Syria- Is it time we re-assessed who we support?

tapzilla2k

Ed M made the right choice at the time.

Corbyn was quite clear about the need to negotiate with Syrians to find a political solution, he pretty much pooh poohed negotiating with Daesh and amongst the ridicule in PMQ's today asked Cameron a question about sanctions against Countries that either actively support Jihadist groups like Daesh or turn a blind eye to it aka What you are going to do about Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab states that support terrorists to fight a proxy war against Iran. Cameron dodged the question entirely. I think Corbyn also said we should join with Russia in seeking a UN Mandate on Syria. In my own view I don't think we've got much choice but to go along with Putin at this stage. He's played an absolute blinder in the last 3 years whilst Cameron, Hollande and Obama have basically dithered about what to do and attempted to reign Putin in using Economic sanctions. Putin has weathered that storm fairly well so far.

The only way to eject Daesh from Syria is through boots on the ground (the Kurds have been doing an excellent job with limited resources), perhaps it's possible to get a wide coalition put together to fight and not have it all be US and UK troops. However unless/until there is a Terrorist attack on US Soil, I doubt we'll see much movement from Obama. If he does nothing and twiddles his thumbs after an attack, I suspect the Republicans will go for impeachment proceedings against him.

As for shoot to kill, I think Corbyn made his point rather badly. What he was probably trying to say is that the Police need clear guidelines to avoid the accidental shooting of innocent bystanders as happened previously (Brazilian guy on the tube), that has more to do with the chain of command rather than armed officers on the ground who have to make split second decisions. When it comes down to it, I think most Armed Police Officers will not wait for permission to shoot if it's a choice between saving lives or killing a terrorist dead. If Corbyn can't accept that, then he needs to step aside.

He's a pacifist and an idealist, which will appeal to a lot of disenfranchised voters. As for me ? He's going against the accepted Political grain of the last 30 odd years. You should also remember that I did not vote for Corbyn in the leadership election for a reason that might become clear in due course. The byelection December 3rd will be most interesting indeed. If it goes against the media narrative, I expect there will be a lot of egg on various faces.

What I dislike are people not bothering to actually listen to what Corbyn has to say rather than relying on the press narrative. He's had a howler this week and I thought he would as Terrorism is an issue that can trip up a lot of Political leaders. Cameron faces his own hurdles on that score i.e. if the Police cuts have degraded the ability of the Police to respond and we suffer a terrorist attack then I would think the Tories would be toast, even if they changed leaders and sacked the entire front bench. I also do not like what I've heard about the idea of Police forces pooling armed response units to save money. They may have put that one on the back burner due to the events in Paris.

krish

Sonic67

As I said above, he was asked direct questions on a direct situation. I.e. what happened in Paris. I said he was using "wishy-washy language" BBC has it from one of his team as "waffle".

Jeremy Corbyn backlash over views on shoot-to-kill - Jeremy Corbyn backlash over views on shoot-to-kill - BBC News

"And in the words of one, he just tried to "waffle his way through". Frankly, I have rarely heard reactions like it."

All he needed to say was something along the lines of he's supporting the police, letting them do their job, safety of the public is paramount etc.

When something like this happens, the media is going to be straight round to find out your view.

Have one ready. If you like, chat with an adviser as to just what to say. This is a guy with an outside chance of running the country. If he can't handle a press interview he will be left bleeding when it comes to doing something important like organising international policy or trade.

I don't agree with tabloid media picking over how much he bows his head or whether he sings the national anthem. All that is trivial stuff and only gains sympathy for him anyway.

Are any by-elections due? I wonder if the Conservatives are thinking strategically? Lay off him in by-elections and then slaughter him at the G.E. It's in their interest to keep him as Labour leader.

He did better at a second attempt.

Jeremy Corbyn backtracks on 'shoot-to-kill' policy - Jeremy Corbyn backtracks on 'shoot-to-kill' policy - BBC News

Military action against Islamic extremists? Yes or no?

Would Jeremy Corbyn ever back military action against Islamist extremists? - Would Jeremy Corbyn ever back military action against Islamist extremists? - BBC News

Mshulla

What is a shoot to kill policy? It has been alleged this policy was used in Northern Ireland during the troubles. This meant suspects being killed without any attempt to arrest and bring to trial. This included unarmed individuals.

In contrast the police have a right (duty) to protect the public. In a situation such a occurred in Paris the police would rightfully use their weapons to safeguard the public. The shooting of Mark Duggan or Harry Stanley are examples of actions taken against individuals believed to be armed and dangerous. In the case of armed terrorist blowing things up and shooting members of the public it is even clearer, the police would do their duty to protect the public. This is not a "shoot to kill policy".

johntheexpat

Funny how a democratically elected leader of a political party seems to dominate so many threads about other issues.

Especially when he wields so little power and influence in reality.

What a great big bogeyman he is.  Still, better to slag off the bogeyman repeatedly than debate the real issues.

Sonic67

He's the leader of the opposition. His job is actually to bring the present government to heel and to debate the real issues. After appointing Red Ken he's kicked off yet another war in his own party with his MPs and the shadow defence minister. He makes Michael Foot look slick. As I've said before at the moment it looks like a shoe-in for another Conservative government. I thought a week was a long time in politics. This wasn't even 24 hours. Red Ken gets appointed this morning. This evening a former shadow chancellor is calling for Ken to resign. Ken was kicked out of the Labour Party before. He's a divisive character.

Sonic67

His job is to be leader of the Labour party.  Primarily his objective is supposed to be leading the party into power.

Unfortunately he seems more focussed on re-casting the Labour party as a pacifist, hard left, protest party.  Along with Momentum and the threats to sitting MPs to swing left or be deselected, the hard left appointments to Corbyns team and the utterances of the man himself, it seems the legacy of Corbyn is going to be making Labour unelectable for a generation.

johntheexpat

Posted something similar before but here's a new version:

Here's a highly restricted briefing document on Syria…... insightfully broken down so you can understand what's going on ... at another level ..READ BELOW

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (Hurrah!).

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)

So the Americans (who are good ) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.

By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria.

So President Putin (who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.

Now the British (obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good/bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).

So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America (still Good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also Good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good (Doh!.)

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmm…might have a point…) and hence we will be seen as Bad.

So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (/bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also Good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, Good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

I hope that clears all this up for you !!!

Not mine.

r1ecn

So on a brief resume of acutely important World affairs, Jeremy Corbyn is up there (probably) in the same boat (ie bad) as Putin and Assad.

The bogeyman really has hit a nerve.

Member 581642

It's private donors not the state of Saudi Arabia that funds ISIS so not sure sanctions would have the desired effect