pacifists/conscienti ous objectors/Jeremy Corbyn

He has always said that

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34844762

Interesting blog......

He looked a very lonely figure on the benches in Parliament today, whilst all around him in the Labour Party MP's were more or less assuring Cameron of their support.I think his days may be numbered as Labour Leader.

My thoughts too rosesarered, he's not leading a cohesive party but his own agenda.

I think he's way out of his depth and as such he's becoming a liability to the Labour Party, hence his MPs either declining to comment or openly contradicting him.

whitewave. Did you manage to find a link please?

Governments who are bombing your country are likely to make you a bit annoyed, maybe annoyed enough to retaliate in an 'extremist' way.

But it's the Syrian government which is bombing certain sections of Syria .....

Because he is a leader.

Quite!

And as the leader of the Opposition he will have a large say in how the vote would go if they had another to decide - or not - on intervention in Syria.

After seeing him and other Labour MP's today on tv, am not sure how many would vote his way!

Have I got this right as I cannot seem to get it clear in my head:

Two years ago David Cameron lost the vote in the Commons to take military action in Syria against President Assad.

President Assad is fighting rebels in Syria, one of these groups being ISIL.

If there is another vote in the Commons for intervention in Syria against ISIL, presumably this would mean we would be on the side of President Assad, as we would be fighting for the same aim.
Or would we be duplicitous, supporting Assad to get rid of ISIL then getting rid of Assad in support of another rebel group?

If Cameron had won the original vote then would that have accelerated the rise of ISIL?

Does anyone know?
Or is it a case of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend?'


Or perhaps head-in-the-sand Corbyn has got it right.

At the moment, the greater enemy is ISIS therefore before anything else can be decided ( like who gets what) they need to be dealt with. after that, perhaps Russia and Iran ( friends of Assad) can persuade him to hold elections.Not likely that he will, and he has a lot of supporters in Syria anyway, but 'yer never know'. so yes, my enemy's enemy is my friend, sums it up well.

Heads in the sand never ends well.

I was relieved when the vote was against intervention two years ago.
I think that events have proved that this was the right decision.

Of course he has got it right.
The stupid, naive, inadequate nature of the OP as it is written is unbelievable. Firstly the phrase "conscientious objector" relates only to an individual who refuses to join a military organisation because of their beliefs.
It has nothing to do with individual actions against another person. If we are going to use language let us at least do so with some accuracy.
Responding to the present situation with some sort of revenge bombing would be counter-productive. Terrorists are made by such actions not defeated by them.

trisher I don't agree entirely.

I think that concerted action by a united group of nations including those in the Middle East would be a better way forward, not individual nations working separately.
It's not revenge bombing, they are trying to stop the terrorists but they need to stop their source of revenue too.

I think that events have proved that this was the right decision
I meant because we would now be on the same side as Assad - the original vote which was defeated was to go in to remove him.

That is why I am

The French, for obvious reasons want to destroy IS, and are bombing their military bases. The Russians have been bombing all rebels against the Assad regime, but since the bomb on the plane Putin has seen that it is IS who needs to be wiped out so now will concentrate on that. Cameron is determined to persuade our gov to say yes to our bombing IS. He intends to do this within a few weeks.

The French, the Russians and the UK, would become allies to get rid of IS.

Very scary. It means we will probably be next for a terror attack. Perhaps after Washington.

Assad would still be in power. But once IS is dealt with, they would all negotiate to remove the Assad regime.

That's how I see it. (to rq)

Right minded people see that IS have to be destroyed. They do want world domination.

" If we are going to use language let us at least do so with some accuracy." (quoting trisher)

So long as know what we mean, and we can usually work it out, that fine IMO.

It's not "tit-for-tat" bombing. It's far more than that. It's a strategy to save the Western world.

Thank you, it does clarify things.

The only thing is that the Russians would want Assad to remain

The other thing is that Hezbollah is against ISIL too - and JBC is friends with Hezbollah. They and others in the Middle East want to be rid of ISIL.

So does JBC agree with the stance of Hezbollah (but not Europeans who have the same aim?)

And so it goes on .....

trisher. I had expected this thread to discuss all 3 - cos, pacifists and JC. I had thought that there were some possible gransnet members who would call themselves cos or pacifists, who could enlighten me further.

I am more than willing to be corrected about my op. That is what I really meant the thread to be about.

I googled at some point afterwards, and ended up rather confused.
If you look at the op, I actually start it with "£I dont get it".

Well I still dont get it actually. So trisher, I would be delighted if you would completely put me straight.

From googling, it appears that to some, pacifist mean one thing, and to some other people it means something else, as far as I can gather.

But I still dont know whether they would do the scenarios I mentioned or not.
After the JC stuff on here, I am not sure whether he or perhaps pacifists actually know themselves?

As regards cos. If they are in a country that has say differect sects/religions/philosophies. Might they decided to not join one army, but join a different one in a different part of the same country? Or go over the border and fight for one, but insist they would not fight for a certain other one? Is that how it works?

I dont think that revenge is the number one motive for attacks on IS. That rather sounds like an excuse

Which rather brings me back to my op. Perhaps I will ask the questions in it of the several posters on here who want IS to be allowed to carry on killing I have no idea how many, innocent people abroad.

Perhaps I will ask the questions in it of the several posters on here who want IS to be allowed to carry on killing I have no idea how many, innocent people abroad.

Which posters have said that??? That's an outrageous statement!

I don't know why anyone would think that?

The decision makers must always be challenged in an open democracy. Do not deride those who question any decision, it is important that any strategy is challenged to be clear what the aim and outcomes are hopin g to be achieved