Published On: Wed, Apr 18th, 2018

In the midst of the real Corbyn delusion, Jeremy saves Syria from the Tories

Share This

Jeremy Corbyn, the Saviour of the 99%, is having much praise heaped down upon him from earnest opponents of war over his apparent stance on the crime meted out in Syria by the Queen’s mercenaries (also known as the British Armed Forces).

But, why?

Today (Tuesday 17th) he tabled a motion in the Commons, that he then whipped his party into opposing. It gave the likes of Rees-Mogg (another limited hangout) the chance to claim that the Executive Branch was being held to account retrospectively: who needs a vote to prevent military action when you can argue about it afterwards? Moreover, there was this (from the Guardian) – if the reader can understand any of it:

The parliamentary gymnastics meant Tory MPs were in the unconventional position of voting for a motion that the leader of the opposition proposed, while Corbyn opposed, but meant Labour were denied the symbolism of MPs implicitly criticising the prime minister’s approach to parliamentary approval of airstrikes.

The impression one gets is that, from a distance – which is how most Britons experience the criminality that is dressed up as Government – the Executive Branch comes away from it all entirely vindicated. Labour did something similar so that Tories couldn’t use prerogative powers to execute Brexit. It was a gift to Theresa May, and all those who dangle her on a string.

Somewhere in all the horse manure, Corbyn was said to have wanted to have a war powers act: the means by which Parliament would be guaranteed a vote on military action. Did the Commons generate one? The author is still looking. The Guardian mentioned gymnastics – by which it meant taking people for idiots. So? Corbyn can do a triple-axel and double-salco off the parallel bars – but what value does it have in the context of the casus belli always being fabricated by British Government for the express purpose of going to war? A vote in the Commons would just be a rubber stamp, because there would not be any scrutiny of the application. If the reader disputes this, then just dig down into what Corbyn had to say as he played his part, most faithfully, of limited hangout and Establishment punch-bag (with his usual transparency), in the latest big political theatre.

Our focus, eventually, is going to be on his response to the statement made by Theresa May, on 16th April, on the (failed) military strikes on Syria that took place the previous weekend. May’s statement was full of assertion of bogus reality – including this: “the co-ordinated actions of the US, UK and France were successfully and specifically targeted at three sites”; Corbyn never challenged it – not even in regards to the UK’s apparent military impotence. Moreover, he stated support for measures that would best suit a globalist agenda in Syria. And this wasn’t all. Afterwards, on the same day, he abstained from voting on a motion attached to a debate on Syria brought by Labour MP Alison McGovern – about which there are two brief things to say: it was pointless, only amounting to a lot of gaslighting to reinforce the British Government’s conduct; and secondly, as part of its first objective, it regurgitated every lie that had ever been invented about Assad and Syrian government forces. McGovern’s opening oration served as an archetype for most, if not all of the contributions that were to follow (at least those the author could bear to read on Hansard), and provides a summarising demonstration of the extent to which the Westminster Parliament governs according to its own agenda despite any facts. Notice the nauseating appeal to the “memory” of Jo Cox – who “died” before she could be held responsible for her connections with the fraudulent White Helmets.

Today I call, as my colleague Jo Cox called, for a comprehensive strategy to protect civilian life. The Assad Government continue to commit violations of international humanitarian law on an almost daily basis. Let us take, for example, his barrel bombs: the brute force of dirty ​explosives booted off the back of a helicopter, reckless to the thought of who might be beneath. The deliberate targeting of civilians is illegal in any case, but what makes this worse is Assad’s continual terrorising of the civilian population without consequence.

That is not all. Siege warfare has returned in Syria. That is also illegal, but despite the best efforts of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Red Crescent and other humanitarians, Assad simply will not comply with the right to food, the right to medical care, or the right not just to live but to exist in any normal understanding of the word.

As mentioned above, the House divided – and the ayes had it. The author has no clue whatsoever what it was MPs were trying to decide. The debate was prompted by a call “for a comprehensive strategy to protect civilian life” in Syria. Did the Commons have a plan to this end at the end of the debate? No, it didn’t. Maybe Corbyn abstained because he didn’t know what it was trying to decide, either. Maybe he was just being slippery.

What one learns about Corbyn from his response to the Prime Minister’s statement on the attack (given earlier in on 16th April, before McGovern’s debate), is that he doesn’t dispute the British Government’s narrative on Syria. Evidently, his objection has to do with how the British Government should act in response to the pretext that it engineered. This is because he is a limited hangout.

“I believe that the action was legally questionable”, he said of the attack of the 13th. Quite the understatement. The problem, according to Corbyn, was not that any humanitarian suffering, used by the Government as a pretext to bomb Syria, was caused by an invasion inflicted upon Syria, in part, by the UK – oh no. Corbyn’s concern, in effect, was that in the legal defence prepared by the Government, some is were not dotted, and some ts are not crossed. Corbyn never questions the fantasy that Assad is massacring his own civilians indiscriminately.

While most of the forces ranged against the Assad government are from outside Syria, some of them are from within, but are sponsored by foreign powers, and are extremist Muslims of the type the Metropolitan Police “shoot at” in Woolwich, London, without thinking about collateral damage. These savages have made hostages of other citizenry in the areas that they have seized control of, which has made winkling them out in such areas difficult to do. Even in a universe where Britain had not engineered these strategic headaches for Assad and his generals, based upon the facts of the matter, there are no humanitarian grounds for Britain to intervene in Syria, because an unmolested Assad would be the quickest way for any humanitarian suffering to be alleviated. This, we should note, is never argued for.

Corbyn, in his response to May, went on to imply that the British Government had been in danger of producing further suffering by its actions; namely by causing contamination to the people living close to the “chemical weapons storage facilities” that were attacked. Supposedly, then, he was making a point about the potential hypocrisy and ineffectiveness of the US and the UK’s missile strikes. But at this point, he allowed himself a nod and a wink to his cult following who are of the belief that there are no chemical weapons for the British to cause to disperse into a wider population:

On the mission itself, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of bombing related military facilities, where the regime is assessed as storing chemical weapons? What about the impact on local people of chemicals being released into the local environment? News footage shows both journalists and local people in the rubble without any protective clothing. Why does the Prime Minister believe that these missile strikes will deter future chemical attacks?

This is a reference to the Barzeh installation that the Syrians claim was a research and production centre for cancer drugs. If Corbyn really is the Messiah, why didn’t he just express this notion, and ask Theresa May if she could produce the intelligence which made the British and American governments think it was anything to do with the production of chemical weapons? Instead, he grants that the Government must have made calculations about the effect of the bombing, and at the end, in the last sentence of the extract, offers an invitation to those who would be duped into thinking he was interested in disputing the validity of the evidence.

After that, Corbyn launches into a meandering question about previous OPCW inspections finding no evidence at the same site mentioned above, and in that case, did May have “separate intelligence that the nature of those activities has changed within the last five months?” But think. What does this invite May to do? Own up to a grievous mistake? Not likely. If Corbyn was the Messiah, why didn’t he just accuse the Government of having no data which would justify the cruise missile strike on a wholly civilian-oriented facility?

Now look at the way he reinforces the “fact” of Assad using chemical weapons on his own people:

While much suspicion rightly points to the Assad Government, chemical weapons have been used by other groups in the conflict—for example, Jaish al-Islam, which was reported to have used gas in Aleppo in 2016, among other groups. It is now vital that the OPCW inspectors, who arrived in Damascus on Saturday, are allowed to do their work and publish their report into their findings, and report to the United Nations Security Council. They must be allowed to complete their inspections without hindrance, and I hope the UK will put all diplomatic pressure on Russia and Syria, and other influential states, to ensure that they are able to access the site in Douma.

The other problem with the above extract is the way that Corbyn joins in the talking point that the British Establishment is using in its latest lock-stepped corporate-media, concerted propaganda endeavour. Apparently, Russia and Syria won’t let the OPCW into Douma. The issue itself is not within the scope of this article [except to say that the claim probably isn’t true, given that the investigation is taking place at the invitation of the Syrians] – the reader can find out about it here. The point is that the Messiah made sure to make reference to the most current Government anti-Russian propaganda talking point so that it could be entered into the Parliamentary record so as to help turn another lie into an official fact.

Finally – at least for the purpose of this article – Corbyn talks of a UN-based effort to pause the Syrian conflict for the sake of humanitarian relief:

It is more important than ever that we take concrete steps to halt and finally end the suffering [of the Syrian people]. Acting through the UN, she should now take a diplomatic lead to negotiate a pause in this abhorrent conflict. This means engaging with all parties involved, including Iran, Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the US, to ensure an immediate ceasefire.​​

If Corbyn was the Messiah, he would understand that there is a difference between US machinations through the UN to engineer Syrian vassal status, and the separate Astana process which accepts the Assad government’s a priori legitimacy. Why no mention of the latter? Making himself a real useful idiot, Corbyn also wants “aid… [to] get in”. Where, exactly, would this go, and under what conditions? Does Corbyn subscribe to the US approach at the UN, which is always to insist on humanitarian intervention (presumably US/UK intelligence-front NGOs) on some condition whereby the Syrian Government has to prejudice itself?

And how is this in any way representative of reality at all:

We have the grotesque spectacle of a wider geopolitical battle being waged by proxy, with the Syrian people being used as pawns by all sides.

It is surely asinine to say this of the vast majority of Syrians who actually support the Syrian government because it is intrinsically linked to some civilised values and social order that would disappear if the UK-supported, head-chopping, heart-eating barbarians ever managed to make themselves lords over Syria in its entirety. If Corbyn is such a Messiah, why can’t he make distinctions between real bad guys, and real good guys, and propose measures whereby the latter are sustained? Why does he contribute so very easily to the synthetic, virtual current affairs environment that has been created by the Establishment for the constant duping of the people; why join in the gaslighting, and the lying, if he’s meant to be the anti-Establishment candidate; the Saviour of the 99%?

Related FBEL articles:

Politics explained with Stoke and Copeland as exemplars (link)
The real and complete Corbyn delusion (link)
The socialist “Rights of Man” – towards a New World Order (link)
The LibLabCon: reclad socialism, and an inevitable death trap (link)
Two hats and a funeral; Part One – featuring the Bernard Kenny enigma (link)
Two hats and a funeral; Part Two – featuring the drill-gone-live explanation (link)
Thomas Mair: all by himself? (link)
Did Corporate Media concoct the “Britain First” shout myth? (link)

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.