Jeremy Corbyn

[Mr. Tea]

Catch yourself there before this spirals out of control and please and compare your assertion above with what I actually wrote.

But what even is "Western media"? BBC, NYT, Fox, Breitbart, HuffPo, The Canary, Le Monde, El Pais, The Guardian, Sunday Sport, Private Eye, Isle of Wight County Press? All of the above? Even talking about it like it's 'a thing' is faintly ridiculous.

 

[droid]

But what even is "Western media"? BBC, NYT, Fox, Breitbart, HuffPo, The Canary, Le Monde, El Pais, The Guardian, Sunday Sport, Private Eye, Isle of Wight County Press? All of the above? Even talking about it like it's 'a thing' is faintly ridiculous.

What are clouds? Can you smell colours? How do magnets work?

 

[droid]

Here's George Monbiot on that specific attack: http://www.monbiot.com/2017/04/27/disavowal/

Now, that's an ethically position.

Trotting out mealy mouthed "well we don't really now what happened" isn't ethical, it's cowardice.

Not sure if youre referring to my comment above, but if it wasn't already abundantly clear, I was referring to a conflict as a whole, and frankly, one thing that makes me instantly suspicious is certainty, especially certainty that fall in line with propaganda tropes and frames the issue from the POV of Western interests.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I guess what Im trying to say is that I cant say with any confidence what is going on in Syria.

But you don't need to know exactly what's going on in Syria - which is just as well, because no-one does, in its entirety - to understand that the primary aggressor and cause of death is the Assad regime and its Iranian and Russian backers, just as you don't need to be a history professor to understand that Nazi Germany was the primary aggressor in WWII. Recognition of that is not, in itself, an endorsement of Western military intervention; nor is it a denial that such intervention has inevitably caused civilian deaths too, nor is it an exculpation of the rebel forces or a whitewashing of ISIS and the other Islamists.

Dan's right, the "we don't know anything, we can't say anything, it's all just a mystery" is precisely the point of the Russian disinformation strategy. They're playing the same game, and achieving much the same results, with their annexation of eastern Ukraine and the bombing of the airliner a few years ago.

 

[sadmanbarty]

Here are examples from Iraq and Syria of what happens following different forms of Western intervention. It's crude, but hopefully it's food for thought.

1) Let the regime crush dissent without foreign interference. Casualties of the Hama massacre are in the low 10’s of thousands in a population of 9 million and prevented any serious armed uprisings for 30 years.

2) Provide rhetorical, but no material support, spurring the insurgency, but allowing the regime to crush the uprising. The 1991 Iraq uprisings killed in the low 100,000’s in a population of 17 million, and prevented a serious uprising for at least a decade (there were No Fly Zone’s during this time).

3) Establish no fly zones over insurgent territory. It’s hard to disentangle what was the effect of no fly zones and what was the effect of scenario 2 in 90’s Iraq.

4) Provide material support that doesn’t prove decisive, leading to a prolonged war of attrition. The current Syrian civil war has casualties in the mid-100’s of thousands in a population of 20 million. However airstrikes have saved the lives of Kurds and Yazidi’s from Isis.

5) Regime change via invasion, with too few troops, an ineffective counter insurgency strategy, political ineptitude and unable to provide amenities and security. Improve these things over time, by which time there’s been huge bloodshed. The Iraq invasion and it’s aftermath has possibly (POSSIBLY!) resulted in less per capita deaths per year than scenario 4, but it’s hard to tell. There’s been large-scale political violence even after the 2006-2008 civil war. However the counter insurgency that ended that conflict did prevent more wide scale bloodshed.

6) Regime change via a competent invasion and nation building. It hasn’t happened recently in an equivalent country, so we don’t know if it’s possible, let alone what the consequences would be.

 

[droid]

I get that he's ethically motivated - he seems like a typical liberal pacifist to me, rather than a Stalinist. I'd reserve that epithet for some of those around him. I get his inbox is pretty full so maybe a lack of nuance can be forgiven but he seems pretty blind and blinkered on some issues, and happy to repeat disinformation (Syria and Libya was never a "regime change" wars). The contradictions of his positions have never been tested against reality, as he's never held high office.

OK, so you've moved from the position that his foreign policy is 'abhorrent'?

Putting Syria aside for a moment, the idea that Libya was anything other than regime change is ludicrous. The manufactured Benghazi massacre narrative, decapitation attempts by the British just hours into the intervention. Western claims of humanitarianism have no credibility in this case, as in Iraq, in Kosovo, in pretty much every conflict they have ever been involved in.

 

[Mr. Tea]

What are clouds? Can you smell colours? How do magnets work?

I think you mean fucken' magnets...

My point is that a pat dismissal of "Western media" - and bracketing it with RT certainly constitutes a dismissal, in my view - is the kind of response I'd expect from a stoned 18-year-old who thinks he's "woke" because he's seen Loose Change and a couple of Adam Curtis documentaries.

Aww man, this is just like old times.

 

[droid]

But you don't need to know exactly what's going on in Syria - which is just as well, because no-one does, in its entirety - to understand that the primary aggressor and cause of death is the Assad regime and its Iranian and Russian backers, just as you don't need to be a history professor to understand that Nazi Germany was the primary aggressor in WWII. Recognition of that is not, in itself, an endorsement of Western military intervention; nor is it a denial that such intervention has inevitably caused civilian deaths too, nor is it an exculpation of the rebel forces or a whitewashing of ISIS and the other Islamists.

As I mentioned a while back, Assad does bear primary responsibility, and his actions at the start of the conflict make him hugely culpable for what came after, but we're now talking about a civil war involving hundreds of factions, nearly a dozen regional actors with competing aims and pretty much every other scumbag in the world selling arms or attempting to gain some kind of strategic advantage. This is nothing like WW2, the most black and white conflict in modern history.

Dan's right, the "we don't know anything, we can't say anything, it's all just a mystery" is precisely the point of the Russian disinformation strategy. They're playing the same game, and achieving much the same results, with their annexation of eastern Ukraine and the bombing of the airliner a few years ago.

Huh? It was revealed very early on that the Malaysian plane was shot down by Russian backed rebels. They posted pictures of themselves amongst the debris.

 

[droid]

I think you mean fucken' magnets...

My point is that a pat dismissal of "Western media" - and bracketing it with RT certainly constitutes a dismissal, in my view - is the kind of response I'd expect from a stoned 18-year-old who thinks he's "woke" because he's seen Loose Change and a couple of Adam Curtis documentaries.

Aww man, this is just like old times.

It is a dismissal. In case you've forgotten practically every major Western media outlet cheerleaded a march to war with Iraq via outright falsehoods & uncritical repetition of US & UK claims in a textbook example of the propaganda model.

 

[droid]

Here are examples from Iraq and Syria of what happens following different forms of Western intervention. It's crude, but hopefully it's food for thought.

1) Let the regime crush dissent without foreign interference. Casualties of the Hama massacre are in the low 10’s of thousands in a population of 9 million and prevented any serious armed uprisings for 30 years.

2) Provide rhetorical, but no material support, spurring the insurgency, but allowing the regime to crush the uprising. The 1991 Iraq uprisings killed in the low 100,000’s in a population of 17 million, and prevented a serious uprising for at least a decade (there were No Fly Zone’s during this time).

3) Establish no fly zones over insurgent territory. It’s hard to disentangle what was the effect of no fly zones and what was the effect of scenario 2 in 90’s Iraq.

4) Provide material support that doesn’t prove decisive, leading to a prolonged war of attrition. The current Syrian civil war has casualties in the mid-100’s of thousands in a population of 20 million. However airstrikes have saved the lives of Kurds and Yazidi’s from Isis.

5) Regime change via invasion, with too few troops, an ineffective counter insurgency strategy, political ineptitude and unable to provide amenities and security. Improve these things over time, by which time there’s been huge bloodshed. The Iraq invasion and it’s aftermath has possibly (POSSIBLY!) resulted in less per capita deaths per year than scenario 4, but it’s hard to tell. There’s been large-scale political violence even after the 2006-2008 civil war. However the counter insurgency that ended that conflict did prevent more wide scale bloodshed.

6) Regime change via a competent invasion and nation building. It hasn’t happened recently in an equivalent country, so we don’t know if it’s possible, let alone what the consequences would be.

7) Disengage militarily and strategically from the region. Stop selling arms to the worst regimes. Cease political support for dictatorships. Promote diplomatic solutions and use targeted sanctions and non-violent leverage. Act in good faith with the interests of populations in mind. Strengthen and improve credibility and capability of international institutions. Work to enforce the primacy of international humanitarian law by not repeatedly breaking it.

 

[droid]

Sorry to bring this back on topic, but:

On who would make best Prime Minister:

T. May: 39% (-4)
J. Corbyn: 39% (+7)

(via @YouGov & @ShippersUnbound / 09 - 10 Jun)
Chgs. w/ 07 Jun

Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 45% (+5)
CON: 39% (-3)
LDEM: 7% (-)
UKIP: 3% (+1)

(via @Survation / 10 Jun)
Chgs. w/ GE2017

 

[Mr. Tea]

Huh? It was revealed very early on that the Malaysian plane was shot down by Russian backed rebels. They posted pictures of themselves amongst the debris.

Well yeah, that's obviously what happened, but it's been the subject of a concerted disinformation campaign by the Russian state and has become one of the canonical conspiracy theories circulated in the West by people on the far right and far left alike.

 

[Mr. Tea]

It is a dismissal. In case you've forgotten practically every major Western media outlet cheerleaded a march to war with Iraq via outright falsehoods & uncritical repetition of US & UK claims in a textbook example of the propaganda model.

And has Dan has pointed out: 2017 is not 2003. Syria is not Iraq. Iraq was not already in a state of civil war with the regime receiving major Russian support. No-one - not even the most pro-intervention voices, that I've heard - is calling for an actual invasion or occupation of Syria. There are Syrian activists calling for more intervention, or saying it would have helped five or six years ago, while I don't recall any exiled Iraqis saying "please invade my country". There is no need for any 'sexed-up' dossier to invent WMDs in Syria because we've seen the regime repeatedly use them. I agree that most of the widely read/watched news organizations were for the Iraq venture, but the ongoing disaster it turned out to be has made the needle swing back the other way even for many of the more traditionally jingoistic channels and papers, never mind those on the more pacifist/leftist side.

Edit: "diplomatic solutions", pffft. Yeah, Assad is doing what he's doing because we didn't try hard enough to ask him not to. Saddam could have been talked out of gassing the Kurds and destroying the marsh Arabs.

Interesting to see you support sanctions, though. I thought received wisdom was that they just impoverished ordinary people and did little to harm dictators - perhaps even strengthened them?

 

[DannyL]

SOUTHERN SYRIA DISTRESS CALL TO THE WORLD - DARAA

Assad and Russian forces have escalated attacks on the southern Syrian city of Daraa with the city yesterday alone witnessing 86 barrel bombs, 19 air strikes and 90 surface to surface missiles on civilian populated areas.

Over 65 people have been killed and hundreds wounded including around 20,000 civilians that have been displaced due to the ruthless campaign that started on the 1st of June just over a week ago, with Hizbollah a Lebanese Iranian backed militia also participating on the ground in this widespread assault.

Activists are calling on communities across the world to shift their attention to the city of Daraa towards demanding for an immediate stop to the continuous murder of civilian livelihood regardless of whatever pretext.

What should no longer come as a shock to anyone is that the Syrian regime intends to cripple any opposition to its power with whatever consequences and Russia is working ruthlessly alongside Assad's killing machine in making sure that task is carried out effectively and the loss of civilian life is not only the least of both their concerns, but in fact a necessity towards accomplishing their goals.

Let us not turn our backs on the people of Daraa.

I'd recommend people write to their MPs about this, share on social media, or join campaigning groups like Syria Solidarity UK. I have a fair amont of contempt for the "we just don't know what's happening" argument. When I first got involved in this stuff, I hoped that the Labour Party would help mobilise support, and couldn't understand why it didn't. I have a clearer picture now, and I really am not holding my breath, but I still think it's a cause worth amplifying.

 

[firefinga]

I love those right wing youtubers....

Some now claiming May being secretly a Remainer she fucked this election up on purpose :crylarf:

 

[Mr. Tea]

I think that's a case of giving way too much credit. She was indeed a Remainer prior to the referendum, but now she's intent on forcing through this imbecilic harder-than-buckminsterfullerene Brexit out of some totally misplaced idea of "the will of the people", despite the fact that nearly half the people voted against it and just over half of them voted for something very different (thanks to that shithead Boris Johnson's impossible cake-and-eat-it promises).

My girlfriend's mum was at university with May and says the only thing she remembers about the woman is that she was incredibly boring. She doesn't have the imagination to try and pull a trick like that. The awful truth is that she genuinely thinks she's doing what's in the national interest.

 

[craner]

https://capx.co/the-future-is-bleak-for-british-politics/

Must say, I am closer to the above Oliver than my pun-heavy, new (not New) Labour comrade the Dissensus Oliver.

 

[luka]

Can we please ban craner from politics threads?

 

[craner]

I agree.

 

[craner]

You know, I went surfing today. Wind was heavy, but sky was blue. I left work at 4.30, got my wetsuit and board, thought "fuck it", maybe I'll drown because I'm so unfit. I drove straight to Southerndown, and it was heavy and choppy. I went out. Got smashed a few times but also caught a few waves. Reminded me of how I felt before politics, writing and booze. It was gorgeous.

I think I might become a dumb, handsome surfer again, and just check out.