The main cause of Corbyn's headache

[tonkatojo]

When it is presented as follows no wonder the man looks ill, trying to figure it out.

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (hurrah!). But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) and some (who are still good) continued to support democracy. So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good. By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter. Getting back to Syria . So President Putin (who is bad, coz he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking ISIS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing? But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good). Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria. So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack ISIS (who are bad which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad. Now the British (obviously good, except that nice Mr. Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good /bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to ISIS (who are super bad). So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than ISIS (but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than ISIS so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting ISIS that may now make them Good. America (still Good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr. Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also Good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join ISIS (still the only constantly bad group). To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of ISIS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihads fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see ISIS as Good (Doh!) Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmm ... might have a point) and hence we will be seen as Bad. So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to ISIS (Good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also Good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, Good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started? Hope this clears things up! for you Mr Corbyn.

[rob murray]

When it is presented as follows no wonder the man looks ill, trying to figure it out.

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (hurrah!). But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) and some (who are still good) continued to support democracy. So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good. By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter. Getting back to Syria . So President Putin (who is bad, coz he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking ISIS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing? But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good). Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria. So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack ISIS (who are bad which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad. Now the British (obviously good, except that nice Mr. Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good /bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to ISIS (who are super bad). So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than ISIS (but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than ISIS so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting ISIS that may now make them Good. America (still Good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr. Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also Good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join ISIS (still the only constantly bad group). To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of ISIS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihads fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see ISIS as Good (Doh!) Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmm ... might have a point) and hence we will be seen as Bad. So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to ISIS (Good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also Good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, Good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started? Hope this clears things up! for you Mr Corbyn.

Brilliant stuff !! Dunno about Corbyn but my heids mince reading it, great stuff though

[BetterTogether]

Great Post gave me a chuckle well done writing so amusingly and eloquently

[tonkatojo]

Great Post gave me a chuckle well done writing so amusingly and eloquently

I am too honest to claim personally writing it but I did edit a wee bit of it. lol

[rob murray]

I am too honest to claim personally writing it but I did edit a wee bit of it. lol

No harm in creative" editing" I o it all the time, reads great though, keep them comming, a very welcome contribution

[moureen]

Great post!!thank you tonkatojo now I know who is good and who is bad..... I think!!!!

[bekisman]

Think that was author Daniel Gordis, (Facebook 17th November) but certainly gives a (big) thumbnail sketch on the convoluted situation, wonder what Corbyn will be doing today at his cabinet meeting?

[rob murray]

Think that was author Daniel Gordis, (Facebook 17th November) but certainly gives a (big) thumbnail sketch on the convoluted situation, wonder what Corbyn will be doing today at his cabinet meeting?

My take on its it is : He has to face the situation head on, either whip MP's ( and comming from someone who defied the Labour whip over 500 times that would be the ultimate hyprocy ) or allow a free vote, if he whips then thats Labour finished under him, despite there being any gap between popular membership opinion and the Labour PPP, whipping will see a shadow cabinet split a potential coup on Corbyn ( at best )

[bekisman]

My take on its it is : He has to face the situation head on, either whip MP's ( and comming from someone who defied the Labour whip over 500 times that would be the ultimate hyprocy ) or allow a free vote, if he whips then thats Labour finished under him, despite there being any gap between popular membership opinion and the Labour PPP, whipping will see a shadow cabinet split a potential coup on Corbyn ( at best )

Me thinks he will say he's had x number of emails from Party Members (will that include the 1,800 Greens who with their three quid? and will only be from activists as they always scream - whereas the silent majority will not bother) anyway "look shadow cabinet this is what Labour Party members want, you should listen to them.. deselection could loom etc, so vote with your conscience " IF he uses the whip, he's finished. BUT we shall see, as you say he has rebelled over 500 times against the Leader but hey he's thinks a wee bit different from most!

[bekisman]

Stop Press news coming in "75% of Labour Party Members are apposed to strikes" Hmm so he had 277,993 replies saying this? (well that's 75% ain't it)