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

[Silva]

The governing principles of a caliphate are that it's a state that exists to be in a constant war with everyone else and every member is a soldier. Incomparable to anything else as far as human civilisation goes.

I'm not doubting there are plenty of moderate civilians in the towns and villages in the areas under ISIS control. They are not under any threat from British airstrikes. But in their strongholds? Nope. All cannon fodder.

Sounds like the top bit is doubting the bottom bit.

And Cannon fodder? Christ, we're supposed to the good guys.

 

[Shamwow]

The governing principles of a caliphate are that it's a state that exists to be in a constant war with everyone else and every member is a soldier. Incomparable to anything else as far as human civilisation goes.

I'm not doubting there are plenty of moderate civilians in the towns and villages in the areas under ISIS control. They are not under any threat from British airstrikes. But in their strongholds and around their major bases? Nope. All cannon fodder.

So you think (for example) Raqqa is free of civilians? Is this according to your made up definition or actual international law?

 

[Ubik]

The governing principles of a caliphate are that it's a state that exists to be in a constant war with everyone else and every member is a soldier. Incomparable to anything else as far as human civilisation goes.

I'm not doubting there are plenty of moderate civilians in the towns and villages in the areas under ISIS control. They are not under any threat from British airstrikes. But in their strongholds and around their major bases? Nope. All cannon fodder.

Unfortunately this is not true, in Raqqa Da'esh are pretty much using the civilians as human shields, living in amongst them.

 

[Shamwow]

Make a point worth answering and I will answer it.

I think I'd be better ignoring you.

 

[Silva]

So you think (for example) Raqqa is free of civilians? Is this according to your made up definition or actual international law?

They're cannon fodder Shammy, it's alright if we kill the children there, they don't count as people.

 

[Silva]

Cannon fodder may be a bit strong. Target practice then.

It's not a contradiction to say that ISIS will have thoroughly cleansed their strongholds but not the surrounding areas.

It's outright bullshit. They're running these places like any other totalitarian state would.

Target practice is no better. We're talking about thousands upon thousands of people who didn't ask for any of this. And you're still dehumanising them.

 

[Marching]

I think I'd be better ignoring you.

Your best ever post! Great idea!

 

[Shamwow]

Cannon fodder may be a bit strong. Target practice then.

It's not a contradiction to say that ISIS will have thoroughly cleansed their strongholds but not the surrounding areas.

None of what you are saying is based on fact, let alone decency.

 

[Silva]

Your best ever post! Great idea!

At least he's not outright making shit up, as you've been doing.

 

[phelans shorts]

Incredible how many people have completely thrown empathy out of the door in here. No wonder more and more folk are being ostracised to the point where ISIS seems like a better option.

 

[Silva]

No it's based on common sense and realism.

All of this is completely academic in any case, since you ignored my far more important point that British airstrikes are by far the most accurate and least likely to cause civilian casualties in the first place.

Are British airstrikes really by far the most accurate though? Do you really believe that? If that was really the case, why aren't America, France et. al lining up to buy our weapons?

 

[Silva]

Incredible how many people have completely thrown empathy out of the door in here. No wonder more and more folk are being ostracised to the point where ISIS seems like a better option.

If we follow the hobbers school of foreign policy they won't have the option of joining ISIS or not. They'll just be forced into it.

 

[sun_tzu]

How will our bombs help the situation?

By blowing up people who use rape as a weapon / behead people on camera and plan / orchestrate things like the Paris shootings

Surely you agree killing those kind of people is better than letting them continue to rape / behead and plot future atrocities?

 

[Silva]

By blowing up people who use rape as a weapon / behead people on camera and plan / orchestrate things like the Paris shootings

Surely you agree killing those kind of people is better than letting them continue to rape / behead and plot future atrocities?

I would if I thought it would actually stop them from doing that. Rather, I think our plan will only lead to an increase in those things.

 

[Marching]

How will our bombs help the situation?

For the reasons already given. IS are not interested in talking to us and have no intention whatsoever of changing course. They will continue to butcher, rape, torture and kill anyone in their way so it's follows something must be done to stop them. The 13 coalition partners have agreed the only option open is military action and it makes no sense for us to be out of step with them.

It is a long term policy and there will be civilian casualties without doubt but to pretend the civilians are safe if we choose to do nothing is daft.

 

[Silva]

It's not the weapons it's the reconnaissance and missile guidance systems.

I remember reading a couple of weeks ago that Britain is contributing the majority of intelligence on ground targets in Syria at the moment. So as far as I'm concerned that already makes us complicit in any civilian casualties caused by a French or US bomb.

And you believe that? We're talking about an American government whose spying infrastructure probably dwarfs the rest of the world combined. And ours is supposed to be significantly better? I really don't buy it.

 

[Kag]

Incredible how many people have completely thrown empathy out of the door in here. No wonder more and more folk are being ostracised to the point where ISIS seems like a better option.

That's a stretch.

 

[sun_tzu]

I would if I thought it would actually stop them from doing that. .

No I'm pretty sure once they are blown up that stops them

 

[phelans shorts]

It's not the weapons it's the reconnaissance and missile guidance systems.

I remember reading a couple of weeks ago that Britain is contributing the majority of intelligence on ground targets in Syria at the moment. So as far as I'm concerned that already makes us complicit in any civilian casualties caused by a French or US bomb.

So the same innocents would be killed regardless of whether we bombed?

So why bother wasting our money on it? Since you've now realised that our bombs aren't made by bleeding Acme Corp and able to single out a person to kill in the middle of a crowded city without other deaths.

 

[Silva]

For the reasons already given. IS are not interested in talking to us and have no intention whatsoever of changing course. They will continue to butcher, rape, torture and kill anyone in their way so it's follows something must be done to stop them. The 13 coalition partners have agreed the only option open is military action and it makes no sense for us to be out of step with them.

It is a long term policy and there will be civilian casualties without doubt but to pretend the civilians are safe if we choose to do nothing is daft.

Who's actually saying we should do nothing? Those of us who are opposed to the current plan are opposed to it because it's the sort of short sighted nonsense that's lead us here in the first place.

 

[phelans shorts]

That's a stretch.

How?

 

[Ubik]

No I'm pretty sure once they are blown up that stops them

Zombie ISIS, there'll be a film out within the year.

 

[Silva]

That's a stretch.

Not on the page where Syrian civilians have been referred to as "cannon fodder" and "target practice"

No I'm pretty sure once they are blown up that stops them

You say that like blowing them up hasn't been what lead us here in the first place.

 

[Cheesy]

The whole point of us being involved is to provide the precision bombing that is needed. I have no doubt there will be innocent people killed but they are being slaughtered and raped and thrown off buildings for being gay and burnt alive and beheaded. Are you OK that we sit back and allow that to happen. If so, for how long? What's your plan?

Saying, "They're being killed anyway.", isn't a legitimate argument to just go ahead and bomb them. Once again, any airstrikes we participate in are going to lead to a loss of innocent life. If that's the case, then we will be responsible for those who have been killed, irrespective of whether it is likely to happen otherwise or not.

I think Corbyn is extremely weak on this issue, and hasn't come up with anything cohesive, but it's not my job to formulate a plan - it's the government's. Simply saying, "I want to bomb place X", and saying, "Well, do you have a better idea?", isn't a legitimate argument. I'm all for effective intervention to eliminate ISIS and be a leading figure in long-term stabilisation of the Middle East, but the government have to provide a compelling case first. As it stands, Cameron seems more determined to force it through immediately in order to look like a strong leader, and capitalise upon the failures of the shambolic Labour party. Simply put, it feels more political point scoring, as opposed to well thought-out, deliberated over and debated policy with a long-term goal.

 

[Marching]

I would if I thought it would actually stop them from doing that. Rather, I think our plan will only lead to an increase in those things.

Like others in here you are quick to tell us what the UK shouldn't be doing so, using your vast knowledge on the subject, what should we do?

 

[Kag]

How?

This is a few nackers on a Manchester United forum talking about how they would change the world. In essence it's ludicrous. Drawing parallels between this page and a desire to join Islamic State seemed a tad dramatic, albeit I appreciate what you were attempting to convey.

 

[Silva]

Like others in here you are quick to tell us what the UK shouldn't be doing so, using your vast knowledge on the subject, what should we do?

Sanctions on Turkey and Saudi Arabia until they stop helping extremists out. And a long term plan to rebuild Iraq, achieve Kurdish independence and help out the Assad regime to take out the rest of the country and rebuild it (on condition of Syria becoming a democratic country).

 

[sun_tzu]

You say that like blowing them up hasn't been what lead us here in the first place.

If by them you mean the active members of isis then yeah I'm pretty sure we have not already blown them up...
The yanks blew up Jihadi john and to the best of my knowledge he has not beheaded anybody since so it seems to work

 

[Chorley1974]

I would if I thought it would actually stop them from doing that. Rather, I think our plan will only lead to an increase in those things.

So we just sit on our hands and wait for more atrocities? Really interested to hear about your master plan for stopping these atrocities. I can't see how destroying the command chain, supply chain, armed forces, financial income, and communications channels won't diminish the ability of this enemy of our state to hurt us.

 

[Cheesy]

The governing principles of a caliphate are that it's a state that exists to be in a constant war with everyone else and every member is a soldier. Incomparable to anything else as far as human civilisation goes.

I'm not doubting there are plenty of moderate civilians in the towns and villages in the areas under ISIS control. They are not under any threat from British airstrikes. But in their strongholds and around their major bases? Nope. All cannon fodder.

Hardly. I'm sure ISIS will be using plenty of humans as shields, as Ubik pointed out, and to simply say definitively that there will be no innocent civilians within their own strongholds is very, very tenuous, and feels like an excuse for us to recklessly bomb certain areas while washing our hands of casualties.

 

[phelans shorts]

This is a few nackers on a Manchester United forum talking about how they would change the world. In essence it's ludicrous. Drawing parallels between this page and a desire to join Islamic State seemed a tad dramatic, albeit I appreciate what you were attempting to convey.

I'm not referring to just this thread, people are talking like this outside too. There's people spouting this shite in local pubs, workplaces etc... all over not just this country. It's ludicrous.

 

[Kag]

Sanctions on Turkey and Saudi Arabia until they stop helping extremists out. And a long term plan to rebuild Iraq, achieve Kurdish independence and help out the Assad regime to take out the rest of the country and rebuild it (on condition of Syria becoming a democratic country).

What happens if Assad doesn't return the favour and continues to slaughter all who disagree with him?

 

[Marching]

Saying, "They're being killed anyway.", isn't a legitimate argument to just go ahead and bomb them. Once again, any airstrikes we participate in are going to lead to a loss of innocent life. If that's the case, then we will be responsible for those who have been killed, irrespective of whether it is likely to happen otherwise or not.

I think Corbyn is extremely weak on this issue, and hasn't come up with anything cohesive, but it's not my job to formulate a plan - it's the government's. Simply saying, "I want to bomb place X", and saying, "Well, do you have a better idea?", isn't a legitimate argument. I'm all for effective intervention to eliminate ISIS and be a leading figure in long-term stabilisation of the Middle East, but the government have to provide a compelling case first. As it stands, Cameron seems more determined to force it through immediately in order to look like a strong leader, and capitalise upon the failures of the shambolic Labour party. Simply put, it feels more political point scoring, as opposed to well thought-out, deliberated over and debated policy with a long-term goal.

There is never a military conflict that doesn't claim innocents lives so are you against Military action in any circumstance?

You're right about Corbyn and I think weak is being kind. I disagree with your opinion on Cameron and think he is above playing politics with this particular situation. I'm all for alternative ideas if they're credible but worst of all is to not offer any alternatives.

 

[Silva]

If by them you mean the active members of isis then yeah I'm pretty sure we have not already blown them up...
The yanks blew up Jihadi john and to the best of my knowledge he has not beheaded anybody since so it seems to work

And blowing him up has had an insignificant effect to the overall picture. They've still got the resources to cause havoc.

So we just sit on our hands and wait for more atrocities? Really interested to hear about your master plan for stopping these atrocities. I can't see how destroying the command chain, supply chain, armed forces, financial income, and communications channels won't diminish the ability of this enemy of our state to hurt us.

And I'm interested to hear how we're actually going to do what you're listing there when the Turkish Government and Saudi Arabia are complicit with the extremist.

And if anyone's going to carry out an Attack here it's going to be some lone lunatic already here. Not someone in Syria.

What happens if Assad doesn't return the favour and continues to slaughter all who disagree with him?

Sanctions. He'll go bankrupt sooner rather than later.

 

[Kaos]

You give the impression you know exactly what is planned and what's not but seem to have missed the talk of closing the 60 mile wide gateway used by IS terrorist to use as they wish and spouting the same stupid line as Corbyn of the allies simply bombing Raqqa maybe highlights you've not read up on the plans quite as well as you think you have.

Corbyn has dodged the question whether he would ever launch a military offensive. What would have us do?

Obviously I don't have access to these secret Intel files you harp on about but neither do you. However going by precedence it's not farfetched to suggest that this military adventure would be disastrous or ineffective at best. And considering we don't seem to learn from empowering questionable factions I sincerely doubt that we're willing to upset the Turks who's regional goals are contradictory to weakening ISIS.

Say what you want about Corbyn but in his political career his stances regarding foreign intervention have been retrospectively spot on everytime.

 

[Cheesy]

There is never a military conflict that doesn't claim innocents lives so are you against Military action in any circumstance?

You're right about Corbyn and I think weak is being kind. I disagree with your opinion on Cameron and think he is above playing politics with this particular situation. I'm all for alternative ideas if they're credible but worst of all is to not offer any alternatives.

I'm not against military action in any circumstances. I just think we should be very careful before entering into military operations, and need to be going in with a long-term plan. We have previously been involved in the military interventions in the Middle East that have, in the end, been rather ineffective when you consider that the problem of terrorism remains. If we go in, we need to do so with a long-term set of aims, and with increased support from the public. As it stands, it continues to remain unclear as to whether the general public actually support this.

 

[Marching]

Sanctions on Turkey and Saudi Arabia until they stop helping extremists out. And a long term plan to rebuild Iraq, achieve Kurdish independence and help out the Assad regime to take out the rest of the country and rebuild it (on condition of Syria becoming a democratic country).

You must have missed Obama having a go at Turkey then and the talk of a meaningful government being in place in Syria.

Did you give up on addressing the immediate problem of IS?

 

[phelans shorts]

I don't think ISIS recognise the value of human life enough to use civilians (non-IS members) as human shields. They'd rather just use them for target practice or as a bonfire.

Of course it's not a definitive statement but civilian casualties would be absolutely minimal in bombing an IS stronghold. Nothing like the risks of bombing in Iraq in 2003 or indeed in bombing in Iraq now like we are doing.

Oh, well hobbers from the caf thinks they won't use human shields, that's me sold, someone tell Corbs, that'll push this all through.

FFS.

 

[Silva]

You must have missed Obama having a go at Turkey then and the talk of a meaningful government being in place in Syria.

Did you give up on addressing the immediate problem of IS?

Having a go at Turkey isn't going to achieve much when their current leader is an extremist himself.

I've not given up, but even I can see the flaws of the current plan.

 

[sun_tzu]

And blowing him up has had an insignificant effect to the overall picture. They've still got the resources to cause havoc.
.

True... If only there was more military resources and people willing to join the coalition air strikes... Oh hang on