Was Jeremy Corbyn a traitor to the British People?

The Northern Ireland “troubles” began in the late 1960s and ended with the Good Friday “Belfast” Agreement of 1998. Primarily it consisted of a terrorist organisation, the IRA, attempting to overthrow democracy by the use of violence. It came to an end when the IRA were militarily defeated and forced to the negotiating table because of the resolution of Margaret Thatcher.  More than 3,500 people were killed in the conflict, of whom 52% were civilians, 32% were members of the British security forces, and 16% were members of paramilitary groups.

During the troubles Jeremy Corbyn was a Labour MP and he repeatedly gave succor to the terrorists. In fact the perception was that he was supporting them in their conflict against the British people. A full analysis of his involvement can be accessed by clicking this highlighted text. It looked very much like Corbyn was trying to achieve a united, socialist Ireland and was happy with the killings and the terrorism as a means to achieve it.

If Jeremy Corbyn is a traitor it raises a number of interesting questions.

  • What does that make people who vote for him?
  • Is he fit to be Prime Minister and to look after the interests of British people in the world?
  • How can he possibly be in control of the British Army?

Then, as now, Corbyn’s actions horrified many on the left:

And even today Corbyn makes no apologies for his allegiances at the time. He is happy to condemn the British Army, who were defending democracy and the rule of law, but not the terrorist murderers of the IRA. Click here to see his lies and hypocrisy exposed.

Watch this brief video to hear it from his own lips:

Going into a General Election the Labour Party are obviously very embarrassed by all this. Typical of the left they are answering criticism with revisionism and lies. Much like the Soviet Union did. They are saying that Corbyn was actually a peace maker, which is farcical when you look at the evidence above. And which peace maker only talks to one side in a conflict? Lefties also say that the British Government was talking to the IRA during the troubles. This is true. In every war there are back channels to handle common concerns. This is not the same as actively supporting your enemy, as Corbyn did. Also they are pointing to pictures of the Queen shaking Martin McGuinness’s hand. But this was long after the conflict was over and the defeated IRA had signed a peace treaty. Not at the height of the conflict when Corbyn was giving succor to terrorism.

3 Comments


  1. predictably crass, ill conceived, poorly researched and written.. as i’d expect… shame on you sir for propagating a myth about a subject you have neither the intellect or personal insight to even partially comprehend

    Reply

    1. both the spectator and the telegraph articles you cite originate from a political bias with an intent so obvious as to be distasteful. The interpretations made of his involvement are full of so much inflammatory rhetoric and are merely poorly disguised attempts to discredit a man so forthright in his opposition to all forms of violence that he was the only politician brave enough to ‘openly’ engage in dialogue with parties that were otherwise only involved in atrocious acts of terrorism and violence. Without his diplomacy we might still be fighting and inevitably losing lives on all sides

      Reply

  2. Like him or not he’s cut the lead even if he loses and stays on he will trounce the Tories in the next one

    Reply

Leave a reply