Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You mean like the Labour right using the situation to score cheap political points over their party leader? It's pretty much this time last year that a significant number of them defied him by voting to attack Syria which shows how much of a flying f*** they actually do give about the people there.

 

And when we had a Emergency Commons debate today about humanitarian help for the people of Aleppo and Syria, none of the f***ers turn up. Happy to ask somebody else to pull the trigger for them but not prepared to take the consequences of their action. And time and time again, it is the same. And it is MP's on all sides of the House. Cameron got bored of Libya and simply forgot all about it. Hilary Benn is quite happy to beat the drum for war and then get bored of it too.

 

It's a great laugh this topic indeed.

 

It's just exasperation at the utter farce that politics has become in this country - see above. It's about cheap political point scoring instead of any actual concerns about the people of Syria. You've got Syria, Assad, Turkey, Iran, the US, ISIS, al-Qaeda, Russia all mixed up in a s***storm, hundreds of thousands of dead and injured, a country in absolute ruins - yet people can't resist the opportunity to have a little dig at the leader of the Labour Party. That is where the insensitivity lies. You know, the UK agreed to bomb Syria last year and people no doubt suffered as a consequence of this decision - and all because Labour MP's decided it was an opportunity they couldn't miss to have a pop at Corbyn. People were dying as they were smirking to themselves about how they stitched him up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I certainly agree that the focus should be on the suffering of the Syrian people. If anyone wants a simple way to help, I recommend donating here:

 

https://act.thesyriacampaign.org/donate/peoples-convoy/

 

Meanwhile, there are possible signs that an evacuation of the remaining population of east Aleppo might be allowed tomorrow. That would be the best resolution possible at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Benn. I'm no big fan. His blatant opportunism was pathetic. However, like many MPs on both sides, he's not a war monger, he doesn't get off on wanting to bomb third world countries, but does want do something during very complex situations in which hundreds of thousands of people will die through inaction.

 

His position is here. Is there really that much to call him out for? http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/11715766?

He's a pathetic opportunist but he's right?

 

Is that how it is?

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a pathetic opportunist but he's right?

 

Is that how it is?

you struggle with nuance don't you. How he used his speech to position himself and those like him as anti Corbyn/to show Corbyn up was ugly opportunism. It doesn't mean that his position then or his position now might now be the right one. The situation is so complex and the relationship dynamic between so many factions so tightly wound that it's almost an impossible situation.

 

And BTW it was Pip who first used this thread as a stick to beat politicians with.. 'don't worry, Hilary and his mates will sort it'. I got it wrong re Corbyn, I wonder whether pip will see his own hypocrisy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you struggle with nuance don't you. How he used his speech to position himself and those like him as anti Corbyn/to show Corbyn up was ugly opportunism. It doesn't mean that his position then or his position now might now be the right one. The situation is so complex and the relationship dynamic between so many factions so tightly wound that it's almost an impossible situation.

.

So he is an ugly opportunist but he 'might' be right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hilary Benn beat the drum for war loud and clear. Then couldn't really be arsed with it anymore. After all, it was only the trivial matter of military strikes. That position and the reason that he took that position deserves every piece of criticism he gets. It was shameful and disgraceful. In a thread about Syria, he was quite rightly brought into the spotlight. And with a backdrop of the catastrophic mess that was Iraq and Cameron being rightly accused of getting bored with Libya, there is clearly a pattern here. I will rightly criticise anybody who is happy to sacrifice the lives of others in order to take a cheap pot shot against somebody else.

 

So, again, my question is, where have all of those who cheered, yes actually cheered, the decision to engage militarily in Syria, where have they been over the past 12 months? And why weren't they at the commons debate yesterday? I will accept they 'couldn't be arsed' as an answer.

 

As for Corbyn, I seem to remember he was against air strikes in the first place, so he is consistent on this. 

 

There is no hypocrisy in my position and it is you who seem to struggle with nuance.

 

"And BTW it was Pip who first used this thread as a stick to beat politicians with.." - yeah, damn right. And fully deserved it is too. Whereas your tawdry criticism of Corbyn was simply wrong on this matter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hilary Benn beat the drum for war loud and clear. Then couldn't really be arsed with it anymore. After all, it was only the trivial matter of military strikes. That position and the reason that he took that position deserves every piece of criticism he gets. It was shameful and disgraceful. In a thread about Syria, he was quite rightly brought into the spotlight. And with a backdrop of the catastrophic mess that was Iraq and Cameron being rightly accused of getting bored with Libya, there is clearly a pattern here. I will rightly criticise anybody who is happy to sacrifice the lives of others in order to take a cheap pot shot against somebody else.

 

So, again, my question is, where have all of those who cheered, yes actually cheered, the decision to engage militarily in Syria, where have they been over the past 12 months? And why weren't they at the commons debate yesterday? I will accept they 'couldn't be arsed' as an answer.

 

As for Corbyn, I seem to remember he was against air strikes in the first place, so he is consistent on this.

 

There is no hypocrisy in my position and it is you who seem to struggle with nuance.

 

"And BTW it was Pip who first used this thread as a stick to beat politicians with.." - yeah, damn right. And fully deserved it is too. Whereas your tawdry criticism of Corbyn was simply wrong on this matter.

'Beat the drum for war' ... or call for targeted airstrikes against ISIS. He's been consistent on this and the article from August this year shows the position he's maintained. As I said before, he might also have been right in his support in taking that action.

 

Corbyn may have written a letter, but it's not only me who has a problem with his ongoing position on Syria.

 

https://leftfootforward.org/2016/10/jeremy-corbyn-must-break-silence-on-assad-and-russian-bombings/

 

It's perfectly reasonable to point out that a leader of the opposition publically supports a paper whose reaction to a potential genocide is 'liberation', and has failed to condemn that position. My pointing this out is not 'tawdry' at all. Corbyn's in a position of responsibility, and therefore is open for criticism of his actions or inaction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's perfectly reasonable to point out that a leader of the opposition publically supports a paper whose reaction to a potential genocide is 'liberation',

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/chilcot-report-crushing-verdict-tony-blair-iraq-war

Oh and Hilary Bilary only supports targeted attacks on ISIS. Cos like ISIS only live in big houses with "ISIS" painted on the roof in flourescent paint where they are easy to spot and there's nobody else within a ten mile radius who could possibly get hurt by Western bombing which is of a higher moral standard than Russian bombing of course.

Imagine seeing something of the order of what is happening in Aleppo and thinking, "how can I use this to have a go at Corbyn"? f*** off, lad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/chilcot-report-crushing-verdict-tony-blair-iraq-war

 

Oh and Hilary Bilary only supports targeted attacks on ISIS. Cos like ISIS only live in big houses with "ISIS" painted on the roof in flourescent paint where they are easy to spot and there's nobody else within a ten mile radius who could possibly get hurt by Western bombing which is of a higher moral standard than Russian bombing of course.

 

Imagine seeing something of the order of what is happening in Aleppo and thinking, "how can I use this to have a go at Corbyn"? f*** off, lad.

Not sure of your point. As mentioned before, I marched against the Iraq war and left the Labour Party because of it. You don't seem to be able to get it around your brain that I'm not Blairite, I'm not progress. Being left wing isn't about being part of Stop the War. I have to admit though, that your analysis of the complexities of the Syrian war is masterful.

 

It was Pip who brought up politicians and it is perfectly reasonable to knock the leader of the opposition and your party if you disagree with his position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But you have no evidence that Corbyn is pro-Assad. I have plenty of evidence that those on the right of the party (who you do support, let's be honest) are happy to support violence against Syrians for their own political ends. Corbyn's position is consistent and correct - he wants a political solution to the problem. Further military intervention is not a solution, it will only make things worse, like it always does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But you have no evidence that Corbyn is pro-Assad. I have plenty of evidence that those on the right of the party (who you do support, let's be honest) are happy to support violence against Syrians for their own political ends. Corbyn's position is consistent and correct - he wants a political solution to the problem. Further military intervention is not a solution, it will only make things worse, like it always does.

what if the military solution was to put troops on the ground in order to facilitate safe passage of civilians to assembly zones, then transport them out?

 

obviously there would be conflict but it wouldn't be a case of taking sides, just a case of use of force against anyone who tries to prevent civilians fleeing

definition of civilian: anyone unarmed who wants to leave

 

 

obviously this is the job of the UN but it would be vetoed 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But you have no evidence that Corbyn is pro-Assad. I have plenty of evidence that those on the right of the party (who you do support, let's be honest) are happy to support violence against Syrians for their own political ends. Corbyn's position is consistent and correct - he wants a political solution to the problem. Further military intervention is not a solution, it will only make things worse, like it always does.

For the purposes of my point, it doesn't matter if he's pro Assad or not. His silence on the matter is what matters, not just to me but to other Labour Party members and Momentum members.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is interesting, and there are rebels who are no doubt taking part. However the UN forces and embedded journos are reporting as well. Civilians are committing suicide rather than face the militias who make up part of Assad's combined forces. Women who have protested against Assad are being brutally and systematically raped. This IS happening.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday I watched RT and it had a different slant completely, it showed people on the ground happy to see Assad's forces on the ground. It Ajay had an interview with a Canadian journalist rubbishing the western media claims, she stated that they had no one on in the ground, could quote no sources and had actually used the picture of a young girl from a music video to further their story!!

Now RT had its own agenda, as dues the BBC, but the truths being hidden, it's not what you see on the TV

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rUhe87r5bEE

Edited by jimbolala
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...