Nick Cohen has lost it (re Syria and Miliband)

An excellent post, Iam. It seems the rebels are no better than the government - one report today says they have taken over a Christian village and forced the villagers to adopt Islam. The ordinary civilian populace would be sure to suffer enormously if any other nation sent in troops or used any kind of bombing.

Iam64
Well, I agree with the post you haven't deleted !

I think the original Nick Cohen article is a bit of a bizarre mishmash of unrelated points.
More and more of The Guardian's articles seem to be like this now.
Just clickbait, to my mind. More trolling goes on ATL than BTL at Guardian Towers.

Just for clarity - I asked for the post to be deleted. I'd accidentally pressed send when dashing off to answer the phone, so the original post was even more rambling than the final one....

My questions, which you seem to think were meant to be unpleasant, were actually based on a genuine interest in your opinions.

Jnge don't assume the deleted post was npleasant. The (several) times I have requested my own post to be deleted were because I'd posted on the wrong thread.

vampire queen, your post brings to my mind the questioning of Dr David Kelly. I am not going to respond.

And as a post has been deleted, which suggests it was unpleasant, I am not bothering with thread anymore.

I have actually said all I have to say anyway. If anyone can't get their head round the quite simple points I made, that's their problem.

I agree about the Nick Cohen article. I always read his pieces, and sometimes agree but not always. I found yesterday's article impenetrable, incoherent and impossible to make sense of. I disliked the comments about his Jewish background extremely unpleasant and unnecessary. The Nazi's set out to wipe out the Jews, and used gas as part of this aim. I am not defending the use of gas on any one, at any time but the use of gas in Syria seems to be part of a dreadful civil war. Of course it's wrong but I support the attempts towards diplomatic solutions, especially given the position of the Chinese and Russians. I don't agree with their position, but we have caused so much loss of life in our recent support of US invasions.

I was hugely relieved that the House of Commons voted against bombing Syria. I simply don't understand what good that would do for the people of Syria, or for peace in that troubled area.

Ed Milliband has spoken sensibly about the war in Iraq, and may have acted ethically, in this case. I also wonder if he was influenced by the strength of public opinion. I hope so. That'd be a positive change given the way in which so many people took to the streets to show their opposition to an invasion of Iraq and were ignored by the Blair government. I believe Ed was the right Miliband, his brother was contaminated in my eyes by his involvement in the Blair/Brown nonsense, and particularly by his continued support for the disastrous invasion of Iraq. Like most people, I'm disappointed by his leadership, but I support his stance on Syria.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Why isn't it possible that Milliband acted out of the belief that we shouldn't go to war?

Why is it point scoring and playing to the public?

How has it given encouragement to 'Assad, Putin, the BNP, Hezbollah etc'?

What is the link between those people and groups other than you think they're 'creeps, criminals and crackpots'?

What evidence do you have for your opinion of them?

even

BNP

[Moon]

I would call Assad, Putin, the BMP, Hezbollah etc., creeps, criminals and crackpots. And Milliband et al have certainly given them encouragement.

No, I can't see any real difference between gassing people inside a building, and doing the same thing outside. The effect is the same.

He also conflates those who oppose military intervention with supporters of tyrants.

It is incoherent and full of spurious argument. For example, the gassing of Jews by the Nazis was a deliberate policy of genocide on an industrial scale. Poison gas in Syria, whoever is responsible, is being used as a weapon of [civil] war. Both are appalling and both are contrary to international laws and common humanity – but they are not comparable in the way suggested in the article.

j08 Not sure! Good that he responds personally and not dogmatically I suppose but perhaps I am never sure that he does not just 'blow with the wind' which I feel could make him rather unreliable.

Can't see that myself. I thought it was a good article.

A mess of an article. C- must try harder.

That's good is n' t it?

Nick Cohen has distinctly variable political views. I have read stuff that of his that reflects politically 'left' and 'right' opinions.

I was responding to the article re the Jewish thing.

He could have gone along the "wait for the evidence route". He acted purely for political advancement reasons. Point scoring.

I don't see what being Jewish has to do with it. He chose not to support the country being pushed into another war.

How would/will bombing Syria help to sort out their problems. No bomb, no matter how smart, can explode without killing or injuring some innocent person.

Between 114407 and 125380 civilians have died in Iraq since we and the Americans went in. Now we're pulling out and civilians are still dying.

The only way to solve anything is to talk.

I have voted Labour for most of my adult life. Never again. They chose the wrong Milliband.

And it is true that he can no longer claim the moral high ground through being Jewish. Not that he ever could really as his parents were, as the article states, Marxist atheists. And he has shown himself to be completely lacking in any empathy for victims of evil regimes, whether Jewish or Iraqi or Syrian.

I am afraid I agree with that article. "I am not going to start screaming about racism". I would.

The way those vans with the "go home" notices were tolerated, and even approved of, by so many was an eye opener. And the fact that so many people grudge overseas aid.

Miliband used that vote for political point scoring. He did n' t advocate waiting for definite evidence of the regime using the gas, and then re-consider. He just wanted to gain votes by putting himself alongside the mean minded members of the British public. Shame on him. He seems to have not a lot between his ears.