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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feel Tha Bern)
    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.
    I disagree that it is praise, but agree that if that was him deliberately overstating their support to portray them as a legitimate representatives of the wishes of the Afghani people then it is tantamount to support, contrary to the well-being of Afghanistan as a whole (though I am wary of having the well-being of a populace defined by a foreign power, often ignoring domestic opinions, but I do not think this applies here).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feel Tha Bern)
    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
    Nailed it.

    Corbyn's exact words were;

    This is a war of colonial occupation that can only suck in more and more troops as the Taliban increasingly represents nationalist feelings, even if there are disagreements about the social attitudes of its leadership.
    Anybody with an understanding of leftist thought will grasp precisely what Corbyn is saying here; he is depicting the West as a colonial occupation force and the Taliban as the legitimate representative of Afghan nationalist sentiment in opposition to that, resisting that occupation force. He is depicting a sort-of colonial/anti-colonial dialectic

    As you have rightly pointed out, the Taliban could more accurately be depicted as the tool of imperialist conquest (as a proxy of the Pakistanis). While the West's initial invasion of Afghanistan was not to liberate the Afghan people per se (though it had an absolutely justifiable right of self defence to go in and clear out the Al-Qaeda camps from which the 9/11 attacks had been hatched and commanded), it also cannot be seriously denied that the West has acted to support and nurture a self-sufficient Afghan government, it has supported it while it matured to democratic self-expression in the 2014 election, and has paid substantial sums and invested the lives of its soldiers to help the Afghan Army stand on its own two feet.

    Given there are 2 million girls enrolled in Afghan schools right now, there is a rowdy and healthily rambunctious media industry in Afghanistan, these are two expressions of freedom that are supported and protected by the new Afghan state which undoubtedly acts for the country as a whole (the old Northern Alliance ethnicities support the government, but the Pashtuns do too; the President is a Pashtun)

    There is no question about what Corbyn meant, both in the ordinary and clear sense of the words and also in the leftist context; he depicted the West as the exploitative, capitalist imperial occupation force and the Taliban as the indigenous nationalist resistance force, and then brushes aside all the beheadings, stonings, murder of LGBT people, etc as a mere 'disagreement about social attitudes'. That is an obscene way to characterise the situation, but as we know it is not out of character for Corbyn to do that. He praised Hamas as "dedicated to peace and social justice" despite their explicit call for the extermination of all Jews worldwide in their charter (article 7). He identified Al-Qaeda in Iraq as "the Iraqi resistance". There is a clear pattern here
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Nailed it.

    Corbyn's exact words were;



    Anybody with an understanding of leftist thought will grasp precisely what Corbyn is saying here; he is depicting the West as a colonial occupation force and the Taliban as the legitimate representative of Afghan nationalist sentiment in opposition to that, resisting that occupation force. He is depicting a sort-of colonial/anti-colonial dialectic

    As you have rightly pointed out, the Taliban could more accurately be depicted as the tool of imperialist conquest (as a proxy of the Pakistanis). While the West's initial invasion of Afghanistan was not to liberate the Afghan people per se (though it had an absolutely justifiable right of self defence to go in and clear out the Al-Qaeda camps from which the 9/11 attacks had been hatched and commanded), it also cannot be seriously denied that the West has acted to support and nurture a self-sufficient Afghan government, it has supported it while it matured to democratic self-expression in the 2014 election, and has paid substantial sums and invested the lives of its soldiers to help the Afghan Army stand on its own two feet.

    Given there are 2 million girls enrolled in Afghan schools right now, there is a rowdy and healthily rambunctious media industry in Afghanistan, these are two expressions of freedom that are supported and protected by the new Afghan state which undoubtedly acts for the country as a whole (the old Northern Alliance ethnicities support the government, but the Pashtuns do too; the President is a Pashtun)

    There is no question about what Corbyn meant, both in the ordinary and clear sense of the words and also in the leftist context; he depicted the West as the exploitative, capitalist imperial occupation force and the Taliban as the indigenous nationalist resistance force, and then brushes aside all the beheadings, stonings, murder of LGBT people, etc as a mere 'disagreement about social attitudes'. That is an obscene way to characterise the situation, but as we know it is not out of character for Corbyn to do that. He praised Hamas as "dedicated to peace and social justice" despite their explicit call for the extermination of all Jews worldwide in their charter (article 7). He identified Al-Qaeda in Iraq as "the Iraqi resistance". There is a clear pattern here

    Just thought id put this here, fifteen years later its still pretty damn relevant.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2JVKeOExEE




    I should like to add, that whilst i am personally far more in favour of crushing fascists and rapists and standing up for universal human rights, I don't believe that the majority of the anti war left are dupes to terrorism or indeed terrorist sympathizers.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I should like to add, that whilst i am personally far more in favour of crushing fascists and rapists and standing up for universal human rights, I don't believe that the majority of the anti war left are dupes to terrorism or indeed terrorist sympathizers.
    It really depends on the person. There are some people like Gerry Downing who has openly said that ISIS should be supported militarily against the United States. Seumas Milne has always been open about his support for terrorist organisations if they oppose the US. Jeremy Corbyn depicted the Taliban in a very favourable light, as he has done for many other terrorist organisations.

    I don't think the majority of the anti-war left think they are supporting terrorists, though the general effect of their policy positions have that effect. And as I said, for some of the crankier hard left organisations, they do publicly support terrorist organisations in terms of calling them the "anti-imperlialist resistance" and so on

    As for the Hitchens-Galloway debate, it's definitely a good one. To my shame, I used to be on the hard left and the first couple of times I watched that I was very much on Galloway's side. It was only after I became receptive to Hitchens' atheist message (which as a member of the hard left I also used to resent as I perceived it as being part of a rigid, anti-Islamic agenda) that I started to reassess my views, of the Iraq War, of the War on Terror generally, and so on. I went back and watched the debate again, which is an interesting experience when your views have shifted.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)



    Anybody with an understanding of leftist thought will grasp precisely what Corbyn is saying here; he is depicting the West as a colonial occupation force and the Taliban as the legitimate representative of Afghan nationalist sentiment in opposition to that, resisting that occupation force. He is depicting a sort-of colonial/anti-colonial dialectic
    This is exactly what I expected, it's ''sexy'' to be a resistance fighter, we have those Che Guevara T-shirts, retro German army jackets, red berets, Corbyn and his allies here are trying to create this association that when you hear the word ''Taliban'' you don't think of racists and religious bigots but heroic underdogs, like the founding fathers of America or partisans fighting Franco's forces in Spain.

    It's actually very normal to use language to shape perceptions of situations or to criticise another's use of language used to discuss a situation. When David Cameron referred to a swarm of migrants, he was criticised for using the words swarm and migrant even though both are technically correct, because of the connotations of these words.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    It really depends on the person. There are some people like Gerry Downing who has openly said that ISIS should be supported militarily against the United States. Seumas Milne has always been open about his support for terrorist organisations if they oppose the US. Jeremy Corbyn depicted the Taliban in a very favourable light, as he has done for many other terrorist organisations.

    I don't think the majority of the anti-war left think they are supporting terrorists, though the general effect of their policy positions have that effect. And as I said, for some of the crankier hard left organisations, they do publicly support terrorist organisations in terms of calling them the "anti-imperlialist resistance" and so on
    Pretty much this.

    Maajid Nawaaz has a great term for this sort of regressive left platform; racism of low expectations- its completely rational for islamists to blow themselves up over drawing of the prophet or to rape and torture yazidi women because of US foreign Policy

    As for the Hitchens-Galloway debate, it's definitely a good one. To my shame, I used to be on the hard left and the first couple of times I watched that I was very much on Galloway's side. It was only after I became receptive to Hitchens' atheist message (which as a member of the hard left I also used to resent as I perceived it as being part of a rigid, anti-Islamic agenda) that I started to reassess my views, of the Iraq War, of the War on Terror generally, and so on. I went back and watched the debate again, which is an interesting experience when your views have shifted.
    I know those feels.

    The joys of being an edgy teenage conspiracy theorist where you find yourself drifting full circle via horsehoe theory to a crazed reactionary position: where everything would be great if only the elites (Jews, basically) left us alone.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)



    I should like to add, that whilst i am personally far more in favour of crushing fascists and rapists and standing up for universal human rights, I don't believe that the majority of the anti war left are dupes to terrorism or indeed terrorist sympathizers.
    You are in a small minority there there then, just about every one else does.

    You couldn't envisage a more moronic comment by this Corbynista. It is only because they are so far removed from the real world that everyone else lives in that the bonkers left can up with stuff like this.

    Not so much toxic, electorally, as radioactive.

    The Tories are ripping themselves apart before our eyes, and yet they will be in power for the foreseeable future. We are doomed to right wing government for at least the next decade,

    Why? Because the mindset that came up with comments like this is now leading Her Majesty's Official Opposition.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Just thought id put this here, fifteen years later its still pretty damn relevant.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2JVKeOExEE

    I should like to add, that whilst i am personally far more in favour of crushing fascists and rapists and standing up for universal human rights, I don't believe that the majority of the anti war left are dupes to terrorism or indeed terrorist sympathizers.
    I'm unable to watch the video at the moment. To that extent would you be able to quickly sum up Hitchens' and Galloway's arguments for me? (Although knowing them two I can generally guess what they are!)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)

    The Tories are ripping themselves apart before our eyes, and yet they will be in power for the foreseeable future. We are doomed to right wing government for at least the next decade,
    Inclined to agree slightly.

    Why? Because the mindset that came up with comments like this is now leading Her Majesty's Official Opposition.
    Yes, but to be fair he isnt the entirety of the labour party. Benn, Watson, Eagle are still there and are powerful voices.



    It would be interesting if a poll was done on the main reason why people voted Corbyn; in my expereince i'd say the biggest reason was economic policies.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VladThe1mpaler)
    Continuous bombing and killing won't work. We need to find out why people are joining ISIS and how we can stop them from joining them.
    They join ISIS because they're Muslim extremists. We can stop them joining ISIS by removing an organisation called ISIS for them to join.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    What if you don't like tea
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    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
    You're dead right.
    Oil rich -- until we give all our oil away to cuba and china at cheap prices, sell what's left to consumers in the country at the cheapest price in the world (after the recent price increase... we can fill our 120L 15 seater van for ~50 pence!), and don't even have the technology to refine it properly.
    I'm not quite sure if I support the Labour, Lib Dems, or Conservative... I don't live in the UK, and know still less about UK politics. Cameron seems reasonable and suits me fine, except in matters of immigration and benefits.

    Regarding the US -- they are all crazy. Trump --- oh my.........
    I was in the US for two weeks and did some research... Rubio and Cruz are the most sensible I've found, and Rand Paul, who I agreed the most with, dropped out, so...
 
 
 
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
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.