Labour Leadership

[uncleglen]

Here Here quids

[Blah Blah]

Just to give you a different perspective ????, what Corbyn actually said was this.....

?It appears Mohammed Emwazi has been held to account for his callous and brutal crimes.

"However, it would have been far better for us all if he had been held to account in a court of law.

?These events only underline the necessity of accelerating international efforts, under the auspices of the UN, to bring an end to the Syrian conflict as part of a comprehensive regional settlement.?

I don't think many people could disagree with any of that. He knows as well as we do that it is logistically impossible to extract people like Jihadi John from the ground. What he was expressing, was a view on what is achieved by this kind of assassination. The truth is that Jihadi John has already been replaced. The murder of Westerners does not stop. And as for Jihadi John himself - he had a quick death that he probably didn't know much about. So what has been achieved? Absolutely nothing, bar one pain free death of an easily replaced ISIS executioner.

The current government, just like Blair, have no answer to terrorism, or the refugee flight, or the conflicts in the Middle East. Cameron wants to bomb Syria. That is exactly why last nights terrorists attacked Paris apparently - because the French are bombing Syria. Now ask yourself, who is more likely to keep us free from attack? The man who wants to bomb Syria? Or the man that wants to try and find an international resolution via the UN.

[ratty]

Strange that the families of his victims agree with the sentiment that he should have been tried. But what do they know?

And so the killing continues. Is that what you want? More attacks like in Paris?

[????]

Talk me through resolution of the conflict and defeating ISIS via the UN Blah rather than the touchy freely peace loving concept? Meanwhile yesterday military action by the Kurds supported by air strikes from the US liberated 1000s from the tyranny of ISIS

[????]

ratty Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Strange that the families of his victims agree

> with the sentiment that he should have been tried.

> But what do they know?

>

> And so the killing continues. Is that what you

> want? More attacks like in Paris?

That's what the Hennings and the Haines family all said is it Ratty? Not really but seems to be the narrative your brilliant leaders apologist PR team are building. Still at least ISIS lost a major foot hold yesterday so less throwing of gays of buildings and mass sexual slavery, no thanks to the UN by the way

[????]

The north London branch of Stop the War singing "Give peace a chance" to the UN Security Council...that'll fix it

[ratty]

We're all angry this morning quids. News like this is hard to take in and impossible to empathise with. I'm coming to the great exhibition this afternoon! I'll buy you a pint! :)

It's too awful!

[????]

Fair enough Ratty. The reality is I don't think there are simple solutions...if only 'they' could all sit down over a pint. If I,m about I'll pop in.

[Otta]

There is nothing wrong with saying that it would have been more ideal for JJ to have been put on trial. It would. That's not the same as condemning what did happen. I'd have liked to have seen him opn trial in this country (not U.S.).

I have to say that I think it's a bit cheap using events of last night to have a dig at Corbyn.

I do not think that I am a "loony lefty", but when I read this

"The Labour leader was set to say: "For the past 14 years, Britain has been at the centre of a succession of disastrous wars that have brought devastation to large parts of the wider Middle East.

"They have increased, not diminished, the threats to our own national security in the process".

He would have added: "What's pro-British about a government that slashes support for serving soldiers and military veterans?"

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34819130)

I totally agree. We are just digging further and further in to a really really bad hole.

[red devil]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There is nothing wrong with saying that it would

> have been more ideal for JJ to have been put on

> trial. It would. That's not the same as condemning

> what did happen. I'd have liked to have seen him

> opn trial in this country (not U.S.).

True, there's nothing wrong in saying that, but it reeks of naivety and stating the bleedin' obvious, and begs the question why say it in the first place. Of course in an ideal world 'Jihadi John' would've been captured and gone on trial, but how likely was that ever going to happen? Pretty much zilch. As well as the difficulties of trying to get someone on the ground to capture him, you're dealing with people who have a twisted mindset. As we saw last night at the Paris concert venue, they would rather blow themselves up than be captured.

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What he was expressing, was a view on what is achieved by this

> kind of assassination. The truth is that Jihadi

> John has already been replaced. The murder of

> Westerners does not stop. And as for Jihadi John

> himself - he had a quick death that he probably

> didn't know much about. So what has been achieved?

> Absolutely nothing, bar one pain free death of an

> easily replaced ISIS executioner.

It's true that 'JJ' was an 'executioner' who has probably already been replaced, but he had also become a recruiting 'poster boy' for IS because of his background. So stopping that in itself is an achievement. Not sure why you're making a correlation between your perceived lack of achievement and his pain free death. Would it have been more of an achievement if he had suffered a long slow painful death? If so, we're getting very Biblical...

[Blah Blah]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Talk me through resolution of the conflict and

> defeating ISIS via the UN Blah rather than the

> touchy freely peace loving concept? Meanwhile

> yesterday military action by the Kurds supported

> by air strikes from the US liberated 1000s from

> the tyranny of ISIS

Only if you talk me through how bobming and invasion has brought about any stability in the Middle East.

[Blah Blah]

I accept your points Red Devil, but nothing we are doing or have done for the last 100+ years has brought stability or democracy (whatever our version of demacracy is) to that region, nothing. It's no good jumping up and down and claiming someone has no quality to be a prime minister just because they don't say that more of the same is the solution.

Emotions are running high today and for understandable reasons (as Otta says). But yesterday I saw a photo of about 15 dead Syrian children. No-one knows if they were killed by ISIL crossfire, or American or Russian actions.

Just on Jihadi John, I was simply making the case that to some, his pain free and instant death would not have been any kind of retribution at all (and that's what I beieve Corbyn was saying too). And in the culture he was operating within, he would be seen as a martyr anyway. These people are brainwashed into seeing death as a reward. That's what makes them so dangerous.

France does have a complicated history with Algeria, Morocco and terrorism. It has also bred resentment from migrants for generations (anyone of colour is regularly stoppped in Paris to have papers checked) and there is a migrant underclass pushed out to the suburbs. That's before we even get into their laws on the wearing of a hijab. All of those things conspire to create the prefect recruiting gound for the kind of cells that want to inflict the kind of harm they did yesterday.

[????]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ???? Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Talk me through resolution of the conflict and

> > defeating ISIS via the UN Blah rather than the

> > touchy freely peace loving concept? Meanwhile

> > yesterday military action by the Kurds

> supported

> > by air strikes from the US liberated 1000s from

> > the tyranny of ISIS

>

> Only if you talk me through how bobming and

> invasion has brought about any stability in the

> Middle East

We are talking about the now. The claim that it's some sort of massive insight that the War in Iraq caused much of this is laughable, of course it did and I among millions including the "hated" Liberal Democrats opposed it, you'd have thought it was just Corbyn the way his supporters go on. But ISIS now, tell me how are we going to deal with them cos I can't tell you some sort of UN settlement that Corbyn seems to suggest is absolute naive pie in the sky as anyone with a brain can see, apart from corbynistas and a man who seems to think that this is the case isn.t fit to be a PM in my opinion. It's just an abstract and pious viewpoint with no responsibility which meanwhile leaves ISIS murdering and enslaving. But it's owners think it's some sort of moral high ground the ignoring of evil. Corbyn's more obsessed with his dislike of the US than doing anything responsible. He's a prime example of the danger of idealism and the false moral certainty of their righteousness that turned many, including me, away from the left. So, how do we get the UN to solve Iraq and ISIS or do we just say 'talking is better than fighting' (as it is) but actually do nothing other than demonstrate our pacifist purism?

[????]

Ps military intervention via bombing In Kosovo bought peace and stopped the massacres in the end

[Blah Blah]

Tut tut ????. You really don't know much about Kosovo do you? It wasn't military intervention that stopped the massacres, the UN troops there were a peacekeeping force and not allowed to intervene in conflict. Bombing did nothing. That is well documented. It was actually diplomacy through the Dayton Accord that ended that conflict.

[Blah Blah]

Here you go.....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kosovo/etc/cron.html

Tell me what part of that shows that bombing stopped the war in Kosovo.

The truth is that there is NO solution to what is going on in the middle east unless the warring factions decide to stop warring. It doesn't matter who is in government. No one has a solution to any of it.

Edited to add, that now the US have announced (with Russian help) moves to achieve a ceasefire in Syria and get talks going between the two sides. There is no other way.

[????]

The bit under 1995 that says "more NATO air strikes combined with Croat Muslim ground attacks brings Serbia to the negotiating table' maybe

[Otta]

Haha.

[Blah Blah]

You are a character ????. I enjoy sparring with you :D

[Otta]

I don't think there is a solution to the middle east. Do nothing and these nutters will grow and grow. Gonna blast them and we're the evil West.

I just want to see more being done here to stop British kids getting sold on this shit.

[????]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Tut tut ????. You really don't know much about

> Kosovo do you? It wasn't military intervention

> that stopped the massacres, the UN troops there

> were a peacekeeping force and not allowed to

> intervene in conflict. Bombing did nothing. That

> is well documented. It was actually diplomacy

> through the Dayton Accord that ended that

> conflict.

I think you've confused the UN with NATO blah and it's in fact you that knows nothing about Kosovo.

The UN (Corybyn's favoured 'solution')failed dismally including the massacres at Sebrenca where dutch UN troops stood by and watched muslims being herded off to be massacred; when NATO (er, a different organisation to the UN and one that Corybn naturally wants us out of) intervened with bombing the Serbs were forced to negotiate as your link clearly show under, so thanks for that.

I know nothing? HA HA

[Blah Blah]

I know the difference ????. Bombing from Nato achieved nothing. It took negotiators on the ground and a dramatic gain by Croat fighters to force a final negotiated solution, negotiations that had gone on for a long time with Milosevic's lack of co-operation. When the Croat push came, those well developed negotiations gave a way out. Had they not been in place, the Croat offensive would have continued. The UN peacekeeping force were in, as you rightly point out, the ridiculous situation of having no mandate but to stand by and watch massacre.

But the point remains the same. Bombing does nothing but destroy infrastructure. The people who suffer most are innocent civilians. It's almost as though we've learned nothing from Stalingrad as a tactic of war. The ONLY way any of these conflicts will stop is when those on all sides get together and agree to stop. And Syria has highlighted perfectly the problem for the West when neither side is a democracy. There needs to be a change in direction in how we tackle these things, because bombing just polarises the extremists hatred for the West.

Totally agree Otta. We need to find ways to stop people being brainwashed by these terrorists in the first place.

[red devil]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I know the difference ????. Bombing from Nato

> achieved nothing. It took negotiators on the

> ground and a dramatic gain by Croat fighters to

> force a final negotiated solution, negotiations

> that had gone on for a long time with Milosevic's

> lack of co-operation. When the Croat push came,

> those well developed negotiations gave a way out.

> Had they not been in place, the Croat offensive

> would have continued. The UN peacekeeping force

> were in, as you rightly point out, the ridiculous

> situation of having no mandate but to stand by and

> watch massacre.

I think what you're describing happened in Bosnia, not Kosovo, and it happened several years before NATO began strategically bombing Serb targets in respect of the Kosovo conflict. This bombing definitely impacted on the Serbs and brought about an end to the conflict. Here's a timeline of events...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kosovo/etc/cron.html

[miga]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blah Blah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I know the difference ????. Bombing from Nato

> > achieved nothing. It took negotiators on the

> > ground and a dramatic gain by Croat fighters to

> > force a final negotiated solution, negotiations

> > that had gone on for a long time with

> Milosevic's

> > lack of co-operation. When the Croat push came,

> > those well developed negotiations gave a way

> out.

> > Had they not been in place, the Croat offensive

> > would have continued. The UN peacekeeping force

> > were in, as you rightly point out, the

> ridiculous

> > situation of having no mandate but to stand by

> and

> > watch massacre.

>

> I think what you're describing happened in Bosnia,

> not Kosovo, and it happened several years before

> NATO began strategically bombing Serb targets in

> respect of the Kosovo conflict. This bombing

> definitely impacted on the Serbs and brought about

> an end to the conflict. Here's a timeline of

> events...

>

> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/koso

> vo/etc/cron.html

Good one RD, I was about to stick a kebab skewer into my remaining good eye, but you saved the day. Dayton was 1995, concluding the Bosnian War of 1992-1995, the Kosovo War was 1999.

[Blah Blah]

Lol Miga, put those skewers away.

Yes I acknowledge I confused Bosnia with Kosovo. My hands are held up.

It doesn't though change the point that bombing in the middle east has achieved nothing. Look at Libya and Iraq now! At the time of 9/11 the only adversary was Osama Bin Laden and his base of Afghanistan. Now the whole region is in disarray and America's ignorant invasion of Iraq is a major reason why. I say ignorant because that is a clear example of why using bombs and troops witout ANY respect for or understanding of local politics, history and culture is disastrous. They learned nothing from Vietnam. Stability has to come from the ground, through the people and their leaders themselves. All that we have done is opened a pandoras box with no end of people now who are willing to kill themselves to do us harm. In fact they will kill anyone who stands in their way, hence the carnage in the middle east that millions of refugees are fleeing from.

The situation is not helped by most of the region being ruled by religious dictatorships. And if we didn't need the oil, we'd leave them to it quite frankly. Our whole history of involvement in the region has been one of propping up dictatorship after dictatorship as long as they sell us oil and work for us. The plight of ordinary people and their human rights has never been a priority. You only have to look at the recent visits by the prime ministers of China and India for proof of that.

A more interesting discussion to have would be one of how we change our relationship with the middle east in a way that is positive for the region.