Latest post on Left Futures

Emergency motion to Labour conference on Syria and ISIS

Syria conflictReaders will be aware of the likelihood that David Cameron will seek House of Commons support to extend UK participation in the bombing of Iraq to Syria in the near future. In discussion between various organisations, the following model emergency motion has been drafted. This is clearly life and death issue for the people of Syria. It is also an issue which could test the unity of Labour’s new shadow cabinet and is therefore something on which a clear decision by Labour’s sovereign conference is very important. 

We hope this, or something similar, will be adopted by CLPs and affiliated organisations. Any such motion must be submitted by 12 noon on Friday 25 September 2015 to the Labour Party Conference Arrangements Committee at CAC@labour.org.uk and anyone submitting it is advised to confirm receipt by ringing 020 7783 1376: 

Conference notes the evidence of an increased Russian military build-up in Syria; the announcement of talks between US and Russian military leaders aimed at avoiding the risk of clashes in Syria on Friday, 18th September; the meeting between the Israeli and Russian presidents in Moscow on Monday, 21st September, focused on preventing accidental conflict between their forces in Syria; and the growing international diplomatic effort to achieve a negotiated settlement to the conflict in Syria.

Conference also notes the likelihood that David Cameron will seek House of Commons support to extend UK participation in the bombing of Iraq to Syria in the near future.  

Conference believes the Parliamentary Labour Party should oppose any such extension unless the following conditions are met:

  1. Clear and unambiguous authorisation for such a bombing campaign from the United Nations;
  2. A comprehensive European Union-wide plan is in place to provide humanitarian assistance to the increased number of refugees that even more widespread bombing can be expected to lead to;
  3. Such bombing is exclusively directed at military targets directly associated with ‘Islamic State’ and is not aimed at securing regime change in Syria, noting that if the bombing campaign advocated by the British government in 2013 had not been blocked by the PLP under Ed Miliband’s leadership,  ‘Islamic State’ forces might now be in control of far more Syrian territory, including Damascus.
  4. Any military action is subordinated to international diplomatic efforts, including the main regional powers, to bring the Syrian civil war to an end, since only a broadly-based and sovereign Syrian government can ultimately retake territory currently controlled by ‘Islamic State’.

Conference believes that only military action which meets all these objectives, and thus avoids the risk of repeating the disastrous consequences of the 2003 regime-change war in Iraq and the 2011 air campaign intervention in Libya, can secure the assent of the British people.

 

50 Comments

  1. Mervyn Hyde says:

    We as a country should reflect on why we need to involve ourselves in these power struggles, to say that we can stop ISIS militarily flies in the face of all the evidence, they have grown in size not reduced since our bombing campaign started.

    I would prefer a blanket rejection of all British military intervention, but would go along with the draft as presently outlined, due to the fact that Russia and possibly China would veto military intervention anyway.

    1. J.P. Craig-Weston says:

      There are no grounds whatsoever for Labor to support the Tories or any military action against Syria, American driven and as with Iraq and Libya, (Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba, Iran, The Congo etc…..) aimed at regime change under any circumstances.

      As someone has noted above all this reads too much like a rational for us participating further military aggression, dressed up as principled objection and it has the stink of Blair all over it.

      Though not necessarily of him personally.

      1. J.P. Craig-Weston says:

        “As someone has noted above,” actually David Ellis below and as I’ve pointed out previously; the ratio causalities among civilians to active combatants, (whatever that even means in this context,) since the Vietnam war has risen to 90% civilian.

        So however you try to dress it up, bombing young and old men, women and children is not a policy we should be embracing or supporting for any reason, even without practical considerations, such as the inevitable radicalization of such people and the refugee crisis of our own creation.

        1. David Ellis says:

          Where the fuck have I supported bombing?

          1. David Ellis says:

            Actually had the imperialists voted in 2013 to impose a No Fly Zone over Syria I certainly would not have opposed it. In fact I would have advised the revolution to take immediate advantage and beware false friends.

          2. J.P. Craig-Weston says:

            As far as I’m aware you never have, (supported the bombing,) and I apologize if I gave the impression that I though that you had.

      2. Susan O'Neill says:

        Blair’s diplomatic corps were already bragging back in 2006 how they and the US would oust Assad “from within”. The US has notably ignored the massive convoys of ISIS troops and weapons to facilitate the regime change. Continued disruption by ISIS plays into US policy. At least the Russians will actually target ISIS/ISIL

        1. David Ellis says:

          Conspiracy theory crap that suits the Putinite, neo-Stalinist Left.

  2. Susan O'Neill says:

    Regime change is not an option, like it or not the majority of Syrians support Bashar al Assad. We had no business aligning ourselves with the US in employing and deploying “moderate” terrorists in an illegal attempt to destabilize Iraq, Libya and Syria “from within”. The direct consequence was to create a vacuum for the Islamic State in which to flourish, causing millions of Syrians to flee their homeland. The US has been shelling the Syrian army and it’s allies whilst ignoring the massive convoys of Islamic State military hardware and personnel being transited across Syria. Some 3,000 US personnel are currently positioned within Syria to facilitate the use of “moderate” terrorists to help continue the assault against the Syrian people in the hopes of parcelling off regions and allocating them to Israel, Saudi, Turkey and IS. Any such federalisation of a country should not have been conceived by countries who had an economic, commercial or military advantage in doing so, which is clearly the case. The US wants a pro Washington presence in Syria with which to expand it’s “spheres of influence” in a bid to empower it’s own financial gains, while repressing those of Russia, China, Iran, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. A “terrorist” is a murderous extremist fanatic and should never be considered a weapon with which to slaughter civilians and can never be described as “moderate” and the UK should extricate itself from this unholy alliance before our presence in the war enables another massive exodus of refugees.

    1. David Ellis says:

      “Like it or not regime change is not an option.”

      You seem to like it.

      1. Susan O'Neill says:

        ????

  3. David Ellis says:

    This motion gives persmission for the Labour Party to support bombing. It is a very clever motion dressed up as being opposed to something it is in favour of.

    With everybody on board there is no reason whatsoever that a UN resolution to bomb ISIS in Syria will not be passed. It will probably even be proposed by Putin. We know from the bombing of ISIS in Iraq that civilian casualties are of zero concern to the UK and US air forces and the motion goes on to say that preparations should be made for the inevitable exodus of refugees that bombing will result in. This motion is poisonous.

    If the West bombs the fascist ISIS in Syria or allows Russia to take the lead in so doing they will not be seen as liberators but as the bringers of genocide because they only forces that could take advantage, now that the refugees are being scattered to the four winds instead of trained to retake their country, are the butchering forces of Assad and Iran. Either ISIS will be strengthened by such bombing or a massive new wave of refugees will be created and many civilians slaughtered. The time to not oppose an intervention was when one against Assad was proposed in 2011 to support this motion would be to support a Western intervention for Assad which I suspect is why the neo-Stalinist proposers of this disgusting document have put it forward.

    Here is a proper motion for you:

    Conference demands that all Labour MPs be required to vote against any proposal in Parliament to extend bombing of ISIS by Western forces into Syria and that they condemn unequivocally any attempts by Russia to do the same. Any MP voting for such proposals should have the Labour whip removed and should be inivited to resign their seats.

  4. David Ellis says:

    Funny that I should have commented in another threat that it might be possible that Corbyn would end up voting for bombing in Syria at the rate he was going. This motion would give him permission to do so.

    1. J.P. Craig-Weston says:

      The current consensus seems to be that he won’t, but we shall see, certainly I share your concern.

      This will probably be the first major test of how well his, “principles,” and policies will withstand contact with the real world and the largely speaking, generally pretty rotten and compliant PLP likely to follow their own agenda.

      1. David Ellis says:

        The first major test was the position on the EU Referendum. He failed…. miserably. And why? So he could have a less than useless moon calf like Hilary Benn in his shadow cabinet. Party unity, unity with the New Labour dross, has been the only principle displayed so far.

        1. bill says:

          I think the problems ahead of Jeremy Corbyn are that if Party Conference passes motions that he doesn’t agree with then what is he going to do. For example if they support drone strikes and the renewal of Trident.

          There is a danger,although not an immediate one, to him that if he cannot achieve many of the policies he stated then those that support those policies will either not sign up as full members and existing full members will leave the Labour Party.

          It is entirely possible that it is the ‘left’ that will split from ‘New Labour’

          1. David Ellis says:

            If the Labour Conference votes to support Cameron and his reforms in the EU referendum, votes to keep Trident and votes via a motion like the one above to support the bombing of Syria UN or no UN approval all of which are more than likely to happen then Corbyn will put party unity above principle as he has been doing up to now. Instead he should be saying he has a far bigger mandate that cannot be overturned by a conference most of whose delegates were elected long before the leadrship election. It is time to purge new labour and elect a more representative conference that is ready to pass resolutions about and work for anti-austerity and socialism and to subordinate the PLP to the Party as a whole.

        2. J.P. Craig-Weston says:

          I sort of disagree with you, not least because I do get a vote on the EU and I can therefore express my own views directly at the ballot box; quite unlike the demented drive towards us as a country being responsible yet more violence and unnecessary bloodshed in the Near and Middle East indiscriminate and probably far more often than not directed against families and children, (who are quite understandably very cross about it.)

          But whatever stance the Labor party, (or for that matter the Tories,) adopts, I like many other people, (potentially even a majority,) will still be voting to leave the EU, assuming we can.

          So in that respect the Labor policy is still pretty out of touch with mood of the electorate, I agree, following and not leading.

  5. gerry says:

    In truth, this motion, and the actual proposal ( to allow the UK to extend bombing to ISIS in Syria) is a sideshow.

    Syria, after 4 years of brutal civil war, is finished as a nation state – Assad is propped up by Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Shiites; Islamists/jihadis are propped up by Turkey, Saudi, Gulf States, and indirectly the US, Europe; Kurds are being used and then discarded by everyone at any given moment. And there is no socialist, progressive or democratic movement within Syria that could be supported by any Labour person.

    A deadly stalemate of sectarianism, slaughter,massive human misery and displacement. ISIS are fascists plus, but Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and some of the Assad militias are barely any less bloodsoaked. Like the 30 years war in Europe, perhaps only after massive war weariness on all sides will there be a peaceful and durable solution. So no to more bombing by the UK – but the motion is still a sideshow.

  6. Mike Phipps says:

    Even if the UN authorised bombing, it would neither be helpful nor effective. What do ISIS military targets consist of? In the past, military targets have included water and power plants, the destruction of which contribute to civilian misery. Forensic bombing is impossible. Any bombing automatically means more civilian casualties and will lead to more refugees. Even the Daily Mail spotted that ISIS signed up more than 6,000 new recruits in the first month after American airstrikes began this time last year – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2760644/ISIS-signs-6-000-new-recruits-American-airstrikes-began-France-says-start-calling-group-derogatory-Daesh-cutthroats.html.
    And when the bombing does not work, as it never has in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, then what – more mission creep? No, we should take a clear stand against these proposals.

  7. bill says:

    Who has formulated this dreadful motion? (sorry I am new to left futures)

    1. David Ellis says:

      Indeed. I think we should be told.

  8. martin hogan says:

    Bombing doesn’t work and never has, it cannot be directed at ‘purely military targets’. Military sales to the Middle East should be banned by the UN. The UK should subordinate its military to the UN prior to it being abolished completely

    1. Robert says:

      You are correct after all asking ISIS not to use hospitals or schools or going near housing would of course work.

      We will like always go after ISIS and if they are hiding in a school or a hospital it would end up being a target and the dead would just be casualties of war.

      If we are to have a war then sadly it will mean troops on the ground fighting in what could be a hell of a war with ISIS not being like the Troops in Iraq who decide they had families wives and girl friends. ISIS would stand and would fight until such time they knew they were beaten, what then come home to the UK to bomb.

  9. Bazza says:

    I wouldn’t vote for this resolution as it is.
    Just oppose us bombing IS in Syria but call for an international peace conference on Syria and remember we have not been invited in and Assad and his clique (who own one third of the economy) only now rule half of the country – an international legal minefield.
    According to Red Pepper Magazine there are progressive forces in Syria and they are calling for a no fly zone for Assad re bombing Syrians.
    With Russia’s military now arming Assad with more sophisticated military equipment to take on IS and the change in relations with Iran perhaps there is a renewed chance for calling such a major international peace conference on Syria with all Govts including proxy Govts involved invited.
    We beat IS by stopping arms sales to them and stopping countries buying their oil etc. that they have stolen plus perhaps we turn the tribes against them by giving oil in Iraq etc. back to the people and taking it out of the hands of Western TNCs.
    Of course we will still have the boys with their toys and countries killing human beings (including civillians) so the urgency of a peace conference is crucial as we crush IS through mainly politics as sadly you cannot persuade those who want their will through violence.

  10. Bazza says:

    Yes we beat IS with military self defence and political offence!

  11. David Ellis says:

    The people who could have defeated ISIS militarily on the ground were the Syrian people themselves but they are being scattered to the four winds with the collaboration of the pro-Putin pro Assad left with their ridiculous Refugees Welcome Here bullshit. The same people who ignored the mangled bodies of Syrian children for five years and only discovered some compassion, entirely bogus I can assure you, when the picture of little Aylan came to view because it suited their twisted politics. This is what the `left’ offers nowadays as a vision of the `good life’ genocidal tyrants and mass migration.

    1. Susan O'Neill says:

      It was the megalomaniac rights like Blair who decided Saddam Hussein and Assad must go, the “lefts” as you may or may not recall, were no where in sight. Had the tyrannical and corporate imperialistic US/UK/EU not decided to remove Assad on the grounds that he stood in the way of the EU gas pipeline and favoured the Russian south pipeline which was cheaper as is Russian electric in Macedonia, the refugee crisis would not be . Furthermore, had they targeted the IS instead of Assad’s regime defenders, as is now evidenced, ISIS/ISIL would not have progressed as far as they have, unhindered.

      1. David Ellis says:

        ISIL’s explosion to prominence was the product of two things. The seed was planted during the murderous civil war unleashed in Iraq by Bush and Blair’s illegal invasion and it germinated in the manure of Western hypocrisy when it studiously turned its back on the revolution against the tyrant Assad that it had formented for years via sanctions in favour of rapprochment with Iran. This allowed the psychotic bloody murderer Assad to slaughter 100s of thousands of Syrians whilst ISIS feasted on the hypocrisy land-grabbing in the liberated areas. The Putin Left backed and cheered this policy all the way and are now looking forward to when Russian planes with the approval of and perhaps alongside the US and UK start bombing ISIS in Syria. Far from welcoming these scum as liberators those living under fascist ISIS tyranny will see the bombings as a precursor to genocide as the only forces capable of moving into the ISIS sized hole that will be left behind will be Assad and vicious Iranian militias backed by Russian marines. The evacuation of the Syrian population from the surrounding refugee camps is part of the policy making sure that they cannot return when ISIS is degraded to retake their country. Either thousands more civilians will die and millions more refugees created or thousands more civilians will die and ISIS will be strengthened. 100s of thousands of Syrians have been sacrificed on the altar of Obama’s policy of rapprochment with Iran and the Putin, neo-Stalinist, anti-revolution left have loved it and now these same rogues are cheer-leading the evacuation of Syrian refugees by people smugglers from the camps to take the pressure of Assad and his neighbours. Cynical degenerate left we have in this country.

        1. P Spence says:

          “the psychotic bloody murderer Assad”: what’s your evidence for such an allegation? Assad and his government are secular Arab nationalists which is exactly why the western imperialists want to dismantle the Syrian state. Half of the casualties in Syria have been members of the armed services defending their country against externally sponsored terrorists. They are in an existential struggle to defend their sovereign state and liberal leftists are in no good position to lecture them.

          1. David Ellis says:

            You are a delusional Putinite my friend.

          2. Susan O'Neill says:

            http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.pdf
            This is the link to the Lloyd Postal Report that the US used to justify their insistence that the chemical attack had to have come from Assad’s regime. The report however, stipulates on pages 11 and again on 28 that the weapons that the weapons could not have been fired by Assad’s regime and were undoubtedly fired by factions hostile to the Assad Regime and that the President chose to misrepresent the findings.
            Hersh’s report added to Lehmann’s, a powerful confirmation by British intelligence, which found that the source of the chemical-weapons attack couldn’t possibly have been Assad’s forces.
            “The US Government’s Interpretation of the Technical Intelligence It Gathered Prior to and After the August 21 Attack CANNOT POSSIBLY BE CORRECT.”
            • A Proper Vetting of the Fact That the Munition Was of Such Short Range Would Have Led to a Completely Different Assessment of the Situation from the Gathered Data [namely, that the attack was perpetrated by opponents to Assad’s regime].
            “Obama in his 24 September 2015 UN speech misrepresented the UN investigators’ finding (which was that a sarin gas attack had, indeed, occurred — and not by ‘advanced rockets’ but by two rockets, each of which was an “unguided rocket”), and he lied about what the analyses of evidence, after the UN’s report was issued, actually did find — namely, that the U.S. President has been (and he still is) lying (and it called these rockets “Improvised Chemical Munitions,” and gave detailed descriptions of both of these rockets that the President called “advanced rockets”).”
            “The great investigative journalist Christof Lehmann headlined on 7 October 2013 at his nsnbc news site, “Top US and Saudi Officials responsible for Chemical Weapons in Syria”, and he opened:”
            Obama and Cameron have consitently lied about the UN findings with regard to the chemical attack which was wrongly atrtributed to Assad. The UN findings show definitively that the weapons deployed were not of Assad’s regime and therefore, the excuse to use this misinformation was nothing more than a tactic to engage the west militarily in a war which on the basis of false evidence was illegal.
            Where have we heard that before? Oh yes, Kofi Annan previous Sec. Gen to the UN spoke to the press and referred to the Iraq war as an “Illegal War”.

      2. J.P. Craig-Weston says:

        I completely agree with you and for well over the last 60 years exactly this kind of American orchestrated regime change has become well trodden ground, even standard practice for the US; in, Chile, Guatemala, Iran, Cuba, Viet Nam, El Salvador, The Congo, Greece, Iran, Jamaica, Korea, The Philippines, Iraq, Libya and those just of the top of my head, anything, (usually portrayed as being some sort communist incursion, though frequently really a democratically elected, or not, nationalist government acting in interests of it’s own citizens,) that might potentially or in actuality challenge the American commercial and economic hegemony.

        I’d even go so far to argue that much the same kind of process is now underway even here in the UK and that TTIP will give it the force of international law.

        1. Mervyn Hyde says:

          Susan a big thank you for that report.

          Jeremy’s view is absolutely substantiated in the middle east, to engage in such wars have no moral obligation and we can also conclude that Oil is the real objective.

          Whilst Assad is not someone that we can openly support due to the obvious disconnect with our view of the definition of democracy, he may well not the total Ogre
          that the US paint him out to be. War creates atrocities on all sides.

          Like Saddam Hussein it would appear that control of the Oil fields was more important than the truth.

          Imperialism in the 21st century doesn’t sit comfortably within a modern democracy and should be discarded into the dustbin of history.

          The real threat to all our democracies is not nuclear weapons, but home grown tyranny.

          1. David Ellis says:

            Yeah fair play he’s only slaughtered half a million.

          2. Mervyn Hyde says:

            David:

            Thanks for that well thought out response, no doubt you understood that I give no support to Assad but don’t blame him for all the ills in the Middle East; although I don’t absolve him of them either.

            How about being less adversarial and concentrate more on your own opinions, which we could all share, especially if they are backed by evidence.

  12. David Pavett says:

    The security Council currently consists of the following (a) permanent members China, France, Russian Federation, UK, USA and (b) non-permanent members Angola, Chad, Chile, Jordan, Lithuania, Malaysia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Spain, Venezuela.

    All permanent members can veto any motion. All the non-permanent members are be subjected to intense lobbying and inducements to vote a given way by the permanent members of the Council.

    So I am not really clear as to why UN approval or the absence thereof should be regarded as an ultimate criterion for action. After all the Vietnamese acted against the UN in removing Pol Pot. It is important to try to work with the UN but we need a realistic view of its limitations. Those limitations should not circumscribe our own judgement.

    It’s not that I favour military action in the Syria. It is just that I find the arguments of this motion unconvincing. I also wonder why, given the change in leadership, it is thought that a conference motion on this issue is necessary.

    Would it not be far better to call on the leadership to initiate an informed discussion on the pros and cons of action throughout the Party in order to get a majority view based on widespread discussion? Would that not be a more democratic way to proceed?

    1. David Pavett says:

      Saying that we should only undertake military if it is UN approved is used by some on the left to dodge thinking about the problem. It leaves unanswered what we want the British UN representative to argue for. And suppose that all four conditions in the motion are met. Would that automatically justify military action?

      The motion has been drawn up in a hurry and would be better submitted to branches for discussion (with supporting and opposing arguments) than taken at conference. The left as well as the right needs to adapt to more democratic times in the Labour Party.

      1. J.P. Craig-Weston says:

        A thoughtful and intelligent post with which I agree almost entirely, that despite my own firm conviction that the only moral, sane and responsible course of action for the UK would be for us to cease all military action against Syria or anywhere else for that matter immediately.

        But as you quite correctly observe it is absolutely crucial for Labor to establish both a consensus and a mandate for any policy first.

  13. David Ellis says:

    Yes folks there are actually people arguing on this thread that truly believe that the kleptocratic, homophobic, self-preening, criminal gangster Putin and Russian imperialism will be the saviour of humanity and who are prepared to apologise for any amount of slaughter by the psychotic British-trained madman Assad. Fucking morons.

    1. Susan O'Neill says:

      I think you just established your credentials as far as moronic foul mouthed rants and insults go.

    2. J.P. Craig-Weston says:

      Strangely enough he speaks very highly of you.

      But seriously few people actually really feel that way, nonetheless in the context of the all too familiar, (historically,) American led policies that are at root of all this havoc; that tired old saw that, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” probably has some merit.

      1. David Ellis says:

        I love the way you twist in the wind and misquote people. Now you are saying that Assad ain’t so bad and it would be OK for Corbyn to vote for bombing. The pro-Putin left have zero morality. The only thing they know for sure is that they don’t like revolution especially against heroes like Assad.

        1. J.P. Craig-Weston says:

          Seriously though; you’re, (David Ellis,) turning into a bit of a troll lately.

          It’s really getting more than a bit sad.

        2. Mervyn Hyde says:

          David, I hear your frustration but the world is not black and white as perhaps we would all like to see.

          The reality is the US have been patrolling the world bombing it’s way as it goes, look at how many economies and democratically elected governments they have subverted.

          Putin for all his failings hasn’t been responsible for the wanton destruction inflicted on the world such as the US. As a reminder for example, how do you think we would react if Ireland had suddenly been taken over by a fascist regime and started threatening the English population living in Ireland, then up pops the head of the CIA holding talks obviously about the Oil reserves as in the Ukraine, (and yes I know Ireland has no oil, but perhaps our fishing rights around the Irish coast). Would you then start to sit up and take notice or just sit back whilst they gradually took control of the country?

          In an interview the other night between an ex UK ambassador of Russia and an political analyst from Yale university on BBC’s Newsnight, were diametrically opposed in their view of Putin’s intervention in Syria, the UK ambassador was in fact supportive of Russia’s intervention and told the American professor that he had got it all wrong.

          America is losing it’s grip on the world and is doing it’s best to cling on for as long as it can, instead of accepting that in numbers it is numerically doomed to fail, so should as we must look at what is possible at home rather than the imperialist attitudes of the past.

          Power and influence has moved East, it’s time we all understood that, what we should concentrate on is developing our social societies in the west and developing technology that works for people not against them, that will impress the East far more than sitting off their borders with bigger tanks and ships.

    3. P Spence says:

      Dave,

      You left out “Stalinist” from “Fucking morons”; you’re normally more consistent than that.

  14. Rachel Lever says:

    Terrible resolution. All Ifs and Buts. Under no circumstances does Britain have the right, and under no conditions – whose practical implementation under the fog of war would no doubt be left to an inquest that will rumble on for decades. Have we learned nothing at all from Iraq??

  15. Kellie Strom says:

    The idea that 2013 strikes would have enabled ISIS has no basis in fact. Close observers know that Assad is unwilling or unable to fight ISIS, and that the only ground victories against ISIS in Syria have been by FSA and Kurdish forces.

    In Summer 2013 ISIS were just beginning to move against the FSA who were weakened firstly by lack of Western military support, and secondly by the failure to respond to Assad’s chemical massacre. In the days before MPs debated a motion blocking the UK government from arming Syrian rebels, the BBC and others were already reporting ISIS attacks on the FSA. Despite the lack of support, the FSA pushed ISIS out of several towns in northern Syria in early 2014. If the FSA had been given better support they might have inflicted an even greater defeat, and we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in now.

    Worse than this motion’s parroting of Assad’s ‘either me or ISIS’ line is its outright opposition to any action against the regime, either within or outside a UN resolution. Here it is unequivocally calling for a pro-Assad policy. Anybody supporting this needs to urgently rethink.

    1. Susan O'Neill says:

      The FSA were terrorists opposed to Assad funded by the US and were never attacking ISIS, they were however, attacking the SAA and the Syrian people in favour of Assad, who were numerous. They worked with al Nusra and Chechen thugs. Assad was wrongly assigned blame for attacks using chemical weapons that were, as has been proved by UN investigators, not of Assad’s regime and Christoff Lehmann wrote a lengthy report on the US/Saudi involvement in that chemical (sarin) attack. What country murders people in such a horrific way in order to destroy an elected government by blaming an inhuman act on the leader for a despicable act they themselves commited. Apparently the US/UK western and middle eastern allies do.

  16. David Ellis says:

    Well I see this wretched motion got passed. So if the UN pass a resolution to bomb ISIS in Syria Corbyn will presumably vote for bombing will he? This pro-Assad junk should have been rejected out of hand.

© 2017 Left Futures | Powered by WordPress | theme originated from PrimePress by Ravi Varma