Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

[Marching]

I think they're being reactionary to appease public opinion rather than dealing with the issue logically.

You're a good case in point. Corbyn discusses the problems, but you've attacked him for being 'out of his depth' for not having a decisive action plan.

It's better, apparently, in politics to be seen doing something, even if in 2 years time its shown to be demonstrably wrong, for the sake of being seen to do something.

Forgive me but that is claptrap. It's staggering that you believe that attacks are launched on a whim and solely to appease a certain public opinion.

And it is not just me attacking Corbyn. More importantly the very people that sit next to him in the Commons and in commitee rooms are distancing themselves from his bizarre thoughts.

And as for your last point that too is claptrap...it's so very easy to point out mistakes having the benefit of hindsight. No action is a guarenteed success and may well be the wrong decision. Maybe you can explain how all actions we take are guarenteed to be the right ones.

 

[Shamwow]

I dont get this - Syria is not a new issue. Its been over 2 years since Miliband defeated Cameron in the house on bombing raids in Syria. How can something that he been brewing and argued over for 2 years be in any way considered a rush to action? And how can Corbyn take credit for something Miliband did 2 years ago?

The vote was on bombing Assad's forces 2 years ago, not ISIS. That doesn't really help your argument.

I'm not sure where you are getting the impression that anyone is giving Corbyn credit for Mililband's actions either.

 

[Shamwow]

And as for your last point that too is claptrap...it's so very easy to point out mistakes having the benefit of hindsight. No action is a guarenteed success and may well be the wrong decision. Maybe you can explain how all actions we take are guarenteed to be the right ones.

I think his point went over your head there.

 

[Adisa]

Someone in class said he's made Ken Livingstone shadow defence secretary or something like that? I personally don't mind Ken but can see MPs throwing their toys.

 

[Marching]

I think his point went over your head there.

And mine, yours.

It's better, apparently, in politics to be seen doing something, even if in 2 years time its shown to be demonstrably wrong, for the sake of being seen to do something.

Are you seriously saying something is done knowing it is wrong simply to be seen doing something?

 

[bishblaize]

The vote was on bombing Assad's forces 2 years ago, not ISIS. That doesn't really help your argument.

I'm not sure where you are getting the impression that anyone is giving Corbyn credit for Mililband's actions either.

Because the claim here is that we're all rushing to war and only Corbyn is keeping his head when that's plainly not the case.

 

[Sweet Square]

Someone in class said he's made Ken Livingstone shadow defence secretary or something like that? personally don't mind Ken but can see MPs throwing their toys.

Well he might not be in a job for long

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/18/ken-livingstone-psychiatric-help-comments-row

 

[Shamwow]

And mine, yours.

Your entire line of argument so far has been to repeatedly express disbelief that someone could hold the view in question, it's not exactly something that can go over one's head.

 

[Marching]

Someone in class said he's made Ken Livingstone shadow defence secretary or something like that? I personally don't mind Ken but can see MPs throwing their toys.

Ken Livingstone has been given a formal role in creating Labour's defence policy - including its position on Trident renewal. Although Corbyn has now fallen out with him apparently. The comedy continues.

 

[Marching]

Your entire line of argument so far has been to repeatedly express disbelief that someone could hold the view in question, it's not exactly something that can go over one's head.

Excellent. Shame you couldn't cope with both points I made.

With the benefit of hindsight I think it's better not to tax yourself too much...just let it go and we can agree to disagree.

 

[Shamwow]

Ken Livingstone has been given a formal role in creating Labour's defence policy - including its position on Trident renewal. Although Corbyn has now fallen out with him apparently. The comedy continues.

Not surprised, those mental health comments by Ken were stupid and offensive, and mental health is a cause Corbyn cares greatly about.

 

[bishblaize]

Ken Livingstone has been given a formal role in creating Labour's defence policy - including its position on Trident renewal. Although Corbyn has now fallen out with him apparently. The comedy continues.

 

[Shamwow]

Excellent. Shame you couldn't cope with both points I made.

With the benefit of hindsight I think it's better not to tax yourself too much...just let it go and we can agree to disagree.

You mean "And as for your last point that too is claptrap...it's so very easy to point out mistakes having the benefit of hindsight. No action is a guarenteed success and may well be the wrong decision. Maybe you can explain how all actions we take are guarenteed to be the right ones."?

No one ever said that the actions have to be guaranteed correct. But the benefit of hindsight is that it enables you to stop making the same mistakes again, which is what we're talking about.

 

[Untied]

The mere thought that anything is left to a knee jerk reaction during such serious events is a bit daft.

Errrm isn't that precisely what France have done?

 

[Shamwow]

I'm really quite furious at those comments from Livingstone and the fact he's refused to apologise.

Genuinely think it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

 

[711]

I dont get this - Syria is not a new issue. Its been over 2 years since Miliband defeated Cameron in the house on bombing raids in Syria. How can something that he been brewing and argued over for 2 years be in any way considered a rush to action? And how can Corbyn take credit for something Miliband did 2 years ago?

If Cameron wants to bomb one of the belligerents in Syria he needs to explain why two years ago he wanted to bomb a different one. Is he still opposed to Assad, would he still bomb Assad if he could get a majority? does he accept that if Isis falls Assad will fill the gap? I don't know whether I would agree with Cameron or not because I have no idea what his reasoning is, but if we are going to bomb people it need an explanation, it is very recent history after all.

 

[Cheesy]

Livingstone should be removed from his position immediately if he's refusing to apologise. Even then, probably not the wisest choice for any major role.

 

[NinjaFletch]

I dont get this - Syria is not a new issue. Its been over 2 years since Miliband defeated Cameron in the house on bombing raids in Syria. How can something that he been brewing and argued over for 2 years be in any way considered a rush to action? And how can Corbyn take credit for something Miliband did 2 years ago?

Well thats a separate issue, actually, and a brilliant case in point.

Cameron's crusade at that time was to bomb Assad because he was using chemical weapons against the rebels (there is also, still, ongoing debate about whether this was a false flag operation).

If he had succeeded what then?

Well, one of the only bulwarks against IS would have gone. For all Assad's failings he, at least, serves as a regional power against IS.

So, actually, it can be proven with a fair degree of certainty that had Cameron got his way 2 years ago, we'd have made the situation worse not better.

Forgive me but that is claptrap. It's staggering that you believe that attacks are launched on a whim and solely to appease a certain public opinion.

And it is not just me attacking Corbyn. More importantly the very people that sit next to him in the Commons and in commitee rooms are distancing themselves from his bizarre thoughts.

And as for your last point that too is claptrap...it's so very easy to point out mistakes having the benefit of hindsight. No action is a guarenteed success and may well be the wrong decision. Maybe you can explain how all actions we take are guarenteed to be the right ones.

I didn't say on a whim. I said short sighted reactionism. Which is exactly what it is. For all Cameron, and Hollande's grandiose talk of bombing what then? Has Cameron given a credible solution for what the end game is in Syria? I certainly haven't seen it. Hollande, at least, is clear what he aims to achieve. His language is bellicose, he wants revenge. He doesn't care if its a solution or not.

I also didn't say it was 'just' you. Just that you're a good case in point. The people around corbyn are as guilty of it too.

And mine, yours.



Are you seriously saying something is done knowing it is wrong simply to be seen doing something?

No I'm saying being seen to be 'decisive' even without consideration for longer term effects is preferable to being seen to do nothing.

Consider, for example, the media reaction to Cameron's short sighted response and Corbyn's lack of response.

My problem is the boiling down of an incredibly complex issue into a simple narrative 'ISIS BAD, WEST GOOD' and the adoption of similarly simple solutions.

The exact same people who are attacking Corbyn and praising Cameron will be the ones saying 'well you should have foreseen the effects of your policy' if and when it goes tits up again in another few years time.

 

[Shamwow]

Livingstone should be removed from his position immediately if he's refusing to apologise. Even then, probably not the wisest choice for any major role.

It's utterly ridiculous. Corbyn was already under-pressure for appointing someone who is anti-trident to co-chair the review. Personally I think it makes sense to have people on both sides of the debate heading it but the pressure was clear and it's apparent that it was unpopular with the PLP. So to then go and make comments like he did - which are terrible on their own, but even worse in the sense that they've really fecked over the man who trusted him with the role - is almost too stupid to believe.

 

[Marching]

Errrm isn't that precisely what France have done?

You'd be right if the bombing operation had been the first they'd launched.

 

[Cheesy]

It's utterly ridiculous. Corbyn was already under-pressure for appointing someone who is anti-trident to co-chair the review. Personally I think it makes sense to have people on both sides of the debate heading it but the pressure was clear and it's apparent that it was unpopular with the PLP. So to then go and make comments like he did - which are terrible on their own, but even worse in the sense that they've really fecked over the man who trusted him with the role - is almost too stupid to believe.

Aye, exactly. Corbyn should ensure he is nowhere near any senior position while he's still in charge...which may not be for too long.

 

[bishblaize]

If Cameron wants to bomb one of the belligerents in Syria he needs to explain why two years ago he wanted to bomb a different one. Is he still opposed to Assad, would he still bomb Assad if he could get a majority? does he accept that if Isis falls Assad will fill the gap? I don't know whether I would agree with Cameron or not because I have no idea what his reasoning is, but if we are going to bomb people it need an explanation, it is very recent history after all.

That's not really my point. My point is that people are so desperate to paint Corbyn in a good light they ignore that that Labour Party has been opposed to needless military intervention in this specific war for ages and make out that its something uniqe to him.

 

[Shamwow]

That's not really my point. My point is that people are so desperate to paint Corbyn in a good light they ignore that that Labour Party has been opposed to needless military intervention in this specific war for ages and make out that its something uniqe to him.

Who is saying that?

 

[Marching]

I didn't say on a whim. I said short sighted reactionism. Which is exactly what it is. For all Cameron, and Hollande's grandiose talk of bombing what then? Has Cameron given a credible solution for what the end game is in Syria? I certainly haven't seen it. Hollande, at least, is clear what he aims to achieve. His language is bellicose, he wants revenge. He doesn't care if its a solution or not.

I also didn't say it was 'just' you. Just that you're a good case in point. The people around corbyn are as guilty of it too.

No I'm saying being seen to be 'decisive' even without consideration for longer term effects is preferable to being seen to do nothing.

Consider, for example, the media reaction to Cameron's short sighted response and Corbyn's lack of response.

Yes, you said reactionary. Which is similar to knee jerk and rash and reckless, unthinking. Which are all words that I don't think cover Hollande's actions or those of Obama, Putin etc. It does take planning and the mission was to weaken and kill IS terrorists. It was successful in doing that.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Yes, you said reactionary. Which is similar to knee jerk and rash and reckless, unthinking. Which are all words that I don't think cover Hollande's actions or those of Obama, Putin etc. It does take planning and the mission was to weaken and kill IS terrorists. It was successful in doing that.

So its due to the success of the air-strike policy over the past few months that IS were able to launch the Paris attack? And that similar attacks were foiled across Europe not because of IS weakness, but because of security agencies intervention.

Even then you're ignoring my general point. Airstrikes might succeed in wiping out IS, they did, after all succeed in getting rid of Gaddafi, for all the good that did Libya, but that doesn't address the problem. I addressed this in another thread so don't want to repeat myself, but everybody adopts a feigned ignorance, or perhaps are just generally ignorant when it comes to the topic of why IS dislike us. If you succeed in wiping out the group IS by force they become akin to martyrs, not in the sense of religious martyrs, but political. IS then, becomes a group gunned down by Western forces and a rallying call for those who hate the west for their interference in the Middle East.

The ideology that drives IS doesn't die with them instead, by our own actions, we strengthen it. The name might change, the people undoubtedly will, but the game hasn't.

I remember during the Iraq was this issue I'm talking about was termed 'the campaign for hearts and minds' and was viewed as the only viable way to tackle the ideology whilst you were tackling the military force. What IS have succeeded in doing is being so horrible that we've forgotten that, and embarked on a policy that plays right into their hands.

 

[bishblaize]

Well thats a separate issue, actually, and a brilliant case in point.

Cameron's crusade at that time was to bomb Assad because he was using chemical weapons against the rebels (there is also, still, ongoing debate about whether this was a false flag operation).

If he had succeeded what then?

Well, one of the only bulwarks against IS would have gone. For all Assad's failings he, at least, serves as a regional power against IS.

So, actually, it can be proven with a fair degree of certainty that had Cameron got his way 2 years ago, we'd have made the situation worse not better.

Assad is the ultimate problem in Syria and there won't be peace til he's gone. The West's failure to intervene more fully in the region has allowed Putin to get involved and make Assad more or less secure for the forseeable future. So I'd say there is no certainty at all that failing to act two years ago made the situation better, we just have a different mess. The truth is there is almost certainly no 'good' way out of the situation now, and there probably wasn't two years ago.

 

[Drifter]

Some just don't like the appointment of Ken .So making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Assad is the ultimate problem in Syria and there won't be peace til he's gone. The West's failure to intervene more fully in the region has allowed Putin to get involved and make Assad more or less secure for the forseeable future. So I'd say there is no certainty at all that failing to act two years ago made the situation better, we just have a different mess. The truth is there is almost certainly no 'good' way out of the situation now, and there probably wasn't two years ago.

I agree with your last point, and also with your points in Assad in general. But the fact of the matter is, Syria was a lot more stable until we started arming Assad's opponents.
In an ideal world I agree, he needs to go. But in terms of realpolitik and stability in the region I'm not sure there's a solution that doesn't involve him, at least in the short term.

There's so many things that make this problem impossible to solve, but I'm not sure anything we've done so far has made the problem better and I have serious doubts that any of the ideas thrown around now will improve the situation. I think, in terms of solution, we're probably in the realms of the 'least unpalatable' rather than the 'most palatable'.

 

[Marching]

So its due to the success of the air-strike policy over the past few months that IS were able to launch the Paris attack? And that similar attacks were foiled across Europe not because of IS weakness, but because of security agencies intervention.

Even then you're ignoring my general point. Airstrikes might succeed in wiping out IS, they did, after all succeed in getting rid of Gaddafi, for all the good that did Libya, but that doesn't address the problem. I addressed this in another thread so don't want to repeat myself, but everybody adopts a feigned ignorance, or perhaps are just generally ignorant when it comes to the topic of why IS dislike us. If you succeed in wiping out the group IS by force they become akin to martyrs, not in the sense of religious martyrs, but political. IS then, becomes a group gunned down by Western forces and a rallying call for those who hate the west for their interference in the Middle East.

The ideology that drives IS doesn't die with them instead, by our own actions, we strengthen it. The name might change, the people undoubtedly will, but the game hasn't.

I remember during the Iraq was this issue I'm talking about was termed 'the campaign for hearts and minds' and was viewed as the only viable way to tackle the ideology whilst you were tackling the military force. What IS have succeeded in doing is being so horrible that we've forgotten that, and embarked on a policy that plays right into their hands.

It is blatently obvious that air strikes are just part of a strategy. A vital part. The strategy includes many different strands and that includes the equally vital work carried out by security services. Due to the bombings the number of IS terrorists has been reduced which means there are fewer able to spread their violence around the world. Who knows, it might convince a few to change their minds of travelling to Syria to sign up.

Convincing the likes of IS that their belief's are wrong is at best a long term job and realistically I doubt it will ever happen. This leads on to the question what do we do in the meantime?

Can you outline your plans to change the minds of these barbaric terrorists?

 

[SteveJ]

I can't believe that the Guardian is flogging Corby t-shirts for 20 squids(!) What a bunch of capitalists.

 

[NinjaFletch]

It is blatently obvious that air strikes are just part of a strategy. A vital part. The strategy includes many different strands and that includes the equally vital work carried out by security services. Due to the bombings the number of IS terrorists has been reduced which means there are fewer able to spread their violence around the world. Who knows, it might convince a few to change their minds of travelling to Syria to sign up.

Convincing the likes of IS that their belief's are wrong is at best a long term job and realistically I doubt it will ever happen. This leads on to the question what do we do in the meantime?

Can you outline your plans to change the minds of these barbaric terrorists?

You're not reading what I'm saying, you're distorting it, and you're reliant on the oversimplifications that I talked about earlier.

It's not about convincing IS, it's about convincing those exposed to the IS ideology that its wrong. Lets say you're a kid growing up in Afghanistan. Your mates dad is part of IS and he tells you about the evil, imperialistic Americans, who hate Islam, hate you and want to kill you. In the space of a month, your mates dad gets blown up by a drone and the American's bomb a hospital. In your eyes everything that person told you about America is true. You grow up and you become the mates dad in this scenario.

Whilst its clear that the airstrikes effect IS's operational capacity, they do nothing to hinder their ability to launch attacks (and if anything give them justification to portray those attacks as retaliation and defensive) and have a detrimental effect on combating the underlying problem.

 

[711]

Assad is the ultimate problem in Syria and there won't be peace til he's gone. The West's failure to intervene more fully in the region has allowed Putin to get involved and make Assad more or less secure for the forseeable future. So I'd say there is no certainty at all that failing to act two years ago made the situation better, we just have a different mess. The truth is there is almost certainly no 'good' way out of the situation now, and there probably wasn't two years ago.

It's interesting you think Assad is the ultimate problem, I'd just like to know if Cameron thinks the same before we try and change the balance of power by bombing people. Bad as Assad is, he hasn't sent terrorists around the world in the way Islamists have, so that is the larger problem for me. Cameron needs to be open about what he wants, if he knows.

 

[Ubik]

I don't really have much time for these "they hate the West because we made them" arguments. Da'esh slaughter more muslims than anything else, they aren't at war purely with the west, they're at war with anyone that's different from them. They sent suicide bombers into a mosque during prayers for heaven's sake, because they were the wrong type of muslims. I fail to see the causal mechanism that leads back to western action there.

It's interesting you think Assad is the ultimate problem, I'd just like to know if Cameron thinks the same before we try and change the balance of power by bombing people. Bad as Assad is, he hasn't sent terrorists around the world in the way Islamists have, so that is the larger problem for me. Cameron needs to be open about what he wants, if he knows.

Before anything further happens there'll need to be agreement with Russia on what happens to Assad when the time comes, I think Cameron acknowledges that. It seems untenable for him to stay given the use of barrel bombs and chemical weapons, but whether Putin is ready to back down on that is anyone's guess. I think he's changed position since the airliner was taken down as well.

 

[NinjaFletch]

I don't really have much time for these "they hate the West because we made them" arguments. Da'esh slaughter more muslims than anything else, they aren't at war purely with the west, they're at war with anyone that's different from them. They sent suicide bombers into a mosque during prayers for heaven's sake, because they were the wrong type of muslims. I fail to see the causal mechanism that leads back to western action there.

Because they're separate parts of their ideology. I have no doubt that you're right, to an extent, that they would hate the West irregardless but how anyone can deny that the West's actions have fuelled that hatred I'm not sure.

I think its more pertinent when you consider that IS is supported by people that aren't IS, people who will put up with one aspect of the IS ideology as long as they agree with another. If you stop doing things that allow IS to portray themselves as defenders against the West you remove their more casual support base.

 

[Marching]

You're not reading what I'm saying, you're distorting it, and you're reliant on the oversimplifications that I talked about earlier.

It's not about convincing IS, it's about convincing those exposed to the IS ideology that its wrong. Lets say you're a kid growing up in Afghanistan. Your mates dad is part of IS and he tells you about the evil, imperialistic Americans, who hate Islam, hate you and want to kill you. In the space of a month, your mates dad gets blown up by a drone and the American's bomb a hospital. In your eyes everything that person told you about America is true. You grow up and you become the mates dad in this scenario.

Whilst its clear that the airstrikes effect IS's operational capacity, they do nothing to hinder their ability to launch attacks (and if anything give them justification to portray those attacks as retaliation and defensive) and have a detrimental effect on combating the underlying problem.

OK, lets assume the existing members of IS are lost causes and nothing will convince them to change their ways. Our current way of dealing with it is to kill them. You seem to be against that so what's your plan?

I agree that we need to change peoples minds. As I said that is a long term situation so I ask again, what do you suggest we do in the meantime.

 

[Fully Fledged]

And mine, yours.



Are you seriously saying something is done knowing it is wrong simply to be seen doing something?

The Americans have been bombing Syria for the last 2 years it has not had any effect on stopping ISIS attacks around the world. Why would us adding a few extra plane all of a sudden make an action that is not working suddenly work?

We with the other NATO countries have been bombing them in Iraq again they are still training and sending out terrorists to commit highly coordinated atrocities all over the world.

Air strikes have not and will not work.

 

[Shamwow]

Because they're separate parts of their ideology. I have no doubt that you're right, to an extent, that they would hate the West irregardless but how anyone can deny that the West's actions have fuelled that hatred I'm not sure.

I think its more pertinent when you consider that IS is supported by people that aren't IS, people who will put up with one aspect of the IS ideology as long as they agree with another. If you stop doing things that allow IS to portray themselves as defenders against the West you remove their more casual support base.

There is also the fact (in my opinion at least) that extreme situations create extremism - i.e. a bomb dropped is potentially at least one angry parent, child, sibling or friend being created. Adding fuel to the fire.

 

[Shamwow]

OK, lets assume the existing members of IS are lost causes and nothing will convince them to change their ways. Our current way of dealing with it is to kill them. You seem to be against that so what's your plan?

I agree that we need to change peoples minds. As I said that is a long term situation so I ask again, what do you suggest we do in the meantime.

Not sure the phrase "any action is better than no action at all" is applicable in this case.

 

[bishblaize]

The Americans have been bombing Syria for the last 2 years it has not had any effect on stopping ISIS attacks around the world. Why would us adding a few extra plane all of a sudden make an action that is not working suddenly work?

That's faulty logic. For all we know terrorism levels could have been far higher if it weren't for the bombings.

 

[Marching]

There is also the fact (in my opinion at least) that extreme situations create extremism - i.e. a bomb dropped is potentially at least one angry parent, child, sibling or friend being created. Adding fuel to the fire.

The Americans have been bombing Syria for the last 2 years it has not had any effect on stopping ISIS attacks around the world. Why would us adding a few extra plane all of a sudden make an action that is not working suddenly work?

We with the other NATO countries have been bombing them in Iraq again they are still training and sending out terrorists to commit highly coordinated atrocities all over the world.

Air strikes have not and will not work.

You both seem to have decided that air strikes are not the answer. So what is?