Shock and Awe II

[Hibbyradge]

It looks mighty like Cameron wants to bomb Syria.

I wonder how many times we'll hear the phrase, "it's different this time..."

[hibsbollah]

John Kerry says it is 'beyond dispute' that the Syrian Govt used the weapons, not the rebels.

But Russia and China dispute that its beyond dispute. (This is fair enough; the weapons inspection team havent even reported yet, and both sides have used chemical weapons in the conflict so far). Russia and Syria are allies. Which means any bombing campaign gets vetoed at the UNSC.

This diplomatic bunfight could drag on for a while yet.

[lord bunberry]

I think they are going to bypass the security council on the grounds that they are preventing a humanitarian disaster from happening.
The unsc should be reformed so there isn't permanent members, russia and china always stick together meaning that the council is a waste of time.

[hibsbollah]

I think they are going to bypass the security council on the grounds that they are preventing a humanitarian disaster from happening.
The unsc should be reformed so there isn't permanent members, russia and china always stick together meaning that the council is a waste of time.

If you look at which countries on the UNSC use their veto the most, the US is way ahead of anyone else. Usually the veto is employed to block any resolution critical of Israel (whether its their nuclear stockpile, the 1967 boundaries, the peace wall, the killing of civilians in Gaza etc), the 'international community' is unable to censure them, ever.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/102/40069.html

China and Russia are just protecting their national interests, which sadly is the whole purpose of the permanant members' veto.

[lord bunberry]

If you look at which countries on the UNSC use their veto the most, the US is way ahead of anyone else. Usually the veto is employed to block any resolution critical of Israel (wheyher its their nuclear stockpile, the 1967 boundaries, the peace wall, the killing of civilians in Gaza etc), the 'international community' is unable to censure them, ever.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/102/40069.html

China and Russia are just protecting their national interests, which sadly is the whole purpose of the permanant members' veto.

Yeah I agree, the whole thing should be reformed so that self interest isn't getting in the way of doing what needs to be done. There needs to be a way of stopping the atrocities that are going on around the world without having to take sides.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Yeah I agree, the whole thing should be reformed so that self interest isn't getting in the way of doing what needs to be done. There needs to be a way of stopping the atrocities that are going on around the world without having to take sides.

We can stop selling them weapons.

[lord bunberry]

We can stop selling them weapons.

That would be a start.

[Betty Boop]

We have seen this movie before and we all know how it will end.

[Sylar]

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Sit idly by and watch as a government launches chemical warfare against it's people or take action and be hounded for yet another intervention.

[Hibbyradge]

Syria conflict bingo.

"Boots on the ground".

:grr::grr:

[Betty Boop]

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Sit idly by and watch as a government launches chemical warfare against it's people or take action and be hounded for yet another intervention.

Eh where is the evidence that the Syrian Government launched chemical weapons, and why should the West intervene? Syria is surrounded by hostile countries, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, the Gulf States, who are all involved in this vicious sectarian conflict, which is spreading across the region. Why don't they come out in the open and do their own dirty work ?

[carnoustiehibee]

This helped me understand it abit more. I did wonder what Syria had that made them a western target

http://fb.me/1IiaBmYXH

[Sylar]

Eh where is the evidence that the Syrian Government launched chemical weapons, and why should the West intervene? Syria is surrounded by hostile countries, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, the Gulf States, who are all involved in this vicious sectarian conflict, which is spreading across the region. Why don't they come out in the open and do their own dirty work ?

You think the Syrian civilians staged the scenes we're seeing? Or that an extreme splinter group did this to implicate the Syrian government and force an intervention?

From the scenes and testimonies (from medical professionals and chemical weapon experts) we've seen in recent days, do you really think that chemical weapons haven't been used? If so, on what basis and qualified opinion?

I'm not advocating we send our troops off to yet another combat but sitting idly by whilst chemical warfare is being engaged should NOT be an option. If none of the neighbouring countries will intervene, what other options to the Syrian people have?

[Betty Boop]

You think the Syrian civilians staged the scenes we're seeing? Or that an extreme splinter group did this to implicate the Syrian government and force an intervention?

From the scenes and testimonies (from medical professionals and chemical weapon experts) we've seen in recent days, do you really think that chemical weapons haven't been used? If so, on what basis and qualified opinion?

I'm not advocating we send our troops off to yet another combat but sitting idly by whilst chemical warfare is being engaged should NOT be an option. If none of the neighbouring countries will intervene, what other options to the Syrian people have?

I don't doubt chemical weapons were launched, however who would benefit from their use, obviously not Assad. Why would the Syrian government launch a chemical attack when weapons inspectors were already in the country, in fact based a few miles away from where the alleged attack took place.

[Sylar]

I don't doubt chemical weapons were launched, however who would benefit from their use, obviously not Assad. Why would the Syrian government launch a chemical attack when weapons inspectors were already in the country, in fact based a few miles away from where the alleged attack took place.

So where do you reckon they came from then? A false-flag staging by Israel to get the US to intervene?

[carnoustiehibee]

So where do you reckon they came from then? A false-flag staging by Israel to get the US to intervene?

Read my link

[Hibbyradge]

The USA's commercial interests suggest that they might want a friendly regime in Syria.

Obama stated that the use of chemical weapons would be a red line that, if crossed, would compel him to intervene militarily.

A few weeks later, a chemical attack takes place.

The Syrian government deny responsibility and allow the inspectors in to see for themselves.

Is it possible that the rebels could have been given chemical weapons to use in order to provoke the west's intervention?

Is it possible that people are callous enough to kill their own people for the "greater good"?

[steakbake]

The whole thing reeks, to be honest, and I think it looks like a fit up in order to justify military intervention.

No doubt the Assad regime are callous and have perpetrated crimes against humanity in the last 2 years or so. However, there have been allegations of chemical weapons use in Syria before by both sides - so why now is it that we cross the Rubicon?

We are in very different days in 2013 than we were in 2001 and the Iraq invasion. Previously secret information is no longer as securely secret as it once was and you no longer have to wait for decades to pass for truths to emerge. Interesting that all the soundbites now in Westminster are about how we're in a different position legally to 2001: the subtext of that recognises that the 2001 intervention was not as legitimate as Blair and his apologists might have us believe.

[RyeSloan]

The whole thing reeks, to be honest, and I think it looks like a fit up in order to justify military intervention.

No doubt the Assad regime are callous and have perpetrated crimes against humanity in the last 2 years or so. However, there have been allegations of chemical weapons use in Syria before by both sides - so why now is it that we cross the Rubicon?

We are in very different days in 2013 than we were in 2001 and the Iraq invasion. Previously secret information is no longer as securely secret as it once was and you no longer have to wait for decades to pass for truths to emerge. Interesting that all the soundbites now in Westminster are about how we're in a different position legally to 2001: the subtext of that recognises that the 2001 intervention was not as legitimate as Blair and his apologists might have us believe.

So secrets are not safe yet you suggest this is a fit up....that would seem to be a bit of an oxymoron.

Personally I've no idea what's been done by who but find it slightly strange that its somehow acceptable for a country to rip itself apart using conventional weapons...killing thousands upon thousands and displacing millions yet when a chemical weapon is used the deaths are no longer acceptable.

What I do know is that its a bloody mess and whatever the west do or don't do will be attacked by one quarter or another.

Tis also clear that the UN comes nowhere near meeting the role it was meant to and the world should be looking to reform what is clearly a dysfunctional organisation....won't hold my breath tho as too many powerful nations will never voluntarily give up their veto, the US being one of the main culprits.

[hibsbollah]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/syria-crisis-labour-cameron-commons

What baffles me here is Cameron doesnt want to wait for the weapons inspectors report, 'because it is already obvious that chemical weapons were used' and, bizarrely 'the weapons inspectors report will not say which side is responsible for their deployment'.
This suggests that Cameron believes we might not ever know who was responsible. But he has already said he is sure now that Assad did it:dunno: John Kerry says a report from the inspection team isnt necessary to justify bombing, because 'we will act grounded in facts, informed by conscience and guided by 'common sense'.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2013/08/26/599450c2-0e70-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html

Who needs evidence when you can rely on good old 'common sense' to identify guilt? :aok:

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/syria-crisis-labour-cameron-commons

What baffles me here is Cameron doesnt want to wait for the weapons inspectors report, 'because it is already obvious that chemical weapons were used' and, bizarrely 'the weapons inspectors report will not say which side is responsible for their deployment'.
This suggests that Cameron believes we might not ever know who was responsible. But he has already said he is sure now that Assad did it:dunno: John Kerry says a report from the inspection team isnt necessary to justify bombing, because 'we will act grounded in facts, informed by conscience and guided by 'common sense'.

Who needs evidence when you can rely on good old 'common sense' to identify guilt? :aok:

It's like the WMD story all over again.:rolleyes:

[Sylar]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/israeli-intelligence-intercepted-syria-chemical-talk

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/israeli-intelligence-intercepted-syria-chemical-talk

Call me an old cynic, but was the justification for the attack on Iraq not similar "reliable intelligence"?

It may be that this particular intelligence is correct, but you can understand why old farts like me are extremely cynical about it, especially when it's the old pals of Israel and the US that are involved.

[hibsbollah]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/israeli-intelligence-intercepted-syria-chemical-talk

Oh dear. The IDF. Thats going to win over a sceptical Arab world.

[Hibbyradge]

Call me an old cynic, but was the justification for the attack on Iraq not similar "reliable intelligence"?

It may be that this particular intelligence is correct, but you can understand why old farts like me are extremely cynical about it, especially when it's the old pals of Israel and the US that are involved.

I find it hard to believe the intelligence is genuine.

It stinks to high heaven.

Here's a couple of possible for you. Choose wisely.

1. "We" bomb a small number of Syrian targets in order to get the message across about the use chemical weapons not being acceptable. We then withdraw and allow the conflict to continue to its natural conclusion.

2. "We" bomb a small number of Syrian targets in order to get the message across about the use chemical weapons not being acceptable. We then withdraw until Syria does something to retaliate or chemical weapons are used again. We then bomb all their airfields and military sites and send in troops to "save the civilians".

Is it possible to get a bet that there will be US and/or British troops in Syria by Christmas?

[Sylar]

Call me an old cynic, but was the justification for the attack on Iraq not similar "reliable intelligence"?

It may be that this particular intelligence is correct, but you can understand why old farts like me are extremely cynical about it, especially when it's the old pals of Israel and the US that are involved.

I think being analytical and inquisitive is not a bad thing when the stakes are so high. For me though, some people go over and above rational and intellectual levels of cynicism and into downright paranoia. Like everything else, there's a spectrum of those who back the government in all faith and those who disbelieve everything which comes out of government's mouth (metaphorically speaking).

All we really have so far are compelling accounts which support that chemical weapons have been used so I think both sides would be well cautioned to await the outcome of the UN assessment before waging any definitive actions. I include myself in that as I'm well aware I directly accused Syria's government of being responsible earlier but with no real basis for doing so :agree:

[Sylar]

Oh dear. The IDF. Thats going to win over a sceptical Arab world.

Please note all I was doing here was sharing another story I had read on the matter this afternoon - I'm not using it to cement any personal viewpoint! :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

I think being analytical and inquisitive is not a bad thing when the stakes are so high. For me though, some people go over and above rational and intellectual levels of cynicism and into downright paranoia. Like everything else, there's a spectrum of those who back the government in all faith and those who disbelieve everything which comes out of government's mouth (metaphorically speaking).

All we really have so far are compelling accounts which support that chemical weapons have been used so I think both sides would be well cautioned to await the outcome of the UN assessment before waging any definitive actions. I include myself in that as I'm well aware I directly accused Syria's government of being responsible earlier but with no real basis for doing so :agree:

....like what they did in Iraq, you mean? :greengrin

"We found no evidence of WMD's"

"Tough. We're going in anyway"

[Hibbyradge]

I think being analytical and inquisitive is not a bad thing when the stakes are so high. For me though, some people go over and above rational and intellectual levels of cynicism and into downright paranoia. Like everything else, there's a spectrum of those who back the government in all faith and those who disbelieve everything which comes out of government's mouth (metaphorically speaking).

All we really have so far are compelling accounts which support that chemical weapons have been used so I think both sides would be well cautioned to await the outcome of the UN assessment before waging any definitive actions. I include myself in that as I'm well aware I directly accused Syria's government of being responsible earlier but with no real basis for doing so :agree:

:aok:

[hibsbollah]

Please note all I was doing here was sharing another story I had read on the matter this afternoon - I'm not using it to cement any personal viewpoint! :greengrin

Sure, I understand that. I'm just pointing out its spectacularly bad luck or spectacularly bad politics. If you were deliberately trying to do the worst possible job at constructing a case for war, youd be hard pressed to beat this :greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

Why the unseemly rush?

We seem to be getting railroaded into attacking Syria. It's as if we might miss the opportunity if we don't act immediately.

It reeks.

[Hibbyradge]

More war bingo from Radio Five Live...

"Clinical strikes"

"Military targets"

"Precision bombing"

"Minimal casualties"

[lord bunberry]

Who launched the chemical weapons is not the most important thing here. There's children being gassed to death and the un needs to put a stop to it.

[Mibbes Aye]

So where do you reckon they came from then? A false-flag staging by Israel to get the US to intervene?

There are many ways to skin a cat and it doesn't necessarily take anything as elaborate or risky as that.

When you think about it, chemical weapons are likely to be dispersed and there will be operational commanders in the field who could order their use, even if they're not supposed to, without clearance from higher-up.

Humans are humans. Whether it's bribery or blackmail or the threat to loved ones or whatever, it doesn't seem an implausible route to manipulate someone into doing that, with the benefit that should the weapon provenance be established, it points straight back to the regime.

Just one theory, but maybe a safer one than some covert operation and one of the key principles has always been to get someone else to do your dirty work for you.

More generally, you would have to echo the comments about how murky this all is. If you're Iranian you don't have to be that old to have been around when the US/UK engineered an overthrow of your democratically-elected government. And if you're Iraqi you've lived with the consequences of the WMD dossier. It's no surprise there's so little trust in the agendas of our Western governments.

[Betty Boop]

So where do you reckon they came from then? A false-flag staging by Israel to get the US to intervene?


Wouldn't be surprised at all, however UN diplomat Carla del Ponte concluded that the last chemical attack in April (also blamed on the regime), was carried out by the rebels.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/05/07/carla-del-pontes-faux-pas/

[hibsbollah]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r3BO6GP9NMY

While watching the news today, this came to mind.

[Sylar]

Wouldn't be surprised at all, however UN diplomat Carla del Ponte concluded that the last chemical attack in April (also blamed on the regime), was carried out by the rebels.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/05/07/carla-del-pontes-faux-pas/

It'll be interesting to see what the conclusion of the UN convoy is then and whether they come the to same conclusions (though that term should be used very loosely based on the article you link as she also says the investigation was far from concluded when she made those claims).

I see earlier that the government have now said it would require 2 votes from the Commons before any action could be agreed - hopefully thus giving the Council enough time to receive a report from the convoy and provide some facts to a storm of supposition.

[Beefster]

I've no strong opinion on whether the UK should get involved in military action in Syria or not. It never fails to amaze me though that, while a ruthless dictator and his regime is killing hundreds of thousands of his own citizens and [more than likely] poisoning them with chemical weapons, some folk (with a strong agenda admittedly) can't wait to shout about how the countries that want him stopped are the bad guys.

[Rasta_Hibs]

I've no strong opinion on whether the UK should get involved in military action in Syria or not. It never fails to amaze me though that, while a ruthless dictator and his regime is killing hundreds of thousands of his own citizens and [more than likely] poisoning them with chemical weapons, some folk (with a strong agenda admittedly) can't wait to shout about how the countries that want him stopped are the bad guys.

I think the point is what does a military strike achieve? And what comes next? More death on a larger scale than what happened on August 21st?

[brian6-2]

I've no strong opinion on whether the UK should get involved in military action in Syria or not. It never fails to amaze me though that, while a ruthless dictator and his regime is killing hundreds of thousands of his own citizens and [more than likely] poisoning them with chemical weapons, some folk (with a strong agenda admittedly) can't wait to shout about how the countries that want him stopped are the bad guys.

:agree:

couldnt agree more.

[Hibrandenburg]

Whoever carried out this attack needs to be held to account. The waffle and lack of any action by the UN in Bosnia ultimately led to the Serbs acting with total impunity culminating in mass murder and executions on a scale not seen in Europe since WW2.

Doing nothing is not an option here IMO.

[Hibbyradge]

Doing nothing is not an option here IMO.

Maybe doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing. :dunno:

[Beefster]

Maybe doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing. :dunno:

Maybe only if you're not sitting in Syria waiting to be killed by the regime.

[brian6-2]

Maybe doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing. :dunno:

whats the wrong thing? just to let them keep butchering each other?

[Phil D. Rolls]

I've no strong opinion on whether the UK should get involved in military action in Syria or not. It never fails to amaze me though that, while a ruthless dictator and his regime is killing hundreds of thousands of his own citizens and [more than likely] poisoning them with chemical weapons, some folk (with a strong agenda admittedly) can't wait to shout about how the countries that want him stopped are the bad guys.

You have to ask yourself why he would do something as mad as this. The weapons inspectors are in his country; he has a conscripted army, and he is attacking his troops families. It just doesn't make sense.

It's also worth considering what is in it for other countries if a war starts. Oil rights, water rights, a strategic buffer against China, weapons sales, distraction from their own problems.

I don't think people are pro bad guys, it's just that having been lied to by politicians before, people are questioning the evidence.

By the way, you start off by saying you have no opinion, then do your best to contradict that in the rest of your post. You state opinions about those that object to immediate action, and you also make it clear who you think the bad guy is.

[carnoustiehibee]

whats the wrong thing? just to let them keep butchering each other?

They do it all over Africa, why don't we intervene there?

[Phil D. Rolls]

whats the wrong thing? just to let them keep butchering each other?

The wrong thing is to commit the lives of British Soldiers, without thinking about it first.

[lord bunberry]

Maybe only if you're not sitting in Syria waiting to be killed by the regime.

Exactly, there has to be some sort of intervention to stop the killing. I don't see why the US or UK should be leading it though. Any involvement of US or UK forces will be used as an excuse for more terrorist attacks, and lead to yet more conspiracy theories.

[steakbake]

They do it all over Africa, why don't we intervene there?

Hmmmmmm..... I don't know. There wasn't an urgent recall to Parliament during the Second Congo war which has claimed the lives of millions of people.

I am skeptical of why now, we feel moved to intervene in Syria especially as the conflict has been going on for 2-3 years already and there have been various crimes against humanity committed.

[Hibrandenburg]

The wrong thing is to commit the lives of British Soldiers, without thinking about it first.

Just don't think too long. At the latest when the evidence against the Syrian government is irrefutable (IMO it's already compelling) then action needs to be taken. If nothing is done then not only will it lead to more human tragedy in Syria but will also send a clear message to any little wannabe dictator that they can use any means within their power to achieve their goals.

[Rasta_Hibs]

Hmmmmmm..... I don't know. There wasn't an urgent recall to Parliament during the Second Congo war which has claimed the lives of millions of people.

I am skeptical of why now, we feel moved to intervene in Syria especially as the conflict has been going on for 2-3 years already and there have been various crimes against humanity committed.

Ultimately its cos Syria, like Iraq and Lybia want to change from selling oil in dollars. This would bankrupt America, so they topple Assad then Iran comes next. Then they secure the petrodollar!

Correct me if I am wrong here.

[brian6-2]

Listening to that little hasbean Clegg on R4 this morning didnt fill me with any confidence whatsoever either. I have serious doubts over whether that man actually knows what he is doing.

[brian6-2]

Ultimately its cos Syria, like Iraq and Lybia want to change from selling oil in dollars. This would bankrupt America, so they topple Assad then Iran comes next. Then they secure the petrodollar!

Correct me if I am wrong here.

ok, your wrong.

[Rasta_Hibs]

ok, your wrong.

Its awwfy spookey that they all wanted to trade oil in something other than Dollars and now they are either gone or under attack. Just a coincidence?

[carnoustiehibee]

Its awwfy spookey that they all wanted to trade oil in something other than Dollars and now they are either gone or under attack. Just a coincidence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLJu0X14vmg&sns=em

[brian6-2]

Its awwfy spookey that they all wanted to trade oil in something other than Dollars and now they are either gone or under attack. Just a coincidence?

maybe so, but an absolutely disgusting suggestion and massively disrespectful to the millions of people who have lost their lifes in any of these conflicts.

i know you never meant it that way but it just gets a bit tiresome listening to folk playing the oil card. its boring and dated imo.

[Rasta_Hibs]

maybe so, but an absolutely disgusting suggestion and massively disrespectful to the millions of people who have lost their lifes in any of these conflicts.

i know you never meant it that way but it just gets a bit tiresome listening to folk playing the oil card. its boring and dated imo.

I'm not the only one suggesting it. A lot of more clever people than me think along these line and there is evidence to support it. I mean the evidence to support these previous wars was proven to be a sham in many ways. The evidence supporting the Petrodollar theory seems much more real to me.

[brian6-2]

I'm not the only one suggesting it. A lot of more clever people than me think along these line and there is evidence to support it. I mean the evidence to support these previous wars was proven to be a sham in many ways. The evidence supporting the Petrodollar theory seems much more real to me.

who are these "clever" people mate?

[Rasta_Hibs]

who are these "clever" people mate?

Well experts on the subject. Social commentators etc Ie people who should know what their talking about. Ie more than me. But even from what I know the whole thing reeks to high heaven.

[Rasta_Hibs]

Ken another coincidence the UK send a big military vessel to Gibraltar before this all kicks off cos of a boarder dispute! Come on that's to much of a coincidence. THey do that then this happens. Know what Im saying? Gibraltar was a smoke screen to get the military into position on the Med?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Just don't think too long. At the latest when the evidence against the Syrian government is irrefutable (IMO it's already compelling) then action needs to be taken. If nothing is done then not only will it lead to more human tragedy in Syria but will also send a clear message to any little wannabe dictator that they can use any means within their power to achieve their goals.

I think it's possibly mistrust of our own leaders. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me.

[brian6-2]

Well experts on the subject. Social commentators etc Ie people who should know what their talking about. Ie more than me. But even from what I know the whole thing reeks to high heaven.

Ive no idea who your on about mate, but im fully aware of the type of person your on about. the whole thing does reek to the high heavens we can agree on that. the main facts of why these things happen though are often ignored and left for people who "pretend" to know what they are on about, talk complete mince about.

[Hibrandenburg]

I'm not the only one suggesting it. A lot of more clever people than me think along these line and there is evidence to support it. I mean the evidence to support these previous wars was proven to be a sham in many ways. The evidence supporting the Petrodollar theory seems much more real to me.

The opportunity for the Yanks to start a sham war in Syria has been there for 2 years now. Iran have provoked them on several occasions but no response from the USA even though they've had a whole army on the ground just across the border. Libya have been taunting them for decades and the Yanks have been VERY lenient in their response.

Sure there are arguments to support the theory that the USA has profited from these wars but there are more compelling ones to suggest they haven't.

[carnoustiehibee]

Why Syria and not North Korea?

[Hibrandenburg]

They do it all over Africa, why don't we intervene there?

Not with chemical weapons they don't.

[Phil D. Rolls]

maybe so, but an absolutely disgusting suggestion and massively disrespectful to the millions of people who have lost their lifes in any of these conflicts.

i know you never meant it that way but it just gets a bit tiresome listening to folk playing the oil card. its boring and dated imo.


who are these "clever" people mate?

So because you are tired, the argument is no longer valid? It is good to debate these things, but so far your contribution has been to throw in emotive one liners.

I think you are out of order to suggest people are disrespectful to the dead. Can't speak for others, but it is the very real thought of Our Boys being slaughtered so that Israel and its poodle can make money out of the conflict, that worries me.

I think it's healthy (on behalf of our troops) to be sceptical when we have been lied to before. The good guys don't always wear white hats.

[Hibrandenburg]

Why Syria and not North Korea?

Completely different kettle of fish.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Completely different kettle of fish.

Why - surely nuclear weapons are an even bigger threat to mankind than chemical ones? It's strange how Mugabe can get away with genocide, atrocities happen in Sierra Leone and Liberia, and our conscience isn't troubled.

I suppose it's only when chemical weapons are used to kill children that we get upset.

[carnoustiehibee]

Completely different kettle of fish.

In what way?

[Hibrandenburg]

I think it's possibly mistrust of our own leaders. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me.

That is an unfortunate truth that will cost lives. However it can't be allowed to stop people getting help just because "Wolf" has been cried in the past.

[Phil D. Rolls]

That is an unfortunate truth that will cost lives. However it can't be allowed to stop people getting help just because "Wolf" has been cried in the past.
:agree:
But it does make sense to question the evidence.

[Hibrandenburg]

In what way?

Nuclear weapons have been tested in NK and not used against it's own people. That to me is a massive difference.

[Hibrandenburg]

:agree:
But it does make sense to question the evidence.

Agreed!

[brian6-2]

So because you are tired, the argument is no longer valid? It is good to debate these things, but so far your contribution has been to throw in emotive one liners.

I think you are out of order to suggest people are disrespectful to the dead. Can't speak for others, but it is the very real thought of Our Boys being slaughtered so that Israel and its poodle can make money out of the conflict, that worries me.

I think it's healthy (on behalf of our troops) to be sceptical when we have been lied to before. The good guys don't always wear white hats.


I wont be getting involved in any kind of debate with you.

Ive read alot of your posts on here and if im being completely honest i think your a bit of a bully. As well as that i think some of your views are completely wrong and nowhere near based on fact.

[Hibrandenburg]

Why - surely nuclear weapons are an even bigger threat to mankind than chemical ones? It's strange how Mugabe can get away with genocide, atrocities happen in Sierra Leone and Liberia, and our conscience isn't troubled.

I suppose it's only when chemical weapons are used to kill children that we get upset.

Hard as this may sound I think that the potential for Mugabe and Co to produce a threat to global stability is small compared to the potential of a rogue state that has deployed chemical weapons at least 14 times. That must be taken into account when considering any response.

[Hibrandenburg]

In what way?

Nuclear weapons have been tested in NK and not used against it's own people. That to me is a massive difference.

[lord bunberry]

Why - surely nuclear weapons are an even bigger threat to mankind than chemical ones? It's strange how Mugabe can get away with genocide, atrocities happen in Sierra Leone and Liberia, and our conscience isn't troubled.

I suppose it's only when chemical weapons are used to kill children that we get upset.

There should be un intervention in places like Zimbabwe, until someone stops these dictators killing innocent people they will continue to do it.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I wont be getting involved in any kind of debate with you.

Ive read alot of your posts on here and if im being completely honest i think your a bit of a bully. As well as that i think some of your views are completely wrong and nowhere near based on fact.

No need for name calling. Surely we can debate on facts, rather than opinions?

[Phil D. Rolls]

There should be un intervention in places like Zimbabwe, until someone stops these dictators killing innocent people they will continue to do it.

:agree:

[steakbake]

In what way?

Because "we" would probably lose...

[Rasta_Hibs]

I have also read yesterday that a member of the UN inspection team has been said and can be quoted as such saying that their is evidence that the rebels have used the Chemical weapons.

[Aldo]

I have also read yesterday that a member of the UN inspection team has been said and can be quoted as such saying that their is evidence that the rebels have used the Chemical weapons.

This was on news earlier.

To think as well Assads right hand man has suggested it was indeed the rebels that used chemical weapons against their own people and that it was the US/UK and the French that supplied them.

That is very very scary. Assad is no better than other dictators throughout history and is responsible for genocide against his own.... Or indeed people who stand against him or his regime.

He needs removed soonest.

[JimBHibees]

To be honest why are chemical weapons in any way more important than conventional weapons. You will either be killed or injured with both. This line in the sand crock does no-one any favours and also the propaganda that organisations such as BBC/SKY/FOX etc is so insulting it is unreal. Minimal casualties etc like that worked in Iraq.

Stop trying to be the policeman of the world and then get all offended when people hate you. Try some real diplomacy for a change and sort out say the Israeli conflict.

[Rasta_Hibs]

To be honest why are chemical weapons in any way more important than conventional weapons. You will either be killed or injured with both. This line in the sand crock does no-one any favours and also the propaganda that organisations such as BBC/SKY/FOX etc is so insulting it is unreal. Minimal casualties etc like that worked in Iraq.

Stop trying to be the policeman of the world and then get all offended when people hate you. Try some real diplomacy for a change and sort out say the Israeli conflict.

Bang on!

[Beefster]

I don't think people are pro bad guys, it's just that having been lied to by politicians before, people are questioning the evidence.

By the way, you start off by saying you have no opinion, then do your best to contradict that in the rest of your post. You state opinions about those that object to immediate action, and you also make it clear who you think the bad guy is.

Questioning evidence is good.

I've no strong opinion on whether the UK should be involved in military intervention but I've no doubt that Assad is a bad guy. I wasn't opining about folk opposed to immediate action either - there's some logic behind their argument. There's logic behind the "let's hit the weapon stockpile" argument too though.


Why Syria and not North Korea?

When has North Korea been accused of using chemical weapons on their citizens? You'd have a valid point if Syria was attacked for developing nuclear weapons or even if North Korea were attacked when India/Pakistan/Israel weren't.

[Rasta_Hibs]

Questioning evidence is good.

I've no strong opinion on whether the UK should be involved in military intervention but I've no doubt that Assad is a bad guy. I wasn't opining about folk opposed to immediate action either - there's some logic behind their argument. There's logic behind the "let's hit the weapon stockpile" argument too though.



When has North Korea been accused of using chemical weapons on their citizens? You'd have a valid point if Syria was attacked for developing nuclear weapons or even if North Korea were attacked when India/Pakistan/Israel weren't.

Surely a diplomatic effort to get the weapons removed is best option.

[steakbake]

Try some real diplomacy for a change and sort out say the Israeli conflict.

Totally on the money.

The Israel/Palestine question is an open sore in the region. It will never heal unless it is dealt with honestly and without some of the disingenuous approaches taken in the past. There has to be a solution that recognises and protects Israel but also stops the settlement building (can I call it 'plantation') and respects the boundaries and right to self-determination of the Palestinians.

[Beefster]

Surely a diplomatic effort to get the weapons removed is best option.

Possibly. Probably won't get rid of them any time soon and it's not much of a deterrent to using chemical weapons though.

[Beefster]

To be honest why are chemical weapons in any way more important than conventional weapons. You will either be killed or injured with both. This line in the sand crock does no-one any favours and also the propaganda that organisations such as BBC/SKY/FOX etc is so insulting it is unreal. Minimal casualties etc like that worked in Iraq.

Stop trying to be the policeman of the world and then get all offended when people hate you. Try some real diplomacy for a change and sort out say the Israeli conflict.

Good read.

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/08/in-defense-of-the-double-standard-for-chemical-weapons/

[yeezus.]

Totally on the money.

The Israel/Palestine question is an open sore in the region. It will never heal unless it is dealt with honestly and without some of the disingenuous approaches taken in the past. There has to be a solution that recognises and protects Israel but also stops the settlement building (can I call it 'plantation') and respects the boundaries and right to self-determination of the Palestinians.

:agree: An attack on Syria would end up drawing Iran into the equation as well.

[yeezus.]

I have also read yesterday that a member of the UN inspection team has been said and can be quoted as such saying that their is evidence that the rebels have used the Chemical weapons.

I think everyone agrees that Assad needs to go - what worries me is what kind of people would replace him.

[Hibrandenburg]

To be honest why are chemical weapons in any way more important than conventional weapons. You will either be killed or injured with both. This line in the sand crock does no-one any favours and also the propaganda that organisations such as BBC/SKY/FOX etc is so insulting it is unreal. Minimal casualties etc like that worked in Iraq.

Stop trying to be the policeman of the world and then get all offended when people hate you. Try some real diplomacy for a change and sort out say the Israeli conflict.

Chemical weapons are classified as WMD and rightly so. Their use in populated areas guarantee that mass casualties among the civilian population will occur even with a small amount being deployed. The attack (one of many) in question resulted in the kind of casualty totals that would only be achieved through a relentless artillery barrage carried out over and extended period.

If you don't draw the line at the use of chemical weapons then where do you draw the line? There are even worse evils out there than chemical agents, biological agents and nuclear to name but two. The aim of any treaty has to be the protection of civilian populations and a ban on the use of WMD is a must to ensure this.

What exactly Israel has to do with a Syrian civil war is lost on me but I'm sure someone will point me in the right direction and let me know how Mossad lit the touchpaper to the Arab Spring.

[steakbake]

I think everyone agrees that Assad needs to go - what worries me is what kind of people would replace him.

What worries the west more than a middle eastern dictator is a middle eastern electorate.

I think people need to have more faith in nascent democracies. Egypt voted in the Muslim brotherhood but I think it's fair to say their ship has sailed recently.

[Hibrandenburg]

Totally on the money.

The Israel/Palestine question is an open sore in the region. It will never heal unless it is dealt with honestly and without some of the disingenuous approaches taken in the past. There has to be a solution that recognises and protects Israel but also stops the settlement building (can I call it 'plantation') and respects the boundaries and right to self-determination of the Palestinians.

Agree and disagree. What's going on in Syria has more to do with long running Arab sectarianism. If there is one thing that has united the Arab world then it's their mutual hatred of the Jewish state. Don't think you can blame Israel for this one.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Questioning evidence is good.

I've no strong opinion on whether the UK should be involved in military intervention but I've no doubt that Assad is a bad guy. I wasn't opining about folk opposed to immediate action either - there's some logic behind their argument. There's logic behind the "let's hit the weapon stockpile" argument too though.



When has North Korea been accused of using chemical weapons on their citizens? You'd have a valid point if Syria was attacked for developing nuclear weapons or even if North Korea were attacked when India/Pakistan/Israel weren't.

Fair dos - sorry for picking you up wrong.

[steakbake]

Agree and disagree. What's going on in Syria has more to do with long running Arab sectarianism. If there is one thing that has united the Arab world then it's their mutual hatred of the Jews. Don't think you can blame Israel for this one.

I agree - Syria is separate to this. It's primarily a sectarian conflict, not dissimilar to Bosnia. The Israel/Palestine question is one of the issues that serves as a recruiting sergeant to radical Islam by a real and founded sense of injustice. It's a potent message and cause for people who feel they have little to lose in this life but much to gain in the next.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Chemical weapons are classified as WMD and rightly so. Their use in populated areas guarantee that mass casualties among the civilian population will occur even with a small amount being deployed. The attack (one of many) in question resulted in the kind of casualty totals that would only be achieved through a relentless artillery barrage carried out over and extended period.

If you don't draw the line at the use of chemical weapons then where do you draw the line? There are even worse evils out there than chemical agents, biological agents and nuclear to name but two. The aim of any treaty has to be the protection of civilian populations and a ban on the use of WMD is a must to ensure this.

What exactly Israel has to do with a Syrian civil war is lost on me but I'm sure someone will point me in the right direction and let me know how Mossad lit the touchpaper to the Arab Spring.

It wasn't right, but no one was too bothered to stop Sadaam from gassing Kurds. As for Israel, you have to consider the advantages of being able to control states in their vicinity.

[Hibbyradge]

i know you never meant it that way but it just gets a bit tiresome listening to folk playing the oil card. its boring and dated imo.

You might be bored, but dated? How so?

The compelling reason that the USA wants to go into Syria is because of oil and oil transportation.

Why haven't they intervened in the many African states which regularly commit atrocities and butcher their citizens?

[steakbake]

You might be bored, but dated? How so?

The compelling reason that the USA wants to go into Syria is because of oil and oil transportation.

Why haven't they intervened in the many African states which regularly commit atrocities and butcher their citizens?

Gas probably more likely than oil. Also why Russia are interested but for other reasons.

[Betty Boop]

Chemical weapons are classified as WMD and rightly so. Their use in populated areas guarantee that mass casualties among the civilian population will occur even with a small amount being deployed. The attack (one of many) in question resulted in the kind of casualty totals that would only be achieved through a relentless artillery barrage carried out over and extended period.

If you don't draw the line at the use of chemical weapons then where do you draw the line? There are even worse evils out there than chemical agents, biological agents and nuclear to name but two. The aim of any treaty has to be the protection of civilian populations and a ban on the use of WMD is a must to ensure this.

What exactly Israel has to do with a Syrian civil war is lost on me but I'm sure someone will point me in the right direction and let me know how Mossad lit the touchpaper to the Arab Spring.

The US would know all about chemical weapons right enough, having sprayed Agent Orange in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, white phosphorous in Fallujah, and also depleted uranium. They reek of hypocrisy and double standards.

[Betty Boop]

The Government motion has been defeated in Parliament.

[steakbake]

The Government motion has been defeated in Parliament.

Interesting: funnily it's Labour who are telling the PM to make a better case.... insisting on UN inspectors to report back... and needing a UN mandate.

Irony at it's finest. Or hypocrisy at it's worst...

Jack Straw is probably the worst hypocrite amongst them.

[Hibrandenburg]

The US would know all about chemical weapons right enough, having sprayed Agent Orange in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, white phosphorous in Fallujah, and also depleted uranium. They reek of hypocrisy and double standards.

Your hate of all things to do with Israel and the US is tiresome. You quote a post from me that has no mention of the US in it and then go off on a rant about them.

Comparing agent orange, phosphorus and degraded uranium with nerve gas is quite ridiculous. Yes they're all nasty **** but as I previously mentioned only nerve gas could really be classed as a WMD.

You may have some good points but foaming at the mouth whilst regurgitating them makes them lose some credibility.

[Hibrandenburg]

Interesting: funnily it's Labour who are telling the PM to make a better case.... insisting on UN inspectors to report back... and needing a UN mandate.

Irony at it's finest. Or hypocrisy at it's worst...

Jack Straw is probably the worst hypocrite amongst them.

Or maybe they just learned their lesson?

[Mibbes Aye]

Agree and disagree. What's going on in Syria has more to do with long running Arab sectarianism. If there is one thing that has united the Arab world then it's their mutual hatred of the Jews. Don't think you can blame Israel for this one.

Are you for real? The 'Arab world' are united in hatred of Jews?

I'm glad I don't have your worldview, it must be incredibly bleak. On the other hand it's impressive that you can speak with such authority about the views of millions upon millions of people. How on earth did you find the time to meet them all, let alone get to the point where they could all express their hatred of Judaism to you?

[steakbake]

Or maybe they just learned their lesson?

Maybe I'm just cynical.

[Hibrandenburg]

Are you for real? The 'Arab world' are united in hatred of Jews?

I'm glad I don't have your worldview, it must be incredibly bleak. On the other hand it's impressive that you can speak with such authority about the views of millions upon millions of people. How on earth did you find the time to meet them all, let alone get to the point where they could all express their hatred of Judaism to you?



Only two Arab nations even recognise the Jewish state of Israel and even then I'm not sure if their population would agree with their government's policy if they had a say. It might not be every single individual of Arab heritage but you knew what I meant and decided to get pissy.

[Hibrandenburg]

Maybe I'm just cynical.

Never!



:greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

Interesting: funnily it's Labour who are telling the PM to make a better case.... insisting on UN inspectors to report back... and needing a UN mandate.

Irony at it's finest. Or hypocrisy at it's worst...

Jack Straw is probably the worst hypocrite amongst them.

They are acknowledging previous mistakes.

[Mibbes Aye]

Only two Arab nations even recognise the Jewish state of Israel and even then I'm not sure if their population would agree with their government's policy if they had a say. It might not be every single individual of Arab heritage but you knew what I meant and decided to get pissy.

Ah, so you're talking about 'a Jewish state of Israel' now, instead of 'the Jews'.......that's a convenient shift, little too obvious though and it doesn't cut it.

Instead of calling me pissy, why not man up and acknowledge that what you said was unwarranted, never possibly something you could substantiate and quite probably very offensive to any Arab who doesn't hate 'the Jews', like you claimed they did?

[Sylar]

Your hate of all things to do with Israel and the US is tiresome. You quote a post from me that has no mention of the US in it and then go off on a rant about them.

Comparing agent orange, phosphorus and degraded uranium with nerve gas is quite ridiculous. Yes they're all nasty **** but as I previously mentioned only nerve gas could really be classed as a WMD.

You may have some good points but foaming at the mouth whilst regurgitating them makes them lose some credibility.

Perfectly summed up Hiberlin - the lack of objectivity and venomous tirades against the USA at every possible juncture preclude any meaningful and intellectual discussion based in fact and reason but instead take us down the merry path of propaganda, blog-site referencing and paranoid claptrap which is the type of argument/poster Beefster was alluding to earlier.

Funnily enough, the same post (as it was completely tangential) could also have taken the opportunity to highlight some other nations who are masters of implementing chemical warfare (Iraq, Serbia or even Germany) yet only the USA are targeted.

[Hibrandenburg]

Ah, so you're talking about 'a Jewish state of Israel' now, instead of 'the Jews'.......that's a convenient shift, little too obvious though and it doesn't cut it.

Instead of calling me pissy, why not man up and acknowledge that what you said was unwarranted, never possibly something you could substantiate and quite probably very offensive to any Arab who doesn't hate 'the Jews', like you claimed they did?

Interpret what I said how you like but it doesn't change what I meant and you know it. Getting pissy about semantics is just deflecting from the point but I'm sure you know that too.

[Mibbes Aye]

Interpret what I said how you like but it doesn't change what I meant and you know it. Getting pissy about semantics is just deflecting from the point but I'm sure you know that too.

You said the one thing that united the Arab world was their hatred of Jews. Your words, not mine.

That's a big claim. Feel free to back it up any time.

It's a very unsavoury thing to say and that's putting it mildly. Maybe you should choose your words more carefully?

[Hibrandenburg]

You said the one thing that united the Arab world was their hatred of Jews. Your words, not mine.

That's a big claim. Feel free to back it up any time.

It's a very unsavoury thing to say and that's putting it mildly. Maybe you should choose your words more carefully?

Again I'll say you know that's not what I meant but won't let go so I'll leave it there.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Perfectly summed up Hiberlin - the lack of objectivity and venomous tirades against the USA at every possible juncture preclude any meaningful and intellectual discussion based in fact and reason but instead take us down the merry path of propaganda, blog-site referencing and paranoid claptrap which is the type of argument/poster Beefster was alluding to earlier.

Funnily enough, the same post (as it was completely tangential) could also have taken the opportunity to highlight some other nations who are masters of implementing chemical warfare (Iraq, Serbia or even Germany) yet only the USA are targeted.

Good point. :agree:

[Mibbes Aye]

Again I'll say you know that's not what I meant but won't let go so I'll leave it there.

You have no idea what I know, how possibly could you?

Then again, you claim to know what every Arab thinks so maybe you do? I'm not an Arab incidentally.......

Would it not be more straightforward just to fess up that what you claimed isn't something you could substantiate and acknowledge that it could be really offensive?

Leave it with you, I've no desire to keep with it, as I said earlier it's all very unsavoury........

[RyeSloan]

Gas probably more likely than oil. Also why Russia are interested but for other reasons.

Do the Americans see Syria as a potential export country for their gas?

The USA is busy turning its LPG port facilities built to import gas into facilities that can export.

Sure the US take many actions to secure their energy supply but bombing Syria for gas isn't going to be one of them.

Read recently that world stores of oil are also at an all time high, I think some people have missed just how significant the fracking boom has been in changing the US energy landscape and therefore their strategic objectives.

[PeeJay]

Funnily enough, the same post (as it was completely tangential) could also have taken the opportunity to highlight some other nations who are masters of implementing chemical warfare (Iraq, Serbia or even Germany) yet only the USA are targeted.

"Germany (along with Serbia and Iraq) are masters of waging chemical warfare" - what happend to "intellectual debate"?:confused:

[Beefster]

Napalm now used by the regime in Syria. It's okay though because the US used it 40-50 years ago.

In the spirit of the debate from some, here's a link to some fruit loop's opinion....

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/89917-deja-vu-iraq-2003-becomes-syria-2013

[Hibrandenburg]

You have no idea what I know, how possibly could you?

Then again, you claim to know what every Arab thinks so maybe you do? I'm not an Arab incidentally.......

Would it not be more straightforward just to fess up that what you claimed isn't something you could substantiate and acknowledge that it could be really offensive?

Leave it with you, I've no desire to keep with it, as I said earlier it's all very unsavoury........


It might have been much easier just to change "Jews" to "Jewish state" in my original post (which I will do now) but the lateness of the hour, the fact I was using my mobile and my fingers are not really designed to manipulate mobile touchscreens or most importantly the pissy tone of your first post, meant that I had very little desire to accommodate your wishes in any way.

[Hibrandenburg]

Napalm now used by the regime in Syria. It's okay though because the US used it 40-50 years ago.

In the spirit of the debate from some, here's a link to some fruit loop's opinion....

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/89917-deja-vu-iraq-2003-becomes-syria-2013

You do David Icke no justice by calling him "some fruit loop", David Icke is "thee fruit loop general".

[hibsbollah]

I honestly didnt think the Westminster class still had it in them to defy their leadership and whips and vote according to their conscience and public opinion. A good day for representative democracy, and Wee Eck will be cursing as well. Another unpopular war supported by a compliant New Labour would have been great political capital for him.

[hibsbollah]

Napalm now used by the regime in Syria. It's okay though because the US used it 40-50 years ago.

In the spirit of the debate from some, here's a link to some fruit loop's opinion....

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/89917-deja-vu-iraq-2003-becomes-syria-2013

Absolutely horrific scenes from the incendiary bomb attack on the playground yesterday. A collective madness seems to have taken over.

[Hibrandenburg]

I honestly didnt think the Westminster class still had it in them to defy their leadership and whips and vote according to their conscience and public opinion. A good day for representative democracy, and Wee Eck will be cursing as well. Another unpopular war supported by a compliant New Labour would have been great political capital for him.

Good result for British democracy last night, I just hope it's the right choice for the people of Syria though.

[Sylar]

"Germany (along with Serbia and Iraq) are masters of waging chemical warfare" - what happend to "intellectual debate"?:confused:

The first pioneers of chemical warfare on a 'modern' battlefield on a large scale and the first to deploy it en masse against any opposition at the Battle of Ypres where they launched a chlorine gas attack against the French. Prior to that, they also experimented with xylyl bromide, mustard gas and phosgene gas. It was also Nazi scientists who pioneered the discovery of today's key nerve agents such as sarin and tabun.

Which part of that fails to meet your criteria as to why Germany are a solid mention for participants of chemical warfare?

[Rasta_Hibs]

I honestly think the right decision has been made here. Did we want to go against international law and launch yet another illegal attack?

I think If we had hit Syria in that illegal manner that the violence would increase beyond Syria and I think more and more nations would be pulled in resulting in millions of deaths. That's what I think would happen.

In saying that I would not be against force totally but surely it has to be done with some kind of unity round the world. I think between them Europe, USA, China & Russia could end this situation. As many posters have said Assad has to go but its the way we go about it.

I think ultimately the US will strike along with France and the UK will join at some point down the line. I do think this is the point where West meets East head on, we either work together for a better world or we go to war that will probably last all our live times.

[Hibrandenburg]

The first pioneers of chemical warfare on a 'modern' battlefield on a large scale and the first to deploy it en masse against any opposition at the Battle of Ypres where they launched a chlorine gas attack against the French. Prior to that, they also experimented with xylyl bromide, mustard gas and phosgene gas. It was also Nazi scientists who pioneered the discovery of today's key nerve agents such as sarin and tabun.

Which part of that fails to meet your criteria as to why Germany are a solid mention for participants of chemical warfare?

Actually the French were the first to deploy chemical weapons in WW1 but because of the type of gas used and the grenade delivery system they proved to be so ineffective that they shelved the idea.

The first time the British used gas it actually caused more casualties amongst their own troops than that of the enemies due to a change in wind direction.

You're quite correct in stating that the Germans were very active in developing the nasty **** that is still in use today. Big companies (that are still around today) like BASF and Bayer were heavily involved in the production of what we now call nerve agent, this **** is designed to do one thing and one thing only, kill as many people as possible. German pharmaceutical companies are still rumoured to be supplying some states with the technology to develop these weapons.

[PeeJay]

The first pioneers of chemical warfare on a 'modern' battlefield on a large scale and the first to deploy it en masse against any opposition at the Battle of Ypres where they launched a chlorine gas attack against the French. Prior to that, they also experimented with xylyl bromide, mustard gas and phosgene gas. It was also Nazi scientists who pioneered the discovery of today's key nerve agents such as sarin and tabun.

Which part of that fails to meet your criteria as to why Germany are a solid mention for participants of chemical warfare?

You serious? What has that to do with present-day Germany? What has any of what happened so long ago to do with the conflict being discussed here? Germany has long since renounced in treaties the manufacture, possession, and control of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons - your claim that Germany is a master of chemical warfare is is something you really ought to retract - because it is incredibly insulting to this country!

[Phil D. Rolls]

You do David Icke no justice by calling him "some fruit loop", David Icke is "thee fruit loop general".

Is he one of the fruit loops that spoke out against Saville, or was that John Lydon? Even a clock that is stopped is right twice a day.


The first pioneers of chemical warfare on a 'modern' battlefield on a large scale and the first to deploy it en masse against any opposition at the Battle of Ypres where they launched a chlorine gas attack against the French. Prior to that, they also experimented with xylyl bromide, mustard gas and phosgene gas. It was also Nazi scientists who pioneered the discovery of today's key nerve agents such as sarin and tabun.

Which part of that fails to meet your criteria as to why Germany are a solid mention for participants of chemical warfare?

Different management?


I honestly think the right decision has been made here. Did we want to go against international law and launch yet another illegal attack?

I think If we had hit Syria in that illegal manner that the violence would increase beyond Syria and I think more and more nations would be pulled in resulting in millions of deaths. That's what I think would happen.

In saying that I would not be against force totally but surely it has to be done with some kind of unity round the world. I think between them Europe, USA, China & Russia could end this situation. As many posters have said Assad has to go but its the way we go about it.

I think ultimately the US will strike along with France and the UK will join at some point down the line. I do think this is the point where West meets East head on, we either work together for a better world or we go to war that will probably last all our live times.

But why is Britain always in? Our days as a global super power are surely past, yet we are always first in. I think we've done our bit, time for other countries to do their share.

[Rasta_Hibs]

Is he one of the fruit loops that spoke out against Saville, or was that John Lydon? Even a clock that is stopped is right twice a day.



Different management?



But why is Britain always in? Our days as a global super power are surely past, yet we are always first in. I think we've done our bit, time for other countries to do their share.

We are not in yet, maybe with that decision by parliament yesterday will allow another course of action or another nation to take our place as part of the world police.

Why is America always in? That's my point, they aint the super power they were either and are bankrupt? Why do they get involved every time in the middle east but not in Africa when there is genocide. I see the American stance is that they will act on the best interests of the United States. My paranoid mind makes me think, what is their interests? National Security, yes but I have to think it goes further than that and it is linked to making sure oil is priced and traded in dollars. It might be paranoid claptrap to some but ultimately I think that's what happening here.

[Hibrandenburg]

Is he one of the fruit loops that spoke out against Saville, or was that John Lydon? Even a clock that is stopped is right twice a day.

:aok:



Different management?

:agree: The Germany have no claim to the history of Germany since their liquidation event in 45.



But why is Britain always in? Our days as a global super power are surely past, yet we are always first in. I think we've done our bit, time for other countries to do their share.

:take that Always up for a pagger, unfortunately we're a nation that finds it ok to sort out our differences "ootside" instead of actually trying to solve problems.

[Phil D. Rolls]

:take that Always up for a pagger, unfortunately we're a nation that finds it ok to sort out our differences "ootside" instead of actually trying to solve problems.

When the government is setting austerity budgets, we maybe need to consider our priorities more carefully.

[Beefster]

Absolutely horrific scenes from the incendiary bomb attack on the playground yesterday. A collective madness seems to have taken over.

Yup. Heartbreaking.

[Sylar]

You serious? What has that to do with present-day Germany? What has any of what happened so long ago to do with the conflict being discussed here? Germany has long since renounced in treaties the manufacture, possession, and control of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons - your claim that Germany is a master of chemical warfare is is something you really ought to retract - because it is incredibly insulting to this country!

Absolutely bugger all to do with modern day Germany and this current conflict which is precisely the point I'm making! Just like historical use from the Americans, Serbs and Iraqis has absolutely bugger all to do with the Syrian conflict but it didn't stop our dear friend Betty Boop firing off another broadside at the USA when it's completely irrelevant to the ongoing discussion.

Your objection to my line of argument comes my use of the word "are" rather than "were" and you're quite correct. I'm not suggesting in any way that modern Germany remain active in storing or their use of chemical weapons - not what I was driving at at all! My point was purely historical and simply for perspective comparison, nothing more.


Actually the French were the first to deploy chemical weapons in WW1 but because of the type of gas used and the grenade delivery system they proved to be so ineffective that they shelved the idea.

The first time the British used gas it actually caused more casualties amongst their own troops than that of the enemies due to a change in wind direction.

You're quite correct in stating that the Germans were very active in developing the nasty **** that is still in use today. Big companies (that are still around today) like BASF and Bayer were heavily involved in the production of what we now call nerve agent, this **** is designed to do one thing and one thing only, kill as many people as possible. German pharmaceutical companies are still rumoured to be supplying some states with the technology to develop these weapons.

I knew they had deployed chemical grenades but since this horrible path of discussion started with mass deployment of Agent Orange, I elected to bypass the French attempted use directly to the larger campaigns implemented by German forces during WW1.

Sarin, tabun and soman, three of the key chemical nerve agents were all derived by German chemists during the 30's and 40's but I don't think it's fair to say BASF and Bayer were heavily involved in their production as they didn't exist until IG Farben were asset stripped and split into the companies we know today.

[PeeJay]

My point was purely historical and simply for perspective comparison, nothing more.


Guess, I "knew" what you were trying to say - I was only objecting to the way you put it over - funny how one word can mean so much and lead to a misunderstanding - it's the sort of things that can lead to war ... :greengrin

[Sylar]

Absolutely horrific scenes from the incendiary bomb attack on the playground yesterday. A collective madness seems to have taken over.

Dropped by a fighter jet who apparently circled repeatedly overhead scouting for targets before settling on a school playground full of children (another war crime under the UN guidelines).

Horrific scenes.

[Treadstone]

alex thomson ‏@alextomo (https://twitter.com/alextomo)1h (https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/373360146468319232)
Despite W House briefings - they did not publish their 'evidence' y'day. Latest spin is that it's more circumstantial than supposed

[Treadstone]

Dropped by a fighter jet who apparently circled repeatedly overhead scouting for targets before settling on a school playground full of children (another war crime under the UN guidelines).

Horrific scenes.

Any link for this report would be an interesting read ?

[Sylar]

Any link for this report would be an interesting read ?

I got it from the BBC coverage of the attack - the mention of the pilot circling prior to attack was from the headmaster of the school.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

[Treadstone]

I got it from the BBC coverage of the attack - the mention of the pilot circling prior to attack was from the headmaster of the school.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

Ta. Actually seen the end of this report this morning on BBC. Have been staying away from SKY and BBC in favour of Al Jazeera, who seem to have a fresher and more analytical output than the previously mentioned two.

[marinello59]

Is he one of the fruit loops that spoke out against Saville, or was that John Lydon? Even a clock that is stopped is right twice a day.



Different management?



But why is Britain always in? Our days as a global super power are surely past, yet we are always first in. I think we've done our bit, time for other countries to do their share.

We will never have done our bit as long as we are in a position to help and it is the right thing to do.
I don't think a military response would be the correct thing to do here but there will be other occasions when it will be.

[RyeSloan]

We are not in yet, maybe with that decision by parliament yesterday will allow another course of action or another nation to take our place as part of the world police.

Why is America always in? That's my point, they aint the super power they were either and are bankrupt? Why do they get involved every time in the middle east but not in Africa when there is genocide. I see the American stance is that they will act on the best interests of the United States. My paranoid mind makes me think, what is their interests? National Security, yes but I have to think it goes further than that and it is linked to making sure oil is priced and traded in dollars. It might be paranoid claptrap to some but ultimately I think that's what happening here.

Oil is traded in dollars as its essentially the only reserve currency of the world. No other currency gets close to the dollar in terms of the size of economy that backs it and its availability in terms of global settlement of trades.

There is various plans mooted to create a global reserve currency but they all have pretty fundamental flaws...I would suggest the US does not have to take any affirmative action to protect the dollars position and in fact has done the complete opposite with its huge devaluation since the 70's yet still its the king of currencies.

America is 'always in' as despite your comment to the contrary are still a genuine super power and the only nation that's capable of projecting force around the globe. Essentially for any global intervention of any scale to succeed the US has to be involved as no one else has the capability.

[Mibbes Aye]

It might have been much easier just to change "Jews" to "Jewish state" in my original post (which I will do now) but the lateness of the hour, the fact I was using my mobile and my fingers are not really designed to manipulate mobile touchscreens or most importantly the pissy tone of your first post, meant that I had very little desire to accommodate your wishes in any way.

Ah right, got you.

So you're still claiming to speak for all Arabs, it's just that instead of saying all Arabs hate Jews, you're saying all Arabs hate something Jewish :aok:

[Phil D. Rolls]

We will never have done our bit as long as we are in a position to help and it is the right thing to do.
I don't think a military response would be the correct thing to do here but there will be other occasions when it will be.

Maybe it's time we stopped seeing ourselves as an Imperial power, that is responsible for policing the world? Parliament seems to have picked up on the feeling that we aren't the country we were.

We could do a lot more by refusing to sell arms to suspect regimes. We could offer sanctuary to refugees.

[Rasta_Hibs]

Oil is traded in dollars as its essentially the only reserve currency of the world. No other currency gets close to the dollar in terms of the size of economy that backs it and its availability in terms of global settlement of trades.

There is various plans mooted to create a global reserve currency but they all have pretty fundamental flaws...I would suggest the US does not have to take any affirmative action to protect the dollars position and in fact has done the complete opposite with its huge devaluation since the 70's yet still its the king of currencies.

America is 'always in' as despite your comment to the contrary are still a genuine super power and the only nation that's capable of projecting force around the globe. Essentially for any global intervention of any scale to succeed the US has to be involved as no one else has the capability.

Had you seen the level of debt the USA has? Its bankrupt and all the shale gas in the world aint going to change that. Aye all the currencies are on a race to the bottom to devalue, to generate sales I think. Why is China and others trying to ditch the dollar as the world reserve currency. If your telling me that if it was to happen and the dollar was ditched that it would still keep relatively the same value as now? It would be worthless as it wouldn't be backed by anything, its paper!

Now granted the conspiracy stuff could all be garbage but then I look at the arguments for military involvement and they don't make sense. I mean honest what do you think happens next after the USA hit Syria without a UN resolution (again)?. Personally I think the region is goes up in flames and more countries are pulled in the conflict goes wider. Europe is bankrupt along with the US and maybe I am nieve in my thinking. Maybe I cant take individual incidents at face value, but the big picture to me paints one where there is a lot more going on that what the media is telling us.

If the west attack Syria, then surely you must agree war with Iran comes immediately afterwards? Unless you believe as the news says its a just few bombs to teach Assad a lesson? Its an act of war and will be responded like it.

Now feel free to shoot me down in flames cos that's whats its all about discussion.

[Hibbyradge]

"Bombs and missiles are bad ambassadors. They can build no democracies.” - David Cameron 2006.

[marinello59]

Maybe it's time we stopped seeing ourselves as an Imperial power, that is responsible for policing the world? Parliament seems to have picked up on the feeling that we aren't the country we were.

We could do a lot more by refusing to sell arms to suspect regimes. We could offer sanctuary to refugees.

Maybe we should. Does that mean we also stop taking action to prevent suffering if it is the right thing to do. Look the other way? How sad would that be?

[Rasta_Hibs]

Maybe we should. Does that mean we also stop taking action to prevent suffering if it is the right thing to do. Look the other way? How sad would that be?

Sorry to jump in here but we can act surely but not only with the military option?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Maybe we should. Does that mean we also stop taking action to prevent suffering if it is the right thing to do. Look the other way? How sad would that be?

I don't know, maybe you should ask the people in Zimbabwe, a Commonwealth country, what they think of Britains huminatarian ideals.

We seem to have selective vision when it comes to suffering. Maybe better just to drop the charade, and take our position in the rank and file of the UN.

[Beefster]

Sorry to jump in here but we can act surely but not only with the military option?

I'm all for non-military options but I haven't heard any realistic ones yet. How will it work? Presumably these non-military options haven't been tried so far?


I don't know, maybe you should ask the people in Zimbabwe, a Commonwealth country, what they think of Britains huminatarian ideals.

"Sorry kids, you're on your own. We did a few bad things long before you were born which means that we have to look away now."

[Jones28]

Exactly, there has to be some sort of intervention to stop the killing. I don't see why the US or UK should be leading it though. Any involvement of US or UK forces will be used as an excuse for more terrorist attacks, and lead to yet more conspiracy theories.

It's our mandate as permenant members of the security council to take responsibility. Russia and china are only there to keep them happy, they have no interest in this kind of conflict. .

[Rasta_Hibs]

I'm all for non-military options but I haven't heard any realistic ones yet. How will it work? Presumably these non-military options haven't been tried so far?



"Sorry kids, you're on your own. We did a few bad things long before you were born which means that we have to look away now."

Well I would have thought that Russia could broker a peace deal and then could go in with UN inspection team and remove the chemical weapons for starts?

[Phil D. Rolls]

I'm all for non-military options but I haven't heard any realistic ones yet. How will it work? Presumably these non-military options haven't been tried so far?



"Sorry kids, you're on your own. We did a few bad things long before you were born which means that we have to look away now."

You're losing the plot.

I think you've missed my point. I am questioning how we prioritise who we help. Maybe we should look to helping our friends in the Commonwealth first?

It is this blinkered vision of humanitarianism that I find so frustrating. People get shown distressing pictures, and rush in without any idea what they ate trying to achieve. Result is messes like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the places where we probably have a greater moral obligation to help, are neglected.

[Beefster]

Well I would have thought that Russia could broker a peace deal and then could go in with UN inspection team and remove the chemical weapons for starts?

There's no deterrent to anyone thinking about using chemical weapons in the future.


You're losing the plot.

Thanks.

[harpo]

What happens if the UN find evidence the Rebels committed this atrocity?

You know the same Rebels who cut peoples organs out and eat them, who behead Christian Priests and Bishops by hacking their heads off with a knife, and the same Rebels who were caught with sarin gas in Turkey a few months ago.

What will the West response be to the Rebels if infact it was them?

[Rasta_Hibs]

There's no deterrent to anyone thinking about using chemical weapons in the future.



Thanks.

Do you honestly think that hitting Syria with bombs will be an effective deterrent? Considering that if we blow up stock piles of chemical weapons then that poses its own threat? I mean also that we have invaded whole countries and granted it has not been for those kinds of weapons but it was sold to us as to protect us from terror and these weapons have still been used in Syria.

Remember a UN member of the investigation team as said there is eveidence to say it was the rebels. But ok say we do attack, tell me please what do you think happens next? Assad learns his lesson and so does all the world and we more forward in peace?

I think not.

[Phil D. Rolls]

What happens if the UN find evidence the Rebels committed this atrocity?

You know the same Rebels who cut peoples organs out and eat them, who behead Christian Priests and Bishops by hacking their heads off with a knife, and the same Rebels who were caught with sarin gas in Turkey a few months ago.

What will the West response be to the Rebels if infact it was them?

A diplomatic solution will be found.

[Hibrandenburg]

Absolutely bugger all to do with modern day Germany and this current conflict which is precisely the point I'm making! Just like historical use from the Americans, Serbs and Iraqis has absolutely bugger all to do with the Syrian conflict but it didn't stop our dear friend Betty Boop firing off another broadside at the USA when it's completely irrelevant to the ongoing discussion.

Your objection to my line of argument comes my use of the word "are" rather than "were" and you're quite correct. I'm not suggesting in any way that modern Germany remain active in storing or their use of chemical weapons - not what I was driving at at all! My point was purely historical and simply for perspective comparison, nothing more.



I knew they had deployed chemical grenades but since this horrible path of discussion started with mass deployment of Agent Orange, I elected to bypass the French attempted use directly to the larger campaigns implemented by German forces during WW1.

Sarin, tabun and soman, three of the key chemical nerve agents were all derived by German chemists during the 30's and 40's but I don't think it's fair to say BASF and Bayer were heavily involved in their production as they didn't exist until IG Farben were asset stripped and split into the companies we know today.

Sure I read somewhere that Bayer and BASF we're formed during Germany's rise to industrial power and used concentration camp inmates to test their chemicals on. Might be complete fabrication on my part though. :greengrin

On my mobile just now so will check this later.

[carnoustiehibee]

What happens if the UN find evidence the Rebels committed this atrocity?

You know the same Rebels who cut peoples organs out and eat them, who behead Christian Priests and Bishops by hacking their heads off with a knife, and the same Rebels who were caught with sarin gas in Turkey a few months ago.


What will the West response be to the Rebels if infact it was them?

Are you George Galloway? That's exactly what he was saying in his speech yesterday. Find it on YouTube. It's a good listen.

On a side note see that nutter in North Korea got his ex shot and families but in prison camps. Wouldn't mind a law like that in this country for some of my ex'd

[Hibrandenburg]

We will never have done our bit as long as we are in a position to help and it is the right thing to do.
I don't think a military response would be the correct thing to do here but there will be other occasions when it will be.

Pretty much my feelings on things too. Couldn't look myself in the mirror if I was to just look away, even though with age there is a growing voice inside that says that's for the best.

[Sylar]

Sure I read somewhere that Bayer and BASF we're formed during Germany's rise to industrial power and used concentration camp inmates to test their chemicals on. Might be complete fabrication on my part though. :greengrin

On my mobile just now so will check this later.

I stand corrected having misread the article on IG Farben :agree: Both companies were part of the IG Farben conglomerate during WW2 during the development of nerve agents and were then separated once assets were stripped post WW2.

:aok:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Pretty much my feelings on things too. Couldn't look myself in the mirror if I was to just look away, even though with age there is a growing voice inside that says that's for the best.

But we look away all the time. It is only when the media really big up a conflict that people start to get restless.

We stood back and left the Spanish people to the mercy of Franco for 40 years, but waged war on two other fascist dictators. It makes no sense to say its about human rights, it's about self interest.

What we need to consider us how we tell the mother of a dead soldier that her son gave his life for a meaningful cause. We need to tell people who work in public services that their wage freeze has helped us fight for freedom elsewhere. We need to tell kids living on food parcels that our social care system has been sacrificed in the name of armed conflict.

[marinello59]

But we look away all the time. It is only when the media really big up a conflict that people start to get restless.

We stood back and left the Spanish people to the mercy of Franco for 40 years, but waged war on two other fascist dictators. It makes no sense to say its about human rights, it's about self interest.

What we need to consider us how we tell the mother of a dead soldier that her son gave his life for a meaningful cause. We need to tell people who work in public services that their wage freeze has helped us fight for freedom elsewhere. We need to tell kids living on food parcels that our social care system has been sacrificed in the name of armed conflict.

So we should get involved in every situation or none? How do you prioritise which charities you give to? Do you just give nothing because you can't help them all?
As for your last paragraph whatever happened to Internationalism? Now it's inward looking self interest and stuff the rest of the world.

[Phil D. Rolls]

So we should get involved in every situation or none? How do you prioritise which charities you give to? Do you just give nothing because you can't help them all?
As for your last paragraph whatever happened to Internationalism? Now it's inward looking self interest and stuff the rest of the world.

So why help Syrians when subjects of the Commonwealth haven't been given protection. You have to wonder whether helping Israel, er, Syria is advantageous to us, whereas protecting kids in Sierra Leone from machetes isn't.

Look at it another way, how do paramedics decide who to treat first at a car crash? They operate a system of triage, to prioritise the care. Britain, strangely, chooses to care for those in oil rich countries first.

So, in answer to your question, I think we should use morality as a gauge. Commonwealth countries have helped Britain in the past, sending troops to our defence. Middle Eastern ones haven't.

[Hibrandenburg]

So why help Syrians when subjects of the Commonwealth haven't been given protection. You have to wonder whether helping Israel, er, Syria is advantageous to us, whereas protecting kids in Sierra Leone from machetes isn't.

Look at it another way, how do paramedics decide who to treat first at a car crash? They operate a system of triage, to prioritise the care. Britain, strangely, chooses to care for those in oil rich countries first.

So, in answer to your question, I think we should use morality as a gauge. Commonwealth countries have helped Britain in the past, sending troops to our defence. Middle Eastern ones haven't.

See what you're getting at but even the triage system has it's lost causes, those at the bottom of the list are the ones who can't be helped.

You're also right to say that we only seem to be interested in what the press make interesting. Is this the fault of the press or do they only sell us what we want or are there other hands at work.

What's with the Arab league? What about the African Union? They're all quick enough to condem atrocities but do they ever get round to actually doing something?

[steakbake]

So why help Syrians when subjects of the Commonwealth haven't been given protection. You have to wonder whether helping Israel, er, Syria is advantageous to us, whereas protecting kids in Sierra Leone from machetes isn't.

Look at it another way, how do paramedics decide who to treat first at a car crash? They operate a system of triage, to prioritise the care. Britain, strangely, chooses to care for those in oil rich countries first.

So, in answer to your question, I think we should use morality as a gauge. Commonwealth countries have helped Britain in the past, sending troops to our defence. Middle Eastern ones haven't.

The Commonwealth is an interesting one - we rushed to the defence of the Falklands when invaded by Argentina, but stood back and let the US invade Grenada (with some grumbling but no action) only a couple of years later.

The Commonwealth and the UK's protection of our "realm" is a bit of a chequered situation.

[Phil D. Rolls]

See what you're getting at but even the triage system has it's lost causes, those at the bottom of the list are the ones who can't be helped.

You're also right to say that we only seem to be interested in what the press make interesting. Is this the fault of the press or do they only sell us what we want or are there other hands at work.

What's with the Arab league? What about the African Union? They're all quick enough to condem atrocities but do they ever get round to actually doing something?

I've got a personal theory that the agenda is set by those who control money supply, and who control the mass media. However, it will never be PC to accuse them.

I think the atrocities in Syria are appalling. However, CallMeDave made a serious misjudgement of the national mood in thinking that we would be happy to get involved in another war.

He needs to look more closely at the uneasiness over radicalised Islamic dissent, and the genuine sorrow over lost British lives. Iraq has opened people's eyes to how people view Britains role in the world.

It's all very well for him to blame Blair, but how stupid was he to try and get away with the same thing?

[Golden Bear]

Cameron is still behaving like a spoilt public schoolboy who didn't get his way.

The decision of Parliament is final he says -------------- but he wouldn't rule out British involvement at some stage.

:rolleyes:

[Beefster]

Cameron is still behaving like a spoilt public schoolboy who didn't get his way.

The decision of Parliament is final he says -------------- but he wouldn't rule out British involvement at some stage.

:rolleyes:

Do spoilt public schoolboys behave differently to spoilt state schoolboys?

Cameron's right to not rule out British involvement in the future. If circumstances (and public opinion) change, he'd be crucified for saying it.

[(((Fergus)))]

Are you for real? The 'Arab world' are united in hatred of Jews?

I'm glad I don't have your worldview, it must be incredibly bleak. On the other hand it's impressive that you can speak with such authority about the views of millions upon millions of people. How on earth did you find the time to meet them all, let alone get to the point where they could all express their hatred of Judaism to you?

I'm not surprised at your reaction as Arab/Muslim hatred of Jews is, sadly, a closely guarded secret in our media. It is, however, mainstream in the Arab/Muslim world. See this Pew Global report from 2010 (http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/02/04/chapter-3-views-of-religious-groups/):


Nearly all in Jordan (97%), the Palestinian territories (97%) and Egypt (95%) hold an unfavorable view [of Jews]. Similarly, 98% of Lebanese express an unfavorable opinion of Jews, including 98% among both Sunni and Shia Muslims, as well as 97% of Lebanese Christians.



Negative views of Jews are also widespread in the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed in Asia: More than seven-in-ten in Pakistan (78%) and Indonesia (74%) express unfavorable opinions. A majority in Turkey (73%) also hold a critical view.


However:


By contrast, only 35% of Israeli Arabs express a negative opinion of Jews, while 56% voice a favorable opinion.

Why is the opinion of Israeli Arabs different from that of other Arabs? Well for one thing, Jews actually live alongside Arabs in Israel. In all other Arab countries, the Jewish exodus/expulsion is either totally or almost complete.

[harpo]

Reports by the associated press that claim Saudi Arabia and the rebels were responsible for the chemical attack last week.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm not surprised at your reaction as Arab/Muslim hatred of Jews is, sadly, a closely guarded secret in our media. It is, however, mainstream in the Arab/Muslim world. See this Pew Global report from 2010 (http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/02/04/chapter-3-views-of-religious-groups/):





However:



Why is the opinion of Israeli Arabs different from that of other Arabs? Well for one thing, Jews actually live alongside Arabs in Israel. In all other Arab countries, the Jewish exodus/expulsion is either totally or almost complete.

Yeah, the only problem I'm seeing there Fergus is that your quotes are about people expressing an unfavourable view.

That's not the same as people saying they hate something, is it?

[Beefster]

Reports by the associated press that claim Saudi Arabia and the rebels were responsible for the chemical attack last week.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

Your link doesn't work.


Yeah, the only problem I'm seeing there Fergus is that your quotes are about people expressing an unfavourable view.

That's not the same as people saying they hate something, is it?

Isn't that just semantics? Would it be easier to say that they were anti-Semitic, whether they 'hate' or are just 'unfavourable' towards Jewish people.

It would be entirely different if they were 'unfavourable' towards Israel (which lots of people have good reason to be) but they're not. It appears to be all Jewish people.

[Mibbes Aye]

Isn't that just semantics? Would it be easier to say that they were anti-Semitic, whether they 'hate' or are just 'unfavourable' towards Jewish people.



No, I don't think it is semantics. And when we are talking about racial/religious issues and there are people with agendas, then words are potent weapons. I know we don't agree on some things but that's probably one where we do?

To illustrate my point, when I was at school we would use terms in similar sentences to highlight the difference. For example:

"...Mibbes Aye held an unfavourable view of lazy-minded, ignorant, racist untruths."

"...Mibbes Aye hated lazy-minded, ignorant racist untruths."

That's not semantics, there is a very clear difference in tone, isn't there? :greengrin

[RyeSloan]

Had you seen the level of debt the USA has? Its bankrupt and all the shale gas in the world aint going to change that. Aye all the currencies are on a race to the bottom to devalue, to generate sales I think. Why is China and others trying to ditch the dollar as the world reserve currency. If your telling me that if it was to happen and the dollar was ditched that it would still keep relatively the same value as now? It would be worthless as it wouldn't be backed by anything, its paper!

Now granted the conspiracy stuff could all be garbage but then I look at the arguments for military involvement and they don't make sense. I mean honest what do you think happens next after the USA hit Syria without a UN resolution (again)?. Personally I think the region is goes up in flames and more countries are pulled in the conflict goes wider. Europe is bankrupt along with the US and maybe I am nieve in my thinking. Maybe I cant take individual incidents at face value, but the big picture to me paints one where there is a lot more going on that what the media is telling us.

If the west attack Syria, then surely you must agree war with Iran comes immediately afterwards? Unless you believe as the news says its a just few bombs to teach Assad a lesson? Its an act of war and will be responded like it.

Now feel free to shoot me down in flames cos that's whats its all about discussion.

Don't get me wrong I understand the ponzieque nature of the American debt and actually believe an alternative to the dollar for trading global goods would be a good thing...all I was saying is that the dollar is the worlds only reserve currency for some very good reasons.

China is indeed starting to allow yuan to be held by other central banks to provide the liquidity required to allow more trades to be settled in dollar alternatives but they are hardly peddling a gold standard currency themselves!

I think you are suggesting that the US is trying to leverage the Syria situation to manufacture an escalation that would lead to.a war with Iran....to be honest I very much doubt the US want that. The US have seen how much foreign wars have cost them in the last decade or so and I reckon they are far from eager to waste anymore coin on the seemingly unending problems of the Middle East.

[Betty Boop]

Your hate of all things to do with Israel and the US is tiresome. You quote a post from me that has no mention of the US in it and then go off on a rant about them.

Comparing agent orange, phosphorus and degraded uranium with nerve gas is quite ridiculous. Yes they're all nasty **** but as I previously mentioned only nerve gas could really be classed as a WMD.

You may have some good points but foaming at the mouth whilst regurgitating them makes them lose some credibility.H

Ha ha ha, so the country that engaged in chemical warfare in Vietnam killing up to 400,00 people as a result, using white phosphorous and depleted uranium in Fallujah, doesn't deserve to come under the spotlight ?

[Beefster]

H

Ha ha ha, so the country that engaged in chemical warfare in Vietnam killing up to 400,00 people as a result, using white phosphorous and depleted uranium in Fallujah, doesn't deserve to come under the spotlight ?

Instead of why the US are hypocrites, what would your strategy be for stopping the kids of Syria being maimed/poisoned/murdered/orphaned?

[Betty Boop]

[QUOTE=Beefster;3736941]Instead of why the US are hypocrites, what would your strategy be for stopping the kids of Syria being maimed/poisoned/murdered/orphaned?[/QUOTE

By calling a ceasefire and getting all sides round the table in peace talks which were already planned to be held in Geneva. I doubt launching cruise missiles is going to stop the killing, Why what would your strategy be ?

[Hibrandenburg]

H

Ha ha ha, so the country that engaged in chemical warfare in Vietnam killing up to 400,00 people as a result, using white phosphorous and depleted uranium in Fallujah, doesn't deserve to come under the spotlight ?

Every country deserves to come under the spotlight and held to account for their actions Betty. But to compare Nerve agent with phosphorus, depleted uranium and agent orange is ridiculous.

Your constant rants about the USA come across as psychotic babble and if they were levelled at any other nation you'd be labeled as a zealous xenophobe. I'm not a great fan of the USA and their role in world politics but can't for the life of me see why your hatred is so rabid. You do realise that the Vietnam war ended almost 40 years ago, if the Vietnamese can move on then maybe you should too.

[Beefster]

By calling a ceasefire and getting all sides round the table in peace talks which were already planned to be held in Geneva. I doubt launching cruise missiles is going to stop the killing, Why what would your strategy be ?

I don't know what the solution is but I think there needs to be punishment of those who used the chemical weapons and a deterrent to their future use by anyone. It also needs to be stopped quickly.

[Betty Boop]

Every country deserves to come under the spotlight and held to account for their actions Betty. But to compare Nerve agent with phosphorus, depleted uranium and agent orange is ridiculous.

Your constant rants about the USA come across as psychotic babble and if they were levelled at any other nation you'd be labeled as a zealous xenophobe. I'm not a great fan of the USA and their role in world politics but can't for the life of me see why your hatred is so rabid. You do realise that the Vietnam war ended almost 40 years ago, if the Vietnamese can move on then maybe you should too.

Us interventions in the Middle East have been an unmitigated disaster, that is my opinion and if that offends you I'm sorry, but nobody forces you to read my posts. As for your 'psychotic babble' comment I bow to your intellectual superiority. :not worth

[Betty Boop]

For anyone interested Stop The War Coalition rally at 1 in East End of Princes Street.

[hibsbollah]

http://www.policymic.com/mobile/articles/61599/the-one-graph-that-sums-up-why-we-re-going-to-war-with-syria

Obama about to make a statement from the rose garden. UN inspectors have now left Syria.

Article about the Tomahawk above.

[Hibrandenburg]

http://www.policymic.com/mobile/articles/61599/the-one-graph-that-sums-up-why-we-re-going-to-war-with-syria

Obama about to make a statement from the rose garden. UN inspectors have now left Syria.

Article about the Tomahawk above.

At the same time oil prices are at a two year high due to fears of strikes on Syria and raising fears that this could put stop to the market recovery.

[Hibrandenburg]

Us interventions in the Middle East have been an unmitigated disaster, that is my opinion and if that offends you I'm sorry, but nobody forces you to read my posts. As for your 'psychotic babble' comment I bow to your intellectual superiority. :not worth

It's not your opinion that upsets me it's the over zealous and sometimes venomous, xenophobic manner you express it that disturbs me slightly.

As for me being intellectually superior, well I'm afraid me being a school drop out means you will have to find another box to fit me in.

[hibsbollah]

Wow. Obama announces no military action until Sept 9th at the earliest, when Congress will ratify. Which is strictly unnecessary in the presidential system.

Outbreak of Peacemongering Shock.

[HKhibby]

So where do you reckon they came from then? A false-flag staging by Israel to get the US to intervene?

And the U.S. cannot do it by themselves...never have been able to and never will!, thats why they the U.K. or European allies or Australian / Canadian allies etc.. to go around cleaning up after them!...they have never won a war / conflict out right!
I can see Cameron's point and it is legitimate, but just for once im glad the Government were defeated...lets see if the mighty Loud Yanks go in themselves and do what they are threatening to do?...i dont think so, and the french / Germans will not help them out

[Twa Cairpets]

And the U.S. cannot do it by themselves...never have been able to and never will!, thats why they the U.K. or European allies or Australian / Canadian allies etc.. to go around cleaning up after them!...they have never won a war / conflict out right!
I can see Cameron's point and it is legitimate, but just for once im glad the Government were defeated...lets see if the mighty Loud Yanks go in themselves and do what they are threatening to do?...i dont think so, and the french / Germans will not help them out

And your point is...?

[Betty Boop]

Wow. Obama announces no military action until Sept 9th at the earliest, when Congress will ratify. Which is strictly unnecessary in the presidential system.

Outbreak of Peacemongering Shock.

Or he has postponed the attack until after the G20 summit in St Petersburg ?

[harpo]

[QUOTE=Beefster;3736364]Your link doesn't work.



Try this....http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

Very interesting article, seems to totally contradict everything we're being told.

[khib70]

It's not your opinion that upsets me it's the over zealous and sometimes venomous, xenophobic manner you express it that disturbs me slightly.

As for me being intellectually superior, well I'm afraid me being a school drop out means you will have to find another box to fit me in.
Didn't really want to get involved in this, as it's all a bit Groundhog Day. However, I think you're being unfair here. I have been involved in quite a few dust-ups on this and related topics, and (sorry if it sounds patronising!) I've found BB, along with Hibsbollah, to be among the most rational and civilised posters on the "other" side.

I probably agree with your stance on this, for what it's worth. The forum has remained notably silent over the last two years while Assad was murdering 100,000 of his own citizens. As (I think) Beefster pointed out earlier, it's only when someone, especially NATO/the US proposes actually doing something about it that the howls of outrage start.

Mind you, the UK/US/NATO were equally happy to adopt a Bosnia-like head in the sand stance until the Sarin incident. Meanwhile the left appear desperate to exonerate Assad and accuse the rebels of bombing themselvesd - ironically, much the same stance as the Western powers took during the Serb bombardment of Sarajevo....

[(((Fergus)))]

Arabic media (http://www.almadenahnews.com/article/244626-%D8%B1%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A9-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF-%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B3%D8%AF-%D8%AD%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%B7%D9%8A%D8%A8%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%87%D9%88%D8%AF-%D9%88-%D8%AF%D9%85%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A3%D9%87%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%A9) are picking up on an article by Israeli researcher, Mordechai Kedar (http://mordechaikedarinenglish.blogspot.co.il/2012/11/the-terror-of-alawites-becomes-reality.html), which quotes an amazing letter (starts paragraph 5) from Bashar al-Assad's grandfather (among other Alawite notables) to the French Government practically begging them to stay and ensure the security of the, quote, Alawite nation. It - and the article itself - may shed some light on what is happening now.

EDIT: I think this letter also appears in Patrick Seale's biography of Hafez al-Assad

[hibsbollah]

Arabic media (http://www.almadenahnews.com/article/244626-%D8%B1%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A9-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF-%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B3%D8%AF-%D8%AD%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%B7%D9%8A%D8%A8%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%87%D9%88%D8%AF-%D9%88-%D8%AF%D9%85%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A3%D9%87%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%A9) are picking up on an article by Israeli researcher, Mordechai Kedar (http://mordechaikedarinenglish.blogspot.co.il/2012/11/the-terror-of-alawites-becomes-reality.html), which quotes an amazing letter (starts paragraph 5) from Bashar al-Assad's grandfather (among other Alawite notables) to the French Government practically begging them to stay and ensure the security of the, quote, Alawite nation. It - and the article itself - may shed some light on what is happening now.

EDIT: I think this letter also appears in Patrick Seale's biography of Hafez al-Assad

Its poorly written (is he really an academic or is it a bad translation?), and his whole shtick seems to be to take an unexciting bit of attempted historical diplomacy with an ex-imperial power, and then in a massive leap of logic extrapolates it into some fairly dodgy generalisations about what 'we always knew about those nasty arabs'.

[--------]

The USA's commercial interests suggest that they might want a friendly regime in Syria.

Obama stated that the use of chemical weapons would be a red line that, if crossed, would compel him to intervene militarily.

A few weeks later, a chemical attack takes place.

The Syrian government deny responsibility and allow the inspectors in to see for themselves.

Is it possible that the rebels could have been given chemical weapons to use in order to provoke the west's intervention?

Is it possible that people are callous enough to kill their own people for the "greater good"?


It's just as well there are no jungles in Syria - otherwise the US President might be tempted to authorise the use of Agent Orange or its 21st-century equivalent to defoliate the trees to assist the US Navy in napalming civilians as they did in the 1960's and 70's in another small country far, far away - filming as they went in a vain attempt to convince the folks back home that they were winning an unwinnable war.

Of course the rebels could have been given chemical weapons to provide the west with a reason to launch their attack.

Our guys are still being blown up by people in Afghanistan who were armed and encouraged covertly by the CIA in the 1980's.

Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge were trained and equipped by Britain and the US before they went back into Cambodia after the Vietnamese had thrown them out after the time of the "killing fields". SAS and Delta Force were involved then, under the aegis of Premier John Major and his Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd.

And of course people are callous enough to kill their own people for the greater good - the Lusitania was carrying munitions and other contraband war materials and left unescorted in waters where German submarines were known to be operating. The hope was that her sinking might bring the Americans into the Great War.

The convoy PQ17 was the bait in a trap set (unsuccessfully) by the British Admiralty (with Churchill's knowledge and approval) to lure the German battleships Scharnhorst and Tirpitz out of the Norwegian fiords to be sunk by the Allied Atlantic Fleet. An Icelandic double agent was told when the convoy was sailing and where it could be found so he could pass it on to the Kriegsmarine. The plan went pear-shaped, the Admiralty lost its nerve and ordered the escorts withdrawn and the convoy to scatter, and the result was slaughter - 24 merchant ships sunk from 35 and their crews dead. But they were only merchant seamen. No one important.

What government really cares about ordinary people when there's a Great Cause to be served? Or money to be made?

"What's good for M & M Enterprises will be good for the country."

[Betty Boop]

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/2876/trub.jpg



When they were buddies.

[--------]

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/2876/trub.jpg



When they were buddies.

You can't fool me - that's Jack McConnell on the right and Roy Hodgson on the left. They're discussing the new football season, that's all.

Nothing to see here, folks.

[Betty Boop]

You can't fool me - that's jack McConnell on the right and Roy Hodgson on the left. They're discussing the new football season, that's all.

Nothing to see here, folks.

:greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/2876/trub.jpg



When they were buddies.


Breaking news! Bad guy meets nice guy.

10923

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/revealed-britain-sold-nerve-gas-2242520

[Sylar]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/revealed-britain-sold-nerve-gas-2242520

Facts/evidence optional, though from the Daily Record, I'm not at all surprised.

Particularly, the hundreds (quite literally) of other possible uses for both NaF or KF...

[--------]

Breaking news! Bad guy meets nice guy.

10923


Which one's the nice guy? I don't see a nice guy in that photo .... :devil:

[Beefster]

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/2876/trub.jpg



When they were buddies.

Isn't that the nature of international diplomacy?

I'm sure lots of good guys met Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Mussolini whilst they were doing very bad things.

[carnoustiehibee]

Any truth in this from press tv?

http://c0z.me/18EKNpm%0A

[khib70]

Any truth in this from press tv?

http://c0z.me/18EKNpm%0A

The Iranian government mouthpiece.? That Press TV? I think not....

[--------]

Isn't that the nature of international diplomacy?

I'm sure lots of good guys met Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Mussolini whilst they were doing very bad things.


Indeed. Rolls-Royce helped Daimler-Benz develop inline aero-engines for Messerschmitt before WW2. This ith the knowledge and blessing of Stan Baldwin's 'National' government. Worked out quite nicely - the more engines DB built for Willy M, the more fighters Willy M built for Hitler, the more Spitfires and Hurricanes were needed for the RAF, and the more engines RR sold to the RAF for their Spitfires and Hurricanes ....

What's good for M & M Enterprises is good for the country. :cb

[carnoustiehibee]

The Iranian government mouthpiece.? That Press TV? I think not....

Like BBC and Sky news in the uk and CNN and Fox News in America

[Beefster]

Like BBC and Sky news in the uk and CNN and Fox News in America

Press TV is directly funded by and peddles the official position of the Iranian Government. There's no comparison with any of the channels you've mentioned.

If you don't like UK and US news channels, Al Jazeera is your best bet.

[Rasta_Hibs]

Like BBC and Sky news in the uk and CNN and Fox News in America

The most one sided news coverage ever! And we make comment on others?

[Betty Boop]

Syrians form human shields round key facility sites.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/808874.shtml#.Uijo08ZQGHh

[Expecting Rain]

Syrians form human shields round key facility sites.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/808874.shtml#.Uijo08ZQGHh


Betty, just out of curiosity what would be your response to the current crisis?

[Sylar]

Syrians form human shields round key facility sites.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/808874.shtml#.Uijo08ZQGHh

Assuming the evidence confirms which many suspect, I wonder if these people will still support their government if they have indeed deployed sarin and VX on their own people?

Incidentally, citing the Chinese Global Times is akin to citing the Daily Mail - a newspaper which is renowned for being deliberately controversial and guilty of publishing government guided stories and fabrication.

[Rasta_Hibs]

Assuming the evidence confirms which many suspect, I wonder if these people will still support their government if they have indeed deployed sarin and VX on their own people?

Incidentally, citing the Chinese Global Times is akin to citing the Daily Mail - a newspaper which is renowned for being deliberately controversial and guilty of publishing government guided stories and fabrication.

The majority of world leaders are uncertain who launched the chemical attacks.

“Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.”

Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2013/sep/6/does-anyone-really-believe-assad-used-chemical-wea/#ixzz2e6bvRXXi
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bFUy1y59er4B9Macwqm_6l&u=wtcommunities)

[Sylar]

The majority of world leaders are uncertain who launched the chemical attacks.

“Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.”

Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2013/sep/6/does-anyone-really-believe-assad-used-chemical-wea/#ixzz2e6bvRXXi
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bFUy1y59er4B9Macwqm_6l&u=wtcommunities)

You're going over old ground there and that relates to previous use of chemical weapons in Syria, not this instance.

I've also already said in a post way back near the origin of this thread that there isn't enough evidence yet about who deployed the weapon (though its use seems all but certain) and other than acquired intelligence of supposed communications and satellite imagery of rocket launches from inside regime controlled areas in advance of the reports of chemical attacks.

Rushing in without the UN inspectors' verification won't be popular and IMO, won't happen.

[RyeSloan]

You're going over old ground there and that relates to previous use of chemical weapons in Syria, not this instance.

I've also already said in a post way back near the origin of this thread that there isn't enough evidence yet about who deployed the weapon (though its use seems all but certain) and other than acquired intelligence of supposed communications and satellite imagery of rocket launches from inside regime controlled areas in advance of the reports of chemical attacks.

Rushing in without the UN inspectors' verification won't be popular and IMO, won't happen.

And nor should it....but lets be clear about this for the world to sit back and squabble while people die of chemical weapon attacks is a disgrace.

Somehow, someway this needs to get stopped and IF it is proven beyond resonable doubt the regime launched this attack then the UN must act, if Russia/China prevent UN backed action then I believe the rest of the world should still take on the duty of enforcing the chemical weapons convention.....

What I dont see though is a plan of what could be done if it transpires the Rebels were behind this attack.

[Sylar]

And nor should it....but lets be clear about this for the world to sit back and squabble while people die of chemical weapon attacks is a disgrace.

Somehow, someway this needs to get stopped and IF it is proven beyond resonable doubt the regime launched this attack then the UN must act, if Russia/China prevent UN backed action then I believe the rest of the world should still take on the duty of enforcing the chemical weapons convention.....

What I dont see though is a plan of what could be done if it transpires the Rebels were behind this attack.

No arguments with any of that SiMar :top marks

[Hibrandenburg]

And nor should it....but lets be clear about this for the world to sit back and squabble while people die of chemical weapon attacks is a disgrace.

Somehow, someway this needs to get stopped and IF it is proven beyond resonable doubt the regime launched this attack then the UN must act, if Russia/China prevent UN backed action then I believe the rest of the world should still take on the duty of enforcing the chemical weapons convention.....

What I dont see though is a plan of what could be done if it transpires the Rebels were behind this attack.

Think the likelihood of them using chemical weapons again is slim, however the fact they have already been used cannot be allowed to go unpunished. Otherwise I agree with all you say.

[Betty Boop]

I've already made a suggestion earlier on in the thread a ceasefire followed by peace talks already planned for Geneva. Launching cruise missiles will only worsen the situation and could spread the conflict across the region.

[Hibrandenburg]

I've already made a suggestion earlier on in the thread a ceasefire followed by peace talks already planned for Geneva. Launching cruise missiles will only worsen the situation and could spread the conflict across the region.

Would love that to happen but it would take a diplomatic miracle to get all sides to agree.

[Betty Boop]

Would love that to happen but it would take a diplomatic miracle to get all sides to agree.


Surely a ceasefire and talking is better than bombing ?

[Hibrandenburg]

Surely a ceasefire and talking is better than bombing ?

Absolutely, but how do you get all the parties to sit down?

[RyeSloan]

I've already made a suggestion earlier on in the thread a ceasefire followed by peace talks already planned for Geneva. Launching cruise missiles will only worsen the situation and could spread the conflict across the region.

Ceasefire with peace talks is as likely as finding a polar bear in Ibiza.

Not saying cruise missiles are the answer (are they ever?) and frankly have no idea how this mess can be resolved (well I do to some extent...Russia could stop propping up the murderous regime) but the time for cease fires and peace talks seems a long way gone. Assad took the decision to fight his Arab spring with fire and as soon as he went down that road civil war was a certainty, as was the result; a broken and fractured nation that may never recover.

[Big Ed]

Ceasefire with peace talks is as likely as finding a polar bear in Ibiza.

Not saying cruise missiles are the answer (are they ever?) and frankly have no idea how this mess can be resolved (well I do to some extent...Russia could stop propping up the murderous regime) but the time for cease fires and peace talks seems a long way gone. Assad took the decision to fight his Arab spring with fire and as soon as he went down that road civil war was a certainty, as was the result; a broken and fractured nation that may never recover.

It'd need to be a pretty large negotiating table to accommodate all those who have an interest in Syria's plight right now: Syria, Russia, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar and Turkey spring to mind, whilst not forgetting Hezbollah, Al Queda and militant Sunni's, Shi'ites and Alawite's from other parts of the planet.

So far as I can see, all of this dispels the notion that something should be done about Assad and his regime: there's plenty going on right now.

The notion that the plight of Syrian children was enough to send the spiteful, rotten-hearted Michael Gove into a compassion inspired frenzy is enough to make anyone, with a modicum of understanding of British politics, gag http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23942033

Much more likely, the sight of other nations gathering for an almighty square go and the UK (in the grip of budget-slashing austerity, mind) not being invited, merely sends the Land of Hope and Glory types into a seething huff.

[Expecting Rain]

It'd need to be a pretty large negotiating table to accommodate all those who have an interest in Syria's plight right now: Syria, Russia, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar and Turkey spring to mind, whilst not forgetting Hezbollah, Al Queda and militant Sunni's, Shi'ites and Alawite's from other parts of the planet.

So far as I can see, all of this dispels the notion that something should be done about Assad and his regime: there's plenty going on right now.

The notion that the plight of Syrian children was enough to send the spiteful, rotten-hearted Michael Gove into a compassion inspired frenzy is enough to make anyone, with a modicum of understanding of British politics, gag http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23942033

Much more likely, the sight of other nations gathering for an almighty square go and the UK (in the grip of budget-slashing austerity, mind) not being invited, merely sends the Land of Hope and Glory types into a seething huff.

Couldn`t even begin to imagine all the concessions that would have to be made, how far do you go back? Looks like the USA are damned if they do and damned if they don`t. Still there has to be a ray of hope coming from somewhere, i can`t see the super powers contemplating a WW3, talks seem to be all that there is.

[HibsMax]

John Kerry says it is 'beyond dispute' that the Syrian Govt used the weapons, not the rebels.

But Russia and China dispute that its beyond dispute. (This is fair enough; the weapons inspection team havent even reported yet, and both sides have used chemical weapons in the conflict so far). Russia and Syria are allies. Which means any bombing campaign gets vetoed at the UNSC.

This diplomatic bunfight could drag on for a while yet.

After the WMD in Iraq BS, I don't believe anyone. Sad state of affairs.

[Betty Boop]

Patrick Cockburn on the attack by rebels on Maloula.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/war-comes-to-syrias-quiet-christian-hinterland-8803394.html

[Big Ed]

Patrick Cockburn on the attack by rebels on Maloula.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/war-comes-to-syrias-quiet-christian-hinterland-8803394.html

It’s an interesting article, but it adds barely anything to the narrative: that the uprising, portrayed as a glorious Arab emancipation from tyranny, has been hijacked by numerous vested interests, who have nothing but murderous contempt for the ordinary people of Syria.

[Sylar]

Looks like the Russian ruse to avoid a reaction is about to be caught out as Britain, France and the USA are set to table the proposal as a UN resolution which Russia have now said they are not in favour of.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24038120

[Rasta_Hibs]

Looks like the Russian ruse to avoid a reaction is about to be caught out as Britain, France and the USA are set to table the proposal as a UN resolution which Russia have now said they are not in favour of.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24038120

Lets hope and pray that a diplomatic solution can be found between all sides. The loss of innocent lives has to stop and a new bombing campaign will mean an increase in the amount of innocent lives lost.

[--------]

Looks like we're going in - any day now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24065166 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24065166)