructed emotive language but is short on analytical processing.
You think Johnson is Conservative? Compare him with true Conservatives like Major, Heseltine, Grieve, Mellor, Curry, Rory Stewart, and Merkel. These are people who abide by their values and visión of Conservatism. Johnson has abandoned Conservatism. In contrast with those guys I have listed he has no visión and relies on empty soundbites instead.
Insulate Britain: Protesters block Old Street roundabout and M25 junction - BBC News Ok, **** off now. ****ing idiots. Ironic that thousands of cars will just be idling with their engines on while they block the roads.
In your original post you used a quote referring to Corbyn which I replied to. It is you and all the others who are obsessed with this government that always have to make comparisons with Johnson. No where have I tried to defend Johnson or his government, so the "what about Johnson" analogy is irrelevant in this case. Obviously, I don't like Corbyn and his circle of friends and I will always question any posts that support him, but don't confuse that with being a Johnson supporter by default. Corbyn wasn't just talking to terrorists such as the IRA, he was siding with them. I don't really need to know why, but you can tell me if you wish. A lot of his supporters have churned out various excuses but none of them hold any water. By the way, using the Daily Mail as a way of undermining opinions is usually the tactic of someone who can't put together a credible argument.
Who said Corbyn was siding with the IRA? This is a táctic used by certain elements of the media to smear him. I am no fan of Corbyn by the way. I am much closer to Alastair Campbell in my polítical outlook, but if there is a problem, which there.was with the IRA, then you look for the causes of the problem, which Corbyn and Tony Benn and others did in order to devise a solutión.
This discussion prompted me to do a bit of research rather than take statements made on here at face value. Corbyn has certainly been demonised by much of the press and media. The truth is out there somewhere. https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-on-northern-ireland I found this interesting. "Much of the criticism directed at Corbyn focuses on his relationship with Sinn Féin in the 1980s and 90s. During the 2017 general election campaign, Boris Johnson tweeted a photo of Corbyn with Martin McGuinness in 1995, deriding his claim to have never met the IRA: “You cannot trust this man!” By the time that photo was taken, the Sinn Féin leader, Gerry Adams, had already shaken hands with the then US president, Bill Clinton; two years later, McGuinness would be a guest in Downing Street. It has been widely reported that Adams and McGuinness were still members of the IRA’s army council at the time. But Clinton, Tony Blair and the Unionist leader David Trimble all held talks with them in their capacity as Sinn Féin politicians – a distinction vital for the entire peace process." From https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/20/corbyn-terrorist-sympathiser-double-standards which has links to other articles I'll read later. A Texels beer or outside the Oude Sluys is a good deal more appealing. I have the time of day for Corbyn non whatsoever for the proven liar Johnson.
Here's another article of which there are many https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...were-investigated-by-the-police-37230971.html
Picking up on the Daily Mail comment, did you know that Wikipedia no longer allows posters to reference the Mail as their source of information, owing to it being “generally unreliable”? https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/wikipedia-daily-mail-generally-unreliable.html
