Why?
Honestly, what do you think Britain joining the bombing campaign is going to achieve?
Why?
Honestly, what do you think Britain joining the bombing campaign is going to achieve?
You do realise that Britain is already bombing ISIL right?
Tedious semantic discussion of mandates incoming:
With it being brought up a lot that Jeremy Corbyn has a mandate for his views given he was elected leader, and that this means that his Cabinet should either get with the program or leave the front-bench, I'd like to present a rebuttal based upon a different mandate. The mandate MPs were given at the last election. After all, we live in a country with a parliamentary system, not a presidential one. Thus, people have directly elected their MPs rather than being assigned them. Thus, people have voted for those MPs who they feel best represent them. Thus, MPs are bound by their pledge to the wider electorate to propound their views and to speak for them as best they can. Thus, can those who challenge Corbyn because of their views be seen as, instead of fighting against Corbyn's mandate, speaking based upon the mandate their constituents gave them at the election. One could thus argue there is no hypocrisy in speaking against Corbyn, if they view the mandate they were given at the election by the people who voted for them as more important to them personally than Corbyn's mandate. After all, is this not the basis behind Corbyn's constant rebellion against the leadership during his time on the back bench?
The principle is that, as Corbyn owes it to those who voted for him to represent them, so these MPs owe it to those who elected them to represent them over those (Labour members) who didn't.
Britain bombs ISIS in Iraq as a means of helping the government of Iraq's security forces. Which ground troops are we supporting in Syria? What effect does this have on our negotiations with the Syrian government and the opposition?
I have, just now, received an email from Jeremy Corbyn asking for my views on bombing Syria.
I guess he has sent the same request to a other more people too!
I would expect nothing less than shit stirring from a Murdoch rag.
He has sent it to supporters apparently.I have, just now, received an email from Jeremy Corbyn asking for my views on bombing Syria.
I guess he has sent the same request to a lot of other people too!
calling the free syrian army moderates is at best a half-truth only in comparison with who they are fighting against. it also should be considered that they are allied with islamist groups who could become the next ISIS should the chance arise.They are supporting the Kurds and the moderate Free Syria Army.
What are you on about? It's all over the news not just a shitty paper.
From the BBC
They are supporting the Kurds and the moderate Free Syria Army.
Corbyn has no hope of ever wining an election. Resigning would be the only right thing to do for anyone with any common sense. Labour needs a leader with the balls to fight the extremists who are threatening world peace.
I got that one!
I haven't replied yet
He wants a response by the beginning of next week, so don't leave it too late ...
I'll have to think my answer through a bit.
ISIS want to be bombed. It's their most succesful recruitment tool.
I kind of dig Corbyn, but when it comes to ISIS he's dead wrong, and he should have the sense to realize that there's no negotiation with these religious fanatics and just approve the airstrikes.
The only solution in Syria is a political one. The West alone can't broker a deal it needs the involvement of all parties involved in the conflict; that means Russia, Iran, Saudi and all the Arabs. Assad is supported by the Russians and Iran. The rebel groups are supported by Saudi Arabia. But a political solution will only happen if ISIS is out of the picture.Do we have any confidence that the Free Syrian Army has the means to be able to restore order to the territories we restore to it? And what does this to our ability to be able to fairly broker a peace deal between the Free Syrian Army and the Assad government?
The only solution in Syria is a political one. The West alone can't broker a deal it needs the involvement of all parties involved in the conflict; that means Russia, Iran, Saudi and all the Arabs. Assad is supported by the Russians and Iran. The rebel groups are supported by Saudi Arabia. But a political solution will only happen if ISIS is out of the picture.
Right. The world should sit back and watch them take over Syria and Iraq.
ISIS have even stated that their long term goal is take over the world with their brand of craziness. If you sit back they are coming to Europe. There are already in Libya which is a short swim away.
Right. The world should sit back and watch them take over Syria and Iraq.
ISIS have even stated that their long term goal is take over the world with their brand of craziness. If you sit back they are coming to Europe. There are already in Libya which is a short swim away.
And how do you think their horrific ideology spreads?
Their ideology spreads regardless of if they are bombed or not. They are a media propaganda machine just as much as they are a military operation.
Their ideology spreads regardless of if they are bombed or not. They are a media propaganda machine just as much as they are a military operation.
I just hate the fact that it's possible that human beings can be turned into something so aggressive and horrible, when in another life they could have been full of brilliance and opportunity. I always wonder what I would be like if I had been brought up in the conditions members of ISIS had been, what would I be like now? It's one of the most depressing thoughts possible though.
If ISIS media propaganda tells you the West will come destroy your homeland, but they don't come and start massively bombing every corner of your town or city....then you are less likely to pay attention to it and write them off as being radical nutters.
If ISIS media propaganda tells you the West will come destroy your homeland and then bombs come and take away everything from you and leave nothing, then anger and hate will easily drive you to arms with nothing else left.
A commitment should first be made across the world to give these people aid, education, resources and development before we bomb their homes and then duck out and leave them with nothing.
Otherwise we are making the same mistakes. Corbyn is thinking forward and if people can't see that then it has all gone to shit.
I can't disagree with either of you
According to the times lawyers are saying not necessarily. Who knows!
"How can we fuck it up worse than it already is?" is an unfair characterization of the argument.
No, ISIS should be bombed, but first the world should make a financial commitment to the development of these warzones during and after force/occupation. Instead of simply decimating the homes and lives of countless children and then saying, "oh shit, this is a mess, let's duck out now". Thus creating another young generation of psychotic and traumatized individuals with no future.
The world should also ensure that this is a unified response so that intelligence is accurate to avoid as much civillian casualty as possible.
That's what Corbyn wants.
I suppose that's too fair and not fear mongering enough for the modern world, eh? It's so piss easy for the media to drive a whole society into a bubble of fear. CORBYN DOESN'T WANT TO BOMB RIGHT AWAY? HE'S A DANGER TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN.
You my friend have played right into their hands.
In Iraq, yes.You do realise that Britain is already bombing ISIL right?
Exactly all this.calling the free syrian army moderates is at best a half-truth only in comparison with who they are fighting against. it also should be considered that they are allied with islamist groups who could become the next ISIS should the chance arise.
supporting the kurds is also a very delicate issue because of the conflict between them and turkey. by supporting the kurds we could indeed be attacking our supposed ally turkey by proxy.
Corbyn has no hope of ever wining an election.
this is a very big point, and a perfect example of how radically things can change in these highly volatile regions.Exactly all this.
Also, let's not forget, a couple of years ago Cameron was asking us to bomb Assad....
The whole situation is a mess... End of the day us bombing / not bombing isn't going to make a bit of difference either way, but the fact that it's happening anyway isn't a valid reason to do it ourselves.
This always gets me as well. "He's unelectable"
Except that he's been an MP since 1983, winning his seat 8 times, and actually increased his majority last time out.
Oh, and he got a massive landslide victory in the leadership election.
He's anything but unelectable
Sam Coates from the times has clarified, the rules are that in the event of a leadership challenge the incumbent and the challenger are the only ones on the ballot. HOWEVER, it could be open to legal challenge as the 1988 Kinnock challenge was open to anyone which sets a precedent.
Edit: yeah, twitter storms always work.
Take a look at @JeremyCorbyn4PM's Tweet: https://twitter.com/JeremyCorbyn4PM/status/670585347273842688?s=09
I think the theory is that the 38 nominations to get on ballot rule would then kick in. I don't think any if this is likely at all anyway.using the precedent of the '88 election still wouldn't allow the exclusion of Corbyn, it would just allow a challenger to happen despite not meeting the nominations bar, so I'm not really sure what the Times is driving at?
I think the theory is that the 38 nominations to get on ballot rule would then kick in. I don't think any if this is likely at all anyway.
using the precedent of the '88 election still wouldn't allow the exclusion of Corbyn, it would just allow a challenger to happen despite not meeting the nominations bar, so I'm not really sure what the Times is driving at?
That is a valid point, but also think about what happens if the UK does not participate. France and the US are bombing ISIS regardless. The UK, one of the handful of nations with the resources and wealth to assist militarily, gets no voice in strategy and any hoped-for "political solution."
Your giving him too much credit, he's already admitted there is no situation in which he'd bomb Syria, even if there was a perfect plan to destroy ISIS and rebuild the country. It's just as much an ideological position for him as it is to the Tories.
Sam Coates from the times has clarified, the rules are that in the event of a leadership challenge the incumbent and the challenger are the only ones on the ballot. HOWEVER, it could be open to legal challenge as the 1988 Kinnock challenge was open to anyone which sets a precedent.
It really bothers me how support for Corbyn often comes with delegitimizing the views of others.
When Corbyn does something he sticks to his principles, but when his MPs criticize his actions they are traitors, sell-outs, shills, Tories. Maybe they are just Centre-Left people with Centre-Left views that just happen to disagree with Corbyn's position on the issues? Why should they shut up and put up instead of Corbyn trying to come closer to them, when these are the views they honestly hold and were elected on the basis of? The underlying, silent assumption that no one can actually think that Centre-Left moderation is the right path for the UK but that these people are just 'pandering' to the press or UKIP/Tory supporters is plain condescending and rude.
Secondly, Corbyn is not a victim. When you're running for the office of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, you're going to get shat on by the press, the public, your MPs and your Shadow Cabinet. It comes with the territory. David Cameron had the entire nation talk about that one time when he drunkenly put his dick inside a dead pig's mouth when he was 18, and while that is admittedly hilarious it doesn't really have any relevance to his performance as PM. It's a tough job that involves coming under public scrutiny, and I dislike the sort of whiny tone coming from Corbyn's supporters, and occasionally even himself. If Corbyn is getting an unusual level of abuse (which I don't necessarily agree with) it is because his views are much more to the Left than most of his party, so there is honest disagreement about the issues, and because he is doing a bad job of leading the party.