Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    is this some kind of satire or something.

    and why highlight that she is jeremy corbyns ally, just straight out mention her name
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    And they went in for a cup of tea and now they're friends with the EDL. Straight away the EDL are now like oh, well actually these people are not the monsters you know that we're being told all this time, they're actually human beings that you can sit down and have a cup of tea with.

    The EDL is not the same with ISIS, the differences are like heaven and earth.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    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
    Nobody in the government, or the US administration, is considering it. And regarding realpolitik, that's why I pointed out in my comment why it was not only immoral but completely unnecessary and even counterproductive from the perspective of strategy

    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.
    It is true that some hardcore Ba'athists were involved in helping ISIS' summer 2014 blitzkrieg and uprising, but many of the truly Ba'athist factions actually turned on ISIS last year. The main Ba'athist remnant was controlled by Ibrahim al Douri who was Saddam's successor, and his Naqshbandi Army. They turned on ISIS when they destroyed Saddam Hussein's mausoleum and also due to their persecution of Christians (who had been prominent in the party).

    It's true that many of the top leadership are former Ba'ath Party members, but anyone who had a position of responsibility in pre-2003 Iraq was. The evidence suggests that those who were involved in AQI directly (rather than associated with it through the Mujahideen Shura Council, or through the Naqshbandi Army etc) were indeed convinced Islamists.

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

    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.
    The ground offensive is happening, the Iraqi Army is retaking Iraq. The grievances that inflamed the Sunni population so that they, at the least, crossed their arms and stood by when ISIS drove into their cities, are now being dealt with through federalism initiatives. The Syrian sanctuary from which ISIS came back into Iraq is no longer a sanctuary.

    It's unclear what your motive is for denying the indisputable gains that are being made by the Iraqi Army and Pesh, and the effect US airpower has had on ISIS operations

    At the moment, the only people engaged in that are the Russians and Syrians
    Err, and the Iraqis. And the Peshmerga. And have you been paying attention, Russia just pulled a majority of their aircraft out of Syria. It's good that the Assad regime is finally taking on ISIS, that's after ignoring them and allowing them to grow for years, and even engaging in substantial oil trading with them.

    The claim that the US isn't committed to the destruction of ISIS is a very strange hard left fantasy, especially odd to say that only a US ground offensive can finish them off coming from people who are actually dead opposed to any sort intervention. Perhaps it's the fact that the US/Western air campaign is actually showing to be fairly successful at the moment, that a slowly but surely strategy is bearing fruit rather than going in half-cocked and retaking ISIS areas with Western ground troops when that would simply inflame the situation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    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".
    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:
    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.
    http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/st...6787686&page=1
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HucktheForde)
    why highlight that she is jeremy corbyns ally
    Because her attitudes are wholly in line with Jeremy Corbyn's own views.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sunni money)
    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.

    The best evidence for the Taliban's unpopularity is that in the presidential election in 2014 there were 7.8 million ballots cast in the runoff out of a total electorate of 12 million registered voters.

    The Taliban are popular with a minority of Afghans, mostly in the ethnic Pashtun group. And the idea that a group that is essentially controlled and funded from Pakistan, and is the standard bearer of a single ethnic group, and which is a murderous and despotic group, could be considered to represent the nationalist aspirations of the Afghans (particularly when they already have a national government, with an army and a parliament, an elected president and a legal system, and which represents all ethnic groups including Pashtuns) is laughable.

    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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    No, it's not and they're not. You cite a 2009 survey, I'll cite another from 2011 that shows support plummeting.
    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.

    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
    LOL. This really is you at your most pathetic. You're no better than the pacifists that oppose any military intervention on emotional grounds, two sides of the same coin.


    Agreeing with an article from a reputable source that the Taliban's support in Afghanistan is "increasing" makes me a "Taliban sympathiser". Couldn't make it up. :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sunni money)
    The point is that their support has been increasing and that article I cited supports that.
    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?

    I await your 2011 survey, and would be happy to be proven wrong.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/afghan-s...ng-poll-finds/

    The fact that around 2/3rds of the Afghan electorate voted in 2014 demonstrates the substantial majority of the Afghan people reject the Taliban (who threaten death for people who take part in elections)

    Agreeing with an article from a reputable source that the Taliban's support in Afghanistan is "increasing" makes me a "Taliban sympathiser".
    Claiming that the Taliban represents the nationalist aspirations of the Afghans is a clear statement of support, leaving aside its utterly delusional character
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    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)
    You raise an interesting point. Even if hypothetically we wanted to negotiate with ISIS to end our conflict with them, I can't see the numerous groups blood-thirsty for revenge being too keen on forgiving or forgetting. It's easy being smug and self-righteous about the apparent superiority of pacifism and diplomacy from the safety of the UK, but is Corbyn also going to have tea with the Kurds, Assyrians, Yazidis, Alewites, Turkmen, Armenians, Circassians, Shiites, anti-ISIS Sunni tribes and any other group that ISIS has brutally oppressed and convince them that it would be better to negotiate with ISIS?

    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.'
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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'.
    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.

    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    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
    Except she is seen as irrelevant in this story. The link isnt highlighted, its the entire story. Her name isnt even in the title or any significant part of the story. The entire point is that she said something bad, and now Corbyn is guilty by assosciation.

    This is the kind of behavior i expect from people trying to smear farage and ukip because soe random member said someting vaguely racist.

    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    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"
    Im not aware of the left praising isis.

    In any case, pretending like killing everyone in isis is going to solve the problem is just as ridiculous. The diplomatic option is meant to remove the anti west sentiment in the west, even if it means not acting immedietly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    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?
    The poll results are not really comparable.

    For example, the one I cited:
    22 percent say it has at least some support in their area
    The one you cited:
    the number of people who said they sympathized with the aims of Taliban had dropped to 29 percent
    With such divergent questions it is hard to compare the results.


    If in 2009 the Taliban were becoming more popular (as the 2009 article indicates), then in 2011 their popularity waned (as the 2011 article indicates), then I don't see how we can draw any substantial conclusions about the trend of their support by the Afghani public. Thus, you could say they are becoming "increasingly" popular and point to one survey, despite another survey saying the opposite.

    The fact that around 2/3rds of the Afghan electorate voted in 2014 demonstrates the substantial majority of the Afghan people reject the Taliban
    I never disputed that.

    Claiming that the Taliban represents the nationalist aspirations of the Afghans is a clear statement of support, leaving aside its utterly delusional character
    In territory X there are 100 people, all of whom support policy Y. Party Z support policy Y. I state (observe) that party Z represent the wishes of the people in territory X.


    Is this a "clear statement of support" of party Z?


    I am not saying this is analogous to the Taliban by any means, just a thought experiment to illustrate the stupidity of saying that an observation of support for a group amounts to indirect support for that group.


    But at least you have scaled down your repertoire of ad hominems (anti-Semite, Taliban sympathiser, etc, gave me a good chuckle!).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    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.'
    Superb quote. It would be utterly immoral to pressure these people to make peace with the fascists and retrograde forces simply because it allows us to pull out more quickly. And in the long term, that is worse for our national security and interests as it means we eventually have to go back in.

    And it actually prompts me to note that the Afghan government has been doing quite well. It had a peaceful election with good turnout in 2014 for the president, it was a close run thing so the winner and runner up agreed to share the government in the interests of national unity. Despite the predictions of the hard left, the Afghan Army hasn't immediately collapsed after the Western withdrawal.

    And despite some temporary setbacks in Kunduz (which has been retaken), the Taliban still doesn't control any major cities, it hasn't cut the highways, the government is still functioning. Afghanistan is making slow but sure progress. There are some 2 million girls enrolled right now in Afghan schools. I thought I should embed this video of an Afghan army rap they put out to encourage people to sign up

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sunni money)
    Thus, you could say they are becoming "increasingly" popular and point to one survey, despite another survey saying the opposite
    Actually, you can't. If you think a single poll seven years ago comes close to substantiating your assertion that they are "becoming increasingly popular", you are delusional and clearly do not understand statistics or basic logic

    Anway, 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

    Bye (and best to block, as I said, life is too short to spend it arguing with Taliban sympathisers)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    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.
    That's something we do though while still pummelling them with airstrikes, no?
    And even then, the diplomacy should consist of us telling and them doing. Gulf nations for example should not be given any sort of 'reward' for clamping down on ISIS funding, which isn't something they should be doing in the first place.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    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
    All these ad homs really betray the impression you are trying to give off as being knowledgable. :rolleyes:


    Funny how you consistently ignore most of the post you reply to, then fill your reply with ad homs: failing to engage is engaging with failure.


    It's funny how we are able to have a respectful debate on some issues, such as Iran's nuclear programme, and the IS, but whenever you perceive someone as disagreeing with you you conflate that with support for 'the other side', and immediately enter into your defensive/dogmatic mindset where anyone who disagrees with anything you say is a 'terrorist, anti-Semitic, fanatical... sympathiser'. Infantile, really.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Corbyn, Corbyn. UK politics are weird. US politics are ten times more weird. And Venezuelan politics?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sunni money)
    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:
    Even if this is correct in a factual sense, i.e. percentage support is increasing, it represents a callous disregard for the well-being of Afghan people. The Taliban represent one ethnic group, the Pashtuns, and all other ethnic groups suffer as a result of their racial supremacy.


    It's like saying General Ratko Mladic increasingly represents the feelings of the Serbian people, he may well have done, but it doesn't help you if you're Bosniak.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Legoboyvdlp)
    Corbyn, Corbyn. UK politics are weird. US politics are ten times more weird. And Venezuelan politics?
    If Corbyn had his way we'd probably be in Venezuela's situation. Their extreme hard left economic policy has led them to toilet paper shortages. I mean, ffs, how can you have toilet paper shortages? It's dead easy to make and everyone needs it, and this in a country that is oil rich

    http://www.cato.org/blog/venezuela-r...o-toilet-paper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feel Tha Bern)
    Even if this is correct in a factual sense, i.e. percentage support is increasing, it represents a callous disregard for the well-being of Afghan people. The Taliban represent one ethnic group, the Pashtuns, and all other ethnic groups suffer as a result of their racial supremacy.
    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).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sunni money)
    And if their support is growing amongst other groups?
    If you can find me a Black person who supports the Ku Klux Klan, it doesn't make all those lynchings and Church bombings ok


    (Original post by sunni money)
    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).
    I would consider it praise, you have to look not just at the literal words, but the spirit which accompanies those words. There is an implication there that the Taliban a) represent Afghans collectively (as opposed to one strata of the population) and b) that that representation is positive as if they are heroes of the people protecting their nation from outside imperialists.


    The truth if anything is that the Taliban represent outside imperialists, mainly racist Pakistanis who wish to destabilise Afghanistan in response to its friendly relations with India
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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: March 21, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.