Corbyn equates Russian carpet-bombing of civilians w/ US targeted striked on ISIS

Announcements Posted on
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    you are likely to have a pro-russian bias.
    and you have a pro western bias as you seem to be making excuses for them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    I have no doubt the Americans weren't 100% honest in their justification for the Iraq war, but maybe the reason for not just simply invading the "DPRK" is because they don't want another Iraq style situation on their hands???
    The situation in both countries before the war was similar and that quote isn't recent I think it was from 2003.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AbdulALI)
    and you have a pro western bias as you seem to be making excuses for them.
    I try to stay objective.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    The situation in both countries before the war was similar and that quote isn't recent I think it was from 2003.
    Yeah, but Iraq had a lot of oil. That was at least part of the reason for the invasion - to stabilise the global oil market to suit the west.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AbdulALI)
    +1 my personal opinion is that the US are indirectly 'supporting' IS to do their dirty work for their own agenda from the beginning, which is to remove Bashar al Assad from power.

    The United States has been continuously fighting ISIS and its predecessor, AQI, since 2003. If the Iraqi government hadn't asked US troops to leave in 2011 they would have kept fighting them and ISIS would have never arisen. The US' commitment to opposing this organisation is beyond question.

    By contrast, Bashar al-Assad allowed AQI safehaven in his country during the early Iraq War years. He had an effective ceasefire and trading agreement with them until 2015 while he focused on other enemies; Assad even released thousands of jihadists from prison in late 2011 knowing they would start an insurgency which he could use to taint all rebels.

    I'm sorry but claiming that the US has supported IS demonstrates that you are;

    (1) Completely paranoid with almost no grasp on reality
    (2) Totally credulous in believing anything you read on websites like RT and Sputnik, and other conspiracy outlets
    (3) Quite simply, not very bright. It's clear you're way out of your depth on this thread.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    The situation in both countries before the war was similar and that quote isn't recent I think it was from 2003.
    How was the situation between the two countries similar? Name five ways in which they were similar. I bet you can't name three
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    How was the situation between the two countries similar? Name five ways in which they were similar. I bet you can't name three
    Both had dictators undermining human rights, the Americans said both had wmds and both countries wouldn't negotiate or follow through with deals with America.

    Here is the difference though Korea were actually openly making wmds where as Iraq was making "significant progress" towards disarmament while cooperation was only "proactive" it was still a lot better than North Korea
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    The United States has been continuously fighting ISIS and its predecessor, AQI, since 2003. If the Iraqi government hadn't asked US troops to leave in 2011 they would have kept fighting them and ISIS would have never arisen. The US' commitment to opposing this organisation is beyond question.

    By contrast, Bashar al-Assad allowed AQI safehaven in his country during the early Iraq War years. He had an effective ceasefire and trading agreement with them until 2015 while he focused on other enemies; Assad even released thousands of jihadists from prison in late 2011 knowing they would start an insurgency which he could use to taint all rebels.

    I'm sorry but claiming that the US has supported IS demonstrates that you are;

    (1) Completely paranoid with almost no grasp on reality
    (2) Totally credulous in believing anything you read on websites like RT and Sputnik, and other conspiracy outlets
    (3) Quite simply, not very bright. It's clear you're way out of your depth on this thread.
    First of all, if it wasn't for the wests invasion for its persuit for 'democracy' in Iraq as well as bogus claims Sadamm Hussain posessed WMDs there wouldn't have been 'AQI' or 'IS' today so your argument for american troop withdrawal is baseless as they facilitated the means for these extremists to come into existance by the illegal invasion they started! Were their any of the groups present in pre 2003 Iraq? Nope!

    also it's funny how the US 'accidently' killed 83 syrian troops in Deir-Ez-Zoor but not 1 IS terrorist in the course of 60 minutes and as soon as the bombardment stops... IS fanatics take over!

    This is not 'conspiracy' it is fact
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AbdulALI)
    First of all, if it wasn't for the wests invasion for its persuit for 'democracy' in Iraq as well as bogus claims Sadamm Hussain posessed WMDs there wouldn't have been 'AQI' or 'IS' today so your argument for american troop withdrawal is baseless as they facilitated the means for these extremists to come into existance by the illegal invasion they started! Were their any of the groups present in pre 2003 Iraq? Nope!

    also it's funny how the US 'accidently' killed 83 syrian troops in Deir-Ez-Zoor but not 1 IS terrorist in the course of 60 minutes and as soon as the bombardment stops... IS fanatics take over!

    This is not 'conspiracy' it is fact
    That's not the point. The point was that the US has consistently been opposed to ISIS and its predecessor, regardless of whether the 2003 invasion "created" them or not. And accidentally creating the condtions for ISIS to thrive is not the same thing as actually directly creating or supporting them.

    The Deir Ezzor incident was an accident, and there is nothing credible that suggests otherwise. There were ISIS positions nearby (which had actually been bombed previously) and the coalition hit the Syrian army by mistake. ISIS are good at quickly taking advantage of weak spots, so of course they were able to quickly send fighters to take the position afterwards, it's what they do. It was also retaken by the Syrian army hours later, suggesting it was an opportunistic attack by ISIS that didn't have a lot of fighters or resources behind it.

    The Russians, who have a good relationship with the Syrian army and co-ordinate with them for intelligence, have bombed the Syrian army accidentally near Palmyra back in March. So it's not surprising that a country which doesn't have anywhere near that level of co-ordination made a similar mistake.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AbdulALI)
    First of all, if it wasn't for the wests invasion for its persuit for 'democracy' in Iraq as well as bogus claims Sadamm Hussain posessed WMDs there wouldn't have been 'AQI' or 'IS' today so your argument for american troop withdrawal is baseless as they facilitated the means for these extremists to come into existance by the illegal invasion they started! Were their any of the groups present in pre 2003 Iraq? Nope!

    also it's funny how the US 'accidently' killed 83 syrian troops in Deir-Ez-Zoor but not 1 IS terrorist in the course of 60 minutes and as soon as the bombardment stops... IS fanatics take over!

    This is not 'conspiracy' it is fact
    Another well known fact is that America usually end up bombing the wrong people in wars due to their gung-ho attitude.

    Are you seriously claiming that while bombing IS in Iraq, Syria and Libya(along with providing aid to factions fighting them on the ground) they're secretly supporting them as well?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ritish_victims
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    That's not the point. The point was that the US has consistently been opposed to ISIS and its predecessor, regardless of whether the 2003 invasion "created" them or not. And accidentally creating the condtions for ISIS to thrive is not the same thing as actually directly creating or supporting them.The Deir Ezzor incident was an accident, and there is nothing credible that suggests otherwise. There were ISIS positions nearby (which had actually been bombed previously) and the coalition hit the Syrian army by mistake. ISIS are good at quickly taking advantage of weak spots, so of course they were able to quickly send fighters to take the position afterwards, it's what they do. It was also retaken by the Syrian army hours later, suggesting it was an opportunistic attack by ISIS that didn't have a lot of fighters or resources behind it.The Russians, who have a good relationship with the Syrian army and co-ordinate with them for intelligence, have bombed the Syrian army accidentally near Palmyra back in March. So it's not surprising that a country which doesn't have anywhere near that level of co-ordination made a similar mistake.
    I didn't say create, I said support, although they facilitated the means for its creation by unleashing caos and destruction in Iraq via an illegal invaion. As for the incident in Deir Al Ezoor hopefully these 'accidents' don't happen again, but I doubt it as bombing the Syrian army goes well with the US's policy of regime change in Syria!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    Another well known fact is that America usually end up bombing the wrong people in wars due to their gung-ho attitude.Are you seriously claiming that while bombing IS in Iraq, Syria and Libya(along with providing aid to factions fighting them on the ground) they're secretly supporting them as well?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ritish_victims
    Libya... another marvellous success story for 'democracy'How many times has the west intervened in a country but create nothing but terror in the process of 'liberation'? do they not learn? We have had Iraq and Libya, and now it's full steam ahead in regime change in Syria.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  fff_781.jpg
Views: 12
Size:  174.3 KB
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AbdulALI)
    Libya... another marvellous success story for 'democracy'How many times has the west intervened in a country but create nothing but terror in the process of 'liberation'? do they not learn? We have had Iraq and Libya, and now it's full steam ahead in regime change in Syria.
    I didn't say Libya wasn't a shambles. I was questioning your conspiracy theory about America supporting IS.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    A very distastefull statement of corbyn. Coparing US involment in Syria with that of Russia is very insulting to a inteligent person and russians.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shekélstein)
    Name:  fff_781.jpg
Views: 12
Size:  174.3 KB
    Wow man u deep :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    There was a ceasefire, brokered by the Russians and Americans, between the Syrian government and the rebels; there was no ceasefire between America and Syria because they are not in conflict. When America was engaging an ISIS force at Deir ez-Zor (incidentally, they were doing this to help the Syrians) they accidentally hit a Syrian unit.

    The idea that somehow the United States attacked the Syrians on purpose is a paranoid conspiracy theory typically found on sites like RT and Sputnik.

    Given there was no "ceasefire" between the US and the Syrian government, as they were not in conflict, claiming it was "broken" is incoherent. The Syrians abandoned that ceasefire with the rebels around that time because they perceived it was in their interests to do so, not because some Syrian soldiers were accidentally killed when the US Air Force was going to their aid.

    Also, it's unclear what any of that has to do with Corbyn laughably equating Russian carpet-bombing of Aleppo with crude unguided bombs and the US' highly targeted strikes that tend to hit the right target around 99% of the time.
    Why is it a conspiracy theory? The americans are opposed to assad and have openly stated their desire for regime change.Do you think its completely unlikely that they would bomb syrian forces deliberately?Of course they said it was an accident.They didnt want to look like the bad guys.I highly doubt it was an accident.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    There was a ceasefire, brokered by the Russians and Americans, between the Syrian government and the rebels; there was no ceasefire between America and Syria because they are not in conflict. When America was engaging an ISIS force at Deir ez-Zor (incidentally, they were doing this to help the Syrians) they accidentally hit a Syrian unit.

    The idea that somehow the United States attacked the Syrians on purpose is a paranoid conspiracy theory typically found on sites like RT and Sputnik.

    Given there was no "ceasefire" between the US and the Syrian government, as they were not in conflict, claiming it was "broken" is incoherent. The Syrians abandoned that ceasefire with the rebels around that time because they perceived it was in their interests to do so, not because some Syrian soldiers were accidentally killed when the US Air Force was going to their aid.

    Also, it's unclear what any of that has to do with Corbyn laughably equating Russian carpet-bombing of Aleppo with crude unguided bombs and the US' highly targeted strikes that tend to hit the right target around 99% of the time.
    I agree completely, the far left are repugnant. Out of interest, do you have any particular sources for debunking the idea that the US invaded Iraq for the oil?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Why is it a conspiracy theory? The americans are opposed to assad and have openly stated their desire for regime change.Do you think its completely unlikely that they would bomb syrian forces deliberately?Of course they said it was an accident.They didnt want to look like the bad guys.I highly doubt it was an accident.
    You highly doubt it because you don't understand Syria and you don't understand Middle Eastern politics and the American foreign policy process. Just being cynical and assuming everything is a conspiracy is not a substitute for actual knowledge and intelligence, though many people these days seem to think it does.

    What would the United States gain from bombing a few dozen Syrian troops? Do you really imagine they think in such small terms? Such a move makes absolutely no difference to the overall picture, it just complicates the United States relationship and earns them some bad press. If the president makes a determination to attack Syria, it would be far more devastating than a stray JDAM killing a few Syrian soldiers.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ccmar15)
    I agree completely, the far left are repugnant. Out of interest, do you have any particular sources for debunking the idea that the US invaded Iraq for the oil?
    It's debunked by what actually happened. The US did not grab the oil for themselves, it went straight into the custody of the Iraqi government as it was formed and every dollar rendered from those oil wells went into Iraqi government coffers. The US didn't even get the oil contracts either, the biggest contracts went to the Chinese; in fact, the ceremony at which the Iraqi Oil Minister signed a huge contract with the Chinese state oil company was protected by American troops. The US could have exerted extreme pressure to get those contracts, but they didn't; it goes to show you what their priorities were around that period of 2003 to 2011 (their priority was to stabilise the country, defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the old Ba'athists, and the Shi'a troublemakers like Moqtada al-Sadr. The question of oil contracts was pretty far from their mind)

    If the Americans wanted Iraqi oil, Iraq would have been very happy to sell it to them. Iraq was already selling oil through the UN Oil for Food programme. The reason that oil was relevant (and why Wolfowitz mentioned it) was that oil made Saddam Hussein powerful and it made him much more capable of causing trouble in the region than other powers that don't possess such resources. The Americans weren't thinking of it in terms of "Let's go in and take their oil" or "Let's invade them so we can buy their oil", both propositions are ridiculous and completely debunked by what actually happened post-invasion
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 16, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
How are you feeling about doing A-levels?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.