Our Lord, J.C.

[Idaho]

my point was, simply, that Corbyn's supports appear to believe he is beyond moral reproach yet even loyal Conservatives would look askance if Cameron cut the line after refusing to condemn the IRA or "forgot" he had shared a platform with an anti-Semitic Middle Eastern activist.

Plenty of people take the view that Bin Laden's death was no sort of tragedy and he got what he justly deserved. Corbyn would have preferred to see him on trial, fair enough, but he apparently doesn't want to see IRA commanders on trial.

Beskar's tone makes me think he's drunk the Corbynaid, as the Americans would say, and it seems many others have too.

You are contriving scandal by wilfully misinterpreting statements that Corbyn has made, and by taking an aggressive and partisan line on political positions that are both reasonable and adult. Whilst simultaneously ignoring great hypocrisy and injustice perpetrated by the Tories because it isn't championed by the right wing press.

Britain's actions in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq have been incompetent, murderous and disastrous. The only lettuce leaf of a defence is that it "could have been worse".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are contriving scandal by wilfully misinterpreting statements that Corbyn has made, and by taking an aggressive and partisan line on political positions that are both reasonable and adult. Whilst simultaneously ignoring great hypocrisy and injustice perpetrated by the Tories because it isn't championed by the right wing press.

Britain's actions in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq have been incompetent, murderous and disastrous. The only lettuce leaf of a defence is that it "could have been worse".

Well, you are willfully ignoring the balance of probabilities and treating Corbyn like he is "the only honest man in British politics" whilst simultaneously treating the Tories like they are cartoon villains. Refusing to condemn the IRA for its actions during the Troubles, of which it was the primary instigator, is inexplicable - but the interview Corbyn very clearly gave the impression that he was more sympathetic to the IRA than the British soldiers. Likewise, his choice to call Bin Laden's killing a "tragedy" was a poor one and could be said to be deeply insensitive to Bin Laden's victims.

As I said, British soldiers were initially deployed to protect Catholics from marauding Protestants, the fact is the IRA used this as a pretext to launch a 30-year terrorist campaign to try to overturn the result of an historic plebiscite which separated Ireland into Republican and Loyalist parts. Recently the IRA has woken up and as a result the NI Executive has fallen apart. It is in this context that Corbyn refuses to condemn them - and that is wrong.

Of the four wars you mentioned only Libya can be said to be substantially the responsibility of the Conservatives, having been inherited, whilst the House of Commons voted for Operations in Libya and initially voted against operation in Syria which, in fact, remain limited. Further, I would argue that "incompetent" and "murderous" are mutually exclusive in this context.

[Montmorency]

Refusing to condemn the IRA for its actions during the Troubles, of which it was the primary instigator, is inexplicable - but the interview Corbyn very clearly gave the impression that he was more sympathetic to the IRA than the British soldiers. Likewise, his choice to call Bin Laden's killing a "tragedy" was a poor one and could be said to be deeply insensitive to Bin Laden's victims.

Is it more explicable if placed in the context I juxtaposed?

[Brenus]

Clearly your political choice.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Clearly your political choice.

I know you can type proper English, start using it instead of making yourself harder to understand with all these non-sequiters.

[Gilrandir]

I know you can type proper English, start using it instead of making yourself harder to understand with all these non-sequiters.

C'mon, this is a part of fun - reading riddles and getting scorned for not interpreting the message accurately.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is it more explicable if placed in the context I juxtaposed?

No, I don't think sympathy for the IRA, or rather the PIRA, is at all explicable unless you're a Republican who hates the British - which comes back to Cameron's "Britain-hating" jibe.

Bear in mind this is the terrorist group who tried to assassinate Margaret Thatcher and actually did assassinate Lord Mountbatton.

To be clear, the Roman Catholics do have valid gripes with the Parliament of Northern Ireland and over Bloody Sunday that does not justify the PIRA campaign to unite Ireland by force, something which in the late 1960's I don't think the majority of Northern Irish wanted, and something they don't want today.

There were, and still are, peaceful Nationalist groups agitating for Catholic rights as well as political reform, they deverse sympathy for the way they were treated by the "loyalists" and the PIRA.

Anyway, we've gone massively off point -

Beskar posted something headed "lies vs laws" and all I sought to do was demonstrate that Cameron had not lied, at worst his speach was deliberately ambiguous but if you know Corbyn's actual remarks then I would say that Cameron's words gain extra rhetorical force because he makes the point of distinguishing 9/11 as a tragedy in opposition to Bin Laden death which was not.

Later people cut Cameron's speech to make it sound like he said Bin Laden's death was a tragedy, when in fact that is not what he meant - but it is what Corbyn meant. Corbyn meant that we should not be carrying out assassinations and his argument that we should have attempted to arrest Bin Laden prepossesses him not being executed.

Now, if Corbyn takes the position that all deaths, even the deaths of terrorists, are tragedies than, in theory, that is laudable but it is, per-definition, sympathy with terrorists, as is sympathy with the PIRA. As to the other points, I would not say Corbyn "hates Britain" exactly but I would say he is ashamed of Britain, possibly ashamed to be British because in his mind we are not a democracy and he has made numerous complaints about things our society does at home and our government does overseas.

The issue of security is, I think, indisputable - Corbyn is opposed to the UK retaining strategic weapons even as countries like Iran strive to acquire them and he has a dangerously naive view of Putin's Russia.

So Cameron was unfair to Corbyn, but that's politics and he certainly didn't lie - it's not as though he could have believed everyone wouldn't dig up the actual clip and provide the context for he attack on his opponent - this is the age of the internet.

Despite this someone made a poster headed "Lies vs Laws" and ended it with "nobody ever needs to know just one thing" when that is exactly what they were pushing - the uncomplicated idea that Cameron lies and Corbyn follows the law.

That's political spin, plain and simple, and it should not be allowed to pass without comment - I commented that Cameron's views can be defended and you all jump on me and Idaho calls me repugnant.

So, here's the thing - Corbyn's views can also be defended - I personally lean more towards Cameron's viewpoint but I'm not besotted with either.