Yesterday we saw the public representatives of the left-wing stand in parliament and show their unwillingness to help those in suffering. They should hold their heads in shame, but that is for the next post.
What you need to understand is what those public figures represent, in all its appalling clarity. These comments are from various left wing blogs, I read them so you didn’t have to.
Weka at The Standard:
If the choice is between supporting the US and a cafe terrorism once a decade, I think we should take the cafe.
So innocent victims of terrorism is ok with this person because at least we aren’t supporting the US.
Lynn Prentice, the world’s greatest sysop, now also the world’s greatest solver of Middle East conflict:
As it stands, I‚Äôm starting to think that it would be an interesting case for an old imperialistic solution. Let their stable neighbours (ie not Syria) partition it along more rational lines and occupy it under a UN protectorate for a decade or so to stabilize the society. Charge the cost and a large profit to the US and UK taxpayers who were stupid enough to cause the problem.
So which stable neighbours of Syria and Iraq are you suggesting Lynn? I can only think of one…Israel, yeah like that is going to happen.
Tiger Mountain at The Standard thinks it is all a plot manufactured by the US:
this has been a textbook example of ‚Äúmanufacturing consent‚ÄĚ at the behest of 5 Eyes and Uncle Sam, from snooping law changes, front page/TV news leading with gruesome IS videos, increased passport sanctions, a visiting Iraqi politician, to even the Westfield mall video that has been around for some time apparently, surfacing in msm on the very day cabinet was firming up a position!
The answer is to not participate in or support imperialist wars. To put diplomatic pressure on via the Security Council and trading partners to not support IS in any shape or form. To run a truly independent foreign and trading policy. To lavish aid on the vulnerable including various stripes of Kurds.