Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    There was a Stop the War coalition meeting in parliament. Peter Tatchell has spoken out against Diane Abbott and Catherine West because they refused to allow Syrian victims of the Assad regime to speak at the meeting to talk about the regime's crimes. Only Westerners were permitted to speak.

    Perhaps even worse is that Catherine West, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, said that if a vote on Syria comes before parliament then she would consult with Stop the War coalition to determine what position the PLP is allowed to take, effectively giving STW a veto.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015...n_8458828.html

    Stop the War coalition is a fringe organisation; it is a huge mistake to allow them to control Labour Party policy on this important subject. Unfortunately, the STW is living up to the stereotype in refusing to allow Syrians to speak; they are living up to the characterisation as arrogant upper-middle class white people from West London who will support any non-Western regime, no matter how revolting and tyrannical, as long as it is affiliated with Russia and "stands up" to the West.

    In that sense, they're not really so much anti-war as they are simply supporting the other side.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Having read the Left Foot Forward account, it's even worse. Stop the War fanatics shouted down and jeered the Syrian victims, and Stop the War stewards tried to eject these traumatised souls and threatened them with arrest.

    There really is something quite vicious about the mindset of the modern far left. You can see it in the way they claim that any use of guided missiles by the US to destroy ISIS tanks will automatically, and always, create more terrorism, but when news emerged that Russia has been dropping unguided bombs on Syrian towns from 15000 feet (basically, terror bombing), they wildly cheer and praise Putin, bizarrely claiming "He's the only one fighting the terrorists" and almost frothing at the mouth when they say things like "Yeah, send them to hell Putin".

    It's genuinely frightening. The best analogous situation I can think of was when someone pointed out to Kim Philby that his betrayal of British secrets to the Russians led to hundreds, maybe thousands, of agents being tortured and executed, he whipped his head around and snarled "They knew the rules of the game". And similar things were said by supporters of the Soviet Union when tanks were sent into Czechoslovakia in 1968 to crush the uprising against communist tyranny.

    The problem is that many of these people don't want to live in a communist state, they want to run a communist state. They imagine that when the revolution comes, they will be the ones giving out orders for people to be pushed up against a wall and machine gunned. There's something truly icy in their souls. As someone who is on the left himself (in the calm, sensible Attleean way), it is very depressing indeed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Speaking to LFF, Tatchell said:

    “Some Syrian victims of Assad’s brutalities turned up but were not allowed to speak. They eventually shouted out in frustration, turning the meeting into momentary chaos, as they were jeered by some of the audience and as StWC stewards tried to eject them – allegedly threatening that they’d be arrested. The police turned up soon afterwards.”

    Tatchell went on: “Near the end of the meeting, I personally appealed to Diane Abbott to let the Syrians have their say, but she refused and closed the meeting.”
    Hmnm

    http://leftfootforward.org/2015/11/s...bate-on-syria/
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    "Diane Abbott" sigh, why does she still have a job in politics.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Isn't Left Foot Forward is a Jewish-leftist organization?


    Of course they want nothing more than Assad to go


    When talking about the conflict it's always Assad must go, then we'll deal with ISIL


    NO! when you take out Assad, Syria will completely fall
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    There was a Stop the War coalition meeting in parliament. Peter Tatchell has spoken out against Diane Abbott and Catherine West because they refused to allow Syrian victims of the Assad regime to speak at the meeting to talk about the regime's crimes. Only Westerners were permitted to speak.

    Perhaps even worse is that Catherine West, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, said that if a vote on Syria comes before parliament then she would consult with Stop the War coalition to determine what position the PLP is allowed to take, effectively giving STW a veto.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015...n_8458828.html

    Stop the War coalition is a fringe organisation; it is a huge mistake to allow them to control Labour Party policy on this important subject. Unfortunately, the STW is living up to the stereotype in refusing to allow Syrians to speak; they are living up to the characterisation as arrogant upper-middle class white people from West London who will support any non-Western regime, no matter how revolting and tyrannical, as long as it is affiliated with Russia and "stands up" to the West.

    In that sense, they're not really so much anti-war as they are simply supporting the other side.
    You need to get with the programme (Mezzil?).

    The pacifism of the far left today can best be described as being stood atop a hill called the moral high ground with your eyes closed preaching to all below while the government of the day slaughters it's citizens.

    I can understand the isolationists who simply don't care but pacifists sicken me, these are people who along with those who believe in moral conservatism (not traditional social policy but rather things like fighting for freedom - duty i suppose) should be the people arguing for our superior values to be imposed on the world and to protect the people against government yet the reality is that pacifists would rather ally with Terrorists and believe in pie eyed notions like 'they won't attack us if we won't attack them' or 'we'll let people go to the ISIS meetings to discuss the issues of the day'.

    They infuriate me.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    Having read the Left Foot Forward account, it's even worse. Stop the War fanatics shouted down and jeered the Syrian victims, and Stop the War stewards tried to eject these traumatised souls and threatened them with arrest.

    There really is something quite vicious about the mindset of the modern far left. You can see it in the way they claim that any use of guided missiles by the US to destroy ISIS tanks will automatically, and always, create more terrorism, but when news emerged that Russia has been dropping unguided bombs on Syrian towns from 15000 feet (basically, terror bombing), they wildly cheer and praise Putin, bizarrely claiming "He's the only one fighting the terrorists" and almost frothing at the mouth when they say things like "Yeah, send them to hell Putin".
    Interesting to see that since Russia began its air strikes, only a fifth have been against ISIS, and ISIS has actually gained some territory.

    The opposition to air strikes on ISIS is one of the problems I have with parts of the left wing. I'm not an interventionist screaming for military action everywhere, and I can understand the opposition to removing Assad through force. But opposing air strikes on a genocidal terrorist group is just ridiculous.

    Think of all the battlefield successes against ISIS where coalition air strikes played a crucial part - none of them would have happened if the "anti war" crowd got their way and no one was bombing ISIS. The Yazidis on mount Sinjar would have been slaughtered as well, and if that happened there's no doubt the same people currently moaning about coalition air strikes would be condemning the west for not doing enough.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    You need to get with the programme (Mezzil?).
    ??
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    You need to get with the programme (Mezzil?).

    The pacifism of the far left today can best be described as being stood atop a hill called the moral high ground with your eyes closed preaching to all below while the government of the day slaughters it's citizens.

    I can understand the isolationists who simply don't care but pacifists sicken me, these are people who along with those who believe in moral conservatism (not traditional social policy but rather things like fighting for freedom - duty i suppose) should be the people arguing for our superior values to be imposed on the world and to protect the people against government yet the reality is that pacifists would rather ally with Terrorists and believe in pie eyed notions like 'they won't attack us if we won't attack them' or 'we'll let people go to the ISIS meetings to discuss the issues of the day'.

    They infuriate me.
    Mezzil is gone, but he's AlwaysWatching.

    Pacifism is peace for some that allows others to be at peace to perpetrate mass atrocities. It's cowardice.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    Catherine West, the Shadow Foreign Secretary
    That's a very strange way of spelling "Hilary Benn"....
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)

    I also find it illuminating that these sorts are cheering Putin for fighting the terrorists like ISIS like they ever even cared about ISIS up until two minutes ago when Russia turned up. And you get things like Chaotic Butterfly making a thread to rant about America damaging a hospital recently, completely ignoring the fact that Russia had just destroyed 4 of them! You couldn't make it up.
    Focus on your enemies crimes, ignore your own. It;s textbook propaganda technique used by everyone. Some Russian version of yourself will be saying exactly what you are now to my Russian counter part. "Stop pointing out that we are leveling hospitals when you should be shouting about the Americans leveling hospitals". End result: Hospitals continue getting bombed.

    Why should I waste my breath moaning about Russia leveling hospitals? We all know they have done that and it gets condemned by our media and leaders already. I'm just filling a moral deficit in the west when we ignore our own crimes. Don;t mistake that for me supporting Russia.

    Further more what exactly can I do about Russia bombing hospitals? I have some amount of influence living in a western liberal democracy, more so than a Russian has over their own government. I have much more of moral responsibility to keep our terrorist acts and war crimes in check.

    Also I'm a person not a thing.

    Also I'm not a pacifist just to make that clear.

    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    The white poppy types. What's up with that white poppy crap anyway? What are they saying? That the WW1 conscripts, who had no choice, are war mongerers? It's just a name tag to highlight to everyone that you're a sanctimonious mong who'd probably have let Germany kill everyone including us because they're too pussy to stand for anything.
    It annoys people like you up with your poppy fascism is good enough reason to wear it.

    How about standing for a bloody internationalist socialist response to world war 1? Or is that standing for wrong type of war? I would much rather have killed for that. Lots of these mongs fought in the war and it is hardly a radical view that world war one was an utterly pointless waste of human life and need not have happened. What makes you so special that you can be so insulting to large number of world war one soldiers?

    An example of your ignorance/arrogance is the white poppy being used to remember people such as Quaker pacifists that served in the merchant navy during the war.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Further more what exactly can I do about Russia bombing hospitals? I have some amount of influence living in a western liberal democracy, more so than a Russian has over their own government.
    Get real. You are a pointless grain of sand in the grand scheme of things. Just like the rest of us here.

    Our governments and their masters are preparing for major war and there is nothing we can do about it at this stage.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Left food forward are part of the Jewish Left establishment. It is how they control both sides imo.

    Corbyn is outside of their establishment (for now) so hopefully he wont be influenced by them.

    Jewry has its grasps over Western politics we saw with war criminal Blair he was surrounded by them like Peter Mandelson, and many of his campaign contributors were billionaire Jews...

    Sounds like I'm beating a dead horse but you know I'm right.


    Far-right parties like France's National Front shares near identical views as someone as Leftist as Corbyn when it comes to foreign policy. Britain and the rest of Europe follows America in everything they do and I have a good idea who is the biggest influence on America's foreign policy.


    Stop sanctions on Russia that harms us too. Stop supporting terrorists to overthrow anti-Zionist Iran backed governments like in Syria. Stop supporting Israel. Obama has been called anti-Israel yet he's giving them more money than ever. What a farce Democracy in the West is. It's all about pleasing the Jews.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    KimKallstrom

    “The hospital was razed to the ground after a wave of attack from the air. We lost our ability to treat patients at a time when we were needed the most. Thirty of our patients and medical staff died. Some of them lost their limbs and were decapitated in the explosions. Others were shot by the circling gunship while fleeing the burning building. We were forced to leave patients to die on the operating table and others burning in their ICU beds.

    The view from inside the hospital is that this attack was conducted with a purpose to kill and destroy." ~ Doctors without borders eye witness

    http://kunduz.msf.org/

    Does this make Doctors without Borders enemies to our state?

    Do they not realise Russia is bombing hospitals? Why are they complaining?

    The gunship ****ing circled the hospital to finish off survivors for crying out loud. How can you get angry with those who want to bring such incidents to our attention is beyond me. Yet you want me to let this slide because Russia is doing it as well? Why is it that I'm the bad person here? I can only assume from this the 'focus on your enemies crimes and ignore your own' technique is used for a reason.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    This is a three sided war and this kind of thing is going to arise. I think we all want no Assad and no ISIS. However if the lefties were to go all hawkish over Assad people would accuse them of supporting ISIS. The people banging on a few months ago about how ISIS need to be wiped out of existence are going to have to realise that that will strengthen Assad. To do so requires at least some sort of enemy of my enemy over what Russia is up to.

    The problem is that Russia actively likes Assad. By moving first they have played the West into a corner, we don't want yet more proxy warfare with Russia, we don't want to be arming the Islamists even more to help them, and with each day that goes by it is more so.

    I admit I haven't really been following it but as far as I can tell that's how it is. I don't see the point of idiot domestic point-scoring, it's not exactly likely the British left are actually cackling Bond villains
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Assad is no good guy. But nor is he the bad guy he is painted to be either.

    I get that things weren't great in Syria before the civil war, but are they better now? Will they be better after? I think we all know the answer to that.

    What annoys me is that some people paint Assad as a bad guy for simply fighting on. Instead of what? Giving himself up to those barbarians? If you think for a second that if an armed insurgency rose up against the government of the UK our military wouldn't come down on them like a ton of bricks you are delusional. I don't know of a government on the planet who would just step aside. For any government to condemn Assad for fighting an insurgency in his own country is just pure hypocrisy as they would do the same without a second thought. Quite frankly I don't even remember half the reasons the civil war is even going on for and, maybe controversially, I don't care. Was violence the answer here? These sorts of people who resort to killing to get their point across tend not to run countries very well, just take a look at whats going on in ISIS held territory.

    I am in a conundrum in regards to Russia. They have played a masterstroke in Syria and quite frankly I support their tactic fully. Fight all insurgent groups, win the war, then deal with Assad (If he even needs dealing with. Our track record of 'dealing with' others like him hasn't really ended well over the past decade and a bit). At the same time in other parts of the world Russia is up to some seemingly shady things (Crimea? East Ukraine?) that I don't support at all.

    The stance of certain groups on the whole Syria issue really worries me though. In my opinion many people treat the issue as if those fighting think like we in the west think. "Oh if we don't fight them they won't fight us" etc. etc. It isn't like that. You don't deal with groups like ISIS by being nicey nicey with them because they aren't interested in it. They don't hate us just because we bomb them or don't agree with them politically or religiously. They hate us because we aren't them, and we never will be them. If the entire world population suddenly upped and converted and said "We agree with you completely" their reign of terror would just spread even faster. The members of ISIS are hard, evil people who know only hatred, violence and destruction on a level that regimes likes Assad's or Saddam's or Gaddafi's couldn't even begin to fathom. They need to be destroyed, utterly. The conundrum is that no other moderate rebel group stands a chance of winning that war and Russia knows that and I think in their hearts even the rebels themselves know it. Assad will win the war and then he will be dealt with, I can imagine he will be pressured to stand down somehow and be offered asylum in Russia.

    Assad has to be victorious. Otherwise ISIS will be. Let us deal with the major problem first, before we deal with Assad.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    From what I've seen of all these refugees is that most say they are fleeing ISIS not Assad

    Nobody is saying Assad's government hasn't done anything wrong but what do you expect when your country is over run by Western backed Jihadists?

    Besides you can't believe Assad is responsible for everything his troops do. It's like saying Obama is guilty everytime an American troop murders or rapes someone in Afghanistan.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordE)
    Assad is no good guy. But nor is he the bad guy he is painted to be either.

    I get that things weren't great in Syria before the civil war, but are they better now? Will they be better after? I think we all know the answer to that.
    I think you make a lot of valid points, but there is a lot about the Syria conflict (and political movements in Arab countries in general) that we just can't predict or don't want to admit. I'll admit I don't really know what the solution is.

    (Original post by JordE)
    What annoys me is that some people paint Assad as a bad guy for simply fighting on. Instead of what? Giving himself up to those barbarians? If you think for a second that if an armed insurgency rose up against the government of the UK our military wouldn't come down on them like a ton of bricks you are delusional. I don't know of a government on the planet who would just step aside.
    Yes you are right, all states would respond militarily to armed insurgency. I guess the difference in judgement comes from whether we/you assume that representative democracy is a moral form of governance, and therefore by that virtue that a military response to defend a representative democracy is moral, whereas a military response to defend an authoritarian dictatorship is immoral.

    So yes, it's understandable why Assad fights, but it's a bit trickier to say if it is justifiable or moral.

    (Original post by JordE)
    For any government to condemn Assad for fighting an insurgency in his own country is just pure hypocrisy as they would do the same without a second thought. Quite frankly I don't even remember half the reasons the civil war is even going on for and, maybe controversially, I don't care.
    So the civil war arouse from a civilian democracy movement, first of all in the rural south, which then spread to cities. Assad was brutal on this movement from the start taking a military option. This original democracy movement roughly morphed into the Free Syria Army in response to Assad's military actions. At the same time Islamists began to organise locally, but slightly behind the more secular Free Syria Army. Also at the same time, internationalist Islamists in Iraq, who had long strategised their plans for each country in the region, took the opportunity to set up in Syria. And the Kurds in the north took up the opportunity of the disintegrating state to try and carve out a homeland.

    And this is a crux of the problem. Whilst Assad's Syria is authoritarian and brutally oppressive, the alternatives are varied. The secular factions (around the Free Syria Army) were not going to set up a European style liberal democracy, but it's probably likely they would have been a significant improvement on Assad. The local Sunni Islamists with their years of being downtrodden by secular Allawites, would probably set up something on par with Assad's brutal authoritarianism. And it goes without saying that the internationalist Islamists would set up something much worse (as we have seen).

    Because we don't know who will gain power to replace the secular Arab governments, it's hard to take a position on whether the removal of Assad is a good thing or not. I used to think that given the strength in numbers and existing organisation (as well as foreign financial backing from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states), that Islamists will always have the upper hand in most Arab countries, and that therefore leaving these secular dictatorships in place probably does the least harm. However there are exceptions (such as Tunisia, though it probably is an outlier because of its more advanced development and embedded secularism compared to non-Gulf Arab states), and this also doesn't provide a long term solution for representative democracy for the region (which we may assume is a more moral form of government). The dictatorial nature of these governments just fuels the underground Islamist movements. So I've recently come to believe that it's best to just leave these countries to burnout through all out civil war and oppression, in the same way Europe did in the 17th century, which will make people learn that religion is a poison when guiding government. It's going to be bloody and gruesome in the short term, but might bring about an enlightenment that future generation can benefit from in the long term. I do however think that there should be intervention in the case of genocide (such as the Yazidis on Mt Sinjar) but this should only be as a means to protect populations, not change the course of the wars.

    (Original post by JordE)
    Was violence the answer here? These sorts of people who resort to killing to get their point across tend not to run countries very well, just take a look at whats going on in ISIS held territory.
    The problem was that Assad didn't allow any sort of alternative views to be put across, peaceful or otherwise.

    (Original post by JordE)
    I am in a conundrum in regards to Russia. They have played a masterstroke in Syria and quite frankly I support their tactic fully. Fight all insurgent groups, win the war, then deal with Assad (If he even needs dealing with. Our track record of 'dealing with' others like him hasn't really ended well over the past decade and a bit). At the same time in other parts of the world Russia is up to some seemingly shady things (Crimea? East Ukraine?) that I don't support at all.
    Russia's interest is to keep a staunch ally in power. That's all.

    (Original post by JordE)
    The stance of certain groups on the whole Syria issue really worries me though. In my opinion many people treat the issue as if those fighting think like we in the west think. "Oh if we don't fight them they won't fight us" etc. etc. It isn't like that. You don't deal with groups like ISIS by being nicey nicey with them because they aren't interested in it. They don't hate us just because we bomb them or don't agree with them politically or religiously. They hate us because we aren't them, and we never will be them. If the entire world population suddenly upped and converted and said "We agree with you completely" their reign of terror would just spread even faster. The members of ISIS are hard, evil people who know only hatred, violence and destruction on a level that regimes likes Assad's or Saddam's or Gaddafi's couldn't even begin to fathom. They need to be destroyed, utterly. The conundrum is that no other moderate rebel group stands a chance of winning that war and Russia knows that and I think in their hearts even the rebels themselves know it. Assad will win the war and then he will be dealt with, I can imagine he will be pressured to stand down somehow and be offered asylum in Russia.

    Assad has to be victorious. Otherwise ISIS will be. Let us deal with the major problem first, before we deal with Assad.
    It is more complicated than that, but I understand the sentiment of what you write.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JewyKills)
    From what I've seen of all these refugees is that most say they are fleeing ISIS not Assad

    Nobody is saying Assad's government hasn't done anything wrong but what do you expect when your country is over run by Western backed Jihadists?

    Besides you can't believe Assad is responsible for everything his troops do. It's like saying Obama is guilty everytime an American troop murders or rapes someone in Afghanistan.
    Care to explain a bit about your claim that the Jihadists are Western backed.......
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JewyKills)
    From what I've seen of all these refugees is that most say they are fleeing ISIS not Assad

    Nobody is saying Assad's government hasn't done anything wrong but what do you expect when your country is over run by Western backed Jihadists?

    Besides you can't believe Assad is responsible for everything his troops do. It's like saying Obama is guilty everytime an American troop murders or rapes someone in Afghanistan.
    Obama is Commander in Chief, you could make a case, as he is the overall authority, that the actions of those under him are his responsibility.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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.

Updated: November 6, 2015
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
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

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