Jump to content

 

 

Revealed: Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell's close IRA links


Recommended Posts

BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg was openly scornful as she mocked Corbyn's stance on Trident nuclear weapons.

 

Last month, 250,000 party members voted Jeremy Corbyn leader of the Labour party, 'the largest mandate ever won by a Party Leader'.

 

The combined might of the political and media establishment had fought and lost its Stalingrad, having bombarded Corbyn with every conceivable smear in a desperate attempt to wreck his reputation with the British public.

 

The more extreme the attacks, the more people caught on. Social media surely played a part in this awakening; but the public simply needed to compare the cynicism with Corbyn's obvious decency and common sense.

 

Long lines of media futurologists, having all dismissed Corbyn's prospects, shuffled back to their keyboards in defeat and disarray. The tide truly had turned; something like real democracy had once again broken out in Britain.

 

So what to do when your bias has been so naked, so obvious, that it backfires? The political machine knows only one way – carry on regardless!

 

Thus, the focus has been on Corbyn not singing the national anthem, on whether he would wear a white poppy or a red poppy, or a tie, or do up his top button, or refuse to promise to kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand; all this has been granted national news headlines and incessant coverage.

 

'At the heart of his dilemma', opined a Times leader ('National Insecurity', October 1, 2015), 'is a reluctance to shift from protest to leadership'. Translating from Murdochspeak, Corbyn has shown a reluctance to shift from principles to obedience in the customary manner.

 

In his Labour party conference speech, Corbyn generously mocked, rather than damned, the near-fascistic media coverage, noting that:

 

 

'According to one headline "Jeremy Corbyn welcomed the prospect of an asteroid 'wiping out' humanity."'

 

With perfect timing, an Independent tweet made the point the following day:

 

 

'Labour MP warns electing Jeremy Corbyn could lead to "nuclear holocaust".'

 

The comment was a reference to Corbyn's declaration that he would not 'press the nuclear button' in any circumstance, giving the political and media establishment their first sniff at what they hoped was their great 'gotcha!'.

Rather than celebrating Corbyn as a rare, principled politician sticking to a lifelong commitment shared by many reasonable people, he was portrayed as a dangerous loon risking nuclear annihilation. All without even the hint of a credible threat in sight.

 

We could provide any number of examples of media propaganda, but a high-profile piece on the BBC's flagship News at Ten programme last Wednesday supplied a truly stand-out performance. Here, BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg featured in an almost comically biased, at times openly scornful, attack on Corbyn's stance on nuclear weapons.

 

Kuenssberg started by saying:

 

 

'Jeremy Corbyn wants debate. Well he's got one. And has run straight into a clash, saying what no Labour leader has said in recent history: if he was Prime Minister, whatever the threat, he'd never use nuclear weapons.'

 

The broadcast then showed her interviewing Jeremy Corbyn:

 

 

'Would you ever push the nuclear button if you were Prime Minister?'

 

Corbyn replied:

 

 

'I'm opposed to nuclear weapons. I'm opposed to the holding and usage of nuclear weapons. They're an ultimate weapon of mass destruction that can only kill millions of civilians if ever used. And I am totally and morally opposed to nuclear weapons. I do not see them as a defence. I do not see them as a credible way to do things...'

 

LK [interrupting]. 'So yes or no. You would never push the nuclear button?'

 

JC: 'I've answered you perfectly clearly. It's immoral to have or use nuclear weapons. I've made that clear all of my life.'

 

LK: 'But, Jeremy Corbyn, do you acknowledge there is a risk that it looks to voters like you would put your own principles ahead of the protection of this country?'

 

The content of the question, together with the obvious emphasis and passion, betrayed where Kuenssberg stood on the matter.

 

Corbyn responded calmly:

 

 

'It looks to the voters, I hope, that I'm somebody who's absolutely and totally committed to spreading international law, spreading international human rights, bringing a nuclear-free world nearer...'

 

Kuenssberg [interrupting]: 'And that's more important than the protection of this country?'

 

Kuenssberg sounded incredulous, appeared to be all but scolding Corbyn. Almost as an afterthought, she added:

 

 

'Some voters might think that.'

 

This was her token gesture to the BBC's famed, mythical 'impartiality'.

 

The idea that the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons might endanger the British public clearly falls outside Kuenssberg's idea of 'neutral' analysis.

 

Again, Corbyn gave a reasonable response:

 

 

'We are not under threat from any nuclear power. We're not under threat from that; we're under threat from instability.... Listen, the nuclear weapons that the United States holds - all the hundreds if not thousands of warheads they've got were no help to them on 9/11.'

Kuenssberg started by saying:

 

 

'Jeremy Corbyn wants debate. Well he's got one. And has run straight into a clash, saying what no Labour leader has said in recent history: if he was Prime Minister, whatever the threat, he'd never use nuclear weapons.'

 

The broadcast then showed her interviewing Jeremy Corbyn:

 

 

'Would you ever push the nuclear button if you were Prime Minister?'

 

Corbyn replied:

 

 

'I'm opposed to nuclear weapons. I'm opposed to the holding and usage of nuclear weapons. They're an ultimate weapon of mass destruction that can only kill millions of civilians if ever used. And I am totally and morally opposed to nuclear weapons. I do not see them as a defence. I do not see them as a credible way to do things...'

 

LK [interrupting]. 'So yes or no. You would never push the nuclear button?'

 

JC: 'I've answered you perfectly clearly. It's immoral to have or use nuclear weapons. I've made that clear all of my life.'

 

LK: 'But, Jeremy Corbyn, do you acknowledge there is a risk that it looks to voters like you would put your own principles ahead of the protection of this country?'

 

The content of the question, together with the obvious emphasis and passion, betrayed where Kuenssberg stood on the matter.

 

Corbyn responded calmly:

 

 

'It looks to the voters, I hope, that I'm somebody who's absolutely and totally committed to spreading international law, spreading international human rights, bringing a nuclear-free world nearer...'

 

Kuenssberg [interrupting]: 'And that's more important than the protection of this country?'

 

Kuenssberg sounded incredulous, appeared to be all but scolding Corbyn. Almost as an afterthought, she added:

 

 

'Some voters might think that.'

 

This was her token gesture to the BBC's famed, mythical 'impartiality'.

 

The idea that the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons might endanger the British public clearly falls outside Kuenssberg's idea of 'neutral' analysis.

 

Again, Corbyn gave a reasonable response:

 

 

'We are not under threat from any nuclear power. We're not under threat from that; we're under threat from instability.... Listen, the nuclear weapons that the United States holds - all the hundreds if not thousands of warheads they've got were no help to them on 9/11.'

 

Kuenssberg started by saying:

 

 

'Jeremy Corbyn wants debate. Well he's got one. And has run straight into a clash, saying what no Labour leader has said in recent history: if he was Prime Minister, whatever the threat, he'd never use nuclear weapons.'

 

The broadcast then showed her interviewing Jeremy Corbyn:

 

 

'Would you ever push the nuclear button if you were Prime Minister?'

 

Corbyn replied:

 

 

'I'm opposed to nuclear weapons. I'm opposed to the holding and usage of nuclear weapons. They're an ultimate weapon of mass destruction that can only kill millions of civilians if ever used. And I am totally and morally opposed to nuclear weapons. I do not see them as a defence. I do not see them as a credible way to do things...'

 

LK [interrupting]. 'So yes or no. You would never push the nuclear button?'

 

JC: 'I've answered you perfectly clearly. It's immoral to have or use nuclear weapons. I've made that clear all of my life.'

 

LK: 'But, Jeremy Corbyn, do you acknowledge there is a risk that it looks to voters like you would put your own principles ahead of the protection of this country?'

 

The content of the question, together with the obvious emphasis and passion, betrayed where Kuenssberg stood on the matter.

 

Corbyn responded calmly:

 

 

'It looks to the voters, I hope, that I'm somebody who's absolutely and totally committed to spreading international law, spreading international human rights, bringing a nuclear-free world nearer...'

 

Kuenssberg [interrupting]: 'And that's more important than the protection of this country?'

 

Kuenssberg sounded incredulous, appeared to be all but scolding Corbyn. Almost as an afterthought, she added:

 

 

'Some voters might think that.'

 

This was her token gesture to the BBC's famed, mythical 'impartiality'.

 

The idea that the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons might endanger the British public clearly falls outside Kuenssberg's idea of 'neutral' analysis.

 

Again, Corbyn gave a reasonable response:

 

 

'We are not under threat from any nuclear power. We're not under threat from that; we're under threat from instability.... Listen, the nuclear weapons that the United States holds - all the hundreds if not thousands of warheads they've got were no help to them on 9/11.'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Media spin everything.

 

Never voted Labour in my life. But would certainly consider it now.

 

In Manchester yesterday, David Cameron claimed people "only really need to know one thing" about the new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn: that he "thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a 'tragedy'."

 

Taking aside the fact that we obviously need to know more than one thing about the leader of the opposition, this is a gross misrepresentation of what Corbyn said about bin Laden.

 

What Corbyn actually said was that it was a "tragedy" that bin Laden was never put on trial and brought to justice for his crimes.

 

His 2011 television interview with an Iranian TV channel is often referenced but rarely ever published in full.

 

Here is what he actually said about the al-Qaeda leader's killing by US forces in Pakistan:

 

"There was no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him, to put him on trial, to go through that process.

 

"This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy. The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy... This will just make the world more dangerous and worse and worse and worse. The solution has got to be law, not war."

 

Oddly, this has some striking similarities to comments written in the Telegraph in 2001, by a possible future leader of David Cameron's own party.

 

One Boris Johnson wrote a piece several months after the 9/11 attacks, titled "Bin Laden should die, but we must try him first".

 

In it, the now Mayor of London claimed:

 

"Of course, it would be the neatest solution if the terrorist maniac were to be dispatched in the coming days, whether by an M16 carbine or a 10-rupee jezail.

 

"But it would not be the best or most satisfying outcome. Bin Laden should be put on trial; not in Britain, but in the place where he organised the biggest and most terrible of his massacres, New York.

 

"He should be put on trial, because a trial would be the profoundest and most eloquent statement of the difference between our values and his.

 

"He wanted to kill as many innocent people as he could. We want justice. It was a trial that concluded the tragic cycle of the Oresteia, and asserted the triumph of reason over madness and revenge."

 

"The whole point of the exercise, the whole point of the war against terror, is that we believe in due process and the upholding of civilisation against barbarism."

Edited by Gribz
Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason for this smog campaign is because he has apparently refused to kneel to the queen for his induction to the Privy council.

 

It will keep coming. Yet how many articles do we see on Blair who lied?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy certainly has beliefs, but I'm not sure whether they are entirely in keeping with modern society. (To be fair, he was being slaughtered, quite rightly IMO, well before the Privy Council thing.)

 

And why quite rightly was he being slaughtered? Was this based on facts or paper talk?

 

Whats your opinions on Blair?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Corbyn is a dreamer But he is entitled to his views not all of which are insane. I support the monarchy but it's this particular monarch. I look at who is coming off the bench and wonder. I look at the youth team and reckon Corbyn might be on to something.

 

I'm not in favour of giving up the nuclear insurance policy. I don't believe potential enemies would hesitate to use theirs if they didn't know there would be a price to pay.

 

Fair play to the man. He isn't an idiot but he's not very practical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.