Corbyn ally says should have "cups of tea" with ISIS not airstrikes

I agree 100% that it would be grossly immoral and bizarre.

What I was highlighting was that in the world of Realpolitik, nonetheless, that is exactly what some fairly mainstream establishment people will be actively considering

if there is someone to be negotiated with and the consequences are less dire than the alternatives. I mentioned the vile Baathists and their murderous and cynical manipulation of the situation only to illustrate that some of the enemies are not engaged for religious reasons, so it isn't all just some unresolvable mad holy war situation.

I agree that a 'resolution' meaning signing a deal with some of Saddam's former henchmen isn't exactly an ideal outcome.

I think the reality on the ground is that ISIS aren't going away, no matter how much bluster there is on that subject from our various leaders, without a major ground offensive.

At the moment, the only people engaged in that are the Russians and Syrians

Corbyn praised the Taliban as being the legitimate expression of Afghan nationalist aspirations "even if there are disagreements about the social attitudes of their leadership".

The Taliban are far from achieving popular support – across a range of measures the group still is shunned by large majorities of Afghans. But 22 percent say it has at least some support in their area, and this soars to 57 percent in the Southwest overall, including 64 percent in its home base, Kandahar. That's up sharply from 44 percent in the Southwest last year, and up from 41 percent in Kandahar.

There's also evidence the Taliban have made some progress rebranding themselves. Twenty-four percent of Afghans say it's their impression the Taliban "have changed and become more moderate" – far from a majority, but one in four. And that view spikes in some provinces – most notably, to 58 percent in Wardak and 53 percent in Nangarhar, bordering Kabul to the west and east, respectively. People who see the Taliban as more moderate are 20 points more likely to favor negotiating with the movement, and less supportive of the U.S. and NATO/ISAF presence in Afghanistan.

In any case there's been a significant drop in the number of Afghans who call the U.S.-led invasion and overthrow of the Taliban a good thing for their country – 69 percent, still a substantial majority but well below the 88 percent who said so in 2006. And while 63 percent still support the presence of the U.S. military in Afghanistan, that's down from 78 percent in 2006, with "strong" support for the U.S. presence down from 30 percent then to just 12 percent now. It's similar now for NATO/ISAF forces.

why highlight that she is jeremy corbyns ally

What's wrong with that? The Taliban are popular with many Afghanis, so that's a pretty accurate statement

No, it's not and they're not. You cite a 2009 survey, I'll cite another from 2011 that shows support plummeting.

Anyway, I make it a policy not to engage with extreme fascists, homophobes, anti-semites and their apologists so it's probably not even worth discussing it with you. Life's too short to waste my time going back and forth with a Taliban sympathiser

The point is that their support has been increasing and that article I cited supports that.

I await your 2011 survey, and would be happy to be proven wrong.

Agreeing with an article from a reputable source that the Taliban's support in Afghanistan is "increasing" makes me a "Taliban sympathiser".

You say that like the fact that they're disaffected Ba'athists is some kind of mitigating factor, as if it makes them somehow more reasonable and more amenable to negotiation, or somehow less culpable for the mass murder, the mass rapes and enslavements (not to mention it would be utterly contrary to international law and our Genocide Convention obligations)

There can be no question of anyone involved in the leadership of ISIS having any legitimate seat at a bargaining table. To the extent that there are Sunni grievances, you should pay attention to the developments in that area (a new federal structure is being negotiated to allow Anbar a form of autonomy similar to the Kurds. And there already are elected Sunni governors in those areas, and Sunni tribal leaders who are contributing troops and who take up policing Sunni areas after the Iraqi Army has reconquered it from ISIS).

The idea that those legitimate, elected sunni forces and the tribal leaders (many of whom have had their entire families killed by ISIS as punishment for opposing them... in some areas hundreds of members of a single clan have been killed) should be pushed aside to do some kind of shoddy deal with the ex-Ba'athist fascists who first raped Iraq for decades and then hit it the second time with the AQI/ISIS insurgency that ripped it apart... that is unconscionable.

Not only is it gravely immoral, it's also a bizarre suggestion given there's nothing those ex-Ba'athist/ISIS leaders could bring to the table in terms of integrating Sunnis that the legitimate Sunni forces can't. It makes no strategic sense whatsoever

(Interested to hear your views on this, @pol pot noodles)

The reality is there's no actual diplomacy to be had with ISIS. We're already working with the Kurds and moderate ground forces. Our air campaign is the best strategy at the moment short of committing ground troops, and it's high time Corbyn admitted that instead of blathering meaninglessly about 'diplomacy'.

This woman was put on Labour's National Executive Committee by Corbyn. She is a senior officer in a his little personality cult, Maomentum. It is entirely reasonable to point out the link

Your suggestion that somehow this magical diplomatic solution can be pursued is simply a rhetorical tactic to oppose any concrete action to actually destroy the Islamic State. And we don't have to ask why. It wasn't that long ago the hard left was praising ISIS as "the Iraqi resistance"

Well, it's not really a point is it, if your survey cited an increase is then superceded by a 2011 survey that shows a massive decrease. You can't say their support "is" increasing, can you?

22 percent say it has at least some support in their area

the number of people who said they sympathized with the aims of Taliban had dropped to 29 percent

The fact that around 2/3rds of the Afghan electorate voted in 2014 demonstrates the substantial majority of the Afghan people reject the Taliban

Claiming that the Taliban represents the nationalist aspirations of the Afghans is a clear statement of support, leaving aside its utterly delusional character

Staunch Afghan anti-Taliban politician and ex-Northern Alliance officer Amrullah Saleh once said in a speech:
'A British soldier was cut into pieces [in] broad daylight in London or near London. Will [the] British government ever, instead of putting that guy to justice, put him in a five-star hotel and say, 'Brother, what made you do this? Can we accommodate your grievances?' That is what the West is expecting [of] us - to bring the killers of our brothers, to bring those who cut the noses of the Afghan women, to bring those who do suicide bombings in our wedding parties, to put them on the other side of the table and say, 'Brother, you represent our religion and I have lost my direction. Let us talk.' That is because there is not much respect for the dignity of the nation called Afghanistan when it comes to geopolitics.'

Thus, you could say they are becoming "increasingly" popular and point to one survey, despite another survey saying the opposite

While i do agree that force is the best method of dealing with ISIS, the diplomatic option is not with ISIS' leaders, but the support that keeps it afloat. This includes stoping the influx of manpower, and getting members to return home.

But you don't understand basic logic or statistics, and your grasp of geopolitical issues is woeful so I don't really want to waste my time arguing with someone whose knowledge of Afghanistan is clearly superficial at best

What's wrong with that? What he is actually reported to have said is: "the Taliban increasingly represents nationalist feelings, even if there are disagreements about the social attitudes of its leadership" - which is not exactly him praising the Taliban.


His point is that the Taliban are "increasingly" becoming more popular in Afghanistan, and on that he is correct:

Corbyn, Corbyn. UK politics are weird. US politics are ten times more weird. And Venezuelan politics?

And if their support is growing amongst other groups?

I'm not saying that that is the case, I'm saying that what Corbyn said was clearly just an observation (that may well be unfounded, and ultimately detrimental to the well-being of Afghanis, as you state), but it wasn't, to my eyes, "praise". Because to equate an observation of support with indirect support is ludicrous, when the alternative is merely ignoring facts (even if he got the facts wrong in this case, if so then argue that point, don't call his observation "praise", that's just disingenuous - but this is aimed at Woflie, not you).