Corbyn refers to ISIS' "strong points" and alludes to giving up Falklands

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-says-there-could-be-benefits-to-opening-diplomatic-back-channels-with-isis-a6817181.html

What planet does this man come from that he'd go on about ISIS "strong points"? What strong points does he and the Corbynites claim they have? Really, I'd like to know

It's also entirely consistent with his history of sucking up to fascist dictators that he would side with the Argentine military fascist junta over British democracy.

To the extent anybody can be called the native population of the Falklands, it is the people who live there now. There was no aborigine population, and Argentina (which became a nation-state after the Falklands was populated by British) has no serious claim to it.

The Falkland Islanders voted something like 99% to 1% to stay associated with the UK, and yet Corbyn would override their self-determination and hand them over to a banana republic

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Nephthys

And some people think Trump is the threat ..

Reply 2

Ethereal World

The right are just scared of his decency and honesty and will do anything to vilify him.

Reply 3

djh2208

If this guy becomes Prime Minister we will be the laughing stock of the world.

Reply 4

the bear

he is unbelievable.... i guess that his bosom pal Ms Abbot feeds him these crazy ideas during their meetings.

Reply 5

BaconandSauce

Original post by djh2208

If this guy becomes Prime Minister we will be the laughing stock of the world.

It'll never happen

Reply 6

Aj12

Despite all the IRA, and to a greater extent the Taliban, have done both groups were nationalist organisations. They pursued more rational aims, the dominance of their respective countries. The Taliban is a militia, their main crime (in terms of what brought about an intervention) was sheltering other terrorist groups. Were it not for that they would in all likelihood be left alone, as they were up until 2001. They have a disgusting ideology, but that is still tame in comparison to ISIS. You make a deal with the Taliban you are surrendering Afghanistan to them. You make a deal with ISIS you are surrendering the Middle East and eventually the world to them. There is absolutely nothing to be gained through talking to a group like ISIS. We cannot negotiate with them.

Corbyn's views all stem from his naive world view that all terrorism in the Middle East stems from America. He does not recognize the concept of an ideology that wants the wholesale destruction of the Western World, the complete dominance of the Middle East and the deaths of every Muslim that does not share their views. He speaks about challenging ISIS, yet is seeking back channels and political solutions, he is so far out of his depth on foreign policy it just is not funny.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 7

RegencyTwink

Original post by Aj12

Despite all the IRA, and to a greater extent the Taliban have done both groups were nationalist organisations. They pursued more rational aims, the dominance of their respective countries. The Taliban is a militia that's main crime (in terms of what brought about an intervention) was sheltering other terrorist groups. Were it not for that they would in all likelihood be left alone, as they were up until 2001. They have a disgusting ideology, but that is still tame in comparison to ISIS. You make a deal with the Taliban you are surrendering Afghanistan to them. You make a deal with ISIS you are surrendering the Middle East and eventually the world to them. There is absolutely nothing to be gained through talking to a group like ISIS. We cannot negotiate with them.

Corbyn's views all stem from his naive world view that all terrorism in the Middle East stems from America. He does not recognize the concept of an ideology that wants the wholesale destruction of the Western World, the complete dominance of the Middle East and the deaths of every Muslim that does not share their views. He speaks about challenging ISIS, yet is seeking back channels and political solutions, he is so far out of his depth on foreign policy it just is not funny.

Well said. The IRA and the Taliban were inherently linked to a geographical locus and to a nationallist grievance that grounds them to at least some form of rationality. Also, "the Taliban" is a rather broad term for what is an exceptionally diverse alliance of various groups, many of which are not fighting for fundamentalist Islam but for various local grievances and who could be reconciled. We also never stopped fighting them while we held out the possibility for them to lay down their arms in a peace deal.

Same with the IRA. While there was some backchannel communication, anybody who has read up on the history of the Troubles knows that it was the Thatcher goverments withering crackdown on the IRA in the 1980s (and particularly the use of the SAS to rub out these murderers, and the use of 14 Intelligence Company and other assets to infiltrate and surveil the IRA) that led Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness to conclude in the late 1980s that they couldn't prevail by force of arms and would have to come to the negotiating table.

HMG never wavered from the position that for the IRA to participate in the peace talks that led to the Good Friday Accords, they would have to call a ceasefire and lay down their arms as the UK government would not negotiate at gunpoint. In the end the UK government won the conflict; the IRA laid down its arms, and Northern Ireland is still part of the UK. It's remarkable how someone like Corbyn, who opposed the peace process on the basis it would not lead to a united Ireland, can somehow claim he is in any way vindicated by the history of that conflict. I suspet it's partly because he's simply not very bright or well read, and assumes that everything simply confirms what he always believed. He's a complete imbecile.

As you very rightly pointed out, ISIS is in no way comparable to either the IRA or the Taliban and have no interest in any sort of compromise or peace deal. The idea that they have some recognisable list of demands that can be negotiated is ludicrous.

ut for argument's sake lets say they were comparable; in both IRA and Taliban cases we kept or keep fighting until they lay down their arms. Corbyn doesn't even want us to do that. To be honest, I find it hard to express how much I loathe Corbyn; I mean I genuinely hate him and I think he's a completely unprincipled, dishonest man whose only quality is perhaps a form of low cunning. I despise him.

Reply 8

username1921011

He's unelectable if anyone has any sense but he has a point about ISIS. They may be disgusting, backward murderers and so on blah blah virtue signalling and disclaimers i dont agree with ISIS but they do have strong points. They've established a working state of considerable size, established a semi-successful dictatorship, have effective propaganda wings and generally have done quite a lot of things right which is why the world is focused on them more than it ever was on Al Qaeda and the Taliban who primarily came into focus as the rest of the world watched America spaz out due to 9/11.

Reply 9

Sgt_Haytham

Original post by BaconandSauce

It'll never happen

If Trump is elected, anything is.

Reply 10

garfeeled

to continue the Falklands point, the latest referendum (2013) only 3 people, on a turn out of over 90%, voted against remaining as uk overseas territory.

So giving Falklands to Argentina would be against the express desire of its population.

And Isis aren't some group that can be compromised with. Any compromise would be a terrible cost and would never last. They are open about their desire to commit atrocities on those they seek to rule, they are open about their desire to expand. They are our generations hitlers, but far more willing to show their evils.

Reply 11

scrotgrot

“The British government maintained a channel through the IRA all through the troubles. I don’t condemn them keeping a back-channel to the Taliban … I think there has to be some route through somewhere [to Isis],” he told the programme.

“A lot of the commanders in Isil, particularly in Iraq but to some extent in Syria, are actually former officers in the Iraqi army.”

Mr Corbyn said he would not go as far as to open “dialogue” with the so-called “Islamic State”, which controls large parts of Iraq and Syria, but that not cutting off contact completely could have advantages.

“Dialogue is perhaps the wrong word to use – I think there has to be some understanding of where their strong points are, where their weak points are, where we can challenge their ideology. I believe the neighbouring governments in the region are in touch,” he told the programme.
“Look at the way there’s been some degree at times of prisoners exchange, of hostage exchange. We’ve got to bring out a political solution in Syria.”

All sounds perfectly reasonable to me. There is precedent with the IRA and the Taliban, and an ideological consistency: we know Corbyn believes strongly in diplomacy rather than war. My main qualm is in fact with the idea that we should give ground in return for hostages. I'm pretty sure the accepted wisdom is you have to grit your teeth and call their bluff on hostages otherwise they will be snatching people every two seconds.

You have, predictably, quoted "strong points" entirely out of context. It appears that he is talking about on which issues ISIS are attractive to the Syrian people and on which issues they assuredly are not. I surmise that he thinks emulating the "strong points" and attacking the "weak points" will win the war of ideologies for the more moderate Islamists, the statist Ba'athists and the Shia, choose your poison.

I think Corbyn's foreign policy is at best deluded, at worst sinister and I wish he would shut up about it all and concentrate on domestic issues. However it does not do to quote someone so egregiously out of context to make a political point.

As for Argentina, it is preposterous that we are still having this silly argument with them over the Falklands. There is no mileage in any sort of accommodation, even if you really want to give ground for some weird reason, because the buggers don't actually have even the merest sniff of a legitimate claim to the islands. If a bit of it had once been Argentina's or if they had had a port there or something there would at least be a case for giving them something, along with oil rights and so forth, but there just isn't.

Still, I think Corbyn is good to have said this, even if none is possible, because I believe I saw a headline just now about the incoming Argentinian president talking about rapprochement.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 12

redferry

Every time Corbyn opens his mouth in public he may as well punch all Labour voters in the stomach. Way to undo all the hard work we've put in over the years to build credibility dickhead.

Reply 13

username1494226

Its just fun to watch Corbyns blunders. His views arent even accepted by the party that elected him. Its like watching one huge train wreck unfold

Reply 14

lucaf

What on earth is the problem with him mentioning strong points? Specifically he said "I think there has to be some understanding of where their strong points are, where their weak points are, where we can challenge their ideology"; what is so terrible about that? Do ISIS not have stronger defences and better control in some regions than they do others? Would it not be accurate to refer to these regions as "strong points"?

You are talking as if he is some terrorist sympathiser and traitor for having the audacity to say that ISIS is not all weak points :rollseyes:

Reply 15

vickidc18

Corbyn seems to have the view that all terrorism is caused by the West's foreign policy not acknowledging the ideology behind I.S which is murder, torture, women as second class citizens, they see corbyn as an enemy (for being a kuffar) as much as Cameron because he doesn't share their religious views, he's ridiculously naive for a 66 year old man.

Reply 16

KimKallstrom

OP I think you're overstating what he's saying about ISIS, although his hostage/prisoner exchange comment means that you're only overstating it a little bit

I do however find his contempt for the people of The Falklands lamentable. Thought he fancied himself as a man of the people. It's nonsense. His actual agenda is transparent here.

Reply 17

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by scrotgrot

I think Corbyn's foreign policy is at best deluded, at worst sinister and I wish he would shut up about it all and concentrate on domestic issues. However it does not do to quote someone so egregiously out of context to make a political point.

Same

Reply 18

Zargabaath

I genuinely liked Corbyn when he became Labour's leader, I thought he was an interesting character despite disagreeing with some of his views. Since then, everytime he's opened his mouth I've lost more and more respect for him.

Reply 19

JezWeCan!

Original post by GonvilleBromhead

It is pretty bizarre to claim that everyone's condemnation of torture, beheading, crucifixion, the taking and trading of women as sex slaves, and the blowing up of the marvels of classical civilisation (including just recently a monastery which has been standing fourteen hundred years) is "virtue signalling???"

And what exactly is Corbyn right about vis a vis IS? He says we should talk to them. About what?

JC: "How are you Jihadi Sid?"

JS: "A bit tired Jeremy, mate. Lopping off heads with a small knife is hard work, but someone's got to do it and it might as well be me. There are compensations though. I bought a lovely Yazidi girl at the slave market today and can't wait to rape her. Enough of me, though, how can I help?

JC: "I was wondering if you might like to discuss what it would take to end this war, so we could all live in peace?"

JS: No worries, we can achieve that. The whole world has to submit to Allah, every woman in the UK has to wear a Burka, we need Sharia Law 4 the UK, all Kaffirs have to pay the Jizya, and the black flag of ISIS must fly over Number 10 Downing Street. Happy with that?"