Saturday 14th & Sunday 15th November 2015

[TechnicalEphemera]

I thought this article was spin too, you had to resd quite carefully to see that it was a peshmerga win, if you could really call it that, though really it is a retake of their city.The photo is misleading, Sinjar lies in ruins, it is not a place for living in. So a gain for the peshmerga, but not really a victory for their people, who knows how and when this place will be restored to being habitable. I think western input in retaking it seems exaggerated, and it is likely, given the state it is in, that a truer reading is that it was part retake and part abandonment by IS as they moved on. In the meantime they continue their campaign of destruction in cities across a good swathe of nations full of Muslim people, bombing and killing with abandon while our media prefer to impress on us that the west are the ultimate target, and bury the real news under cover of talks about action, and who is or isn't right.

We don't listen, and we don't learn, because our principal interest is resources not people, and the protection of our means of extraction over the safety of other peoples cities. We need to make a correction there. We need to care more about Moslem lives and reduce the lies, the half truths, the spin, and the negation, and listen to what they are saying, listen to all the voices saying 'we are human too'.

I am daily repulsed by the way these things are reported and prioritised. I fear that action will continue to increase the problem. Let's see what emerges from the talks, but please question what you are reading and seeing, put it through a reality filter.

You are wrong about that, it is a big defeat for ISIS and the American involvement should not be underestimated. Air power inflicts about 80% of the casualties in any modern land battle, but you can't win without boots on the ground. It is interesting that the American and Kurdish forces are so tightly integrated, the Kurds would have been calling in air support directly from the front lines.

Yes the city is ruined, but eventually with proper military intervention (probably including NATO troops) ISIS leaders will run out of places to hide and oil to sell.

In recent days Russian/Syrian/Iranian forces have also reached an airbase under siege for 2 years. This is the first time for a while ISIS look to be in trouble. If the US/NATO and Russia can cut a deal the end could come fairly quickly.

TE, i did not post in a spirit of argument but one of sorrow that we, or more correctly our media, present so much destruction as some kind of victory. A city destroyed - how much human suffering and horror did that entail? How many lives that are not mentioned. Or even that the Kurdish feet on the ground seem to have less value to us than the feet we won't put on the ground because body bags are not vote winners. If our leaders were in this because of any conviction that human lives are worth protecting then I'd feel reassured we were'nt helping create the very thing that causes Paris, Beirut, Baghdad and so much more. We weight the scales so the human losses are so unbalanced that the dead on the 'other' side are uncountable. not to mention so faceless that we can muster compassion for tiny children, but by 18 we are sending them back to the hell holes we helped create.

The latest news: France drops 20 bombs on Raqqa.

http://news.sky.com/story/1588256/franc ... hold-raqqa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree it is pathetic that the west claim ISIS to be a huge threat but leave the fighting to other people. I can't see dropping 20 bombs on ISIS makes any odds, but it is understandable.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Indeed. And even two elections later, they were (in vote share, if not seats) still further back than in 1979. That's why people have nightmares about 1983.

But I don't think Corbyn intends to stay, and I'm optimistic that a "soft lefter" who rises to the challenge under Corbyn will emerge.

Why people think Corbyn is going to step down is beyond me. He is busy changing the rule book to hold on to power. Anyway as far as I am concerned he needs to go sooner rather than later. Labours official spokesperson at the moment seems to be Diane Abbott FFS.

I could easily see Labour fracturing as Momentum starts taking over the party machinery. Corbyn looks totally out of touch on defence and has far too many uncosted commitments to be a serious consideration for many. Of course both of those could change, but I don't see him stepping up to the plate on the basis of his performance to date.

So yes, I think it is possible to envisage a scenario where Labour lose quite a lot of seats in 2020.

[seeingclearly]

What makes the difference between reason and unreason then? Is it to be an eye for an eye, slug it out till the world is too tired and damaged to fight any more and has lost the will to live? Or are we to stop fuelling the root causes of conflict?

[citizenJA]

Goodnight, everyone.
love,
cJA

[Tubby Isaacs]

Indeed. And even two elections later, they were (in vote share, if not seats) still further back than in 1979. That's why people have nightmares about 1983.

But I don't think Corbyn intends to stay, and I'm optimistic that a "soft lefter" who rises to the challenge under Corbyn will emerge.

Why people think Corbyn is going to step down is beyond me. He is busy changing the rule book to hold on to power. Anyway as far as I am concerned he needs to go sooner rather than later. Labours official spokesperson at the moment seems to be Diane Abbott FFS.

I could easily see Labour fracturing as Momentum starts taking over the party machinery. Corbyn looks totally out of touch on defence and has far too many uncosted commitments to be a serious consideration for many. Of course both of those could change, but I don't see him stepping up to the plate on the basis of his performance to date.
Pppp,
So yes, I think it is possible to envisage a scenario where Labour lose quite a lot of seats in 2020.

71 year old Corbyn running for PM?

[RogerOThornhill]

Indeed. And even two elections later, they were (in vote share, if not seats) still further back than in 1979. That's why people have nightmares about 1983.

But I don't think Corbyn intends to stay, and I'm optimistic that a "soft lefter" who rises to the challenge under Corbyn will emerge.

Why people think Corbyn is going to step down is beyond me. He is busy changing the rule book to hold on to power. Anyway as far as I am concerned he needs to go sooner rather than later. Labours official spokesperson at the moment seems to be Diane Abbott FFS.

I could easily see Labour fracturing as Momentum starts taking over the party machinery. Corbyn looks totally out of touch on defence and has far too many uncosted commitments to be a serious consideration for many. Of course both of those could change, but I don't see him stepping up to the plate on the basis of his performance to date.
Pppp,
So yes, I think it is possible to envisage a scenario where Labour lose quite a lot of seats in 2020.

71 year old Corbyn running for PM?

No, I don't think so either.

I'd say he wants to get the party into a position where it knows what it stands for again and then hand over to whoever is in the right position at that point.

Still think that a snap election when the Tories are in the middle of scrapping between Boris, George and Theresa would be the smart move.

[Temulkar]

There were 'at least 10,000 bombings' during the Irish troubles including the invention of the proxy bomb so favoured by insurgents in Iraq and Syria.

Boots on the ground just created more atrocity, more bitterness, and more violence. It wasnt British military power that brought the peace process (far from it) it was negotiation and revulsion on the part of the Northern Irish at the atrocities. It took 30 years to get to that point.

Vengeance is easy, but achhieves nothing more than petrol to the flames. That's the problem with the armchair hawks calling for more violence and boots on the ground; kill kill kill is all they care about. It's sickening but our arms industry is doing very well indeed.

Maybe stop selling arms to Saudi, maybe stop invading countries, maybe stop throwing bombs in vengeance, and we might just find a solution.

If nothing else learn the lesson of every single bombing campaign in history - they do not demoralise the enemy. It's called the Blitz spirit in the UK. It stiffened German resolve in WW2. It creates martyrs in the middle east. Every bomb dropped, every civilian killed, simply adds to the hate. That's what Daesh want. They want a war of civilisations. They want hate; they want islamophobia; they want us to bomb them. So why the fuck give it to them.

“The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.'' Martin Luther King.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Corbyn is *not* "changing the rule book to entrench his hold on power". He is acting to prevent the moronic, profoundly undemocratic, and possibly existensially threatening to Labour's future idea of a "fait accompli" coup by malcontent elements in the PLP.

As for the likelihood of his standing down before 2020, his spokespeople made clear during the campaign he was minded to hand over before the next GE, and they still don't deny that (certainly not convincingly) He has also said, on the record, that he will not continue if he genuinely thinks he is harming the party's chances.

Whatever my differences with him, I believe he is a man of his word and will act with integrity. Others are free to disagree.

[Tubby Isaacs]

There were 'at least 10,000 bombings' during the Irish troubles including the invention of the proxy bomb so favoured by insurgents in Iraq and Syria.

Boots on the ground just created more atrocity, more bitterness, and more violence. It wasnt British military power that brought the peace process (far from it) it was negotiation and revulsion on the part of the Northern Irish at the atrocities. It took 30 years to get to that point.

Whereas what? Both sides fighting with the RUC in charge? UN peacekeepers? How much bitterness would that have created?

Total death casualty in the Troubles in 30 odd years was about 3,500. Deaths in a few minutes on Friday over 130.

The intensity is so different, that Northern Ireland isn't much use as a parallel.

[Temulkar]

There were 'at least 10,000 bombings' during the Irish troubles including the invention of the proxy bomb so favoured by insurgents in Iraq and Syria.

Boots on the ground just created more atrocity, more bitterness, and more violence. It wasnt British military power that brought the peace process (far from it) it was negotiation and revulsion on the part of the Northern Irish at the atrocities. It took 30 years to get to that point.

Whereas what? Both sides fighting with the RUC in charge? UN peacekeepers? How much bitterness would that have created?

Total death casualty in the Troubles in 30 odd years was about 3,500. Deaths in a few minutes on Friday over 130.

The intensity is so different, that Northern Ireland isn't much use as a parallel.

There were many many different choices that the UK govt could have made from the start of the non violent civil rights movement, through the 70s, 80s and 90s to solve the troubles. Increased military presence and heightened security didnt work though did it. It merely escalated the troubles into a full blown insurgency.

And actually on Friday about a 1000 people were killed, not just in Paris, but in Beruit, Baghdad, and across Syria and Iraq. It is of course a difference in scale from NI which is why our hawks call for bigger bombs and NATO troops on the ground. It won't work, and then the call will be for more bombs. We have been bombing the terrorists and the countries that they hide in for fourteen years. Has the threat diminished or increased? We have allowed rendition and torture, imprisonment without trial, spent billions, and curtailed our own civil liberties. Has the threat diminished or increased?

[HindleA]

With respect Tem,regardless of view to assign all those that believe a certain course of action as only caring about "kill,kill,kill",is most unfair.If I have misinterpreted please correct me.Note I specifically have avoided a view beyond that.

[Temulkar]

With respect Tem,regardless of view to assign all those that believe a certain course of action as only caring about "kill,kill,kill",is most unfair.If I have misinterpreted please correct me.Note I specifically have avoided a view beyond that.

They tend to be the same people who called for a war in Iraq in the first place, applauded the bombing in Lybia, and never once acknowledge how those actions have made the situation worse every single time. How many hundreds of thousands of corpses have our policies caused? ISIS is Blair's most enduring creation. To call for more bombing and more war is a call for more death, and it is insane evil.

Its a simple question, are we safer now than we were fifteen years ago or not? Is the threat diminished or increased? In six months in 2003 we dropped more ordnance on Iraq than during the whole of the Second World War. We have been dropping more ever since, and yet, Al Qaida still exist and their bastard offshoots Daesh, Boko Haram etc have been spawned.

The only people benefitting are the arms dealers. I make no apology for calling out warmongers for what they are.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I'm not a hawk, and not sure about the respose to ISIS in the Middle East. You mentioned Northern Ireland and I naturally took that up in terms of casualties "at home".

The situation was already utterly poisonous and dangerous when British troops were sent in. The Loyalists were attacking the civil rights people at will. Even if the government hadn't been gerrymandered unionist, it wouldn't have been up to controlling the situation. The Loyalist paramilitaries were powerful enough to defeat the British government over powersharing- and that with Provos not involved. They'd have been absolutely rampant in a non-militarized Northern Ireland.

[seeingclearly]

Corbyn is *not* "changing the rule book to entrench his hold on power". He is acting to prevent the moronic, profoundly undemocratic, and possibly existensially threatening to Labour's future idea of a "fait accompli" coup by malcontent elements in the PLP.

As for the likelihood of his standing down before 2020, his spokespeople made clear during the campaign he was minded to hand over before the next GE, and they still don't deny that (certainly not convincingly) He has also said, on the record, that he will not continue if he genuinely thinks he is harming the party's chances.

Whatever my differences with him, I believe he is a man of his word and will act with integrity. Others are free to disagree.

Thankyou AK, for this. May I add that he is doing this in a situation where politics is like trying to play chess with an opponent who has thrown all the pieces in the air and burnt up the board. But the game has to be played, and all that is left is the rules. And I'm not referring to the rules that TE refers to, but the ones that hold our social processes together. The same things you describe as being present in Labour are there in our government. Even the most promising of Labour talents or any other parties talents may not be able to win because the political ground needs to be reestablished in order for that to happen, effectively democracy itself has been destabilised. While we can see that other nations are attempting to fix their similar problems, we haven't really started. Corbyn is the peoples democratic response to what they know is a wrong direction, and he is there to attempt to find the pieces put the board back on the table, and get the opponent to sit down and engage in the game - or if you like reestablish a means for our democracy to move forward. I'm not sure if anyone else can do this. Corbyn may not seem the best of choices to some, but he is not a wild gamble either. If he achieves the aim of bringing what the electorate sees into focus, then there are able people who have something to work with. Otherwise they will meet the same fate as Ed.

Not part of the Corbyn or not to Corbyn argument is a another aspect to the British situation, in that our democracy, laws, and social provision have for a long time been a kind of base model for other nations, we are not the only democracy in this position, I can think of another three base models, and there may be more. Our frameworks informed theirs and if they dont hold then we enter new territory. There has never been a time when ours have been more under threat, not even in war, and it does have implications that go further than here. An evidence of this is the company our government is keeping. There's a lot riding on our fate, and quietly the world is waiting to see what happens.

[Temulkar]

If we want to stop the war in the middle east, we stop the flow or arms and cash being funnelled to Daesh and work with regional powers to bring about a dialoge with the other combatants. We arent doing that, although we make a pretence of it, because we are sucking on the teat of cheap Saudi oil.

[Temulkar]

Good article

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... rists-isis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LadyCentauria]

Mentioned tangles, earlier. Here's Rowson on The World After the Paris Attacks:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ks-cartoon

@Temulkar: I agree with you. Let's not give Daesh their war of civilisations. Let's find a more intelligent way to stop them from ruining lives and lands - like following and severing their money-supply on the one hand and, oh I dunno, not alienating vulnerable young people (and great swathes of our populations) so they're not such easy prey to exploitation. Easier said than done, I know.

[seeingclearly]

I'm not a hawk, and not sure about the respose to ISIS in the Middle East. You mentioned Northern Ireland and I naturally took that up in terms of casualties "at home".

The situation was already utterly poisonous and dangerous when British troops were sent in. The Loyalists were attacking the civil rights people at will. Even if the government hadn't been gerrymandered unionist, it wouldn't have been up to controlling the situation. The Loyalist paramilitaries were powerful enough to defeat the British government over powersharing- and that with Provos not involved. They'd have been absolutely rampant in a non-militarized Northern Ireland.

That utterly poisonous dangerous situation didn't happen in isolation it grows out of toxic history. Wood or trees?

A lifetime of watching Northern Irelands twin conflict on the other side of the world, which over took it in horror by the end, led me to the same conclusions as Tem.

Observing the many times when things could have been averted, the ways in which civil war could have been prevented, and how the intervention of the rest of the world could have been powerfully for the good, and consistently fed the bad instead is a lesson I can't unlearn. The corrupt thinking from outside created and supported internal corruption and destructive thinking, so that the stupid and senseless dreams of a tiny minority led to thirty years of war.

It ended with one of the largest single terrifyingly senseless slaughters of our times. I have family on both sides. We are all grateful they survived. All of them know people who didn't. No one talks of the war now, they talk about how good it is that it is over. Peace is good, but is going to cost them for generations. In times before everything became costed in billions the war efforts cost a million $ a day. They will repay that in many billions, and part of the unrefusable settlement are many vanity projects which lend the place an air of affluence, they will pay an unimaginable amount for those too. There are some disturbing environmental consequences, and many limbless young people and children. Occasionally in an oblique way people will refer to their own traumatic events, but they are very sparing and rarely assign blame. They treat people respectfully and kindly, and they value an increasing level of equality. They have seen the extremes, and have no wish to revisit them. Every family has its own history which it hands down carefully, because they know peace is fragile, and hope is the only glue to hold it.

It is a tiny place where bombings with huge tolls became the norm. Here in the west our view of it was fatally warped by our inability to see consequences, and our taking partisan action, supporting a state of war, with a chattering media that fanned it if and when we paid any attention to it at all. The occasional outrage didn't help, history was rewritten to fit the current narratives and justify acts of increasing awfulness. An influx of fresh thinking happened in the wake of a sudden natural disaster with massive loss of life. Lots of new money poured in, the corrupt saw a different way of doing things..... a few years later the war ended, and the world was sickened by the way it happened.

The most bizarre thing is that most of this happened in full view in a country reliant on tourism. Except the end, which was televised.

I'll never think of it in any other way than as being a kind of madness on all sides, that never should have happened, an utterly avertable disaster. The resemblances to the initial stages and IS are remarkable. The brutality in particular is very familiar, though it didnt really make an impact here. The differences are of scale and communication speed. In a way this is like a second global civil war. But I say that quietly, and hope we will do the right things to make it containable and extinguishable. I want us to have a view of the wood while caring about the trees. All the trees.

The thing to do with war is starve it, not feed it.
And I don't mean sanctions on the people, I mean sanctions on the powerful.