Change will come whether the government wants it or not

Crikey readers were split on their reasoning for the media’s disdain for recent Extinction Rebellion protests. Some weren’t surprised to see some members of the media sharing the government’s ambivalence towards climate action; others thought their resistance to change betrayed them. Elsewhere, readers continued to tackle the issue of Donald Trump’s abandonment of the Kurds in Northern Syria.

On Extinction Rebellion

Cate Lewis writes: It is hard to understand why the press have so enthusiastically joined in Peter Dutton’s invitation to bash activists over Australia’s contribution to the global call for climate action by Extinction Rebellion. There is such resistance to seriously undertaking transition to a more viable future from many quarters. Not just the fossil fuel industry. One wonders what kind of a leader will be able to show us the way.

Jennifer Thomas writes: The response of the media and government to extinction rebellion is predictable and indicative of the failure of humanity to respond appropriately to this global threat. Extinction Rebellion is shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre because the theatre is on fire for all the audience to see. Only fools and madmen deny it or pretend it isn’t happening. They will be responsible, but we will all bear the price of their stupidity, isolationism and greed.

Rosemary Jacob writes: Given the lack of support for climate change action, it is hardly surprising that the media will be critical of the Extinction Rebellion actions. The Suffragettes and the moratorium marchers got little support in their day but they achieved the desired outcome. We have an extremely conservative government with an extremely conservative support base including the Murdoch-dominated media. Change is an inevitable fact of life and people harm themselves by refusing to accept it.

On Trump and Syria

Angela Ballard writes: A small contingent of 200 US being used as an alliance shield to prevent yet another conflict does not necessarily equate to endless war. It’s been keeping the peace, and offering a level of protection for the Kurds who won the fight on the ground for everyone.

Edward Zakrzewski writes: As someone once said, if you go to the dance you stay till the last waltz. If Trump wants to get out, then get out of the Middle East completely — including no longer selling weapons to  Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Garry Abeshouse writes: It’s all about learning from history and asking ourselves how we define who our friends and allies are. If the Kurds were Christian I am sure both Trump’s decision and Keane’s article would have been very different. Trump has got it wrong and so has Bernard Keane. This is both a strategic and a humanitarian issue, not without similarities to what happened to the ethnic cleansing of the Bosnians between 1992 and 1995. Time will tell to what degree this is so.

Lawrence Di Bartolo writes: Let us be under no misapprehension here. Trump’s desertion of the Kurds in Syria is another example of his desperate lashing out to save himself from impeachment and possibly prison. He is prepared to use every means at his disposal to rally his remaining supporters, and that he is a man of decisive action. Its all about Trump and his use of any means to justify the end. The Kurds are simply collateral damage to the greater good of saving Trump’s presidency.