Jeremy Corbyn Blames Britain And The US For The Rise Of ISIS

Jeremy Corbyn Blames Britain And The US For The Rise Of ISIS

Jeremy Corbyn has blamed the rise of ISIS on Britain and the United States.

The Labour leader said ISIS hadn’t ‘come from nowhere’ and was partly ‘a creation of Western interventions in the region’.

Mr Corbyn also confirmed that he would not support the bombing of Syria because it would spark more ‘mayhem’ and that he would make Britain safer by ‘becoming a force for human rights’

The anti-war campaigner has previously sparked fury by comparing ISIS brutality to U.S. military action in Iraq

The Mail OnLine reports: The remarks round off a turbulent week for Mr Corbyn after overseeing chaotic cabinet reshuffle culminating in a public u-turn over Labour’s position on the European Union.

Mr Corbyn was roundly condemned on Tuesday for refusing to sing the national anthem at a memorial to Battle of Britain heroes.

The veteran socialist, speaking to the obscure website ‘Middle East Eye’, said Labour needed to stick to its ‘principles’ and vowed to stay on as Labour leader for the next five years.

But he risks a major rebellion over a proposed vote on extending the military action against ISIS into Syria.

The Prime Minister has called for a ‘political consensus’ in favour of authorising military strikes before calling a vote in Parliament.

In 2013 Mr Cameron was left humiliated after MPs – including Mr Corbyn – rejected airstrikes. Speaking today, Mr Corbyn said he would not change his position.

Mr Corbyn said: ‘ISIS did not come from nowhere. They have got a lot of money that’s come from somewhere.

‘They’ve got a huge supply of arms that have come from somewhere. They are – not in total, but in part – a creation of Western interventions in the region.

‘What I would do is try to economically isolate them. And also try to unite the other groups in the region by supporting autonomy for the Kurdish groups and recognise the vast amount of arms that we have sold – particularly to Saudi Arabia – end up somewhere and those are now being used.

‘Bombing by the West in Syria now would create more mayhem. It’s very unclear who the alliances would be with and it would make the situation worse.

‘I opposed the bombing of Syria in that historic 2013 vote and would continue that position.’

To see the full article and video:
http://yournewswire.com/jeremy-corbyn-blames-britain-and-the-us-for-the-rise-of-isis/

What a ghastly man he is. I expect he blamed Britain for the murders carried out by the IRA as well.

He's a nut job. He's a bit "frantic" in his style.

Raggamuffin wrote:What a ghastly man he is. I expect he blamed Britain for the murders carried out by the IRA as well.

Now, why would anybody from Ireland ever want to lay a finger on anybody from Britain?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What a ghastly man he is. I expect he blamed Britain for the murders carried out by the IRA as well.

Now, why would anybody from Ireland ever want to lay a finger on anybody from Britain?

Is that a rhetorical question?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What a ghastly man he is. I expect he blamed Britain for the murders carried out by the IRA as well.

Now, why would anybody from Ireland ever want to lay a finger on anybody from Britain?

Is that a rhetorical question?

It should be ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What a ghastly man he is. I expect he blamed Britain for the murders carried out by the IRA as well.

Now, why would anybody from Ireland ever want to lay a finger on anybody from Britain?

Is that a rhetorical question?

I think it might have been a sarcastic comment

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Is that a rhetorical question?

I think it might have been a sarcastic comment

It sounded like IRA sympathising to me.

Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq

The war on terror, that campaign without end launched 14 years ago by George Bush, is tying itself up in ever more grotesque contortions. On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.


The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition.

That didn’t only include the “non-lethal assistance” boasted of by the government (including body armour and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of “arms on a massive scale”. Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line” of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.


Clearly, the absurdity of sending someone to prison for doing what ministers and their security officials were up to themselves became too much. But it’s only the latest of a string of such cases. Less fortunate was a London cab driver Anis Sardar, who was given a life sentence a fortnight earlier for taking part in 2007 in resistance to the occupation of Iraq by US and British forces. Armed opposition to illegal invasion and occupation clearly doesn’t constitute terrorism or murder on most definitions, including the Geneva convention.

But terrorism is now squarely in the eye of the beholder. And nowhere is that more so than in the Middle East, where today’s terrorists are tomorrow’s fighters against tyranny – and allies are enemies – often at the bewildering whim of a western policymaker’s conference call.

For the past year, US, British and other western forces have been back in Iraq, supposedly in the cause of destroying the hyper-sectarian terror group Islamic State (formerly known as al-Qaida in Iraq). This was after Isis overran huge chunks of Iraqi and Syrian territory and proclaimed a self-styled Islamic caliphate.

The campaign isn’t going well. Last month, Isis rolled into the Iraqi city of Ramadi, while on the other side of the now nonexistent border its forces conquered the Syrian town of Palmyra. Al-Qaida’s official franchise, the Nusra Front, has also been making gains in Syria.

Some Iraqis complain that the US sat on its hands while all this was going on. The Americans insist they are trying to avoid civilian casualties, and claim significant successes. Privately, officials say they don’t want to be seen hammering Sunni strongholds in a sectarian war and risk upsetting their Sunni allies in the Gulf.

A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria.

Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.

American forces bomb one set of rebels while backing another in Syria

Which is pretty well exactly what happened two years later. The report isn’t a policy document. It’s heavily redacted and there are ambiguities in the language. But the implications are clear enough. A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state” – despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria.


That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it – as the US vice-president, Joe Biden, acknowledged last year. But there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded. And the US has certainly exploited the existence of Isis against other forces in the region as part of a wider drive to maintain western control.

The calculus changed when Isis started beheading westerners and posting atrocities online, and the Gulf states are now backing other groups in the Syrian war, such as the Nusra Front. But this US and western habit of playing with jihadi groups, which then come back to bite them, goes back at least to the 1980s war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, which fostered the original al-Qaida under CIA tutelage.

It was recalibrated during the occupation of Iraq, when US forces led by General Petraeus sponsored an El Salvador-style dirty war of sectarian death squads to weaken the Iraqi resistance. And it was reprised in 2011 in the Nato-orchestrated war in Libya, where Isis last week took control of Gaddafi’s home town of Sirte.

In reality, US and western policy in the conflagration that is now the Middle East is in the classic mould of imperial divide-and-rule. American forces bomb one set of rebels while backing another in Syria, and mount what are effectively joint military operations with Iran against Isis in Iraq while supporting Saudi Arabia’s military campaign against Iranian-backed Houthi forces in Yemen. However confused US policy may often be, a weak, partitioned Iraq and Syria fit such an approach perfectly.

What’s clear is that Isis and its monstrosities won’t be defeated by the same powers that brought it to Iraq and Syria in the first place, or whose open and covert war-making has fostered it in the years since. Endless western military interventions in the Middle East have brought only destruction and division. It’s the people of the region who can cure this disease – not those who incubated the virus.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq


I thought everyone knew that that UK and the US did that.

In a recent interview with Shane Smith, the founder of VICE News, President Barack Obama said: “ISIL is a direct outgrowth of Al Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion, which is an example of unintended consequences.” This admission is evidence of the general causality between Western military interventionism in the Muslim world, and the rise of reactionary armed militia groups. In this particular case, the US-led invasion of Iraq undoubtedly paved the way for the rise of the self-professed ‘Islamic State’, better known as ISIS. Depending on who highlights this “unintended consequence” when commenting on recent events in Iraq and Syria, it is usually given very little importance or completely dismissed. Understandably, the pro-war policymakers in Washington and London who orchestrated the invasion of a sovereign state based on false intelligence, would rather focus on how to “degrade and destroy” the monster they created, as opposed to acknowledging fault and accepting blame.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/03/23/isis-the-unintended-consequences-of-the-us-led-war-on-iraq/

Labour led the illegal invasion in Iraq on lies and spin...



Obama govt installing mainly shia into Iraq govt pissed off lots of Iraqi people... then cutting and running did The rest...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What a ghastly man he is. I expect he blamed Britain for the murders carried out by the IRA as well.

Now, why would anybody from Ireland ever want to lay a finger on anybody from Britain?

Indeed Ben.And why would they want to deliberately blow up children in shopping centres & people in pubs?

And why the Americans fund raise for the IRA? Unthinkable isn't it Ben?

He has also said that Tony Blair and George Bush are war criminals.
Is he correct on that then?

We are bombing ISIS in Iraq. The Americans are bombing ISIS in Syria. The Turks are bombing the Kurds and no-one is bombing Assad.

So if we re-run the vote in the HoC to bomb Assad and change it then everyone will be getting bombed.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Is that a rhetorical question?

I think it might have been a sarcastic comment

It sounded like IRA sympathising to me.

It's just wondering how the hell someone pokes (and by pokes I mean invades, conquers and subjugates) a wasp's nest without expecting to be stung.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It sounded like IRA sympathising to me.

It's just wondering how the hell someone pokes (and by pokes I mean invades, conquers and subjugates) a wasp's nest without expecting to be stung.

Like I said - IRA sympathising. Still, well done for being honest about your approval of murderers and terrorists. Were you jumping for joy on 9/11 as well?

Shady wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Now, why would anybody from Ireland ever want to lay a finger on anybody from Britain?

Indeed Ben.And why would they want to deliberately blow up children in shopping centres & people in pubs?

And why the Americans fund raise for the IRA? Unthinkable isn't it Ben?

Ben probably funded them himself.

Oh well, if he's ever killed in a terrorist attack, his last thought will be - well I shouldn't have poked that wasps' nest so it serves me right really.

i hate to say it

but jezza is right

the US and teh UK are to blame for the rise of ISIS

we armed them and trained them and funded and supported them, only WE were too stupid to realise it

smelly-bandit wrote: i hate to say it

but jezza is right

the US and teh UK are to blame for the rise of ISIS

we armed them and trained them and funded and supported them, only WE were too stupid to realise it  

Speak for yourself Smelly. If you mean the Iraq invasion, many people, including me, said it would end in tears.

smelly-bandit wrote: i hate to say it

but jezza is right

the US and teh UK are to blame for the rise of ISIS

we armed them and trained them and funded and supported them, only WE were too stupid to realise it  

Indeed.

However, it's no use playing the blame game now. Blair and Bush were warned - they were told that invading Iraq would do no good, and would cause more harm in the long run, but they went ahead anyway.

I don't think it's helpful to blame anyone but ISIS for what they're doing now. Nobody made them start cutting people's heads off and invading other countries.

Raggamuffin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote: i hate to say it

but jezza is right

the US and teh UK are to blame for the rise of ISIS

we armed them and trained them and funded and supported them, only WE were too stupid to realise it  

Speak for yourself Smelly. If you mean the Iraq invasion, many people, including me, said it would end in tears.

not that

that was long before ISIS and is largely unrelated, no matter how much the obamaniacs try to link it.

no im talking about the proxy warfare we were playing at

what people dont understand is what proxy warfare actually is.

simplistically speking it is a massive game of chess between superpowers.

so for instance lets take afghanistan,during the cold ware era, russia wanted afg for its own strategic purposes which would have been a massive blow to the US.

Since russia already had ground troops in afghan, the US could not send its own boots in, since that would have involved direct hostilities between USSR and the US - a big no no.

so instead the US recruited trained armed and funded local forces, the mujahideen, to fight the russians on the behalf of the US

the same thing has been done in syria with significantly less success

the west wanted regime change in syria who is a strategic partner to russia, removing the syrian regime would have weakened russia strategically.

to this end they tried strikes and attacks on syria, which was vetoed by russia and china, so left with no option they tried proxy warfare.

they trained, armed,funded and supported local forces, in this case the FSA, to fight the syrian regime on behalf of the US.

Trouble is that the FSA was ISIS.

we tried to use them to do our wet work and its backfired massively

smelly-bandit wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Speak for yourself Smelly. If you mean the Iraq invasion, many people, including me, said it would end in tears.

not that

that was long before ISIS and is largely unrelated, no matter how much the obamaniacs try to link it.

no im talking about the proxy warfare we were playing at

what people dont understand is what proxy warfare actually is.

simplistically speking it is a massive game of chess between superpowers.

so for instance lets take afghanistan,during the cold ware era, russia wanted afg for its own strategic purposes which would have been a massive blow to the US.

Since russia already had ground troops in afghan, the US could not send its own boots in, since that would have involved direct hostilities between USSR and the US - a big no no.

so instead the US recruited trained armed and funded local forces, the mujahideen, to fight the russians on the behalf of the US  

the same thing has been done in syria with significantly less success

the west wanted regime change in syria who is a strategic partner to russia, removing the syrian regime would have weakened russia strategically.

to this end they tried strikes and attacks on syria, which was vetoed by russia and china, so left with no option they tried proxy warfare.

they trained, armed,funded and supported local forces, in this case the FSA, to fight the syrian regime on behalf of the US.

Trouble is that the FSA was ISIS.  

we tried to use them to do our wet work and its backfired massively

Oh right.

Yes - I agree that if you help to arm one side or the other, it generally goes wrong at a later date.

Some people want to arm the Kurds don't they?

the kurds are a different story altogether, they are noble people, different in all respects to the usual middle eastern reptiles.

ive been to kurdistan many years ago, and its like day and night compared to iraq.

i would wholeheartedy support arming and funding them, they are at least a "known quantity" their objective is to establish a country of their own, they dont want to kill christians or other Muslims for shits and giggles, they dont do slavery, they dont do all the shit ISIS are doing.

the kurds really are the team we should be backing

smelly-bandit wrote:the kurds are a different story altogether, they are noble people, different in all respects to the usual middle eastern reptiles.

ive been to kurdistan many years ago, and its like day and night compared to iraq.

i would wholeheartedy support arming and funding them, they are at least a "known quantity" their objective is to establish a country of their own, they dont want to kill christians or other Muslims for shits and giggles, they dont do slavery, they dont do all the shit ISIS are doing.

the kurds really are the team we should be backing  

Hmmm, I'm not sure that you can say that a whole group of people are "noble". Sure, they seem to be the goodies at the moment, but things can change depending on what happens and what they consider to be in their best interests.

If you want something doing, do it yourself. I'm not advocating bombing anyone myself, I'm just saying - don't trust anyone else to do your dirty work for you.

of couse not all kurds are the good guys, but generally speaking as a society they are pretty civilised.

the kurds dont want to get into this war for the fun of it, when ISIS were sacking iraq, they pushed north and were knocked back by the kurds. the kurds only held their ground and never pushed south into iraq , for the simple reason that they want a homeland of their own - kurdistan.

when the yazidis were trapped on mount sinjar it was kurdish forces who helped them and gave them protection.

they are not an agressive imperialistic nation, they want their own little slice of hell to call home and thats pretty much it. the problem is that the kurdish ethnic area is massively spread out across almost three countries.

smelly-bandit wrote:of couse not all kurds are the good guys, but generally speaking as a society they are pretty civilised.

the kurds dont want to get into this war for the fun of it, when ISIS were sacking iraq, they pushed north and were knocked back by the kurds. the kurds only held their ground and never pushed south into iraq , for the simple reason that they want a homeland of their own - kurdistan.

when the yazidis were trapped on mount sinjar it was kurdish forces who helped them and gave them protection.

they are not an agressive imperialistic nation, they want their own little slice of hell to call home and thats pretty much it. the problem is that the kurdish ethnic area is massively spread out across almost three countries.


 

All I'm saying is that allegiances can change - as we have seen. Many of the Kurds are fighting, and those who are don't flinch from killing people themselves. I'm not going to shed a tear for the ISIS people they've killed, but don't be too complacent about them. People who want a homeland of their own can be pretty ruthless, and will act in their own best interests. Look at the Israelis.

wouldnt you be ruthless if your people were denied an existance???

I would.

thing is the whole ME is a clusterfuck, we didnt directly cause it, but we sure as shit helped it and in its current format our only option remains proxy warfare.

we just need to be better at it, in this grand melee the kurds are in my opinion the only viable option.

we cant support the FSA, we cant support the "moderates", we cant support assad (even though we should have in the beginning) we cant support ISIS.

the best of the bad bunch are the kurds, they have a generally limited adgenda, which as it stands, doesnt involve blowing up europe

yet.

smelly-bandit wrote:wouldnt you be ruthless if your people were denied an existance???

I would.

thing is the whole ME is a clusterfuck, we didnt directly cause it, but we sure as shit helped it and in its current format our only option remains proxy warfare.

we just need to be better at it, in this grand melee the kurds are in my opinion the only viable option.

we cant support the FSA, we cant support the "moderates", we cant support assad (even though we should have in the beginning) we cant support ISIS.

the best of the bad bunch are the kurds, they have a generally limited adgenda, which as it stands, doesnt involve blowing up europe

yet.

 

All I'm saying is that people who want their own homeland can indeed be ruthless. What if they perceive in the future that others are denying them that homeland? The Americans for example?

In other words, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

allowing islam to demand in our county is to blame , we should have told moslems live like us or eff off back home . They have been given too much of their own way , thats why ISIS have been breeding here .

Raggamuffin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:wouldnt you be ruthless if your people were denied an existance???

I would.

thing is the whole ME is a clusterfuck, we didnt directly cause it, but we sure as shit helped it and in its current format our only option remains proxy warfare.

we just need to be better at it, in this grand melee the kurds are in my opinion the only viable option.

we cant support the FSA, we cant support the "moderates", we cant support assad (even though we should have in the beginning) we cant support ISIS.

the best of the bad bunch are the kurds, they have a generally limited adgenda, which as it stands, doesnt involve blowing up europe

yet.

 

All I'm saying is that people who want their own homeland can indeed be ruthless. What if they perceive in the future that others are denying them that homeland? The Americans for example?

that is the thing

at the minute we ARENT helping them

how long till ARENT helping becomes DENYING??

Raggamuffin wrote:In other words, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

yeah pretty much

Thank you Smelly, your post was spot on and fully supported by myself, I agree with everything you said,especially about the Kurds.

nicko wrote:Thank you Smelly,     your post was spot on and fully supported by myself,  I agree with everything you said,especially about the Kurds.

if there is someone who understands the big chess game that is proxy warfare its you