Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

“Terrorist Sympathisers” Against Syrian Bombing.

with 10 comments

“Desperate slur which demeans his office.”

The Guardian reports,

David Cameron has appealed to Conservative MPs to give him an overall parliamentary majority in favour of military action in Syria by warning them against voting alongside “Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers”.

MPs will vote late on Wednesday after a10-and-a half-hour debate in the Commons.

Amid Downing Street concerns that support among backbench Labour MPs is weakening, the prime minister told a meeting of the 1922 committee that he needed to win the vote solely on the basis of Tory MPs’ support to achieve his goal of securing a clear consensus.

“You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers,” the prime minister reportedly told told the committee.

His remarks, echoing an attack on Corbyn at the Tory conference in October, were confirmed to the Guardian by a senior MP who attended the meeting and came as the Labour leader accused Cameron of adopting a “bomb first, talk later” approach.

In a Guardian article, Corbyn asks Labour MPs to think of the “terrible consequences” of the wars in the Middle East over the past 14 years.

“David Cameron … knows that opposition to his ill-thought-out rush to war is growing,” Corbyn writes. “On planning, strategy, ground troops, diplomacy, the terrorist threat, refugees and civilian casualties, it’s become increasingly clear the prime minister’s proposal simply doesn’t stack up.

“Cameron’s approach is bomb first, talk later. But instead of adding British bombs to the others now raining down on Syria, what’s needed is an acceleration of the peace talks in Vienna.”

Labour dismissed the prime minister’s attack on Corbyn as a “contemptible and desperate slur which demeans his office”. A party spokesman said: “He clearly realises he has failed to make a convincing case for military action in Syria and opinion is shifting away from him.”

The Independent adds this,

John Baron, an ex-army Tory MP and Foreign Affairs Committee member who is vocally opposed to action, criticised his own leader when asked on BBC’s Newsnight how he felt about being described as a “terrorist sympathiser”.

“I was a platoon commander in Northern Ireland and I do think we must not resort to such language,” he said.

“Instead we should look at the actual evidence before us. There is clearly a lack of ground force to take Daesh on and that is one of the key issues we have got to address.”

A YouGov poll for The Times found public opinion moving against air strikes – with the proportion in favour dropping from 59 per cent to 48 per cent and those against rising from 20 per cent to 31 per cent with undecideds unchanged on 21 per cent.

Last night, Mr Corbyn’s spokesman described Mr Cameron’s comments as “a contemptible and desperate slur which demeans his office”.

“He clearly realises he has failed to make a convincing case for military action and that opinion is shifting away from him,” he said.

There really isn’t anything left to say when a Prime Minister accuses his opponents of being “terrorist sympathisers”.


Written by Andrew Coates

December 2, 2015 at 1:07 pm

10 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Cameron said, “You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers,”

    That does NOT imply that ALL those voting against airstrikes are terrorist sympathisers, it simply notes – quite truthfully – that Corbyn and some of those who support him ARE terrorist sympathisers.

    If people want to be offended by being associated with terrorist sympathisers, tough. They should should stop associating with said terrorist sympathisers.

    Examples: Corbyn praising Hamas as ‘committed to social justice’. McDonnell endorsing ‘the bomb, the bullet and the ballot box’ re the IRA. Livingstone saying that the 7/7 bombers ‘gave their lives’.

    I appreciate that there are a fair number of people on the left who may view Hamas, the IRA and Al Qaeda as ‘freedom fighters’, but to most people those are indeed known as ‘terrorists’. So suck it up. If you associate with Corbyn and his fellow terrorist apologists, expect people to be called on it.


    December 2, 2015 at 5:26 pm

  2. I suppose that makes this Blog a terrorist sympathiser.

    Thanks for warning me.

    I shall watch out, and perhaps report myself to the local Polis.

    Andrew Coates

    December 2, 2015 at 5:34 pm

  3. Did you even read what I actually wrote, Andrew?

    If you are a supporter of the IRA, Hamas or Al Qaeda, then yes, you’re a terrorist sympathiser. As far as I’m aware, you personally are not.

    If you are not a supporter of those, but do support Corbyn, McDonnell and co, then you are indeed associating with ‘a bunch of terrorist sympathisers’. If you don’t like that, then get Corbyn and co to unequivocally distance themselves from said terrorists.

    If you support horrible people, there is no value or integrity in being affronted by people pointing this out. More than a few people warned that supporting Corbyn was shortsighted and would bring with it a lot of nasty baggage. Maybe some other people should have listened.


    December 2, 2015 at 7:05 pm

  4. http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/david-cameron-and-terrorist-sympathisers/ I don’t agree that supporting Corbyn makes someone a terrorist sympathiser. I think it’s wrong and embarrassing for the Prime Minister to make statements like that.


    December 3, 2015 at 9:22 am

  5. It’s all just a diversion anyway. The issue should be the pros and cons of adding to the bombing taking place across Syria. But the Tories feel on much firmer ground turning the issue into one of the political unreliability of the Labour leadership. Well, they would, wouldn’t they? Just ignore them, and concentrate on whether adding to the chaos in which Daesh thrives is a remotely intelligent response.


    December 3, 2015 at 10:30 am

  6. “concentrate on whether adding to the chaos in which Daesh thrives is a remotely intelligent response.”

    Targeting and blowing up vehicles, staging posts, munitions dumps and HQ’s belonging to Daesh is not adding to ‘chaos’ and does not help them thrive. It kills their fighters, gives them less to fight with, and interdicts their movements.

    That is what the RAF has been helping to in Iraq. Amongst other things, it helped enable the Kurds to retake Sinjar recently. The RAF has not inflicted a single civilian casualty in Iraq in the past year. The assumption that they will be offloading bombs for kicks and chaos over Syrian population centres is not borne out what they have actually been doing. If you want random bombing and massive civilian casualties to get outraged about, you can look at those darlings of the Western left, the Russians. How many protests have STWC et al made against them? Zero.

    The western hard and far left does not give a fuck about civilian victims of war. It has always looked the other way when its Russian heroes are dealing out death. Its double standards are thrown into higher relief than ever by its responses to what Russia and Assad are actually doing to civilians in Syria and what Corbyn and co are accusing the UK of being about to do (Dresden-style raids). Based on the past year in Iraq, there is no basis whatsoever for the latter accusations, and no excuse whatsoever for the near silence of Lindsey German and co on behalf of Assad and Russia.


    December 3, 2015 at 11:39 am

  7. Groups like Daesh thrive where state structures have been destroyed, where there is a power vacuum, where groups of men with guns can move in and impose their own authority. Blowing a few of them up, together with anyone or anything else which happens to be nearby, makes no difference to them. The area where they are currently thriving has been intensively bombed by all comers since 2003 (Iraq) and 2011 (Syria). These are precisely the circumstances which have created Daesh and allow them to thrive and recruit. They know that, which is why they seek to provoke, through high-profile terrorist outrages, exactly the reaction which the British parliament, in its wisdom, has now approved. I don’t expect to see an end to jihadi warlordism in the Middle East war zones any time soon. For that to happen, there needs to be strong state authority on the ground – which is impossible in conditions of a high-explosive free-for-all.


    December 3, 2015 at 12:32 pm

  8. Francis is absolutely right that there are those using this issue to get at Corbyn and McDonnell.

    I think it’s more than Jihadi warlordism – though that certainly exists amongst the various ‘factions’ Cameron and the Coalition plan to muster on their side.

    Daesh is a proto-totalitarian disciplinary state backed by ‘micro-powers’ distributed around the world.

    Or to put it more clearly: it is a genocidal regime with very large ambitions indeed – something a lot more than any warlord would dream of.

    A strategy to defeat it would mean a full-scale attack on Islamism – the ideological humus it comes from – and not just a ‘coalition’ (which involves quasi-totalitarian regimes, like Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and authoritarian populist Islamists in power in Turkey).

    Not to mention dealing with the conditions Francis cites.

    Andrew Coates

    December 3, 2015 at 12:51 pm

  9. saudi is ‘quasi-totalitarian’?

    i’m waiting for someone to call you ‘islamophobic’ for using ‘humus’ btw

    redkorat☭ (@red_korat)

    December 4, 2015 at 1:26 am

  10. Just to be clear…..



    Andrew Coates

    December 4, 2015 at 12:42 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: