Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
alex,the british government has stated that they have no intrest of going in for a fight.but having said that,america is making noises about going in.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
There are two drawn sides in the Syrian conflict:
these two sides can be found inside individual countries in the Levant.
An escalation of the Syrian war could lead to various countries falling into a state of civil war, adding to the one currently ongoing in Syria.
It could lead to an uncontrollable conflagration of enormous proportions, and the Government has no right nor any popular backing to get us involved in any way in the fueling of such conflict.
The Government needs to be checked on this issue.
If they participated in recklessly kicking something off, the outcome could be sheer catastrophic for us too, and the British People would NEVER forgive them.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
And when London gets bombed because we did nothing maybe the electorate wont like that either
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, "because we did nothing", what is this supposed to mean?
Are you, per chance, suggesting it is OK to support terrorists in Syria who teach fanatics from half the world to make bombs, detonate them among civilians, and murder civilians and prisoners of war, while deliberately transforming towns and cities into battlegrounds?
Perhaps you are unaware that security chiefs in Britain and other countries are concerned that these terrorists will come back and implement what they have learned.
So by supporting them, as Hague would like, we would be assuring ourselves a future of terrorism at home, as well as destroying another country.
Incidentally, the reason given by the Egyptian military for deposing the elected president there was his decision to support the Jihadists in Syria.
It appears he was spurred into this decision by the "friends of Syria" meeting, involving top ministers/sheiks of 11 countries, including Britain and Egypt.
Hague had pushed for arming the rebels.
The majority of Egyptians will have nothing to do with it.
Likewise, the majority of Brits don't want our involvement in supporting terrorists or rebels in Syria.
The example you give about " if London gets bombed" if we don't support terrorists, is grotesque!
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
kieth,it wont be for the fist time that London has been bombed,remember a chap called adolf hitler a European by birth,bombed London consently for 4 years.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Alexander#
as usual you choose to read part posts and make wild unsupported accusations
Terrorists im sure are in Syria and many other countries
what we(uk)has to decide is
help out against the terrorists
or
sit back, do nothing and hope terrorists don't end up here
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
actually keith all the evidence shows that when get involved in other people's problems, terrorism increases.
firstly because it radicalises uk citizens who are motivated to join terror training camps abroad and secondly we then grant asylum to terrorists from conflicts that we have stuck our noses in.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Mrs. Cameron is said to be pushing for an intervention in Syria, and this, it is believed, explains the PM's desire to militarily help the rebels in that country.
The military chiefs in Britain have strongly warned the PM against it.
Mrs. Cameron was not elected and should not determine our Country's policies.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
howard
your views don't sway me
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Mrs Cameron has made no comments in favour of military intervention, she has said that the human disaster is heart rending and that she believes that we should give more humanitarian aid to the refugees. Hardly an earth shattering opinion and certainly not one that changes UK policy.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
keith
there is a vast gulf between a view and factual evidence.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Neil, while you are correct, in fact I did write that Mrs. C. is pushing for an intervention in Syria.
It's the PM who seems to have wanted to translate this into a military intervention of sorts.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith. I'll give you some practical examples on Syria:
While many Sunni Syrians do not necessarily enlist in the army proportionately to the Alawite Syrians, they do not, however, tend to join the rebels, who are mainly Sunnis and try to bang the sectarian card as a cause for war.
Hence, the Syrian army and security in general is by far more numerous than the Syrian rebels, without counting forces from other countries, be they pro-Syrian army or pro-rebels.
Here some examples, therefore:
Aleppo, the largest Syrian city with about 2-3 million pre-war residents, did not rise up against the government, even though they are mostly Sunnis. In fact, they were known to be pro the government and supporters of the Baath party led by president Assad.
But a few thousand rebels from other areas of Syria entered the city and entrenched themselves there in the streets, transforming it into a battleground. The rebels there were not actually from Aleppo.
Again, Raqqa, a city with a pre-war population of about 500,000 people, did not rise against the government, but Al-Qaeda linked rebels, mostly from anywhere OTHER than Syria, hence foreign terrorists, attacked the city in January 2013 and drove the Syrian security out, who were outnumbered owing to their being pinned down elsewhere in the country.
As in Aleppo, it was not the people of Raqqa who rose up, even though they are mostly Sunni.
The rebels there came from elsewhere and just took the city over, in fact they came from all over the world apart from Syria.
Even the Syrian rebels of the FSA (free Syrian army) have no presence and no say in Raqqa.
Had the Syrian rebels been so popular, the people of Aleppo and Raqqa would have joined them, but they haven't.
In fact many are now protesting against both the rebels and the Al Queda squads.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
And the answer is,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
two teas one coffee and 3 slices of fruit cake.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
sounds nice brian
banoffee pie for me pls
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Keith and Brian: you are wrong to trivialise this. The West needs to tread carefully here.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
sometimes a little light heartness helps
certainly the subject remains serious
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 672- Registered: 3 Jun 2008
- Posts: 2,119
how thread titles change into something completely different.
I could post my dog smells and before you know it we are in Syria sorting religion out.
grass grows by the inches but dies by the feet.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,883
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------