Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ussian-embassy

    Corbyn has clearly had a morality bypass. Not to mention the fact that his claim that there have been "large-scale" civilian casualties consequent from the US strikes is quite simply wrong. Yet again, the Stop the War crowd demonstrate their total ignorance of the Syrian theatre.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    What are your thoughts on America breaking the ceasefire by attacking the Syrian army?

    He is right while Russia have killed more civilians America has also killed many civilians.

    I'm not a corbyn fan but he was right on Iraq and libya as well
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    What are your thoughts on America breaking the ceasefire by attacking the Syrian army?
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Russia have killed more civilians America has also killed many civilians.
    That's like saying "While Hitler killed more civilians, the British also killed civilians". Not only does the former dwarf the latter, but the nature of the intention viz. killing civilians is entirely different. The same material distinction applies to Russia's carpet-bombing of Aleppo with crude and cheap unguided bombs, knowing it will kill many civilians and in fact hoping it will to instill terror on the inhabitants of that benighted city, and on the other hand the use of expensive, guided weapons by the US/UK/France/Denmark/Australia to engage ISIS units that hits the target around 99% of the time and has a civilian death rate of around 3% of total fatalities.

    I'm not a corbyn fan but he was right on Iraq
    Was he right on Iraq, though? He claimed that America was invading Iraq for its oil, which has been completely debunked. He claimed that America intended to turn Iraq into a Western satrapy, whereas the Americans very quickly helped to establish democratic government. He asserted that the US would plunder Iraq's resources, whereas not only have all Iraq's resources gone to support Iraq but the US also expended substantial amounts of its own resources to help Iraq.

    Corbyn also praised the "Iraqi resistance" (in other words, Al-Qaeda in Iraq) and their "legitimate right" to "oppose occupiers". It's remarkable how the hard left, who ten years ago were positively fulsome in praising Al-Qaeda (or claiming they didn't exist and Bin Laden was a CIA employee living in Montana), and yet now thes same hard leftists praise Assad for "fighting terror" and support barrel bombs and mass-killing to suppress an insurgency. The double standard is so obvious, these people are totally transparent; whatever position America adopts, they simply go with the opposite no matter how often it necessitates they change sides or stand with fascists
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    That's like saying "While Hitler killed more civilians, the British also killed civilians". Not only does the former dwarf the latter, but the nature of the intention viz. killing civilians is entirely different. The same material distinction applies to Russia's carpet-bombing of Aleppo with crude and cheap unguided bombs, knowing it will kill many civilians and in fact hoping it will to instill terror on the inhabitants of that benighted city, and on the other hand the use of expensive, guided weapons by the US/UK/France/Denmark/Australia to engage ISIS units that hits the target around 99% of the time and has a civilian death rate of around 3% of total fatalities.



    Was he right on Iraq, though? He claimed that America was invading Iraq for its oil, which has been completely debunked. He claimed that America intended to turn Iraq into a Western satrapy, whereas the Americans very quickly helped to establish democratic government. He asserted that the US would plunder Iraq's resources, whereas not only have all Iraq's resources gone to support Iraq but the US also expended substantial amounts of its own resources to help Iraq.

    Corbyn also praised the "Iraqi resistance" (in other words, Al-Qaeda in Iraq) and their "legitimate right" to "oppose occupiers". It's remarkable how the hard left, who ten years ago were positively fulsome in praising Al-Qaeda (or claiming they didn't exist and Bin Laden was a CIA employee living in Montana), and yet now thes same hard leftists praise Assad for "fighting terror" and support barrel bombs and mass-killing to suppress an insurgency. The double standard is so obvious, these people are totally transparent; whatever position America adopts, they simply go with the opposite no matter how often it necessitates they change sides or stand with fascists
    They do have a right to oppose occupiers and why did the Americans not get involved with North Korea then a country that was developing wmds and lacking in human rights like Iraq?

    The difference is oil even the politicians said so "The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." Paul Wolfowitz, 31 May 2003.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    "No button" Corbyn is an utter disgrace... Putin cannot believe his luck in having this useful idiot up his sleeve.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Corbyn & his crony friends in the Stop the War Coalition are a bunch of hypocrites. They'd much rather attack the West over the perceived injustices rather than the Russians, Chinese, ISIS etc.

    Taken from the Telegraph:
    "StW’s spokesman Chris Nineham said that the group would not “contribute to the jingoism and hysteria that is being whipped up against Russia” and suggested that anyone who hoped for peace “needs to mobilise everything they can against [a confrontation between Russia and the West] and that means opposing the West”."
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Be grand if everyone read the statement.

    Absolutely nowhere did Corbyn suggest that people ought to be demonstrating outside the United States embassy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Saw this yesterday. What a frickin idiot. No grasp on reality.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ussian-embassyCorbyn has clearly had a morality bypass. Not to mention the fact that his claim that there have been "large-scale" civilian casualties consequent from the US strikes is quite simply wrong. Yet again, the Stop the War crowd demonstrate their total ignorance of the Syrian theatre.
    the US has been responsible for thousands of civilian deaths!
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AbdulALI)
    the US has been responsible for thousands of civilian deaths!
    The US and coalition has been responsible for a relatively low rate of civilian casualties in their anti-ISIS campaign, and take all sorts of measures to reduce civilian deaths as much as possible. ISIS, on the other hand, deliberately target and kill civilians, and are responsible for mass murder and genocide in the areas they control. Not to mention ISIS' use of human shields which is one of the causes of civilian deaths in air strikes.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AbdulALI)
    the US has been responsible for thousands of civilian deaths!
    You would say that though. Mikail Kalashnikov as your profile picture....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Guardian has been working very hard to delete the comments of its readers.

    You can't really believe they are deliberately targeting civilians there can you? as of late, Russia gets blamed for a lot.

    I remember all the stories of Russian subs spotted, that turned out to be lies by the media...

    They're helping fight opposition to Assad who should have been left alone, along with Gaddaffi and even Saddam. All who were allies of the West at one point...

    Restore Syria to the people, and not Western backed Jihadists.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    You would say that though. Mikail Kalashnikov as your profile picture....
    what has that got to do with the fact that the US has butchered thousands of civilians?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    The US and coalition has been responsible for a relatively low rate of civilian casualties in their anti-ISIS campaign, and take all sorts of measures to reduce civilian deaths as much as possible. ISIS, on the other hand, deliberately target and kill civilians, and are responsible for mass murder and genocide in the areas they control. Not to mention ISIS' use of human shields which is one of the causes of civilian deaths in air strikes.
    I agree to some extent but remember the US are meant to be the 'good guys' so to speak, and as for IS they're simply inhumane barbarians.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    What are your thoughts on America breaking the ceasefire by attacking the Syrian army?He is right while Russia have killed more civilians America has also killed many civilians.I'm not a corbyn fan but he was right on Iraq and libya as well
    +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.
    Offline

    17
    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.
    It wouldn't be the first time it happened in Libya as well.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    It wouldn't be the first time it happened in Libya as well.
    yes, and we now see the consequences of such actions with half of Libya under IS control, kind of begs the question if all this was deliberate?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AbdulALI)
    what has that got to do with the fact that the US has butchered thousands of civilians?
    you are likely to have a pro-russian bias.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    They do have a right to oppose occupiers and why did the Americans not get involved with North Korea then a country that was developing wmds and lacking in human rights like Iraq?

    The difference is oil even the politicians said so "The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." Paul Wolfowitz, 31 May 2003.
    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???
 
 
 
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: October 16, 2016
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
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.