As you say - er no....er, no.
The focus or point of the conversation was not about Corbyns relationships with terrorists...it was about this current government now doing the same thing....not whether Corbyn did or didnt or why he did....thats beside the point...it happened and everyone is very vocal and clear that hey abhor the fact it happened.
I am not refuting the fact he is/was/will be a terrorist sympathiser...how many times do i have to criticise the man?
AGAIN, why is it now acceptable to those who berate him for it? Why arent you calling out your government for meeting murderers just a few weeks ago?
This is down to your opinion that he wasnt worthy enough to be involved in those negotiations...surely anyone involved in securing peace was worthy of involvement?
Please forget about Corbyn....the orgiinal point is/asks...are you happy that your government are meeting active murdering terrorists to discuss Brexit? Does Brexit warrant such involvement and consideration? Is it comparable to the negotiations of the GFA? Yes, hugely significant episodes in UK history but i would argue that the considerations and pandering to terrorists is not a requirement for Brexit....as many, probably you, were so keen to emphasise that we wont be held to ransom by them.
Corbyn was just one person out of many who negotiated and conceded with terrorists.....if you disagree with that, then you must disagree with whats happening now?
As you say - er no....
There was a clear answer to the point you focus on but you seem too agitated on this to have paused to digest it.
I provided the clear differentiation that makes it OK for official government representatives - it has happened for centuries.
Corbyn is/was just a terrorist sympathiser serving only his personal agenda and prejudices
So you do agree with current ministers having talks with murdering terrorists?Having read the exchanges whilst catching up you appear to be only seeing hypocrisies because you are making the effort.
You seem to be very angrily seeking to prove a point which is in fact just your opinion and does not necessarily trump anyone's else opinion.
The case for people seeing Corbyn as a sympathiser of terrorist organisations seems pretty clear and well established and I am afraid not something that your 'opinion' can refute.
Of course for as long as there has been conflict(s) in the world there has been contact between the 'warring factions', either directly or indirectly. This of course is done through representation on behalf of 'accountable people' by either direct representatives of one of the parties involved or people sanctioned to act as intermediaries.
That is the differentiating factor.
Simple fact is that the vast majority of people have never considered Corbyn to have been an official representative or a duly sanctioned intermediary - certainly not of the UK government.
Simple fact is that the vast majority of people have considered Corbyn to have acted on his own agenda and be supportive of people directly intending harm to various states/governments - including the UK
Simple fact - you can berate and post as angrily as you like and seek to draw comparisons which you feel substantiate your view - but, put simply, it/they are not persuasive.
Genuinely just trying to help.
Sorry - you seem to be so het up on this narrow subject that you are utterly closed to rational discussion.Whose involvement helped paved the way for the GFA and peace....great, i can now see you admit it was ok for him as a government official with influence to be involved in such a monumental development in the NI peace process.
Lets just hope you're happy with the influence these knuckle dragging murderers have over the SoS.
I think Lionel Shriver has it about right. I may be simplifying her view but basically the reasons for Leave were pretty thin and it became about people who rarely won anything in life being miffed that what they'd won might be stolen from them (rather than about whether Brexit was still or was ever a good idea) whereas Remainers were baffled that said people couldn't see they'd got it wrong no matter what the evidence.Remainers need a new tune. The old one is broken.
I think Lionel Shriver has it about right. I may be simplifying her view but basically the reasons for Leave were pretty thin and it became about people who rarely won anything in life being miffed that what they'd won might be stolen from them (rather than about whether Brexit was still or was ever a good idea) whereas Remainers were baffled that said people couldn't see they'd got it wrong no matter what the evidence.
Now, she says, Leavers are about "we won" and Remainers about "we were right".
Get used to it as I suspect that's the ongoing narrative (and why I can't be arsed posting as much!).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000czxs
Fucking hell. A debate on weather Big Ben should Bong at midnight on Feb 1st now.
Surely theres more important parliamentary matters?
What, like a Peoples Vote?
Fucking hell. A debate on weather Big Ben should Bong at midnight on Feb 1st now.
Surely theres more important parliamentary matters?
They might as well. Johnson and chums have no intention of letting Parliament have any actual say in anything important.
Parliament has had its say and was actually at the point of winning for you guys until they got greedy and couldn't see the wood for the trees.
Thankfully the electorate reminded them to get back on point and get back to doing what they asked them to do in 2016.
You are spectacularly missing the point as you often do.
All will become apparent as time goes by, even for you.
What's your excuse for not posting less?If you think she has it about right its probably for the best you dont post as much.
What's your excuse for not posting less?
You seem to be just seeking another way of saying that you think people that voted Leave are thickI think Lionel Shriver has it about right. I may be simplifying her view but basically the reasons for Leave were pretty thin and it became about people who rarely won anything in life being miffed that what they'd won might be stolen from them (rather than about whether Brexit was still or was ever a good idea) whereas Remainers were baffled that said people couldn't see they'd got it wrong no matter what the evidence.
Now, she says, Leavers are about "we won" and Remainers about "we were right".
Get used to it as I suspect that's the ongoing narrative (and why I can't be arsed posting as much!).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000czxs