Statesmanlike speech on terrorism from Jeremy Corbyn.

I'll say from the offset that I totally believe trident is obsolete, it is all about economics getting rid of the trident, mean getting rid of jobs and that where the rub comes with Corbyn. If trident is scraped how many Unite jobs would be lost. It seems he just says what people want to hear rather than what he ever could deliver.

I don't think you can accuse Corbyn of saying what he thinks people want to hear. In fact he seems to make something of a virtue of taking an oblique view of matters.

Yes he sometimes, not always, takes an oblique view of matters. And I think the UK, and the whole world, would be lovely places if they could only work as Jeremy seems to want them to. But as andyofborg says, other people in the world have contradictory views and they would die rather than live as Jeremy would like. We could never force other countries to live as he suggests. Obviously some are warlike, some heads of state have vested interests in corruption, some are interested in maintaining the tension so as to fuel the armaments business, some have ideological reasons for not complying and so on. Talking to them would be like talking to himself. You just have to fight fire with fire.

Yes he sometimes, not always, takes an oblique view of matters. And I think the UK, and the whole world, would be lovely places if they could only work as Jeremy seems to want them to. But as andyofborg says, other people in the world have contradictory views and they would die rather than live as Jeremy would like. We could never force other countries to live as he suggests. Obviously some are warlike, some heads of state have vested interests in corruption, some are interested in maintaining the tension so as to fuel the armaments business, some have ideological reasons for not complying and so on. Talking to them would be like talking to himself. You just have to fight fire with fire.

Rubbish. We didn't end up defeating the IRA by violence, we ended our fight by negotiation and inviting them into the political process.

Rubbish. We didn't end up defeating the IRA by violence, we ended our fight by negotiation and inviting them into the political process.

You are talking rubbish because the IRA isnt a country and they have not been defeated and we haven't ended our fight and they planted 52 bombs in a year and they killed people. This is from the news https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/14/police-severe-terror-threat-ira-northern-ireland-bomb-attacks

Rubbish. We didn't end up defeating the IRA by violence, we ended our fight by negotiation and inviting them into the political process.

We defeated the IRA because our Security Services had infiltrated their inner circle.

They (IRA) came to the table because they were weak at that time.

We defeated the IRA because our Security Services had infiltrated their inner circle.

They (IRA) came to the table because they were weak at that time.

The IRA were not defeated, and that is the verdict of the British Army itself, in an internal report which was never intended for public consumption but was obtained under the Freedom of Information act.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjYs47rwZLVAhUeM8AKHb-xC1AQFggvMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F2%2Fhi%2Fuk_news%2Fnorthern_ireland%2F6276416.stm&usg=AFQjCNHmGkEhy3apMQaNoIuA0evYzWfNhA

Anyone giving it a moments thought would have realised that fact anyway.

You do not defeat an enemy and then allow them to take office in governing the place that they were fighting to free.

And when they take office under the clear understanding that they are going to continue to work toward achieving a United Ireland by political means then it could be argued that they won.

It was in fact a stalemate, no one was getting anywhere, and it had become more and more disgusting with collusion, murder of innocents by state forces and various psychopaths of all persuasions joining in.

Whilst I have no time for Corbyn he had every right as a politician to engage in talks with the IRA in an attempt to help bring an end to the ongoing mayhem.

In my opinion he would make a disastrous leader of the country and we've got one of them already.

At a time when we are in desperate in need of first rate competent politicians we are bereft of them.

Carlinate, I was looking at a TV program about Roman occupation of England in about 100 ad, where because their empire had grown so big the Romans didn't have enough soldiers to man their forts in England (and other countries) so they allowed, welcomed even, Celts to join their army of occupation. After a few years guess what? The Celts, who'd been head hunters prior to the Roman invasion, attacked the Roman soldiers and planted their heads alongside the Roman road, in the ditch. Similarly we saw the Yanks and Brits allowing Iraqis and Afghans to join our armies of occupation and guess what they did. Yes they turned on us, killing our men in their barracks. So although the IRA hasn't joined our armed forces their thinking will be the same as it was for those Celts, Afghans and Iraqis, but in a more peaceful role. They will work in their own united Ireland interest at Stormont, not the UK's. I agree with you on that. But they did at least say that from the outset. Stormont knew what it was signing up for. But I don't agree the IRA won. All they got is a platform from which to fight their case for a united Ireland. They haven't got it yet. Your last paragraph is undisputable. I could do it but I'm busy.