Shadow Cabinet Anger Over Shock Corbyn Letter

[mrmistoffelees]

Airstrikes are already in place against IS/ISIS/ISIL (Whatever their latest name is) in Iraq, is there any intelligence/proof that shows it has caused a significant dent in their capability? Recent events would suggest not.

So what exactly will airstrikes against Syria achieve? apart from the usual loss of life to innocent civilians

This is an 'organisation' which employ guerilla/terrorist tactics to meet their objectives, an enemy that has clearly demonstrated they hold no fear with regards to their own deaths.

In the sixties the 'greatest nation on the planet' were made to look very silly by the VC/NVA surely people must see some similarities between the two ?

Finally, If (and it's a big if) IS/ISIS/ISIL were to be defeated by this campaign, whats to stop another radical/extremist group stepping in to fill the vacuum and carrying on despicable barbaric acts. Let us not forget it is the coalition that must be held to account for the rise of IS/ISIS/ISIL in the first place, for their complete and utter lack of planning and forethought of GW1/2 etc.

You cannot defeat an ideology with bunker bombs or tomahawk missiles.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Well, that didn't take long...

Sky News

Ken Livingstone believes in democracy, as along as you agree with him.

He's always been the same and that's what you get when you put people like him in power. He tries to dress up his views and actions but at the end of the day he's just as extreme as many of those he decries.

---------- Post added at 11:18 ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Airstrikes are already in place against IS/ISIS/ISIL (Whatever their latest name is) in Iraq, is there any intelligence/proof that shows it has caused a significant dent in their capability? Recent events would suggest not.

So what exactly will airstrikes against Syria achieve? apart from the usual loss of life to innocent civilians

This is an 'organisation' which employ guerilla/terrorist tactics to meet their objectives, an enemy that has clearly demonstrated they hold no fear with regards to their own deaths.

In the sixties the 'greatest nation on the planet' were made to look very silly by the VC/NVA surely people must see some similarities between the two ?

Finally, If (and it's a big if) IS/ISIS/ISIL were to be defeated by this campaign, whats to stop another radical/extremist group stepping in to fill the vacuum and carrying on despicable barbaric acts. Let us not forget it is the coalition that must be held to account for the rise of IS/ISIS/ISIL in the first place, for their complete and utter lack of planning and forethought of GW1/2 etc.

You cannot defeat an ideology with bunker bombs or tomahawk missiles.

We haven't defeated Nazism either, does that mean that fighting WWII was the wrong thing to do? Where would we be now if we hadn't?

There is no victory (in the conventional sense) to be had here. Those days are long gone. The best we can do is stop them amassing more weapons, money, supplies etc. and try to contain them. Whatever we do we cannot erase their ideology. We're fighting now to achieve the least worst outcome, not a victory, and we're going to be dealing with the resulting terrorism forever more.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Osem

We haven't defeated Nazism either, does that mean that fighting WWII was the wrong thing to do? Where would we be now if we hadn't?

There is no victory (in the conventional sense) to be had here. Those days are long gone. The best we can do is stop them amassing more weapons, money, supplies etc. Whatever we do we cannot erase their ideology. We're fighting now to achieve the least worst outcome, not a victory.

WWII isn't comparable to this you're right in terms of the ideology behind Nazism this conflict as i said is more comparable to the Vietnam war.

The part above which I've bolded is spot on and excellently put and I think the first thing in a while that we've agreed on !!

The problem is the general British public will not see it this way the politicians will try and sell this as an out and out victory which as you've already said isn't achievable.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Well, that didn't take long...

Sky News

Ken Livingstone believes in democracy, as along as you agree with him.

Speaking of democracy

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/01...elow-majority/

---------- Post added at 13:47 ---------- Previous post was at 13:41 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Airstrikes are already in place against IS/ISIS/ISIL (Whatever their latest name is) in Iraq, is there any intelligence/proof that shows it has caused a significant dent in their capability? Recent events would suggest not.

So what exactly will airstrikes against Syria achieve? apart from the usual loss of life to innocent civilians

This is an 'organisation' which employ guerilla/terrorist tactics to meet their objectives, an enemy that has clearly demonstrated they hold no fear with regards to their own deaths.

In the sixties the 'greatest nation on the planet' were made to look very silly by the VC/NVA surely people must see some similarities between the two ?

Finally, If (and it's a big if) IS/ISIS/ISIL were to be defeated by this campaign, whats to stop another radical/extremist group stepping in to fill the vacuum and carrying on despicable barbaric acts. Let us not forget it is the coalition that must be held to account for the rise of IS/ISIS/ISIL in the first place, for their complete and utter lack of planning and forethought of GW1/2 etc.

You cannot defeat an ideology with bunker bombs or tomahawk missiles.

Considering isis are now digging tunnels I'd say comparisons to the nva being prepared to wait it out and accept massive casualties in a war of attrition that their enamy isn't prepared to endure don't now end there

---------- Post added at 13:50 ---------- Previous post was at 13:47 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

The best we can do is stop them amassing more weapons, money, supplies etc. and try to contain them. Whatever we do we cannot erase their ideology. We're fighting now to achieve the least worst outcome, not a victory, and we're going to be dealing with the resulting terrorism forever more.

Isn't that what corbyn was saying, go after the oil sales and arms rather than this tokenist show of solidarity that will achieve nothing

[Osem]

Just been listening to John Mann on The Daily Politics. He likened much of what's been going on behind the scenes of Corbyn's supposed new warm and friendly politics is straight out of "Militant's"* handbook way back in the 1970's and 80's. Of course some of us recall those nasty hate filled days which is why what's going on now resonates...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita...otskyist_group)

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Speaking of democracy

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/01...elow-majority/

---------- Post added at 13:47 ---------- Previous post was at 13:41 ----------



Considering isis are now digging tunnels I'd say comparisons to the nva being prepared to wait it out and accept massive casualties in a war of attrition that their enamy isn't prepared to endure don't now end there

---------- Post added at 13:50 ---------- Previous post was at 13:47 ----------



Isn't that what corbyn was saying, go after the oil sales and arms rather than this tokenist show of solidarity that will achieve nothing

So it would be "democratic" to listen to the 31% who opposed air strikes, against the 48% who supported them?

And if we are going to run the country/our political parties by polling, it doesn't look very good for Mr Corbyn (from the Times article linked to in your link).

Among voters who would vote Labour today, opposition to airstrikes is even stronger, with 57 per cent backing Mr Corbyn’s stance and just 23 per cent backing the Prime Minister’s position. Paradoxically, that should worry Labour’s leader, for the party is haemorrhaging support among people who voted for the party in May but currently back airstrikes. They comprise more than three million people; our figures suggest that well over one million of them would no longer vote Labour if an election were held today.

In essence, Mr Corbyn is polarising the electorate – gaining ground among a large, worried minority of voters, but alienating the much larger majority. This is why, even as the number of people supporting his stance on Syria has grown, so has the number of people who say he is failing as party leader.

Just after he won his leadership election, he became the first opposition leader in sixty years of polling to start out with a negative rating, with more people saying he was doing badly than well. His net score then of minus eight soon got worse. Two weeks ago it was minus 22.

Now it is minus 41, with just 24 per cent saying he is doing well and 65 per cent saying badly. It is even negative among people who voted Labour in May; his net score with them is minus six.

This contrasts with David Cameron, whose net rating with the general public is even (47 per cent say well, 47 per cent badly), and plus 79 among those who voted Tory in May (87-8 per cent).

All this helps to explain why the Conservative lead has almost doubled since our last published figures at the end of September, from six per cent then to 11 per cent now.

[ianch99]

Cameron will wish he never used the phrase 'terrorist sympathisers'

Why?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

Why?

Why not?

Mentioning it once or twice is ok but it got absurd. Labour went from looking reasonable to a bunch of people complaining that their feelings were hurt rather than Syria.

[Gary L]

Be a man for once Dave.

Time will tell..Considering Cameron declared that the Russian bombing campaign would lead to further radicalisation and increased terrorism in October I'm wondering just how it's any different in November?

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Time will tell..Considering Cameron declared that the Russian bombing campaign would lead to further radicalisation and increased terrorism in October I'm wondering just how it's any different in November?

Maybe because the Russians are bombing anti-Assad fighters, rather than ISIS...

[tweedle]

Originally Posted by Damien

Mentioning it once or twice is ok but it got absurd. Labour went from looking reasonable to a bunch of people complaining that their feelings were hurt rather than Syria.

A lot of people I've been talking to today are of the same opinion. It seems Syria went out the window and all Labour wanted to do was moan about being called names.

Originally Posted by tweedle

A lot of people I've been talking to today are of the same opinion. It seems Syria went out the window and all Labour wanted to do was moan about being called names.

It's stupid anyway because the Tories love it if Labour ensure that the words 'terrorist sympathiser' and 'Corbyn' are put in the same sentence time and time again. Voters may think it's mean and feel sympathy for Corbyn and dislike the Tories but it doesn't translate to votes meanwhile the seed is planted in their brain that Corbyn is 'a bit weird' when it comes to terrorists and then each article or picture of Corbyn meeting the IRA compounds it.