Labour MP's harassment

Jen, just a reason to drag socialism into it , seems STW should be demonstrating outside the Russian embassy but they don't because apart from there still being a USSR , the STW is a socialist movement and don't criticise Russia because Russia is a socialist country , or should I say the USSR , all very confusing

Where does it oppose it? Thank you dj, you've answered my question, so I won't be bothering you about this vexatious question any more.

grumppa, there seems to be an implication in your last night's post that the west's use of force in the world is automatically "unscrupulous". I don't think this is the case. I don't think our politicians, even the ones whose ideologies I don't much like, are unscrupulous imperialistic bastards. Not as a rule anyhow. I think they do actually think about these things rather carefully, as witness our government's unwillingness to get involved in the Syrian civil war for several years. I think it has only agreed to limited involvement now because it feels things (threats to our way of life) have got very serious.

On another but related point of nomenclature: there are a lot of countries in the political "West". I think we are using the phrase "the west" lazily.

Fair points, thatbags.

I accept that STW cannot do anything about Russia, but if it is against all bombing, dj, then it should say so loud and clear. If it does not condemn Russian military intervention while condemning what are essentially members of NATO, then it risks being seen as a Russian stooge.

I'm not a pacifist and so not a supporter of STW but I don't think they could be seen as a Russian stooge.

What use is being loud and clear about Russian bombing? They can't protest about every regime - best to concentrate on those that might have some effect.

As they're UK-based they obviously feel that they can have some influence on our own government and its usual allies e.g. the US, EU, Commonwealth, etc.

Rather like those concerned about climate change - it would be no use protesting outside say the Chinese embassy, best to lobby UK politicians where at least there is a chance of influencing policy.

Regarding " just a reason to drag socialism into it" - I saw the mention of socialism as a reaction to the tendency of those GNers on the left to imply rabid right-wingism whenever someone posts something which is not quite according to their own credo.

I saw it like that too, elegran. I'm pretty sure some of the most vociferous left-wing posters on GN regard me as right-wing just because I don't always endorse everything they say. I suspect a few other GNers feel the same.

What in earth has the politics of posters have to do with the question why does STW campaigners not campaign against socialist Russia bombing Syria ?

It wax explained that STW is not a socialist movement . They are not demonstrating outside the embassy of any country involved in Syria l

A question - why are they not demonstrating outside all embassy make a little more sense - not much though

The replies have just been attacks on posters , pathetic

'Stop the War was founded in different times. It is and has been a coalition of individuals and organisations with differing views on many issues. This is as it should be and always has been with broad single-issue campaigns. It does NOT take positions on the demerits or otherwise of the Taliban, Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad. It is in favour of the withdrawal of ALL foreign troops (this includes the Russians) and bomber jets. The arguments against the war deployed by Stop the War are not all that different from some conservative columnists who cannot be bullied: Simon Jenkins, Peter Hitchens, Peter Oborne. None of the three are Corbynistas.

We have been consistent over the years, which is why the organisation has survived. There is no similar body anywhere else. The recent upsurge in activities against the Syrian debacle is due to the growing realisation that the murderous chaos in the region that has produced such misery will get worse with more bombs. The sight of hundreds of thousands of Syrian war refugees seeking shelter in Europe has made many realise that the way to peace is not through a war waged by the US, Europe and Russia.'

Is this clear enough for you?

It seems some members of the Green Party, Lib Dems, Tories, Plaid, SNP and people of no political interest are really closet socialists

Good post Jen,

ab The politics of posters has nothing to do with Russia and bombing, just as it has nothing to do with their views on dealing with terrorism.

I read a mention of a leftwing "socialist" Russia being spared protests as a reflection on the frequently aired linking, by left-wingers on here, of those who don't rule out physical attacks (against an ideology which itself uses physical force) as holding that opinion because of their "right-wing" ideology.

Russia seems these days to be more capitalist than the capitalist bourgeous societies they once reviled, but their reputationj is still of a socialist state.

Elegran, it certaintly had a lot to do with some of the posts on this thread following the question from Nigglynellie

. I am a socialist , I am a member of STW and Hope not Hate, I speak out against all bombing no matter the country dropping the bombs , I protested against the Iraq war and we had a labour government then did we not

*The recent upsurge in activities against the Syrian debacle is due to the growing realisation that the murderous chaos in the region that has produced such misery will get worse with more bombs. The sight of hundreds of thousands of Syrian war refugees seeking shelter in Europe has made many realise that the way to peace is not through a war waged by the US, Europe and Russia.'

Is this clear enough for you?*

Not really. The first sentence above would read equally well if the third word from the end were changed to 'without'. I think that's why so many MPs voted in favour of targeted drone strikes in Syria as well as in Iraq.

It is not war waged by the US, Europe and Russia that has led to the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees but war waged by other Syrians.

First 2 paras supposed to be highlighted as they are from djen's post.

You do know there has been a civil war raging in Syria for several years, I suppose, dj? That's a war within a country fought by its own citizens.

The recent upsurge in activities against the Syrian debacle is due to the growing realisation that the murderous chaos in the region that has produced such misery will get worse with more bombs. The sight of hundreds of thousands of Syrian war refugees seeking shelter in Europe has made many realise that the way to peace is not through a war waged by the US, Europe and Russia.

The recent upsurge in activities against the Syrian debacle is due to the growing realisation that the murderous chaos in the region that has produced such misery will get worse without more bombs. The sight of hundreds of thousands of Syrian war refugees seeking shelter in Europe has made many realise that the way to peace is not through a war waged by the US, Europe and Russia.'

Equally clear and valid either way.

Especially if the bombs are targeted at Isil's source of revenue, ie oilfields.

You know very well, bags, that my quote was about whether the STWC was against Russian bombing as well. I was saying it was, so stop trying to deflect the question.

Of course I know there has been a civil war in Syria. We were not asked to join in and should not have.
Is that what Britain's forces are for? Oh, that's good, there's a war in ... Let's go and bomb them to make them see sense. When we've messed up the whole area, we'll leave them to it. Serves them right.

Sometimes when there is fighting and trouble in another country people complain that the rest of the world isn't doing anything to help victims of the conflict. An example is the kidnapping of all those schoolgirls by Boko Haram in Nigeria.

I believe some Syrians did ask for outside help. That is why STW's reported refusal not to listen to any Syrians at a certain meeting about the conflict there has been widely criticised. People feel STW's reporting is very one-sided.

The continued bombing of oilfields in Syria and Iraq has indeed cut off a large percentage of Daesh's income. But they are a growling faction now in Libya, which is also oil-rich, and I foresee military action being extended into that country before too long.

Libya is undoubtedly a problem with regard to ISIL (which country isn't?) . I had previouly mentioned in a post somewhere on GN that there is a hope for some unity against ISIL and spoke of rival factions making an attempt for a peace treaty.

Yesterday in Morocco two rival factions signed a United Nations backed agreement to form a Unity Government. The General National Congress based in Tripoli and the internationally recognised House of Representatives based to the east in Tobruk signed the Accord in Skhirat.

My understanding is ISIL has a hold on the coastal area of Sirte and nearby towns such as Nawfaliya and Harawa. Most of the fighters are from the Ansar Al-Sharia group. ISIL will obviously have pockets throughout Libya.

There is a will in Libya to defeat ISIL by the Libyan people and I think they will call for help from the United Nations at some stage. The signing of the accord is a step in the right direction. Will it work???? Who knows the area is so volatile. Will it last ???? Who knows they all have their own agenda. But at least it is a 'hopeful' sign that Libya has started to think in terms of political will not by constant fighting so it can only be a good thing, however long it lasts.

This is an extraordinarily good essay on the Syria problem and our government's involvement in it. It looks at the alternative that STW propounds.

I know not everyone likes or reads links. This is for people who are interested. The writer, Twll Dun, expresses my feelings on the issue almost exactly. Whilst I know full well (how could I not on Gransnet? ) that STW supporters won't agree with this view, as I don't agree with theirs, I'll say this: it is not an unreasonable, nor an uncaring, nor a 'bad' view. It is based on reason, on love of one's fellow humans, and on the desire for a solution.

Good link.

Very interesting view, thatbags, and I can see why it resonates with you.

I agree with what he says, no surprise there though I suppose .