Westminstenders: Throwing Boomerangs

[RedToothBrush]

British politics and media in a nutshell.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_effect_(psychology)#Political_beliefs

No EU progress, no discussion. Just this. Keep everyone in line by bouncing boomerangs.

Disaster capitalism looms, they just have to get us to the edge of the cliff before the centre reforms. That's it.

If the legal roads to stop Brexit are closed as David Allen Green says, then how do you force the political flood gates to open, especially with both the far left and the far right using micro-aggression against the public to keep the centre ground weak?

Answers on a ballot paper on 3rd May.

Laughing at the idea of Fine Gael being influenced by Sinn Féin in any shape or form. The party of the good burghers.

Do you think DD knows where Ireland actually is?

Also feeling sick at the thought of pus in milk. __Think I'll try some Almond milk or similar this week--

Finally got round to watching the Patrick Kielty documentary. It was very interesting and shows how ridiculous the idea of an Irish border is.

The squirrel value arises from Russia's involvement there.

As previously discussed on these threads though there's a bizarre blank spot about Russia amongst the xenophobic sector of U.K. voters.

I've pondered before about why voters get so worked up about EU migrants coming to work in the NHS but appear indifferent to regular Russian incursions into our air and sea space.

Also air strike attacks in Syria by US,France,U.K. should then morally increase the obligation to take in refugees from Syria shouldn't it?

Also forgive my ignorance but has Russia's support extended to accommodating refugees? Off to google that.

www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/russia-refuses-give-refugee-status-syrians-180116095003651.html

It's not the xenophobic section that TM is grandstanding to.

It's the rest. A huge section of UK public opinion is ready to believe anything it is told about Russia.

In the US, Democrats and Republicans alike are conditioned to the 'Russia' and 'Putin' dog whistles. Pretty much all they have in common is the predictability with which they respond when the whistle goes.

A huge section of UK public opinion is ready to believe anything it is told about Russia.

I'm not at all sure this is true any more. I see and hear lots of very naive opinions about Russia (which is objectively a kleptocracy led by an authoritarian with no respect for democracy).

My own view is that it's really very easy to sell a war and many people actively like the idea as long as their own family and friends are not at risk. Iraq had big public support at the time. Going to war with Syria will also be supported by a majority.

Also she might put the Falklands into the historical equation.

I know that parallel isn't a parallel but does she?

Can we also have some accurate side of a bus figures about air strikes etc please ?

Russia has not taken in many refugees as there would most definitely be a security risk given Russian involvement in the civil war in Syria.

One element missing almost completely from current narratives about Syria is the horrors inflicted by ISIS on the populations of the regions they took over before the Syrian government and Russia began to fight them off. I find that very strange. It's as if the massacres and rapes of thousands and the senseless destruction of ancient monuments had never happened. You would think Russia had just upped and decided to destroy Syria one bright fine morning, because that's the way Russia is. Apparently.

qz.com/894439/how-many-refugees-has-the-us-taken-in-from-syria/
US and Syrian refugees.

Mistigri, there are lots of threads on MN right now that indicate that yes, people believe just about anything they are fed about Russia.

Nobody on any of the threads has said a single thing about internal Russian political dynamics or appears to have any understanding of the way the wind blows within Russia itself but that doesn't stop them making fantastical statements about Russian policy and Russian intentions and Russian reaction to the west. Yet there are indeed internal Russian political dynamics, different groups and alliances within the Kremlin pushing for different priorities and policy directions. It's not a simple case of "a kleptocracy led by an authoritarian so what can you expect".

May is stupid, because she's pig headed, so yes, she would take us into war if she thought it was advantageous to her to do so. I loathed Maggie Thatcher, but at least she knew which battles to pick i.e. bully a country you know you can defeat.

“One element missing almost completely from current narratives about Syria is the horrors inflicted by ISIS on the populations of the regions they took over before the Syrian government and Russia began to fight them off.”

This was very prominent in the news and public debate until ISIS began to shrink and retreat. The US-backed rebels had already inflicted heavy losses on ISIS before Russia became involved. In any case, whatever ISIS did doesn’t excuse the horrors being perpetrated by Russia and the Syrian government on their own (non-ISIS) people.

I wonder if TM’s gung-ho recklessness in desiring to get involved in Syria and refusal to consult Parliament will be the final straw for the more sensible Tory MPs and finally split the party. Anyway, I’ve contacted mine in the hope of giving an extra nudge.

I wonder if TM’s gung-ho recklessness in desiring to get involved in Syria and refusal to consult Parliament will be the final straw for the more sensible Tory MPs and finally split the party.

I keep hoping for a split.

That is not my point (i.e. to excuse anything).

My point is that the public are up in arms about whatever the media wants them to be up in arms about.

One day it's the besieged Iraqi Christians who are being slaughtered and the next day it's President Assad and chemical weapons, and the next day it's the old bogeyman, Russia. The general public is offered no joined up narrative, no context, just spectacle and manipulative, emotive pieces masquerading as journalism. Plus the stuff that circulates on FB and even Pinterest.

ISIS chose to set up camp in urban areas and to use civilian populations as human shields. There is a general revulsion at the idea of negotiating with ISIS, of giving them any recognition. They have to be wiped out all the same. So the choice here is stark.

The public should be up in arms about Syria; the whole thing is a bloody mess, ISIL are only one part of a very complicated picture. Don't pretend that chemical warfare is solely about removing ISIL from Syria.

Britain Elects has tweeted that in a Sky data poll 48% opposes military intervention in Syria if it it involves conflict in Russia, 28% supports it.

I am not sure this is true. In Iraq, I believe the Russians had voted against the security council resolution along with France and Germany, but there was no suggestion that any US led war there would result in war with Russia.

If you can sell people the crock of shit that is Brexit, you can drum up some gung-ho patriotism about dropping bombs on Syria.

It's the same dog whistling either way, Mother.

x-post

Lib Dem stance:

I am certain that you are as appalled as I am about the horrific scenes coming out of Syria.

The use of chemical weapons is barbaric. It is a crime against humanity and it is a clear violation of international law.

The Liberal Democrats are an internationalist, outward-looking party - and part of that is being willing to play our part in upholding international law.

In the next few days, it is possible the Government will ask MPs to decide on potential military action in Syria. This is not a decision we will ever make lightly.

As Leader, I want to be clear with you how I and our group in Parliament will make such a decision.

Firstly, in advance of any debate or vote, the Government should share with Parliament what evidence it has of the Syrian Government’s involvement, and that of their Russian backers, in last weekend’s attack.

Secondly, the Government must present the objectives of any proposed action to Parliament. Any proposed action should be targeted at reducing the capacity of the Syrian regime to repeat these attacks.

Thirdly, any response should be on a multilateral basis. A unilateral response by any country, outside of a wider strategy, without the support of their allies is not the way forward.

And of course, there MUST be a full and frank debate and vote in the House of Commons ahead of any military action.

We will judge any military action the Government proposes against these tests.

This is not a decision we will make lightly, or without the fullest consideration of the evidence. If you would like to share your views on this with me, please email [email protected]

I will keep you informed as the situation develops.