Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Just to add to the debate if you can enlarge this one.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Stuart Wood, just for clarity, nowhere have I doubted a chemical attack took place 21 August 2013.
The attack took place, the question is: who did it?
Some top-ranking men in Western Governments obsessively repeat they have all evidence that the Syrian leadership carried it out, but have shown NONE whatsoever!
I have done research and come to different conclusions.
I have informed by email the MP Charlie Elphicke, as he will be summoned to vote.
Unless proper investigation is carried out, Western countries may be about to bomb to power the very people who carried out the chemical attack in Syria. Parliament MUST investigate!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
thanks for simplifying things paul, i was confused up until you posted that.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
A westerner says to an Arab don't
did Syria ever listen to the west??
Guest 944- Registered: 16 May 2013
- Posts: 57
The big question for me remains "who used chemical weapons?". It is clear someone did, on a large scale. That is the key issue and a military response against the perpetrators is necessary to make it clear their use will not be tolerated by the international community.
I'm aware of the fractious nature of the rebels and the fact that some of them are as bad (or worse) than the Syrian government. If the intelligence suggests the Assad regime is responsible (which I think it will) then action must be taken against them and we'll have to hope we deal with the resulting events better than in Iraq. But that regime is going to fall one way or the other, eventually, so sooner the better in my view.
Not keen on the suggestions in several posts that unless you are going into harm's way yourself you are not entitled to support military action. In that case we might as well have a military government. It is in fact an essential part of freedom that the decision to take such action be a civilian, political one.
Andrew Richardson
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Having followed all this for a long time, I gather that the Americans know what WMDs the Syrians possess and where they are stored. Surely the correct response in the first instance is to destroy as many such stores as possible using cruise missiles in order to put them beyond use by either side?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
It seems that there was something on this about a year ago Peter, not that it gets us far...
"...The Violations Documentation Centre, the most reliable of the organisations logging casualties in the tragic conflict, has listed the names and details of 457 people it says died of chemical poisoning in eight Damascus suburbs last Wednesday. This is horrific. Who released those toxins, how and why? This is not yet clear. It may have been forces allied to the Syrian government. The intelligence the US will release over the next few days is from Mossad. It will finger Assad and is likely to divert attention from the UN experts' less partial investigations. Indeed, in May 2013, UN human rights investigators gathered testimony from casualties and medical staff indicating that rebel forces had used the nerve agent sarin, a point made public by the Secretary-General at the time.
When the chemical weapons pretext for intervention was first launched by the Pentagon exactly a year ago, the accusations were not in fact directed against President Assad as a likely user of them. On the contrary, it was suggested and feared that Syria's WMDs, which allegedly had been "left unguarded" in military bunkers, could fall into the hands of opposition jihadist forces..."
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/18911Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
There are several Alawite militias which are not government in the true sense of the word but support Assad and may have been given the keys to the candy store. These are the most likely suspects to have mounted the gas attacks.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
If a strike were made on a stockpile of chemical weapons, and supposing Syrian soldiers were guarding these to prevent them falling in the hands of anyone else and to prevent them, therefore, being used in the civil war (A Syrian government spokesman once said they would never be used against the Syrian population), would this not mean killing all these soldiers with chemical weapons?
In the sense that they would be either killed by the tomahawk missiles or they would die from the chemicals hit by the tomahawk missiles. That would be waging chemical warfare, and on soldiers whose duty was to prevent these chemicals falling into unauthorised hands (such as Al Q).
Would it not be proper justice to investigate and, if conclusive and compelling, state: Mr. so and so gave the order to use chemical substances that killed hundreds of people and intoxicated many others, and Mr. X relayed the order to so and so, who carried it out.
This group of people could then be indited by the Hague War-crimes Tribunal.
And meanwhile, these same people would be shunned by all those around them.
Much better than simply firing off hundreds of cruise missiles at any Tom, Dick and Harry in Syrian uniform, and all without even any research or compelling evidence anyway!
That said, supposing Al Q did it, or the FSA?
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Cameron`s knee jerk / headline seeking brought to heel....for the time being?
Courtesy Independent.
Back from the brink:
Labour forces Prime Minister David Cameron to retreat over military action in Syria
Labour secures promise of second Commons vote before intervention, while President Obama
also faces UN pressure to delay military action
A brake has been put on British involvement in an immediate military strike against Syria after
Labour broke ranks with David Cameron ahead of tonight's crucial Commons vote.
Barack Obama also came under pressure to delay the widely-expected US intervention as
Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Secretary-General, pleaded for more time for its inspectors in Syria
who are investigating last week's chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus, in which
hundreds of civilians were killed.
"Let them conclude their work for four days and then we will have to analyse scientifically with experts.
Then I think we will have to report to the Security Council for any action," he said.
Labour toughened its stance against UK military action only a day after Ed Miliband signalled that
the Opposition was likely to support Mr Cameron. Last night it demanded six concessions as the price
of supporting him tonight - including a UN Security Council vote on the inspectors' report; a further
report to the Commons and a second vote before Britain takes part in any military action; "compelling
evidence" that the Assad regime was responsible for last week's attack and a "clear basis in
international law" for intervention.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Courtesy Independent.
How action over Syria risks unsettling fragile balance of power in the Middle East
The violence has already affected neighbouring states and strengthened the hand of jihadists
Whatever else missile strikes on Syria do they will raise the political temperature in the whole region.
What is unclear is whether or not the increased temperature will be temporary or permanent.
Whatever the justification for the action by the US and its allies, it will be seen across the world
as another American-led military intervention in the wider Middle East in the tradition of Iraq,
Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya and Lebanon over the last 35 years.
British and French military actions are being justified by David Cameron and François Hollande
on purely moral grounds as an act of retribution for the use of poison gas against civilians in
Damascus and to prevent it happening again. This may go down well with domestic audiences but it
will find few believers in the Middle East. The former US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski
was reported as saying in an interview: "I am struck by how eager Great Britain and France appear
to be in favour of military action. And I am also mindful of the fact that both of these two powers
are former imperialist, colonialist powers in the region." The air strikes will only confirm suspicions
of British and French motives.
Bob Whysman
- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 1,938
To anyone interested this was a shot of the civilian aircraft in the Eastern Mediterranean a moment ago.
It will be interesting to track how it develops over the next few hours/days!
Do nothing and nothing happens.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
just had a browse through your link kieth,it comes over like a bunch of cretins speaking in a pub after 8 pints of strong larger.
the movement of labour works both ways,it has allways been like that,more so of late.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Russia and America both moving warships into the Mediterranean.
If Cameron dragged us into this war, Britain would never forgive him!
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
Rip away your benefits crutch Brian
Set you to work in the true UK labour market of today.
And even you may start to change your views.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
not likely kieth,now on the retirement list,and who do you suggest where best to get a job from.at my age.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Britain will not go to war against Syria.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
not yet,but soon.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the vote in the commons was against any military intervention so that should be that.
food, clothing and medicines to the refugee camps would be a good idea though.
